Not even developers; more like people who believe in open-source without understanding the implications of that (I believe in open-source, but Android is simply not open). As a developer, I feel that Android locks the programmer down and reduces the product they can make to the lowest common denominator device and API they want to develop for. It makes testing a nightmare and bugs can manifest with little sense or reason, such as strange and spontaneous video decoding bugs on the Droid and Nexus One. The relative layout is poorly implemented and difficult to debug; it is impossible or virtually impossible simply to set a background that both scales its width to the screen width as well as pins the top of the image to the top of the screen (as opposed to centering the image). Were this not fucking awful to do, this would be useful for visually interesting backgrounds with art and logos, because you can plan to have some extra space at the bottom with not much going on, where you can put the other elements like buttons that you don't want to overlap. I think that neither iOS nor Android are open, and the reasons given for preference for one or the other, whenever they involve "openness", are disingenuous. The UX for iOS is less geeky, more intuitive, and easier to implement well. The UX for Android is customizable and can vary wildly according to your customization and device and OS version. Using iOS is eye-opening. Android - not so much.

Not defending it, but it turns out that MobileSafari's support for multitouch gestures is actually not that great. One of last semester's Hack Day teams discovered this. So I wouldn't blame it too much for pinch-to-zoom, at least. But overall, I think that mobile touch interfaces in HTML5 are, at least for a while, just bad news.

This makes 'Baby' less annoying, because I block it out and imagine I'm listening to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzMhh8zhTiY

link to original (I think) http://www.osnews.com/story/19266/WTFs_m

Makes sense. I've heard Facebook employees say that its single most-used feature is photos. In fact, it was their first killer feature, and I suspect it drove much of Facebook's growth after it released. If I recall, it's what gave them the idea of the social graph (or rather led them to rediscover it for themselves). Flickr theoretically has (had?) a fighting chance. Shame that Carol is still stuck in the 90's mindset.

Fucking awesome

Don't ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Or rather, they're competent enough, but not competent enough for 15 people to scale IMAPS access up to 500 million people. I'm not ready to let Facebook subsume my other means of contact, and perhaps never will be, but with 500 million users, they have to build to scale not only their ability to serve users, but to detect and ward off fraud. I wouldn't knock them too hard for not having IMAP yet. But yeah, I think that in some respects the product takes one step forward and at least two steps backwards. It seems like more of a bridge between how tweens communicate and how our generation and older communicate. Not sure how much I'll really use it if at all.

Holy fuck that is awesome

Sorry, I tried to watch that video you embedded, but it just made me too sick.