or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Google closes Android 3.0 Honeycomb source to prevent use on smartphones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google closes Android 3.0 Honeycomb source to prevent use on smartphones - Page 3

post #81 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro View Post

Aaww my gawd, whenever there's an Android news, there's always trolling and arguments on how 'open' the platform is.. AI should've included the definition of Android's "openness" everytime there's an article about Android.

They need a new definition now
post #82 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

They need a new definition now

Maybe 'ajar' e.g. Honeycomb is an ajar project.

ajar 1 |əˈjär|
adverb & adjective
(of a door or other opening) slightly open : [as adv. ] she had left the window ajar that morning | [as predic. adj. ] the door to the sitting room was ajar.
ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from a- 2 [on] + obsolete char ( Old English cerr) [a turn, return.]
ajar 2
adverb archaic
out of harmony.
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from a- 2 [in, at] + jar 2 .
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #83 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Really...

You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?

Your little tirade regarding Android 3.x being merely Android 2.x, "lightly modified for tablets" only shows your complete inexperience/ignorance with the platforms themselves. Nothing More.

Actually it didn't prove or substantiate anything you said.
post #84 of 158
It's hypocritical of them. But it makes some kind of sense.

If manufacturers made crap phones with Honeycomb, which Google is saying is not optimized for phones, it's going to mar Android's image, isn't it? That's the last thing Google (or any company) wants. The flipside is that the open source people are bothered. So Android's image will be tainted either way. So Google has the choice whether to disappoint the hardcore open source people or disappoint the average non-techie consumer who will probably only see their phone being awkward to use.

It's their choice. Whichever choice they make, they'll be living the consequences, whatever they may be.
post #85 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Only if you statically link or otherwise embed other GPL code does it constitute a violation. You're allowed to dynamically link (some people contest this, but it's never been proven in court that dynamic linking is covered). You can most certainly build full-on, 100% proprietary software that simply uses the Linux kernel. You just need to submit any modifications you've made to the kernel itself back to Linux.

Nonsense. The LGPL's sole reason for existence is that the GPL does not allow dynamic linking, while the LGPL does.
post #86 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by autism109201 View Post

It's hypocritical of them. But it makes some kind of sense.

If manufacturers made crap phones with Honeycomb, which Google is saying is not optimized for phones, it's going to mar Android's image, isn't it? That's the last thing Google (or any company) wants. The flipside is that the open source people are bothered. So Android's image will be tainted either way. So Google has the choice whether to disappoint the hardcore open source people or disappoint the average non-techie consumer who will probably only see their phone being awkward to use.

It's their choice. Whichever choice they make, they'll be living the consequences, whatever they may be.

Of course it's their choice, and of course it makes sense.

The problem here is that they (or their supporters) constantly talk about how Android is open and Apple's iOS ecosystem is a "walled garden." Then, they turn around and have not only a tiered system to begin with, but decide not to make their source open for whatever developers want to work on it (and improve it).

From what I've read, on other boards, a lot of people seem to think that Honeycomb is pretty raw and rough around the edges, and it has more to do with that than it does with the tablet vs. phone problem. Again, I'm no expert at all, and all I can go by is what others say. So, if this is wrong, I'm obviously open to correction.

But it seems a bit ... skanky, overall, to me.
post #87 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

Of course it's their choice, and of course it makes sense.

The problem here is that they (or their supporters) constantly talk about how Android is open and Apple's iOS ecosystem is a "walled garden." Then, they turn around and have not only a tiered system to begin with, but decide not to make their source open for whatever developers want to work on it (and improve it).

From what I've read, on other boards, a lot of people seem to think that Honeycomb is pretty raw and rough around the edges, and it has more to do with that than it does with the tablet vs. phone problem. Again, I'm no expert at all, and all I can go by is what others say. So, if this is wrong, I'm obviously open to correction.

But it seems a bit ... skanky, overall, to me.

Google doesn't want other developers contributing to honeyomb. Google knows best.
post #88 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro View Post

Aaww my gawd, whenever there's an Android news, there's always trolling and arguments on how 'open' the platform is.. AI should've included the definition of Android's "openness" everytime there's an article about Android.

Better yet, they should stop posting on Android when it doesn't directly relate to their namesake. This article (and most by it's author) are nothing more than trolling linkbait posts. If there WASN'T flaiming here, it means this site wouldn't be getting traffic.

AI was doing so much better too. Useful articles, actual apple news. But now that DED's back, he's just gotta start slinging mud again.
post #89 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

Google is trying to "close" Honeycomb because they want to slow down their competitors, period. All the talk by these executives is just excuses. If they delay release of the source code, it's much harder for e.g. Amazon to use Honeycomb for it's next tablet. Other companies also can't quickly duplicate Honeycomb's functionality into their mobile OS without seeing the source code.

I don't think that's the real motive..

Think about it, Google want to put Android into every smartphone out there it can get, because Google's main revenues are from it's cloud services including the mobile ads. It's more possible that Android 3.0 for tablets is not fully baked yet, Google still need more time to iron out some kinks here and there. If everyone started to adopt it now, Google will have a serious headache trying to fix everything in short time. Remember Android 2.2?

In short, Google was caught off guard when Apple launched the iPad, and even though Android 3.0 has already unleashed to the world, Google is basically still scrambling to catch up with iOS.
post #90 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro View Post

I don't think that's the real motive..

In short, Google was caught off guard when Apple launched the iPad, and even though Android 3.0 has already unleashed to the world, Google is basically still scrambling to catch up with iOS.

... Especially that awesome iOS notifications system and icon-based 'App Jukebox' UI
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #91 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Google doesn't want other developers contributing to honeyomb. Google knows best.

Then what the hell is the point of talking about how "Open" it is all the time?

I haven't used Windows since the mid-90s, but I didn't get a Mac until 2003. So, what filled that time? Linux. So, believe me when I say that I'm fairly familiar with the concept of FOSS, and what it means to those to whom it's important.

If you are not interested in making your system open, then don't talk about how "open" your system is.
post #92 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

They need a new definition now

A definition made up by Android fans, that'll shut them for sure
post #93 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Maybe 'ajar' e.g. Honeycomb is an ajar project.

ajar 1 |əˈjär|
adverb & adjective
(of a door or other opening) slightly open : [as adv. ] she had left the window ajar that morning | [as predic. adj. ] the door to the sitting room was ajar.
ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from a- 2 [on] + obsolete char ( Old English cerr) [a turn, return.]
ajar 2
adverb archaic
out of harmony.
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from a- 2 [in, at] + jar 2 .

Niceee..

It's actually got rhyme; 'ajar' -->'a jar of Honeycomb'
post #94 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Better yet, they should stop posting on Android when it doesn't directly relate to their namesake. This article (and most by it's author) are nothing more than trolling linkbait posts. If there WASN'T flaiming here, it means this site wouldn't be getting traffic.

AI was doing so much better too. Useful articles, actual apple news. But now that DED's back, he's just gotta start slinging mud again.

True.

PS: we all still have that inner-child within ourselves, wanting to play the game of sling that mud to the other person's face..
post #95 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

... Especially that awesome iOS notifications system and icon-based 'App Jukebox' UI

Now, now.. play nice DaHarder, or I'll sling a mud at your direction

I wonder if it's Steve Jobs who insisted to keep using that 'awesome' iOS notification system all this time..
post #96 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Couldn't resist.

I've committed code to KHTML (which became WebKit once Apple co-opted it, curious how you credit Apple for it when it was created by someone else). I've also committed code to Gecko back when it was powering what was then known as Phoenix. This was posted from the nightly build for Firefox 4.2. (And I also am quite aware that Firefox's new JIT JS engine uses parts from Apple's Nitro). You're not making any coherent point here.

Please don't pretend to lecture me on fundamentals.

You do love you.

(PS re-read your own message, it is funny you called someone else incoherent..)
post #97 of 158
I didn't realize Google cared about user experience. Who do they think they are, Apple?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #98 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts.

Yeah facts, they matter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way.

Noted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.

Would it be more sane for people not to believe what they believe? And believe what you believe, simply because you believed it is to be the one to be believed? And you tell them they must believe you? Otherwise, you will leave for not being belived? *grins*

Oh, maybe you can make DaHarder believe that since you believe you have wasted your time, and realize it is futile effort, maybe you can make him believe it is also the best thing for him to do.


CGC
post #99 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post
If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?

Answer: It obviously wasn't, and this 'story' was probably created to mask that fact that the OS' use for the iPad was somehow more than just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.

So, with all your belief in your power to persuade, how many people have you enticed to buy your Xoom, and ditched their iPad?

I read from some Xoom evangelizers, the Xoom would be selling like hotcakes, they can't wait for 11 March 2012. You must have been a busy boy persuading all those people lining up for the Xoom, perhaps even the Verizon saleman who professed he is ditching his iPad, as his Xoom is so much better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post
Lightly adapting a smartphone UI to a tablet doesn't make for the best user experience at all, and should be avoided.

So, how does this argument jive with those who claim the iPad is just a big iPod touch?


˅
˅
˅
˅

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post
the iPad... [is] just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.

˅
˅
˅
˅

*grabs popcorn*


˅
˅
˅
˅
˅
˅
˅
˅
*grabs popcorn*


Ah, DaHarder, the omniscient and the omnipotent. *grins*

Believe me, it is even better in real life, although it gets tiresome at some point, especially if the person is a relative or an in-law. At least, in the forum, one can walk away, after enjoying the show.

Well, in the case of Asheran, (s)he came to his/her senses.
post #100 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.


"It is difficult to remove by logic an idea not placed there by logic in the first place"

(Gordon Livingston, Too soon old too late smart)
post #101 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

Then what the hell is the point of talking about how "Open" it is all the time?

I haven't used Windows since the mid-90s, but I didn't get a Mac until 2003. So, what filled that time? Linux. So, believe me when I say that I'm fairly familiar with the concept of FOSS, and what it means to those to whom it's important.

If you are not interested in making your system open, then don't talk about how "open" your system is.

I used Linux for several years myself even went to meet Richard stallman at an event he was speaking at. The guy is kind of a douche with a Jesus like complex about himself with the bare feet and all. The bottom line is you aren't anymore qualified to speak on open source than anyone else on this message board or not on this message board.

I just love how hypocritical it shows google to be. They only licensed Android to a few business partners while everyone just gets the promise of an open android platform at some point in the future. The bottom line is google is closed when it serves their business interests. They criticized steve jobs and apple for being closed and because steve called them out on their hypocrisy. now google has shown every one that steve was right on the money. A company is only as open as it's business model will allow.

Let me know when google open sources it's search engine algorithm.
post #102 of 158
The claim that Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple is a bunch of bulls***.

Google contributes it's Chromium/GTK+ port work and what it needs to work within the WebCore, JavaScriptCore branches.

Meanwhile, Apple has moved it's entire focus to WebKit2 and gladly offers it to everyone who wants to move to it--GTK+ [GNOME, Epiphany,etc], and Nokia Qt so far.

Google's contributions are welcomed just as Nokia's and others.

To spout that Google is the driving force behind WebKit is a joke at its most insulting level.

I don't personally know what the frack Google is doing to their latest Stable, Unstable and Beta releases of Chromium and Chrome on Linux but they are all broken to hell if one has the latest GTK+ for 2.x and 3.x branches.

Google needs to get their crap together or Firefox will once again see a large swell of growth back on Linux--even though it's turning into a bloated POS.

Note: Iceweasel 4.0.1 [Firefox 4.0.1] is a bloated POS on Linux and their WebGL implementation for Nvidia binaries for Linux [even with 270 beta driver] leaves much to be desired.

On OS X WebKit Nightlies continue to hum along and don't get released as broken builds turning into a useless mass of process hogging.

On a side topic: I'm dying to start reading the propaganda that Google is driving the growth and development of LLVM/Clang/LLDB/Libc++/Compiler-RT, etc.
post #103 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

If they've distributed code, does not the GPL disallow this?

The kernel has been released, this is licensed under GPL.

The rest of android is licensed under apache license which is more flexible about open sourcing.
post #104 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I didn't realize Google cared about user experience. Who do they think they are, Apple?

They wish. Including others.
post #105 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The claim that Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple is a bunch of bulls***.

Google contributes it's Chromium/GTK+ port work and what it needs to work within the WebCore, JavaScriptCore branches.

Meanwhile, Apple has moved it's entire focus to WebKit2 and gladly offers it to everyone who wants to move to it--GTK+ [GNOME, Epiphany,etc], and Nokia Qt so far.

Google's contributions are welcomed just as Nokia's and others.

To spout that Google is the driving force behind WebKit is a joke at its most insulting level.

I don't personally know what the frack Google is doing to their latest Stable, Unstable and Beta releases of Chromium and Chrome on Linux but they are all broken to hell if one has the latest GTK+ for 2.x and 3.x branches.

Google needs to get their crap together or Firefox will once again see a large swell of growth back on Linux--even though it's turning into a bloated POS.

Note: Iceweasel 4.0.1 [Firefox 4.0.1] is a bloated POS on Linux and their WebGL implementation for Nvidia binaries for Linux [even with 270 beta driver] leaves much to be desired.

On OS X WebKit Nightlies continue to hum along and don't get released as broken builds turning into a useless mass of process hogging.

On a side topic: I'm dying to start reading the propaganda that Google is driving the growth and development of LLVM/Clang/LLDB/Libc++/Compiler-RT, etc.

Bullshit.

Google chrome on linux is as perfect as on OSX or Windows. Perhaps you just can't install a proper linux system.
post #106 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Bullshit.

Google chrome on linux is as perfect as on OSX or Windows. Perhaps you just can't install a proper linux system.

Seriously..? Do you have some kind of reference or benchmarks about Chrome web browser performance on Linux system? I've been trying to find a reliable source for this.
post #107 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

... Especially that awesome iOS notifications system and icon-based 'App Jukebox' UI

Okay, a slightly janky notification system versus the WinXp-Tron mashup abomination that is Honeycomb.

I think I'll take the janky notifications.

Please show us the photo of all your tablet devices again. I want to see the one of (I think) your Galaxy Tab that basically looks like someone has vomited a random collection of UI elements onto a tiny 7" screen. I don't think I'll be taking UI advice from you any time soon!
post #108 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

As for your swipes about me not knowing what the average user likes or wants -- that's precisely what I do know. That's why I get paid to do what I do. I've read countless market reports on it from analysts (most of which are bunk), I've attended countless conferences on mobile technology, and I'm extremely informed on every OS out there and every facet of each one, because it's my job to. The fact that you disagree doesn't mean you agree with the market as a whole. And the fact that you (and frankly, most people here) seem flabberghasted by the growth of Android (if you'll check my posts, I said this would happen years ago) it's because you don't understand the market as a whole. The people who line up at Apple stores to buy iOS devices are not your typical user. People mention how important apps are, but they're only very important to a relatively small portion of the demographic. But because that's who you guys are always surrounded by, that's what you see. Android is soaring and people simply don't care as much about apps on them. It's a different kind of user. As smartphones and tablets become more ubiquitous, you're going to see less "hardcores" who download lots of apps and more ma-and-pas who don't. )

I'd suggest that the people buying iphones and iPads are far more representative of the "average user" than the geeks who attend those conferences you're talking about or the analysts that you're citing.

In fact, it's likely that your attendance at endless conferences mostly disproves your point. Average users do not attend programming conferences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Really...

You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?

Your little tirade regarding Android 3.x being merely Android 2.x, "lightly modified for tablets" only shows your complete inexperience/ignorance with the platforms themselves. Nothing More.

ROTFLMAO.

First, you seem to be confused by the fact that while iPhone as the first commercial product using what later became iOS and the fact that they actually started working on it with a tablet.

You see, Apple has a truly scalable OS. It works on products from cell phones to servers and workstations. Google is complaining that they can't get the same product to work on cell phones and tablets, so they can't allow people to use it on cell phones.

See the difference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

Google is trying to "close" Honeycomb because they want to slow down their competitors, period. All the talk by these executives is just excuses. If they delay release of the source code, it's much harder for e.g. Amazon to use Honeycomb for it's next tablet. Other companies also can't quickly duplicate Honeycomb's functionality into their mobile OS without seeing the source code.

Funny. Who in their right mind would be looking to Google for new ideas? And since when do you need source code to copy an implementation?

Google, like everyone else in the industry, knows that Apple is the one to beat. Sure, there are more Android units out there, helped by the Buy One, Get FIVE Free deals out there, but no money is being made there and it's obvious that the market is chasing Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apple doesn't market themselves as "open" or attempt to polarise opinion like Google (and the people who jump on their bandwagon) do.

Locking down Honeycomb proves Google aren't as "open" as they tout themselves to be, Apple's contributions to open source prove that they aren't as "closed" as Google (their partners and others) want people to believe.

Google reeks of hypocrisy.

Exactly. "Do No Evil" has always been a blatant lie. OK, maybe not always. They might have actually meant it for the first few weeks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by autism109201 View Post

It's hypocritical of them. But it makes some kind of sense.

If manufacturers made crap phones with Honeycomb, which Google is saying is not optimized for phones, it's going to mar Android's image, isn't it? That's the last thing Google (or any company) wants. The flipside is that the open source people are bothered. So Android's image will be tainted either way. So Google has the choice whether to disappoint the hardcore open source people or disappoint the average non-techie consumer who will probably only see their phone being awkward to use.

It's their choice. Whichever choice they make, they'll be living the consequences, whatever they may be.

They have a third choice - learn to write decent software. Apple has no problem making an OS that scales from cell phones to workstations. Why can't Google even scale from phones to tablets?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #109 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamsburnred View Post

Since when is Google the new Apple?

Google is the new Amway.
post #110 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjq View Post

Are you seriously trying to argue that Apple is more open than Google?

Come on, Apple's business motto is good for some things, but it's not open. In general it is about as closed as you can get.

Uh, buzz, guess again, thanks for playing. Microsoft is and always has been far more closed in that they do nothing but push their 'extended' version of any real standard, and see to it that it doesn't work anywhere besides Windows. Apple tends to use and embrace real, open standards.

How some geeks miss this is really comical, but then, most have been stuck in Windows-land for a very long time now.

Google is mostly 'open' with everyone else's information, they literally stole all the ideas for Android from Apple, and they also see no problem in stealing your WIFI, something that Apple would never do.
post #111 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by autism109201 View Post

It's hypocritical of them. But it makes some kind of sense.

If manufacturers made crap phones with Honeycomb, which Google is saying is not optimized for phones, it's going to mar Android's image, isn't it? That's the last thing Google (or any company) wants. The flipside is that the open source people are bothered. So Android's image will be tainted either way. So Google has the choice whether to disappoint the hardcore open source people or disappoint the average non-techie consumer who will probably only see their phone being awkward to use.

It's their choice. Whichever choice they make, they'll be living the consequences, whatever they may be.

This is the problem with "open."

People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.
Alan Kay


Tuer words were never spoken.

You don't use a vertical business model, you don't lock it down, you license your OS to anyone and everyone who can slam together a box, etc., and there's a very good chance you'll end up with crap, and some serious problems down the road when you have to contain it all because you cut all these corners.

Then again, it all comes down to priorities and attitude - both to tech in general and how human beings should interact with it specifically. Apple has always put User Experience above everything else. No one else does that.
post #112 of 158
When they open their Search algorithms to the World. What is more important in big picture; who controls a hardware platform and proprietary OS, or who controls access to information? Googles open source fans who would never buy a Mac because Steve jobs controls it never seem to address that fundamental truth.
post #113 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andykemp View Post

Is this website Android Insider or Apple Insider?

With Xoom ads plastered all over this site I'm beginning to wonder myself.\
post #114 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro View Post

Niceee..
It's actually got rhyme; 'ajar' -->'a jar of Honeycomb'

A jar of **** maybe...
post #115 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro View Post

Aaww my gawd, whenever there's an Android news, there's always trolling and arguments on how 'open' the platform is.. AI should've included the definition of Android's "openness" everytime there's an article about Android.

It's the hypocracy that's in play here.

Andy Rubin went to such great pains to paint Android as "open" in the tech press, he even invented his own definition in his famous tweet as some sort of purity test. Vic Gundotra went so far at Google I/O to say that Android was developed to free the masses from a "draconian future" with Apple. Android was "open" because open leads to innovation.

Then, for whatever reason, they have to completely back away from that with Honeycomb.

It's not like these are anyone else's standards they're being held to. Rubin and Gundotra and Google have now failed their own litmus test and, in my mind, they deserve all the public flogging that comes their way.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #116 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

On a side note, I think I've seen three different faces of DED today

What does DED stand for?
post #117 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Hmm?

If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?

Gee, I don't know, maybe because iPhone was the first shipping product to use the OS? Nah, that couldn't be it. That would only make sense.
post #118 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssls6 View Post


I gotta say it's kind of fun to watch this play out. Apple appears to be the next wintel since wintel missed the boat on post pc devices.

Armple, not wintel :-)
post #119 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

Nonsense. The LGPL's sole reason for existence is that the GPL does not allow dynamic linking, while the LGPL does.

Ummm...
Last time I looked, the LGPL allows *static* linking, which the GPL does not. "sole" existence?
post #120 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

So, with all your belief in your power to persuade, how many people have you enticed to buy your Xoom, and ditched their iPad?

What's with all this silliness about 'persuading' anyone to do anything ?

Never have I ever said anything of the sort, instead only sharing my opinions based upon my actual ownership/experience with these products/platforms (unlike 99.9% of those in here that have never even owned the devices they so quickly bash).

Personally, I don't really care who does/does not buy a XOOM, iPad, or anything else - As long as I have mine and and said device suits my needs.

Neither Android nor iOS are going anywhere anytime soon, so any investment in either platform is a win - IMO.

Seems like a lot of people in here are feeling more than a little bit threatened by the competition - XD!
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Google closes Android 3.0 Honeycomb source to prevent use on smartphones
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Google closes Android 3.0 Honeycomb source to prevent use on smartphones