Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:A good thing? (Score 1) 160

Talk to the carriers about that. This is not something you can pin on Google, it is carrier greed and need for control that you are seeing.

Apple forbids any carrier from adding anything to their phones. Why couldn't other manufacturers?

Many of them can be updated to whatever you like, it just might not work properly because of Qualcomm's control issues.

Why not all of them? I was able to install Windows 7 on an old 2006 Core Duo Mac Mini. This was out any support from Apple (no I didn't have to use BootCamp).

I am sure Google would love to control updates on their phones, but the Carriers and Manufacturers, and Qualcomm won't let them.

But the carriers "let" Apple control their own updates. Apple also uses Qualcomm chipsets. Why is Google so much less powerful than Apple when Android runs on about 5x as many phones as iOS?

Comment Re:A good thing? (Score 1) 160

Apple is guilty of the same thing. In this case, it isn't Google doing anything of the kind, it is usually the carrier as they feel they HAVE to load their crapware on every phone.

Apple doesn't allow the carrier to load crapware.

Apple and Google have pretty much the same support time frame.

I can buy a PC from any manufacturer running Windows and get security updates from Microsoft. Why can't I do the same with third party Android phones?

Google supports their Nexus line for 3 years.

And what about third party phones running Google licensed versions of Android? Microsoft doesn't just provide updates for Surface computers.

Here is a cute little comparison chart of Apple vs Google in support timeframes.

It's "cute" and all but why if MS makes it their responsibility to support their licensed OS on third party hardware then why doesn't Google do the same?

Comment Re:Its about how fast they can move (Score 1) 250

How is Apple "falling behind" when it is the most profitable of the bunch and whose revenue and profit is still growing? Microsoft is adapting because they have to. Google on the other hand has been the least successful at adapting and moving into new markets successfully.

Android doesn't count as a success. It barely makes any money for Google and most Android phones being sold worldwide are not using Google services.

Comment Re:Nerver try to predict the future (Score 1) 250

Apple -- the only computer maker that survived making computers that were not running MS operating systems -- been making non compatible computers for 30 years. Now could any one company duplicate Apple's combination of hardware, logistics, supply chain, retail stores, etc.?

Microsoft - has been the number one operating system vendor for at least 20 years. MS has survived many would be long dead competitors.

Amazon - has such a massive infrastructure that it would be hard to topple, They've been around basically since the dawn of the commercial Internet.

Google - Nothing they have done outside of advertising has been a real revenue generator. The price per click is already going down and moving toward mobile. Most Android phones that are sold worldwide are not using Google services or advertising.

Facebook is in the most danger. Once old people started using it, It lost the cool factor. But as long as Facebook the company keeps buying potential competitors, it should be around for awhile.

Slashdot Top Deals

[We] use bad software and bad machines for the wrong things. -- R.W. Hamming

Working...