gibwell

Android has the larger market share. If it were just a matter Apple being jerks, all the open goodness you want would be widely available.

But it isn't that simple.

Because doing so would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

All of the major players are equally guilty, if not more so, of 'abusing' the patent system. Google and Samsung have tried to control the whole industry through assertion of FRAND patents.

Also, you do realize that you are calling for a total monopoly on the entire industry to placed into the hands of Google?

I can't think of anything more destructive.

Note: I totally agree with you that the patent system is broken, and should be drastically changed to prevent this kind of behavior, but 'punishing' one company is just playing to the PR goals of their competitors.

Gorillas like Samsung, Google, Apple, and Microsoft, you mean.

All of them are guilty. Moving away from Apple simply means intentionally creating a Samsung/Google duopoly, which is insane.

Apple hasn't abused anything.

Google used 'Android is open' as a dishonest slogan to convince developers that it wasn't just a power play.

That is why they are being criticized. It's not about who is more open. It's that Google misled everyone about their intentions.

Saying 'iOS is more closed' doesn't make Android meaningfully open.

The whole 'algorithms do the ranking' thing is a misdirection. Algorithms do of course rank pages, but they do so according to criteria chosen by humans employed by Google. Google absolutely chooses which pages rank highly and which do not according to their own subjective human judgement, applied by machine. It is disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise.

Another way of saying this is that they revolutionize businesses by applying technologies.

His claims aren't beyond scrutiny, but they get far more than they deserve compared to other tech CEOs. Almost anything positive about him or even apple, is shouted down, whereas anything negative is held up as 'scrutiny'.

The article also also makes a general attack, as well as the specific one.

This is like saying 'Apple didn't revolutionize tablets - Microsoft did'.

It's pretty ignorant to keep attacking Apple for not 'inventing' every aspect of every technology they use. That simply is not how the industry works for any company.

When Apple 'revolutionizes' something they do so by understanding how a particular technology can be applied to deliver value to users. Period.

This same logic applies to Google. It's hard to dispute that they 'revolutionized' search, and yet they did not invent crawlers, minimal search interfaces, or even using backlinks to rank pages. What they did was to combine these things into a brilliantly engineered solution.

This is yet another linkbait semantic argument that gains attention only because it attacks Apple.

Nope. You can't find a faulty fact because they aren't any. If you could, you'd present one. You're obviously just blustering.

That comment doesn't seem well informed given the casual way that it references the strychnine myth, nevertheless it's true that there is uncertainty about the dose.

Who are you to talk when the allegations made against you have never even been heard in court, let alone tried in front of a jury?

This is ok because it's google and they are generally benevolent.

None of that makes it any less dishonest.

There's nothing to get over. The article is a dishonest attempt to smear iOS with the reputation for reliability that was associated with early Windows,

Do you mean that it actually showed you a blue screen, or just that it rebooted once?

(My phone has rebooted a couple of times - iOS7 clearly has bugs, but I've never seen a blue screen or a pause)

It doesn't show a blue screen before rebooting. If you read the article you'll see that it's a tortured attempt to redefine any kind of freeze as a 'BSOD' in order to hang this label on Apple.

This is extremely likely to be a paid piece placed by a competitor.

This must be a false report, because according to Eric Schmidt, Android is more secure than the iPhone. There cannot be 200 million vulnerable downloads.

Founding and running a company that made highly respected computers and a highly respected OS is an extremely rare achievement that makes him highly qualified to comment on the industry. Perhaps his opinion of these reporters should be taken as an indication that they should be listened to.

So the thing about markets was just innuendo.

I don't think he's pretending they aren't important. He's pointing out that people who claim that they are important don't actually act as though they are. I.e. The argument of 'egalitarianism' is used selectively, which makes it into a contradiction in terms.

You said that, but it is not true. If there are any lies in the post you would easily be able to identify one, and everyone would be able to see whether you were right or not.

You are the one who called Dilger a liar but you have not identified any lies he has told. The burden is on you to provide evidence for your accusation.

Merely linking to one of his pieces and saying 'he's a liar' does not prove anything.

Just because you dislike his opinions does not make him a liar.

You can do more - please pick out just one lie or flawed fact from that piece.

I honestly don't see any, but that's because the piece is an unreadable screed of childish invective that doesn't involve many facts. Not because Dilger is lying.

SOPA was a single proposed piece of legislation proposed by corporate lobbyists, who are on an essentially level playing field with Silicon Valley.

The NSA is a 60 year old spy agency at the heart of the national security infrastructure and government.

You are comparing two entirely dissimilar things.

Also, how exactly is the American national security state 'weakened and vulnerable'?

I believe that Google's ad business relies on targeting based on user behavior. If Android was intended to protect the ad business, it follows that it must also protect access to the user data the ad business needs in order to be competitive.

You said: "one of the strategies was to keep the carrier's walled garden app models that were becoming popular (this was before apple) from eating Google alive by demanding cuts of ad/other revenue from Google's inevitable mobile apps."

Google's ad business relies on access to user data for targeting. If Google has a strategic goal to protect the ad business, it therefore also has a strategic goal to protect it's access to user data.

You claimed that other companies don't litigate the things that Apple does, and he proved you wrong.

He certainly bashes everyone but Apple, but that is his opinion. However I would be genuinely interested to be shown a deliberate wrong fact or lie he's written.