iOS6 is probably the most underwhelming release of iOS to date

[edddeduck]

You go to the manufacturer

Yes, although the Sony Xperia Manual was out of date for how to delete a mail account on the phone as the manual was written for a different UI. It was fixed a few months later but when I had to look for info I found it by looking at the complaints about the crappy manual not from Sony's site!

What Apple fanboys often don't understand is what Android is. It's a free and open source operating system, and any manufacturer can use it. If I had the resources, I could design and market my very own Android phone. Fragmentation of the platform as a whole is generally a much greater issue for Android developers than it is for consumers, unless you're on some very old version of Android.

Android is not Open Source anymore It might have been almost Open Source at the beginning but the source has not been available under an open source agreement for quite a long time now. In fact to ship anything like Ice Cream Sandwich or Jelly Bean you need Google approval.

They just use the open source claim so Android fanboys and uninformed people can say oh but it's open when in reality it is far from it. In fact Google lawyers argued in court that Microsoft should not be able to show Andriod code in court as it was protected, that argument by it's definition means it is not open source code.

it's not open source.

Google has finally acknowledged that its characterization of Android is false, although it continues to claim that open source nature on its website. How? Google complained this week that Microsoft had no right to show the Android source code to an expert witness in one of those many patent battles being waged on the mobile front. If the Android code were in fact open source, there could be no such restriction on showing the code -- it would be available to anyone. That's what open source means.

The truth is that parts of Android are open source and other parts are not. There's nothing wrong with that -- in fact, it's extremely common these days in software development, a testament to the positive attributes of open source.

Android Open?

Apple use a lot of open source technology in iOS but that does make the entire OS open.

If you want a unified, "iPhone-like" or "iPad-like" experience (or rather, the closest Android equivalent) with a quickly up-to-date OS, buy a Galaxy Nexus, Nexus S, or Nexus 7. The fact that these devices are open to (completely optional) user modification and development by default is a bonus.

Nexus 7 is not rooted on Jelly bean it just like iOS needed to be jailbroken. Also if you do root your phone (even officially) you lose access to many Google services like film rentals. This is deliberate by Google.

These devices are officially supported by Google, and are supported with updates for as long as the hardware is capable. Google has a little bit of control over most Android devices in their "Google apps" certification process, controlling the distribution of apps like Gmail and Google Play, but not much. If you expect Google to be able to directly support the myriad of hundreds of Android devices out there, then you haven't the slightest clue how Android works. You can make as many arguments against Android's open nature as you want, but that's just the very nature of the OS. If Apple had gone this way with iOS, you would be seeing many of the same things.

If you want everything iOS has to offer, the only choice you have is the iPhone 4S (or perhaps, in a few months, the iPhone 5 instead), because Apple likes to hold back features from its old products to sell its old ones.

That's not a fact only opinion. You could also say Apple only add new features once they have them perfectly done. For example no video recording but when it came it was good from day one. Yes you could hack an iPhone 1 to record but the quality sucked.

Android manufacturers are often guilty of the same things, but many of the same arguments iOS fanboys like to use against Android hold for Apple too, and too often, Apple's motives are much more nefarious - where is iOS 6 for the original iPad, which has far more capable hardware than the iPhone 3GS? Where is Siri and turn-by-turn navigation on the iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS? Where is Siri on the iPad 2?

"Apple's motives are much more nefarious" lets try and stick to the facts, I don't want to break out my tinfoil hat because they are all against us!

The original iPad has a big screen and less RAM than the other iPads, sure it could work but it will run slowly. The reason the 3GS has got partial support (missing most features) is because the device is still being sold. The iPad was EOL over a year ago now.

iPad 2 has less RAM than a iPhone4S just like the iPhone 4 you can get Siri to work but if you do you get a bit of lag. Also the iPhone4 and iPad 2 doe not have the improved microphone pickups that improved the audio pickup which in turn makes Siri work better.

Turn by turn you have a point they did not spend the time to get it running fast enough on older hardware however you could easily argue Apple care about the experience, if the hardware is not quite good enough they just drop it, that's better than having a phone/iPad than runs badly because it is not powerful enough.

Apple are guilty sometimes of killing features on older machines, I don't disagree with your assertion but in most cases the decision is not as cut and dry as you are suggesting. There often are reasons behind the decision and if you jailbreak to turn these back on you sometimes see those reasons though instability or performance problems.

Unlike Google, Apple doesn't fragment its platform because of a lack of control, it fragments its platform intentionally to get consumers to replace their products with new Apple products. If that's the kind of ecosystem you want to support, then go right ahead.

Again this is a little over the top, sure Apple don't have the newest features on the older devices but saying that all the products could run all the features and the *only* reason Apple don't make features work on older products is disingenuous.

 

[depths]

Android is not Open Source anymore It might have been almost Open Source at the beginning but the source has not been available under an open source agreement for quite a long time now. In fact to ship anything like Ice Cream Sandwich or Jelly Bean you need Google approval.

They just use the open source claim so Android fanboys and uninformed people can say oh but it's open when in reality it is far from it. In fact Google lawyers argued in court that Microsoft should not be able to show Andriod code in court as it was protected, that argument by it's definition means it is not open source code.

As far as I know AOSP is open source, just not as open as some other open source projects.

Are you basing your opinion entirely on that article? It seems a little inaccurate.

 

[edddeduck]

As far as I know AOSP is open source, just not as open as some other open source projects.

The quote below my claim had links to the articles about the legal case. You also can no longer check out any recent version of android unless you sign NDA's with Google this again is not something you should need to do with a fully open source project.

Android might have a lot of open source in it, but it is no longer an open source operating system as many aspects are now closed source.

Here are just a few reports of some of the issues with Android in recent years to prove it's none open source nature.

PC World Only 23% Open Source

It Wire

Extreme Tech

The Register

ZD Net

Their are more examples but essentially you cannot build a fully working version of Android with a working GUI without either writing your own code to cover the closed source areas or licensing stuff under NDA to Google. If you do license they have some approval rights before you ship.

I is more Open than iOS but it is not really fully open source like Google claim(ed).

 

[tninety]

Yes, although the Sony Xperia Manual was out of date for how to delete a mail account on the phone as the manual was written for a different UI. It was fixed a few months later but when I had to look for info I found it by looking at the complaints about the crappy manual not from Sony's site!

That's Sony's fault, not Android's. Any company can make an Android phone, whether it offers good support or not. If Sony sells you an Android phone and screws you over, you can choose not to buy an Android phone from Sony anymore. Samsung, Motorola, or HTC may offer you better support. That might compel Sony, in turn, to provide better support. If Apple sold Android phones, it may provide better support than Sony.

Android is not Open Source anymore It might have been almost Open Source at the beginning but the source has not been available under an open source agreement for quite a long time now. In fact to ship anything like Ice Cream Sandwich or Jelly Bean you need Google approval.

Honeycomb was kept under wraps for a while because it did not have a complete telephony stack, and Honeycomb was "closed source" when that article was published (all of Honeycomb has since been pushed to Android's open source repositories). Every major version of Android is also "closed source" up to a few weeks after its unveiling. But the Android Open Source repositories now contain every version of Android up to Ice Cream Sandwich. Jelly Bean will be pushed to AOSP soon too. Google even designates someone to oversee the open sourcing of the internal Android code, Jean-Baptiste Queru.

Google does do platform development in private, which is not your typical community-oriented "open source" development model. However, just because Android is mostly internally developed does not mean it's closed source. The source code is made available in Git repositories when it's done, so Android does fit the definition of open source. iOS contains a lot of open source code, but you CAN'T build iOS from source and run it on your iPhone because it is closed source and under a proprietary license. Even if you stole the source code of iOS from Apple's offices, you still could not legally distribute your own builds of iOS, since it's proprietary. That's what I mean when I say Android is "open" and iOS is not.

I'm not familiar with the legal specifics of the Microsoft incident you linked to, but neither are you. Evidence can be made inadmissible in court for a variety of reasons, and lawyers will use any means they can to put their opponents at a disadvantage. The fact is, however, you CAN build Android from the source code and run it on your Galaxy Nexus. That's pretty much as open source as you can get.

Since Android is licensed mostly under the Apache License (the kernel is licensed under the GPLv2, which is also an open source but copyleft license), which is a very permissive license, you can ship Android in any product you want without Google's (or anyone's) approval. If you want to ship Google's apps with Android (things like Gmail, Google Play, and Google Maps) you do need to get Google certification, because those apps are not open source. Those apps are technically not a part of Android, however. You're free to write alternatives to these apps and ship them with your device if you don't want to use Google's apps. You're even free to make a deal with Amazon and put the Amazon Appstore on your phone, for example, instead of Google Play. You can even make your own app store. Android is already a complete mobile OS without the Google apps, though, with its own browser, email client, SMS client, etc.

Their are more examples but essentially you cannot build a fully working version of Android with a working GUI without either writing your own code to cover the closed source areas or licensing stuff under NDA to Google.

This is just false. The Google apps are not an integral part of Android. See the CyanogenMod project, a community ROM which is built completely from source, which ships without the Google apps (they're flashable later if you want them). The source can be built to a completely working version of Android even without any community modifications. There are instructions online to either build vanilla Android straight from Google (without any custom code) or the CyanogenMod project and flash it to a retail Nexus device.

Nexus 7 is not rooted on Jelly bean it just like iOS needed to be jailbroken. Also if you do root your phone (even officially) you lose access to many Google services like film rentals. This is deliberate by Google.

The Nexus 7 can be bootloader unlocked using the built-in "fastboot oem unlock" command like all of the Nexus devices before it. "Jailbreaking" is not the same as "rooting." "Jailbreaking" implies that you were thrown in jail in the first place, and Google does no such thing on the Nexus 7. The "Nexus 7 rooted!" articles you see on the internet do not imply that Google actually did anything to try to stop you from rooting the device. The same articles exist for the Nexus One, Nexus S, and Galaxy Nexus, all of which can easily be rooted through this official method. Rooting Nexus devices is trivial because there's nothing to block you from doing it. No Android devices have come pre-rooted by default because they're designed first and foremost for mass-market consumers, not advanced users or developers. Nexus phones are very easy to root because Google deliberately left the fastboot oem unlock command in every unit. Apple deliberately breaks jailbreaking attempts on iOS and leaves no such option for the user.

Apple are guilty sometimes of killing features on older machines, I don't disagree with your assertion but in most cases the decision is not as cut and dry as you are suggesting.

The important fact to take away here is that Apple does intentionally restrict features to sell new devices. The specifics of each feature and each device are just details. I could have, but purposely didn't mention older versions of iOS not coming to the ARMv6 iPhones (the iPhone and iPhone 3G), because the hardware in these phones may really be too old to smoothly support newer versions of iOS - iOS 4 already runs badly enough on the iPhone 3G. I tried to list only relevant features that may plausibly have been restricted because of Apple's marketing strategy. Some of the features I listed may have been artificially restricted, and others may have been held back because they would have not met Apple's quality standards on older devices, but the fact is, however, Google does nothing to artificially restrict the Android platform, and Apple is known to restrict iOS for marketing purposes. Such decisions are left to the manufacturer on Android, which, again, does not control the platform.

 

[depths]

tninety just said my words. I'm typing on a phone so that's probably a good thing.

 

[BaldiMac]

but the fact is, however, Google does nothing to artificially restrict the Android platform,

Of course they do. They specifically claim to withhold the source code from some manufacturers and provide early access to others.

and Apple is known to restrict iOS for marketing purposes.

Some say "known to" some say "assumed to".

Such decisions are left to the manufacturer on Android, which, again, does not control the platform.

I'm not sure why that distinction is important. More than the Apple conspiracy theories "for marketing purposes", it seems pretty cut and dry that Android manufacturer completely shut out shipping phones from OS updates to encourage updates or simply avoid the support costs. And somehow this situation is consider better on Android.

 

[tninety]

Of course they do. They specifically claim to withhold the source code from some manufacturers and provide early access to others.

Providing early access to certain manufacturers allows devices to be pushed out in a timely manner without revealing Google's strategy prematurely to the quickly-developing industry. ASUS, for example, probably needs some early access to Jelly Bean in order to get the Nexus 7 ready for the launch of Jelly Bean. This doesn't "restrict" the platform in the way Apple (allegedly) does. Google doesn't actively encourage Android device makers to withhold features or newer versions of Android from older devices.

Ideally, Google would do all Android development in the open and encourage any and all community contributions, but to compete effectively with iOS and other modern mobile platforms, which are all shrouded in secrecy until revealed, it has to make some compromises. Android's solution isn't ideal, but I'd say it's very good, since all manufacturers (even ones with no contact with Google) as well as the community do get access to the whole Android source when it's ready for release.

Some say "known to" some say "assumed to".

Fine, assumed to by many people. The lack of Siri on the iPad 2, for example, is almost unquestionably "for marketing purposes" to many Apple fans and detractors alike.

I'm not sure why that distinction is important. More than the Apple conspiracy theories "for marketing purposes", it seems pretty cut and dry that Android manufacturer completely shut out shipping phones from OS updates to encourage updates or simply avoid the support costs. And somehow this situation is consider better on Android.

This is a manufacturer-specific practice and not a characteristic of Android itself. Again, if Apple shipped Android phones, perhaps they would always update every phone. The Nexus devices, whose software is provided by Google, have always been supported well up to the limits of their hardware.

 

[edddeduck]

First after your comments I see ICS has been made available at last so my bad on that one.

you CAN'T build iOS from source and run it on your iPhone because it is closed source and under a proprietary license. Even if you stole the source code of iOS from Apple's offices, you still could not legally distribute your own builds of iOS, since it's proprietary. That's what I mean when I say Android is "open" and iOS is not.

Not to want to split hairs this argument is "according to me the definition of open is this and this means that Android is open". That's no better an argument than the reasons you said my argument was flawed.

You cannot compile and sell your own copies of Android without opening yourself up to licensing fees from companies like Microsoft, true Microsoft might leave small companies along but that does not change the fact that they legally can be asked to pay licensing fees for certain patents they own.

Now I do think Android is mostly open source and freely licensable but I think going as far as saying it is truly 100% open without caveats is disingenuous.

To summarise I am not saying Android is not very open, however I am saying it is not truly open source compared to other projects if you look at the fine details. And as they say the devil is in the details.

 

[tninety]

First after your comments I see ICS has been made available at last so my bad on that one.

At last? Ice Cream Sandwich has been available as open source since November of last year, mere weeks after the Galaxy Nexus was announced. Jelly Bean will be made available later this month, mere weeks after it was announced. Honeycomb was the only version of Android that was withheld for any significant period of time, and that was only because it had an incomplete telephony stack, and for that reason, Google felt that it was only appropriate for tablets and did not meet the quality standard for a phone OS. It wasn't an ideal solution, but it was what Google chose to do. The current AOSP repos contain all the commits necessary to build a complete working version of Honeycomb, but they aren't tagged.

Not to want to split hairs this argument is "according to me the definition of open is this and this means that Android is open". That's no better an argument than the reasons you said my argument was flawed.

Released versions of Android in AOSP (up to Ice Cream Sandwich and Jelly Bean later this month) fulfill the widely-accepted definition of open source software and also conform to the Free Software Foundation's definition of Free Software. Its future roadmap and current development remain secret, presumably to remain competitive with iOS, Windows Phone, and the like. We can create our own definitions of "open," but those are the facts.

You cannot compile and sell your own copies of Android without opening yourself up to licensing fees from companies like Microsoft, true Microsoft might leave small companies along but that does not change the fact that they legally can be asked to pay licensing fees for certain patents they own.

Those patents have not yet been tested in court against any Android manufacturer (that is, it have not successfully sued any Android manufacturer who refused to pay for licensing), and Microsoft has mostly used intimidation to force its partners (like HTC) into paying it licensing fees. Android itself does not carry any such limitations. Such fees are subject to private agreements between Android manufacturers and companies like Microsoft, and are not an inherent part of the platform itself. Presumably, a manufacturer could even patch Android to avoid some of these patent issues, without pre-approval from Google.

To summarise I am not saying Android is not very open, however I am saying it is not truly open source compared to other projects if you look at the fine details. And as they say the devil is in the details.

There's not much devil to be had in the first place. Google allows you to download and build Android from source, put it on your own device, and sell it without any limitations. If you want Google's own apps (which are not an integral part of Android) on your device, you can contact Google and have them certify your device.

 

[BaldiMac]

Providing early access to certain manufacturers allows devices to be pushed out in a timely manner without revealing Google's strategy prematurely to the quickly-developing industry. ASUS, for example, probably needs some early access to Jelly Bean in order to get the Nexus 7 ready for the launch of Jelly Bean. This doesn't "restrict" the platform in the way Apple (allegedly) does. Google doesn't actively encourage Android device makers to withhold features or newer versions of Android from older devices.

Ideally, Google would do all Android development in the open and encourage any and all community contributions, but to compete effectively with iOS and other modern mobile platforms, which are all shrouded in secrecy until revealed, it has to make some compromises. Android's solution isn't ideal, but I'd say it's very good, since all manufacturers (even ones with no contact with Google) as well as the community do get access to the whole Android source when it's ready for release.

I think you are just whitewashing the issues here. Google's business plan isn't an excuse. It doesn't matter if Google restricts the platform to keep their strategy secret or if it manufacturers that restrict the features that are brought to the customers. The result is the same for the consumer.

Fine, assumed to by many people. The lack of Siri on the iPad 2, for example, is almost unquestionably "for marketing purposes" to many Apple fans and detractors alike.

Just like it was assumed by many people that limiting the original Siri to the the 4S was only for marketing purposes. Even though it was pretty reasonable to assume that it was actually because the backend support was not there for the additional users.

This is a manufacturer-specific practice and not a characteristic of Android itself. Again, if Apple shipped Android phones, perhaps they would always update every phone.

I'm not sure why that distinction matters. People don't buy Android itself. They buy Android phone made by manufacturers.

The Nexus devices, whose software is provided by Google, have always been supported well up to the limits of their hardware.

Super, but that's only a few percentage points of all the Android devices sold.

 

[edddeduck]

You have made some very good points and proven my argument was partially flawed in parts! For those parts I admit my mistake and thanks for your links to the relevant facts, I now know better

But we have to agree to disagree that it is completely open source. Although you said it meets the definitions of the Free Software Foundation their founder and leading spokesperson was less than complimentary in the past.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/20/stallman_on_android/

Some things might have changed since his comments however quotes like this from strong Free Software proponents who have a lot more knowledge on Open Source license than you or me disagree on Android being perfectly open. This make it hard for me to agree that Android is a pure open source project, sure its mostly Open but it's not without it's problems.

Here is a quote from Richard Stallman around September last year.

"Google has complied with the requirements of the GNU General Public Licence for Linux, but the Apache licence on the rest of Android does not require source release. Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0 (aside from Linux), even though executables have been released to the public. Android 3.1 source code is also being withheld. Thus, Android 3, apart from Linux, is non-free software, pure and simple."

 

[TheLegend79]

It's funny how people are writing paragraph after paragraph battling back in forth when the bottom line is that Jelly Bean kills iOS IMO. There isn't much else to be said unless you have blinders on. I can even admit it as an iPhone user.

It's also probably the reason I will be finally leaving Apple within the next few months. I'm just sick of this stale OS with marginal "upgrades" that Android has had for years. I want to finally be able to use a live widget for God's sake.

 

[Rogifan]

It's funny how people are writing paragraph after paragraph battling back in forth when the bottom line is that Jelly Bean kills iOS IMO. There isn't much else to be said unless you have blinders on. I can even admit it as an iPhone user.

It's also probably the reason I will be finally leaving Apple within the next few months. I'm just sick of this stale OS with marginal "upgrades" that Android has had for years. I want to finally be able to use a live widget for God's sake.

Bye bye.

 

[nuckinfutz]

It's funny how people are writing paragraph after paragraph battling back in forth when the bottom line is that Jelly Bean kills iOS IMO. There isn't much else to be said unless you have blinders on. I can even admit it as an iPhone user.

It's also probably the reason I will be finally leaving Apple within the next few months. I'm just sick of this stale OS with marginal "upgrades" that Android has had for years. I want to finally be able to use a live widget for God's sake.

At lease they brought something to the battle. Bye.

 

[NewAnger]

It's funny how people are writing paragraph after paragraph battling back in forth when the bottom line is that Jelly Bean kills iOS IMO. There isn't much else to be said unless you have blinders on. I can even admit it as an iPhone user.

You mean, in your opinion JB kills iOS. I'm not into anything Android and don't have a reason to even want to give one a try.

iPhone is probably even more phone then I need and at the same time, it's all the phone I need since I make less then five calls a week, it's used more for testing and music than anything else.

 

[edddeduck]

I want to finally be able to use a live widget for God's sake.

Good for you. Personally as someone with a Mac, an Apple TV and lots of Mac and iOS applications (paid for) that inter operate moving to Android is less of a draw as iOS offers things Android can't offer or would cost me money to replace. It depends on the person, what other devices they own and circumstance.

Bottom line iOS and Jelly Bean are pretty equally matched overall they both has some very cool features the other one is lacking but personally I think anyone saying saying one OS kills the other is very fanboy orientated. Due to my other devices I am mostly in the iOS camp but I am very glad Android exists (and I hope Windows Phone does well the UI is really nice). The more competition between the OS's the better all of them will get. Any monopoly is usually bad for consumers as it usually slows down progress and innovation.

Edwin

 

[TheRainKing]

I don't really like the new UI and colour scheme on some of the apps.

 

[TheLegend79]

You mean, in your opinion JB kills iOS. I'm not into anything Android and don't have a reason to even want to give one a try.

iPhone is probably even more phone then I need and at the same time, it's all the phone I need since I make less then five calls a week, it's used more for testing and music than anything else.

Did I not put "IMO" after my statement?

I know I will get a lot of "bye byes", but it's true. I have completely outgrown iOS, it's just so plain and stale now. I understand now everyone will be in the same boat as me, but I am still considering it.

 

[tninety]

I think you are just whitewashing the issues here. Google's business plan isn't an excuse. It doesn't matter if Google restricts the platform to keep their strategy secret or if it manufacturers that restrict the features that are brought to the customers. The result is the same for the consumer.

Manufacturers are only delayed a few months at the most, and all features can eventually make it to all devices within a reasonable time frame. In contrast, Siri will never come to older devices, and turn-by-turn navigation will never come to older devices.

Just like it was assumed by many people that limiting the original Siri to the the 4S was only for marketing purposes. Even though it was pretty reasonable to assume that it was actually because the backend support was not there for the additional users.

And does Apple ever plan to add the additional backend to support Siri on older devices? If it costs money to maintain the servers, why don't they make it a $10 app on the App Store? Why don't they make navigation a $10 app in the App Store? They've even charged for iOS updates in the past, for the iPod Touch.

I'm not sure why that distinction matters. People don't buy Android itself. They buy Android phone made by manufacturers.

Super, but that's only a few percentage points of all the Android devices sold.

The distinction matters because the people arguing against Android are arguing against the entire platform rather than individual manufacturers. Google is largely responsible for the platform, but it can't control what the manufacturers decide to do. Things like bad customer support and lack of updates are business decisions made by people who don't work on Android. If iOS was licensed in the same way and HTC, Samsung, and Motorola began making iOS phones, you would probably see the same thing.

You have made some very good points and proven my argument was partially flawed in parts! For those parts I admit my mistake and thanks for your links to the relevant facts, I now know better

But we have to agree to disagree that it is completely open source. Although you said it meets the definitions of the Free Software Foundation their founder and leading spokesperson was less than complimentary in the past.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/20/stallman_on_android/

Some things might have changed since his comments however quotes like this from strong Free Software proponents who have a lot more knowledge on Open Source license than you or me disagree on Android being perfectly open. This make it hard for me to agree that Android is a pure open source project, sure its mostly Open but it's not without it's problems.

Here is a quote from Richard Stallman around September last year.

Stallman is known for being rather hard-line on such issues - some would even consider him an extremist. Honeycomb was closed source when he said that, so he was correct, but two months after he made that statement, Ice Cream Sandwich and all the changes since then (including Honeycomb) were made open source, and conform to the FSF's guidelines for Free Software. Richard Stallman doesn't like the Apache license as much because it's permissive and not copyleft, but his foundation considers it a Free Software license (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html).

 

[TheLegend79]

I find it funny that people on an Apple forum are arguing about Android being open source or not. Ever heard of AOSP?

Am I the only Apple fan that isn't drunk off their Kool-Aid?

 

[BaldiMac]

Manufacturers are only delayed a few months at the most, and all features can eventually make it to all devices within a reasonable time frame. In contrast, Siri will never come to older devices, and turn-by-turn navigation will never come to older devices.

All features can make it to all devices? Really? The part that you are missing is that they don't. 90% of Android phones are on an OS released 19 months ago! There are high profile devices being sold today based on that same 19 month old OS.

And does Apple ever plan to add the additional backend to support Siri on older devices? If it costs money to maintain the servers, why don't they make it a $10 app on the App Store? Why don't they make navigation a $10 app in the App Store? They've even charged for iOS updates in the past, for the iPod Touch.

I don't think it's a question of money for servers.

The distinction matters because the people arguing against Android are arguing against the entire platform rather than individual manufacturers. Google is largely responsible for the platform, but it can't control what the manufacturers decide to do. Things like bad customer support and lack of updates are business decisions made by people who don't work on Android. If iOS was licensed in the same way and HTC, Samsung, and Motorola began making iOS phones, you would probably see the same thing.

Are you arguing that we should start counting each manufacturers version of Android as a separate platform? These problems are a direct result of Android's model. It's disingenuous to praise of all the advantages of openness, while simultaneously arguing that all the disadvantages of open are somebody else's problem.

 

[macduke]

Troll is a troll

I just don't get threads like this. The OP has an avatar of Steve Jobs holding a plate with a pitcher of Kool-Aid. Does he realize that this is an Apple site filled with people who enjoy Apple products? Yes. Does he have no life? None at all. I mean seriously, who goes around registering accounts on websites about things which they despise and then make ranting posts about it? Trolls. And trolls have too much free time and/or personality disorders.

He goes on about how this update shouldn't have even happened because the features should have already been there. Well no crap, every feature we've ever wanted should already be there because we've thought of it! That's fantasy. Back in the real world, Apple doesn't just bolt on crap without thinking it through first and implementing it in the best possible way—unlike most software companies. They take a steady approach to their design—a path which has led them to becoming the most successful company in the world. I'd say that they're doing something right. But no, they should listen instead to the guy who mocks Steve Jobs—possibly one of the greatest minds of our time.

If you don't like it then switch platforms. But somehow I doubt the OP has even used iOS. You don't see this kind of crap on Android forums—but that's likely because most Apple users have no need to feel validated in the equipment they use. You see, we're too busy actually getting stuff done to troll the interwebs like a noob. While some might say this update was lacking—good luck even getting your Android phone to update to any version. What is it, 10% on ICS? And that's not even the latest version. Laughable.

 

[Calidude]

I just don't get threads like this. The OP has an avatar of Steve Jobs holding a plate with a pitcher of Kool-Aid. Does he realize that this is an Apple site filled with people who enjoy Apple products? Yes. Does he have no life? None at all. I mean seriously, who goes around registering accounts on websites about things which they despise and then make ranting posts about it? Trolls. And trolls have too much free time and/or personality disorders.

I've been here for 2 years. See my join date there on the left? Been an iOS user for nearly 3 now. Just recently got a Nexus due to the strong rumors that the next iPhone isn't going to have a wider screen, and frankly, I can't have another 2 years of that.

He goes on about how this update shouldn't have even happened because the features should have already been there. Well no crap, every feature we've ever wanted should already be there because we've thought of it!

I never said this update shouldn't have happened. I said this update was incredibly lackluster.

But no, they should listen instead to the guy who mocks Steve Jobs—possibly one of the greatest minds of our time.

Honestly, for you to compare Steve Jobs to actual scientists that are actually changing the world with their incredible intellect shows that my avatar is quite appropriate. He is no doubt excellent at what he does, but he is not even close to being in the list of "greatest minds of our time".

If you don't like it then switch platforms. But somehow I doubt the OP has even used iOS.

If you'd like me to prove it, I will. You can choose how I prove it. Go ahead. I have my iPhone stashed here in my desk to give to a kid cousin later this month.

You don't see this kind of crap on Android forums—but that's likely because most Apple users have no need to feel validated in the equipment they use.

Apple users generally don't think outside of what Apple tells them to think, so they never venture anywhere outside Apple communities, much less do things like jailbreak.

You see, we're too busy actually getting stuff done to troll the interwebs like a noob. While some might say this update was lacking—good luck even getting your Android phone to update to any version. What is it, 10% on ICS? And that's not even the latest version. Laughable.

I have my Nexus on Jelly Bean and its not even officially out. We don't wait for companies to update us. We update our gear ourselves. It's just that most people don't really care to update their phone while iPhone users will typically buy the latest iPhone as soon as it came out, whereas with Android...there's a lot of issues with carriers, manufacturers, different models, etc that need to be sorted out before people can be auto-updated.

iPhone and Android are 2 completely different business and OS models. You simply can't compare them on updates because one is open source and the other is tightly closed source and under heavy control by Apple. Sure there's a benefit to that system with timely updates, but not a lot of freedom for users and their communities.

 

[el3ktro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZoqW-GEdQM

That's it. That's all I can say, besides the fact that jailbreaking is still going to be sought after like crazy.

Well the vast majority of iOS users does NOT jailbreak...

 

[NZed]

1) Maps: Ok, that's big enough. Whole new interface. Whole new backend. Yep.
2) Siri tells you sports and movie stuff: Yeah sorry, that's a cloud feature.
3) Facebook: Social Networking garbage that should have been paired with Twitter last year. Doesn't even deserve a spot of its own.
4) Shared photo streams: An x.1 addition at best. All they did was make photo stream social. An enhancement, not a feature of its own.
5) Passbook: An app that I could have downloaded from the app store like "Find my Friends". Most people won't use this. They trust the native app more than a consolidated solution.
6) Facetime over Cellular: Something that should have always been there when Facetime came out. No reason to delay except to ration out the features.
7) Phone replies: Should have been there since iOS1. A complete joke. Typical Apple nonsense rationing of features.
8) Mail enhancements: Stuff that should have been there in iOS3. OMG APPLE THANKS FOR LETTING ME ATTACH STUFF IN THE MAIL APP. Complete crap, typical Apple rationing of features.
9) Safari enhancements: Typical stuff that should have been in iOS5 with iCloud. More feature rationing.
10) Accessibility: Apple JUST realized that kids and sick kids can use devices you manipulate with your fingers and parents might want some fine grained control? This should have been around since iOS3 as a minor feature that every parent can use. Typical Apple trying to showcase a feature because they want to portray how they REALLY care about children.

Somehow, I agree with many of the points this guy made. I dont hate iOS6 and I'm waiting almost impatiently for it. I actually like the new features, but like the guy said, it could've or should've been there a long time ago. Some features Android had a long time ago... I mean, I understand technology advances every day and every updates there's new stuff. But seeing new stuff that Android already have makes it a bit unbearable. Although i have a Galaxy S2.