I have adblock, so I can't see what you're talking about.
Why doesn't everyone have adblock? Seriously. No ads. Ever!
I have Block Pop-Up WIndows, and Ghostery and Click-To-Flash extensions. That suits me just fine. All the other ads that appear on sites aren't as in-your-face so I can easily ignore them. Does anyone actually click on Google's suggestions?
While I understand it's hard to prove/disprove a negative or non-facts/perceptions; you could help your cause with some(more?) published facts/timelines etc(contradictory evidence). Granted I skimmed these through these posts... So if contradictory evidence was given I apologize.
Once a user is banned there is little sense in replying to them.
AT&T now have decent Android-based phones so the excuse regarding only crappy Android phones are on AT&T can't be used. And we obviously can't use the mass exodus from AT&T once other US carriers get the iPhone excuse.
So what gives, Android fans? Are you finally willing to admit the iPhone is the most popular phone or are still holding out to find so quasi-statisitic that pegs iPhone iOS against all Android OS activations for a very specific timeframe?
Again, you choose not believe the published on the record data when it does not hold to your world view. Unless you are saying Google will lie to the Senate.
Ah, there lies the rub. Schmidt didn't tell the Senate that Google generated 2/3 out mobile ad revenue from iOS. It was something close to that fact, but not quite - hence my point about this being one of the most misunderstood factoids in 2011.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
Google Nav (hardly AI based)? What is the monetization?
I'm not referring to maps, dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
And you can worship everything Google does as unfettered brillance.
Did I say that? I have stated my share of concerns about Google tactics. Similarly, I have spoken up against Apple and iOS when I felt it was right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
Stupid on all accounts? Nope. They have an amazing search technology. ....
And yes, I have used Android quiet a bit. Has some nice aspects. Has lots of not nice aspects.
iOS has lots of nice aspects. it has some not nice aspects.
Very well then, let's shift the burden of proof: you disprove the theory that Schmidt took iPhone knowledge to Google to the Android project. No cop outs that it's circumstantial, that it took 2 years, etc. Prove, in painstaking details, how and why Eric Schmidt could not have possibly taken insider information to Google about the iPhone.
See, you can't win that side of the argument either.
That's really not a reasonable demand - the basic tenet of "innocent until proven guilty" requires the party making the accusation to be responsible for supplying some evidence, and to some level, proof, that the accusation is true.
And that was AbsoluteDesignz's point, even if made a bit clumsily; you can't just make an accusation, provide no evidence, and then shout "prove that's not true".
And given it matches well with web utilization stats, it makes sense. I am sure you believe what you want to in spite of data.
Like I said, it was a reasonable extrapolation but it is oh so important not to distort what was truly stated, and what wasn't. I feel it is important to be precise in this instance, since Schmidt's statement in the Senate hearing on this issue has been consistently distorted, here and elsewhere.
It took years of development just for Google to get the Android they bought to become the BB OS ripoff they intended. Judging by the time it took them to even get anything that resembled a BB clone in to some pictures it was a long a grueling effort mostly bought for the people not any underlying tech advantage in the way NeXT had a great foundation for Apple to work with.
BB clone? In hardware perhaps (which was not Google's doing), but not the software. But I agree Android then was a distant ancestor of what it is today.
Like I said, it was a reasonable extrapolation but it is oh so important not to distort what was truly stated, and what wasn't. I feel it is important to be precise in this instance, since Schmidt's statement in the Senate hearing on this issue has been consistently distorted, here and elsewhere.
But what is distorted? Google makes most of its revenue in search/mobile advertising. Google acknowledges that 2/3s of its mobile searches are from ios devices AND third party studies backs that up. It's not like someone is saying, "2/3s of web search comes from ios devices therefore Google is selling nukes to Iran."
It most likely was due to a post that included a veiled but way harsh personal insult.
I'm sure that was it, but it was obviously a construct to prove logical absurdity, and not a real insult. To construe it any other way is either disingenuous or not very bright.
BB clone? In hardware perhaps (which was not Google's doing), but not the software. But I agree Android then was a distant ancestor of what it is today.
It's not surprising that Android likely changed course after iOS appeared, but does anyone have any data to suggest that both were not originally independently under development as phone OSs?
I'm sure that was it, but it was obviously a construct to prove logical absurdity, and not a real insult. To construe it any other way is either disingenuous or not very bright.
Oh, I understand what he was trying to do, but it seemed way harsh and extreme (IMHO obviously).
"2/3s of web search comes from ios devices therefore Google is selling nukes to Iran."
They are! Damn. Wait til MacRumor's gets hold of that. Paired with the 40% return rate on Android smart-phones claim that originated there, Google is doomed!
They are! Damn. Wait til MacRumor's gets hold of that. Paired with the 40% return rate on Android smart-phones claim that originated there, Google is doomed!
Lol. That return rate article was pretty hilarious. Maybe the "source" for the Iran article can come from an anonymous Sprint employee.
And that was AbsoluteDesignz's point, even if made a bit clumsily; you can't just make an accusation, provide no evidence, and then shout "prove that's not true".
And in courts around the world, one patent at a time, Apple is proving that bits and pieces of the Android OS infringe on iOS. Is this not the court agreeing that Android has infringed (outside the tech world known as 'stolen') parts of Apple's patented intellectual property? If more and more of these infringement cases fall Apple's way, the Android will be shown to be a blatant rip off.
Steve Jobs himself ranted to Eric Schmidt about Android being a 'stolen product'. Steve knew a thing or two about having his company's properties stolen before, which was probably why he was so adamant about Google not pinching Apple's IP this time.
And in courts around the world, one patent at a time, Apple is proving that bits and pieces of the Android OS infringe on iOS. Is this not the court agreeing that Android has infringed (outside the tech world known as 'stolen') parts of Apple's patented intellectual property? If more and more of these infringement cases fall Apple's way, the Android will be shown to be a blatant rip off.
Steve Jobs himself ranted to Eric Schmidt about Android being a 'stolen product'. Steve knew a thing or two about having his company's properties stolen before, which was probably why he was so adamant about Google not pinching Apple's IP this time.
Except that wasn't the allegation. It wasn't whether or not Google copied Apple. The allegation was that Eric Schmidt personally gave details of Apple's iPhone plans to Google. IMHO this is pretty unlikely as everyone knew Google was working on Android even before Schmidt joined Apple so therefore he would not have been given details of the iPhone project (Schmidt had to excuse himself whenever the board discussed the iPhone). The most he could have done is confirm rumors that Apple was working on a phone. Schmidt probably had to wait for the public unveiling to see what the design and UI looked like.
And in courts around the world, one patent at a time, Apple is proving that bits and pieces of the Android OS infringe on iOS. Is this not the court agreeing that Android has infringed (outside the tech world known as 'stolen') parts of Apple's patented intellectual property? If more and more of these infringement cases fall Apple's way, the Android will be shown to be a blatant rip off.
Steve Jobs himself ranted to Eric Schmidt about Android being a 'stolen product'. Steve knew a thing or two about having his company's properties stolen before, which was probably why he was so adamant about Google not pinching Apple's IP this time.
All it really demonstrates is that any software program, much less an entire OS, is only a collection of hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands of different ideas put together in a unique way. Yet with some of those individual ideas likely given patents somewhere in year's past for a different need in a different product by someone perhaps working on a totally unrelated issue to yours, your product can be ripped asunder no matter how uniquely it was developed, or how creative the idea.
That's what software patents do. It matters little if your finished product is original if there's one idea buried in there that someone thought of before. . . which is darn likely.
But that's the hand that's been dealt and the cards get played.
All it really demonstrates is that any software program, much less an entire OS, is only a collection of hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands of different ideas put together in a unique way. Yet with some of those individual ideas likely given patents somewhere in year's past for a different need in a different product by someone perhaps working on a totally unrelated issue to yours, your product can be ripped asunder no matter how uniquely it was developed, or how creative the idea.
Not in this case since the ideas being defended although started in a different product category are still being implemented by the same company in a different product category that competes with the infringer. It's not Apple's fault that it had decades of experience in desktop computing that it then used in mobile computing.
Comments
I have adblock, so I can't see what you're talking about.
Why doesn't everyone have adblock? Seriously. No ads. Ever!
I have Block Pop-Up WIndows, and Ghostery and Click-To-Flash extensions. That suits me just fine. All the other ads that appear on sites aren't as in-your-face so I can easily ignore them. Does anyone actually click on Google's suggestions?
While I understand it's hard to prove/disprove a negative or non-facts/perceptions; you could help your cause with some(more?) published facts/timelines etc(contradictory evidence). Granted I skimmed these through these posts... So if contradictory evidence was given I apologize.
Once a user is banned there is little sense in replying to them.
Once a user is banned there is little sense in replying to them.
So he was "kicked out of the mobile world at the stroke of a pen. "
Too soon?
AT&T now have decent Android-based phones so the excuse regarding only crappy Android phones are on AT&T can't be used. And we obviously can't use the mass exodus from AT&T once other US carriers get the iPhone excuse.
So what gives, Android fans? Are you finally willing to admit the iPhone is the most popular phone or are still holding out to find so quasi-statisitic that pegs iPhone iOS against all Android OS activations for a very specific timeframe?
Who cares?
Once a user is banned there is little sense in replying to them.
Was it due to one particular post/thread or just an overall pattern of being too aggressive? Just curious.
Again, you choose not believe the published on the record data when it does not hold to your world view. Unless you are saying Google will lie to the Senate.
Ah, there lies the rub. Schmidt didn't tell the Senate that Google generated 2/3 out mobile ad revenue from iOS. It was something close to that fact, but not quite - hence my point about this being one of the most misunderstood factoids in 2011.
Google Nav (hardly AI based)? What is the monetization?
I'm not referring to maps, dude.
And you can worship everything Google does as unfettered brillance.
Did I say that? I have stated my share of concerns about Google tactics. Similarly, I have spoken up against Apple and iOS when I felt it was right.
Stupid on all accounts? Nope. They have an amazing search technology. ....
And yes, I have used Android quiet a bit. Has some nice aspects. Has lots of not nice aspects.
iOS has lots of nice aspects. it has some not nice aspects.
For usage, iOS is much more pleasant to use.
Now I call that fair and open-minded commentary.
Very well then, let's shift the burden of proof: you disprove the theory that Schmidt took iPhone knowledge to Google to the Android project. No cop outs that it's circumstantial, that it took 2 years, etc. Prove, in painstaking details, how and why Eric Schmidt could not have possibly taken insider information to Google about the iPhone.
See, you can't win that side of the argument either.
That's really not a reasonable demand - the basic tenet of "innocent until proven guilty" requires the party making the accusation to be responsible for supplying some evidence, and to some level, proof, that the accusation is true.
And that was AbsoluteDesignz's point, even if made a bit clumsily; you can't just make an accusation, provide no evidence, and then shout "prove that's not true".
Was it due to one particular post/thread or just an overall pattern of being too aggressive? Just curious.
It most likely was due to a post that included a veiled but way harsh personal insult.
And given it matches well with web utilization stats, it makes sense. I am sure you believe what you want to in spite of data.
Like I said, it was a reasonable extrapolation but it is oh so important not to distort what was truly stated, and what wasn't. I feel it is important to be precise in this instance, since Schmidt's statement in the Senate hearing on this issue has been consistently distorted, here and elsewhere.
You proved his point.
It took years of development just for Google to get the Android they bought to become the BB OS ripoff they intended. Judging by the time it took them to even get anything that resembled a BB clone in to some pictures it was a long a grueling effort mostly bought for the people not any underlying tech advantage in the way NeXT had a great foundation for Apple to work with.
BB clone? In hardware perhaps (which was not Google's doing), but not the software. But I agree Android then was a distant ancestor of what it is today.
Like I said, it was a reasonable extrapolation but it is oh so important not to distort what was truly stated, and what wasn't. I feel it is important to be precise in this instance, since Schmidt's statement in the Senate hearing on this issue has been consistently distorted, here and elsewhere.
But what is distorted? Google makes most of its revenue in search/mobile advertising. Google acknowledges that 2/3s of its mobile searches are from ios devices AND third party studies backs that up. It's not like someone is saying, "2/3s of web search comes from ios devices therefore Google is selling nukes to Iran."
It most likely was due to a post that included a veiled but way harsh personal insult.
I'm sure that was it, but it was obviously a construct to prove logical absurdity, and not a real insult. To construe it any other way is either disingenuous or not very bright.
BB clone? In hardware perhaps (which was not Google's doing), but not the software. But I agree Android then was a distant ancestor of what it is today.
It's not surprising that Android likely changed course after iOS appeared, but does anyone have any data to suggest that both were not originally independently under development as phone OSs?
I'm sure that was it, but it was obviously a construct to prove logical absurdity, and not a real insult. To construe it any other way is either disingenuous or not very bright.
Oh, I understand what he was trying to do, but it seemed way harsh and extreme (IMHO obviously).
"2/3s of web search comes from ios devices therefore Google is selling nukes to Iran."
They are! Damn. Wait til MacRumor's gets hold of that. Paired with the 40% return rate on Android smart-phones claim that originated there, Google is doomed!
They are! Damn. Wait til MacRumor's gets hold of that. Paired with the 40% return rate on Android smart-phones claim that originated there, Google is doomed!
Lol. That return rate article was pretty hilarious. Maybe the "source" for the Iran article can come from an anonymous Sprint employee.
And that was AbsoluteDesignz's point, even if made a bit clumsily; you can't just make an accusation, provide no evidence, and then shout "prove that's not true".
And in courts around the world, one patent at a time, Apple is proving that bits and pieces of the Android OS infringe on iOS. Is this not the court agreeing that Android has infringed (outside the tech world known as 'stolen') parts of Apple's patented intellectual property? If more and more of these infringement cases fall Apple's way, the Android will be shown to be a blatant rip off.
Steve Jobs himself ranted to Eric Schmidt about Android being a 'stolen product'. Steve knew a thing or two about having his company's properties stolen before, which was probably why he was so adamant about Google not pinching Apple's IP this time.
And in courts around the world, one patent at a time, Apple is proving that bits and pieces of the Android OS infringe on iOS. Is this not the court agreeing that Android has infringed (outside the tech world known as 'stolen') parts of Apple's patented intellectual property? If more and more of these infringement cases fall Apple's way, the Android will be shown to be a blatant rip off.
Steve Jobs himself ranted to Eric Schmidt about Android being a 'stolen product'. Steve knew a thing or two about having his company's properties stolen before, which was probably why he was so adamant about Google not pinching Apple's IP this time.
Except that wasn't the allegation. It wasn't whether or not Google copied Apple. The allegation was that Eric Schmidt personally gave details of Apple's iPhone plans to Google. IMHO this is pretty unlikely as everyone knew Google was working on Android even before Schmidt joined Apple so therefore he would not have been given details of the iPhone project (Schmidt had to excuse himself whenever the board discussed the iPhone). The most he could have done is confirm rumors that Apple was working on a phone. Schmidt probably had to wait for the public unveiling to see what the design and UI looked like.
And in courts around the world, one patent at a time, Apple is proving that bits and pieces of the Android OS infringe on iOS. Is this not the court agreeing that Android has infringed (outside the tech world known as 'stolen') parts of Apple's patented intellectual property? If more and more of these infringement cases fall Apple's way, the Android will be shown to be a blatant rip off.
Steve Jobs himself ranted to Eric Schmidt about Android being a 'stolen product'. Steve knew a thing or two about having his company's properties stolen before, which was probably why he was so adamant about Google not pinching Apple's IP this time.
All it really demonstrates is that any software program, much less an entire OS, is only a collection of hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands of different ideas put together in a unique way. Yet with some of those individual ideas likely given patents somewhere in year's past for a different need in a different product by someone perhaps working on a totally unrelated issue to yours, your product can be ripped asunder no matter how uniquely it was developed, or how creative the idea.
That's what software patents do. It matters little if your finished product is original if there's one idea buried in there that someone thought of before. . . which is darn likely.
But that's the hand that's been dealt and the cards get played.
All it really demonstrates is that any software program, much less an entire OS, is only a collection of hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands of different ideas put together in a unique way. Yet with some of those individual ideas likely given patents somewhere in year's past for a different need in a different product by someone perhaps working on a totally unrelated issue to yours, your product can be ripped asunder no matter how uniquely it was developed, or how creative the idea.
Not in this case since the ideas being defended although started in a different product category are still being implemented by the same company in a different product category that competes with the infringer. It's not Apple's fault that it had decades of experience in desktop computing that it then used in mobile computing.