Editorial: Apple, Google and the failure of Android's open

13468916

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 317


    Nice read - especially the mostly-chronological set of episodes to reminisce to in support of the benefits of closed platform/systems.


     


    The point I think that was mostly missed is that it doesn't matter (as much) who wins - but that different types of both 'open' and 'closed' exist. This eco-system, whether it be conflict, co-dependency, scavenging, or parasitical, is bigger because of the variety, the choice, the two (or more) sides. Different demographic groups in society, however you define them - economic, social, ideological - whatever (and that changes internally constantly), will demand different 'experiences' and then that will change and morph over time - but you need something to change into - a void or lack of choice (no matter how well designed) would hasten decline and even future development. So cheer that there exists people who will develop and champion one or the other. Apple's walled garden (or gilded cage, as many might see it) is appealing in so many ways, but only as much as it is because you can always go out into the wide west outside temporarily or to stay - and that there are people willing to pay for the exclusivity and other perks (likely) - and even more that might come in for the first time than there was before.


     


    The jab at China was a bit weird seeing as they are likely to be the dominant and most successful economical model in the coming decades and generations due to the 'mostly closed' almost corporate nature of their system (communalism was the society's teenage pre-pubescent phase - confining but necessary). As they continue to build their own walled garden AND allow certain pockets of open chaos (known as capitalism) to co-exist and mingle, we will see that the economic 'freedom' that many countries aspire to ( which seems to manifest itself mostly as 'freedom from responsibility, freedom from duty, freedom from co-operation, freedom from cohesive vision') starts to become less important as those governments (and their societies in general) fail to respond to crises, provide its citizens a middle class standard of living, and no longer form a dominant economic super power position in the world. And don't think for a moment that these free-market pockets in China are spreading from their own 'goodness' momentum - they can be reigned in at any time if deemed contrary to the vision of the country - but for now, good.


    With middling and B-level prospects, most economically 'wild west free market' societies tend to become complacent, which diminishes innovation - not bad, just retirement-like. Of course, the human rights abuses, tech stealing, and environmental inattention is outrageous, but it is not out of scale of most large American-style corporation practices - and will come in line with int'l values with increased citizen wealth and personal success - which i think is the real measure of a system's desirability and success. Combine that with China's openness to let more people travel and migrate abroad - and continually return and attract others - and you have the makings of a system that can actually deliver wealth to the citizens and keep them dynamic and productive. Not savoury to pro-free marketers.


     


    Also, shocking that you dared to say 'free attracts lower value customers' to the readers here. Lower value customers? like: Lower class citizens? Fine, and likely true, but unnecessarily antagonistic.

  • Reply 102 of 317
    solomansoloman Posts: 228member
    matrix07 wrote: »
    I agree that Open is good if it's really Open, only that I don't think Android or even Google is Open. How can an OS which is slaved to carriers be Open. If it's really Open every Android devices should get their updates when there is ones.
    Open is just a marketing bullshit from Google, not unlike "Don't Be Evil".

    Being able to be 'slaved' can only happen if it is open. The updates are there to be had, it's up to the manufacturers and carriers to do it.
  • Reply 103 of 317
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    otbricki wrote: »
    This is hilarious. Apple and everything it does is built on BSD. Between Linux and BSD you have 95% of all smart phones. Open completely dominates this industry.

    iOS sure is open, huh¡ :no:
    sreeram wrote: »
    [post]

    Shut up and go away.
    vadania wrote: »
    Do you actually know anything about software?  Just curious...

    Do you know anything about locks? :p
  • Reply 104 of 317
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    Outstanding editorial DED. I read every word.
  • Reply 105 of 317
    superdxsuperdx Posts: 67member
    Open source needs viable business models to succeed, otherwise you end up with dead projects all over Google Code / Sourceforge that no one maintains.

    If a piece of software is good, it needs attention and if the developer has to support himself with another job, then the software is going to suffer due to lack of attention. The failing of open source is that people assume that other people are going to pitch in and help, but all that does is create 1) forks or 2) patches which don't work well together. It also requires scale, many people need to help, which means that even more people need to be using the software to begin with for developers to contribute.

    Time is money, programmers need to eat. For $1-2 bucks an app, the Apple App Store is not for the rich by any stretch. Developers are compensated and they are motivated to create even better products. Love does not buy lunch! Love profit = great products!
  • Reply 106 of 317
    When I once owned an Android phone I wouldn't pay for any apps because I knew my next phone would be an iPhone and I would start my collection there. The Android platform seemed like it could change at any time, like a big party of anyone coming and going as they please where iOS seems like a party of friends you can count on.
    Great article again Daniel!
  • Reply 107 of 317
    emacs72 wrote: »
    <span style="line-height:1.231;">current as of April 2013, appleinsider is running on Linux with pages served up by Apache.  the site also uses JavaScript, jQuery and jQueryUI.  for HTTP compression, they are likely using gzip.  all of these six (6) things are open source.</span>


    that said, however, <span style="line-height:1.231;">the article mentions -- in this very specific context -- success is based on monetary returns.</span>

    You forgot to mention that AI serves up Google Ads.
  • Reply 108 of 317
    froodfrood Posts: 771member


    To summarize the editorial:


     


    Apple makes the most money, therefore Apple has won.

  • Reply 109 of 317
    solomansoloman Posts: 228member
    frood wrote: »
    To summarize the editorial:

    Apple makes the most money, therefore Apple has won.

    What did they win?
  • Reply 110 of 317
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacTel View Post



    Open has been successful though. Android took the feature phone and buried it. Everyone has been better off with Android on the cheaper phones.



    I don't know if Google has been all about profit. Maybe they just want to elevate the level of technology out in the world. In other words - be good. Google Glass is a good example of that.

     


     


    be careful what you wish for.


     


    1) your point "Everyone has been better off with Android on the cheaper phones"   is false on 2 points... 1) the TCO of a 'cheaper' phone to the global economy is something yet to modeled.   I agree it's pushed functionality down to a certain price point, but quality and likely, security/privacy is not necessary following.  PCs were great until you put them on the internet, then the cost of a PC went up 3X, with making software/drivers work, security, recovery, let alone the global cost of botted systems.   I would posit that you will see the same 'global degradation' of the internet with botted Android 2.x phones in a couple years.  2)  in 2 years, with 8 different major Android versions out there, is the tower of app babel good for developers, for consumers of apps?   Proving the negative... 'everyone' is not better off.


     


    I will say it lowers the barrier of entry to iOS in a deferred 2-step path from dumb-toCheapAndroid-to_IOS, as a 'cheap' smart phone that 'sort of works' gets people to see the value of mobile computing... but the vast majority of people who have android phones appear not to use them for mobile (read web) surfing... so my guess that value is limited or very short term.


     


    2) I Don't know if Google has been all about profit    No... It's about corporate survival.  Profit is a measure of survivability (But look at RIMM, it's most profitable quarters were after the iPhone was released, but their long term plan appeared to be utter chaos... so short term profit does not ensure long term viability), but google's play here is the very long game.  Just like Apple's play in the smart phone market was to be one of the big 3.  Google didn't want to elevate anything... they saw Apple (and Facebook) make explicit 'carve out' of their niche... ad-supported search.  If you obviate Google from the the search bar, or effectively put an 'app' in front of every Google monetized platform, Google dies as the smartphone/tablet eats all the growth in the internet access market.  By moving android in front of WinPhone (and MS/Nokia played that poorly) in the eyes of OEM's as a 'free/cheap' alternative, Google ensured they could influence 'how' people used the internet mobily, and not be cut off if Apple basically said, we have a better search tool, we have a better mapping tool, so let us use yours for free, or we will suck the life out of you.


     


    I'm not saying what google did was Evil, I'm just saying there was no 'good' involved.  It's Business... Always Business.


     


    Be Good was never about 'pushing premature technology to market'    Be Good was always do what's best for the owner of the data google is advertising/hosting/indexing and the consumer of google's who is accessing this data.  However, more and more, Be Good means 'Be good to your stockholders'   Not a bad thing, but a different thing than before.   As you see from the decisions around Wave and Reader, Google could easily just suck several billion in sales for google glass, and then drop the project completely, because they have greater long term profit potential in other projects.   Just saying.   Good is as Good does.

  • Reply 111 of 317

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by airmanchairman View Post



    I don't know if Google has been all about profit. Maybe they just want to elevate the level of technology out in the world. In other words - be good. Google Glass is a good example of that.


     



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Nonsense. Google is certainly interested in profits.



    Every company has a strategy for how to create profits. For Apple, the strategy is "we'll create insanely great products that lead to incredible customer delight". For Google, the strategy is "we'll insert ourselves everywhere to harvest every bit of personal information we can so that we can sell massive amounts of advertising". To that end, they couldn't care less whether a technology is exciting or innovative. Whichever technology sells the most ads is the best choice for them. Given the choice between an incredibly advanced technology which doesn't sell many ads and an older technology which sells tons of ads, the latter is the route they would go (if they had to make a choice - of course they have the resources to invest in things that MIGHT lead to future revenues, as well).



    Google Glass is one more tool toward that objective. It is therefore well within Google's strategy of increasing their advertising revenues. Watch, however, as it becomes more and more ad-driven as it evolves.


     


    I most certainly did not post that statement; I called it sarcasm (as part of a multi-quote), as that's the only context in which that naive comment could ring true.


     


    Google and the greater good are an oxymoron, an absolute contradiction in terms, just like "Military Intelligence" (tip of the hat to the peerless Marx Brothers for that last timeless quip!)

  • Reply 112 of 317
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


     


    be careful what you wish for.


     


    1) your point "Everyone has been better off with Android on the cheaper phones"   is false on 2 points... 1) the TCO of a 'cheaper' phone to the global economy is something yet to modeled.   I agree it's pushed functionality down to a certain price point, but quality and likely, security/privacy is not necessary following.  PCs were great until you put them on the internet, then the cost of a PC went up 3X, with making software/drivers work, security, recovery, let alone the global cost of botted systems.   I would posit that you will see the same 'global degradation' of the internet with botted Android 2.x phones in a couple years.  2)  in 2 years, with 8 different major Android versions out there, is the tower of app babel good for developers, for consumers of apps?   Proving the negative... 'everyone' is not better off.


     


    I will say it lowers the barrier of entry to iOS in a deferred 2-step path from dumb-toCheapAndroid-to_IOS, as a 'cheap' smart phone that 'sort of works' gets people to see the value of mobile computing... but the vast majority of people who have android phones appear not to use them for mobile (read web) surfing... so my guess that value is limited or very short term.


     


    2) I Don't know if Google has been all about profit    No... It's about corporate survival.  Profit is a measure of survivability (But look at RIMM, it's most profitable quarters were after the iPhone was released, but their long term plan appeared to be utter chaos... so short term profit does not ensure long term viability), but google's play here is the very long game.  Just like Apple's play in the smart phone market was to be one of the big 3.  Google didn't want to elevate anything... they saw Apple (and Facebook) make explicit 'carve out' of their niche... ad-supported search.  If you obviate Google from the the search bar, or effectively put an 'app' in front of every Google monetized platform, Google dies as the smartphone/tablet eats all the growth in the internet access market.  By moving android in front of WinPhone (and MS/Nokia played that poorly) in the eyes of OEM's as a 'free/cheap' alternative, Google ensured they could influence 'how' people used the internet mobily, and not be cut off if Apple basically said, we have a better search tool, we have a better mapping tool, so let us use yours for free, or we will suck the life out of you.


     


    I'm not saying what google did was Evil, I'm just saying there was no 'good' involved.  It's Business... Always Business.


     


    Be Good was never about 'pushing premature technology to market'    Be Good was always do what's best for the owner of the data google is advertising/hosting/indexing and the consumer of google's who is accessing this data.  However, more and more, Be Good means 'Be good to your stockholders'   Not a bad thing, but a different thing than before.   As you see from the decisions around Wave and Reader, Google could easily just suck several billion in sales for google glass, and then drop the project completely, because they have greater long term profit potential in other projects.   Just saying.   Good is as Good does.



     


     


    A bone of contention with Google is that they derive their profits from ad clicks, ads being placed, and not by the profits based on hardware and software sales. So there is something sneaky to me about their business model.  I thought google was completely selfish in how they handled Flash.  Apple and Micrsoft said no to Flash because Flash was NOT good code.  It causes the user and ultimately the phone maker too many headaches, whether it be bad battery life, constant updating a plug-in, to security issues galore.  Why did Google keep Flash support? Because they wanted mobile users to watch YouTube videos, which Google owns, because the ad based videos are Flash.  Well, double edged sword so their desire to have Flash support was on the surface good, but underneath bad.  I thought it was in poor taste to know that a user's phone could be compromised because the company is more interested in profits because they don't make any from software and hardware sales.  I wish Google wasn't so reliant on making money from ad based revenue model.  Don't we have enough ads? That's what makes a product annoying to use. Thats why I hate listening/watching ad based radio and TV.   If Google can't make money by licensing a well designed, well supported OS where security is always a top priority that they license to others or have their own well designed hardware that they can make a profit from, then they shouldn't be in business. Then they are disruption from others that do a better job.  Yeah, they foster a lot of interesting features through the eco system, but those features aren't transferrable from one brand/model to another as those features are proprietary.  Apple was smart in doing these reciprocal patent deals with Microsoft and HTC. it gives both sides the ability to innovate and leverage each other's ideas.  Apple puts in and takes out of those deals, but they can improve their product without having to deal with lawsuits between either company.  Too bad Samsung and others don't want to share and do the same thing.  It would certainly put an end to the constant legal battles.

  • Reply 113 of 317

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by designguybrown View Post



    • Nice read - especially the mostly-chronological set of episodes to reminisce to in support of the benefits of closed platform/systems.


     


    Nice rebuttals, to the extent that I feel inclined to answer some of them:


     



    • The jab at China was a bit weird seeing as they are likely to be the dominant and most successful economical model in the coming decades and generations...


     


    It is sufficient to simply quote the article to show that it was neither weird nor a "jab", but a simile that had a bearing on the topic of the article:


    "Saying that today's Samsung is successful because it is "open" with Android is like saying that today's China is successful because it is Communist. In reality, their recent successes are due to both having stepped away from communal planning and designs and toward proprietary, differentiated, private investment of capital".


     



    • Also, shocking that you dared to say 'free attracts lower value customers' to the readers here. Lower value customers? like: Lower class citizens? Fine, and likely true, but unnecessarily antagonistic.


    ?


    There is no daring involved in stating hard facts: lower value customers want free but then again block ads, which to date is the only revenue model that can support free, whether it is apps or web content. Not antagonistic, but unpalatable, hence the terms "bitter truth" and "hard facts".


  • Reply 114 of 317
    milfordmilford Posts: 26member
    So by this argument, if 90% of phones run the open Android platform, but the remaining 10% of phones running closed software account for 100% of the income, that will be a failure of Open. If 99% of web content, mobile or otherwise, is free, but the 1% that is not free makes almost all of the profit, that's a failure of Open. If 95% of my life is spent consuming free products (like this article) on open platforms, yet the money I spend is concentrated in that remaining 5%, that's a failure of Open.

    Perhaps if you define it right, that's true -- tautological and trivial, but true. But it misses the social reality by focussing exclusively on profit. The social reality is that an increasing percentage of what we see, do, and the platforms we do it on, is open. Perhaps money isn't the be all and end all gauge after all -- particularly for something that's free.
  • Reply 115 of 317
    Dan_DilgerDan_Dilger Posts: 1,583member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    The big problem with this whole article is that it is pure nonsense. Apple is more "open" than probably any other big tech company out there. They have piloted LLVM and CLang to an enviable position in a few years. This in and of itself is a huge undertaking with contributors world wide. Then you have web kit. OpenCL was driven by Apple to an industry standard. It is Apple engineers that develop and maintain CUPs, the UNIX printing standard. Apple distributes its OS with open solutions like SQLIte, Python and others. Further Apple promotes the use of standardized languages like C/ C++ along side Objective C, nothing half assed like dot net. Frankly the BSD community has folded much of Apples technology back into BSD. Beyond all of that Apple has become most forthcoming with developer support to make sure they have fresh software available for their platforms.



    In other words the whole premise of the article is bull crap.



    The problem with many people is that they confuse security with a platform that isn't open. This isn't really the case, the security and vetting that Apple goes through has made a positive impact on their devices and stands in stark contrast to the unsecured platforms like Android. Some may find it problematic that Apple takes a cut of apps sales revenue and forces App Store use on IOS hardware. However this is balanced by a massive amount of software they distribute for free. What does this do for me? Well it means that every time I reach into my pocket for my iPhone it works.


     


    Your premise of the "premise of the article" is simply wrong. Either your reading comprehension is pretty terrible or you're trying to cloud issues by making a straw man argument about how great open source is. 


     


    The article clearly mentions WebKit, and if you Google the web for LLVM, AI's DED article from 08 on the subject is in the top 5 hits. So don't trot out your education about how Apple is also using open source. The article also makes no connection between security and closed software, another strawman you erect to show your superior boxing skills. I'm sure there are some actual flaws in the article you could argue against; you don't need to invent your own.


     


    The article makes it pretty clear that, if you're taking about "superiority," "market performance," "efficacious impact on the world/technology/culture" or anything along those lines, it's just silly to compare Google's copy of software being handed out to a bunch of visionless cloners who were making boring PCs a decade ago to a series of real products Apple is making, products that have defined the culture and changed how people act and think, from the iPad to iPhone to iPad.


     


    Where is all the supposed innovation across all of the Android landscape? The most unique thing running Android is perhaps a SLR with a smartphone camera back, and that just doesn't seem like a great idea. Why not just attach a smartphone? What else has Android come up with apart from copies of the iPod, iPhone, iPad and Apple TV? The community should be able to devise a few really cool things that at least catch on, but instead they are churning out nothing but me-too copies.


     


     


    Apple has leveraged open source software to do great things. It gave the world a third browser (rescuing some KHTML code that would never have gone anywhere otherwise), it has built a next-generation coding toolchain with LLVM, LLDB and Clang, it made *BSD relevant again and took advantage of really cool things the various *BSDs have created.


     


    But Apple doesn't brag about having given away the most web browser engines the way Google brags about having deployed the most (yet most defective!) smartphone OS licenses. And having given away so much Android has not resulted in some sort of superior platform for development or deployment. Smells a lot like Linux on the desktop to me. 

  • Reply 116 of 317

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post


    And people wonder why android fanboys are drawn to this site... If you go on androidcentral.com or XDA you rarely see any mention of apple.



     


    They come here to tell Apple fans how much they appreciate this site's coverage of "other tech" even though they only care about "other tech". In other words, they come here to tell Apple fans how much better they are because they don't bury their heads in the sand, like apparently the rest of us do.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacTel View Post



    Open has been successful though. Android took the feature phone and buried it. Everyone has been better off with Android on the cheaper phones.



    I don't know if Google has been all about profit. Maybe they just want to elevate the level of technology out in the world. In other words - be good. Google Glass is a good example of that.

     


     


    Wow. And they call Apple users a cult. This notion that "Google = good" because they embrace open source and "elevate technology in the world" is just a starry-eyed rehashing of Google's "don't be evil" mantra, which you just regurgitated hook line and sinker. Throwing around the term "open source" is how Google elevates their image to the tech world, and that is, in my opinion, what DED's (otherwise meandering) article should have focused on. I've never thought of Glass as "an act of good" for the world. The Bill Gates Foundation's work is an act of good. Glass is just more tech.

  • Reply 117 of 317
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,819member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    Of course, iPhone owners just go about enjoying their devices without ever mocking Android.



     


    True. Most iPhone users I know would never visit this site. They're reading People Magazine or looking at apps to track their fitness goals. You know, they have a life. They do things. Android is just something they've heard about. Something to do with Google. Something on other phones. That creepy guy in the office was going from cubicle to cubicle showing off his new Samsung phone. It had a big screen and he was showing off all these apps. He wouldn't stop talking about it, like it was the most interesting thing in his life. Feign interest. Be polite. Maybe he'll go away. If not, there's always HR.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post


    Part of the problem with open source efforts such as Linux and Office clones is the shitty, nerdy interface. Great ideas, a lot of effort and hard to understand, complex interfaces. Check out Gimp, the open source alternative to Photoshop. It's very name means hobbled or a limp. Windows and panels galore...ugly, underlined menu names.


     


    Apple's challenge is to stay ahead of Android in terms of ease of use and coolness. Many people can recognize and will pay for nicely designed stuff.



     


    Linux and Office were designed at the intersection of Technology and Technology.


    Apple sits at the intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts.

  • Reply 118 of 317
    Dan_DilgerDan_Dilger Posts: 1,583member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Milford View Post



    So by this argument, if 90% of phones run the open Android platform, but the remaining 10% of phones running closed software account for 100% of the income, that will be a failure of Open. If 99% of web content, mobile or otherwise, is free, but the 1% that is not free makes almost all of the profit, that's a failure of Open. If 95% of my life is spent consuming free products (like this article) on open platforms, yet the money I spend is concentrated in that remaining 5%, that's a failure of Open.



    Perhaps if you define it right, that's true -- tautological and trivial, but true. But it misses the social reality by focussing exclusively on profit. The social reality is that an increasing percentage of what we see, do, and the platforms we do it on, is open. Perhaps money isn't the be all and end all gauge after all -- particularly for something that's free.


     


    But isn't your comment is "tautological and trivial"? Come on, the reality is that Android is not a platform. It's a small platform of new Android 4.3 devices, another bucket of year or two old phones that will never be updated, and a majority of devices running Android 2.x that are holding back anything new. 


     


    You can combine it all to say there is One Android with "a large percentage of units shipped!!" but that's disingenuous, and usage patterns and data show very clearly that nobody is buying Android apps and only a small percentage are using Android phones as smartphones (browser, etc). 


     


    You're rejoicing that Android is free, but that's the problem. There's no business model for anyone but Google (who spreads some ads on a portion of the installed base) and some hardware makers that make cloner-style margins on cheap hardware that is abandoned immediately after the sale. No updates. 


     


    That's the "social reality." Google's Android isn't making the world better, nicer, more advanced or more secure. It's just attempting to reverse the progress Apple has achieved, bringing smartphones back into the PC model of the late 1990s where there are ads all over, malware/spyware/viruses, and advancement is stagnant.

  • Reply 119 of 317
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,819member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Soloman View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frood View Post


    To summarize the editorial:


     


    Apple makes the most money, therefore Apple has won.


     



    What did they win?


     


    Are you kidding?

  • Reply 120 of 317

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rcfa View Post



    What made NeXTSTEP successful at Apple in the name of OS X was



    a) fooling people with the name "Mac OS X" as if it were a better version of "Mac OS 9", when in reality it was a totally new OS

    b) a backwards compatibility environment that allowed running old-style Mac software

    c) a backwards compatibility API that allowed lazy developers to port their software in a quick and dirty way to the new OS (aka Carbon).


     


    Can't refute the facts in these assertions, but it must be said that was quite a feat to pull off successfully in the face of the apathy and Inertia of the big developers like Adobe, Quark and Microsoft, who were initially reluctant to dedicate resources to the OS change.


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by rcfa View Post


    Not quite true...

    Microsoft bought a CP/M clone called QDOS (which stood for Quick'n Dirty OS) which some hacker had written to avoid having to buy CP/M. That's what they sold to IBM as MS-DOS. They later paid some sort of settlement to DR to avoid a lawsuit,


     


    Dead right again (argh!). But I have read an account somewhere that there was (allegedly) a lawsuit that led to the settlement, in which the DR-DOS author Gary Kildall sensationally executed a four-key macro on an MS-DOS-equipped PC which brought up the DR-DOS copyright/disclaimer information on its display in the courtroom!


     


    Originally Posted by rcfa View Post


    The article uses varying and inconsistent concepts of "open" and "closed", randomly mixing open specs, open source, open licensing.

    Android e.g. isn't open, there is not a single open mobile platform...


     


    This inconsistency is at the heart of the silly reasoning that the article is trying hard to debunk - the mistaken ideas that Android is open and iOS closed, and that open wins every time etc. Talking about the oft-mentioned "walled garden" touted by the Android camp as a shortcoming of iOS, the Google apps (GMail etc) used in the Android eco-system for instance are mainly written in C, while 3rd party app coders are restricted to using Java, whereas Objective C is the default common to all Apple apps, default or 3rd party.

Sign In or Register to comment.