RTFS. This doesn't disable the car. It disables charging of the battery. And thus can't happen "in the middle of the autobahn".
And it has nothing to do with increasing profit. EVs are not much of a profit centre yet, as the up front costs of a car with battery are so high. And the demend relatively low. It's not amenable to profiteering. This is about lowering the sticker price so buyers in the supermini market will even consider it.
No it's a sticker price problem. Renault is attempting to reach a market at a lower price bracket with the Zoe. The Volt is a midsize car, the Zoe a supermini.
Renault consider that including the battery in the purchase cost will make it appear unaffordable, even though on a total cost of ownership basis it might not be. So they sell the car, and have an arrangement with another company to lease the battery.
Consider also that Chevy is an American company, and Renault a European one. On average Europeans are not as wealthy and have less to spend on cars.
We use lighter materials than were used back then and you're more likely to be killed by the engine getting pushed into your lap by whatever you hit (which was allowed to happen by the "crumple zones") than you ever were by slamming into the steering wheel.
That's the absolute opposite of the truth. Crumple zones don't extend into the passenger compartment. And you have no evidence they are less good than they were 20 years ago. They can be lighter because these days they can be designed and virtually tested on a computer. Which means the designers know much more about how they crumple, and can save on metal where it is not required.
Car companies aren't selling what's safer, they're selling what they can easily convince YOU is safer;
Bullshit. Cars are independently tested for safety, at various establishments around the world. And they have far more genuine safety features as standard than they used to. Such as for example side impact bars.
selling what's actually safer would mean losing the sales they get when you total your crumple-box in a 5MPH bumper kiss.
You will come to far more injury and more likely die in a car that does not crumple. As will pedestrians you may hit. You are just plain wrong in your belief that a more solid car is a safer car. It is not. It's the difference between a stuntman jumping off a roof onto a pile of cardboard boxes, or jumping off and hitting a pile of bricks.
Why do the majority of hybrids on the market get shittier gas mileage than a 1990 Metro?
Not a reasonable comparison.
You're comparing the full range of hybrids with possibly the highest MPG gas car. Which clearly isn't a fair comparison. The most efficient hybrid beats the 1990 Metro.
And the average hybrid beats the average 1990s gas car.
The reason that the Metro had good economy? It came with very little equipment, and was thus light. And it had to be to be powered by a 1 litre engine. And that 1 litre engine will by vastly outperformed by today's hybrids too.
From your link: "A survey of the 1,000 iOS devices that synchronize with Appsfire's mobile app discovery and sharing platform reveal some interesting statistics about app usage by its iOS owners."
People who download an app who's entire purpose is to discover more apps is not an average user. They are users who enjoy discovering apps. Which means they will have far more apps than average. So all your link tells us is that the average iOS owner has something rather less than 88 downloaded apps.
108 apps is about 9 iphone homescreens
You seem to think that the iPhone springboard holds 12 apps per page. Actually it's 20 apps per page. (Plus the 4 fixed ones at the bottom.)
So 108 apps would be just slightly over 5 pages. And as already established the average iPhone user doesn't have that many.
I'm not sure why you are saying those figures are for stock Android only? They look like they are for any and all Android variants.
All users do have access to stock Android, so that isn't an advantage iOS users have.
That's not true either. Whilst users can often replace the shipped Android version with Cyanogenmod, it relies on the specific phone actually being supported by Cyanogenmod. And depending on the phone, that can take time to happen, or may not happen at all.
Weeks? I've never known it to take weeks to be able to start fixing bugs on a project I've been assigned to. On large projects there's rarely anyone that understands the whole thing. They don't need to. They just need to understand the part they are working on.
I think I've missed your explanations as to why they are meaningless. Why would the Kit-Kat figure only count stock Android? Is it that Kit-Kat isn't available to anyone other than those running stock Android? If not, where would those other Kit-Kat users be listed.
If it is just that it's only available to some Android users and not others, whilst all iOS devices* have access to iOS 7, then that doesn't make it meaningless. That's one of the benefits that iOS users get that most Android users don't. And so it's very relevant.
(* that are powerful enough to be able to run iOS7.)
Oh dear. I demonstrate with links that you are demonstrably wrong on some of your claims, and then it's name calling in response from you. "ios fanboi" indeed.
You then go on to attribute some comments from an Anonymous Coward to me. I can't comment either way on those comments because they are not a part of the Android scene I'm familiar with.
It was a decent discussion for a while. Shame it didn't stay that way.
You're right, my opinion doesn't invalidate what you say, as it's just an opinion. A large enough sample size or users being inconvencied by ios app manegment though, is an objective data point, which does invalidate your opinion.
Where is your objective data point? You're still just using your opinion.
You also seemed to think I was talking about andrid when I mentioned the lack of uninstalling.
I assumed you were talking about Android, because it's easier to delete apps from iOS.
Here's the difference: Ios REQUIRES folders because you have no choice and need to reduce the clutter.
iOS does not require folders. It's an available feature. No one has to use it. Unlike Android's App Drawer.
The default Android browser these days is Chrome. It is about as good as it gets.
I don't know. My comments are based on the GPs complaint about Chrome and the parents comment about not assuming it is chrome.
You mean KDE's KHTML?
No. Webkit was forked away from KHTML 11 years ago. Back them KHTML was just 140,000 lines of code. Webkit is millions. I'm not sure how many millions, but Google claimed they stripped out 8.8 million lines of code which were not needed for Chrome when they forked Blink, so it's significantly larger than that.
Certainly Google have contributed to Webkit, since when they launched Chrome, Webkit was their best option of layout engine. Apple having spent 6 years on it by that time.
Like you I don't have any need to run any other engine than Webkit. And given the way Webkit leads the standards bodies and other browser engines, I'm not sure what competition is doing. Heck what IS the competition these days? The latest version Firefox using Gecko, what received by a chorus of disapproval on Slashdot the other day, with most agreeing that it stopped being a decent browser about a decade ago. And then there's IE - enough said.
First of all, just because the latest version is available does not by any stroke of the imagination means everybody chooses to upgrade to it. In fact, most users don't because they have no need to do so, as far as they are concerned.
On Android, the adoption rate is snail-like. But that's not a lack of need. It's because most Android users don't have the option. KitKat has a 0.2% adoption. And even the previous 16 month old version (Jelly Bean) is only up to 62%. https://mixpanel.com/trends/#report/android_kitkat
And no, those browsers are not available for ios. Skins for safari that make them look slike those browsers are available.
Again, that's demonstably false. They ARE available for iOS. You don't get to decide that. Dolphin, that YOU recommended, uses the same Webkit whether on Android or iOS.
Chrome on Android does indeed use Blink, but that was only forked away from Webkit very recently, and there are no significant rendering differences. Blink was forked so that Google could strip out code for non-Google browsers. There's no user impact as of yet.
You're absolutely, 100% wrong here. I'm going by the average users I know...my parents, older friends...people who know absolutely nothing about technology.
I'm sorry, but your opinion of how your friends and relations think does not make anyone else wrong, let alone 100% They too have friends and relatives.
They do tend to install a lot of apps, and much like how they use a computer they never tend to uninstall, but just sort through the mess for what they need.
Hardly surprising if they don't uninstall them on Android if it's hiding them away. They'll just ignore them until they run out of flash space. Then be stuck.
With iOS, it's WYSIWYG. You have the applications shown on the app launch screen. There is nothing hidden away. Now for sure you have more commonly used apps. For the most commonly used there is the fixed bar at the bottom of the launch screen. For the next most commonly used, there is the first page of apps. Less commonly used ones migrate from the front page to later pages. Android is similar, except the later pages are hidden under an "App Drawer" icon, whose position and icon varies from phone to phone.
As the other poster points out, you could more elegantly emulate the Android functionality on iOS with an "App Drawer" folder. But you have the option to be more intelligent and have multiple folders for different categories.
Out of curiosity, what would you say the iPhone did better? I don't have KitKat so can't help with that
Well that's one thing the iPhone does better. Nearly everyone has the latest OS version, because it's available for free download for all the day of release.
but don't assume the bundle browser is chrome unless it actually says chrome. If it doesn't, may well be worth getting Chrome or Dolphin.
And that's another thing iPhone does better. You think it's an advantage to be able to use different browsers. But it's no advantage if the one that's pre-installed is a piece of shit, and you have to seek out a good one for yourself. And funnily enough both the browsers you recommend for Android are based on Apple's Webkit. And are available for iOS too.
By NOT having alternative browser engines, web-site developers know that a site that works on their iPhone works on all iPhones. And users are faced with fewer broken web-sites than on Android. Whilst still having the ability to get specialist browser features by downloading alternative browsers.
Listen up: recent scandals have demonstrated that Apple's "sandbox" DOESN'T WORK for things like this, as Chalie Miller [cnet.com] and a lot of others [informationweek.com] found out.
Recent? You are linking to one that's 18 months ago, and one that's 2 years ago. Both dealt with permanently soon after discovery.
That's a sign of how rare it is for Malware to get through on iOS.
You have to go back so far because there is no current malware on iOS, and hasn't been for some time.
By contrast Malware like this is a constant issue on Android. And there's no way to stop it short of new OS versions. And new OS versions don't tend to get through to Android users.
There's no comparison. iOS is ultra secure compared to Android.
It is you who don't know what you're talking about.
Apple's rules for app store apps say that an app that is allowed in their store cannot "duplicate the functionality" of one of the major iOS components.
So if you make an app like iTunes, but is better than iTunes, Apple will reject it because it "duplicates functionality".
It's in the Developer Guidelines. Go read them.
It's you who's mistaken, not the other poster. The Apps Store Guidelines do not say that. You haven't read them. I have.
There is no such app as "iTunes" on iOS. There's "iTunes Store". Which you are perfectly at liberty to duplicate. However it'd have to be done via the in-app purchase API, which sends 30% of the selling price to Apple. Which makes it quite difficult to compete on that. But you're allowed to try.
They will certainly not reject it because it "duplicates functionality". You are several years out of date on your information.
I'm not an Apple-hater. I like OS X and I develop on Macs. I just don't like the tradeoff on iOS between "security" and freedom, because like nearly all such trades, it turns out the security is largely illusory.
Well that's odd, because your complaints about iOS are based on falsehoods. Either you're an Apple-hater, or your dislike of iOS is based on misapprehensions.
Because lots of Apple apps, guidelines or no, have been caught "phoning home" info that people certainly did not want known.
On Android, (A) you have to explicitly approve all such services that an app can access on your phone, in advance, and (B) unlike iOS, there are no "no competition" rules for Android apps. If you can find a better (or better for YOU) app than stock Android apps, just use it and stop using the stock Android app. Try that on Apple. You can't.
You're confusoing two different things. App sandbox (on Android) with App Store Approvals (on iOS).
The problem is that iOS also has a sandbox, which you ignore. And you also ignore the fact that Android has no app approvals process.
Again the big picture is that third party developers can do a lot more than users don't want on Android then on iOS. And Google can do ANYTHING on Android, but they can't on iOS.
Apple guidelines do not require apps to NOT phone home... in fact there was a big flap about that just recently... iOS apps tracking people in ways that they did not approve.
Wrong.
"4.1 Apps that do not notify and obtain user consent before collecting, transmitting, or using location data will be rejected"
Android app guidelines are actually stricter than Apple's. You have to explicitly consent to EVERY phone service that is accessed by an app: not just location but accelerometers, compass, notifications, wifi, phone data, etc.
a) It's a poorer system. It's pre-approval, on mass, which means the user doesn't know why an app needs access to resources before approving them. iOS seeks approval at the time of requiring the resource, enabling the user to know what the resource is needed for.
b) There is no such limitation on Google on Android, because Google don't have to do it from within an app, and therefore not within a sandbox.
Credit card companies only get info when people choose to use their credit cards for payment. There's always cash for those people that don't want to be tracked.
Now if this Google tracking is transparent and opt in, then that's equally no problem. However Google isn't that trustworthy. They have a track record of collecting data without seeking approval first, and making it difficult or impossible to get that data deleted.
Don't use the Google apps, and it's not an issue. And by the way, this is is true for BOTH Android and iOS. Google apps will report your location the same amount and the same way, whichever phone you are using.
I'm afraid you're missing the fact that when Google, does apps for iOS, they need to stay within the app review guidelines, including on privacy issues. Which excludes lots of bad behaviour. On Android, Google are free to do whatever they want, within the law.
You claim there is no difference, but that's a big one.
Network analysis shows that my Android phone isn't "phoning home" to Google with my location.
Yet. TFS says it's a beta test. If you're not part of the beta test, then your checking is irrelevant.
You insist that this only only happens in apps. Yet since Google builds the stack of software, they can collect data, and phone home from anywhere. For things like this, it works better for Google if it's always collecting data. So who's to say they won't?
Slashdot Mirror
RTFS. This doesn't disable the car. It disables charging of the battery. And thus can't happen "in the middle of the autobahn".
And it has nothing to do with increasing profit. EVs are not much of a profit centre yet, as the up front costs of a car with battery are so high. And the demend relatively low. It's not amenable to profiteering. This is about lowering the sticker price so buyers in the supermini market will even consider it.
No it's a sticker price problem. Renault is attempting to reach a market at a lower price bracket with the Zoe. The Volt is a midsize car, the Zoe a supermini.
Renault consider that including the battery in the purchase cost will make it appear unaffordable, even though on a total cost of ownership basis it might not be. So they sell the car, and have an arrangement with another company to lease the battery.
Consider also that Chevy is an American company, and Renault a European one. On average Europeans are not as wealthy and have less to spend on cars.
We use lighter materials than were used back then and you're more likely to be killed by the engine getting pushed into your lap by whatever you hit (which was allowed to happen by the "crumple zones") than you ever were by slamming into the steering wheel.
That's the absolute opposite of the truth. Crumple zones don't extend into the passenger compartment. And you have no evidence they are less good than they were 20 years ago. They can be lighter because these days they can be designed and virtually tested on a computer. Which means the designers know much more about how they crumple, and can save on metal where it is not required.
Car companies aren't selling what's safer, they're selling what they can easily convince YOU is safer;
Bullshit. Cars are independently tested for safety, at various establishments around the world. And they have far more genuine safety features as standard than they used to. Such as for example side impact bars.
selling what's actually safer would mean losing the sales they get when you total your crumple-box in a 5MPH bumper kiss.
You will come to far more injury and more likely die in a car that does not crumple. As will pedestrians you may hit. You are just plain wrong in your belief that a more solid car is a safer car. It is not. It's the difference between a stuntman jumping off a roof onto a pile of cardboard boxes, or jumping off and hitting a pile of bricks.
Why do the majority of hybrids on the market get shittier gas mileage than a 1990 Metro?
Not a reasonable comparison.
You're comparing the full range of hybrids with possibly the highest MPG gas car. Which clearly isn't a fair comparison. The most efficient hybrid beats the 1990 Metro.
And the average hybrid beats the average 1990s gas car.
The reason that the Metro had good economy? It came with very little equipment, and was thus light. And it had to be to be powered by a 1 litre engine. And that 1 litre engine will by vastly outperformed by today's hybrids too.
From your link:
"A survey of the 1,000 iOS devices that synchronize with Appsfire's mobile app discovery and sharing platform reveal some interesting statistics about app usage by its iOS owners."
People who download an app who's entire purpose is to discover more apps is not an average user. They are users who enjoy discovering apps. Which means they will have far more apps than average. So all your link tells us is that the average iOS owner has something rather less than 88 downloaded apps.
108 apps is about 9 iphone homescreens
You seem to think that the iPhone springboard holds 12 apps per page. Actually it's 20 apps per page. (Plus the 4 fixed ones at the bottom.)
So 108 apps would be just slightly over 5 pages. And as already established the average iPhone user doesn't have that many.
I'm not sure why you are saying those figures are for stock Android only? They look like they are for any and all Android variants.
All users do have access to stock Android, so that isn't an advantage iOS users have.
That's not true either. Whilst users can often replace the shipped Android version with Cyanogenmod, it relies on the specific phone actually being supported by Cyanogenmod. And depending on the phone, that can take time to happen, or may not happen at all.
Here's a list of devices supported by Cyanogenmod. The implication is that there are others that are not supported at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_devices_supported_by_CyanogenMod
Weeks? I've never known it to take weeks to be able to start fixing bugs on a project I've been assigned to. On large projects there's rarely anyone that understands the whole thing. They don't need to. They just need to understand the part they are working on.
Thanks for the apology. That's decent of you.
I think I've missed your explanations as to why they are meaningless. Why would the Kit-Kat figure only count stock Android? Is it that Kit-Kat isn't available to anyone other than those running stock Android? If not, where would those other Kit-Kat users be listed.
If it is just that it's only available to some Android users and not others, whilst all iOS devices* have access to iOS 7, then that doesn't make it meaningless. That's one of the benefits that iOS users get that most Android users don't. And so it's very relevant.
(* that are powerful enough to be able to run iOS7.)
In this case it only seems to be libertarians and criminals suffering. So not a problem I'm going to lose much sleep over.
Oh dear. I demonstrate with links that you are demonstrably wrong on some of your claims, and then it's name calling in response from you. "ios fanboi" indeed.
You then go on to attribute some comments from an Anonymous Coward to me. I can't comment either way on those comments because they are not a part of the Android scene I'm familiar with.
It was a decent discussion for a while. Shame it didn't stay that way.
Objective data point is the significant sample of observed average users who install hundreds of applications.
Again, you're talking about yourself, and your perceived experiences of others. Have you never heard that anecdotes are not data.
This is why you apple fanbois are funny.
Oh dear.
You're right, my opinion doesn't invalidate what you say, as it's just an opinion. A large enough sample size or users being inconvencied by ios app manegment though, is an objective data point, which does invalidate your opinion.
Where is your objective data point? You're still just using your opinion.
You also seemed to think I was talking about andrid when I mentioned the lack of uninstalling.
I assumed you were talking about Android, because it's easier to delete apps from iOS.
Here's the difference: Ios REQUIRES folders because you have no choice and need to reduce the clutter.
iOS does not require folders. It's an available feature. No one has to use it. Unlike Android's App Drawer.
The default Android browser these days is Chrome. It is about as good as it gets.
I don't know. My comments are based on the GPs complaint about Chrome and the parents comment about not assuming it is chrome.
You mean KDE's KHTML?
No. Webkit was forked away from KHTML 11 years ago. Back them KHTML was just 140,000 lines of code. Webkit is millions. I'm not sure how many millions, but Google claimed they stripped out 8.8 million lines of code which were not needed for Chrome when they forked Blink, so it's significantly larger than that.
Certainly Google have contributed to Webkit, since when they launched Chrome, Webkit was their best option of layout engine. Apple having spent 6 years on it by that time.
Like you I don't have any need to run any other engine than Webkit. And given the way Webkit leads the standards bodies and other browser engines, I'm not sure what competition is doing. Heck what IS the competition these days? The latest version Firefox using Gecko, what received by a chorus of disapproval on Slashdot the other day, with most agreeing that it stopped being a decent browser about a decade ago. And then there's IE - enough said.
First of all, just because the latest version is available does not by any stroke of the imagination means everybody chooses to upgrade to it. In fact, most users don't because they have no need to do so, as far as they are concerned.
This is demonstrable nonsense. In a week, iOS7 already had a 64% adoption rate. And is up to about 75% now.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/22/200-million-devices-running-ios-7-five-days-after-launch-64-of-all-idevices-20-million-itunes-radio-listeners/
https://mixpanel.com/trends/#report/ios_7
On Android, the adoption rate is snail-like. But that's not a lack of need. It's because most Android users don't have the option.
KitKat has a 0.2% adoption. And even the previous 16 month old version (Jelly Bean) is only up to 62%.
https://mixpanel.com/trends/#report/android_kitkat
And no, those browsers are not available for ios. Skins for safari that make them look slike those browsers are available.
Again, that's demonstably false. They ARE available for iOS. You don't get to decide that. Dolphin, that YOU recommended, uses the same Webkit whether on Android or iOS.
Chrome on Android does indeed use Blink, but that was only forked away from Webkit very recently, and there are no significant rendering differences. Blink was forked so that Google could strip out code for non-Google browsers. There's no user impact as of yet.
You're absolutely, 100% wrong here. I'm going by the average users I know...my parents, older friends...people who know absolutely nothing about technology.
I'm sorry, but your opinion of how your friends and relations think does not make anyone else wrong, let alone 100% They too have friends and relatives.
They do tend to install a lot of apps, and much like how they use a computer they never tend to uninstall, but just sort through the mess for what they need.
Hardly surprising if they don't uninstall them on Android if it's hiding them away. They'll just ignore them until they run out of flash space. Then be stuck.
With iOS, it's WYSIWYG. You have the applications shown on the app launch screen. There is nothing hidden away. Now for sure you have more commonly used apps. For the most commonly used there is the fixed bar at the bottom of the launch screen. For the next most commonly used, there is the first page of apps. Less commonly used ones migrate from the front page to later pages. Android is similar, except the later pages are hidden under an "App Drawer" icon, whose position and icon varies from phone to phone.
As the other poster points out, you could more elegantly emulate the Android functionality on iOS with an "App Drawer" folder. But you have the option to be more intelligent and have multiple folders for different categories.
Out of curiosity, what would you say the iPhone did better?
I don't have KitKat so can't help with that
Well that's one thing the iPhone does better. Nearly everyone has the latest OS version, because it's available for free download for all the day of release.
but don't assume the bundle browser is chrome unless it actually says chrome. If it doesn't, may well be worth getting Chrome or Dolphin.
And that's another thing iPhone does better. You think it's an advantage to be able to use different browsers. But it's no advantage if the one that's pre-installed is a piece of shit, and you have to seek out a good one for yourself. And funnily enough both the browsers you recommend for Android are based on Apple's Webkit. And are available for iOS too.
By NOT having alternative browser engines, web-site developers know that a site that works on their iPhone works on all iPhones. And users are faced with fewer broken web-sites than on Android. Whilst still having the ability to get specialist browser features by downloading alternative browsers.
Listen up: recent scandals have demonstrated that Apple's "sandbox" DOESN'T WORK for things like this, as Chalie Miller [cnet.com] and a lot of others [informationweek.com] found out.
Recent? You are linking to one that's 18 months ago, and one that's 2 years ago. Both dealt with permanently soon after discovery.
That's a sign of how rare it is for Malware to get through on iOS.
You have to go back so far because there is no current malware on iOS, and hasn't been for some time.
By contrast Malware like this is a constant issue on Android. And there's no way to stop it short of new OS versions. And new OS versions don't tend to get through to Android users.
There's no comparison. iOS is ultra secure compared to Android.
It is you who don't know what you're talking about.
Apple's rules for app store apps say that an app that is allowed in their store cannot "duplicate the functionality" of one of the major iOS components.
So if you make an app like iTunes, but is better than iTunes, Apple will reject it because it "duplicates functionality".
It's in the Developer Guidelines. Go read them.
It's you who's mistaken, not the other poster. The Apps Store Guidelines do not say that. You haven't read them. I have.
There is no such app as "iTunes" on iOS. There's "iTunes Store". Which you are perfectly at liberty to duplicate. However it'd have to be done via the in-app purchase API, which sends 30% of the selling price to Apple. Which makes it quite difficult to compete on that. But you're allowed to try.
They will certainly not reject it because it "duplicates functionality". You are several years out of date on your information.
I'm not an Apple-hater. I like OS X and I develop on Macs. I just don't like the tradeoff on iOS between "security" and freedom, because like nearly all such trades, it turns out the security is largely illusory.
Well that's odd, because your complaints about iOS are based on falsehoods. Either you're an Apple-hater, or your dislike of iOS is based on misapprehensions.
Because lots of Apple apps, guidelines or no, have been caught "phoning home" info that people certainly did not want known.
On Android, (A) you have to explicitly approve all such services that an app can access on your phone, in advance, and (B) unlike iOS, there are no "no competition" rules for Android apps. If you can find a better (or better for YOU) app than stock Android apps, just use it and stop using the stock Android app. Try that on Apple. You can't.
You're confusoing two different things. App sandbox (on Android) with App Store Approvals (on iOS).
The problem is that iOS also has a sandbox, which you ignore. And you also ignore the fact that Android has no app approvals process.
Again the big picture is that third party developers can do a lot more than users don't want on Android then on iOS. And Google can do ANYTHING on Android, but they can't on iOS.
Apple guidelines do not require apps to NOT phone home... in fact there was a big flap about that just recently... iOS apps tracking people in ways that they did not approve.
Wrong.
"4.1 Apps that do not notify and obtain user consent before collecting, transmitting, or using location data will be rejected"
Android app guidelines are actually stricter than Apple's. You have to explicitly consent to EVERY phone service that is accessed by an app: not just location but accelerometers, compass, notifications, wifi, phone data, etc.
a) It's a poorer system. It's pre-approval, on mass, which means the user doesn't know why an app needs access to resources before approving them. iOS seeks approval at the time of requiring the resource, enabling the user to know what the resource is needed for.
b) There is no such limitation on Google on Android, because Google don't have to do it from within an app, and therefore not within a sandbox.
Credit card companies only get info when people choose to use their credit cards for payment. There's always cash for those people that don't want to be tracked.
Now if this Google tracking is transparent and opt in, then that's equally no problem. However Google isn't that trustworthy. They have a track record of collecting data without seeking approval first, and making it difficult or impossible to get that data deleted.
bv works best in a home depot, not so much in a mall.
That's the reason why they're starting to use low power bluetooth for exactly this functionality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBeacon
Gives you a specific store within a mall.
Don't use the Google apps, and it's not an issue. And by the way, this is is true for BOTH Android and iOS. Google apps will report your location the same amount and the same way, whichever phone you are using.
I'm afraid you're missing the fact that when Google, does apps for iOS, they need to stay within the app review guidelines, including on privacy issues. Which excludes lots of bad behaviour. On Android, Google are free to do whatever they want, within the law.
You claim there is no difference, but that's a big one.
Network analysis shows that my Android phone isn't "phoning home" to Google with my location.
Yet. TFS says it's a beta test. If you're not part of the beta test, then your checking is irrelevant.
You insist that this only only happens in apps. Yet since Google builds the stack of software, they can collect data, and phone home from anywhere. For things like this, it works better for Google if it's always collecting data. So who's to say they won't?