Comments on: FT declares Android dead before it even ships

By: Sanat

Sanat — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:25:42 +0000

thanks …

By: Halk Bilimi

Halk Bilimi — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:47:46 +0000

thanks

By: çeçenistan

çeçenistan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:38:19 +0000

thank you a lot

By: Kabala

Kabala — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:17:03 +0000

thank you…

By: Raw-B

Raw-B — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:14:06 +0000

I’m reluctant to believe that Android is DOA, but I don’t think the iPhone will be a major factor either way. The iPhone is a consumer ready, end to end finished product. Android, instead, is the new Windows Mobile. It is a generic, ready to use phone platform, and hopefully one that can at least outdo MS on this. That’s the market segment it will find it’s niche in, I think, and that’s the real competition.

By: lee

lee — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:09:41 +0000

In response to the google owning the world with open source software not making sense.

Google is an ad company, they make revenue by exposing you to advertisements with the hope that you click on the ad. In this regard its very similar to tv. You can watch tv for free (for the most part) and the stations get money from commercials. Tv stations don’t make money on the communication infrasturcture or device with which you receive their broadcast. And you are, with some weird sports broadcast exception able to use that content however you like. In a sense its opened.

So how does freely distributing open source software help google?
Android gives more people access to the web, not verizon presents the internet with some shitty pay verizon for use utilities, but instead it gives you the real web. which upon last viewing is pretty much permeated by the ever ubiquitous google. Thats where they will make their money. You are free to choose what site you use to check the weather etc, but Google is banking on it mostly likely being them.

The disclaimer portion of this post is that I am not in any way defending Google. Their business plan is sound, but their practices are quite contrary to their “do no evil” mantra. In short google found a loophole in the gpl2 that allowed them to expose web services (fixed in gpl3) to users without exposing them to the underlining code that resides locally on their servers and is in no way distributed to end users. Therefor under gpl2 they are not obligated to publicly release their code in accordance with the license. If they had somehow distributed a derivative work of a gpl2 piece of software, the then would be obligated to absorb the same license agreement. Google can create free apps and open source this and thats as much as they want, but the only reason they are doing it is because
1. they are obligated to under gpl2 as most products are derivative works of some gpl’d code
and 2. whatever gets more kiddies on the internet is good for them.

Google has made billions capitalizing on the efforts of many hard working, free software developers, while providing little (a paltry 500 bucks a project during SoC) or no compensation toward for their time.

By: lee

lee — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:31:02 +0000

Android solves the problem of stagnation in the mobile market just as linux did, as well as offering a universal interface for users.
The idea is simple, phone manufactures are primarily device manufacturers. They have software teams that provide for the phones being manufactured, nothing more. Android is developed by software developers whose business focus is mobile device interface software. By moving the market focus from the device to software that runs on the device, android is investing itself in software quality agnostic to the platform on which it will be running. Just like all other operating systems have done. Clearly google is fed up with half-assed guis for cell phones. Guis that change every year, and achieve nothing more than the bare minimum of supporting the phones newly added hardware. Apple i think is so successful because the measure software on par with hardware advancements in their products. By providing a universal interface with minimal changes between devices and over time, users are able to learn the features of their phone without being disappointed in 2 years with the next phone because it doesnt do something the same way as their old phone. Android is shaking up the industry, and shrugging it off as being ludicrous is a gross understatement.

By: faddah

faddah — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:12:51 +0000

wonder if katie & moshe did a li’l’ ol’ drive-by at the FT offices and did one of those, “awful nice place you got here … what a shame if anything happened to it … accidents happen, y’know … tsk, tsk … be awful sad …” routines to generate this article.

i do agree with what it says about android. but i think “chrome” as a browser seems pretty neat. especially with how it handles everything as its own process to prevent unrecoverable slow-downs and crashes, and its high security sandbox. or as my friend in the security software business would say: anything has got to be better than the grand canyon-sized security holes in any version of IE.

By: Olen

Olen — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:46:39 +0000

No, I wasn’t kidding. I actually don’t know anybody who stores their own files somewhere remotely. My company (multinational blah blah) does not use a third party, although we sort of have our own “cloud”, which about two years ago was called an intranet. I didn’t say my two cylinder was good enough damnit and nobody will buy one of those new-fallutin diesels, I just said I don’t see much utility in storing my files on somebody else’s network. I should also add that I’m not charged about the security implications, but hey.

By: Al

Al — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 05:48:01 +0000

The google fucks crawl the web to look for anything stated against google. i dont care if chrome is fast or not. i got safari