If they'd require your real shoe size - would that make it personally identifiable as well?

What's needed is laws against tracking, not redefinition of "personally identifiable" that'll bite you in the ass later.

PS: By the way, I can see how your shoe size'd be a nice data point for marketeers: "Someone with his shoe size and user agent bought sport shoes today, mark him for Nike and Reebok ads in 6 months"

You CAN'T keep your IP address private - that's how Internet works, dummy! - and it ISN'T personally identifiable information thanks to all variables like dynamic IPs, public WiFi spots, TOR exit nodes, running proxies and everything else.

You seemingly want to argue that Google shouldn't be able to personally identify you without your consent - that one's good point and I doubt many would argue with that - but for some reason you're arguing a moronic and wrong point that "IP (that you're broadcasting for everyone to know) is personally identifiable and private". The fuck? Do you work for **AA or something? I think only they were so idiotic to argue that when they were hunting pirates. I believe courts not quite agreed with them, thankfully.

Heh. In June, Oberheide hacks Bouncer with Miller and writes they're working with Google on that issue. In August, Miller gets banned for associating with Oberheide.

Those are some mighty bad mood swings

I'd recommend a hobbyist not to bother with those platforms if he's so inclined on making it free. Fee for developer access to closed platforms is nothing new and mobile platform fees is pretty low in comparison, just ask console developers. Or he might consider making it ad-supported, or donation supported.

Why must hobbies be expense-free? Even if HTML5 succeeded, you'd still probably want a paid hosting for your webapp. But whatever you do, you are already spending your time on developing this $0.00 application, and that time could be pretty easily converted to money. Why's extra $10 per month bothering you? If you're publishing free applications, it's either because you're charitable, in which case you shouldn't mind it, or because you're planning to recoup costs in other ways.

But anyways, how is it relevant to PhoneGap? The only point of this thread is "WHATWG and W3C failed on promises of effortless crossplatform development with HTML, Cordova mostly closes the gap", philosophy and economy of software development is beyond this topic.

Ah, thanks. How did you find it? Because whatever I searched it showed me Apple's ban, Bouncer and NFC hack and Twitter's job offer, I even tried Bing in case Google plays dirty with this search terms. Now I only found this article by this specific wording "charlie miller denied google account", and still can't find it in first pages on Bing even this way

Ah, missed it at 50 seconds in the video, but still can't find any details. Their blog post on Bouncer hack mentions they've "been in touch with the Android security team and will be working with them to address some of the problems weâ(TM)ve discovered" and their NFC hack didn't need any Google account at all. May be someone can find more?

I've searched for many different combinations of "charlie miller", "banned", "google" and "playstore", but all I found was his ban from Apple and his research on NFC and Playstore bouncer vulnerabilites. Is there something I've missed?

Actually, Adobe bought PhoneGap and gave it to Apache (PhoneGap's site refers to it as "Apache Cordova" in all documentation) quite a while ago, so now it's free under APL and they only sell support.

Because it works only in small companies and only in theory.

In reality, you'll still get calls to help with $users_favourite_browser and, when refused, calls from higher-ups telling you to drop whatever you doing and go help the user, just this one time, really, because we'll lose a sale like this and we're paying you to do this, don't we and ... And of course you can reject them and point to the policies, but by then you've lost time, gained stress and still may have to go and do it after their higher-ups talk to your higher-ups.

End result - you're supporting single browser on the paper, but in fact you're supporting a browser zoo. No, thanks.

This spoken from a brief experience with a firm that tried to adopt this policy few years ago. Didn't go well. Left them halfway in the process of consolidating the zoo back to "good old" IE 7.

"The Sinclair"? ZX81 was just _a_ Sinclair.

ZX Spectrum, on the other hand, was big - at least in Eastern Europe and USSR. There was a dozen or so clones, with schematics printed in the magazines, and later a whole lot of extension tucked on, like whopping 1M RAM, modems, IDE controllers and so on.

It still has a significant community and demo scene presence.

I feel like I had this discussion before.

First of all, why do you take my assertion of "there are all PoVs represented on /." as confirmation of your anti-Apple bias observations?

Second, accusation of "no references" are quite strange to hear from you, after your thoroughly based on not one, but two comments you consider anti-Apple getting modded up. If I find you 12 comments modded as I told, will it be reference enough for you?

Didn't I tell you what you can do? Crank together a bot, filter comments by Apple/Google/MS mentions, get people to rate them by intent. It will be interesting to see and it will give a definite conclusion to all confirmation bias talks at once.

Eeeeyup, control your confirmation bias, man.

The fact is there are google bashers getting +5, MS bashers getting +5, apple bashers getting +5, fandroids getting +5, iFanbois getting +5, M$ $hills getting +5, but you chose one to meet your expectations.

Do you have statistics of pro-$company/anti-$company posts quantities, qualities and moderation? Thought so.

Sure, it was easy to switch to Linux from Win98.

Except you pretty much had to pay for Win98 and IE before installing Linux and Netscape, because MS taxed OEMs for any non-Windows machines.

Learn history, it's not something hidden.

Oh, and about how it's different from Apple: Apple's locking down their own devices to install their own OS, MS is demanding for others to lock down their devices to install MS's OS.

Last I checked, Google didn't produce any Android devices (yet).

Google didn't demand to lock the bootloader as a part of Android branding certification as well, which is why there's plenty of unlocked Android devices available.

Please shill harder.