But where is googles contribution to that fork ????? Chrome does not contribute, It uses khtml and apples combine fork. Hense no innovation on goggles part.
Hell google wont even give back androids full fork to the linux opensource group which is illegal according to the open source contract.
Funny google gives a lot back to webkit, yes chrome does give back, chrome/chromium is open source they give back to webkit. Android is fully open source, if you want you can go download android right now and build your own version of it, proof, amazon kindle fire.
Funny google gives a lot back to webkit, yes chrome does give back, chrome/chromium is open source they give back to webkit. Android is fully open source, if you want you can go download android right now and build your own version of it, proof, amazon kindle fire.
what does that have to do with selling information.
Again genius if google sells your information they go bankrupt.
Google holds on to your information and the advertisers come to them, they give it to advertisers, and they don't come back to google.
How google works is that comapny "x" comes to google and says we need to advertise to "B' region and demographic and google says okay, and does it for them, your info stays with google.
Again Genius you dont understand. What I quoted above is an invasion of privacy, and a blatant one at that so that they can get the info to sell you to the advertisers. If it was no problem then why is the DOJ still investigating them over that issue? I dont want ads shoved in my face, I don't want my name as part of a Demographic or an ad run, I want to be left out of it. The above example is there use of illegal means to circumvent my own privacy settings to get those ads to me and to put there cookies on my machine even though I have said no by clicking the appropriate button in my browser. You are talking about the actual data, of course google is not going to give that to the advertisers. But there still selling me to them by shoving there crap in my in box even if I dont have one of there trash products by circumventing my own privacy settings. They have been publically caught doing this numerous times and they always have the convenient excuse that they did not mean to. What bs. You believe what you want and I will believe what I want and we can agree to just disagree on this. You wont change my mind and obviously I,m not changing yours.
Again Genius you dont understand. What I quoted above is an invasion of privacy, and a blatant one at that so that they can get the info to sell you to the advertisers. If it was no problem then why is the DOJ still investigating them over that issue? I dont want ads shoved in my face, I don't want my name as part of a Demographic or an ad run, I want to be left out of it. The above example is there use of illegal means to circumvent my own privacy settings to get those ads to me and to put there cookies on my machine even though I have said no by clicking the appropriate button in my browser. You are talking about the actual data, of course google is not going to give that to the advertisers. But there still selling me to them by shoving there crap in my in box even if I dont have one of there trash products by circumventing my own privacy settings. They have been publically caught doing this numerous times and they always have the convenient excuse that they did not mean to. What bs. You believe what you want and I will believe what I want and we can agree to just disagree on this. You wont change my mind and obviously I,m not changing yours.
then don't use google. I actually like selective, relevant ads in exchange for a free service.
Innovation isn't necessarily creating new products, it could be improving on older ideas, too. You have to perfect something before moving onto the next thing. I would rather offer 4 essential product lines (iPod, iPhone, iPad, Mac) that have been refined and perfected until each release is just incremental, just adding the latest technologies. I would rather that than 17 messy, unrefined projects that you can't focus on. Google should be focusing on making their OS more efficient, safe, and integrated, they should also start working on a better 'ecosystem', like Apple has with iCloud, the digital hub. They're trying, with the Chromebook and Android and Google Sync, etc. But it isn't working. They need to ditch Plus, Apps, etc. and focus on more of their more successful products (e.g Nexus', Chromebook, Chrome and the search engine).
Funny google gives a lot back to webkit, yes chrome does give back, chrome/chromium is open source they give back to webkit. Android is fully open source, if you want you can go download android right now and build your own version of it, proof, amazon kindle fire.
Lol android is not fully open source. Google with holds key api's which is a violation of the open source agreement. You can download the vanilla version of android but not the current full blown version unless your a signed developer. Go do a search about it. A lot of people in the open source community are ticked about it. But dont believe me go look for yourself.
Android is not fully open source. Proof? In Googles trial with microsoft in 2011 google complained that microsoft had no write to show full android code to the court claiming that it could damage there proprietary api's. If it is open source then it should be available to everyone every last bit of android code. Its not. And google admitted it in the court case against microsoft that android is not a truly open source os. Parts of it are and parts of it are not. Just like parts of Mac os are open source such as WebKit and Unix and parts of it are not. The difference is that Apple does not go around telling everyone that there os is fully open source like google does. They finally had to back off in court at least that there os is fully open source compliant which is it not. Here is a good article about it not being open source.
Its actually a good thing for android too that it is not fully open source which is what the article concludes. Not being open source allows google to more fully control android code.
Lol android is not fully open source. Google with holds key api's which is a violation of the open source agreement. You can download the vanilla version of android but not the current full blown version. Go do a search about it. A lot of people in the open source community are ticked about it. But dont believe me go look for yourself.
Android is not fully open source. Proof? In Googles trial with microsoft in 2011 google complained that microsoft had no write to show full android code to the court claiming that it could damage there proprietary api's. If it is open source then it should be available to everyone every last bit of android code. Its not. And google admitted it in the court case against microsoft that android is not a truly open source os. Parts of it are and parts of it are not. Just like parts of Mac os are open source such as WebKit and Unix and parts of it are not. The difference is that Apple does not go around telling everyone that there os is fully open source like google does. They finally had to back off in court at least that there os is fully open source compliant which is it not. Here is a good article about it not being open source.
"Page expressed concern regarding company leadership, saying there too much attention is being paid to competition. When asked about a specific case involving the late Steve Jobs' comment of "going thermonuclear war" on Google's Android mobile operating system, Page quipped, "How well is that working?""
Pretty damn well... Anyway, why doesn't he run his company the way he wants and stop telling everyone else how to run their companies?
Interesting that Page would make such comment about Apple. Does he pay the Harvard Business Review, since in this month's issue the Top 100 CEO in this era, from 1990s until now, are named for long term substantial growth to their company and long term vision. Well no guessing who was number one, Yes Steve Jobs and number two was Amazon CEO and number 3 was Samsung CEO.
I am absolutely certain that Google was not in Top 10 (or TOP 20) with that idiot, who went to North Korea. I will check and edit my post.
Larry Page: lots of money, maybe very intelligent, but has no street credibility.
Lies android is fully open source, what is not open source are google apps (gmail, maps, youtube) and the google play store.
ANDROID IS FULLY OPEN. I should know, I have flash many android phones with ASOP. stop spreading lies.
Android is not fully open source go read the article, and if you want go look up the 9 circuit court docs on it. Google admitted that android is not fully opensource themselves. It came from there lawyers mouths not mine. and IM NOT SPREADING LIES. If you read the article it talks about how they withold api's from the open source version on there download and release them when they feel like it sometimes years latter after a new version has come out.
Lies android is fully open source, what is not open source are google apps (gmail, maps, youtube) and the google play store.
ANDROID IS FULLY OPEN. I should know, I have flash many android phones with ASOP. stop spreading lies.
Mechanic provides you factual evidence and you call him a liar, way to go Mr. Larry Page friend, way to go. Everyone knows that story concerning Google and Open source issue, but you.
Apple has been plenty innovative in the past and will likely continue to be so in the future- but within thescope of their target market. Their innovation is based on creating products that sell. In short- they behave like a company that is answerable to shareholders. That is how most companies work and even Tim Cook at Apple could find himself under the gun from shareholders if he decided to start doing arbitrarilly 'cool' projects that just didn't seem to have any path to monetization.
Google is a unique beast in its structure. Even though publically traded, it is essentially just Larry & Sergei's private playground. They structured the company with their 'supershares' so they will always have the majority of the voting shares. Investors can't get mad and oust either one of them- your only choice as a shareholder in Google is to invest or not invest in them. Your vote just doesn't matter. Google doesn't even remotely try to maximize its profits quarter to quarter, it does everything for the long haul. That's why you never see them come under fire for not monetizing android (they don't have to- and they'll do that if and when they please- for now it is purely a platform to make sure Google search remains available to a majority of the planet). They want to undertake the '100 most ambitious problems' they can come up with- even if they aren't remotely related to their core business? No problem. Investors at any other company would go nuts and push to have more 'businessy' CEO's put in place. Can't happen at Google so they get to do their cool outlandish projects- but its not really fair for them to criticize execs at other companies who would get lynched for trying. It is a great gig if you can get it- but very few have that luxury.
When Larry Page is talking about innovation, he's probably talking about things like Google Earth, Maps, and Books back in the day, and more recently Project Glass, the self-driving car, and their fiber network.
Stuff like Android originally wasn't originally developed by Google, they bought Android.
Let's face it, Google has evolved far beyond a search engine, and stuff like Project Glass and the self-driving car are more than a little innovative... Who wouldn't love going to the bar, getting trashed, and having your own car drive you home?
Back in 2011 google refused to release the source code for honeycomb, It was even confirmed by google. They said that maybe they would release it in the future once there way of doing things in it was firmly entrenched in the developer community. Those are googles words not mine. Google wants to be android known as the open os but in truth there are just as many closed parts to it as there are with other OS's. They like being known as the Open os but there not. the open source gpu states very clearly that all code will be made public not some, and if not they forfeit there license. Google can't tell everyone there os is fully open then refuse to publish the code. Its that simple and yet its what they have done.
Any developer using open source code under the gnu who contributes to googles code code for android under gnu could sue google and win. There is no second chance with gnu. One violation and your done. Its made that way on purpose. So that it remains open. Googles answer is to say its open and keep promising to release the all of the code someday. With a lot of the parts that has not happened yet like the full source for honeycomb. And by googles own admission it may never happen. The still do the same thing with the current android as well. They just need to stop telling people that all of android is open and admit that a semi walled garden is how it is. Google is the one lying not me. They are now controlling what they use from the open source community as well, which again according to the GPU license is a violation of your license and a forfeiture of your license. The rules on GPU are harsh. Again to keep open source open. Really its like one infraction and you forfeit your license.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
But where is googles contribution to that fork ????? Chrome does not contribute, It uses khtml and apples combine fork. Hense no innovation on goggles part.
Hell google wont even give back androids full fork to the linux opensource group which is illegal according to the open source contract.
Funny google gives a lot back to webkit, yes chrome does give back, chrome/chromium is open source they give back to webkit. Android is fully open source, if you want you can go download android right now and build your own version of it, proof, amazon kindle fire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
The methods to allow interprocess communications in an operating system. For one.
like what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
Funny google gives a lot back to webkit, yes chrome does give back, chrome/chromium is open source they give back to webkit. Android is fully open source, if you want you can go download android right now and build your own version of it, proof, amazon kindle fire.
Where's Google's innovation in that?
Android . . . now 12% less lag!
#increasenumberofcores
Real Innovation™
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
what does that have to do with selling information.
Again genius if google sells your information they go bankrupt.
Google holds on to your information and the advertisers come to them, they give it to advertisers, and they don't come back to google.
How google works is that comapny "x" comes to google and says we need to advertise to "B' region and demographic and google says okay, and does it for them, your info stays with google.
Again Genius you dont understand. What I quoted above is an invasion of privacy, and a blatant one at that so that they can get the info to sell you to the advertisers. If it was no problem then why is the DOJ still investigating them over that issue? I dont want ads shoved in my face, I don't want my name as part of a Demographic or an ad run, I want to be left out of it. The above example is there use of illegal means to circumvent my own privacy settings to get those ads to me and to put there cookies on my machine even though I have said no by clicking the appropriate button in my browser. You are talking about the actual data, of course google is not going to give that to the advertisers. But there still selling me to them by shoving there crap in my in box even if I dont have one of there trash products by circumventing my own privacy settings. They have been publically caught doing this numerous times and they always have the convenient excuse that they did not mean to. What bs. You believe what you want and I will believe what I want and we can agree to just disagree on this. You wont change my mind and obviously I,m not changing yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Android . . . now 12% less lag!
#increasenumberofcores
Real Innovation™
or something like you know "google now"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
Again Genius you dont understand. What I quoted above is an invasion of privacy, and a blatant one at that so that they can get the info to sell you to the advertisers. If it was no problem then why is the DOJ still investigating them over that issue? I dont want ads shoved in my face, I don't want my name as part of a Demographic or an ad run, I want to be left out of it. The above example is there use of illegal means to circumvent my own privacy settings to get those ads to me and to put there cookies on my machine even though I have said no by clicking the appropriate button in my browser. You are talking about the actual data, of course google is not going to give that to the advertisers. But there still selling me to them by shoving there crap in my in box even if I dont have one of there trash products by circumventing my own privacy settings. They have been publically caught doing this numerous times and they always have the convenient excuse that they did not mean to. What bs. You believe what you want and I will believe what I want and we can agree to just disagree on this. You wont change my mind and obviously I,m not changing yours.
then don't use google. I actually like selective, relevant ads in exchange for a free service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
Funny google gives a lot back to webkit, yes chrome does give back, chrome/chromium is open source they give back to webkit. Android is fully open source, if you want you can go download android right now and build your own version of it, proof, amazon kindle fire.
Lol android is not fully open source. Google with holds key api's which is a violation of the open source agreement. You can download the vanilla version of android but not the current full blown version unless your a signed developer. Go do a search about it. A lot of people in the open source community are ticked about it. But dont believe me go look for yourself.
Android is not fully open source. Proof? In Googles trial with microsoft in 2011 google complained that microsoft had no write to show full android code to the court claiming that it could damage there proprietary api's. If it is open source then it should be available to everyone every last bit of android code. Its not. And google admitted it in the court case against microsoft that android is not a truly open source os. Parts of it are and parts of it are not. Just like parts of Mac os are open source such as WebKit and Unix and parts of it are not. The difference is that Apple does not go around telling everyone that there os is fully open source like google does. They finally had to back off in court at least that there os is fully open source compliant which is it not. Here is a good article about it not being open source.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobile-technology/proof-android-not-open-source-and-why-thats-good-169663
Its actually a good thing for android too that it is not fully open source which is what the article concludes. Not being open source allows google to more fully control android code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
then don't use google. I actually like selective, relevant ads in exchange for a free service.
I dont, good luck to you and yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
Lol android is not fully open source. Google with holds key api's which is a violation of the open source agreement. You can download the vanilla version of android but not the current full blown version. Go do a search about it. A lot of people in the open source community are ticked about it. But dont believe me go look for yourself.
Android is not fully open source. Proof? In Googles trial with microsoft in 2011 google complained that microsoft had no write to show full android code to the court claiming that it could damage there proprietary api's. If it is open source then it should be available to everyone every last bit of android code. Its not. And google admitted it in the court case against microsoft that android is not a truly open source os. Parts of it are and parts of it are not. Just like parts of Mac os are open source such as WebKit and Unix and parts of it are not. The difference is that Apple does not go around telling everyone that there os is fully open source like google does. They finally had to back off in court at least that there os is fully open source compliant which is it not. Here is a good article about it not being open source.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobile-technology/proof-android-not-open-source-and-why-thats-good-169663
Lies android is fully open source, what is not open source are google apps (gmail, maps, youtube) and the google play store.
ANDROID IS FULLY OPEN. I should know, I have flash many android phones with ASOP. stop spreading lies.
Pretty damn well... Anyway, why doesn't he run his company the way he wants and stop telling everyone else how to run their companies?
[IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/19271/width/200/height/400[/IMG]
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=5y&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=GOOG
Dear All,
Interesting that Page would make such comment about Apple. Does he pay the Harvard Business Review, since in this month's issue the Top 100 CEO in this era, from 1990s until now, are named for long term substantial growth to their company and long term vision. Well no guessing who was number one, Yes Steve Jobs and number two was Amazon CEO and number 3 was Samsung CEO.
I am absolutely certain that Google was not in Top 10 (or TOP 20) with that idiot, who went to North Korea. I will check and edit my post.
Larry Page: lots of money, maybe very intelligent, but has no street credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
Lies android is fully open source, what is not open source are google apps (gmail, maps, youtube) and the google play store.
ANDROID IS FULLY OPEN. I should know, I have flash many android phones with ASOP. stop spreading lies.
Android is not fully open source go read the article, and if you want go look up the 9 circuit court docs on it. Google admitted that android is not fully opensource themselves. It came from there lawyers mouths not mine. and IM NOT SPREADING LIES. If you read the article it talks about how they withold api's from the open source version on there download and release them when they feel like it sometimes years latter after a new version has come out.
Uh, looks like you're agreeing with him then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
Lies android is fully open source, what is not open source are google apps (gmail, maps, youtube) and the google play store.
ANDROID IS FULLY OPEN. I should know, I have flash many android phones with ASOP. stop spreading lies.
Mechanic provides you factual evidence and you call him a liar, way to go Mr. Larry Page friend, way to go. Everyone knows that story concerning Google and Open source issue, but you.
Edit: You may want to read this link and stop putting your foot in your mouth http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-how-open-is-it-21664
Apple has been plenty innovative in the past and will likely continue to be so in the future- but within thescope of their target market. Their innovation is based on creating products that sell. In short- they behave like a company that is answerable to shareholders. That is how most companies work and even Tim Cook at Apple could find himself under the gun from shareholders if he decided to start doing arbitrarilly 'cool' projects that just didn't seem to have any path to monetization.
Google is a unique beast in its structure. Even though publically traded, it is essentially just Larry & Sergei's private playground. They structured the company with their 'supershares' so they will always have the majority of the voting shares. Investors can't get mad and oust either one of them- your only choice as a shareholder in Google is to invest or not invest in them. Your vote just doesn't matter. Google doesn't even remotely try to maximize its profits quarter to quarter, it does everything for the long haul. That's why you never see them come under fire for not monetizing android (they don't have to- and they'll do that if and when they please- for now it is purely a platform to make sure Google search remains available to a majority of the planet). They want to undertake the '100 most ambitious problems' they can come up with- even if they aren't remotely related to their core business? No problem. Investors at any other company would go nuts and push to have more 'businessy' CEO's put in place. Can't happen at Google so they get to do their cool outlandish projects- but its not really fair for them to criticize execs at other companies who would get lynched for trying. It is a great gig if you can get it- but very few have that luxury.
When Larry Page is talking about innovation, he's probably talking about things like Google Earth, Maps, and Books back in the day, and more recently Project Glass, the self-driving car, and their fiber network.
Stuff like Android originally wasn't originally developed by Google, they bought Android.
Let's face it, Google has evolved far beyond a search engine, and stuff like Project Glass and the self-driving car are more than a little innovative... Who wouldn't love going to the bar, getting trashed, and having your own car drive you home?
Back in 2011 google refused to release the source code for honeycomb, It was even confirmed by google. They said that maybe they would release it in the future once there way of doing things in it was firmly entrenched in the developer community. Those are googles words not mine. Google wants to be android known as the open os but in truth there are just as many closed parts to it as there are with other OS's. They like being known as the Open os but there not. the open source gpu states very clearly that all code will be made public not some, and if not they forfeit there license. Google can't tell everyone there os is fully open then refuse to publish the code. Its that simple and yet its what they have done.
Any developer using open source code under the gnu who contributes to googles code code for android under gnu could sue google and win. There is no second chance with gnu. One violation and your done. Its made that way on purpose. So that it remains open. Googles answer is to say its open and keep promising to release the all of the code someday. With a lot of the parts that has not happened yet like the full source for honeycomb. And by googles own admission it may never happen. The still do the same thing with the current android as well. They just need to stop telling people that all of android is open and admit that a semi walled garden is how it is. Google is the one lying not me. They are now controlling what they use from the open source community as well, which again according to the GPU license is a violation of your license and a forfeiture of your license. The rules on GPU are harsh. Again to keep open source open. Really its like one infraction and you forfeit your license.