PepperoniJack

There’s nothing wrong with caring about how good a phone look, I agree with you on that (even if it’s not a main selling point for me). But you’re not only saying that it looks bad, you’re also saying that it looks cheap. Which is totally different (I’m sure it would be easy to find examples of watches or jewelry that look cheap and good) and doesn’t really make sense to me. (Seriously, how can a 4.8’ smartphone look cheap?). Unless you still consider that smartphones are a symbol of wealth, you shouldn’t care about how expensive it looks since you know how expensive it is.

Yes, it definitely is too cheap looking for gentlemen like you and I, who only use the richest looking devices…

Seriously though, since when being made of plastic is a bad thing for phones? It’s a freaking phone, not an engagement ring, it’s supposed to be made of plastic.

Only Siri interpreted it as “one minute”. S-Voice asked you to repeat, heard Siri confirming the 1-minute timer and interpreted it as your request.

It shouldn’t only be about “tasks”, it should also be about “content” (which is represented by files).

For example say you want to read a book. The way it works in modern systems, you launch your ebook reader (“I want to read books”) then choose the book to open (I want to read this book"). There is an unnecessary step here. And if you have different readers with different collections, it adds the step to choose which reader you need to open (“I want to use Amazon Kindle”). That is totally backwards.

Isn’t that the most important question? How does the thing work?

I don’t really care which proposal will be chosen in the end, but if they consider “whether a design meets a technical requirement” to be a political question on which you have to vote, and not just a technical fact, then their whole decision process is fucked up.

Having the same conversation a few comments down, but it seems that Google had to prove that it was fair use. Their failure to do so wouldn’t be a good thing for them, would it?

The questions the jury had to answer were “Did Oracle prove that Google infringed on their copyright of the API ?” and “Did Google prove it was fair use?” (paraphrasing).

So the burden was on Google to prove that while they infringed, it was fair use and therefore legal. Or am I missing something?