Once again the fragmentation of Android rears its ugly head. For the commenters above who talk about rooting their device, here's a hint: the vast majority of the population don't know how to do that, and more importantly SHOULDN'T have to.
So will Google continue to stick to its "open" (although not really cause the actually control the carriers and let the carriers control the users) mantra even though it leads to problems like this? Or will they admit that "open" has its disadvantages, and for a consumer product in particular it may not always be the best approach and they need to reign things in a bit?
Actually they seem to be picking a third option, going for tighter control of Android while simultaneously (and hypocritically) still trumpeting about how great Android is because its "open".
Enjoy your headaches Android users, the rest of us are going to be busy watching Netflix movies.
There was an open source smartphone that dominated the market before Apple's iPhone?
There was an open source search engine that dominated the web before Google?
There was an open source digital music format that was widely used before Mp3?
No, just no.
Open source has played a part, but it hasn't been the driving force.
How exactly does the iPhone pale in comparison to open source alternatives? Aside from supporting Flash and letting you side load apps, what fundementally superior ability does Android have compared to iPhone? They are comparable platforms, with different strengths and weaknesses but not all that different. However if you go back and look at what Android looked like BEFORE Apple introduced the iPhone, its clear that Apple was the one pushing the boundaries in the phone world. No they didn't invent all the various pieces, but they put them together in a way that hadn't been done before and COMPLETELY altered the mobile landscape. Anyone who disregards the impact Apple had on the smartphone world, whether or not you prefer their product or Google's, is delusional.
Yup, Open Source is the reason things changed.
Like how Linux became such a strong force in the desktop OS market. Um, wait, let me try that again.
Like how Google's open source search engine revolutionized the way we find things on the web. Nope, that one didn't happen either.
Like how Apple's open source iPhone reinvented mobile phones. Hmm, I'm starting to see a pattern here.
Like how Adope's open source Flash platform brought video and interactive content to the internet. Damn, I know I'll get one.
Like how open source Mp3 technology revolutionized digital music. Fine, I give up.
Look there have obviously been open source projects over the last decade that have had an impact. Linux on the server side (especially coupled with Apache, MySQL, and PHP) for example. But commerical server offerings are still a major part of that landscape. And Android has had strong success in mobile, but before the iPhone changed the landscape it was just a Blackberry look alike. Windows (and too a lesser extent OS X) are still what most people use for their daily computing needs, and frankly it wasn't the open source that led the way on new tablets. Open source has contributed, and its a good thing to have around. WebKit and Mozilla/Firefox on the browser side are the biggest factors in re-igniting the web and HTML 5 looks to do away with the decrepit old Flash hopefully sooner rather than later. But Open Source was NOT the driving force behind inovation the past decade, sorry but it just wasn't.
Yeah so? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have both done the same, does that make them saints we shoudl always listen to on anything tech related? I have a feeling you might disagree with them on a few things.
You're right, the military and government should just let anyone leak whatever confidential information they want without consequence, no matter how much that information harms anyone else.
Anyone who thinks that governments don't have legitimate reasons to limit who knows what information is out of touch with reality. What if all the intel about tracking bin Laden had been made public? Would kind of defeat the purpose of hunting someone down if you were basically broadcasting how you were doing it so they could find out.
There is an old saying, knowledge is power. Well giving away all your knowledge for free puts you in the position of being exploited and powerless. Do governments sometimes take secrecy too far? Absolutely. But indiscriminate leaking of information ala WikiLeaks isn't the solution. It undermines those times when information is legitimately leakworthy, such as the Watergate scandal.
Actually in many cases they aren't giving Apple 30% for their software, they are giving Apple 0% because the App is free and they are making money on in app purchases of content. It was a loophole. You could give away the app for free, Apple is now shouldering the cost of hosting and distributing the app, and you are making 100% profit on whatever you sell through in app purchases. Apple decided to close the loophole, now even if you give away the app for free, Apple is getting a cut of the profits as a way to pay for the hosting and distribution of your App.
In some cases, such as this one apparently, it means selling on iOS is no longer a good value proposition. Yet this is little different from the real world. If a mall decides to up the rent for the retail space you are using and that price is beyond what you can afford, then you have to move. Thats buisness.
I'm not saying Apple's approach is perfect, but its also not as evil as some are claiming it to be. Remember, Apple's primary focus is providing a positive experience for the consumer, and many of these in app subscription and purchase policies are meant to make sure the customer gets treated well. The developer is less important to Apple than the consumer (so long as ther are enough developers to satisfy the consumer and right now that appears to be the case).
Apple made its choice and as a result its alienating a few developers, who can now jump to other platforms. Apple's bet seems to be that such a policy change is worth losing a few developers over. We'll see how it plays out. Its also possible that this is an unexpected consequence of the policy and Apple will end up modifying it based on feedback, preassure, etc. It's not like these rules are written in stone.
Um, no, its not the same at all. Google was KEEPING the information, Apple isn't even GETTING the information. Whether or not you think Apple's devices should keep this information at all is one thing, but the comparison to what Google is doing is not accurate in any way.
We should never have invented cars, it made all those other jobs obsolete, horse and buggy makers, livery stables, etc. Screw progress, lets all be Amish!
Google claimed certification which it did not have, at best a mistake, at worst a lie.
Microsoft did NOT claim certification but is working with the DOI to become certfied.
No FUD, just facts.
Bull, DRM doesn't drive anyone to piracy, people use it as an excuse to steal. I think DRM is a pain in the ass and I can understand people who won't buy games that use it, but you don't have an innate right to own a game. If you don't like it don't buy it. THAT is your choice. Theft is theft. Stop trying to justify it in some lame Robin-Hoodesque "fighting against the man" BS.
Thats the fault of the other companies, not Apple's, why should Apple be forced to support another companies product? iTunes isn't a monopoly, there are competitors.
Ripping from a CD is not illegal in any way shape or form if you own the CD and rip it for your own use. Apple has supported this method for a LONG time.
iTunes isn't a monopoly.
1) You can get music off CD's and rip it
2) You can get Mp3's off Amazon
3) You can put music from either source (or any other compatible, i.e. non-DRM'd MP3, AAC, WAV etc.) on your iPod
4) You can put non-DRM'd iTunes music on other devices
5) The only reason music on iTunes was ever/is now DRM'd is because the labels demand it, Steve Jobs has been very vocal about non-DRM'd music being the right choice.
So I'm prejudiced because you don't agree with me is it? What is prejudiced about what I said? I criticized what Google was doing because it is, in my opinion bad, one in a long line of bad for the consumer things they have done that get ignored by too many people.
As for what happens when the rights owner is dead? Well after a certain period the work becomes public domain and they (along with anyone else) are free to use it. I don't object to finding solutions to the problem, I object to Google flauting the law and then trying to get prefernetial treatment by working with people who are only looking out for their bottom line and not the legal rights of authors. I object to Google being given SOLE CONTROL over these works. But I guess thats being "prejudiced"
Despite its attempts to spin itself as the white knight, Google is far from altrusitic and this ruling is a victory for the little guy. It was bad enough when Google started illegal scanning copyrighted works. It was bad enough when Google's only response was "fine we'll stop, but only when you specifically ask us to for YOUR books". But the deal that would give Google such extensive control over the scanning and sale of these works? That was unacceptable and I'm glad the judge agreed.
I really wish people would wake up and realize that Google has long since abandon its "Don't be Evil" motto.
First, there are more Android phones out there than iPhones. Of course they are fragmented over various non upgradeable models, but whatever. Second, Apple has a long history of taking the lead on accessible computing.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/accessibility.html
But hey, its trendy to hate on Apple without reason I guess?
If smartphones were only owned/used by tech savvy people like most of us commenting/reading here, then their hands off approach to the Android Marketplace wouldn't be such a big deal, but thats not the case. Google and the carriers are marketing Android as an OS not just for the nerds but for everyone, because of that I think Google bears responsibility for what happened. Their hands off policy in the Android Marketplace pu users at significant risk for this malware in the first place, and does nothing to prevent it from happening again. Openness has its advantages, but those advantages are primarily useful to a select few. MOST users want a smartphone that is easy to use and lets them do things like browse the internet, check e-mail, consume media and play some games. MOST users are not tech savvy, and therefore MOST users aren't even going to know what to look for to try and avoid malware like this. Whats worse is that MOST users think Google is a trustworthy company so they will assume that the official Android Marketplace that ships on their phones and is provided by Google is a safe place to obtain apps. As we have found out recently, that is far from the truth. Google's free-for-all marketplace approach is harmful to average users. I'm not saying that the answer is to lock down Android to he same extent that Apple and Microsoft have done, but the totally open Android Marketplace should be an alternative, not the primary source. As the provider of the experience Google needs to set up a trusted marketplace where they put more scrutiny and oversight into apps and make THAT the default experience for the user. From within that marketplace Google could offer access to the untamed wilds that currently exist today, but MOST users wouldn't need to venture into that space, and would therefore be at far less risk than they are now.
Netscape Navigator had to have had double digit market share. Not to mention NCSA Mosaic. Probably a couple of the early text only browsers had doubt digit share too. At best Chrome is the fifth probably less than that even to reach double digit share.
And yes I realize the headline was probably meant to apply only to current browsers. It's fun to be literal:D
Yeah, it really sucks that Apple is the only company that makes smartphones and we don't have any choice but to buy from them and no one else if we don't like Apple's way of doing things...
Every time I see a story like this (which is often) I thank Steve Jobs for no Flash on my iPhone along with all the wonderful people who develop the various Flash blockers for web browsers.
Anonymous are common thugs who hide behind internet anonymity to get away with their vandalism. I think Simmons approach is stupid, I think the RIAA approach is stupid, but Anonymous isn't some Robin Hood coming to our rescue, they are people who enjoy harrassing other people, plain and simple.
Sorry but no, most consumers couldn't care less whether a phone was open or not. Android's openness is only a significant factor for the tech community, which makes up a small (but vocal) fraction of the population. The things like "openness" that geeks live and die for is not even on the radar for most people.
Trouble is, those people get the flawed idea that their view is the dominant one because its what they see all the time on the tech blogs they visit (talk about your self-selection bias). However if it were true that the types of factors that power users demand were the deciding factor in a products success or failure we wouldn't b seeing the success of the iPhone or the Nintendo Wii that we have. Whether geeks like to admit it or not, most people aren't like them, most people don't have the same demands, needs or priorities than them. Doesn't mean they are right or wrong, they are just different. If phone makers can be succesful using Android, great, but the open-ness is not going to be a key factor in whether its a wide spread commerical success or not. If it were we'd all be running Linux and Open Office now, which isn't remotely near the way the world atually is.
Slashdot Mirror
So will Google continue to stick to its "open" (although not really cause the actually control the carriers and let the carriers control the users) mantra even though it leads to problems like this? Or will they admit that "open" has its disadvantages, and for a consumer product in particular it may not always be the best approach and they need to reign things in a bit?
Actually they seem to be picking a third option, going for tighter control of Android while simultaneously (and hypocritically) still trumpeting about how great Android is because its "open".
Enjoy your headaches Android users, the rest of us are going to be busy watching Netflix movies.
There was an open source smartphone that dominated the market before Apple's iPhone? There was an open source search engine that dominated the web before Google? There was an open source digital music format that was widely used before Mp3? No, just no. Open source has played a part, but it hasn't been the driving force.
How exactly does the iPhone pale in comparison to open source alternatives? Aside from supporting Flash and letting you side load apps, what fundementally superior ability does Android have compared to iPhone? They are comparable platforms, with different strengths and weaknesses but not all that different. However if you go back and look at what Android looked like BEFORE Apple introduced the iPhone, its clear that Apple was the one pushing the boundaries in the phone world. No they didn't invent all the various pieces, but they put them together in a way that hadn't been done before and COMPLETELY altered the mobile landscape. Anyone who disregards the impact Apple had on the smartphone world, whether or not you prefer their product or Google's, is delusional.
Like how Linux became such a strong force in the desktop OS market. Um, wait, let me try that again.
Like how Google's open source search engine revolutionized the way we find things on the web. Nope, that one didn't happen either.
Like how Apple's open source iPhone reinvented mobile phones. Hmm, I'm starting to see a pattern here.
Like how Adope's open source Flash platform brought video and interactive content to the internet. Damn, I know I'll get one.
Like how open source Mp3 technology revolutionized digital music. Fine, I give up.
Look there have obviously been open source projects over the last decade that have had an impact. Linux on the server side (especially coupled with Apache, MySQL, and PHP) for example. But commerical server offerings are still a major part of that landscape. And Android has had strong success in mobile, but before the iPhone changed the landscape it was just a Blackberry look alike. Windows (and too a lesser extent OS X) are still what most people use for their daily computing needs, and frankly it wasn't the open source that led the way on new tablets. Open source has contributed, and its a good thing to have around. WebKit and Mozilla/Firefox on the browser side are the biggest factors in re-igniting the web and HTML 5 looks to do away with the decrepit old Flash hopefully sooner rather than later. But Open Source was NOT the driving force behind inovation the past decade, sorry but it just wasn't.
Yeah so? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have both done the same, does that make them saints we shoudl always listen to on anything tech related? I have a feeling you might disagree with them on a few things.
You're right, the military and government should just let anyone leak whatever confidential information they want without consequence, no matter how much that information harms anyone else. Anyone who thinks that governments don't have legitimate reasons to limit who knows what information is out of touch with reality. What if all the intel about tracking bin Laden had been made public? Would kind of defeat the purpose of hunting someone down if you were basically broadcasting how you were doing it so they could find out. There is an old saying, knowledge is power. Well giving away all your knowledge for free puts you in the position of being exploited and powerless. Do governments sometimes take secrecy too far? Absolutely. But indiscriminate leaking of information ala WikiLeaks isn't the solution. It undermines those times when information is legitimately leakworthy, such as the Watergate scandal.
In some cases, such as this one apparently, it means selling on iOS is no longer a good value proposition. Yet this is little different from the real world. If a mall decides to up the rent for the retail space you are using and that price is beyond what you can afford, then you have to move. Thats buisness.
I'm not saying Apple's approach is perfect, but its also not as evil as some are claiming it to be. Remember, Apple's primary focus is providing a positive experience for the consumer, and many of these in app subscription and purchase policies are meant to make sure the customer gets treated well. The developer is less important to Apple than the consumer (so long as ther are enough developers to satisfy the consumer and right now that appears to be the case).
Apple made its choice and as a result its alienating a few developers, who can now jump to other platforms. Apple's bet seems to be that such a policy change is worth losing a few developers over. We'll see how it plays out. Its also possible that this is an unexpected consequence of the policy and Apple will end up modifying it based on feedback, preassure, etc. It's not like these rules are written in stone.
Um, no, its not the same at all. Google was KEEPING the information, Apple isn't even GETTING the information. Whether or not you think Apple's devices should keep this information at all is one thing, but the comparison to what Google is doing is not accurate in any way.
We should never have invented cars, it made all those other jobs obsolete, horse and buggy makers, livery stables, etc. Screw progress, lets all be Amish!
Google claimed certification which it did not have, at best a mistake, at worst a lie. Microsoft did NOT claim certification but is working with the DOI to become certfied. No FUD, just facts.
Bull, DRM doesn't drive anyone to piracy, people use it as an excuse to steal. I think DRM is a pain in the ass and I can understand people who won't buy games that use it, but you don't have an innate right to own a game. If you don't like it don't buy it. THAT is your choice. Theft is theft. Stop trying to justify it in some lame Robin-Hoodesque "fighting against the man" BS.
Thats the fault of the other companies, not Apple's, why should Apple be forced to support another companies product? iTunes isn't a monopoly, there are competitors.
Ripping from a CD is not illegal in any way shape or form if you own the CD and rip it for your own use. Apple has supported this method for a LONG time. iTunes isn't a monopoly. 1) You can get music off CD's and rip it 2) You can get Mp3's off Amazon 3) You can put music from either source (or any other compatible, i.e. non-DRM'd MP3, AAC, WAV etc.) on your iPod 4) You can put non-DRM'd iTunes music on other devices 5) The only reason music on iTunes was ever/is now DRM'd is because the labels demand it, Steve Jobs has been very vocal about non-DRM'd music being the right choice.
So I'm prejudiced because you don't agree with me is it? What is prejudiced about what I said? I criticized what Google was doing because it is, in my opinion bad, one in a long line of bad for the consumer things they have done that get ignored by too many people. As for what happens when the rights owner is dead? Well after a certain period the work becomes public domain and they (along with anyone else) are free to use it. I don't object to finding solutions to the problem, I object to Google flauting the law and then trying to get prefernetial treatment by working with people who are only looking out for their bottom line and not the legal rights of authors. I object to Google being given SOLE CONTROL over these works. But I guess thats being "prejudiced"
Despite its attempts to spin itself as the white knight, Google is far from altrusitic and this ruling is a victory for the little guy. It was bad enough when Google started illegal scanning copyrighted works. It was bad enough when Google's only response was "fine we'll stop, but only when you specifically ask us to for YOUR books". But the deal that would give Google such extensive control over the scanning and sale of these works? That was unacceptable and I'm glad the judge agreed. I really wish people would wake up and realize that Google has long since abandon its "Don't be Evil" motto.
First, there are more Android phones out there than iPhones. Of course they are fragmented over various non upgradeable models, but whatever. Second, Apple has a long history of taking the lead on accessible computing. http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/accessibility.html But hey, its trendy to hate on Apple without reason I guess?
If smartphones were only owned/used by tech savvy people like most of us commenting/reading here, then their hands off approach to the Android Marketplace wouldn't be such a big deal, but thats not the case. Google and the carriers are marketing Android as an OS not just for the nerds but for everyone, because of that I think Google bears responsibility for what happened. Their hands off policy in the Android Marketplace pu users at significant risk for this malware in the first place, and does nothing to prevent it from happening again. Openness has its advantages, but those advantages are primarily useful to a select few. MOST users want a smartphone that is easy to use and lets them do things like browse the internet, check e-mail, consume media and play some games. MOST users are not tech savvy, and therefore MOST users aren't even going to know what to look for to try and avoid malware like this. Whats worse is that MOST users think Google is a trustworthy company so they will assume that the official Android Marketplace that ships on their phones and is provided by Google is a safe place to obtain apps. As we have found out recently, that is far from the truth. Google's free-for-all marketplace approach is harmful to average users. I'm not saying that the answer is to lock down Android to he same extent that Apple and Microsoft have done, but the totally open Android Marketplace should be an alternative, not the primary source. As the provider of the experience Google needs to set up a trusted marketplace where they put more scrutiny and oversight into apps and make THAT the default experience for the user. From within that marketplace Google could offer access to the untamed wilds that currently exist today, but MOST users wouldn't need to venture into that space, and would therefore be at far less risk than they are now.
This story is about the Mac App Store. Seriously, read the story before posting.
Netscape Navigator had to have had double digit market share. Not to mention NCSA Mosaic. Probably a couple of the early text only browsers had doubt digit share too. At best Chrome is the fifth probably less than that even to reach double digit share. And yes I realize the headline was probably meant to apply only to current browsers. It's fun to be literal :D
Yeah, it really sucks that Apple is the only company that makes smartphones and we don't have any choice but to buy from them and no one else if we don't like Apple's way of doing things...
Every time I see a story like this (which is often) I thank Steve Jobs for no Flash on my iPhone along with all the wonderful people who develop the various Flash blockers for web browsers.
Anonymous are common thugs who hide behind internet anonymity to get away with their vandalism. I think Simmons approach is stupid, I think the RIAA approach is stupid, but Anonymous isn't some Robin Hood coming to our rescue, they are people who enjoy harrassing other people, plain and simple.
AT&T isn't evil, they are incompetent :)
Sorry but no, most consumers couldn't care less whether a phone was open or not. Android's openness is only a significant factor for the tech community, which makes up a small (but vocal) fraction of the population. The things like "openness" that geeks live and die for is not even on the radar for most people. Trouble is, those people get the flawed idea that their view is the dominant one because its what they see all the time on the tech blogs they visit (talk about your self-selection bias). However if it were true that the types of factors that power users demand were the deciding factor in a products success or failure we wouldn't b seeing the success of the iPhone or the Nintendo Wii that we have. Whether geeks like to admit it or not, most people aren't like them, most people don't have the same demands, needs or priorities than them. Doesn't mean they are right or wrong, they are just different. If phone makers can be succesful using Android, great, but the open-ness is not going to be a key factor in whether its a wide spread commerical success or not. If it were we'd all be running Linux and Open Office now, which isn't remotely near the way the world atually is.