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.
No.
Apple is collaborative on some things, shares code sporadically on others and is strictly closed on quite a bit too. The difference is Apple doesn't shout from the Rooftops that they are open and others are closed! Then revoke access to a whole trunk of that "open" project.
Google's problem is they are disingenuous about being open. As in talking the talk, but not walking the walk. How can you really trust someone who has done that repeatedly through the whole Android development process?
This doesn't really answer the question though. Can any of the open source GPL experts tell us what the answer is?
I seem to remember other projects where the existence of a single section of GPL code forced the people using said project to divulge the whole thing. It would seem that making some arbitrary distinction between the kernel and the rest of the code would be a lame explanation by that measure.
If even a single part of Android Honeycomb has GPL code it would seem this is a violation no? I'd love to hear some of the Open source Nazis explain this.
All of Android isn't one program. Google only needs to give back on the individual program level to the appropriate GPL projects. I don't doubt they are managing to keep current enough with that to avoid the ire of the FSF folks.
Lots of the rest of Android is on the Apache License which doesn't require give back, just attribution that Apache Licensed code was used.
Legally I don't see a problem here for Google. On a neighborly and PR moral high ground level, it's a train wreck of a bad decision.
Apple is collaborative on some things, shares code sporadically on others and is strictly closed on quite a bit too. The difference is Apple doesn't shout from the Rooftops that they are open and others are closed! Then revoke access to a whole trunk of that "open" project.
Google's problem is they are disingenuous about being open. As in talking the talk, but not walking the walk. How can you really trust someone who has done that repeatedly through the whole Android development process?
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.
That reads more like a self licking ice cream cone than getting to understand what a user wants.
Conferences and reports are the worst way to learn what the average user likes, you only hear what the same out of touch talking heads say those users want. Those same folks that advised the mobile market for years and couldn't manage to tell anyone the consumer really wanted a device like an iPhone.
Apple is collaborative on some things, shares code sporadically on others and is strictly closed on quite a bit too. The difference is Apple doesn't shout from the Rooftops that they are open and others are closed! Then revoke access to a whole trunk of that "open" project.
Google's problem is they are disingenuous about being open. As in talking the talk, but not walking the walk. How can you really trust someone who has done that repeatedly through the whole Android development process?
i totally agree. I'd wager that Apple came up with the iPhone because they did not attend any of these conferences or listen to any of their advice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
That reads more like a self licking ice cream cone than getting to understand what a user wants.
Conferences and reports are the worst way to learn what the average user likes, you only hear what the same out of touch talking heads say those users want. Those same folks that advised the mobile market for years and couldn't manage to tell anyone the consumer really wanted a device like an iPhone.
Honestly, just an incidental omission typo, not a misusage from misunderstanding (although I am a terrible speller and typist.)
There seems to be some kind of immutable law that if one be so bold as to post a grammar correction that post will contain at least a typo, if not a grave grammatical lapse.
There seems to be some kind of immutable law that if one be so bold as to post a grammar correction that post will contain at least a typo, if not a grave grammatical lapse.
I honastly havent understand it's.
I agree. It should probably have a proper name and Wikipedia entry.
Perhaps it should be called something like, "The 'Actaully . . . ' Principle" since so many grammar correction posts start with, "Actually . . ." and always contain a typo?
Incidentally, it's "jibe" not "jive" — an all to[o] common misusage that is very annoying.
Actually jive is ok. I think it is a different meaning than jibe. Jive is a 1940s American slang term which was used just as the poster wrote - to be in sync with. Jibe is a nautical term meaning to switch or shift which doesn't really make sense in that context. So actually jibe is the wrong word for what was being stated.
Actually jive is ok. I think it is a different meaning than jibe. Jive is a 1940s American slang term which was used just as the poster wrote - to be in sync with. Jibe is a nautical term meaning to switch or shift which doesn't really make sense in that context. So actually jibe is the wrong word for what was being stated.
Actually, "jive" can be used to be roughly synonymous with "gibe", meaning to tease. "Jive" also has an old jazz era meaning of "in a jazzy manner" (not to mention a frenetic style of dance) and then by extension (presumably because of the easy but tangled seductiveness of swing and/or the dance style) "glib" or "untrustworthy."
"Jibe" does indeed have a nautical meaning, but also and more typically is used to mean "be in alignment with" or "agree."
As far as I know, it's never correct to use "jive" to mean "agree."
Comments
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.
No.
Apple is collaborative on some things, shares code sporadically on others and is strictly closed on quite a bit too. The difference is Apple doesn't shout from the Rooftops that they are open and others are closed! Then revoke access to a whole trunk of that "open" project.
Google's problem is they are disingenuous about being open. As in talking the talk, but not walking the walk. How can you really trust someone who has done that repeatedly through the whole Android development process?
This doesn't really answer the question though. Can any of the open source GPL experts tell us what the answer is?
I seem to remember other projects where the existence of a single section of GPL code forced the people using said project to divulge the whole thing. It would seem that making some arbitrary distinction between the kernel and the rest of the code would be a lame explanation by that measure.
If even a single part of Android Honeycomb has GPL code it would seem this is a violation no? I'd love to hear some of the Open source Nazis explain this.
All of Android isn't one program. Google only needs to give back on the individual program level to the appropriate GPL projects. I don't doubt they are managing to keep current enough with that to avoid the ire of the FSF folks.
Lots of the rest of Android is on the Apache License which doesn't require give back, just attribution that Apache Licensed code was used.
Legally I don't see a problem here for Google. On a neighborly and PR moral high ground level, it's a train wreck of a bad decision.
Apple is collaborative on some things, shares code sporadically on others and is strictly closed on quite a bit too. The difference is Apple doesn't shout from the Rooftops that they are open and others are closed! Then revoke access to a whole trunk of that "open" project.
Google's problem is they are disingenuous about being open. As in talking the talk, but not walking the walk. How can you really trust someone who has done that repeatedly through the whole Android development process?
QfT...
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.
That reads more like a self licking ice cream cone than getting to understand what a user wants.
Conferences and reports are the worst way to learn what the average user likes, you only hear what the same out of touch talking heads say those users want. Those same folks that advised the mobile market for years and couldn't manage to tell anyone the consumer really wanted a device like an iPhone.
No.
Apple is collaborative on some things, shares code sporadically on others and is strictly closed on quite a bit too. The difference is Apple doesn't shout from the Rooftops that they are open and others are closed! Then revoke access to a whole trunk of that "open" project.
Google's problem is they are disingenuous about being open. As in talking the talk, but not walking the walk. How can you really trust someone who has done that repeatedly through the whole Android development process?
Don't forget their stance on Net Neutrality!
Google is the new Amway.
Not even close.
I'd buy Google products long before I'd buy anything Amway.
Apparently, you've never had a mom who got suckered into the Amway "get rich quick" pyramid scheme...
What does DED stand for?
'droid enthusiasts despair
So, how does this argument jive with those who claim the iPad is just a big iPod touch?
CGC
Incidentally, it's "jibe" not "jive" — an all to[o] common misusage that is very annoying.
(And for starters,everyone, please, learn the difference between "moot" and "mute," "prostate" and "prostrate," and "travesty" and "tapestry!")
I wonder where all 9 of his Galaxy Tab end up.
Is DaHarder buying 3 Xooms for each of his family members this time??
I wonder where all 9 of his Galaxy Tab end up.
In the garbage where cheap crap ware belongs.
What does DED stand for?
DED: The initials of the author of the article.
Incidentally, it's "jibe" not "jive" ? an all to common misusage that is very annoying.
(And for starters,everyone, please, learn the difference between "moot" and "mute," "prostate" and "prostrate," and "travesty" and "tapestry!")
"an all too common"
That reads more like a self licking ice cream cone than getting to understand what a user wants.
Conferences and reports are the worst way to learn what the average user likes, you only hear what the same out of touch talking heads say those users want. Those same folks that advised the mobile market for years and couldn't manage to tell anyone the consumer really wanted a device like an iPhone.
"an all too common"
LOL, I did that for you.
Honestly, just an incidental omission typo, not a misusage from misunderstanding (although I am a terrible speller and typist.)
LOL, I did that for you.
Honestly, just an incidental omission typo, not a misusage from misunderstanding (although I am a terrible speller and typist.)
There seems to be some kind of immutable law that if one be so bold as to post a grammar correction that post will contain at least a typo, if not a grave grammatical lapse.
I honastly havent understand it's.
LOL, I did that for you.
Honestly, just an incidental omission typo, not a misusage from misunderstanding (although I am a terrible speller and typist.)
I dread instant messaging because my keyboard tries to thwart all attempts at intelligent conversation.
There seems to be some kind of immutable law that if one be so bold as to post a grammar correction that post will contain at least a typo, if not a grave grammatical lapse.
I honastly havent understand it's.
I agree. It should probably have a proper name and Wikipedia entry.
Perhaps it should be called something like, "The 'Actaully . . . ' Principle" since so many grammar correction posts start with, "Actually . . ." and always contain a typo?
Constantly seeing "that's a bias opinion" or "this whole article is pretty bias" is like being stabbed in the head by the stupid fork.
Incidentally, it's "jibe" not "jive" — an all to[o] common misusage that is very annoying.
Actually jive is ok. I think it is a different meaning than jibe. Jive is a 1940s American slang term which was used just as the poster wrote - to be in sync with. Jibe is a nautical term meaning to switch or shift which doesn't really make sense in that context. So actually jibe is the wrong word for what was being stated.
Actually jive is ok. I think it is a different meaning than jibe. Jive is a 1940s American slang term which was used just as the poster wrote - to be in sync with. Jibe is a nautical term meaning to switch or shift which doesn't really make sense in that context. So actually jibe is the wrong word for what was being stated.
Actually, "jive" can be used to be roughly synonymous with "gibe", meaning to tease. "Jive" also has an old jazz era meaning of "in a jazzy manner" (not to mention a frenetic style of dance) and then by extension (presumably because of the easy but tangled seductiveness of swing and/or the dance style) "glib" or "untrustworthy."
"Jibe" does indeed have a nautical meaning, but also and more typically is used to mean "be in alignment with" or "agree."
As far as I know, it's never correct to use "jive" to mean "agree."