You're a fool if you think Apple is protecting you from that. Apple's review process cannot catch any of that, as several high profile blunders have shown where people smuggled secret functionality into apps that were only pulled when people started telling Apple about it. At best, Apple can pull dangerous apps from the App Store once they get user complaints. But that's the same thing Google does with Market.
Unlike iOS, however, where your applications run largely unprotected, Android's permission system actually enforces protections for apps, so if the app doesn't request access to personal information, you can be certain that it won't get any either.
Please! They get 100,000 apps a month to review of course they aren't going to catch everything. Google lets everyone play and they still only have 100k in apps.
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.
Here's how it shakes out, in my opinion:
iPad/iOS/Apple
+Beautiful hardware, elegant software - easy to use
+Best touch experience still
+Syncs perfectly with your iTunes, iPhoto, etc.
+Best apps in both quantity and quality
+Simple compatibility/device structure
+iWork suite opens up possibilities for office use
-Restrictive app policy
-VERY little customization (folders + wallpaper)
-archaic notification system
-Wasted UI possibilities on lock and home screen
Xoom/Honeycomb/Android/Google
+Very loose restrictions
+Brand new UI with customizable pages
+Allows skins, themes, moving backgrounds, etc.
+UI is good, but not great
-many different OS versions, many different devices/compatibilities
-App quality is low
-App profitability is low (no profit = no devs)
-hardware quality is variable (I like Google, but I'm hesitant to buy a Xoom from Motorola)
Of course, they're on two different timelines so it's hard to compare directly. It wouldn't be perfectly fair to compare the Xoom (sold zero devices, OS is not released to public) to the iPad which as moved 10 million devices in 9 months or something. The fairest comparison will probably have to wait until June...
I don't like the lack of software and hardware support that comes with Android devices. With Android you are just stuck like chuck if something goes wrong.
I can already tell this is going to be a mess ... sticky just like honey.
I will say no thanks and stay with Apple's iPad, iPod, iPhone and iOs. There isn't a single Honeycomb feature that is compelling, but many that will complicate my life.
Android: Link on blog goes directly to webstore Market; purchase; phone/tablet automatically downloads and installs app
The point is that with the webstore Market, Android users don't have to stray away too far away from their browsing at hand to install an app. The OTA method is like a hybrid of the iOS methods, using the best of both.
This is silly case. Why the blogger provide link to Android market but only provide application name for iPhone user? Clever blogger can copy the app's iTunes link and put in his blog. When iPhone user tap the link, it will open App Store application, buy, download, then back to Safari. Second, I may have several iDevice registered with 1 iTunes account. My wife doesn't want a soccer game installed automatically on her iPod, as I don't want cooking apps on my iPhone either. That's cool Android feature, but geeky and provides almost no value.
They think the iPad is popular because of it's touch screen. What's more, they see a lot of features Apple has left out, and therefore think they can make a better device than the iPad by having a touch screen device with more features.
But they don't understand. The iPad is not popular because of it's touchscreen per se, but because of the additional simplicity a touch screen provides. And Apple's simple launch screen and single, curated App Store and full-screen apps are all part of the simplicity. If they think a touch screen is valuable per se, and will be even more valuable with features piled on top, they will soon find out it ain't so.
Technologists tend to think technologies are valuable in themselves, and sales people tend to think more features is always better. This device sounds like these two kinds of people wrote the design. They need a level-headed product guy like Steve to set them straight (which of course he already has done with the iPad, though iOS 4 has ruined the simplicity a bit).
Geeez, the reason why apple designed the ios to have a grid of icons is because they didnt want you to focus on the os, instead, you should be focusing on the apps that you actually want to use. They took away all the fuss from the homescreen, simplified it, made it standard across all ios enabled devices (ipod touch, iphone, ipad, and in the future os x).
I think thats what google and other mobile companies fail to see, regular customers dont want to read the manual, read lengthy articles or ask anyone for help especially during the critical first few hours after purchasing the device. Ever heard of people complaining how absurdly complicated a device/program is and people tend to give up on it unless they really needed to sit down and learn the damn thing.
Apple is brilliant because they created this super simple user interface, then made the shell sexy as hell, and sold it at a premium. Their marketing machine is simple as it is clever as well.
Btw, im a windows software developer by day, and a mac addict by night; and if i had a choice, and developing ios apps paid really good money, id drop c# for objective-c in a heartbeat.
One thing that Honeycomb makes clear is that the Galaxy Tab, and all other Android tablets based on pre-Honeycomb versions of Android are now useless junk. No developer is going to waste time developing for these tablets, and it's pretty unlikely that carriers are going to push updates to them, even assuming it is technically feasible to do so, which it may not be.
Second, I may have several iDevice registered with 1 iTunes account. My wife doesn't want a soccer game installed automatically on her iPod, as I don't want cooking apps on my iPhone either. That's cool Android feature, but geeky and provides almost no value.
Please, stop showing how ignorant you are about Android
They think the iPad is popular because of it's touch screen. What's more, they see a lot of features Apple has left out, and therefore think they can make a better device than the iPad by having a touch screen device with more features.
But they don't understand. The iPad is not popular because of it's touchscreen per se, but because of the additional simplicity a touch screen provides. And Apple's simple launch screen and single, curated App Store and full-screen apps are all part of the simplicity. If they think a touch screen is valuable per se, and will be even more valuable with features piled on top, they will soon find out it ain't so.
Technologists tend to think technologies are valuable in themselves, and sales people tend to think more features is always better. This device sounds like these two kinds of people wrote the design. They need a level-headed product guy like Steve to set them straight (which of course he already has done with the iPad, though iOS 4 has ruined the simplicity a bit).
I agree with you 100%
An interesting note too is that apple creates their products consistently (to a high degree), and once people start using any of their devices, say an iphone, they instantly tend to think that the ipad must be as good as well. then they see the macbook, they instantly think it must be as good as well.
lo and behold, apple is getting a lot of new first time purchasers of their macs.
Comments
You're a fool if you think Apple is protecting you from that. Apple's review process cannot catch any of that, as several high profile blunders have shown where people smuggled secret functionality into apps that were only pulled when people started telling Apple about it. At best, Apple can pull dangerous apps from the App Store once they get user complaints. But that's the same thing Google does with Market.
Unlike iOS, however, where your applications run largely unprotected, Android's permission system actually enforces protections for apps, so if the app doesn't request access to personal information, you can be certain that it won't get any either.
Please! They get 100,000 apps a month to review of course they aren't going to catch everything. Google lets everyone play and they still only have 100k in apps.
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.
Here's how it shakes out, in my opinion:
iPad/iOS/Apple
+Beautiful hardware, elegant software - easy to use
+Best touch experience still
+Syncs perfectly with your iTunes, iPhoto, etc.
+Best apps in both quantity and quality
+Simple compatibility/device structure
+iWork suite opens up possibilities for office use
-Restrictive app policy
-VERY little customization (folders + wallpaper)
-archaic notification system
-Wasted UI possibilities on lock and home screen
Xoom/Honeycomb/Android/Google
+Very loose restrictions
+Brand new UI with customizable pages
+Allows skins, themes, moving backgrounds, etc.
+UI is good, but not great
-many different OS versions, many different devices/compatibilities
-App quality is low
-App profitability is low (no profit = no devs)
-hardware quality is variable (I like Google, but I'm hesitant to buy a Xoom from Motorola)
Of course, they're on two different timelines so it's hard to compare directly. It wouldn't be perfectly fair to compare the Xoom (sold zero devices, OS is not released to public) to the iPad which as moved 10 million devices in 9 months or something. The fairest comparison will probably have to wait until June...
Jan: Preview Honeycomb
Feb: Release Xoom
March(?): Preview iPad 2, Preview iOS 5 and/or release beta
April: Release iPad 2
June: Release iOS 5.0 to public
I don't like the lack of software and hardware support that comes with Android devices. With Android you are just stuck like chuck if something goes wrong.
I will say no thanks and stay with Apple's iPad, iPod, iPhone and iOs. There isn't a single Honeycomb feature that is compelling, but many that will complicate my life.
There isn't a single Honeycomb feature that is compelling, but many that will complicate my life.
Yes? Which ones?
Think of it this way. You're browsing your favorite tech blog and it mentions a cool app you'd love to have.
iOS (option 1): Open iTunes; search for app; purchase/download; find iPhone and sync
iOS (option 2): Find iPhone; find app in App Store; purchase/download
Android: Link on blog goes directly to webstore Market; purchase; phone/tablet automatically downloads and installs app
The point is that with the webstore Market, Android users don't have to stray away too far away from their browsing at hand to install an app. The OTA method is like a hybrid of the iOS methods, using the best of both.
This is silly case. Why the blogger provide link to Android market but only provide application name for iPhone user? Clever blogger can copy the app's iTunes link and put in his blog. When iPhone user tap the link, it will open App Store application, buy, download, then back to Safari. Second, I may have several iDevice registered with 1 iTunes account. My wife doesn't want a soccer game installed automatically on her iPod, as I don't want cooking apps on my iPhone either. That's cool Android feature, but geeky and provides almost no value.
Asia where on Q3 2010 Android, OMS and Tapas combined surpassed Symbian?
There, I fixed it for you.
There, I fixed it for you.
They're Android.
And TAPAS was launched on Q4 so I don't think there where a lot of smartphones with it on Q3
But they don't understand. The iPad is not popular because of it's touchscreen per se, but because of the additional simplicity a touch screen provides. And Apple's simple launch screen and single, curated App Store and full-screen apps are all part of the simplicity. If they think a touch screen is valuable per se, and will be even more valuable with features piled on top, they will soon find out it ain't so.
Technologists tend to think technologies are valuable in themselves, and sales people tend to think more features is always better. This device sounds like these two kinds of people wrote the design. They need a level-headed product guy like Steve to set them straight (which of course he already has done with the iPad, though iOS 4 has ruined the simplicity a bit).
I think thats what google and other mobile companies fail to see, regular customers dont want to read the manual, read lengthy articles or ask anyone for help especially during the critical first few hours after purchasing the device. Ever heard of people complaining how absurdly complicated a device/program is and people tend to give up on it unless they really needed to sit down and learn the damn thing.
Apple is brilliant because they created this super simple user interface, then made the shell sexy as hell, and sold it at a premium. Their marketing machine is simple as it is clever as well.
Btw, im a windows software developer by day, and a mac addict by night; and if i had a choice, and developing ios apps paid really good money, id drop c# for objective-c in a heartbeat.
just thinking out loud ladies and gents
Second, I may have several iDevice registered with 1 iTunes account. My wife doesn't want a soccer game installed automatically on her iPod, as I don't want cooking apps on my iPhone either. That's cool Android feature, but geeky and provides almost no value.
Please, stop showing how ignorant you are about Android
They're Android.
And TAPAS was launched on Q4 so I don't think there where a lot of smartphones with it on Q3
Sorry, you're wrong, they aren't Android.
Sorry, you're wrong, they aren't Android.
Yes, they're a fork of Android.
They think the iPad is popular because of it's touch screen. What's more, they see a lot of features Apple has left out, and therefore think they can make a better device than the iPad by having a touch screen device with more features.
But they don't understand. The iPad is not popular because of it's touchscreen per se, but because of the additional simplicity a touch screen provides. And Apple's simple launch screen and single, curated App Store and full-screen apps are all part of the simplicity. If they think a touch screen is valuable per se, and will be even more valuable with features piled on top, they will soon find out it ain't so.
Technologists tend to think technologies are valuable in themselves, and sales people tend to think more features is always better. This device sounds like these two kinds of people wrote the design. They need a level-headed product guy like Steve to set them straight (which of course he already has done with the iPad, though iOS 4 has ruined the simplicity a bit).
I agree with you 100%
An interesting note too is that apple creates their products consistently (to a high degree), and once people start using any of their devices, say an iphone, they instantly tend to think that the ipad must be as good as well. then they see the macbook, they instantly think it must be as good as well.
lo and behold, apple is getting a lot of new first time purchasers of their macs.
Yes, they're a fork of Android.
Fork you!