To put it simply, Dan is a bullshitter. And I use the scientific definition of a bullshitter.
Let me explain. Someone who's honest knows the truth and chooses the tell the truth. Someone who's a liar knows the truth and chooses to not tell the truth. A bullshitter neither knows the truth or cares about the truth. All the bullshitter cares about is making their point and impressing his or her peers. Dan is a classic example of a bullshitter.
He writes a lot of articles on subjects that I know nothing about. What he writes is very plausible and it's easy to take what he writes at face value. However, as soon as he writes about a subject that I'm an expert in, I begin to realise what a total bullshitter he is. The basic factual errors he makes is remarkable. He cherry-picks data and he twists facts until there is zero value in the conclusions he makes.
What I don't understand is why he bothers. Apple are big enough and clever enough to defend themselves. Apple's products speak for themselves. They don't need some superficial semi-person licking their collective bums.
Most of what he writes is correct. I do wish he'd do a bit more research though.
To put it simply, Dan is a bullshitter. And I use the scientific definition of a bullshitter.
Let me explain. Someone who's honest knows the truth and chooses the tell the truth. Someone who's a liar knows the truth and chooses to not tell the truth. A bullshitter neither knows the truth or cares about the truth. All the bullshitter cares about is making their point and impressing his or her peers. Dan is a classic example of a bullshitter.
He writes a lot of articles on subjects that I know nothing about. What he writes is very plausible and it's easy to take what he writes at face value. However, as soon as he writes about a subject that I'm an expert in, I begin to realise what a total bullshitter he is. The basic factual errors he makes is remarkable. He cherry-picks data and he twists facts until there is zero value in the conclusions he makes.
What I don't understand is why he bothers. Apple are big enough and clever enough to defend themselves. Apple's products speak for themselves. They don't need some superficial semi-person licking their collective bums.
Perhaps you would like to elaborate specifically on this article where the author has presented basic factual errors, where he has cherry-picked data and twisted facts.
Unless you are willing to support your contentions, I must take it that you are the bullshitter.
Most of what he writes is correct. I do wish he'd do a bit more research though.
But unless one is willing to point out specifically where he has erred and supported it with references, it is very difficult to accept anything that is said in these forums.
It is unfortunate that much of the space taken here is taken over by screaming idiots that continually criticize products they don't or never had, or subjects they know nothing about. Demanding that their take is factual, never referencing their points of view that can be verified.
I love it when somebody says, "I don't know where I read it, but it must be true?" and it turns out they read it in one of these forums where the original author didn't know either.
So, as an expert in this particular subject matter, perhaps you could point out exactly where the author erred and correct it so that those of us who come here to be informed are informed correctly.
Most of what he writes is correct. I do wish he'd do a bit more research though.
Yeas, as calling Huawei a little unknow chinese company.
Ah, in this article and just to begin:
"but there's also no requirement for software signing or other security restrictions in place to prevent users from being spied upon or attacked by malicious apps or hassled by adware"
False, apps must be signed with the developer certificate to be on Android App Market and Google takes care of malware or spyware apps removing them from the market.
But unless one is willing to point out specifically where he has erred and supported it with references, it is very difficult to accept anything that is said in these forums.
It is unfortunate that much of the space taken here is taken over by screaming idiots that continually criticize products they don't or never had, or subjects they know nothing about. Demanding that their take is factual, never referencing their points of view that can be verified.
I love it when somebody says, "I don't know where I read it, but it must be true?" and it turns out they read it in one of these forums where the original author didn't know either.
So, as an expert in this particular subject matter, perhaps you could point out exactly where the author erred and correct it so that those of us who come here to be informed are informed correctly.
Heh heh! Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to argue another 50 posts over that.
I just don't see much that's actually wrong. Though he does forget to, as one poster reminded us, actually write about what the title was about. We addressed that one already.
My main objection to his writing is that he often can't avoid getting a dig in here and there. Though this article was better than most. I groan when I read those, but then I move on. No big deal really, he's writing to a mostly Apple friendly audience after all, and many PC based mags of the same ilk as this one, have writers that do the same thing.
Yeas, as calling Huawei a little unknow chinese company.
Ah, in this article and just to begin:
"but there's also no requirement for software signing or other security restrictions in place to prevent users from being spied upon or attacked by malicious apps or hassled by adware"
False, apps must be signed with the developer certificate to be on Android App Market and Google takes care of malware or spyware apps removing them from the market.
Ok, you're right about that one. But, it's interesting that Unlike MS, Google allows a developer to sigh their own certificates. While better than nothing, it's still not great.
How do you plan to accommodate the differing hardware and OS features of Android?
As the OS becomes more differentiated, with different GUI's, different hardware, and little compatibility between them, what will you do?
The most difficult part is to adjust to different screen sizes and presence/lack of a real keyboard. The app has to scale to them, and sometimes use completely different layouts for different screen sizes. On-screen keyboard covers half of the screen (you cannot show anything there), but a real keyboard leaves all screen to your app.
Well, actually the most difficult part is "touch or not touch", but I chose to support only the touch interface.
The rest is not that important. Google does dictate that there must be 3 standard buttons. The app can check if some hardware features are present (like accelerometer or GPS or whatever). All hardware is abstracted from the developer, I don't care what specific chips are used for GPS or accelerometer or whatever else. The phone maker makes sure that they work with Android, but Android programmers do not have to change their code.
This is not different from developing for iPhone. iPods do not have microphones, no GPS - the app has to adjust for that. When Apple makes the tablet, or a smaller iPhone, apps will have to adjust to different screen sizes...
Android is a good software platform, very solid, very polished, very thought through - not worse than iPhone SDK. It will be a shame if Google screws it... I hope they don't. I think that from the technical point of view Android has very good chances. The rest is politics...
It would be great if phone manufactures made some sort of agreement regarding the Android branding, desktop software, themes, and all those things that are mentioned in this article. They all (or most of them) are in the same Open Handset Alliance. Hopefully they will understand that they need some rules, or hopefully Google pushes them to make some rules. Google invested tons of money into Android. They should watch what is going on and use their weight to create some rules for all parties.
Heh heh! Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to argue another 50 posts over that.
I just don't see much that's actually wrong. Though he does forget to, as one poster reminded us, actually write about what the title was about. We addressed that one already.
My main objection to his writing is that he often can't avoid getting a dig in here and there. Though this article was better than most. I groan when I read those, but then I move on. No big deal really, he's writing to a mostly Apple friendly audience after all, and many PC based mags of the same ilk as this one, have writers that do the same thing.
But wouldn't it benefit all of us if the errors were identified and supported, not anecdotally, but with specific references that could be verified. Otherwise, we end up having comments made that aren't true, and that can only lead to further errors.
What is very perplexing is the perception that everything that AppleInsider presents are full of errors. If so, perhaps we better go elsewhere. Certainly based on a core of malcontents here, anything written, even slightly positive in Apple's favor, is bull or full of lies. And anyone that speaks up in support, is quickly labelled as a fanboy. Continuing as such, and there will be no need to come here. And if anything, these forums do not appear to support your contention that the author is writing to a mostly Apple friendly audience; if he is, they are not here.
As for not writing relative to the title, most newsarticle headlines are created by the editor, not the writer. Perhaps this is so here as well.
Apple also maintains rigid control over where the iPhone is sold, and manages nearly all support issues itself. There's absolutely no passing the buck on user troubleshooting, hardware problems, or software issues like security flaws or poor performance. If there's a problem with the iPhone, it's squarely Apple's fault.
In 2006 when Palm Treo 700p came out, I got a run-around between Palm's "support" (Philippines) and VZ! It was pathetic "Monkey in the middle" torture! Word - 3rd Party Application, Un-Install became a substitute for: I don't know, try this...
Poor Tech Support folks in Philippines tried, but they were sent in to fight a losing battle! VZ Support was a bit too arrogant, and blamed Palm... VZ took over 1 Year to Update Firmware...
The 3rd party small developers did their best trying to help.
All that brought back the memories of Apple's Extension Manager, or Conflict Catcher, with its "Sets", in the game of "Catch Me If You Can".... Trying to hunt down the bad application, or extension etc.
"Throw away the (Finder) Preference... Rebuild the Desktop... Clean Install" -- all that was in lieu of F*ck You!
Things are much better under OSX....
It sounds like Android Customers will be tasting the same old pains...., with a few Geek-Cowboys running around, feeling Brave etc. , while the rest of the Android users are playing "Monkey in the middle"!
I don't know who the author of this article is, and thus I won't take sides, but... Even if 10% of his "allegations" vs. Android are true -- that still makes it a great article and a Warning to others not to waste time with Android!!!
From what I've see at the Cell Carrier Stores -- it's scary! My Vote is:
iPhone & Apple = no brainer! The Carriers just provides the PIPELINE!!!!
The Android thing sounds like a "zoo, jungle" = chaos!!!!
Most folks are too busy to play "Monkey in the middle" of Tech Support Finger pointing!!!!
The Rest I already said in this post:
VZ = No Voice and Internet @ the same time! No Roll-over min, Spotty Coverage!
The most difficult part is to adjust to different screen sizes and presence/lack of a real keyboard. Different screen sizes - the app has to scale to them, and sometimes use completely different layouts for different screen sizes. On-screen keyboard covers half of the screen (you cannot show anything there), but a real keyboard leaves all screen to your app.
Well. actually the most difficult part is "touch or not touch", but I chose to support only the touch interface.
The rest is not that important. Google does dictate that there must be 3 standard buttons. The app can check if some hardware features are present (like accelerometer or GPS whatever). All hardware is abstracted from the developer, I don't care what specific chips are used for GPS or accelerometer or whatever else. The phone maker makes sure that they work with Android, but Android programmers do not have to change their code.
This is not different from developing for iPhone. iPods do not have microphone, no GPS - the app has to adjust for that. When Apple makes the tablet, or a smaller iPhone, apps will have to adjust to different screen sizes...
Android is a good software platform, very solid, very polished, very thought through - not worse than iPhone SDK. It will be a shame if Google screws it... I hope they don't.
I think that from the technical point of view Android have very good chances. The rest is politics...
It would be great if phone manufactures made some sort of agreement regarding the Android branding, desktop software and all those things that are mentioned in this article. They all (or most of them) are in the same Open Handset Alliance. Hopefully they will understand thet they need some rules, or hopefully Google pushes them to make some rules. Google invested tons of money into Android. They should watch what is going on and use their weight to create some rules for all parties.
Very good.
But in't it important if only a third of new phones came out with a compass, and you app relied on that? How would that be dealt with?
In the app store the app info tells which OS version and hardware version is required for the app to work, or work properly.
How do you deal with that when there could be two dozen phones with differing versions of the OS, with differing GUI's, and differing hardware, all out at the same time?
Don't you think that it might be difficult for customers to figure this out with so many models?
How do you deal with a HTC phone that only allows multitouch for its own apps (there is one)?
It's easy to say that OS ver 3.0 is required, with a 3G or newer, but how do you give them all the info for every phone? Many customers won't even know what their phone has.
But wouldn't it benefit all of us if the errors were identified and supported, not anecdotally, but with specific references that could be verified. Otherwise, we end up having comments made that aren't true, and that can only lead to further errors.
What is very perplexing is the perception that everything that AppleInsider presents are full of errors. If so, perhaps we better go elsewhere. Certainly based on a core of malcontents here, anything written, even slightly positive in Apple's favor, is bull or full of lies. And anyone that speaks up in support, is quickly labelled as a fanboy. Continuing as such, and there will be no need to come here. And if anything, these forums do not appear to support your contention that the author is writing to a mostly Apple friendly audience; if he is, they are not here.
As for not writing relative to the title, most newsarticle headlines are created by the editor, not the writer. Perhaps this is so here as well.
I agree with what you're saying, but how do we do that? It's not our business to do so, and errors are present in every technical article I read, no matter where I read it.
The articles aren't full of errors, though there are some. We usually talk about them too.
It matters because Every phone sale impacts on every other phone sale.
Even if Google is looking to Win Mobile (often said to be a major thought to them) and RIM, as well as Yahoo and others, if Android phones sell well, it will impact on Apple's phone sales, even if Google isn't meaning to do so.
And the other way around, Apple's phone sales will prevent Android phones from selling as many as they would otherwise have.
You don't have to aim at a target to hit it here. Besides, Google is leaving it to the manufacturers and carriers to do the marketing. So what Google is aiming at really doesn't matter, because the phones still have to overcome other better established phones.
We can see this with Verizon's new Ads.
yes, Apple cares about losing hardware sales to any Android device. because its business model is making money from hardware sales. but no, Google gets the same revenue from an iPhone sale as it does from an Android phone sale - $zero from the sale plus future ad revenue from search. Google's strategic goal now is to freeze out Bing from smartphones and continue Yahoo's marginalization. so taking sales from Apple is not important to them. but taking sales from WinMo is pure gold.
Nokia is no threat to Google unless it tries to create its own search and cloud services - which it might someday. RIM never will.
Yeas, as calling Huawei a little unknow chinese company.
Ah, in this article and just to begin:
"but there's also no requirement for software signing or other security restrictions in place to prevent users from being spied upon or attacked by malicious apps or hassled by adware"
False, apps must be signed with the developer certificate to be on Android App Market and Google takes care of malware or spyware apps removing them from the market.
I've never heard of Huawei before. In the context of being one of the only Android supporters, that reference was accurate. The big players are not behind Android for the reasons Prince Dan laid out. And here's another example: the #2 phone maker in the world going its own way. So you appear to be wrong on that count.
As for Android signed software, it doesn't have to come from Marketplace. You can download it from anywhere, so you have the same spam/virus/spyware potential of Windows. Apple sewed up security rather tightly in the App Store, which is something Google isn't doing. I agree with Prince Dan that this is a mistake that is going to bite later.
It looks like you do not have factual problems with Prince Dan, but rather opinion differences. The problem is that your opinions (and those personal attacks lobbed by Calumis) are more likely to be wrong. Weren't you both shilling for the Zune? And for Pink? And telling us that Microsoft's cloud service reliability was far beyond Apple's capabilities? And that Vista was without problems? And so on ad nauseum?
Seems you guys are mostly wrong and that he's right. Maybe you should drop your defenses a bit and learn something. Or at least contribute to the conversation rather than listing bullet points of how you are offended by his opinions and bias, even though you are fully aware of his opinions and bias.
I'd rather see interesting discussion and comments and refuting information rather than personal attacks and wild accusations and attributed bad motives and so on.
Yeas, as calling Huawei a little unknow chinese company.
Ah, in this article and just to begin:
"but there's also no requirement for software signing or other security restrictions in place to prevent users from being spied upon or attacked by malicious apps or hassled by adware"
False, apps must be signed with the developer certificate to be on Android App Market and Google takes care of malware or spyware apps removing them from the market.
But! unlike the iPhone/iTunes, the Android App Market is not the only "legitimate" source for getting Android apps. they can be bought/downloaded from other sites or the software maker direct - that is Android's touted "openness". maybe they have been vetted properly, but maybe not. true, Prince did not make that distinction and he should have.
the problem really will arise with pirate apps - ripped off versions of popular paid apps with malware added that kids and idiots download from some file sharing site. the iPhone makes these hard to load, you pretty much need to jailbreak it. but Android won't stop you.
yes, Apple cares about losing hardware sales to any Android device. because its business model is making money from hardware sales. but no, Google gets the same revenue from an iPhone sale as it does from an Android phone sale - $zero from the sale plus future ad revenue from search. Google's strategic goal now is to freeze out Bing from smartphones and continue Yahoo's marginalization. so taking sales from Apple is not important to them. but taking sales from WinMo is pure gold.
Nokia is no threat to Google unless it tries to create its own search and cloud services - which it might someday. RIM never will.
But Google also gets people to use its software and services with Android phones, which isn't as true with an iPhone user. If Google got as much revenue from Ads to iPhone users as Android users, and nothing else mattered, then there would have been no reason for them to come out with an android phone at all. They see some financial advantage.
In order to get that advantage, they must get as many sales away from competing systems as possible, or it won't matter. The iPhone is important here because of its users vast data usage, far more than with any other mobile platform.
Why all the hostility here guys? The article had interesting points to make, so let's discuss them like adults.
For me there are a couple things that Apple really has going for it in the smart-phone world, and this article did a good job of pointing them out: Simplicity, integration, brand identity.
My mom can use an iPhone, I doubt she could use a Droid. I was talking to my friend the other day, and he mentioned that several people he knows can't even figure out how to use the iPhone (didn't know the ear-buds had a microphone in them, didn't know how to get movies onto the phone, etc)... My mom has still never figured out how to sync her iPhone with iTunes. Simplicity is critical for delivering a mass market product.
Integration is one of the ways that Apple achieves simplicity: You want your phone to just work, like a toaster. You don't want to do "system maintenance" on your phone. Its hard to achieve this sort of very reliable and consistent experience when the hardware and OS are from different vendors.
And, as the article pointed out, Apple has been very good about establishing brand and product identity since Jobs returned. The iPhone is iconic, no pun intended.
This all being said, I don't wish the Droids and the Palm Pres of the world to fail. They will find their market. There are 6 billion people on earth, and some of them own more than one cellphone. Competition is good, and being a geeky kinda guy, if the Droid's battery life was a bit better I might even consider switching to one, just for fun.
Moving forward, I would hope that Apple would at some point un-tether the iPhone from iTunes, and make it a more web-centric device as far as contacts, calendar events and the like are concerned. I shouldn't need to connect my phone to my Mac for these things, and I shouldn't have to pay $99 a year either. There should be an "open sync" spec for the iPhone that lets google, yahoo, microsoft and others host iPhone data in the cloud. This is the one area where the iPhone's competitors are looking attractive to me.
My mom can use an iPhone, I doubt she could use a Droid. I was talking to my friend the other day, and he mentioned that several people he knows can't even figure out how to use the iPhone (didn't know the ear-buds had a microphone in them, didn't know how to get movies onto the phone, etc)... My mom has still never figured out how to sync her iPhone with iTunes. Simplicity is critical for delivering a mass market product.
I laughed when I read that but it?s more common that not. What is sad is how natural and simple the iPhone really is. No 50 page booklet explaining how to use the features.
The Droid can?t even play videos out of the box. You have to get a 3rd-party app from the Android Marketplace. None are very good at this point.
But Google also gets people to use its software and services with Android phones, which isn't as true with an iPhone user. If Google got as much revenue from Ads to iPhone users as Android users, and nothing else mattered, then there would have been no reason for them to come out with an android phone at all. They see some financial advantage.
In order to get that advantage, they must get as many sales away from competing systems as possible, or it won't matter. The iPhone is important here because of its users vast data usage, far more than with any other mobile platform.
no no. you're not getting me. way down the thread my first point is Google sees mobile device search as the huge growth market of the future that it wants to dominate (and they are right about its growth potential). search on any OEM"s device, all OEM's devices. any phone, every phone, including Apple's. in the saturated desktop search market battle their main competition is MS, with Yahoo in distant third. but MS search on mobile devices other than WinMo is almost zero. if Google can land a knockout blow against WinMo by giving Android away for free while MS is stuck with only the obsolete 6.x OS to offer at $30 license fee, that would be huge for them. after that happens Google's total search market share of desktop + mobile would dwarf MS' combined total of desktop only (plus WinMo 7 someday maybe) even more than just the desktop stats do now. and in advertising it is how many ad views and what audience share you can deliver that in turn determines the rates you can charge multiplied by the number of hits. which totals your revenue! this is what it's all about.
Also bear in mind the other upcoming head-to-head battle between Google and MS for all kinds of cloud services. MS has been slow to get its act together, but certainly intends to try and match Google's comprehensiveness in the near future. but again, if WinMo is relegated to a tiny market share by Android et al. and MS has no significant presence on mobile devices it will fail in that ambition too. the provider you use for mobile cloud services will undoubtedly wind up being the one you use on your desktop too. no one is going to juggle two of them. (MS is incredibly stupid not to be porting its cloud services to iPhone apps).
despite the delay of Google Voice, Google will port nearly all its cloud services to the iPhone eventually for the same reasons. there is some competition with Apple's MobileMe here, but Apple focuses MM on its own hardware ecosystem which Google can't completely match (like Back to My Mac) because of course Apple makes its money selling hardware (why they charge so much for MM i can't fathom). now if Google launched its own media store to compete with iTunes, then there would be a real head-to-head showdown with Apple, because iTunes is the heart of the Mac ecosystem. but not until then.
Comments
Can I have a go, please?
To put it simply, Dan is a bullshitter. And I use the scientific definition of a bullshitter.
Let me explain. Someone who's honest knows the truth and chooses the tell the truth. Someone who's a liar knows the truth and chooses to not tell the truth. A bullshitter neither knows the truth or cares about the truth. All the bullshitter cares about is making their point and impressing his or her peers. Dan is a classic example of a bullshitter.
He writes a lot of articles on subjects that I know nothing about. What he writes is very plausible and it's easy to take what he writes at face value. However, as soon as he writes about a subject that I'm an expert in, I begin to realise what a total bullshitter he is. The basic factual errors he makes is remarkable. He cherry-picks data and he twists facts until there is zero value in the conclusions he makes.
What I don't understand is why he bothers. Apple are big enough and clever enough to defend themselves. Apple's products speak for themselves. They don't need some superficial semi-person licking their collective bums.
Most of what he writes is correct. I do wish he'd do a bit more research though.
Can I have a go, please?
To put it simply, Dan is a bullshitter. And I use the scientific definition of a bullshitter.
Let me explain. Someone who's honest knows the truth and chooses the tell the truth. Someone who's a liar knows the truth and chooses to not tell the truth. A bullshitter neither knows the truth or cares about the truth. All the bullshitter cares about is making their point and impressing his or her peers. Dan is a classic example of a bullshitter.
He writes a lot of articles on subjects that I know nothing about. What he writes is very plausible and it's easy to take what he writes at face value. However, as soon as he writes about a subject that I'm an expert in, I begin to realise what a total bullshitter he is. The basic factual errors he makes is remarkable. He cherry-picks data and he twists facts until there is zero value in the conclusions he makes.
What I don't understand is why he bothers. Apple are big enough and clever enough to defend themselves. Apple's products speak for themselves. They don't need some superficial semi-person licking their collective bums.
Perhaps you would like to elaborate specifically on this article where the author has presented basic factual errors, where he has cherry-picked data and twisted facts.
Unless you are willing to support your contentions, I must take it that you are the bullshitter.
Most of what he writes is correct. I do wish he'd do a bit more research though.
But unless one is willing to point out specifically where he has erred and supported it with references, it is very difficult to accept anything that is said in these forums.
It is unfortunate that much of the space taken here is taken over by screaming idiots that continually criticize products they don't or never had, or subjects they know nothing about. Demanding that their take is factual, never referencing their points of view that can be verified.
I love it when somebody says, "I don't know where I read it, but it must be true?" and it turns out they read it in one of these forums where the original author didn't know either.
So, as an expert in this particular subject matter, perhaps you could point out exactly where the author erred and correct it so that those of us who come here to be informed are informed correctly.
Most of what he writes is correct. I do wish he'd do a bit more research though.
Yeas, as calling Huawei a little unknow chinese company.
Ah, in this article and just to begin:
"but there's also no requirement for software signing or other security restrictions in place to prevent users from being spied upon or attacked by malicious apps or hassled by adware"
False, apps must be signed with the developer certificate to be on Android App Market and Google takes care of malware or spyware apps removing them from the market.
But unless one is willing to point out specifically where he has erred and supported it with references, it is very difficult to accept anything that is said in these forums.
It is unfortunate that much of the space taken here is taken over by screaming idiots that continually criticize products they don't or never had, or subjects they know nothing about. Demanding that their take is factual, never referencing their points of view that can be verified.
I love it when somebody says, "I don't know where I read it, but it must be true?" and it turns out they read it in one of these forums where the original author didn't know either.
So, as an expert in this particular subject matter, perhaps you could point out exactly where the author erred and correct it so that those of us who come here to be informed are informed correctly.
Heh heh! Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to argue another 50 posts over that.
I just don't see much that's actually wrong. Though he does forget to, as one poster reminded us, actually write about what the title was about. We addressed that one already.
My main objection to his writing is that he often can't avoid getting a dig in here and there. Though this article was better than most. I groan when I read those, but then I move on. No big deal really, he's writing to a mostly Apple friendly audience after all, and many PC based mags of the same ilk as this one, have writers that do the same thing.
and many PC based mags of the same ilk as this one, have writers that do the same thing.
And they are not better than he is
Yeas, as calling Huawei a little unknow chinese company.
Ah, in this article and just to begin:
"but there's also no requirement for software signing or other security restrictions in place to prevent users from being spied upon or attacked by malicious apps or hassled by adware"
False, apps must be signed with the developer certificate to be on Android App Market and Google takes care of malware or spyware apps removing them from the market.
Ok, you're right about that one. But, it's interesting that Unlike MS, Google allows a developer to sigh their own certificates. While better than nothing, it's still not great.
And they are not better than he is
No, they're not.
Since you're a developer. give us your view.
How do you plan to accommodate the differing hardware and OS features of Android?
As the OS becomes more differentiated, with different GUI's, different hardware, and little compatibility between them, what will you do?
The most difficult part is to adjust to different screen sizes and presence/lack of a real keyboard. The app has to scale to them, and sometimes use completely different layouts for different screen sizes. On-screen keyboard covers half of the screen (you cannot show anything there), but a real keyboard leaves all screen to your app.
Well, actually the most difficult part is "touch or not touch", but I chose to support only the touch interface.
The rest is not that important. Google does dictate that there must be 3 standard buttons. The app can check if some hardware features are present (like accelerometer or GPS or whatever). All hardware is abstracted from the developer, I don't care what specific chips are used for GPS or accelerometer or whatever else. The phone maker makes sure that they work with Android, but Android programmers do not have to change their code.
This is not different from developing for iPhone. iPods do not have microphones, no GPS - the app has to adjust for that. When Apple makes the tablet, or a smaller iPhone, apps will have to adjust to different screen sizes...
Android is a good software platform, very solid, very polished, very thought through - not worse than iPhone SDK. It will be a shame if Google screws it... I hope they don't. I think that from the technical point of view Android has very good chances. The rest is politics...
It would be great if phone manufactures made some sort of agreement regarding the Android branding, desktop software, themes, and all those things that are mentioned in this article. They all (or most of them) are in the same Open Handset Alliance. Hopefully they will understand that they need some rules, or hopefully Google pushes them to make some rules. Google invested tons of money into Android. They should watch what is going on and use their weight to create some rules for all parties.
Heh heh! Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to argue another 50 posts over that.
I just don't see much that's actually wrong. Though he does forget to, as one poster reminded us, actually write about what the title was about. We addressed that one already.
My main objection to his writing is that he often can't avoid getting a dig in here and there. Though this article was better than most. I groan when I read those, but then I move on. No big deal really, he's writing to a mostly Apple friendly audience after all, and many PC based mags of the same ilk as this one, have writers that do the same thing.
But wouldn't it benefit all of us if the errors were identified and supported, not anecdotally, but with specific references that could be verified. Otherwise, we end up having comments made that aren't true, and that can only lead to further errors.
What is very perplexing is the perception that everything that AppleInsider presents are full of errors. If so, perhaps we better go elsewhere. Certainly based on a core of malcontents here, anything written, even slightly positive in Apple's favor, is bull or full of lies. And anyone that speaks up in support, is quickly labelled as a fanboy. Continuing as such, and there will be no need to come here. And if anything, these forums do not appear to support your contention that the author is writing to a mostly Apple friendly audience; if he is, they are not here.
As for not writing relative to the title, most newsarticle headlines are created by the editor, not the writer. Perhaps this is so here as well.
Apple also maintains rigid control over where the iPhone is sold, and manages nearly all support issues itself. There's absolutely no passing the buck on user troubleshooting, hardware problems, or software issues like security flaws or poor performance. If there's a problem with the iPhone, it's squarely Apple's fault.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
It's the SUPPORT!!!!!
In 2006 when Palm Treo 700p came out, I got a run-around between Palm's "support" (Philippines) and VZ! It was pathetic "Monkey in the middle" torture! Word - 3rd Party Application, Un-Install became a substitute for: I don't know, try this...
Poor Tech Support folks in Philippines tried, but they were sent in to fight a losing battle! VZ Support was a bit too arrogant, and blamed Palm... VZ took over 1 Year to Update Firmware...
The 3rd party small developers did their best trying to help.
All that brought back the memories of Apple's Extension Manager, or Conflict Catcher, with its "Sets", in the game of "Catch Me If You Can".... Trying to hunt down the bad application, or extension etc.
"Throw away the (Finder) Preference... Rebuild the Desktop... Clean Install" -- all that was in lieu of F*ck You!
Things are much better under OSX....
It sounds like Android Customers will be tasting the same old pains...., with a few Geek-Cowboys running around, feeling Brave etc. , while the rest of the Android users are playing "Monkey in the middle"!
I don't know who the author of this article is, and thus I won't take sides, but... Even if 10% of his "allegations" vs. Android are true -- that still makes it a great article and a Warning to others not to waste time with Android!!!
From what I've see at the Cell Carrier Stores -- it's scary! My Vote is:
iPhone & Apple = no brainer! The Carriers just provides the PIPELINE!!!!
The Android thing sounds like a "zoo, jungle" = chaos!!!!
Most folks are too busy to play "Monkey in the middle" of Tech Support Finger pointing!!!!
The Rest I already said in this post:
VZ = No Voice and Internet @ the same time! No Roll-over min, Spotty Coverage!
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...6&postcount=51
On this Thread:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...36#post1517336
Great Forum, as usual, and less personal attacks would make it even better! Thanks everyone!
The most difficult part is to adjust to different screen sizes and presence/lack of a real keyboard. Different screen sizes - the app has to scale to them, and sometimes use completely different layouts for different screen sizes. On-screen keyboard covers half of the screen (you cannot show anything there), but a real keyboard leaves all screen to your app.
Well. actually the most difficult part is "touch or not touch", but I chose to support only the touch interface.
The rest is not that important. Google does dictate that there must be 3 standard buttons. The app can check if some hardware features are present (like accelerometer or GPS whatever). All hardware is abstracted from the developer, I don't care what specific chips are used for GPS or accelerometer or whatever else. The phone maker makes sure that they work with Android, but Android programmers do not have to change their code.
This is not different from developing for iPhone. iPods do not have microphone, no GPS - the app has to adjust for that. When Apple makes the tablet, or a smaller iPhone, apps will have to adjust to different screen sizes...
Android is a good software platform, very solid, very polished, very thought through - not worse than iPhone SDK. It will be a shame if Google screws it... I hope they don't.
I think that from the technical point of view Android have very good chances. The rest is politics...
It would be great if phone manufactures made some sort of agreement regarding the Android branding, desktop software and all those things that are mentioned in this article. They all (or most of them) are in the same Open Handset Alliance. Hopefully they will understand thet they need some rules, or hopefully Google pushes them to make some rules. Google invested tons of money into Android. They should watch what is going on and use their weight to create some rules for all parties.
Very good.
But in't it important if only a third of new phones came out with a compass, and you app relied on that? How would that be dealt with?
In the app store the app info tells which OS version and hardware version is required for the app to work, or work properly.
How do you deal with that when there could be two dozen phones with differing versions of the OS, with differing GUI's, and differing hardware, all out at the same time?
Don't you think that it might be difficult for customers to figure this out with so many models?
How do you deal with a HTC phone that only allows multitouch for its own apps (there is one)?
It's easy to say that OS ver 3.0 is required, with a 3G or newer, but how do you give them all the info for every phone? Many customers won't even know what their phone has.
But wouldn't it benefit all of us if the errors were identified and supported, not anecdotally, but with specific references that could be verified. Otherwise, we end up having comments made that aren't true, and that can only lead to further errors.
What is very perplexing is the perception that everything that AppleInsider presents are full of errors. If so, perhaps we better go elsewhere. Certainly based on a core of malcontents here, anything written, even slightly positive in Apple's favor, is bull or full of lies. And anyone that speaks up in support, is quickly labelled as a fanboy. Continuing as such, and there will be no need to come here. And if anything, these forums do not appear to support your contention that the author is writing to a mostly Apple friendly audience; if he is, they are not here.
As for not writing relative to the title, most newsarticle headlines are created by the editor, not the writer. Perhaps this is so here as well.
I agree with what you're saying, but how do we do that? It's not our business to do so, and errors are present in every technical article I read, no matter where I read it.
The articles aren't full of errors, though there are some. We usually talk about them too.
It matters because Every phone sale impacts on every other phone sale.
Even if Google is looking to Win Mobile (often said to be a major thought to them) and RIM, as well as Yahoo and others, if Android phones sell well, it will impact on Apple's phone sales, even if Google isn't meaning to do so.
And the other way around, Apple's phone sales will prevent Android phones from selling as many as they would otherwise have.
You don't have to aim at a target to hit it here. Besides, Google is leaving it to the manufacturers and carriers to do the marketing. So what Google is aiming at really doesn't matter, because the phones still have to overcome other better established phones.
We can see this with Verizon's new Ads.
yes, Apple cares about losing hardware sales to any Android device. because its business model is making money from hardware sales. but no, Google gets the same revenue from an iPhone sale as it does from an Android phone sale - $zero from the sale plus future ad revenue from search. Google's strategic goal now is to freeze out Bing from smartphones and continue Yahoo's marginalization. so taking sales from Apple is not important to them. but taking sales from WinMo is pure gold.
Nokia is no threat to Google unless it tries to create its own search and cloud services - which it might someday. RIM never will.
Yeas, as calling Huawei a little unknow chinese company.
Ah, in this article and just to begin:
"but there's also no requirement for software signing or other security restrictions in place to prevent users from being spied upon or attacked by malicious apps or hassled by adware"
False, apps must be signed with the developer certificate to be on Android App Market and Google takes care of malware or spyware apps removing them from the market.
I've never heard of Huawei before. In the context of being one of the only Android supporters, that reference was accurate. The big players are not behind Android for the reasons Prince Dan laid out. And here's another example: the #2 phone maker in the world going its own way. So you appear to be wrong on that count.
As for Android signed software, it doesn't have to come from Marketplace. You can download it from anywhere, so you have the same spam/virus/spyware potential of Windows. Apple sewed up security rather tightly in the App Store, which is something Google isn't doing. I agree with Prince Dan that this is a mistake that is going to bite later.
It looks like you do not have factual problems with Prince Dan, but rather opinion differences. The problem is that your opinions (and those personal attacks lobbed by Calumis) are more likely to be wrong. Weren't you both shilling for the Zune? And for Pink? And telling us that Microsoft's cloud service reliability was far beyond Apple's capabilities? And that Vista was without problems? And so on ad nauseum?
Seems you guys are mostly wrong and that he's right. Maybe you should drop your defenses a bit and learn something. Or at least contribute to the conversation rather than listing bullet points of how you are offended by his opinions and bias, even though you are fully aware of his opinions and bias.
I'd rather see interesting discussion and comments and refuting information rather than personal attacks and wild accusations and attributed bad motives and so on.
Yeas, as calling Huawei a little unknow chinese company.
Ah, in this article and just to begin:
"but there's also no requirement for software signing or other security restrictions in place to prevent users from being spied upon or attacked by malicious apps or hassled by adware"
False, apps must be signed with the developer certificate to be on Android App Market and Google takes care of malware or spyware apps removing them from the market.
But! unlike the iPhone/iTunes, the Android App Market is not the only "legitimate" source for getting Android apps. they can be bought/downloaded from other sites or the software maker direct - that is Android's touted "openness". maybe they have been vetted properly, but maybe not. true, Prince did not make that distinction and he should have.
the problem really will arise with pirate apps - ripped off versions of popular paid apps with malware added that kids and idiots download from some file sharing site. the iPhone makes these hard to load, you pretty much need to jailbreak it. but Android won't stop you.
yes, Apple cares about losing hardware sales to any Android device. because its business model is making money from hardware sales. but no, Google gets the same revenue from an iPhone sale as it does from an Android phone sale - $zero from the sale plus future ad revenue from search. Google's strategic goal now is to freeze out Bing from smartphones and continue Yahoo's marginalization. so taking sales from Apple is not important to them. but taking sales from WinMo is pure gold.
Nokia is no threat to Google unless it tries to create its own search and cloud services - which it might someday. RIM never will.
But Google also gets people to use its software and services with Android phones, which isn't as true with an iPhone user. If Google got as much revenue from Ads to iPhone users as Android users, and nothing else mattered, then there would have been no reason for them to come out with an android phone at all. They see some financial advantage.
In order to get that advantage, they must get as many sales away from competing systems as possible, or it won't matter. The iPhone is important here because of its users vast data usage, far more than with any other mobile platform.
For me there are a couple things that Apple really has going for it in the smart-phone world, and this article did a good job of pointing them out: Simplicity, integration, brand identity.
My mom can use an iPhone, I doubt she could use a Droid. I was talking to my friend the other day, and he mentioned that several people he knows can't even figure out how to use the iPhone (didn't know the ear-buds had a microphone in them, didn't know how to get movies onto the phone, etc)... My mom has still never figured out how to sync her iPhone with iTunes. Simplicity is critical for delivering a mass market product.
Integration is one of the ways that Apple achieves simplicity: You want your phone to just work, like a toaster. You don't want to do "system maintenance" on your phone. Its hard to achieve this sort of very reliable and consistent experience when the hardware and OS are from different vendors.
And, as the article pointed out, Apple has been very good about establishing brand and product identity since Jobs returned. The iPhone is iconic, no pun intended.
This all being said, I don't wish the Droids and the Palm Pres of the world to fail. They will find their market. There are 6 billion people on earth, and some of them own more than one cellphone. Competition is good, and being a geeky kinda guy, if the Droid's battery life was a bit better I might even consider switching to one, just for fun.
Moving forward, I would hope that Apple would at some point un-tether the iPhone from iTunes, and make it a more web-centric device as far as contacts, calendar events and the like are concerned. I shouldn't need to connect my phone to my Mac for these things, and I shouldn't have to pay $99 a year either. There should be an "open sync" spec for the iPhone that lets google, yahoo, microsoft and others host iPhone data in the cloud. This is the one area where the iPhone's competitors are looking attractive to me.
My mom can use an iPhone, I doubt she could use a Droid. I was talking to my friend the other day, and he mentioned that several people he knows can't even figure out how to use the iPhone (didn't know the ear-buds had a microphone in them, didn't know how to get movies onto the phone, etc)... My mom has still never figured out how to sync her iPhone with iTunes. Simplicity is critical for delivering a mass market product.
I laughed when I read that but it?s more common that not. What is sad is how natural and simple the iPhone really is. No 50 page booklet explaining how to use the features.
The Droid can?t even play videos out of the box. You have to get a 3rd-party app from the Android Marketplace. None are very good at this point.
But Google also gets people to use its software and services with Android phones, which isn't as true with an iPhone user. If Google got as much revenue from Ads to iPhone users as Android users, and nothing else mattered, then there would have been no reason for them to come out with an android phone at all. They see some financial advantage.
In order to get that advantage, they must get as many sales away from competing systems as possible, or it won't matter. The iPhone is important here because of its users vast data usage, far more than with any other mobile platform.
no no. you're not getting me. way down the thread my first point is Google sees mobile device search as the huge growth market of the future that it wants to dominate (and they are right about its growth potential). search on any OEM"s device, all OEM's devices. any phone, every phone, including Apple's. in the saturated desktop search market battle their main competition is MS, with Yahoo in distant third. but MS search on mobile devices other than WinMo is almost zero. if Google can land a knockout blow against WinMo by giving Android away for free while MS is stuck with only the obsolete 6.x OS to offer at $30 license fee, that would be huge for them. after that happens Google's total search market share of desktop + mobile would dwarf MS' combined total of desktop only (plus WinMo 7 someday maybe) even more than just the desktop stats do now. and in advertising it is how many ad views and what audience share you can deliver that in turn determines the rates you can charge multiplied by the number of hits. which totals your revenue! this is what it's all about.
Also bear in mind the other upcoming head-to-head battle between Google and MS for all kinds of cloud services. MS has been slow to get its act together, but certainly intends to try and match Google's comprehensiveness in the near future. but again, if WinMo is relegated to a tiny market share by Android et al. and MS has no significant presence on mobile devices it will fail in that ambition too. the provider you use for mobile cloud services will undoubtedly wind up being the one you use on your desktop too. no one is going to juggle two of them. (MS is incredibly stupid not to be porting its cloud services to iPhone apps).
despite the delay of Google Voice, Google will port nearly all its cloud services to the iPhone eventually for the same reasons. there is some competition with Apple's MobileMe here, but Apple focuses MM on its own hardware ecosystem which Google can't completely match (like Back to My Mac) because of course Apple makes its money selling hardware (why they charge so much for MM i can't fathom). now if Google launched its own media store to compete with iTunes, then there would be a real head-to-head showdown with Apple, because iTunes is the heart of the Mac ecosystem. but not until then.