Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google To Merge Honeycomb and Gingerbread

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the there-can-be-only-one dept.

Android 158

eldavojohn writes "In Barcelona, Google's Eric Schmidt has been revealing future plans for Google, saying that the next release will merge smartphone and tablet versions of its mobile operating system Android. Aside from bragging about Android's growth, Schmidt tiptoed around a question of Google acquiring Twitter, instead offering the very nebulous statement that YouTube doubled its revenues last year."

cancel ×

158 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I haven't had lunch (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214564)

Can't they pick different codenames? Makin' me hungry.

Re:I haven't had lunch (2)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214602)

Seriously, I am going to give this food combination a try.

Re:I haven't had lunch (1)

scotty.m (1881826) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214738)

Awwww yea, honeycomb gingerbread!
yum

Re:I haven't had lunch (1, Funny)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215754)

Hey! You got Gingerbread on my Honeycomb!

Who gives a rat's ass. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214576)

n/t

Re:Who gives a rat's ass. (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214692)

Developers who would rather write to one target slightly fragmented target than to two significantly fragmented targets?

OT Question (4, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214754)

The new comments system... is it supposed to be hiding responses to low rated comments? Take this one for example, it will start out life rated at 2 (including the karma bonus) but won't be visible on the page unless you have set filtering to -1 because the GP is rated at -1. This seems extremely broken to me.

Re:OT Question (1)

xehonk (930376) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215460)

This new behaviour made me switch back to the classic comment system - in D1 the comments will still show up no matter how the parent is rated.

Re:OT Question (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215556)

How do you get to the options to do this? Ever since the change, when I click on the Options link at the topp, the page flashes grey, then nothing happens. I had written user CSS that reverted D2 to it's old style, but the last tweak to the site broke it, and I'm tired of fighting with it.

Re:Who gives a rat's ass. (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214982)

I guess you give enough of one to post a reply, eh?

Sounds tasty! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214584)

Oh, it's not about food? Never mind.

Mmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214598)

Sounds DELICIOUS!

Stays crunchy in milk (5, Funny)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214604)

Will it be sandwiched between delicious silicon wafers?

Re:Stays crunchy in milk (2)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214646)

Wheat or white?

Re:Stays crunchy in milk (2)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214664)

Eet's WAPHER THEEN!!

iPhones getting bigger and smaller (-1, Offtopic)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214614)

In slightly related news, Apple is rumored to be working on both larger and smaller iPhones [macrumors.com] , thus blurring the line between iPhone and iPad.

Re:iPhones getting bigger and smaller (-1, Offtopic)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214694)

You mean in totally unrelated news. Put in a story when the rumor gets upgraded to reality.

Re:iPhones getting bigger and smaller (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214992)

You must be new to how Apple's fandom works.

Re:iPhones getting bigger and smaller (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214910)

In slightly related news, Apple is rumored to be working on both larger and smaller iPhones [macrumors.com] , thus blurring the line between iPhone and iPad.

And calling it the iPhad!

Re:iPhones getting bigger and smaller (0, Offtopic)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215080)

In unrelated news Steve Jobs is suing Kellogg for using the word apple to sell its Apple Jacks cereal.

WHAT UNHOLY THING IS THAT GOING TO BE THEN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214640)

Beware teh google !! 2.4 is the mark of the beast !!

Re:WHAT UNHOLY THING IS THAT GOING TO BE THEN !! (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214652)

Clearly some sort of gingerbread cookie coated in honey

Re:WHAT UNHOLY THING IS THAT GOING TO BE THEN !! (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214682)

That's where you're wrong. It's more likely some sort of gingerbread house made out of honeycomb cereal.

Sheeze. Don't you know anything about technology?

Meaningless statement (2)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214680)

Youtube doubled its revenues last year

So, was that $13 to $26 or $13,000,000,000 to $26,000,000,000?

Re:Meaningless statement (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214700)

I was about to ask, what is minus 289.000.000 when you double it, and is this good?

Re:Meaningless statement (1)

ILMTitan (1345975) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214772)

How do you achieve negative revenues (as opposed to profit, where negative values make sense)?

Re:Meaningless statement (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214978)

I don't know, ask the guys that run youtube, sjee.

Re:Meaningless statement (4, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214778)

Youtube doubled its revenues last year. Emphasis added.

The statement says nothing about profits, or profit margins; it's entirely possible to make a $1 billion profit one year, double your revenues the next year and suddenly be losing money. In Youtube's case it is probably a very good sign though, since no one really had any idea 5 years ago how to go about monetizing it.

Re:Meaningless statement (0)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214804)

Revenue is not the same thing as profit. In order to have a negative revenue, Youtube would need to provide more refunds then they receive in sales, which is nearly impossible.

Re:Meaningless statement (1)

jackbird (721605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214988)

..or costs. Like, um, bandwidth bills. And lawyers.

Re:Meaningless statement (1, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215034)

Nope, those come out of revenue and would give you a loss, or a negative profit if you like. It would not give you negative revenue.

Re:Meaningless statement (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214720)

Youtube doubled its revenues last year

So, was that $13 to $26 or $13,000,000,000 to $26,000,000,000?

Double is double, so return to your toil and stop making trouble.

Re:Meaningless statement (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215608)

Actually it's really important. Revenue isn't the same thing as profit. I might own a restaurant and observe that last year to this I doubled my revenue. I might very well still be going out of business because the revenue might still be insufficient to cover my costs. Which is the GP's point to an extent, doubling from $13 to $26 is doubling, even if it's less pocket change than all the employees put together possess.

Re:Meaningless statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215838)

Everyone's overlooking the obvious: 2 X $0 is still $0.

Where's Gingerbread? (4, Insightful)

TheSeventh (824276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214702)

Shouldn't they focus on something like, oh I don't know, actually Releasing Gingerbread for existing phones, like they said they were doing "in a few weeks" back in November/December?

No updates, no word from Google about why they aren't sending it out. Looks like things might be falling apart over there.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214740)

What are you talking about? Gingerbread has been released for a while: SDK [blogspot.com] , in the wild [google.com]

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (4, Informative)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214782)

But it's only on the Nexus S. They were going to release it for the Nexus One and others, but those plans seem to be on hold. I'm using 2.3 on my N1 via the nightly Cyanogen builds but it's definitely got a bunch of quirks in it still. I'm betting Google is going to just release 2.4 as their next "standard" release that's widely distributed.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214906)

I'm betting Google is going to just release 2.4 as their next "standard" release that's widely distributed.

Better hedge that bet.

Motorola Atrix coming in March will be 2.3 (actually 2.3.3 I believe).

Most of the dual-core phones coming out the first half of the year will be 2.3.3 because of it's better dual-core support.

2.4 (Ice Cream) is still a ways out from release, so most of the new phones will be 2.3 (Gingerbread) and new tablets will be 3.0 (Honeycomb).

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215772)

I think GP was referring to the fact that e.g. HTC has recently announced that they'll be going straight for 2.4 for their existing pre-2.3 phones.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214924)

Right.... CM7 is quirky on N1, what makes you think Google's version is any better if they even have one?
I doubt Google is sitting on a stable 2.3 update for N1.
While I say that... I'd bet there are exclusivity deals between Samsung and Google regarding updates, but those time periods can be used to polish and fix bugs anyway.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (3, Insightful)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215376)

But it's only on the Nexus S. They were going to release it for the Nexus One and others, but those plans seem to be on hold. I'm using 2.3 on my N1 via the nightly Cyanogen builds but it's definitely got a bunch of quirks in it still. I'm betting Google is going to just release 2.4 as their next "standard" release that's widely distributed.

While I also am using CM7 on my N1 and wish Google would release a damn stable version already, I imagine they're pretty busy. I'd *much* rather they spend all of their energy on making Honeycomb kick ass than releasing Gingerbread for more phones. Gingerbread is a nice update, but Honeycomb tablets will be shipping soon (supposedly) and they really want to ship them with the best possible software they can. Not only am I much more interested in a honeycomb tablet than stable Gingerbread on my phone, I also want regular people to choose honeycomb over the ipad.

Also, the Nexus one (and maybe the older dev phones) and the only ones google has any ability to "release" updates for. For the rest of the phones out there, its up to the manufacturer. Clearly cyanogen/koush et al have been working their asses off and they aren't done, I don't see any reason why the manufacturers would be any farther.
-Taylor

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215514)

This isn't really Google's fault. I'm sure that most of the devices out on the market that hardware wise could easily support 2.4 will never receive an official update to it, other than Google's, and at best, the ROM makers will have to kexec in the new functionality, assuming there isn't a mechanism that prevents that from happening.

It is sad these days, but the only Android phones worth buying are the ones from Google due to signed kernels, e-fuses, and other crap.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215790)

This isn't really Google's fault.

How is it not Google's fault that Nexus One - a phone with Google branding that was sold by Google and touted as the device to buy if you want it to remain up-to-date with respect to Android releases - still doesn't have 2.3, months after it is available on Nexus S?

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35216142)

Oh... two months to release a major upheaval in system updates, you poor baby. Meanwhile, Microsoft is pushing on 4+ months or something for WP7 to release the first minor update allowing copy&paste.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214762)

What do you mean? Good DID release Gingerbread for existing phones. They released it to the OEMs.
Oh, your OEM declined to make it available to you? Too bad...

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (3, Interesting)

TheSeventh (824276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214826)

I have the Nexus One, so my "OEM" is Google.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

secondsun (195377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214876)

OP was referring to the Nexus One (Google's phone). Gingerbread hasn't OTAed to the Nexus One yet. In December they said it would be in a few weeks and it has turned into in a few months.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (2)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215776)

You just explained why people are choosing not to code applications for Android.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214788)

Gingerbread is out and has been since December. It's the handset manufacturers that are slow about putting it out on the phones.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215068)

which is why the Android model of open source is fundamentally broken, imho. But then it was never about the customer.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

TheSeventh (824276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215274)

And apparently it isn't about existing users either. No updates and no word about what's going on. Eric Schmidt, their twitter account, and their blog all said 2.3 was coming out in a few weeks, and this was in November/December, and the Nexus One was supposed to be among the first to get it, but it's now the middle of February and Nothing!

No explanations, no apologies for the delay, just a bunch of hype last year that it was coming out and then silence.

You'd think a multi-billion dollar global corporation would have better PR than this.

And if they're holding it back to boost sales of new phones, then they are in fact Evil and I'll throw this crap away and get something that isn't Android or iPhone because I trust Apple about as much as I trust M$.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (4, Insightful)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215534)

which is why the Android model of open source is fundamentally broken, imho. But then it was never about the customer.

This is such a stupid fucking argument.

"Oh my god they released in December and it takes months for manufacturers to port to their devices! Android is broken!"

You don't realize it, but this is the right way to do it. How would you expect it to work? Embedded development takes time, there's no way to avoid that. Even on full PCs there is a delay. Take Windows - they come out with new releases only once in many years, so they can easily delay the release 6 months to allow manufacturers to port their drivers - and thats what they do. Microsoft has a Release Candidate of windows ready many months before they "release", but no one complains about that. If google told us "Yup, the next version is done, so we're releasing to manufacturers and you'll see it in 6 months." people would get just as upset. And it wouldn't make sense to do - some people port faster and can use the new features sooner - so just release all the source and let the OEMs sort it out.

You could look at Ubuntu - it releases all at once to everything - but then, thats where computers differ from phones. Computers have enough extra space and resources that PC operating systems like Windows and Ubuntu just include drivers for every piece of hardware they can - windows has many hundreds of megabytes of *extra* stuff on the disk just to make sure whatever network card you happen to have will work. Phones don't have all that extra space. Computers are also all built with certain things being constant. Phones have to be highly optimized though, so everything about them varies. The notification lights are hooked up to different pins on the microcontroller, different features on a bluetooth chip are enabled depending on space requirements, etc. All the code for every component has to be ported to exactly how that device is laid out. So far NO ONE has come up with a good solution for building a mobile phone OS that can be universally upgraded without issue. Thats something google is trying to do with Android, but thats one hell of an undertaking. They say Gingerbread includes some features that will help, but dude, this stuff is all new, it takes time.

So chill out and think about what you say.
-Taylor

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (0)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215730)

which is why the Android model of open source is fundamentally broken, imho. But then it was never about the customer.

This is such a stupid fucking argument.

"Oh my god they released in December and it takes months for manufacturers to port to their devices! Android is broken!"

You don't realize it, but this is the right way to do it. How would you expect it to work?

Like iOS?
Apple says "oh hey new version of iOS is out and you can instantly get it for any iOS phone that's been out the past 2 or 3 years with a simple update"

Takes months for manufacturers, maybe, if they actually were trying. They could have been experimenting with the beta version of Gingerbread and have it working by the time it was officially released. Hell what about all those Android phones still on 2.1, or worse, 1.6?

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (4, Insightful)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215846)

which is why the Android model of open source is fundamentally broken, imho. But then it was never about the customer.

This is such a stupid fucking argument.

"Oh my god they released in December and it takes months for manufacturers to port to their devices! Android is broken!"

You don't realize it, but this is the right way to do it. How would you expect it to work?

Like iOS?

Apple says "oh hey new version of iOS is out and you can instantly get it for any iOS phone that's been out the past 2 or 3 years with a simple update"

Takes months for manufacturers, maybe, if they actually were trying. They could have been experimenting with the beta version of Gingerbread and have it working by the time it was officially released. Hell what about all those Android phones still on 2.1, or worse, 1.6?

Wow, you really don't get it. Apple tests iOS with every device they release it for, because, uh, there's only like 10 of them, and they created them all.

And actually, I checked and what you said isn't even fucking true. iOS 4 came out last summer for phones and ipod touches, but not until fall for iPads. And it wasn't compatible with anything made before the iPhone 3GS - so, half of the iPhone models got left behind. So you're full of shit.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/iphone-os-4-0-unveiled-shipping-this-summer/ [engadget.com]

And yes, the nice thing about apple controlling every piece of hardware is that they can release for many devices at once, but that's not how Android works and I hardly consider that broken. If you want to work with multiple manufacturers using open source code, you have to accept that not everyone will jump on a release immediately. I'd much rather have many manufacturers than one, so like I said, I hardly consider it broken.
-Taylor

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

Eggbloke (1698408) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215564)

I am running Froyo, Samsung only gave my phone Eclair. I will be running Gingerbread pretty soon. There is a large community updating and extending the abilities of my phone
It is the fact that Android is open source that allowed them to do this. Yes perhaps Android should be GPL but then manufacturers would probably not be so happy about using it. It is better that we have Android and it can be modified than we have no Android and our phones run completely closed systems.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214818)

It's up to the manufacturers or adventurous third parties to port Gingerbread to their phones. The source code and SDK have been released for some time now.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (3, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214840)

Gingerbread? 2.3?

It's released. [android.com]

Oh, do you mean, "Shouldn't they focus on pressuring Android phone manufacturers and network providers to release their own OTA updates to existing phones?"

Google don't play that.

May I recommend Cyanogenmod nightlies? I'm running CM7 Nightly 30 and it's rocking Android 2.3.2 flawlessly on my CDMA HTC Desire. If you're waiting for your network-providing gatekeeping overlords... well, I hope you enjoy waiting.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (3, Insightful)

TheSeventh (824276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214942)

Gingerbread? 2.3?

It's released. [android.com]

Oh, do you mean, "Shouldn't they focus on pressuring Android phone manufacturers and network providers to release their own OTA updates to existing phones?"

Google don't play that.

May I recommend Cyanogenmod nightlies? I'm running CM7 Nightly 30 and it's rocking Android 2.3.2 flawlessly on my CDMA HTC Desire. If you're waiting for your network-providing gatekeeping overlords... well, I hope you enjoy waiting.

Yeah, see I have a Nexus One, so I'm not sure how they would pressure themselves . . . ? And with no updates and no word on when it will happen, I figure something must be falling apart over there. Apparently these days, Google doesn't play much at all. But they do like to talk about how much they are doing.

I'll give it a few more days and then I'll go the cyanogenmod route. I was just being too lazy to want to deal with any quirks or bugs not worked out yet with the nightlies.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (3, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215228)

Yeah, I saw that you replied to another poster about having a Nexus. My clever post and yours crossed in the mail, I guess.

Still, most Nexus Ones were HTC-made, so it's probable that Google doesn't have as much leverage as you might think.

I've had no problems with CM7, after rooting my Desire. Battery life is somewhat better than the stock Android 2.1 that came preloaded.

So, yeah, I'm fairly happy with the nightlies, but I'm looking forward to when the nice people at CM get a definitive 7.0 official release out there.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

TheSeventh (824276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215474)

I know T-Mobile has nothing to do with it and won't support it, and HTC would only support the hardware, so I'm pretty sure it's a Google thing, but no posts on their twitter account and no updates or apologies after they didn't deliver when they said they would makes me think things are seriously falling apart. If I worked there I'd switch over to Facebook too like so many other googlers have done (not to mention the stock options for working at Facebook before the inevitable IPO). Is this why Eric Schmidt is leaving? Things are a mess and he doesn't want to deal with it anymore?

There's always been certain things about Android that weren't all that great to begin with, but you deal with it because there should be another update coming along soon to hopefully fix those things and provide a better UI. I mean, there isn't even a way to empty the trash folder on the built-in email software. Is this really something they haven't been able to figure out yet?

But if they lie about the OTA release dates, or are incapable of meeting deadlines, or can't fix bugs in their software on a timely basis, it's no longer worth dealing with and you switch to something more reliable.

If the Nexus One isn't updated by this weekend I'm putting CM7 on it, and will not be buying an Android anything in the future.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215614)

Google is entirely responsible for the software on the N1 and NS, not the hardware manufacturers. Google uses these phones to develop the OS, so an update for these phones already exists before a new version is ever released to the public.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (3, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215822)

Still, most Nexus Ones were HTC-made, so it's probable that Google doesn't have as much leverage as you might think.

The whole point of Nexus One (and now also Nexus S), aside from being "officially rootable", is that they run stock Android with no modifications. HTC was only involved in putting the hardware together for Nexus One; they don't control its software, nor is their participation required in updating it. Not pushing that update is solely Google's fault.

Sucks but thats the way it is (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214994)

Interesting how Apple is also interested in selling more devices yet they still ship updates to their older phones.
That must piss off the networks but Apple can get away with it because of the limited number of models it has to support.

Re:Sucks but thats the way it is (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215558)

Apple makes money because of the ecosystem involved. It is in their financial interest to keep older devices updated, because it means customers continue to buy from their App Store.

It is in Google's interest to keep providing updates as well for the same reason. However, the real sticks in the mud are the cellphone makers and the carriers. They hate the thought of upgrades because they don't make money from app stores, only from handset turnover.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (1)

mrops (927562) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214860)

Well I still don't have it on my Nexus One, so its not an OEM issue. Of what I have heard, they are doing some changes so Gingerbread 2.3, will release 2.4 so Honeycomb dual core applications run on Gingerbread single core phones. Which is why most OEM are waiting for 2.4 as it takes effort to do their thing before they can release it. They don't want to release 2.3 and then 2.4 just to support apps from honeycomb.

Re:Where's Gingerbread? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214864)

I have Gingerbread installed in my Geeksphone One right now.

Most likely a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214796)

Looking at what they have now....

Phones: Android 2.X
Tablets: Android 3.X
Netbooks: Chrome OS
10 ft UI [wikipedia.org] : Google TV

Did they really need a separate operating system for phones / tablets?

Re:Most likely a good thing (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215018)

I just think that it's ironic that Chrome OS is less useful than Android.

So its not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214820)

So its not a new food combo?

Just saw the title hmm honeycombed gingerbread cookies.

And it is called.... (1)

bobby1234 (860820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214832)

It will be called Honeybread cause for some reason Gingercomb just doesn't work!

Sent from my iPad!

Re:And it is called.... (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215108)

I expect it'll be called Cutie Honey [wikipedia.org] , after the ginger.

Re:And it is called.... (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215828)

It will be called Honeybread cause for some reason Gingercomb just doesn't work!

Sent from my iPad!

Don't forget that's what they said about "iPad". If you have momentum with the sheeple, you can make anything work.

Youtube doubled its revenue... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214844)

and brought in the same amount as last year!

It's? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214866)

"of it's mobile operating system Android."
Please correct to: "of its mobile operating system Android."

...And before you call me "grammar nazi", please remember English is not my native language.
I just feel sad when a website EDITORS disregard the correctness of their mother tongue.

Re:It's? (1)

DittoBox (978894) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214976)

English is a stupid language full of exceptions. It took me years to get the apostrophe out of, "its," when used possessively. If we referred to it as, "Google's mobile operating system," it'd be correct. When we use the pronoun we remove the apostrophe while it's possessive, because, "it's," is already a contraction of, "it is."

We native speakers get it wrong because English—in spite of its advantages—is a language chock full of weird rules that always have exceptions. Not that it's an excuse for the editors though.

Re:It's? (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215070)

At least we don't have to deal with things like "der" "die" and "das". And many languages have dialects that are so different that they almost should be separate languages.

Re:It's? (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215310)

At least those have nice clear rules and are fairly portable across languages. English has dialects so far apart they are not easily understood by other native speakers. I once offended a Dell support person when I asked to be transferred to someone with better English and he informed me he was in the Southern US and a native. An Indian would have been far easier to understand.

Re:It's? (1)

painandgreed (692585) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215582)

Other languages have that issue also. I remember a German friend saying how the Berliners wouldn't be able to understand her if she spoke in her normal Bavarian dialect that she was using with family and neighbors two days earlier.

Re:It's? (1)

angus77 (1520151) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215190)

...because, "it's," is already a contraction of, "it is."

Not "because". Otherwise we'd have trouble disambiguating "Google's" (possessive) and "Google's" (for Google is). Just admit the rule is arbitrary.

...in spite of its advantages...

These kinds of statements always bother me. English's advantages have nothing to do with its grammar, syntax or lexicon. It's the de facto lingua franca for science and business right now, but the fashionable language changes every couple of centuries or so, and for reasons that have nothing to do with anything inherent in the language.

Re:It's? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215340)

Advantages of English? I know some advantages of Japanese....

Re:It's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215940)

Japanese is good if you like hairy beavers and girls that sound like they're being raped when you so much as stick a finger in them. Oh, the language? Yeah, no benefits, except for getting japoontang.

Re:It's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215472)

English, like any language, is an organic construct; not a mechanical one. It is only and will only ever be as predictable and well-defined as it needs to be to allow for basic communication. Beyond this, it will grow in strange and sometimes awkward directions, acquiring the kind of complexity that only organic forms are capable of manifesting. This is a fact of life, so don't get mad, bro. Just roll in the moss and get funky.

Re:It's? (1)

arkenian (1560563) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215658)

English is a stupid language full of exceptions. It took me years to get the apostrophe out of, "its," when used possessively. If we referred to it as, "Google's mobile operating system," it'd be correct. When we use the pronoun we remove the apostrophe while it's possessive, because, "it's," is already a contraction of, "it is."

Ummmm. Actually we don't 'remove the apostrophe' its is the third person gender neutral possessive pronoun like 'his'..... it's its own word.

Re:It's? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215700)

I beg to differ.
"it's" is a contraction of "it is" all the time.
"its", however, means that the subject belongs to the referred object, so to speak.

Generally speaking, all languages are full of weird rules, exceptions and so on. This ain't an excuse, it's (NOT "its") a fact and we have to live with it, because all native languages are organic and have a varying degree of randomness. But if we can't be arsed to learn the mother language properly... well I just think it's kind of sad.

Re:It's? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215840)

There are many silly things in English (just as there are in most natural languages, to be honest), but "its" vs "it's" is not one of them - it's entirely logical and consistent, and easy to distinguish if you understand the difference between the two. I'm actually surprised at how many native English speakers get it wrong repeatedly - in my experience, foreign speakers seem to have a better grasp of it, especially among young people. Perhaps it is because in other languages, the same two concepts are rendered by words which are much more distinct in the first place.

Re:It's? (1)

vakuona (788200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215944)

I read somewhere where someone was arguing that there are 2 English languages, the spoken and the written, and that they may as well be completely different languages. A lot of people for whom English is their first language cannot write it properly. Non native speakers seem to do better, and perhaps that has to do with the fact that they learn both at the same time.

New version every 6 months... (2, Insightful)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214874)

Google has promised Android updates will arrive every six months

Consumers don't care about Google's promise of Android updates unless they actually reach the customers.
Developers don't care about Google's promise of Android updates for the same reason... unless those updates reach customers developers wanting to target that huge android base need to target the lowest common denominator.

http://designdare.com/how-to-buy-an-iphone-at-the-worst-possible-ti [designdare.com]

Re:New version every 6 months... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215260)

>Developers don't care

Devs do care, their financial backers are less interested.

Re:New version every 6 months... (1)

ebs16 (1069862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215358)

Consumers don't care about Google's schedule for Android updates for two reasons:

1) Average consumers are still used to dumb phones. The concept of upgrading the device never crosses their minds. (Hell, most average users I know don't even install security updates on Windows, even when nagged by me and the OS. And don't get me started on Java or Adobe.)

2) Anyone who would want to update their Android phone still has to wait for their device manufacturer to release a device-specific update. You can't just install any old Android build on your phone without issues (anything from usability bugs to toasted hardware).

Re:New version every 6 months... (3, Insightful)

GweeDo (127172) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215466)

Yeah, this whole fragmentation thing is just killing us Android dev's right???

Or not: http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html [android.com]

90% of all users that connect to the Market are now on Android 2.1 or greater. Android 2.2 and 2.3 haven't brought any kind of huge API changes that require you lock out 2.1 users to get some awesome new feature. The new "big thing" is going to be the Fragments API and it will support all the way back to Android 1.6.

Now, don't get me wrong. I want everyone that can be to be on 2.3 yesterday, but it isn't exactly a big deal.

Re:New version every 6 months... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215552)

90% of all users that connect to the Market are now on Android 2.1 or greater. Android 2.2 and 2.3 haven't brought any kind of huge API changes that require you lock out 2.1 users to get some awesome new feature.

Translation: Every six months Google promises an update. Except there's nothing compelling in them, so developers don't give a shit.

Am I getting this right?

Re:New version every 6 months... (1)

GweeDo (127172) | more than 3 years ago | (#35216070)

Far from it. 2.2 brings the JIT compiler which offers some great performance boosts. This doesn't affect dev's in a feature sense, but faster phones are faster phones. 2.3 really only brought NFC to the API and right now, that doesn't do much for us. It did bring some new basic UI elements that look really nice, but again...that doesn't change my code or lock out 2.1 users.

Re:New version every 6 months... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215692)

The main irritation I have with the delays is that there's still functionality in my Nexus One that Google hasn't unlocked.

Re:New version every 6 months... (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215538)

Consumers don't care about updates.

Most people get a phone - smartphone included - and use it. They don't particularly care about different OS versions, follow release announcements or read blogs that obsessively list the changelogs from minor update to minor update. They get their Samsung or HTC or Xperia and use it. If an update comes their way it's something between a delightful surprise and an unwelcome source of anxiety.

Ask most Android or iOS users and they'll have no idea what version they use. They are likely to know when a new phone model is available, but not the version of the OS.

The people who care about OS versions and want to run the latest at all times are geeks. We are a small minority, and we're only a vocal minority on the geek blogs and geek websites that only geeks visit.

Name that author (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214934)

Is this an obscure reference, or does everyone know this one?

Gritty Kitty ain't so pretty, but it's really thick
It fits my cat box oh, so snug, it always does the trick

I love to pour it on my toe, and squish, and squish, and squish
It ne'er offends my tender nose like a smelly fish

Its texture is a joy to me, it's just as smooth as silk
It makes my little whiskers twitch; it stays crunchy, even in milk

I may not be the President, I may not be the Pope
But as long as I have Gritty Kitty, I shall never mope.

Re:Name that author (1)

omi5cron (1455851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215214)

is that from Ren & Stimpy? sounds vaguely familiar, but its been many years.

Re:Name that author (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215278)

Ah yes, fond memories from the first (and best, IMHO) season,... (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0037561/quotes)

Twitter acquisition (2)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215650)

Great... big scary companies that can't earn our trust force us to "sign up" by purchasing their replacements that we did trust. First it was USA banks getting gobbled up, and our diversity perks disappearing after the acquisition. Now, big web companies either create "sign into Yahoo with your Facebook ID" kind of mergers. TFA mentions the twitter question "dodge" very shortly, but to me it counts as guiltily "pleading the fifth"*. When they acquire twitter, they can get data on my habits that I chose NOT to give up when everybody opted-OUT of joining Google BUZZ exactly 12 months ago.

Youtube refused to let me in with my 4-year old YOUTUBE username to view a video yesterday... apparently they don't care; they want me to sign in with a Google address. Nothing is stopping me from faking data and so on, but nothing will fool their geolocation tracking and their silently associating my video playlists with the content of those emails I receive. Twitter data would provide my outing habits and random data to mine. Eventually it will be a giant single company out there with access to everything, and in the end, we'll have nobody left to trust.

* amendment of the USA constitution against self-incrimination

And a new name (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215954)

They are going to re-label it 'Diabetes'.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?