iPad

[naum]

Sure thing.



 

Given that my first computer after a TRS-80 Model 4 was a Mac Plus and that I'm typing this on my Macbook and that I hackintoshed Snow Leopard to run on my netbook along with Windows 7, you may want to reconsider your opinion of my opinion.  The people who ever open a terminal window in OS X are a vanishing minority and not Apple's desired customers.  I spoke of the reputation of macs, not the reality of them.

Uh, no, not even close to being the same thing.  Even if you can approximate (and deal with all the non-*nix shortcomings), then you quickly discover a whole set of Ruby gems do not work on Windows (one example, Shotgun for Rails/Sinatra testing) or other problems.

And I've run Cygwin on Win platform to approximate a good *nix development environment, but that is still major FAIL.

iPad/iPhone OS != Mac OS X

And while Apple marketing might not be targeted a terminal users, that is the base that brought them back from the precipice. And the bulk of developer (non Windows ASP/.NET/non gamer) boxes, as you would quickly notice if you attended any conference or gathering of developers.

[Samwise]

'OMFG Apple is the new Microsoft and Steve Jobs is Stalin, fight the power !!!111111'

I was saying this about Apple back in 1995.   

[schild]

everybody told you that the iPhone would fail miserably.

No one said that, everyone I knew thought it would be the best selling phone ever if you don't count RIM's corporate install base.

You pulled that general thought out of your ass imo (the whole thing).

Apple has been pretty evil forever, it's just loved by a The United Coalition of Hipsters and Luddites (TUCHL). Also, some coders, but they're crazy.

The iPod/iPad are pretty decent gaming devices though (Sword and Poker, YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) and I still wouldn't mind putting out a game on either platform, but that's completely removed from the fact the company is run by a giant pack of assholes.

[Righ]

Do tell what Apple has done that makes it not evil, as opposed to what Google has done that makes it evil.

They are both inherently evil because they are corporations with shareholders. The only difference is that one makes most of its money through advertising. Both utilize open source software so as to leverage free software development, but neither is what I would call a model open source citizen.

I don't expect you to like this opinion, but it raises a number of very good points:

http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2010/04/is-android-evil/

[tgr]

Do tell what Apple has done that makes it not evil, as opposed to what Google has done that makes it evil.

They are both inherently evil because they are corporations with shareholders. The only difference is that one makes most of its money through advertising. Both utilize open source software so as to leverage free software development, but neither is what I would call a model open source citizen.

I don't expect you to like this opinion, but it raises a number of very good points:

http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2010/04/is-android-evil/

See, now that's so much better than "LEAVE APPLE ALONE! LOOK AT GOOGLE, THEY'RE EBUL!".

I haven't bought any of the current smartphones (...SE k700i or something, I don't really care), so I for one have absolutely no problems hearing about how google is evil. In fact, I'd be surprised if they weren't evil in some way, but Jeff Kelly just pointed to the keynote and said "see? see? they're evil!", and the only thing I saw in that was tons of poking fun at apple/ipad, which made me think "oh, he's just butthurt because google made fun of his hero".

[MahrinSkel]

Do tell what Apple has done that makes it not evil, as opposed to what Google has done that makes it evil.

They are both inherently evil because they are corporations with shareholders. The only difference is that one makes most of its money through advertising. Both utilize open source software so as to leverage free software development, but neither is what I would call a model open source citizen.

I don't expect you to like this opinion, but it raises a number of very good points:

http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2010/04/is-android-evil/

I'm not getting it.  What I see is some hairsplitting about how Google won't let handset developers do certain things, most of which seem to break down to how Android is their OS and although they'll let them tie into the cellular hardware any way they want (which is pitched as a negative?), they won't let them build their own walled garden inside the Android ecosystem.  "Google won't let us control the software the way Apple does, see how evil they are?"

Google doesn't trust the network providers and handset manufacturers not to fuck the end-user and third-party developer if they get a chance.  Gee, that's terrible.

--Dave

[naum]

Do tell what Apple has done that makes it not evil, as opposed to what Google has done that makes it evil.

They are both inherently evil because they are corporations with shareholders. The only difference is that one makes most of its money through advertising. Both utilize open source software so as to leverage free software development, but neither is what I would call a model open source citizen.

I don't expect you to like this opinion, but it raises a number of very good points:

http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2010/04/is-android-evil/

I'm not getting it.  What I see is some hairsplitting about how Google won't let handset developers do certain things, most of which seem to break down to how Android is their OS and although they'll let them tie into the cellular hardware any way they want (which is pitched as a negative?), they won't let them build their own walled garden inside the Android ecosystem.  "Google won't let us control the software the way Apple does, see how evil they are?"

Google doesn't trust the network providers and handset manufacturers not to fuck the end-user and third-party developer if they get a chance.  Gee, that's terrible.

--Dave

Another take, granted from an iPhone Developer perspective, but it not done in ignorance, as author has also written on writing for Android platform…

The Illusion of Open

Yesterday, Google IO ended, and it was clear from the tone of the conference that Google is planning to put up some fierce competition to Apple on several fronts, and that's good. A lot of Google's pitch was focused on this idea of "openness" - that Google's stuff is inherently more "open" (except, of course, the stuff they make money from, but that's a whole separate topic) and therefore better for the user. Tim Bray, Google's Android Evangelist, went off on a rather enthusiastic but somewhat silly Twitter rant a few days ago about openness and the "curated experience" of the iPhone. It's clear that Google sees "openness" as a competitive advantage over Apple and has made it their battle cry in the mobile space.

But, not too long ago, Google announced that it was ending direct sales of their phone, the Nexus One.

Here's the reality of the Android situation now: if you buy an Android phone, it will most likely be locked down by your carrier, possibly also with some features disabled. Or, to use Tim Bray's term, the reality is that most Android phones that get bought are a "curated experience".

In some places, some carriers will sell unlocked phones, but for a great many people, if you want an open Android phone, you will be required to buy one from a carrier and jailbreak it, which is likely a violation of your subscriber agreement. If you don't jailbreak it, you may not get future Android updates. If you buy an Android phone and don't jailbreak it, you might spend the entire life of your phone using the Android version that shipped on it. Your vendor could even charge you a ridiculous monthly fee for the upgrade, something that at least Verizon has considered doing. Even if your carrier does provide updates for free and regularly, there will be a delay as the vendor and provider add all their customizations and restrictions on top of the official Android release.

For the vast majority of people who will buy Android phones, "open" is an illusion because now that Google has abandoned their direct sales model, Android firmly puts the final decision making power for the overall experience of the phone back into the hands of the traditional carrier/vendor relationship that ruled the space before the iPhone came out. Apple, unlike other phone vendors, is capable of going toe-to-toe with the carriers and is willing to do so to fight for a better user experience. That's why we don't have AT&T branding all over our iPhones. That's why we don't have the mandatory 15-second spiel before voicemail that Verizon users have to suffer through. Apple is at least an equal partner with the carriers who sell their phones. Most of the other phone vendors, to put it bluntly, are the carriers' bitches.

Does Android have some nice features that the iPhone doesn't? Absolutely. Is Android improving? No doubt about it and on a regular basis to boot. But, by putting the real power back in the hand of the carriers and their vendor partners, the user experience is never going to be as important in the decision making process as it is for the iPhone. Even if the Android team manages to make the overall experience better than the iPhone (which I consider unlikely, but possible), the carriers will almost certainly screw it up with their ham-handed customizations and restrictions.

If you're going to have a curated experience, isn't it better to at least have one where the curator is making their decisions primarily around the quality of your experience?

Unless Google resumes direct sales or puts licensing limitations on the carriers to prevent them from locking down Android phones, "open" will be just another empty marketing slogan. And I suspect that's what it will be. Google doesn't really care about the user experience, they just want to keep making money on their proprietary, non-open advertising in the mobile space the way they have on the web, and the more Android phones that are out there, the more phones that will be getting Google Ads. Hell, Google even discussed the possibility of unblockable ads at Google IO!

[tgr]

How does this "curated experience" compare to Windows Mobile, Symbian, BREW or whatever other phone OS available out there?

[Quinton]

To my knowledge, only one carrier (AT&T) has shipped an Android phone that doesn't allow you to install apps directly from the web.

I have not yet seen a carrier ship an Android phone that disallows local installation of apps over USB.  Last I checked, this was a requirement of CTS (the Android Compatibility Test Suite), and considered a basic platform feature.

The Android Market does have some restrictions (no illegal content, no privacy invading content, no content inappropriate for persons under the age of 18 (yes, really, Steve), etc), but it's pretty wide open - http://www.android.com/market/terms/developer-content-policy.html

I'd argue that Google is *also* capable of going toe-to-toe with the carriers and fighting for a better user experience... which is why devices are shipping that are not limited to a walled garden of "curated experience" app delivery, to pick an example.

Here's a fun comparison:
Apple App Store: developer gets 70%, Apple gets 30%
Android Market: developer gets 70%, Carrier gets 25%, Google gets 5% (billing and operational costs)

I suspect there's some incentive there for carriers to ship standard, compatible Android based devices that have the Market...

On behalf of Google, I am happy to say that yes, we do care a great deal about the user experience and we also care a great deal about open platforms, level playing fields, and choice for developers, for OEMs, for carriers, and for end-users.

[Sheepherder]

Why does the argument for Apple devolve into "It's for your own good" EVERY FUCKING TIME?

[Quinton]

Why does the argument for Apple devolve into "It's for your own good" EVERY FUCKING TIME?

Because it sounds better than "It's to support Apple's high profit margins and user/developer lock-in"?

[Surlyboi]

Gah, the asshattery in this thread has become legendary.

[Jeff Kelly]

My mistake I suppose.

I was posing a serious question. Why is a company with negligible market share demonized to such an extend that people practically throw themselves at Google in the hope of Google saving them from Apple?

I find this deeply ironic, because as Righ so correctly pointed out it's a little bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. As if Google (or for that matter any other major IT corporation) was any better.

I don't want either one of them to 'win' that would be Microsoft all over again.

[MahrinSkel]

Their market share of the smartphone market was not negligible, and their behavior there was reprehensible.  iPad is being pitched as their effort to do to the netbook market what they were doing in the smartphone market.  Google, on the other hand, has put together an alternative for both markets that is both technologically and philosophically superior.  Sure, Google is doing it to make money, but the "worst" things they are doing in the process is not letting the networks lock down Android phones the way that Apple has done with iPhone.  A network provider can't "brick" an Android phone because it's not running the exact approved version of Android they want, nor can they cryptographically lock it so it can't be loaded with an unapproved version, nor can they control what software is loaded or run on it.

Everything I'm seeing about how Android isn't "open" come down to it not allowing cellular networks to lock it down the way the iPhone is.  Nothing stops you from creating a web portal replacement for the Android market, or even building an app with such a function (or any other app that floats your boat)  Somehow this is just like Apple?

--Dave

[Sheepherder]

Dudes, the last twenty page have been:

1. It's not for you.
2. Something about Google.
3. It's for your own good.

I find this deeply ironic, because as Righ so correctly pointed out it's a little bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. As if Google (or for that matter any other major IT corporation) was any better.

Google is better, you have to be a fucking simpleton to conflate "The carrier can impose restrictions on the phone" or "Google doesn't let just anyone fuck with their kernel" with closed systems.

[Surlyboi]

Not totally your fault, Jeff. The nerd rage is strong here.

[Quinton]

I don't want either one of them to 'win' that would be Microsoft all over again.

I doubt we're going to see a single "winner" in a space that's much larger than the PC market ever was in a world where OEMs, carriers, and users have all seen the dangers of a single entity having 90+% control of a computing market (no matter who that entity is or what exactly their goals are).

A platform does need some reasonable momentum and volume of units to support a large and healthy application ecosystem, which does make getting something brand new, especially if it's only supported by one company bootstrapped.  Look at Danger and Palm (webos era), for examples of nice design but not quite enough momentum.  

Android is a strategic move by Google -- without an open platform to deploy applications to, to have a good web browser on, etc, Google (and many others) could end up locked out of the (increasingly important) mobile space.  Of course OEMs and carriers are rightly skeptical of yet another closed system with a single owner -- thus open source, open development, open platform.  They get a lot more control over their destiny and most importantly, if Google starts behaving in a destructive way, they can walk away but keep the OS.

To Dave's comments:

The openness of the platform is key here -- operators *can* lock down devices based on the android platform if they want, but if they go so far as to break compatibility (which includes supporting open and local app development and installation), they can't use the logo, ship with the Market, etc.  In some cases that tradeoff may be worth it to some carriers, but the goal is obviously to make it worth everyone's while (thriving app ecosystem, revenue sharing on app sales, increased value of having google apps users love, etc) to ship the standard, compatible platform.

There are, in fact, already alternate web based and app based Android app stores, and yes, this is entirely intentional.  It's also what Steve's talking about when he harps on Android being for porn (at least one of the third party stores is adult-content-centric).

We are pushing to go more open -- the Nexus One is an example of a device that is selling to a pretty wide market with an unlockable bootloader (no "hacking" or "jailbreaking" or "rooting" required) to allow developers, early adopters, whoever, to install entirely different OS images if they're into that sort of thing.  Hopefully we'll see this on more devices in the future -- having shipped one like this and the world didn't end makes a strong argument for doing it again.

[MahrinSkel]

Pretty much what I was getting at.  What offends me about pre-Android smartphones was that they dictated what I was allowed to do with my hardware.  iPhone was the worst, but Palm and RIM devices weren't much better.  With the smartphone increasingly becoming the go-to communications and computation device, the way they were locked-down crippleware from the very beginning was worrisome.  iPad was even worse, where it was almost defensible that smartphones I wasn't paying the actual cost of were crippled, this was hardware where I was expected to pay full price for the privilege of doing whatever Apple said I was allowed to.

Yes, I don't really like consoles for the same reason, although the same arguments over the cost of the hardware being subsidized apply.  With smartphones, I see a day where a phone is the only computing device most people want or need, attaching it to other I/O devices (keyboards, displays, eyeglasses that paint the picture on your retinas and respond to hand movements, whatever) as needed.  Controlling those devices will be to control someone's *life*.

--Dave

[Malakili]

With smartphones, I see a day where a phone is the only computing device most people want or need, attaching it to other I/O devices (keyboards, displays, eyeglasses that paint the picture on your retinas and respond to hand movements, whatever) as needed.  Controlling those devices will be to control someone's *life*.

--Dave

People have been saying this for 50 years, the only difference is that most people didn't think it would evolve from phones.

[Quinton]

I'm a little skeptical of getting to the "you only need one device" soon.  Form factor has a big impact on use.  But we certainly are getting closer.  I would like to see multiple devices play nice together, be that through local adhoc networks, "the cloud", or some combination of the two.

[MahrinSkel]

People have been saying this for 50 years, the only difference is that most people didn't think it would evolve from phones.

Back in 1997, I saw a bastard offspring of a laptop and an 80's era "lunchbox" cellphone for sale (for some ridiculous price, over $3K), and I knew that eventually we'd wind up there.  We're very nearly there, some of the Android phones are about 95% of it.  A little underpowered, still, and a little too hard to hook up to external displays, but very, *very* close.  It's all of the socially disruptive technologies of the Information Age (TV, video camera, computer, cell phones, and the Internet) all in a package you can stick in your pocket.  Yes, this is the device we've been waiting 50 years for.

--Dave

[Margalis]

Do tell what Apple has done that makes it not evil, as opposed to what Google has done that makes it evil.

Google's "do no evil" bullshit is just PR to appeal to hippies who can't be bothered to understand how the company actually operates. Nothing about what google does makes it any less "evil" than any other company.

It's run by a couple douches who fly around on a "party plane" and who had no problem going along with censorship in China as long as it meant profits for them but threw a hissy fit and threatened to pull out when their bottom line was in danger.

[Quinton]

Wow, what did Larry and Sergey do to you?

They're executives for a large company.  They own a private plane.  Oh no!  They're also decent guys who care a lot about their (first and only, crazy!) company and its products and are very involved in day to day operations.  I've had a fair bit of contact with them in five years of Android work and am happy to be working for/with them.

It's fun to see complex situations like business in China, which Google actually took a very different approach to than most (including informing people right on the search results page when things had been omitted due to government requirements), and then (as stated would happen when Google first entered the market there) reviewed the situation and decided to change how to operate (or not) there.  If anything, exiting China meant giving up a lot of revenue... something that Yahoo, Microsoft, etc don't seem to be in a hurry to do.

[Surlyboi]

 

[Teleku]

Yeah, nothing that happened to Google in China was threatening their bottom line.  They pretty much went against all the stockholders and all business logic by fucking off out of China.

[Margalis]

Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google.

The original "do no evil" policy has absolutely nothing to do with humanitarian goals, spreading democracy, avoiding evil acts or anything else that "do no evil" would imply - it's simply a business strategy for maximizing profits along with a PR strategy. It has zero to do with ethics. (http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html) "Do no evil" is nothing more than "build a profitable brand."

Google agreed to censor results in China because their was money to be made.

Only when Google security was compromised , IP was stolen and YouTube was blocked did they revisit that decision. Those actions all damage the company. In addition Google has portrayed the attacks as primarily an attempt to spy on humanitarian groups but that does not appear to be the case unless Dow Chemical and Northrop Grumman are humanitarian organizations.

According to McAfee, the primary goal of the attack was to gain access to and potentially modify source code repositories at these high tech, security and defense contractor companies

Saying "we're pulling out of China because China is spying on humanitarian groups" sounds a hell of a lot better than "we're pulling out of China because we're now making less money in China and state-sponsored hackers are trying to steal our source code."

Google.org, Google's "philanthropic" wing, is almost purely about building the Google brand and pales in comparison to the real philanthropy done by something like MS (or at least Gates) for example. Google branding is absolutely everywhere and a lot of it is completely transparent in pushing the Google branding over any real philanthropic value. For example the "Google Code University", which is supposed to be a general resource for educating kids about computer programming, includes sections on Android Programming and Google APIs. (And not much else really)

That is "philanthropy" in the same way that Microsoft donating computers to a university in exchange for that University replacing Unix with Windows is "philanthropy."

I'm not going to say that google is a bunch of evil bastards but the idea that they are significantly different from MS or Apple in terms of ethics and such really doesn't hold water. Especially not when Google has no problem collecting and retaining all sorts of personal information and transaction records.

[Quinton]

And yet... our platform is open and with fewer restrictions... and we actively help you get your data back out of our platforms (http://www.dataliberation.org/)... etc etc.  I've spent five years of my life here, building some nice products and giving millions of lines of code away -- production ready, shipping code.  Yeah, Android benefits Google. Surprise.  It also benefits OEMs and silicon vendors and application developers and end users.  There's a lot of reach there.

Having a powerful, open platform for mobile makes the world a better place -- I firmly believe this.  I've built closed platforms and walled gardens before.  They've never had this kind of impact.

People get awfully worked up about "don't be evil".  It's internal shorthand for "think about the users" and tends to be used in that sense.   It's more broadly used in the "you should be able to make money while still treating your users right". I've been able to use that argument a number of times when discussion about user-impacting features turns up, and am happy to work for a place where it's actually effective.

What's the business case for unlockable bootloaders not requiring "jailbreaking"?  Hell if I know.  But I know that if the user paid for the hardware they should be able to run the software they want, and by that argument Nexus One ships with an unlockable bootloader.  That makes me happy.  It makes end users happy.  

Yeah, Google's a public company.  It's not a magical force of good and rainbows and unicorns.  It's an engineering driven company that has a culture of trying to do the right thing by users.  You can believe it or don't believe it, but it is what it is.  Having been on the inside for a while, I'm impressed with the care taken in the handling of sensitive data.  On the plus side, there exist plenty of competitive offerings to our products, so if you firmly believe it's all an evil trick, you can use some other product and sleep easier at night.

If you don't believe open platforms and choice are better for everyone, we'll just have to disagree.

EDIT: minor clarification

[MahrinSkel]

The only real barriers to using a smartphone as your primary computer are all I/O related.  They have small screens, tiny keyboards when they have them at all, and generally not as much storage as I like.  But on Android you can work around all of those except for the screen.  Come out with an Android phone with a DisplayPort socket so I could hook it up to my 22" monitor, and I'd be all over it, especially if it has an SD slot so I can add more storage (USB thumb drives aren't horrible, but you can't leave them in when you shove it in your pocket).

--Dave

[Margalis]

If Google wants to do right by users why doesn't it let users opt out of its draconian data collection policies? Policies that lag far behind rivals?

Oh right...money.   I guess Google's official "be a swell guy" policy is great for trivial crap that builds brand and leads to more money anyway but doesn't apply when it would seriously impact the business.

The original context of this conversation is the idea that Apple is inherently "evil" and must prove that it isn't while the reverse is somehow true for Google. Comparing the two based on which is more good or evil is pretty stupid to begin with but I'm not sure how the company that "accidentally" recorded 600 gigs of wi-fi messages comes out ahead.

[Quinton]

The original context of this conversation is the idea that Apple is inherently "evil" and must prove that it isn't while the reverse is somehow true for Google.

Certainly not an assertion I have ever made.

I do suggest just not using Google products if you're convinced that the company is purely evil.  Probably save you a lot of stress.

[Margalis]

Certainly not an assertion I have ever made.

Which is why I quoted tgr and not you.

[tgr]

Certainly not an assertion I have ever made.

Which is why I quoted tgr and not you.

And I said Apple was evil while Google wasn't? Puhlease.

[Surlyboi]

It's basically been you and Mattemeo that have been leading the hate parade.

[tgr]

It's basically been you and Mattemeo that have been leading the hate parade.

Oh, yes, obviously. I'm critical as to the iPad being anything but apple's version of the X6 (i.e them trying to make a market which isn't really there), and it's a hate parade. And at the same time I'm apparently also saying that Google isn't evil whatsoever. Way to go reading things into what I've been saying, that aren't there.

For clarification's sake, I was fucking asking what google had done that made it evil, since I haven't heard of anything in particular. The only thing I knew of that I don't like about Google is how they datamine fucking everything. If asking that question means you're interpreting me as implicitly saying Google isn't evil, then boy have you misunderstood the question.

[Margalis]

Well now your question is answered. You're welcome.