At, [insert airline name here], we care about you.
Bullshit
111–120 of 233 posts
Re: Bullshit
#112Marco, Gruber, MG have their own BS : *Android is NOT open It gets stated as absolute fact only by Apple and its hardcore followers (Steve Jobs said Windows is open not Android first, DF, MG and MA have been religiously snarking out on any chance to declare Android not open.) It is BS because all 3 of them do this only to promote what they subscribe to - i.e. they have no consequence from Android not being open (they…
In all seriousness. What does "open" even mean? I've noticed that no one is saying "open source". Not that I know what that really means either. Android isn't developed in the open they just release the source code. That's the only real difference from Windows 7. So is this all just relative to the phone market? It's "open" as far as phones go? I get the feeling "open" is not something you can be . It's a continuum.…
I think you make an excellent point. There is no utopian definition of open - it simply cannot exist meaningfully. So there has to be a compromising definition. I like to define it on a scale like Andy Rubin did on D8 interview. Left most is least open and rightmost is most open. I think in the current mobile space Apple sits on the far left, Microsoft a little to their right and Android farther to the right. Only Meego or OpenMoko might sit farther right to Android but they are not really relevant to the mobile market.
Re: Bullshit
#113Marco, Gruber, MG have their own BS : *Android is NOT open It gets stated as absolute fact only by Apple and its hardcore followers (Steve Jobs said Windows is open not Android first, DF, MG and MA have been religiously snarking out on any chance to declare Android not open.) It is BS because all 3 of them do this only to promote what they subscribe to - i.e. they have no consequence from Android not being open (they…
In all seriousness. What does "open" even mean? I've noticed that no one is saying "open source". Not that I know what that really means either. Android isn't developed in the open they just release the source code. That's the only real difference from Windows 7. So is this all just relative to the phone market? It's "open" as far as phones go? I get the feeling "open" is not something you can be . It's a continuum.…
That's exactly it. It's a continuum. And Android is the most open OS from all the successful consumer OS's. If it would've been anymore open, like say Linux, it would've probably suffered from the very same fragmentation issue that Linux has, and it would've never gotten this successful as it is today.
In fact I'd even like Android to be a little more "standardized" or more "closed".
Re: Bullshit
#114Marco, Gruber, MG have their own BS : *Android is NOT open It gets stated as absolute fact only by Apple and its hardcore followers (Steve Jobs said Windows is open not Android first, DF, MG and MA have been religiously snarking out on any chance to declare Android not open.) It is BS because all 3 of them do this only to promote what they subscribe to - i.e. they have no consequence from Android not being open (they…
In all seriousness. What does "open" even mean? I've noticed that no one is saying "open source". Not that I know what that really means either. Android isn't developed in the open they just release the source code. That's the only real difference from Windows 7. So is this all just relative to the phone market? It's "open" as far as phones go? I get the feeling "open" is not something you can be . It's a continuum.…
Android is Open Source[1], which has a real definition[2] that means something. You can fork it, and create your own distribution (as Amazon has shown).
It is open in other ways, too - Android phones can load applications from sources other than the Market (unless that feature has been disabled by your carrier - which goes back to the first point).
Most Android phones have a sdcard slot, too, which allows you to get your photos (and other files) off the phone easily. For many people that's what they mean when they say it is more open.
Others like the multiple form factors, or the different sizes. These aren't just theoretical things - I've heard people use them as examples of "openness".
Of course "open" is a continuum, but there are ways that Android is "open" that really matter.
[1] Android 3.x wasn't open source. As noted elsewhere, that is a legitimate complaint that applied between February and November 2011. It is worth noting that Android 3.x was a tablet only release, though - Android 2.3 (which is Open Source) remained the OS for phones until Android 4.0 was released, which unified the tablet & phone streams.
Re: Bullshit
#115Deeply agree on that list. But there are some o at least one company that I'd actually trust more than others, and support, and that's Mozilla. Because there's no share holders. Because it's owned by non-profit. And because their track record is perfect so far. Everything's open. All the development is in the open, not just the code. Everything's made for our best interest actually.
What about Opera? Their software is unfortunately proprietary, but I trust them. As far as I know, they never sold any data they got though their proxies with Opera Mini. And they got a lot.
How much is "as far as I know" worth these days?
Re: Bullshit
#116You'd be surprised at the number of people who use Twitter for the sole purpose of following their favorite chelebrities, ergo interacting with brands. I'm going to put my toe in the water and assume the same applies to Facebook.
Re: Bullshit
#117You forgot the biggest bullshit of all, Marco. Hacker News users: I'm so mad that the government is doing ! I'm so mad that big business is doing ! I'm so mad that venture capitalists are doing ! I'm so mad that angel investors are doing ! I'm so mad that got funding! I'm so mad that language doesn't do ! I'm so mad that I can't jailbreak ! I'm so mad that I'm actually expected to pay for ! I'm so mad that more peopl…
[deleted]
Re: Bullshit
#118Wot, no Twitter?
Re: Bullshit
#119Deeply agree on that list. But there are some o at least one company that I'd actually trust more than others, and support, and that's Mozilla. Because there's no share holders. Because it's owned by non-profit. And because their track record is perfect so far. Everything's open. All the development is in the open, not just the code. Everything's made for our best interest actually.
You should check who pays 80% of Mozilla's budget based on a secret contract Mozilla is not allowed to talk about.
Not the users.
Re: Bullshit
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dangerous because it's easy for you to use their services and be happy? Why does that make Google dangerous? Even if you tout "lock in", I don't see how that makes them dangerous; it makes your dependence dangerous. Especially given the volume of data liberation/exportation tools they provide.
Dangerous: "Able or likely to cause harm or injury" [1] Google is exactly that. I think you're reading too much into whats being said. Are you suggesting we shouldn't keep a watchful eye on Google? They have a tremendous amount of power. 1: http://www.google.com/search?q=define:%20dangerous
Their power is derived from your use of their services. You can quote the dictionary at me, but I simply don't understand this attitude.
It's like handing over money to a drug dealer in the back alley and going "I just don't know about you, you seem dangerous" and then coming back week after week. Stop using Google and they lose all power over you and the "danger" evaporates.