They should, God created the moon.
I wonder whether it's FUD around the option (probably defaulted to opt-in) to participate in Microsoft's "feedback" program.
I don't think there is anything that is overblown.
If you associate your Windows phone with an account (Required to load software from the only source permissible the windows app store) the phone also periodically and on demand of Microsoft uploads your location to a Microsoft server and there is **NOTHING** you can do about it and no way you can turn it off short of wiping the device and never associating an account which means not using the app store paying a hefty premium to use what is then essentially a "feature phone"
Microsoft's WP does not respect your privacy by default and there is no lever you can pull that changes this.
And how is that different from iOS or Android? Don't they do exactly the same if not worse? Also, you can turn off location services in Windows Phone.
Atleast they don't seem to be spying on which physical stores you visit unlike Google is. http://digiday.com/platforms/g...
Google plays the strategic game stupendously well.
Google TV, Buzz, Google+, Nexus Q, Google Wave... etc. etc.
And ads are still 90%+ of the business...
You should try a career at revisionist history.
Now, if they want access to Google Play Store they will probably have to go through the same process as any other Android phone vendor and sign and agreement and go through testing and certification. Virgin developers or not, if you want to access Play Store you need an agreement.
Not so easy.
It comes with a lot of restrictions, including shipping all Google apps like maps as default apps,say goodbye to Bing at the very least, not to mention it may not be "free" since Google is known to charge for GMS. So what's the point of forking again?
Please see the relevant part that I quoted again:
However, Google’s verification is not needed for an individual consumer to download and install a Google-signed version of the Google Play app store and then download the full inventory of Google proprietary apps to an unverified Android version.
So what you say, although true, is a distinction without a difference since the article isn't talking about phones that shipped with Google's authorization. Not to mention that whoever is providing the Google App store download to even authorized users is committing copyright infringement and thus subject to DMCA takedown/legal action.
From the article
. However, Google’s verification is not needed for an individual consumer to download and install a Google-signed version of the Google Play app store and then download the full inventory of Google proprietary apps to an unverified Android version.
That's quite wrong. The Play app is copyrighted, proprietary and is tightly coupled to Google's cloud. They even sent a Cease and Desist to CyanogenMod a few years ago and stopped them from distributing it. They don't go after individual users, but those users are still infringing Google's copyright and are essentially pirating the software. So this advice is like suggesting that Ubuntu make VM software that makes it really easy to pirate Windows to run Windows apps since MS does not go after individual personal home users for pirating their software.
Not to mention that even if all this manages to happen, Google can just tweak their servers and store app to reject connections from Android forks(see iTunes).
If you want read a better article about why forking Android does not make any sense, this article is way better:
Even if MS wants to do something like that, it makes a bit more sense to make Windows Phone able to load Android Apps, which they were/are supposedly exploring.
Our society has become massively automated compared to the middle ages. And we have 25 times the world population now. Yet we still have plenty of jobs;
No we don't. It's be decades since any western country had full employment, or even a policy to achieve same, thanks to the sadistic neoliberal idea of NAIRU. In most of the western world, there are an order of magnitude more job seekers than there are jobs.
And that's not even taking into consideration the swathes of the population involved in unproductive, pointless, bullshit jobs that serve no real purpose (eg: most layers of management).
Within a generation, two at the outside, the vast, vast majority of jobs involving manual labour will be performed by robots, except for those targeting the high-end luxury market. I expect a fairly large chunk of today's "intellectual" jobs will also disappear towards the end of that timeframe (eg: basic engineering, software development, lower levels of management, etc) as AI capabilities improve.
It was my Uncle and a Dell Inspiron desktop and nothing was working right since he had no idea how to maintain the computer. But he did know how to use Firefox and get his email.
I fixed his computer as a Christmas gift. It runs Windows 7 now and he knows how to use IE and get his email.
I also turned on auto update, cranked UAC to maximum and set it to require a password, 3 years, no support calls.
I once saw Linux on some average users desktop. Total non-techie, and there he was using Ubuntu.
And yet there are apparently bugs still being found, otherwise there's be nothing to download for a 3 year old server [...]
Of course there would.
Just because a bug was fixed in a firmware update 3 years ago doesn't mean that update was applied 3 years ago.
For the life of me I do not understand this 'commercial strategy'.
Charging the customer what they are prepared to pay for a product, rather than what it costs to make, is a pretty core tenet of free market capitalism.
We have millions of dollars invested in HP hardware.
We typically only have 3yr support contracts on servers, first and foremost to handle hardware failures.
After that time, servers are cycled out into low important, or non-production tasks. Failures in these roles usually result in wholesale machine replacement.
Maintaining support contracts for all those 3-6 year old machines is not viable, nor are we expecting _new_ problems to be addressed since they are out of contract.
Not being able to download _old_ patches, firmware, etc, to apply when the servers are cycled out of production, however, is bullshit.
Rest assured most customers get at least 3 year of support. Not because of anything to do with firmware updates, but to deal with hardware failures.
Yes they do.
Where is the incentive to "deliver broken products" when they're going to have to fix them anyway since the vast majority of customers will be in support contracts for at least 3 years ? And would have been even if this change never occurred ?
Most customers will pay for 3 years of support - just like they have the last upteen years - because of the other stuff it buys.