AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Google closes Android 3.0 Honeycomb source to prevent use on smartphones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google closes Android 3.0 Honeycomb source to prevent use on smartphones - Page 2

post #41 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Lightly adapting a smartphone UI to a tablet doesn't make for the best user experience at all, and should be avoided.

So, how does this argument jive with those who claim the iPad is just a big iPod touch?


˅
˅
˅
˅
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

the iPad... [is] just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.

˅
˅
˅
˅ *grabs popcorn*

Reply
Reply
post #42 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?

Answer: It obviously wasn't, and this 'story' was probably created to mask that fact that the OS' use for the iPad was somehow more than just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.

I heard Steve Jobs tell this 'story' at All Things D.

Apple's engineers were working on some cool new interfaces... for tablet devices... in the early to mid-2000s. But when Steve saw it... he said "that would be great on a phone"

If you can prove that the idea to make a cell phone did, in fact, come first... and that Steve Jobs is lying... then that's grounds for impeachment!
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:24pm
There may be a simple market-related explanation to this. Honeycomb must have been baking in Google for at least a year. OEM partners asked Google to finish it ASAP, and the preferred partner Motorola was starting to get nervous after seeing how Samsung was getting little traction with the Galaxy Tab, so they pushed Google to get Honeycomb to them early. What resulted was the XOOM, a few weeks ahead of iPad 2, but not fully baked. At my last job, we moved from a quarterly release schedule to three times a year so that we could impose more discipline in the schedule and not have to cut or postpone features so frequently.

If Google had set a hard ship date of late spring or early summer, their partners would have risked being drowned out by Apple, HP, and Blackberry. So they made a tough decision, one that would clearly upset some open source advocates. It's not the first time Google has had to make a tough choice (China, wireless net neutrality, spectrum auction) and in every case not everyone's going to be happy. I'd prefer that Google wait until it's more baked, but everyone knows that Google's perfectly willing to ship beta stuff ad infinitum. The real question is whether or not this appearance of Honeycomb not being fully baked will hurt Motorola, Samsung, etc. in the near term.

In the end the delay may keep the price of tablets up for the rest of the year, since some non-partners may be forced to wait until Honeycomb is ready. Google knows that this is only the start of the game, so to endure a little pain now may be worth it. Apple took 5 months to align iOS for iPhone and iPad. It can be done.

It goes to show how much Apple is setting the bar. I wouldn't be surprised if the next ad campaign for the iPad is, "There is no substitute." It sure looks that way right now.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

The above I think says it all. Google on one hand has no control, on the other Android is the best thing since sliced bread - you are definitely in the wrong forum here. Why do you even bother? We like discussion but you offer nothing but a full-on hardcore Android defense here without ceding any ground, despite sound facts being presented.

Android has been bastardized by Google to give them a foothold in mobile advertising, and will be the best babe for Google until something better comes along (ChromeOS) and they put Android out to pasture and languish. It s that simple Google doesn't WANT to own Android - it HAS to own Android - for the time being. And as soon as Google's millions are flowing elsewhere Android's great ideas will become just another footnote in Linux history.

The point of the article is simply a counterpoint to all the diatribe flung at Apple for a curated approach to the user experience - which has proven conclusively to be immensely popular to the average user. Based on your other posts, you simply have no idea what the average user wants or likes and could not frankly care less. And that's fine but it undermines any other offer of information you make because this whole mobile paradigm shift is precisely about the average user - which Apple has nailed down cold. Which is why Android proponents struggle to trumpet big numbers, marketshare, PC vs. Mac, open vs. curated, and then piss and moan when someone simply asks why, when your hallmark of evangelism for the platform is openness, Google executes controls and restrictions arbitrarily and allows the carriers and handset makers to lock-down devices. You apparently have different definition of "open" than the whole rest of the english-speaking world.

You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts.

This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.

My primary phone is an iPhone 3GS, but I also have a Nexus One that I occasionally use when the mood strikes (disclaimer: I got it for free from Google at a conference). I prefer iOS on the smartphone to Android in its current version, so that's why the iPhone is my primary. I'll likely upgrade it to an iPhone 5 this year.

For tablets, I'm probably going to go Android (the Tab 10.1) because I view tablets as starting to encroach on laptop territory so I demand more out of the functionality of the UI over the simplicity. It's a personal taste.

I've used and developed apps for virtually every smartphone OS out there. I know the field, it's my job and something I have great personal interest in as well. I was hoping to contribute what I know to this forum, but it seems if any point is not wholly praising of Apple it is latched on to by people who can only be described as fanboys. You view it as "attack" and "defense" when in reality I'm only trying to lay it out as I see it.

As for your swipes about me not knowing what the average user likes or wants -- that's precisely what I do know. That's why I get paid to do what I do. I've read countless market reports on it from analysts (most of which are bunk), I've attended countless conferences on mobile technology, and I'm extremely informed on every OS out there and every facet of each one, because it's my job to. The fact that you disagree doesn't mean you agree with the market as a whole. And the fact that you (and frankly, most people here) seem flabberghasted by the growth of Android (if you'll check my posts, I said this would happen years ago) it's because you don't understand the market as a whole. The people who line up at Apple stores to buy iOS devices are not your typical user. People mention how important apps are, but they're only very important to a relatively small portion of the demographic. But because that's who you guys are always surrounded by, that's what you see. Android is soaring and people simply don't care as much about apps on them. It's a different kind of user. As smartphones and tablets become more ubiquitous, you're going to see less "hardcores" who download lots of apps and more ma-and-pas who don't.

I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again. Groupthink is a powerful thing, it was folly to try to combat it.

(PS: This is not entirely directed at you, but in general to many people on here)
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlayer View Post

OEM partners asked Google to finish it ASAP, and the preferred partner Motorola was starting to get nervous after seeing how Samsung was getting little traction with the Galaxy Tab, so they pushed Google to get Honeycomb to them early. What resulted was the XOOM, a few weeks ahead of iPad 2, but not fully baked.

God bless them if that's what happened.

Would it have worked? Would 2 more weeks.. or even an extra month... have made the Xoom and/or Honeycomb any better?

They were already a YEAR too late.

What was Google workin' on the day before the original iPad was announced? That was 14 months ago...
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by xpaulso View Post

If you're project depends on GPL code than you're required to distribute the project under the GPL. However Android like most Operating Systems is broken down into different layers.

1. Kernel and Drivers (Any Drivers that require linux code to compile will need to be GPL)
2. The Dalvik VM. (Apache License)
3. System Libraries ( This is a huge mixture of GPL, Apache, etc ...)
3. The UI/Shell/Window Manage (Apache License)
4. Developer APIs (Apache License)
5. Applications (Any Number of different Licenses)

Basically the Kernel is GPL and most of the other components are using the Apache License which gives google more control over who has access to the source.

It very much similar to Running commercial software on Ubuntu. The Kernel, the UI and most of the libraries might be under the GPL, but that doesn't require Adobe Acrobat reader or the Adobe Flash plugin to be released under the GPL. Neither project is sourcing GPL code.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

It still doesn't make much sense of the situation though. I know I've read several stories and read many articles as well to the effect that if you distribute something containing GPL code, or sell something containing GPL code that you have to release it.

It's seems clearly to be a bit of slight of hand to say that "Android" can be released with GPL code, but not release the source code, because that's in a separate "part" of Android. Android isn't Android without the kernel.

If Honeycomb Android doesn't work without the kernel (and I don't see how it can), then using Honeycomb Android in a selling product pretty much has to be selling something with GPL code. That means that the entire source has to be released.

I'm pretty certain that when it was in their favour, many open source promoters have argued exactly this about other projects. It seems to me that the only reason no one is complaining about this, is that it would make Google, Android and everything associated with it look bad.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why this is OK when all the other times it was wrong or an abomination of open source etc. Seems like a clear double standard to me.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

To my knowledge, the only GPL component of Android is the kernel (Linux), and yes, they can't legally release a product without making the modifications they've done public. Either it's only a matter of time before Torvalds (or somebody on his behalf) files a suit, or they're actually using an older, already-public kernel (like, say, 2.3's). The latter option would seem likely given performance reviews of the Xoom.

Yes, the operating system. It's just a small part. But don't forget about WebKit.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

Isn't that what Xoom and the other newer Androids are touted to be using? [Edit: works for tablets but not yet ready for other Android devicces).




That shows you it is not really as open as touted. But, bear in mind that Open Source initiatives still has a "Core" team that serves as a gatekeeper on what gets included in the final code. If someone begs to disagree, they can fork it and create a different version.

That being said, it is actually prudent of Google to take that step. If it is not ready, why bring it to consumer products. Imagine the impact if some features malfunction. Android detractors would have a field day. Look at how MacDaily News may put a spin on this news.

CGC

are you really suggesting that "open source" means only the "final product", whatever that is, is public? And how is version 3.0 not a final product? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of making something open source?

Pretty much at the core of everything Google does to compete with Apple is Apple's open source WebKit. Far from closing it when it's not ready to use, new versions of the compete source and built apps are made available nightly.
http://www.inktastic.com/
Reply
http://www.inktastic.com/
Reply
post #49 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by xpaulso View Post

If you're project depends on GPL code than you're required to distribute the project under the GPL. However Android like most Operating Systems is broken down into different layers.

1. Kernel and Drivers (Any Drivers that require linux code to compile will need to be GPL)
2. The Dalvik VM. (Apache License)
3. System Libraries ( This is a huge mixture of GPL, Apache, etc ...)
3. The UI/Shell/Window Manage (Apache License)
4. Developer APIs (Apache License)
5. Applications (Any Number of different Licenses)

Basically the Kernel is GPL and most of the other components are using the Apache License which gives google more control over who has access to the source.

It very much similar to Running commercial software on Ubuntu. The Kernel, the UI and most of the libraries might be under the GPL, but that doesn't require Adobe Acrobat reader or the Adobe Flash plugin to be released under the GPL. Neither project is sourcing GPL code.

And somehow the Apache 2.0 license is GPLv3 compatible which has always struck me as an interesting relationship.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Hmm?

If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?

Answer: It obviously wasn't, and this 'story' was probably created to mask that fact that the OS' use for the iPad was somehow more than just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.

Because it was on a phone and Apple is careful about branding.

Of course, before they called it that, they called "OS X iPhone":



That's the little inconvenient truth folks like you like to ignore: iOS is OS X-- big, badass OS X tailored for touch UI. Honeycomb is, in fact, a cellphone OS, which has been, in face, lightly modified for tablets. The OS in the iPad is OS X for tablets. This will become more and more obvious over the next year, as Apple continues to work to unite the two versions.

Android will have, um, widgets and ad based online services. Which you will champion as the new computing nirvana, because, let's face it, that's just how you roll.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #51 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Smart move...

Honeycomb was specifically designed for tablet/larger screen use, and many of the UI features just don't adapt well on these 3.5 to 4.3 inch devices.

Lightly adapting a smartphone UI to a tablet doesn't make for the best user experience at all, and should be avoided.

Yup, why bother with open source anyways. Let Google play favourites with who gets access now to Honeycomb for their tablets. And as for smartphones? Guess they'll be stuck for while as Apple improves iOS. All in all, it's been great dealing with Google! At least until they decide to shaft you.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

...because, let's face it, that's just how you roll.

LOL you just edited it from a naughtier word just as I replied to your post! Either that or I read the subliminal text. Now everyone back on troll duty! We got our work cut out for us, and be prepared for massive pictures of inordinate amounts of gadgets soon to be posted...!
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

LOL you just changed it from a naughtier word!

Had a moment to reflect.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #54 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Huh? The reason none of them are doing this is kind of the point. Obviously some of the makers have expressed interest in trying to do that, which is precisely why Google is not letting them.

I'm completely and utterly baffled why this is a news story on AppleInsider. Google is delaying the release of the non-GPL parts of Android's source until "Icecream Sandwich" comes out (which is supposed to reunify the base so Smartphones + tablets share the same OS) to ensure a consistent level of quality from the handset makers who would jump to try to force Honeycomb onto ill-suited formfactors. Like Samsung did the the Tab 7", which arguably damaged the Android brand.



Are you serious? Please tell me this is some kind of joke.

Google has no control whatsoever what manufacturers do with their phone bootloaders. They have nothing to do with Android. Similarly, they can't control when Motorola and Verizon decide to push updates out to their phones.

If you want an open phone, buy a Nexus One/Nexus S. That is the one phone Google can control from top to bottom, and it most certainly is open.

I simply do not understand the point of this article, or why many of Apple's fans seem to delight in this non-news to a degree. Apple fans don't care about openness, if they did they wouldn't be buying some of the most locked-down, prohibitive devices in consumer electronics and computing history. Time for a reality check, folks.

Did you post that from Chrome browser using WebKit and other open source projects from Apple?

Put this in the browser bar and check them out:- about:credits

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #55 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Did you post that from Chrome browser using WebKit and other open source projects from Apple?

Put this in the browser bar and check them out:- about:credits

Couldn't resist.

I've committed code to KHTML (which became WebKit once Apple co-opted it, curious how you credit Apple for it when it was created by someone else). I've also committed code to Gecko back when it was powering what was then known as Phoenix. This was posted from the nightly build for Firefox 4.2. (And I also am quite aware that Firefox's new JIT JS engine uses parts from Apple's Nitro). You're not making any coherent point here.

Please don't pretend to lecture me on fundamentals.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Because it was on a phone and Apple is careful about branding.

Of course, before they called it that, they called "OS X iPhone":



That's the little inconvenient truth folks like you like to ignore:

Really...

You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?

Your little tirade regarding Android 3.x being merely Android 2.x, "lightly modified for tablets" only shows your complete inexperience/ignorance with the platforms themselves. Nothing More.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #57 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

"Samsung has delayed its own plans to release a Honeycomb tablet after deciding that its original design was "inadequate" compared to the new iPad 2. It hopes to have its thinner models available by June."

ok ... so the "10.1" Galaxy tablet that was unveiled at some trade show in February will never come to market, right? even tho it was hyped on the web a lot and then Samsung denied there would be any delay despite its boss guy commenting that they needed to make changes. now, a new thiner version of that "10.1" Galaxy tab will be released this summer instead.

somehow no one else in the blogsphere seems to have figured this charade out ... or wants to.

I was at a launch in Australia 2 nights ago, I had a play with a couple of them, it was funny that there were iPad ads in angry birds, the iPad 2 will sell out here in 1 hour 5 minutes.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #58 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

God bless them if that's what happened.

Would it have worked? Would 2 more weeks.. or even an extra month... have made the Xoom and/or Honeycomb any better?

They were already a YEAR too late.

What was Google workin' on the day before the original iPad was announced? That was 14 months ago...

2 weeks is not enough time to get rid of showstopper P0 bugs, much less make a difference in whether it ships or not. 2 months? Maybe you have something. I figure that in late 2009/early 2010, Google was thinking that they'd have Android for phones and Chrome OS addressing much of the market, with Android for tablets serving as a gap-filler. They didn't foresee how big the iPad would be and they didn't count on Chrome OS being delayed as it has, so they got caught with their pants down. Things don't automatically scale just because you throw a bunch of man-hours at a project. Besides, I met an Apple employee on the iPad team shortly after the first iPad launched. He had been working on the thing for over 2 years. 14 months is not much time to ship what is essentially a new platform. Microsoft and Nokia are going through that building process right now.

The thing that helped Google and Apple in this case is that everyone in the industry can reasonably guess what Apple's shipping schedule is and market around that. There's a difference between being tactical and being strategic. Right now Google's trying to be strategic whereas its partners have no choice but to be tactical. Apple has the leverage to be both.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 158
3/24/11 at 9:58pm
Don't give up so easily. You can still state your opinions, just don't get dragged down into extended debates with people that surely just want to argue for the sake of it. Sure we love to bash non-Apple stuff sometimes because well, it's all too easy sometimes... But I do understand if it gets frustrating. I wouldn't go near an Android forum at this stage.

More importantly, your point about apps is pertinent... But I have seen a lot of ma and pa's download apps they are interested in. Some a lot, some not so much...What is the state of apps? Is it the big future we are all led to think it is? What is the app strategy for Android tablets?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts.

This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.

My primary phone is an iPhone 3GS, but I also have a Nexus One that I occasionally use when the mood strikes (disclaimer: I got it for free from Google at a conference). I prefer iOS on the smartphone to Android in its current version, so that's why the iPhone is my primary. I'll likely upgrade it to an iPhone 5 this year.

For tablets, I'm probably going to go Android (the Tab 10.1) because I view tablets as starting to encroach on laptop territory so I demand more out of the functionality of the UI over the simplicity. It's a personal taste.

I've used and developed apps for virtually every smartphone OS out there. I know the field, it's my job and something I have great personal interest in as well. I was hoping to contribute what I know to this forum, but it seems if any point is not wholly praising of Apple it is latched on to by people who can only be described as fanboys. You view it as "attack" and "defense" when in reality I'm only trying to lay it out as I see it.

As for your swipes about me not knowing what the average user likes or wants -- that's precisely what I do know. That's why I get paid to do what I do. I've read countless market reports on it from analysts (most of which are bunk), I've attended countless conferences on mobile technology, and I'm extremely informed on every OS out there and every facet of each one, because it's my job to. The fact that you disagree doesn't mean you agree with the market as a whole. And the fact that you (and frankly, most people here) seem flabberghasted by the growth of Android (if you'll check my posts, I said this would happen years ago) it's because you don't understand the market as a whole. The people who line up at Apple stores to buy iOS devices are not your typical user. People mention how important apps are, but they're only very important to a relatively small portion of the demographic. But because that's who you guys are always surrounded by, that's what you see. Android is soaring and people simply don't care as much about apps on them. It's a different kind of user. As smartphones and tablets become more ubiquitous, you're going to see less "hardcores" who download lots of apps and more ma-and-pas who don't.

I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again. Groupthink is a powerful thing, it was folly to try to combat it.

(PS: This is not entirely directed at you, but in general to many people on here)
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I was at a launch in Australia 2 nights ago, I had a play with a couple of them, it was funny that there were iPad ads in angry birds, the iPad 2 will sell out here in 1 hour 5 minutes.

I hope not, at least in Perth, a mate of mine will be landing in a few hours time and heading straight to the Apple Store from the airport. Of course, I asked him to snag one for me ...Well, in any case it is all in the hands of a higher power now. (Steve-o of course, who did ya think I was talking about?)
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Couldn't resist.

I've committed code to KHTML (which became WebKit once Apple co-opted it, curious how you credit Apple for it when it was created by someone else). I've also committed code to Gecko back when it was powering what was then known as Phoenix. This was posted from the nightly build for Firefox 4.2. (And I also am quite aware that Firefox's new JIT JS engine uses parts from Apple's Nitro). You're not making any coherent point here.

Please don't pretend to lecture me on fundamentals.

Apple IS one of the contributors AS it quite plainly says in the license agreement.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #62 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Really...You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?

Your little tirade regarding Android 3.x being merely Android 2.x, "lightly modified for tablets" only shows your complete inexperience/ignorance with the platforms themselves. Nothing More.

Whatever it is, iPad is a kick ass platform. Thank gawd now they didn't encumber it with the primary source of tablet failures prior to the iPad : a desktop or desktop-like OS... Yet at the same time the iPad is far beyond just a big iPod touch.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I hope not, at least in Perth, a mate of mine will be landing in a few hours time and heading straight to the Apple Store from the airport. Of course, I asked him to snag one for me ...Well, in any case it is all in the hands of a higher power now. (Steve-o of course, who did ya think I was talking about?)

Perth is 3 hours behind.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #64 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apple IS one of the contributors AS it quite plainly says in the license agreement.

So is Google. In fact, Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple does and has since at least Feb 2010. I still don't understand your point.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:10pm
Webkit is a fork of KHTML. KHTML never became what Webkit is today.

You insinuate there is no difference. Why isn't anyone of note using KHTML as the foundation of their web rendering?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Couldn't resist.

I've committed code to KHTML (which became WebKit once Apple co-opted it, curious how you credit Apple for it when it was created by someone else). I've also committed code to Gecko back when it was powering what was then known as Phoenix. This was posted from the nightly build for Firefox 4.2. (And I also am quite aware that Firefox's new JIT JS engine uses parts from Apple's Nitro). You're not making any coherent point here.

Please don't pretend to lecture me on fundamentals.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:12pm
Google is trying to "close" Honeycomb because they want to slow down their competitors, period. All the talk by these executives is just excuses. If they delay release of the source code, it's much harder for e.g. Amazon to use Honeycomb for it's next tablet. Other companies also can't quickly duplicate Honeycomb's functionality into their mobile OS without seeing the source code.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

So is Google. In fact, Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple does and has since at least Feb 2010. I still don't understand your point.

Reality check.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Apple fans don't care about openness, if they did they wouldn't be buying some of the most locked-down, prohibitive devices in consumer electronics and computing history. Time for a reality check, folks.

Apple and it's contributions to open source are reality.

You can see them in the license agreements in Chrome and Firefox.

Maybe SOME "Apple fans" DO care about openness.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #68 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Reality check.



Apple and it's contributions to open source are reality.

What on earth does open source code contributions and utilization have to do with curated app stores and encrypted media contents? I'm very well aware Apple contributes to open source projects they utilize (they HAVE to). Years ago I had the misfortune of working with some ornery Apple engineers on some gcc bugs.

Even Microsoft has contributed code to open source projects. Hell, MS wrote code that's in the Linux kernel. This isn't a very good barometer for anything useful.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Really...

You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?

They called it iPhone OS because the only product they had was the iPhone. That picture was from WWDC in 2008.

Anyway... I just listened to the podcast where Steve Jobs spoke at D8... talking about exactly this topic. Here's the quick transcript:


I'll tell ya kinda a secret... we actually started on a tablet first. I had this idea to get rid of the keyboard and type on a glass display. I asked our folks to come up with a multitouch display.

About 6 months later they called me in and showed me a prototype display. This was in the early 2000's. I gave it to one of our other UI folks. He called me back a few weeks later and he had inertial scrolling working.

We were thinking about building a phone at that time... and when I saw the inertial scrolling I said: "my god... we can build a phone out of this."

We put the tablet project on the shelf because the phone was more important. And we took the next several years to make the iPhone.


Those words came out of Steve's mouth...

He was speaking in a room of hundreds of people with cameras recording... is he lying?
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:16pm
There are a lot of contributors to Webkit. Google, Nokia, Samsung, RIM. That is the point of open source.

The guiding leadership of Webkit are from Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

So is Google. In fact, Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple does and has since at least Feb 2010. I still don't understand your point.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:20pm
So by your logic. If Apple had called its mobile OS iOs all along. That is the only possible way that iOS development would have originally been for a tablet...mmmmmmm

You can never predict what in the world people will come up with on these boards.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Hmm?

If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?

Answer: It obviously wasn't, and this 'story' was probably created to mask that fact that the OS' use for the iPad was somehow more than just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts.

This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.

My primary phone is an iPhone 3GS, but I also have a Nexus One that I occasionally use when the mood strikes (disclaimer: I got it for free from Google at a conference). I prefer iOS on the smartphone to Android in its current version, so that's why the iPhone is my primary. I'll likely upgrade it to an iPhone 5 this year.

For tablets, I'm probably going to go Android (the Tab 10.1) because I view tablets as starting to encroach on laptop territory so I demand more out of the functionality of the UI over the simplicity. It's a personal taste.

I've used and developed apps for virtually every smartphone OS out there. I know the field, it's my job and something I have great personal interest in as well. I was hoping to contribute what I know to this forum, but it seems if any point is not wholly praising of Apple it is latched on to by people who can only be described as fanboys. You view it as "attack" and "defense" when in reality I'm only trying to lay it out as I see it.

As for your swipes about me not knowing what the average user likes or wants -- that's precisely what I do know. That's why I get paid to do what I do. I've read countless market reports on it from analysts (most of which are bunk), I've attended countless conferences on mobile technology, and I'm extremely informed on every OS out there and every facet of each one, because it's my job to. The fact that you disagree doesn't mean you agree with the market as a whole. And the fact that you (and frankly, most people here) seem flabberghasted by the growth of Android (if you'll check my posts, I said this would happen years ago) it's because you don't understand the market as a whole. The people who line up at Apple stores to buy iOS devices are not your typical user. People mention how important apps are, but they're only very important to a relatively small portion of the demographic. But because that's who you guys are always surrounded by, that's what you see. Android is soaring and people simply don't care as much about apps on them. It's a different kind of user. As smartphones and tablets become more ubiquitous, you're going to see less "hardcores" who download lots of apps and more ma-and-pas who don't.

I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again. Groupthink is a powerful thing, it was folly to try to combat it.

(PS: This is not entirely directed at you, but in general to many people on here)

Help me understand your point. Are you really saying people who won't buy many apps will somehow prefer android tablets over the iPad? That really makes no sense at all. How is not buying apps on Android different than not buying apps on the iPad?

Android grew market share on phones for three reasons
- some models of subsidized android phones are very cheap
- iPhone was only available on AT&T (it's going to be very interesting to see the market share numbers for the current quarter)
- they were "close enough" for people who weren't on AT&T

The clear proof that these are the reasons is there is no Android competitor to the hot selling iPod touch.

Also, these advantages are pretty much out the window in the tablet market
- you can get a subsidy, but the price is still pretty high and involves a 2 year data contract most people don't want or need with their tablet. Just use the hop spot functionality from their phone to get on the web.
- iPad is available on more networks that the Xoom and the wifi model isn't tied to carriers at all
- there is no need for people to settle for "close enough" when they can get the real thing for less money.

Apple is in the drivers seat here, and Android closing the source is a setback for the platform.
http://www.inktastic.com/
Reply
http://www.inktastic.com/
Reply
post #73 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

What on earth does open source code contributions and utilization have to do with curated app stores and encrypted media contents? I'm very well aware Apple contributes to open source projects they utilize (they HAVE to). Years ago I had the misfortune of working with some ornery Apple engineers on some gcc bugs.

Even Microsoft has contributed code to open source projects. Hell, MS wrote code that's in the Linux kernel. This isn't a very good barometer for anything useful.

Apple doesn't market themselves as "open" or attempt to polarise opinion like Google (and the people who jump on their bandwagon) do.

Locking down Honeycomb proves Google aren't as "open" as they tout themselves to be, Apple's contributions to open source prove that they aren't as "closed" as Google (their partners and others) want people to believe.

Google reeks of hypocrisy.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #74 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Really...

You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?

It's always fun to chat with you, DaHarder, because you can't read and your'e sort of stupid, and sometimes that's just what I'm in the mood for.

What I wrote was that iOS is OS X. How it's reconfigured for what what device is less significant than its underpinnings. Apple is going to fairly quickly move the iPad to notebook level functionality, and they have already shown the technical expertise to start moving over key apps.

Quote:
Your little tirade regarding Android 3.x being merely Android 2.x, "lightly modified for tablets" only shows your complete inexperience/ignorance with the platforms themselves. Nothing More.

Uh oh! DaHarder's getting huffy and commencing with the Random Capitalization! I must have struck a nerve!

Tell you what, how about you draw on your extensive coding skills to explain how Honeycomb is a complete rewrite of Android (I mean, it was "built from the ground up", right?) as opposed to some modified UI conventions, and fairly ugly ones, at that. Oh that's right, you don't actually know how they work, you just buy a lot of them and drone on about it on the internet.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #75 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

For tablets, I'm probably going to go Android (the Tab 10.1) because I view tablets as starting to encroach on laptop territory so I demand more out of the functionality of the UI over the simplicity. It's a personal taste.

You "demand more from the UI" but think that apps are "silly". Right, that's just personal taste.

Quote:
I've used and developed apps for virtually every smartphone OS out there. I know the field, it's my job and something I have great personal interest in as well. I was hoping to contribute what I know to this forum, but it seems if any point is not wholly praising of Apple it is latched on to by people who can only be described as fanboys. You view it as "attack" and "defense" when in reality I'm only trying to lay it out as I see it.

You're such an expert on virtually every smartphone OS out there BUT cancelled your iPad 2 order because it didn't have tabbed browsers (it does), and the honeycomb UI is better.

Presumably someone that "knows the field" would be aware of Honeycomb and iOS's respective UIs and multitasking models that they wouldn't be so clueless as to order the iPad 2 in the first place.

Someone with a great personal interest in the field might also be clued in enough that if they are out somewhere trying to look for a condo to Google for Redfin to see if they have an app. They do...but I guess it's just silly.

Here's a question for you: If you've developed for virtually EVERY smartphone OS out there and are so knowledgeable why haven't you developed for Android yet? Or iOS?

You clearly state here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

FWIW, I am an independent developer and I've got my eye towards Android right now. Anyone who has gone to a recent mobile dev conference will see that's where the attention is right now.


And now you state:

Quote:
That's why I get paid to do what I do. I've read countless market reports on it from analysts (most of which are bunk), I've attended countless conferences on mobile technology, and I'm extremely informed on every OS out there and every facet of each one, because it's my job to.

Right. You're paid to read countless market reports and attend conferences and be informed on every OS out there BUT you are also an independent developer who is eyeing Android.

WTF? Who is extremely informed AND a developer AND missed out on both the iOS boat AND the android boat? If you are still "eyeing" either platform you missed the best time to enter those markets.

Oh, wait...that's right...apps are silly.

Quote:
The fact that you disagree doesn't mean you agree with the market as a whole. And the fact that you (and frankly, most people here) seem flabberghasted by the growth of Android (if you'll check my posts, I said this would happen years ago) it's because you don't understand the market as a whole.

Please. It was obvious that Android would overtake the iPhone once the number of vendors using Android became known. Apple had fairly modest market share goals (1% of the total market) and reached them and did so with traditionally high Apple margins and ASPs. Now Apple is sitting around 4% and that's amazing without a dumbphone in their lineup.

The tablet market is a different market without established incumbents and a requirement to go through carriers...it's a lot more like the original MP3 market. Whether Apple can actually dominate the tablet market remains to be seen but it was obvious to most folks that Apple couldn't hope to do so in the phone market. It simply cannot produce enough phones to gain majority share.

Predicting this does not take a rocket scientist.

Quote:
I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again.

Contrarian viewpoints aren't offensive. Liars, braggarts and trolls are.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 158
3/24/11 at 10:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts. This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.

You come to an Apple enthusiast board with double speak about Android. How do you expect it go?

Quote:
I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again. Groupthink is a powerful thing, it was folly to try to combat it.

Nothing wrong with contrarian viewpoints they are welcomed. An "I know better than all of you" attitude will not be well received.

You make a lot of statements that don't add up. Then don't do a very good job of supporting them with facts.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 158
3/24/11 at 11:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Really...

You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?

It was introduced simply as OS X. Here's what hte iPhone page at apple.com said when it was released

Quote:
iPhone uses OS X, the world’s most advanced operating system.

http://web.archive.org/web/200801110...ex.html#macosx

They eventually put the phone name on the OS because that was the product it was shipping, but they didn't even call it that for over a year after the iPhone was released. At the introduction, they also introduced their touch specific class library called Cocoa Touch (not Cocoa Phone). They didn't say Cocoa Touch was a UI class library for a phone, they said it was a new US class library built from the ground up for multi-touch.

It's been clearly documented that Apple started building a multi-touch tablet before they started building the iPhone. I'm not sure what point you're even trying to get at suggesting otherwise. iPad and iPhone have completely different versions of all of the apps that are designed from the ground up to be optimized for the different form factors.

These same apps also share a lot of common code not just between themselves, but also with their Mac versions. Because at the core of the apps for all 3 is OS X including key technologies like Core Foundation, Core Data, Core Graphics, Core Animation, etc, etc.

The iPad only diverged from the core OS because it had a different release schedule from the next major release of the OS. A similar thing happened with the Verizon iPhone. This lets the new product get released at the same time a major or minor revision to the OS is being developed, but with different release dates. This prevents one project from delaying the other and allows for more secrecy of the products being developed.

Apple has a unified, scalable OS with a unified, scalable programming model that has been years in the making. Somehow you want to spin that as a negative.
http://www.inktastic.com/
Reply
http://www.inktastic.com/
Reply
post #78 of 158
3/24/11 at 11:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Huh? The reason none of them are doing this is kind of the point. Obviously some of the makers have expressed interest in trying to do that, which is precisely why Google is not letting them.

I'm completely and utterly baffled why this is a news story on AppleInsider. Google is delaying the release of the non-GPL parts of Android's source until "Icecream Sandwich" comes out (which is supposed to reunify the base so Smartphones + tablets share the same OS) to ensure a consistent level of quality from the handset makers who would jump to try to force Honeycomb onto ill-suited formfactors. Like Samsung did the the Tab 7", which arguably damaged the Android brand.



Are you serious? Please tell me this is some kind of joke.

Google has no control whatsoever what manufacturers do with their phone bootloaders. They have nothing to do with Android. Similarly, they can't control when Motorola and Verizon decide to push updates out to their phones.

If you want an open phone, buy a Nexus One/Nexus S. That is the one phone Google can control from top to bottom, and it most certainly is open.

I simply do not understand the point of this article, or why many of Apple's fans seem to delight in this non-news to a degree. Apple fans don't care about openness, if they did they wouldn't be buying some of the most locked-down, prohibitive devices in consumer electronics and computing history. Time for a reality check, folks.

Ithink you need a reality check. Open means people can take the code as is and do what they wish...pooh wait you can only do what google wants you do to with it and when they want you to do it. No wonder motorolla said it was developing it's own platform.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 158
3/24/11 at 11:06pm
Something tells me that there are things in the code that Google don't want anyone to see!


Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Uh oh! DaHarder's getting huffy and commencing with the Random Capitalization! I must have struck a nerve!

Tell you what, how about you draw on your extensive coding skills to explain how Honeycomb is a complete rewrite of Android (I mean, it was "built from the ground up", right?) as opposed to some modified UI conventions, and fairly ugly ones, at that. Oh that's right, you don't actually know how they work, you just buy a lot of them and drone on about it on the internet.

All three each
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 158
3/24/11 at 11:07pm
Aaww my gawd, whenever there's an Android news, there's always trolling and arguments on how 'open' the platform is.. AI should've included the definition of Android's "openness" everytime there's an article about Android.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Google closes Android 3.0 Honeycomb source to prevent use on smartphones
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Google closes Android 3.0 Honeycomb source to prevent use on smartphones