• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Wanna get pissed off?

Read this... about the nexus one on his website. He is ridiculous. He closed the comments on this page as well



He does make a point. The majority of people I know who have Android phones are only using them because of their similarities to the iPhone. They do not feel a loyalty to Android, but rather use it as they would an iPhone. Many of them however are very happy with the OS and many said they would probably stick with it.

Google does need to do some branding. On the allures of owning an Apple product is being part of a club, a "clique" and the Apple logo is the symbol of their little group. I think Android would be very popular if all these different companies stopped toying with the UI, shipped stock Android, and allowed the image of the robot on the hardware.
 
Upvote 0
Yes, this website is a crock. Day after day this excuse for a writer is publishing total FUD. The latest is how Apple is going to buy out Moto and terminate the Droid brand! There is just no limit to the amount of fear, uncertainty and doubt this guy spreads. It can really burn you up...

Yeah I was just reading this. I like Android a lot, but I'll freely admit where iOS is better, particularly in polish and the level of hardware acceleration it has. This guy is either the biggest fanboy I've ever seen or a paid shill for Apple. I know the site is dedicated to Apple, but at least tell the truth every now and again. This guy is almost worse than Apple's attempt to discredit every other smartphone's antenna.
 
Upvote 0
THe thing I appreciate about android OS is that enables the phone to actually be mine, and not just an expensive piece of PR work from a narcissistic corporation. If someone calls me an "android fanboy" it doesnt really say anything other than that I am a fan of my self. And what I mean is, I can do whatever I want with my device and because of this, to call me a name meaning that I am partial and unequivocally loyal to it, basically just says that I like what I have because i set it up the way I want and do whatever i want with it. This doesnt bother me.

To call a someone a fanboy and have it loaded with derogatory integrity about their character or intelligence depends on how much their being partial to a thing is actually coming at their expense and how much the fact that they are "loyal" to it is based on everything except justifiable objective reasoning.

When you call someone an apple fanboy you are basically saying they are irrational, a mentally scarred masochist who is rife with "trauma bonding" syndrome and that they are devoid of functioning objective intelligence. This CAN be backed up by objective reasoning.

I can be called a an "android fanboy" and not bat an eye because this is practically a non-statement. All it means is that i am a consumer (i.e someone who is shelling out immodest amounts of my money on a phone) and then able to again get my moneys worth back from my product in FUNCTIONALITY!!!!! and not just a mentally conjured sense of belonging and fulfillment based on the products logo. (  really? :thinking: )
 
Upvote 0
I... didn't get an Android phone at first because it was 'like' an iPhone... I got it because it looked interesting.

Lo and behold, my god did I find a jackpot. I can't take my hands off my phone at this point, and it's even gotten me to the point where I up and bought my Evo at full retail not even a full year after I got my first 'batch' I'll say, of Moments then Hero's. (long story short, the Moment sucks, the Hero is FAR better).

My friend is a die hard apple fan. If it's got an apple logo, he'll probably buy it at some point (granted, if it does what he wants or needs). He's still a die hard for apple, but he loves his iPhone because it's simple, looks good, and does what it's supposed to do. I feel the same likewise towards the whole subject. Get what you want based on needs and what suits your fancy. I like being able to do whatever I want, sideload here and there, flash a ROM, etc. He likes turning his phone on, and using it. Different stokes, for different folks.
 
Upvote 0
What happened, your mind didn't know what to do when being presented with truthful and fact based NON liberal controlled media news reporting!

Ok, as you were. Resume head in sand position...
And don't forget Comrade NOBAMA says to VOTE DEM!

Hahaha Fox news! That's a laugh! You should watch "Outfoxed - Rupert Merdochs war on journalism"

Its always consoling to know that you have previous government officers convicted of war crimes like Oliver Notrh, reporting your "fair and balanced news".

Just as other news is impartially "liberal", Faux News is impartially "right". But in truth who is willing to put aside biased opinionated propaganda driven by vested interest and call a spade a spade or criticize dishonesty and corruption wherever it exist? NO ONE

How do you take any of these people seriously?
 
Upvote 0
Hahaha Fox news! That's a laugh! You should watch "Outfoxed - Rupert Merdochs war on journalism"

Its always consoling to know that you have previous government officers convicted of war crimes like Oliver Notrh, reporting your "fair and balanced news".

Just as other news is impartially "liberal", Faux News is impartially "right". But in truth who is willing to put aside biased opinionated propaganda driven by vested interest and call a spade a spade or criticize dishonesty and corruption wherever it exist? NO ONE

How do you take any of these people seriously?

Do research before spewing incorrect data, North was never accused of nor convicted of war crimes...

Iran?Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...quite a bit off the topic but..
 
Upvote 0
Do research before spewing incorrect data, North was never accused of nor convicted of war crimes...

Iran?Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...quite a bit off the topic but..


I dont think a person who already claims responsibility (or "partial responsibility" if that suits you better) for a crime and then gets exonerated on a technicality changes any of the truths to which I am speaking (i.e widespread corruption on all sides driven by personal or partisan interests). If someone is satisfied to delude themselves as to the truth of a situation on the strength of technical litigative grounds fine, but that says little in the real world as to what actually goes on.

I assume by that same logic you refuse to believe that Oj Simpson killed his wife right? After all a jury of his peers heard both sides and made a decision, how could the truth not be discovered by this process?

Oliver North himself, referred to himself as a "fall guy" (someone who takes the blame so that a larger group of people involved dont have to). "Fall guy" for what? Nothing right? After all "he was never convicted".

Its very simple. Honest people conduct themselves one way, dishonest people another. It is not restricted to politics, this is going on everywhere.
Please be sane.
 
Upvote 0
Do research before spewing incorrect data, North was never accused of nor convicted of war crimes...

Iran?Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...quite a bit off the topic but..

I dont think a person who already claims responsibility (or "partial responsibility" if that suits you better) for a crime and then gets exonerated on a technicality changes any of the truths to which I am speaking (i.e widespread corruption on all sides driven by personal or partisan interests). If someone is satisfied to delude themselves as to the truth of a situation on the strength of technical litigative grounds fine, but that says little in the real world as to what actually goes on.

I assume by that same logic you refuse to believe that Oj Simpson killed his wife right? After all a jury of his peers heard both sides and made a decision, how could the truth not be discovered by this process?

Oliver North himself, referred to himself as a "fall guy" (someone who takes the blame so that a larger group of people involved dont have to). "Fall guy" for what? Nothing right? After all "he was never convicted".

Its very simple. Honest people conduct themselves one way, dishonest people another. It is not restricted to politics, this is going on everywhere.
Please be sane.

btw sorry for my tone. I am not trying to be an a$$. I understand you will continue to disagree with me and I am ok with that. Just sometimes I feel people are out of control with how much honor and indulge minced truths. Honesty is always unique due to its simplicity.

I never said anything about guilt or innocence. I simply stated that he was not guilty of war crimes. War crimes are, as defined by wikipedia (again)...

War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".[1]


if anything...

"He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions)."

Those my friend, are not war crimes.


Details, details, details.
Facts are always unique due to their simplicity
 
Upvote 0
I never said anything about guilt or innocence. I simply stated that he was not guilty of war crimes. War crimes are, as defined by wikipedia (again)...

War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".[1]


if anything...

"He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions)."

Those my friend, are not war crimes.


Details, details, details.
Facts are always unique due to their simplicity


And yet I am left with the impression that you exactly exemplify my point. Interesting how that works.

He illegally acquired and used the US Governments money to invest it in a cause and in a group which engaged in one or many of "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity"

The facts are simple and so are the activities which constitute corruption, "war crimes", conspiracy and illegal activity. That people think that the accountability for being responsible for these events is drastically changed by whatever words some litigator conjures up on paper is beyond me.

People who are up to no good are always only concerned with what can "proved". An honest person only cares if something is true or not.
 
Upvote 0

BEST TECH IN 2023

We've been tracking upcoming products and ranking the best tech since 2007. Thanks for trusting our opinion: we get rewarded through affiliate links that earn us a commission and we invite you to learn more about us.

Smartphones