Now A No-Evil Zone(tbray.org)
tbray.org
Now A No-Evil Zone
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/03/15/Joining-Google
9 comments
Pardon my confusion, but I fail to see how the openness of the device has anything to do with your experience with it. An open device merely ensures that you have the freedom to do with it what you want, not that you have to do anything with it, or that you even need to understand it.
Consider the browser I'm using right now: Chrome. I don't understand how V8 or Webkit works, but my experience on Chrome isn't complicated, nor is it necessary that I understand these components. However, should I choose, I can educate myself and take control of my browser.
Consider the browser I'm using right now: Chrome. I don't understand how V8 or Webkit works, but my experience on Chrome isn't complicated, nor is it necessary that I understand these components. However, should I choose, I can educate myself and take control of my browser.
Turn that around, and you get a system like windows, where I can install, run, change anything (with the right permissions), and you end up with a mass of trojan software that installs itself at a low level, resists removal, and such. I like the fact I can hand an iphone (or ipad) to my mom, my grandma, or whatever, and be confident that they won't be "tricked" into installing malware that looks attractive.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal of an open system to us techies, but I like that I never have to worry, or manage the system myself. I do enough of it already.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal of an open system to us techies, but I like that I never have to worry, or manage the system myself. I do enough of it already.
I think it's important that we draw a clear point about what you're talking about when you say "open". I must confess that I thought you were talking about open as in F/OSS. You're clearly talking about "Maury Povitch" open ("You don't know me! I'll do what I want!"). My guess is that you're pro the former, if even you have not stated it yet. I think it's pretty obvious to all involved that phones be moron proof by default. Phones after all, for the vast majority of the populace, are simply an appliance (off-on, simple functionality).
This view of the phone as an appliance is not accurate any more. Whether or not the public realizes it, they're holding a computing device. In 5 years time, I expect one to be able to use their phone with an external monitor and keyboard and use it much like you would a Netbook today.
So where does that leave us? We're headed towards a highly portable and compact computing device, that is currently a transitory species (if you will). I think this is an exciting time for computing. This is a bold challenge! How do you provide something that is safe by default, simple to use, and doesn't encumber the tinkerers that have been proven to time and again generate wonderful arenas of opportunity, wealth and societal change?
Personally, I think a sort of middle solution is best. An opt-in for tinkering, perhaps. I think closing tinkering is just plain foolish. It's proven to be valuable and shouldn't be stopped.
This view of the phone as an appliance is not accurate any more. Whether or not the public realizes it, they're holding a computing device. In 5 years time, I expect one to be able to use their phone with an external monitor and keyboard and use it much like you would a Netbook today.
So where does that leave us? We're headed towards a highly portable and compact computing device, that is currently a transitory species (if you will). I think this is an exciting time for computing. This is a bold challenge! How do you provide something that is safe by default, simple to use, and doesn't encumber the tinkerers that have been proven to time and again generate wonderful arenas of opportunity, wealth and societal change?
Personally, I think a sort of middle solution is best. An opt-in for tinkering, perhaps. I think closing tinkering is just plain foolish. It's proven to be valuable and shouldn't be stopped.
I agree with most everything you say (open source is awesome, phones == next gen computers, and opt-in tinkering would be cool).
But that last point is what I'm worried about. Windows is opt-in now sorta, but it still gets malware. The Android appstore has already let financial related trojans into it.
So figuring out the balance is hard if you account for people willing to click "yes" to anything. I do in fact like the idea of an open system, but I want people to explain why I should also be required to be as defensive about my phone as I am with my Windows computer. (viruses, latest updates, dangerous applications).
Honestly, I'm not arguing that walled gardens are the best thing ever, I'm arguing that there are advantages that get ignored in the "OMG, it's my device" arguments. I want a nice middleground, and not another device that's totally open, and total a pain in the ass to manage and defend.
But that last point is what I'm worried about. Windows is opt-in now sorta, but it still gets malware. The Android appstore has already let financial related trojans into it.
So figuring out the balance is hard if you account for people willing to click "yes" to anything. I do in fact like the idea of an open system, but I want people to explain why I should also be required to be as defensive about my phone as I am with my Windows computer. (viruses, latest updates, dangerous applications).
Honestly, I'm not arguing that walled gardens are the best thing ever, I'm arguing that there are advantages that get ignored in the "OMG, it's my device" arguments. I want a nice middleground, and not another device that's totally open, and total a pain in the ass to manage and defend.
How long have you used Android devices?
OK, but that's not relevant. You know why Outlook is vulnerable? Because it's openly scriptable. If you can convince someone to run your script, they can do whatever they like, so name it AnnaKournikovaNekkid.exe and many, many people were convinced. And that's the key: an open device in the hands of someone who doesn't thoroughly understand it merely creates problems for those that do.
You know why Outlook is vulnerable? Because it's openly scriptable. If you can convince someone to run your script, they can do whatever they like, so name it AnnaKournikovaNekkid.exe and many, many people were convinced.
That's possibly the stupidest argument I've heard all day.
Outlook is nowhere near open. Popular open source mail clients have a much better security record than Outlook. Security failings of Microsoft are a ridiculous way to argue against openness.
That's possibly the stupidest argument I've heard all day.
Outlook is nowhere near open. Popular open source mail clients have a much better security record than Outlook. Security failings of Microsoft are a ridiculous way to argue against openness.
With Outlook, with a few lines of VBscript, you can iterate over the addressbook, for example. With Pine, you, umm, can't. Outlook is vulnerable because it exposes features that can be easily abused. Pine isn't because it does less.
Now if you are a corporate software developer and you want to build some sort of workflow application (remember this is in the days before the web was ubiquitous) you could very easily do it with just Outlook and Exchange, which you had. Chances are someone in your department could do it, you wouldn't even need to involve your IT department.
Microsoft were naive to think that the features they included wouldn't be abused, I'm not excusing them there. Of course software can be more secure if it does less. Like the very best firewall is the AirGap(tm).
Now if you are a corporate software developer and you want to build some sort of workflow application (remember this is in the days before the web was ubiquitous) you could very easily do it with just Outlook and Exchange, which you had. Chances are someone in your department could do it, you wouldn't even need to involve your IT department.
Microsoft were naive to think that the features they included wouldn't be abused, I'm not excusing them there. Of course software can be more secure if it does less. Like the very best firewall is the AirGap(tm).
Executables aren't scripts. Outlook is not open.
The problem Outlook had a few years ago was exactly the opposite. A completely closed system, set up with insecure settings by default. It would run the scripts inside an email when you viewed it, and did not require the user to click on anything. The idea was to make things easier for the user. How's that for ironic? :)
The problem Outlook had a few years ago was exactly the opposite. A completely closed system, set up with insecure settings by default. It would run the scripts inside an email when you viewed it, and did not require the user to click on anything. The idea was to make things easier for the user. How's that for ironic? :)
But Windows is open, and that virus .exe runs with no "authorization" from Microsoft. Your argument of insecure by default is a red-herring in the current discussion.
So you have to be defensive in your use of more open systems, because anybody could have written malicious code for you, and you're lacking the walls of the walled garden to protect you.
As I've been stating through the thread, I am taking this stance because I want to be lazy and safe when using my phone. I don't need or want another full-blown computer to take care of, update, and defend. The trick will be getting the right "jailbreak" switch that's easy for technical people to flip, but very difficult for lay-people to get tricked into.
So you have to be defensive in your use of more open systems, because anybody could have written malicious code for you, and you're lacking the walls of the walled garden to protect you.
As I've been stating through the thread, I am taking this stance because I want to be lazy and safe when using my phone. I don't need or want another full-blown computer to take care of, update, and defend. The trick will be getting the right "jailbreak" switch that's easy for technical people to flip, but very difficult for lay-people to get tricked into.
Does Apple do a complete code review of every app they approve? Your walled garden isn't protecting you from anything.
Of course you're right. They couldn't have done full code reviews on every app. But they do review every app to some degree. Combine that with the locked-down nature of the phone, and you get a reasonable amount of security.
[deleted]
The iPhone has more viruses than Android.
I know there have been security holes in the iphone, and there will be in Android as well. The big thing I worry about are real trojans like: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2010/01/11/banking-trojan-...
Beyond that, there's another article on HN front page that talks about the painfulness of upgrades to the android OS, and how various phones run different versions.
My basic thing was that yes, I can understand it, but I don't want to worry. I just want a phone, that runs some chunk of apps. The lack of management capability is a feature, as well as a handcuff.
Beyond that, there's another article on HN front page that talks about the painfulness of upgrades to the android OS, and how various phones run different versions.
My basic thing was that yes, I can understand it, but I don't want to worry. I just want a phone, that runs some chunk of apps. The lack of management capability is a feature, as well as a handcuff.
Link, please.
A quick google corraborates his argument, as long as you stick to a strict definition of virus (there was that SMS one for the iphone, none came up on google for the android), although the android has had trojan software in its marketplace.
His description of the iPhone universe:
"It’s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his anger."
Unfortunately for Android, many or even most consumers prefer a Disney-fied experience. Can Android achieve that without the walled-garden approach?
"It’s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his anger."
Unfortunately for Android, many or even most consumers prefer a Disney-fied experience. Can Android achieve that without the walled-garden approach?
At the moment, yes. But the Android experience is rapidly improving, and all it takes is one single killer app that's not possible on the iPhone because of the walled garden approach.
One such killer-app could be the competition on the handsets. I have an HTC Tattoo - it's a low-end device, compared to Nexus One and HTC Hero, and it feels cheap, but it packs the entire smart-phone experience. And it's less than $200 (subsidised on the plan I'm getting anyway) and falling.
One such killer-app could be the competition on the handsets. I have an HTC Tattoo - it's a low-end device, compared to Nexus One and HTC Hero, and it feels cheap, but it packs the entire smart-phone experience. And it's less than $200 (subsidised on the plan I'm getting anyway) and falling.
Wasn't that supposed to be Google Voice?
Indeed.
It's hard for me to imagine the "killer app" that can't be done on a platform that has a completely open web browser and a locked-down app store. Google Voice seems as close to one as I can think of and note the following things about it:
a) not THAT many people cared. You may think they did if you are a geek/work with geeks, as I am/do, but your perception in that case is way off
b) Apple's restrictions were circumvented via a web app
c) if such an app became important to have to enough people that it caused concern to Apple, they can easily change their policy at any time to allow it.
I mean, there are a couple of things I'd really like to do on my iPhone OS devices (ScummVM on iPad would be awesome... yeah, I know I could theoretically jailbreak) but these are really minor annoyances compared to what I get out of the platform. It's just a pragmatic choice for me, not a holy war. And I can quit anytime. Really -- my cost of switching away from iPhone is the cost of replacing like 5 or 6 $2.99 apps.
Jiggly boobs apps may be popular (within a fairly narrow niche), but hardly anybody is going to switch devices over that. It's something people download on a whim and play with for a couple of minutes then never open again. Welcome to the $0.99 software market. It's not good or bad, it just is.
I guess what I'm saying is just this: all the cries of "software freedom!!" as though it were a revolutionary political struggle ring hollow to me. This isn't Stalinist Russia that people are being saved from if they're convinced into buying an Android device instead of an iPhone OS device. There's literally ZERO chance that Apple is going to completely own the smartphone and tablet computing worlds. The great concern with Windows throughout the nineties was that their lone real competitor was going to go out of business and they'd essentially be all that's left and all devices would only be able to connect to them and, with the advent of the internet, they'd entirely control the publishing platform of the 21st century. None of that applies at all to this circumstance. We've won: the web is open. Now it's down to games and jiggly boobs.
So all the non-browser apps will always have plenty of places to be built. Innovation isn't going to ground to a halt. You're just as free to buy a non-Apple device as you ever were and you'll still be able to get to all of the same web services as you do on an Apple device. All your documents and file formats are still open no matter which route you go. All the options are good. So if this topic matters a lot to you, buy non-Apple. But all this talk about them being "evil" seems ... startlingly lacking in perspective.
It's hard for me to imagine the "killer app" that can't be done on a platform that has a completely open web browser and a locked-down app store. Google Voice seems as close to one as I can think of and note the following things about it:
a) not THAT many people cared. You may think they did if you are a geek/work with geeks, as I am/do, but your perception in that case is way off
b) Apple's restrictions were circumvented via a web app
c) if such an app became important to have to enough people that it caused concern to Apple, they can easily change their policy at any time to allow it.
I mean, there are a couple of things I'd really like to do on my iPhone OS devices (ScummVM on iPad would be awesome... yeah, I know I could theoretically jailbreak) but these are really minor annoyances compared to what I get out of the platform. It's just a pragmatic choice for me, not a holy war. And I can quit anytime. Really -- my cost of switching away from iPhone is the cost of replacing like 5 or 6 $2.99 apps.
Jiggly boobs apps may be popular (within a fairly narrow niche), but hardly anybody is going to switch devices over that. It's something people download on a whim and play with for a couple of minutes then never open again. Welcome to the $0.99 software market. It's not good or bad, it just is.
I guess what I'm saying is just this: all the cries of "software freedom!!" as though it were a revolutionary political struggle ring hollow to me. This isn't Stalinist Russia that people are being saved from if they're convinced into buying an Android device instead of an iPhone OS device. There's literally ZERO chance that Apple is going to completely own the smartphone and tablet computing worlds. The great concern with Windows throughout the nineties was that their lone real competitor was going to go out of business and they'd essentially be all that's left and all devices would only be able to connect to them and, with the advent of the internet, they'd entirely control the publishing platform of the 21st century. None of that applies at all to this circumstance. We've won: the web is open. Now it's down to games and jiggly boobs.
So all the non-browser apps will always have plenty of places to be built. Innovation isn't going to ground to a halt. You're just as free to buy a non-Apple device as you ever were and you'll still be able to get to all of the same web services as you do on an Apple device. All your documents and file formats are still open no matter which route you go. All the options are good. So if this topic matters a lot to you, buy non-Apple. But all this talk about them being "evil" seems ... startlingly lacking in perspective.
> It's hard for me to imagine the "killer app" that can't be done on a platform that has a completely open web browser and a locked-down app store.
If not, you'd be building it.
> I guess what I'm saying is just this: all the cries of "software freedom!!" as though it were a revolutionary political struggle ring hollow to me.
You're not hearing those cries from me. I mean, I do appreciate software freedom, and that why I chose the Android device, but I'm not crying it. I'm merely arguing that in the long run, the free device will win. Not free in the way that Linux is and Windows isn't, but "I can run what I want"-free. And I think that's the essence of Brays argument, too.
I don't think Apple is particularly evil (except for the patent-trolling), I just don't think their walled garden strategy is going to win in the long run, and definitely not in the end-all be-all manner that we see from the most hardcore fans.
So Google Voice isn't the killer app. ScummVM isn't. But by the time you're going to replace your iPhone, and the list is up to 15 such apps, and if there's a high quality Android handset that's even $100 cheaper, you might pick that.
That's how I think Android will win. The boobs-argument is good, too, though :)
If not, you'd be building it.
> I guess what I'm saying is just this: all the cries of "software freedom!!" as though it were a revolutionary political struggle ring hollow to me.
You're not hearing those cries from me. I mean, I do appreciate software freedom, and that why I chose the Android device, but I'm not crying it. I'm merely arguing that in the long run, the free device will win. Not free in the way that Linux is and Windows isn't, but "I can run what I want"-free. And I think that's the essence of Brays argument, too.
I don't think Apple is particularly evil (except for the patent-trolling), I just don't think their walled garden strategy is going to win in the long run, and definitely not in the end-all be-all manner that we see from the most hardcore fans.
So Google Voice isn't the killer app. ScummVM isn't. But by the time you're going to replace your iPhone, and the list is up to 15 such apps, and if there's a high quality Android handset that's even $100 cheaper, you might pick that.
That's how I think Android will win. The boobs-argument is good, too, though :)
There are plenty. Tethering is a good one, right now you're at you're carrier's mercy. Apps like Pandora that let you stream in the background, when my friend found out she could have Pandora in the car she was amazed. Instant messaging.
Homescreen/lockedscreen status apps--it drives me insane that the lock screen on the iPhone is nearly useless. I can at most see the time and read the latest text message. What about the number of emails, the current temperature, word of the day, etc. My dad travels a lot, he'd love an app that simply displayed what city he was in on the home screen.
Homescreen/lockedscreen status apps--it drives me insane that the lock screen on the iPhone is nearly useless. I can at most see the time and read the latest text message. What about the number of emails, the current temperature, word of the day, etc. My dad travels a lot, he'd love an app that simply displayed what city he was in on the home screen.
If tethering (aside from carrier restrictions) or not being able to override your home screen are dealbreakers for you, you should not buy an iPhone. These aren't dealbreakers for most people.
Instant messaging works fine via Push Notifications. Maybe not perfectly the way you want it to, but well enough that I don't have any problem with it and there's no concern of it eating my battery. Everything in life is about trade-offs. You can't have the good without the bad... or at least it takes a LOT of work to achieve that. Understanding that is key to good product design and sometimes it seems to me that Apple's the only one in this industry that does.
Pandora works fine in the car. It doesn't work fine to leave it running and do something else. But when one is driving, it's fine. Yeah, you can't use your map while your music keeps running. Again, not a dealbreaker. Would be nice, I hope they add a well-managed multitasking solution in the future, but it's ridiculously low on my and most actual users' priority list. You wouldn't know that from the reams that have been written about how we absolutely must have multitasking or the device is junk.
Anyway, all of the points you raised are ones on which people can have legitimate gripes with the device. They and other capabilities may be lacking that make the device not fit their needs. Apple ain't gonna add a bunch of stuff to the homescreen because that's not within their aesthetic. I'm fine with that -- prefer it even. There's a value in things being calm and serene. For me it outweighs the value of having the city I'm in written on my homescreen. Both choices are fine and that's my whole point: unless/until Apple becomes a monopoly (which is not even remotely in sight), there's no reason to call them evil over the App Store's restrictions -- just don't buy/develop for their phone if you don't like it. LOTS of people really, really do, so it's nonsensical to call the device junk, either. There are lots of choices for those who don't like it. And it's rare anymore for things to lock you in (like how it used to be in the bad old days) to proprietary formats that you can't possibly move aways from even if you desperately want to. I haven't heard a single person say that they hate their iPhone but just can't move away because of X. If X being missing is a big enough deal, people just switch. YAY! This seems like freedom to me.
Instant messaging works fine via Push Notifications. Maybe not perfectly the way you want it to, but well enough that I don't have any problem with it and there's no concern of it eating my battery. Everything in life is about trade-offs. You can't have the good without the bad... or at least it takes a LOT of work to achieve that. Understanding that is key to good product design and sometimes it seems to me that Apple's the only one in this industry that does.
Pandora works fine in the car. It doesn't work fine to leave it running and do something else. But when one is driving, it's fine. Yeah, you can't use your map while your music keeps running. Again, not a dealbreaker. Would be nice, I hope they add a well-managed multitasking solution in the future, but it's ridiculously low on my and most actual users' priority list. You wouldn't know that from the reams that have been written about how we absolutely must have multitasking or the device is junk.
Anyway, all of the points you raised are ones on which people can have legitimate gripes with the device. They and other capabilities may be lacking that make the device not fit their needs. Apple ain't gonna add a bunch of stuff to the homescreen because that's not within their aesthetic. I'm fine with that -- prefer it even. There's a value in things being calm and serene. For me it outweighs the value of having the city I'm in written on my homescreen. Both choices are fine and that's my whole point: unless/until Apple becomes a monopoly (which is not even remotely in sight), there's no reason to call them evil over the App Store's restrictions -- just don't buy/develop for their phone if you don't like it. LOTS of people really, really do, so it's nonsensical to call the device junk, either. There are lots of choices for those who don't like it. And it's rare anymore for things to lock you in (like how it used to be in the bad old days) to proprietary formats that you can't possibly move aways from even if you desperately want to. I haven't heard a single person say that they hate their iPhone but just can't move away because of X. If X being missing is a big enough deal, people just switch. YAY! This seems like freedom to me.
I'm trying to imagine why Apple would give a shit about tethering. It's allowed in many (most?) of the venues the iPhone is sold in. If Android had the kind of market penetration the iPhone did, AT&T would be pissing off Google instead of Apple. This isn't a good example of Apple's "sharp toothed lawyers".
Well they won't approve apps that provide tethering so they apparently do give a shit. The point with Android is you can install anything you want, not being in the marketplace is as bad as Google can hit you back and that just means users have to install it themselves.
> It's hard for me to imagine the "killer app" that can't be done on a platform that has a completely open web browser
I don't want to write yet another web app. I want to write actual apps that run right on the device (or at least on a VM on the device). And as a user, I usually only use webapps when no good alternatives are available.
> I guess what I'm saying is just this: all the cries of "software freedom!!" as though it were a revolutionary political struggle ring hollow to me.
There is a struggle going on. Now, whether or not people choose to see it is another matter.
I don't want to write yet another web app. I want to write actual apps that run right on the device (or at least on a VM on the device). And as a user, I usually only use webapps when no good alternatives are available.
> I guess what I'm saying is just this: all the cries of "software freedom!!" as though it were a revolutionary political struggle ring hollow to me.
There is a struggle going on. Now, whether or not people choose to see it is another matter.
A struggle for what? To run exactly the code you want to run on Apple devices?
Let's keep in mind that that's what's being talked about here. Apple devices. Apple isn't making any proposal anywhere that says that you shouldn't be able to run the code you want to run on whatever device you choose that's not made by them. There are hundreds of them. Go use them, it's fine. Nobody minds. But to look at this one minority marketshare device and say you're being repressed because you can't buy one and run the code you want to on it is bizarre. Just buy something else. To do otherwise is to join in an intensely stupid struggle.
Let's keep in mind that that's what's being talked about here. Apple devices. Apple isn't making any proposal anywhere that says that you shouldn't be able to run the code you want to run on whatever device you choose that's not made by them. There are hundreds of them. Go use them, it's fine. Nobody minds. But to look at this one minority marketshare device and say you're being repressed because you can't buy one and run the code you want to on it is bizarre. Just buy something else. To do otherwise is to join in an intensely stupid struggle.
To risk seeming paranoid, I imagine that it would be a lot easier to censor IPhones than to censor Android phones. Apple may be purely motivated by profit at the moment, but there is no reason to assume that a change in leadership or government intervention wouldn't compel them to use their control over their platform to some malicious end. Spying and censorship are two, not unprecedented, possibilities.
Open platforms (particularly open-sourced platforms) are more resistant to this kind of problem.
Open platforms (particularly open-sourced platforms) are more resistant to this kind of problem.
I am not even sure what it is (does it refer to telephony, or voice recognition), but I am pretty sure I don't care. I want a mobile internet device, not a telephone.
Probably a porn app.
I thought turn-by-turn navigation might be that app, free and better on android, but hard to say if there has been an impact.
History shows that walled-garden approaches are severely limited in their scope. They don't scale. If you read the article it says
> As of now, they’re selling around 90K iPhones per day compared to around 60K Android handsets. It’s a horse race!
If those figures are accurate then it's not a horse race. The iPhone is dead. Do the math on growth rates. The iPhone is dead as the dominant platform and will soon occupy the small niche that its closed nature consigns it to.
> As of now, they’re selling around 90K iPhones per day compared to around 60K Android handsets. It’s a horse race!
If those figures are accurate then it's not a horse race. The iPhone is dead. Do the math on growth rates. The iPhone is dead as the dominant platform and will soon occupy the small niche that its closed nature consigns it to.
That was the visceral feeling I got about a day after I received my Nexus One. It's Mac vs Windows all over again.
Except that Android is way more open than Windows ever was, which makes it that much cooler.
Also, regarding the someone hyperbolic grandparent post, iPhone will always have its place, just like Macs have survived nearly 30 years despite being the more tightly controlled platform. Likely (and hopefully), that niche will let them continue to do interesting, beautiful things, without ever coming close to dominating the market, which is a very scary prospect for fans of 'open'.
Also, in terms of the "dominant" platform, outside of the slightly-behind-the-mobile-times Silicon Valley, which seems to have only started noticing mobile phones with the iPhone, the dominant platform, by a long shot, is Java ME.
Also, regarding the someone hyperbolic grandparent post, iPhone will always have its place, just like Macs have survived nearly 30 years despite being the more tightly controlled platform. Likely (and hopefully), that niche will let them continue to do interesting, beautiful things, without ever coming close to dominating the market, which is a very scary prospect for fans of 'open'.
Also, in terms of the "dominant" platform, outside of the slightly-behind-the-mobile-times Silicon Valley, which seems to have only started noticing mobile phones with the iPhone, the dominant platform, by a long shot, is Java ME.
[deleted]
"Unfortunately for Android, many or even most consumers prefer a Disney-fied experience."
Even so, there is still the other consumers. I simply can't help the Disney-fied consumers.
Consumers also like to eat candy all day and watch TV, but I don't want to feed them candy and TV because I know it is not healthy. Should be possible to find some business model that I can also agree with.
Even so, there is still the other consumers. I simply can't help the Disney-fied consumers.
Consumers also like to eat candy all day and watch TV, but I don't want to feed them candy and TV because I know it is not healthy. Should be possible to find some business model that I can also agree with.
One area where Android might easily be very successful is for businesses that need to do custom things, and don't want Apple sticking its nose in their affairs.
This exists, for large businesses -
http://developer.apple.com/programs/iphone/enterprise/
In house apps can be distributed without the App Store.
http://developer.apple.com/programs/iphone/enterprise/
In house apps can be distributed without the App Store.
If your business has 499 or fewer people, you are stuck with Android.
Incidentally, I know of at least one small business (4 people) which would like a mobile app for their employees. They are stuck with apple on the desktop, android on the phones.
Incidentally, I know of at least one small business (4 people) which would like a mobile app for their employees. They are stuck with apple on the desktop, android on the phones.
You really don't need the apple store to distribute apps. with a small handful of people, it's easy to get their uids and build the app for them.
I don't know the full details of the decision, since I don't work for that company.
As I understand it control was a major issue. The app was designed to monitor and control a hedge fund (i.e., automated alerts and kill switches while you are at lunch). Hoping and praying that Apple won't break things was simply not an option. Lack of multitasking on the iphone was also a problem.
As I understand it control was a major issue. The app was designed to monitor and control a hedge fund (i.e., automated alerts and kill switches while you are at lunch). Hoping and praying that Apple won't break things was simply not an option. Lack of multitasking on the iphone was also a problem.
> the iPhone Developer Enterprise Program is available to companies with 500 or more employees and a Dun & Bradstreet number.
Android is available to... anyone.
Android is available to... anyone.
Doesn't change the fact that large businesses have a way to get around having to use the App Store. Small businesses can use 'ad hoc' distribution which lets you distribute to 100 iPhones. Your point was based on the assumption that the App Store is the only way a business can distribute an app to iPhones. This is not the case.
No, my point was that Android is open, Apple is not.
There may be some businesses out there who just don't want to go through all that bureaucracy and hoop jumping to do something new and interesting. Android gives them that possibility, Apple does not.
There may be some businesses out there who just don't want to go through all that bureaucracy and hoop jumping to do something new and interesting. Android gives them that possibility, Apple does not.
No, it wasn't. Your point was if you are business, Android might have an advantage because Apple 'sticks its nose in [your] affairs'. Yes Android is more open. Yes putting apps on your iPhone without the App Store is more of a hassle. But it is possible and relatively straightforward. And it's not what you said. Which is fine, lots of people don't know about Apple's alternative distribution programs. It's better to be wrong than to be a weasel, though.
Dude, you can go call someone else a weasel.
My point is this, again:
Android is open, and that lets business do things even without signing up for some Apple-supervised Dun and Bradstreet-number-requiring enterprise program.
I never said nor implied that you can't, somehow, do stuff with the iPhone, just that it's a more invasive procedure, and a lot of businesses might not care for that. Also, there is a ton of stuff that you can do with Android because it is open from top to bottom that you will simply never be able to do with an iPhone.
That is going to be a win for some, and possibly many businesses.
My point is this, again:
Android is open, and that lets business do things even without signing up for some Apple-supervised Dun and Bradstreet-number-requiring enterprise program.
I never said nor implied that you can't, somehow, do stuff with the iPhone, just that it's a more invasive procedure, and a lot of businesses might not care for that. Also, there is a ton of stuff that you can do with Android because it is open from top to bottom that you will simply never be able to do with an iPhone.
That is going to be a win for some, and possibly many businesses.
Dude, you can go call someone else a weasel.
Oh I do! Right now I'm calling you a weasel. For weaseling.
My point is this, again:
That's your weasel-point. It's not the point you brought up. Both small and large businesses can easily put their apps on the iPhone without the App Store.
Oh I do! Right now I'm calling you a weasel. For weaseling.
My point is this, again:
That's your weasel-point. It's not the point you brought up. Both small and large businesses can easily put their apps on the iPhone without the App Store.
Please try and be more civil in your posts here. Thanks!
I wouldn't have high expectations. It's par for the course for the people running http://pinboard.in. Honestly one of the only reasons I haven't bought an account.
For the love of pete, the iPhone "Internet experience" has no parallels to any Disney product. Apple has basic restrictions on the types of native apps that can run on it, and they are far more permissive than "child friendly". Additionally, there is no restriction on Web browsing at all... This marks yet another article I stopped reading because the author said something clearly emotional and not rational.
I'm somewhat surprised he's chosen to take such a dump on his own credibility. I'm sure he has genuine misgivings about the way Apple's App Store process works. But this level of breathless hyperbole in the same post as an announcement that he now works for an iPhone competitor is like titling your blog entry "I am now a shill". Just a year ago he wrote
"The iPhone has proved that a mobile device can really truly be a first-class citizen of the Net."
"The iPhone has proved that a mobile device can really truly be a first-class citizen of the Net."
He's been saying the same thing for at least 7 years:
Are You a Sharecropper? · If you’re developing software for the Windows platform, yes. Or for the Apple platform, or the Oracle platform, or the SAP platform, or, well, any platform that is owned and operated by a company. They own the ground you’re building on, and if they decide they don’t like you, or they can do something better with the ground, you’re toast. They can ship their own product and give it away till you go bust, then start charging for it; and use secret APIs you can’t see; and they can break the published APIs you use. All of these things have historically been done by platform vendors.
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla...
Are You a Sharecropper? · If you’re developing software for the Windows platform, yes. Or for the Apple platform, or the Oracle platform, or the SAP platform, or, well, any platform that is owned and operated by a company. They own the ground you’re building on, and if they decide they don’t like you, or they can do something better with the ground, you’re toast. They can ship their own product and give it away till you go bust, then start charging for it; and use secret APIs you can’t see; and they can break the published APIs you use. All of these things have historically been done by platform vendors.
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla...
I know I'll get my ... kicked for this comment, but anyway.
The iPhone experience is not sterile at all. It comes with a browser and there is no restriction for the websites you can open. Google ('the web is the computer') should be the ones to best understand this.
Since when is controlling the quality and security of the content at a marketplace that you operate equal to limiting people's freedoms?
If I own a grocery shop and refuse to sell someone's rotten tomatoes does it make me necessary evil? Not letting people charge 0.99$ for balloons in swimwear using your own infrastructure has nothing to do with their freedom of speech. They can always create a web page and show it to the world.
The iPhone experience is not sterile at all. It comes with a browser and there is no restriction for the websites you can open. Google ('the web is the computer') should be the ones to best understand this.
Since when is controlling the quality and security of the content at a marketplace that you operate equal to limiting people's freedoms?
If I own a grocery shop and refuse to sell someone's rotten tomatoes does it make me necessary evil? Not letting people charge 0.99$ for balloons in swimwear using your own infrastructure has nothing to do with their freedom of speech. They can always create a web page and show it to the world.
Sounds like you've never lived in a communist country; where the government decides there shall be one and only one marketplace for a certain set of goods/services.
You are severally missing the point of the problem with Apple's App Store. It has absolutely nothing to do with what they will or will not allow in their store and what developers must do to get their apps published. It has nothing to do with Apple deciding 30% is the price of admission.
It has everything to do with Apple ensuring there can be only one market. This is the antithesis of a free market.
You are severally missing the point of the problem with Apple's App Store. It has absolutely nothing to do with what they will or will not allow in their store and what developers must do to get their apps published. It has nothing to do with Apple deciding 30% is the price of admission.
It has everything to do with Apple ensuring there can be only one market. This is the antithesis of a free market.
I dont think there's an issue with controlling the quality and security of the content at a marketplace. Its an issue that its the _only_ marketplace that they're controlling.
Try open one of them flash based porn sites.
The iPhone's web browser supports open standards. I'm not too upset it doesn't support a closed (if popular) format.
Not only that but I'd say the iPhone/iPad will give the biggest boost to HTML5 video, due to increased demand.
Not only that but I'd say the iPhone/iPad will give the biggest boost to HTML5 video, due to increased demand.
OT: Just curios. Would someone like Tim Bray (who is well-known and has a reputation) be required to take part in the technical interviews that other Googlers go through?
EDIT: better phrasing
EDIT: better phrasing
From the article, it sounds like it. "I think I talked to eleven people in the course of my day there, failing one logic puzzle but acing the what-does-a-browser-actually-do test." - sounds like my Google interview a few years ago.
[deleted]
They asked freakin' Tim Bray how a browser works. That's a bit overzealous if you ask me. I hope they withheld questions about XML at the very least.
I wonder if they asked logic puzzles and the like to Peter Norvig as well. I can already imagine the interview.
25 yr old interviewer: "What sorting algorithm would you use to sort a billion integers?"
Norvig: "Son, ..."
I wonder if they asked logic puzzles and the like to Peter Norvig as well. I can already imagine the interview.
25 yr old interviewer: "What sorting algorithm would you use to sort a billion integers?"
Norvig: "Son, ..."
Looks like this kind of comparison is there to stay:
As of now, they’re selling around 90K iPhones per day
compared to around 60K Android handsets. It’s a horse race!
I don't consider the comparison wrong in this context. We are talking about Operating Systems here. Not phones.
In other contexts it might be wrong, however.
In other contexts it might be wrong, however.
Not including the iPod Touch is a mistake, in my opinion. Also, you have to account for the issues with apps on different versions of Android. I'd love this competition to be as close as the article makes it out to be, but I don't think it's there quite yet.
Even in this case iPhone OS sells only on two devices (so far) and Android is on ~20 I assume.
[deleted]
Android might be catching up, but it is also fragmented. When developing for Android you don't know what features the phone has. It's going the way of Java Mobile.
A word from the poster.
I didn't expect to see the focus of this article on a debate between open and closed and between google and apple.
I found it interesting because I have followed Tim's blog, if only sporadically, for some time now. I have a lot of respect for him, as he is a visionary , and has worked on some of the relevant technologies of our time: 1) Author of one of the first search engines 2) co-author of the XML standard 3) technically very savy fellow.
What I have been wondering about his tenure at sun and his subsequent decision timed deliciously to leave sun just before he became an oracle employee is how it might foretell the future of the sun technologies and how oracle decides to treat the sun legacy.
I didn't expect to see the focus of this article on a debate between open and closed and between google and apple.
I found it interesting because I have followed Tim's blog, if only sporadically, for some time now. I have a lot of respect for him, as he is a visionary , and has worked on some of the relevant technologies of our time: 1) Author of one of the first search engines 2) co-author of the XML standard 3) technically very savy fellow.
What I have been wondering about his tenure at sun and his subsequent decision timed deliciously to leave sun just before he became an oracle employee is how it might foretell the future of the sun technologies and how oracle decides to treat the sun legacy.
I found this piece very interesting =]
Joining Google for Andriod- yet never making a useful Application for it. I wonder what he will be doing exactly...
Joining Google for Andriod- yet never making a useful Application for it. I wonder what he will be doing exactly...
I think Bray is mostly an evangelist at this point.
And a very good at that. Just his first post made me want to learn about android right away, even if I consider the iPhone a way superior experience.
While "no useful app" may be strictly accurate, he has written app(s) and blogged his experiences.
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/18/Android-Di...
[edit: Direct link to Android Diaries" rather than a google search]
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/18/Android-Di...
[edit: Direct link to Android Diaries" rather than a google search]
tl;dr Tim Bray is going to google to work on Android from Vancouver because he thinks Android is great.
I’d like to think that Hacker News is the kind of community that doesn’t need a tl;dr before they dive into the comments…
To be honest, that summary was about as long as the article needed to be. There really wasn't anything else in it which hadn't been covered either in previous posts on Tim's blog or in the general atmosphere here (do we really need yet another "Walled gardens are evil!!!!!!1", when that's been rehashed so many times already?).
OK, so I'll break the rules and go all meta...
The one-line summary which started this little sub-thread was accurate and contained basically all the salient details. Most of the rest of the linked blog post is Tim explaining why he thinks Android's better than iPhone (and/or why he thinks Google is better than Apple). None of that material is new or noteworthy, none of it is new coming from Tim (he's expressed opinions on the subject before) and none of it will be unfamiliar to anyone who frequents any geek-oriented forum.
As I write this there are 48 comments in the thread here on HN. 40 of those 48 comments are the same Android vs. iPhone arguments everyone here has seen more times than they can count. Of the other 8, 3 are related to the process of how Tim got his new job. So that's a whopping 45 out of 48 comments which have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual bit of news announced in the linked article.
Which raises a couple questions:
* Is that really what you want from HN?
* Is a one-line summary of the article, minus the flamewar fuel, more or less useful than the actual article?
* Gee, Brain, what are we doing to do tonight? (Answer: The same thing we do every night, Pinky: argue about Android versus iPhone!)
(and for completeness' sake, yes, I flagged this link)
The one-line summary which started this little sub-thread was accurate and contained basically all the salient details. Most of the rest of the linked blog post is Tim explaining why he thinks Android's better than iPhone (and/or why he thinks Google is better than Apple). None of that material is new or noteworthy, none of it is new coming from Tim (he's expressed opinions on the subject before) and none of it will be unfamiliar to anyone who frequents any geek-oriented forum.
As I write this there are 48 comments in the thread here on HN. 40 of those 48 comments are the same Android vs. iPhone arguments everyone here has seen more times than they can count. Of the other 8, 3 are related to the process of how Tim got his new job. So that's a whopping 45 out of 48 comments which have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual bit of news announced in the linked article.
Which raises a couple questions:
* Is that really what you want from HN?
* Is a one-line summary of the article, minus the flamewar fuel, more or less useful than the actual article?
* Gee, Brain, what are we doing to do tonight? (Answer: The same thing we do every night, Pinky: argue about Android versus iPhone!)
(and for completeness' sake, yes, I flagged this link)
I don't want another device I have to understand to the core in order to avoid viruses, trojan apps, and other mundane problems.
I want a damn phone that runs a few apps. I like that I can outsource most of my worries to Apple, and let them worry about it, and the price is that I don't have root.
I wonder how we can make both sides happy: both my side of "I know what I'm doing, but I don't want to do it.", and "It's my toy, let me do what I want". I see the merits of both, but I worry even about putting a "unlock me please" button in the settings panes somewhere, since it will end up with phones trojaned, dialing 1-900 numbers so the owner could have a cute animated cat on their unlock screen.