Then it wouldn't be factory reset, using a definition that will be useful to many people.
Yes, some HTC apps were said to be good - though on short inspection I found their UI illogical but eye candy was nice. I've used Motorola Android phones - their blur is detested by many. Their applications were very stable, but with spartan features.
Anyway, most OEMs can make very simple acceptable software, or slightly complex bad software, or complex shit software. The lock-in comes from complex software - parts of which reside in the "cloud" which are insanely complex. Beyond capabilities of most OEMs in their wildest dreams.
Their any hope to compete with the big 4 - Google/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon in the software department is in a next generation Symbian. The half-hearted attempts of Samsung as ShakaUVM mentions don't even begin to address the gap.
The problem for people who don't drink the Google kool-aid is that hardly anyone is working on the AOSP versions of most apps
Google isn't either. More and more, they are replacing the AOSP software with "Google" software. Without publicizing that now they are all closed source, while still reaping publicity benefits of Android's earlier image of open source. Sneaky.
terrible UI and doesn't integrate nicely with the rest of the system. There are a couple of sync adaptors, but Google has increasingly broken the sync APIs
Currently I am using the local calendar adapter for Google calendar, from F-droid. Works well. There is a similar CalDAV adapter too - doesn't it work nicely with owncloud? I was hoping to use it some day.
Anyway, that was my point. Google and the other big 4, really do good UI - much as I hate to expose my data for their inspection.
Except the bragging factor, latest versions of Android don't cause any real effect on 99% of mobile phone users' phone using lives. If users were happy with their phone with the version of Android it had, why does the release of a new Android version by Google suddenly make them unhappy?
Application security fixes come through Play Store, 10 months ago I got Maps update on Gingerbread. So this cannot be the excuse. OS security issues are rare.
Actually it was about general monopoly abuse, not about a specific anti-trust case. YOU brought in the idea of restricting the discussion to only a particular anti-trust case against Microsoft.
Farmville forced people to bother their "friends" to tend to their farms - people watered each others' farms if I remember correctly. This revealed to Facebook a lot of networks of "friends". My facebook account was created when I was bullied into virtual agriculture.
Google+ is doing more sneaky things than even facebook in this regard. It is ok if an empty shell account is created. And synchronization of contacts might be enabled by the user without realizing they are giving away their people network - it is probably even enabled by default. But Google uses this information to discover people networks.
I used to synchronize contacts earlier - and from that I get Play Store application recommendations from people who used to be in my contact list earlier.I have no explicit connection to them in Google+, or facebook. I haven't even stored their email address in my contacts - just phone number. This is why now I prefer cyanogenmod based ROMs which don't even have the synchronization capability.
Samsung cannot create Software, nor run Software a market, to save their lives. The sooner they realize this, the better. Same goes for most other OEMs - Xiaomi does punch above its weight in this field but the weight is very small.
And the threat is less for Google's applications, and more for Google's services. It is easy to create a video application, close to impossible to create and run something matching Youtube.
So if Samsung's bloat is trying to do something, it is a misguided attempt and they are failing miserably. The only option for OEMs is to unite and learn how to create usable software. Vaguely like what Symbian could have been earlier, minus the later full control by Nokia.
"Design to thwart lawful search warrants" , or even marketing that way, is NOT the same as being unable to respond to government warrants.
Yes, if lower standard of living is acceptable, it will work. Generally populations do not accept a lower standard of living than they have, but it is not impossible.
Do you think some of these "nations" will try to bring back slavery?
Do all the 5 nations use the same currency?
If yes, they bicker about the currency policy. All of those 5 would not benefit identically by same currency policies.
If not, their economies collapse as oil is no longer forcibly sold in their currencies, their currencies cannot be artificially/militarily propped up like the US dollar is. They lose the other economic advantages of the large US military like forcing other countries to live by US ideas of intellectual property. And some of those 5 nations go into cold wars or arms races with each other and with other parts of the world.
Looking at the video of someone bending an iPhone 6 Plus deliberately in their hands, the pressure needed is about the same as it would take to bend a key.
But much less than the pressure it would take to bend Moto X, a Lumia, Note 3, and iPhone 6.
Moto X, some Lumia, iPhone 6 bend much much less than iPhone 6+ on similar force. HTC One M8 bends more, though not as permanently as iPhone 6+.
So even if we accept your meaning of "why" (which IMO stretches the actual meaning of "why" considerably),
No. I am describing the meaning of "why" as used by almost everyone without many realizing it. "Why a shirt exists", makes the "shirt" the subject of the sentence. Grammar and philosophy have a subconscious connection - and in this case sows the seeds of the idea that shirt is somehow the actor. It is not. The questioner is the actor.
So even if we accept your meaning of "why", asking why the universe exists does posit the existence of the person asking the question but it does not posit the existence of a creator, as you seem to be claiming.
Not "even if". Only by realizing that "why" actually means what I am saying it means, does it not sow the seeds of an idea of a creator or universe being sentient. And "why" actually does mean what I am saying it does.
It is useful to separate grammatical "subject" of a statement and philosophical "subject" of an action. My restatement of "why" does that.
Above all, it explains that "reason" is not a scientific concept, when applied to non-sentient things. A "reason" for a shirt to exist is actually the "reason" the questioner should expect it to exist - using the other definition of "reason" which only applies to sentient beings.
Why should I pay taxes on money that I'm not getting to put in savings or exchange for goods or services that I get to keep and/or use?
If you donate to red-cross, you bought abstract goods or services. As abstract as a blowjob - fundamentally what makes it "obvious" that you pay taxed money to the hooker and non-taxed money to red-cross? It is also as abstract as "investment advice", or doctor's advice in return for money.
It is not obvious. And certainly not because you are not "keeping" the money given to red-cross but "keeping" the money given to the doctor.
Most people would call that money which is not taken from them by the government what they get to keep, but I guess you're not one of them.
Those that understand taxation wouldn't. Because tax in a huge majority of places and cases is NOT on kept money. If you have an employer, and they "kept" the money instead of paying you, government wouldn't get any tax in that process. In NOT "keeping" the money, and giving it to you - the employer created a tax opportunity for the government to tax you. So "kept" money and "taxed" money are not only not same, but have somewhat of an inverse relationship.
Taxation is leak in money FLOW, not from money STORAGE. While there are wealth taxes and accrual based gains taxes in many places, the amount thus taxed fades massively in comparison to flow taxes.
Any comment on taxation without this fundamental understanding is likely invalid, and it turns out in your case it is invalid.
Also, your use of "feminazi" really gives away the game about your true feelings on this issue. You don't really believe that feminists have any real political power, do you?
Great, so people here using the word grammar nazi have given themselves away too. They must be thinking grammar teachers have real political power.
Not sure why you appear to be complaining. It is a great business opportunity for you.
1. Start any labour intensive business.
2. Employ lots of women.
3. You get 40% more return on capital than your competitors.
buying 10,000 CNC mills to mill their phones' "unibody" frames from solid metal in mass production, when any sane phone company would use injection molded plastic because that's cheap and easy
Cheap, easy and better. Plastic doesn't dent, protects innards much better than metal, and even protects the screen somewhat better than metal. Metal is plainly the wrong material for phone body.