or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Editorial: Apple, Google and the failure of Android's open
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Editorial: Apple, Google and the failure of Android's open - Page 5

post #161 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

@ BigMushroom - there's likely a Treasury official calculating the lost tax opportunity of social surplus 1biggrin.gif

"Gee, if only they'd charge for it, we'd have them !"

In the case of the school /newspaper - if the software suddenly cost them $500 and there were no other free alternatives, then it becomes a cost, it's not lost. It becomes a legitimate business expense and is therefore tax deductible.
Not wanting to nit pick or derail the thread

Or they just don't do it. Particularly in the case of non-profit organisations.

IE: There is no online version of the school newspaper because the budget didn't stretch to $500.

 

For instance, I run a search engine for a reasonably old online forum. No revenue comes from it.

 

If I'd been told I had to actually pay to run it, I'd just laugh and not do it.


Edited by Robert Bray - 7/7/13 at 7:32pm
post #162 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


1. I actually have memory problems.
2. I went back and read the question before even posting. And you're just a complete fool.

I ask again: how is that a valid question.

Did you bother reading my post?

1 - My most humble and sincere apologies. 

2 - You have still not answered the question posed to you: Do you know actually know anything about software?  You either know a great deal, or very little.  Your posts seem to point both ways.  For example, your original back and forth with other posters in this thread was related to your comments about Google "stealing" open source.  For most people, the very definition of open source is something which is freely shared.  Freely shared, but usually some sort of requirements for attribution if the open source is incorporated into something else.  Therefore, theft of open source (like Microsoft did a few years back) would be the incorporation of open source into something proprietary without attribution (or some other act which breaks the terms/license of the open source).  Do you know, for fact, that this is what Google has done with some open source?

 

If your basis of the back and forth about "stealing" open source was that it is somehow easier because it's freely/readily available, then your logic is flawed.  It's actually quite hard to steal open source and get away with it.  Just ask Microsoft.


Edited by runbuh - 7/7/13 at 8:02pm
post #163 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh View Post

1 - My most humble and sincere apologies. 

2 - You have still not answered the question posed to you: Do you know actually know anything about software?  You either know a great deal, or very little.  Your posts seem to point both ways.  For example, your original back and forth with other posters in this thread was related to your comments about Google "stealing" open source.  For most people, the very definition of open source is something which is freely shared.  Freely shared, but usually some sort of requirements for attribution if the open source is incorporated into something else.  Therefore, theft of open source (like Microsoft did a few years back) would be the incorporation of open source into something proprietary without attribution (or some other act which breaks the terms/license of the open source).  Do you know, for fact, that this is what Google has done with some open source?

 

If your basis of the back and forth about "stealing" open source was that it is somehow easier because it's freely/readily available, then your logic is flawed.  It's actually quite hard to steal open source and get away with it.  Just ask Microsoft.

I just simply ask a question. Would someone rely on a company named Google for one's IT needs?  hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhaha. Google is NOT an IT company, they are an internet services company as in Internet Search, YouTube videos as their main source of revenue. They know nothing about structuring a rock solid OS platform working with OEM customers and Enterprise customers.  Even Microsoft has had problems in the past, but their main source of revenue is ad revenue from their Search Site and YouTube videos posted mostly by kids that probably aren't old enough to begin with to have an account to show some stupid video because they are in hopes of becoming the next Justin Bieber.  It's NOT a company to rely on personal or professional based IT needs.   

post #164 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Bray View Post

Or they just don't do it. Particularly in the case of non-profit organisations.
IE: There is no online version of the school newspaper because the budget didn't stretch to $500.

For instance, I run a search engine for a reasonably old online forum. No revenue comes from it.

If I'd been told I had to actually pay to run it, I'd just laugh and not do it.

Or that, exactly.
I think the Open Source community has contributed immensely and should be applauded for moving the world forward. But as for putting some kind of number/value on their contribution ... nah. Not the contributors intention.
post #165 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

Many of your posts seem to have the underlying premise that if other people modify your product as they wish, they would ruin your design plans and prevent you from supporting the people who use your unmodified product. Is that an accurate inference? That would suggest for example that the iOS jailbreak community is interfering with apple's vision for the next iOS, or that people who install custom car stereos are preventing BMW from providing "great support" to its customers. 

 

BMW integrates its car radios into the vehicle in a way that is impractical to replace with a "standard" car radio. They do this for a good reason. Partly to profit, but partly because they can offer a better overall experience in tying the radio into the media player and navigation system, and provide voice response to control everything. 

 

Wanting to stay in the 1990s, where there was a standard hole to put anyone's car radio in, just leaves you in the past. Most people don't want that anymore. Why carry a pull out car radio or even a faceplate when you can just have your music on your iPod or iPhone and you unplug it and take it with you? 

 

Android/Windows people are stuck in the midset that computers have to be the way they were in the 90s. Apple introduced a far more natural interface for mobile devices. Even the people who are copying the concept don't really understand it. Microsoft, and to an even greater extent Google, have copied the premise of the iPhone without getting rid of the trappings of 1990s computing. Removable physical storage, file system access, manual app management. All unnecessary if you build superior solutions around them.

 

So car stereos do have a lot in common with the mobile device market.

post #166 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

BMW integrates its car radios into the vehicle in a way that is impractical to replace with a "standard" car radio. They do this for a good reason. Partly to profit, but partly because they can offer a better overall experience in tying the radio into the media player and navigation system, and provide voice response to control everything. 

 

Wanting to stay in the 1990s, where there was a standard hole to put anyone's car radio in, just leaves you in the past. Most people don't want that anymore. Why carry a pull out car radio or even a faceplate when you can just have your music on your iPod or iPhone and you unplug it and take it with you? 

 

Android/Windows people are stuck in the midset that computers have to be the way they were in the 90s. Apple introduced a far more natural interface for mobile devices. Even the people who are copying the concept don't really understand it. Microsoft, and to an even greater extent Google, have copied the premise of the iPhone without getting rid of the trappings of 1990s computing. Removable physical storage, file system access, manual app management. All unnecessary if you build superior solutions around them.

 

So car stereos do have a lot in common with the mobile device market.

What happens when the implementation is full of crap, as with recent BMWs?  You're stuck.   My recent experience at the dealer is a great example - my 2012 BMW needed a firmware update.  Unfortunately, the dealer's Gracenote rev was a different version from mine, so when the dealer upgraded my car's firmware, they could not backup and restore all the songs I had ripped to the car's hard drive.  They were completely erased (my dealer warned me in advance).  With an open system, there would be aftermarket tools, or I could have written something myself, to make and restore an archive of my car's music.

post #167 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

BMW integrates its car radios into the vehicle in a way that is impractical to replace with a "standard" car radio. They do this for a good reason. Partly to profit, but partly because they can offer a better overall experience in tying the radio into the media player and navigation system, and provide voice response to control everything. 

 

Wanting to stay in the 1990s, where there was a standard hole to put anyone's car radio in, just leaves you in the past. Most people don't want that anymore. Why carry a pull out car radio or even a faceplate when you can just have your music on your iPod or iPhone and you unplug it and take it with you? 

 

Android/Windows people are stuck in the midset that computers have to be the way they were in the 90s. Apple introduced a far more natural interface for mobile devices. Even the people who are copying the concept don't really understand it. Microsoft, and to an even greater extent Google, have copied the premise of the iPhone without getting rid of the trappings of 1990s computing. Removable physical storage, file system access, manual app management. All unnecessary if you build superior solutions around them.

 

So car stereos do have a lot in common with the mobile device market.

Right, I'm sure before iOS 7 you thought quick toggles were a 1990's "trap" but since Apple introduced it, now I'm sure it's a superior solution 1rolleyes.gif

post #168 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh View Post

What happens when the implementation is full of crap, as with recent BMWs?  You're stuck.   My recent experience at the dealer is a great example - my 2012 BMW needed a firmware update.  Unfortunately, the dealer's Gracenote rev was a different version from mine, so when the dealer upgraded my car's firmware, they could not backup and restore all the songs I had ripped to the car's hard drive.  They were completely erased (my dealer warned me in advance).  With an open system, there would be aftermarket tools, or I could have written something myself, to make and restore an archive of my car's music.

 

Or what if BMW's implementation wasn't terribly executed? If we can make up scenarios, lets make them up. 

 

There are plenty of "open systems" that promise to allow you to do something, but have bugs and flaws that similarly cause problems, including data loss you weren't planning and couldn't back up in advance. You seem to be arguing that BMW's system had problems, and its issues and all other issues could be solved if only nobody owned anything. That sounds like logical fallacy.

 

Or are you simply saying that "open" in an interoperable, accessible sense allows you more options? If so, why can't BMW offer you an open API for dealing with your stuff? Perhaps a USB drive you can plug in and transfer your files to. That's how mine works. 

post #169 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

Right, I'm sure before iOS 7 you thought quick toggles were a 1990's "trap" but since Apple introduced it, now I'm sure it's a superior solution 1rolleyes.gif

 

Please explain how this makes any sense if you'd like a response to it.

post #170 of 310
So what are you saying ?
That quick toggles are an Android thing ? Or not ...

My jailbroken iPhone 2 back on iOS 3.12 had quick toggles - so many people forget the iOS jailbreak community.
post #171 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

Or what if BMW's implementation wasn't terribly executed? If we can make up scenarios, lets make them up. 

 

There are plenty of "open systems" that promise to allow you to do something, but have bugs and flaws that similarly cause problems, including data loss you weren't planning and couldn't back up in advance. You seem to be arguing that BMW's system had problems, and its issues and all other issues could be solved if only nobody owned anything. That sounds like logical fallacy.

 

Or are you simply saying that "open" in an interoperable, accessible sense allows you more options? If so, why can't BMW offer you an open API for dealing with your stuff? Perhaps a USB drive you can plug in and transfer your files to. That's how mine works. 

You mean OPEN LOOP architecture. That's what they end up being.  I honestly think BMTroubleYou doesn't know what they are doing when it comes to this end of the business, most car mfg don't.  I never really thought cars were that sophisticated when it came to integrating computer technology for their audio/video/smartphone/tablet. They are car mfg, not computer/audio/video companies.  It's not their core competency.  When BMTroubleYou first came out with their iDrive technology, I remember a car magazine was not that impressed with it.  I think they need more help in this area to be completely honest.  Plus they charge a bloody fortune for audio/video/car equipment and it's not that good considering the amount of money they charge. They are trying to get better.

post #172 of 310
OT rant - thanks for intro drblank !

What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed !
There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.

Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,

Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.

OT rant finished.
post #173 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I just simply ask a question. Would someone rely on a company named Google for one's IT needs?  hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhaha. Google is NOT an IT company, they are an internet services company as in Internet Search, YouTube videos as their main source of revenue. They know nothing about structuring a rock solid OS platform working with OEM customers and Enterprise customers.  Even Microsoft has had problems in the past, but their main source of revenue is ad revenue from their Search Site and YouTube videos posted mostly by kids that probably aren't old enough to begin with to have an account to show some stupid video because they are in hopes of becoming the next Justin Bieber.  It's NOT a company to rely on personal or professional based IT needs.   

Yes, absolutely and they do by the thousands.

Google has an absolutely monstrous Enterprise department, their Google Search Appliance rack mount solution for instance is installed on more then half of the fortune 500 companies and 1,000's of large firms around the world. Company's who have hundreds if not thousands of servers in their data center need solutions to index and search all of their data, Google is amongst the best if not the de facto Intranet search engine for these companies. Saying Google knows nothing about the needs of Enterprise is like saying Apple knows nothing about designing computers. Your hatred for Google doesn't make them any less important to the Enterprise customer.

http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2013/06/21/google-enterprise-chief-talks-about-taking-care-of-business/
http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/06/google-inc-goog-beats-apple-inc-aapl/
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/1846984/interview-google-says-enterprise-biz-new-products-are-driving-growth-in-india
http://www.informationweek.com/internet/google/google-connects-search-appliances-for-bi/217701149?subSection=All+Stories
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9133839/Google_releases_new_version_of_its_Search_Appliance



Before you jump up to complain about security concerns, these are internal search solutions. Most of them have no access to the internet so they can't send indexed data to Google, their designed for intranet use. The US government uses Google's Search Appliances. What's easier, writing a SQL search or using a controlled Google search.
Edited by Relic - 7/8/13 at 1:57am
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #174 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

OT rant - thanks for intro drblank !

What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed !
There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.

Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,

Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.

OT rant finished.

They have diagnostic tools that people can buy and hook up to their car's computer.  There are cheap ones and there are more professional ones the dealership uses.  Have you ever searched for auto diag systems?  You might want to investigate that.  I did it for a friend's Chevy Suburban and I think one of the better ones was around $300.  Talk to the service centers?  If you get to know the guy's there.  Maybe a store that sells lots of third party stuff for the 4x4 people?    I'm sure you can find something that will help you diagnose your car.  

post #175 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

OT rant - thanks for intro drblank !

What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed !
There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.

Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,

Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.

OT rant finished.

Go to Amazon and type in Auto diagnostic tools. You might want to call the companies that make them and find out which one is the best for your vehicle before you buy one.

post #176 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

OT rant - thanks for intro drblank !

What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed !
There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.

Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,

Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.

OT rant finished.

Check out Innova.  Just a suggestion, but find out from others if that's a good brand. It seems like it might be.  Call them directly.

 

The 3140 and 3160 appear to be the most comprehensive.  Those are about $200+ on Amazon, normally in the $500 range. but again, that's US $.

post #177 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

OT rant - thanks for intro drblank !

What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed !
There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.

Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,

Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.

OT rant finished.

Here's a place that sells them for BMW, Land Rover, Jaguar, Mercedes, Porsche, VAG (??), Volvo, PSA/RENAULT, Rolls Royce.

 

http://www.autologic.us/en-us/pages/homeproducts

 

NEVER MIND. I just looked up the price for the Mercedes Benz version.  $12K.  Oops.  They do everything, but these are probably overkill.  Unless you got the bucks and want the best.  Heck, if someone pays $200K for a Mercedes, whats another $12K for the ultimate diagnostics tool?

 

 

Here is a place that sells all kinds of stuff.  They have over 2000 professional diagnostic tools.

 

http://www.aliexpress.com  It's the same as an Amazon, only different.  They have an automotive section that seems like it might be better than Amazon.  Just a suggestion.  Good luck, i hope you get something that'll work.


Edited by drblank - 7/8/13 at 12:16am
post #178 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

You mean OPEN LOOP architecture. That's what they end up being.  I honestly think BMTroubleYou doesn't know what they are doing when it comes to this end of the business, most car mfg don't.  I never really thought cars were that sophisticated when it came to integrating computer technology for their audio/video/smartphone/tablet. They are car mfg, not computer/audio/video companies.  It's not their core competency.  When BMTroubleYou first came out with their iDrive technology, I remember a car magazine was not that impressed with it.  I think they need more help in this area to be completely honest.  Plus they charge a bloody fortune for audio/video/car equipment and it's not that good considering the amount of money they charge. They are trying to get better.

Yeah, both my husband and I drive BMW's and though the iDrive system has gotten better over the years it still sucks. Mercedes isn't any better with their system either. I would like to see a in dash iPad solution of some sort.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #179 of 310
oh wow - thanks guys ! Really, I appreciate it.

Thats the trouble when you're stuck in the 90s autowise lol - never get out of the rut.
Cheers, r
post #180 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


Okay, I'll ask. You answer with specific projects without which these things could not have been made.

LLVM and GCC. Praise the lord.

post #181 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


Yeah, both my husband and I drive BMW's and though the iDrive system has gotten better over the years it still sucks. Mercedes isn't any better with their system either. I would like to see a in dash iPad solution of some sort.

Do you know who makes their Nav consoles? Becker.  I'll bet Apple could easily develop a customized iPad mini that could be permanently mounted in the car that does the same thing and a LOT cheaper since Apple sells their devices by the tens of millions whereas they sell cars in the hundreds of thousands.   They would just have to get rid of the home button, etc. and probably make is so much better.  Just an idea.

 

There are the auto tweakers that putting iPad mini in car dashes and the back of headrests.   They started doing that probably within the first month the iPad mini came out. It's the perfect size for a car dash, they would probably change the GUI for cars. If Apple did it, they would redesign it specifically for cars and have maybe an interface similar to the Apple TV rather than looking like a OS X or IOS GUI with the dock.  That's what I would do if I were Apple.  They would probably have to get rid of the internal battery and maybe implement TB, USB, etc. and get the car mfg so it can interface with everything in the car. That would be the biggest aspect, but the majority of the guts Apple already gets.  It would be interesting, but it might take a while to do it, but once it's done, it would probably be cheaper for Apple to do a decent quality job than Becker.  


Edited by drblank - 7/8/13 at 1:17am
post #182 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Do you know who makes their Nav consoles? Becker.  I'll bet Apple could easily develop a customized iPad mini that could be permanently mounted in the car that does the same thing and a LOT cheaper since Apple sells their devices by the tens of millions whereas they sell cars in the hundreds of thousands.   They would just have to get rid of the home button, etc. and probably make is so much better.  Just an idea.

There are the auto tweakers that putting iPad mini in car dashes and the back of headrests.   They started doing that probably within the first month the iPad mini came out. It's the perfect size for a car dash, they would probably change the GUI for cars. If Apple did it, they would redesign it specifically for cars and have maybe an interface similar to the Apple TV rather than looking like a OS X or IOS GUI with the dock.  That's what I would do if I were Apple.  They would probably have to get rid of the internal battery and maybe implement TB, USB, etc. and get the car mfg so it can interface with everything in the car. That would be the biggest aspect, but the majority of the guts Apple already gets.  It would be interesting, but it might take a while to do it, but once it's done, it would probably be cheaper for Apple to do a decent quality job than Becker.  

This is neat, a guy installed an iPod in his 04' Porshe 996, http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/996/301123-ipad-mini-dash-install-996-mkii.html.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #183 of 310
With all the respect due to the people writing this great site, this article is so full of misunderstanding and misinformation that is at the limit of the troll.

Starting from what is open and what is open source, that two very different and orthogonal concepts.
Continuing to what is the role of open source in the IT industry, and of the different business models
behind.

Writing a complete answer would require a book, but i'll give some indication.

1) iOs (and MacOs) are technogically as open and open source based than Android; iOs is based on a open source kernel (Mach FreeBSD) as much as Android (Linux). iOS embrace all the pertinent open technologies (OpenGL, network protocols, languages and so on), and so does Android. iOS have a proprietary, closed layer implementing the real added value of the project.

Well, you'll be surprised to know that Android make the same: the fact that the Android code is open source does not imply that is not proprietary; Android, and its evolution, is controlled by a single company, not a community, not a standard organisation. Sources are published later, once the product is finished, so industrially speaking the relationship between a Android OEM and Google is is exactly the same as between any OEM and any software publisher.

2) To have an idea of the open source role, and its economical meaning, in the industry, take
a look to the server side world. Make you homework, i do not have the time to say more.

3) Mac OS, more than iOS, is very open and open source based system; it keep the philosophy of NeXT Step, it is still based on Unix, an open source version, and leverage the open source technical layers to produce a proprietary layer providing added value to the user; this is one of the best and most successful open source business model. Apple is also a significant contributor to important open source projects (CUPS, the printing subsystem, GCC and LLVM, Java OpenJDK, etc.).

To get an idea, start your copy of XCode, choose About XCode, click on Acknowledgements and tale a look to the very long list of licences that apply to the various piece of technologies used; count how many of them are open source.
post #184 of 310
Quote:
You know why Android is an exception?
You know why it'll be successful?
Because it is run by Google!
A company that does not simply stack up cash but uses it to make the world a better place!
It is a company that strives for innovation unlike Apple.
I don't hate Apple because it is closed but because there are lower strides of innovation in the company. It looks only for profitability not a better world!
Hardware fragmentation naturally occurs as the platform grows. Simply, look at Apple. How many idevices of different sizes and different hardware capacities does it have?
If keeping closed is the only way to solve fragmentation of software. Then think again!
Google will show you how to with rolling updates shortly!

 

Bulshit. Google is in it for the money, they just can't get enough smart people to work for just money, you have to have to let them do cool stuff. Android and Glass are made to look like products, but they are not, they are harvesting machinery, advertisers are the customers, you are the product.

post #185 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Of course, iPhone owners just go about enjoying their devices without ever mocking Android.

I think the root cause of the iOS vs Android all originates from the fact that Android wouldn't have been born, if not for iOS.

Since Google just borrowed a number of iOS features, at the inception of Android, plus the fact that Steve Jobs declared "Thermo Nuclear War"  against Android,

the War's been going on since then.

 

Today Apple borrows features from every OS out there, like Google did at start.

post #186 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by bappo View Post

With all the respect due to the people writing this great site, this article is so full of misunderstanding and misinformation that is at the limit of the troll.

Starting from what is open and what is open source, that two very different and orthogonal concepts.
Continuing to what is the role of open source in the IT industry, and of the different business models
behind.

Writing a complete answer would require a book, but i'll give some indication.

1) iOs (and MacOs) are technogically as open and open source based than Android; iOs is based on a open source kernel (Mach FreeBSD) as much as Android (Linux). iOS embrace all the pertinent open technologies (OpenGL, network protocols, languages and so on), and so does Android. iOS have a proprietary, closed layer implementing the real added value of the project.

Well, you'll be surprised to know that Android make the same: the fact that the Android code is open source does not imply that is not proprietary; Android, and its evolution, is controlled by a single company, not a community, not a standard organisation. Sources are published later, once the product is finished, so industrially speaking the relationship between a Android OEM and Google is is exactly the same as between any OEM and any software publisher.

2) To have an idea of the open source role, and its economical meaning, in the industry, take
a look to the server side world. Make you homework, i do not have the time to say more.

3) Mac OS, more than iOS, is very open and open source based system; it keep the philosophy of NeXT Step, it is still based on Unix, an open source version, and leverage the open source technical layers to produce a proprietary layer providing added value to the user; this is one of the best and most successful open source business model. Apple is also a significant contributor to important open source projects (CUPS, the printing subsystem, GCC and LLVM, Java OpenJDK, etc.).

To get an idea, start your copy of XCode, choose About XCode, click on Acknowledgements and tale a look to the very long list of licences that apply to the various piece of technologies used; count how many of them are open source.

You're absolutely right and I'm sure anyone who posts a negative response towards open source either has no idea what exactly makes up the software that they use on a daily basis or as you put it, just trolling. Before I took over the programming department for trading applications at the bank I work for we were using closed source reporting tools that were an absolute nightmare to customize. Programmers were spending more time trying to get the darn things to produce information that was needed then actual results. We had so many meetings with these companies with them saying, "sure, no problem we can provide that" but never actually giving us what we actually wanted.

There was a lot opposition to cancel these services because of fear of change but I finally got my way. Using nothing but a LAMP setup, Python and Perl, my programming team was able to design a custom solution that not only did exactly what we needed to do but provided easy to use web interfaces that everyone could use. Freeing up my programmers from all of the custom reports that once flooded our request box.

This is just one example, it has gotten to the point where these technologies are not only a viable solution but a necessity to our survival. We all have budgets, time limits on projects and an expectation on the outcome. It doesn't matter what the task is, I would bet the lot against a closed source vs. open source programs anyday. The shear amount of code that is ripe for the picking is astronomical. It is so easy for a programmer to copy and paste a fantastic program together in the matter of hours. If you have an idea chances are some else has already programmed it. This isn't stealing, it's sharing, a community of people getting together to produce better software, faster.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #187 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sreeram View Post

You know why Android is an exception?
You know why it'll be successful?
Because it is run by Google!
A company that does not simply stack up cash but uses it to make the world a better place!
It is a company that strives for innovation unlike Apple.
I don't hate Apple because it is closed but because there are lower strides of innovation in the company. It looks only for profitability not a better world!
Hardware fragmentation naturally occurs as the platform grows. Simply, look at Apple. How many idevices of different sizes and different hardware capacities does it have?
If keeping closed is the only way to solve fragmentation of software. Then think again!
Google will show you how to with rolling updates shortly!

Ill talk of the top 4 reasons pointing out Android's short coming against iOS.

 

1) Problem with Androids not just fragmentation, its the fact that the platforms a place flooded with malware.

Once google figures out how to push updates across its many hardware providers that would help better this issue as well.

 

2) Secondly how is it that you have no Android phone in the 4 inch category and as thin and powerful as the iPhone 5 ?

I don't know but there aren't hardware manufactures doing the same size , with the same kind of processing capabilities, with the same weight to thickness factor.

 

It's coz Android + the custom User Interface layer requires more hardware capabilities to perform the same as iOS !

 

And to cover up that limitation, device manufactures come up with the " We got a 5 inch screen quote.

 

3) Thirdly, you ever notice that most developers create software for iOS more than Android coz iOS is were developers can make money, because people actually buy applications from Apple's App Store.


Fragmentation is one reason scaring developers away from Android. The fact that there are multiple stores and the hacker community would crack most of these games and make it available for free on alternative stores. End result being an Android user has options to get apps for free, which as a result throws app developers away. Why would I spend money to create an app for Android, when I am going to make a loss with it.

 

Which is why most of the creative game developing companies put apps alone on iOS and not Android. Badland, Infinity Blade , Limbo and so many others take iOS as there primary source of sales. Granted they'll prolly make an Android version after they have made money with Apple's store few years down the line.

 

4) Apple's Eco System ! Its connected and integrated so well. No other platform has the Connectivity that Apple has achieved.

 

5) Too many fault points for failure. Android has a different set of implementations by pretty much every handset maker, and that by nature brings in more number of failure points in terms of security and usability. Coz every other handset manufacturer is doing what they think is best.

With Apple, they do everything themselves !

post #188 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

I think the root cause of the iOS vs Android all originates from the fact that Android wouldn't have been born, if not for iOS.
Since Google just borrowed a number of iOS features, at the inception of Android, plus the fact that Steve Jobs declared "Thermo Nuclear War"  against Android,
the War's been going on since then.

Today Apple borrows features from every OS out there, like Google did at start.

Android would have most definitely come to light as it was being produced at the same time as iOS. Would it look differently, absolutely, Google was sure that the way to go was using Blackberry's style of phone, I still prefer a hardware keyboard but that's a different story. Android defiantly copied Apple's GUI style but Apple also took the best ideas from what was being offered at the time and made them better. Nokia for instance was using grid style icons for years. Apple is still doing it, taking the best ideas like notifications for example and making them better. This isn't stealing but GUI evolution, it's a big reason why I think the patent system is in desperate need of an overhaul especially for software. I hate these lawsuits, who cares if you came up with a way to unlock your phone by sliding your finger across the screen first. It's a couple of hundred lines of code that I could reproduce in an afternoon. Was it creative, sure, the guy who did it 2 years before the iPhone in the Neonode N1m was very creative, did they patent it, no, he thought it was a cute feature that people might enjoy. Apple added a slider box, called it revolutionary, patented it and is now suing anyone recreating it. I hate this, more than I can possibly express.

The review of the Neonode N1m if your interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0#at=203
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #189 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


This is neat, a guy installed an iPod in his 04' Porshe 996, http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/996/301123-ipad-mini-dash-install-996-mkii.html.

Take that Becker!!!!

 

Becker is owned by Harmon and Harmon installs their audio systems to most of the European Car mfg.  I guess this was better.  I wonder if he can figure out how to play a racing game but instead of a fake car, he's driving his REAL car beating the computer cars on the same track..  Hmmm, That's a new gaming concept.

 

Only if he gets into an accident, it's a REAL one.  That's REALITY gaming at another level.....   

post #190 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Take that Becker!!!!

Becker is owned by Harmon and Harmon installs their audio systems to most of the European Car mfg.  I guess this was better.  I wonder if he can figure out how to play a racing game but instead of a fake car, he's driving his REAL car beating the computer cars on the same track..  Hmmm, That's a new gaming concept.

Only if he gets into an accident, it's a REAL one.  That's REALITY gaming at another level.....   

Oh my gosh that would be so cool!
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #191 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

Please explain how this makes any sense if you'd like a response to it.

I've read a lot of your articles, and in one or two of them, you spoke about Android fans touting quick toggles as a good thing. However, you made the arguement that Apple created their OS with ease of use in mind. You explained that users didn't need to toggle their wifi on or off, or other things, as the OS was smart enough to manage battery life efficiently.

 

Given your response regarding "superior" solutions, and how at the time you down played quick toggles, I feel as though you felt quick toggles was an antiquated concept based on lack of proper OS battery management. So my statement is based on your inability to see any fault in anything Apple does, and would probably now welcome the 1990's antiquated "quick toggles" feature as a "superior" solution as you so put it.

post #192 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


Android would have most definitely come to light as it was being produced at the same time as iOS. Would it look differently, absolutely, Google was sure that the way to go was using Blackberry's style of phone, I still prefer a hardware keyboard but that's a different story. Android defiantly copied Apple's GUI style but Apple also took the best ideas from what was being offered at the time and made them better. Nokia for instance was using grid style icons for years. Apple is still doing it, taking the best ideas like notifications for example and making them better. This isn't stealing but GUI evolution, it's a big reason why I think the patent system is in desperate need of an overhaul especially for software. I hate these lawsuits, who cares if you came up with a way to unlock your phone by sliding your finger across the screen first. It's a couple of hundred lines of code that I could reproduce in an afternoon. Was it creative, sure, the guy who did it 2 years before the iPhone in the Neonode N1m was very creative, did they patent it, no, he thought it was a cute feature that people might enjoy. Apple added a slider box, called it revolutionary, patented it and is now suing anyone recreating it. I hate this, more than I can possibly express.

The review of the Neonode N1m if your interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0#at=203

Because it takes too long to overhaul the Patent laws, Apple tries to do patent swap agreements like they did with Microsoft and HTC, because Apple finds a way to Appleize something to try to make it better, which sometimes takes a while, but they manage to do it.  If only the others did the same thing to avoid costly law suits, because no one likes lawsuits.  Most plaintiffs would rather settle, but sometimes they ask for what the other thinks is too much, or the Defendant thinks they can squirm out of it.  You know how corporate attorneys are. 

 

One thing I was looking at with the security problem where Google might have to upgrade many versions of Android going back to at least Gingerbread release.

 

Out of the 900 Million phones, here's the breakdown per Version.

4.2.2   4%    36 Million users

4.1.x  29%    261 Million users

4.0.x 25.6%  230.4 Million users

2.4.4-2.3.7  36.4%  327.6 Million users

2.2  3.2%  2.88 Million users

2.0-2.1  1.5%  13.5 Million users

 

All of the others are only .1% or 0% so they don't really have anyone to really update on those systems.

 

What's the likelihood that they are going to update everyone to 4.2.2?  Can these older phones running Gingerbread run 4.2.2 effectively due to older less powerful processors and less RAM?  And will these mfg that made them want to spend the time testing the updates on all of the models they have made since they didn't much profit on them in the first place and they aren't charging for these updates?  That's a lot of programmers that have to get involved on updating these older systems.  I wonder what Google is going to do.  It wouldn't surprise me if some of the watch dog groups are going to start attacking Google with this security flaw that's affecting this number of users.  The 4.0 and 4.1 users probably are going to have to get taken care of as fast as possible since that's more than 1/2 of the total losers (I mean users), not running 4.2.2.

 

If I was using a high end phone that I bought within the last 2 years, I'd be kind of wondering what the hold up is.

post #193 of 310
Open source is good for components not complete consumer products. Engineers are not designers.
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #194 of 310

I've checked out certain industries and in many of them, the actually developer support for more high end apps for Android is almost non-existent.  The music creation and production industry with companies like yamaha, Alesis, Mackie, and a bunch of others that are coming out with iOS apps for iPads and iPhones don't even support Android, the support iOS.  They don't even support Windows RT tablets and WIndows phones.  Guess what?  If I were a developer of software, I might just support iOS, that is where most of the money is being spent on apps by users anyway.

 

I wonder how this security issues and lack of updating the OS is going to attract or deter more Android developers?  People have to chose which platform is the best to support with as little headaches as possible.

post #195 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I've checked out certain industries and in many of them, the actually developer support for more high end apps for Android is almost non-existent.  The music creation and production industry with companies like yamaha, Alesis, Mackie, and a bunch of others that are coming out with iOS apps for iPads and iPhones don't even support Android, the support iOS.  They don't even support Windows RT tablets and WIndows phones.  Guess what?  If I were a developer of software, I might just support iOS, that is where most of the money is being spent on apps by users anyway.

I wonder how this security issues and lack of updating the OS is going to attract or deter more Android developers?  People have to chose which platform is the best to support with as little headaches as possible.


Probably the biggest and only reason why I have an iPod, the music creation apps are just simply fantastic. Everything else though I prefer using a Windows 8 tablet, none RT version of course.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #196 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

You're completely missing the whole point of open. Open isn't about profit, it's about creating a commodity that everyone can benefit from. If you judge it by the rules of a different game, of course it's going to fail.

 

Open means that something that has become a commodity can be shared and updated for minimal expenditure. Everyone can then spend their R&D budget on the next layer, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

Why do you think that WebKit was open sourced? Why do you think that OS X and iOS use an open source kernel?

 

This is the kind of article I expect to see from someone who has "equivalent of a Masters degree in Computer Science". 1rolleyes.gif

 

... and by "everyone" clearly in Google's case "everyone" actually means Google shareholders and executives.  Open source computing isn't exactly the wide open-armed and welcoming circle the granola eaters think it is.

 

I believe DED once pointed out that both Google and Apple open-source items they know they can't make money on but steadfastly protect their software technologies that make them large amounts of money.

 

Without a sugardaddy of some sort, most FOSS projects end up jumbled messes, with geekdom assured that they know best and deluge users with trivialities and ungodly bad interface design(s).  It's very much a "we know what's best and if you can't keep up it's your fault" mentality.  A good example of this is Blender.  Horrible interface that's unduly overcomplicated and makes it WORTH buying a commercial modelling package.  You can argue the same to a large degree with Linux.  Most people don't want to bother rebuilding their kernel or forever tweaking or learning to script in ksh or whatever.  These are the two biggest reasons why "open" won't really go anywhere.  Quality software requires skill, and in our current economic model and reality, a person needs to pay the bills.  Working for free can't do that.

 

I see "open software" as a wash when it comes to benefits on a grande scale.

post #197 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

The music creation and production industry with companies like yamaha, Alesis, Mackie, and a bunch of others that are coming out with iOS apps for iPads and iPhones don't even support Android, the support iOS.  They don't even support Windows RT tablets and WIndows phones. 

In this case there are actual technical reasons for the lack of android and winRT adoption. As of right now, neither android nor winRT supports low-latency audio. 

post #198 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


This is neat, a guy installed an iPod in his 04' Porshe 996, http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/996/301123-ipad-mini-dash-install-996-mkii.html.

 

This illustrates my previous question about why one must close up a product (in the sense of restricting community modifications) to make it supportable. How exactly would this user's (clearly unauthorized) hack hinder Porsche's customer support? Here's another concrete example.

 

Red Hat develops and professionally supports its own enterprise linux distribution (RHEL). They know a thing or two about delivering a focused product and supporting their customers, and they seem to have done quite well, with clients like the New York Stock Exchange. As required by the GPL, Red Hat publishes every line of code that they write. Someone is perfectly at liberty to fork RHEL and sell their own spin, and Oracle has been doing that for years. Now, how do Oracle's activities have any bearing on Red Hat's ability to provide software updates to Red Hat's customers? 


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 7/8/13 at 7:13am
post #199 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


Yeah, both my husband and I drive BMW's and though the iDrive system has gotten better over the years it still sucks. Mercedes isn't any better with their system either. I would like to see a in dash iPad solution of some sort.

I was having a discussion about this a few days ago. Find some way of integrating things that won't or doesn't need to change (IE: Cabling and bluetooth can be done for the longer term.)

 

The basic problem is is that cars have lifespans of anything up to 20+ years. Computer devices such as tablets and phones have lifespans of 1/10th of that. They need to modularise car computing and entertainment systems so that they can be easily upgraded or replaced entirely as new technology comes out, rather than thinking that what they put in will still be good in a couple of decades time. (Seriously, imagine having to use something that still used Windows 3.11)

 

Having someone like BMW give you "the complete package" doesn't ensure that you're going to receive the best experience. It ensures that your experience will become increasingly outdated without a single thing you can do about it.


Edited by Robert Bray - 7/8/13 at 7:15am
post #200 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgwebb1469 View Post

Gazoobee is correct that this article does a poor job of framing it's argument. In generalities, I agree with some of the statements but it was tied together poorly. The explanation of why open is a failure is almost nonexistent. Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the Android v. iOS arguments across the web is the very idea that for one of the platforms to win then the other has to be losing. I think Android is winning in the areas they want to win while Apple is winning in the areas they want to win. 

 

WINNER! - both platforms attract different audiences - there is no perfect phone - just a phone that is PERFECT for the user.

 

These them vs us battles applies to cars, homes, tv's washer machines etc.

 

I love technology = both Apple and Android, although the jury is still out with Microsoft - but all these vendors are needed (for the nsa 1biggrin.gif) no but really they are needed to keep each other to create more useful products for us to throw our money at.

 

Now i saw earlier that someone said - Apple will only create for a profit - GOOD - that means that its something that i see a use for and will want to buy.

I also saw that Android is of no profit and basically sucks - again, false - if there is something of value and use of it - i will buy it from the vendor offering it.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Editorial: Apple, Google and the failure of Android's open