Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #37065 > unrolled thread

Facetime on Android

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Facetime on Android Stijn De Jong <stijndekoning@nlnet.nl> - 2016-12-31 07:36 +0100
    Re: Facetime on Android Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2016-12-31 09:25 +0100
      Re: Facetime on Android Stijn De Jong <stijndekoning@nlnet.nl> - 2016-12-31 20:17 +0100
    Re: Facetime on Android tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-12-31 04:07 -0500
      Re: Facetime on Android Stijn De Jong <stijndekoning@nlnet.nl> - 2016-12-31 20:17 +0100
    Re: Facetime on Android Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 08:36 +0000
      Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-06 08:58 -0500
        Re: Facetime on Android Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2017-01-06 16:20 +0100
          Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-06 11:03 -0500
            Re: Facetime on Android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-01-06 19:48 +0000
              Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-06 15:16 -0500
                Re: Facetime on Android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-01-06 20:40 +0000
                  Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-06 15:48 -0500
                    Re: Facetime on Android Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 11:08 +0000
                      Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-07 13:06 -0500
                        Re: Facetime on Android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-01-07 19:54 +0000
                          Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-07 15:11 -0500
                        Re: Facetime on Android Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 22:57 +0000
                          Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-07 18:23 -0500
                    Re: Facetime on Android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-01-07 19:54 +0000
                      Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-07 15:11 -0500
                        Re: Facetime on Android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-01-07 21:29 +0000
                          Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-07 18:23 -0500
                            Re: Facetime on Android tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2017-01-08 00:48 -0500
                            Re: Facetime on Android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-01-08 17:00 +0000
                              Re: Facetime on Android nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-10 21:41 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#37525

In article <edcvbjFslbhU2@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > apple was planning on making it open source but got sued and was
> > > > > > > > forced to not do that.
> > > > > 
> > > > >   But Apple could still keep it closed source and port it to other
> > > > > platforms, but apparently 'chose' not do do so.
> > > > 
> > > > because there's no benefit to bother, even if the resources to do so
> > > > were zero (which they aren't).
> > > 
> > >   I'm sure that in your walled garden universe there isn't, but we can
> > > hope that Apple is actually just a tad smarter than you, cant we!?
> > 
> > the only walls are those *you* put up.
> 
>   Nope, *Apple* put up those walls, or better, did not pull them down.

the only walls are the ones of your own making.

people who actually use apple products aren't limited by these mythical
walls. 

> > >   BTW, can you please go and create your own walled garden version of
> > > Usenet? It would be ever so much better for all concerned! After all,
> > > who needs fscking standards [1] if you can make closed proprietary
> > > stuff?
> > 
> > facetime is only closed due to losing a patent troll lawsuit. apple
> > *wanted* it to be open source.
> 
>   Non sequitur! As mentioned/quoted above, it doesn't have to be open
> source to be ported (by Apple):

there is no benefit for apple to port it themselves to competing
platforms.

however, there is a benefit for it to be an open standard, which is
what they wanted to do. unfortunately, apple was sued and those plans
changed.

> [Rewind:]
> 
> > > > >   But Apple could still keep it closed source and port it to other
> > > > > platforms, but apparently 'chose' not do do so.
> 
> > your issue is not with apple, but the scumbag patent trolls in east
> > texas and the corrupt judges there who consistently find in favour of
> > said trolls. that's why nearly every patent troll lawsuit is filed
> > there, no matter who the target of the lawsuit happens to be.
> 
>   It's not 'my' issue, but *the* issue, and it *is* with Apple.

nope. the issue is with patent trolls.

>   *If* what you imply is true - which it clearly is not - Apple would
> have to withdraw the iOS/OS X versions as well. Since they don't,
> there's nothing which prevents them to *porting* it to other platforms.

apple had to *change* facetime in response to the lawsuit so that it no
longer infringed.

as usual, you have no clue.

>   So please keep your baseless FUD to yourself.

i don't spread baseless fud at all. 

you, on the other hand, lie and twist just to argue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37531

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <edcvbjFslbhU2@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > apple was planning on making it open source but got sued and was
> > > > > > > > > forced to not do that.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   But Apple could still keep it closed source and port it to other
> > > > > > platforms, but apparently 'chose' not do do so.
> > > > > 
> > > > > because there's no benefit to bother, even if the resources to do so
> > > > > were zero (which they aren't).
> > > > 
> > > >   I'm sure that in your walled garden universe there isn't, but we can
> > > > hope that Apple is actually just a tad smarter than you, cant we!?
> > > 
> > > the only walls are those *you* put up.
> > 
> >   Nope, *Apple* put up those walls, or better, did not pull them down.
> 
> the only walls are the ones of your own making.
> 
> people who actually use apple products aren't limited by these mythical
> walls. 

  Good luck using FaceTime accross the wall which you claim doesn't
exist!

  Care to tell us how you're going to use FaceTime to communicate with
other platforms like Android, Windows, etc?

> > > >   BTW, can you please go and create your own walled garden version of
> > > > Usenet? It would be ever so much better for all concerned! After all,
> > > > who needs fscking standards [1] if you can make closed proprietary
> > > > stuff?
> > > 
> > > facetime is only closed due to losing a patent troll lawsuit. apple
> > > *wanted* it to be open source.
> > 
> >   Non sequitur! As mentioned/quoted above, it doesn't have to be open
> > source to be ported (by Apple):
> 
> there is no benefit for apple to port it themselves to competing
> platforms.

  And then why do other companies *do* port their stuff to 'competing
platforms'? Exactly, because *they* don't believe in a walled garden
approach.

> however, there is a benefit for it to be an open standard, which is
> what they wanted to do. unfortunately, apple was sued and those plans
> changed.

  For the umpteenth time, I'm *not* talking about open source. Get over
it!

> > [Rewind:]
> > 
> > > > > >   But Apple could still keep it closed source and port it to other
> > > > > > platforms, but apparently 'chose' not do do so.
> > 
> > > your issue is not with apple, but the scumbag patent trolls in east
> > > texas and the corrupt judges there who consistently find in favour of
> > > said trolls. that's why nearly every patent troll lawsuit is filed
> > > there, no matter who the target of the lawsuit happens to be.
> > 
> >   It's not 'my' issue, but *the* issue, and it *is* with Apple.
> 
> nope. the issue is with patent trolls.

  No, it isn't, as I explain in this part which -as usual - you dodged:
> 
> >   *If* what you imply is true - which it clearly is not - Apple would
> > have to withdraw the iOS/OS X versions as well. Since they don't,
> > there's nothing which prevents them to *porting* it to other platforms.
> 
> apple had to *change* facetime in response to the lawsuit so that it no
> longer infringed.

  Duh! So, *after* that, they were free to port it, which they didn't,
which is *their* decision, nobody else's. So the issue *is* with Apple
and no amount of stamping your tiny feet is going to change that.

> as usual, you have no clue.

  Well at least *I* know the difference between open and closed source
and who can port what.

> >   So please keep your baseless FUD to yourself.
> 
> i don't spread baseless fud at all. 

  That's the terryfying/pathetic bit, that you don't even *realize* that
it's FUD.

> you, on the other hand, lie and twist just to argue.

  Ah, there we have your usual PKB, which you utter when you know you've
cornered yourself.

  QED. HTH. HAND, EOD. NL.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37537

In article <edd4u3Fu1lhU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > > 
> > > > >   I'm sure that in your walled garden universe there isn't, but we can
> > > > > hope that Apple is actually just a tad smarter than you, cant we!?
> > > > 
> > > > the only walls are those *you* put up.
> > > 
> > >   Nope, *Apple* put up those walls, or better, did not pull them down.
> > 
> > the only walls are the ones of your own making.
> > 
> > people who actually use apple products aren't limited by these mythical
> > walls. 
> 
>   Good luck using FaceTime accross the wall which you claim doesn't
> exist!
> 
>   Care to tell us how you're going to use FaceTime to communicate with
> other platforms like Android, Windows, etc?

just because facetime is currently apple-only doesn't mean there's a
wall. far from it.

there are *many* ways to do what facetime does to communicate between
apple and android, windows, etc., several of which have been mentioned
already.

for there to be an actual wall (which there isn't), apple would need to
actively prohibit *all* other options by locking things down so that
alternatives could *never* be implemented at all, thereby forcing
people to use only apple solutions. they don't do that.

there is no wall.

you're also showing just how much of hypocrite you are in that there
are a lot of apps that are *only* on android or *only* on windows, with
no option for mac or ios users. in your world, that would be a wall,
which you conveniently ignore.

> > > > >   BTW, can you please go and create your own walled garden version of
> > > > > Usenet? It would be ever so much better for all concerned! After all,
> > > > > who needs fscking standards [1] if you can make closed proprietary
> > > > > stuff?
> > > > 
> > > > facetime is only closed due to losing a patent troll lawsuit. apple
> > > > *wanted* it to be open source.
> > > 
> > >   Non sequitur! As mentioned/quoted above, it doesn't have to be open
> > > source to be ported (by Apple):
> > 
> > there is no benefit for apple to port it themselves to competing
> > platforms.
> 
>   And then why do other companies *do* port their stuff to 'competing
> platforms'? Exactly, because *they* don't believe in a walled garden
> approach.

some do and some don't.

why doesn't google port android to iphones and ipads? 

the ios kernel is open source, as is quite a bit more, so they have a
head start.

why doesn't another company port android to existing ios devices? that
would be a *lot* cheaper than designing and building a new android
phone. it would also get a *lot* of free publicity, saving the company
even more money, with every tech blog and numerous major news outlets
writing about it. 

the answer, of course, is that there's no benefit in doing so. it would
lose money in the end. 

also note that there are licensing fees to use parts of android, which
is a wall. some of those noname android devices do not have the play
store, which means a lot of apps aren't directly available to them. yet
another wall.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37546

On Sat, 07 Jan 2017 18:23:08 -0500, nospam wrote:

> why doesn't google port android to iphones and ipads?

What's Google Chrome not do in that vein?

Or how about Bluestacks? Good for Windows, too ;-) .

Oh, right, you said "port" and those two things provide "emulation".
(Sigh!) Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37553

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

[Non-explantion why a wall isn't one deleted.]

> you're also showing just how much of hypocrite you are in that there
> are a lot of apps that are *only* on android or *only* on windows, with
> no option for mac or ios users. in your world, that would be a wall,
> which you conveniently ignore.

  First of all, I never claimed that Google or/and Microsoft are
anything even remotely close to perfect, quite the contrary (if you've
been paying any attention). Android/Google sucks, but they're the only
option in the price range I'm willing to pay for a throw-away device
like a smart-phone/tablet. And I'm using a laptop *despite* Windows (and
for the same price argument).

  Having said that, ...

  Care to give some actual examples? And ones which are relevant to the
topic at hand, i.e. (human) communication between devices.

[...]

> why doesn't google port android to iphones and ipads? 

  That's not what knowledgeable people would call a 'port', because it
would require a rewrite of all the hardware dependent stuff. Assuming
it's at all possible, given CPU architecture, etc.. (Note that, despite
what some people think, Android is not Linux.)

> the ios kernel is open source, as is quite a bit more, so they have a
> head start.

  Sorry, but you seem to be out of your league. The iOS kernel would be
mostly useless, because what's needed is an *Android* kernel for
iHardware.

> why doesn't another company port android to existing ios devices?

  Because it's a *gigantic* undertaking. Absolutely incomparable with
porting FaceTime to other platforms.

> that would be a *lot* cheaper than designing and building a new
> android phone.

  You're kidding, right!? Designing and building a new Android phone is
peanuts, compared to rewriting Android for iHardware.

  Not that the two can be compared, because they require totally
different expertise, people, equipment, etc..

[...]

> also note that there are licensing fees to use parts of android, which
> is a wall. some of those noname android devices do not have the play
> store, which means a lot of apps aren't directly available to them. yet
> another wall.

  Every one needs to pay licences and other fees all the time, but more
importantly, such a financial wall is, as you (should) know full well,
not the kind of wall which is meant when one talks about a "walled
garden".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37641

In article <edf9ghFfar7U1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> 
> > why doesn't google port android to iphones and ipads? 
> 
>   That's not what knowledgeable people would call a 'port', because it
> would require a rewrite of all the hardware dependent stuff. Assuming
> it's at all possible, given CPU architecture, etc.. (Note that, despite
> what some people think, Android is not Linux.)

at a minimum, porting requires rewriting hardware dependent code.

> > the ios kernel is open source, as is quite a bit more, so they have a
> > head start.
> 
>   Sorry, but you seem to be out of your league. The iOS kernel would be
> mostly useless, because what's needed is an *Android* kernel for
> iHardware.

it ain't me who is out of my league. 

in order to write an android kernel, knowledge of ios hardware is
required, and that knowledge is available via the ios kernel. another
option is reverse engineer it but that's a lot more work.

> > why doesn't another company port android to existing ios devices?
> 
>   Because it's a *gigantic* undertaking. Absolutely incomparable with
> porting FaceTime to other platforms.

gigantic or not, there is nothing stopping someone from doing it. 

> > that would be a *lot* cheaper than designing and building a new
> > android phone.
> 
>   You're kidding, right!? Designing and building a new Android phone is
> peanuts, compared to rewriting Android for iHardware.

nonsense.

>   Not that the two can be compared, because they require totally
> different expertise, people, equipment, etc..

so what? hire the right people. 

> > also note that there are licensing fees to use parts of android, which
> > is a wall. some of those noname android devices do not have the play
> > store, which means a lot of apps aren't directly available to them. yet
> > another wall.
> 
>   Every one needs to pay licences and other fees all the time, but more
> importantly, such a financial wall is, as you (should) know full well,
> not the kind of wall which is meant when one talks about a "walled
> garden".

a wall is a wall.

you don't get to pick and choose which walls count and which do not.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web