Sure, but what about when some sort of vulnerability is found in iOS? It's not like Apple is somehow magically invulnerable to software security issues. At least with a lot of Android phones you can do something about it without getting too much shit (if any) from your carrier.
Every iOS device introduced after June 2010 is supported with OS updates and security fixes from Apple. Can Android users say the same?
Let's see.... Android 1. A security vulnerability is found 2. Google patches the vulnerability 3. Android makers may apply the patch to currently selling phones. 4. The carrier may push out the update for recently sold phones.
(Steps 3 and 4 are never done the day the OS patch is released.)
iOS 1. A security vulnerability is found 2. Apple patches the vulnerability 3. Apple sends out a notification to every iOS device worldwide running iOS 5. 4. Any iOS user worldwide can click on update from the device and get an update
And no, "rooting the phone and downloading a third party hacked build" is not an acceptable alternative to most users.
The most useful connection remains the 3.5mm audio output since it's pretty much universal. No need for fancy dock just to get sound out of your device.
So you really think you get better sound quality through the headphone jack than using the line-out pin that adapters use?
First, Adobe is dropping flash entirely due to pressure on developers leading web creation to html 5, this made sites like Youtube have to develop massive new infrastructure to support iDevices, infrastructure that was never necessary given the presence of Flash on Android.
Youtube converted to H.264 before the first iPhones were introduced. It was available for the first AppleTV as well as feature phones and Android phones before Flash was available on mobile.
Second, You are not forced to have separate iPhone/iPad apps but in most practical scenarios this is exactly what happens and you can see it plain as day in the App store.
This is only because developers want to charge separately for the iPhone and the iPad.
Not everyone accept to locks himself into proprietary accessories. Being locked into using iTunes and proprietary dock accessories is one of the reasons some people don't buy iPhones. Once you take that path, you can't get out.
So what "non proprietary" docking solution can you use to hook up your Android phone to the gym's equipment to record workouts and to view video? Where can I find a docking solution to integrate the media on Android phone to a home entertainment system -- and no, using HDMI does not allow me to navigate my phone's media library from across the room.
Don't forget to add the $9 Billion ($12Billion - $3B in cash) that Google paid for the money-losing Motorola Mobility just for patent protection for Android.
$9 billion is two years worth of net income for Google.
So if Google gives away Android with the hopes of recouping costs via advertising, then how are they "winning" if 66% of mobile searches come from Apple -- to whom they reportedly pay $100 Million/ a year to be the default search provider?
As he said... Any career that has a known large gap of unemployment isn't too lucrative unless your making bank (per hour, not more hours able to be worked) during those worktimes.
One way is by making user accounts a tree instead of just a list. Root has access to all the user accounts under it, and each user can make separate sub-accounts and run a less-trusted application in a sub-account.
So how do you keep the same user who downloaded malware in the first place from granting rights to the app? What if you want to use four or five different apps with the same document? iOS has one model where you send a copy of a document to another app, but who wants to do that?
Another way is by attaching capabilities to applications, as in OLPC Bitfrost, Android, and the Mac App Store sandbox (which I've been told is written by the same guy who wrote Bitfrost).
And you have dozens of different permissions that the app asks for (see RIM). How do you keep granny from granting unnecessary rights to the app?
That problem has been addressed many times already... sandboxing. The runtime/VM will still have full access, of course, but can control exactly what resources the sandboxed apps can access. That's the one of the major goals of Java,.Net, Flash, DHTML/Javascript, etc.
So how do you make a file compression program that uses a Sandbox?
Then you have a set of permissions that each app requests in advance. Why would you think a user who would be tricked into downloading malware wouldn't be tricked into giving an app permission to do whatever it wanted to do?
Why do applications need access to all of the user's data?
An application doesn't "need" access to all of the user's data. But how do you prevent code that runs at the users' access level from being able to access all of the data that the user has access to? If the app developer can get users to grant access to their data (not hard to do) how can the OS prevent them without having a locked down environment?
So how do you "secure" an OS and still allow users to run whatever they want to?
And before you say "don't run as administrator", any app that can run with the users privileges has access to all of the users data -- which is harder to replicate than system files.
At one time, Apple announced that it require that if an application on the App Store requires a subscription to use, then it must also make subscriptions available through In-App Purchasing at a price no higher than elsewhere. It backed down on this in June. But what were Apple's motives for setting forth this policy in the first place?
Let's engage in a thought experiment....
Let's say SEGA made a Genesis emulator free for Sony's and Microsoft's online site.
Then let's say they allowed you to purchase games for the emulator within the app. Would Sony or MS allow that to happen?
Right, they encouraged the industry to go DRM free after they had gotten all the mileage that they were going to get out of abusing their ITMS to harm the competition. Don't make Steve out to be something he's not, he was every bit as vicious and arrogant as MS, it's just that early on he got booted from Apple when he could have been building up a dominant market position in computers.
Yeah because little companies like MS and Sony couldn't possibly compete with big bad Apple....
The same article I quoted said that as of 2007, only 3% of the typical users music came from iTunes. There was nothing stopping anyone from buying a competing MP3 player.
The user is stuck in an Apple-only quagmire where their devices and content only work with other Apple-only devices in a manner that Apple approves of.
My audio content is encoded in AAC or MP3 which works on every modern device.
My video content is encoded in H.264 that is natively supported by almost every device.
Even my Divx video can be played with third party software.
No one forces you to buy content from iTunes. It's child's play to rip video content off of a disk,.
Slashdot Mirror
How is push email any less real with ActiveSync running on a tablet?
Every iOS device introduced after June 2010 is supported with OS updates and security fixes from Apple. Can Android users say the same?
Let's see....
Android
1. A security vulnerability is found
2. Google patches the vulnerability
3. Android makers may apply the patch to currently selling phones.
4. The carrier may push out the update for recently sold phones.
(Steps 3 and 4 are never done the day the OS patch is released.)
iOS
1. A security vulnerability is found
2. Apple patches the vulnerability
3. Apple sends out a notification to every iOS device worldwide running iOS 5.
4. Any iOS user worldwide can click on update from the device and get an update
And no, "rooting the phone and downloading a third party hacked build" is not an acceptable alternative to most users.
Yeah push email and automatic notifications are so overrated.
I guess next you will suggest that I let all of my phone calls go to voicemail and call and check to see if I have any messages every so often,,,,,
So you really think you get better sound quality through the headphone jack than using the line-out pin that adapters use?
Youtube converted to H.264 before the first iPhones were introduced. It was available for the first AppleTV as well as feature phones and Android phones before Flash was available on mobile.
This is only because developers want to charge separately for the iPhone and the iPad.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57321157-264/adobe-abandons-flash-plug-in-for-mobile-devices-report/
No, you make one app with resources for both. Developers choose to separate apps.
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1288
Strangely that doesn't seem like a solution for my car or gym equipment,,,,,
So what "non proprietary" docking solution can you use to hook up your Android phone to the gym's equipment to record workouts and to view video? Where can I find a docking solution to integrate the media on Android phone to a home entertainment system -- and no, using HDMI does not allow me to navigate my phone's media library from across the room.
Don't forget to add the $9 Billion ($12Billion - $3B in cash) that Google paid for the money-losing Motorola Mobility just for patent protection for Android.
$9 billion is two years worth of net income for Google.
Google Search was available for the iPhone before Android was introduced.
You mean like Google pays Apple $100 million a year to be the default search provider for iOS devices?
When has Apple *ever* allowed a carrier to install their crapware on iPhones?
So "winning" for a publicly traded company is "losing billions of dollars" to gain market share?
In that case, I guess I will cut my leg off to win the corporate weight loss challenge.....
So if Google gives away Android with the hopes of recouping costs via advertising, then how are they "winning" if 66% of mobile searches come from Apple -- to whom they reportedly pay $100 Million/ a year to be the default search provider?
How is Google "winning" when 66% of Google searches on mobile come from iOS device:
http://www.gadgetvenue.com/google-mobile-searches-made-up-of-66-ios-09223009/
And after spending billions on development, buying MMI, and patents they still only make $6 dollars per phone?
Especially when the most popular Android tablet (the Amazon Fire) uses no Google services?
I personally paid the same $200 for my $699 phone as an Android user paid for his $499 phone and pay the same monthly fee.
Why should I care that the carrier had to pay a higher subsidy to Apple?
Cite?
It's freaking 8 dollars!!!!
Not great but a livable wage.....
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary
How did that work in Vista with UAC?
So how do you keep the same user who downloaded malware in the first place from granting rights to the app? What if you want to use four or five different apps with the same document? iOS has one model where you send a copy of a document to another app, but who wants to do that?
And you have dozens of different permissions that the app asks for (see RIM). How do you keep granny from granting unnecessary rights to the app?
So how do you make a file compression program that uses a Sandbox?
Then you have a set of permissions that each app requests in advance. Why would you think a user who would be tricked into downloading malware wouldn't be tricked into giving an app permission to do whatever it wanted to do?
An application doesn't "need" access to all of the user's data. But how do you prevent code that runs at the users' access level from being able to access all of the data that the user has access to? If the app developer can get users to grant access to their data (not hard to do) how can the OS prevent them without having a locked down environment?
Let's engage in a thought experiment....
Let's say SEGA made a Genesis emulator free for Sony's and Microsoft's online site.
Then let's say they allowed you to purchase games for the emulator within the app. Would Sony or MS allow that to happen?
The only non-iOS iPod that can play video that is currently being sold is the Classic. How many companies really care about targeting those?
You're free to sell media on your own website using your own payment processing system and Apple gets nothing.
Yeah because little companies like MS and Sony couldn't possibly compete with big bad Apple....
The same article I quoted said that as of 2007, only 3% of the typical users music came from iTunes. There was nothing stopping anyone from buying a competing MP3 player.
Anybody who wants to sell DRM'd media is welcome to do so using their own app -- just as every e-book seller, NetFlix, Hulu, etc. already do,