For example, how often do you see the assumption here that having a more open platform automatically means it's going to be a less slick user experience?
I think that stems from the fact that most people who are interested in things being open, are much, much less concerned with the UI. They don't really care about things being easy to use, as long as they can do what they want with it.
Point one out. And remember, he bought it outright, off contract. Find an Android device with comparable specs, available contract free, for half the money.
Some company's going to do the right thing and that's the phone you buy
Possibly. There's no guarantee that this will happen. The companies will do what's profitable to them. It isn't clear if making an open device for geeks is profitable yet.
There is power in being a consumer, and it's astounding that people have been so diddled by advertisement and marketing voodoo that they won't even consider using that power to get what they want.
There's only power in it if you are part of the target market. If you aren't, then the companies really don't care.
Not really. The only way to make it more secure would be to also prompt when the app actually attempts to use the permission. Although that could get annoying kinda fast. The other thing might be for the app developers to actually have to list why they need the permission in question. Why do you need access to my phone calls? I'm sure most spam apps might just make something up, but if they are doing something other than what they say, it should be easier to catch them.
With a press of the Android back button, you don't know if it is going to take you back a webpage, if it is going to switch an app, or if it is going to switch to another screen on the same app. When it is there, the back button on the iPhone will always do the same thing: Take you back a screen in the app.
You ignore the fact that the Market is the #1 place to get apps, and the only place where most users are going to look.
Given that Apple can do this, and Google is just as large a company, the fact that they haven't been able to do this is nothing but pure failure on Google's part. There is no excuse for it.
And I never said it caused a walled garden. You said that the Marketplace was open to any/all developers. I showed how this was false.
Not if you have any inclination of marketing it commercially. The thousands mentioned in the article is for the license to be able to develop something for the dock connector.
The back button on Android isn't consistent in what it does. It varies from App to App, and can switch you between apps. A back button on an iPhone app is going to be consistent in what it does.
Wow, you are incredibly wrong. The Android Marketplace is only open to those who reside in a country that Google has blessed with the privilege of selling apps. Only a handful of countries in the world can do this. Really something that Google has dropped the ball on, compared to Apple.
Actually, for the vast majority of Android devices, save for a couple on AT&T, you do NOT have to do anything remotely like jailbreaking to install apps from outside the Market. There's a checkbox in the settings, where you say "I want to install applications from non-market sources." That's it. Doesn't void a warranty or anything.
You're not a very good student of form. Nokia is the market leader virtually everywhere except the USA and Japan. And that's been true for more than a decade. The world is a lot bigger than just the USA and Europe.
At the same time, it sounds like the poster is in the US, which is where his statement applies. And to someone in the US, it doesn't matter if Nokia has the highest smartphone marketshare in the rest of the world. We want to know what they can do for us, in America. And as it turns out, not much.
It sure will affect you. The Nexus phones aren't going to be the ones targeted first; developers are going to target the least common denominator when they go to start their app; that way they can get it on the most devices. Developer features unveiled in 2.3 aren't going to see common use for another year or so, when phones start shipping with it installed. As of recently, 2.0 is the ideal target, as the biggest share of Android phones in use currently are 2.0 or above.
Slashdot Mirror
No, shut up with your retarded "Wake up, Sheeple!" rants.
The dispute is that they are charging the carriers for updates to Android 2.2 on their phones.
I'm lost as to why anyone would stick with the stock ROM -- the AOSP ROMs are much more functional and user-friendly.
To you, perhaps. Some people actually like TouchWiz, or the other eye candy that manufacturers place on their phones.
For example, how often do you see the assumption here that having a more open platform automatically means it's going to be a less slick user experience?
I think that stems from the fact that most people who are interested in things being open, are much, much less concerned with the UI. They don't really care about things being easy to use, as long as they can do what they want with it.
Point one out. And remember, he bought it outright, off contract. Find an Android device with comparable specs, available contract free, for half the money.
PopeRatzo said that every one of your tastes is the product of marketing. As in, you had no choice, you were just a sponge.
Yeah, you just lost any and all credibility with that post. You went from trying to be a consumer advocate to a tinfoil hat wearing wacko.
They'd only be smiling if they could actually get their smartphones in the US Carrier's stores.
Some company's going to do the right thing and that's the phone you buy
Possibly. There's no guarantee that this will happen. The companies will do what's profitable to them. It isn't clear if making an open device for geeks is profitable yet.
There is power in being a consumer, and it's astounding that people have been so diddled by advertisement and marketing voodoo that they won't even consider using that power to get what they want.
There's only power in it if you are part of the target market. If you aren't, then the companies really don't care.
Not really. The only way to make it more secure would be to also prompt when the app actually attempts to use the permission. Although that could get annoying kinda fast. The other thing might be for the app developers to actually have to list why they need the permission in question. Why do you need access to my phone calls? I'm sure most spam apps might just make something up, but if they are doing something other than what they say, it should be easier to catch them.
So, there's no real solution then.
With a press of the Android back button, you don't know if it is going to take you back a webpage, if it is going to switch an app, or if it is going to switch to another screen on the same app. When it is there, the back button on the iPhone will always do the same thing: Take you back a screen in the app.
You ignore the fact that the Market is the #1 place to get apps, and the only place where most users are going to look.
Given that Apple can do this, and Google is just as large a company, the fact that they haven't been able to do this is nothing but pure failure on Google's part. There is no excuse for it.
And I never said it caused a walled garden. You said that the Marketplace was open to any/all developers. I showed how this was false.
And those that are in, say, South Dakota, where T-Mobile doesn't have a presence?
Not if you have any inclination of marketing it commercially. The thousands mentioned in the article is for the license to be able to develop something for the dock connector.
Because the market for iPhone/iPod accessories is much higher than the market for Android accessories.
The back button on Android isn't consistent in what it does. It varies from App to App, and can switch you between apps. A back button on an iPhone app is going to be consistent in what it does.
Wow, you are incredibly wrong. The Android Marketplace is only open to those who reside in a country that Google has blessed with the privilege of selling apps. Only a handful of countries in the world can do this. Really something that Google has dropped the ball on, compared to Apple.
Actually, for the vast majority of Android devices, save for a couple on AT&T, you do NOT have to do anything remotely like jailbreaking to install apps from outside the Market. There's a checkbox in the settings, where you say "I want to install applications from non-market sources." That's it. Doesn't void a warranty or anything.
No, but much like the iPhone up until recently, you were stuck with one carrier.
Yeah, last I saw, those were only available on T-Mobile. What's someone who's stuck on say, Verizon supposed to do?
You're just going to avoid Motorola Android phones. How many people out there with the same experience are just going to avoid ALL Android phones?
Except a lot of us were sold phones on the idea of upgradability. Meaning that receiving upgrades for it was deemed a feature, and one that we wanted.
You're not a very good student of form. Nokia is the market leader virtually everywhere except the USA and Japan. And that's been true for more than a decade.
The world is a lot bigger than just the USA and Europe.
At the same time, it sounds like the poster is in the US, which is where his statement applies. And to someone in the US, it doesn't matter if Nokia has the highest smartphone marketshare in the rest of the world. We want to know what they can do for us, in America. And as it turns out, not much.
It sure will affect you. The Nexus phones aren't going to be the ones targeted first; developers are going to target the least common denominator when they go to start their app; that way they can get it on the most devices. Developer features unveiled in 2.3 aren't going to see common use for another year or so, when phones start shipping with it installed. As of recently, 2.0 is the ideal target, as the biggest share of Android phones in use currently are 2.0 or above.