Of course, the owners have absolute rights to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable on their site.
My posts have been based on the premise that the owners of a discussion forum would prefer that it was used for open discussion, and not simply as a venue to praise Apple continuously and attack people who don't.
The latter isn't 'discussion' at all - it's just a group of people propounding the same recycled view repeatedly. It would be like a debate or Congress with only one party allowed to speak - pointless.
I have been an iPad user since day 1. I am not embarrassed to say that some of the capabilities/functionality described by this poster are desirable.
I am in the same boat as you, and in fact commented in a similar fashion regarding nikon's post. I found his post to be both respectful and well thought out. The flame wars simply get old.
For the lawsuit that was proclaimed to be the 'death of android,' this sure fizzled out embarrassingly for Oracle. I was honestly expecting a ruling more in their (Oracle's) favor; though I fear that such a ruling, especially on the copyright portion would have had drastic effects on the industry as a whole.
I'm surprised they outright cancelled the damages phase of the lawsuit. I would've expected at least a show trial for Oracle, considering they did get a pretty clear ruling on the infringement of the 9 lines of code in the rangeCheck function.
As someone who has used both iOS and Android, the similarities end with the App drawer. And how can I take you seriously when you claim that WebOS is not a copy of iOS while Android is, considering that WebOS devices share so much more in common with iOS devices than Android does.
Thank you. The myth has truly taken on epic levels. iOS users who never used anything else assume that Android is a copy because it's touchscreen and Steve Jobs told them so. Android was a lot closer to Symbian at launch than it was to iOS. And iOS is damn close to WebOS (err....minus the card system).
The ignorants who equate the two focus on the App Drawer. Like you say, the similarities end there. And with every new version of Android, that difference gets even larger. How is ICS anything like iOS? Other than both being touch?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
It;s not so much the validity of Android as an OS...
Do you buy things and associate yourself with those who can't be trusted or respected?
'Twas an evening in October, I'll confess I wasn't sober,
I was carting home a load with manly pride, When my feet began to stutter and I fell into the gutter, And a pig came up and lay down by my side.
Then I lay there in the gutter and my heart was all a-flutter, A high-toned lady, passing by, did chance to say: "You can tell a man that boozes by the company he chooses," Then the pig got up and slowly walked away. Walked away, walked away, He was really too particular to stay. "You can tell a man that boozes by the company he chooses," Then the pig got up and slowly walked away.
Wow. So just because some CEO you never met said he doesn't like something, you automatically assume that people who buy said product are associating themselves with people who can't be trusted or respected? Tell me, when did you stop thinking for yourself and letting Apple executives make all decisions for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyram Gestan
All that this means is that Apple gets to kill off Android instead of Oracle. It is a stolen OS.
He who laughs last laughs best! I'm glad that Google is still alive so that Apple can be the one to kill them.
Meh. It means that Apple will have to come to terms with Android's existence. Apple won't be killing Android anytime soon. If they had a magic bullet they would have used it by now. Instead, they keep going after the OEMs, just like MS. At least Oracle had the cajones to go after Google....
But like I've said before. In general, I find these fanboy arguments stupid and pedantic. Really. How many of you actually live an Apple only existence? I use a Windows computer at work. At Android phone. An iPad, an Apple TV and an iMac at home. There are advantages and disadvantages to all those devices. And I fail to see why anybody would want one particular ecosystem killed off.
Apple are motivated to make money. To state that they take no drive from their competitors is nonsense. Why all the litigation? Why the Android app drawer for notifications?
Not flaming - but this whole "Apple works from within, to pursue a purist design/usability philosophy" is bollocks. Maybe years ago, certainly not now. They make money, like every other company. And like very other company, they watch their competitors like a hawk.
The goal of business is to make a profit at the risk of a loss -- and that is Apple's ultimate objective.
What differentiates Apple is how they go about attaining that goal. Apple choses to look around and see what they can do to makes things better/easier than the existing way. They certainly look at what others are doing -- if there are any competitors. But they don't engage in spec or feature wars -- it's more of "let's offer a bettersolution or a new solution where none existed before."
The words "better solution" are key to understanding how Apple competes to attain their overall profit goal.
I have been dealing * with Apple for 34 years (since April 1978) and almost without exception, Apple's successes and failures ** have been in pursuit of a "better solution".
* as a customer, observer, reseller, evangelist, vendor, developer, co-developer in a joint project...
** Apple I, Apple ][, Apple ///, Lisa, Mac, LaserWriter, AppleTalk, Newton, MiniFloppy-->MicroFloppy-->CD-->DVD-->No ODD-->SSD evolution, WiFii/Bonjour, iMac, MacBook, OS X / Darwin, MacDraw/MacWrite/MacPaint, Final Cut, iPod, iTunes, iTunes Store, iWork, iLife, Intel Macs, Airport, FireWire/USB, iPhone, iOS, iPad, Retina Displays, AppleTV, Thunderbolt, OpenCL & GCD, AirPrint, AirPlay, Siri... and to the masses: GUI, Mouse, Multitouch, Intuitive Interface, Plug-and-play, iTools--->iCloud, it just works, there is no step 3...
Of course, the owners have absolute rights to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable on their site.
My posts have been based on the premise that the owners of a discussion forum would prefer that it was used for open discussion, and not simply as a venue to praise Apple continuously and attack people who don't.
The latter isn't 'discussion' at all - it's just a group of people propounding the same recycled view repeatedly. It's like a debate or Congress with only one party allowed to speak - pointless.
I think you will find that most of the regulars here are Apple proponents... but they feel free to express their opinion when Apple does something wrong or just stupid. We all, Apple included, make our fair share of mistakes.
Many of us come here seeking reasoned discussions on topics of interest to Apple proponents. Sometimes we take the opportunity to banter or poke fun at one another or Apple's competition.
Periodically, there will be an influx (tsunami) of new (or infrequent) posters. This usually coincides with an announcement of a new product or difficulty associated with Apple or its competitors.
This is such a thread!
These posters, essentially: pop in; poop; and pop out. Their purpose appears to have an agenda to: hijack the thread; muddy the waters; spread FUD...
In over a year you have made 129 posts -- by my count you have made 10 posts to this thread
Your first post to this thread was to assert that the moderator should not consider the following post by @AndroidUser as trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndroidUser
Android doesn't look anywhere near iOS or the feel of a crappy iOS product. This is because Android is OPEN for changes all the time from it's users to make the OS better from one release after another.
Your other posts were defending his/your right to post opinions to an open forum.
My points:
-- this is not an open forum
-- as an opening post, @AndroidUser is trolling IMO
-- the follow-on posts (including this one) have served to hijack this thread
Your first post to this thread was to assert that the moderator should not consider the following post by @AndroidUser as trolling.
That isn't quite true. I wasn't saying that AndroidUser's post wasn't trolling - it was. What I was saying was that similar derogatory posts are made about Android on a regular basis - and that just as they are trolling when they're about iOS, they are also trolling when they're about Android. Basically, trolling should not be accepted whether pro-Apple or anti-Apple. Moderation should be impartial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
What is your purpose here?
To the extent that a contributor to a forum must have a 'purpose'... mine is to discuss Apple and Apple products in a fair, balanced and unprejudiced fashion.
If some of my recent posts have appeared anti-Apple, it is because that's what I've considered necessary to restore fairness and balance. I am a technology enthusiast first and an Apple enthusiast second, and where criticisms of Android are made which are plainly untrue or unfair, I am no more inclined to let them stand than I would be with false criticisms of Apple.
I suppose what I'm mainly looking for is objectivity and balance in discussion. Perhaps that has brought me into conflict with some people whose attitude to Apple is unashamedly not objective or balanced.
If some of my recent posts have appeared anti-Apple, it is because that's what I've considered necessary to restore fairness and balance. I am a technology enthusiast first and an Apple enthusiast second, and where criticisms of Android are made which are plainly untrue or unfair, I am no more inclined to let them stand than I would be with false criticisms of Apple.
To balance out your post...
I have absolutely no problem with false criticism of Android.
I have absolutely no problem with false criticism of Android.
Actually, you are one of the fair-minded members on these forums...
There is a question whether what Google did with Android is: 1) illegal; 2) unethical; 3) bad business....
For me. I am thankful for what Google did... It made me take a closer look at what motivates them to take the decisions the do. I do not like what I found and will act accordingly -- and that has nothing to do with the quality of Android as an OS.
That isn't quite true. I wasn't saying that AndroidUser's post wasn't trolling - it was. What I was saying was that similar derogatory posts are made about Android on a regular basis - and that just as they are trolling when they're about iOS, they are also trolling when they're about Android. Basically, trolling should not be accepted whether pro-Apple or anti-Apple. Moderation should be impartial.
To the extent that a contributor to a forum must have a 'purpose'... mine is to discuss Apple and Apple products in a fair, balanced and unprejudiced fashion.
If some of my recent posts have appeared anti-Apple, it is because that's what I've considered necessary to restore fairness and balance. I am a technology enthusiast first and an Apple enthusiast second, and where criticisms of Android are made which are plainly untrue or unfair, I am no more inclined to let them stand than I would be with false criticisms of Apple.
I suppose what I'm mainly looking for is objectivity and balance in discussion. Perhaps that has brought me into conflict with some people whose attitude to Apple is unashamedly not objective or balanced.
Fair enough! I think that you will find most members here are similarly motivated.
I like how there is no such thing as freedom of speech on here without hurting someone's feelings and everyone gets butt hurt whenever I comment or post something negative about Apple, iOS, or it's people. Grow up people and take criticism openly instead of attacking me because I'm not a fan of Apple products. And stop deleting my accounts, it's not like you can stop me from coming back with another name, lol.
I like how there is no such thing as freedom of speech on here without hurting someone's feelings and everyone gets butt hurt whenever I comment or post something negative about Apple, iOS, or it's people. Grow up people and take criticism openly instead of attacking me because I'm not a fan of Apple products. And stop deleting my accounts, it's not like you can stop me from coming back with another name, lol.
You want to talk rights? You don't have rights to crap all over a *privately owned forum*.
You could also take your own advice, grow up and stop attacking Apple products and other people using juvenile terms.
We'll take that bet. We've taken down bigger psychopaths than you in the past.
I'm half serious with this, but I'd go out on a limb and suggest that user names reminiscent of controversial topics could be discouraged in the TOS, if not even prevented by using a custom dictionary.
Your Honeycomb claim is incorrect. Honeycomb source code was released several months ago. Personally I chalk the delay up to Amazon developing a forked Android version for their Kindle Fire tablet and Google not wanting to make it overly easy to grab their tablet-specific build. Once the Kindle was released the Honeycomb source code was suddenly available. No proof that one was related to the other, but given the timing and the poorly explained delayed release of that specific version it seems pretty likely to me.
Too, Amazon's success with using Google's Gingerbread build is proof that the full source code was available. Without it they wouldn't have been able to fork a compatible version of their own. Add the unauthorized Chinese builds, B&N custom build for the Nook, and assorted off-brand tablets (Coby, etc.) lacking Google services for more proof that published build-able source code has been available all along. So that claim of yours is also wrong.
As for your third claim that much of the Android source code will never be available, part of the approval stipulation for Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility is that the code will be freely available and remain open for at least the next 5 years. If you have some evidence that the complete Android builds aren't available and never will be I'd love to see it.
IMO, Android is open-source. If some vendor wishes to use it without Google's approval they most certainly can, and Google has never given any indication to the contrary.
Only the GPL'd portions of Honeycomb were made available.
As I wrote, I work very closely with other members of the team to get android on the Samsung Captivate so I'm aware of what is and is not included in the source drops. If you require further evidence for what I'm saying you can either take Google's own statements on the subject or download the source and look through it yourself.
Android is open-source, but it's licensed under apache instead of the GPL. The reason it's relicensed under apache is so that someone can take the code, make additions, and then keep it proprietary. This is all stated on their AOSP FAQ; page nothing I am pointing out here is hidden, controversial, or even inappropriate. The problem is that in order to relicense android under apache they had to delink the base from the GPL and the process to do that is where they have found themselves on questionable legal grounds. For all its open-ness the GPL is an extremely strict and complicated license. It has to be because it unwinds roughly a hundred years of legal assumptions and rewraps it into a package that can not be copyrighted and made proprietary throughout its entire derivatives. It's rather surprising that an open-source proponent would view what has happened in any good way.
What we find is that consumers taken by Google's marketing spiel, like yourself, consider this in line with open source ideals whereas developers, like myself, have to deal with the frustration of this orwellian double-speak about being "open" as we struggle to get it onto devices that are sometimes only a few months old.
In fact, it's interesting that you use two successful ventures that forked android to buttress your claim as to the "open-ness" of android but completely miss the fact that had they been able to do this prior to Google's relicensing trick they would have.
I'm not sure exactly what your claim is. ICS source code was released in November. There are Chinese manufacturers who started offering Android devices with Android 4.x as the OS not long after that. I'm no doubt you know much more on the subject than I do, so perhaps you could explain how the code release wasn't complete enough for a 3rd party to build the OS. BTW, the last sentence lost me completely so perhaps you could re-word it.
I don't mind at all being advised I'm incorrect. The day's not complete unless I learn something new.
Only the GPL'd portions of Honeycomb were made available.
As I wrote, I work very closely with other members of the team to get android on the Samsung Captivate so I'm aware of what is and is not included in the source drops. If you require further evidence for what I'm saying you can either take Google's own statements on the subject or download the source and look through it yourself.
Android is open-source, but it's licensed under apache instead of the GPL. The reason it's relicensed under apache is so that someone can take the code, make additions, and then keep it proprietary. This is all stated on their AOSP FAQ; page nothing I am pointing out here is hidden, controversial, or even inappropriate. The problem is that in order to relicense android under apache they had to delink the base from the GPL and the process to do that is where they have found themselves on questionable legal grounds. For all its open-ness the GPL is an extremely strict and complicated license. It has to be because it unwinds roughly a hundred years of legal assumptions and rewraps it into a package that can not be copyrighted and made proprietary throughout its entire derivatives. It's rather surprising that an open-source proponent would view what has happened in any good way.
What we find is that consumers taken by Google's marketing spiel, like yourself, consider this in line with open source ideals whereas developers, like myself, have to deal with the frustration of this orwellian double-speak about being "open" as we struggle to get it onto devices that are sometimes only a few months old.
In fact, it's interesting that you use two successful ventures that forked android to buttress your claim as to the "open-ness" of android but completely miss the fact that had they been able to do this prior to Google's relicensing trick they would have.
Samsung not releasing their drivers doesn´t make less open source Android.
Is like saying that Ubuntu is not open source because nVidia or Wifi card makers didn't release their drivers
I'm half serious with this, but I'd go out on a limb and suggest that user names reminiscent of controversial topics could be discouraged in the TOS, if not even prevented by using a custom dictionary.
Ah, but they make our jobs FAR easier. Let them red flag themselves all they want!
The username really doesn't matter; the content does. Someone could have the username "AppleSucks" and speak respectfully in praise and in feature requests for Apple. Someone could have the username "ScrewGoogle" and be nothing but a Google shill.
Ah, but they make our jobs FAR easier. Let them red flag themselves all they want!
The username really doesn't matter; the content does. Someone could have the username "AppleSucks" and speak respectfully in praise and in feature requests for Apple. Someone could have the username "ScrewGoogle" and be nothing but a Google shill.
ScrewApple, oops.. did I say that?? I'm back by the way, blocking my IP's now? hahaha, easiest trick in the book to workaround.. sheesh
Ah, but they make our jobs FAR easier. Let them red flag themselves all they want!
The username really doesn't matter; the content does. Someone could have the username "AppleSucks" and speak respectfully in praise and in feature requests for Apple. Someone could have the username "ScrewGoogle" and be nothing but a Google shill.
ScrewApple, oops.. did I say that?? I'm back by the way, blocking my IP's now? hahaha, easiest trick in the book to workaround.. sheesh
I like how there is no such thing as freedom of speech on here without hurting someone's feelings and everyone gets butt hurt whenever I comment or post something negative about Apple, iOS, or it's people. Grow up people and take criticism openly instead of attacking me because I'm not a fan of Apple products. And stop deleting my accounts, it's not like you can stop me from coming back with another name, lol.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Well said!
Of course, the owners have absolute rights to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable on their site.
My posts have been based on the premise that the owners of a discussion forum would prefer that it was used for open discussion, and not simply as a venue to praise Apple continuously and attack people who don't.
The latter isn't 'discussion' at all - it's just a group of people propounding the same recycled view repeatedly. It would be like a debate or Congress with only one party allowed to speak - pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerMach
I have been an iPad user since day 1. I am not embarrassed to say that some of the capabilities/functionality described by this poster are desirable.
I am in the same boat as you, and in fact commented in a similar fashion regarding nikon's post. I found his post to be both respectful and well thought out. The flame wars simply get old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
For the lawsuit that was proclaimed to be the 'death of android,' this sure fizzled out embarrassingly for Oracle. I was honestly expecting a ruling more in their (Oracle's) favor; though I fear that such a ruling, especially on the copyright portion would have had drastic effects on the industry as a whole.
I'm surprised they outright cancelled the damages phase of the lawsuit. I would've expected at least a show trial for Oracle, considering they did get a pretty clear ruling on the infringement of the 9 lines of code in the rangeCheck function.
As someone who has used both iOS and Android, the similarities end with the App drawer. And how can I take you seriously when you claim that WebOS is not a copy of iOS while Android is, considering that WebOS devices share so much more in common with iOS devices than Android does.
Thank you. The myth has truly taken on epic levels. iOS users who never used anything else assume that Android is a copy because it's touchscreen and Steve Jobs told them so. Android was a lot closer to Symbian at launch than it was to iOS. And iOS is damn close to WebOS (err....minus the card system).
The ignorants who equate the two focus on the App Drawer. Like you say, the similarities end there. And with every new version of Android, that difference gets even larger. How is ICS anything like iOS? Other than both being touch?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
It;s not so much the validity of Android as an OS...
Do you buy things and associate yourself with those who can't be trusted or respected?
'Twas an evening in October, I'll confess I wasn't sober,
Wow. So just because some CEO you never met said he doesn't like something, you automatically assume that people who buy said product are associating themselves with people who can't be trusted or respected? Tell me, when did you stop thinking for yourself and letting Apple executives make all decisions for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyram Gestan
All that this means is that Apple gets to kill off Android instead of Oracle. It is a stolen OS.
He who laughs last laughs best! I'm glad that Google is still alive so that Apple can be the one to kill them.
Meh. It means that Apple will have to come to terms with Android's existence. Apple won't be killing Android anytime soon. If they had a magic bullet they would have used it by now. Instead, they keep going after the OEMs, just like MS. At least Oracle had the cajones to go after Google....
But like I've said before. In general, I find these fanboy arguments stupid and pedantic. Really. How many of you actually live an Apple only existence? I use a Windows computer at work. At Android phone. An iPad, an Apple TV and an iMac at home. There are advantages and disadvantages to all those devices. And I fail to see why anybody would want one particular ecosystem killed off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89
Apple are motivated to make money. To state that they take no drive from their competitors is nonsense. Why all the litigation? Why the Android app drawer for notifications?
Not flaming - but this whole "Apple works from within, to pursue a purist design/usability philosophy" is bollocks. Maybe years ago, certainly not now. They make money, like every other company. And like very other company, they watch their competitors like a hawk.
The goal of business is to make a profit at the risk of a loss -- and that is Apple's ultimate objective.
What differentiates Apple is how they go about attaining that goal. Apple choses to look around and see what they can do to makes things better/easier than the existing way. They certainly look at what others are doing -- if there are any competitors. But they don't engage in spec or feature wars -- it's more of "let's offer a better solution or a new solution where none existed before."
The words "better solution" are key to understanding how Apple competes to attain their overall profit goal.
I have been dealing * with Apple for 34 years (since April 1978) and almost without exception, Apple's successes and failures ** have been in pursuit of a "better solution".
* as a customer, observer, reseller, evangelist, vendor, developer, co-developer in a joint project...
** Apple I, Apple ][, Apple ///, Lisa, Mac, LaserWriter, AppleTalk, Newton, MiniFloppy-->MicroFloppy-->CD-->DVD-->No ODD-->SSD evolution, WiFii/Bonjour, iMac, MacBook, OS X / Darwin, MacDraw/MacWrite/MacPaint, Final Cut, iPod, iTunes, iTunes Store, iWork, iLife, Intel Macs, Airport, FireWire/USB, iPhone, iOS, iPad, Retina Displays, AppleTV, Thunderbolt, OpenCL & GCD, AirPrint, AirPlay, Siri... and to the masses: GUI, Mouse, Multitouch, Intuitive Interface, Plug-and-play, iTools--->iCloud, it just works, there is no step 3...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious
Of course, the owners have absolute rights to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable on their site.
My posts have been based on the premise that the owners of a discussion forum would prefer that it was used for open discussion, and not simply as a venue to praise Apple continuously and attack people who don't.
The latter isn't 'discussion' at all - it's just a group of people propounding the same recycled view repeatedly. It's like a debate or Congress with only one party allowed to speak - pointless.
I think you will find that most of the regulars here are Apple proponents... but they feel free to express their opinion when Apple does something wrong or just stupid. We all, Apple included, make our fair share of mistakes.
Many of us come here seeking reasoned discussions on topics of interest to Apple proponents. Sometimes we take the opportunity to banter or poke fun at one another or Apple's competition.
Periodically, there will be an influx (tsunami) of new (or infrequent) posters. This usually coincides with an announcement of a new product or difficulty associated with Apple or its competitors.
This is such a thread!
These posters, essentially: pop in; poop; and pop out. Their purpose appears to have an agenda to: hijack the thread; muddy the waters; spread FUD...
We call them trolls.
Here are your stats:
Euphonious
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: London, UK
Posts: 129
In over a year you have made 129 posts -- by my count you have made 10 posts to this thread
Your first post to this thread was to assert that the moderator should not consider the following post by @AndroidUser as trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndroidUser
Android doesn't look anywhere near iOS or the feel of a crappy iOS product. This is because Android is OPEN for changes all the time from it's users to make the OS better from one release after another.
Your other posts were defending his/your right to post opinions to an open forum.
My points:
-- this is not an open forum
-- as an opening post, @AndroidUser is trolling IMO
-- the follow-on posts (including this one) have served to hijack this thread
-- it looks like @AndroidUser was successful
What is your purpose here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Your first post to this thread was to assert that the moderator should not consider the following post by @AndroidUser as trolling.
That isn't quite true. I wasn't saying that AndroidUser's post wasn't trolling - it was. What I was saying was that similar derogatory posts are made about Android on a regular basis - and that just as they are trolling when they're about iOS, they are also trolling when they're about Android. Basically, trolling should not be accepted whether pro-Apple or anti-Apple. Moderation should be impartial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
What is your purpose here?
To the extent that a contributor to a forum must have a 'purpose'... mine is to discuss Apple and Apple products in a fair, balanced and unprejudiced fashion.
If some of my recent posts have appeared anti-Apple, it is because that's what I've considered necessary to restore fairness and balance. I am a technology enthusiast first and an Apple enthusiast second, and where criticisms of Android are made which are plainly untrue or unfair, I am no more inclined to let them stand than I would be with false criticisms of Apple.
I suppose what I'm mainly looking for is objectivity and balance in discussion. Perhaps that has brought me into conflict with some people whose attitude to Apple is unashamedly not objective or balanced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious
If some of my recent posts have appeared anti-Apple, it is because that's what I've considered necessary to restore fairness and balance. I am a technology enthusiast first and an Apple enthusiast second, and where criticisms of Android are made which are plainly untrue or unfair, I am no more inclined to let them stand than I would be with false criticisms of Apple.
To balance out your post...
I have absolutely no problem with false criticism of Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
To balance out your post...
I have absolutely no problem with false criticism of Android.
Actually, you are one of the fair-minded members on these forums...
There is a question whether what Google did with Android is: 1) illegal; 2) unethical; 3) bad business....
For me. I am thankful for what Google did... It made me take a closer look at what motivates them to take the decisions the do. I do not like what I found and will act accordingly -- and that has nothing to do with the quality of Android as an OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious
That isn't quite true. I wasn't saying that AndroidUser's post wasn't trolling - it was. What I was saying was that similar derogatory posts are made about Android on a regular basis - and that just as they are trolling when they're about iOS, they are also trolling when they're about Android. Basically, trolling should not be accepted whether pro-Apple or anti-Apple. Moderation should be impartial.
To the extent that a contributor to a forum must have a 'purpose'... mine is to discuss Apple and Apple products in a fair, balanced and unprejudiced fashion.
If some of my recent posts have appeared anti-Apple, it is because that's what I've considered necessary to restore fairness and balance. I am a technology enthusiast first and an Apple enthusiast second, and where criticisms of Android are made which are plainly untrue or unfair, I am no more inclined to let them stand than I would be with false criticisms of Apple.
I suppose what I'm mainly looking for is objectivity and balance in discussion. Perhaps that has brought me into conflict with some people whose attitude to Apple is unashamedly not objective or balanced.
Fair enough! I think that you will find most members here are similarly motivated.
I like how there is no such thing as freedom of speech on here without hurting someone's feelings and everyone gets butt hurt whenever I comment or post something negative about Apple, iOS, or it's people. Grow up people and take criticism openly instead of attacking me because I'm not a fan of Apple products. And stop deleting my accounts, it's not like you can stop me from coming back with another name, lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by androiduser3
And stop deleting my accounts, it's not like you can stop me from coming back with another name, lol.
We'll take that bet. We've taken down bigger psychopaths than you in the past.
You want to talk rights? You don't have rights to crap all over a *privately owned forum*.
You could also take your own advice, grow up and stop attacking Apple products and other people using juvenile terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
We'll take that bet. We've taken down bigger psychopaths than you in the past.
I'm half serious with this, but I'd go out on a limb and suggest that user names reminiscent of controversial topics could be discouraged in the TOS, if not even prevented by using a custom dictionary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Your Honeycomb claim is incorrect. Honeycomb source code was released several months ago. Personally I chalk the delay up to Amazon developing a forked Android version for their Kindle Fire tablet and Google not wanting to make it overly easy to grab their tablet-specific build. Once the Kindle was released the Honeycomb source code was suddenly available. No proof that one was related to the other, but given the timing and the poorly explained delayed release of that specific version it seems pretty likely to me.
Too, Amazon's success with using Google's Gingerbread build is proof that the full source code was available. Without it they wouldn't have been able to fork a compatible version of their own. Add the unauthorized Chinese builds, B&N custom build for the Nook, and assorted off-brand tablets (Coby, etc.) lacking Google services for more proof that published build-able source code has been available all along. So that claim of yours is also wrong.
As for your third claim that much of the Android source code will never be available, part of the approval stipulation for Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility is that the code will be freely available and remain open for at least the next 5 years. If you have some evidence that the complete Android builds aren't available and never will be I'd love to see it.
IMO, Android is open-source. If some vendor wishes to use it without Google's approval they most certainly can, and Google has never given any indication to the contrary.
Only the GPL'd portions of Honeycomb were made available.
As I wrote, I work very closely with other members of the team to get android on the Samsung Captivate so I'm aware of what is and is not included in the source drops. If you require further evidence for what I'm saying you can either take Google's own statements on the subject or download the source and look through it yourself.
Android is open-source, but it's licensed under apache instead of the GPL. The reason it's relicensed under apache is so that someone can take the code, make additions, and then keep it proprietary. This is all stated on their AOSP FAQ; page nothing I am pointing out here is hidden, controversial, or even inappropriate. The problem is that in order to relicense android under apache they had to delink the base from the GPL and the process to do that is where they have found themselves on questionable legal grounds. For all its open-ness the GPL is an extremely strict and complicated license. It has to be because it unwinds roughly a hundred years of legal assumptions and rewraps it into a package that can not be copyrighted and made proprietary throughout its entire derivatives. It's rather surprising that an open-source proponent would view what has happened in any good way.
What we find is that consumers taken by Google's marketing spiel, like yourself, consider this in line with open source ideals whereas developers, like myself, have to deal with the frustration of this orwellian double-speak about being "open" as we struggle to get it onto devices that are sometimes only a few months old.
In fact, it's interesting that you use two successful ventures that forked android to buttress your claim as to the "open-ness" of android but completely miss the fact that had they been able to do this prior to Google's relicensing trick they would have.
I'm not sure exactly what your claim is. ICS source code was released in November. There are Chinese manufacturers who started offering Android devices with Android 4.x as the OS not long after that. I'm no doubt you know much more on the subject than I do, so perhaps you could explain how the code release wasn't complete enough for a 3rd party to build the OS. BTW, the last sentence lost me completely so perhaps you could re-word it.
I don't mind at all being advised I'm incorrect. The day's not complete unless I learn something new.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/11/google-makes-android-4-source-code-available/
At least we do agree on one thing in the meantime: Android is open-source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle
Only the GPL'd portions of Honeycomb were made available.
As I wrote, I work very closely with other members of the team to get android on the Samsung Captivate so I'm aware of what is and is not included in the source drops. If you require further evidence for what I'm saying you can either take Google's own statements on the subject or download the source and look through it yourself.
Android is open-source, but it's licensed under apache instead of the GPL. The reason it's relicensed under apache is so that someone can take the code, make additions, and then keep it proprietary. This is all stated on their AOSP FAQ; page nothing I am pointing out here is hidden, controversial, or even inappropriate. The problem is that in order to relicense android under apache they had to delink the base from the GPL and the process to do that is where they have found themselves on questionable legal grounds. For all its open-ness the GPL is an extremely strict and complicated license. It has to be because it unwinds roughly a hundred years of legal assumptions and rewraps it into a package that can not be copyrighted and made proprietary throughout its entire derivatives. It's rather surprising that an open-source proponent would view what has happened in any good way.
What we find is that consumers taken by Google's marketing spiel, like yourself, consider this in line with open source ideals whereas developers, like myself, have to deal with the frustration of this orwellian double-speak about being "open" as we struggle to get it onto devices that are sometimes only a few months old.
In fact, it's interesting that you use two successful ventures that forked android to buttress your claim as to the "open-ness" of android but completely miss the fact that had they been able to do this prior to Google's relicensing trick they would have.
Samsung not releasing their drivers doesn´t make less open source Android.
Is like saying that Ubuntu is not open source because nVidia or Wifi card makers didn't release their drivers
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
I'm half serious with this, but I'd go out on a limb and suggest that user names reminiscent of controversial topics could be discouraged in the TOS, if not even prevented by using a custom dictionary.
Ah, but they make our jobs FAR easier. Let them red flag themselves all they want!
The username really doesn't matter; the content does. Someone could have the username "AppleSucks" and speak respectfully in praise and in feature requests for Apple. Someone could have the username "ScrewGoogle" and be nothing but a Google shill.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ah, but they make our jobs FAR easier. Let them red flag themselves all they want!
The username really doesn't matter; the content does. Someone could have the username "AppleSucks" and speak respectfully in praise and in feature requests for Apple. Someone could have the username "ScrewGoogle" and be nothing but a Google shill.
ScrewApple, oops.. did I say that?? I'm back by the way, blocking my IP's now? hahaha, easiest trick in the book to workaround.. sheesh
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ah, but they make our jobs FAR easier. Let them red flag themselves all they want!
The username really doesn't matter; the content does. Someone could have the username "AppleSucks" and speak respectfully in praise and in feature requests for Apple. Someone could have the username "ScrewGoogle" and be nothing but a Google shill.
ScrewApple, oops.. did I say that?? I'm back by the way, blocking my IP's now? hahaha, easiest trick in the book to workaround.. sheesh
Quote:
Originally Posted by androiduser3
I like how there is no such thing as freedom of speech on here without hurting someone's feelings and everyone gets butt hurt whenever I comment or post something negative about Apple, iOS, or it's people. Grow up people and take criticism openly instead of attacking me because I'm not a fan of Apple products. And stop deleting my accounts, it's not like you can stop me from coming back with another name, lol.
Oh... I know who this is.
[that's your tell, buddy]