Surely Apple themselves are infringing
Do they not provide (force use of) a mechanism to do in app purchasing through iTunes? or did I dream that story last year about them grabbing hold of that revenue stream?
[insert ObPatentRant here]
446 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Nov 2007
"...but it's hard enough teaching adults (or even schoolchildren) how to inspect their naughty bits in this country..."
Proof right there, with the word 'naughty'
Now, if we can somehow construct a class action suit against Wacky Smith and her ilk, that would make my day.
What utter crap. What about when the browser IS the OS?
What they meant to say is that, due to a management oversight, all of middle management were given a bonus goal for 2010/11 of making sure none of their devs were running XP anymore.
Technical problems aside, this is essentially an attempt to shift the business model currently in use by the main console players to something akin to that used by iTunes, and in turn taking away a massive revenue stream from Sony, Nintendo and M$. A bold move, but I don't fancy their chances.
Technically of course, it's doomed to fail. It will always be far better to have the game hosted on a box under (or inside) the telly. The lag is just unacceptable, and would only get worse as the userbase scales. It all seems like a solution without a problem, and a poor one at that.
Steve. It's simple. Here's what to do.
Kick your weed smoking UX 'gurus' into touch, get WP7 running on a Tablet sized display.
Add in Office and that Handwriting/Note utility from Windows for TabletPCs.
Undercut Apple, and make the device look good (I know, tricky).
Bundle some free Cloud services/storage
Make a killing.
Trick is, you need to be rolling this out this summer. If you can't get that many people, with the amount of capital M$ has, to execute something as simple as that, you need to stand aside.
Autumn this year would be too late. Next year?!? FAIL.
"...assuring better performance on apps that can take advantage of that extra core."
If it's up to the application to make use of the extra core, then that is a massive FAIL for iOS. Even the 'obsolete' Symbian OS can manage multicore effectively and efficiently without any real changes to the application code.
On one hand I really don't like M$, and the other I really don't like Apple. But which is worse?
There's only one way to find out... LITIGATE!
I wonder if the Apple Lawyers could direct me to a mainstream dictionary that contains the term 'shoe store' Or perhaps I should trademark that?
Sure, it is a simple function, and sure, any implementation would likely be structurally similar. But the point is it has likely* been lifted from the Java Source and relicensed as if it were Google's IP to relicense.
*The Android version has tell tale signs of having been produced by a code generator, in it's naming of the local variables, names which wouldn't have appeared in the final compiled .class file. If only they'd had the sense to mixup the declaration ordering of the member variables, that might have been the 'wiggle' room they need to get off the hook.
Then surely the simplest thing to do is mark their avatars/gamertags as being run on a modded console, then if they are cheating, those playing against them will simply walk away. Let the users do the hard work! No lawsuits. No bad PR.
Unless... THAT isn't why they're doing it?
In what way? They managed to ship a few million of them in the space of a couple of months. iPhone 1 never managed that. Neither has many (all?) of the Android handsets.
You could qualify that with an "..in the US" but I'm pretty sure that each one of those US sales would've been at the cost of at least 3 everywhere else.
No, it wasn't their OS that let them down, it was their lack of focus on UX and that has let them down. Far too concerned with transitioning to an 'internet services company'. Whatever the hell one of those is. Rampant complacency, silo mentality, and lack of a single coherent vision is where the problem lies.
"An android N97 would be fantastic" You think Android would've run any better on the N97 HW? It's some way short of even the now antique G1
"RIM is expected to adopt the Dalvik virtual machine, which is also used by Android, and this would allow the firm's QNX devices, such as PlayBook, to run apps written for the Google OS."
No, no it wouldn't. RIM may well go for Dalvik, and in many ways that would make sense, it's a much leaner VM than that bloaty POS that you get from Snoracle. But in doing so, it doesn't automatically mean it will run Android apps. In order to do that they would either have to incorporate the whole Android framework (which would need porting to QNX) or provide a suitable compatibility layer to map the thousands of Android APIs onto suitable APIs in whatever application framework they do put onto QNX. Neither of those is a trivial task, and neither of those has been implied by RIM, AFAIK.
The only people that stand to gain from a .xxx TLD are ICANN, so they can fleece existing providers (again) in the goldrush migration. But are the old, existing domains, suddenly going to vanish? I doubt it. If a site owner finds He is being blocked from a .xxx domain, they'll just focus on the exiting .com ones. You can't effectively censor on domain names, they're only good for black/whitelists. If a punter finds he's always getting 'not found' errors from typing .xxx into his browser, he'll either google to find out his ISP has configured their DNS to not serve them up, and switch DNS server, or go elsewhere for his pr0n.
If this was going to clean up the internet, then I'd suggest we quickly adopt other TLDs such as .spam, .trojan, .warez, etc.
"The bid has faced substantial opposition from outraged religious groups, which believe .xxx will lead to more porn."
More porn??!? *pffft* Do these people think that there's only a few saucy pictures on the net? Where have they been hiding the past decade?