Yes, because, in the overall scheme of things, your company is just a minor data point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Well, when you don't offer any intelligent commentary, there's not much to respond to.
It's pretty clear to me that you are at this point, simply arguing for argument's sake. You're annoyed that I'm proclaiming Flash is dead, so you're making snarky comments in response to other topics. Whether or not you are a fool, I leave to others to decide.
I find when people can't respond in a meaningful way, they can't answer questions posed, and resort to calling people ignorant fools, that says it all.
I'm not annoyed at all you called flash dead, I've stated why I think it isn't... yet. You responded by calling me an ignorant fool.
Once again, a brilliant argument on the flash question!
I thought you use Bing for Search. You don't have to use GMail, Google Maps, Picasa, Google Voice, Google Navigation. So they only access the data that any crawler can access.
I gather then you're ignorant of Google's tracking all our web browsing with Google Analytics, on any website where it's installed.
I find when people can't respond in a meaningful way, they can't answer questions posed, and resort to calling people ignorant fools, that says it all.
I'm not annoyed at all you called flash dead, I've stated why I think it isn't... yet. You responded by calling me an ignorant fool.
Once again, a brilliant argument on the flash question!
No, I said you were either an ignorant fool or just arguing for argument's sake, then, later, that you were clearly doing the latter, and that I left it to others to decide on your mental state. This post just reinforces the opinion that you don't really have anything to say but just want to argue.
However, I would say that if anyone is not responding in a meaningful way here, it is certainly you. I've responded to every meaningful point that you've made. That you aren't happy with the responses doesn't make them less meaningful, or you less wrong in your estimate of Flash's lifespan.
No, I said you were either an ignorant fool or just arguing for argument's sake, then, later, that you were clearly doing the latter, and that I left it to others to decide on your mental state. This post just reinforces the opinion that you don't really have anything to say but just want to argue.
However, I would say that if anyone is not responding in a meaningful way here, it is certainly you. I've responded to every meaningful point that you've made. That you aren't happy with the responses doesn't make them less meaningful, or you less wrong in your estimate of Flash's lifespan.
You can frame it all you like, but announcing someone is either an ignorant fool or they're argument is worthless or has no value is the tactic of someone who has nothing left.
You stated flash is dead. Beyond some companies deciding to use html5 for video delivery, I don't really see a whole lot different, -as of yet-. The same companies, who never used flash to deliver video at a time flash didn't do video, yet still thrived! Imagine that!
No response.
You stated html5 can do stuff flash can't. I asked what.
no response.
Never mind the fact that those technologies, are still a ways off from replacing some of flash's capabilities, given half the browser market has yet to even support it... And no one seems to be able to address the issue of... er, production.
So no. Stating flash isn't dead, certainly not yet, is a sane position to have. So you can trot out all the 'you're a fool, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, BS, BS, BS', it just shows you cannot address the points and have to resort to BS forum tactics.
While on the face of it that would seem to make sense, it fails to take into account monetization of the platform - or the amount of profit generated. So for example the only reason why the carriers and hardware makers are in bed with Goggle is to sell contracts and handsets respectively. And Android makes it attractive to do so (except for HTC who decided to pay blood money to Microsoft to cover licensing issues for Android - expect similar deals for the other handset makers as well).
As Janis so soulfully sang, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..." Perhaps devs need to go back and watch Pinnochio again, to be reminded that nothing is ever really free.
Microsoft is in datacenters world-wide, and on the majority of the world's desktops - and yet, Apple is the one that everyone looks to to innovate. Neither Microsoft nor Open Source was able to produce a viable, popular tablet. Or smartphone (unless of course someone like Google backed it with capital as they did with Android). Or media player. Apple did and does. And does so very profitably - which in turn allows them to move on to the next innovation.
When your local successful community leader comes to you to offer to buy your land for a nice price, you need to ask WHY? What does that successful person stand to GAIN from doing so. Apple's motives were never in question - they want to build a successful, consumer-oriented platform and ecosystem (a shopping mall if you will - complete with restaurants, play areas for the kids and entertainment areas). Along the way they made provision for the inclusion of the dev community in the role of building apps that potentially would make those devs also successful - but their motive was never in question - to make money. Google comes along, offers to buy Android, and drive it's implementation in the mobile space, under the rubric of "open, free and awesome". Demurring all the while, "no, no we don't need to be paid licensing fees - we just want to build a nice park here where everyone can come and play. Ignore the fact that we own all the adjoining property, where all those cameras are - pointing at the park."
And we're going to put annoying billboards all over the park...
Android's worldwide marketshare today is exactly what iPhone's worldwide marketshare was one year ago. And the trend has not abated, it's still growing far faster than iPhone. And it should be really easy to see why. There's tons of phones, there's tons of carriers.
Yes, the thing to remember is that this benefits no one but Google. Consumers will benefit in the same way that they get services through their computers in exchange for private data, now they get services on the mobile phone in exchange for private data AND location data. If they make that informed choice, that's great, but my bet is most people have no clue that this is the trade off.
The OEMs on the other hand, are super commoditized Google puppies, just like HP, Dell, Acer and the myriad other Windows PC makers. Operating on wafer thin margins, slaving away.
Google is the only one that wins in all this, make no mistake. At least with Apple, you know what you get and the only tradeoff is cost.
(As an example of something to think about along similar lines, try and jot down the pros/cons of MobileMe (or any other paid email service) vs Gmail.
Gmail is a great interface, but your private data is thoroughly indexed (yeah it is anonymized, but I'm less OK with this now than before). MobileME/Alternative service is paid, now has a great interface (wasn't the greatest before) but your data is your data because you paid for the service.
If you think that Gmail is still the better option, you have implicitly made the choice to sell your private data to Google for $60 or $90 or whatever is the price of the email service. Think about that. I'm seriously thinking of switching to paid email).
it's understandable on an apple-centric forum for this kind of attack to occur, but seriously dude, if you think for one second a massive company like apple wouldn't leverage customer info to their benefit, you deluding yourself.
It's good to see healthy competition, and should one use and abuse customer trust too far, customers can vote with their dollars. Pure and simple.
To their benefit? Their benefit is the money you paid them. That's it. Did you read about the iAd rules that the advertisers are complaining about? Do you know what the ad guys don't like? That there isn't segmentation of users (i.e. no real data on user information like age, sex, location more granular than a city, etc. etc.). They ad guys are complaining that the iAd service will fail because, wait for it...Apple DOESN'T want your data distributed. WHY? Because it makes money not through raping your privacy, but by selling you the product that others try to give away for free.
Also a word of advice, the comment that you replied to was actually filled with well put together thoughts that you should reply to, well, thoughtfully by making good points in your favor.
To their benefit? Their benefit is the money you paid them. That's it. Did you read about the iAd rules that the advertisers are complaining about? Do you know what the ad guys don't like? That there isn't segmentation of users (i.e. no real data on user information like age, sex, location more granular than a city, etc. etc.). They ad guys are complaining that the iAd service will fail because, wait for it...Apple DOESN'T want your data distributed. WHY? Because it makes money not through raping your privacy, but by selling you the product that others try to give away for free.
Also a word of advice, the comment that you replied to was actually filled with well put together thoughts that you should reply to, well, thoughtfully by making good points in your favor.
first of all you're referring to 3rd party companies. I spoke of apple.
secondly if you think calling people ignorant fools arguing for the sake of arguing is filled with well put together thoughts, I suppose you'll fit in with the attack and call'em anti apple if they dare post something 'bad' crowd.
It's not an accurate list, because the same carriers are counted in every country they operate in (eg, Vodaphone) while in Canada, the same carriers with different brands (eg, Fido and Rogers) are counted separately also.
The list of true carriers is much smaller than that.
DIdn't Google just bless Flash as part of the official Open Web?
I'll agree with you, though, Chrome has open technology in it: The render engine of their Chrome Browser is WebKit.
Y'know. From Apple?
Apple didn't make WebKit, they took KHTML and renamed it and expanded on it. Google also adopted WebKit/KHTML and expanded on it. Both Google and Apple both actively develop and contribute to WebKit. It's not an Apple product.
Apple deserves a lot of credit for their work on it, but don't say it originated with them. It didn't.
Seriously, you think your message on these forums hasn't been overwhelmingly pro Google?
I'm sorry dude, but this entire post was absolutely ridiculous. You've got fanboy blinders on, there's nothing left to be said.
You think I'm pimping Google because I'm observing that Android is hot and has momentum right now. You're obviously just insecure with your allegiance to Apple.
As I've said, I've no allegiances. Google doesn't pay me, Apple doesn't pay me. I don't pay Google anything (all my Android phones I've gotten for free through my job, I don't even see AdWords since I use CustomizeGoogle + Adblock), but I buy lots of Apple products (iPhones, MacBooks Pros, etc).
I simply don't care who "wins". I like competition. My job, though, lies with mobile app development. It requires me to be on top of it and support the whole market. As a result, I've got extensive experience in both using and developing for all of the major mobile platforms.
Your insecurity is a bit ridiculous. Apple is just a company like Google, trying to make big bucks. Stop attacking people who don't pimp your "chosen company" blindly. It's pathetic.
Lets look at Apples contribution. In the beginning. It appeared to be Wozniak and Jobs intention to provide a computing device that was productive and fun to use for the general public and that is what they did. For profit of course. Then others copied. That is what Apple and Steve Jobs does today. They provide hardware and software devices that are easy, productive, fun and satisfying to use. The iPod, a new and better way to consume music and video. The iMacs and MacBooks. more stylish and easier to use desktops and laptops. The iPhone, miles above what anyone else was offering at the time. And now the iPad, success in a market no one else could find success in. Again, this is because they provide the end consumer with devices which are easier, more productive, more fun, and more satisfying to use. Apple sees that it can provide a better alternative in a market and they innovate. Again, they do this for profit and they do not deny that. Now, lets look at Googles contribution. I'm not sure what Sergey Brin and Larry Page intentions were in the beginning. I am hoping it was to provide a better way to find stuff on the internet. I haven't read much on there history and maybe someone can enlighten me on that. Today , however, they make their profits by throwing advertisements and marketing in our face at every turn. And, apparently monitoring our activities. Can you tell me which contribution for profit is better? At least as far as the end user is concerned.
I'm sorry dude, but this entire post was absolutely ridiculous. You've got fanboy blinders on, there's nothing left to be said.
You think I'm pimping Google because I'm observing that Android is hot and has momentum right now. You're obviously just insecure with your allegiance to Apple.
As I've said, I've no allegiances. Google doesn't pay me, Apple doesn't pay me. I don't pay Google anything (all my Android phones I've gotten for free through my job, I don't even see AdWords since I use CustomizeGoogle + Adblock), but I buy lots of Apple products (iPhones, MacBooks Pros, etc).
I simply don't care who "wins". I like competition. My job, though, lies with mobile app development. It requires me to be on top of it and support the whole market. As a result, I've got extensive experience in both using and developing for all of the major mobile platforms.
Your insecurity is a bit ridiculous. Apple is just a company like Google, trying to make big bucks. Stop attacking people who don't pimp your "chosen company" blindly. It's pathetic.
Apple+Idealism=Profits, the Business Model I believe in!
Google-Idealism=Profits, the Business Model you're comfortable working with.
You believe it's a rat race out there; the purse to the sleazy...
I'd put my money on the Unicorn in a horse race; the purse to the dreamy...
Maybe I'm the only one lost here but It almost seems that no one actually read 1984. Big Brother was not only controlling everything of what you are but was watching you constantly. This potentially includes Apple and Google but moreso Google. If you haven't been watching what Google has been doing while using their services, then you're a fool.
At least with Apple I know my privacy is safe because Apple, in the last 13 years has been modeled off of Jobs himself, who has the highest respect for privacy from personal experience. You may have to live under Apple's rules but if you carefully parse through the nonsense, you can see that Android doesn't really offer any necessary apps that you can't already get on the iPhone and with a better UI.
I hope these Google fans really understand that nothing in this world is free. Sometimes what is free costs more than what you could've paid.
Despite the irony, I think Google is referring to Apple's massive control over the App Store. Considering this is during the Android segment of the keynote. Remember they still use Apple's products in their demos. On another note, I am impressed with the Android 2.2.
It's not 'the' app store, it's apples app store. They own it and control it, they invest in it, they created it. This sort of gives them the right to control it. If people didn't like it, they don't have to use it and it will fail. Seems the average user likes it and the average developer has access to a distribution portal the scale of which no other company in the world can provide.
The choice is simple - use it or don't. We are free minded consumers and developers, if you don't like the apple model, go elsewhere. no one forces you to stay.
Nope, and there is a simple reason why, iPhone 4.0.
Its not known exactly when Froyo will be rolled out to many of the version of Android phones. We know all iPhone's will receive iPhone 4.0 the exact same time.
Apple is still holding some secrets about iPhone 4.0. We got a preview of some new developer API's, but Apple did not present much of anything about UI or UX changes and upgrades to the OS. Apple most certainly has many other new features waiting to reveal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
Shouldn't the real story be that Froyo marks the first time Android has surpassed iPhone OS?
Up until now, Android has been playing catchup, but with Froyo's wireless synching, mobile hotspot, flash 10.1 and music streaming without needing to sync, it's actually leapfrogged iPhone.
Rather than focus on some stupid comment about who's the most evil corporation, why not focus on the actual product release?
Comments
Yes, because, in the overall scheme of things, your company is just a minor data point.
Well, when you don't offer any intelligent commentary, there's not much to respond to.
It's pretty clear to me that you are at this point, simply arguing for argument's sake. You're annoyed that I'm proclaiming Flash is dead, so you're making snarky comments in response to other topics. Whether or not you are a fool, I leave to others to decide.
I find when people can't respond in a meaningful way, they can't answer questions posed, and resort to calling people ignorant fools, that says it all.
I'm not annoyed at all you called flash dead, I've stated why I think it isn't... yet. You responded by calling me an ignorant fool.
Once again, a brilliant argument on the flash question!
and god bless apple for webkit.
Perhaps microsoft would do well to finally put a fork in IE's ass and take on webkit themselves.
IE9 actually looks pretty sweet so far. Microsoft is on the right track with offloading work to the GPU.
Check out the tech demo if you're able and decide for yourself. The whole experience is very un-Microsoft-y.
I thought you use Bing for Search. You don't have to use GMail, Google Maps, Picasa, Google Voice, Google Navigation. So they only access the data that any crawler can access.
I gather then you're ignorant of Google's tracking all our web browsing with Google Analytics, on any website where it's installed.
I find when people can't respond in a meaningful way, they can't answer questions posed, and resort to calling people ignorant fools, that says it all.
I'm not annoyed at all you called flash dead, I've stated why I think it isn't... yet. You responded by calling me an ignorant fool.
Once again, a brilliant argument on the flash question!
No, I said you were either an ignorant fool or just arguing for argument's sake, then, later, that you were clearly doing the latter, and that I left it to others to decide on your mental state. This post just reinforces the opinion that you don't really have anything to say but just want to argue.
However, I would say that if anyone is not responding in a meaningful way here, it is certainly you. I've responded to every meaningful point that you've made. That you aren't happy with the responses doesn't make them less meaningful, or you less wrong in your estimate of Flash's lifespan.
No, I said you were either an ignorant fool or just arguing for argument's sake, then, later, that you were clearly doing the latter, and that I left it to others to decide on your mental state. This post just reinforces the opinion that you don't really have anything to say but just want to argue.
However, I would say that if anyone is not responding in a meaningful way here, it is certainly you. I've responded to every meaningful point that you've made. That you aren't happy with the responses doesn't make them less meaningful, or you less wrong in your estimate of Flash's lifespan.
You can frame it all you like, but announcing someone is either an ignorant fool or they're argument is worthless or has no value is the tactic of someone who has nothing left.
You stated flash is dead. Beyond some companies deciding to use html5 for video delivery, I don't really see a whole lot different, -as of yet-. The same companies, who never used flash to deliver video at a time flash didn't do video, yet still thrived! Imagine that!
No response.
You stated html5 can do stuff flash can't. I asked what.
no response.
Never mind the fact that those technologies, are still a ways off from replacing some of flash's capabilities, given half the browser market has yet to even support it... And no one seems to be able to address the issue of... er, production.
So no. Stating flash isn't dead, certainly not yet, is a sane position to have. So you can trot out all the 'you're a fool, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, BS, BS, BS', it just shows you cannot address the points and have to resort to BS forum tactics.
While on the face of it that would seem to make sense, it fails to take into account monetization of the platform - or the amount of profit generated. So for example the only reason why the carriers and hardware makers are in bed with Goggle is to sell contracts and handsets respectively. And Android makes it attractive to do so (except for HTC who decided to pay blood money to Microsoft to cover licensing issues for Android - expect similar deals for the other handset makers as well).
As Janis so soulfully sang, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..." Perhaps devs need to go back and watch Pinnochio again, to be reminded that nothing is ever really free.
Microsoft is in datacenters world-wide, and on the majority of the world's desktops - and yet, Apple is the one that everyone looks to to innovate. Neither Microsoft nor Open Source was able to produce a viable, popular tablet. Or smartphone (unless of course someone like Google backed it with capital as they did with Android). Or media player. Apple did and does. And does so very profitably - which in turn allows them to move on to the next innovation.
When your local successful community leader comes to you to offer to buy your land for a nice price, you need to ask WHY? What does that successful person stand to GAIN from doing so. Apple's motives were never in question - they want to build a successful, consumer-oriented platform and ecosystem (a shopping mall if you will - complete with restaurants, play areas for the kids and entertainment areas). Along the way they made provision for the inclusion of the dev community in the role of building apps that potentially would make those devs also successful - but their motive was never in question - to make money. Google comes along, offers to buy Android, and drive it's implementation in the mobile space, under the rubric of "open, free and awesome". Demurring all the while, "no, no we don't need to be paid licensing fees - we just want to build a nice park here where everyone can come and play. Ignore the fact that we own all the adjoining property, where all those cameras are - pointing at the park."
And we're going to put annoying billboards all over the park...
Android's worldwide marketshare today is exactly what iPhone's worldwide marketshare was one year ago. And the trend has not abated, it's still growing far faster than iPhone. And it should be really easy to see why. There's tons of phones, there's tons of carriers.
Yes, the thing to remember is that this benefits no one but Google. Consumers will benefit in the same way that they get services through their computers in exchange for private data, now they get services on the mobile phone in exchange for private data AND location data. If they make that informed choice, that's great, but my bet is most people have no clue that this is the trade off.
The OEMs on the other hand, are super commoditized Google puppies, just like HP, Dell, Acer and the myriad other Windows PC makers. Operating on wafer thin margins, slaving away.
Google is the only one that wins in all this, make no mistake. At least with Apple, you know what you get and the only tradeoff is cost.
(As an example of something to think about along similar lines, try and jot down the pros/cons of MobileMe (or any other paid email service) vs Gmail.
Gmail is a great interface, but your private data is thoroughly indexed (yeah it is anonymized, but I'm less OK with this now than before). MobileME/Alternative service is paid, now has a great interface (wasn't the greatest before) but your data is your data because you paid for the service.
If you think that Gmail is still the better option, you have implicitly made the choice to sell your private data to Google for $60 or $90 or whatever is the price of the email service. Think about that. I'm seriously thinking of switching to paid email).
it's understandable on an apple-centric forum for this kind of attack to occur, but seriously dude, if you think for one second a massive company like apple wouldn't leverage customer info to their benefit, you deluding yourself.
It's good to see healthy competition, and should one use and abuse customer trust too far, customers can vote with their dollars. Pure and simple.
To their benefit? Their benefit is the money you paid them. That's it. Did you read about the iAd rules that the advertisers are complaining about? Do you know what the ad guys don't like? That there isn't segmentation of users (i.e. no real data on user information like age, sex, location more granular than a city, etc. etc.). They ad guys are complaining that the iAd service will fail because, wait for it...Apple DOESN'T want your data distributed. WHY? Because it makes money not through raping your privacy, but by selling you the product that others try to give away for free.
Also a word of advice, the comment that you replied to was actually filled with well put together thoughts that you should reply to, well, thoughtfully by making good points in your favor.
To their benefit? Their benefit is the money you paid them. That's it. Did you read about the iAd rules that the advertisers are complaining about? Do you know what the ad guys don't like? That there isn't segmentation of users (i.e. no real data on user information like age, sex, location more granular than a city, etc. etc.). They ad guys are complaining that the iAd service will fail because, wait for it...Apple DOESN'T want your data distributed. WHY? Because it makes money not through raping your privacy, but by selling you the product that others try to give away for free.
Also a word of advice, the comment that you replied to was actually filled with well put together thoughts that you should reply to, well, thoughtfully by making good points in your favor.
first of all you're referring to 3rd party companies. I spoke of apple.
secondly if you think calling people ignorant fools arguing for the sake of arguing is filled with well put together thoughts, I suppose you'll fit in with the attack and call'em anti apple if they dare post something 'bad' crowd.
Take a look:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1937
(Hint: more than that just in Europe)
It's not an accurate list, because the same carriers are counted in every country they operate in (eg, Vodaphone) while in Canada, the same carriers with different brands (eg, Fido and Rogers) are counted separately also.
The list of true carriers is much smaller than that.
DIdn't Google just bless Flash as part of the official Open Web?
I'll agree with you, though, Chrome has open technology in it: The render engine of their Chrome Browser is WebKit.
Y'know. From Apple?
Apple didn't make WebKit, they took KHTML and renamed it and expanded on it. Google also adopted WebKit/KHTML and expanded on it. Both Google and Apple both actively develop and contribute to WebKit. It's not an Apple product.
Apple deserves a lot of credit for their work on it, but don't say it originated with them. It didn't.
Seriously, you think your message on these forums hasn't been overwhelmingly pro Google?
I'm sorry dude, but this entire post was absolutely ridiculous. You've got fanboy blinders on, there's nothing left to be said.
You think I'm pimping Google because I'm observing that Android is hot and has momentum right now. You're obviously just insecure with your allegiance to Apple.
As I've said, I've no allegiances. Google doesn't pay me, Apple doesn't pay me. I don't pay Google anything (all my Android phones I've gotten for free through my job, I don't even see AdWords since I use CustomizeGoogle + Adblock), but I buy lots of Apple products (iPhones, MacBooks Pros, etc).
I simply don't care who "wins". I like competition. My job, though, lies with mobile app development. It requires me to be on top of it and support the whole market. As a result, I've got extensive experience in both using and developing for all of the major mobile platforms.
Your insecurity is a bit ridiculous. Apple is just a company like Google, trying to make big bucks. Stop attacking people who don't pimp your "chosen company" blindly. It's pathetic.
I'm sorry dude, but this entire post was absolutely ridiculous. You've got fanboy blinders on, there's nothing left to be said.
You think I'm pimping Google because I'm observing that Android is hot and has momentum right now. You're obviously just insecure with your allegiance to Apple.
As I've said, I've no allegiances. Google doesn't pay me, Apple doesn't pay me. I don't pay Google anything (all my Android phones I've gotten for free through my job, I don't even see AdWords since I use CustomizeGoogle + Adblock), but I buy lots of Apple products (iPhones, MacBooks Pros, etc).
I simply don't care who "wins". I like competition. My job, though, lies with mobile app development. It requires me to be on top of it and support the whole market. As a result, I've got extensive experience in both using and developing for all of the major mobile platforms.
Your insecurity is a bit ridiculous. Apple is just a company like Google, trying to make big bucks. Stop attacking people who don't pimp your "chosen company" blindly. It's pathetic.
Apple+Idealism=Profits, the Business Model I believe in!
Google-Idealism=Profits, the Business Model you're comfortable working with.
You believe it's a rat race out there; the purse to the sleazy...
I'd put my money on the Unicorn in a horse race; the purse to the dreamy...
If you want to use an iPhone or iPad you NEED to use iTunes... You NEED an iTunes account. That right there is restricting.
No. You don't.
At least with Apple I know my privacy is safe because Apple, in the last 13 years has been modeled off of Jobs himself, who has the highest respect for privacy from personal experience. You may have to live under Apple's rules but if you carefully parse through the nonsense, you can see that Android doesn't really offer any necessary apps that you can't already get on the iPhone and with a better UI.
I hope these Google fans really understand that nothing in this world is free. Sometimes what is free costs more than what you could've paid.
Despite the irony, I think Google is referring to Apple's massive control over the App Store. Considering this is during the Android segment of the keynote. Remember they still use Apple's products in their demos. On another note, I am impressed with the Android 2.2.
It's not 'the' app store, it's apples app store. They own it and control it, they invest in it, they created it. This sort of gives them the right to control it. If people didn't like it, they don't have to use it and it will fail. Seems the average user likes it and the average developer has access to a distribution portal the scale of which no other company in the world can provide.
The choice is simple - use it or don't. We are free minded consumers and developers, if you don't like the apple model, go elsewhere. no one forces you to stay.
How does that detract from Android's success?
I give up. How does it?
Your response has nothing to do with what I posted.
Are you comparing on US market or global?
Neither. Why do you ask?
You know US market is a small yard comparing to global.
Okay.
This is the same as saying that AT&T is second or first and T-Mobile is small.
What is?
I wrote the iPhone was released in June 2007 (on AT&T) and the 1st Android device was released in Sept 2008 (on T-Mobile (in the US)).
Its not known exactly when Froyo will be rolled out to many of the version of Android phones. We know all iPhone's will receive iPhone 4.0 the exact same time.
Apple is still holding some secrets about iPhone 4.0. We got a preview of some new developer API's, but Apple did not present much of anything about UI or UX changes and upgrades to the OS. Apple most certainly has many other new features waiting to reveal.
Shouldn't the real story be that Froyo marks the first time Android has surpassed iPhone OS?
Up until now, Android has been playing catchup, but with Froyo's wireless synching, mobile hotspot, flash 10.1 and music streaming without needing to sync, it's actually leapfrogged iPhone.
Rather than focus on some stupid comment about who's the most evil corporation, why not focus on the actual product release?