hahahaha - for who ? Look how many conflicts today have their roots in the decisions and actions of the British Empire.
Seriously, yes, there were some side benefits eventually for the colonies but the cost was great and continues in many parts of the world. I resent that ignorant statement.
Look how many conflicts today have their roots in the decisions and actions of the British Empire
Specifically, how they broke things up when they left. In general, wherever they left, things fell apart somewhat. I have talked to several people who believe their country took a turn for the worse when the British left.
The standard operating procedure of the British Empire was "divide and conquer". In order to rule a minority was usually put in a privileged position. It should be no surprise to anyone that when the British left things often become a mess as the minority tries to hold onto power and those previously excluded fight to gain power.
But I would guarantee you that in every single case, the standard of living of the people improved substantially in the medium and long term under British rule.
The standard of living might have improved for the descendants of those that survived but what about those who had to undergo generations of subjugation or slavery or worse? What about those wiped out? In other words at what cost was this long term improvement gained?
Are the Aborigines or US native indians actually better off?
For me the benefits of British rule are very mixed and to argue that the conquered are better off ignores the costs borne in the past. Additionally, we cannot say how things might have been if people had been allowed to develop naturally and trade under normal circumstances.
This was also how the Romans did it, and a thousand years later, everyone agrees that the Roman legacy was a net good. Same is true, and will be said, of the British empire.
Our judgement of the Roman / british legacy is subject to
"Survivor Bias". If you can't see the cost paid by those who did not survive then things will look much better !
I got my Nexus one around 14 months ago. I choose it because its was the official Google developer's phone and so mostly likely to get updated! Except of course we now know that the Android benchmark device that's less than 2 years old will not be getting any more updates.
BTW - I am willing to bet that when ICS source is released someone works out how to get ICS on it. I.e - I doubt that there's any fundamental reason it can't be done?
I think I bought it about 6 months before the 3GS came out. I no longer use it as a phone, but still use it for other stuff.
I also have just got a Nexus One (and have another Android phone). I'm not particularly disappointed that it's not getting ICS. I've not figured out one actual feature I care about that this announcement will deprive me of yet[1] (and as you say, I'll probably be able to put it on anyway. The key sticking point seems to be limited storage space, which custom ROMs have worked around before). Perhaps it'll mean I get better scores on javascript benchmarks with the default browser, but I'm keen to try Firefox anyway now that I have an ARMv7 device. But if the only thing I get is version number bragging rights, I'm not sure I'll even bother with ICS.
[1] Face unlock? No front facing camera on the Nexus One, Android Beam? No NFC chip. Better browser? I'm not sure how much the benchmarks translate into reality. Built in VPN capatablities? actually that's interesting. Folders? We're scraping the barrel now. Different multitasking UI?
Good points. Also since there will be loads of users stuck on Gingerbread / Froyo the N1 will probably be useful as a development test phone in my case.
I think you have proven something that many of us have experienced - Android may have a number of technical advantages but its rollout management is unreliable and chaotic and so many non technical users may actually be better off with IOS devices! Technical users may be able to update themselves with some effort (E.g. via XDAdevelopers) if they choose devices carefully and have a bit of luck !
Over the last few months I have been advising my non technically minded friends / family members to "just get an IOS device if you can afford it. Android is great and more flexible but App quality is generally lower and you can't be sure you can EASILY get updates even 6 months after you buy. With IOS you know the device will be supported for around 2 years and maybe even longer. With Android there is no guarantee!"
For me this is sad. I've got both an Android phone (Nexus one) and a tablet (HTC flyer). I am seriously thinking of getting an Iphone for my next personal phone and just accept the few restrictions - BAH !
Agreed. But most of the crashes I see are of the former type (I.e developers fault).
I honestly can't remember ever seeing a Flash crash actually bring down the the browser. Maybe I've been very lucky.
I see that I'm getting down voted for calling 'ED' out on his sweeping statement where he did not define what he meant by a "crash". Note that for many users a "crash" is when what ever App/game/web-page they are running stops with some error and they can't continue. My basic point is that many (most??) of these, in my experience, are down to developer error.
Many developers seem to have an irrational "hate-fest" going against Flash. For sure there's a lot wrong with it but, for me, all to often "its not the tool but the craftsman at fault".
People are definitely referring to Flash taking down the browser (or crashing the plugin in Chrome and Safari, which have plugin sandboxes). Personally, I've seen "Plug-in Failure" several times even though I rarely visit sites that feature Flash. Steve Jobs wrote that "we know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash."
It isn't irrational. It's quite simply that my laptop fans run loudly when I'm using flash, draining the battery while not using flash doesn't run my fans or drain my battery. It's a pretty simply complaint. Flash is a power and resource hog for very little upside.
For me there are many real world cases which can't be handled without showing the user a fatal error.
E.g. - the developer asks for an runtime created asset that doesn't exist anymore or there's a condition under which a block of code runs forever (actually in this case the flash runtime stops after 15 seconds of activity and allows the user to kill it but it's still a "crash" insofar as the user is concerned.
But Flash often crashes way worse than that; it segfaults, or raises a structured exception. It used to take browser processes with it, before Chrome made it popular to have plugins in their own process.
I suspect Flash's (lack of) stability was one of the reasons for considering this design decision in Chrome.
Totally agree. We switched from SVN to Mercurial around 6 months ago and I have to say I am annoyed that I have to spend so much time messing around with the tool rather than coding.
You can say the same with almost any non-trivial development tool. Vim, emacs, Eclipse, VisualStudio, etc all require time spent "messing around with the tool rather than coding.
Another fallacy is that "writing code" is the only "useful" thing one can do. Creating clean logical history and good commit messages (or other documentation) does not invole writing code, but that doesn't mean it is not important.
Where did I say that that coding is the only useful thing?
The point I was trying to make is that tools are productivity aids and if a tool gets in the way and distracts you from your main activity (or activities) too much it can be counter productive.
I use both Eclipse and VisualStudio and find those tremendous! A good tool hides unnecessary stuff from you and works in a clear predictable way. A tool is bad for me when it does the opposite.
The point I am trying to make is that all "productivity aids" have a learning curve and will require time spent "messing around" before they confer any benefit.
In my experience, once you understand how git works it gets out of your way entirely.
I agree with the principle of "over design" - we old guys call it "if it isn't broken don't fix it".
However, some of his examples aren't convincing for me. I actually like the ugly Motion-X toggle switches compared to the IOS toggles which are a bit confusing I find - I can immediately see what is active / selected on the motion-X screen but on his examples of the correct" design I couldn't immediately work out what is selected/active. Also, the Motion-X tabs are much clear to me - there I said it.
To be honest the author comes across as one of those who insist on people following the "correct" rules even when they get in the way or there is a better solution.
I'll bet there are a lot of people who also disagreed with some of his examples but who won't say anything for fear of appearing "ignorant" in the eyes of the "design police".
Another important point. He states
"On average, only 3% of people who have downloaded an app use it after 30 days. Why? Because the majority of iPhone apps don’t make any sense to users."
But where is the evidence for this? He shows App usage over time graphs which don't separate between "over-designed" and "correctly designed apps" and then goes on to make an unwarranted assertion that the fall off is due users not understanding how to use the apps! How about the utility value of the apps not being enough or users getting bored with their $0.99 fun purchase ?
Lastly, if you go to the author's web site. You'll see he's designed an app for a pizza company. I downloaded it and it's beautiful (in fact I fancy a pizza now)! However, It does not use ANY standard IOS controls and has gone for a very nice custom dedicated UI!
His article spends a lot of time basically saying that the standard UI should be used but as his own app demonstrates there are cases where a custom UI is appropriate. His article would be much better if he provided guidance on when using a custom UI is better and provided evidence for his assertions.
hahahaha - for who ? Look how many conflicts today have their roots in the decisions and actions of the British Empire.
Seriously, yes, there were some side benefits eventually for the colonies but the cost was great and continues in many parts of the world. I resent that ignorant statement.