Slashdot Mirror
Why Android Is the New Windows
An anonymous reader writes "Windows' dominance of the PC market has been good in many ways: reduced hardware costs, increased IT literacy and a standard development platform to name a few. Perhaps Android will bring similar benefits. But unless Google are very careful, it is likely to bring some of the same problems, too."
This would have happened for ANY OS that wasn't tied to a big-iron vendor. As I recall, this was (and continues to be) true for Macs as well.
No. Unless you jailbreak, the software you run on it has to pass a vetting by them. If they pull it later, you'd better hope you don't lose the copy on your PC/Mac.
Are you sure you haven't mixed up Apple and Google? Last I checked, you weren't forced to go to the Marketplace to install software except on a few obscenely locked down devices from AT&T.
Also those of us who were using Macs back in the day remember that it was horribly common to get a virus, or at least to be exposed to them. It's not until we got that program that detected suspicious behavior... Gatekeeper? And then later, Disinfectant, a recognition-based AV, that it became possible to get a handle on things.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
where do you come up with this shit? on android you have an .apk that can run whether or not google removes it from the app store or entirely for that matter.
Not only that, but these .apk's aren't hidden, they're on your phone, and even without root access you can back them up easily with plenty of solutions. Plenty of people install android apps without ever hitting the android market or ever having a wifi connection. in fact, there's an entire forum dedicated to it, essentially . Did I mention that things are fairly well documented?
on iphone you can have it forcefully removed remotely, even by using the old version.
As a developer there is a HUGE difference...
The iOS devices basically progress in a predictable fashion inheriting the functions of the last gen.. IE you can easily choose your lowest target and with very minimal tweaking support ALL higher / newer devices.. Also using consistent APIs you can detect specific models and enable specific features, knowing they EXIST on the device without writing custom code to detect them.
As android has progressed there have been APIs from vendors made to support model specific features. You can't count on what UI the user sees since HTC, Sony and Moto all reskin the OS... Makes it fun to explain to users how to do stuff when the OS looks alien.
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
There is a big difference between obsoleteness and fragmentation, support for older devices has always been an issue of "we'll take what we can get" when it comes to technology. The problem with Android is that you can buy half a dozen currently on the shelf products and find that none are running android the same. The 3 devices I have were all purchased this year, one has 1.5, one has 1.6 and one has 2.1, 1 has google apps the other 2 don't come with, 1 has a custom front end with swipe, one has a custom front end that makes it almost unnavigable and one has a vanilla dated android front end with half the default stuff missing. I like android as much as anyone but burying our heads in the sand and pretending the problems don't exist isn't supporting the platform its supporting a path that will inevitably lead to its demise. While I like the idea of open source, Google needs to put their foot down and at least come up with a set of minimal standards that require manufacturers to comply with them for the platforms own good. As it is now its great for a geek that knows what he is doing but for the average consumer without a lot of research and someone to hold their hand has no idea what they are going to get when they go to buy an android device. I cant even count how many times I have had clients ignore my advice and go out and buy a cheap piece of crap since the cheaper one ran android too....then I have to deal with them pissed off with me that they have a version that doesn't sync with exchange or doesn't have google apps, or is missing media players, etc.
Dude, please. You're getting your anti-Apple memes all mixed up.
Facts: In 1979 the Apple II+ cost $1195 with 48K of RAM. In 1981, the IBM PC cost $1565 with 16K of RAM. Apple had cheaper hardware and software for years. And furthermore Microsoft was a key supplier to both companies, so why on earth would anyone have wanted to crush them?
The cheap PC clones vs. expensive Apple meme had real legs for about 10 years (early 1990s to early 2000's). It has been false for quite a bit longer than it was true.