or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola - Page 2

post #41 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkalu View Post

Apple shouldn't pay dishonest media for good reviews.
Let the quality of her products and sales data speak for her.

Well that is what Apple has done and I agree that should suffice. However, when the average Joe believes whatever his favorite TV station or newspaper tells him and those media outlets are being paid to lie, distort and twist, Apple needs to do something more IMHO.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #42 of 281
Unfortunately, actually, most people are stupid, which is why CNet isn't concerned about its practices.
post #43 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I'd be worried if I were you, you're starting to sound a lot like Gator Guy. lol.gif

nah... it wasn't full of links to biased reports. 1wink.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #44 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

It is ironic that, in this day and age, of all the companies that Samsung has copied, Google has probably been hit the hardest.

I mean, they took Google's "Don't be Evil" motto, modified it slightly, then re-released it:

"Be Evil"

It should be noted that Google's motto is telling others not to be evil. They could have said "We Aren't Evil. Honest!" or "Evil? Us?! Hey, look, free web apps!"

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #45 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8993245 View Post

Unfortunately, actually, most people are stupid, which is why CNet isn't concerned about its practices.

An IQ of 100 is the exact middle of the distribution curve, a scary thought when you really think about that.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #46 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

It should be noted that Google's motto is telling others not to be evil. They could have said "We Aren't Evil. Honest!" or "Evil? Us?! Hey, look, free web apps!"

The sub text is 'Leave that to us ..."
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #47 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

Pure DED, with a little more tin foil hat than usual.  Entertaining read.

 

"14 month old bug" was fixed by Google 16 months ago...  As stated in the article, with the release of Android 4.2- which leaves the majority of Android users unsusceptible to it, much less affected by it.

 

DED complains that Apple gets unfair bad press and quotes like "It's as bad as you could imagine, that's all I can say"

 

But the very same source he links to is a complete slam on Android for a bug they fixed 14 months ago with similar sensationalist quotes such as:

~~"This vulnerability is kind of a huge deal," Tod Beardsley, a researcher for Metasploit maintainer Rapid7, wrote in a recent blog post.

 

The two articles are basically carbon copies- one slamming Apple for a bug they fixed (in iOS at least, Mac users are still exposed- which DED failed to note), and one slamming Android for a bug they fixed 14 months ago and doesn't affect users past Jellybean.

 

In both Apples and Googles (and what the hell, Microsoft's) cases, bugs are a reality and both companies strive to fix them.  The only critique I'd have is on Apple's part for posting the fix to iOS while the vulnerability is still there in OSx.  It is great that they rushed it out, but they either need to rush it out to both, or rush it out to iOS without describing it.  With all the media attention any bug fix posted gets, Apple may have exposed MacBook users to increased risk.  Now that all the malicious peeps are scouring the interwebs to learn the exploit, anyone using a MacBook on a public network is saying 'here I am' until Apple fixes it (hopefully already, or at least this coming week).

 

If that's all you got, you don't have much. 

post #48 of 281
ItsTheInternet 

Edited by iMember - 2/23/14 at 3:13pm

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #49 of 281
I noted DED used several Google references alongside mentions of Samsung astro-turfing and paid blogging efforts, I suppose hoping to conflate the two in readers minds. To the credit of AI readers it looks like no one fell for it.

Having said that if DED's theory is correct then with no evidence that Google pays for favorable coverage either I'd imagine it's only a matter of time before the media turns on them too. In fact IMO there's a lot more negative commentary on both Google and Apple than there was even 5 years ago. Microsoft is pretty much the invisible man now, relatively speaking, a testimony to how little influence is attributed to them nowadays.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #50 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I noted DED used several Google references alongside mentions of Samsung astro-turfing and paid blogging efforts, I suppose hoping to conflate the two in readers minds. To the credit of AI readers it looks like no one fell for it.

Having said that if DED's theory is correct then with no evidence that Google pays for favorable coverage either I'd imagine it's only a matter of time before the media turns on them too. In fact IMO there's a lot more negative commentary on both Google and Apple than there was even 5 years ago. Microsoft is pretty much the invisible man now, relatively speaking, a testimony to how little influence is attributed to them nowadays.

Google hasn't needed to do what Scamsung has done because Scamsung is their main Android distribution channel and they do it for them. If Scamsung drop Android then perhaps we might see a change but who knows, perhaps Google folks are all nice honest folks.

Microsoft? What that?
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #51 of 281

The vast legions of average consumers do not read tech blogs or financial news. They only have the trends they see in public. If someone is wealthy, famous or fashionable, chances are good they own an iPhone and they tend to flaunt it. 

 

Most consumers aspire to be like the fashionable celebrities, hence, they desire an iPhone too. If they can afford one they will get it, otherwise they settle for something else.

 

The social elite prefer iPhone. Only tech geeks who like to root, modify, or skin their phones are actual Android *lovers*. The rest of Android users are simply settling for something less than what they truly desire.

 

Samsung attempting to persuade the tech market is a waste of time and money, one, because it is a tiny market segment and two, because those knowledgeable tech users are usually steadfast in their conviction to one platform or the other.

 

Consumers are a much larger market segment and are more impressionable to stylish TV ads such as Apple's rather than the crude ads that Samsung releases.


Edited by mstone - 2/23/14 at 3:28pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #52 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


There is, as detailed in the article.
Where have they once stated that iOS is more secure. Note that pointing out Android's Google Play store having more crapware and its lack of moderation allows for nefarious apps to be installed is not stating that iOS is a more secure OS than Android.
It's on version 7.0.6, as noted in the article.
Why should it take a year for an OS to be updated? You really don't understand how SW works, do you? If you think that not ever updating an OS, like most OEM versions of Android means that Android is perfectly safe then you don't understand why those devices aren't being updated.
Not even close.

It's not that it should take a year to be updated.  It's 6 versions in under a year to address security flaws.  That would imply there a large number of issues.  So you can draw a couple of conclusions - previous versions had less security flaws, previous versions had the same number of security flaws but just weren't being patched, or the new version has more holes.

post #53 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I noted DED used several Google references alongside mentions of Samsung astro-turfing and paid blogging efforts, I suppose hoping to conflate the two in readers minds. To the credit of AI readers it looks like no one fell for it....the usual rubbish

 

Another stellar post from you that I enjoyed about as much a T-Rex enjoys push-ups.

There's nothing your wife/girlfriend/partner wouldn't like more than a 6 Plus...
Reply
There's nothing your wife/girlfriend/partner wouldn't like more than a 6 Plus...
Reply
post #54 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post
 

At least they update their OS more than once a year... and make it available on more than just their flagship phones on specific carriers. Heck, Apple even updated iOS 6.1. How many infected and broken Android OS versions are out there that will never be upgraded and were never supported after the time they were bought?

 

Of course, Android is the most secure. You don't have to worry about the security of the device if they are turned off in a drawer collecting dust.

post #55 of 281
There is another reason why news media favors Samsung. The US does not want South Korea to look bad. I think all US media clearly understand this important principle.
post #56 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

It's not that it should take a year to be updated.  It's 6 versions in under a year to address security flaws.  That would imply there a large number of issues.  So you can draw a couple of conclusions - previous versions had less security flaws, previous versions had the same number of security flaws but just weren't being patched, or the new version has more holes.

So not issuing updates is therefore an indicator of not having security flaws, and if Apple release a single point update to address security issues once a year — regardless of when security issues arise — it means that there OS is more secure. Fucking brilliant¡

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #57 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

 

It's not that it should take a year to be updated.  It's 6 versions in under a year to address security flaws.  That would imply there a large number of issues.  So you can draw a couple of conclusions - previous versions had less security flaws, previous versions had the same number of security flaws but just weren't being patched, or the new version has more holes.

 basically I think you are saying, it's inconclusive what the relationship is with flaw vs updates.  I agree.  However, I think its better to get updates then none at all, regardless of if they are bug fix  or non bug fixes?  Do you agree? 
 
Based on iOS updates vs Android updates, what can we conclude then?
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #58 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

It's not that it should take a year to be updated.  It's 6 versions in under a year to address security flaws.  That would imply there a large number of issues.  So you can draw a couple of conclusions - previous versions had less security flaws, previous versions had the same number of security flaws but just weren't being patched, or the new version has more holes.

So not issuing updates is therefore an indicator of not having security flaws, and if Apple release a single point update to address security issues once a year — regardless of when security issues arise — it means that there OS is more secure. Fucking brilliant¡

I don't think that is what mistercow said. I read their logic and it basically means there is no conclusive relationship. Not sure, why they did not simply say it that way.  If there was another point to be made, it didn't come over clearly. 

 

btw, mistercow might want to review the version history a bit better before claiming that the past 6 updates were are security flaw related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history#iOS_7.x_3

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #59 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post


That they both issue a lot of updates and fixes, and on a regular basis? Sadly many Android licensees don't take advantage of the Google offered updates and that is unfortunate. I don't blame Google for taking things into their own hands and handling many of the fixes and improvements now via Google Play Services as EricTheHalfBee mentioned in an earlier post.
Edited by Gatorguy - 2/23/14 at 3:40pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #60 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That they both issue a lot of updates and fixes, and on a regular basis?

I'd say that Apple's push of the updates is vastly superior to Android's mixed hit or miss carrier update technique. You get more updates from Apple because it is so easy for them to issue them. If they forgot to dot an "i" they can push another update and it will be accepted and installed on the majority of the installed base within a day or two.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #61 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

I don't think that is what mistercow said. I read their logic and it basically means there is no conclusive relationship. Not sure, why they did not simply say it that way.  If there was another point to be made, it didn't come over clearly. 

I am not seeing how his comments are not saying that the number of SW updates has a direct correlation to the insecurity of a system.
Quote:
btw, mistercow might want to review the version history a bit better before claiming that the past 6 updates were are security flaw related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history#iOS_7.x_3

All those other "fixes" are just to hid the fact that iOS full of security holes¡
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/23/14 at 3:49pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #62 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That they both issue a lot of updates and fixes, and on a regular basis?

I'd say that Apple's push of the updates is vastly superior to Android's mixed hit or miss carrier update technique. You get more updates from Apple because it is so easy for them to issue them. If they forgot to dot an "i" they can push another update and it will be accepted and installed on the majority of the installed base with in a day or two.

I'm surprised we have not heard the point of view that because Android is so fragment, it's harder to target security flaws against it. 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #63 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post


Hmm. Why isn't the text being quoted. Anyway, not all these updates are security related. If you think that Android is more secure just because they don't update it, you'd be sadly mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I noted DED used several Google references alongside mentions of Samsung astro-turfing and paid blogging efforts, I suppose hoping to conflate the two in readers minds. To the credit of AI readers it looks like no one fell for it.

Having said that if DED's theory is correct then with no evidence that Google pays for favorable coverage either I'd imagine it's only a matter of time before the media turns on them too. In fact IMO there's a lot more negative commentary on both Google and Apple than there was even 5 years ago. Microsoft is pretty much the invisible man now, relatively speaking, a testimony to how little influence is attributed to them nowadays.

Leave it to Google guy to defend Googs when no attack was issued.

Oh and wasn't Googs dinged for having its services highlight at the top of its search results?
post #64 of 281

On a related note, would somebody please enlighten me as I am genuinely interested in the following...

 

A number of times now, when I have described to friends how I prefer iOS over Android for its ecosystem, consistency across apps, ease of use, speed, etc., I have had Consumer Reports thrown in my face (as if that's the last (and only) word on the subject).

 

Was it ever shown that Consumer Reports was, in some way, influenced by the "Android Lobby"?

 

I do so hate playing chess with pidgeons.

post #65 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 

That they both issue a lot of updates and fixes, and on a regular basis? Sadly many Android licensees don't take advantage of the Google offered updates and that is unfortunate. I don't blame Google for taking things into their own hands and handling many of the fixes and improvements now via Google Play Services as EricTheHalfBee mentioned in an earlier post.

so basically, you are saying that Android efforts to tighten up security is ineffective (because they don't have control) and therefore its the user's responsibility.   Did I summarize your position correctly? 


Edited by snova - 2/23/14 at 4:00pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #66 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I noted DED used several Google references alongside mentions of Samsung astro-turfing and paid blogging efforts, I suppose hoping to conflate the two in readers minds. To the credit of AI readers it looks like no one fell for it.

Having said that if DED's theory is correct then with no evidence that Google pays for favorable coverage either I'd imagine it's only a matter of time before the media turns on them too. In fact IMO there's a lot more negative commentary on both Google and Apple than there was even 5 years ago. Microsoft is pretty much the invisible man now, relatively speaking, a testimony to how little influence is attributed to them nowadays.
All in all, Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) spent $18 million on lobbying while Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) only parted with $2 million.

http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/how-much-are-google-inc-goog-and-apple-inc-aapl-spending-on-political-efforts-66817/
post #67 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 
I'm surprised we have not heard the point of view that because Android is so fragment, it's harder to target security flaws against it. 

Well perhaps but I doubt you will hear that from any die hard Android users because it only serves to expose a significant drawback of the their OS.

 

If I were an evil hacker I would specifically target Samsung Galaxy and iPhone because that is where the more valuable identity and credit information would be. Who cares about the older Android crap phones? Those users' identities are worthless because they don't have any money to steal.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #68 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

so basically, you are saying that Android efforts to tighten up security is ineffective (because they don't have control) and therefore its the user's responsibility.   Did I summarize your position correctly? 

Not exactly, but obviously Google doesn't have end-to-end control over Android. To their credit tho with Play Services they're trying to take up the slack for some of their licensees who have much more interest in selling the next new phone rather than supporting the ones they already sold. 1hmm.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #69 of 281
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
It appears that Apple's Tim Cook is not only choosing to spend his company's money with more integrity, but is also doing so more effectively.

 

Evidently.  It seems like nearly every big-budget Hollywood (and foreign) movie has Apple gear in it.

Might be because Apple simply has the best-looking hardware and Os-es.

Or it might be because Apple simply out-bids competitors for product placement.

 

(Slightly off-topic: Jimmy Fallon's MacBook Pro has its Apple logo covered up now that he's 

hosting the Tonight Show.  Interesting.  But you can still see that it's obviously a MacBook Pro.)

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #70 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by softeky View Post
 

On a related note, would somebody please enlighten me as I am genuinely interested in the following...

 

A number of times now, when I have described to friends how I prefer iOS over Android for its ecosystem, consistency across apps, ease of use, speed, etc., I have had Consumer Reports thrown in my face (as if that's the last (and only) word on the subject).

 

Was it ever shown that Consumer Reports was, in some way, influenced by the "Android Lobby"?

 

I do so hate playing chess with pidgeons.

Have not heard anything about CR related to this. However, some word of advise on making your friends see the light about iOS.  Let them use Android all they want. That's the best form of education.  Sometimes you can't smell sh*t, until you step in it and have to live with your decision for the length of a 2 yr contract.  Don't rub it in their face however.  Its been my experience that they all eventually switch to iOS.  Some people just have to make their own mistakes first hand.  Some take longer than others.  This goes for many aspects of life, not just technology.  Many times it just boils down to wanting to make their own decisions and not getting the same product as you have. Even if it means not getting the best. Just the fact its not the same as what YOU have is the only motivator sometimes.


Edited by snova - 2/23/14 at 4:30pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #71 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
Not exactly, but obviously Google doesn't have end-to-end control over Android. To their credit tho with Play Services they're trying to take up the slack for some of their licensees who have much more interest in selling the next new phone rather than supporting the ones they already sold. 

Close the barn doors after the horses are gone.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #72 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

so basically, you are saying that Android efforts to tighten up security is ineffective (because they don't have control) and therefore its the user's responsibility.   Did I summarize your position correctly? 

Not exactly, but obviously Google doesn't have end-to-end control over Android. To their credit tho with Play Services they're trying to take up the slack for some of their licensees who have much more interest in selling the next new phone rather than supporting the ones they already sold. 1hmm.gif

yeah.. that makes sense.  From Google's point of they don't care much about which device you are using, just as long as you go through their services.  From OEM point of view, I guess you want people to keep buying your devices on a regular basis. A bit risky however for the OEM.  Since Android is marketed as a "Android" phone, this update may lead to a competitor's Android phone. So they have to take care not to upset the customer with lack of updates. People might just switch to a different brand, hoping they will support it better than their previous brand. Fine line.  2 years is long time to go without updates.  They may just say, no know.. I've lived with this design for very long time now and I'm bored with it, I want something quite different. Maybe I'll try someone else.


Edited by snova - 2/23/14 at 4:24pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #73 of 281
Long a** article about nothing!
That equals:

SLOW NEWS DAY!!!!!
post #74 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

I don't think that is what mistercow said. I read their logic and it basically means there is no conclusive relationship. Not sure, why they did not simply say it that way.  If there was another point to be made, it didn't come over clearly. 


I am not seeing how his comments are not saying that the number of SW updates has a direct correlation to the insecurity of a system.

Let me break down their comment.

So you can draw a couple of conclusions -

 

1. previous versions had less security flaws

2.  previous versions had the same number of security flaws but just weren't being patched

3. the new version has more holes.

 

So, ​1 = 3 is the same statement, just on different side of the "<" symbol. right?    so    

1 & 3 result in:

 Previous Version # of bugs < New Version # of bugs.   (is this true?, don't know, can't prove it)

2 results in:

 Previous Version # of bugs = New Version # of bugs (is this true? don't know, can't prove it).

 

what conclusion can you come up with when you combine 1/3 and 2?     Its the same result.   Which is, Don't know if its true, can't prove it. 

I can also make another statement which will give you the same value.

Previous Version # of bug > New Version # of bugs.   (is this true? don't know, can't prove it)

So is it   less than, equal to, or great than?    I can conclusively say, its inconclusive. Don't know, can't prove it, wasting everyone's time with this.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #75 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by softeky View Post

On a related note, would somebody please enlighten me as I am genuinely interested in the following...

A number of times now, when I have described to friends how I prefer iOS over Android for its ecosystem, consistency across apps, ease of use, speed, etc., I have had Consumer Reports thrown in my face (as if that's the last (and only) word on the subject).

Was it ever shown that Consumer Reports was, in some way, influenced by the "Android Lobby"?

I do so hate playing chess with pidgeons.

There is no good argument to defend against an experience, which is probably why it's hard for some people to see beyond superficial listings on a spec sheet and why they may refer to those that like a particular vendor as being part of a cult. You're better off explaining a rainbow to Helen Keller.


In the kingdom of the Android the one iPhone is king.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/23/14 at 4:55pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #76 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by softeky View Post

On a related note, would somebody please enlighten me as I am genuinely interested in the following...

A number of times now, when I have described to friends how I prefer iOS over Android for its ecosystem, consistency across apps, ease of use, speed, etc., I have had Consumer Reports thrown in my face (as if that's the last (and only) word on the subject).

Was it ever shown that Consumer Reports was, in some way, influenced by the "Android Lobby"?

I do so hate playing chess with pidgeons.

..You're better off explaining a rainbow to Helen Keller.

awesome summary.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #77 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
In the kingdom of the Android the one iPhone is king.

Nice "Minority Report" reference. 

 

I hate that movie though. Apparently in the future wifi and ethernet are lost technologies which were substituted with glass diskettes.

 

Just kidding. It is an entertaining movie so long as you ignore the supposed advanced tech. 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #78 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Nice "Minority Report" reference. 

I hate that movie though. Apparently in the future wifi and ethernet are lost technologies which were substituted with glass diskettes.

I am not aware of its usage in that film although I can see how this common American English proverb could be used in both the film and book.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #79 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
In the kingdom of the Android the one iPhone is king.

Nice "Minority Report" reference. 

 

I hate that movie though. Apparently in the future wifi and ethernet are lost technologies which were substituted with glass diskettes.

 

Just kidding. It is an entertaining movie so long as you ignore the supposed advanced tech. 

I think the name Android must have been some twisted and evil joke by a Goggle executive.   A botnet of cloneable minions for which we harvest data from.  Billions upon billions of droids connected to and watched by our network. Not humans with privacy rights; but servants to play with as we like to harvest and sell their data.  bha bah ha ha.  

 

but why would people agree to this?  just tell them its free and open.

 

 

feels more like a combination of "Soylent Green" and "The Matrix" to me than "Minority Report"


Edited by snova - 2/23/14 at 5:24pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #80 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Quote:
I am not aware of its usage in that film although I can see how this common American English proverb could be used in both the film and book.
 

Good to know. I was not aware it was a common idiom. I've only heard it in the MR instance.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola