I have an iPad 2. It's really not that different from an iPhone. The 3rd party apps make great use of the larger screen - iOS itself, however, doesn't do shit with the extra space. Hell, the contacts app isn't even full screen! And I'm not sure what your bullshit about "unlike with Android" is supposed to mean, unless you've never used an Android tablet.

The argument that Android is copying from iOS sounds increasingly ridiculous as time goes by, seeing as if anyone is copying it is without a doubt *APPLE* that is copying from Android for at least the last year. Or rather, Apple has been playing catch up since at least iOS 4, with Android being the one innovating and pushing forward.

Not that the iPad actually provided anything to even copy as it was just a blown up version of iOS - not really any different from the initial batch of Gingerbread-based Android tablets.

How, exactly, is Google supposed to know that the videos in the "full movie" search are, in fact, infringing on copyrights? You are looking at the results and making a judgement call (granted, a likely true call - but still a guess) - that is not something Google should be doing. That is well outside the realm of their responsibility. YouTube's copyright process is already *well* ahead of what anybody else offers - they not only promptly respond to DMCA complaints but also have the ContentID system which makes it super painless for copyright owners to have videos removed, monitored, or to collect a portion of the ad revenue from them: http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid

This is most certainly fair to rights holders and is far, far beyond what Google is legally required to do, and indeed is far, far beyond what anybody else is doing.

So yes, you should be modded -1 Flamebait as you are factually wrong on a number of key points. Google *doesn't* make "hundreds of millions on infringing material". Infringing materially typically *costs* them money as pirates don't usually opt to have ads shown, so Google is footing the server and bandwidth bills for nothing in return - but even still, 10,000+ views doesn't come remotely close to even $10k in revenue much less millions. Second, Google *does* let content owners get a part of the cut on infringing material. A third, most crucially, the system is incredibly easy to use as a rightsholder. Upload your video to ContentID, pick which option you want when an infringing video is found (remove, monitor, or ad split), and you're done. And finally, YouTube started as an independent web site, so clearly your claim that without lawyers they would have been shut down for "conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement" is hilariously wrong not to mention just plain stupid. Especially when the other side has even *more* lawyers than Google does, yet so far no battle has been waged in court.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Android is open in theory, *open in practice*. AOSP exists, it's real. Community development exists, it's real (both community-contributed patches to AOSP *and* community maintained "distros"/"forks" - such as CyanogenMod). Hardware with built in support for custom ROMs exist, it's real (hint, look for the "Nexus" brand)

Are *all* Android devices open? No. Does that make it closed? Of course it doesn't, don't be such a drama queen.

Clearly you haven't paid any attention to Google's hardware. From the factory their devices, specifically the Nexus phones/tablets and Chromebooks, have a secure, encrypted bootloader. Yet *all* of them can be user unlocked, and most even have the source, binary blobs, and recovery images to go along with them. Never before has hardware been this open, this cheaply.

Or you could, *gasp*, read their privacy policy (which is really simple and easy to read) instead of stocking up on unnecessary tinfoil.

Also, you vastly overestimate how much data Google uses for ads (and you are ignoring that Google will happily let you turn *off* targeted advertising if you so choose: https://www.google.com/settings/privacy?hl=en -> ads -> opt out)

Or you could also pay Google and get the same great products + active sync support + real customer service + no ads

Oh for fuck's sake, are you kidding? Not support a proprietary, Microsoft protocol and instead using open, free protocols is *EVIL* now?

The only way you can trot this out in relation to "don't be evil" would be this is Google being *LESS* evil.

Then please link to it because I cannot find anything that supports your fairly ridiculous claim. Especially when their are far more likely scenarios such as user error (you used the wrong resolution) or the video card not supporting the monitor's native resolution.

The claim that someone, much less a major company, made a panel that doesn't show circles as circles requires proof.

Uh, can you please link to such a monitor? I've never seen any monitor with anything other than square pixels. Your comment about 1024x768 makes me think you are confused as the widescreen monitors with a 768 height are 1366 wide not 1024.

You and I clearly have very, very different meanings for the word "aggressively". Microsoft and Apple are both suing Motorola. Google didn't start this fight, so I'm not sure how you can call defending themselves and Android as "using it aggressively".

They *ARE* lobbying for patent reforms, but just because you lobby doesn't mean it will actually work or that things will change, especially when equally rich and powerful companies are lobbying *against* you.

If you want change elect different politicians. Either those that will do the right thing, or those that are even more corrupt and can be more easily bought by companies.

Chrome always encrypts your passwords on the client side - the other stuff isn't encrypted by default but can be encrypted as well if you choose to.

1) Getting it to crash doesn't mean you can actually exploit it. There are boatloads of crashes that you can't exploit

2) The only way you could crash it in this manner in the first place would be to re-target the sync endpoint to get Chrome to connect to a different remote server for syncing, which would be a huge security vulnerability in the first place.

To continue your analogy, Apple then proceeded to *steal the tyre* because it felt it the price was unfair. They didn't make a counter offer, they didn't file a complaint (FRAND has a mechanism to resolve negotiation disputes), they just said "we think that's not fair, so we're just not going to pay anything".

Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that Motorola attempted to charge 10 times the price of everyone else. For all we know they asked for the standard rate, and Apple told them to fuck off.