As I said, almost a YEAR after the iPhone was shown. Understanding the calendar is not your strong suit. And no, the iPhone was remarkably solid during demos during and after the January announcement and it was NOT reported to be "crashing hard" as you just made up.
Well at least we know you don't believe Eric Schmidt was stealing pre-release iPhone design info and taking it back to Google. As you said it took nearly a year before the members of the Open Handset Alliance could put together a similar touch-centric build. Google didn't build'em. They put out the specs and asked the various members to put together what they proposed.
Well at least we know you don't believe Eric Schmidt was stealing pre-release iPhone design info and taking it back to Google. As you said it took nearly a year before the members of the Open Handset Alliance could put together a similar touch-centric build. Google didn't build'em. They put out the specs and asked the various members to put together what they proposed.
you don't know that he didn't push Google leadership to pursue more iPhone-like decisions. after all, Jobs was mad at him for a reason when he found out. it's not ethical for a board member to be the CEO of a company building a direct competitor -- for obvious reasons. it's not paranoid or crazy at all to note how completely improper it is.
it's not ethical for a board member to be the CEO of a company building a direct competitor -- for obvious reasons. it's not paranoid or crazy at all to note how completely improper it is.
Ummm... Steve Jobs was being unethical when he had Schultz added to the Apple BOD? He already was aware of Google Android just as everyone else in the valley was.
And yeah, Mr. Jobs WAS mad. Why? Because he told Google not to enable multi-touch, which they didn't for some time even tho it was built into Android. Once Palm integrated it without repercussions from Apple it created a market problem for Google. They were odd-man-out, the only one of the three touch-centric mobile OS'es at the time not to offer it. Piss Mr. Jobs off and almost guarantee Android would see very little distribution or make the equally tough choice to tell Mr Jobs they were going to activate the feature? The danger Google was focusing on was Microsoft. Cow-towing to Mr. Jobs demands was leaving them wide open to MS mobile plans. Not doing so might hasten the day that Apple replaced them. In hindsight, which is usually 20-20, MS had no real mobile plan ready to roll.
Personally I think Google made the sensible choice business-wise, particularly at the time. Apple was never going to keep all the Google services around anyway, replacing them with their own solutions as it made economic sense to do so. That's what Apple does, which is smart. Why share the wealth unless you have to. IMO nearly all their partners eventually become simply "component suppliers" if even that, no matter how Apple-friendly they are. Microsoft on the other hand was still perceived as the one that posed the greatest danger to Google and mobile. I'm sure Google thought Mr. Jobs was someone they had a special relationship with, a man they could reason with, explain circumstances. Unfortunately they were wrong.
Or possibly 5. They simply prefer android more then iOS as is my case. I have an HTC M8 and an iPhone 5s. I prefer android more due to several simple factors that many people I have encountered also enjoy.
A. Ability to change default programs -Yeah this is a big one
B. Hardware options - My HTC M8 has a far superior screen then my 5s. It is not just size, but color quality resolution and the HTC screen seems to float on the glass.
C. Better notification/actionable notifications
D. Not my case but others. Not wanting to be controlled by Apple. Many people do not like how apple decides many of the finer things on the phone such as the default apps. I have a little gripe with this but not a large one.
E. Ability to download apps not available on iOS without jailbreak. Not my case but many people's case like my roommate who uses a Gameboy emulator.
D. Some idiot feature by some dumb Manufacturer: Seriously those gimmicks like Smart (insert idiotic samsung feature here) sales phones. I worked in the wireless industry for years and people would always want the phones for those reasons.
Don't start with a presupposition that iOS is superior to android. It is an opinionated subject. Poeple have opinions on which OS is superior as such no ones opinion is either right or wrong. People will find things they do not like in both of them. When I offered my customers an upgrade option and I was faced with that Question of which one is better I answered honestly. "For each it's own. For some people iphone is great for others they can't stand the way it works and vice versa. If you use an iPhone you will be disappointed with an android because they do not work like an iPhone and vice versa with android.
All of the reasons you detail belong in the "tweaker" category as far as I'm concerned. Advanced personalization and customization is probably a decent sub-category name.
And regardless of a persons preference, one OS can most certainly be superior to another! It of course doesn't mean that it's more suitable, or a better choice for every individual - but iOS is clearly superior to Android from a performance, security, reliability and usability standpoint to anyone who cares to evaluate the platforms objectively and dispassionately. The fact that Android contains a few features that you prefer, does nothing to mitigate the deficiencies in the core metrics on which an OS should be evaluated.
As I said, almost a YEAR after the iPhone was shown. Understanding the calendar is not your strong suit. And no, the iPhone was remarkably solid during demos during and after the January announcement and it was NOT reported to be "crashing hard" as you just made up.
This article tells a different (and highly fascinating) backstory on the introductory Keynote:
As I said, almost a YEAR after the iPhone was shown. Understanding the calendar is not your strong suit. And no, the iPhone was remarkably solid during demos during and after the January announcement and it was NOT reported to be "crashing hard" as you just made up.
This article tells a different (and highly fascinating) backstory on the introductory Keynote:
Comments
you don't know that he didn't push Google leadership to pursue more iPhone-like decisions. after all, Jobs was mad at him for a reason when he found out. it's not ethical for a board member to be the CEO of a company building a direct competitor -- for obvious reasons. it's not paranoid or crazy at all to note how completely improper it is.
And yeah, Mr. Jobs WAS mad. Why? Because he told Google not to enable multi-touch, which they didn't for some time even tho it was built into Android. Once Palm integrated it without repercussions from Apple it created a market problem for Google. They were odd-man-out, the only one of the three touch-centric mobile OS'es at the time not to offer it. Piss Mr. Jobs off and almost guarantee Android would see very little distribution or make the equally tough choice to tell Mr Jobs they were going to activate the feature? The danger Google was focusing on was Microsoft. Cow-towing to Mr. Jobs demands was leaving them wide open to MS mobile plans. Not doing so might hasten the day that Apple replaced them. In hindsight, which is usually 20-20, MS had no real mobile plan ready to roll.
Personally I think Google made the sensible choice business-wise, particularly at the time. Apple was never going to keep all the Google services around anyway, replacing them with their own solutions as it made economic sense to do so. That's what Apple does, which is smart. Why share the wealth unless you have to. IMO nearly all their partners eventually become simply "component suppliers" if even that, no matter how Apple-friendly they are. Microsoft on the other hand was still perceived as the one that posed the greatest danger to Google and mobile. I'm sure Google thought Mr. Jobs was someone they had a special relationship with, a man they could reason with, explain circumstances. Unfortunately they were wrong.
All of the reasons you detail belong in the "tweaker" category as far as I'm concerned. Advanced personalization and customization is probably a decent sub-category name.
And regardless of a persons preference, one OS can most certainly be superior to another! It of course doesn't mean that it's more suitable, or a better choice for every individual - but iOS is clearly superior to Android from a performance, security, reliability and usability standpoint to anyone who cares to evaluate the platforms objectively and dispassionately. The fact that Android contains a few features that you prefer, does nothing to mitigate the deficiencies in the core metrics on which an OS should be evaluated.
As I said, almost a YEAR after the iPhone was shown. Understanding the calendar is not your strong suit. And no, the iPhone was remarkably solid during demos during and after the January announcement and it was NOT reported to be "crashing hard" as you just made up.
This article tells a different (and highly fascinating) backstory on the introductory Keynote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/and-then-steve-said-let-there-be-an-iphone.html?_r=0
It was a scary ride for everybody involved with the development of iPhone.
However, calling today's iOS "crashy" at this point is just trolling.
Good read. The Japanese WiFi was pure genius.