 |
msmobiles.com/f
dicussions about Microsoft Smartphone and Pocket PC phone
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
msmobiles.com_robot
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 16777215
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:42 am Post subject: (Not so) secret plan of Google to destroy Windows Mobile |
 |
|
We are amazed that government of USA is not doing anything against it: Google and Apple form cartel to fight Microsoft. Furthermore CEO of Google is on board of directors of Apple and Google and Apple are agreeing o...
Read more at http://www.msmobiles.com/news.php/8394.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stoic33
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 96
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Competition is good, it forced Palm to innovate and hopefully it will force Microsoft as well as they are generally a reactive company.. just let’s hope their aiming for a 2009/ZuneHD/Winmo strategy and they don’t take that long to get their act together but that’s wishful thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelondonthing
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tell you what, Edward. Why don't you try having a look at the usage stats for your website, and tell me what percentage of visitors has used a Windows Mobile handset over the past three months?
This is a WinMo website, and I'd still be surprised if that percentage enters any kind of significant territory.
On the vast majority of websites, mobile usage is generally pretty low anyway, but iPhone usage often nudges 10% of traffic or more, whereas Windows Mobile is lucky to register a fraction of a percent.
In the midst of a global recession, and as every company in the world rushes to downsize and restructure as a leaner, more efficient operation, there's no point whatsoever in designing and creating software for the lowest end of the market just for the sake of ticking a box that says "we designed this for Windows Mobile too".
Google has created this particular software for the most important market sectors first; if WinMo internet usage ever takes off in a meaningful way, Google will obviously be more than happy to cash in on that opportunity.
Until then, stop trying to skew this as some fiendish decision made as a result of an anti-competitive cartel. Do you even know how unbelievably stupid you look when you try to spit these long words out when you obviously don't know what they even mean? It's a simple business decision, you big idiot, it's not about anti-trust, stifling competition or any of the other bullsh!t that you've tried to make up.
I think it's about time you stopped spreading these lies, Edward - or at least have the balls to remove the biggest crock of sh!t of them all from the top left of these forums: claiming to offer "whole truth, not half the truth".
These days, you offer no truth - just your stupid, misguided, uninformed lies.
Last edited by thelondonthing on Sun Jun 28, 2009 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
virain
Joined: 23 Dec 2007
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was a long time brfore I could agree with Edward on anyhing. But even he is right cometimes  It is not a secret that a Pack between Apple and Google excists, and MS is a target here. Steve and Serg devided market already. Stevy J. takes all high end, premium/ elite so to say segment, while Sergey B, has all the mass market. And Both companies are under investigation for anti-trust violation, but more likely all of that willbe swept under the table, Apple and Google are very rich and powerful to mess with. Although Edward, you are little too late to break the news, here's Engadget article from May 2009: http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/04/apple-google-relationship-being-investigated-for-antitrust-vio/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoyBawang
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 100
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 600 is too plenty. I only need 20 apps for my WinMo. But these 20 are high quality apps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelondonthing
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| virain wrote: | | It was a long time brfore I could agree with Edward on anyhing. But even he is right cometimes It is not a secret that a Pack between Apple and Google excists, and MS is a target here. Steve and Serg devided market already. Stevy J. takes all high end, premium/ elite so to say segment, while Sergey B, has all the mass market. And Both companies are under investigation for anti-trust violation, but more likely all of that willbe swept under the table, Apple and Google are very rich and powerful to mess with. Although Edward, you are little too late to break the news, here's Engadget article from May 2009: http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/04/apple-google-relationship-being-investigated-for-antitrust-vio/ |
Okay... I see where you're coming from, but that kind of logic is called a syllogism, and it's exactly the kind of flawed reasoning that powers Edward's mind when he writes the bullsh!t parts of the stories that he reports on.
A syllogism goes something like this:
1. Regulators are investing the possiblity of anti-trust violations between Google and Apple.
2. Anti-trust violations are designed to 'fix' a market and prevent competition.
3. Anything that happens between Google and Apple must be designed to stifle competition.
This kind of 'logic' is based upon the assumption that a premise is universal, and rejects the possibility that the premise may not always apply.
Therefore, Edward reasons that anything that even remotely connects Apple and Google must be part of a 'cartel' to 'destroy Windows Mobile'.
To any sane and intelligent person, this reasoning is of course entirely idiotic and without substance.
Furthermore, Edward cites as an example in his article that Apple forced Google to remove multitouch support from Android. What is this allegation based upon?
If Edward chooses to respond to any of this, he'll no doubt ignore any actual points made, and make some largely irrelevant comment about how he's right, and probably about how that Engadget article mentioned by virain therefore makes him right. But as I hope you'll understand, this doesn't make him right at all - it only appears to prove Edwards spurious, unsubstantiated allegation if you accept his logic that anything that remotely connects Google and/or Apple must be a work of evil.
Edward's logic in this regard means that whenever a new Android handset is released, he can claim that any of its limitations are down to orders from Apple. When Apple makes a business decision, he can claim that it's designed to make things easier for Google.
...and when Google offers an advertising service (remember that 99% of Google's revenues are derived from its advertising products - a figure that Edward himself quoted) which includes Apple iPhone/iPod (by far the most widely used mobile internet browsing platform) but which excludes Windows Mobile (one of the smallest and least used mobile browsing platforms, and which accounts for a negligible amount of potential revenues), Edward can claim that this has absolutely nothing to do with good business, and that it is in fact the product of an evil corporate masterplan designed to crush competition as part of a vast international conspiracy that even the US government is willing to turn a blind eye to.
What amazes me more than Edward's ignorance - and his determination to twist anything into a new and more imaginative lie - is that there's actually still some people on here willing to accept the insanity that he comes up with. It's truly extraordinary that Edward, and a tiny but evidently loyal following, finds it easier to believe that a simple business decision was in fact the result of a huge plot between these two massive companies, when in fact it comes down to nothing more than a sensible business decision to support the most popular platforms with the highest potential for revenue generation - and I'd bet my house that if/when browsing becomes more popular on Windows Mobile, Google will have no qualms whatsoever about capitalising on all that extra revenue with dedicated support for the WinMo platform.
Until then, and for as long as WinMo remains a minority when it comes to using web services on the move, I can't see why Edward thinks Google should be providing any significant amount of support or availability of programs for a platform that offers extremely limited potential for growth right now. Google is still a commercial organisation, and their decisions are based upon key performance indicators which demand a certain amount of return for any investment of time and money expended on any project. WinMo, as a browsing platform, doesn't come close to matching the growth and popularity of using web-based services on an iPhone or iPod; so Google has chosen to ignore it.
And one more thing, Edward: this is yet another article where you've insisted that it's another reason for people to desert Windows Mobile. This seems to be a recurring theme, and indeed it seems almost to be a primary aim of yours to turn people against WinMo, with a stream of posts badmouthing the platform, focusing on one small downside of new handsets rather than championing all the numerous and exciting advantages and features, and endless reminders of the platform's flaws.
Isn't it about time you stop pretending to like WinMo, get an iPhone - with all of its multitouch and 3.5mm headphone socket goodness - and give us a break from your non-stop lies and ill-informed bitching about stuff you obviously don't understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
molinos
Joined: 27 Jun 2009
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thelondonthing: maybe somebody, even WinMo-fans, would start listening to you if you didn't call them an idiot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kieranEire
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 282
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't really buy into this at all. Google provides its services on the WM platform as well as iPhone and they provide those services for free. Also if there was some pact why is iTunes not available on Android? Then look at Microsoft's strategy in regards to ActiveSync they have used and some would say abused their ownership of exchange market in order to boost mobile sales. Instead of providing exchange users the ability to sync with the device or their choice Microsoft have clearly abused their position. Only court rulings int he states and EU have forced Microsoft to provide documentation and forced them to license communication protocols. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelondonthing
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| molinos wrote: | | thelondonthing: maybe somebody, even WinMo-fans, would start listening to you if you didn't call them an idiot |
Well, I referred to Edward as an idiot - not WinMo fans in general - for the simple reason that there can be no other logical conclusion to draw from his ramblings.
Perhaps you view him as some sage and wise visionary who sees all that us mere mortals cannot. Sadly, that's the same bullsh!t logic that justifies the propagation of conspiracy theories, and almost without exception conspiracy theories are proven to be the ramblings of tragic and pathetic (literally and figuratively) souls with overactive imaginations who can't deal with simple realities, and so feel the need to manufacture wild and complex solutions to even the simplest of concepts.
A bit like the idea that Google's commercial decision to dedicate resources to the most successful platforms is somehow part of a massive international conspiracy.
The sad thing is that Edward really invites this kind of ridicule with his stupid, ill-informed commentary on things. If he would just stick to the facts - instead of drawing imaginary lines between things, and drawing utterly false and baseless conclusions and presenting them as 'the whole truth' - not only would people like me be less inclined to mock his ignorance and lambast his lies, but this would be a much more enjoyable (and arguably more popular and more respected) site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kupe
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 513
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| molinos wrote: | | thelondonthing: maybe somebody, even WinMo-fans, would start listening to you if you didn't call them an idiot |
I believe London was describing idiots as idiots. That some of those idiots might happen to be winmo users makes them no more or less idiots. London's comments about EJR are spot on though and I expect London's posts to be censored at Edwards soonest opportunity.
Oh, and Edward - make sure you add Palm to your conspiracy theory too - I believe Google has an agreement with them as well on the new Pre.
_________________
good titles are misleading!
-- msmobiles.com_wiseacre |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EJR
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
Posts: 2629
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thelondonthing wrote: | | in fact it comes down to nothing more than a sensible business decision to support the most popular platforms |
wrong! Windows Mobile has more phones sold and is more popular than Google Android that Google supports in the area of mobile advertising! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
molinos
Joined: 27 Jun 2009
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thelondonthing wrote: | | molinos wrote: | | thelondonthing: maybe somebody, even WinMo-fans, would start listening to you if you didn't call them an idiot |
Well, I referred to Edward as an idiot - not WinMo fans in general - for the simple reason that there can be no other logical conclusion to draw from his ramblings.
Perhaps you view him as some sage and wise visionary who sees all that us mere mortals cannot. Sadly, that's the same bullsh!t logic that justifies the propagation of conspiracy theories, and almost without exception conspiracy theories are proven to be the ramblings of tragic and pathetic (literally and figuratively) souls with overactive imaginations who can't deal with simple realities, and so feel the need to manufacture wild and complex solutions to even the simplest of concepts.
|
I didn't say that I view him as a wise visionary. Infact, I think he sometimes is wrong about subjects, and sometimes the logic is missing. But I don't think anybody listens to a person who has reduced his argumental style to such a low level as calling people "idiots". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelondonthing
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EJR wrote: | | thelondonthing wrote: | | in fact it comes down to nothing more than a sensible business decision to support the most popular platforms |
wrong! Windows Mobile has more phones sold and is more popular than Google Android that Google supports in the area of mobile advertising! |
Edward, for once in your life, try not to be a d!ck.
You've taken my quote out of context, and you know it - that's what you do. You take stuff out of context, slam it with something else that's of no relevance, mix the two up and create some bullsh!t story around it.
Nothing in my comments had anything whatsoever to do with the number of handsets sold. I didn't mention the number of handsets sold, and any references to 'popularity' were in the context of the number of owners using handsets to access mobile web services. That's what is relevant here.
If iPhone users weren't using their handsets to access the web so much - damn them, and their wonderful easy browsing experience and integrated web store - Google wouldn't be focusing its advertising services on the iPhone platform.
Similarly, it doesn't matter one god-damn bit that more Windows Mobile handsets have been sold. People aren't using them anywhere near as much to access web services. People ARE using iPhone.
What part of this don't you get, Edward? Tell me which point you're getting stuck on, and I'll explain it to you - although to be fair, the point that I'm making isn't really any more complicated than understanding how money works. Things cost money. Money is finite; it can only buy a certain amount of things before it runs out. Therefore, money must be spent wisely and selectively, rather than being spunked away all in one go on stuff that you really don't need right now. Evidently, you also need to be reminded that we're in the middle of a global economic downturn (and even, in many markets, recession - you may have seen something about this on the front of your daddy's newspaper, but I guess the long words must have confused you).
Pretty simple stuff - but I guess it's still too complicated for you, so let's try this:
Where is your evidence for:
a) the alleged orders given by Apple to Google to exclude multitouch from Android?
b) the existence of a secret plan by Google to destroy Windows Mobile?
Can you also explain why:
1) Google, a commercial organisation with no obligation to do what you say, should have to develop services for Windows Mobile, a platform that currently provides a negligible contribution to its overall business, and which shows no signs of significant growth (and certainly nothing like the growth of iPhone/iPod)?
2) you feel you have the right to make up a load of lies - for that is what they are, given that you have offered precisely no evidence to support your bullsh!t claims - to portray Google as an evil, despicable organisation that wilfully discriminates without cause, just because they don't support a platform that isn't going to offer anything like the returns on investment that other platforms already provide to its advertising revenues?
It was a business decision, Edward, for fu'cks sake.
Why do you continue to try to defend the sh!t that you've written, even when everyone can see that you've either deliberately written a pack of lies, or you're so stupid that you actually believe what you've written?
With the amount of crap that you post on this site - almost obliterating the actual Windows Mobile news stuff that the majority of us want to enjoy - and the number of unfounded allegations and outright lies that you write, I found myself wondering why no-one has sued you yet.
And it quickly occurred to me that the simple reason is that all of these big evil corporations that you fling sh!t at with your rambling, incoherent articles are all laughing at you. They don't consider you a threat, they consider you a joke. They don't care about your one-man crusade for the universal inclusion of multitouch displays. They don't care about your one-man campaign for the inclusion of 3.5mm sockets.
I suspect they probably would care about those points if they'd been properly presented and managed; perhaps MoDaCo or coolsmartphone.com could have had a survey, or a live chat discussion, or a forum thread to discuss new handsets, and then those findings could have been presented to the right people within the handset development teams of HTC, Samsung etc - and perhaps a change may have come about.
But your ridiculous "this phone has no 3.5mm jack and is therefore sh!t and must be avoided" jihad turned the whole thing into a bad joke. You ignore the many merits that a handset may have and discount it entirely because it is lacking one feature that most people really aren't that bothered about.
Multitouch really isn't all that either - it's a nifty novelty on the iPhone, and one that is extremely pleasing to the eye, but other than eye candy, it doesn't really add much that isn't already available through single-point touch interfaces. Consider also that Windows Mobile devices aren't ready for multitouch. Applications have to be specially developed or customised to harness a wide range of multitouch functions - you can't just slap WM6.1 or WM6.5 onto a device with multitouch screen, because you'll have literally nothing to use the multitouch facility with. So saying that a WinMo phone isn't worth buying for lack of multitouch is pretty unreasonable, given that adding multitouch capabilities would result in nothing more than an additional hardware cost for a feature that the operating system doesn't fully support yet.
But hey, Edward, if you're happy with people laughing at your ignorance, and you're comfortable with being known as a blatant and compulsive liar - like one of those people who lies and makes stuff up so that people will like him - then that is of course your choice. I will, however, be forced to refer to you in all future posts as 'Edward, the Liar' - that name, while seemingly inflammatory, is actually factually correct, and could therefore not be argued to be inflammatory in any way, not least because the whole msmobiles.com archive is a repository of evidence supporting my claim.
And if you don't like being referred to as a liar, then either lay down some evidence for all the bullsh!t that you've posted, sue me, or shut the hell up and take it like the lying, deceitful little bitch that you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelondonthing
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| molinos wrote: | | thelondonthing wrote: | | molinos wrote: | | thelondonthing: maybe somebody, even WinMo-fans, would start listening to you if you didn't call them an idiot |
Well, I referred to Edward as an idiot - not WinMo fans in general - for the simple reason that there can be no other logical conclusion to draw from his ramblings.
Perhaps you view him as some sage and wise visionary who sees all that us mere mortals cannot. Sadly, that's the same bullsh!t logic that justifies the propagation of conspiracy theories, and almost without exception conspiracy theories are proven to be the ramblings of tragic and pathetic (literally and figuratively) souls with overactive imaginations who can't deal with simple realities, and so feel the need to manufacture wild and complex solutions to even the simplest of concepts.
|
I didn't say that I view him as a wise visionary. Infact, I think he sometimes is wrong about subjects, and sometimes the logic is missing. But I don't think anybody listens to a person who has reduced his argumental style to such a low level as calling people "idiots". |
I see your point, but I can't be responsible for those smug types with delusions of superiority, who are unable to contribute further to the discussion, and so decide to ignore the important points of that discussion for no other reason than to claim the moral high ground about 'using a naughty word' or 'calling someone a name'.
Their decision to take offence at such language does not change the relevance of the points being made, it doesn't make them less potent, and it doesn't make them wrong. In fact, calling someone a name - particularly a benign one such as 'idiot' - doesn't actually affect the discussion at all... until someone decides that it's offensive, wrong, childish, "low-level" or whatever. However, the original points still stand, and whether one agrees with the namecalling, those points are every bit as correct and valid as they were when they were first made.
This is not namecalling for the sake of it; this is measured, considered namecalling, with a wealth of evidence to support it. That evidence points to the man being either an idiot, a liar or both. I have already explained why in great detail. To ignore the points made in order to get on one's high horse doesn't advance the discussion, it doesn't resolve any issues, and it certainly doesn't change the fact that Edward is, indeed, an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
virain
Joined: 23 Dec 2007
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thelondonthing wrote: |
Okay... I see where you're coming from, but that kind of logic is called a syllogism, |
You see that kind of logic in your everyday newspaper, s.a. New York Times, Daily News, or on TV, CNN, BBC News for example. Yet everyone excepts that crap as "objective news coverage". Edward is a blogger, He expresses his opinion, even if he is 99.9% wrong sometimes, well, maybe most of the time. So, don't judge or call names, and you won't be judged either. You know, YOur logic is not perfect, but it's you right to express it here, thankd to Edward  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
