Well, the important question is, say Motorola loads Tapas or OMS on to Droid hardware. Are they allowed to sell the resulting product as an "Android" phone. The answer is, no, they won't be allowed.
Ah... I never thought of that. I very much believe you're right.
Just as Google came out with a relative copy of iOS and the whole Android phone market began, but fanboys of the platform denounce everything Apple? Who's worse? Android owes everything to Apple. The entire metaphor of the touch screen smartphone is entirely the work of Apple. They made it work and sold it to the public. Android is sought out as an alternative.
I also don't agree with extreme fanboys who don't give credit where credit is due.
Yet you dismiss some of the things Android has that Apple has yet to do. And in the future (as it already has happened last year), I'm sure Apple will introducing features into iOS that Android currently has. I'm sure Apple will eventually introduce native wireless syncing for apps and music soon. It's a game of technological leap frog. Android may be an alternative to iOS, but it's a damned good alternative in my books.
If you look at Honeycomb, it's anything but a "relative copy" of iOS for the iPad. It's taken the best of Android (and iOS in turn) and fused it with the cool features Windows 7 has. It reminds me of all those cool interfaces of devices you see in sci-fi movies.
I have to ask, how long do you think iOS would have gone if they completely ignored its competition and their new features? Yes, Apple did start the revolution, but you'd be a fool to think that Apple isn't closely watching its competitors and finding some ideas and inspiration from them.
Actually, it has to pass Google's "Android compatibility" review to be called Android.
The rest of your points I believe are correct, though.
Not to nit-pick...
A title is a title, it could be called Google's "It's Not An iPhone" review for that matter. It doesn't matter what it's called or who actually does the governing, the fact still remains that the guidelines were formed by the OHA and still continue to be.
Nop, is just the contrary, is your handset doesn't pass the CTS the can't use the trademark, but the source code is Android.
The source code is BASED off the Android source code. It is not still considered the source to Android, but it is the source to YOUR version of Android. This is referred to as "source code forking". Any changes you make and don't submit back to the project, then the further you move away from its Androidiness. And at some point you can no longer call it Android.
If you can't call it "Android," then it is not an Android OS. It can still be referred to as Android-based or Android-like, but it is not Android.
If that were the case, "iOS" wouldn't exist, it would be called Mac OS X.
The source code is BASED off the Android source code. It is not still considered the source to Android, but it is the source to YOUR version of Android. This is referred to as "source code forking". Any changes you make and don't submit back to the project, then the further you move away from its Androidiness. And at some point you can no longer call it Android.
I agree that as of Feb 3, 2011, there are no viable competitors on the shelves. But Apple can't rest - Android (+Honeycomb, now) is RAPIDLY growing in numbers and accumulating features.
You managed to captured the essence of the competition in your opening sentence.
Apple products don't "rapidly accumulate features". If anything features are kept to a minimum on purpose.
There will always be a market for feature rich products and there will always be a market for simple products that offer a limited feature set. They are different philosophies and different target audiences.
The war of words between droids and fanbois is pointless and not even very entertaining.
And what gives with the battery sucking widgets that continuously poll for data ?
Do you have a citation that the widgets continuously poll for data?
If they do, it would be a real battery killer.
I don't know anything about Push Notifications on Android OS, but I assume that if they are prmoting widgets that are constantly being updated, they would do it through some sort of consolidated Push Service -- rather than allowing individual widgets/apps to individually churn the network.
With relatively minor changes, Apple could implement enhancements to Push Notification Services to accommodate those type of widgets without churning the network and draining the battery,
I don't know anything about Push Notifications on Android OS, but I assume that if they are prmoting widgets that are constantly being updated, they would do it through some sort of consolidated Push Service -- rather than allowing individual widgets/apps to individually churn the network.,
No, there isn't a Push notification system like iOS has, if there is a Twitter widget they connect every X min and close the connection.
Edit: An app that polls the network every X min doesn't have to be running on the background, there is a system that puts an "alarm" and that wakes the needed chunk of the service to do whatever it must do.
I also don't agree with extreme fanboys who don't give credit where credit is due...
I have to ask, how long do you think iOS would have gone if they completely ignored its competition and their new features? Yes, Apple did start the revolution, but you'd be a fool to think that Apple isn't closely watching its competitors and finding some ideas and inspiration from them.
Well to be honest, Apple doesn't really look at the competition for inspiration. If you think the opposite you don't know much about Apple or Steve Jobs. If Apple was overly concerned with the competition the original iPhone would've had multi-tasking and copy&paste, and all the other things people degraded it for lacking. Apple's products have never kept up with "features" on any of their products. They simply don't play that game. I suppose this is why a lot of people (tech-heads, mostly) don't understand them.
Android devices will ALWAYS have features that iOS won't have. This is not due to technical limitations of the OS, but rather thoughtful design decisions to determine what features will benefit the experience of using the device and not hamper it. Apple also tends to think about features in the context in which they will be used. This is exactly why the iPhone's UI was revolutionary. This is also why they had to rethink copy&paste and implement multi-tasking the way they did. It's one thing to have a feature that works well, it's an entirely different matter when it half-assed and doesn't work intuitively.
Just because one company comes out with a feature after another, doesn't not mean it was copied. Things like copy&paste and multi-tasking are natural progressions and features of a maturing system. An example, Android is finally going to get hardware acceleration in 3.0. Did they copy iOS? It would be ridiculous to think so. As an aside, not going to say they copied Apple, but they are definitely following Apple's direction with Android; originally it was supposed to be an alternative to the BlackBerry and WinMo phones. After the iPhone, they scrapped those plans and went in that direction. After the iPad, they decided to move Android in that direction. It's fairly obvious considering how long it took both to finally reach the market (year+) after the iPhone and iPad.
Personally I just think it is humorous when some of the "fanboys" jump from one ship to another hoping the next will be the one to sink the iTanic. I guess they should be called "anti-fanboys" because it's not so much about what they like, it's more about what they hate. Being a long time Apple user (almost 30 years), I've gotten used to it.
Personally I just think it is humorous when some of the "fanboys" jump from one ship to another hoping the next will be the one to sink the iTanic. I guess they should be called "anti-fanboys" because it's not so much about what they like, it's more about what they hate. Being a long time Apple user (almost 30 years), I've gotten used to it.
I'm sorry but what are you talking about when you say "Honeycomb is likely to bring better productivity apps"? What nonsense - an app is an app, not the OS home screen, and apple wins the app game hands down. Android also has a huge issue with developers not being able to make much money because the sales channels are a mess, and because android is the favorite with the hacking community that doesn't want to pay for anything.
For the average consumer I agree that the home screen/widgets are more of a convenience rather than a necessity.
However, I can easily envision custom enterprise systems where several interrelated high-use apps are presented as a group of widgets as shown on Honeycomb.
In a way these widgets are roughly analogous to running a few key apps/aggregators, concurrently, on a desktop computer -- the main difference is that they gain prominence or recede as necessary.
I am retired, but remember the days when I had a lot of projects, customers, activities, schedules to juggle -- the "widget computer" would be ideal for this.
Consider someone like Tim Cook * and the myriad of things he needs to have at his fingertips, 24/7.
I see no reason that this capability couldn't and shouldn't be added to iPad iOS (and, to a lesser degree, iPhone iOS).
* or a doctor with patients, a repairman with appointments, a soccer mom...
It is one of those things that a tablet can do better than other computer form factors...
And it can be implemented in such a way to add functionality without adding complexity -- the Apple way.
You managed to captured the essence of the competition in your opening sentence.
Apple products don't "rapidly accumulate features". If anything features are kept to a minimum on purpose.
There will always be a market for feature rich products and there will always be a market for simple products that offer a limited feature set. They are different philosophies and different target audiences.
The war of words between droids and fanbois is pointless and not even very entertaining.
Well, I wouldn't say that feature releases were kept to a minimum on purpose. It's more about timing, if you think about it. Apple releases an iPhone and a new major version of the OS once a year. Throughout the year though they also release two other iOS devices; iPod touch and the iPad, this allows them to stay in the headlines. With the release of the other iOS devices also comes a few new feature in iOS. The last release gave us AirPlay and AirPrint and few other smaller features. So if they happen to miss one release window, they can wait for the next.
There is a huge benefit though to keep models down to a functional minimum. Android's ecosystem will never come anywhere near what the iOS devices have. The software may catch up someday, but the amount of available content, the number accessories and peripherals for Apple's devices is astronomical. I believe it is a several billion dollar industry on its own.
With Honeycomb they have built the frameworks and the UI for productivity apps. "If you build it, they will come." Just wait, you'll see. Hacker community is immaterial.
Look, I'm a fan of Apple/iPad/iOS, but the facts are, iPad is not ready for real productivity, it's a consumption device. Just try to print, or plug a USB device into it. Ooops.
Give me an example (link) to built-in Honeycomb frameworks and UI for productivity -- that lack an iOS equivalent.
If you were an iOS developer, you would be aware that iOS contains most of the applicable API/Frameworks from Mac OS X, plus those implemented specifically for the iPhone and iPad.
It appears, that with Honeycomb, Android is just, now, implementing some of the things that have been utilized in iOS for years.
If you are referring to the home screen widgets -- then Honeycomb, when delivered, may have a temporary advantage.
But, that's not as big a deal as it appears! Any good iOS developer could write an app that provides equivalent function. But, in truth, is should be a system-supplied interface, rather than in an app.
Again, I see no great challenge for Apple to provide this if, and when, it makes sense.
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but is this a security concern? Suppose a hacker figures out your login and password. Would he be able to download malware to your phone or tablet remotely?
How? Cloud2phone is service specific. In this case, Google enables it for the Android Market webstore. There are other cloud2device functions like Chrome2Phone which enables transferring navigation instructions or webpage URLs. But again, that's run through Google servers.
For somebody to abuse this functionality, they would have to have installed an app on the phone that opens up a portal that would receive a Cloud2Device messaging intent. Then they'd have to develop a service that uses C2DM to push malware to your phone. But if they've already got your phone, why would they go through the trouble of installing an app that would let them download malware later?
Comments
Well, the important question is, say Motorola loads Tapas or OMS on to Droid hardware. Are they allowed to sell the resulting product as an "Android" phone. The answer is, no, they won't be allowed.
Ah... I never thought of that. I very much believe you're right.
[ and a tip of the hat to mjtomlin ]
Just as Google came out with a relative copy of iOS and the whole Android phone market began, but fanboys of the platform denounce everything Apple? Who's worse? Android owes everything to Apple. The entire metaphor of the touch screen smartphone is entirely the work of Apple. They made it work and sold it to the public. Android is sought out as an alternative.
I also don't agree with extreme fanboys who don't give credit where credit is due.
Yet you dismiss some of the things Android has that Apple has yet to do. And in the future (as it already has happened last year), I'm sure Apple will introducing features into iOS that Android currently has. I'm sure Apple will eventually introduce native wireless syncing for apps and music soon. It's a game of technological leap frog. Android may be an alternative to iOS, but it's a damned good alternative in my books.
If you look at Honeycomb, it's anything but a "relative copy" of iOS for the iPad. It's taken the best of Android (and iOS in turn) and fused it with the cool features Windows 7 has. It reminds me of all those cool interfaces of devices you see in sci-fi movies.
I have to ask, how long do you think iOS would have gone if they completely ignored its competition and their new features? Yes, Apple did start the revolution, but you'd be a fool to think that Apple isn't closely watching its competitors and finding some ideas and inspiration from them.
After all, if your OS can't run Android apps, then why call it Android, except for marketing purposes?
Nop, is just the contrary, is your handset doesn't pass the CTS the can't use the trademark, but the source code is Android.
Nop, is just the contrary, is your handset doesn't pass the CTS the can't use the trademark, but the source code is Android.
If your handset isn't "Android compatible" and can't use the "Android" name, it isn't Android.
Your argument that all forks of Android are Android is as ridiculous as claiming that Ubuntu is Debian.
Actually, it has to pass Google's "Android compatibility" review to be called Android.
The rest of your points I believe are correct, though.
Not to nit-pick...
A title is a title, it could be called Google's "It's Not An iPhone" review for that matter. It doesn't matter what it's called or who actually does the governing, the fact still remains that the guidelines were formed by the OHA and still continue to be.
Nop, is just the contrary, is your handset doesn't pass the CTS the can't use the trademark, but the source code is Android.
The source code is BASED off the Android source code. It is not still considered the source to Android, but it is the source to YOUR version of Android. This is referred to as "source code forking". Any changes you make and don't submit back to the project, then the further you move away from its Androidiness. And at some point you can no longer call it Android.
If you can't call it "Android," then it is not an Android OS. It can still be referred to as Android-based or Android-like, but it is not Android.
If that were the case, "iOS" wouldn't exist, it would be called Mac OS X.
If your handset isn't "Android compatible" and can't use the "Android" name, it isn't Android.
Your argument that all forks of Android are Android is as ridiculous as claiming that Ubuntu is Debian.
My God, finally I got confused, since the begining I said they were FORKS and Android VARIANTS.
The source code is BASED off the Android source code. It is not still considered the source to Android, but it is the source to YOUR version of Android. This is referred to as "source code forking". Any changes you make and don't submit back to the project, then the further you move away from its Androidiness. And at some point you can no longer call it Android.
Yes, based
My God, finally I got confused, since the begining I said they were FORKS and Android VARIANTS.
Yes, you also said they were "Android", which they aren't.
I agree that as of Feb 3, 2011, there are no viable competitors on the shelves. But Apple can't rest - Android (+Honeycomb, now) is RAPIDLY growing in numbers and accumulating features.
You managed to captured the essence of the competition in your opening sentence.
Apple products don't "rapidly accumulate features". If anything features are kept to a minimum on purpose.
There will always be a market for feature rich products and there will always be a market for simple products that offer a limited feature set. They are different philosophies and different target audiences.
The war of words between droids and fanbois is pointless and not even very entertaining.
And what gives with the battery sucking widgets that continuously poll for data ?
Do you have a citation that the widgets continuously poll for data?
If they do, it would be a real battery killer.
I don't know anything about Push Notifications on Android OS, but I assume that if they are prmoting widgets that are constantly being updated, they would do it through some sort of consolidated Push Service -- rather than allowing individual widgets/apps to individually churn the network.
With relatively minor changes, Apple could implement enhancements to Push Notification Services to accommodate those type of widgets without churning the network and draining the battery,
I don't know anything about Push Notifications on Android OS, but I assume that if they are prmoting widgets that are constantly being updated, they would do it through some sort of consolidated Push Service -- rather than allowing individual widgets/apps to individually churn the network.,
No, there isn't a Push notification system like iOS has, if there is a Twitter widget they connect every X min and close the connection.
Edit: An app that polls the network every X min doesn't have to be running on the background, there is a system that puts an "alarm" and that wakes the needed chunk of the service to do whatever it must do.
I also don't agree with extreme fanboys who don't give credit where credit is due...
I have to ask, how long do you think iOS would have gone if they completely ignored its competition and their new features? Yes, Apple did start the revolution, but you'd be a fool to think that Apple isn't closely watching its competitors and finding some ideas and inspiration from them.
Well to be honest, Apple doesn't really look at the competition for inspiration. If you think the opposite you don't know much about Apple or Steve Jobs. If Apple was overly concerned with the competition the original iPhone would've had multi-tasking and copy&paste, and all the other things people degraded it for lacking. Apple's products have never kept up with "features" on any of their products. They simply don't play that game. I suppose this is why a lot of people (tech-heads, mostly) don't understand them.
Android devices will ALWAYS have features that iOS won't have. This is not due to technical limitations of the OS, but rather thoughtful design decisions to determine what features will benefit the experience of using the device and not hamper it. Apple also tends to think about features in the context in which they will be used. This is exactly why the iPhone's UI was revolutionary. This is also why they had to rethink copy&paste and implement multi-tasking the way they did. It's one thing to have a feature that works well, it's an entirely different matter when it half-assed and doesn't work intuitively.
Just because one company comes out with a feature after another, doesn't not mean it was copied. Things like copy&paste and multi-tasking are natural progressions and features of a maturing system. An example, Android is finally going to get hardware acceleration in 3.0. Did they copy iOS? It would be ridiculous to think so. As an aside, not going to say they copied Apple, but they are definitely following Apple's direction with Android; originally it was supposed to be an alternative to the BlackBerry and WinMo phones. After the iPhone, they scrapped those plans and went in that direction. After the iPad, they decided to move Android in that direction. It's fairly obvious considering how long it took both to finally reach the market (year+) after the iPhone and iPad.
Personally I just think it is humorous when some of the "fanboys" jump from one ship to another hoping the next will be the one to sink the iTanic. I guess they should be called "anti-fanboys" because it's not so much about what they like, it's more about what they hate. Being a long time Apple user (almost 30 years), I've gotten used to it.
Personally I just think it is humorous when some of the "fanboys" jump from one ship to another hoping the next will be the one to sink the iTanic. I guess they should be called "anti-fanboys" because it's not so much about what they like, it's more about what they hate. Being a long time Apple user (almost 30 years), I've gotten used to it.
But is ridiculous wishing to sink anything, why?
I'm sorry but what are you talking about when you say "Honeycomb is likely to bring better productivity apps"? What nonsense - an app is an app, not the OS home screen, and apple wins the app game hands down. Android also has a huge issue with developers not being able to make much money because the sales channels are a mess, and because android is the favorite with the hacking community that doesn't want to pay for anything.
For the average consumer I agree that the home screen/widgets are more of a convenience rather than a necessity.
However, I can easily envision custom enterprise systems where several interrelated high-use apps are presented as a group of widgets as shown on Honeycomb.
In a way these widgets are roughly analogous to running a few key apps/aggregators, concurrently, on a desktop computer -- the main difference is that they gain prominence or recede as necessary.
I am retired, but remember the days when I had a lot of projects, customers, activities, schedules to juggle -- the "widget computer" would be ideal for this.
Consider someone like Tim Cook * and the myriad of things he needs to have at his fingertips, 24/7.
I see no reason that this capability couldn't and shouldn't be added to iPad iOS (and, to a lesser degree, iPhone iOS).
* or a doctor with patients, a repairman with appointments, a soccer mom...
It is one of those things that a tablet can do better than other computer form factors...
And it can be implemented in such a way to add functionality without adding complexity -- the Apple way.
You managed to captured the essence of the competition in your opening sentence.
Apple products don't "rapidly accumulate features". If anything features are kept to a minimum on purpose.
There will always be a market for feature rich products and there will always be a market for simple products that offer a limited feature set. They are different philosophies and different target audiences.
The war of words between droids and fanbois is pointless and not even very entertaining.
Well, I wouldn't say that feature releases were kept to a minimum on purpose. It's more about timing, if you think about it. Apple releases an iPhone and a new major version of the OS once a year. Throughout the year though they also release two other iOS devices; iPod touch and the iPad, this allows them to stay in the headlines. With the release of the other iOS devices also comes a few new feature in iOS. The last release gave us AirPlay and AirPrint and few other smaller features. So if they happen to miss one release window, they can wait for the next.
There is a huge benefit though to keep models down to a functional minimum. Android's ecosystem will never come anywhere near what the iOS devices have. The software may catch up someday, but the amount of available content, the number accessories and peripherals for Apple's devices is astronomical. I believe it is a several billion dollar industry on its own.
With Honeycomb they have built the frameworks and the UI for productivity apps. "If you build it, they will come." Just wait, you'll see. Hacker community is immaterial.
Look, I'm a fan of Apple/iPad/iOS, but the facts are, iPad is not ready for real productivity, it's a consumption device. Just try to print, or plug a USB device into it. Ooops.
Give me an example (link) to built-in Honeycomb frameworks and UI for productivity -- that lack an iOS equivalent.
If you were an iOS developer, you would be aware that iOS contains most of the applicable API/Frameworks from Mac OS X, plus those implemented specifically for the iPhone and iPad.
It appears, that with Honeycomb, Android is just, now, implementing some of the things that have been utilized in iOS for years.
If you are referring to the home screen widgets -- then Honeycomb, when delivered, may have a temporary advantage.
But, that's not as big a deal as it appears! Any good iOS developer could write an app that provides equivalent function. But, in truth, is should be a system-supplied interface, rather than in an app.
Again, I see no great challenge for Apple to provide this if, and when, it makes sense.
I use an Android tablet and an iPad daily...
Why? Just because I use two different cups for my daily coffee?
OMG! A balanced and thoughtful perspective that doesn't require the complete obliteration of all companies not owned by Apple.
Dude, you are so in the wrong place for this sort of talk. Here there is only one company possible; all others are stupid, evil, or both.
I've never heard an adult call anyone "Dude".
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but is this a security concern? Suppose a hacker figures out your login and password. Would he be able to download malware to your phone or tablet remotely?
How? Cloud2phone is service specific. In this case, Google enables it for the Android Market webstore. There are other cloud2device functions like Chrome2Phone which enables transferring navigation instructions or webpage URLs. But again, that's run through Google servers.
For somebody to abuse this functionality, they would have to have installed an app on the phone that opens up a portal that would receive a Cloud2Device messaging intent. Then they'd have to develop a service that uses C2DM to push malware to your phone. But if they've already got your phone, why would they go through the trouble of installing an app that would let them download malware later?