They should, God created the moon.
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.
Just as Google has been evangelizing with its Chromebook notebook initiative, the pitch for these Chromebox systems is that they're capable of doing everything you need to do in today's connected world. While not everyone will totally agree with that marketing pitch — gaming, 3D modeling, and a host of specialized tasks are better suited for a PC with higher specs — there's certainly a market for these types of devices.
Wasn't one launched by Samsung a few years ago and utterly flopped?
This was before they had to kill the Presto browser engine because of that problem and move to webkit
W3Schools is a site for web developers and does not represent the web despite the three W's in the name.
Net Applications(which measures visitors instead of page views like Statcounter) has it at ~50%.
Story brought to you by the same geniuses that brought you the following stories:
"Draconian DRM Revealed in Windows 7"
"Microsoft to abandon Windows Phone"
(As an aside, the above story was submitted by the zealot megalomaniac symbolset).
Milking views by trolling only works for so long.
Thanks to zealot posters like bmo, symbolset, Zero__Kelvin, LordLimeCat, Jeremiah Cornelius, UnknowingFool, rtfa-troll, binarylarry, MightyMartian, drinkypoo, pieroxy for karmawhoring the groupthink and slowly ruining the site by spewing lame shill accusations. Oh and thanks to moderators for marking them insightful and modding down any posts that go against the groupthink.
When the beta lands and is the default without a way to go back to the old layout is the day I remove Slashdot from my bookmarks and unfollow on twitter.
Last one out turn off the lights.
This is where bitcoin comes in.
Ugh, another one of those posts from someone who hasn't used MS products since 1999 yet feels qualified to comment on them in 2014.
Now it's a matter of people getting jacked out of what they paid for sooner than a reasonable expectation, on hardware that won't even run the upgrade. Completely screws up your flow. Now it's not their fault. Sorry for ruining your party.
It's certainly their fault. MS publishes the EOL dates for OSes and has been extending XP's EOL from many many years even though they didn't have to. People expecting updates till the end of time is not Microsoft's fault, everyone likes free stuff. The EOL dates are here. http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/default.aspx?LN=en-us&x=15&y=15&c2=14019 If you buy Windows 7 or 8 expecting support till 2050, it's certainly your fault if MS fails to meet your expectation.
Not to mention, a huge chunk of XP users are using pirated installs, especially in places like China. Which other company supports OSes for so long? Buy an Apple computer for 4 times the price in 2001 and it would've gone out of support in a few years. How many years does an Android phone get supported with updates? 2?
Not to mention that XP users are holding back web and application development. It's time to move on.
It is now pitch dark. If you proceed, you will likely fall into a pit.