trezor's comments

Granted, I had a bit of tone as well, but still.

I'll take your advice and just leave it at that. That and refrain from commenting on any Apple-related threads in the future. There's obviously no point trying to bring the real world into HN Apple threads.

Can we please stop the Steve Jobs and Apple suck-up here on HN please? This is getting as embarrassing to read as it is getting sickening.

I realize the Sanfran wannebe hipster-crowd here like their shiny iGadgets and want to reaffirm their own worth by appraising the company which they have attached their identity to, but this is getting a little bit out of hand and quite frankly, rather silly.

I see you do that and I wonder why on earth anyone would be so loyal to a corporation that they would be willing to drag their own credibility down to defend the credibility of a corporation which in they have no vested interest. It baffles me and makes no sense.

That aside, let's get back to what you said:

I don't think he meant truth in terms of marketing ...snip... but truth as design fundamental.

Can you elaborate on what you think this is supposed to mean, apart from being a divertion away from the fact that Apple, more than any other company currently out there, manipulates and lies to their audience and to sustain their image as "different"?

I've learnt the hard way that you dont use rsync in cygwin for anything remotely crucial ;)

Seriously though. TeraCopy does just the right thing and is one of those "must have" Windows additions, despite the ugly-looking UI.

For those interested: http://www.codesector.com/teracopy.php

Which was a nice experiment which proved that it didn't work. You know what you can't do on iOS which most users want to be able to do?

Yeah. Work with the same document from multiple viewpoints, or applications. You can't work with documents across applications on iOS because you supposedly don't have files.

Like I said: A nice experiment, but it proves that "no files" only works for the simplest of use-cases and limits the ability to work with data beyond the limits that people reasonably expect to find.

Just to clarify: I never claimed that doing Windows Phone 7 was the better option over than doing Android. I claimed that delivering someone else's OS is probably the wiser bet for Nokia, as historically they've been just awful with software.

And with a CEO coming straight from Microsoft, going the WP7-route instead of doing Android, seems like a pretty obvious and "safe" decision.

I haven't tried the N9 so I cannot comment on it nor the platform which powered it, only that historically, Nokia's only edge has been good hardware. They have been (and still are, as far as I have seen) absolutely horrible at software.

I would trust a platform made by Microsoft infinitely more than anything coming out of Nokia HQ, and that is despite all the failings of Microsoft in the mobile and tablet space.

Now... With that said: There is no doubt that by going the Microsoft route Nokia is losing something. They are now a generic phone-vendor delivering someone else's OS. They no longer fully own their own platform and stack.

This is quite a significant loss and definitely a big risk. However: Given Nokia's history with delivering software and software-platforms, I think it's a smaller risk than trying (once again) to deliver something made in-house.

And I really don't find it "suspicious" that a recently hired CEO choose to turn to technology and people he already know. I find it a very obvious move, even though it's not very obvious if it is the best choice or not.

So basically Nokia is only playing by the rules of the market, and the real problem is US carriers abusing their position. The real problem is US carriers, again.

So much bullshit stems from the way US carriers completely obliterates and perverts the free market, that you would think some government regulation would be heading their way sooner or later. Interesting how that haven't happened yet.

I would argue this is the norm in most of Europe, not just "some countries".

Only where the telcom business have gone completely unregulated for too long, have the USesque system of carriers controlling phones taken hold.

Microsoft has enough business vested all over the place. They don't need mobile to profit. Apple's only real source of income however, is now reduced to iOS-devices only. They need mobile, desperately.

The fact that Apple is already suing left and right, right now, when their platform is going well and they technically shouldn't need to be in any state of despair, that should tell you who to fear the most.

You may not have said so explicitly, but it is hanging out there, on the broad side of your argument.

When not maximized it sort-of looks like in the linked screenshot. Running the latest "UX-builds", I can see that it now has the maximized-behvaiour for all Window-states, so you are right in there being some changes.

One of the finer points which I really appreciate is how intents can be fine-tuned not only to handle "a image" or "a mp3" or act like a extension/protocol-handler in your desktop OS, but how it can react on parts of a intent, like the domain of a URL.

When someone links to Applications on Android market on a web-page (i.e., a https-link to market.android.com) and I click it on my Android device, I actually get the link "opened" by having Android market app launched and focused on that specific application. Very, very neat.

The same thing can be done for wikipedia readers. A wikipedia link launches your app. In the same way other apps can provide intents for music selection, playback, data-sources, data-consumers and god knows what. Or just have an app become the default for some action on your system by handling the generic intent (i.e. surf the web).

Intents are one of the really good things which makes Android Android. And in case there were any doubts: I think it works out bloody fantastic.

This has been in FF since version 4. These mockups are for FF 8.

Now’s the time. Someone needs to start the ball rolling and just say no.

So really just about anyone but author, then?