What's the distribution of web browsers look like? Most of the users in the big three browsers, and a good majority of them running relatively update software?
That's quite different from Android phones, which have new phones coming out every couple months from each Android company. These phones rarely ever get software upgrades, so most users are running software 1-2 years out of date, and can't/won't upgrade to a newer phone until their contract runs out after two years. This results in a distribution of phones where there might be 10-15 phones in the current generation that you should support, but 20-30 phones in the previous generation where another significant portion of the market lies.
I'll admit, I'm not a web developer so I don't know how bad compatibility issues are over there, but as an Android developer, those issues weigh very heavily across the ecosystem.
Windows Phone 7 hardly has the market share nor app download numbers to sustain any sort of business at the moment. It's an even worse loser than the other two doors.
My god Sony. For the price you paid your lawyers to file the complaint (probably more than a couple thousand), you could've easily paid off this blogger to move to a different domain and kept the good will coming in.
I'm not sure how I am being dishonest. I don't think the LG Prada looks anything like the iPhone. If anything, the phone looks like a smaller Droid 3 (slide out keyboard and all), and I would never mistake a Droid 3 for an iPhone.
I also wouldn't call a grid of icons a ripoff, since I'm pretty sure Macs have had grids of icons a long time way before the LG Prada came out...
Or are you trying to argue that their colors look kinda similar? I guess they would be similar, when the colors are all blown out from a bad camera pic taken years ago.
Well, I looked at it and it didn't seem all that alike. But given that in 2006, the state of cellphones looked more like flip phones or ones with keypads, I suppose an iPhone could look like a ripoff of the LG Prada or vice versa.
But that's not really what I was talking about. In the main context of the article itself, the bad thing isn't copying or stealing whatever. It's when all you do when you copy just for the sake of copying and doing it to make a ripoff of someone else. We all know those about those cheap chinese knockoff products; that's what's bad (artistically speaking).
An iPhone may have copied and stolen stuff from a lot of places, but there's no way I'd call it an LG Prada, and that's because they took all that stuff and made it into their own product, and not an LG Prada.
Uh, not really. Xerox allowed Apple to look at their tech as an explicit agreement that Apple would build a GUI based off that tech in exchange for shares. Eric Schmidt was there as a member of the board, not in order to be allowed inside to steal the tech for another company. That's a gross conflict of interest, and is completely different from Xerox & Apple.
3 meters is just around 3 armlengths. That's about the length across a wide table. I'm not sure how you'd mistake a laptop with your desktop, and I would say most laptops are visually distinct from each other at that difference.
Not that I think that tablets nowadays, all which are basically a slab with a big screen slapped on it can really be all that visually distinct from the top, but you sorta have to look at what tablets looked like before the iPad came around and notice that tablets pre-iPad looked pretty much nothing like it.
I'm not saying anything, except stating the fact that Jobs bought the idea from Xerox. And that's bought, not "bought". Look it up. Do some due diligence before you state something as fact.
Look people, if we're going to have a discussion, at least let's all agree that we should strive to know all the facts of what we're talking about. This isn't about choosing a side, but rather showing the truth. It does absolutely no good to have a circle-jerk based on lies and half-truths.
Giving away money is also a full-time job. It's not like you just write a check for $1 billion dollars and that's it. You do due diligence. You make sure that the charities that you are giving to are trustworthy. You make sure that the charities are effective. You make sure that the money you're donated will be used correctly. It goes on and on. I don't see why delegating those tasks to his wife would diminish any contributions he made.
If he gave anonymously, then you couldn't know that he actually didn't donate. It works both ways. You can't vilify a man based on evidence you don't have. He has stated in the past that he donated privately, so there's that. I think his word has at least SOME clout there.
And you don't know what he did with his wealth. Agreeing to the pledge and giving away half your wealth when you die are two separate things.
/shrug. It's also the "nice" thing about speaking ill about the dead. They can't argue back.
Mike, you actually make a great point here. We have to remember Android's market traction has been crazy great for the last year or two. Before then, Android was only doing somewhat so-so against the iPhone, and we all know what the Android prototypes looked liked before the iPhone was released. So Jobs reaction here seems pretty justified in that context; it seemed like Android was just doing its best to make a copy in order to take away from iPhone's success.
If he had a few more years down the line, and see Android take the features and make it into their own product, make it into their own culture, their own platform beyond the shadow of the iPhone, I would certainly think that Job's thoughts on the matter would be different than what we saw here.
They still make quality goods. I think that by just saying that they're brilliant at marketing goods and selling their image, you forget the fact that the goods that they make are still quality products.
And honestly, the closed walled garden isn't really much of a complaint to most people, especially not to me, a mobile app developer. The most I've ever experienced out of their closed system was a complaint that I submitted a shitty app and that I should follow their UI guidelines to make it a less shitty app, which was actually a good thing since it was my first app ever and it WAS pretty bad. At worst, they acted like an editor to make my app better, and it WAS better in the end.
Overall, I feel that the closed system cultivates a better culture of apps in the app store than the open Android market, and thus gains from it.
Whoa, if it costs an IT admin several ten thousands of dollars just to retrieve a bunch of emails, either you're doing it terribly wrong, or someone's being scammed (and you're doing it terribly wrong).
Oh god, Bakuman's latest arc's just screams out how set their old-school thinking is.
For those that don't read it, their latest story line involves an artist that utilizes online crowdsourcing to help create the ultimate comic (getting ideas for stories, editing help, etc). The comic succeeds wildly, but the artist is portrayed as some sort of ultimate evil that all the main characters must defeat, all just because it's different from the usual artist-editor/publisher relationship (and because it's different, it must fail, and eventually "does"). It just screams of old school snobbery, how the old way is obviously the best way because that's how they've done it for years.
Obviously, this is just a comic, but it's a comic that's a result of these manga publishers, and all that I've heard about them makes me think that the comic doesn't fall all that far from the truth.