I have a lot more 'faith' in the open source community than I do in either Apple, MS, RIM, or Symbian.
I have a lot more 'faith' in open standards than closed, proprietary, patented bullshit.
I use free software (see above for list, minus Maya) every day; so do most people I know. Anybody who doesn't is missing out on one of the biggest gems of the internet. Apple uses free software too: Webkit from the KDE project, Apache, BSD Unix, etc etc. So actually you are using Open Source software whether you realize it or not.
If I was going to buy a smartphone (I'm not), it would likely be an Android device.
Apple doesn't "use" free software, they make major contributions to open source initiatives and return it to the community. They didn't just "get" Webkit from KDE, they poured enormous resources into developing Webkit, to the betterment of the internet at large.
And your "open" Android phone is simply the vehicle for a relentless ad company to collect as much data as humanly possible on every aspect of their users lives to sell to advertisers the better to, as Schmidt proudly puts it "read your minds." Why doesn't Google open source their search algorithms, page ranking systems or ad metrics? There's not a single thing that Google actually makes money at that they allow anyone to get anywhere near.
You Fandroids are disgusting. Every bit as blinkered as the most starry eyed Apple lover, but with this nauseating, ignorant veneer of fake morality around fake "openess" so brazenly contrived a two year old could see through it. Go peddle your creepy, ad driven, privacy free utopia somewhere else. You can proudly declare your "freedom" while being bought and sold every every second of the day.
And your "open" Android phone is simply the vehicle for a relentless ad company to collect as much data as humanly possible on every aspect of their users lives to sell to advertisers the better to, as Schmidt proudly puts it "read your minds."
Go peddle your creepy, ad driven, privacy free utopia somewhere else. You can proudly declare your "freedom" while being bought and sold every every second of the day.
Their privacy policies could certainly be a cause for concern:
The majority is no different from Apple but some things sound like they go too far:
"Most of the other information we collect for mobile, such as your device and hardware IDs and device type, the request type, your carrier, your carrier user ID, the content of your request, and basic usage stats about your device"
As you say, Google makes their money from advertising and advertisers love usage information. It's not necessarily a breach of personal privacy and Apple's marketing groups need this information too but it would give them an advantage over the competition. Carriers can also add their own tracking code to an open OS.
Jobs gave an insight into their own stance on privacy:
"Well we learned this really interesting thing. Some company called Flurry had data on devices that we were using on our campus ? new devices. They were getting this info by getting developers to put software in their apps that sent info back to this company! So we went through the roof. It?s violating our privacy policies, and it?s pissing us off! So we said we?re only going to allow analytics that don?t give our device info ? only for the purpose of advertising."
So they are ok with analytics data for the purpose of advertising, which is what Google do. Obviously because Apple prefer to keep device IDs secret and Google have a huge host of devices, Google would rather have the device IDs. In that respect your personal identifiers are more protected with Apple but Apple have the credit card details, address, name, phone number and more of 160 million users and this is tied to media/app purchases and usage, which is how they rank the iTunes Store. Google will do the same for the Android market.
I don't think you can condemn either company when they behave much the same but with respect to their differing core businesses.
Which of the following would you prefer to see happen?
1. Windows 7 Mobile gets proliferated across a vast array of consumer devices with Windows media support, Zune store access, XBox 360/WinMo exclusive games
2. Nokia handles the bulk of consumer phones with an irrelevant OS
3. Google puts an open unix system out and pushes people into both iOS and Android development as well as supporting widely accepted web standards and implementations such as webkit
4. RIM start going after the consumer market by lowering prices
I think given that Apple will not lower prices into a certain consumer price bracket, not condemning Google is the best way forward. Obviously supporting them at Apple's expense is no good if you think Apple deserve to succeed but I don't see any reason in trying to vilify them in an attempt to see someone far worse step in and take their place.
When someone asks you for a phone recommendation and they can't afford an iPhone, what will you answer be? Mine is to buy an Android phone. If they can afford an iPhone, I recommend an iPhone over Android phones in that price bracket. Until the day comes when Apple sell iPod Touches with external phone parts, that's the closest you can get to supporting Apple IMO.
I don't think you can condemn either company when they behave much the same but with respect to their differing core businesses.
the difference?
Apple doesn't go around telling people they're doing god's work or they're the symbol of freedom and all that BS while they're censoring search results in 28 other countries for YEARS!
Apple doesn't go around telling people they're doing god's work or they're the symbol of freedom and all that BS while they're censoring search results in 28 other countries for YEARS!
To paint an accurate picture, you need to detail what they were censoring.
In the case of China, it's interesting that you ridicule Google when they lose marketshare to their censored competitor for fighting against censorship and then criticise them when they give in to censorship.
Censorship is a way of life. If you want to look at illegal material online, you can't because it is censored. If you want to download hardcore pornography from the itunes store, you can't because it's censored.
If censorship is universally bad regardless of the content it's applied to then everyone is evil.
Content providers pick and choose what you can access and Google is a content provider. If you want to blame someone, blame the people who force Google to censor content. If you want ultimate freedom, take your case all the way to the top. Until then, you are free to do what they tell you:
The majority is no different from Apple but some things sound like they go too far:
"Most of the other information we collect for mobile, such as your device and hardware IDs and device type, the request type, your carrier, your carrier user ID, the content of your request, and basic usage stats about your device"
As you say, Google makes their money from advertising and advertisers love usage information. It's not necessarily a breach of personal privacy and Apple's marketing groups need this information too but it would give them an advantage over the competition. Carriers can also add their own tracking code to an open OS.
Jobs gave an insight into their own stance on privacy:
"Well we learned this really interesting thing. Some company called Flurry had data on devices that we were using on our campus — new devices. They were getting this info by getting developers to put software in their apps that sent info back to this company! So we went through the roof. It’s violating our privacy policies, and it’s pissing us off! So we said we’re only going to allow analytics that don’t give our device info — only for the purpose of advertising."
So they are ok with analytics data for the purpose of advertising, which is what Google do. Obviously because Apple prefer to keep device IDs secret and Google have a huge host of devices, Google would rather have the device IDs. In that respect your personal identifiers are more protected with Apple but Apple have the credit card details, address, name, phone number and more of 160 million users and this is tied to media/app purchases and usage, which is how they rank the iTunes Store. Google will do the same for the Android market.
I don't think you can condemn either company when they behave much the same but with respect to their differing core businesses.
Which of the following would you prefer to see happen?
1. Windows 7 Mobile gets proliferated across a vast array of consumer devices with Windows media support, Zune store access, XBox 360/WinMo exclusive games
2. Nokia handles the bulk of consumer phones with an irrelevant OS
3. Google puts an open unix system out and pushes people into both iOS and Android development as well as supporting widely accepted web standards and implementations such as webkit
4. RIM start going after the consumer market by lowering prices
I think given that Apple will not lower prices into a certain consumer price bracket, not condemning Google is the best way forward. Obviously supporting them at Apple's expense is no good if you think Apple deserve to succeed but I don't see any reason in trying to vilify them in an attempt to see someone far worse step in and take their place.
When someone asks you for a phone recommendation and they can't afford an iPhone, what will you answer be? Mine is to buy an Android phone. If they can afford an iPhone, I recommend an iPhone over Android phones in that price bracket. Until the day comes when Apple sell iPod Touches with external phone parts, that's the closest you can get to supporting Apple IMO.
Two points:
Whatever superficial similarities there may be between Google and Apple in terms of some ad analytics, the fact remains that Google's actual business is selling data about users. Everything they do is designed to collect more, and more specific data about users. There simply isn't anything else they do.
Apple's actual business is selling hardware and software to users. As a matter of controlling their mobile platform they have made forays into ad sales, but that's incidental to what they're about.
We can always expect Google to be figuring out new ways to get people to use software and devices that reveal more about where, what and who they are, what they buy, what they're interested in, who they know, how often they go and do and visit, by what route, while considering which item, etc. Whatever vague assurances they may occasionally offer up (and Schmidt doesn't really even try), that's what they're for. They'll always be extending their capacity for that kind of analysis, because that's how they develop their art. To the extend that that means that they make more desirable products, it's incidental to what they're actually for.
We can always expect Apple to try and make ever more desirable hardware and software integrated experiences, so you'll want them and buy them and they can make their money.
There just isn't any comparison, and the difference is so intrinsic to how the two companies operate there never will be. What's unnerving about Google is the relentlessness, or rather the direction of the relentlessness. When we think of Apple or Jobs as being obsessed about refining the user experience or battery life or weight or responsiveness of their products, at worst we might disagree with the chosen tradeoffs while admitting that sweating the details of a product makes for a nicer product, even if it's one we elect not to use. When we think of Google obsessed about how to connect more people with more software and devices that do a better job of tracking their every move, thought and decision, it isn't anything but creepy. The only way it doesn't put you off is if, like Schmidt, you think privacy and not being entirely defined as a marketing opportunity are 20th century affectations that everybody ought to get over. Sorry, I don't, and it alarms me that so many people seem to be willing to trade access to their souls for "free" stuff. I think it's really impossible to overstate Google's reach, and I think it's incredibly dangerous.
Secondly, on the "what to recommend it someone can't afford an iPhone", I would simply point out that the purchase price (which if it's a matter of cost over any other consideration would be $99 vs. free on contract) is a drop in the bucket compared to the plan costs over the life of the contract. Anyone comparison shopping handsets on the initial buy-in just isn't paying attention, and my considered advice would be to do the math and get the phone you want.
To paint an accurate picture, you need to detail what they were censoring.
In the case of China, it's interesting that you ridicule Google when they lose marketshare to their censored competitor for fighting against censorship and then criticise them when they give in to censorship.
Censorship is a way of life. If you want to look at illegal material online, you can't because it is censored. If you want to download hardcore pornography from the itunes store, you can't because it's censored.
If censorship is universally bad regardless of the content it's applied to then everyone is evil.
Content providers pick and choose what you can access and Google is a content provider. If you want to blame someone, blame the people who force Google to censor content. If you want ultimate freedom, take your case all the way to the top. Until then, you are free to do what they tell you:
The only way it doesn't put you off is if, like Schmidt, you think privacy and not being entirely defined as a marketing opportunity are 20th century affectations that everybody ought to get over. Sorry, I don't, and it alarms me that so many people seem to be willing to trade access to their souls for "free" stuff. I think it's really impossible to overstate Google's reach, and I think it's incredibly dangerous.
How do you think you as an individual (or someone who buys into the Android market) will suffer as a result of Google's actions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Secondly, on the "what to recommend it someone can't afford an iPhone", I would simply point out that the purchase price is a drop in the bucket compared to the plan costs over the life of the contract.
No matter how you pay for the phone, the cost of the device is absorbed into your service charges and that cost is £500 ($500 without tax) for the 16GB iPhone 4. Over 18 months, you may not notice £25 but you would if the phone is lost, stolen or damaged or you want to end your contract early. You can get other smartphones for 1/5 of the price.
The sentence "I am not looking forward to doing Android development" suggests he's one of the many non-Android developers fearful of how bad the situation is but is only going by how it's portrayed.
The fact that apps even work across vastly different screen sizes is an improvement over iOS, which just pixel-doubles iPhone apps on the iPad and blocks iPad apps from the iPhone. There are just 10,000 iPad apps and although it runs iPhone apps, like I say they are pixel-doubled.
If you buy an Android app, at least it's designed to buy once and work on anything. Even if it doesn't work right every time, at least they let you do it.
Apps don't work over vastly different screen sizes unless you actually provide the graphics to do so. Currently there are low, med and high density specs and small, med and large screen sizes but some devices exceed the high density (retina grade) and/or large screen (tablets) spec.
In a WTF moment the defaults for sizes and density changed from 1.5 to 1.6. Fortunately 1.5 and earlier is getting rarer.
It does scale for you but no better than iOS might scale for you. Note that if you have a 1 wide pixel object in your layout (a divider, line, arrow, whatever) it might not render in some scaling instances. The width can get set to 0. They also provide 9-patches which is an interesting approach for rez independent bitmaps vs svg-like approaches. It's an elegant hack but vector images is probably the "right" answer.
The layout management is also manual. Whatever intelligent multi-rez layout support you want to do will have to be done manually by you as a dev. It will reform the layout somewhat like it does for rotation. You have to be careful to use relative layouts and dips rather than pixels. The problem is that sometimes it's just freaking easier to use pixels to get the right spacing you want.
An amusing tidbit is that when you rotate the screen Android destroys the screen and rebuilds it so you have make sure you're saving enough state info to rebuild the screen correctly. Yah, thats in the early tutorials but just a bizzaro kind of thing for the app dev to deal with that you'd have thought would be handled for you. Android is a lot like that everywhere IMHO.
The idea that you can buy an android app and expect it to work on anything is amusing. Only if the developer followed every best practice and provided every graphic asset maybe. Even then, the current spec for large screen size is 480x854 with the highest density of 240 dpi. Gee, that seems a bit...conservative eh?
This is one reason why Google has said that Froyo is not tablet ready and why the app market is unavailable to android tablet makers. Good luck with running current apps at 1024x768 on Froyo. My guess is many will look like ass. Far worse than pixel doubled iPhone apps on the iPad.
As far as fragmentation goes, I can deal with 1.6 and before vs 2.1/2.2. It's the changes with Sense and Blur that is annoying. For example the softkeys on Sense don't respond to all the API calls. I guess that could happen with any softkey replacement but the as shipped keyboard should freaking act like the reference implementation.
I can't tell you anything about the Android Market annoyances, my app is an enterprise app, but everything else has felt like a giant hackfest and unfinished. I can't imagine the market experience much smoother.
I'm pretty close to dumping Android and becoming the WinPhone 7 dev or joining the iOS team. The only platform I would less want to work on is Blackberry. Fortunately we have a couple of Flash devs. And I say that as a Java dev. Android is the natural fit.
As we've been working on mobile for 10 years on Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, iOS, and now Android I can tell you that there are interesting aspects of Android dev. Yes, many things I'm just shocked about (rotation being one - didn't iOS set the bar for a smooth rotation 3 years ago???) and some even more shocked (Android Marketplace seemingly written by an intern).
That said, we've had 10,000 downloads of our app in the last week which is on par with our iOS versions when they were first introduced. Development wise I far prefer everything about iOS, marketing wise I far prefer everything about iOS, and store wise I far prefer everything about iOS. My beef with Android is just how sloppy everything is. It doesn't feel like a real company put it out and I get the same fragmentation issues I had with WM a couple years ago (mostly due to crappy HTC programming - gosh I hate their developers having dealt with them personally for 4-5 years now).
As we've been working on mobile for 10 years on Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, iOS, and now Android I can tell you that there are interesting aspects of Android dev. Yes, many things I'm just shocked about (rotation being one - didn't iOS set the bar for a smooth rotation 3 years ago???) and some even more shocked (Android Marketplace seemingly written by an intern).
That said, we've had 10,000 downloads of our app in the last week which is on par with our iOS versions when they were first introduced. Development wise I far prefer everything about iOS, marketing wise I far prefer everything about iOS, and store wise I far prefer everything about iOS. My beef with Android is just how sloppy everything is. It doesn't feel like a real company put it out and I get the same fragmentation issues I had with WM a couple years ago (mostly due to crappy HTC programming - gosh I hate their developers having dealt with them personally for 4-5 years now).
I have far more confidence that MS will get it better with WinPhone7 than Google did with Android. This is even after I've been abandoned by MS before (Managed DirectX got nuked in favor of XNA).
I forget who wrote this but someone summed it up as iOS makes the stuff we do as devs the most often as easy as possible whereas everything in Android is of equal annoyance/difficulty.
The other comment regarding Android that I enjoy is that Android RelativeLayout is the unholy spawn of XML and GridBagLayout from java.
I now understand why Sense sucks so much based on your comment.
do you know what the ironic thing about this is? android isn't going to make google any money in the long run either. no developers are going to make money out of it.
Comments
I have a lot more 'faith' in the open source community than I do in either Apple, MS, RIM, or Symbian.
I have a lot more 'faith' in open standards than closed, proprietary, patented bullshit.
I use free software (see above for list, minus Maya) every day; so do most people I know. Anybody who doesn't is missing out on one of the biggest gems of the internet. Apple uses free software too: Webkit from the KDE project, Apache, BSD Unix, etc etc. So actually you are using Open Source software whether you realize it or not.
If I was going to buy a smartphone (I'm not), it would likely be an Android device.
Apple doesn't "use" free software, they make major contributions to open source initiatives and return it to the community. They didn't just "get" Webkit from KDE, they poured enormous resources into developing Webkit, to the betterment of the internet at large.
And your "open" Android phone is simply the vehicle for a relentless ad company to collect as much data as humanly possible on every aspect of their users lives to sell to advertisers the better to, as Schmidt proudly puts it "read your minds." Why doesn't Google open source their search algorithms, page ranking systems or ad metrics? There's not a single thing that Google actually makes money at that they allow anyone to get anywhere near.
You Fandroids are disgusting. Every bit as blinkered as the most starry eyed Apple lover, but with this nauseating, ignorant veneer of fake morality around fake "openess" so brazenly contrived a two year old could see through it. Go peddle your creepy, ad driven, privacy free utopia somewhere else. You can proudly declare your "freedom" while being bought and sold every every second of the day.
And your "open" Android phone is simply the vehicle for a relentless ad company to collect as much data as humanly possible on every aspect of their users lives to sell to advertisers the better to, as Schmidt proudly puts it "read your minds."
Go peddle your creepy, ad driven, privacy free utopia somewhere else. You can proudly declare your "freedom" while being bought and sold every every second of the day.
Their privacy policies could certainly be a cause for concern:
http://www.google.com/mobile/privacy.html
The majority is no different from Apple but some things sound like they go too far:
"Most of the other information we collect for mobile, such as your device and hardware IDs and device type, the request type, your carrier, your carrier user ID, the content of your request, and basic usage stats about your device"
As you say, Google makes their money from advertising and advertisers love usage information. It's not necessarily a breach of personal privacy and Apple's marketing groups need this information too but it would give them an advantage over the competition. Carriers can also add their own tracking code to an open OS.
Jobs gave an insight into their own stance on privacy:
"Well we learned this really interesting thing. Some company called Flurry had data on devices that we were using on our campus ? new devices. They were getting this info by getting developers to put software in their apps that sent info back to this company! So we went through the roof. It?s violating our privacy policies, and it?s pissing us off! So we said we?re only going to allow analytics that don?t give our device info ? only for the purpose of advertising."
So they are ok with analytics data for the purpose of advertising, which is what Google do. Obviously because Apple prefer to keep device IDs secret and Google have a huge host of devices, Google would rather have the device IDs. In that respect your personal identifiers are more protected with Apple but Apple have the credit card details, address, name, phone number and more of 160 million users and this is tied to media/app purchases and usage, which is how they rank the iTunes Store. Google will do the same for the Android market.
I don't think you can condemn either company when they behave much the same but with respect to their differing core businesses.
Which of the following would you prefer to see happen?
1. Windows 7 Mobile gets proliferated across a vast array of consumer devices with Windows media support, Zune store access, XBox 360/WinMo exclusive games
2. Nokia handles the bulk of consumer phones with an irrelevant OS
3. Google puts an open unix system out and pushes people into both iOS and Android development as well as supporting widely accepted web standards and implementations such as webkit
4. RIM start going after the consumer market by lowering prices
I think given that Apple will not lower prices into a certain consumer price bracket, not condemning Google is the best way forward. Obviously supporting them at Apple's expense is no good if you think Apple deserve to succeed but I don't see any reason in trying to vilify them in an attempt to see someone far worse step in and take their place.
When someone asks you for a phone recommendation and they can't afford an iPhone, what will you answer be? Mine is to buy an Android phone. If they can afford an iPhone, I recommend an iPhone over Android phones in that price bracket. Until the day comes when Apple sell iPod Touches with external phone parts, that's the closest you can get to supporting Apple IMO.
Their privacy policies could certainly be a cause for concern:
http://www.google.com/mobile/privacy.html
I don't think you can condemn either company when they behave much the same but with respect to their differing core businesses.
the difference?
Apple doesn't go around telling people they're doing god's work or they're the symbol of freedom and all that BS while they're censoring search results in 28 other countries for YEARS!
GOOGLE = EVIL
Apple doesn't go around telling people they're doing god's work or they're the symbol of freedom and all that BS while they're censoring search results in 28 other countries for YEARS!
To paint an accurate picture, you need to detail what they were censoring.
In the case of China, it's interesting that you ridicule Google when they lose marketshare to their censored competitor for fighting against censorship and then criticise them when they give in to censorship.
Censorship is a way of life. If you want to look at illegal material online, you can't because it is censored. If you want to download hardcore pornography from the itunes store, you can't because it's censored.
If censorship is universally bad regardless of the content it's applied to then everyone is evil.
Content providers pick and choose what you can access and Google is a content provider. If you want to blame someone, blame the people who force Google to censor content. If you want ultimate freedom, take your case all the way to the top. Until then, you are free to do what they tell you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mssKE_b48k
Their privacy policies could certainly be a cause for concern:
http://www.google.com/mobile/privacy.html
The majority is no different from Apple but some things sound like they go too far:
"Most of the other information we collect for mobile, such as your device and hardware IDs and device type, the request type, your carrier, your carrier user ID, the content of your request, and basic usage stats about your device"
As you say, Google makes their money from advertising and advertisers love usage information. It's not necessarily a breach of personal privacy and Apple's marketing groups need this information too but it would give them an advantage over the competition. Carriers can also add their own tracking code to an open OS.
Jobs gave an insight into their own stance on privacy:
"Well we learned this really interesting thing. Some company called Flurry had data on devices that we were using on our campus — new devices. They were getting this info by getting developers to put software in their apps that sent info back to this company! So we went through the roof. It’s violating our privacy policies, and it’s pissing us off! So we said we’re only going to allow analytics that don’t give our device info — only for the purpose of advertising."
So they are ok with analytics data for the purpose of advertising, which is what Google do. Obviously because Apple prefer to keep device IDs secret and Google have a huge host of devices, Google would rather have the device IDs. In that respect your personal identifiers are more protected with Apple but Apple have the credit card details, address, name, phone number and more of 160 million users and this is tied to media/app purchases and usage, which is how they rank the iTunes Store. Google will do the same for the Android market.
I don't think you can condemn either company when they behave much the same but with respect to their differing core businesses.
Which of the following would you prefer to see happen?
1. Windows 7 Mobile gets proliferated across a vast array of consumer devices with Windows media support, Zune store access, XBox 360/WinMo exclusive games
2. Nokia handles the bulk of consumer phones with an irrelevant OS
3. Google puts an open unix system out and pushes people into both iOS and Android development as well as supporting widely accepted web standards and implementations such as webkit
4. RIM start going after the consumer market by lowering prices
I think given that Apple will not lower prices into a certain consumer price bracket, not condemning Google is the best way forward. Obviously supporting them at Apple's expense is no good if you think Apple deserve to succeed but I don't see any reason in trying to vilify them in an attempt to see someone far worse step in and take their place.
When someone asks you for a phone recommendation and they can't afford an iPhone, what will you answer be? Mine is to buy an Android phone. If they can afford an iPhone, I recommend an iPhone over Android phones in that price bracket. Until the day comes when Apple sell iPod Touches with external phone parts, that's the closest you can get to supporting Apple IMO.
Two points:
Whatever superficial similarities there may be between Google and Apple in terms of some ad analytics, the fact remains that Google's actual business is selling data about users. Everything they do is designed to collect more, and more specific data about users. There simply isn't anything else they do.
Apple's actual business is selling hardware and software to users. As a matter of controlling their mobile platform they have made forays into ad sales, but that's incidental to what they're about.
We can always expect Google to be figuring out new ways to get people to use software and devices that reveal more about where, what and who they are, what they buy, what they're interested in, who they know, how often they go and do and visit, by what route, while considering which item, etc. Whatever vague assurances they may occasionally offer up (and Schmidt doesn't really even try), that's what they're for. They'll always be extending their capacity for that kind of analysis, because that's how they develop their art. To the extend that that means that they make more desirable products, it's incidental to what they're actually for.
We can always expect Apple to try and make ever more desirable hardware and software integrated experiences, so you'll want them and buy them and they can make their money.
There just isn't any comparison, and the difference is so intrinsic to how the two companies operate there never will be. What's unnerving about Google is the relentlessness, or rather the direction of the relentlessness. When we think of Apple or Jobs as being obsessed about refining the user experience or battery life or weight or responsiveness of their products, at worst we might disagree with the chosen tradeoffs while admitting that sweating the details of a product makes for a nicer product, even if it's one we elect not to use. When we think of Google obsessed about how to connect more people with more software and devices that do a better job of tracking their every move, thought and decision, it isn't anything but creepy. The only way it doesn't put you off is if, like Schmidt, you think privacy and not being entirely defined as a marketing opportunity are 20th century affectations that everybody ought to get over. Sorry, I don't, and it alarms me that so many people seem to be willing to trade access to their souls for "free" stuff. I think it's really impossible to overstate Google's reach, and I think it's incredibly dangerous.
Secondly, on the "what to recommend it someone can't afford an iPhone", I would simply point out that the purchase price (which if it's a matter of cost over any other consideration would be $99 vs. free on contract) is a drop in the bucket compared to the plan costs over the life of the contract. Anyone comparison shopping handsets on the initial buy-in just isn't paying attention, and my considered advice would be to do the math and get the phone you want.
To paint an accurate picture, you need to detail what they were censoring.
In the case of China, it's interesting that you ridicule Google when they lose marketshare to their censored competitor for fighting against censorship and then criticise them when they give in to censorship.
Censorship is a way of life. If you want to look at illegal material online, you can't because it is censored. If you want to download hardcore pornography from the itunes store, you can't because it's censored.
If censorship is universally bad regardless of the content it's applied to then everyone is evil.
Content providers pick and choose what you can access and Google is a content provider. If you want to blame someone, blame the people who force Google to censor content. If you want ultimate freedom, take your case all the way to the top. Until then, you are free to do what they tell you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mssKE_b48k
it took them 4 years to finally pull out of China. and how about the other 28 countries where they're still censoring search results?
again censoring search result is a trade-off (though it IS evil). but don't go out telling people you're NOT DOING ANYTHING EVIL. BECAUSE YOU ARE.
GOOGLE IS EVIL and a HYPOCRITE.
The only way it doesn't put you off is if, like Schmidt, you think privacy and not being entirely defined as a marketing opportunity are 20th century affectations that everybody ought to get over. Sorry, I don't, and it alarms me that so many people seem to be willing to trade access to their souls for "free" stuff. I think it's really impossible to overstate Google's reach, and I think it's incredibly dangerous.
How do you think you as an individual (or someone who buys into the Android market) will suffer as a result of Google's actions?
Secondly, on the "what to recommend it someone can't afford an iPhone", I would simply point out that the purchase price is a drop in the bucket compared to the plan costs over the life of the contract.
No matter how you pay for the phone, the cost of the device is absorbed into your service charges and that cost is £500 ($500 without tax) for the 16GB iPhone 4. Over 18 months, you may not notice £25 but you would if the phone is lost, stolen or damaged or you want to end your contract early. You can get other smartphones for 1/5 of the price.
The sentence "I am not looking forward to doing Android development" suggests he's one of the many non-Android developers fearful of how bad the situation is but is only going by how it's portrayed.
The fact that apps even work across vastly different screen sizes is an improvement over iOS, which just pixel-doubles iPhone apps on the iPad and blocks iPad apps from the iPhone. There are just 10,000 iPad apps and although it runs iPhone apps, like I say they are pixel-doubled.
If you buy an Android app, at least it's designed to buy once and work on anything. Even if it doesn't work right every time, at least they let you do it.
Apps don't work over vastly different screen sizes unless you actually provide the graphics to do so. Currently there are low, med and high density specs and small, med and large screen sizes but some devices exceed the high density (retina grade) and/or large screen (tablets) spec.
In a WTF moment the defaults for sizes and density changed from 1.5 to 1.6. Fortunately 1.5 and earlier is getting rarer.
It does scale for you but no better than iOS might scale for you. Note that if you have a 1 wide pixel object in your layout (a divider, line, arrow, whatever) it might not render in some scaling instances. The width can get set to 0. They also provide 9-patches which is an interesting approach for rez independent bitmaps vs svg-like approaches. It's an elegant hack but vector images is probably the "right" answer.
The layout management is also manual. Whatever intelligent multi-rez layout support you want to do will have to be done manually by you as a dev. It will reform the layout somewhat like it does for rotation. You have to be careful to use relative layouts and dips rather than pixels. The problem is that sometimes it's just freaking easier to use pixels to get the right spacing you want.
An amusing tidbit is that when you rotate the screen Android destroys the screen and rebuilds it so you have make sure you're saving enough state info to rebuild the screen correctly. Yah, thats in the early tutorials but just a bizzaro kind of thing for the app dev to deal with that you'd have thought would be handled for you. Android is a lot like that everywhere IMHO.
The idea that you can buy an android app and expect it to work on anything is amusing. Only if the developer followed every best practice and provided every graphic asset maybe. Even then, the current spec for large screen size is 480x854 with the highest density of 240 dpi. Gee, that seems a bit...conservative eh?
This is one reason why Google has said that Froyo is not tablet ready and why the app market is unavailable to android tablet makers. Good luck with running current apps at 1024x768 on Froyo. My guess is many will look like ass. Far worse than pixel doubled iPhone apps on the iPad.
As far as fragmentation goes, I can deal with 1.6 and before vs 2.1/2.2. It's the changes with Sense and Blur that is annoying. For example the softkeys on Sense don't respond to all the API calls. I guess that could happen with any softkey replacement but the as shipped keyboard should freaking act like the reference implementation.
I can't tell you anything about the Android Market annoyances, my app is an enterprise app, but everything else has felt like a giant hackfest and unfinished. I can't imagine the market experience much smoother.
I'm pretty close to dumping Android and becoming the WinPhone 7 dev or joining the iOS team. The only platform I would less want to work on is Blackberry. Fortunately we have a couple of Flash devs. And I say that as a Java dev. Android is the natural fit.
That said, we've had 10,000 downloads of our app in the last week which is on par with our iOS versions when they were first introduced. Development wise I far prefer everything about iOS, marketing wise I far prefer everything about iOS, and store wise I far prefer everything about iOS. My beef with Android is just how sloppy everything is. It doesn't feel like a real company put it out and I get the same fragmentation issues I had with WM a couple years ago (mostly due to crappy HTC programming - gosh I hate their developers having dealt with them personally for 4-5 years now).
As we've been working on mobile for 10 years on Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, iOS, and now Android I can tell you that there are interesting aspects of Android dev. Yes, many things I'm just shocked about (rotation being one - didn't iOS set the bar for a smooth rotation 3 years ago???) and some even more shocked (Android Marketplace seemingly written by an intern).
That said, we've had 10,000 downloads of our app in the last week which is on par with our iOS versions when they were first introduced. Development wise I far prefer everything about iOS, marketing wise I far prefer everything about iOS, and store wise I far prefer everything about iOS. My beef with Android is just how sloppy everything is. It doesn't feel like a real company put it out and I get the same fragmentation issues I had with WM a couple years ago (mostly due to crappy HTC programming - gosh I hate their developers having dealt with them personally for 4-5 years now).
I have far more confidence that MS will get it better with WinPhone7 than Google did with Android. This is even after I've been abandoned by MS before (Managed DirectX got nuked in favor of XNA).
I forget who wrote this but someone summed it up as iOS makes the stuff we do as devs the most often as easy as possible whereas everything in Android is of equal annoyance/difficulty.
The other comment regarding Android that I enjoy is that Android RelativeLayout is the unholy spawn of XML and GridBagLayout from java.
I now understand why Sense sucks so much based on your comment.
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/11/did_...own_enemi.html