Even if Tizen is crap, I still applaud Samsung for working on their own OS. I've been saying since at least the 1990s that WinPC vendors should've been working on developing their own OSes so that they would have a chance to get out from under Microsoft's thumb or be ready for any paradigm shifts in the market that may come about.
And you are right on spot with this. Many systems will fall, but some will made for good competition pushing others. I am not big fan of Samsung or ceratinly not Microsoft, but I do support their efforts for market diversification. Otherwise we come back to monopolized market with arrogant vendor (MIcrosoft in '90's... still arrogant to this day as I see in business IT I lead).
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
Apple may not have invented all of the technology they use, but they always pay the licensing or acquire the companies they need to. Unlike what Google did to Sun by finding a loophole in the Java licensing instead of ponying up like everyone else did.
Even in the famous case that Fandroids love to bring up with the Xerox GUI, they at least gave Xerox shares in Apple which were worth millions a few years later (edit: the opportunity to acquire pre-IPO shares, which they did). Unlike Google/Alphabet who just keep dragging the Java case through the courts instead of doing the right thing.
So was Google successful for what they did or from the missteps of the existing smartphone manufacturers of the time?
Much their success came from getting a mature, well-known, easy-to-use application development environment without having to pay for R&D (as Apple/NeXT did with Objective-C) or paying for licensing (as competitors did with Java). They got the benefit of all the resources Sun had put into Java without paying anything for it, which is bad for the industry. It shows that it's not worthwhile to try and develop and license technology when others can just reimplement and ship it in commercial products, and not be punished for that.
For the people who don't understand the technical details, the takeaway here is that all the great 3rd party applications on Android came at the expense of another company (Sun Microsystems). This gave Android a huge advantage in the marketplace compared to, for example, Blackberry.
Had Oracle not bought Sun after Android had become successful simply to sue Google (as the rumor goes) there would be no issue now IMO.
I know well that Sun was trying to promote Java and making efforts at the time to bring everyone under the tent. Which is how Google was able to skirt around licensing by taking advantage of the Apache group's open source work, which was sanctioned by Sun as part of that effort. And they may have actually been able to get away without a license (or at the very least a cheap one) had they actually worked with Sun and used a compliant implementation of Java, as those at Sun and in the Java community were expecting they'd do at the time: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20080117084719/http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/congratulations_google
If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way
It's that attitude, especially at a well-established tech company, which is detrimental to the industry.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
Apple may not have invented all of the technology they use, but they always pay the licensing or acquire the companies they need to. Unlike what Google did to Sun by finding a loophole in the Java licensing instead of ponying up like everyone else did.
Even in the famous case that Fandroids love to bring up with the Xerox GUI, they at least gave Xerox shares in Apple which were worth millions a few years later (edit: the opportunity to acquire pre-IPO shares, which they did). Unlike Google/Alphabet who just keep dragging the Java case through the courts instead of doing the right thing.
So was Google successful for what they did or from the missteps of the existing smartphone manufacturers of the time?
Much their success came from getting a mature, well-known, easy-to-use application development environment without having to pay for R&D (as Apple/NeXT did with Objective-C) or paying for licensing (as competitors did with Java). They got the benefit of all the resources Sun had put into Java without paying anything for it, which is bad for the industry. It shows that it's not worthwhile to try and develop and license technology when others can just reimplement and ship it in commercial products, and not be punished for that.
For the people who don't understand the technical details, the takeaway here is that all the great 3rd party applications on Android came at the expense of another company (Sun Microsystems). This gave Android a huge advantage in the marketplace compared to, for example, Blackberry.
Had Oracle not bought Sun after Android had become successful simply to sue Google (as the rumor goes) there would be no issue now IMO.
I know well that Sun was trying to promote Java and making efforts at the time to bring everyone under the tent. Which is how Google was able to skirt around licensing by taking advantage of the Apache group's open source work, which was sanctioned by Sun as part of that effort. And they may have actually been able to get away without a license (or at the very least a cheap one) had they actually worked with Sun and used a compliant implementation of Java, as those at Sun and in the Java community were expecting they'd do at the time: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20080117084719/http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/congratulations_google
If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way
It's that attitude, especially at a well-established tech company, which is detrimental to the industry.
Anyway, in hindsight Google was absolutely correct not to depend on what would now be Oracle for good solid code, and proper attention to discovered security issues. I suspect you aren't a fan of Java either.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
Apple may not have invented all of the technology they use, but they always pay the licensing or acquire the companies they need to. Unlike what Google did to Sun by finding a loophole in the Java licensing instead of ponying up like everyone else did.
Even in the famous case that Fandroids love to bring up with the Xerox GUI, they at least gave Xerox shares in Apple which were worth millions a few years later (edit: the opportunity to acquire pre-IPO shares, which they did). Unlike Google/Alphabet who just keep dragging the Java case through the courts instead of doing the right thing.
So was Google successful for what they did or from the missteps of the existing smartphone manufacturers of the time?
Much their success came from getting a mature, well-known, easy-to-use application development environment without having to pay for R&D (as Apple/NeXT did with Objective-C) or paying for licensing (as competitors did with Java). They got the benefit of all the resources Sun had put into Java without paying anything for it, which is bad for the industry. It shows that it's not worthwhile to try and develop and license technology when others can just reimplement and ship it in commercial products, and not be punished for that.
For the people who don't understand the technical details, the takeaway here is that all the great 3rd party applications on Android came at the expense of another company (Sun Microsystems). This gave Android a huge advantage in the marketplace compared to, for example, Blackberry.
That only benefits developers. Users can give a flying fuck if it's easier to develop for one OS versus another. At that time most smartphone users were on Blackberry, Windows, or Palm, and had either one of those come out with a decent touchscreen smartphone the users would have stayed with them.
This isn't about user interfaces, it's about using another company's technology (Java) without a care about infringing on the licensing terms for that technology. I know users don't care about this, they don't know what's behind the technology they use and simply want the cheapest devices possible. However, as someone who makes a living from technology and people paying for it, I care. I'm sure those same users would care a lot if they lost their job or lost a bunch of money on investments because of similar actions.
Although Samsung is perhaps wrong to list it as a security feature in their marketing, they make it very clear that security comes on different levels. They describe the Iris Scanner as 'airtight' for example, and when you activate facial recognition you are given a warning. It will not let you make payments using facial recognition.
Security often comes at the price of inconvenience. Having levels of security is logical, convenient and user friendly.
At the end of the day it is up to the user to decide which level is best and that includes 'no security'.
Passwords are great but of little use if they are ultra weak. Most ultra weak passwords are weak for convenience. And worse if they are reused across different devices/sites. Should devices reject weak or reused passwords or would that be too user unfriendly? Should two factor security be imposed?
At least facial recognition gives you an alert when you turn the feature on.
As a convenience option I'm sure many people will opt for it just like many users (Apple users included) opt for weak passwords.That shouldn't surprise anyone as most users with weak passcodes, know full well they are weak. Even systems that try to coerce you into creating 'strong' passwords sometimes fall foul to people writing strong but weak passcodes as they are based on information that may already be known about them. Either way if you don't voluntarily create a strong password you will probably get annoyed with being pushed into creating one. These are the people least likely to use password managers.
Picking on the feature as an example of Samsung's 'poor track record' doesn't make the best sense especially when Samsung is offering alternative options that seem to be equal to, or superior to competitors, and isn't even pushing the feature as one of those alternatives and warns you when you turn it on.
We will see how good the iris scanner and the remaining security features turn out to be and the implementation of those features but as things stand today, facial recognition isn't a sign of anything except for a low security (but convenient) option that falls under much better security options.
No doubt they have a poor track record but this isn't the best example of it.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
Apple may not have invented all of the technology they use, but they always pay the licensing or acquire the companies they need to. Unlike what Google did to Sun by finding a loophole in the Java licensing instead of ponying up like everyone else did.
Even in the famous case that Fandroids love to bring up with the Xerox GUI, they at least gave Xerox shares in Apple which were worth millions a few years later (edit: the opportunity to acquire pre-IPO shares, which they did). Unlike Google/Alphabet who just keep dragging the Java case through the courts instead of doing the right thing.
So was Google successful for what they did or from the missteps of the existing smartphone manufacturers of the time?
Much their success came from getting a mature, well-known, easy-to-use application development environment without having to pay for R&D (as Apple/NeXT did with Objective-C) or paying for licensing (as competitors did with Java). They got the benefit of all the resources Sun had put into Java without paying anything for it, which is bad for the industry. It shows that it's not worthwhile to try and develop and license technology when others can just reimplement and ship it in commercial products, and not be punished for that.
For the people who don't understand the technical details, the takeaway here is that all the great 3rd party applications on Android came at the expense of another company (Sun Microsystems). This gave Android a huge advantage in the marketplace compared to, for example, Blackberry.
EDIT: This a a really good article and follow-up discussion that predates even the first Android handset. Never had come across this one before dating back to 2007. http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/post/dalvik_googles_tweaked_nonstan.html No place does it claim something was "stolen". Various arguments both for and against Google creating a non-compatible off-shoot, but no one in the development community saying they didn't have a right to. "Stolen Java" was a creation of Oracle's.
I'm sure I could find dozens of discussions in technical communities on this topic from that time period which show how fixated technical people are on the technology itself (and their ideals around it), without a care for the business side of things. The only links which really surprise me are ones involving Jonathan Schwartz since he was CEO of Sun at the time and should have understood well that, at the end of the day, Google simply was trying to find a way around licensing Java in order to cut costs on Android. The comments on that link I gave show some of the reaction from shareholders at the time. But I think Java was the least of Sun's concerns at that time (Linux cutting into their server business was the biggest one). They likely would have been far more concerned had they known how big Android would eventually become.
Anyway, in hindsight Google was absolutely correct not to depend on what would now be Oracle for good solid code, and proper attention to discovered security issues. I suspect you aren't a fan of Java either.
Which is exactly why Sun/Oracle allowed platform vendors to maintain their own Java implementations (they just needed to pass compatibility certification tests). Apple maintained their own version of Java on macOS for a few years before handing it off to 3rd parties.
Google did have other options, but all of them would have cost them more money (R&D) and/or time (since they were already heavily invested in Java for app development). So we find ourselves back at the real reason they chose Java.
Anyway, in hindsight Google was absolutely correct not to depend on what would now be Oracle for good solid code, and proper attention to discovered security issues. I suspect you aren't a fan of Java either.
Which is exactly why Sun/Oracle allowed platform vendors to maintain their own Java implementations (they just needed to pass compatibility certification tests). Apple maintained their own version of Java on macOS for a few years before handing it off to 3rd parties.
Google did have other options, but all of them would have cost them more money (R&D) and/or time (since they were already heavily invested in Java for app development). So we find ourselves back at the real reason they chose Java.
...which was pretty much a non-issue until Oracle became the new owner. Hindsight is of course always crystal-clear eh?
I assume my Samsung TV uses Tizen, and from a UI standpoint it's the best TV OS I've used. If it's insecure because of Tizen I guess I'll have to deal with the US gov't see what I watch on Netflix and Amazon Prime
Or with hackers gaining access to your TV and from their to the rest of your network, where they can encrypt everything and ask for ransom to decrypt again...?
Anyway, in hindsight Google was absolutely correct not to depend on what would now be Oracle for good solid code, and proper attention to discovered security issues. I suspect you aren't a fan of Java either.
Which is exactly why Sun/Oracle allowed platform vendors to maintain their own Java implementations (they just needed to pass compatibility certification tests). Apple maintained their own version of Java on macOS for a few years before handing it off to 3rd parties.
Google did have other options, but all of them would have cost them more money (R&D) and/or time (since they were already heavily invested in Java for app development). So we find ourselves back at the real reason they chose Java.
...which was pretty much a non-issue until Oracle became the new owner. Hindsight is of course always crystal-clear eh?
For whatever reasons, Sun chose not to pursue legal action over it. It might be because they already weren't doing well financially and couldn't handle taking on Google in a long court battle (thus it makes sense why it didn't happen until Oracle bought them), or it might be because Schwartz didn't care and the legal team didn't understand (mismanagement).
Regardless of the reasons, I don't have to like what Google did and will gladly explain it to other tech people who deride me for using Apple devices for superficial reasons (street cred/sheep nonsense). Most of them actually think it was a "dick move" once they understand what happened. And yes, I do work on Android as well because I have to.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
Apple may not have invented all of the technology they use, but they always pay the licensing or acquire the companies they need to. Unlike what Google did to Sun by finding a loophole in the Java licensing instead of ponying up like everyone else did.
Even in the famous case that Fandroids love to bring up with the Xerox GUI, they at least gave Xerox shares in Apple which were worth millions a few years later (edit: the opportunity to acquire pre-IPO shares, which they did). Unlike Google/Alphabet who just keep dragging the Java case through the courts instead of doing the right thing.
So was Google successful for what they did or from the missteps of the existing smartphone manufacturers of the time?
Much their success came from getting a mature, well-known, easy-to-use application development environment without having to pay for R&D (as Apple/NeXT did with Objective-C) or paying for licensing (as competitors did with Java). They got the benefit of all the resources Sun had put into Java without paying anything for it, which is bad for the industry. It shows that it's not worthwhile to try and develop and license technology when others can just reimplement and ship it in commercial products, and not be punished for that.
For the people who don't understand the technical details, the takeaway here is that all the great 3rd party applications on Android came at the expense of another company (Sun Microsystems). This gave Android a huge advantage in the marketplace compared to, for example, Blackberry.
That only benefits developers. Users can give a flying fuck if it's easier to develop for one OS versus another. At that time most smartphone users were on Blackberry, Windows, or Palm, and had either one of those come out with a decent touchscreen smartphone the users would have stayed with them.
This isn't about user interfaces, it's about using another company's technology (Java) without a care about infringing on the licensing terms for that technology. I know users don't care about this, they don't know what's behind the technology they use and simply want the cheapest devices possible. However, as someone who makes a living from technology and people paying for it, I care. I'm sure those same users would care a lot if they lost their job or lost a bunch of money on investments because of similar actions.
Even if true it is not the reason why Google was successful while the others were not. Blackberry, Palm, and MS already had a mobile OS, and developers making apps for them. Altering an existing OS, and making a worthy device wouldn't have been that hard. They had the money at the time to throw at R&D. They fumbled their opportunity to remain major players.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
Apple may not have invented all of the technology they use, but they always pay the licensing or acquire the companies they need to. Unlike what Google did to Sun by finding a loophole in the Java licensing instead of ponying up like everyone else did.
Even in the famous case that Fandroids love to bring up with the Xerox GUI, they at least gave Xerox shares in Apple which were worth millions a few years later (edit: the opportunity to acquire pre-IPO shares, which they did). Unlike Google/Alphabet who just keep dragging the Java case through the courts instead of doing the right thing.
So was Google successful for what they did or from the missteps of the existing smartphone manufacturers of the time?
Much their success came from getting a mature, well-known, easy-to-use application development environment without having to pay for R&D (as Apple/NeXT did with Objective-C) or paying for licensing (as competitors did with Java). They got the benefit of all the resources Sun had put into Java without paying anything for it, which is bad for the industry. It shows that it's not worthwhile to try and develop and license technology when others can just reimplement and ship it in commercial products, and not be punished for that.
For the people who don't understand the technical details, the takeaway here is that all the great 3rd party applications on Android came at the expense of another company (Sun Microsystems). This gave Android a huge advantage in the marketplace compared to, for example, Blackberry.
That only benefits developers. Users can give a flying fuck if it's easier to develop for one OS versus another. At that time most smartphone users were on Blackberry, Windows, or Palm, and had either one of those come out with a decent touchscreen smartphone the users would have stayed with them.
This isn't about user interfaces, it's about using another company's technology (Java) without a care about infringing on the licensing terms for that technology. I know users don't care about this, they don't know what's behind the technology they use and simply want the cheapest devices possible. However, as someone who makes a living from technology and people paying for it, I care. I'm sure those same users would care a lot if they lost their job or lost a bunch of money on investments because of similar actions.
Even if true it is not the reason why Google was successful while the others were not. Blackberry, Palm, and MS already had a mobile OS, and developers making apps for them. Altering an existing OS, and making a worthy device wouldn't have been that hard. They had the money at the time to throw at R&D. They fumbled their opportunity to remain major players.
It's clear that you're myopic about success here, and that's honestly beside the point for me. Regardless of whether Android had been successful or not, I'd still think that what Google did with Java was wrong and set a bad precedent in the tech industry.
I assume my Samsung TV uses Tizen, and from a UI standpoint it's the best TV OS I've used. If it's insecure because of Tizen I guess I'll have to deal with the US gov't see what I watch on Netflix and Amazon Prime
Or with hackers gaining access to your TV and from their to the rest of your network, where they can encrypt everything and ask for ransom to decrypt again...?
Or harvesting your logins/credit card information and selling it. Then the profits from that used to fund terrorism.
I assume my Samsung TV uses Tizen, and from a UI standpoint it's the best TV OS I've used. If it's insecure because of Tizen I guess I'll have to deal with the US gov't see what I watch on Netflix and Amazon Prime
Or with hackers gaining access to your TV and from their to the rest of your network, where they can encrypt everything and ask for ransom to decrypt again...?
Or harvesting your logins/credit card information and selling it. Then the profits from that used to fund terrorism.
With my 2016 Samsung UHDTV, which I assume uses Tizen, I don't think I've had to input a single user account. Most have been where you get a code on screen and then input that into a website, also listed on the page. Spotify was even easier as all I had to do was access the app on my iPhone and then push the audio to the TV since they're on the same local network for Spotify to authenticate my account for the TV, which I found to be very impressive.
I assume my Samsung TV uses Tizen, and from a UI standpoint it's the best TV OS I've used. If it's insecure because of Tizen I guess I'll have to deal with the US gov't see what I watch on Netflix and Amazon Prime
Or with hackers gaining access to your TV and from their to the rest of your network, where they can encrypt everything and ask for ransom to decrypt again...?
Or harvesting your logins/credit card information and selling it. Then the profits from that used to fund terrorism.
With my 2016 Samsung UHDTV, which I assume uses Tizen, I don't think I've had to input a single user account. Most have been where you get a code on screen and then input that into a website, also listed on the page. Spotify was even easier as all I had to do was access the app on my iPhone and then push the audio to the TV since they're on the same local network for Spotify to authenticate my account for the TV, which I found to be very impressive.
And once your home network is compromised, you can't really trust anything to be legitimate anymore. For example, once your TV is compromised, they could find out what device is the router on your network, and try to compromise that. Once that's compromised, name lookups could be rerouted (e.g. netflix.com -> hacker.ru) and then websites spoofed so that you believe you're logging in to Netflix but you're actually just giving your login credentials to the hackers.
I assume my Samsung TV uses Tizen, and from a UI standpoint it's the best TV OS I've used. If it's insecure because of Tizen I guess I'll have to deal with the US gov't see what I watch on Netflix and Amazon Prime
Or with hackers gaining access to your TV and from their to the rest of your network, where they can encrypt everything and ask for ransom to decrypt again...?
Or harvesting your logins/credit card information and selling it. Then the profits from that used to fund terrorism.
With my 2016 Samsung UHDTV, which I assume uses Tizen, I don't think I've had to input a single user account. Most have been where you get a code on screen and then input that into a website, also listed on the page. Spotify was even easier as all I had to do was access the app on my iPhone and then push the audio to the TV since they're on the same local network for Spotify to authenticate my account for the TV, which I found to be very impressive.
And once your home network is compromised, you can't really trust anything to be legitimate anymore. For example, once your TV is compromised, they could find out what device is the router on your network, and try to compromise that. Once that's compromised, name lookups could be rerouted (e.g. netflix.com -> hacker.ru) and then websites spoofed so that you believe you're logging in to Netflix but you're actually just giving your login credentials to the hackers.
1) Um, my TV already knows which device is the router. Every device, right down to my air purifier and digital scale know which device is my router/default gateway. It's how network protocols work.
2) If hackers want my Netflix account they can have it, but I'd prefer that they create their own profile so that Netflix's algorithms don't start recommending stuff I'm not interested in.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
Apple may not have invented all of the technology they use, but they always pay the licensing or acquire the companies they need to. Unlike what Google did to Sun by finding a loophole in the Java licensing instead of ponying up like everyone else did.
Even in the famous case that Fandroids love to bring up with the Xerox GUI, they at least gave Xerox shares in Apple which were worth millions a few years later (edit: the opportunity to acquire pre-IPO shares, which they did). Unlike Google/Alphabet who just keep dragging the Java case through the courts instead of doing the right thing.
So was Google successful for what they did or from the missteps of the existing smartphone manufacturers of the time?
Much their success came from getting a mature, well-known, easy-to-use application development environment without having to pay for R&D (as Apple/NeXT did with Objective-C) or paying for licensing (as competitors did with Java). They got the benefit of all the resources Sun had put into Java without paying anything for it, which is bad for the industry. It shows that it's not worthwhile to try and develop and license technology when others can just reimplement and ship it in commercial products, and not be punished for that.
For the people who don't understand the technical details, the takeaway here is that all the great 3rd party applications on Android came at the expense of another company (Sun Microsystems). This gave Android a huge advantage in the marketplace compared to, for example, Blackberry.
That only benefits developers. Users can give a flying fuck if it's easier to develop for one OS versus another. At that time most smartphone users were on Blackberry, Windows, or Palm, and had either one of those come out with a decent touchscreen smartphone the users would have stayed with them.
This isn't about user interfaces, it's about using another company's technology (Java) without a care about infringing on the licensing terms for that technology. I know users don't care about this, they don't know what's behind the technology they use and simply want the cheapest devices possible. However, as someone who makes a living from technology and people paying for it, I care. I'm sure those same users would care a lot if they lost their job or lost a bunch of money on investments because of similar actions.
Even if true it is not the reason why Google was successful while the others were not. Blackberry, Palm, and MS already had a mobile OS, and developers making apps for them. Altering an existing OS, and making a worthy device wouldn't have been that hard. They had the money at the time to throw at R&D. They fumbled their opportunity to remain major players.
It's clear that you're myopic about success here, and that's honestly beside the point for me. Regardless of whether Android had been successful or not, I'd still think that what Google did with Java was wrong and set a bad precedent in the tech industry.
How can you now say it's besides the point if you used it as your point? Yes it helped them make a mobile OS, and at this point the right or wrong of it is purely subjective because the courts made their decision.
Now had Blackberry made a compelling device with a decent OS they probably could have retained the number one spot and let the others fight for number 2. Now would the market support more than 2 OSs? It's very possible that Android could've been a failed experiment by Google had they failed to capture the number 2 spot.
I assume my Samsung TV uses Tizen, and from a UI standpoint it's the best TV OS I've used. If it's insecure because of Tizen I guess I'll have to deal with the US gov't see what I watch on Netflix and Amazon Prime
Or with hackers gaining access to your TV and from their to the rest of your network, where they can encrypt everything and ask for ransom to decrypt again...?
Or harvesting your logins/credit card information and selling it. Then the profits from that used to fund terrorism.
With my 2016 Samsung UHDTV, which I assume uses Tizen, I don't think I've had to input a single user account. Most have been where you get a code on screen and then input that into a website, also listed on the page. Spotify was even easier as all I had to do was access the app on my iPhone and then push the audio to the TV since they're on the same local network for Spotify to authenticate my account for the TV, which I found to be very impressive.
And once your home network is compromised, you can't really trust anything to be legitimate anymore. For example, once your TV is compromised, they could find out what device is the router on your network, and try to compromise that. Once that's compromised, name lookups could be rerouted (e.g. netflix.com -> hacker.ru) and then websites spoofed so that you believe you're logging in to Netflix but you're actually just giving your login credentials to the hackers.
1) Um, my TV already knows which device is the router. Every device, right down to my air purifier and digital scale know which device is my router./default gateway. It's how network protocols are designed.
Thanks for the lesson professor.
2) If hackers want my Netflix account they can have it, but I'd prefer that they create their own profile so that Netflix' algorithms don't start recommending stuff I'm not interested in.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
Apple may not have invented all of the technology they use, but they always pay the licensing or acquire the companies they need to. Unlike what Google did to Sun by finding a loophole in the Java licensing instead of ponying up like everyone else did.
Even in the famous case that Fandroids love to bring up with the Xerox GUI, they at least gave Xerox shares in Apple which were worth millions a few years later (edit: the opportunity to acquire pre-IPO shares, which they did). Unlike Google/Alphabet who just keep dragging the Java case through the courts instead of doing the right thing.
So was Google successful for what they did or from the missteps of the existing smartphone manufacturers of the time?
Much their success came from getting a mature, well-known, easy-to-use application development environment without having to pay for R&D (as Apple/NeXT did with Objective-C) or paying for licensing (as competitors did with Java). They got the benefit of all the resources Sun had put into Java without paying anything for it, which is bad for the industry. It shows that it's not worthwhile to try and develop and license technology when others can just reimplement and ship it in commercial products, and not be punished for that.
For the people who don't understand the technical details, the takeaway here is that all the great 3rd party applications on Android came at the expense of another company (Sun Microsystems). This gave Android a huge advantage in the marketplace compared to, for example, Blackberry.
That only benefits developers. Users can give a flying fuck if it's easier to develop for one OS versus another. At that time most smartphone users were on Blackberry, Windows, or Palm, and had either one of those come out with a decent touchscreen smartphone the users would have stayed with them.
This isn't about user interfaces, it's about using another company's technology (Java) without a care about infringing on the licensing terms for that technology. I know users don't care about this, they don't know what's behind the technology they use and simply want the cheapest devices possible. However, as someone who makes a living from technology and people paying for it, I care. I'm sure those same users would care a lot if they lost their job or lost a bunch of money on investments because of similar actions.
Even if true it is not the reason why Google was successful while the others were not. Blackberry, Palm, and MS already had a mobile OS, and developers making apps for them. Altering an existing OS, and making a worthy device wouldn't have been that hard. They had the money at the time to throw at R&D. They fumbled their opportunity to remain major players.
It's clear that you're myopic about success here, and that's honestly beside the point for me. Regardless of whether Android had been successful or not, I'd still think that what Google did with Java was wrong and set a bad precedent in the tech industry.
How can you now say it's besides the point if you used it as your point? Yes it helped them make a mobile OS, and at this point the right or wrong of it is purely subjective because the courts made their decision.
I got sucked into the success discussion because you were so obsessed with it. I was trying to appeal to that because you don't seem like someone who would care about actions which are bad for the tech industry in general.
For me, the latter (precedent) is far more important because it means that if I spend time/money designing a technology I hope to make money off of, I can't really rely on the court system to help me out if/when another company decides to "clone and own it". Which means I need to consider whether there's another business case for me, or I should just not bother in the first place. And yes, I do have firsthand experience with this.
auxio said: It's based on Linux, which had been in development since the early 1990s.
I never understood how Linus got away with Linux. At the time I was on Sun OS 4.3. When Linux came out it was virtually identical to Sun OS right down to the exact same file layout including the same name of every .conf file. Solaris which was basically just a GUI skin on top of Sun OS but could run on x86 architecture, not just UltraSparc as before. The only appreciable difference between Solaris and Linux was that Solaris wasn't free.
Comments
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20080117084719/http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/congratulations_google
The big issue I have is with the cavalier attitude they took when they knew what was at stake. From Andy Rubin's email on Java:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/11/googles-five-failed-attempts-to-give.html
It's that attitude, especially at a well-established tech company, which is detrimental to the industry.
http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/post/dalvik_googles_tweaked_nonstan.html
Anyway, in hindsight Google was absolutely correct not to depend on what would now be Oracle for good solid code, and proper attention to discovered security issues. I suspect you aren't a fan of Java either.
"Samsung's poor track record for developing security software was previously on display at the introduction of its Android-powered Galaxy S8, which promoted a strangely ineffectual facial recognition unlocking feature that could be defeated with a simple photo of the user."
Although Samsung is perhaps wrong to list it as a security feature in their marketing, they make it very clear that security comes on different levels. They describe the Iris Scanner as 'airtight' for example, and when you activate facial recognition you are given a warning. It will not let you make payments using facial recognition.
Security often comes at the price of inconvenience. Having levels of security is logical, convenient and user friendly.
At the end of the day it is up to the user to decide which level is best and that includes 'no security'.
Passwords are great but of little use if they are ultra weak. Most ultra weak passwords are weak for convenience. And worse if they are reused across different devices/sites. Should devices reject weak or reused passwords or would that be too user unfriendly? Should two factor security be imposed?
At least facial recognition gives you an alert when you turn the feature on.
As a convenience option I'm sure many people will opt for it just like many users (Apple users included) opt for weak passwords.That shouldn't surprise anyone as most users with weak passcodes, know full well they are weak. Even systems that try to coerce you into creating 'strong' passwords sometimes fall foul to people writing strong but weak passcodes as they are based on information that may already be known about them. Either way if you don't voluntarily create a strong password you will probably get annoyed with being pushed into creating one. These are the people least likely to use password managers.
Picking on the feature as an example of Samsung's 'poor track record' doesn't make the best sense especially when Samsung is offering alternative options that seem to be equal to, or superior to competitors, and isn't even pushing the feature as one of those alternatives and warns you when you turn it on.
We will see how good the iris scanner and the remaining security features turn out to be and the implementation of those features but as things stand today, facial recognition isn't a sign of anything except for a low security (but convenient) option that falls under much better security options.
No doubt they have a poor track record but this isn't the best example of it.
Google did have other options, but all of them would have cost them more money (R&D) and/or time (since they were already heavily invested in Java for app development). So we find ourselves back at the real reason they chose Java.
Or with hackers gaining access to your TV and from their to the rest of your network, where they can encrypt everything and ask for ransom to decrypt again...?
Regardless of the reasons, I don't have to like what Google did and will gladly explain it to other tech people who deride me for using Apple devices for superficial reasons (street cred/sheep nonsense). Most of them actually think it was a "dick move" once they understand what happened. And yes, I do work on Android as well because I have to.
2) If hackers want my Netflix account they can have it, but I'd prefer that they create their own profile so that Netflix's algorithms don't start recommending stuff I'm not interested in.
Now had Blackberry made a compelling device with a decent OS they probably could have retained the number one spot and let the others fight for number 2. Now would the market support more than 2 OSs? It's very possible that Android could've been a failed experiment by Google had they failed to capture the number 2 spot.
Clearly a lost cause.
For me, the latter (precedent) is far more important because it means that if I spend time/money designing a technology I hope to make money off of, I can't really rely on the court system to help me out if/when another company decides to "clone and own it". Which means I need to consider whether there's another business case for me, or I should just not bother in the first place. And yes, I do have firsthand experience with this.