...and prefers BMW. Next we will find out "macrulez" uses windows 98 and "absolutedesignz" has no design sense.
Actually, I suspect all the "z in place of s" names are a single 400 lb Linux user troll. He also compiles kernels and downloads porn at the rate of 3 terabytes per day.
What do you say to that Zuddenly Newton? Your alter ego expozed in one fell zwoop?!
Thanks for the link. Wow ... It seems from this Google used very shady tactics. My question is why? Was it to fast track copying iOS from a standing start once Schmidt had the inside info or some other reason? Why didn't they used the same approach as others and stay legal?
I imagine that it was a big part of it. The Android they bought, along with Andy Rubin was far from a useful OS when they first got it.it takes years to do it from scratch, so they "borrowed". What I don't understand is how they thought they could get away with it.
...and prefers BMW. Next we will find out "macrulez" uses windows 98 and "absolutedesignz" has no design sense.
Actually, I suspect all the "z in place of s" names are a single 400 lb Linux user troll. He also compiles kernels and downloads porn at the rate of 3 terabytes per day.
What do you say to that Zuddenly Newton? Your alter ego expozed in one fell zwoop?!
-zhen
Aiight you made me lol.
absolutedesigns was taken at the time (2003 I think) on Yahoo and Gmail later
plus it's a name I can use on almost every site because "Absolute" is often taken
and 3 Terabytes is childs play...we do petabytes up in here son.
I imagine that it was a big part of it. The Android they bought, along with Andy Rubin was far from a useful OS when they first got it.it takes years to do it from scratch, so they "borrowed". What I don't understand is how they thought they could get away with it.
Ok "reasonable rational" person, explain what in my comment says I have made up my mind at all. The vast majority of it is about people who worship at the foot of the god of the totally open market. I only mention google because that was what started the talk. I personally know nearly nothing about the case.
That is some weapons grade projection there I think. Let me know if it works out for ya...
Granted it is an assumption but the apparent tone of your post and your word choice (with forced qualifiers) indicated that, to you, Google is guilty as sin.
Agree 100% We need hungry companies like Google. They push the envelope. But they are also taking advantage of other companies by taking shortcuts by blatantly copying their successful and innovative products. They need to pay and be punished for unfair practices, but it will do no one any good by seeing them gone.
How and when recently have google pushed the envelope.
Well, it would be more likely that Oracle would control Google. But it wouldn't happen either way. It's almost impossible to buy that much of a very valuable public company, ESP. If the founder owns a large part.
And Gates has a small part of MS these days. Something on the order of 6+%.
8% of the common stock according to whenever someone reviewed the SEC filings and updated Wikipedia last. I'd guess there are probably other stock options other than common stock involved too. Still, no one owns a bigger chunk of the company than he does. Kind of like how Jobs owns 7% of Disney and is still the largest shareholder of their stock.
...whether Google can use Oracle's intellectual property to create an incompatible clone of Java and thereby undermine Oracle's and many others' investments in 'write once, run anywhere.'
This is the key point. Seems the article and most of the commenters take this for granted, that Google is stealing Oracle's IP and "destroying" Java.
The first claim is very debatable : Java is open-souce and Google just found the loophole in the license and exploited it. They are just using a popular programming language. The Android platform, Dalvik VM, all the other components are original work, which even Apple blatantly copy sometimes (notifications in iOS 5, I am talking to you). There is nothing that violates the Java open-source license in Android. Most of Oracle's claims has already been dismissed. I wouldn't say that Oracle is in any great shape to win this legal war. Quite opposite.
The other claim is downward ridiculous : How is Android "destroying" Java ? This is very different from the Microsoft case many years ago. Microsoft was Sun's licensee and violated the terms of this license. Google is not licensing the Java or the Java TCK, because they don't have to. They never claim the applications on Android are running in Java VM. They just use Java language, and Java compiler, because the open source license allows them to do so.
Java owes a lots of it popularity to the fact that it is open source technology, that is free to use except few limited cases, where you need a license (to distribute Java VM). If anyone is undermining Java, its Oracle. You can't have the same thing open and closed at the same time.
...I believe Google has the money to just buy Oracle. Don't tempt them... Honestly, this software patent crap is so far out of hand it's ridiculous. It used to not be this way and we had lots of innovation. Software patents block innovation.
They don't have the money and if they did it would never be approved, one database company buying the other largest database company.
I imagine that it was a big part of it. The Android they bought, along with Andy Rubin was far from a useful OS when they first got it.it takes years to do it from scratch, so they "borrowed". What I don't understand is how they thought they could get away with it.
This is really the key point. Why did they think it was OK to rip off Sun's/Oracle's IP? Why did they think it was OK to illegally copy and distribute thousands and thousands of books? Why did they think it was OK to profit off illegal drug sales? Why do they think it's OK to compile a huge database of personal information on millions of people? Why do they think it's OK to manipulate their search results for profit? Why do they think it's OK to lie, cheat and steal? Why, how and when did Google become a giant criminal enterprise?
I think it's a combination of too much drinking their own kool aid and a lack of moral compass in their leadership. They thought they could get away with it all because of their own hubris, being drunk with money and power, and a perverted sense of "righteousness".
We see this sort of corruption happen to politicians all the time: so much so that it doesn't even shock any longer. We see it often enough with corporations that it really shouldn't be surprising, either. And, the fact is that it is the ugly side of human nature that we would all prefer to deny. A lack of a firm moral grounding, and too much wealth, power and influence gained too quickly is a recipe for corruption.
All this talk of Google having free reign to Java use and licensing issues can all be summed up in Google's attempt to keep hidden (suppress from evidence) the damning internal emails that talk of Google knowing they didn't have a legitimate license so "to hell with it? we're using it anyway".
Internal Google emails reveal brazen attitude regarding Java licensing and Android
"This attitude of nonchalance was evident in another Google email, this one from Android founder Andy Rubin where he suggested that Google " 'Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way.' "
Easier to ask forgiveness after the fact than permission before it.
This admitted attitude toward freely using others' IP says it all and no wonder Google tried to hide it's internal workings and thinking it can do whatever it wants.
Can we please kill the mindless "competition makes it all better" crap? It doesn't. It often has no good effect at all and sometimes makes things worse. We have crap for cell service in the US because of mindless free trade talk. Please for the love of all things good stop.
I'm sorry, but as an Engineer minoring in business this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I don't mean that you yourself are incompetent, but that that statement is so beyond incorrect that I couldn't even sugar coat my response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shen
First of all there is no evidence at all that competition makes iOS any better. None. It might, it might not. Declaring it so by fiat is a logical fallacy, and pointless.
Is that so? Do you recall that when the iPhone 4 was announced Apple pitched it as the "thinnest" phone yet? Notice the suffix "est." They wanted to make their phone more pocketable than their competition. The retina screen that is so gorgeous? That's Apple's response to competing screens such as SuperAMOLED screens. The camera button (volume down) announced for iOS 5? That was pitched as a Windows Phone selling point (I distinctly remember a comercial of someone skydiving claiming they can get to their camera faster). I don't know if Android phones have that ability, but I'm guessing a few do as well.
However, if you were only assuming that iOS itself (and not the device) has not advanced because of competition, let me disprove that as well. You'd have a hard time arguing with anyone that Notification Center wasn't stolen from Android notifications, let alone inspired by them. If it wasn't for Apple being railed with constant "I like their notification system better" complaints I doubt they would have changed it (especially since they hadn't since the original iOS).
You know how nice it is that you'll be able to cut the chord from your computer with iOS 5? You can probably thank competitors for that as well. Both Android and Windows Phone 7 are HUGE supporters of wireless updates, syncing, sharing, etc. Again, if Apple didn't think that they might be losing customers/losing customer satisfaction because the competition offers something they didn't, they wouldn't have changed it.
Even more simple: You weren't able to change your wallpaper before iOS 4 (I think it was 4. Someone correct me if I have mispoken). This was more than likely in response to the anti-Apple campaign citing a lack of customization compared to the competition.
There's a reason Apple only implemented these once Android was starting to pick up steam/they finally had competition. Before they didn't feel like it mattered; they had no good competition. Tech people probably read complaints about the following things and thought "you want to be able to change your wallpaper? Too bad. Go to another product. There's no good replacement to the iPhone? Sucks for you." (I doubt they were actually thinking that, but you get my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shen
Second, even if competition did always make products better, which it still doesn't, that doesn't excuse theft. If google is effectively stealing by using an I implementation of java, then they are in the wrong, and the rightful owners can, to quote a post, nuke it from orbit if they wish.
I find nothing wrong with this statement unless you aren't following his sarcasm. If not...well
Quote:
Originally Posted by shen
I repeat for the mindless android/Linux zealots, theft is not freedom, and no philosophy or anthropomorphism of information makes it so. Grow up
Your strong distaste for Google/Linux might explain your misguided thought process on this matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by shen
Lastly, if competition does improve anything, it can be done by fair competition. Windows phone, for all the crap it gets, is the first original product MS has made since bob, and their only good product yet. Let that compete. Theft is not competition, it is theft. I am sorry it takes someone who works in ethics to point this out, but hey, here is your daily clue bat beating....
Suddenly we're not talking about the Oracle lawsuit? Anyway, are you aware that Microsoft essentially infringes on a lot of the same the patents that Android manufactures have been sued for? I realize this will probably start a different debate, but I can't help but think that the reason many people here don't hate MP7 as much as Android is because it isn't as successful. Reading AI a year or two ago people thought Android would be good competition to make iOS better (weird huh?). It would be a small niche platform for nerds, but could also be a decent alternative to the few people that didn't want an iPhone. Now that Android has overtaken iOS in popularity, suddenly they're evil and WP7 should be the competition. Just something I've noticed
Don't you think it's weird that all of Oracle's and Google's high priced lawyers couldn't find and interpret that legalese as well as you did?
Ever wonder if that means you're missing something important?
Also - fantacy has an S.
I think the Free Software Foundation is going to get involved in this and we'll see... Sometimes high priced lawyers aren't what they're cracked up to be. Usually, they have a team of law clerks doing the real work. Those lawyers just show up for court and press appearances armed with information lesser lawyers have worked on with the team of law clerks. I've been involved in a suit that hired a big name lawyer before, and that's how it worked. He was there for the press interviews and a couple of meetings with all of us, but a lesser attorney, that wasn't even a partner, did the bulk of the work.
Software thieves block innovation .... by taking away the motivation to innovate. Why innovate when you can just steal?
Why innovate when you'll just be sued into bankruptcy by patent trolls and companies like Microsoft that patent things that preexisted? Seems like this just keeps the small developer from even entering the market.
It never used to be like this. You could write a competing application as long as you didn't use the competition's code. This is how Visicalc lost out to Lotus, which also lost out to Excel in the marketplace. That's competition. There has never been a lack of innovation and development as a result.
They don't have the money and if they did it would never be approved, one database company buying the other largest database company.
J.
You mean, one company that maintains a database of information buying out a company that develops databases? Last time I looked, that's called vertical integration. That would not be buying out competition, and thus would be approved.
All Google has to do is be a major investor, not a complete owner. There is a difference.
Can we please kill the mindless "competition makes it all better" crap? It doesn't. It often has no good effect at all and sometimes makes things worse. We have crap for cell service in the US because of mindless free trade talk. Please for the love of all things good stop.
No, we have crappy cell service because of a lack of competition. There are only 2 major carriers in the race, and 2 lesser ones. That's an oligopoly and it causes the situation we have. All the other players are basically not even worth mentioning because of their lack of ability to compete on the same playing field.
Quote:
First of all there is no evidence at all that competition makes iOS any better. None. It might, it might not. Declaring it so by fiat is a logical fallacy, and pointless.
Sorry, completely wrong and devoid of all economic theory. iOS 5 will be getting some features that Android has had for quite sometime and Apple has refused, thus far, to put in iOS. Competition breeds better products and innovation in the marketplace. It's a basic principle in economic theory. Oligopolies and monopolies stymie competition and innovation. Competition provides incentive, whereas the lack of competition doesn't. Go back and study a college course on micro-economics.
Quote:
Second, even if competition did always make products better, which it still doesn't, that doesn't excuse theft. If google is effectively stealing by using an I implementation of java, then they are in the wrong, and the rightful owners can, to quote a post, nuke it from orbit if they wish.
I repeat for the mindless android/Linux zealots, theft is not freedom, and no philosophy or anthropomorphism of information makes it so. Grow up
Lastly, if competition does improve anything, it can be done by fair competition. Windows phone, for all the crap it gets, is the first original product MS has made since bob, and their only good product yet. Let that compete. Theft is not competition, it is theft. I am sorry it takes someone who works in ethics to point this out, but hey, here is your daily clue bat beating....
You are assuming there has been a theft. But that has to be determined by a court of law, not someone in ethics. This is a complex situation that does not need to be tried here. However, those Apple zealots that claim Android needs to be blasted into orbit are just ignorant, just as you are.
No, we have crappy cell service because of a lack of competition. There are only 2 major carriers in the race, and 2 lesser ones. That's an oligopoly and it causes the situation we have. All the other players are basically not even worth mentioning because of their lack of ability to compete on the same playing field.
And yet many places with only a single service or services forced to actually compete on the same tech have better service. Looks like your theory has flaws. A similar case is found in ISPs in the US verses Europe. This is all pretty well documented. Competition forced differentiation of band and method and created the 2 separate standards that locks people into a carrier. This has all been discussed, played out, and documented. It is as close to fact as evolution.
Quote:
Sorry, completely wrong and devoid of all economic theory. iOS 5 will be getting some features that Android has had for quite sometime and Apple has refused, thus far, to put in iOS. Competition breeds better products and innovation in the marketplace. It's a basic principle in economic theory. Oligopolies and monopolies stymie competition and innovation. Competition provides incentive, whereas the lack of competition doesn't. Go back and study a college course on micro-economics.
I get my information from working with economists at a college. The initial competition is what created oligopoly friendly conditions. Maybe you need to take an Econ class. I can recommend one, I teach the ethics half of the class.
Quote:
You are assuming there has been a theft. But that has to be determined by a court of law, not someone in ethics. This is a complex situation that does not need to be tried here. However, those Apple zealots that claim Android needs to be blasted into orbit are just ignorant, just as you are.
No, I am assuming that theft is wrong, as I already pointed out I don't know the case and can't say if there is theft involved. Your inability to accept that ambiguity from me when my concern is the zombie like "competition always good, brains" thinking of many is not my problem. The post I responded to implied that even if android is largely or even wholly stolen property, it is ok because competition makes it good. That is wrong, and doesn't need to be tested in a court.
Theft remains wrong whatever it may do for the market. Further, competition is not always a magic pill that makes things better. These are basic facts, and true no matter what google has or has not taken. That is all I have claimed so far.
I'm sorry, but as an Engineer minoring in business this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I don't mean that you yourself are incompetent, but that that statement is so beyond incorrect that I couldn't even sugar coat my response.
I am sorry that you cannot understand that, see the above post.
Quote:
Is that so? Do you recall that when the iPhone 4 was announced Apple pitched it as the "thinnest" phone yet? Notice the suffix "est." They wanted to make their phone more pocketable than their competition. The retina screen that is so gorgeous? That's Apple's response to competing screens such as SuperAMOLED screens. The camera button (volume down) announced for iOS 5? That was pitched as a Windows Phone selling point (I distinctly remember a comercial of someone skydiving claiming they can get to their camera faster). I don't know if Android phones have that ability, but I'm guessing a few do as well.
ironically none of things are really about iOS being better, but the physical hardware.
The point remains, while competition can improve things it is not always so, and the post I replied to stated that it did. Always. And even justified theft.
Quote:
However, if you were only assuming that iOS itself (and not the device) has not advanced because of competition, let me disprove that as well. You'd have a hard time arguing with anyone that Notification Center wasn't stolen from Android notifications, let alone inspired by them. If it wasn't for Apple being railed with constant "I like their notification system better" complaints I doubt they would have changed it (especially since they hadn't since the original iOS).
No, I wouldn't have a hard time with that. I have a car, you might as well. I didn't steal your car even if they are similar. Implementation of a concept can be done without theft. Many operating system do similar things without outright copying of code. That is not what is being implied in the lawsuit.
See how easy that was?
Quote:
You know how nice it is that you'll be able to cut the chord from your computer with iOS 5? You can probably thank competitors for that as well. Both Android and Windows Phone 7 are HUGE supporters of wireless updates, syncing, sharing, etc. Again, if Apple didn't think that they might be losing customers/losing customer satisfaction because the competition offers something they didn't, they wouldn't have changed it.
A lovely assertion, but lacking proof. Apple might certainly wish to cut the cord, to encourage people to buy an iPad or iPhone who might lack a computer. My goodness, that was easy too. You really should think this stuff through...
[/quote]Your strong distaste for Google/Linux might explain your misguided thought process on this matter [/quote]
Your assumptions misguide you. I am a huge fan of Linux. I have 2 Linux servers here in my house and have used it since '98. What I dislike is the "I should get everything for free I file share all my music and stole photoshop" mentality in the community, which is why I stopped reading Linux boards. The mindless free market free information teabagger think is disgusting.
[/quote]Suddenly we're not talking about the Oracle lawsuit? Anyway, are you aware that Microsoft essentially infringes on a lot of the same the patents that Android manufactures have been sued for? I realize this will probably start a different debate, but I can't help but think that the reason many people here don't hate MP7 as much as Android is because it isn't as successful. Reading AI a year or two ago people thought Android would be good competition to make iOS better (weird huh?). It would be a small niche platform for nerds, but could also be a decent alternative to the few people that didn't want an iPhone. Now that Android has overtaken iOS in popularity, suddenly they're evil and WP7 should be the competition. Just something I've noticed [/QUOTE]
Again, I was NEVER talking about the lawsuit. I was refuting the "they can steal if it makes more competition post.
You suggest that I am concerned about android because it is popular. Yet multiple surveys suggest that to most consumers there is iOS and "whatever they have on the iPhone like smart phone that isn't working out that well so I will be trading up to an iPhone next". That doesn't seem like a concern, even if I where zealously looking out for iOS. I ain't. I don't make it. It isn't my home team. My day isn't ruined when they lose a customer. My ego is not dependent on apples stock performance.
I simply object to the original posters mindless open market dribble.
Although I am beginning ton object to your in ability to use your nickname.
Comments
You're wrong. According to some of the most loyal members of this forum, Google's nothing more than a bunch of rapists who should be burned alive.
No trial needed. Enough of these words! Let's get right to the lynchin', like a good 'murkin does!
Well, it's true. These issues are very complex.
Fourth, Mazda 3s drives a Hyundai?
...and prefers BMW. Next we will find out "macrulez" uses windows 98 and "absolutedesignz" has no design sense.
Actually, I suspect all the "z in place of s" names are a single 400 lb Linux user troll. He also compiles kernels and downloads porn at the rate of 3 terabytes per day.
What do you say to that Zuddenly Newton? Your alter ego expozed in one fell zwoop?!
-zhen
Thanks for the link. Wow ... It seems from this Google used very shady tactics. My question is why? Was it to fast track copying iOS from a standing start once Schmidt had the inside info or some other reason? Why didn't they used the same approach as others and stay legal?
I imagine that it was a big part of it. The Android they bought, along with Andy Rubin was far from a useful OS when they first got it.it takes years to do it from scratch, so they "borrowed". What I don't understand is how they thought they could get away with it.
...and prefers BMW. Next we will find out "macrulez" uses windows 98 and "absolutedesignz" has no design sense.
Actually, I suspect all the "z in place of s" names are a single 400 lb Linux user troll. He also compiles kernels and downloads porn at the rate of 3 terabytes per day.
What do you say to that Zuddenly Newton? Your alter ego expozed in one fell zwoop?!
-zhen
Aiight you made me lol.
absolutedesigns was taken at the time (2003 I think) on Yahoo and Gmail later
plus it's a name I can use on almost every site because "Absolute" is often taken
and 3 Terabytes is childs play...we do petabytes up in here son.
I imagine that it was a big part of it. The Android they bought, along with Andy Rubin was far from a useful OS when they first got it.it takes years to do it from scratch, so they "borrowed". What I don't understand is how they thought they could get away with it.
Get away with what?
Ok "reasonable rational" person, explain what in my comment says I have made up my mind at all. The vast majority of it is about people who worship at the foot of the god of the totally open market. I only mention google because that was what started the talk. I personally know nearly nothing about the case.
That is some weapons grade projection there I think. Let me know if it works out for ya...
Granted it is an assumption but the apparent tone of your post and your word choice (with forced qualifiers) indicated that, to you, Google is guilty as sin.
Agree 100% We need hungry companies like Google. They push the envelope. But they are also taking advantage of other companies by taking shortcuts by blatantly copying their successful and innovative products. They need to pay and be punished for unfair practices, but it will do no one any good by seeing them gone.
How and when recently have google pushed the envelope.
Well, it would be more likely that Oracle would control Google. But it wouldn't happen either way. It's almost impossible to buy that much of a very valuable public company, ESP. If the founder owns a large part.
And Gates has a small part of MS these days. Something on the order of 6+%.
8% of the common stock according to whenever someone reviewed the SEC filings and updated Wikipedia last. I'd guess there are probably other stock options other than common stock involved too. Still, no one owns a bigger chunk of the company than he does. Kind of like how Jobs owns 7% of Disney and is still the largest shareholder of their stock.
...whether Google can use Oracle's intellectual property to create an incompatible clone of Java and thereby undermine Oracle's and many others' investments in 'write once, run anywhere.'
This is the key point. Seems the article and most of the commenters take this for granted, that Google is stealing Oracle's IP and "destroying" Java.
The first claim is very debatable : Java is open-souce and Google just found the loophole in the license and exploited it. They are just using a popular programming language. The Android platform, Dalvik VM, all the other components are original work, which even Apple blatantly copy sometimes (notifications in iOS 5, I am talking to you). There is nothing that violates the Java open-source license in Android. Most of Oracle's claims has already been dismissed. I wouldn't say that Oracle is in any great shape to win this legal war. Quite opposite.
The other claim is downward ridiculous : How is Android "destroying" Java ? This is very different from the Microsoft case many years ago. Microsoft was Sun's licensee and violated the terms of this license. Google is not licensing the Java or the Java TCK, because they don't have to. They never claim the applications on Android are running in Java VM. They just use Java language, and Java compiler, because the open source license allows them to do so.
Java owes a lots of it popularity to the fact that it is open source technology, that is free to use except few limited cases, where you need a license (to distribute Java VM). If anyone is undermining Java, its Oracle. You can't have the same thing open and closed at the same time.
...I believe Google has the money to just buy Oracle. Don't tempt them... Honestly, this software patent crap is so far out of hand it's ridiculous. It used to not be this way and we had lots of innovation. Software patents block innovation.
They don't have the money and if they did it would never be approved, one database company buying the other largest database company.
J.
I imagine that it was a big part of it. The Android they bought, along with Andy Rubin was far from a useful OS when they first got it.it takes years to do it from scratch, so they "borrowed". What I don't understand is how they thought they could get away with it.
This is really the key point. Why did they think it was OK to rip off Sun's/Oracle's IP? Why did they think it was OK to illegally copy and distribute thousands and thousands of books? Why did they think it was OK to profit off illegal drug sales? Why do they think it's OK to compile a huge database of personal information on millions of people? Why do they think it's OK to manipulate their search results for profit? Why do they think it's OK to lie, cheat and steal? Why, how and when did Google become a giant criminal enterprise?
I think it's a combination of too much drinking their own kool aid and a lack of moral compass in their leadership. They thought they could get away with it all because of their own hubris, being drunk with money and power, and a perverted sense of "righteousness".
We see this sort of corruption happen to politicians all the time: so much so that it doesn't even shock any longer. We see it often enough with corporations that it really shouldn't be surprising, either. And, the fact is that it is the ugly side of human nature that we would all prefer to deny. A lack of a firm moral grounding, and too much wealth, power and influence gained too quickly is a recipe for corruption.
Internal Google emails reveal brazen attitude regarding Java licensing and Android
http://www.edibleapple.com/internal-...nsing-android/
One telling quote from an Andy Rubin email?
"This attitude of nonchalance was evident in another Google email, this one from Android founder Andy Rubin where he suggested that Google " 'Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way.' "
Past AppleInsider article?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...cles_java.html
Easier to ask forgiveness after the fact than permission before it.
This admitted attitude toward freely using others' IP says it all and no wonder Google tried to hide it's internal workings and thinking it can do whatever it wants.
Can we please kill the mindless "competition makes it all better" crap? It doesn't. It often has no good effect at all and sometimes makes things worse. We have crap for cell service in the US because of mindless free trade talk. Please for the love of all things good stop.
I'm sorry, but as an Engineer minoring in business this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I don't mean that you yourself are incompetent, but that that statement is so beyond incorrect that I couldn't even sugar coat my response.
First of all there is no evidence at all that competition makes iOS any better. None. It might, it might not. Declaring it so by fiat is a logical fallacy, and pointless.
Is that so? Do you recall that when the iPhone 4 was announced Apple pitched it as the "thinnest" phone yet? Notice the suffix "est." They wanted to make their phone more pocketable than their competition. The retina screen that is so gorgeous? That's Apple's response to competing screens such as SuperAMOLED screens. The camera button (volume down) announced for iOS 5? That was pitched as a Windows Phone selling point (I distinctly remember a comercial of someone skydiving claiming they can get to their camera faster). I don't know if Android phones have that ability, but I'm guessing a few do as well.
However, if you were only assuming that iOS itself (and not the device) has not advanced because of competition, let me disprove that as well. You'd have a hard time arguing with anyone that Notification Center wasn't stolen from Android notifications, let alone inspired by them. If it wasn't for Apple being railed with constant "I like their notification system better" complaints I doubt they would have changed it (especially since they hadn't since the original iOS).
You know how nice it is that you'll be able to cut the chord from your computer with iOS 5? You can probably thank competitors for that as well. Both Android and Windows Phone 7 are HUGE supporters of wireless updates, syncing, sharing, etc. Again, if Apple didn't think that they might be losing customers/losing customer satisfaction because the competition offers something they didn't, they wouldn't have changed it.
Even more simple: You weren't able to change your wallpaper before iOS 4 (I think it was 4. Someone correct me if I have mispoken). This was more than likely in response to the anti-Apple campaign citing a lack of customization compared to the competition.
There's a reason Apple only implemented these once Android was starting to pick up steam/they finally had competition. Before they didn't feel like it mattered; they had no good competition. Tech people probably read complaints about the following things and thought "you want to be able to change your wallpaper? Too bad. Go to another product. There's no good replacement to the iPhone? Sucks for you." (I doubt they were actually thinking that, but you get my point.
Second, even if competition did always make products better, which it still doesn't, that doesn't excuse theft. If google is effectively stealing by using an I implementation of java, then they are in the wrong, and the rightful owners can, to quote a post, nuke it from orbit if they wish.
I find nothing wrong with this statement unless you aren't following his sarcasm. If not...well
I repeat for the mindless android/Linux zealots, theft is not freedom, and no philosophy or anthropomorphism of information makes it so. Grow up
Your strong distaste for Google/Linux might explain your misguided thought process on this matter
Lastly, if competition does improve anything, it can be done by fair competition. Windows phone, for all the crap it gets, is the first original product MS has made since bob, and their only good product yet. Let that compete. Theft is not competition, it is theft. I am sorry it takes someone who works in ethics to point this out, but hey, here is your daily clue bat beating....
Suddenly we're not talking about the Oracle lawsuit? Anyway, are you aware that Microsoft essentially infringes on a lot of the same the patents that Android manufactures have been sued for? I realize this will probably start a different debate, but I can't help but think that the reason many people here don't hate MP7 as much as Android is because it isn't as successful. Reading AI a year or two ago people thought Android would be good competition to make iOS better (weird huh?). It would be a small niche platform for nerds, but could also be a decent alternative to the few people that didn't want an iPhone. Now that Android has overtaken iOS in popularity, suddenly they're evil and WP7 should be the competition. Just something I've noticed
Don't you think it's weird that all of Oracle's and Google's high priced lawyers couldn't find and interpret that legalese as well as you did?
Ever wonder if that means you're missing something important?
Also - fantacy has an S.
I think the Free Software Foundation is going to get involved in this and we'll see... Sometimes high priced lawyers aren't what they're cracked up to be. Usually, they have a team of law clerks doing the real work. Those lawyers just show up for court and press appearances armed with information lesser lawyers have worked on with the team of law clerks. I've been involved in a suit that hired a big name lawyer before, and that's how it worked. He was there for the press interviews and a couple of meetings with all of us, but a lesser attorney, that wasn't even a partner, did the bulk of the work.
Software thieves block innovation .... by taking away the motivation to innovate. Why innovate when you can just steal?
Why innovate when you'll just be sued into bankruptcy by patent trolls and companies like Microsoft that patent things that preexisted? Seems like this just keeps the small developer from even entering the market.
It never used to be like this. You could write a competing application as long as you didn't use the competition's code. This is how Visicalc lost out to Lotus, which also lost out to Excel in the marketplace. That's competition. There has never been a lack of innovation and development as a result.
They don't have the money and if they did it would never be approved, one database company buying the other largest database company.
J.
You mean, one company that maintains a database of information buying out a company that develops databases? Last time I looked, that's called vertical integration. That would not be buying out competition, and thus would be approved.
All Google has to do is be a major investor, not a complete owner. There is a difference.
Can we please kill the mindless "competition makes it all better" crap? It doesn't. It often has no good effect at all and sometimes makes things worse. We have crap for cell service in the US because of mindless free trade talk. Please for the love of all things good stop.
No, we have crappy cell service because of a lack of competition. There are only 2 major carriers in the race, and 2 lesser ones. That's an oligopoly and it causes the situation we have. All the other players are basically not even worth mentioning because of their lack of ability to compete on the same playing field.
First of all there is no evidence at all that competition makes iOS any better. None. It might, it might not. Declaring it so by fiat is a logical fallacy, and pointless.
Sorry, completely wrong and devoid of all economic theory. iOS 5 will be getting some features that Android has had for quite sometime and Apple has refused, thus far, to put in iOS. Competition breeds better products and innovation in the marketplace. It's a basic principle in economic theory. Oligopolies and monopolies stymie competition and innovation. Competition provides incentive, whereas the lack of competition doesn't. Go back and study a college course on micro-economics.
Second, even if competition did always make products better, which it still doesn't, that doesn't excuse theft. If google is effectively stealing by using an I implementation of java, then they are in the wrong, and the rightful owners can, to quote a post, nuke it from orbit if they wish.
I repeat for the mindless android/Linux zealots, theft is not freedom, and no philosophy or anthropomorphism of information makes it so. Grow up
Lastly, if competition does improve anything, it can be done by fair competition. Windows phone, for all the crap it gets, is the first original product MS has made since bob, and their only good product yet. Let that compete. Theft is not competition, it is theft. I am sorry it takes someone who works in ethics to point this out, but hey, here is your daily clue bat beating....
You are assuming there has been a theft. But that has to be determined by a court of law, not someone in ethics. This is a complex situation that does not need to be tried here. However, those Apple zealots that claim Android needs to be blasted into orbit are just ignorant, just as you are.
No, we have crappy cell service because of a lack of competition. There are only 2 major carriers in the race, and 2 lesser ones. That's an oligopoly and it causes the situation we have. All the other players are basically not even worth mentioning because of their lack of ability to compete on the same playing field.
And yet many places with only a single service or services forced to actually compete on the same tech have better service. Looks like your theory has flaws. A similar case is found in ISPs in the US verses Europe. This is all pretty well documented. Competition forced differentiation of band and method and created the 2 separate standards that locks people into a carrier. This has all been discussed, played out, and documented. It is as close to fact as evolution.
Sorry, completely wrong and devoid of all economic theory. iOS 5 will be getting some features that Android has had for quite sometime and Apple has refused, thus far, to put in iOS. Competition breeds better products and innovation in the marketplace. It's a basic principle in economic theory. Oligopolies and monopolies stymie competition and innovation. Competition provides incentive, whereas the lack of competition doesn't. Go back and study a college course on micro-economics.
I get my information from working with economists at a college. The initial competition is what created oligopoly friendly conditions. Maybe you need to take an Econ class. I can recommend one, I teach the ethics half of the class.
You are assuming there has been a theft. But that has to be determined by a court of law, not someone in ethics. This is a complex situation that does not need to be tried here. However, those Apple zealots that claim Android needs to be blasted into orbit are just ignorant, just as you are.
No, I am assuming that theft is wrong, as I already pointed out I don't know the case and can't say if there is theft involved. Your inability to accept that ambiguity from me when my concern is the zombie like "competition always good, brains" thinking of many is not my problem. The post I responded to implied that even if android is largely or even wholly stolen property, it is ok because competition makes it good. That is wrong, and doesn't need to be tested in a court.
Theft remains wrong whatever it may do for the market. Further, competition is not always a magic pill that makes things better. These are basic facts, and true no matter what google has or has not taken. That is all I have claimed so far.
I'm sorry, but as an Engineer minoring in business this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I don't mean that you yourself are incompetent, but that that statement is so beyond incorrect that I couldn't even sugar coat my response.
I am sorry that you cannot understand that, see the above post.
Is that so? Do you recall that when the iPhone 4 was announced Apple pitched it as the "thinnest" phone yet? Notice the suffix "est." They wanted to make their phone more pocketable than their competition. The retina screen that is so gorgeous? That's Apple's response to competing screens such as SuperAMOLED screens. The camera button (volume down) announced for iOS 5? That was pitched as a Windows Phone selling point (I distinctly remember a comercial of someone skydiving claiming they can get to their camera faster). I don't know if Android phones have that ability, but I'm guessing a few do as well.
ironically none of things are really about iOS being better, but the physical hardware.
The point remains, while competition can improve things it is not always so, and the post I replied to stated that it did. Always. And even justified theft.
However, if you were only assuming that iOS itself (and not the device) has not advanced because of competition, let me disprove that as well. You'd have a hard time arguing with anyone that Notification Center wasn't stolen from Android notifications, let alone inspired by them. If it wasn't for Apple being railed with constant "I like their notification system better" complaints I doubt they would have changed it (especially since they hadn't since the original iOS).
No, I wouldn't have a hard time with that. I have a car, you might as well. I didn't steal your car even if they are similar. Implementation of a concept can be done without theft. Many operating system do similar things without outright copying of code. That is not what is being implied in the lawsuit.
See how easy that was?
You know how nice it is that you'll be able to cut the chord from your computer with iOS 5? You can probably thank competitors for that as well. Both Android and Windows Phone 7 are HUGE supporters of wireless updates, syncing, sharing, etc. Again, if Apple didn't think that they might be losing customers/losing customer satisfaction because the competition offers something they didn't, they wouldn't have changed it.
A lovely assertion, but lacking proof. Apple might certainly wish to cut the cord, to encourage people to buy an iPad or iPhone who might lack a computer. My goodness, that was easy too. You really should think this stuff through...
[/quote]Your strong distaste for Google/Linux might explain your misguided thought process on this matter
Your assumptions misguide you. I am a huge fan of Linux. I have 2 Linux servers here in my house and have used it since '98. What I dislike is the "I should get everything for free I file share all my music and stole photoshop" mentality in the community, which is why I stopped reading Linux boards. The mindless free market free information teabagger think is disgusting.
[/quote]Suddenly we're not talking about the Oracle lawsuit? Anyway, are you aware that Microsoft essentially infringes on a lot of the same the patents that Android manufactures have been sued for? I realize this will probably start a different debate, but I can't help but think that the reason many people here don't hate MP7 as much as Android is because it isn't as successful. Reading AI a year or two ago people thought Android would be good competition to make iOS better (weird huh?). It would be a small niche platform for nerds, but could also be a decent alternative to the few people that didn't want an iPhone. Now that Android has overtaken iOS in popularity, suddenly they're evil and WP7 should be the competition. Just something I've noticed
Again, I was NEVER talking about the lawsuit. I was refuting the "they can steal if it makes more competition post.
You suggest that I am concerned about android because it is popular. Yet multiple surveys suggest that to most consumers there is iOS and "whatever they have on the iPhone like smart phone that isn't working out that well so I will be trading up to an iPhone next". That doesn't seem like a concern, even if I where zealously looking out for iOS. I ain't. I don't make it. It isn't my home team. My day isn't ruined when they lose a customer. My ego is not dependent on apples stock performance.
I simply object to the original posters mindless open market dribble.
Although I am beginning ton object to your in ability to use your nickname.