or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Android 3.0 Honeycomb more akin to Tablet PC than iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Android 3.0 Honeycomb more akin to Tablet PC than iPad - Page 6

post #201 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

I could understand this about an iPod Touch or iPad, but exactly who goes anywhere without their phone, which in this case is the iPhone? If I was at a friend's house, browsing on their computer, my phone would be accessible because it would be in my pocket.

But when you click on your friend's computer iPhone iTunes doesn't open. This is the difference
post #202 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbg22 View Post


The Fragmentation and App piracy will push devs away from Android. For a dev, IOS offers protection from both. So being segregated isn't all that bad.

Some devs are better than none.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #203 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Not really related to this discussion, but the New York Times is reporting a rumor that Nokia plans to abandon Symbian and adopt Windows Phone 7 for its smartphones: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/te...y/04nokia.html

However biased it will be, I look forward to AI's take on this.

I am currently using a Samsung Focus with WP7 in place of my Ip4. The UI is amazingly fluid, intuitive, attractive and MODERN. It will be huge for the platform if this alliance becomes a reality.
post #204 of 282
from the presentation, whatever DED says, it is clear Honeycomb certainly offers more complexity/possibilities to users than the iPod.

Apple has mastered simplification. calling iPad an app warehouse is stupid trash talk. instead, iOS gets out of the way and allows apps to take you wherever you want to go.

whereas Google does not want to get out of the way. Google wants to be THE way you go, via the web, to capture your eyeballs for ads. Android fans are in constant denial about this manipulation - they've drunk the Google-Aide. it's Open!

for the minority of the market - 25%? - that prefers complexity/many possibilities, that's great. for the majority - 75%? - that prefer simplicity/just need limited things, it's not. so over the next few years i expect iPad will hold about 70% of the tablet market, just like the iPod does in its PMP market.

one thing iOS should take from Android is widgets, because, done right, they can greatly simplify your life - which is what iPad is all about. maybe only just a few Apple built-in widgets so the power drain is done right. almost everyone would like a totally unified inbox widget for all messages, texts, tweets, (skype) voice mails, friends posts, and whatever else that was always up to date on your home screen (Windows Phone 7 does this). many, like me, would love a single real time map widget with traffic, radar, and any locational alerts in my vicinity from other apps. perhaps one or two other widgets ... oh yeah, a connections widget with 3G data, wifi choices, bluetooth and other such settings all displayed together at once.

another thing iOS should take from Android to make it simpler is ending the mandatory iTunes setup/sync with a computer. that does stop un-technical people - the elderly in particular - from having an iPad (they can have the phone company set up their wifi/modem). sync IS good with its backup and many other tools, but ought to be optional (and wireless).
post #205 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

Google wants to be THE way you go, via the web, to capture your eyeballs for ads. Android fans are in constant denial about this manipulation - they've drunk the Google-Aide

Which ads have Android?
post #206 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

I could understand this about an iPod Touch or iPad, but exactly who goes anywhere without their phone, which in this case is the iPhone? If I was at a friend's house, browsing on their computer, my phone would be accessible because it would be in my pocket.

That's it! Cool feature, but practically useless.
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
post #207 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

I have said, but you don't want to understand.

Well, I was hoping you could help me to understand, and that we could then go on to discuss "Compatibility". BTW, are those OMS and Tapas phones "Android compatible"?
post #208 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

I could understand this about an iPod Touch or iPad, but exactly who goes anywhere without their phone, which in this case is the iPhone? If I was at a friend's house, browsing on their computer, my phone would be accessible because it would be in my pocket.

To each his own, in the end I suppose. I understand your view and like you, my phone isn't out of hand's reach most of the time. I just like having the option of being able to do everything from the computer in front of me if possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff View Post

I'm not trying to be a smartass, but is this a security concern? Suppose a hacker figures out your login and password. Would he be able to download malware to your phone or tablet remotely?

You actually raise an interesting point.

I would suppose at the very least the app will have to be from the Market, not pushed in from anywhere. Yes, yes, I know of the reports of malware apps in the Market. Second, I might be wrong, but I don't think on Android, any app can just automatically run and start doing things on your phone unless you run it first. And third, any new apps downloaded will show up in the notification bar so if you know you didn't download it, you'd know to delete it right away.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #209 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, I was hoping you could help me to understand, and that we could then go on to discuss "Compatibility". BTW, are those OMS and Tapas phones "Android compatible"?

Been there... done that with this person... he/she can only say one thing... Tapas is Android... even after saying basically that I'd have to be a geek to get Android os to run on a Tapas phone.

... and we're the ones that don't want to understand?!
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #210 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by samban View Post

Remember Wintel, try assessing the situation here when a single software manufacturer & multiple users of that software. Eventually that will make the PC market where there is only Intel & Windows. It doesn't work for the long term. Product manufacturers should do there own inventions thats the only way market can grow forward and consumers will reward their inventions. If, a company constantly sits with a thin margin of profit then you can think that there will least investment in R&D and more on packing together things based on cost. So, that someday they will hit profitability enough that can be added to the R&D budget.

If, andriod fails to generate a significant amount of revenue for Google, it will loose interest in the charity work and cut team sizes working on them.

Of course it works long term. Microsoft continues to rake in large amounts of cash. Last I checked windows based computers still outsell Macs. Many of these companies can't afford a wait and see approach. Motorola was thisclose to stop making mobile phones. Now they've turned the ship around and the mobile division is its own entity. Their revival might be short lived but looking at their upcoming offerings I think they'll do just fine.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #211 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

even after saying basically that I'd have to be a geek to get Android os to run on a Tapas phone.



1. Tapas IS Android
2. Youy are talking about ANOTHER version of the os. Can you install iOS 2.0 on iPhone 4?

Yes you're the ones who doesn't can or want to understand.
post #212 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa View Post

That's it! Cool feature, but practically useless.

Having extra abilities is not always a bad thing. Remember, the ability to push apps is only one part of the cloud sync ability.

Another I've talked about is the ability to push Google Maps directions directly to your Android device and have it automatically start up Nav and start routing you. Same with webpages if you want to resume reading from one device to another.

Though I always wonder. If Apple came out with this ability, would everyone so quickly dismiss it? Or would it become part of the "magic" of Apple?
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #213 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Been there... done that with this person... he/she can only say one thing... Tapas is Android... even after saying basically that I'd have to be a geek to get Android os to run on a Tapas phone.

... and we're the ones that don't want to understand?!

Well, the point I was making, and which I don't think we'll get him to admit, is that to call a phone an "Android" phone, Google has to approve it as "Android compatible", otherwise, you aren't allowed to use the name "Android". ("Android compatibility" approval is a somewhat mysterious process that Google doesn't like to talk much about. But, for anyone who thinks that the only proprietary Google technology in "Android" is a couple of apps, this is, for example, what the Skyhook lawsuit is all about: Google's demand that "Android compatible" devices must use Google's location services.)

Tapas and OMS phones are not "Android compatible", are not allowed to use the "Android" name, and are not "Android" phones. And they shouldn't be included in Google's (or Google*'s, what is this, Major League Baseball?) smartphone OS marketshare.
post #214 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

But when you click on your friend's computer iPhone iTunes doesn't open. This is the difference

Wow... You're really splitting hairs there. Is pulling the phone out of your pocket that inconvenient?
post #215 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by samban View Post

If, andriod fails to generate a significant amount of revenue for Google, it will loose interest in the charity work and cut team sizes working on them.

Wrong. Google generates a HUGE amount of revenue. What it wants is your information...your habits, to which it sells. Every app they develop gives them more and more information about what you do, in which gets sold. It's where you go, who you email to, keywords within, etc. etc. etc. Google is Big Brother.
post #216 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

Though I always wonder. If Apple came out with this ability, would everyone so quickly dismiss it? Or would it become part of the "magic" of Apple?

Just as Google came out with a relative copy of iOS and the whole Android phone market began, but fanboys of the platform denounce everything Apple? Who's worse? Android owes everything to Apple. The entire metaphor of the touch screen smartphone is entirely the work of Apple. They made it work and sold it to the public. Android is sought out as an alternative.
post #217 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post



1. Tapas IS Android
2. Youy are talking about ANOTHER version of the os. Can you install iOS 2.0 on iPhone 4?

Yes you're the ones who doesn't can or want to understand.

We covered that... we're talking about the most up to date phones and OS versions.

Can someone other than a geek load Android 2.2 on a Tapas phone without any problems?

Answer this question fairly and maybe I'll take you more seriously... otherwise you are just a trolling fool.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #218 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, the point I was making, and which I don't think we'll get him to admit, is that to call a phone an "Android" phone, Google has to approve it as "Android compatible", otherwise, you aren't allowed to use the name "Android". ("Android compatibility" approval is a somewhat mysterious process that Google doesn't like to talk much about. But, for anyone who thinks that the only proprietary Google technology in "Android" is a couple of apps, this is, for example, what the Skyhook lawsuit is all about: Google's demand that "Android compatible" devices must use Google's location services.)

Tapas and OMS phones are not "Android compatible", are not allowed to use the "Android" name, and are not "Android" phones. And they shouldn't be included in Google's (or Google*'s, what is this, Major League Baseball?) smartphone OS marketshare.

Hey... I'm with you on this 100%.

This person is backed into a corner and now all they can say is "Tapas is Android"... which, by inference would mean that Android is Tapas... I'd love to see this whole scenario run by a few customers at the local Best Buy.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #219 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

We covered that... we're talking about the most up to date phones and OS versions.

Can someone other than a geek load Android 2.2 on a Tapas phone without any problems?

Answer this question fairly and maybe I'll take you more seriously... otherwise you are just a trolling fool.

Well, the important question is, say Motorola loads Tapas or OMS on to Droid hardware. Are they allowed to sell the resulting product as an "Android" phone. The answer is, no, they won't be allowed.
post #220 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, I was hoping you could help me to understand, and that we could then go on to discuss "Compatibility". BTW, are those OMS and Tapas phones "Android compatible"?

No, they are not. They are completely different applications platforms.

Anyone can download, modify and create their own OS from the Android code base. However, to call that modified OS, "Android," it has to meet guidelines outlined by the Open Handset Alliance.

One of the biggest rules in those guidelines, is that the OS must support Android's application framework and the Dalvik VM. After all, if your OS can't run Android apps, then why call it Android, except for marketing purposes?

Neither OMS or Tapas OS support Android's application framework, they have created their own platform for applications, which makes their apps incompatible with Android and vise-versa.

OMS is actually a proprietary OS owned and controlled by ChinaMobile for use on their OPhone line of devices. This is analogous to Apple's OS X, which is proprietary, but based off open source code. They're considered proprietary, because along with the open source code, there's a lot "home grown" code as well.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #221 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

... Anyone can download, modify and create their own OS from the Android code base. However, to call that modified OS, "Android," it has to meet guidelines outlined by the Open Handset Alliance. ...

Actually, it has to pass Google's "Android compatibility" review to be called Android.

The rest of your points I believe are correct, though.
post #222 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, the important question is, say Motorola loads Tapas or OMS on to Droid hardware. Are they allowed to sell the resulting product as an "Android" phone. The answer is, no, they won't be allowed.

Ah... I never thought of that. I very much believe you're right.

[ and a tip of the hat to mjtomlin ]
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #223 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

Just as Google came out with a relative copy of iOS and the whole Android phone market began, but fanboys of the platform denounce everything Apple? Who's worse? Android owes everything to Apple. The entire metaphor of the touch screen smartphone is entirely the work of Apple. They made it work and sold it to the public. Android is sought out as an alternative.

I also don't agree with extreme fanboys who don't give credit where credit is due.

Yet you dismiss some of the things Android has that Apple has yet to do. And in the future (as it already has happened last year), I'm sure Apple will introducing features into iOS that Android currently has. I'm sure Apple will eventually introduce native wireless syncing for apps and music soon. It's a game of technological leap frog. Android may be an alternative to iOS, but it's a damned good alternative in my books.

If you look at Honeycomb, it's anything but a "relative copy" of iOS for the iPad. It's taken the best of Android (and iOS in turn) and fused it with the cool features Windows 7 has. It reminds me of all those cool interfaces of devices you see in sci-fi movies.

I have to ask, how long do you think iOS would have gone if they completely ignored its competition and their new features? Yes, Apple did start the revolution, but you'd be a fool to think that Apple isn't closely watching its competitors and finding some ideas and inspiration from them.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #224 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

After all, if your OS can't run Android apps, then why call it Android, except for marketing purposes?

Nop, is just the contrary, is your handset doesn't pass the CTS the can't use the trademark, but the source code is Android.
post #225 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Nop, is just the contrary, is your handset doesn't pass the CTS the can't use the trademark, but the source code is Android.

If your handset isn't "Android compatible" and can't use the "Android" name, it isn't Android.

Your argument that all forks of Android are Android is as ridiculous as claiming that Ubuntu is Debian.
post #226 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Actually, it has to pass Google's "Android compatibility" review to be called Android.

The rest of your points I believe are correct, though.

Not to nit-pick...

A title is a title, it could be called Google's "It's Not An iPhone" review for that matter. It doesn't matter what it's called or who actually does the governing, the fact still remains that the guidelines were formed by the OHA and still continue to be.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #227 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Nop, is just the contrary, is your handset doesn't pass the CTS the can't use the trademark, but the source code is Android.


The source code is BASED off the Android source code. It is not still considered the source to Android, but it is the source to YOUR version of Android. This is referred to as "source code forking". Any changes you make and don't submit back to the project, then the further you move away from its Androidiness. And at some point you can no longer call it Android.

If you can't call it "Android," then it is not an Android OS. It can still be referred to as Android-based or Android-like, but it is not Android.


If that were the case, "iOS" wouldn't exist, it would be called Mac OS X.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #228 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

If your handset isn't "Android compatible" and can't use the "Android" name, it isn't Android.

Your argument that all forks of Android are Android is as ridiculous as claiming that Ubuntu is Debian.

My God, finally I got confused, since the begining I said they were FORKS and Android VARIANTS.
post #229 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

The source code is BASED off the Android source code. It is not still considered the source to Android, but it is the source to YOUR version of Android. This is referred to as "source code forking". Any changes you make and don't submit back to the project, then the further you move away from its Androidiness. And at some point you can no longer call it Android.

Yes, based
post #230 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

My God, finally I got confused, since the begining I said they were FORKS and Android VARIANTS.

Yes, you also said they were "Android", which they aren't.
post #231 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post

I agree that as of Feb 3, 2011, there are no viable competitors on the shelves. But Apple can't rest - Android (+Honeycomb, now) is RAPIDLY growing in numbers and accumulating features.

You managed to captured the essence of the competition in your opening sentence.

Apple products don't "rapidly accumulate features". If anything features are kept to a minimum on purpose.

There will always be a market for feature rich products and there will always be a market for simple products that offer a limited feature set. They are different philosophies and different target audiences.

The war of words between droids and fanbois is pointless and not even very entertaining.
post #232 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rabbit View Post

And what gives with the battery sucking widgets that continuously poll for data ?

Do you have a citation that the widgets continuously poll for data?

If they do, it would be a real battery killer.

I don't know anything about Push Notifications on Android OS, but I assume that if they are prmoting widgets that are constantly being updated, they would do it through some sort of consolidated Push Service -- rather than allowing individual widgets/apps to individually churn the network.

With relatively minor changes, Apple could implement enhancements to Push Notification Services to accommodate those type of widgets without churning the network and draining the battery,
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #233 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I don't know anything about Push Notifications on Android OS, but I assume that if they are prmoting widgets that are constantly being updated, they would do it through some sort of consolidated Push Service -- rather than allowing individual widgets/apps to individually churn the network.,

No, there isn't a Push notification system like iOS has, if there is a Twitter widget they connect every X min and close the connection.

Edit: An app that polls the network every X min doesn't have to be running on the background, there is a system that puts an "alarm" and that wakes the needed chunk of the service to do whatever it must do.
post #234 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

I also don't agree with extreme fanboys who don't give credit where credit is due...

I have to ask, how long do you think iOS would have gone if they completely ignored its competition and their new features? Yes, Apple did start the revolution, but you'd be a fool to think that Apple isn't closely watching its competitors and finding some ideas and inspiration from them.

Well to be honest, Apple doesn't really look at the competition for inspiration. If you think the opposite you don't know much about Apple or Steve Jobs. If Apple was overly concerned with the competition the original iPhone would've had multi-tasking and copy&paste, and all the other things people degraded it for lacking. Apple's products have never kept up with "features" on any of their products. They simply don't play that game. I suppose this is why a lot of people (tech-heads, mostly) don't understand them.

Android devices will ALWAYS have features that iOS won't have. This is not due to technical limitations of the OS, but rather thoughtful design decisions to determine what features will benefit the experience of using the device and not hamper it. Apple also tends to think about features in the context in which they will be used. This is exactly why the iPhone's UI was revolutionary. This is also why they had to rethink copy&paste and implement multi-tasking the way they did. It's one thing to have a feature that works well, it's an entirely different matter when it half-assed and doesn't work intuitively.

Just because one company comes out with a feature after another, doesn't not mean it was copied. Things like copy&paste and multi-tasking are natural progressions and features of a maturing system. An example, Android is finally going to get hardware acceleration in 3.0. Did they copy iOS? It would be ridiculous to think so. As an aside, not going to say they copied Apple, but they are definitely following Apple's direction with Android; originally it was supposed to be an alternative to the BlackBerry and WinMo phones. After the iPhone, they scrapped those plans and went in that direction. After the iPad, they decided to move Android in that direction. It's fairly obvious considering how long it took both to finally reach the market (year+) after the iPhone and iPad.

Personally I just think it is humorous when some of the "fanboys" jump from one ship to another hoping the next will be the one to sink the iTanic. I guess they should be called "anti-fanboys" because it's not so much about what they like, it's more about what they hate. Being a long time Apple user (almost 30 years), I've gotten used to it.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #235 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Personally I just think it is humorous when some of the "fanboys" jump from one ship to another hoping the next will be the one to sink the iTanic. I guess they should be called "anti-fanboys" because it's not so much about what they like, it's more about what they hate. Being a long time Apple user (almost 30 years), I've gotten used to it.

But is ridiculous wishing to sink anything, why?
post #236 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

I'm sorry but what are you talking about when you say "Honeycomb is likely to bring better productivity apps"? What nonsense - an app is an app, not the OS home screen, and apple wins the app game hands down. Android also has a huge issue with developers not being able to make much money because the sales channels are a mess, and because android is the favorite with the hacking community that doesn't want to pay for anything.

For the average consumer I agree that the home screen/widgets are more of a convenience rather than a necessity.

However, I can easily envision custom enterprise systems where several interrelated high-use apps are presented as a group of widgets as shown on Honeycomb.

In a way these widgets are roughly analogous to running a few key apps/aggregators, concurrently, on a desktop computer -- the main difference is that they gain prominence or recede as necessary.

I am retired, but remember the days when I had a lot of projects, customers, activities, schedules to juggle -- the "widget computer" would be ideal for this.

Consider someone like Tim Cook * and the myriad of things he needs to have at his fingertips, 24/7.

I see no reason that this capability couldn't and shouldn't be added to iPad iOS (and, to a lesser degree, iPhone iOS).

* or a doctor with patients, a repairman with appointments, a soccer mom...

It is one of those things that a tablet can do better than other computer form factors...

And it can be implemented in such a way to add functionality without adding complexity -- the Apple way.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #237 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

You managed to captured the essence of the competition in your opening sentence.

Apple products don't "rapidly accumulate features". If anything features are kept to a minimum on purpose.

There will always be a market for feature rich products and there will always be a market for simple products that offer a limited feature set. They are different philosophies and different target audiences.

The war of words between droids and fanbois is pointless and not even very entertaining.

Well, I wouldn't say that feature releases were kept to a minimum on purpose. It's more about timing, if you think about it. Apple releases an iPhone and a new major version of the OS once a year. Throughout the year though they also release two other iOS devices; iPod touch and the iPad, this allows them to stay in the headlines. With the release of the other iOS devices also comes a few new feature in iOS. The last release gave us AirPlay and AirPrint and few other smaller features. So if they happen to miss one release window, they can wait for the next.

There is a huge benefit though to keep models down to a functional minimum. Android's ecosystem will never come anywhere near what the iOS devices have. The software may catch up someday, but the amount of available content, the number accessories and peripherals for Apple's devices is astronomical. I believe it is a several billion dollar industry on its own.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #238 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

With Honeycomb they have built the frameworks and the UI for productivity apps. "If you build it, they will come." Just wait, you'll see. Hacker community is immaterial.

Look, I'm a fan of Apple/iPad/iOS, but the facts are, iPad is not ready for real productivity, it's a consumption device. Just try to print, or plug a USB device into it. Ooops.

Give me an example (link) to built-in Honeycomb frameworks and UI for productivity -- that lack an iOS equivalent.

If you were an iOS developer, you would be aware that iOS contains most of the applicable API/Frameworks from Mac OS X, plus those implemented specifically for the iPhone and iPad.

It appears, that with Honeycomb, Android is just, now, implementing some of the things that have been utilized in iOS for years.


If you are referring to the home screen widgets -- then Honeycomb, when delivered, may have a temporary advantage.


But, that's not as big a deal as it appears! Any good iOS developer could write an app that provides equivalent function. But, in truth, is should be a system-supplied interface, rather than in an app.

Again, I see no great challenge for Apple to provide this if, and when, it makes sense.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #239 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by jw915 View Post

I use an Android tablet and an iPad daily...

Why? Just because I use two different cups for my daily coffee?
post #240 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

OMG! A balanced and thoughtful perspective that doesn't require the complete obliteration of all companies not owned by Apple.

Dude, you are so in the wrong place for this sort of talk. Here there is only one company possible; all others are stupid, evil, or both.

I've never heard an adult call anyone "Dude".
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Android 3.0 Honeycomb more akin to Tablet PC than iPad