* Posts by Shazback

9 posts • joined 7 May 2010

Google shamed by Apple in race to HTML5


From the "research" :

Chrome 9 - 4.410 sec full render - 3.025 sec perceived render

Chrome 10 - 5.234 sec - 3.680 sec

Safari 4 - 2.555 sec - 1.948 sec

Safari 5 - 2.834 sec - 2.135 sec

Older is better? Also, Safari is... roughly 40% faster than Chrome? Yeeeaaaa. I'd like to know what machine these tests were run on. iPC?

US government could challenge Google's ITA travel plans


Goolgle search is seriously flawed.

I just searched "Goolgle search is seriously flawed." 1 result (0.39 seconds) : http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2011/01/14/google_ita_doj/

I don't know, seems to have found it without too many pages that don't have the exact phrase being put before the page I was looking for.

Jobs tells iPhone users to get a grip



App store, "magical device", touchscreen, "best web browsing experience", designed in Cupertino...

I guess it really is an iPad Nano then.

Google vanishes Android apps from citizen phones


AC Engineering

If it was a very good social engineering, it would probably pop up that message on its own, but as a "cover" for asking to send data home/gain su to access other data. After all, if you're Joe Average, when you get a full-screen pop-up that can't be avoided that says "This application seems to be doing something dangerous. Please click here for more information and countermeasures.", are you going to click on the little "No" button, or on the big "Please click here" button?

The first "application" could probably find a way to interfere with what is being displayed, and thus the "please click here" can download another application, which asks for all imaginable permissions, except the end user sees only nice reassuring messages by Android that they're "removing" or "isolating" the application and "retrieving data"...

I'll just drink to it being there, but in a way that hopefully serves more as a deterrent than as an actual "kill switch".

Apple not yet dominant enough for anti-trust action


Letters and digits (are required in the title)

So, by following your logic, Google should have the right to deny access to anything Apple-related to their services?

So, no Gmail, Google search, Google Books, Google reader, Google maps...

Hell, why not push it further and refuse access to "invisible" services that Google provides, or embedded within apps/programs/features/websites? How well would all those iPad RSS readers work without FeedBurner? How would all those nice apps feel if they had to be re-developed to embed Bing maps or Mapquest?

In fact, Google could push it to the limit and say that they'll not display ads on websites that are displayed on iDevices or Safari. Since websites use DoubleClick to generate revenue, they could just put in the Terms of Service that using DoubleClick on your website allows the advertising spec. to bring up a pop-up promoting Chrome/Android (or refuse to load the page) if Google judges that the device or program in question is affiliated with a competitor.

See where this is going? There's a good reason why you're not allowed to completely shut out your competitors. If you're a monopoly, you're obliged to produce services that can be relied upon by other companies (see Microsoft getting in hot water for not producing interoperability specs in 2004). If you're not a monopoly, you're obliged to let your customers benefit from the choice of vendor and services they can expect (see the automobile industry spare parts market, where it's illegal to not publish replacement part specs, and to not honor honor a warranty because the spare parts used were not those of the vehicle manufacturer).

Apple wants to enter the advertising game (which is a good move, since Google's position has become somewhat too dominant), but that doesn't give them the right to just ban Google from competing on their devices. It's as if you had a car manufacturer that says "all auto parts corresponding to the published specs installed by certified mechanics will be covered by warranty, except if the company that makes the spare parts also makes spare parts for other companies' cars, or if the mechanic also works on other companies' cars". Neither of the involved needs to be dominant in their industry for it to be illegal.

Apple slapped with lawsuit over 'iAds' monicker


Yes, so hard.

Not really. He's have been bought out, probably for an amount that's well above valuation, and would either be looking forwards to starting a new company with a nice amount in the bank, or being paid by Apple to integrate their advertising department/Quattro Mobile.

Apple bans competing ads from the iPhone

Paris Hilton

El Reg

"remember that Google-App where you could check your bank balance from your phone that told the author of the software your bank details at the same time? Can't see that happening any time soon on an iPhone"

You mean, the Apple app review would catch security flaws? Like... A picture texting program that uses neither encryption nor sign-ins to secure the data it links to? (Quip) Or a program that looks through your contact list and sends the entire database (phone numbers, names, e-mail addresses, personal information, etc.) unencrypted to a non-secure server to match it with databases downloaded from other users? (Aurora Feint) How about a program that harvests personal information, data of use of web services and other applications, phone number and frequence of calls, and uses all this to monetise your advertising potential to direct marketing techniques? (MogoRoad) Or...

The main security the iPhone has is obscurity. Nicolas Seriot already showed how applications can easily access all kinds of information they're not supposed to access, and how the review process is inherently unable to catch these security flaws since the code source isn't accessible to the reviewers. Hackers have already been able to spoof verified OTA access on Apple's behalf, and I'm sure the Black Hat community isn't ignoring the appeal of the iPhone as a source of income. There will be security problems on it, just like on any platform.

Watchdog backs Google antitrust complaint with (more) data


Browsin' away

I was actually interested in the idea of searching for a new browser. I run Chrome, Firefox and IE on my laptop, and have whatever the shitty Nokia basic thing is on Symbian and Opera Mobile.

So I did a search on the first google place I stumbled upon in each one (address bar for chrome, search area for Firefox, www.google.com for IE, www.google.com for Symbian Browser, and search area for Opera Mini). The search term was "browser" and I am listing the top results in each case as they appear on the browser

Chrome : Wikipedia - Wikipedia (+ "more at Wikipedia") - Firefox - Opera - Chrome - Safari - Safari - Flock - "Browser statistics" from w3schools - "What is browser? (sic)" from webopedia

Firefox : Wikipedia - Definition of the word "Browser" - Firefox - Google Image results - Chrome - Avant Browser - Crazy Browser - Zac Browser - Opera - Fox Splitter (Firefox addon) - chromium browser forum

IE : Wikipedia - Wikipedia (+ "more at Wikipedia") - Firefox - Google Image results - Opera - Chrome - Chrome - AOL Search - Definition of the word "Browser" - Avant Browser - "What is browser? (sic)" from webopedia

Symbian : Wikipedia - Definition of the word "Browser" - Firefox - Google Image results - Chrome - Avant Browser - Crazy Browser - Zac Browser - Opera - Fox Splitter (Firefox addon) - chromium browser forum

Opera Mobile : Wikipedia - Wikipedia - Chrome - Firefox - Netscape Archive - Check Browser Compatibility, Cross Platform Browser Test (at browsershots.org) - Safari - "web browsers" from answers.com - UserAgentString.com List of Browser User Agent Strings - "What is browser? (sic)" from webopedia

So yes, Chrome does appear quite well, but is far from the first result, and generally appears behind Firefox. IE's absence is notable, whilst Opera and Safari appear perhaps a touch less or lower than expected, especially given Flock, Avast, Crazy and Netscape appear in the "top ten". However, I find it kind of hard to say that Google are "cheating" and promoting Chrome unfairly. If they were, why not put Chrome first, or at the very least above other browsers? Chrome has been gaining speed quickly over the past few months, but if searches for "browser" were the determining factor in this growth, why hasn't Firefox grown faster, and why are both Opera and Safari not seeing even vaguely similar growths despite being on the market for much longer?

There certainly is a part of truth in the idea that by giving their own services special looks and not their competition (Maps from maps.google.com are much more "inviting" than a link that says "Maps by mapquest"), but they -do- offer choice as to which one the user chooses. Windows still bundles IE, but has a splashscreen in europe that offers people "choice". Google integrate their other services' responses into their search feed, but don't automatically direct people to them (unless they specifically choose "I'm feeling lucky"). Is this enough? I think so.

F*ck you, thunders disgruntled fanboi Apple user


A priest, an irishman and a horse walk into a bar...

There's a Linux penguin, a fanboi, and a Windows luser in a plane, and the pilot says, we're carrying too much weight, one of you has got to go, and the fanboi says, well, I can't jump because...

...iPhone lease in Nepal 'n' Apps to do that.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021