I'm still having trouble figuring out what is so "open" about Android.
How about that all the source and frameworks are available for developers? How about that a developer doesn't have to worry about Apple pulling the app for no good reason (like all the GV apps when they first came out)?
LOL, I just knew the tech guys would miss the point, and I never dreamed they would so publicly admit (inadvertently) it so quickly. Oh, they think they were being clever by these responses, but they merely confirm Steve's point.
Yes, sure, if you are a geek, the definition of open expressed in code makes a good point. But Steve wasn't addressing geeks (something that drives MacRumors posters crazy), for whom every device is open (including the iPhone) by their definition of open (as in, can I crack this?)
But the 90% of the smartphone users who are not geeks, in other words the hundreds of millions who wouldn't know code if it kicked them in the butt, these geek responses are meaningless. Geeks all over the Net are laughing at Steve today, but everyone else (90%) understands just what Steve said.
Android might be geek open, but to everyone else it's fragmented by what the cell providers are doing to Android. It's de facto locked down by Verizon, so that the end user is stuck with whatever version Verizon wants them to have, along with all the cruft that Verizon foists upon them. This is not open. Steve's point remains, and the geeks can laugh all they want, but the hundreds of millions of non-geek users are getting tired of "open" that is closed to them by stupid cell providers.
First off... How was Steve not addressing Geeks? This is an Earnings call!! Do general consumers even pay attention? Second, he was referring to challenges for DEVELOPERS! He's trying to scare devs from straying to Android. Plain and simple. I don't know anyone that's more frustrated with "lock downs" with Android than those with the iPhone. What you are saying means that at WORST Andorid would be in exactly the same boat as iPhone and that all the non geek users would be getting tired of it. But, as I mentioned before, those using Android don't have to deal with the Apple rejecting innovative apps.
I liked Steve a lot better when he was sitting back and quietly kicking ass instead of calling people out every other day.
Amen. Honestly, I used to love all the new Apple products. Now, I still like the products and think they are cool and all, but Steve makes me really dislike the company now. His ignorance is astounding.
It doesn't matter what "their opinion" is. Any developer that took a look at their blog post (including myself) didn't think it is "pretty cool". This is a nightmare even if they say it wasn't.
Any developer? I'm a developer and I thought it was cool. I'm assuming as a developer you know what a VM is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_(software) It's not like developers developing for any device need to know specifics. It's a VIRTUAL MACHINE! It's JAVA! When a kid learns Java in their high school programming class, they then know that they can write a program that will run on ANY computer regardless of hardware. It's the same with Android. Some features will be dependent on hardware. If you don't have 2 cameras the app will only access one. That doesn't make it harder to develop though. You just chose if you want dual or single camera support in your app. Just like on the iPhone platform.
Amen. I can't believe people are really buying into Google's propaganda. Google. A for-profit corporation. That wants your data so it can push advertising at you. "Open?" Hilarious.
The biggest tech snow job I can recall since Microsoft's "The Freedom To Innovate" astroturfing campaign. "A future we do not want???" Here's a future I don't want: a future where Google is the exclusive gatekeeper of the world's information.
Choose the best device for your needs. But spare us the "Android is open and Google loves me" baloney.
Always think, "Follow the money". Andriods sole purpose is to get the internet in everyone's pockets. They want you to search, use Gmail, use Google Calendar, and any other Google product. Android is a means to this end. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. It doesn't make it not open though.
android will eventually turn out like windows... there is no possible way that the developers will be able to test all the different combos of hardware and software versions that are going to be floating around.
They had to test over 200 different device configurations for tweet deck now just think of how many combos they will have to test in a year or two.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=11 If they turn out like Windows, they'll be sitting pretty.
Also, you should read up on what Java and Virtual Machines are. Take a look at the Wikipedia link I posted as well. Developers DON'T have to test against every hardware and software version. They did not have to test against 200 device configurations. They just released an open beta and posted some stats.
Do you develop for the iPhone? Having a couple of devices is absolutely essential for testing because things DO break. Even a big company like Apple still releases buggy software. The amount of configurations and setup every single user might have are endless, even in a very tight ecosystem like Apple's. How the heck am I supposed to properly ensure that my app runs fine on that:
<SNIP>
I do develop for the iPhone. My application runs on all iPhones, iPods, iPads and all I have is an iPhone 3G. I just make sure I implement the frameworks properly.
Also, the vast majority of OS's on that list are custom made. They are all based off of the same few ROMs (Usually exactly the same but with different bundled apps) and do not generally pose any obstacle. Also, anyone who is installing or building ROMs knows that it could be a source of problems before contacting app builders.
That is quite the list. Open means that you don't need people to create custom ROMs for you to do what you want.
There is no truly open mobile OS.
That doesn't make sense... Android OS is 100% totally Open. Open means YOU CAN CREATE CUSTOM ROMS. What the heck do you think it means?
the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"
What a coincidence, that is also the definition of stuff that end users don't care about.
As a software engineer and someone who spends a lot of time working with OSS, I can honestly say that I don't care about "openness" in the manner that it is being discussed in regard to phones. I've developed an app for the iPhone and hundreds in Java (although not specifically Android.)
I just want my phone to work. I can develop an good app for it whether it is "open" or "closed", so as an engineer I'd say it is irrelevant. As a user, I'd say it is highly irrelevant.
The only think that irks me about developing for iOS or OS X is Objective-C. That is honestly the bigger deal to me as a developer. Most guys out there will know .NET or Java- a lot less likely you'll find someone who already knows Objective-C, unless you specifically recruit for that.... and then you're picking from a shallow pool. Android gets the nod here for being able to leverage the a skill set that some engineers have been using for well over 10 years.
I'd say that Google Voice is the prime example of why it matters to developers and the end users.
Google and independent developers ended up in a bad spot because Apple wouldn't approve their apps. Second, the end users suffered because they were unable to use Google Voice with their iPhones. No matter how innovative of an engineer you are, ultimately you are put at the mercy of Apple to decide if your app is going to be successful. I don't like that.
Seriously,
was it necessary to kick android and tweetdeck a few times? I don't understand why SJ would say that without proof that its a harder platform to develop more. Just enjoy the nice quarter and live.
Amen.
Interesting. I can't. That is, I can, but I don't want to pay Apple for the privilege.
I do agree, however, that the end user doesn't care about openness directly but there are certain benefits to openness that the user DO care about, such a being able to buy a new phone and still retain the apps he paid for.
Of that we can agree but since Apple opened up for thirdparty tools you can actually build apps in C#, ActionScript, or Unity for that matter. Maybe even Ruby at some point. Open is good
I would also point out the Google Voice example.
