But I shouldn't have to go underground to deal with you. It shouldn't be contrary to my service contract and EULA to deal with you.
I'm glad you are out there, but I want you recognized as a completely legitimate option. In the same way that aftermarket auto parts are recognized by law as being legitimate options.
You seem to be saying that it's not really a matter of whether there's a monopoly or not; your primary interest is in being able to buy whatever apps you want for your phone. At the same time you are not so interested in being able to buy whatever games you want for your game console.
More or less. Legally I think the two cases do fall under the same umbrella.
In practice, the solution with consoles is to buy which consoles provide you the games you want. Many of us buy more than one.
The same argument can be made with phones, but its not nearly as reasonable that people would need to buy and carry around multiple phones.
Damages should also be based on some sort of "punishment" factor.
Damages by definition really should be based on how much DAMAGE was caused.
A punitive fine in addition to damages may be appropriate though.
I would think it is important to prevent companies from simply writing off illegal activities and paying off some trivial amount of money in the even they get caught.
Even if the "activities" only caused trivial damage?
When your contract is up, might I respectfully suggest that you consider shopping for your PHONE at another store?
That's right. Don't ever try and stand up for your rights. Just keep running around between 2 or 3 mega corporations that are all circling the same drain.
Do a little research and make sure one fits your needs before you buy it. "Shiny" should not be a primary selection criteria,
The one that meets my needs perfectly doesn't exist. I bought the closest fit.
and if it is, you've made your choice.
Oh I see. If I'm offered bad and worse. I should just take bad and shut up.
Suggesting and defending the idea that consumers might have rights over the products they purchase? That's just commie talk, right?
My complaint really isn't that apple is restricting me from buying an app from them. I'm actually fine with that. Its really that they are restricting me from buying apps from someone ELSE.
What happens to your Ford warranty if you have some non-Ford parts installed and they cause problems with other systems? My guess is that it would void your warranty for anything affected.
So what? I'm fine with that.
Of course, they have to actually SHOW that it caused problems with other systems. The fact alone that a non-ford brake pad is installed shouldn't automatically void the warranty on the tranmission. And even if the brakes fail, they need to SHOW that the brake pad was actually at fault. If the brakes fail due to a leak in the master cylander, its not the aftermarket brake pads fault.
Mobile app stores: BlackBerry App World, Google Android App Market, Nokia Ovi Store, Palm App Catalog, and Windows Marketplace for Mobile. Android App Market has over 30k apps and is growing rapidly.
And how is that relevant if I have an iphone?
Mobile operating systems: Blackberry, Android, Symbian, Palm, Windows Phone. By some measures Android has already overtaken iOS in marketshare.
Yep, there are several. But in practice I have to choose one. Am I supposed to carry around 5 phones just to exercise freedom over what apps I have? Legally that might work, but in practice its absurd.
This is why gaming consoles don't bother me, while phones do. I have no real issue buying a wii and an xbox; but I'm not going to carry around multiple phones.
Finally, it doesn't have a monopoly on mobile application app stores.
It controls the only app legitimate store that is compatible with ios.
"mobile application store" is a MEANINGLESS market classification. If one company bought up all the gas stations in the country, you couldn't claim they didn't have a monopoly because there was another company that sold rocket fuel. The fact that there are multiple companies that sell in the "fuel sales industry" is irrlevant. I can't put rocket fuel in my car.
When I go to a movie theater, I have to buy their popcorn and drinks (or hide my food in my wife's purse.)
You can't have a barbeque, build a lego roller coaster, play wii tennis, install a hottub or bring your pet turkey either.
But their right to exert these controls has everything to do with the fact that you are on their property.
Feel free to do all of these things at home.
They have chose to make something unavailable to me that they do not produce.
They aren't unavailable. You can go somewhere else and buy them. They just won't let you bring it onto their property. How is that applicable to an iphone which is MY property?
Putthing this up as an alternative to allow the vendor to do whatever it wants is just feeding yourself the rope to hang yourself with.
Sooner or later they will tighten the noose; and a device will be manufactured that you can't easily break, or they'll pass a law making it illegal to break. Probably both.
One needs to vocally resist their grabs for control, so that we don't HAVE to resort to going underground to exercise the freedom we should legitimately have.
The recent jailbreaking victory is hardly a conclusive win:
All the Copyright Office has said is they're not going to prosecute jailbreakers.
"Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. ? 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking."
The only reason that wouldn't hold up in court is that people would say there are alternatives to owning an Iphone. I.e. android, blackberry, or windows phones.
Legally, yes. I agree.
However I find that argument unsatisfactory. I am not willing carry around 2 or 3 phones with multiple phone numbers, and multiple data plans as a solution to getting the apps I want, just to satisfy handset vendors artificial market control.
I agree that a legal analysis would point to this alternative as a justification to allow handset vendors to exert that level of control, but any rational person would find it an unsatisfactory solution to actually live with.
You know what, that's really the FIRST valid counter argument I've seen.
While I personally own a Wii, and enjoy it. I do dislike the business model of control they exert there.
However, I find it less objectionable than the apple iphone app store for 2 key reasons:
First, the console system sits alongside the PC which is an open system. If Nintendo wants to prevent a publisher from selling game X, I can get it for the PC.
Secondly, product substitutibility. It is -reasonable- that I own a console and a PC. For me this is the big differentiator between consoles and phones.
Legally they might be equivalent, but in practice, its perfectly fine to own a console and PC. I am not going to walk around with an android and an iphone in my pocket, 2 phone numbers, 2 contracts so that I can get the apps I want. Its just plain stupid.
As I said, I concede that legally they might be equivalent, but in practice, they are worlds apart.
Should the government decide what products 7-11 sells?
Irrelevant.
Anyone can open a corner store and sell the same 3rd party items 7-11 sells. Anyone can buy the 3rd party items 7-11 sells from anywhere.
I can't shop for iphone apps elsewhere. I can even make iphone apps and sell them directly to consumers.
How about Best Buy? Should they be required by law to sell Sony laptops?
Irrelevant.
If I want a Sony laptop I can buy one from multiple places, including directly from sony.
I can't buy the "iSony app" except from Apple. I can't even even buy it directly from Sony.
As far as having 100% market share for iPhone apps, that is also a ridiculous statement. Sears has 100% market share for Craftsman products.
Not a valid comparison. Craftsman is Sears own product. Apple isn't making the apps in the app store. I have no issue that the Apple App store is the only place I can buy the Apple remote app. I have no issue that I can only buy apple computers from apple authorized dealers.
Why exactly do I need Apple authorization to buy non-Apple products?
Should they be forced to sell third party drill bits or extension cords for their Craftsman tools?
Of course not. But that's not the situation here. The question here is should Sears be allowed to prevent me from buying 3rd party drill bits or extension cords *somewhere else*?
And thus the problem with fragmentation. There's the potential for bad experiences with one vendor to sour the entire platform.
If there was a problem with webkit, we wouldn't buy it for a second if Microsoft tried to exploit the fact one vendor dropped the ball with updates to paint all the droids, and ios devices as a fragmented browser platform that was difficult to keep updated. Right?
Why do even entertain the notion that "Android fragmentation" is a "problem" in the first place? We should reject blaming Android fragmentation in the same way we (including Steve Jobs) would reject "Webkit fregamentation" as a problem.
I don't understand this analogy. Can I get a McDonald's analogy?
McDonalds isn't the sole source of anything but their own product. If you want a 3rd party product you don't have to deal with mcdonalds. If you want a coke, you can get it anywhere you like.
With an iphone, if you want a 3rd party add on, you have to go through apple. If you want the iCoke app, you have to get it from apple.
So if McDonalds decides that it doesn't want to sell coke any more nobody gives a shit. But if Apple decides not to host the iCoke app, then anyone who wants it for their iphone can't get it.
Now, McDonalds does have total control over the BigMac... but its their own product. So they have the right to decide to make it unavailable. Why exactly does apple have the right to make the iCoke app which they didn't make unavailable?
No one is trying to control what you see on your phone, that is your imagination running away with itself.
Yes. Apple is controlling what 3rd party software is on my phone. If you can't see that your heads stuck somewhere unpleasant.
Apple is choosing to offer or not offer a product through their own store.
And that would be fine if I were free to shop for apps at another store.
I don't see any justification at all for you to force them to do something they don't want to do.
I don't see any justification at all that I not be allowed to install what I want I my own phone. So if they are going to force themeselves into being the sole distribution point for 3rd party software for my phone, I'm going to exert as much pressure as I can on them to distrubte the software I want.
In effect, they started it. If I could get the apps they didn't want to host somewhere else, I wouldn't care that they don't host them.
Wouldn't a monopoly have... I dunno... a large market share?
100% big enough for you?
They are the sole marketplace for i-apps. You aren't allowed to create or use a different app store. And you need their approval to buy and sell your product in this one. If there were a few app stores consumers could use, nobody would blink at what apple decided to host in its store.
The ONLY reason apple's app bannings are news is because they assert 100% control over what 3rd party software consumers are allowed to purchase and put onto their own phones.
TF is that you can use any bluetooth keyboard with it. Not Apple's fault that you are using an ancient keyboard.
Ancient? Since when are usb keyboards ancient? PS2 keyboards sure. ADB keyboards absolutely, but USB? Are you on crack? What do you think new keyboards connect with?
Bluetooth? Give me a break. bluetooth doesn't supplant usb it complements it. There are times I want a wireless keyboard... but most keyboards should be wired. A battery powered keyboard sitting on a desk communicating wirelessly with a computer 2 to 3 feet away is just idiotic.
Well, it's a little bit more complicated, but basically the vendors and not Microsoft.
Its divided. vendors support the hardware, and deal with the end users. But Microsoft still actually does -all- the OS support. You go to windows update, and get your patches direct from microsoft. OEMs rebrand the OS a bit, but Dell Windows 7 isn't really any different from Acer Windows 7.
With androids the situation is a bit different. The vendors are doing more than simply rebranding them, and the vendors are taking responsibility for pushing software updates in addition to hardware / customer support.
I see your argument vis a vis Microsoft Windows, but I think the android situation is markedly different.
I think the impact of fragmentation will get worse. The fact that you say "Its the manufacturers that decide" what Android is going to be like on their phones is rather telling!
Fair enough. But it -is- the handset manufacturers not android now who are responsible.
each vendor is responsible for supporting (modifying! etc) Android on their own. That's the very definition of fragmentation.
I'm not saying fragmentation isn't occurring. It has occurred. Because it has occurred its invalid to say that android has a problem updating its software, because its not androids problem.
Its Motorola's problem. Its HTC's problem. Its Samsung's problem. And its up to each of them individually how well they address it.
If a defect is found in webkit, we don't say 'webkit' has a problem due to fragmentation. Its simply up to Apple to update Safari, Google to update Chrome, etc.
And we certainly don't go around lauding Microsoft's Trident engine as a superior model, exclaiming that if a bug is found in Trident only Microsoft has to fix it, and everyone who relies on it can get the update via windows update and how much better that is.
What country are you in that requires people to sign a 3 year contract?
Canada.
(and you would have read/understood if you weren't clearly just a android fanboi)
While I have plenty of issues with Apple as a company, I actually went with a 32GB iPhone 3GS. The fanboi comments are a bit misplaced.
Some may be supported better, some may be able to be community supported, but you can bet a lot of handsets are going to be neglected not too long after release.
Yep. But its really a question of each manufacturer, and has very little to do with "Android".
That's my point, comparing iOS to Android is a false comparison. Compare Apple to Motorola to HTC to Samsung to LG to whatever. Its the manufacturer that decides what support is going to be like, not the platform.
From first hand experience: 3 year contract, or you buy the phone outright. 1 and 2 year contracts were not options.
How would that be different than what you are getting? You already have a few different app stores, including Verizon. Who is to say that in a few years the situation will not be exactly as you describe?
It will never get -THAT- bad. Some manufacturers will surely do some stupid things, but not all of them will.
Right, because the fact this vulnerability will take months to fix for 80% of Android users vs. something like it days to fix for 80% of iOS users, means nothing. Sure, you just keep saying that.
The point is that its a meaningless comparison. Motorola might have theirs fixed in days, or it might take them months or it might take them months or never to get around to it. HTC might have theirs fixed in days, or it might take them months or never to get around to it....or if the defect were with ios... Apple might fix theirs in days, or it might take them months or never to get around to it.
Your right that an android defect might take longer before all the 'other' manufacturers fix, but how is that relevant?
If you have brand-x it doesn't really matter what brand-y does, regardless of what platform the handset is.
If you have a Motorola all that matters is how long motorola does it. If you have an apple all that matters is how long apple takes...
Slashdot Mirror
Hi i'm Cydia, have we met?
Yes.
But I shouldn't have to go underground to deal with you. It shouldn't be contrary to my service contract and EULA to deal with you.
I'm glad you are out there, but I want you recognized as a completely legitimate option. In the same way that aftermarket auto parts are recognized by law as being legitimate options.
Juries and/or judges based on evidence of damage provided by the plaintiff.
Both those solutions are workarounds to an artificial limitation that shouldn't be there in the first place.
Accepting the limitation, and then working around it is not the solution. Removing the limitation is the solution.
You seem to be saying that it's not really a matter of whether there's a monopoly or not; your primary interest is in being able to buy whatever apps you want for your phone. At the same time you are not so interested in being able to buy whatever games you want for your game console.
More or less. Legally I think the two cases do fall under the same umbrella.
In practice, the solution with consoles is to buy which consoles provide you the games you want. Many of us buy more than one.
The same argument can be made with phones, but its not nearly as reasonable that people would need to buy and carry around multiple phones.
Every single smartphone platform gives you the freedom you seek. Except iPhone.
And Windows Phone 7.
Ummm...no.
Ummm... yes.
Damages should also be based on some sort of "punishment" factor.
Damages by definition really should be based on how much DAMAGE was caused.
A punitive fine in addition to damages may be appropriate though.
I would think it is important to prevent companies from simply writing off illegal activities and paying off some trivial amount of money in the even they get caught.
Even if the "activities" only caused trivial damage?
And then you buy a new computer when the mouse breaks. Our tax dollars at work.
When your contract is up, might I respectfully suggest that you consider shopping for your PHONE at another store?
That's right. Don't ever try and stand up for your rights. Just keep running around between 2 or 3 mega corporations that are all circling the same drain.
Do a little research and make sure one fits your needs before you buy it. "Shiny" should not be a primary selection criteria,
The one that meets my needs perfectly doesn't exist. I bought the closest fit.
and if it is, you've made your choice.
Oh I see. If I'm offered bad and worse. I should just take bad and shut up.
Suggesting and defending the idea that consumers might have rights over the products they purchase? That's just commie talk, right?
My complaint really isn't that apple is restricting me from buying an app from them. I'm actually fine with that. Its really that they are restricting me from buying apps from someone ELSE.
What happens to your Ford warranty if you have some non-Ford parts installed and they cause problems with other systems? My guess is that it would void your warranty for anything affected.
So what? I'm fine with that.
Of course, they have to actually SHOW that it caused problems with other systems. The fact alone that a non-ford brake pad is installed shouldn't automatically void the warranty on the tranmission. And even if the brakes fail, they need to SHOW that the brake pad was actually at fault. If the brakes fail due to a leak in the master cylander, its not the aftermarket brake pads fault.
Mobile app stores: BlackBerry App World, Google Android App Market, Nokia Ovi Store, Palm App Catalog, and Windows Marketplace for Mobile. Android App Market has over 30k apps and is growing rapidly.
And how is that relevant if I have an iphone?
Mobile operating systems: Blackberry, Android, Symbian, Palm, Windows Phone. By some measures Android has already overtaken iOS in marketshare.
Yep, there are several. But in practice I have to choose one. Am I supposed to carry around 5 phones just to exercise freedom over what apps I have? Legally that might work, but in practice its absurd.
This is why gaming consoles don't bother me, while phones do. I have no real issue buying a wii and an xbox; but I'm not going to carry around multiple phones.
Finally, it doesn't have a monopoly on mobile application app stores.
It controls the only app legitimate store that is compatible with ios.
"mobile application store" is a MEANINGLESS market classification. If one company bought up all the gas stations in the country, you couldn't claim they didn't have a monopoly because there was another company that sold rocket fuel. The fact that there are multiple companies that sell in the "fuel sales industry" is irrlevant. I can't put rocket fuel in my car.
When I go to a movie theater, I have to buy their popcorn and drinks (or hide my food in my wife's purse.)
You can't have a barbeque, build a lego roller coaster, play wii tennis, install a hottub or bring your pet turkey either.
But their right to exert these controls has everything to do with the fact that you are on their property.
Feel free to do all of these things at home.
They have chose to make something unavailable to me that they do not produce.
They aren't unavailable. You can go somewhere else and buy them. They just won't let you bring it onto their property. How is that applicable to an iphone which is MY property?
I shouldn't need to jailbreak my phone.
Putthing this up as an alternative to allow the vendor to do whatever it wants is just feeding yourself the rope to hang yourself with.
Sooner or later they will tighten the noose; and a device will be manufactured that you can't easily break, or they'll pass a law making it illegal to break. Probably both.
One needs to vocally resist their grabs for control, so that we don't HAVE to resort to going underground to exercise the freedom we should legitimately have.
The recent jailbreaking victory is hardly a conclusive win:
All the Copyright Office has said is they're not going to prosecute jailbreakers.
"Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. ? 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking."
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
And with "the next rulemaking", they may change their mind and start prosecuting people again.
And, as noted above, *nothing* in this policy says that Apple can't prosecute jailbreakers for violating their license agreement.
The only reason that wouldn't hold up in court is that people would say there are alternatives to owning an Iphone. I.e. android, blackberry, or windows phones.
Legally, yes. I agree.
However I find that argument unsatisfactory. I am not willing carry around 2 or 3 phones with multiple phone numbers, and multiple data plans as a solution to getting the apps I want, just to satisfy handset vendors artificial market control.
I agree that a legal analysis would point to this alternative as a justification to allow handset vendors to exert that level of control, but any rational person would find it an unsatisfactory solution to actually live with.
just like XBox, Wii, PS3.... et al.
You know what, that's really the FIRST valid counter argument I've seen.
While I personally own a Wii, and enjoy it. I do dislike the business model of control they exert there.
However, I find it less objectionable than the apple iphone app store for 2 key reasons:
First, the console system sits alongside the PC which is an open system. If Nintendo wants to prevent a publisher from selling game X, I can get it for the PC.
Secondly, product substitutibility. It is -reasonable- that I own a console and a PC. For me this is the big differentiator between consoles and phones.
Legally they might be equivalent, but in practice, its perfectly fine to own a console and PC. I am not going to walk around with an android and an iphone in my pocket, 2 phone numbers, 2 contracts so that I can get the apps I want. Its just plain stupid.
As I said, I concede that legally they might be equivalent, but in practice, they are worlds apart.
Should the government decide what products 7-11 sells?
Irrelevant.
Anyone can open a corner store and sell the same 3rd party items 7-11 sells. Anyone can buy the 3rd party items 7-11 sells from anywhere.
I can't shop for iphone apps elsewhere. I can even make iphone apps and sell them directly to consumers.
How about Best Buy? Should they be required by law to sell Sony laptops?
Irrelevant.
If I want a Sony laptop I can buy one from multiple places, including directly from sony.
I can't buy the "iSony app" except from Apple. I can't even even buy it directly from Sony.
As far as having 100% market share for iPhone apps, that is also a ridiculous statement. Sears has 100% market share for Craftsman products.
Not a valid comparison. Craftsman is Sears own product. Apple isn't making the apps in the app store. I have no issue that the Apple App store is the only place I can buy the Apple remote app. I have no issue that I can only buy apple computers from apple authorized dealers.
Why exactly do I need Apple authorization to buy non-Apple products?
Should they be forced to sell third party drill bits or extension cords for their Craftsman tools?
Of course not. But that's not the situation here. The question here is should Sears be allowed to prevent me from buying 3rd party drill bits or extension cords *somewhere else*?
And in related news ... Ford Cars use only Ford Engines and Parts ... unless you root it.
Sure if I go to the ford dealership I am sold ford approved parts.
But I don't have to buy parts at the ford dealership. And I don't need fords permission to install them.
And I don't have to do anything special to install non-ford parts.
And thus the problem with fragmentation. There's the potential for bad experiences with one vendor to sour the entire platform.
If there was a problem with webkit, we wouldn't buy it for a second if Microsoft tried to exploit the fact one vendor dropped the ball with updates to paint all the droids, and ios devices as a fragmented browser platform that was difficult to keep updated. Right?
Why do even entertain the notion that "Android fragmentation" is a "problem" in the first place? We should reject blaming Android fragmentation in the same way we (including Steve Jobs) would reject "Webkit fregamentation" as a problem.
I don't understand this analogy. Can I get a McDonald's analogy?
McDonalds isn't the sole source of anything but their own product. If you want a 3rd party product you don't have to deal with mcdonalds. If you want a coke, you can get it anywhere you like.
With an iphone, if you want a 3rd party add on, you have to go through apple. If you want the iCoke app, you have to get it from apple.
So if McDonalds decides that it doesn't want to sell coke any more nobody gives a shit. But if Apple decides not to host the iCoke app, then anyone who wants it for their iphone can't get it.
Now, McDonalds does have total control over the BigMac... but its their own product. So they have the right to decide to make it unavailable. Why exactly does apple have the right to make the iCoke app which they didn't make unavailable?
No one is trying to control what you see on your phone, that is your imagination running away with itself.
Yes. Apple is controlling what 3rd party software is on my phone. If you can't see that your heads stuck somewhere unpleasant.
Apple is choosing to offer or not offer a product through their own store.
And that would be fine if I were free to shop for apps at another store.
I don't see any justification at all for you to force them to do something they don't want to do.
I don't see any justification at all that I not be allowed to install what I want I my own phone. So if they are going to force themeselves into being the sole distribution point for 3rd party software for my phone, I'm going to exert as much pressure as I can on them to distrubte the software I want.
In effect, they started it. If I could get the apps they didn't want to host somewhere else, I wouldn't care that they don't host them.
Wouldn't a monopoly have... I dunno... a large market share?
100% big enough for you?
They are the sole marketplace for i-apps. You aren't allowed to create or use a different app store. And you need their approval to buy and sell your product in this one. If there were a few app stores consumers could use, nobody would blink at what apple decided to host in its store.
The ONLY reason apple's app bannings are news is because they assert 100% control over what 3rd party software consumers are allowed to purchase and put onto their own phones.
Really? Desperation? Is that what it is? And is that why we don't see more BK ads in McD's? Or Macy's promos at Marshall's? **rolls eyes**
Or ads for satellite TV on your cable TV service... oh wait. We do see those, all the time. **rolls eyes**.
TF is that you can use any bluetooth keyboard with it. Not Apple's fault that you are using an ancient keyboard.
Ancient? Since when are usb keyboards ancient? PS2 keyboards sure. ADB keyboards absolutely, but USB? Are you on crack? What do you think new keyboards connect with?
Bluetooth? Give me a break. bluetooth doesn't supplant usb it complements it. There are times I want a wireless keyboard... but most keyboards should be wired. A battery powered keyboard sitting on a desk communicating wirelessly with a computer 2 to 3 feet away is just idiotic.
And 3-year contracts are really common in Canada? I had never heard this before...
Yes. Very common. Usually you can take any of a 1 year 2 year or 3 year contract, but with iphone's it was 3-year only.
But even then the pricing structure is typically heavily skewed to induce the consumer into 3 year contracts. Here's an example from Telus:
529.99 - no contract
479.99 - 1 year
429.99 - 2 year
149.99 - 3 year
That's still pretty messed up.
http://www.telusmobility.com/en/BC/samsung_fascinate/index.shtml
Well, it's a little bit more complicated, but basically the vendors and not Microsoft.
Its divided. vendors support the hardware, and deal with the end users. But Microsoft still actually does -all- the OS support. You go to windows update, and get your patches direct from microsoft. OEMs rebrand the OS a bit, but Dell Windows 7 isn't really any different from Acer Windows 7.
With androids the situation is a bit different. The vendors are doing more than simply rebranding them, and the vendors are taking responsibility for pushing software updates in addition to hardware / customer support.
I see your argument vis a vis Microsoft Windows, but I think the android situation is markedly different.
I think the impact of fragmentation will get worse. The fact that you say "Its the manufacturers that decide" what Android is going to be like on their phones is rather telling!
Fair enough. But it -is- the handset manufacturers not android now who are responsible.
each vendor is responsible for supporting (modifying! etc) Android on their own. That's the very definition of fragmentation.
I'm not saying fragmentation isn't occurring. It has occurred. Because it has occurred its invalid to say that android has a problem updating its software, because its not androids problem.
Its Motorola's problem. Its HTC's problem. Its Samsung's problem. And its up to each of them individually how well they address it.
If a defect is found in webkit, we don't say 'webkit' has a problem due to fragmentation. Its simply up to Apple to update Safari, Google to update Chrome, etc.
And we certainly don't go around lauding Microsoft's Trident engine as a superior model, exclaiming that if a bug is found in Trident only Microsoft has to fix it, and everyone who relies on it can get the update via windows update and how much better that is.
What country are you in that requires people to sign a 3 year contract?
Canada.
(and you would have read/understood if you weren't clearly just a android fanboi)
While I have plenty of issues with Apple as a company, I actually went with a 32GB iPhone 3GS. The fanboi comments are a bit misplaced.
Some may be supported better, some may be able to be community supported, but you can bet a lot of handsets are going to be neglected not too long after release.
Yep. But its really a question of each manufacturer, and has very little to do with "Android".
That's my point, comparing iOS to Android is a false comparison. Compare Apple to Motorola to HTC to Samsung to LG to whatever. Its the manufacturer that decides what support is going to be like, not the platform.
No iPhone has ever had more than a two-year contract.
"Fido, Rogers to offer iPhone with 3-year contracts"
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/06/12/fido-iphone.html
From first hand experience:
3 year contract, or you buy the phone outright.
1 and 2 year contracts were not options.
How would that be different than what you are getting? You already have a few different app stores, including Verizon. Who is to say that in a few years the situation will not be exactly as you describe?
It will never get -THAT- bad. Some manufacturers will surely do some stupid things, but not all of them will.
Right, because the fact this vulnerability will take months to fix for 80% of Android users vs. something like it days to fix for 80% of iOS users, means nothing. Sure, you just keep saying that.
The point is that its a meaningless comparison. ...or if the defect were with ios...
Motorola might have theirs fixed in days, or it might take them months or it might take them months or never to get around to it.
HTC might have theirs fixed in days, or it might take them months or never to get around to it.
Apple might fix theirs in days, or it might take them months or never to get around to it.
Your right that an android defect might take longer before all the 'other' manufacturers fix, but how is that relevant?
If you have brand-x it doesn't really matter what brand-y does, regardless of what platform the handset is.
If you have a Motorola all that matters is how long motorola does it. If you have an apple all that matters is how long apple takes...