Slashdot Mirror
High Expectations For Google Android
Several readers have pointed out recent articles discussing the development and features of Google Android. Silicon.com has what is essentially an FAQ for Android, providing the relevant basic information about it. Apcmag questions whether Google can meet the high expectations most enthusiasts have for the platform, and The Register discusses Google's claims that it will be competitive with Apple and worth the wait. We discussed a preview of Android last month. Quoting The Register:
"Google mobile platforms guru Rich Miner acknowledged that for the moment, Apple may have an advantage. After all, Steve Jobs and company have actually shipped a piece of hardware, while the first Android handset won't arrive until 'the second half of this year.' But Miner also told the crowd that Stevo hasn't treated developers as well as they deserve. 'There are certain apps you just can't build on an iPhone,' Miner said. 'Apple doesn't let you do multiprocessing. They don't let your app run in the background after you switch to another. And they don't let you have interpretive language in your iPhone apps.'"
I'm all in favor of openness and thus I don't plan to buy an iPhone, but it sounds like Google has to look pretty far to find advantages for Android. These "flaws" in the iPhone are obscure enough that I don't think most regular people would even understand them.
It's interesting to note that iPhone doesn't allow interpreted code... while Android doesn't allow native code. Which one of these is more "open"?
That would be wonderful. You are right...competition is good. Along those lines...it is interesting that in many ways OS X (and the iPhone for that matter) have made it to the desktop and consumer market and become extraordinarily successful by utilizing open source software that was originally designed to run with Linux and other unices to compete with Microsoft all while the powers that be at Apple have been VERY strict about what goes in to the OS, what makes it to prime-time, etc. In my opinion, Apple has done a great job at both releasing very competitive products (with open source underpinnings and features) and maintaining a balance between the potentially chaotic open-source world and the "real" consumer world in their products...something that Linux unfortunately has failed to do thus far.
First off, there is no such thing as an iPod, what you got is everything from the iPod shuffle to the latest iPod touch and what a LOT of people forget is that it is the lower end models that sell best.
This makes the iPods of which Apple sells most very simple single purpose devices. Play music.
Now ask yourselve just how many people actually use iTunes to BUY music and not justas a way to put music they already have on it on to the iPod as nothing more then a extremely bloated uploader.
By definition almost the iPhone is NOT just a phone. If you JUST wanted a phone, you can get far cheaper devices.
The idea is that mobile phones will become the PC's of the future, well ask yourselve this. If this is true, which one is the IBM PC and which one the Apple?
Cast aside the hatred of MS for a moment and remember WHY it was WinTel didn't just win the race but left overbody else standing. No, the reason isn't that Bill Gates produced a superior product, the reason was that he simply didn't do everything he could to ruin his own project. MS didn't win because they made the right decisions, they won because everyone else made far worse decisions. Atari, IBM and yes Apple, they ALL screwed up.
Now look at the iPhone again, for that matter, look at Apple itself, has it really learned from past mistakes? Remember, there was a time when APPLE led the field, but lost it. Is the iPhone not about to make the same mistakes as before, too much control when all people want is to use the device as they want?
Didn't we just have a story about Atari in which multiple posters pointed out how Atari never had proper documentation on how to develop for its systems so people just went to the IBM instead and went to work with the PC? Hell, that I can use PC as a synonym for an x86 bases cpu running MS software says it all really.
Apple may have sold a lot of devices, but they also sold a lot of Apples in the beginning, and then the PC happened and expanded the market to extents few could have imagined.
The iPod is a simple music player that for an awfull lot of people works PURELY as an MP3 player. Is the iPhone a simple mobile phone with a few added apps OR is it an attempt at the fabled mobile computing we heard so much about?
I personally haven't bought a single phone in recent years that did NOT allow me to install any java app that I wanted on it. (Europe is different regarding telcom control then the US), why should I NOT allow my carrier to decide what I run on my mobile computing phone, but give Apple total control?
In my eyes Android will have to launch on a sexy phone to get the same headlines, but if it truly introdudes an open PC like platform on which I can run what I want, how I want, then it is the clear winner for every user who runs non-apple or non-ms software on their computer.
It all depends on wether people buy their phones as single use gadgets or buy into the mobile computing hype.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
There isn't much difference. The major difference is that Apple understands how to market products.
I had this same argument with a few different people including one of my friends who actually worked in the cell phone industry. He too thought the iphone "is just another phone". Well yes, it is, but that's because you are a knowledgeable about the topic. Consider joe six-pack who finds fox news more useful than any other media channel. He sees an iphone commercial. So what is he going to do if he gets sold on buying a new phone? Is he going to magically buy the product he doesn't know about (Nokia) or buy what he sees on TV?
You see, when people talk about the iphone, they are not just talking about it from a technological standpoint. When I say, "what about the iphone" I am talking from a business standpoint. That is, Apple is running a successful campaign to the point where they practically get free press on every new product. You are not. How are you going to compete?
Don't get me wrong, I don't like Apple much, in fact I refuse to buy their products because I think they are overpriced. But you can't deny that Steve Jobs understands marketing to the masses. That is ultimately why the iphone will trump all.
I've read there is an API to enable multitasking within the iPhone SDK; just that by default it is turned off for battery/performance reasons.
GPL Deconstructed
>> Why is security on an iPhone suddenly such a huge deal, if its really a computer?
Let me start off by saying, I tried out the Android api, and I loved it; its event model was designed with switching applications in mind. It was very powerful and a joy to program. It will probably run my first personal smart phone.
My guess as to why Apple won't treat their phones as computers is because people expect phones to be responsive. People grew up with phones that you can start talking into as soon as you pick up the receiver. A slow phone would look like a piece of junk. The phone market is still quite open, as the iPhone has shown - it has gotten some solid sales numbers even though it wasn't the tried and true. The carriers have been very careful about what goes on their phones, even though it is mostly to protect arpu, so in general mobile phones are still quite responsive. Apple doesn't want to be the slow one.
Personal computers have the opposite expectation; people are used to slow personal computers. Remember waiting for Windows 3.x to refresh the damn screen? Somehow, the general population has accepted bloated software that keeps our computers much less responsive than they need to be, even as hardware keeps getting faster. When Apple's main competitor's, and the market leader's, OS can't even run on a lot of modern hardware out of cripple-mode, Apple can afford to include more features.
At the gym when I'm on an elliptical or AMT machine all of the TVs are muted and broadcasted in different FM stations. If you want to listen to the TV you need an FM radio. I have an iPhone and think an FM Radio would be a great feature considering that many cheaper MP3 players have it no problem.
Not true for laptops either, at least according to this research:
http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-0A424DE8-DDE80D6A/displaysearch/hs.xsl/6305.asp
Search RapidShare and MegaUpload!