This whole article seems rather silly saying how great Apple, iPhones and iOS is considering Google is said to be the future of the internet and everything else.
Lots of things are said, but they're not always true. The iPod and the iPhones were both said to be failures when they came out, because they were too expensive. The iPad was said to be a failure because it was just a big iPod Touch, and also probably too expensive. As I'm sure you know, they didn't end up being the failures that many people perceived them to be. It was also said that Apple couldn't compete in the phone business with companies like Motorola and Nokia that had been doing it for years.
Quote:
Compared to Google and Android, Apple is seen as a failing company.
Funny, considering the fact that Apple is more profitable than Google, and Android doesn't actually make any money at all for Google. Last I heard, Google was making more money from iOS users than Android users, but I'm not sure if that has changed.
Quote:
Apple is definitely considered a doomed company with relatively low shareholder value based on continued loss of iPhone market share to Android.
Yes, the price/earnings ratio is low compared to its peers, and that is largely attributable to the fact that many investors are worried about competition from Android devices, but it doesn't look like they're really losing important market share with the customers that they care about.
You could break down the global phone market into sub-markets, and Apple only wants to dominate the higher tiers where there's money to be made. They could crank out junk to gain market share but potentially lose money and lose some of their desirability with the more lucrative customer base, but that's not in their best interest. In richer markets like the U.S., they are gaining market share, but there are probably a lot of people in poorer countries who are getting their first bare-bones smart-ish phone, and it's running Android. That's skewing the market-share numbers, but these sales aren't really hurting Apple. Those customers aren't going to be spending a lot of money on apps, so it's not like the developers are going to abandon iOS. As countries like China get richer, more and more people are going to be able to afford premium phones, which is the segment that Apple dominates. The important thing for Apple is that it continues to sell more and more phones, while maintaining good margins on the devices.
Quote:
People seem to be overlooking the fact that Google is worth $1200 a share while Apple is struggling to hold $530 a share.
You know that share price by itself is a meaningless indicator, right? Google could announce a 1-10 stock split today, and it would trade at $120/share (or $117, given the actual current price), but that wouldn't make it a less valuable company. Market cap and (ex-cash) p/e ratio are better indicators of what people think the company is worth. Still, I agree that the share price is unreasonably low considering how profitable they are.
Quote:
No intelligent investor has any faith in Apple being able to deliver new products and most believe that a high-end iPhone isn't any better than the common Android smartphone.
I can't see an intelligent person believing either of these things. Apple has a great track record of delivering new products, and they have explicitly said that they have some currently in the pipeline. You can argue that the best Android phones compete with the newest iPhones, depending on what you're looking for, but the average Android phone is cheap hardware running software from a few years ago.
Quote:
I honestly don't see how anyone can say that Apple is a better company than Google is when Google has the strongest backing on Wall Street. Market share remains the most important measure of how well a company is doing and Apple looks pretty sick based on shrinking market share. Doesn't it make sense that investors put their money on a company that looks like a winner?
Yes, Google stock is 75% institutionally owned, versus 65% for Apple. But the reason it's possible to make money by investing in stock is that investors are often wrong about things. The trick is being right when the others are wrong, but it only works if the others eventually realize that they were wrong, because the facts become too plain to ignore. Five years ago, Apple stock was trading at $85/share, because investors weren't confident that the company would continue to grow and the share price would go higher in the foreseeable future. Between Summer 2011 and Summer 2012, Netflix stock, which is 89% institutionally owned, dropped from $295 to $54. Less than 2 years later, it's trading at $428. So was Wall Street right the whole time, that it was a winner, I mean a loser, I mean a winner? No. Perception changed, based on people's best guesses. I'm sure that everyone who sold on the way down to $54 now wishes that they hadn't.
And no, market share is not the most important indicator of how well a company is doing. Profit is, and in that respect Apple is blowing away everyone. You can have great market share but not make any money, and that's often relatively easy, but you will go out of business. The main purpose of companies is to make money, not to get as many units out the door as you can, whatever the cost.
Quote:
Apple definitely doesn't get any respect as a company without Steve Jobs around.
That's true, but it was also mostly true when he was around, too, if you're talking about Apple's stock price compared to that of its peers. As I and others have noted, most of the products were initially considered failures by the media and analysts, and it wasn't until the sales figures came out that they had to eat their words.
I agree with you that both platforms serve/target a particular and different audience.
However, while Apple has long survived as a minority platform by catering to specific market segments and niches (education, graphic design, etc.), Android isn’t well suited to serving a valuable minority of the market.
Android, like Windows, requires majority market share to remain relevant. As soon as it loses a broad swath of the market, its business model of funneling vast amounts of data to Google begins to collapse, just as Microsoft’s Windows empire has started to collapse due to a relatively small loss of the overall market share (Apple is at what, 20% at most in PCs?) that has undermined the Windows model of "cheap stuff the affluent will also pay for if there are no other options."
You can’t have a People’s Car that everyone uses if there’s somebody selling proprietary, high end cars that attract buyers with money. It’s the old "socialism fails when the people who have money engage in capitalism" problem.
Android would have worked out about as well (better, as it is an improvement) as Java Mobile did, if the iPhone had never existed. Unfortunately, not only does the iPhone exist, but it’s grabbing the majority of valuable market share and banking that war chest for future expansion.
Except that you're ignoring the fact that Google mines a ton of data from iOS users. Even if a user switches to a iPhone from a Android one they're going to download every Google app there is and except for Google's cut of apps that user will still be a source of revenue.
There is an alternative theory, namely that she had been hit on the head by a window frame during a tornado, knocked unconscious and just happened to be having an elaborate dream about characters that just happened to look like members of her extended family.
I shall let you decide which version you would rather believe but if you, or anyone else is interested I am happy to post you magic beans in return for a cow or bitcoins (depending on which is worth more at the time of transaction). ;-)
There's a lot of flawed logic, and a lot of things that don't quite add up. I'm no Fandroid by any account, but this is a bona fide Apple circle jerk.
The concept behind Android and iOS is fundamentally different. Google released Android into the wild not to make money off of it, but to provide an alternate mobile platform. Of course, they have made money from it, but there's no comparative "Google phone" like an iPhone (Nexus devices are close). For this reason alone, trying to compare the two is a futile effort at best.
I'm always amazed people like the author of this article can find work writing when they miss essential concepts like this.
To your point, and this what most people who praise android for. You look at all the hardware accessory for IOS devices, they have all direct lightning or the 30 pin connectors on them so you can plug in use and charge the device, these same accessories also have a Aux or line in on them so you can also use android or other device which a mini phono jack on them. Notice now of those devices have a mini USB, why, simple every manufacture puts their Mini USB part in various location on the android device. Even with in the same manufacturer they do not put their ports in the same place so it does not allow for standardization and reduced development costs.
The other side of the issue here is the fact the investment world rather not see standards, since if you had a standard then you not replacing your accessories all the time as people in the Android world has to do. Android generate more turn over in products thus making more money for companies. In Apple world things get handed down or reused over and over again so apple make all the money because people stay with them.
Have you seen a Note 3 cable?
This is what you get when you try and duplicate the functionality of Apple's cables:-
There's a lot of flawed logic, and a lot of things that don't quite add up. I'm no Fandroid by any account, but this is a bona fide Apple circle jerk.
The concept behind Android and iOS is fundamentally different. Google released Android into the wild not to make money off of it, but to provide an alternate mobile platform. Of course, they have made money from it, but there's no comparative "Google phone" like an iPhone (Nexus devices are close). For this reason alone, trying to compare the two is a futile effort at best.
I'm always amazed people like the author of this article can find work writing when they miss essential concepts like this.
it's the traditional ai friday fanboy clickbait, there's no point attempting rational argument here
neither apple nor google give a shit about these people, but at least having somewhere like ai for them to rant keeps them away from the rest of us, without it, they might start breeding, the horror! the horror!
Market share doesn't matter except when it can be used to criticise Android.
And TouchID for some reason is comparable to Google Wallet.
Another barely concealed rant of an editorial that throws everything against the wall to try and make criticism stick. Ironically similar to Android development practice.
Sometimes, I wonder it's written by Samsung product development team.
The N96 definitely made money for Nokia. It was a relatively small spin on the N95/N95 8GB and sold for a high price. When the N96 was released, Nokia was still selling 100 million smartphones per quarter.
The N97 was the death knell though. It was bulky, slow and uncompetitive. I was actually the external beta test for it.
I have no idea about the subject? I think you have no idea about whether I have an idea about the subject.
But that's not even what I'm disputing. I'm disputing DED's knowledge of what happened before the iPhone was released.
One of the major selling points of the N96 was it had a TV tuner, which was incompatible almost everywhere on earth, it marked the beginning of Nokia's downfall compounded by their attempt to move into touch screens with the N97, which is why I attempted by the use of the backslash to demonstrate that Nokia's downfall began at the transition, when they realised they needed a touchscreen to compete.
That was when there were complaints about the iPhone's "huge" screen, strange how times change.
So your are trying to deny that pre-iPhone Symbian was where Android is now as DED's article postulates?
Someway this can be considered true, since most of profits in smartphone market go to Apple.
But while Apple gives iOs for free in order to make profits from hardware, Google gives Android for free and hardware on par (Nexus) or let other sell hardware (Samsung and others) in order to sell its services (search with ads, map with ads, youtube with ads, ...). In this context, even if not directly a commercial success, Android is a huge success for Google: deeply embedded services and search bar in the home screen of roughly one billion devices, without paying anything to hardware manufacturers.
Compare that to iTunes revenue, Apple makes more out of iTunes at a faster growth rate than all the Android handset makers, apart from Samsung, added together.
Do the idiots manipulating Wall St take that into account?
DED if you put on some ruby slippers and click your heels together, maybe your dreams will come true.
For some constructive criticism, I would recommend cutting down on the disparaging comments toward Google/Android. You could have made an interesting article about the parallels between early Java Mobile platforms and Android, but your inability to control your fury towards Google turned this into a hit piece that no unbiased reader will take seriously. You won't convert anyone to your religion using malice or zealotry.
Why not?
It works for the brainwashed, google bedazzled acolytes who continuously babble on about Android.
The following is probably going to sound more curt than I intended (my back hurts and I am trying to supplement the NSAIDs with alcohol in the pub post work) , I apologise in advance.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. OEMs could do pretty much whatever they wanted (with regard to form factor, hardware specs and software), hence HTC baked in Sense and before that, introduced both the finger based scrolling TrueFlo and motion based VueFlo back in early 2007. Indeed HTC were so annoyed at people porting their "innovations" to other handsets that they resorted to Cease & Desist noticed for sites offering custom ROMs containing their IP (this should be considered in a historical context, one where MS didn't care a jot if owners were flashing with newer versions of WM).
I get that you hate MS, fair enough, that is your choice, but please do not distort the truth to fit your agenda.
Frankly after reading the above quote I decided to stop. It may well be an awfully well written article but I for one am unlikely to find out.
Too bad HTC's custom "innovations" screwed the graphics drivers so bad it caused quite the kerfuffle over on XDA.
There's a lot of flawed logic, and a lot of things that don't quite add up. I'm no Fandroid by any account, but this is a bona fide Apple circle jerk.
The concept behind Android and iOS is fundamentally different. Google released Android into the wild not to make money off of it, but to provide an alternate mobile platform. Of course, they have made money from it, but there's no comparative "Google phone" like an iPhone (Nexus devices are close). For this reason alone, trying to compare the two is a futile effort at best.
I'm always amazed people like the author of this article can find work writing when they miss essential concepts like this.
This article is about Android being where Symbian was before it collapsed.
It's truly disgusting to see that Samsung became the leader in Android phones by stealing. Why didn't others succeed otherwise? HTC, Nokia and others played by the rules and are now in a bad spot mainly because Samsung took advantage of the situation illegally. And now they are just making clones of Google apps, and will soon leave on their own adventure, after having taken advantage of Google's ecosystem. I hope they burn, and I think they will, knowing how incapable they are of doing quality stuff, see their lame smartwatch.
Per device I'm sure Apple still wins by a wide margin but overall it could go either way. I base this on most Android-based devices simply not being used as smartphones or tablets, but rather just being used as dummy devices with a free OS.
If we only count devices that access Google Play I'm sure Apple still wins but the margin is much lower, and if we only count high-end devices like the Galaxy S3/S4Note/etc. then I'd say they would be on par for ad revenue, and likely push those devices above iDevice profit when you consider the licensing for services from the OEMs.
But I digress, and think Apple is still likely higher overall because Android's growth, according to Asymco, has plateaued.
That would indicate that iOS users are more a Google 'product' than Android users, much to the chagrin of many here.
"Google's ideological bent toward "openness" precludes real security"
While most of the article is dead on, the quote above is utter garbage.
Security and openness are not only not contradictions, openness is a prerequisite for security, because without peer reviewed code there is no security, there's just obscurity and blind trust.
However, openness cannot make up for bad design, lack of care and priorities other than security (such as spying on users to better target ads).
So, no problem criticizing Android, but don't make up ridiculous and blatantly wrong claims while doing so; anyone in computer security is laughing at you for a phrase like the one quoted above...
GnuTLS was "peer reviewed code," yet despite all the ideological "openness" behind it, it harbored massive security problems throughout its architecture for over half a decade of use within major Linux distributions. And it’s a key security library that should have had attention and "eyes" on it!
I understand the concept you’re trying to make because I used to believe that too, but in reality, openness hasn’t resulted in better security. It’s just made it easier to find known problems, both for users and for malicious coders seeking to exploit others.
The reality is that Android’s prioritization of "openness" over security has indeed resulted in a system that is easy to obtain but hard to actually secure. There was no misquote by AI in what Android executives have said about their product, nor are the facts changed by Google issuing a broad insistence that his words were taken out of context. The facts speak for themselves. Android is not a secure product by way of its openness, but it is riddled with security issues due to the fact that Google has avoided taking a strong stand in security issues, over and over.
That’s also why "anyone in computer security" wouldn’t deploy consumer Android devices in a corporate setting. You have to wrap them in diapers like Knox that kill Google’s whole ideological "openness" that lets any app read any data on the phone, take over camera functions and upload your contacts just by including some obtuse disclaimers in Google Play.
Comments
This whole article seems rather silly saying how great Apple, iPhones and iOS is considering Google is said to be the future of the internet and everything else.
Lots of things are said, but they're not always true. The iPod and the iPhones were both said to be failures when they came out, because they were too expensive. The iPad was said to be a failure because it was just a big iPod Touch, and also probably too expensive. As I'm sure you know, they didn't end up being the failures that many people perceived them to be. It was also said that Apple couldn't compete in the phone business with companies like Motorola and Nokia that had been doing it for years.
Quote:
Funny, considering the fact that Apple is more profitable than Google, and Android doesn't actually make any money at all for Google. Last I heard, Google was making more money from iOS users than Android users, but I'm not sure if that has changed.
Quote:
Yes, the price/earnings ratio is low compared to its peers, and that is largely attributable to the fact that many investors are worried about competition from Android devices, but it doesn't look like they're really losing important market share with the customers that they care about.
You could break down the global phone market into sub-markets, and Apple only wants to dominate the higher tiers where there's money to be made. They could crank out junk to gain market share but potentially lose money and lose some of their desirability with the more lucrative customer base, but that's not in their best interest. In richer markets like the U.S., they are gaining market share, but there are probably a lot of people in poorer countries who are getting their first bare-bones smart-ish phone, and it's running Android. That's skewing the market-share numbers, but these sales aren't really hurting Apple. Those customers aren't going to be spending a lot of money on apps, so it's not like the developers are going to abandon iOS. As countries like China get richer, more and more people are going to be able to afford premium phones, which is the segment that Apple dominates. The important thing for Apple is that it continues to sell more and more phones, while maintaining good margins on the devices.
Quote:
You know that share price by itself is a meaningless indicator, right? Google could announce a 1-10 stock split today, and it would trade at $120/share (or $117, given the actual current price), but that wouldn't make it a less valuable company. Market cap and (ex-cash) p/e ratio are better indicators of what people think the company is worth. Still, I agree that the share price is unreasonably low considering how profitable they are.
Quote:
I can't see an intelligent person believing either of these things. Apple has a great track record of delivering new products, and they have explicitly said that they have some currently in the pipeline. You can argue that the best Android phones compete with the newest iPhones, depending on what you're looking for, but the average Android phone is cheap hardware running software from a few years ago.
Quote:
Yes, Google stock is 75% institutionally owned, versus 65% for Apple. But the reason it's possible to make money by investing in stock is that investors are often wrong about things. The trick is being right when the others are wrong, but it only works if the others eventually realize that they were wrong, because the facts become too plain to ignore. Five years ago, Apple stock was trading at $85/share, because investors weren't confident that the company would continue to grow and the share price would go higher in the foreseeable future. Between Summer 2011 and Summer 2012, Netflix stock, which is 89% institutionally owned, dropped from $295 to $54. Less than 2 years later, it's trading at $428. So was Wall Street right the whole time, that it was a winner, I mean a loser, I mean a winner? No. Perception changed, based on people's best guesses. I'm sure that everyone who sold on the way down to $54 now wishes that they hadn't.
And no, market share is not the most important indicator of how well a company is doing. Profit is, and in that respect Apple is blowing away everyone. You can have great market share but not make any money, and that's often relatively easy, but you will go out of business. The main purpose of companies is to make money, not to get as many units out the door as you can, whatever the cost.
Quote:
That's true, but it was also mostly true when he was around, too, if you're talking about Apple's stock price compared to that of its peers. As I and others have noted, most of the products were initially considered failures by the media and analysts, and it wasn't until the sales figures came out that they had to eat their words.
Except that you're ignoring the fact that Google mines a ton of data from iOS users. Even if a user switches to a iPhone from a Android one they're going to download every Google app there is and except for Google's cut of apps that user will still be a source of revenue.
The clicking of the heels took Dorothy home.
There is an alternative theory, namely that she had been hit on the head by a window frame during a tornado, knocked unconscious and just happened to be having an elaborate dream about characters that just happened to look like members of her extended family.
I shall let you decide which version you would rather believe but if you, or anyone else is interested I am happy to post you magic beans in return for a cow or bitcoins (depending on which is worth more at the time of transaction). ;-)
There's a lot of flawed logic, and a lot of things that don't quite add up. I'm no Fandroid by any account, but this is a bona fide Apple circle jerk.
The concept behind Android and iOS is fundamentally different. Google released Android into the wild not to make money off of it, but to provide an alternate mobile platform. Of course, they have made money from it, but there's no comparative "Google phone" like an iPhone (Nexus devices are close). For this reason alone, trying to compare the two is a futile effort at best.
I'm always amazed people like the author of this article can find work writing when they miss essential concepts like this.
To your point, and this what most people who praise android for. You look at all the hardware accessory for IOS devices, they have all direct lightning or the 30 pin connectors on them so you can plug in use and charge the device, these same accessories also have a Aux or line in on them so you can also use android or other device which a mini phono jack on them. Notice now of those devices have a mini USB, why, simple every manufacture puts their Mini USB part in various location on the android device. Even with in the same manufacturer they do not put their ports in the same place so it does not allow for standardization and reduced development costs.
The other side of the issue here is the fact the investment world rather not see standards, since if you had a standard then you not replacing your accessories all the time as people in the Android world has to do. Android generate more turn over in products thus making more money for companies. In Apple world things get handed down or reused over and over again so apple make all the money because people stay with them.
Have you seen a Note 3 cable?
This is what you get when you try and duplicate the functionality of Apple's cables:-
This article was mostly inane drivel.
There's a lot of flawed logic, and a lot of things that don't quite add up. I'm no Fandroid by any account, but this is a bona fide Apple circle jerk.
The concept behind Android and iOS is fundamentally different. Google released Android into the wild not to make money off of it, but to provide an alternate mobile platform. Of course, they have made money from it, but there's no comparative "Google phone" like an iPhone (Nexus devices are close). For this reason alone, trying to compare the two is a futile effort at best.
I'm always amazed people like the author of this article can find work writing when they miss essential concepts like this.
it's the traditional ai friday fanboy clickbait, there's no point attempting rational argument here
neither apple nor google give a shit about these people, but at least having somewhere like ai for them to rant keeps them away from the rest of us, without it, they might start breeding, the horror! the horror!
Market share doesn't matter except when it can be used to criticise Android.
And TouchID for some reason is comparable to Google Wallet.
Another barely concealed rant of an editorial that throws everything against the wall to try and make criticism stick. Ironically similar to Android development practice.
Sometimes, I wonder it's written by Samsung product development team.
The N96 definitely made money for Nokia. It was a relatively small spin on the N95/N95 8GB and sold for a high price. When the N96 was released, Nokia was still selling 100 million smartphones per quarter.
The N97 was the death knell though. It was bulky, slow and uncompetitive. I was actually the external beta test for it.
I have no idea about the subject? I think you have no idea about whether I have an idea about the subject.
But that's not even what I'm disputing. I'm disputing DED's knowledge of what happened before the iPhone was released.
One of the major selling points of the N96 was it had a TV tuner, which was incompatible almost everywhere on earth, it marked the beginning of Nokia's downfall compounded by their attempt to move into touch screens with the N97, which is why I attempted by the use of the backslash to demonstrate that Nokia's downfall began at the transition, when they realised they needed a touchscreen to compete.
That was when there were complaints about the iPhone's "huge" screen, strange how times change.
So your are trying to deny that pre-iPhone Symbian was where Android is now as DED's article postulates?
Someway this can be considered true, since most of profits in smartphone market go to Apple.
But while Apple gives iOs for free in order to make profits from hardware, Google gives Android for free and hardware on par (Nexus) or let other sell hardware (Samsung and others) in order to sell its services (search with ads, map with ads, youtube with ads, ...). In this context, even if not directly a commercial success, Android is a huge success for Google: deeply embedded services and search bar in the home screen of roughly one billion devices, without paying anything to hardware manufacturers.
Compare that to iTunes revenue, Apple makes more out of iTunes at a faster growth rate than all the Android handset makers, apart from Samsung, added together.
Do the idiots manipulating Wall St take that into account?
DED if you put on some ruby slippers and click your heels together, maybe your dreams will come true.
For some constructive criticism, I would recommend cutting down on the disparaging comments toward Google/Android. You could have made an interesting article about the parallels between early Java Mobile platforms and Android, but your inability to control your fury towards Google turned this into a hit piece that no unbiased reader will take seriously. You won't convert anyone to your religion using malice or zealotry.
Why not?
It works for the brainwashed, google bedazzled acolytes who continuously babble on about Android.
Have you seen a Note 3 cable?
This is what you get when you try and duplicate the functionality of Apple's cables:-
That's the standard cable for micro USB 3.0.
Considering this just happened, Apple might finally fall in line with EU regulations.
"On Thursday MEPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of the regulation, which will see a common charger used for smartphones by 2017."
"The design of charger being favoured uses a Micro USB connector - a format used on many handsets and other devices already."
DED,
The following is probably going to sound more curt than I intended (my back hurts and I am trying to supplement the NSAIDs with alcohol in the pub post work) , I apologise in advance.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. OEMs could do pretty much whatever they wanted (with regard to form factor, hardware specs and software), hence HTC baked in Sense and before that, introduced both the finger based scrolling TrueFlo and motion based VueFlo back in early 2007. Indeed HTC were so annoyed at people porting their "innovations" to other handsets that they resorted to Cease & Desist noticed for sites offering custom ROMs containing their IP (this should be considered in a historical context, one where MS didn't care a jot if owners were flashing with newer versions of WM).
I get that you hate MS, fair enough, that is your choice, but please do not distort the truth to fit your agenda.
Frankly after reading the above quote I decided to stop. It may well be an awfully well written article but I for one am unlikely to find out.
Too bad HTC's custom "innovations" screwed the graphics drivers so bad it caused quite the kerfuffle over on XDA.
This article was mostly inane drivel.
There's a lot of flawed logic, and a lot of things that don't quite add up. I'm no Fandroid by any account, but this is a bona fide Apple circle jerk.
The concept behind Android and iOS is fundamentally different. Google released Android into the wild not to make money off of it, but to provide an alternate mobile platform. Of course, they have made money from it, but there's no comparative "Google phone" like an iPhone (Nexus devices are close). For this reason alone, trying to compare the two is a futile effort at best.
I'm always amazed people like the author of this article can find work writing when they miss essential concepts like this.
This article is about Android being where Symbian was before it collapsed.
Try to keep up.
Hardly. Read the headline. Then read nearly every statement made.
That's the standard cable for micro USB 3.0.
Considering this just happened, Apple might finally fall in line with EU regulations.
"On Thursday MEPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of the regulation, which will see a common charger used for smartphones by 2017."
"The design of charger being favoured uses a Micro USB connector - a format used on many handsets and other devices already."
Strange, the standard Micro USB cables on my other devices aren't split in two like that.
Strange, the standard Micro USB cables on my other devices aren't split in two like that.
The normal Micro USB 2.0 is the larger half of that plug.
Some devices support the high speed Micro USB 3.0, so it has that extra bit on the plug.
You can still use a Micro USB 2.0 plug with a Micro USB 3.0 device.
That would indicate that iOS users are more a Google 'product' than Android users, much to the chagrin of many here.
"Google's ideological bent toward "openness" precludes real security"
While most of the article is dead on, the quote above is utter garbage.
Security and openness are not only not contradictions, openness is a prerequisite for security, because without peer reviewed code there is no security, there's just obscurity and blind trust.
However, openness cannot make up for bad design, lack of care and priorities other than security (such as spying on users to better target ads).
So, no problem criticizing Android, but don't make up ridiculous and blatantly wrong claims while doing so; anyone in computer security is laughing at you for a phrase like the one quoted above...
GnuTLS was "peer reviewed code," yet despite all the ideological "openness" behind it, it harbored massive security problems throughout its architecture for over half a decade of use within major Linux distributions. And it’s a key security library that should have had attention and "eyes" on it!
I understand the concept you’re trying to make because I used to believe that too, but in reality, openness hasn’t resulted in better security. It’s just made it easier to find known problems, both for users and for malicious coders seeking to exploit others.
The reality is that Android’s prioritization of "openness" over security has indeed resulted in a system that is easy to obtain but hard to actually secure. There was no misquote by AI in what Android executives have said about their product, nor are the facts changed by Google issuing a broad insistence that his words were taken out of context. The facts speak for themselves. Android is not a secure product by way of its openness, but it is riddled with security issues due to the fact that Google has avoided taking a strong stand in security issues, over and over.
That’s also why "anyone in computer security" wouldn’t deploy consumer Android devices in a corporate setting. You have to wrap them in diapers like Knox that kill Google’s whole ideological "openness" that lets any app read any data on the phone, take over camera functions and upload your contacts just by including some obtuse disclaimers in Google Play.