1. iN8ter's Avatar
    Google Tightens Its Grip On Android, Infuriating Partners

    Google, which for years has touted its Android software as "open," has recently taken a much tighter grip over the software, proving once again that "open" is a crock.


    And people -- including Google's partners -- are starting to get pissed. Some have already taken it to the Feds.

    Google's agreements with Android partners are more "onerous" now than in the past, we recently heard from a Silicon Valley bigwig.

    Bloomberg's Ashlee Vance and Peter Burrows just published a good overview of the situation.

    Some choice bits:
    Google is totally in control of Android now. No more "willy-nilly" tweaks to Android or "partnerships formed outside of Google's purview."
    Companies who want early access to Android "will need approval of their plans" from Android boss Andy Rubin.
    Google has new "non-fragmentation clauses" that give Google veto power over tweaks that others want to make to Android, or even partnerships that companies want to make.
    Facebook, which -- as we first reported -- is crafting its own version of Android, needs to get approval of its code from Google. That has to be uncomfortable.
    Google has "tried to hold up" some Verizon Android devices that use Microsoft Bing as its search engine. Yikes! Sure sounds anti-competitive.
    Affected companies include top smartphone makers like Samsung, LG, and Toshiba.
    Google plays favorites, and the companies who get access to software early can score big in the market. For those who can't, like Dell, it can suck.
    Some companies have already complained to the Justice Department.

    Separately, but indicative of the same problem, Google basically forced Motorola to ditch a contract it had with software maker Skyhook Wireless last year, which forced Skyhook to sue Google. That case is still pending.

    So, what to make of all this?

    We hear that the "naked" version of Android is still pretty much fair game. But any time you want to even come CLOSE to mentioning the name Google or any of its services -- maps, Gmail, apps, etc. -- near your device, you NEED one of these increasingly "onerous" contracts with Andy Rubin.

    And the "naked" Android is getting harder to get ahold of, too -- Google isn't distributing Android 3.0 "Honeycomb" right now because it's not ready for the masses.

    From a consumer's perspective, by the way, all of this is probably a good thing. It sounds like it will lead to more consistent, high-quality Android devices. (Inconsistency, fragmentation, and questionable quality are rampant in the Android portfolio.) And it's not like this is an uncommon way of doing business. Microsoft keeps tight control over Windows Phone 7, Apple doesn't even let other companies near iOS, etc.

    For the industry, it will probably mean less freedom over what companies can do with Android. Depending on how strict Google is, this could either be okay, a little bad, or really bad. It depends what you want to do with Android, and whether Google sees you as strategically important or competitive. We wouldn't want to be Facebook in this situation.

    This is what happens when you rely on another company for your underlying platform. This is why Apple was the only PC maker that could innovate away from Windows. This is why it is good to be the platform maker and not relying on some other company for your software. This is why Zynga could never be bigger than Facebook unless it stopped relying on Facebook. Even if something is promised to you as "open" one day, it might be closed the next day. This happens all the time, so if you get fooled, it's on you.

    Google could be making the right move, business-wise -- it depends whether this infuriates any partners enough that they stop working with Google, either going to the Microsoft camp or working on their own operating systems.

    But in terms of goodwill and reputation, Google is now dirty. The company talked until it lost its voice about how "open" Android was going to be, and now it is very clear that was B.S.

    Why would you trust Google anymore?
    Maybe it can explain why the Fascinate still doesn't have an Official 2.2 update, Lol!
    03-31-11 03:10 PM
  2. iN8ter's Avatar
    Also, Microsoft filed a formal Anti-Trust complaint to the EU about Google.

    Adding our Voice to Concerns about Search in Europe - Microsoft on the Issues - Site Home - TechNet Blogs

    Microsoft is filing a formal complaint with the European Commission as part of the Commission’s ongoing investigation into whether Google has violated European competition law. We thought it important to be transparent and provide some information on what we’re doing and why.

    At the outset, we should be among the first to compliment Google for its genuine innovations, of which there have been many over the past decade. As the only viable search competitor to Google in the U.S. and much of Europe, we respect their engineering prowess and competitive drive. Google has done much to advance its laudable mission to “organize the world’s information,” but we’re concerned by a broadening pattern of conduct aimed at stopping anyone else from creating a competitive alternative.

    We’ve therefore decided to join a large and growing number of companies registering their concerns about the European search market. By the European Commission’s own reckoning, Google has about 95 percent of the search market in Europe. This contrasts with the United States, where Microsoft serves about a quarter of Americans’ search needs either directly through Bing or through our partnership with Yahoo!.

    At Microsoft we’ve shown that we’re prepared to work hard and invest literally billions of dollars annually to offer Bing, a search service that many now regard as the most innovative available. But, hard work and innovation need a fair and competitive marketplace in which to thrive, and twice the Department of Justice has intervened to thwart Google’s unlawful conduct from impeding fair competition. In 2008 the DOJ moved to file suit against Google for its unlawful attempt to tie up and set search advertising prices at Yahoo!, causing Google to back down. And last year the DOJ formally objected to Google’s efforts to monopolize book content, a position affirmed by a federal district court in New York just last week. Unfortunately, even this has not stopped the spread by Google of new and disconcerting practices in the United States.

    As troubling as the situation is in United States, it is worse in Europe. That is why our filing today focuses on a pattern of actions that Google has taken to entrench its dominance in the markets for online search and search advertising to the detriment of European consumers.

    How does it do this? Google has built its business on indexing and displaying snippets of other organizations’ Web content. It understands as well as anyone that search engines depend upon the openness of the Web in order to function properly, and it’s quick to complain when others undermine this. Unfortunately, Google has engaged in a broadening pattern of walling off access to content and data that competitors need to provide search results to consumers and to attract advertisers.

    On PCs it is usually not difficult for people to navigate to any search engine. Google in fact makes this point virtually every time someone raises antitrust concerns about their practices. Their defense ignores the hugely important fact that there are many other important ways that search services compete. Search engines compete to index the Web as fully as possible so they can generate good search results, they compete to gain advertisers (the source of revenue in this business), and they compete to gain distribution of their search boxes through Web sites. Consumers will not benefit from clicking to alternative sites unless all search engines have a fair opportunity to compete in each of these areas.

    Our filing details many instances where Google is impeding competition in these areas. A half-dozen examples below help illustrate some of our concerns.

    First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube—and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.

    Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft’s new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It’s done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn’t offer a competing search service.

    Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft’s new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft’s YouTube “app” on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube’s mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide.

    Third, Google is seeking to block access to content owned by book publishers. This was underscored in federal court in New York last week, in the decision involving Google’s effort to obtain exclusive and unfettered access to the large volume of so-called “orphan books”—books for which no copyright holder can readily be found. Under Google’s plan only its search engine would be able to return search results from these books. As the federal court said in rejecting this plan, “Google’s ability to deny competitors the ability to search orphan books would further entrench Google’s market power in the online search market.” This is an important initial step under U.S. law, but it needs to be reinforced by similar positions in Europe and the rest of the world.

    Fourth, Google is even restricting its customers’—namely, advertisers’—access to their own data. Advertisers input large amounts of data into Google’s ad servers in the course of managing their advertising campaigns. This data belongs to the advertisers: it reflects their decisions about their own business. But Google contractually prohibits advertisers from using their data in an interoperable way with other search advertising platforms, such as Microsoft’s adCenter.

    This makes it much more costly for Google’s advertisers to run portions of their campaigns with any competitor, and thus less likely that they will do so. That is a significant problem because most advertisers figure that they have to advertise first with Google. If it’s too expensive to port their advertising campaign data to competing advertising platforms, many won’t do it. Competing search engines are left with less relevant ads, and less revenue. And while this restraint isn’t visible to consumers, its effects are nonetheless felt across the Web. Advertising revenue is the economic propellant fueling the billions of dollars needed for ongoing search investments. By reducing competitors’ ability to attract advertising revenue, this restriction strikes at the heart of a competitive market.

    Fifth, this undermining of competition is reflected in concerns that go beyond Google’s control over content. One of the ways that search engines attract users is through distribution of search boxes through Web sites. Unfortunately, Google contractually blocks leading Web sites in Europe from distributing competing search boxes. It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google. Google’s exclusivity terms have even blocked Microsoft from distributing its Windows Live services, such as email and online document storage, through European telecommunications companies because these services are monetized through Bing search boxes.

    Finally, we share the concerns expressed by many others that Google discriminates against would-be competitors by making it more costly for them to attain prominent placement for their advertisements. Microsoft has provided the Commission with a considerable body of expert analysis concerning how search engine algorithms work and the competitive significance of promoting or demoting various advertisements.

    Over the past year, a growing number of advertisers, publishers, and consumers have expressed to us their concerns about the search market in Europe. They’ve urged us to share our knowledge of the search market with competition officials. As they’ve pointed out, the stakes are high for the European economy. On any given day, more than half of all Europeans use the Internet, and more than 90 percent of them look for information about goods and services on the Web. Indeed, the European Commission’s Digital Agenda made clear that commerce is moving online, where two-thirds of Europeans begin their shopping process. It’s therefore critical that search engines and online advertising move forward in an open, fair and competitive manner.

    There of course will be some who will point out the irony in today’s filing. Having spent more than a decade wearing the shoe on the other foot with the European Commission, the filing of a formal antitrust complaint is not something we take lightly. This is the first time Microsoft Corporation has ever taken this step. More so than most, we recognize the importance of ensuring that competition laws remain balanced and that technology innovation moves forward.

    We readily appreciate that Google should continue to have the freedom to innovate. But it shouldn’t be permitted to pursue practices that restrict others from innovating and offering competitive alternatives. That’s what it’s doing now. And that’s what we hope European officials will assess and ultimately decide to stop.
    03-31-11 03:11 PM
  3. syb0rg's Avatar
    Nice you see blackberry people talking about android stuff.

    you guys are getting to lines crossed. The first post is dealing with the variations of of Android out there. MotoBlur, Sense, Sony's UI around the circle we go. They are wanting to force everyone to use plain jane AOSP programming. And cut down on the fragmentation. Their are apps out there that will run on Sense UI that will not run on MotoBlur and such. Google is wanting to do away with fragmentation. and from the way it sounds they are extremely close to that. They will have one Phone OS and one Tablet OS. 2.4 and 3.0, respectively, are the current rumors. This has to deal alot with the hackery that goes on in the Android world. For example i cannot take the stock "facebook" sense app from my MyTouchHD and put it on my Cyanogen powered MyTouchHD phone because Cyanogen is AOSP (plain jane) and the Stock is Sense'd framework.

    It's not a bad thing it's going to make Android, what is should of been sense day one. but manufactures got their greedy little hands in the mix and made their phones closed source.

    So if i don't like a certain Skin and everything will look the same it'll fall back on performance, thus creating a drive the have the best hardware on the market. And with iOS, and Blackberry's yearly update, we'll be lightyears ahead of the rest.

    and microsoft is just whinney because their hardware and software isn't selling as well as Google's. WinMo7 is nice and will be a game changer for them. But it's no where near what the development community wants.



    Microsoft really has no reason to complain about Anti-Trust Policies when it comes to compensation. Try to go to a computer store and buy a Native Linux powered computer.

    And their little bing problem on the Verizon phones they have NO room to talk about anything.


    [sent via Cyanogen powered Android]
    Last edited by syb0rg; 03-31-11 at 03:32 PM.
    03-31-11 03:26 PM
  4. scorpiodsu's Avatar
    It's about time they took control over their OS. That's the best way to ensure consistent user experiences. Of course the downside is it will be harder (it's already difficult) for manufacturers to differentiate themselves from each other because they have to limit their "tweaks". Everyone hates on Apple because of the control they have on their OS. But at least they were upfront about it. Now Google has to be the one to show that well maybe "open" isn't as good as we thought. Each week they are doing something that changes the definition of "open".
    03-31-11 03:29 PM
  5. iN8ter's Avatar
    Nice you see blackberry people talking about android stuff.

    you guys are getting to lines crossed. The first post is dealing with the variations of of Android out there. MotoBlur, Sense, Sony's UI around the circle we go. They are wanting to force everyone to use plain jane AOSP programming. And cut down on the fragmentation. Their are apps out there that will run on Sense UI that will not run on MotoBlur and such. Google is wanting to do away with fragmentation. and from the way it sounds they are extremely close to that. They will have one Phone OS and one Tablet OS. 2.4 and 3.0, respectively, are the current rumors. This has to deal alot with the hackery that goes on in the Android world. For example i cannot take the stock "facebook" sense app from my MyTouchHD and put it on my Cyanogen powered MyTouchHD phone because Cyanogen is AOSP (plain jane) and the Stock is Sense'd framework.

    It's not a bad thing it's going to make Android, what is should of been sense day one. but manufactures got their greedy little hands in the mix and made their phones closed source.

    So if i don't like a certain Skin and everything will look the same it'll fall back on performance, thus creating a drive the have the best hardware on the market. And with iOS, and Blackberry's yearly update, we'll be lightyears ahead of the rest.

    and microsoft is just whinney because their hardware and software isn't selling as well as Google's. WinMo7 is nice and will be a game changer for them. But it's no where near what the development community wants.



    Microsoft really has no reason to complain about Anti-Trust Policies when it comes to compensation. Try to go to a computer store and buy a Native Linux powered computer.

    And their little bing problem on the Verizon phones they have NO room to talk about anything.


    [sent via Cyanogen powered Android]
    Dell tried that with Ubuntu on Netbooks. No one wanted it. Linux is **** on the desktop. If you want Desktop *NIX, get a Mac. They had a high return rate, and most of those that weren't returned ended up getting Windows installed on them. Also, no OEM wants to support an OS that routinely breaks hardware or software on a kernel/xorg/etc. update...

    Google is also holding up phones that ship with Microsoft BING on it.

    They want to vet partnerships, most likely to stop OEMs/Carriers from putting Bing on Android phones.

    Microsoft has a YouTube App ready for release for WP7, but Google won't give them permission to release it.

    Also, tons of companies have been complaining about Google's anti-competitive behavior.

    AOSP Android looks like crap, and the OEM skins do add a lot of value to it.

    Android will never be fully open source, because manufacturers have to license a ton of IP to make the phones smart - yes, even for "stock" phones.

    Also, WP7 is selling better than Android was at this time in it's lifecycle, so I dunno what you're talking about there.
    Last edited by N8ter; 03-31-11 at 04:00 PM.
    03-31-11 03:52 PM
  6. avt123's Avatar
    No fragmentation is nice. Also, I prefer Vanilla Android. I would like to see what comes of this.
    03-31-11 03:54 PM
  7. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    A common misconception about the openness of Android is that the openness does not extend to the Google name and their services.

    There's a significant difference between a device running Android, and an Android device bearing the "Powered by Google" branding.
    03-31-11 04:51 PM
  8. CranBerry413's Avatar
    Well, this is interesting to see. I'm not entirely sure that Google Phones are Doomed, but these types of Behaviors are indicative of Shady Business. It seems counter productive to argue that Google's OS is "Open Source" or not. To be Frank, anyone who isn't familiar with Computer Science would be lost if they tried to manipulate a Linux Operating System Anyway.

    Now the fact that Google is tightening it's Grip, says that they tried to let Android be free, and that was not the best idea. Google phones suffer from standpoint that every Tom, ****, & Harry can make a Phone, and slap Android on it. Thus Ensuring that Google phones are not nearly as uniform in anything.

    Which, they're finding is hard to work with.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

    EDIT: I see that My Alternative name for 'Richard' was Censured. It was a name, not an insulting word there.
    Last edited by CranBerry413; 03-31-11 at 05:00 PM.
    03-31-11 04:57 PM
  9. drethos's Avatar
    I really can't blame them. Some manufacturer's can butcher a good os and cause a ripple of bad reviews on the os. Rather have a good running fully compatible os then a bunch of medocre or un-usable os's making a bad name for you.
    03-31-11 04:58 PM
  10. syb0rg's Avatar
    Dell tried that with Ubuntu on Netbooks. No one wanted it. Linux is **** on the desktop. If you want Desktop *NIX, get a Mac. They had a high return rate, and most of those that weren't returned ended up getting Windows installed on them. Also, no OEM wants to support an OS that routinely breaks hardware or software on a kernel/xorg/etc. update...
    you mean like every time i turn off my windows XP work computer of my windows & compter i have a message that i need to updates to be installed. Try again.

    Google is also holding up phones that ship with Microsoft BING on it.

    They want to vet partnerships, most likely to stop OEMs/Carriers from putting Bing on Android phones.
    They have every right to not allow the release of phones that support a competitor. Go to Ford and demand to buy a brand new Honda, and have Ford supply all the parts, service and support for that Honda.

    Microsoft has a YouTube App ready for release for WP7, but Google won't give them permission to release it.
    If you want You Tube, buy an Android or a iOS device.... Sounds like something you suggest regarding computers.....


    Also, tons of companies have been complaining about Google's anti-competitive behavior.
    When you are on the top everyone will attack you, plain and simple. No more No Less.


    AOSP Android looks like crap, and the OEM skins do add a lot of value to it.
    Then why is Cyanogen so popular in the Android world. They only supply AOSP programming. And to be frank about AOSP just runs better than any other ROM.
    HTC's Sense ROM runs around 256Mb per ROM. AOSP programming runs around 80Mb per ROM, and that includes some extra settings that aren't native.

    AOSP programming is a personal choice. Personally i will not use a phone that doesn't have AOSP on it. from my MyTouch3G to my Cliq to my MyTouchHD they've all had AOSP ROMs on them.

    Android will never be fully open source, because manufacturers have to license a ton of IP to make the phones smart - yes, even for "stock" phones.
    I will contest this the gapps themselves are closed source.

    Also, WP7 is selling better than Android was at this time in it's lifecycle, so I dunno what you're talking about there.
    WinMo 7 had three previous generations of ROMs prior to 7 being released, If has a foothold in the door. Android didn't have that you are mixing apples and oranges on this one buck-o

    posted from my Ubuntu 10.10 powered Asus netbook Tethered to my AOSP 2.3.3 Android phone.
    Last edited by syb0rg; 03-31-11 at 05:59 PM.
    03-31-11 05:57 PM
  11. iN8ter's Avatar
    you mean like every time i turn off my windows XP work computer of my windows & compter i have a message that i need to updates to be installed. Try again.
    Ugh. I'm getting trolled yet again, but I'll bit.

    Windows has Stable ABI and APIs. Windows also has a stable driver interface. No UNIX system has backward compatibility comparable to Microsoft Windows except Solaris - not even Apple Mac OS/X. That is why there are Windows 9x Drivers that work on Vista and Windows XP drivers that work on Windows 7. A modern Linux distro will choke on a Legacy System trying to use Manufacturer-supplied drivers because Kernel/X.Org/etc. updates break those drivers. That is why Graphics cards are deprecated at an accellerated rate on Linux compared to Windows or Solaris (where the driver support exists, but you can use Solaris 8 drivers on Solaris 10 without recompilation in many/most cases).

    Also, even the generic Windows 7 drivers offer things like 3 accelleration. Linux F/OSS drivers are useless in many cases, and typically you have to cherry pick your hardware for them to be of use (i.e. don't get an ATI graphics card). This is part of the reason why the commercial desktop and game market on Linux crashed and burned. Supporting Consumer Desktop Linux systems and software is a nightmare.

    Apparently you are new to Linux. I used to develop for Linux and I used RHEL 3-5. I've seen how software breaks when you upgrade. Server systems do not suffer from this because typically they only get security patches. Distro vendors do not have to worry about SysAdmins upgrade their Server distros every 6 months like an Ubuntu Distro.

    And yes, Driver Quality is terrible on Linux. It hasn't even gotten sound done yet, and Microsoft has pretty much redone sound 4-5x on Windows. Software and drivers routinely break on kernel and system component updates. Library updates can break your system.

    Users are put in a situation where they have to upgrade their entire distro to run the latest version of something like Firefox, when Firefox 3.6 ran flawlessly on Windows 98. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about, and certainly didn't have to develop any consumer-facing software in Linux using anything other than Python or some scripting language...

    Consumers buying OEM Linux Distros are less likely to to wait to recompile kernels or command-line troubleshoot (nevermind deal with the Linux elitists on the forums and in IRC channels) when their system blows up. That's why the marketshare is terrible. When Windows XP says you have an update, you can be 99.5% sure nothing will break. When Linux says Kernel Update, you run to the internet to make sure none of your drivers and/or software will break (if you're responsible).

    They have every right to not allow the release of phones that support a competitor. Go to Ford and demand to buy a brand new Honda, and have Ford supply all the parts, service and support for that Honda.
    Yet Microsoft preloading Windows Media Center and Internet Explorer in Windows was a bad thing? Double Standard, much? Dictating who OEMs can deal with and using licensing as a way to basically extort them is not legal (Read up on the Microsoft AntiTrust case). This is a particular issue that one company is suing Google for because they did the same thing to force Motorola to use their location services instead of a competitors.

    It's not legal.

    Microsoft does not disallow T-Mobile from setting the default Browser search to Google, nor did it reject Google's search Application from the marketplace. If they had done that, there would be cries to impeach Microsoft :P

    Google does it because it gets most of its revenue form ads and it wants the rights to datamine and get click throughs on Android phones. That's why. This non-fragmentation fiasco is more about protecting Google's Search Dominance and holding off competitors than customer satisfaction. That's why I linked both articles, but instead of reading them you felt the need to verbally defecate your faux knowledge all over the thread... (in a matter of speaking)

    If you want You Tube, buy an Android or a iOS device.... Sounds like something you suggest regarding computers.....
    HTC has a YouTube App for Windows Phone 7 (see the bias?)

    I already have an Android Phone.

    Try again?

    When you are on the top everyone will attack you, plain and simple. No more No Less.
    Google's behavior in many cases is not legal. Plain and simple. No more No Less.

    Then why is Cyanogen so popular in the Android world. They only supply AOSP programming. And to be frank about AOSP just runs better than any other ROM.
    That doesn't change the fact that AOSP is ugly as **** and most consumers wouldn't want to touch it.

    HTC's Sense ROM runs around 256Mb per ROM. AOSP programming runs around 80Mb per ROM, and that includes some extra settings that aren't native.
    Sense adds a lot to Android and that Sense ROM also includes IP that HTC licensed from partners to improve the Value and functionality of their Android devices. IP that Cyanogen has not licensed, and thus is not able to put in his ROM. Dumb size comparison are just that... Dumb.

    AOSP programming is a personal choice. Personally i will not use a phone that doesn't have AOSP on it. from my MyTouch3G to my Cliq to my MyTouchHD they've all had AOSP ROMs on them.
    None of them ship with an AOSP ROM on them, so why the **** does it matter? Apparently you cared enough to get it. Those who care enough to get it, got it already. The other people don't care. So you run the risk of alienating tons of customers who do value the OEM modifications (and are not addicted to Quandrant benchmarks) to please a few people who already have what they want thanks to their favorite rom dev_01.

    I will contest this the gapps themselves are closed source.
    Contest what? You just agreed with me. Andorid OEMs do not license the Android OS. They license the rights to use Google's Apps, and that is what Google uses to impose their restrictions on said OEMs. They also have to license things like Media Codecs and third party applications like QuickOffice/ThinkFree Office, because Stock Andorid is terribad in both of those areas.

    WinMo 7 had three previous generations of ROMs prior to 7 being released, If has a foothold in the door. Android didn't have that you are mixing apples and oranges on this one buck-o
    What are you talking about. There is no WinMo 7. It's Windows Phone 7 and it's not a direct upgrade to Windows Mobile. In fact, I don't even think there are really that many people who went directly from WM 6.5 to WP7. There seem to be more Android, iOS, and WebOS users who picked it up instead.

    WM6.5 was left in lingo long enough that most of the people who use it now use it for a specific reason, not because they prefer it to anything else. RIM is in a similar position with their OS as Microsoft was with WM, which is why they're scrapping it next year for a QNX-based smartphone OS.

    posted from my Ubuntu 10.10 powered Asus netbook Tethered to my AOSP 2.3.3 Android phone.
    That doesn't make Desktop Linux any less **** than it is.

    I've been using Linux - paid distros (RHEL, Mandrake/Mandriva, SLED) since 2001 for personal and work purposes. It's terrible, and a support nightmare outside of Enterprise desktop deployments (which are generally centrally managed and all use tested/unchanging hardware configurations).

    That's why it has less marketshare than Windows 2000 in 2011.
    Last edited by N8ter; 03-31-11 at 07:09 PM.
    kbz1960 likes this.
    03-31-11 06:54 PM
  12. sleepngbear's Avatar
    Nice you see blackberry people talking about android stuff.
    cough...cough ... oh my. N8ter a 'Blackberry people'? Pardon me while I recover from a minor vapor-lock.



    And fix your sig ... the html thing ain't happening there, Mr. Gore.



    blackberry people ... just, wow.
    03-31-11 09:28 PM
  13. CranBerry413's Avatar
    cough...cough ... oh my. N8ter a 'Blackberry people'? Pardon me while I recover from a minor vapor-lock.



    And fix your sig ... the html thing ain't happening there, Mr. Gore.

    blackberry people ... just, wow.

    All BlackBerry Users appear as little more than BlackBerry Fanboys(girls) to anyone who else that comments on these boards who isn't a BlackBerry User. Apparently, liking BlackBerry is a Crime. Or maybe it's disagreeing with them. I'm not sure anymore.

    The Fact that they say these things is Sad. Honestly, and truly it is.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    04-04-11 05:29 PM
  14. Rootbrian's Avatar
    Being honest here, I love my blackberry, my 11 year old desktop computer (i4=P4 btw) and netbook, all of which run Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. I'm only using windows xp for the following things: Editing video, managing my blackberry.

    Everything else is done within, yes, you guessed it, LINUX. I'm not even a programmer, nor do I have the knowledge to program or understand code. My system hasn't broken once, I rarely change hardware, rarely upgrade my hardware, just upgraded the CPU to a 1.8 GHz single core from a 1.5 GHz single core.

    I do own an ATI 4650 HD graphics card and know my ways around it when doing full screen captures: disable the non-free drivers and it works smoothly, enable the drivers to enjoy 3D minigolf at 1024p, full-screen.

    I'll also say I own a WM 6.1 HTC touch diamond that's used to mess around with and record blogs on.

    Microsoft relabeled WM as WP7. It's still windows mobile 'phone' 7. Just took out the mobile and added phone. Start menu is totally redesigned, control panel is hidden, the CE 6.5 core is well hidden too. But if you install a file manager on that bad boy, you'll be able to access it from \windows\, it'll be cntrpnl.exe.

    Well, laters.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    04-06-11 04:11 AM
  15. MrObvious's Avatar
    MS has no room to talk because they force all Verizon smartphone users to use their crappy search.
    04-07-11 02:05 AM
  16. anon(51467)'s Avatar
    Google is always leaning toward evil: look how they always give in to dictators and communists. They want all your data so they can advertise to you by knowing your tastes through searching your searches and emails. Their corporate chatter to the people about going green and all that is laughable when they convert a passenger jet that can carry hundreds to only being able to carry maybe 50 people. I have no problem with them making money, I am a capitalist. I just find their "do as I say not as I do" attitude a real turn off.

    If anyone wants a good open source system that is up to date: go with FreeBSD. It is very backward compatible and stable. Gee Mac OSX was built on the foundation of BSD.

    I am a lover of BlackBerry, FreeBSD and Windows products: my money maker is AutoCAD, which only runs on Windows, therefore it works for me.

    As always, YMMV. But I am not using g-anything if at all possible.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    04-07-11 08:09 AM
  17. quickinstinct's Avatar
    About time Google reigned in the bastardization and fragmentation of their Android mobile OS. It's like Windows PCs, too many different components, companies, and third party programs in the mix screwing things up.

    But I think it's a little late for Google to be doing this. Both Android and Windows phones are glitchy, battery draining, and freeze/force quitter devices.

    I moved from Android to Blackberry and couldn't be happier. I finally have a real phone that you know, works. RIM needs to take advantage of customers unhappy with the unstableness of Google Android and get more Blackberry devices in their hands.
    04-07-11 10:20 AM
  18. rollingrock1988's Avatar
    Google is always leaning toward evil: look how they always give in to dictators and communists. They want all your data so they can advertise to you by knowing your tastes through searching your searches and emails. Their corporate chatter to the people about going green and all that is laughable when they convert a passenger jet that can carry hundreds to only being able to carry maybe 50 people. I have no problem with them making money, I am a capitalist. I just find their "do as I say not as I do" attitude a real turn off.

    If anyone wants a good open source system that is up to date: go with FreeBSD. It is very backward compatible and stable. Gee Mac OSX was built on the foundation of BSD.

    I am a lover of BlackBerry, FreeBSD and Windows products: my money maker is AutoCAD, which only runs on Windows, therefore it works for me.

    As always, YMMV. But I am not using g-anything if at all possible.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    they just released it for mac
    04-07-11 10:26 AM
  19. CranBerry413's Avatar
    About time Google reigned in the bastardization and fragmentation of their Android mobile OS. It's like Windows PCs, too many different components, companies, and third party programs in the mix screwing things up.

    But I think it's a little late for Google to be doing this. Both Android and Windows phones are glitchy, battery draining, and freeze/force quitter devices.

    I moved from Android to Blackberry and couldn't be happier. I finally have a real phone that you know, works. RIM needs to take advantage of customers unhappy with the unstableness of Google Android and get more Blackberry devices in their hands.
    Welcome Aboard. I don't foresee RIM bashing Google Phones just to get people to use theirs. It's a novel idea, but RIM's Marketing Dept. Is not about belittling the competition. At least, not from what I've seen.

    Though, as a Dedicated BlackBerry User I wouldn't want it that way anyway. I don't go out of my way to insult other platforms, just out of my way to defend mine. Most BlackBerry Users are probably the same.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    04-07-11 04:13 PM
  20. Chronos88's Avatar
    It's about time. I always said, I'll start looking at Android when it becomes more like Windows. You have good PC manufacturers and bad PC manufacturers but at the end of the day, it's always the same Windows.

    I absolutely despise all those stupid UIs the manufacturers put on Android phones like Sense and Moto Blur. If they just left the UI to Google and just focus on the hardware, like PC manufacturers do, Android would be 100x better.
    04-07-11 05:52 PM
  21. Daniel Ratcliffe's Avatar
    =I absolutely despise all those stupid UIs the manufacturers put on Android phones like Sense and Moto Blur. If they just left the UI to Google and just focus on the hardware, like PC manufacturers do, Android would be 100x better.
    Windows Manufacturers do it too. About 3GB of bloatware on my HP Pavillion PC when it has Vista (shipped with it). I installed a 'Vanilla' Windows 7 from the Microsoft Academic Alliance. It's amazing how much bloatware Windows manufacturers put on their desktops.
    04-07-11 07:36 PM
  22. anon(51467)'s Avatar
    they just released it for mac
    Yes AutoDesk is releasing new products for Mac, but will this be a hybrid of the old *NIX and Mac versions of AutoCad? I would not be an early adopter of this, plus I don't like the Apple hardware lock-in on a workstation. I used Adesk's products for the Mac system years ago and I still have a bitter taste from it. I'll wait a while before I change platforms, especially since it solves no problems for me.

    As to topic, Google should have kept things more tightly controlled like the FreeBSD model and less the Linux model; where everyone can build a custom distro. They should have defined one distro and allowed any UI on it plus other add-ons. The UI though, should be able to be changed to a vanilla Google UI. And have a pretty narrowly defined hardware requirement.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    04-08-11 07:04 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD