Phone is in my left pocket with screen (and home button) facing my body, top of phone down towards the ground. Reach in & trigger home button with thumb as I'm pulling it out & pivoting it around my thumb grip to be right side up.
Same here, just with my right hand. Though with my phone, I press the power button with my thumb to turn the screen on.
As far as handwriting handedness, I'm told it doesn't make a big difference. It's nigh indecipherable by anyone else regardless of what hand I'm writing with...
Hell, if you can read your own handwriting, you've got me beat.
Phone in the left pocket, keys & wallet in the right.
Exact opposite here. Are you left-handed? If so, that would explain it (I'm right-handed).
If you do real work or a college student you are going to be emailed office documents.
I'm not sure I see the connection between doing a college student and being emailed office documents.
Yeah, whatever, keep arguing semantics as if we wouldn't have another OS mono-culture if it weren't for Android.
I never said that. Whether or not some other system would have come along is impossible to know at this point. I would like to think that someone would have put together a system that didn't suck. Blackberry might have done it. Maybe Microsoft, but I admit that would have been pretty unlikely. Could have been Maemo, if a bunch of the manufacturers were looking for something to use and they didn't have Android available.
I think you and I just have a different standard for what is really considered a monopoly in a computing market. Apple only dominated a small (but rapidly growing) market for a few years at most. Compare that to Microsoft, which had a monopoly (and arguably still does) for nearly 20 years.
...all while breaking down the OS monopoly that was iOS as the only viable smartphone of the early 2000s...
The first iPhone was released in 2007, and the first Android phone was released a little over a year later. Apple only had a monopoly for a couple years in a fairly small smartphone market.
Fair use is fair use. It has nothing to do with competing.
The lawyer is confusing that with trademark law, and probably should be disbarred for being either completely obtuse and ignorant of the law she claims to know, or disbarred for being a majorly disingenuous douchebag and outright lying.
Somebody is confused, but I don't think it's that lawyer.
So a billion Android devices is fair use, but add in 500k Chromebooks, and oh no, it's a different matter all together?
Oracle's argument is that a billion devices in a market that Oracle isn't in may be fair use, but 500k devices in a market that Oracle is in makes it a different matter. It will be up to a judge and/or jury to decide.
If computers take over (which seems to be their natural tendency), it will serve us right. -- Alistair Cooke