Really...You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?
Your little tirade regarding Android 3.x being merely Android 2.x, "lightly modified for tablets" only shows your complete inexperience/ignorance with the platforms themselves. Nothing More.
Whatever it is, iPad is a kick ass platform. Thank gawd now they didn't encumber it with the primary source of tablet failures prior to the iPad : a desktop or desktop-like OS... Yet at the same time the iPad is far beyond just a big iPod touch.
I hope not, at least in Perth, a mate of mine will be landing in a few hours time and heading straight to the Apple Store from the airport. Of course, I asked him to snag one for me ...Well, in any case it is all in the hands of a higher power now. (Steve-o of course, who did ya think I was talking about?)
Webkit is a fork of KHTML. KHTML never became what Webkit is today.
You insinuate there is no difference. Why isn't anyone of note using KHTML as the foundation of their web rendering?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
Couldn't resist.
I've committed code to KHTML (which became WebKit once Apple co-opted it, curious how you credit Apple for it when it was created by someone else). I've also committed code to Gecko back when it was powering what was then known as Phoenix. This was posted from the nightly build for Firefox 4.2. (And I also am quite aware that Firefox's new JIT JS engine uses parts from Apple's Nitro). You're not making any coherent point here.
Please don't pretend to lecture me on fundamentals.
Google is trying to "close" Honeycomb because they want to slow down their competitors, period. All the talk by these executives is just excuses. If they delay release of the source code, it's much harder for e.g. Amazon to use Honeycomb for it's next tablet. Other companies also can't quickly duplicate Honeycomb's functionality into their mobile OS without seeing the source code.
So is Google. In fact, Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple does and has since at least Feb 2010. I still don't understand your point.
Reality check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
Apple fans don't care about openness, if they did they wouldn't be buying some of the most locked-down, prohibitive devices in consumer electronics and computing history. Time for a reality check, folks.
Apple and it's contributions to open source are reality.
You can see them in the license agreements in Chrome and Firefox.
Apple and it's contributions to open source are reality.
What on earth does open source code contributions and utilization have to do with curated app stores and encrypted media contents? I'm very well aware Apple contributes to open source projects they utilize (they HAVE to). Years ago I had the misfortune of working with some ornery Apple engineers on some gcc bugs.
Even Microsoft has contributed code to open source projects. Hell, MS wrote code that's in the Linux kernel. This isn't a very good barometer for anything useful.
You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?
They called it iPhone OS because the only product they had was the iPhone. That picture was from WWDC in 2008.
Anyway... I just listened to the podcast where Steve Jobs spoke at D8... talking about exactly this topic. Here's the quick transcript:
I'll tell ya kinda a secret... we actually started on a tablet first. I had this idea to get rid of the keyboard and type on a glass display. I asked our folks to come up with a multitouch display.
About 6 months later they called me in and showed me a prototype display. This was in the early 2000's. I gave it to one of our other UI folks. He called me back a few weeks later and he had inertial scrolling working.
We were thinking about building a phone at that time... and when I saw the inertial scrolling I said: "my god... we can build a phone out of this."
We put the tablet project on the shelf because the phone was more important. And we took the next several years to make the iPhone.
Those words came out of Steve's mouth...
He was speaking in a room of hundreds of people with cameras recording... is he lying?
So by your logic. If Apple had called its mobile OS iOs all along. That is the only possible way that iOS development would have originally been for a tablet...mmmmmmm
You can never predict what in the world people will come up with on these boards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Hmm?
If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?
Answer: It obviously wasn't, and this 'story' was probably created to mask that fact that the OS' use for the iPad was somehow more than just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.
You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts.
This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.
My primary phone is an iPhone 3GS, but I also have a Nexus One that I occasionally use when the mood strikes (disclaimer: I got it for free from Google at a conference). I prefer iOS on the smartphone to Android in its current version, so that's why the iPhone is my primary. I'll likely upgrade it to an iPhone 5 this year.
For tablets, I'm probably going to go Android (the Tab 10.1) because I view tablets as starting to encroach on laptop territory so I demand more out of the functionality of the UI over the simplicity. It's a personal taste.
I've used and developed apps for virtually every smartphone OS out there. I know the field, it's my job and something I have great personal interest in as well. I was hoping to contribute what I know to this forum, but it seems if any point is not wholly praising of Apple it is latched on to by people who can only be described as fanboys. You view it as "attack" and "defense" when in reality I'm only trying to lay it out as I see it.
As for your swipes about me not knowing what the average user likes or wants -- that's precisely what I do know. That's why I get paid to do what I do. I've read countless market reports on it from analysts (most of which are bunk), I've attended countless conferences on mobile technology, and I'm extremely informed on every OS out there and every facet of each one, because it's my job to. The fact that you disagree doesn't mean you agree with the market as a whole. And the fact that you (and frankly, most people here) seem flabberghasted by the growth of Android (if you'll check my posts, I said this would happen years ago) it's because you don't understand the market as a whole. The people who line up at Apple stores to buy iOS devices are not your typical user. People mention how important apps are, but they're only very important to a relatively small portion of the demographic. But because that's who you guys are always surrounded by, that's what you see. Android is soaring and people simply don't care as much about apps on them. It's a different kind of user. As smartphones and tablets become more ubiquitous, you're going to see less "hardcores" who download lots of apps and more ma-and-pas who don't.
I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again. Groupthink is a powerful thing, it was folly to try to combat it.
(PS: This is not entirely directed at you, but in general to many people on here)
Help me understand your point. Are you really saying people who won't buy many apps will somehow prefer android tablets over the iPad? That really makes no sense at all. How is not buying apps on Android different than not buying apps on the iPad?
Android grew market share on phones for three reasons
- some models of subsidized android phones are very cheap
- iPhone was only available on AT&T (it's going to be very interesting to see the market share numbers for the current quarter)
- they were "close enough" for people who weren't on AT&T
The clear proof that these are the reasons is there is no Android competitor to the hot selling iPod touch.
Also, these advantages are pretty much out the window in the tablet market
- you can get a subsidy, but the price is still pretty high and involves a 2 year data contract most people don't want or need with their tablet. Just use the hop spot functionality from their phone to get on the web.
- iPad is available on more networks that the Xoom and the wifi model isn't tied to carriers at all
- there is no need for people to settle for "close enough" when they can get the real thing for less money.
Apple is in the drivers seat here, and Android closing the source is a setback for the platform.
What on earth does open source code contributions and utilization have to do with curated app stores and encrypted media contents? I'm very well aware Apple contributes to open source projects they utilize (they HAVE to). Years ago I had the misfortune of working with some ornery Apple engineers on some gcc bugs.
Even Microsoft has contributed code to open source projects. Hell, MS wrote code that's in the Linux kernel. This isn't a very good barometer for anything useful.
Apple doesn't market themselves as "open" or attempt to polarise opinion like Google (and the people who jump on their bandwagon) do.
Locking down Honeycomb proves Google aren't as "open" as they tout themselves to be, Apple's contributions to open source prove that they aren't as "closed" as Google (their partners and others) want people to believe.
You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?
It's always fun to chat with you, DaHarder, because you can't read and your'e sort of stupid, and sometimes that's just what I'm in the mood for.
What I wrote was that iOS is OS X. How it's reconfigured for what what device is less significant than its underpinnings. Apple is going to fairly quickly move the iPad to notebook level functionality, and they have already shown the technical expertise to start moving over key apps.
Quote:
Your little tirade regarding Android 3.x being merely Android 2.x, "lightly modified for tablets" only shows your complete inexperience/ignorance with the platforms themselves. Nothing More.
Uh oh! DaHarder's getting huffy and commencing with the Random Capitalization! I must have struck a nerve!
Tell you what, how about you draw on your extensive coding skills to explain how Honeycomb is a complete rewrite of Android (I mean, it was "built from the ground up", right?) as opposed to some modified UI conventions, and fairly ugly ones, at that. Oh that's right, you don't actually know how they work, you just buy a lot of them and drone on about it on the internet.
For tablets, I'm probably going to go Android (the Tab 10.1) because I view tablets as starting to encroach on laptop territory so I demand more out of the functionality of the UI over the simplicity. It's a personal taste.
You "demand more from the UI" but think that apps are "silly". Right, that's just personal taste.
Quote:
I've used and developed apps for virtually every smartphone OS out there. I know the field, it's my job and something I have great personal interest in as well. I was hoping to contribute what I know to this forum, but it seems if any point is not wholly praising of Apple it is latched on to by people who can only be described as fanboys. You view it as "attack" and "defense" when in reality I'm only trying to lay it out as I see it.
You're such an expert on virtually every smartphone OS out there BUT cancelled your iPad 2 order because it didn't have tabbed browsers (it does), and the honeycomb UI is better.
Presumably someone that "knows the field" would be aware of Honeycomb and iOS's respective UIs and multitasking models that they wouldn't be so clueless as to order the iPad 2 in the first place.
Someone with a great personal interest in the field might also be clued in enough that if they are out somewhere trying to look for a condo to Google for Redfin to see if they have an app. They do...but I guess it's just silly.
Here's a question for you: If you've developed for virtually EVERY smartphone OS out there and are so knowledgeable why haven't you developed for Android yet? Or iOS?
You clearly state here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
FWIW, I am an independent developer and I've got my eye towards Android right now. Anyone who has gone to a recent mobile dev conference will see that's where the attention is right now.
And now you state:
Quote:
That's why I get paid to do what I do. I've read countless market reports on it from analysts (most of which are bunk), I've attended countless conferences on mobile technology, and I'm extremely informed on every OS out there and every facet of each one, because it's my job to.
Right. You're paid to read countless market reports and attend conferences and be informed on every OS out there BUT you are also an independent developer who is eyeing Android.
WTF? Who is extremely informed AND a developer AND missed out on both the iOS boat AND the android boat? If you are still "eyeing" either platform you missed the best time to enter those markets.
Oh, wait...that's right...apps are silly.
Quote:
The fact that you disagree doesn't mean you agree with the market as a whole. And the fact that you (and frankly, most people here) seem flabberghasted by the growth of Android (if you'll check my posts, I said this would happen years ago) it's because you don't understand the market as a whole.
Please. It was obvious that Android would overtake the iPhone once the number of vendors using Android became known. Apple had fairly modest market share goals (1% of the total market) and reached them and did so with traditionally high Apple margins and ASPs. Now Apple is sitting around 4% and that's amazing without a dumbphone in their lineup.
The tablet market is a different market without established incumbents and a requirement to go through carriers...it's a lot more like the original MP3 market. Whether Apple can actually dominate the tablet market remains to be seen but it was obvious to most folks that Apple couldn't hope to do so in the phone market. It simply cannot produce enough phones to gain majority share.
Predicting this does not take a rocket scientist.
Quote:
I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again.
Contrarian viewpoints aren't offensive. Liars, braggarts and trolls are.
You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts. This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.
You come to an Apple enthusiast board with double speak about Android. How do you expect it go?
Quote:
I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again. Groupthink is a powerful thing, it was folly to try to combat it.
Nothing wrong with contrarian viewpoints they are welcomed. An "I know better than all of you" attitude will not be well received.
You make a lot of statements that don't add up. Then don't do a very good job of supporting them with facts.
You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?
It was introduced simply as OS X. Here's what hte iPhone page at apple.com said when it was released
Quote:
iPhone uses OS X, the world’s most advanced operating system.
They eventually put the phone name on the OS because that was the product it was shipping, but they didn't even call it that for over a year after the iPhone was released. At the introduction, they also introduced their touch specific class library called Cocoa Touch (not Cocoa Phone). They didn't say Cocoa Touch was a UI class library for a phone, they said it was a new US class library built from the ground up for multi-touch.
It's been clearly documented that Apple started building a multi-touch tablet before they started building the iPhone. I'm not sure what point you're even trying to get at suggesting otherwise. iPad and iPhone have completely different versions of all of the apps that are designed from the ground up to be optimized for the different form factors.
These same apps also share a lot of common code not just between themselves, but also with their Mac versions. Because at the core of the apps for all 3 is OS X including key technologies like Core Foundation, Core Data, Core Graphics, Core Animation, etc, etc.
The iPad only diverged from the core OS because it had a different release schedule from the next major release of the OS. A similar thing happened with the Verizon iPhone. This lets the new product get released at the same time a major or minor revision to the OS is being developed, but with different release dates. This prevents one project from delaying the other and allows for more secrecy of the products being developed.
Apple has a unified, scalable OS with a unified, scalable programming model that has been years in the making. Somehow you want to spin that as a negative.
Huh? The reason none of them are doing this is kind of the point. Obviously some of the makers have expressed interest in trying to do that, which is precisely why Google is not letting them.
I'm completely and utterly baffled why this is a news story on AppleInsider. Google is delaying the release of the non-GPL parts of Android's source until "Icecream Sandwich" comes out (which is supposed to reunify the base so Smartphones + tablets share the same OS) to ensure a consistent level of quality from the handset makers who would jump to try to force Honeycomb onto ill-suited formfactors. Like Samsung did the the Tab 7", which arguably damaged the Android brand.
Are you serious? Please tell me this is some kind of joke.
Google has no control whatsoever what manufacturers do with their phone bootloaders. They have nothing to do with Android. Similarly, they can't control when Motorola and Verizon decide to push updates out to their phones.
If you want an open phone, buy a Nexus One/Nexus S. That is the one phone Google can control from top to bottom, and it most certainly is open.
I simply do not understand the point of this article, or why many of Apple's fans seem to delight in this non-news to a degree. Apple fans don't care about openness, if they did they wouldn't be buying some of the most locked-down, prohibitive devices in consumer electronics and computing history. Time for a reality check, folks.
Ithink you need a reality check. Open means people can take the code as is and do what they wish...pooh wait you can only do what google wants you do to with it and when they want you to do it. No wonder motorolla said it was developing it's own platform.
Something tells me that there are things in the code that Google don't want anyone to see!
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Uh oh! DaHarder's getting huffy and commencing with the Random Capitalization! I must have struck a nerve!
Tell you what, how about you draw on your extensive coding skills to explain how Honeycomb is a complete rewrite of Android (I mean, it was "built from the ground up", right?) as opposed to some modified UI conventions, and fairly ugly ones, at that. Oh that's right, you don't actually know how they work, you just buy a lot of them and drone on about it on the internet.
Aaww my gawd, whenever there's an Android news, there's always trolling and arguments on how 'open' the platform is.. AI should've included the definition of Android's "openness" everytime there's an article about Android.
Aaww my gawd, whenever there's an Android news, there's always trolling and arguments on how 'open' the platform is.. AI should've included the definition of Android's "openness" everytime there's an article about Android.
Comments
Really...You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?
Your little tirade regarding Android 3.x being merely Android 2.x, "lightly modified for tablets" only shows your complete inexperience/ignorance with the platforms themselves. Nothing More.
Whatever it is, iPad is a kick ass platform. Thank gawd now they didn't encumber it with the primary source of tablet failures prior to the iPad : a desktop or desktop-like OS... Yet at the same time the iPad is far beyond just a big iPod touch.
I hope not, at least in Perth, a mate of mine will be landing in a few hours time and heading straight to the Apple Store from the airport. Of course, I asked him to snag one for me
Perth is 3 hours behind.
Apple IS one of the contributors AS it quite plainly says in the license agreement.
So is Google. In fact, Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple does and has since at least Feb 2010. I still don't understand your point.
You insinuate there is no difference. Why isn't anyone of note using KHTML as the foundation of their web rendering?
Couldn't resist.
I've committed code to KHTML (which became WebKit once Apple co-opted it, curious how you credit Apple for it when it was created by someone else). I've also committed code to Gecko back when it was powering what was then known as Phoenix. This was posted from the nightly build for Firefox 4.2. (And I also am quite aware that Firefox's new JIT JS engine uses parts from Apple's Nitro). You're not making any coherent point here.
Please don't pretend to lecture me on fundamentals.
So is Google. In fact, Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple does and has since at least Feb 2010. I still don't understand your point.
Reality check.
Apple fans don't care about openness, if they did they wouldn't be buying some of the most locked-down, prohibitive devices in consumer electronics and computing history. Time for a reality check, folks.
Apple and it's contributions to open source are reality.
You can see them in the license agreements in Chrome and Firefox.
Maybe SOME "Apple fans" DO care about openness.
Reality check.
Apple and it's contributions to open source are reality.
What on earth does open source code contributions and utilization have to do with curated app stores and encrypted media contents? I'm very well aware Apple contributes to open source projects they utilize (they HAVE to). Years ago I had the misfortune of working with some ornery Apple engineers on some gcc bugs.
Even Microsoft has contributed code to open source projects. Hell, MS wrote code that's in the Linux kernel. This isn't a very good barometer for anything useful.
Really...
You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?
They called it iPhone OS because the only product they had was the iPhone. That picture was from WWDC in 2008.
Anyway... I just listened to the podcast where Steve Jobs spoke at D8... talking about exactly this topic. Here's the quick transcript:
I'll tell ya kinda a secret... we actually started on a tablet first. I had this idea to get rid of the keyboard and type on a glass display. I asked our folks to come up with a multitouch display.
About 6 months later they called me in and showed me a prototype display. This was in the early 2000's. I gave it to one of our other UI folks. He called me back a few weeks later and he had inertial scrolling working.
We were thinking about building a phone at that time... and when I saw the inertial scrolling I said: "my god... we can build a phone out of this."
We put the tablet project on the shelf because the phone was more important. And we took the next several years to make the iPhone.
Those words came out of Steve's mouth...
He was speaking in a room of hundreds of people with cameras recording... is he lying?
The guiding leadership of Webkit are from Apple.
So is Google. In fact, Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple does and has since at least Feb 2010. I still don't understand your point.
You can never predict what in the world people will come up with on these boards.
Hmm?
If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?
Answer: It obviously wasn't, and this 'story' was probably created to mask that fact that the OS' use for the iPad was somehow more than just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.
You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts.
This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.
My primary phone is an iPhone 3GS, but I also have a Nexus One that I occasionally use when the mood strikes (disclaimer: I got it for free from Google at a conference). I prefer iOS on the smartphone to Android in its current version, so that's why the iPhone is my primary. I'll likely upgrade it to an iPhone 5 this year.
For tablets, I'm probably going to go Android (the Tab 10.1) because I view tablets as starting to encroach on laptop territory so I demand more out of the functionality of the UI over the simplicity. It's a personal taste.
I've used and developed apps for virtually every smartphone OS out there. I know the field, it's my job and something I have great personal interest in as well. I was hoping to contribute what I know to this forum, but it seems if any point is not wholly praising of Apple it is latched on to by people who can only be described as fanboys. You view it as "attack" and "defense" when in reality I'm only trying to lay it out as I see it.
As for your swipes about me not knowing what the average user likes or wants -- that's precisely what I do know. That's why I get paid to do what I do. I've read countless market reports on it from analysts (most of which are bunk), I've attended countless conferences on mobile technology, and I'm extremely informed on every OS out there and every facet of each one, because it's my job to. The fact that you disagree doesn't mean you agree with the market as a whole. And the fact that you (and frankly, most people here) seem flabberghasted by the growth of Android (if you'll check my posts, I said this would happen years ago) it's because you don't understand the market as a whole. The people who line up at Apple stores to buy iOS devices are not your typical user. People mention how important apps are, but they're only very important to a relatively small portion of the demographic. But because that's who you guys are always surrounded by, that's what you see. Android is soaring and people simply don't care as much about apps on them. It's a different kind of user. As smartphones and tablets become more ubiquitous, you're going to see less "hardcores" who download lots of apps and more ma-and-pas who don't.
I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again. Groupthink is a powerful thing, it was folly to try to combat it.
(PS: This is not entirely directed at you, but in general to many people on here)
Help me understand your point. Are you really saying people who won't buy many apps will somehow prefer android tablets over the iPad? That really makes no sense at all. How is not buying apps on Android different than not buying apps on the iPad?
Android grew market share on phones for three reasons
- some models of subsidized android phones are very cheap
- iPhone was only available on AT&T (it's going to be very interesting to see the market share numbers for the current quarter)
- they were "close enough" for people who weren't on AT&T
The clear proof that these are the reasons is there is no Android competitor to the hot selling iPod touch.
Also, these advantages are pretty much out the window in the tablet market
- you can get a subsidy, but the price is still pretty high and involves a 2 year data contract most people don't want or need with their tablet. Just use the hop spot functionality from their phone to get on the web.
- iPad is available on more networks that the Xoom and the wifi model isn't tied to carriers at all
- there is no need for people to settle for "close enough" when they can get the real thing for less money.
Apple is in the drivers seat here, and Android closing the source is a setback for the platform.
What on earth does open source code contributions and utilization have to do with curated app stores and encrypted media contents? I'm very well aware Apple contributes to open source projects they utilize (they HAVE to). Years ago I had the misfortune of working with some ornery Apple engineers on some gcc bugs.
Even Microsoft has contributed code to open source projects. Hell, MS wrote code that's in the Linux kernel. This isn't a very good barometer for anything useful.
Apple doesn't market themselves as "open" or attempt to polarise opinion like Google (and the people who jump on their bandwagon) do.
Locking down Honeycomb proves Google aren't as "open" as they tout themselves to be, Apple's contributions to open source prove that they aren't as "closed" as Google (their partners and others) want people to believe.
Google reeks of hypocrisy.
Really...
You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?
It's always fun to chat with you, DaHarder, because you can't read and your'e sort of stupid, and sometimes that's just what I'm in the mood for.
What I wrote was that iOS is OS X. How it's reconfigured for what what device is less significant than its underpinnings. Apple is going to fairly quickly move the iPad to notebook level functionality, and they have already shown the technical expertise to start moving over key apps.
Your little tirade regarding Android 3.x being merely Android 2.x, "lightly modified for tablets" only shows your complete inexperience/ignorance with the platforms themselves. Nothing More.
Uh oh! DaHarder's getting huffy and commencing with the Random Capitalization! I must have struck a nerve!
Tell you what, how about you draw on your extensive coding skills to explain how Honeycomb is a complete rewrite of Android (I mean, it was "built from the ground up", right?) as opposed to some modified UI conventions, and fairly ugly ones, at that. Oh that's right, you don't actually know how they work, you just buy a lot of them and drone on about it on the internet.
For tablets, I'm probably going to go Android (the Tab 10.1) because I view tablets as starting to encroach on laptop territory so I demand more out of the functionality of the UI over the simplicity. It's a personal taste.
You "demand more from the UI" but think that apps are "silly". Right, that's just personal taste.
I've used and developed apps for virtually every smartphone OS out there. I know the field, it's my job and something I have great personal interest in as well. I was hoping to contribute what I know to this forum, but it seems if any point is not wholly praising of Apple it is latched on to by people who can only be described as fanboys. You view it as "attack" and "defense" when in reality I'm only trying to lay it out as I see it.
You're such an expert on virtually every smartphone OS out there BUT cancelled your iPad 2 order because it didn't have tabbed browsers (it does), and the honeycomb UI is better.
Presumably someone that "knows the field" would be aware of Honeycomb and iOS's respective UIs and multitasking models that they wouldn't be so clueless as to order the iPad 2 in the first place.
Someone with a great personal interest in the field might also be clued in enough that if they are out somewhere trying to look for a condo to Google for Redfin to see if they have an app. They do...but I guess it's just silly.
Here's a question for you: If you've developed for virtually EVERY smartphone OS out there and are so knowledgeable why haven't you developed for Android yet? Or iOS?
You clearly state here: And now you state:
That's why I get paid to do what I do. I've read countless market reports on it from analysts (most of which are bunk), I've attended countless conferences on mobile technology, and I'm extremely informed on every OS out there and every facet of each one, because it's my job to.
Right. You're paid to read countless market reports and attend conferences and be informed on every OS out there BUT you are also an independent developer who is eyeing Android.
WTF? Who is extremely informed AND a developer AND missed out on both the iOS boat AND the android boat? If you are still "eyeing" either platform you missed the best time to enter those markets.
Oh, wait...that's right...apps are silly.
The fact that you disagree doesn't mean you agree with the market as a whole. And the fact that you (and frankly, most people here) seem flabberghasted by the growth of Android (if you'll check my posts, I said this would happen years ago) it's because you don't understand the market as a whole.
Please. It was obvious that Android would overtake the iPhone once the number of vendors using Android became known. Apple had fairly modest market share goals (1% of the total market) and reached them and did so with traditionally high Apple margins and ASPs. Now Apple is sitting around 4% and that's amazing without a dumbphone in their lineup.
The tablet market is a different market without established incumbents and a requirement to go through carriers...it's a lot more like the original MP3 market. Whether Apple can actually dominate the tablet market remains to be seen but it was obvious to most folks that Apple couldn't hope to do so in the phone market. It simply cannot produce enough phones to gain majority share.
Predicting this does not take a rocket scientist.
I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again.
Contrarian viewpoints aren't offensive. Liars, braggarts and trolls are.
You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts. This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.
You come to an Apple enthusiast board with double speak about Android. How do you expect it go?
I apologize if contrarian viewpoints offend you. And I certainly won't make that mistake again. Groupthink is a powerful thing, it was folly to try to combat it.
Nothing wrong with contrarian viewpoints they are welcomed. An "I know better than all of you" attitude will not be well received.
You make a lot of statements that don't add up. Then don't do a very good job of supporting them with facts.
Really...
You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?
It was introduced simply as OS X. Here's what hte iPhone page at apple.com said when it was released
iPhone uses OS X, the world’s most advanced operating system.
http://web.archive.org/web/200801110...ex.html#macosx
They eventually put the phone name on the OS because that was the product it was shipping, but they didn't even call it that for over a year after the iPhone was released. At the introduction, they also introduced their touch specific class library called Cocoa Touch (not Cocoa Phone). They didn't say Cocoa Touch was a UI class library for a phone, they said it was a new US class library built from the ground up for multi-touch.
It's been clearly documented that Apple started building a multi-touch tablet before they started building the iPhone. I'm not sure what point you're even trying to get at suggesting otherwise. iPad and iPhone have completely different versions of all of the apps that are designed from the ground up to be optimized for the different form factors.
These same apps also share a lot of common code not just between themselves, but also with their Mac versions. Because at the core of the apps for all 3 is OS X including key technologies like Core Foundation, Core Data, Core Graphics, Core Animation, etc, etc.
The iPad only diverged from the core OS because it had a different release schedule from the next major release of the OS. A similar thing happened with the Verizon iPhone. This lets the new product get released at the same time a major or minor revision to the OS is being developed, but with different release dates. This prevents one project from delaying the other and allows for more secrecy of the products being developed.
Apple has a unified, scalable OS with a unified, scalable programming model that has been years in the making. Somehow you want to spin that as a negative.
Huh? The reason none of them are doing this is kind of the point. Obviously some of the makers have expressed interest in trying to do that, which is precisely why Google is not letting them.
I'm completely and utterly baffled why this is a news story on AppleInsider. Google is delaying the release of the non-GPL parts of Android's source until "Icecream Sandwich" comes out (which is supposed to reunify the base so Smartphones + tablets share the same OS) to ensure a consistent level of quality from the handset makers who would jump to try to force Honeycomb onto ill-suited formfactors. Like Samsung did the the Tab 7", which arguably damaged the Android brand.
Are you serious? Please tell me this is some kind of joke.
Google has no control whatsoever what manufacturers do with their phone bootloaders. They have nothing to do with Android. Similarly, they can't control when Motorola and Verizon decide to push updates out to their phones.
If you want an open phone, buy a Nexus One/Nexus S. That is the one phone Google can control from top to bottom, and it most certainly is open.
I simply do not understand the point of this article, or why many of Apple's fans seem to delight in this non-news to a degree. Apple fans don't care about openness, if they did they wouldn't be buying some of the most locked-down, prohibitive devices in consumer electronics and computing history. Time for a reality check, folks.
Ithink you need a reality check. Open means people can take the code as is and do what they wish...pooh wait you can only do what google wants you do to with it and when they want you to do it. No wonder motorolla said it was developing it's own platform.
Uh oh! DaHarder's getting huffy and commencing with the Random Capitalization! I must have struck a nerve!
Tell you what, how about you draw on your extensive coding skills to explain how Honeycomb is a complete rewrite of Android (I mean, it was "built from the ground up", right?) as opposed to some modified UI conventions, and fairly ugly ones, at that. Oh that's right, you don't actually know how they work, you just buy a lot of them and drone on about it on the internet.
All three each
Aaww my gawd, whenever there's an Android news, there's always trolling and arguments on how 'open' the platform is.. AI should've included the definition of Android's "openness" everytime there's an article about Android.
They need a new definition now