To Beat Apple.

[Darkseider]

Does it really matter if Android surpasses the Iphone? All I care about is the phone I have in my hand and not what another company is doing. Everyone has a preference and swears what they have is the best. In the end both companies push each other to come out with bigger and better products. As long as you're happy with what you have, that's all that matters.

Actually yes, from a freedom of use standpoint. If the iPhone were to remain unchallenged everything from the hardware to the apps would be locked down/censored. Not for nothing but after I purchase a device it is MINE to do with as I please. Also who the hell is Apple/Steve Jobs to tell me what I can or cannot get from the App store? No one person or company should dictate their morality to the masses.

Unfortunately iCultists see Uncle Steve as their messiah and will blindly agree and follow him. That doesn't sit well with me. Anyone willing to give up choice and willingly submit themselves to that type of censorship is disturbing. The best way to describe iCultists are the AOL users of this generation. This is why Android has to surpass the iPhone.

Sorry, I don't see it. What I do see is just as much fanatic fanboyism for the Android platform as for the iPhone platform.

No one is arguing that the iPhone should remain "unchallenged." Far from it. But that doesn't mean the Android platform should "win," whatever the h**l that means.

People purchase iPhones and other Apple products for many reasons. And along with the "censorship" imposed in the iTunes store comes a level of quality control that is completely absent in the Google Market. And what range of choices do iPhone owners sacrifice? They have two to three times the number of apps available to Android users covering a much broader range of categories.

As a consumer, I'm happy to see the dominance of Apple's iPhone platform challenged by a different approach. I don't kid myself, however, that this is some sort of moral crusade on the part of Google or that the choice of an Android device implies some sort of moral superiority. Google's strategy is simply the only viable alternative they have. Without the dedicated customer base that Apple enjoys, an open source platform is the most promising approach for Google.

Those who evaluate multinational corporations in terms of their relative ethical standards are engaged in religious arguments.

Not true. It is strictly an ethical argument, no more no less. No one should be able to censor or limit my use of my property. People have grown far too complacent in this regard and believe that others know what's best for them. Whether it be a religion, government or in this case a corporation. By willingly submitting to this type of treatment just reinforces and expands this type of treatment throughout all segments of society and not just "Apple's walled garden".

If you need further proof look at what's happening. FDA wants to limit salt in products. NY has a tax on sugared sodas, cannot cook with REAL oil need to use that low fat crap, the whole smoking ban. Seriously? Parents getting fined for kids being overweight? I mean come on. This is what it leads to and will continue to advance. If you submit and give in that little bit it sets a precedent, regardless of what part of your life it is, and more is taken away or controlled. Sorry I disagree. This is strictly an ethical and moral argument.

 

[Romple]

Relax.

Apple's on the same road they were on in the 80s. They had an early lead in the budding PC industry, but Windows overtook them due to its open structure and easy of cloning. Manufacturers could put it it on any system. IBM pushed this the most and Apple slumped down into its single digit market share it still has.

Fast forward to smart phones. Apple takes an early lead in the consumer smartphone industry, and along comes an open system like Android that's easily cloned and able to be put on any form factor. Companies like HTC are obviously wholly embracing it. Sound familiar? On top of that there's the Windows refresh coming and BlackBerry which will remain a strong contender, even if they are getting dated.

Apple's not taking over the world.

 

[bigaudiofanatic]

Just a matter of time. Google has a great product in Android. There is room for both, but with Apple not opening up their market to Verizon/Sprint, they are just hurting themselves.

Android is doing amazingly well for the short time frame it's been around.

Totally agree

Also apples computer sales have went up a lot in the past few years. Not only are you able to run windows on it now but do a lot more like run windows apps right on it. My old mac lasted 6 years with not problems and that is one of the reasons I bought another one. Call me what you wil but they last a long time. Even though I am in school for computers I still love using my mac at the end of the day after diagnosing and repairing computer all day.

 

[jsh1120]

Not true. It is strictly an ethical argument, no more no less. No one should be able to censor or limit my use of my property. People have grown far too complacent in this regard and believe that others know what's best for them. Whether it be a religion, government or in this case a corporation. By willingly submitting to this type of treatment just reinforces and expands this type of treatment throughout all segments of society and not just "Apple's walled garden".

If you need further proof look at what's happening. FDA wants to limit salt in products. NY has a tax on sugared sodas, cannot cook with REAL oil need to use that low fat crap, the whole smoking ban. Seriously? Parents getting fined for kids being overweight? I mean come on. This is what it leads to and will continue to advance. If you submit and give in that little bit it sets a precedent, regardless of what part of your life it is, and more is taken away or controlled. Sorry I disagree. This is strictly an ethical and moral argument.

As noted, this is a religious argument, not a discussion of technical issues. I've been debating libertarians and objectivists since I grew out of the obsession 40+ years ago. Suffice to say that this isn't the place for the debate.

 

[ScoobyDoo27]

Actually yes, from a freedom of use standpoint. If the iPhone were to remain unchallenged everything from the hardware to the apps would be locked down/censored. Not for nothing but after I purchase a device it is MINE to do with as I please. Also who the hell is Apple/Steve Jobs to tell me what I can or cannot get from the App store? No one person or company should dictate their morality to the masses.

Unfortunately iCultists see Uncle Steve as their messiah and will blindly agree and follow him. That doesn't sit well with me. Anyone willing to give up choice and willingly submit themselves to that type of censorship is disturbing. The best way to describe iCultists are the AOL users of this generation. This is why Android has to surpass the iPhone.

Sorry, I don't see it. What I do see is just as much fanatic fanboyism for the Android platform as for the iPhone platform.

No one is arguing that the iPhone should remain "unchallenged." Far from it. But that doesn't mean the Android platform should "win," whatever the h**l that means.

People purchase iPhones and other Apple products for many reasons. And along with the "censorship" imposed in the iTunes store comes a level of quality control that is completely absent in the Google Market. And what range of choices do iPhone owners sacrifice? They have two to three times the number of apps available to Android users covering a much broader range of categories.

As a consumer, I'm happy to see the dominance of Apple's iPhone platform challenged by a different approach. I don't kid myself, however, that this is some sort of moral crusade on the part of Google or that the choice of an Android device implies some sort of moral superiority. Google's strategy is simply the only viable alternative they have. Without the dedicated customer base that Apple enjoys, an open source platform is the most promising approach for Google.

Those who evaluate multinational corporations in terms of their relative ethical standards are engaged in religious arguments.

Not true. It is strictly an ethical argument, no more no less. No one should be able to censor or limit my use of my property. People have grown far too complacent in this regard and believe that others know what's best for them. Whether it be a religion, government or in this case a corporation. By willingly submitting to this type of treatment just reinforces and expands this type of treatment throughout all segments of society and not just "Apple's walled garden".

If you need further proof look at what's happening. FDA wants to limit salt in products. NY has a tax on sugared sodas, cannot cook with REAL oil need to use that low fat crap, the whole smoking ban. Seriously? Parents getting fined for kids being overweight? I mean come on. This is what it leads to and will continue to advance. If you submit and give in that little bit it sets a precedent, regardless of what part of your life it is, and more is taken away or controlled. Sorry I disagree. This is strictly an ethical and moral argument.

While I agree with some of what you are saying I think a lot of people with iPhone's don't even realize that their app store is censored. My aunt and uncle both own iPhones and they love them. I hardly doubt that they know anything about apple censoring certain apps.

I also know a ton of people with iPod Touch's. I doubt they care or even know about the censorship as well.

In the end, it's just personal preference. I would personally never support apple or buy and iPhone. It's just not for me but a lot of people do like them.

 

[jsh1120]

And along with the "censorship" imposed in the iTunes store comes a level of quality control that is completely absent in the Google Market. And what range of choices do iPhone owners sacrifice? They have two to three times the number of apps available to Android users covering a much broader range of categories.

Again, beyond being a novelty, how useful/productive are most of those apps?

There is no lack for quality apps on Android. I personally have had no problem finding good apps simply by paying a little attention to # of downloads, ratings and comments. I haven't found any ill effects of Android's "lack of quality control".

I'm not a fanboy and certainly not a Google lover, but I do love free stuff. From a strategic standpoint, Google right now is better positioned than Apple as far as software and the cloud. And you can't ignore that 3rd parties have a vested interest in seeing Android succeed - they don't want to pay royalties off the top to Apple or MS for every sale like you would in the PC market.

Well, in fact there are many, many apps for the iPhone that are both better than their counterparts in the Android marketplace and many that have no equivalent android application, especially in scientific and specialized business fields. If you doubt that, you're simply not trying to use a Droid as a tool for medical diagnosis, for example.

As far as quality control is concerned, I've encountered multiple applications that simply do not work as advertised. Others that are not updated or enhanced in a timely manner, etc. And as for "free" apps, I've encountered several that developers have simply abandoned.

Finally, you seem to think that apps placed in the Google Marketplace don't cost developers. In fact, 30% of all revenue from the Market goes to Google.

Don't get me wrong. I prefer my Droid to an iPhone for a number of reasons. But those reasons are based on my personal needs and preferences, not a misplaced belief that Google is on the side of the angels and Apple is the spawn of Satan.

 

[Darkseider]

Sorry, I don't see it. What I do see is just as much fanatic fanboyism for the Android platform as for the iPhone platform.

No one is arguing that the iPhone should remain "unchallenged." Far from it. But that doesn't mean the Android platform should "win," whatever the h**l that means.

People purchase iPhones and other Apple products for many reasons. And along with the "censorship" imposed in the iTunes store comes a level of quality control that is completely absent in the Google Market. And what range of choices do iPhone owners sacrifice? They have two to three times the number of apps available to Android users covering a much broader range of categories.

As a consumer, I'm happy to see the dominance of Apple's iPhone platform challenged by a different approach. I don't kid myself, however, that this is some sort of moral crusade on the part of Google or that the choice of an Android device implies some sort of moral superiority. Google's strategy is simply the only viable alternative they have. Without the dedicated customer base that Apple enjoys, an open source platform is the most promising approach for Google.

Those who evaluate multinational corporations in terms of their relative ethical standards are engaged in religious arguments.

Not true. It is strictly an ethical argument, no more no less. No one should be able to censor or limit my use of my property. People have grown far too complacent in this regard and believe that others know what's best for them. Whether it be a religion, government or in this case a corporation. By willingly submitting to this type of treatment just reinforces and expands this type of treatment throughout all segments of society and not just "Apple's walled garden".

If you need further proof look at what's happening. FDA wants to limit salt in products. NY has a tax on sugared sodas, cannot cook with REAL oil need to use that low fat crap, the whole smoking ban. Seriously? Parents getting fined for kids being overweight? I mean come on. This is what it leads to and will continue to advance. If you submit and give in that little bit it sets a precedent, regardless of what part of your life it is, and more is taken away or controlled. Sorry I disagree. This is strictly an ethical and moral argument.

While I agree with some of what you are saying I think a lot of people with iPhone's don't even realize that their app store is censored. My aunt and uncle both own iPhones and they love them. I hardly doubt that they know anything about apple censoring certain apps.

I also know a ton of people with iPod Touch's. I doubt they care or even know about the censorship as well.

In the end, it's just personal preference. I would personally never support apple or buy and iPhone. It's just not for me but a lot of people do like them.

But would they care IF they knew it was censored? That's the question one has to ask.

 

[jsh1120]

But would they care IF they knew it was censored? That's the question one has to ask.

No. They wouldn't. Censorship is very popular in America. Has been for several hundred years.

 

[Darkseider]

Not true. It is strictly an ethical argument, no more no less. No one should be able to censor or limit my use of my property. People have grown far too complacent in this regard and believe that others know what's best for them. Whether it be a religion, government or in this case a corporation. By willingly submitting to this type of treatment just reinforces and expands this type of treatment throughout all segments of society and not just "Apple's walled garden".

If you need further proof look at what's happening. FDA wants to limit salt in products. NY has a tax on sugared sodas, cannot cook with REAL oil need to use that low fat crap, the whole smoking ban. Seriously? Parents getting fined for kids being overweight? I mean come on. This is what it leads to and will continue to advance. If you submit and give in that little bit it sets a precedent, regardless of what part of your life it is, and more is taken away or controlled. Sorry I disagree. This is strictly an ethical and moral argument.

As noted, this is a religious argument, not a discussion of technical issues. I've been debating libertarians and objectivists since I grew out of the obsession 40+ years ago. Suffice to say that this isn't the place for the debate.

Well the technical issues effect everyone as a whole. The closed development environment and censorship. The locked down device and non-open OS. The inability to do what you want with your property. This restriction on the technology directly influences everything else. In another thread, and I believe it was with you as well, I commented on whether or not the over simplification is actually bad. In the same sense that you have an over-simplified product that a monkey can use and it is also being restricted on the software/OS and hardware level makes it a bad choice. Regardless of its' popularity it needs to go the way of the Dodo.

Google is on the right track to ensure this happens. They are offering the OS as the platform, instead of the device, open to any manufacturer and carrier. The fact that it is an open OS as well as an unrestricted market ensure choice. Same goes for the hardware. The devices are easy enough to use but can be modified, as can the OS, fairly easily if the user so chooses. This overall openness is what will ensure not only the eventual displacement of Apple but the future progress of technology and is completely the opposite of what Apple does.

 

[Darkseider]

But would they care IF they knew it was censored? That's the question one has to ask.

No. They wouldn't. Censorship is very popular in America. Has been for several hundred years.

So you find the further purveyance and acceptance of censorship through technology acceptable? If not then Google through their openness of technology need to succeed.

 

[kodiak799]

If you doubt that, you're simply not trying to use a Droid as a tool for medical diagnosis, for example.

LOL, I should HOPE not. I, um, prefer to rely on a DOCTOR or REAL medical equipment for a diagnosis. If I go to a doctor and say what's wrong, and he responds "let me google that for you" I'm walking out.

Also, you completely missed my point about paying Apple and MS. Competition reduces their pricing power. More directly, in the case of MS, PC makers have to pay them for the installation. Granted, most if not all of that is passed on to the consumer, but the point stands that 3rd parties have a vested interest in seeing an alternative to Apple and MS succeed.

I don't think Apple is Satan, just highly overrated. I simply do not have a need for dozens and dozens of apps. I have almost everything I need, doing almost everything I want, with absolutely no issues. People worship the Ipod and Itunes. I have Tunewikki and I don't see what is so different or better, perceived, yes, reality no. Apple does a lot of things very well, but more than anything they excel at marketing.

The "app gap" is hardly permanent and closing fast. Reality is there is a limit to the practical number of useful apps and their alternatives, which nowhere near approaches thousands of apps. Any scientific or technical app on a cell phone is, for the most part, a novelty to those users. No one worth their salt is going to be doing serious applications on their phone. It would be like trying to run Monte Carlo simulations on a 10-yr old PC, just idiotic.

 

[jsh1120]

If you doubt that, you're simply not trying to use a Droid as a tool for medical diagnosis, for example.

LOL, I should HOPE not. I, um, prefer to rely on a DOCTOR or REAL medical equipment for a diagnosis. If I go to a doctor and say what's wrong, and he responds "let me google that for you" I'm walking out.

Also, you completely missed my point about paying Apple and MS. Competition reduces their pricing power. More directly, in the case of MS, PC makers have to pay them for the installation. Granted, most if not all of that is passed on to the consumer, but the point stands that 3rd parties have a vested interest in seeing an alternative to Apple and MS succeed.

I don't think Apple is Satan, just highly overrated. I simply do not have a need for dozens and dozens of apps. I have almost everything I need, doing almost everything I want, with absolutely no issues. People worship the Ipod and Itunes. I have Tunewikki and I don't see what is so different or better, perceived, yes, reality no. Apple does a lot of things very well, more than anything the excel at marketing.

You seem to have missed my point about medical apps. About all a physician can do with a Droid is to "google" a disease or, at best, find an entry from the PDR. With an iPhone a physician can use specialized apps that enable him/her to order tests, review results, update patient records, etc. My wife works in the genetics field and there are extraordinary apps ported to the iPhone that enable a researcher to accomplish what only a couple of years ago would have required a powerful workstation.

My point is simply that a gross comparison of the number of applications available on each platform misses the more important point that the iPhone is a target platform for many developers of highly specialized applications. Such apps may eventually be ported to the Android platform, but it's unlikely that such niche application development will overcome the lead that the iPhone already enjoys.

As far as the interest of third parties in seeing Android succeed, I agree. But such an interest shouldn't be overstated. As an analogy consider the market penetration of Linux in the PC market. It's certainly a viable alternative for a niche market, but it is by no means a mainstream choice. And except for very specialized applications or for those who delight in contrarian choices, it's unlikely to succeed.

And I agree that for my own uses, the Android platform provides what I need and provides customization opportunities not available in the iPhone ecosystem. But exactly the same argument you're making is applicable to the iPhone. For example, even with the 4Gen iPhone, users won't have the range of multitasking choices available in the Android environment. But just how much "multitasking" does an average user need? Apple has gone far enough in terms of multitasking to meet their market objectives. Complaining that they have not gone far enough is equivalent to arguing that a single Android app isn't sufficient when the iPhone has ten.

I'm certainly no Apple fanboy. If I were, I'd have an iPhone. But I'm not wearing blinkers about the relative benefits of each platform, either.

 

[jsh1120]

But would they care IF they knew it was censored? That's the question one has to ask.

No. They wouldn't. Censorship is very popular in America. Has been for several hundred years.

So you find the further purveyance and acceptance of censorship through technology acceptable? If not then Google through their openness of technology need to succeed.

For the umpteenth time, I hope the Android platform "succeeds." That doesn't mean that (a) I believe it should obliterate its competitors or (b) that Apple's market strategy is somehow incarnate evil and Google's represents the only ethical approach.

As in our previous discussion of a similar issue, you seem to be evangelical on this topic. Good luck. Have to say that the argument reminds me of those who argue that the world would be a better place if everyone agreed on a particular set of religious principles. The trouble with such arguments is that practically any religion would work very well if everyone saw the world the same way. And that applies just as strongly to those who believe that Allah prescribes and proscribes particular behaviors and those who believe that Allah doesn't prescribe or proscribe any particular behavior.

 

[Darkseider]

No. They wouldn't. Censorship is very popular in America. Has been for several hundred years.

So you find the further purveyance and acceptance of censorship through technology acceptable? If not then Google through their openness of technology need to succeed.

For the umpteenth time, I hope the Android platform "succeeds." That doesn't mean that (a) I believe it should obliterate its competitors or (b) that Apple's market strategy is somehow incarnate evil and Google's represents the only ethical approach.

As in our previous discussion of a similar issue, you seem to be evangelical on this topic. Good luck. Have to say that the argument reminds me of those who argue that the world would be a better place if everyone agreed on a particular set of religious principles. The trouble with such arguments is that practically any religion would work very well if everyone saw the world the same way. And that applies just as strongly to those who believe that Allah prescribes and proscribes particular behaviors and those who believe that Allah doesn't prescribe or proscribe any particular behavior.

Blech religion. I am agnostic. Off topic. Do you have to be a minimum age to qualify as a curmudgeon?

 

[dmacleo]

fwiw the improvement of one almost always leads to an improvement in the other.