For every Fandroid who has ever uttered the term "walled garden" to refer to the iTunes app store, that crow has to taste pretty bitter right about now.
What I want to know is, what changed? Why are 60,000 apps suddenly slated for mass removal? At that order of magnitude, these couldn't have all been new apps. What policy change went into effect that meant 1 out of every 10 apps had to be pulled. What does that curation process look like? And why institute a process that allows any app in, only to review them at a later time, then have to pull 10% of them? Why allow those apps into their store to begin with?
Again, Apple pulls apps that they already approved. So what's their curation process? An open garden should still look like a garden which means pulling out the weeds every so often. Any pulled app of worth can be easily side loaded if need be.
For every Fandroid who has ever uttered the term "walled garden" to refer to the iTunes app store, that crow has to taste pretty bitter right about now.
The Apple App Store is still a walled garden, with no alternative unless we jailbreak. That hasn't changed.
Quote:
Why allow those apps into their store to begin with?
Lots of us used to ask that about Apple, back when they were letting all sorts of crap in just to build the number of apps.
Finally, Apple had enough, and did several purges of thousands of apps that were just web page pointers, fart and flashlight apps, were "too sexy", and so forth. Of course, sometimes they went a bit too far, like when they banned that Pulitzer Prize satirist at first. Or the other way, when they approved that "baby shaker" killer app.
As long as they fix things up, then for both Google or Apple, better late than never.
Poor guy can't stand a little teasing on an Apple blog. Look, the reality is that Google and the millions of bloggers out there who love to champion them, claim that everything about Google is open and free, and that just turns out to be a bunch of bull in the end. So when this kind of stuff happens and people make a little fun of it, sorry, but they had it coming. Don't get your panties in a wad.
Whoever said that their search algorithms was open source? I am sure it is a great business model to just release to the public the core of your product. Just think about all the companies out there that do that? Coke, Apple, Corning, etc.
I like how you're purposely trying to be obtuse in order to fudge the argument. How many of those companies you listed are constantly proclaiming the virtues of "open" and attacking competing products because of lack of "openness"? How many of those companies use that as a bullet point, an advantage, and a reason to choose their products in marketing? Yeah, so if Google is constantly shrieking about "open" where it suits them most, ignoring the fact that most of their products are NOT open, there's a problem with that, and a fair bit of hypocricy. Apple doesn't throw around the word "open" as a reason to buy their products, but Google does, and it implies inherent advantages, so it should be held by some basic standards as to how "open" their products actually are.
"The Android platform continues to make up the bulk of malware targets, representing 97% of total mobile malware. McAfee Labs researchers are tracking a range of mobile malware targeting these devices, including backdoors that enable attackers to gain control of a smartphone, new mobile exploits, and spyware."
Amazon chose to close it and only allow access to it's app store, but that can be circumvented if need be.
That's not true. Amazon forked Android and made their own version. Because of that Google no longer allows access to Google Play. Amazon isn't member of the OHA, so they are allowed to do this with Android. Amazon made the choice to fork Android, but they didn't "deny" access to Google Play - their right to access Google Play was termiated when they forked Android. Quit trying to make it sound like Amazon closed it off as a choice and could allow access if they desired. Amazon will never get access to Google Play.
Members of the OHA (any major Android phone vendor) has very strict guidelines as to what they can modify in order to maintain compatibility and allow access to Google Play.
No contradiction at all. There are 2 versions of Android. One is open the other is not.
Guess which one has access to Google Play? Here's a hint - it's not the open version.
You were referring to the skins that manufacturers put on their phones in your other post, not the Amazon fork. Those skins directly contradict your attempted point because they could only exist and access the Play Store if Android was an open operating system.
I like how you're purposely trying to be obtuse in order to fudge the argument. How many of those companies you listed are constantly proclaiming the virtues of "open" and attacking competing products because of lack of "openness"? How many of those companies use that as a bullet point, an advantage, and a reason to choose their products in marketing? Yeah, so if Google is constantly shrieking about "open" where it suits them most, ignoring the fact that most of their products are NOT open, there's a problem with that, and a fair bit of hypocricy. Apple doesn't throw around the word "open" as a reason to buy their products, but Google does, and it implies inherent advantages, so it should be held by some basic standards as to how "open" their products actually are.
What products does Google describe as open besides Android and Chrome?
What products does Google describe as open besides Android and Chrome?
Wow. Again, you completely miss the point. Which was, that Google defines open as good only when it wants to push certain products, and giving no indication WHY being open is good for consumers. It's better because its "open". Meanwhile, they have a shitload of closed products, and because opening these products does not suit Google's agenda, they don't do it, but only products in which its in their strategic interest to define as open. So it's hypocritical for them to trumpet away at open-ness as an ideal, while they don't follow that ideal in most of their products. Their message is fraudulent and dishonest. It's as if I said only vegetarian dishes are good and meat dishes are evil, while running a restaurant which serves meat dishes as long as these make money.
You were referring to the skins that manufacturers put on their phones in your other post, not the Amazon fork. Those skins directly contradict your attempted point because they could only exist and access the Play Store if Android was an open operating system.
Bull. Yet so typical. Take what I said out of context (or outright make something up) so you have something to point out where I made a mistake or contradicted myself. My original post (which in un-edited):
Android used on Samsung, Motorola and other popular devices is not the same version of Android that is free to download and customize any way you want (like Amazon did). Once you do that you're no longer allowed access to Google Play.
Your reading comprehension is poor if you took my original quote and somehow thought I was talking about skins. I'm clearly talking about two versions of Android - the one Samsung and others use and the one Amazon uses.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by malta
...
Was that enough spin for you and your "fantard" expectations?
Actually no... but please, by all means please continue. You seem to be pretty good at it.
Since the large majority of apps are themes for launchers, widgets and wallpapers, if they remove that they end up with maybe 5 apps. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
But Google is all for "openness".
Please show me where Google claimed its search engine was open.
Again, Apple pulls apps that they already approved. So what's their curation process? An open garden should still look like a garden which means pulling out the weeds every so often. Any pulled app of worth can be easily side loaded if need be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
For every Fandroid who has ever uttered the term "walled garden" to refer to the iTunes app store, that crow has to taste pretty bitter right about now.
The Apple App Store is still a walled garden, with no alternative unless we jailbreak. That hasn't changed.
Quote:
Why allow those apps into their store to begin with?
Lots of us used to ask that about Apple, back when they were letting all sorts of crap in just to build the number of apps.
Finally, Apple had enough, and did several purges of thousands of apps that were just web page pointers, fart and flashlight apps, were "too sexy", and so forth. Of course, sometimes they went a bit too far, like when they banned that Pulitzer Prize satirist at first. Or the other way, when they approved that "baby shaker" killer app.
As long as they fix things up, then for both Google or Apple, better late than never.
Guess which one has access to Google Play? Here's a hint - it's not the open version.
Sarcasm eludes you.Amazon chose to close it and only allow access to it's app store, but that can be circumvented if need be.
Well they have to do something...
I think I heard this correctly, 97% of the malware on mobile devices is on Android phones! Ugh!
Quote:
Originally Posted by malta
Whoever said that their search algorithms was open source? I am sure it is a great business model to just release to the public the core of your product. Just think about all the companies out there that do that? Coke, Apple, Corning, etc.
I like how you're purposely trying to be obtuse in order to fudge the argument. How many of those companies you listed are constantly proclaiming the virtues of "open" and attacking competing products because of lack of "openness"? How many of those companies use that as a bullet point, an advantage, and a reason to choose their products in marketing? Yeah, so if Google is constantly shrieking about "open" where it suits them most, ignoring the fact that most of their products are NOT open, there's a problem with that, and a fair bit of hypocricy. Apple doesn't throw around the word "open" as a reason to buy their products, but Google does, and it implies inherent advantages, so it should be held by some basic standards as to how "open" their products actually are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234
Citaion needed
Here ya go- now instead of accepting it, you will predictably attack the source.
http://www.mcafee.com/ca/security-awareness/articles/mobile-malware-growth-continuing-2013.aspx
"The Android platform continues to make up the bulk of malware targets, representing 97% of total mobile malware. McAfee Labs researchers are tracking a range of mobile malware targeting these devices, including backdoors that enable attackers to gain control of a smartphone, new mobile exploits, and spyware."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Amazon chose to close it and only allow access to it's app store, but that can be circumvented if need be.
That's not true. Amazon forked Android and made their own version. Because of that Google no longer allows access to Google Play. Amazon isn't member of the OHA, so they are allowed to do this with Android. Amazon made the choice to fork Android, but they didn't "deny" access to Google Play - their right to access Google Play was termiated when they forked Android. Quit trying to make it sound like Amazon closed it off as a choice and could allow access if they desired. Amazon will never get access to Google Play.
Members of the OHA (any major Android phone vendor) has very strict guidelines as to what they can modify in order to maintain compatibility and allow access to Google Play.
You were referring to the skins that manufacturers put on their phones in your other post, not the Amazon fork. Those skins directly contradict your attempted point because they could only exist and access the Play Store if Android was an open operating system.
What products does Google describe as open besides Android and Chrome?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
What products does Google describe as open besides Android and Chrome?
Wow. Again, you completely miss the point. Which was, that Google defines open as good only when it wants to push certain products, and giving no indication WHY being open is good for consumers. It's better because its "open". Meanwhile, they have a shitload of closed products, and because opening these products does not suit Google's agenda, they don't do it, but only products in which its in their strategic interest to define as open. So it's hypocritical for them to trumpet away at open-ness as an ideal, while they don't follow that ideal in most of their products. Their message is fraudulent and dishonest. It's as if I said only vegetarian dishes are good and meat dishes are evil, while running a restaurant which serves meat dishes as long as these make money.
Change app name from superhdwallpaper to superduperhdwallpaper job done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
But...but... Google is "open", and "Free", and not part of "The Man"!!!
Google can't possibly be thinking of telling developers what they can and can't put on on "open" store can they?
All apps are equal; Google apps are more equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
You were referring to the skins that manufacturers put on their phones in your other post, not the Amazon fork. Those skins directly contradict your attempted point because they could only exist and access the Play Store if Android was an open operating system.
Bull. Yet so typical. Take what I said out of context (or outright make something up) so you have something to point out where I made a mistake or contradicted myself. My original post (which in un-edited):
Android used on Samsung, Motorola and other popular devices is not the same version of Android that is free to download and customize any way you want (like Amazon did). Once you do that you're no longer allowed access to Google Play.
Your reading comprehension is poor if you took my original quote and somehow thought I was talking about skins. I'm clearly talking about two versions of Android - the one Samsung and others use and the one Amazon uses.