Are you saying I'm wrong? I'm an Android user but I dread visiting XDA, Android fansites, or Android phone reviews because of how nasty many Android users are. I visit Apple fansites, though, since the environment is not in a perpetual state of bitterness.

No, they are not. The nice thing about Apple fanboys is that they just don't care about Android. Android fanboys, on the other hand, make it their mission to destroy Apple, as if there were no possible way to coexist. I mean, just go into any thread at XDA and you'll see what I mean. Apple fanboys at their worst…

What the hell are you basing this off of? Android has double iOS's marketshare in France and Germany, Europe's two largest markets. And the US is also at least 50% feature phones. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, evidently.

This article is not fear mongering. It is a simple criticism of the platform. The "simple fact that this isn't unprecedented" is WHY this criticism exists in the first place.

Oh, I guess the original Galaxy S is considered a budget phone now? Because that's not getting an ICS update.

What about... no one? Where in the article did the author mention any other platform?

Oh, please.

It was written to criticize Android, but yes, that's basically the same thing, considering how hyperdefensive Fandroids are.

Gee, someone accusing Gizmodo of bias in one of the least inflammatory articles ever! Unfortunately, I am not surprised.

Are you still arguing that Microsoft has patented using a computer to guide yourself around an unsafe neighborhood? They haven't.

You don't need a specific algorithm to have a methodology in a computer program. The patent is quite specific, just short of writing actual code.

Nope, it doesn't, but I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be more of an insult to Apple than an actual opinion on the patent system.

I don't get your point. You're saying it's ridiculous to patent computer-driven inventions that accomplish the same thing as non-computer-driven inventions? Isn't that patenting a different methodology for the same goal, which you are defending?

Sorry, I meant "time travel machine"—i.e. a methodology for time travel. I understand how this works perfectly. "Methodology," however, does not necessarily mean any specific algorithm. The patent explains in detail how this software would go about functioning, which sounds like a methodology to me.

Wow. You do realize that's only the abstract of the patent, right? An abstract is a summary, so of course it will use "horrifyingly simple statements" to convey a VERY general description of the invention. How could you possibly think that a single paragraph constitutes an entire patent? Click through to the USPTO…

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. People have been talking about time travel for years, too, but I think that would be a perfectly patentable invention. Your interpretation of "non-obviousness" is incorrect here.

I suppose you think the calculator shouldn't have been patentable, since anyone who does mental math would be in violation of the patent, by your logic.

It looks like an invention to me. Care to explain why you think this shouldn't be able to be patented?

You do realize that you cannot patent ideas, right? Microsoft cannot patent "the abstract concept of a GPS device telling its user to avoid a certain area," so your worries are unfounded, and your claim that "the patent system is completely screwed up" is based on your misunderstanding of the system itself. It's a…

Because they review on different scales. Engadget pretty much only looks at value and specs. Giz looks at overall experience and what you would actually want to use for years, regardless of the GHz or few hundred extra dollars.