I want a phone that is the biggest platform now and in two years. I'm betting that is Android. iOS: YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.
They said right in that article they are withholding it for technical reasons. They don't want developers putting out unpolished apps on it. It needs to be tweaked for running on phones. I mean maybe they are lying. But I kind of doubt it. Why jump the gun John. B?
Q. When is "open" not "open"?
A. When you have to get Andy Rubin's approval for new devices or forego access to the "open" platform: Do Not Anger the Alpha Android (businessweek.com)
Quote:
Originally Posted by businessweek.com
Playtime is over in Android Land. Over the last couple of months Google (GOOG) has reached out to the major carriers and device makers backing its mobile operating system with a message: There will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google's purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google's Android group.
This is the new reality described by about a dozen executives working at key companies in the Android ecosystem. Some of those affected include LG, Toshiba, Samsung, and even Facebook, which has been trying to develop an Android device. There have been enough run-ins to trigger complaints with the Justice Dept., according to a person familiar with the matter. The Google that once welcomed all comers to help get its mobile software off the ground has become far more discriminating—especially for companies that want to include Google services such as search and maps on their hardware. Google also gives chip and device makers that abide by its rules a head start in bringing Android products to market, according to the executives.
I'm having a hard time squaring that up with the whole "Andy Rubin definition of open" tweet:
Code:
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
I guess it's "open" if Andy Rubin gives you access to manifest.git? Where are all the open sores fanbois now?
A. When you have to get Andy Rubin's approval for new devices or forego access to the "open" platform: Do Not Anger the Alpha Android (businessweek.com)
I'm having a hard time squaring that up with the whole "Andy Rubin definition of open" tweet:
Code:
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
I guess it's "open" if Andy Rubin gives you access to manifest.git? Where are all the open sores fanbois now?
I'm sort of with you in that I find the open-source ONLY Linux fanbois funny at times. I remember this one guy in college bragging how cool his Linux was and how he could customize it. Only thing was, he had to spend weeks like coding his own mouse driver or something. Or something like that. Probably had to compile VLC himself. Anyway, my point is I want a product I don't have to waste my time with. And, there are many things that would take me longer to do on the iPhone because I'd have to continually jailbreak it, unjailbreak it, update it, then jailbreak it again. Android's relatively openness allows more customization and more things to run like Flash which I myself needed. It's kind of a middleground, I suppose. I support a slightly more closed Android if it leads to better performance. But, I think Apple has taken it way too far for my personal tastes. Decrees like No Flash For You didn't work for me. YMMV.
All that crap about GPL and "information wants to be free" and how closed source is supposedly evil, meh, I couldn't give two craps. The one thing I like about a lot of open source though is that it's the best of breed. VLC and Firefox are awesome. Same with lots of Android apps and other apps I have on my Mac. Apple and Google are actually quite friendly to open source in general and I think the Linux idiots are their own worst enemy by demanding all-or-nothing. They scare companies away, and make it difficult to support open source. Because they demand all or nothing. Apple and Google are both way better for fostering developer innovation and open source at the same time than MS was and is. Which is why I hate MS as a company, because they are evil, as well as hate their products, because they suck.
Google, Apple and Adobe should be working together against MS. At least for the near-term, to crush Windows on phones once and for all. If Windows Phone takes off that will be bad for everyone (I'm just guessing, not 100% sure) because MS usually makes crap mobile software and acts monopolistic. Why would one believe they'll act any more decently in mobile than they have with Windows and IE on the desktop? That said, the micro-management of Apple of the App Store is highly disturbing. That's the main reason I won't buy iPhone. Why the heck isn't there a button in Settings allowing you to install "unsupported" applications!? Like in Android. Just have some boilerplate disclaimer about it voiding the warranty and be done with it. Also, ability to return apps like Android. The jailbreaking crap is just too much to mess around with for me. Android it was for me and here I am. I'll be getting off my Android soapbox just about now, but I had to throw a few posts out here defending Android against what I saw as unfair posts against Android.
Comments
That's a good one, I'll remember and use it whenever someone else is trying to show off how 'open' Android is..
I suggest you refrain from repeating what the likes of John. B tells you.
Not only is he blatantly misinforming you, but repeating that misinformation discredits everything else YOU say.
I want a phone that is the biggest platform now and in two years. I'm betting that is Android. iOS: YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.
They said right in that article they are withholding it for technical reasons. They don't want developers putting out unpolished apps on it. It needs to be tweaked for running on phones. I mean maybe they are lying. But I kind of doubt it. Why jump the gun John. B?
Q. When is "open" not "open"?
A. When you have to get Andy Rubin's approval for new devices or forego access to the "open" platform: Do Not Anger the Alpha Android (businessweek.com)
Playtime is over in Android Land. Over the last couple of months Google (GOOG) has reached out to the major carriers and device makers backing its mobile operating system with a message: There will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google's purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google's most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google's Android group.
This is the new reality described by about a dozen executives working at key companies in the Android ecosystem. Some of those affected include LG, Toshiba, Samsung, and even Facebook, which has been trying to develop an Android device. There have been enough run-ins to trigger complaints with the Justice Dept., according to a person familiar with the matter. The Google that once welcomed all comers to help get its mobile software off the ground has become far more discriminating—especially for companies that want to include Google services such as search and maps on their hardware. Google also gives chip and device makers that abide by its rules a head start in bringing Android products to market, according to the executives.
I'm having a hard time squaring that up with the whole "Andy Rubin definition of open" tweet:
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
I guess it's "open" if Andy Rubin gives you access to manifest.git? Where are all the open sores fanbois now?
Q. When is "open" not "open"?
A. When you have to get Andy Rubin's approval for new devices or forego access to the "open" platform: Do Not Anger the Alpha Android (businessweek.com)
I'm having a hard time squaring that up with the whole "Andy Rubin definition of open" tweet:
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
I guess it's "open" if Andy Rubin gives you access to manifest.git? Where are all the open sores fanbois now?
I'm sort of with you in that I find the open-source ONLY Linux fanbois funny at times. I remember this one guy in college bragging how cool his Linux was and how he could customize it. Only thing was, he had to spend weeks like coding his own mouse driver or something. Or something like that. Probably had to compile VLC himself. Anyway, my point is I want a product I don't have to waste my time with. And, there are many things that would take me longer to do on the iPhone because I'd have to continually jailbreak it, unjailbreak it, update it, then jailbreak it again. Android's relatively openness allows more customization and more things to run like Flash which I myself needed. It's kind of a middleground, I suppose. I support a slightly more closed Android if it leads to better performance. But, I think Apple has taken it way too far for my personal tastes. Decrees like No Flash For You didn't work for me. YMMV.
All that crap about GPL and "information wants to be free" and how closed source is supposedly evil, meh, I couldn't give two craps. The one thing I like about a lot of open source though is that it's the best of breed. VLC and Firefox are awesome. Same with lots of Android apps and other apps I have on my Mac. Apple and Google are actually quite friendly to open source in general and I think the Linux idiots are their own worst enemy by demanding all-or-nothing. They scare companies away, and make it difficult to support open source. Because they demand all or nothing. Apple and Google are both way better for fostering developer innovation and open source at the same time than MS was and is. Which is why I hate MS as a company, because they are evil, as well as hate their products, because they suck.
Google, Apple and Adobe should be working together against MS. At least for the near-term, to crush Windows on phones once and for all. If Windows Phone takes off that will be bad for everyone (I'm just guessing, not 100% sure) because MS usually makes crap mobile software and acts monopolistic. Why would one believe they'll act any more decently in mobile than they have with Windows and IE on the desktop? That said, the micro-management of Apple of the App Store is highly disturbing. That's the main reason I won't buy iPhone. Why the heck isn't there a button in Settings allowing you to install "unsupported" applications!? Like in Android. Just have some boilerplate disclaimer about it voiding the warranty and be done with it. Also, ability to return apps like Android. The jailbreaking crap is just too much to mess around with for me. Android it was for me and here I am. I'll be getting off my Android soapbox just about now, but I had to throw a few posts out here defending Android against what I saw as unfair posts against Android.