Of course it's enforceable. You are assuming you have a legal right to view YouTube videos, but you very much do not. If Google *chooses* to send you the video *THEN* you have the right to "time shift" it all you want. But the former is very much not a legal right. If Google decides to cut off your YouTube access there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Well, you can play the whole "arms race" game, but this is also a clear violation of YouTube's API rules and if MS gets serious about trying to bypass that Google will just sue them (and win in a pretty clear cut case). But that won't happen. Google will smack them down, MSFT will bitch and moan and use it to push some FUD around, but they'll still play by the rules.

Not a chance in hell.

Engineering time, designer time, bandwidth costs, server costs, etc...

YouTube.com didn't just magically appear and run itself completely free of charge.

No shit sherlock. That's not justification for you to steal from Google nor the owners of said content. You seem oblivious to the fact that the content owners *GET PAID* when those ads are shown, not just Google.

Gonk is Android in a literal sense. When you build FxOS the first step is actually downloading and building AOSP, as that's the "gonk" layer. It uses repo and lunch and the rest of the Android build chain as well.

Here's the manifest file for the FxOS emulator build: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/b2g-manifest/blob/master/emulator.xml

You can see plain as day it's pulling in a huge amount of Android code, including the framework.

Not that this is a bad thing, this is the point of open source. Just that the claims that FxOS is somehow lighter than Android is horseshit, because it sits on top of Android.

The entire "Gonk" layer is actually just Android. Complete with all the typical Android services - SurfaceFlinger, InputFlinger, AudioFlinger, etc...

I'm correcting him because he is wrong, just like you are. FxOS runs on top of Android's userspace. It literally boots Android, then launches Firefox. This is not a "both run on the Linux kernel" thing, especially since FxOS doesn't run directly on the kernel to begin with. No, FxOS is instead just a native Android application, compiled against Android's userspace.

SurfaceFlinger is still there, it's why you can see shit on the screen at all. You can't remove that layer. You can *replace* it, but you can't remove it. And good luck finding a replacement for SurfaceFlinger that is lighter and faster than SurfaceFlinger.

And no browser runs on top of dalvik anyway (browser UIs might run on top of dalvik, but the engine itself does not), so removing that doesn't get you anything.

FirefoxOS runs *on top of* Android, it *adds* layers, not removes them. And the very few "layers" that are actually removed (dalvik) are replaced with *slower* layers (JavaScript)

No it hasn't. And if FirefoxOS with the insanely inefficient and not in the same universe as lightweight HTML5/CSS/JavaScript can use fewer resources than a lightened Java runtime with a specialized rendering pipeline I will be shocked. If that happens either Google is incompetent or Mozilla employs actual wizards.

Seriously people, stop with the "lightweight HTML5" bullshit. HTML is the heaviest, slowest layout & rendering pipeline that exists in widespread usage bar none. Slowest devices (smartphones) + slowest layout & rendering technology ("web technology") != fast, lightweight device.

Wrong.

Either that or you are from the future with some really awesome shelves that we don't have here in the present.

Or, more likely, you pulled bullshit out of your ass and have not once looked up what sort of eye displays are out there (and how much they cost). Hint, they are really, really fucking expensive (and if you look at the "off-the-shelf" ones you'll see they are much worse and much larger than what Google has)

Google has only ever put ads on their free products (and even then only a fairly small number of them). All of their paid products have no ads. This is very much a paid product, there is no reason whatsoever to believe it will have ads.

When they dumped Symbian it was the *FORMER* world's most popular phone OS - Android had already dethroned Symbian when Nokia switched to Windows Phone.

As for MeeGo - would it have taken off? Maybe, but probably not. And the hardware it launched with was decidedly not modern at the time, which was perhaps a reason Nokia killed it. If they couldn't keep up with SoC developments, they would never manage to catch up to the competition.

You seem to have forgotten your history here. Chrome and Android launched around the same time. Hell, Chrome on Linux didn't show up until 2010 - that's *AFTER* the Motorola Droid had launched. It's obvious *NOW* that Chrome should run on Android. But 3-4 years ago both Chrome *and* Android were far from proven, and both were focused on establishing themselves first.

Also, how you build a browser on a desktop is very different from how you build one on mobile. And the vast majority of the work is bringing webkit up on a new platform. WebKit by itself doesn't do much - it's basically "just" HTML parsing + DOM management + JavaScript. Graphics, audio, video, etc... is all platform-specific, and when Android was starting out webkit didn't support touch either.

Which is *exactly* why it's crazy/stupid to merge them. The entire point of ChromeOS is that it's just a browser. If you merge anything with it, all you've done is killed ChromeOS. And there's nothing to merge from ChromeOS into other OSes - it's just the Chrome browser, which Android already has.

Talk about failing to rebut.

How about we have this discussion when it actually becomes technically possible to have a continuously recording device. Because Google Glass is not that device. And the OP has not identified any problem, he *made up* a problem that doesn't actually exist. Google Glass hasn't changed anything. If you want to record everything you see, Google Glass is a worse way to do it than existing methods. Hell, a smartphone in a shirt pocket would work.

Google Glass doesn't actively record unless you tell it to. And like any smartphone, if you start recording your battery life drops to the 1-2 hour range, if that. Unlike smartphones, it is insanely obvious when Glass is recording because there's a bright red LED.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure Larry Page already wears Glass to board meetings and has no problem with that. Just like I'm pretty sure all the board members keep their smartphones on them and nobody has any problem with it.