Nah, I think they've hit on the fact that people just don't care about all the secret interworking details of systems. They just want to do what they want to do, which is usually mundane.No offense but this is the exact same argument that mac users were making 15 years ago. Back then it was actually fairly reasonable to point out how much fiddling and maintenance windows machines need. (But a the same time mac users did a lot of 'fiddling' too, installing extensions and extension managers, playing around with 'resource forks', etc) By the time windows got to 2000 and XP the difficulty kind of went away except the incredible amount of spyware out there, which required a lot of work to get rid of.
Apple makes well designed stuff with "no user serviceable parts" inside. The marketplace of people who don't like to fuck around with computer stuff has kind of made it clear that by and large this is what they want. ...Well right, but it's not a technical strategy it's a marketing strategy. Apple says they close their systems to that they can't get messed up and stay easy to use. What exactly are the "Bad things" that you can do on an android phone that you can't do on an iPhone, exactly? Run down the battery playing flash games? Download pornographic apps? What?
I mean, really, think about it: Apple's solution to the "this is why we can't have nice things" problem is: don't allow people to do bad things, but at the cost of not allowing them to do certain good things. In the abstract, it's a compelling bit of social engineering, and when it comes to sales figures it is clear that the market likes this approach.
Fortunately, as others say, I don't think Apple's going to that place. There seems to be a line they don't cross: as control-freaky as they get with the iMobile devices, as possessive as they seem to be about their own platform, they don't seem to have the impulse to own a niche by kneecapping competitors.Is that why they're suing HTC over multitouch? Apple isn't in a position to kneecap their competitors because their competitors aren't writing software for their platform (the way Microsoft's competitors were) for the most part. When their competitors do they certainly have run into problems.
Get an android phone and you can turn off letting Google know about you. You lose features yes, but that's because they rely on just that symbiosis. Almost no-one is going to use a third party app store, but the option exists, which means if Google oversteps their bounds you can work around themThere's nothing stopping you from creating and using a 3rd party app store on Android. here's one right here. They exist and you can use them, although I don't know why anyone would.
"At least 29 apps on Android Market have system level access that would be considered spyware on a PC, S Mobile Systems claimed in a warning study. When installed, the app group gave enough permission that they could represent serious privacy and security breaches. In one example, a mobile banking app was deliberately malicious and ultimately sent login data from an account to the developer's site." (emph. added)It's perfectly clear when you install applications what they can and can't do. You seem something like "Services that cost you money: send and receive text messages". Or "your personal information: contact list." There are apps designed to help you mange text messages, or your contact list. That's what they're supposed to do and it's very clear what they do when you install it
In a blog post this morning, the Dev Team explained that code from analytics firm Pinch Media within some iPhone apps is "specifically designed to track your geographical location through time, then upload that data to Pinch Media." They ... note that the app will first ask permission to use your location information. Once this permission is granted, user location information is transmitted to whomever is tracking the app's usage via Pinch AnalyticsOr this:
Careful, iPhone users: Your smart phone may be smarter than you think.Except unlike you're link if actually heard of F-Secure, and forbs magazine. But look the question isn't "Can I google something and find a vaguely scary sound quote regardless of the quality of the source". It's what the actual risk is. Both apple and android platforms allow apps to get some personal information, and both make it clear what, exactly, is being accessed. That fact that someone, somewhere on the internet has made vaguely scary sounding statements about android isn't proof that there is a spyware problem on android, anymore then the fact that there is an obvious SEO campaign for some so-called "iPhone spyware" you can supposedly buy means that it actually works.
On Thursday researchers at Finnish cybersecurity firm F-Secure said they have spotted the first known instance of iPhone "spyware" called Mobile Spy, a piece of commercial software that sells for $99 a year.
After two days of fiddling, downloading and uninstalling apps, manually force-quitting programs and waiting for servers to be upgraded, I finally got video calling to work — sort of. Sometimes there was only audio and a black screen, sometimes only a freeze-frame; at best, the video was blocky and the audio delay absurd.The reviews for the iPhone 4 remark how completely easy it to activate video calling.
To make video calling work, you have to install an app yourself: either Fring or Qik. But we never did get Fring to work, and Qik requires people you call to press a Talk button when they want to speak. The whole thing is confusing and, to use the technical term, iffy.
Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.I'll just point out that OSX was based in -free- Unix.
Going to need to prove this assertion; especially in the face of the market. They sold six iPhones a second over the past three days.What a weirdly arbitrary measure. Why not just say 1.5 million phones? Also why should I prove my assertion when you're to lazy to even bring any evidence to the table on this one:
Wrong. If it was about nothing more than control of the distribution channel they could have done it without the many restrictions that drive developers so batty. If you think it's not also about controlling the software that gets on the machine you've absolutely no understanding of Apple. You wouldn't be alone there, but to think they're a Microsoft-style cash-and-solely-cash company is to make a mistake.I mean, you're not actually saying anything other then your personal opinion about what motivates Apple.
Good thing ad hominems aren't ranked by Alexa, eh?Turns out they are. Why do we care what some random blog has to say on an issue? The actual content didn't have anything to do with the link either, it was someone complaining about copyright infringement in the android market.
Give an iPhone and an Android phone to a middle aged non tech mom and I promise you the iPhone is easier to understand. -- Dennis MurphyWhen Ellen DeGeneres made a sketch about how hard it was for her to use her iPhone apple got all pissy made her apologize. It's not all that clear that true non-technical people actually find the iPhone that easy to use, and frankly true non technical users are going to stick with plain old 'feature' phones (as they're called now). That's what so weird about the "Computer for people who hate computers!" stuff. People who hate computers don't buy them.
Mathowie uses mac hardware, merlin mann, gruber... I could go on. Plenty of people that use macs know 'a lot about computers'. -- Dennis MurphyYeah... I never said they didn't. I was responding to this:
Apple makes well designed stuff with "no user serviceable parts" inside. The marketplace of people who don't like to fuck around with computer stuff has kind of made it clear that by and large this is what they want -- seanmpuckettIt's not my problem if you guys can't keep your arguments straight
That you believe you know why I, or anyone else uses a mac, is a delusion in your head.Only if by "you" you mean seanmpuckett, who was the one who claimed that mac users bought macs because they didn't like knowing how they computers worked. It's not my fault you can't read.
Just because you say the devices are equally easy to use doesn't make it so. For instance, video calling. The reviews on the Sprint EVO remark how you have to go find a third party app to install to make video calling work: -- Brandon BlatcherYeah, but on the other hand you can hold it however you like, so it kind of evens out.
A Google account is a requirement for using the Gmail, Google Calendar and GTalk apps.BP, no offense but you seem confused here. In what way is "you have to have a gmail account to access gmail" a valid criticism of Android? Even my old G1 has a separate 'email' app for regular email.
I appreciate that you are confirming that what I wrote is factually correct.
No.Awesome.
« Older Today, June 28, 2010, marks the last day of the 20... | Star on the Hollywood Walk of ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by infini at 8:16 AM on June 28, 2010