backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by KWRussell.. on Aug 11 at 2:32 PM


Google refuses to respect Apple's authority to police the app store and is releasing its rejected Google Voice app as a full-featured web version.  (Source: Comedy Central)
Getting rejected from the app store is no biggie for Google, apparently

Apple rejected Google Voice almost two weeks ago, removing it from the app store.  Now under investigation by the feds, AT&T has pointed the finger at Apple for the rejection.  Now in an exciting move Google is moving its rejected application online in an effort to essentially negate any attempts by Apple to police the application.

The new app can be installed as an icon on your homescreen.  The specially crafted iPhone-shaped webpage will offer all the features of the original app.  In other words, in a move akin to flipping the bird to Steve Jobs, Google has essentially highlighted a way for app developers everywhere to easily publish their rejected content.

There are some important caveats.  First, Google's app was intended to be free in the first place.  Apps like "MeSoHoly", which Apple rejected as offensive were intended to come at a minimal charge.  Donations could work, but Apple's simple revenue sharing would be missed by developers forsaking the app store.  Second, its not as trivial to build the app online, and there's still things that can't be done within the iPhone's version of Safari.

On the other hand the move could usher in a new era of freedom for iPhone users.  Freed from Apple's dictates of what apps are fit and proper, the phone's true potential could finally be achieved.  Rejected apps like eBook readers (rejected en masse over piracy concerns) could simply move online.  As the New York Times' Dave Pogue puts it, "What's Apple going to do now? Start blocking access to individual Web sites?"

Google Voice online will offer free SMS text messaging and reduced rate international calling.  The cheap calls are achieved via a scheme similar to Skype's.  Text messages are normally almost completely free to carriers use extra capacity for SMS which was previously unused.  Granted, they represent a minimal cost in terms of cell phone tower power and the loss of potential revenue from selling the part of the channel, but in the end they come at little cost to the telecoms, while the average cell phone users pays $10 or more on their phone bills a month for them (some plans include per-message billing, which can run as much as $0.20 per message).

Google's decision to defy Apple is an exciting development.  And one thing's for sure -- Apple's likely not happy and is likely trying to scheme how to stop them.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

How about some proofreading please?
By Kosh401 on 8/7/2009 4:41:04 PM , Rating: 5
I probably shouldn't have even starting reading the article when I saw Jason Mick wrote it, but I couldn't go on after the first paragraph. Seriously, how does "Now in an exciting move Google is moving it's rejected application online an effort..." get posted and is expected to pass as journalism O_o

"Now in an exciting move , Google is moving its rejected application online in an effort..."

I'm not an English student or grammar Nazi but damn.




RE: How about some proofreading please?
By 91TTZ on 8/7/2009 4:58:33 PM , Rating: 4
I agree completely. Dailytech writers should at least proofread the articles before they publish them.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Tamale on 8/8/2009 9:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
'in mass' instead of en masse is pretty bad too


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Tamale on 8/8/2009 9:20:59 AM , Rating: 3
heh.. and what's this?

"as they use extra capacity previously unused capacity."

huh?


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By acase on 8/8/2009 9:31:31 AM , Rating: 3
and we close it out with this gem:

quote:
Google's decision to defying Apple is an exciting development.


Seriously, I don't think I have read a mistake proof Mick article on this site in almost a year that I've been looking at it.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Omega215D on 8/10/2009 12:22:25 AM , Rating: 3
All your Google's are belong to us.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By MamiyaOtaru on 8/10/2009 3:51:37 AM , Rating: 2
are you saying there is something wrong with Google's in the context in which it was used?


By jimbojimbo on 8/10/2009 10:38:01 AM , Rating: 1
Was this article about grammar or something? WTF??


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Natfly on 8/7/2009 5:16:54 PM , Rating: 5
It's post first, edit later. The worst part is that edits are done silently, which isn't so bad for typos but inaccuracies aren't even acknowledged, just ninja-edited away.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By ziggo on 8/7/2009 5:53:23 PM , Rating: 5
It's post first, edit later. The worst part is that edits are done silently, which isn't so bad for typos but inaccuracies aren't even acknowledged, just ninja-edit ed away.

Phrase of the day. All undeclared edits shall now be referred to as "ninja edits."

Adding to the confusion, commentors cannot edit at all, while the writers have full ninja edit permissions. I demand editing for the masses!


By osalcido on 8/8/2009 2:25:33 AM , Rating: 2
That phrase has been around for a while...


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By spartan014 on 8/8/2009 2:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
Look out Natfly.. The ninjas are out to get you and oh boy, they are pissed off...


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Natfly on 8/8/2009 3:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
By MrBlastman on 8/10/2009 12:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.realultimatepower.net

Old... but still classic. :)


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By HotFoot on 8/8/09, Rating: 0
By lycium on 8/8/2009 7:42:55 AM , Rating: 5
nope, his grammar was fine and you broke it.


By Flunk on 8/8/2009 12:38:38 PM , Rating: 3
That be a double negative, it ain't the ways we type rounds heres.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By cqxray on 8/9/2009 12:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not an English student nor grammar Nazi but damn.


Strictly speaking, it should either:

I am neither an English student nor a grammar Nazi, but damn.

or:

I am not an English student; neither am I a grammar Nazi. But damn.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Ammohunt on 8/10/2009 2:48:10 PM , Rating: 3
Or or

Call me Ishmael. Some years ago -- never mind how long precisely -- having little or no money in my purse, neither being a Student of english nor a grammar facist thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world.


By foolsgambit11 on 8/10/2009 4:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
And some 600 pages later....

On the second day, a sail drew near, nearer, and picked me up at last. It was the devious-spawn of Wm. F. Buckley, that in her retracing search after her missing children, only found another orphan.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By cqxray on 8/9/2009 12:31:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not an English student nor grammar Nazi but damn.


Strictly speaking, it should be either:

I am neither an English student nor a grammar Nazi, but damn.

or:

I am not an English student; neither am I a grammar Nazi. But damn.


By sdsdv10 on 8/9/2009 2:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

quote:
I'm not an English student nor grammar Nazi but damn.


Strictly speaking, it should be either:

I am neither an English student nor a grammar Nazi, but damn.

or:

I am not an English student; neither am I a grammar Nazi. But damn.


Strictly speaking, one shouldn't double post... :P


By atlmann10 on 8/8/2009 11:40:00 AM , Rating: 3
The worst part is if you wrote your articles in WORD, or even free office, not to mention any other text editing program it would catch these errors. I think it is just lazy!


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By ElderTech on 8/8/2009 3:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
While I'm generally loath to digress into journalist issues when they are off topic, I couldn't help myself on this one. An early comment chided the OP for using "it's" instead of "its" for the possessive. "It's" obvious this person is too young to understand "it's" origin, double entrendre intended. Here's a link to a very concise explanation of why either use is accurate for the possessive, although not necessarily optimal for young or less informed readers:

http://www.word-detective.com/back-d.html


By Piyono on 8/8/2009 5:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
I enjoyed that article, thanks.


By Kosh401 on 8/9/2009 6:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm.... if by too young you mean I was not around during Shakespearean times when "it's" was used as a possessive and "tis" was used as "it is", then yes you are right... I am too young to understand or remember that...

I think your misdirected attempt to insult me comes from your interpretation of the article you linked; the article is saying that there are still some old schools of thought around the use of "it's" as a possessive today. A quote from the article says, "old habits die hard." It also states "it's" was used as a possessive during Shakespeare's time and up until the 19th century. That is the old thought and habit of speech they are referring to.

A few minutes on Google produces many links to Universities and other websites explaining how the terms are properly used today. Here are the first three pages I opened:

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000227.htm
http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/UsIts.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/its.html

So if I'm young and misinformed, does that make you old and ignorant? Welcome to the 21st century.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Uracas on 8/8/2009 8:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
Its free guys, come on... How many languages are you fluent in?

:)


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Muirgheasa on 8/10/2009 11:06:14 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think that's really relevant though, is it? I'm fluent in two languages, which is why I don't masquerade as a writer working in a third or fourth one. Minimum standards are not too much to ask, and the bar we're setting is in no way too high.

To be honest though, I've more or less learnt to ignore the mistakes. If Jason Mick had any desire to stop making them, he would have stopped by now; the fact that every single article he writes draws so much criticism for the mistakes made means he can hardly be unaware of them.


By Parhel on 8/10/2009 11:52:10 AM , Rating: 5
In his defense, writers aren't usually expected to proofread their own work. Most publications employ dedicated proofreaders, and if you were to ask one I doubt that Mick's work would stand out as any worse than what they receive every day. If I can understand the article, and it isn't overly sloppy, I'm not going get bent out of shape about it. At the very least, the site's management is at least as much to blame as the author. What I'm much more bothered by is the site's tendency toward sensationalism and even outright misinformation, which seems to have worsened in recent months.


By teng029 on 8/10/2009 1:46:35 PM , Rating: 3
one of the first things they teach aspiring journalists is to not sensationalize a story. report the facts, and that's it. at least that's what i was taught. so including the word "exciting" in any story sticks out like a sore thumb.

that being said, it is a blog and i liken them to diary entries than true journalistic work. still, considering the context of the article, i hardly find google's move exciting; interesting perhaps, but not exciting.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki