What's truly flabbergasting is, that the government won't sanction Android devices for themselves for these very reasons, yet they want the rest of us to be vulnerable, and are willing to tear down Apple to ensure it...
I guess it'll be 1984 here forevermore, no matter what your calendar says.
"Many eyes give you many eyelashes, and not a lot else."
I almost stopped reading there. The whole article had an arrogant overtone in my opinion.
Yeah, funny though ...
I am not experienced in the server-side of things (except as a user). I suspect to those providing public, private and secondary access (AWS, IBM, Google, etc.) that is critical to have access the source -- in order to quickly detect and fix breaches of any kind (security, esoteric bugs, deficiencies).
So, I I agree that for those that need it, OSS has benefits.
Here's an interesting site that discusses OS usage for web servers:
Even the AngryMacBastards would have liked this article, even though they called DED the MacMac's MacMac. Daniel, I'd like to buy you a lot of beer. What's frightening is that DED is right. "over the top"? really? That's just DED's way not to use profanity, I think.
From the very start, Google championed the idea of being able to load software from virtually anywhere as an example of Android's "freedom," but the reality is that "open app stores" are just as insane from a security point of view as hardwiring Flash into the browser.
OS X allows and has always permitted users to install programs of their choosing. In fact no operating system besides iOS restricts the user to running manufacturer-approved software. And unlike on Android, where at least everything is sandboxed, only OS X apps distributed through the Mac App store are subject to sandboxing. So does that make OS X's security design "just as insane from a security point of view as hardwiring Flash into the browser"?
This post brings some google/android apologists to object the use use of a sinus color instead of disputing the claims. Nice try to divert the conversation. While you "stopped reading" after that, you somehow found your way to write your disapproval of a type of color.
Hey guys look over there...a distraction.
If you are referring to my post, I would like to point out I have actually only looked at the screen of an Android once in my life and that was to try to help an associate get their new email address working on it. It was a confusing session to say the least so I really don't have any reason to try to create a distraction. I'm all Apple when it comes to devices. My interest in color is because I do a lot of corporate training, PR, and publishing which involves working with lots of logos and color.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Actually the color depicted in image at the top of the article is not the official color. There is no actual named web color that matches the official Android color but the closest is YellowGreen </span>
since the only suitable way to describe a color when writing an article would be to use an official named color. Nasal discharge color is a subjective description used only to demean Android. The actual Android color is a very clean and pure looking shade of green (
Oh my, if Apple could just make a lower cost phone like the iPhone 5c that is MUCH more affordable, then that would make all of our lives a whole lot easier. Like $299 without a contract and $49 with a two year, mid-teer plan. 90% of people who buy Android phones are buying it because they are told it's like an iPhone but cheaper. Which is why I don't get why people are mad over the "if it's not an iPhone, it's not an iPhone" campaign. It is basically the only reason iOS marketshare is not number 1.
You do realize that the iPhone 5C is free on contract, and regularly sells for $209 refurbished on eBay, right?
Oh my, if Apple could just make a lower cost phone like the iPhone 5c that is MUCH more affordable, then that would make all of our lives a whole lot easier. Like $299 without a contract and $49 with a two year, mid-teer plan. 90% of people who buy Android phones are buying it because they are told it's like an iPhone but cheaper. Which is why I don't get why people are mad over the "if it's not an iPhone, it's not an iPhone" campaign. It is basically the only reason iOS marketshare is not number 1.
They nearly do £309 gets you an O2 payg 5c phone. £50 cheaper and it would be there.
And that's what you get with an "open" operating system. "Open to all to attack you". And Google doing nothing about security updates. Android is left like a bunch of fish bate for the sharks to take a bite out of you.
To be truthful Google IS making and releasing patches but they are not getting to Android owners in any kind of timely manner because of how Google allowed the OEMs and carriers to control updates in the name of ‘open.’ I think only Nexus owners can get patches quickly and directly from Google.
Correct, and Motorola should get some kudos for bucking the current trend. They've kept Android almost stock, and are themselves delivering updates to its customers in a timely fashion.
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.
You're confusing suiability for purpose and subjective taste with superiority. Often the superiority of one thing over another can be ascertained by testing. For example, I'll assert that an iPhone 6 is superior to a Samsung Galaxy S6 in its ability to more efficiently deliver each unit of performance. This can be tested, by agreeing upon a unit of performance, then measuring each phone to determine how much power is drawn over time to deliver a defined number of units of performance. This isn't a measure of which phone completes a task faster; it's a measure of how much power is drawn from the battery in order to complete the same task on each phone. The one that draws the least power is the superior phone with regard to that test.
The reason I chose this particular test as an example is to point out something I think Apple pays far more attention to than other vendors. Samsung and others throw the most powerful eight core processors into their handsets, a very dense display resolution, lots of RAM, etc, to claim their phone is faster, more powerful. Then, to drive all that, they toss in a larger battery. Apple looks at the world and says, if we're going to sell hundreds upon hundreds of millions of these things over a course of many years, then even a small smartphone in such quantities can have a meaningfully negative impact on tne environment in terms of the lifetime power draw, which must be supplied from electrical power plants, many of which burn coal or other fossil fuels. Lets design our phones not just to perform well against our competition, but let's also design them to perform efficiently so that they will give decent charge time with smaller batteries and consume less electricity overall. To me, these types of design decisions do make iPhones superior, in measurable and testable ways.
With Flash's performance and security problem, I wonder why Tim Cook hired Kevin Lynch to make the Watch OS software? I think the watch design and hardware quality are first rate, but the UI/UX are not naturally intuitive. was Apple really lacking in talent to have to turn to someone outside?
Why would anyone choose to buy an Android phone over an iPhone?
You would only get an Android if:
1. You can't afford an iPhone (this makes the bulk of Android's customers)
2. You are a tweaker and enjoy messing with writing code and custom ROM's
3. You need stylus support (Note4)
4. You just want something different
I think #1 covers several hundred million Android purchases.
#2 is a very small slice of the population. May a few million. #3 is probably another few million.
Basically Apple will get 80-90% of all the phone sales over $450.
Can Apple do anything to capture the buyer who can't afford $450? Yes. I think eventually (talking 3-5 years from now) when Apple has take 95% of premium phone sales they will branch out to lower cost phones in the $250-$350 range. That will allow another 200,000,000 customers. The phone would not be called iPhone but would be a sub-brand of Apple. Like how Scion is a sub brand of Toyota.
You can call it Peach Phone. Apple won't make much on hardware sales maybe 20% gross margin. But it will grow the iOS user base. Hopefully this would eventually grow app and services revenues.
200,000,000 million new Peach Phone users x $30 service revenue a year = $6 billion in almost pure profit
200,000,000 million Peach Phone sales x $250 = $50,000,000,000 in revenue x 10% profit margin = $5 billion in profit
Selling a Peach phone could add $11 billion in profit.
Of course there may be some canibalization. But I doubt it would even come close to $11 billion. I would release the peach phone only in countries that have low incomes. Not China, US, Japan, Western Europe, ect. Probably sections of east europe, asia, and Africa. It won't be marketed as an iPhone nor an Apple phone. But it will run a stripped down version of iOS and iOS services.
Regardless we are looking at the LONG TERM VIEW.
iPhone + Peach Phone = 700,000,000 user base
700,000,000 x $100 in services revenue per year = $70 billion in services revenue
First, used iphone 5, iphone 5s has come down around $200 and soon iphone 6 around $400. Because of it's built quality unlike plasticy android phones, used iphones still serve like new to those who want iphones but can't afford higher price for new. As a matter of fact, new high end android pones also cost same as new iphones. Only good about android phones is their re-sale price drops so fast and low that it seems cheaper compare to iphones.
Now talking about security on android will always suck due to it's open platform nature and why i want to put my personal info/data at risk. Go Apple, go iphone.
I am not experienced in the server-side of things (except as a user). I suspect to those providing public, private and secondary access (AWS, IBM, Google, etc.) that is critical to have access the source -- in order to quickly detect and fix breaches of any kind (security, esoteric bugs, deficiencies).
So, I I agree that for those that need it, OSS has benefits.
Here's an interesting site that discusses OS usage for web servers:
Yes, on the server side, access to source is a very big plus. On the consumer side... Not so sure.
The reason is simple, you do have "eyes" on the code, experienced ones, with responsability if something doesn't work, or isn't secure, while in the case of Android, this responsability seamingly falls on no one. Not Google, not the carriers and certainly not the OEM.
Do you know what open refers to in software? It does not mean the ability to install any app on the device. It means that you or I can download the source code to the software, compile it, and modify it and place it on any device I want. I can do this with Android it is open.
Hey, bud, been using open source software since before they called it open source in the 1980s.
Used Apache, Perl, Linux, Mysql (and many other important softwares) in their 0.1 versions, hacked from their ugly ass sources.
That barely worked.
So, spare me the god damn education; keep it to yourself and your kids.
If any commercial entity wants to use the play store and libs, they have to put all the other Google developped crap on it.
That's not open at all.
It means OEM and everyone else that wants to make money from Android, being a slave to Google or face commercial death.
Only a few like Amazon, have been able to escape this death grip by forking.
In China, because Google is out, language barriers and yes rampant piracy, the play store was not as important, so they effectively cut Google out and there it could mostly be called open source even though most of the development of the bottom layer is still being done by Google. But, for how long? Google is not making any money from those Chinese users.
I've been using Apple since 1977 and have NEVER had a problem with malware. The beauty of having a closed system even though sometimes I wish I could change things on my own and that some technical aspects of life will not run on Apple. I am more happy that I can't get hacked than not being able to do my own thing. Life is good.
Comments
What's truly flabbergasting is, that the government won't sanction Android devices for themselves for these very reasons, yet they want the rest of us to be vulnerable, and are willing to tear down Apple to ensure it...
I guess it'll be 1984 here forevermore, no matter what your calendar says.
Yeah, funny though ...
I am not experienced in the server-side of things (except as a user). I suspect to those providing public, private and secondary access (AWS, IBM, Google, etc.) that is critical to have access the source -- in order to quickly detect and fix breaches of any kind (security, esoteric bugs, deficiencies).
So, I I agree that for those that need it, OSS has benefits.
Here's an interesting site that discusses OS usage for web servers:
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-linux/all/all
From the very start, Google championed the idea of being able to load software from virtually anywhere as an example of Android's "freedom," but the reality is that "open app stores" are just as insane from a security point of view as hardwiring Flash into the browser.
OS X allows and has always permitted users to install programs of their choosing. In fact no operating system besides iOS restricts the user to running manufacturer-approved software. And unlike on Android, where at least everything is sandboxed, only OS X apps distributed through the Mac App store are subject to sandboxing. So does that make OS X's security design "just as insane from a security point of view as hardwiring Flash into the browser"?
This post brings some google/android apologists to object the use use of a sinus color instead of disputing the claims. Nice try to divert the conversation. While you "stopped reading" after that, you somehow found your way to write your disapproval of a type of color.
Hey guys look over there...a distraction.
If you are referring to my post, I would like to point out I have actually only looked at the screen of an Android once in my life and that was to try to help an associate get their new email address working on it. It was a confusing session to say the least so I really don't have any reason to try to create a distraction. I'm all Apple when it comes to devices. My interest in color is because I do a lot of corporate training, PR, and publishing which involves working with lots of logos and color.
LG earn just $0.01.2 for each handset sold this year. No financial incentive to update and they make "good" phones.
YellowGreen!? Eew......
"Somewhat ironically, Google even brands Android with a robot logo usually portrayed in the sick color of a sinus infection discharge. "
Really? Going a little over the top on a Friday, aren't we DED?
Rather restrained actually. It's about time someone called out Google for using such a repulsive color.
Oh my, if Apple could just make a lower cost phone like the iPhone 5c that is MUCH more affordable, then that would make all of our lives a whole lot easier. Like $299 without a contract and $49 with a two year, mid-teer plan. 90% of people who buy Android phones are buying it because they are told it's like an iPhone but cheaper. Which is why I don't get why people are mad over the "if it's not an iPhone, it's not an iPhone" campaign. It is basically the only reason iOS marketshare is not number 1.
You do realize that the iPhone 5C is free on contract, and regularly sells for $209 refurbished on eBay, right?
Correct, and Motorola should get some kudos for bucking the current trend. They've kept Android almost stock, and are themselves delivering updates to its customers in a timely fashion.
You're confusing suiability for purpose and subjective taste with superiority. Often the superiority of one thing over another can be ascertained by testing. For example, I'll assert that an iPhone 6 is superior to a Samsung Galaxy S6 in its ability to more efficiently deliver each unit of performance. This can be tested, by agreeing upon a unit of performance, then measuring each phone to determine how much power is drawn over time to deliver a defined number of units of performance. This isn't a measure of which phone completes a task faster; it's a measure of how much power is drawn from the battery in order to complete the same task on each phone. The one that draws the least power is the superior phone with regard to that test.
The reason I chose this particular test as an example is to point out something I think Apple pays far more attention to than other vendors. Samsung and others throw the most powerful eight core processors into their handsets, a very dense display resolution, lots of RAM, etc, to claim their phone is faster, more powerful. Then, to drive all that, they toss in a larger battery. Apple looks at the world and says, if we're going to sell hundreds upon hundreds of millions of these things over a course of many years, then even a small smartphone in such quantities can have a meaningfully negative impact on tne environment in terms of the lifetime power draw, which must be supplied from electrical power plants, many of which burn coal or other fossil fuels. Lets design our phones not just to perform well against our competition, but let's also design them to perform efficiently so that they will give decent charge time with smaller batteries and consume less electricity overall. To me, these types of design decisions do make iPhones superior, in measurable and testable ways.
What strikes me about Android is its original concept: a pale copy of iOS, but with the intent of it being an advertising tool for Google.
Actually the original Android concept was a pale ripoff of BlackBerry and Palm.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android_mobile_phone_platform_early_device.jpg
You guys have issues.
Why would anyone choose to buy an Android phone over an iPhone?
You would only get an Android if:
1. You can't afford an iPhone (this makes the bulk of Android's customers)
2. You are a tweaker and enjoy messing with writing code and custom ROM's
3. You need stylus support (Note4)
4. You just want something different
I think #1 covers several hundred million Android purchases.
#2 is a very small slice of the population. May a few million. #3 is probably another few million.
Basically Apple will get 80-90% of all the phone sales over $450.
Can Apple do anything to capture the buyer who can't afford $450? Yes. I think eventually (talking 3-5 years from now) when Apple has take 95% of premium phone sales they will branch out to lower cost phones in the $250-$350 range. That will allow another 200,000,000 customers. The phone would not be called iPhone but would be a sub-brand of Apple. Like how Scion is a sub brand of Toyota.
You can call it Peach Phone. Apple won't make much on hardware sales maybe 20% gross margin. But it will grow the iOS user base. Hopefully this would eventually grow app and services revenues.
200,000,000 million new Peach Phone users x $30 service revenue a year = $6 billion in almost pure profit
200,000,000 million Peach Phone sales x $250 = $50,000,000,000 in revenue x 10% profit margin = $5 billion in profit
Selling a Peach phone could add $11 billion in profit.
Of course there may be some canibalization. But I doubt it would even come close to $11 billion. I would release the peach phone only in countries that have low incomes. Not China, US, Japan, Western Europe, ect. Probably sections of east europe, asia, and Africa. It won't be marketed as an iPhone nor an Apple phone. But it will run a stripped down version of iOS and iOS services.
Regardless we are looking at the LONG TERM VIEW.
iPhone + Peach Phone = 700,000,000 user base
700,000,000 x $100 in services revenue per year = $70 billion in services revenue
First, used iphone 5, iphone 5s has come down around $200 and soon iphone 6 around $400. Because of it's built quality unlike plasticy android phones, used iphones still serve like new to those who want iphones but can't afford higher price for new. As a matter of fact, new high end android pones also cost same as new iphones. Only good about android phones is their re-sale price drops so fast and low that it seems cheaper compare to iphones.
Now talking about security on android will always suck due to it's open platform nature and why i want to put my personal info/data at risk. Go Apple, go iphone.
Yeah, funny though ...
I am not experienced in the server-side of things (except as a user). I suspect to those providing public, private and secondary access (AWS, IBM, Google, etc.) that is critical to have access the source -- in order to quickly detect and fix breaches of any kind (security, esoteric bugs, deficiencies).
So, I I agree that for those that need it, OSS has benefits.
Here's an interesting site that discusses OS usage for web servers:
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-linux/all/all
Yes, on the server side, access to source is a very big plus. On the consumer side... Not so sure.
The reason is simple, you do have "eyes" on the code, experienced ones, with responsability if something doesn't work, or isn't secure, while in the case of Android, this responsability seamingly falls on no one. Not Google, not the carriers and certainly not the OEM.
...
Do you know what open refers to in software? It does not mean the ability to install any app on the device. It means that you or I can download the source code to the software, compile it, and modify it and place it on any device I want. I can do this with Android it is open.
Hey, bud, been using open source software since before they called it open source in the 1980s.
Used Apache, Perl, Linux, Mysql (and many other important softwares) in their 0.1 versions, hacked from their ugly ass sources.
That barely worked.
So, spare me the god damn education; keep it to yourself and your kids.
If any commercial entity wants to use the play store and libs, they have to put all the other Google developped crap on it.
That's not open at all.
It means OEM and everyone else that wants to make money from Android, being a slave to Google or face commercial death.
Only a few like Amazon, have been able to escape this death grip by forking.
In China, because Google is out, language barriers and yes rampant piracy, the play store was not as important, so they effectively cut Google out and there it could mostly be called open source even though most of the development of the bottom layer is still being done by Google. But, for how long? Google is not making any money from those Chinese users.