No they're not. They use the same development tools, language, and base APIs. The UI toolkits are different, out of necessity, and iOS is missing many of OS X's frameworks, but the two platforms are very similar.
Every development language and its respective environment uses the same basic stuff. That's like saying because you know C, the development is the same for XBox as it is MacOS X. It's just plain wrong. They are not similar, and not similar devices. They may share some common libraries, etc., but programming for one isn't like the other.
Wrong again. iOS is essentially a stripped down OS X with a new UI: iPhone4:~ mobile$ uname -a Darwin Take-2 10.3.1 Darwin Kernel Version 10.3.1: Wed May 26 22:28:33 PDT 2010; root:xnu-1504.50.73~2/RELEASE_ARM_S5L8930X iPhone3,1 arm N90AP Darwin
Please. Other slashdotters may be in the dark, but I see through it. Spouting out a uname command to make it appear valid doesn't prove your point. If you were correct, that means I can run the full OSX environment on my PC. But I can't.
Gotta call you out on this one. And for someone with such a low UID, you should be ashamed of yourself for posting such FUD.
If you know C, then iOS, which is C. Android is Java. With Xcode you can make apps for iPhone, iPod, iPad, Mac, and potentially AppleTV. They are desktop class native apps, not applets that run in a virtual machine.
Just no. The two are not the same. IPhone, IPod, and IPad are the same. Development is not the same for the Mac. They are totally different. And don't even put Apple TV in. Don't make things up to bolster your argument. It doesn't do anything but stream your library.
It is also cheaper to develop for iOS, because you can buy an iPod touch for $229 with no contract and have the latest handheld hardware. That combined with the simulators in the dev tools is all you need because there is little hardware variation. The SoC in the iPod touch is also in iPhone, iPad, and AppleTV. With Android, you are talking about $500 devices and you'll need a few of them at least.
Cheaper?
1) Android doesn't require you to have a Mac ($800 for the cheapest Mac Mini 4GB RAM option) or even a device to test it on! In what world is $800 cheaper than free???
2) Android doesn't require paying a recurring fee of $79, versus Android's no fee or $25 *one time* fee to put it on the Market. And again, don't make stuff up in regards to Apple TV.
What the poster really should do is spend the time not on platform choice, but on identifying his actual audience and then thinking of a solution, not app, for that audience. For example, his target is K-12 schools. They pay out the noise for anything and don't give it a second thought. Maybe he would be better of developing an HTML version of his app, which is platform agnostic, and integrating a subscription feature for payment? That would generate more money than ANY app ever would. Recurring revenues with no cut to Apple.
Business plans and marketing strategies exist for a reason buddy.
Android's Dalvik engine is also under a patent suit from Oracle, and HTC is under a patent suit from Apple. On the Apple side you are working with an app platform with 20 year heritage back to NeXT and hardware platform with 10 year heritage back to iPod and 20 years back to Newton. It wasn't just cloned yesterday.
Please. OS X Snow Leopard has absolutely nothing to do with iOS. They are two totally different entities. That's the same BS like that recent ad with Saabs where they compare their car to jet engineered airplanes. Saab today has absolutely no tie with the airplane company 70 years ago.
Every company has patent lawsuits against them. It's common practice. The only reason Apple is safe is because everyone knows how litigious they are. They'll sue you for sneezing the wrong way. It just doesn't make ROI sense to sue a company that devotes a quarter of it's time suing people, because they might actually win.
Ever think that the costs are not only costs in savings, but in headaches, frustration, and TIME? See, there is such a thing that exists called "licenses", which takes time to be purchased. Then there is the effort and time associated with organizing a successful price in a deal with the company that provides them. Then there is time and headache issue of tracking those licenses. Then there is the time and frustration involving of making sure the licenses are renewed. Now hey! I have an idea. What if I can remove this entire process from the business? Forget money, there is a lot of time and effort and frustration involved. I can just have my sys admin download a distro, make a custom image, and replicate it over hundreds/thousands of computers without dealing with any of the above (of course there is more involved, but I'm making it simple for you because I don't think you can handle it).
Yes, for proprietary setups and other things, yes MS delivers. But if you actually read what I wrote in other posts, as I said, for a typical information worker/office worker, who only needs an office suite, e-mail client, web browser, and maybe a few other things, it's a great solution.
As to your other response, you have no idea as to the extent of my success as a boss. Or my extent as to the success of my company. I would never say "screw you, use Linux or be fired." But in the past I realized very quickly people complain and nitpick over absolutely every little thing (as you have so appropriately demonstrated). A good leader's position is to focus the company and to filter out extraneous, non-important minutia and noise--and not let whiners, like you, slow the success of the company down.
Well I appreciate your well thought out, intelligent, and polite response (unlike others I have gotten here).
As a disclaimer, I have been the boss and have had my own company.
Now, you make a lot of valid points. And your post should not have been modded Flamebait. But what you're missing is that I'm not talking about a specific niche of Linux's advanced features, such as needing to to set up something very technical, like a LAMP stack or an LDAP setup, etc. I was speaking in regards to the typical "information worker"/office worker. In their situation, all one needs is pretty much an office suite, e-mail, a web browser, and a few applications here and there. They don't need anything else. Linux is in fact *perfect* for this. There is no need for an office worker to configure sound drivers, play games, recompile the kernel, configure NDISWrapper, or set up BIND.
And in regards to the complicated and very technical stuff, you need specialized IT professionals either way. Would you trust your entire network to the average run-of-the-mill MCSE? I would hope not. I'd want that experienced professional who could competently administer an entire Linux migration.
I don't disagree with you, to a point. I've used Linux for about 16 years. And after all this time, I've realized that for *home* use, Windows can't be beat. You need drivers, binaries with a simple install to just work, ad nauseum that/. has talked about over and over, etc.
However, for OFFICE use, where all a user needs to utilize is a web browser, an office suite, e-mail, and whatever program or two necessary, it's actually a great solution.
And in regards to the developers viewpoint, I agree with you. However, we're talking about an office environment, where it's YOUR responsibility to learn how to use "file > print."
So many haters to the point I made. Wow. Anyways, let's address your nasty response in kind:
Did you read the part about 80% of the users *satisfied* with the transition? Did you read the part about how the reason this all occurred was NOT because of Linux, but because whomever was incompetent took almost a decade to complete it. This EXACT same thing would have occurred if one replaced "Linux" with "Windows" in "Linux transition?"
And to also respond in kind-- If you married a Nag and a woman who wants to blow all your money, you shouldn't have married a gold-digger or a woman with no fiscal responsibility. It's not good for your children or you.
As I said elsewhere on thread, actually I was. So there goes that.
But to reply to your snarky comment as well--actually your not worth my time. See my point in another reply where Linux actually is a wonderful fit for office, NOT home use.
Thankfully I have owned my own. And thank you for the snarky comment. So I'll respond in turn:
I don't disagree with you that Linux for the home user isn't appropriate. But if any place Linux is useful, it's in the office environment. At home you need connectivity to your MP3 player, need audio drivers, etc. But at work? Most employees only need a web browser, office suite, and whatever program or two of their choice.
So in the *real world* buddy, Linux for alot of purposes can be, if a business chooses, can be an incredibly good fit.
And as a side note, in the *real world*, there is a lot of talent out there. And for every person who can't figure out how to choose file > print who is talented, there is another who is. Ask yourself, would you want someone who couldn't figure that out?
These companies and its bosses have to grow some. If I was a boss, or it was my own company, I'd implement Linux. Period. If people complained, they can get either accept it or get the hell out.
I'm not talking about serious stuff, but for basic office purposes, if you really can't figure out it out, I wouldn't want that person as an employee.
This isn't 1995 anymore. Everyone 45 and younger now has significant proficiency in computing skills, compared to users past.
Google's mobile version of GV is so elegant I'd rather use it. This app however does 1 thing the web app can't: using your GV phone device & not only your cell.
The only way I've found to work around this is load the desktop version on Safari via the older interface, & initiate the call that way.
As I posted elsewhere here (but modded down into oblivion because fanboys will be fanboys), all I have to say is thanks Apple.
All because you wanted to be greedy. Fanboys kept saying it was because of "the superior experience," but it really was so that Apple got a cut from one buying 30 Rock from ITunes instead of being able to stream it from Hulu via flash.
So instead of being able to use Flashblock to block malware and only view video when we chose (and not having multiple video ads/misc bogging down our system), we're screwed. We have no recourse.
I saw this coming a mile away the second Apple fanboys began defending Apple's position.
You have a 5-digit UID and you're still calling it Wonhoze?:)
Anyway, I have a different take on it than you. The developer just wanted a mature, visually appealing, and featureful library to make his/her life easier. And this is GNU stuff here. So even though it may not match easthetically (say if you use E17/Sawmill/FVWM/etc.), anyone can download the Gnome library and use (and display) the application anyways.
I remember those days. I miss them. I remember how XiG was so much faster. But most of all I loved the easy, GUI setup. I used to hate using, what was it, xg86cfg or whatever? Can't even remember. And then setting my monitor's horizontal and vertical values or whatever it was.
I loved just having Bash at my disposal and exploring the system through a CLI. So much fun. Now everything lacks the mystery and exploration aspect that computers used to have.
How about connecting it to a monitor when you feel like for easier viewing? After all, it is a real general purpose computer. The only reason one can't use it as such is because of the limitations placed upon it.
Defeats the purpose? Oh, I dunno, why would one want to not have to buy *another* device to hook up to a TV when the tablet in front of him should be good enough. Why wouldn't someone want to use it on their lap, and then when they want a bigger screen, connect it? And frankly, you pay enough for it, it should deliver without having to buy *another* device.
Amen. You hit the nail on the head. I prefer the openness.
I'm just annoyed with IPad. It's still a device that lacks so many features and has apps that lack so many features. Example: Google Voice. Amazing application. So useful, and useful for smartphones/portable devices. But Google had to develop a web-based app because of Apple's constant BS. And as for native features, why must Apple's youtube app display shitty quality over 3G. Totally inferior and retarded. And funny enough, Google made Youtube a web app and doesn't suffer from these problems.
Really? Had no idea. I must check it out--that's pretty incredible. I just remember reading about this particular app the other day, because I thought one could only pipe audio/video out to other displays normally on Android. My point was at least the Galaxy had the feature, unlike some "other" competitor.
Slashdot Mirror
No they're not. They use the same development tools, language, and base APIs. The UI toolkits are different, out of necessity, and iOS is missing many of OS X's frameworks, but the two platforms are very similar.
Every development language and its respective environment uses the same basic stuff. That's like saying because you know C, the development is the same for XBox as it is MacOS X. It's just plain wrong. They are not similar, and not similar devices. They may share some common libraries, etc., but programming for one isn't like the other.
Wrong again. iOS is essentially a stripped down OS X with a new UI:
iPhone4:~ mobile$ uname -a
Darwin Take-2 10.3.1 Darwin Kernel Version 10.3.1: Wed May 26 22:28:33 PDT 2010; root:xnu-1504.50.73~2/RELEASE_ARM_S5L8930X iPhone3,1 arm N90AP Darwin
Please. Other slashdotters may be in the dark, but I see through it. Spouting out a uname command to make it appear valid doesn't prove your point. If you were correct, that means I can run the full OSX environment on my PC. But I can't.
Try again.
Gotta call you out on this one. And for someone with such a low UID, you should be ashamed of yourself for posting such FUD.
If you know C, then iOS, which is C. Android is Java. With Xcode you can make apps for iPhone, iPod, iPad, Mac, and potentially AppleTV. They are desktop class native apps, not applets that run in a virtual machine.
Just no. The two are not the same. IPhone, IPod, and IPad are the same. Development is not the same for the Mac. They are totally different. And don't even put Apple TV in. Don't make things up to bolster your argument. It doesn't do anything but stream your library.
It is also cheaper to develop for iOS, because you can buy an iPod touch for $229 with no contract and have the latest handheld hardware. That combined with the simulators in the dev tools is all you need because there is little hardware variation. The SoC in the iPod touch is also in iPhone, iPad, and AppleTV. With Android, you are talking about $500 devices and you'll need a few of them at least.
Cheaper?
1) Android doesn't require you to have a Mac ($800 for the cheapest Mac Mini 4GB RAM option) or even a device to test it on! In what world is $800 cheaper than free???
2) Android doesn't require paying a recurring fee of $79, versus Android's no fee or $25 *one time* fee to put it on the Market. And again, don't make stuff up in regards to Apple TV.
What the poster really should do is spend the time not on platform choice, but on identifying his actual audience and then thinking of a solution, not app, for that audience. For example, his target is K-12 schools. They pay out the noise for anything and don't give it a second thought. Maybe he would be better of developing an HTML version of his app, which is platform agnostic, and integrating a subscription feature for payment? That would generate more money than ANY app ever would. Recurring revenues with no cut to Apple.
Business plans and marketing strategies exist for a reason buddy.
Android's Dalvik engine is also under a patent suit from Oracle, and HTC is under a patent suit from Apple. On the Apple side you are working with an app platform with 20 year heritage back to NeXT and hardware platform with 10 year heritage back to iPod and 20 years back to Newton. It wasn't just cloned yesterday.
Please. OS X Snow Leopard has absolutely nothing to do with iOS. They are two totally different entities. That's the same BS like that recent ad with Saabs where they compare their car to jet engineered airplanes. Saab today has absolutely no tie with the airplane company 70 years ago.
Every company has patent lawsuits against them. It's common practice. The only reason Apple is safe is because everyone knows how litigious they are. They'll sue you for sneezing the wrong way. It just doesn't make ROI sense to sue a company that devotes a quarter of it's time suing people, because they might actually win.
Maybe you forgot a little bit of history. Apple DID fail.
The only reason they didn't go bankrupt and go *poof* is because MS bailed them out.
Okay--let's play.
Ever think that the costs are not only costs in savings, but in headaches, frustration, and TIME? See, there is such a thing that exists called "licenses", which takes time to be purchased. Then there is the effort and time associated with organizing a successful price in a deal with the company that provides them. Then there is time and headache issue of tracking those licenses. Then there is the time and frustration involving of making sure the licenses are renewed. Now hey! I have an idea. What if I can remove this entire process from the business? Forget money, there is a lot of time and effort and frustration involved. I can just have my sys admin download a distro, make a custom image, and replicate it over hundreds/thousands of computers without dealing with any of the above (of course there is more involved, but I'm making it simple for you because I don't think you can handle it).
Yes, for proprietary setups and other things, yes MS delivers. But if you actually read what I wrote in other posts, as I said, for a typical information worker/office worker, who only needs an office suite, e-mail client, web browser, and maybe a few other things, it's a great solution.
As to your other response, you have no idea as to the extent of my success as a boss. Or my extent as to the success of my company. I would never say "screw you, use Linux or be fired." But in the past I realized very quickly people complain and nitpick over absolutely every little thing (as you have so appropriately demonstrated). A good leader's position is to focus the company and to filter out extraneous, non-important minutia and noise--and not let whiners, like you, slow the success of the company down.
Well I appreciate your well thought out, intelligent, and polite response (unlike others I have gotten here).
As a disclaimer, I have been the boss and have had my own company.
Now, you make a lot of valid points. And your post should not have been modded Flamebait. But what you're missing is that I'm not talking about a specific niche of Linux's advanced features, such as needing to to set up something very technical, like a LAMP stack or an LDAP setup, etc. I was speaking in regards to the typical "information worker"/office worker. In their situation, all one needs is pretty much an office suite, e-mail, a web browser, and a few applications here and there. They don't need anything else. Linux is in fact *perfect* for this. There is no need for an office worker to configure sound drivers, play games, recompile the kernel, configure NDISWrapper, or set up BIND.
And in regards to the complicated and very technical stuff, you need specialized IT professionals either way. Would you trust your entire network to the average run-of-the-mill MCSE? I would hope not. I'd want that experienced professional who could competently administer an entire Linux migration.
I don't disagree with you, to a point. I've used Linux for about 16 years. And after all this time, I've realized that for *home* use, Windows can't be beat. You need drivers, binaries with a simple install to just work, ad nauseum that /. has talked about over and over, etc.
However, for OFFICE use, where all a user needs to utilize is a web browser, an office suite, e-mail, and whatever program or two necessary, it's actually a great solution.
And in regards to the developers viewpoint, I agree with you. However, we're talking about an office environment, where it's YOUR responsibility to learn how to use "file > print."
So many haters to the point I made. Wow. Anyways, let's address your nasty response in kind:
Did you read the part about 80% of the users *satisfied* with the transition?
Did you read the part about how the reason this all occurred was NOT because of Linux, but because whomever was incompetent took almost a decade to complete it. This EXACT same thing would have occurred if one replaced "Linux" with "Windows" in "Linux transition?"
And to also respond in kind--
If you married a Nag and a woman who wants to blow all your money, you shouldn't have married a gold-digger or a woman with no fiscal responsibility. It's not good for your children or you.
As I said elsewhere on thread, actually I was. So there goes that.
But to reply to your snarky comment as well--actually your not worth my time. See my point in another reply where Linux actually is a wonderful fit for office, NOT home use.
Or that Facebook and Google actually *are the internet.* :-)
Thankfully I have owned my own. And thank you for the snarky comment. So I'll respond in turn:
I don't disagree with you that Linux for the home user isn't appropriate. But if any place Linux is useful, it's in the office environment. At home you need connectivity to your MP3 player, need audio drivers, etc. But at work? Most employees only need a web browser, office suite, and whatever program or two of their choice.
So in the *real world* buddy, Linux for alot of purposes can be, if a business chooses, can be an incredibly good fit.
And as a side note, in the *real world*, there is a lot of talent out there. And for every person who can't figure out how to choose file > print who is talented, there is another who is. Ask yourself, would you want someone who couldn't figure that out?
I have to say, that's pretty disappointing.
These companies and its bosses have to grow some. If I was a boss, or it was my own company, I'd implement Linux. Period. If people complained, they can get either accept it or get the hell out.
I'm not talking about serious stuff, but for basic office purposes, if you really can't figure out it out, I wouldn't want that person as an employee.
This isn't 1995 anymore. Everyone 45 and younger now has significant proficiency in computing skills, compared to users past.
Seriously, just stop. Don't start a flamewar yet again, fanboy.
How the hell did this get modded up???
If you didn't want a flame war, why did you then start one? Your reply had absolutely nothing to do with the parent post.
Are you sure you want push notifications? The way the IPhone interrupts you, lately the less notifications I get, the better. :)
Google's mobile version of GV is so elegant I'd rather use it. This app however does 1 thing the web app can't: using your GV phone device & not only your cell.
The only way I've found to work around this is load the desktop version on Safari via the older interface, & initiate the call that way.
No there won't. Flash was a singular fixed object. HTML5 is an entire markup.
Let me know how easy it is to block every and on each page. Let me know how that works out for ya
You are spot on.
As I posted elsewhere here (but modded down into oblivion because fanboys will be fanboys), all I have to say is thanks Apple.
All because you wanted to be greedy. Fanboys kept saying it was because of "the superior experience," but it really was so that Apple got a cut from one buying 30 Rock from ITunes instead of being able to stream it from Hulu via flash.
So instead of being able to use Flashblock to block malware and only view video when we chose (and not having multiple video ads/misc bogging down our system), we're screwed. We have no recourse.
I saw this coming a mile away the second Apple fanboys began defending Apple's position.
Pardon me, I meant flashblock
Thanks Apple.
All because you wanted to be greedy and only let media be delivered through you, instead of other websites being able to deliver it.
So instead of being able to use adblock, to block malware and only view video when we chose, we're screwed. We have no recourse.
I saw this coming a mile away the second Apple fanboys began defending Apple's position.
You have a 5-digit UID and you're still calling it Wonhoze? :)
Anyway, I have a different take on it than you. The developer just wanted a mature, visually appealing, and featureful library to make his/her life easier. And this is GNU stuff here. So even though it may not match easthetically (say if you use E17/Sawmill/FVWM/etc.), anyone can download the Gnome library and use (and display) the application anyways.
Whats wrong with that?
I remember those days. I miss them. I remember how XiG was so much faster. But most of all I loved the easy, GUI setup. I used to hate using, what was it, xg86cfg or whatever? Can't even remember. And then setting my monitor's horizontal and vertical values or whatever it was.
I loved just having Bash at my disposal and exploring the system through a CLI. So much fun. Now everything lacks the mystery and exploration aspect that computers used to have.
How about connecting it to a monitor when you feel like for easier viewing? After all, it is a real general purpose computer. The only reason one can't use it as such is because of the limitations placed upon it.
Defeats the purpose? Oh, I dunno, why would one want to not have to buy *another* device to hook up to a TV when the tablet in front of him should be good enough. Why wouldn't someone want to use it on their lap, and then when they want a bigger screen, connect it? And frankly, you pay enough for it, it should deliver without having to buy *another* device.
Amen. You hit the nail on the head. I prefer the openness.
I'm just annoyed with IPad. It's still a device that lacks so many features and has apps that lack so many features. Example: Google Voice. Amazing application. So useful, and useful for smartphones/portable devices. But Google had to develop a web-based app because of Apple's constant BS. And as for native features, why must Apple's youtube app display shitty quality over 3G. Totally inferior and retarded. And funny enough, Google made Youtube a web app and doesn't suffer from these problems.
Really? Had no idea. I must check it out--that's pretty incredible. I just remember reading about this particular app the other day, because I thought one could only pipe audio/video out to other displays normally on Android. My point was at least the Galaxy had the feature, unlike some "other" competitor.
Why the hell is my post modded as troll? It's actually true. Wow, Linux fanboys still exist on here. I thought they died out back in the late '90s.
I thought only Apple fanboys were left on /.