<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>last100 - Latest Comments in Android, it&amp;#8217;s the browser stupid</title><link>http://last100.disqus.com/</link><description>None</description><atom:link href="https://last100.disqus.com/android_it8217s_the_browser_stupid/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:02:35 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Android, it&amp;#8217;s the browser stupid</title><link>http://www.last100.com/2008/06/01/android-its-the-browser-stupi/#comment-9509673</link><description>&lt;p&gt;@ Daniel&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yes an 'Android Certified' program would make a lot of sense, administered by the Open Handset Alliance. But that would require a lot of industry politics regarding what should and shouldn't be included in the spec, leading to accusations that Google wants too much control.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Steve O'Hear, editor</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:02:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Android, it&amp;#8217;s the browser stupid</title><link>http://www.last100.com/2008/06/01/android-its-the-browser-stupi/#comment-9509671</link><description>&lt;p&gt;They should of come up with a solution where a manufacturer can only use the Android logo if it passes certain compatibility tests. Then someone can simply look at the packaging and know they are good to go.&lt;br&gt;Applications will undoubtedly be pushed as 'Android' applications so the branding will have recognition. All this can be done without having any impact on the open source license.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Daniel</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:07:05 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>