The claim that Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple is a bunch of bulls***.
Google contributes it's Chromium/GTK+ port work and what it needs to work within the WebCore, JavaScriptCore branches.
Meanwhile, Apple has moved it's entire focus to WebKit2 and gladly offers it to everyone who wants to move to it--GTK+ [GNOME, Epiphany,etc], and Nokia Qt so far.
Google's contributions are welcomed just as Nokia's and others.
To spout that Google is the driving force behind WebKit is a joke at its most insulting level.
I don't personally know what the frack Google is doing to their latest Stable, Unstable and Beta releases of Chromium and Chrome on Linux but they are all broken to hell if one has the latest GTK+ for 2.x and 3.x branches.
Google needs to get their crap together or Firefox will once again see a large swell of growth back on Linux--even though it's turning into a bloated POS.
Note: Iceweasel 4.0.1 [Firefox 4.0.1] is a bloated POS on Linux and their WebGL implementation for Nvidia binaries for Linux [even with 270 beta driver] leaves much to be desired.
On OS X WebKit Nightlies continue to hum along and don't get released as broken builds turning into a useless mass of process hogging.
On a side topic: I'm dying to start reading the propaganda that Google is driving the growth and development of LLVM/Clang/LLDB/Libc++/Compiler-RT, etc.
The claim that Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple is a bunch of bulls***.
Google contributes it's Chromium/GTK+ port work and what it needs to work within the WebCore, JavaScriptCore branches.
Meanwhile, Apple has moved it's entire focus to WebKit2 and gladly offers it to everyone who wants to move to it--GTK+ [GNOME, Epiphany,etc], and Nokia Qt so far.
Google's contributions are welcomed just as Nokia's and others.
To spout that Google is the driving force behind WebKit is a joke at its most insulting level.
I don't personally know what the frack Google is doing to their latest Stable, Unstable and Beta releases of Chromium and Chrome on Linux but they are all broken to hell if one has the latest GTK+ for 2.x and 3.x branches.
Google needs to get their crap together or Firefox will once again see a large swell of growth back on Linux--even though it's turning into a bloated POS.
Note: Iceweasel 4.0.1 [Firefox 4.0.1] is a bloated POS on Linux and their WebGL implementation for Nvidia binaries for Linux [even with 270 beta driver] leaves much to be desired.
On OS X WebKit Nightlies continue to hum along and don't get released as broken builds turning into a useless mass of process hogging.
On a side topic: I'm dying to start reading the propaganda that Google is driving the growth and development of LLVM/Clang/LLDB/Libc++/Compiler-RT, etc.
Bullshit.
Google chrome on linux is as perfect as on OSX or Windows. Perhaps you just can't install a proper linux system.
Google chrome on linux is as perfect as on OSX or Windows. Perhaps you just can't install a proper linux system.
Seriously..? Do you have some kind of reference or benchmarks about Chrome web browser performance on Linux system? I've been trying to find a reliable source for this.
... Especially that awesome iOS notifications system and icon-based 'App Jukebox' UI
Okay, a slightly janky notification system versus the WinXp-Tron mashup abomination that is Honeycomb.
I think I'll take the janky notifications.
Please show us the photo of all your tablet devices again. I want to see the one of (I think) your Galaxy Tab that basically looks like someone has vomited a random collection of UI elements onto a tiny 7" screen. I don't think I'll be taking UI advice from you any time soon!
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'd suggest that the people buying iphones and iPads are far more representative of the "average user" than the geeks who attend those conferences you're talking about or the analysts that you're citing.
In fact, it's likely that your attendance at endless conferences mostly disproves your point. Average users do not attend programming conferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
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.
ROTFLMAO.
First, you seem to be confused by the fact that while iPhone as the first commercial product using what later became iOS and the fact that they actually started working on it with a tablet.
You see, Apple has a truly scalable OS. It works on products from cell phones to servers and workstations. Google is complaining that they can't get the same product to work on cell phones and tablets, so they can't allow people to use it on cell phones.
See the difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever
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.
Funny. Who in their right mind would be looking to Google for new ideas? And since when do you need source code to copy an implementation?
Google, like everyone else in the industry, knows that Apple is the one to beat. Sure, there are more Android units out there, helped by the Buy One, Get FIVE Free deals out there, but no money is being made there and it's obvious that the market is chasing Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
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.
Exactly. "Do No Evil" has always been a blatant lie. OK, maybe not always. They might have actually meant it for the first few weeks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by autism109201
It's hypocritical of them. But it makes some kind of sense.
If manufacturers made crap phones with Honeycomb, which Google is saying is not optimized for phones, it's going to mar Android's image, isn't it? That's the last thing Google (or any company) wants. The flipside is that the open source people are bothered. So Android's image will be tainted either way. So Google has the choice whether to disappoint the hardcore open source people or disappoint the average non-techie consumer who will probably only see their phone being awkward to use.
It's their choice. Whichever choice they make, they'll be living the consequences, whatever they may be.
They have a third choice - learn to write decent software. Apple has no problem making an OS that scales from cell phones to workstations. Why can't Google even scale from phones to tablets?
Are you seriously trying to argue that Apple is more open than Google?
Come on, Apple's business motto is good for some things, but it's not open. In general it is about as closed as you can get.
Uh, buzz, guess again, thanks for playing. Microsoft is and always has been far more closed in that they do nothing but push their 'extended' version of any real standard, and see to it that it doesn't work anywhere besides Windows. Apple tends to use and embrace real, open standards.
How some geeks miss this is really comical, but then, most have been stuck in Windows-land for a very long time now.
Google is mostly 'open' with everyone else's information, they literally stole all the ideas for Android from Apple, and they also see no problem in stealing your WIFI, something that Apple would never do.
It's hypocritical of them. But it makes some kind of sense.
If manufacturers made crap phones with Honeycomb, which Google is saying is not optimized for phones, it's going to mar Android's image, isn't it? That's the last thing Google (or any company) wants. The flipside is that the open source people are bothered. So Android's image will be tainted either way. So Google has the choice whether to disappoint the hardcore open source people or disappoint the average non-techie consumer who will probably only see their phone being awkward to use.
It's their choice. Whichever choice they make, they'll be living the consequences, whatever they may be.
This is the problem with "open."
People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.
Alan Kay
Tuer words were never spoken.
You don't use a vertical business model, you don't lock it down, you license your OS to anyone and everyone who can slam together a box, etc., and there's a very good chance you'll end up with crap, and some serious problems down the road when you have to contain it all because you cut all these corners.
Then again, it all comes down to priorities and attitude - both to tech in general and how human beings should interact with it specifically. Apple has always put User Experience above everything else. No one else does that.
When they open their Search algorithms to the World. What is more important in big picture; who controls a hardware platform and proprietary OS, or who controls access to information? Googles open source fans who would never buy a Mac because Steve jobs controls it never seem to address that fundamental truth.
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.
It's the hypocracy that's in play here.
Andy Rubin went to such great pains to paint Android as "open" in the tech press, he even invented his own definition in his famous tweet as some sort of purity test. Vic Gundotra went so far at Google I/O to say that Android was developed to free the masses from a "draconian future" with Apple. Android was "open" because open leads to innovation.
Then, for whatever reason, they have to completely back away from that with Honeycomb.
It's not like these are anyone else's standards they're being held to. Rubin and Gundotra and Google have now failed their own litmus test and, in my mind, they deserve all the public flogging that comes their way.
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?
Gee, I don't know, maybe because iPhone was the first shipping product to use the OS? Nah, that couldn't be it. That would only make sense.
So, with all your belief in your power to persuade, how many people have you enticed to buy your Xoom, and ditched their iPad?
What's with all this silliness about 'persuading' anyone to do anything ?
Never have I ever said anything of the sort, instead only sharing my opinions based upon my actual ownership/experience with these products/platforms (unlike 99.9% of those in here that have never even owned the devices they so quickly bash).
Personally, I don't really care who does/does not buy a XOOM, iPad, or anything else - As long as I have mine and and said device suits my needs.
Neither Android nor iOS are going anywhere anytime soon, so any investment in either platform is a win - IMO.
Seems like a lot of people in here are feeling more than a little bit threatened by the competition - XD!
Comments
Google contributes it's Chromium/GTK+ port work and what it needs to work within the WebCore, JavaScriptCore branches.
Meanwhile, Apple has moved it's entire focus to WebKit2 and gladly offers it to everyone who wants to move to it--GTK+ [GNOME, Epiphany,etc], and Nokia Qt so far.
Google's contributions are welcomed just as Nokia's and others.
To spout that Google is the driving force behind WebKit is a joke at its most insulting level.
I don't personally know what the frack Google is doing to their latest Stable, Unstable and Beta releases of Chromium and Chrome on Linux but they are all broken to hell if one has the latest GTK+ for 2.x and 3.x branches.
Google needs to get their crap together or Firefox will once again see a large swell of growth back on Linux--even though it's turning into a bloated POS.
Note: Iceweasel 4.0.1 [Firefox 4.0.1] is a bloated POS on Linux and their WebGL implementation for Nvidia binaries for Linux [even with 270 beta driver] leaves much to be desired.
On OS X WebKit Nightlies continue to hum along and don't get released as broken builds turning into a useless mass of process hogging.
On a side topic: I'm dying to start reading the propaganda that Google is driving the growth and development of LLVM/Clang/LLDB/Libc++/Compiler-RT, etc.
If they've distributed code, does not the GPL disallow this?
The kernel has been released, this is licensed under GPL.
The rest of android is licensed under apache license which is more flexible about open sourcing.
I didn't realize Google cared about user experience. Who do they think they are, Apple?
They wish.
The claim that Google contributes more to WebKit than Apple is a bunch of bulls***.
Google contributes it's Chromium/GTK+ port work and what it needs to work within the WebCore, JavaScriptCore branches.
Meanwhile, Apple has moved it's entire focus to WebKit2 and gladly offers it to everyone who wants to move to it--GTK+ [GNOME, Epiphany,etc], and Nokia Qt so far.
Google's contributions are welcomed just as Nokia's and others.
To spout that Google is the driving force behind WebKit is a joke at its most insulting level.
I don't personally know what the frack Google is doing to their latest Stable, Unstable and Beta releases of Chromium and Chrome on Linux but they are all broken to hell if one has the latest GTK+ for 2.x and 3.x branches.
Google needs to get their crap together or Firefox will once again see a large swell of growth back on Linux--even though it's turning into a bloated POS.
Note: Iceweasel 4.0.1 [Firefox 4.0.1] is a bloated POS on Linux and their WebGL implementation for Nvidia binaries for Linux [even with 270 beta driver] leaves much to be desired.
On OS X WebKit Nightlies continue to hum along and don't get released as broken builds turning into a useless mass of process hogging.
On a side topic: I'm dying to start reading the propaganda that Google is driving the growth and development of LLVM/Clang/LLDB/Libc++/Compiler-RT, etc.
Bullshit.
Google chrome on linux is as perfect as on OSX or Windows. Perhaps you just can't install a proper linux system.
Bullshit.
Google chrome on linux is as perfect as on OSX or Windows. Perhaps you just can't install a proper linux system.
Seriously..? Do you have some kind of reference or benchmarks about Chrome web browser performance on Linux system? I've been trying to find a reliable source for this.
... Especially that awesome iOS notifications system and icon-based 'App Jukebox' UI
Okay, a slightly janky notification system versus the WinXp-Tron mashup abomination that is Honeycomb.
I think I'll take the janky notifications.
Please show us the photo of all your tablet devices again. I want to see the one of (I think) your Galaxy Tab that basically looks like someone has vomited a random collection of UI elements onto a tiny 7" screen. I don't think I'll be taking UI advice from you any time soon!
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'd suggest that the people buying iphones and iPads are far more representative of the "average user" than the geeks who attend those conferences you're talking about or the analysts that you're citing.
In fact, it's likely that your attendance at endless conferences mostly disproves your point. Average users do not attend programming conferences.
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.
ROTFLMAO.
First, you seem to be confused by the fact that while iPhone as the first commercial product using what later became iOS and the fact that they actually started working on it with a tablet.
You see, Apple has a truly scalable OS. It works on products from cell phones to servers and workstations. Google is complaining that they can't get the same product to work on cell phones and tablets, so they can't allow people to use it on cell phones.
See the difference?
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.
Funny. Who in their right mind would be looking to Google for new ideas? And since when do you need source code to copy an implementation?
Google, like everyone else in the industry, knows that Apple is the one to beat. Sure, there are more Android units out there, helped by the Buy One, Get FIVE Free deals out there, but no money is being made there and it's obvious that the market is chasing Apple.
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.
Exactly. "Do No Evil" has always been a blatant lie. OK, maybe not always. They might have actually meant it for the first few weeks.
It's hypocritical of them. But it makes some kind of sense.
If manufacturers made crap phones with Honeycomb, which Google is saying is not optimized for phones, it's going to mar Android's image, isn't it? That's the last thing Google (or any company) wants. The flipside is that the open source people are bothered. So Android's image will be tainted either way. So Google has the choice whether to disappoint the hardcore open source people or disappoint the average non-techie consumer who will probably only see their phone being awkward to use.
It's their choice. Whichever choice they make, they'll be living the consequences, whatever they may be.
They have a third choice - learn to write decent software. Apple has no problem making an OS that scales from cell phones to workstations. Why can't Google even scale from phones to tablets?
Since when is Google the new Apple?
Google is the new Amway.
Are you seriously trying to argue that Apple is more open than Google?
Come on, Apple's business motto is good for some things, but it's not open. In general it is about as closed as you can get.
Uh, buzz, guess again, thanks for playing. Microsoft is and always has been far more closed in that they do nothing but push their 'extended' version of any real standard, and see to it that it doesn't work anywhere besides Windows. Apple tends to use and embrace real, open standards.
How some geeks miss this is really comical, but then, most have been stuck in Windows-land for a very long time now.
Google is mostly 'open' with everyone else's information, they literally stole all the ideas for Android from Apple, and they also see no problem in stealing your WIFI, something that Apple would never do.
It's hypocritical of them. But it makes some kind of sense.
If manufacturers made crap phones with Honeycomb, which Google is saying is not optimized for phones, it's going to mar Android's image, isn't it? That's the last thing Google (or any company) wants. The flipside is that the open source people are bothered. So Android's image will be tainted either way. So Google has the choice whether to disappoint the hardcore open source people or disappoint the average non-techie consumer who will probably only see their phone being awkward to use.
It's their choice. Whichever choice they make, they'll be living the consequences, whatever they may be.
This is the problem with "open."
People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.
Alan Kay
Tuer words were never spoken.
You don't use a vertical business model, you don't lock it down, you license your OS to anyone and everyone who can slam together a box, etc., and there's a very good chance you'll end up with crap, and some serious problems down the road when you have to contain it all because you cut all these corners.
Then again, it all comes down to priorities and attitude - both to tech in general and how human beings should interact with it specifically. Apple has always put User Experience above everything else. No one else does that.
Is this website Android Insider or Apple Insider?
With Xoom ads plastered all over this site I'm beginning to wonder myself.
Niceee..
It's actually got rhyme; 'ajar' -->'a jar of Honeycomb'
A jar of **** maybe...
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.
It's the hypocracy that's in play here.
Andy Rubin went to such great pains to paint Android as "open" in the tech press, he even invented his own definition in his famous tweet as some sort of purity test. Vic Gundotra went so far at Google I/O to say that Android was developed to free the masses from a "draconian future" with Apple. Android was "open" because open leads to innovation.
Then, for whatever reason, they have to completely back away from that with Honeycomb.
It's not like these are anyone else's standards they're being held to. Rubin and Gundotra and Google have now failed their own litmus test and, in my mind, they deserve all the public flogging that comes their way.
On a side note, I think I've seen three different faces of DED today
What does DED stand for?
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?
Gee, I don't know, maybe because iPhone was the first shipping product to use the OS? Nah, that couldn't be it. That would only make sense.
I gotta say it's kind of fun to watch this play out. Apple appears to be the next wintel since wintel missed the boat on post pc devices.
Armple, not wintel :-)
Nonsense. The LGPL's sole reason for existence is that the GPL does not allow dynamic linking, while the LGPL does.
Ummm...
Last time I looked, the LGPL allows *static* linking, which the GPL does not. "sole" existence?
So, with all your belief in your power to persuade, how many people have you enticed to buy your Xoom, and ditched their iPad?
What's with all this silliness about 'persuading' anyone to do anything ?
Never have I ever said anything of the sort, instead only sharing my opinions based upon my actual ownership/experience with these products/platforms (unlike 99.9% of those in here that have never even owned the devices they so quickly bash).
Personally, I don't really care who does/does not buy a XOOM, iPad, or anything else - As long as I have mine and and said device suits my needs.
Neither Android nor iOS are going anywhere anytime soon, so any investment in either platform is a win - IMO.
Seems like a lot of people in here are feeling more than a little bit threatened by the competition - XD!
The kernel has been released, this is licensed under GPL.
The rest of android is licensed under apache license which is more flexible about open sourcing.
Okay. Google, the "flexibly open" company!