The iPad starts at $500, and pretty much no one is buying one in lieu of a full-featured computer. As a portable computer, though, it's tough to beat, and most people will find it meets their needs and wants better than a notebook does away from home.
As for Flash and resolution, you can't have been surprised by this when you walked into the store, were you? Your needs are not indicative of the populace as a whole. Most people don't feel Flash is a deal breaker ("90% of sites use Flash" is extremely misleading. The vast majority of web content out there does not require Flash. HTML is the standard, Flash is just an add-on), and the resolution is just fine. Sure, something like the Retina Display would be better, but the technology just isn't there yet, especially for a $500 device.
And no one walks into a store and asks for whatever is the best value for $1,000 (or any other dollar amount). People go in with particular needs, wants, and means, and what's best for them depends on those. Your needs, wants, and means aren't met by the iPad, but it's rather absurd to assume your situation applies to the populace as a whole, and it's damned rude to state they are only buying iPads because Apple and the media are telling them to. They have different needs, wants, and means, and they are finding that the iPad addresses those better than anything else out there.
The "needs" part of that equation is pretty important, too. Most people already have a computer, and don't particularly want a second one, so why should they buy a notebook, as you suggest? If they are looking for a portable computer, the iPad is far superior, unless they have certain, uncommon, needs that dictate otherwise.
Apple doesn't say, "you are only allowed to do these things", they say, "this is the best product we can make, here you go." When they limit things like expandability, it's not because they don't want you being able to upgrade your video card, its because upgradable video cards mean designing a computer that is not as good as they can make it otherwise. To have upgradable video cards, the iMac would not be as thin as it is, as light as it is, or as quiet as it is. It would also have hatches and screws, which take away from the industrial design.
I'm not saying you have to value those things over being able to upgrade your video card, just that Apple's motive isn't to say, "no, we don't want you to be able to upgrade your card," but instead it's, "this is the best consumer desktop we can make, and we can't make one as good as this that also has upgradable video".
As for the iPad, you must be aware that it is selling like crazy, right? I'm not saying your opinion is invalid, just that to say Apple isn't doing their best flies in the face of the fact that the iPad has cracked a market that PC makers have been trying at for over a decade. It's unclear what you think Apple could have done better, but it is clear that they've done better than anyone else, by a long shot.
So it is not really that Google is "about ads first and foremost"; and "Apple is about hardware...". It just shows the level of OCD of both the companies.
There's no reason one precludes the other. Google wants an ad platform and Apple wants the best device. Apple attains their goal by a certain amount of OCD, and Google attains theirs by being relatively open.
You've completely failed to understand either corporation.
Google is about ads first and foremost. That they get to do fun things (like Gmail and Android) is nice, but everything must cater to the ad business. Android is "open" because open doesn't threaten their ad market.
Apple is about hardware (really, hardware+software), first and foremost. Every choice is about making their hardware better. The App Store isn't "closed" because Apple wants to be a "Dictator", it's closed because they want iPhone to be the best device (hardware+software) on the market.
One of the reasons Android is an important project for Google -- it makes them little, if any, money, despite a half-baked plan to sell their own handset -- is exactly this scenario.
Android makes money for Google for one very simple reason: Ads. Nothing more. Google bought Android because they wanted to have a mobile ad platform that they controlled.
Google's fear was that a single vendor would have too much control to cut them out.
Exactly. You'll notice that the I/O keynote made it sound like Google did this for the users, but the fact is they did this entirely to protect and promote their primary business (ads) into the mobile world.
And for those who might not know, any Android handset vendor has the full ability to replace Google with Bing, or to cut out Google ads in other forms, yet the "fragmentation" of the market ensures that there isn't an overly one-sided power distribution.
No, what ensures this doesn't happen is that Google will pay handset makers to stay with Google. It's essentially AdSense applied to mobiles.
So is Apple being testy because of Android....
Yes. Apple's new terms would have not affected Google at all had they not bought both Android and AdMob, and combined them together.
or is this the gameplan all along, and Android was a good pre-emptive strike?
No. Google made a calculation: either stay as one play of many on iPhone (and other phones), or burn their bridges with Apple, and forge ahead being the dominant player on their own mobile OS.
Whether Google's choice will work out for them remains to be seen, but the business rationale behind it is very clear and reasonable. Similarly, Apple's choice to block Google from gaining analytic data which they can then use to enhance Android is also sound from a business standpoint.
I liked it better when Google and Apple were close. They complemented each other nicely. But now that Google decided to directly compete with Apple, Apple would be foolish to not respond (by that I mean rationally, not simply retaliate).
Google and Apple still have a lot of products and services which integrate and make use of the other's.
Apple had zero smartphones sold just three years ago. Now they have tens of millions. These people all bought iPhones because it was already a majority consumer brand?
I won't say all of them did, but as a complete anecdote: the marketing head at my company recently requested an iPad to display documents and presentations to customers instead of paper or slides.
So, you're saying this is indicative of the average (or even of a significant minority of) iPad buyer? If not, then it's not clear how this is relevant.
It only has a 10" diagonal screen, so any real text will be marginally legible unless we reformat all our material to fit in nearly half the square inches and a fraction of the resolution.
This is clearly not going to make his presentations more effective than a laptop, except for the "we're as awesome as those guys on the news who use an iPad instead of a written notes" factor
Why would it be any less effective than a laptop? If it's a large meeting, he can connect it to the same projector he would connect the laptop to. If it's a small, more personal meeting, the iPad is likely to be quite a bit better suited than a laptop, since it's going to be easier to handle and even be passed around.
I'm curious if you'd have promoted a netbook over an iPad for something like this, were it not for the blatant contradiction in that stance.
That's just for MicroSD, which doesn't apply to most cameras. By going with SD and USB, they cover all the bases quite well. The SD adaptor is really quite small, google for "iPad camera connection kit" to get an idea. It's quite a bit smaller than a book of matches.
To clarify, I never said that the iPhone sucks, nor did I say that Android is the best. I simply said that it provides me with what I want.
If you have any familiarity with my past posts, you'll know that I never, ever put anyone down for their opinion on buying the product that they most want, whether it's iPhone, Android, or whatever.
Again, not fanboyism, just my opinion.
What triggered my "fanboy" response was that you're saying that *THE* reason you won't buy one is the single-source App Store, without providing any evidence that the App Store is holding back the platform. By every metric, iOS has more apps, more quality apps, etc., than any other mobile OS, and it is in no danger of that changing.
Even so, I don't mean to imply in any way that that invalidates your opinion. Opinions are personal, and no one has the right to tell you that yours is wrong. I'm just pointing out that it's not as rationally based as it's being portrayed (based on the reasoning you gave). This is specially pertinent due to all the people constantly saying that anyone who says anything in defense of Apple is guilty of the same.
In fact, if you look at my original post that you replied to, I specifically stated that Android was where it was at for me.
And I never said it shouldn't be. I just said that your stated reason is based on ideology (or theory, if you prefer) and not on how things actually are.
Also, for what it's worth, the people modding you down because of your opinion can suck it.
Thanks. It generally doesn't bother me, that's just how the moderation system operates here (and the internet in general).
Exactly. You don't care about the reality of what's offered, but instead by your ideological aversion to having only one app store.
I see. So you're saying my opinion is wrong. Thanks.
No (this double-post is going to be a bit redundant, so I'll try to be brief). Not wrong, just not as objective as it's being portrayed. If you aren't meaning to say it's objective, then your claim that it's not fanboyism[*] loses much of its steam.
Not wanting to be stuck with a single app store is not stupid, but choosing an inferior product for the primary reason that it has the option for additional sources of apps tends towards the irrational. I.e., fanboyism.
opinion.
But based on reality. If your reasoning is not borne out by what actually exists, I don't see how calling it "irrational" is not an apt term.
Now, if you truly think that Android will end up with more apps because of this, or at the very least, more high quality apps, then your decision to avoid the iPhone is rational, but the basis behind it is still based on ideology. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that third party Android app stores is going to result in more apps than the iPhone. What will result in more apps is more users and a higher-quality user experience. Android lags significantly behind iPhone in both categories.
I haven't seen anything the iPhone OS can do that Android can't. Can you name some?
I've never said that iOS has capabilities that Android cannot also do. There are definite differences in the OS's, and in terms of APIs, iOS does offer the developer a much richer set of tools from which to build their app, but that's never been the basis of my claim. That basis is simply the fact that there are more apps (of quality, and not just fart sounds, or similarly vapid apps) for iOS than Android.
It's strange to call the iPhone limited, when the number of things you can actually do with it that actually exist are greater than the number of things that actually exist that you can do with Android. Theoretically, something like Apple's closed store would lead to fewer apps than a more open one like Android, but reality has failed to validate that theory. That's because the theory is not sound. It has too many assumptions. Assumptions that may be reasonable, but do not fit with reality. I'd suggest the main reason for that is that Apple tends to do things in a way that makes a lot of assumptions moot.
You repeat the "there's only one app store" thing over and over, but you completely fail to demonstrate how that's a problem. It's just ideology. It's fanboyism.
I told you why it's a problem.
But you haven't. Not in reality, only in theory (and even then without much of an argument other than "fart apps!" and a reference to the extremely small number of app rejections that are beyond simply being due to bugs or porn).
Yes, there are a few apps that would be great, but aren't allowed (and of those, only the Google Voice one stands out as being something of a special case, and not just, "well, the rules say no interpreters, so the Squeak app runs afoul of it, even though it probably should be allowed"). The number is very small, and definitely not enough to tilt the number of great apps in Android's favor.
I personally don't want to be tied to a single store. It's not fanboyism, it's what I want.
Of course it's what you want. I can't imagine that most people who get called "fanboys" don't want the thing they say they want either. The point is that the explanation for why you want what you want is not apparently rational, which is always the foundation for cries of "fanboy" against Apple users.
[*]As an aside (although maybe it shouldn't be), I'd like to point out that I wasn't initially calli
I just looked at the iPad specifications on apple.com and couldn't find any mention of an SD slot. Did I miss something?
Yes, but...
I'd really like to know if the iPad does indeed have an SD slot because that might make it worth having. I'm not talking about some kludgey dongle thing that will let me read SD cards, but an actual slot on the side.
It's an adaptor for the dock connector on the bottom of the iPad. It's very compact (much smaller than most USB SD readers). Being able to bring it with me on vacation to sync photos means I can leave my notebook at home, and to me that's *HUGE*.
It's also very well integrated with the Photos app, including supporting RAW files, skipping already imported items, deleting from the card when you're done, syncing photos back to your PC, etc. Yes, these are all things one would expect from a properly done process, but on portables, "properly done process" isn't exactly something you can always count on being the case.
But if you have an aversion to adapters, it's got that going against it. It seems a bit much to me to base the iPad's suitability on one very small adaptor, but to each his own.
I'm confused by the summary, myself. My iPad has a USB port -- albeit an unusual one -- and can do video output to an external display. Do those connectivity options not count because the USB port's shape is unusual, or because it doesn't have a flash card reader?
It does have a flash card reader. In fact, the iPad has all three things listed as omissions in the summary.
That's the best evidence of good marketing I've come across. It's an unproven device which few people had even seen, let alone had the chance to try out, yet preorders and early orders came in by the hundreds of thousands.
In stores, before you buy an iPad, you can try one. Even before the iPad was announced, you would have experience of the OS from the iPhone. And ultimately, you can return it, if it doesn't meet your expectations.
There's absolutely no way whatsoever Apple's current success can have been achieved primarily by marketing. For marketing to work, long-term, you have to have a great product behind it.
People want to conform to a majority brand: the Apple brand offers social interoperability.
Apple had zero smartphones sold just three years ago. Now they have tens of millions. These people all bought iPhones because it was already a majority consumer brand?
No-one does real work on an Apple iDevice - they're for the guy in Starbucks always writing his first bestseller, taken mainstream.
I can guarantee you more "real work" is done on iOS than on Android OS. But it's a silly metric to use, unless you think that people should only own things that are used for "real work", or that the iPad is primarily targeted as a device for "real work".
"Real work" (whatever that means) is still primarily the role of the PC (whether Windows or Mac). The iPad is useful to augment "real work", but isn't something that's yet set to replace the PC for that purpose. Which is why no one every says it should, outside of those that use it as a reason to put it down.
You are limited to the app store.... Again, you are still limited to the store.... It does, but once again, Android users aren't limited to the Marketplace.... However, I don't like being restricted to a single location as a means for finding applications for my phone, regardless of what that single location offers.
Exactly. You don't care about the reality of what's offered, but instead by your ideological aversion to having only one app store.
Bullshit. Apple doesn't control what I can do, they merely control what apps I can get from the App Store, nothing more. I can buy a key and compile and run any app I want. I don't even have to buy a key, someone else can and distribute an app to hundreds of people for free. I can jailbreak. I can use HTML5 apps, which are extremely capable (Google's Voice webapp is fantastic).
See bold section. Having to hack your phone to leap over the walled garden isn't necessarily something to use in an attempt to sway my opinion, when I can already download anything I want from wherever I want for my unmodified device.
No, you read the bold section. You don't have to hack the iPhone to run apps from outside the app store. You don't even have to pay to do so.
Once again, Android devices aren't limited to the Appstore.... I don't have an iPhone primarily because I don't want to be stuck with a single location for applications. I'm sorry that seems stupid to you
Not wanting to be stuck with a single app store is not stupid, but choosing an inferior product for the primary reason that it has the option for additional sources of apps tends towards the irrational. I.e., fanboyism.
Now, if you truly think that Android will end up with more apps because of this, or at the very least, more high quality apps, then your decision to avoid the iPhone is rational, but the basis behind it is still based on ideology. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that third party Android app stores is going to result in more apps than the iPhone. What will result in more apps is more users and a higher-quality user experience. Android lags significantly behind iPhone in both categories.
Or put differently, if there was a third-party app store for iOS, how many more quality apps would there be? There'd be a native Google Voice (like I already said, though, the existing web app is excellent), there'd be that Squeak interpreter app. There'd be a bunch of porn apps. And...? Flash?
Oh, what a long list of things I can't have!
You repeat the "there's only one app store" thing over and over, but you completely fail to demonstrate how that's a problem. It's just ideology. It's fanboyism.
Indeed adverts are. Adblock Plus is a browser plugin so that adds are an optional thing a user can choose to accept. I'm unclear as to what way graphics heavy adverts will be 'win-win for... iOS users' given that as of today it is no longer possible to start an unlimited data contract.
Will a user be winning when an ad for an ap that would have cost $1.99 for the ad-free version sends them over their monthly cap and results in a $10 bill from AT&T?
Do you have any idea how many iAds a person would have to click on to affect their 2GB cap? This is a rather silly concern.
All ads have done is resulted in a proliferation of free apps with limited functionality and lots of adverts. It's cluttered the marketplace and made it difficult to distinguish between applications and value. It's not immediately obvious how much paid or versions of similar apps cost, making price comparisons more difficult for the user. Where's the 'win' in that?
There are already ads on iPhone apps. The win here is that iAds is pretty damned impressive.
1. Users can click on an ad without leaving the app they're in. I've never clicked on an iPhone ad, for the simple reason that I don't want to be kicked out of the app. Multitasking in iOS 4 helps alleviate this, but the way iAds does this is even better still. 2. The ads are rather compelling in their own right. I'm far more likely to mess around a few seconds on an ad that is even mildly engaging, rather than just the banner-style ads that currently exist. 3. Developers can easily ad iAds, and not have to set up new accounts, worry about metrics, etc.
Apple, developers, users and advertisers. It's hard to see any party that doesn't benefit from this, other than the existing mobile ad companies.
Apple have distinct carrier contracts. What would have been innovative would have been to negotiate with carriers, make bandwidth to Apple's Ad servers not count as part of a user's allowance and have the advertiser pick up the cost of serving their Ad.
That would be nice (although just this weekend someone got "+5 Insightful" for saying that if Apple were to make a deal with AT&T to allow free bandwidth for Apple services, that he would (and others should) immediately boycott Apple.
Would you watch network television if you were billed for each ad you see?
What? You aren't billed per ad with iAds. On the contrary, you end up getting an app for free instead. The current pattern is that apps tend to have a paid and an ad-funded version (if there is an ad-funded version at all). If you really don't like ads, and somehow think that you'll have to pay $10 extra per month for a gigabyte of ads, then just buy the paid app. Problem solved.
That, or learn to read. I made it clear I don't give two shits if you make fun of Steve Jobs. There's plenty about him to ridicule. But to ridicule a cancer surviver for being skinny after losing his fucking liver? I don't care who the target of such a comment is, it's out of line.
Dude just recovered from cancer. Not just cancer, but a type of cancer that is to cancer what most cancers are to not having cancer at all, which fucked up his liver and he had to get that replaced after getting past the cancer. I usually don't comment on personal attacks, but this one is exceptional in its lack of class, and not even at least being funny enough to make up for it.
A public figure is a target for random ridicule? Cry me a river.
That's why I wrote the part I bolded above for you. I'm not making this point because someone dared to ridicule someone else (public or otherwise), but for the topic (not subject) of the ridicule and the lack of humor (which tends to allow almost any level of otherwise inappropriate ridicule).
How many, of the over 200k apps on the App Store, do you think there are that make fart noises?
Quantity != quality.
Correct. That's why I wrote, "yeah, I mean, who wants the world's largest selection of quality apps". The App Store has the largest selection of quality apps, not just the largest selections of apps alone (which it also has).
Plenty of quality apps have been denied
Yeah, like 5 or something. That doesn't change the fact that the App Store has more quality apps than any other mobile store out there.
while plenty of crap is available in the app store.
Whereas the Android Marketplace has no crap apps?
You are defending the fact that your device is artificially limited. That, to me, is the very definition of a fanboy.
No, I'm defending the fact that the device has far more quality options than any other device out there. You are defending a device that is actually limited by actually not having as many quality apps for nothing more than ideology. That's the definition of a fanboy.
Nothing I can do or say will change the fact that Apple retains control over what you can and can't do with your device.
Bullshit. Apple doesn't control what I can do, they merely control what apps I can get from the App Store, nothing more. I can buy a key and compile and run any app I want. I don't even have to buy a key, someone else can and distribute an app to hundreds of people for free. I can jailbreak. I can use HTML5 apps, which are extremely capable (Google's Voice webapp is fantastic).
The only thing I can do is vote with my wallet, so that's what I do. Forgive me for being a consumer who pays attention.
You pay so close attention that you think fart apps are indicative of the overall App Store, that thinks that the iPhone is a locked down wasteland, while Android is a thriving metropolis?
No, you're simply informed that the App Store is locked down, and that Android is less locked down, any any other fact be damned.
Is it just a marketing term (a la "Powerglide transmission") or does it actually describe some innovation in the display?
Yes, it's a marketing term.
And can we please pitch in and buy Steve Jobs a sandwich? Even Kate Moss says he's too skinny.
Dude just recovered from cancer. Not just cancer, but a type of cancer that is to cancer what most cancers are to not having cancer at all, which fucked up his liver and he had to get that replaced after getting past the cancer. I usually don't comment on personal attacks, but this one is exceptional in its lack of class, and not even at least being funny enough to make up for it.
Yeah, I mean, who wants the world's largest selection of quality apps, all vetted to be reasonably sure of being malware-free and of at least a minimum level of quality and stability!
Even though, at present, the "walled garden" provides a superior all-around app experience for most people, there are some for whom ideology trumps reality. And I'm the one that gets called "fanboy"?
Also, those that say things like "Apple should allow Flash" seem to be ignorant of the fact that Flash is not on a single handheld device, except as a very recent beta for Android.
Not true. Flash Lite is already shipping on some phones, including the HTC Hero and Evo. It's not Flash Player 10.1, which is the beta you mentioned (and that beta is available for Android 2.2 users to try for themselves), but it's enough for many popular sites.
That's not Flash, it's a subset of Flash.
Cocoa Touch on the iPhone OS. As well as HTML5. There are zero cases where Flash is technologically better than both of those.
Flash is more portable than Cocoa Touch. It's more powerful than HTML5 and also has better development/design tools.
And neither of those are cases "where Flash is technologically better than both of those".
As a solution for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad, the combination of Cocoa Touch and HTML5 thoroughly outclasses Flash.
It's also far from clear that supporting Flash would be to Apple's benefit, and a watered-down version would be even worse.
Apple's benefit? Of course, they'd rather have you use their proprietary APIs. But isn't their customers' benefit what really matters?
The customer's benefit is Apple's benefit. If Apple does a good job of seeing to the needs of their customers, they will sell more products, and as it turns out, they do sell very, very well. It's only in monopoly-like situations where a company can blatantly work against their customers' needs, like Microsoft (not so much of a monopoly anymore, and surprise, surprise, Windows 7 doesn't completely suck, and IE is becoming more secure and standards-compliant!), or Comcast.
Apple has no monopoly, so they have to actually create products that are innately attractive to consumers.
As for the watered-down version: again, you're ignoring Flash Lite, which is certainly better than no Flash at all.
How am I ignoring it? I addressed it right there. And no, it's not clear at all that it's better than nothing. No Flash means no Flash. Flash Lite means some Flash works and some doesn't. And that doesn't even address the issue of most Flash being entirely unsuitable for multitouch.
Better to just have none of it than to have a broken, incompatible variant. And the proper, official variant is by no means compelling at this point. If Adobe can make a version that runs nicely on mobile hardware and integrates properly with multitouch, the case for Apple to include it would be more reasonable. But right now, the existing Flash 10.1 for Android does not make a compelling case for it.
Slashdot Mirror
The iPad starts at $500, and pretty much no one is buying one in lieu of a full-featured computer. As a portable computer, though, it's tough to beat, and most people will find it meets their needs and wants better than a notebook does away from home.
As for Flash and resolution, you can't have been surprised by this when you walked into the store, were you? Your needs are not indicative of the populace as a whole. Most people don't feel Flash is a deal breaker ("90% of sites use Flash" is extremely misleading. The vast majority of web content out there does not require Flash. HTML is the standard, Flash is just an add-on), and the resolution is just fine. Sure, something like the Retina Display would be better, but the technology just isn't there yet, especially for a $500 device.
And no one walks into a store and asks for whatever is the best value for $1,000 (or any other dollar amount). People go in with particular needs, wants, and means, and what's best for them depends on those. Your needs, wants, and means aren't met by the iPad, but it's rather absurd to assume your situation applies to the populace as a whole, and it's damned rude to state they are only buying iPads because Apple and the media are telling them to. They have different needs, wants, and means, and they are finding that the iPad addresses those better than anything else out there.
The "needs" part of that equation is pretty important, too. Most people already have a computer, and don't particularly want a second one, so why should they buy a notebook, as you suggest? If they are looking for a portable computer, the iPad is far superior, unless they have certain, uncommon, needs that dictate otherwise.
Apple doesn't say, "you are only allowed to do these things", they say, "this is the best product we can make, here you go." When they limit things like expandability, it's not because they don't want you being able to upgrade your video card, its because upgradable video cards mean designing a computer that is not as good as they can make it otherwise. To have upgradable video cards, the iMac would not be as thin as it is, as light as it is, or as quiet as it is. It would also have hatches and screws, which take away from the industrial design.
I'm not saying you have to value those things over being able to upgrade your video card, just that Apple's motive isn't to say, "no, we don't want you to be able to upgrade your card," but instead it's, "this is the best consumer desktop we can make, and we can't make one as good as this that also has upgradable video".
As for the iPad, you must be aware that it is selling like crazy, right? I'm not saying your opinion is invalid, just that to say Apple isn't doing their best flies in the face of the fact that the iPad has cracked a market that PC makers have been trying at for over a decade. It's unclear what you think Apple could have done better, but it is clear that they've done better than anyone else, by a long shot.
So it is not really that Google is "about ads first and foremost"; and "Apple is about hardware ...". It just shows the level of OCD of both the companies.
There's no reason one precludes the other. Google wants an ad platform and Apple wants the best device. Apple attains their goal by a certain amount of OCD, and Google attains theirs by being relatively open.
You've completely failed to understand either corporation.
Google is about ads first and foremost. That they get to do fun things (like Gmail and Android) is nice, but everything must cater to the ad business. Android is "open" because open doesn't threaten their ad market.
Apple is about hardware (really, hardware+software), first and foremost. Every choice is about making their hardware better. The App Store isn't "closed" because Apple wants to be a "Dictator", it's closed because they want iPhone to be the best device (hardware+software) on the market.
One of the reasons Android is an important project for Google -- it makes them little, if any, money, despite a half-baked plan to sell their own handset -- is exactly this scenario.
Android makes money for Google for one very simple reason: Ads. Nothing more. Google bought Android because they wanted to have a mobile ad platform that they controlled.
Google's fear was that a single vendor would have too much control to cut them out.
Exactly. You'll notice that the I/O keynote made it sound like Google did this for the users, but the fact is they did this entirely to protect and promote their primary business (ads) into the mobile world.
And for those who might not know, any Android handset vendor has the full ability to replace Google with Bing, or to cut out Google ads in other forms, yet the "fragmentation" of the market ensures that there isn't an overly one-sided power distribution.
No, what ensures this doesn't happen is that Google will pay handset makers to stay with Google. It's essentially AdSense applied to mobiles.
So is Apple being testy because of Android....
Yes. Apple's new terms would have not affected Google at all had they not bought both Android and AdMob, and combined them together.
or is this the gameplan all along, and Android was a good pre-emptive strike?
No. Google made a calculation: either stay as one play of many on iPhone (and other phones), or burn their bridges with Apple, and forge ahead being the dominant player on their own mobile OS.
Whether Google's choice will work out for them remains to be seen, but the business rationale behind it is very clear and reasonable. Similarly, Apple's choice to block Google from gaining analytic data which they can then use to enhance Android is also sound from a business standpoint.
I liked it better when Google and Apple were close. They complemented each other nicely. But now that Google decided to directly compete with Apple, Apple would be foolish to not respond (by that I mean rationally, not simply retaliate).
Google and Apple still have a lot of products and services which integrate and make use of the other's.
Restraint of trade is a very specific thing that does not even remotely apply here.
there is no going back
That's not true, you can re-install and old copy of an app any time you wish.
This is intentional.. Apple wants forced updates.
Why?
The situation is identical on Android. Apps can support it, but don't automatically support it.
And Netflix does support external displays on iPad.
You do realize a device can have optional external components and adaptors, don't you?
I won't say all of them did, but as a complete anecdote: the marketing head at my company recently requested an iPad to display documents and presentations to customers instead of paper or slides.
So, you're saying this is indicative of the average (or even of a significant minority of) iPad buyer? If not, then it's not clear how this is relevant.
It only has a 10" diagonal screen, so any real text will be marginally legible unless we reformat all our material to fit in nearly half the square inches and a fraction of the resolution.
This is clearly not going to make his presentations more effective than a laptop, except for the "we're as awesome as those guys on the news who use an iPad instead of a written notes" factor
Why would it be any less effective than a laptop? If it's a large meeting, he can connect it to the same projector he would connect the laptop to. If it's a small, more personal meeting, the iPad is likely to be quite a bit better suited than a laptop, since it's going to be easier to handle and even be passed around.
I'm curious if you'd have promoted a netbook over an iPad for something like this, were it not for the blatant contradiction in that stance.
That's just for MicroSD, which doesn't apply to most cameras. By going with SD and USB, they cover all the bases quite well. The SD adaptor is really quite small, google for "iPad camera connection kit" to get an idea. It's quite a bit smaller than a book of matches.
To clarify, I never said that the iPhone sucks, nor did I say that Android is the best. I simply said that it provides me with what I want.
If you have any familiarity with my past posts, you'll know that I never, ever put anyone down for their opinion on buying the product that they most want, whether it's iPhone, Android, or whatever.
Again, not fanboyism, just my opinion.
What triggered my "fanboy" response was that you're saying that *THE* reason you won't buy one is the single-source App Store, without providing any evidence that the App Store is holding back the platform. By every metric, iOS has more apps, more quality apps, etc., than any other mobile OS, and it is in no danger of that changing.
Even so, I don't mean to imply in any way that that invalidates your opinion. Opinions are personal, and no one has the right to tell you that yours is wrong. I'm just pointing out that it's not as rationally based as it's being portrayed (based on the reasoning you gave). This is specially pertinent due to all the people constantly saying that anyone who says anything in defense of Apple is guilty of the same.
In fact, if you look at my original post that you replied to, I specifically stated that Android was where it was at for me.
And I never said it shouldn't be. I just said that your stated reason is based on ideology (or theory, if you prefer) and not on how things actually are.
Also, for what it's worth, the people modding you down because of your opinion can suck it.
Thanks. It generally doesn't bother me, that's just how the moderation system operates here (and the internet in general).
Exactly. You don't care about the reality of what's offered, but instead by your ideological aversion to having only one app store.
I see. So you're saying my opinion is wrong. Thanks.
No (this double-post is going to be a bit redundant, so I'll try to be brief). Not wrong, just not as objective as it's being portrayed. If you aren't meaning to say it's objective, then your claim that it's not fanboyism[*] loses much of its steam.
Not wanting to be stuck with a single app store is not stupid, but choosing an inferior product for the primary reason that it has the option for additional sources of apps tends towards the irrational. I.e., fanboyism.
opinion.
But based on reality. If your reasoning is not borne out by what actually exists, I don't see how calling it "irrational" is not an apt term.
Now, if you truly think that Android will end up with more apps because of this, or at the very least, more high quality apps, then your decision to avoid the iPhone is rational, but the basis behind it is still based on ideology. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that third party Android app stores is going to result in more apps than the iPhone. What will result in more apps is more users and a higher-quality user experience. Android lags significantly behind iPhone in both categories.
I haven't seen anything the iPhone OS can do that Android can't. Can you name some?
I've never said that iOS has capabilities that Android cannot also do. There are definite differences in the OS's, and in terms of APIs, iOS does offer the developer a much richer set of tools from which to build their app, but that's never been the basis of my claim. That basis is simply the fact that there are more apps (of quality, and not just fart sounds, or similarly vapid apps) for iOS than Android.
It's strange to call the iPhone limited, when the number of things you can actually do with it that actually exist are greater than the number of things that actually exist that you can do with Android. Theoretically, something like Apple's closed store would lead to fewer apps than a more open one like Android, but reality has failed to validate that theory. That's because the theory is not sound. It has too many assumptions. Assumptions that may be reasonable, but do not fit with reality. I'd suggest the main reason for that is that Apple tends to do things in a way that makes a lot of assumptions moot.
You repeat the "there's only one app store" thing over and over, but you completely fail to demonstrate how that's a problem. It's just ideology. It's fanboyism.
I told you why it's a problem.
But you haven't. Not in reality, only in theory (and even then without much of an argument other than "fart apps!" and a reference to the extremely small number of app rejections that are beyond simply being due to bugs or porn).
Yes, there are a few apps that would be great, but aren't allowed (and of those, only the Google Voice one stands out as being something of a special case, and not just, "well, the rules say no interpreters, so the Squeak app runs afoul of it, even though it probably should be allowed"). The number is very small, and definitely not enough to tilt the number of great apps in Android's favor.
I personally don't want to be tied to a single store. It's not fanboyism, it's what I want.
Of course it's what you want. I can't imagine that most people who get called "fanboys" don't want the thing they say they want either. The point is that the explanation for why you want what you want is not apparently rational, which is always the foundation for cries of "fanboy" against Apple users.
[*]As an aside (although maybe it shouldn't be), I'd like to point out that I wasn't initially calli
I just looked at the iPad specifications on apple.com and couldn't find any mention of an SD slot. Did I miss something?
Yes, but...
I'd really like to know if the iPad does indeed have an SD slot because that might make it worth having. I'm not talking about some kludgey dongle thing that will let me read SD cards, but an actual slot on the side.
It's an adaptor for the dock connector on the bottom of the iPad. It's very compact (much smaller than most USB SD readers). Being able to bring it with me on vacation to sync photos means I can leave my notebook at home, and to me that's *HUGE*.
It's also very well integrated with the Photos app, including supporting RAW files, skipping already imported items, deleting from the card when you're done, syncing photos back to your PC, etc. Yes, these are all things one would expect from a properly done process, but on portables, "properly done process" isn't exactly something you can always count on being the case.
But if you have an aversion to adapters, it's got that going against it. It seems a bit much to me to base the iPad's suitability on one very small adaptor, but to each his own.
I'm confused by the summary, myself. My iPad has a USB port -- albeit an unusual one -- and can do video output to an external display. Do those connectivity options not count because the USB port's shape is unusual, or because it doesn't have a flash card reader?
It does have a flash card reader. In fact, the iPad has all three things listed as omissions in the summary.
That's the best evidence of good marketing I've come across. It's an unproven device which few people had even seen, let alone had the chance to try out, yet preorders and early orders came in by the hundreds of thousands.
In stores, before you buy an iPad, you can try one. Even before the iPad was announced, you would have experience of the OS from the iPhone. And ultimately, you can return it, if it doesn't meet your expectations.
There's absolutely no way whatsoever Apple's current success can have been achieved primarily by marketing. For marketing to work, long-term, you have to have a great product behind it.
People want to conform to a majority brand: the Apple brand offers social interoperability.
Apple had zero smartphones sold just three years ago. Now they have tens of millions. These people all bought iPhones because it was already a majority consumer brand?
No-one does real work on an Apple iDevice - they're for the guy in Starbucks always writing his first bestseller, taken mainstream.
I can guarantee you more "real work" is done on iOS than on Android OS. But it's a silly metric to use, unless you think that people should only own things that are used for "real work", or that the iPad is primarily targeted as a device for "real work".
"Real work" (whatever that means) is still primarily the role of the PC (whether Windows or Mac). The iPad is useful to augment "real work", but isn't something that's yet set to replace the PC for that purpose. Which is why no one every says it should, outside of those that use it as a reason to put it down.
Reality distortion field alert!
Your post is 100% iFail(tm)
Thanks for that well thought out rebuttal. It's so wonderfully full of Insight, you got modded up for it!
You are limited to the app store. ... ... ...
Again, you are still limited to the store.
It does, but once again, Android users aren't limited to the Marketplace.
However, I don't like being restricted to a single location as a means for finding applications for my phone, regardless of what that single location offers.
Exactly. You don't care about the reality of what's offered, but instead by your ideological aversion to having only one app store.
Bullshit. Apple doesn't control what I can do, they merely control what apps I can get from the App Store, nothing more. I can buy a key and compile and run any app I want. I don't even have to buy a key, someone else can and distribute an app to hundreds of people for free. I can jailbreak. I can use HTML5 apps, which are extremely capable (Google's Voice webapp is fantastic).
See bold section. Having to hack your phone to leap over the walled garden isn't necessarily something to use in an attempt to sway my opinion, when I can already download anything I want from wherever I want for my unmodified device.
No, you read the bold section. You don't have to hack the iPhone to run apps from outside the app store. You don't even have to pay to do so.
Once again, Android devices aren't limited to the Appstore. ...
I don't have an iPhone primarily because I don't want to be stuck with a single location for applications. I'm sorry that seems stupid to you
Not wanting to be stuck with a single app store is not stupid, but choosing an inferior product for the primary reason that it has the option for additional sources of apps tends towards the irrational. I.e., fanboyism.
Now, if you truly think that Android will end up with more apps because of this, or at the very least, more high quality apps, then your decision to avoid the iPhone is rational, but the basis behind it is still based on ideology. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that third party Android app stores is going to result in more apps than the iPhone. What will result in more apps is more users and a higher-quality user experience. Android lags significantly behind iPhone in both categories.
Or put differently, if there was a third-party app store for iOS, how many more quality apps would there be? There'd be a native Google Voice (like I already said, though, the existing web app is excellent), there'd be that Squeak interpreter app. There'd be a bunch of porn apps. And...? Flash?
Oh, what a long list of things I can't have!
You repeat the "there's only one app store" thing over and over, but you completely fail to demonstrate how that's a problem. It's just ideology. It's fanboyism.
Indeed adverts are. Adblock Plus is a browser plugin so that adds are an optional thing a user can choose to accept. I'm unclear as to what way graphics heavy adverts will be 'win-win for ... iOS users' given that as of today it is no longer possible to start an unlimited data contract.
Will a user be winning when an ad for an ap that would have cost $1.99 for the ad-free version sends them over their monthly cap and results in a $10 bill from AT&T?
Do you have any idea how many iAds a person would have to click on to affect their 2GB cap? This is a rather silly concern.
All ads have done is resulted in a proliferation of free apps with limited functionality and lots of adverts. It's cluttered the marketplace and made it difficult to distinguish between applications and value. It's not immediately obvious how much paid or versions of similar apps cost, making price comparisons more difficult for the user. Where's the 'win' in that?
There are already ads on iPhone apps. The win here is that iAds is pretty damned impressive.
1. Users can click on an ad without leaving the app they're in. I've never clicked on an iPhone ad, for the simple reason that I don't want to be kicked out of the app. Multitasking in iOS 4 helps alleviate this, but the way iAds does this is even better still.
2. The ads are rather compelling in their own right. I'm far more likely to mess around a few seconds on an ad that is even mildly engaging, rather than just the banner-style ads that currently exist.
3. Developers can easily ad iAds, and not have to set up new accounts, worry about metrics, etc.
Apple, developers, users and advertisers. It's hard to see any party that doesn't benefit from this, other than the existing mobile ad companies.
Apple have distinct carrier contracts. What would have been innovative would have been to negotiate with carriers, make bandwidth to Apple's Ad servers not count as part of a user's allowance and have the advertiser pick up the cost of serving their Ad.
That would be nice (although just this weekend someone got "+5 Insightful" for saying that if Apple were to make a deal with AT&T to allow free bandwidth for Apple services, that he would (and others should) immediately boycott Apple.
Would you watch network television if you were billed for each ad you see?
What? You aren't billed per ad with iAds. On the contrary, you end up getting an app for free instead. The current pattern is that apps tend to have a paid and an ad-funded version (if there is an ad-funded version at all). If you really don't like ads, and somehow think that you'll have to pay $10 extra per month for a gigabyte of ads, then just buy the paid app. Problem solved.
That, or learn to read. I made it clear I don't give two shits if you make fun of Steve Jobs. There's plenty about him to ridicule. But to ridicule a cancer surviver for being skinny after losing his fucking liver? I don't care who the target of such a comment is, it's out of line.
Dude just recovered from cancer. Not just cancer, but a type of cancer that is to cancer what most cancers are to not having cancer at all, which fucked up his liver and he had to get that replaced after getting past the cancer. I usually don't comment on personal attacks, but this one is exceptional in its lack of class, and not even at least being funny enough to make up for it.
A public figure is a target for random ridicule?
Cry me a river.
That's why I wrote the part I bolded above for you. I'm not making this point because someone dared to ridicule someone else (public or otherwise), but for the topic (not subject) of the ridicule and the lack of humor (which tends to allow almost any level of otherwise inappropriate ridicule).
Yeah, because fart apps are considered quality.
How many, of the over 200k apps on the App Store, do you think there are that make fart noises?
Quantity != quality.
Correct. That's why I wrote, "yeah, I mean, who wants the world's largest selection of quality apps". The App Store has the largest selection of quality apps, not just the largest selections of apps alone (which it also has).
Plenty of quality apps have been denied
Yeah, like 5 or something. That doesn't change the fact that the App Store has more quality apps than any other mobile store out there.
while plenty of crap is available in the app store.
Whereas the Android Marketplace has no crap apps?
You are defending the fact that your device is artificially limited. That, to me, is the very definition of a fanboy.
No, I'm defending the fact that the device has far more quality options than any other device out there. You are defending a device that is actually limited by actually not having as many quality apps for nothing more than ideology. That's the definition of a fanboy.
Nothing I can do or say will change the fact that Apple retains control over what you can and can't do with your device.
Bullshit. Apple doesn't control what I can do, they merely control what apps I can get from the App Store, nothing more. I can buy a key and compile and run any app I want. I don't even have to buy a key, someone else can and distribute an app to hundreds of people for free. I can jailbreak. I can use HTML5 apps, which are extremely capable (Google's Voice webapp is fantastic).
The only thing I can do is vote with my wallet, so that's what I do. Forgive me for being a consumer who pays attention.
You pay so close attention that you think fart apps are indicative of the overall App Store, that thinks that the iPhone is a locked down wasteland, while Android is a thriving metropolis?
No, you're simply informed that the App Store is locked down, and that Android is less locked down, any any other fact be damned.
Does anyone know what the "Retina display" means?
The resolution exceeds that of the retina.
Is it just a marketing term (a la "Powerglide transmission") or does it actually describe some innovation in the display?
Yes, it's a marketing term.
And can we please pitch in and buy Steve Jobs a sandwich? Even Kate Moss says he's too skinny.
Dude just recovered from cancer. Not just cancer, but a type of cancer that is to cancer what most cancers are to not having cancer at all, which fucked up his liver and he had to get that replaced after getting past the cancer. I usually don't comment on personal attacks, but this one is exceptional in its lack of class, and not even at least being funny enough to make up for it.
Yeah, I mean, who wants the world's largest selection of quality apps, all vetted to be reasonably sure of being malware-free and of at least a minimum level of quality and stability!
Even though, at present, the "walled garden" provides a superior all-around app experience for most people, there are some for whom ideology trumps reality. And I'm the one that gets called "fanboy"?
Also, those that say things like "Apple should allow Flash" seem to be ignorant of the fact that Flash is not on a single handheld device, except as a very recent beta for Android.
Not true. Flash Lite is already shipping on some phones, including the HTC Hero and Evo. It's not Flash Player 10.1, which is the beta you mentioned (and that beta is available for Android 2.2 users to try for themselves), but it's enough for many popular sites.
That's not Flash, it's a subset of Flash.
Cocoa Touch on the iPhone OS. As well as HTML5. There are zero cases where Flash is technologically better than both of those.
Flash is more portable than Cocoa Touch. It's more powerful than HTML5 and also has better development/design tools.
And neither of those are cases "where Flash is technologically better than both of those".
As a solution for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad, the combination of Cocoa Touch and HTML5 thoroughly outclasses Flash.
It's also far from clear that supporting Flash would be to Apple's benefit, and a watered-down version would be even worse.
Apple's benefit? Of course, they'd rather have you use their proprietary APIs. But isn't their customers' benefit what really matters?
The customer's benefit is Apple's benefit. If Apple does a good job of seeing to the needs of their customers, they will sell more products, and as it turns out, they do sell very, very well. It's only in monopoly-like situations where a company can blatantly work against their customers' needs, like Microsoft (not so much of a monopoly anymore, and surprise, surprise, Windows 7 doesn't completely suck, and IE is becoming more secure and standards-compliant!), or Comcast.
Apple has no monopoly, so they have to actually create products that are innately attractive to consumers.
As for the watered-down version: again, you're ignoring Flash Lite, which is certainly better than no Flash at all.
How am I ignoring it? I addressed it right there. And no, it's not clear at all that it's better than nothing. No Flash means no Flash. Flash Lite means some Flash works and some doesn't. And that doesn't even address the issue of most Flash being entirely unsuitable for multitouch.
Better to just have none of it than to have a broken, incompatible variant. And the proper, official variant is by no means compelling at this point. If Adobe can make a version that runs nicely on mobile hardware and integrates properly with multitouch, the case for Apple to include it would be more reasonable. But right now, the existing Flash 10.1 for Android does not make a compelling case for it.