Oh, and forgot to mention - they're comparing to an AOSP source. While it doesn't sound like the vendors are making all of the changes and optimizations these guys are, it still adds a few more unknowns and makes comparisons difficult. Not sure what the board they're demonstrating this on is actually intended for either.

So... they're demonstrating these gains, running a graphical benchmark, which they state is largely CPU bound, and their build has no improvements to the GPU code. Why choose that benchmark? The results are about as clear as mud for me. Why choose a graphical benchmark to test the CPU? Is it running the graphics on the CPU instead of the GPU? Android 4 is designed to offload all UI elements to the GPU, so it's not shocking to me that the code is not optimized for a graphical benchmark. I didn't look at the whole video because it was honestly a little painful, and I'm not a software developer, but the video and TFA mention code fixes relating to an compile flag related to aliasing. Which just makes it sound more and more like they're optimizing graphics operations for the part of the device which is not intended to do those operations in normal use.

Apparently there's some benefit, as the CyanogenMod team is supposedly implementing some of the changes. That's a good sign. Maybe they're actually fixing/optimizing how the systems interact? But there's still no information about what is actually faster and if it matters.

iWork seems to be pretty decent for most things. I don't have much experience myself but I know others who use it regularly, except when needing something with the power of Excel.

Many, if not most people.

Times have changed. Perceptions of technology and the internet have changed. Concerns of trust have waned.

It's not the power grab your seem to think it is. Google isn't forcing anyone to do anything (except "real" names on Google+, which is more like, can't use things that are obviously psuedonyms). It's a sign of a wider cultural shift.

Too late, Google took steps to fix it before the exploit was widely announced, according to TFA.

Fair point. That was a pretty stupid oversight. I, obviously, have been driving through these areas, not trying to navigate within them.

True, I have had that issue - my old Droid (the original) would occasionally lose its mind while navigating. But it also struggled if you tried to make it do anything more than navigation at one time, and got very hot regardless.

How old is your phone? I suspect the GPS chips being used have improved, as well as bugs in the implementation. I've had no problems with my current phone (Samsung Galaxy Nexus), other than that it can be a little slow to get a lock. That seems to be endemic in Samsung phones, though.

It's been a while so I don't remember in particular. I'll have to check it out again.

But what I was referencing is SMBC Theater.

Google maps is free.

Yes, there are trade-offs between the two. For me, at least at this point in time - my phone does a good enough job that I can't justify the cost of another unit.

Or rather - if they do, they deserve exactly what they get.

Maps on Android doesn't fetch data just in time, it caches ahead a little ways. You can also specifically tell it to pre-cache whatever section of map you like ahead of time.

I find it doesn't matter anyway, because the places were you find you've know data are usually the same areas that you don't need detailed instructions in - e.g., highways through rural areas. And it doesn't matter, because it will still have the instructions to get to get off on to a different highway.

I've driven all around the east (mountains of WV suck for coverage, esp. data), the midwest, and out to the west coast (Wyoming doesn't have good coverage either), and it's never once affected me.

Biggest rock is best rock!

Frankly, it seems obvious to me...

Not to mention the problem that the airhorn will be much louder in person.

Just wire something into the line, which, at the press of a button, will generate a very loud and high pitched noise. Just remove your own ear from your phone first.

But what tactics would those be? Being nice? Being nice hasn't been working and people are pissed off.

Being informative? Being insightful? Asking questions, promoting discussion? Just about anything that isn't demonizing the people s/he most needs to listen? When presented with a post like that, do you think someone who disagrees, is on the fence, or is disengaged from the topic will think gee, that person is so passionate that they're angrily posting on message boards, I think I'll support them? Or are they more likely to jump to something on the spectrum between 'not caring because the person is repeating the same boring rhetoric that starts flame wars' to being pissed off at the poster and the post? There's a reason s/he was modded Flamebait.

He wasn't out of line.

Never said s/he was. I said s/he was being ineffective. Was that not clear?

You're "correcting" of him was condescending and belittling.

Well, I didn't intend it that way. Reading over it again, I'm not really sure why you're interpreting it that way. Nor why you want to harp on it so much. What do you find condescending about it?

I posted what I meant, plainly and with no hidden meaning. If, for some reason my phrasing made it seem more than what it is, then my apologies to benjfowler.

Not literally telling him to "sit down and shut up" but enough so to be taken that way.

If you say so. I think you're being hypersensitive. And I find it not just a little ironic that you post in the manner you do while decrying others as being condescending or belittling.

Oh, but I forgot - you're justified by being angry.

What are you arguing for, anyway, bmo? To point out that you think I was out of line? You've made that clear, though lacking in the why. To get me to apologize? I will certainly apologize to the person to whom my comment was addressed, if they feel slighted. But it seems more like you want me to recant my opinion, and any notion that this sort of talk is anything less than appropriate or warranted. Sorry, that I will not grant.

>my integrity

Oh fuck off.

Oh, aren't you just precious.

But, enough. Continuing this "discussion" with you is not proving to be worth my time. You clearly have an ax to grind, and while I'm not sure what that has to do with me, you won't be deterred and you won't allow yourself to be questioned, least of all by yourself.

He pre-emptively mentioned that people will tell him to sit down and shut up. Like you. If people like you make people like him sit down and shut up, the rage will simply bottle up and be used ... elsewhere. Eventually. And you won't like it.

The hell?

All I did was to point out that the person's manner in posting will be entirely ineffective and do nothing to help the view they are promoting (and maybe even harm it). I didn't tell them to sit down or shut up or anything of the sort. I didn't pass any judgement on them or their view. Simply pointing out that their time and purpose would be better served if they were to change their tactics.

But you're doing a fabulous job of continuing the same tactics yourself... not to mention polluting the narrative with your personal biases and assumptions which (as yet) have no basis in fact, and cherry-picking and pulling out of context things others have said.

You could have posted civilly and stuck to facts, and separated your speculation and biases from the facts. You didn't. It renders you unpersuasive and makes you look like a loon. And yet somehow, that's justified because you're "angry," and somehow, that's going to make you a victim and it's going to be my fault for telling you to "sit down" and "shut up," despite having said nothing of the sort.

Sorry, but I find your credibility and integrity lacking. Now, by all means, continue using me as a scapegoat and lightening rod for your vitriol. I'll read another reply, but by and large you've lost my audience, and I imagine others' as well.