datalist

What sort of argument is that supposed to be?

jevgeni made an excellent point and actually articulated his concern. Open source has absolutely nothing to do with how Google is tracking users here, and not only are there major parts in the Android ecosystem which are not open source but even more importantly, the case at hand obviously shows that is irrelevant whether something might be open source or not.

And that does not take into account that the vast majority of people do not run any version that has such features removed, as you hinted. If anything most users run versions which have additional stuff added (Samsung, etc.).

Once all of that is not true anymore you might have got a point, until then it is jevgeni who hit it on the head.

What?

I cant do more than provide the numbers my statements are based on. Please go and check that before you make wild allgations about lack of evidence or empathy.

It did come with advantages, no doubt, but - as so often - its market share is not necessarily because it tried to push the web further, a large share is simply because of Google's aggressive marketing.

To this day Google is pushing their browser if you dare to use their services with Edge.

That is certainly not the equivalent as it still occupies storage.

Also, you could actually uninstall IE. That only uninstalled the shell, not the libraries (as there were dependencies) but it was gone in terms of the application.

The web was just slowly emerging at that point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage#/media/F...

15% vs 80% these days. And thats the "developed world", globally it was around 2%.

I am not arguing iOS'es market share in the US, I am saying it is of faaaaaaaaar less relevance outside the US.

Eight years ago I'd agree with you, probably even five-ish, but for the past two, three years there is virtually no difference anymore and Android is usually the priority, except for some designer firms who still live in their Apple bubble.

For the US market it might be different, as it is one of the few markets where Apple is still the clear leader.

And no, the web barely mattered in the mid to late 90s. That was the time when it was still nice there ;)

Absolutely not true today and I am in that business. The number of companies which are iOS-only or even iOS-first is negligible these days. In most cases both platforms are supported, often with Android having a head start.

And yet there was competition.

It is similar to today, respectively we have even less choice, we have two platforms, out of which one is mostly a lifestyle company and has a minor market share of ~20%, whereas the second is dominating the market at ~80%

It had a few new concepts, mainly multi-processes, but "far superior when it came out" is a broad exaggeration.

Equally, IE was far superior to Netscape when it came out ;)

This is not to say Chrome is (now) the inferior browser but saying their marketing push has nothing to do with its market share is ignoring reality.

That was true about seven to ten years ago.

Zero competition?

OS/2, Linux, Apple, BeOS, etc.

Stifling innovation? How? The "web space" didnt even really exist.

No need to change to Europe.

Worldwide is at 77% http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide/#...

Poland (#6 in the EU by population) is at 97% http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/poland/#mon...

Hence I wrote "strong" and "leader in many areas".

"World currency" implies more than a dominant use in international transactions though.

My overall point is the statement as-is (currency and banks) is somewhat exaggerated.

Slow down, "de facto world currency" and "most banks" is somewhat exaggerated.

The dollar is still a very strong currency and in many areas the leader, but it is still not the world currency. Equally, banks do offer sometimes accounts denominated in USD but this applies mostly to larger banks, is typically a special kind of package, and is a classic foreign currency account you can open for GBP, EUR, SGD, and many other currencies too.

Still watching it but I second your sentiment. To be honest after the conferences in the past three, four years I did not have the highest expectations in the first place, but so far that was - again - amazingly underwhelming.

As you said, Google should announce game changers and not getting woos for an application that reorients a scanned sheet of paper.

Thanks for the detailed response, but I am "with" you :).

The bit (no pun intended) I do not understand is why there is such a discussion in the first place? Why do they insist on a plaintext status bit?

Thats why I wondered if there was any encryption outside of the UDP payload.

Thank you, though giving an example that does not even apply to the case is not the best approach when one wants to make a case :)

If it does not tamper with UDP I fail to recognise the issue though to be honest.

I am not sure it is that obvious given the article's focus on NAT.

But what is the problem exactly then?

The article specifically refers to NAT.

What other boxes would you have in mind? And is the UDP header encrypted or not?

Thanks!

I am not sure I understood the article to be honest.

Does QUIC encrypt the actual UDP packet (meaning from IP down, including the UDP header)? If that is the case it is not UDP anymore and there will be "problems" in getting to anywhere in the first place.

If it only encrypts the UDP payload, where does NAT come in? How would that be different from what TLS does over TCP?

Did I miss anything? Thanks.

These influences are almost exclusively related to vocabulary. English's grammar on the other hand is Germanic.

Bold predictions

http://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirva...

The issue is not who "stole" from whom but that people now seem to claim and believe that Kotlin's features are unique to Kotlin and for the majority of its features that is not true, they were taken one-to-one from Groovy.

Thanks for your response. My issue here is not so much that Kotlin borrowed features but that it appears many credit Kotlin now for those feature, when in fact most of it has been already available under Groovy a decade before Kotlin came out.

I am sorry but you are missing the point of my question, it is not why Google did it but in comparison to Groovy.

Can you give an example where Groovy would be less compatible?

Java does not have operator overloading. That choice was made IIRC for simplicity reasons. The same why they did not implement multiple inheritance (which they started doing with Java 1.8 and default methods in interfaces).

I use Firefox, I couldnt complain about lag, except for slightly underpowered machines maybe where Chrome does seem a tad swifter.

These days there isnt much choice though, its Gecko, Blink or Trident (or is it EdgeHTML now?). All the apparent alternatives are pretty much shells.