Android Migration(apple.com)
apple.com
Android Migration
http://www.apple.com/ios/ios9-preview/#android
77 comments
"Android has many problems and is far from perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our users in, to prevent them from leaving us."
Neither has Apple. Remember it was Apple that forced the music industry to go from DRM encumbered music to DRM free, etc. etc.
The Evil Apple mythology is pure political ideology on the part of Apple haters / Google Zealots.
And I've been hearing this kind of Apple bashing since the 1980s.
Yes, yes, Apple sells more expensive stuff. Apple focuses on design. Apple doesn't compete in the low end (though they are damn price competitive when you compare like systems.)
This does not make Apple evil. The idea that Android is "open" simply because linux is an open source operating system is silly- Darwin is open source as well, and Apple and Google both keep the application layer closed source.
All those knockoff phones sold in China that you're desperate to count as "Android" to claim Apple's losing (Yet nobody ever actually counts real sales of android devices, because android phone makers keep this data secret, unlike Apple that reports it quarterly to the SEC...why is that I wonder? Maybe the illusion that Android is "winning" would be shattered, hmmm? Meanwhile only %8 of "android" devices are running a current operating system???!? How is that "Winning"?)..... those knock off MediaTec phones are not "Android" and are not running google Apps (unless they've been cracked) because google has just as stringent licensing terms as Apple, actually much worse. And of course those apps are not open source either.
The Evil Apple mythology is pure political ideology on the part of Apple haters / Google Zealots.
And I've been hearing this kind of Apple bashing since the 1980s.
Yes, yes, Apple sells more expensive stuff. Apple focuses on design. Apple doesn't compete in the low end (though they are damn price competitive when you compare like systems.)
This does not make Apple evil. The idea that Android is "open" simply because linux is an open source operating system is silly- Darwin is open source as well, and Apple and Google both keep the application layer closed source.
All those knockoff phones sold in China that you're desperate to count as "Android" to claim Apple's losing (Yet nobody ever actually counts real sales of android devices, because android phone makers keep this data secret, unlike Apple that reports it quarterly to the SEC...why is that I wonder? Maybe the illusion that Android is "winning" would be shattered, hmmm? Meanwhile only %8 of "android" devices are running a current operating system???!? How is that "Winning"?)..... those knock off MediaTec phones are not "Android" and are not running google Apps (unless they've been cracked) because google has just as stringent licensing terms as Apple, actually much worse. And of course those apps are not open source either.
> The idea that Android is "open" simply because linux is an open source operating system is silly- Darwin is open source as well, and Apple and Google both keep the application layer closed source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29
"On July 25, 2006, the OpenDarwin team announced that the project was shutting down, as they felt OpenDarwin had "become a mere hosting facility for Mac OS X related projects," and that the efforts to create a standalone Darwin operating system had failed. They also state: "Availability of sources, interaction with Apple representatives, difficulty building and tracking sources, and a lack of interest from the community have all contributed to this."[24] "
Darwin is open source, but to compare that to linux is laughable. Google is one of the top contributers upstream to Linux and subsequntly hundreds of millions of devices are better off because of it.
I'm unaware of any modern darwin based distro's and I'm unaware of any iOS mods like Cyanagenmod. To say Apple and Google are about the same when it comes to Open Source is a joke. Based on Steve Jobs stopping all donations to charity I'm fairly certain the fact that Darwin is open source is because the licensing requires it to be. Otherwise Darwin would be proprietary so fast no one would notice because it's too difficult to work with anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29
"On July 25, 2006, the OpenDarwin team announced that the project was shutting down, as they felt OpenDarwin had "become a mere hosting facility for Mac OS X related projects," and that the efforts to create a standalone Darwin operating system had failed. They also state: "Availability of sources, interaction with Apple representatives, difficulty building and tracking sources, and a lack of interest from the community have all contributed to this."[24] "
Darwin is open source, but to compare that to linux is laughable. Google is one of the top contributers upstream to Linux and subsequntly hundreds of millions of devices are better off because of it.
I'm unaware of any modern darwin based distro's and I'm unaware of any iOS mods like Cyanagenmod. To say Apple and Google are about the same when it comes to Open Source is a joke. Based on Steve Jobs stopping all donations to charity I'm fairly certain the fact that Darwin is open source is because the licensing requires it to be. Otherwise Darwin would be proprietary so fast no one would notice because it's too difficult to work with anyway.
Most of the 'Darwin' open source releases on opensource.apple.com are not under any variant of the GPL. However, they are only provided for OS X - the iOS section only has a short list of LGPL projects, and ARM code is often stripped out; new projects are never added, even rewrites of older code that was open source (launchd, discoveryd); several projects cannot be compiled without some work dealing with missing header files; and some projects (kernel extensions) have over the years had entire files redacted to blankness, or been removed from future distributions altogether. In other words, it very much feels like a legacy thing.
Migrating data from an android phone to an iPhone might now be easier than migrating from an android to another. I haven't come across any free, play store app that can seamlessly transfer data between android phones of different makes.
Motorola's devices all come with Motorola Migrate[1], which supports transferring data from both Android, iOS, and some older devices. The times I've used it I was pretty impressed by how smooth they made everything, although I was going Android-Android, I don't know what caveats there are for iOS migrations.
https://www.motorola.com/us/motorola-migrate/motorola-migrat...
https://www.motorola.com/us/motorola-migrate/motorola-migrat...
It's surprisingly not too hard. I just set up an ftp server on both phones and copy the data between them from my computer. Or setup the server on one and a client on the other and just go phone to phone directly.
It looks like a better experience than moving to a new Android device.
Google only copies system settings and list of installed apps, but not "sd card" data with local music, photos, apps' settings or data.
Google only copies system settings and list of installed apps, but not "sd card" data with local music, photos, apps' settings or data.
You don't need to transfer photos, because they're automatically uploaded to Google Photos ASAP.
You don't need to transfer music if you're using Google Play Music (including the option to upload your own music), Spotify (has a similar options), or something else like that.
I'll give you application settings, but that's only because the applications didn't bother implementing the backup services.
You don't need to transfer music if you're using Google Play Music (including the option to upload your own music), Spotify (has a similar options), or something else like that.
I'll give you application settings, but that's only because the applications didn't bother implementing the backup services.
Why on Earth should I have to use Google Photos or Google Play Music if I want to move content to a new phone? That would be quite the definition of lock-in, particularly when what we're talking about is moving non-system files.
You can redownload your photos and music from both services. You aren't locked in at all.
Not using local storage (and compromising on privacy, features and availability) isn't a satisfactory solution for inability to easily migrate local storage.
It looks like Google either doesn't care or deliberately cripples experience for users who don't go all-in on all their services (given that Maps explicitly refuses to save recent searches locally I'm think it's the latter).
I've migrated from Nexus 4 to 5 and it was a mess (Google Play is full of dodgy and incomplete 3rd party backup apps. Android File Transfer is slow and leaves partial copies behind when any error happens, and errors happen often, etc.)
It looks like Google either doesn't care or deliberately cripples experience for users who don't go all-in on all their services (given that Maps explicitly refuses to save recent searches locally I'm think it's the latter).
I've migrated from Nexus 4 to 5 and it was a mess (Google Play is full of dodgy and incomplete 3rd party backup apps. Android File Transfer is slow and leaves partial copies behind when any error happens, and errors happen often, etc.)
> Not using local storage (and compromising on privacy, features and availability) isn't a satisfactory solution for inability to easily migrate local storage.
I could see your point when it comes to privacy, but the photos are still available locally as well. By the time you're replacing phone the photos will probably only be used for archival anyway.
I could see your point when it comes to privacy, but the photos are still available locally as well. By the time you're replacing phone the photos will probably only be used for archival anyway.
Your solution is a bit ridiculous. Worldwide upload speeds are typically a tiny fraction of download speeds so you would wasting huge amounts of time for something that should be simple.
Case in point it took me a month to upload my music to iTunes Match (and it already has fingerprinting).
Case in point it took me a month to upload my music to iTunes Match (and it already has fingerprinting).
I feel like photos, videos, and music are the easiest things to transfer. Just plug the phone into your (or any) computer, copy the photo/video/music folders, and then dump them on the new device if you don't want to use one of Google's upload/download services.
Simple read access to the contents of an Android device was always one of the big "pluses" in my experience. Then if you find that too difficult for whatever reason, there are Google apps that do the same thing. The only bits that can be annoying are app settings as you mentioned. Even that has improved and I notice a lot of that stuff showing up when I sign into a new device. Still, I hope to see some improvement on that front in the future. Third party migration apps (like the one on my Moto X) can do it so Google should definitely offer something similar. It currently works for some settings/data but I'd hope they're working on adding support for more.
Simple read access to the contents of an Android device was always one of the big "pluses" in my experience. Then if you find that too difficult for whatever reason, there are Google apps that do the same thing. The only bits that can be annoying are app settings as you mentioned. Even that has improved and I notice a lot of that stuff showing up when I sign into a new device. Still, I hope to see some improvement on that front in the future. Third party migration apps (like the one on my Moto X) can do it so Google should definitely offer something similar. It currently works for some settings/data but I'd hope they're working on adding support for more.
> Google only copies system settings and list of installed apps, but not "sd card" data with local music, photos, apps' settings or data.
Automatic app settings backup (to google drive) is finally coming to Android M [0]. Third party solutions have existed more or less forever, though the best ones require root. For the local music/photos stuff, is it really that hard to plug both phones into a computer and transfer stuff that way? It would take maybe an hour.
[0] http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/05/android-m-makes-anoth...
Automatic app settings backup (to google drive) is finally coming to Android M [0]. Third party solutions have existed more or less forever, though the best ones require root. For the local music/photos stuff, is it really that hard to plug both phones into a computer and transfer stuff that way? It would take maybe an hour.
[0] http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/05/android-m-makes-anoth...
The timing of this is pretty interesting. Apple's been able to make such a tool for years, but the trend has clearly been iOS -> Android for a while. Now that they're finally offering devices in sizes people want (literally 80% of the new iPhones I see are the 6+), people who wanted the bigger devices but went to Android, are finally seeing a reason to switch back. Furthermore, iOS is finally in good shape compared to Android w/r to features like notifications, multitasking, etc. making the idea of migration parity simpler.
I don't think this will have a huge impact in conversions, I think the path Apple is on is already doing that, but it's not a terrible idea.
I don't think this will have a huge impact in conversions, I think the path Apple is on is already doing that, but it's not a terrible idea.
Is there any reason for google to allow this in their play store ? Serious question here, i cannot think of apple allowing the same kind of an app for google in app store...
Well, contrary to on iOS, Apple could just distribute the APK themselves. Which, of course, demonstrates why you shouldn't use the tool to begin with.
I wouldn't blame google for blocking this unless Apple allowed them to build a similar app for moving data the opposite direction
You notice Google maps, that failure of an Application, is available on the App Store, along with Google Now, Google Earth and lots of other apps from Google.
The idea that Apple won't let google applications on their store is just google zealot paranoid fantasy.
Hell, Apple's bringing Apple Music to android. It's treating it like a real platform.
The idea that Apple won't let google applications on their store is just google zealot paranoid fantasy.
Hell, Apple's bringing Apple Music to android. It's treating it like a real platform.
> You notice Google maps, that failure of an Application
"Google Maps for mobile is the world's most popular app for smartphones, with over 54% of global smartphone owners using it at least once during the month of August 2013.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps
I think your bias might be showing?
"Google Maps for mobile is the world's most popular app for smartphones, with over 54% of global smartphone owners using it at least once during the month of August 2013.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps
I think your bias might be showing?
It's funny how they are trying to suggest that getting same apps isn't going to be a problem :).
Yeah, it would be newsworthy if Apple stomached the cost of paid apps for people who move from android to iOS.
I mean they'd only have to pay 0.7x the cost of the apps, if that.
> And your paid apps are added to your iTunes Wish List.
Oh how convenient!
I wonder if they will allow an app that lets people migrate from iOS to something else on their app store. The reality distortion field at Cupertino remains strong.
I mean they'd only have to pay 0.7x the cost of the apps, if that.
> And your paid apps are added to your iTunes Wish List.
Oh how convenient!
I wonder if they will allow an app that lets people migrate from iOS to something else on their app store. The reality distortion field at Cupertino remains strong.
I've always thought someone should do this. Would have though MS, BB or Samsung would have more to gain than Apple, but the result would have to worth the cost?
However my anecdotal evidence is that having paid for apps on one platform isn't a barrier to switching for a lot of people. It seems to be an afterthought, a realisation only when they come to download (and pay) for the app again. By that point its too late.
However my anecdotal evidence is that having paid for apps on one platform isn't a barrier to switching for a lot of people. It seems to be an afterthought, a realisation only when they come to download (and pay) for the app again. By that point its too late.
Plus nobody pays for Apps on other platforms. Developers who release on iOS and android see 10-100 times the revenue on iOS. Partly this is piracy, but a lot of it is culture.
More than that, even on iOS the paid App model is going away and free apps with in-app-purchase or other premium models are what's succeeding. (not watch this get downvoted.)
More than that, even on iOS the paid App model is going away and free apps with in-app-purchase or other premium models are what's succeeding. (not watch this get downvoted.)
[deleted]
"Recycle your Android Phone"
Well, that's quite petty insinuating that the Android device is essentially garbage.
Well, that's quite petty insinuating that the Android device is essentially garbage.
This is quite presumptuous of them. I find iOS a bit backwards and unintuitive compare to Android, not to mention I find their practices the worst of all evils (and I'm far from being an ideologist).
You're not far at all, you're exactly being an ideologist.
If you look at Apple's practices you can't find a single one that google doesn't emulate.
BTW, the restrictions on the App Store? They are there on the Play store as well.
The ability to develop Apps and run them on any device outside the store-- Has been on the iPhone since day one. Back when google was making blackberry clones you could release iPhone apps on the web (built using a Javascript/HTML/CSS platform, that web developers claim is the best anyway with hooks into the iOS API and phone capabilities).... but people hated it.
People here on Hacker News screamed bloody murder because they wanted native access to the hardware on iOS. So, Apple built it and the App Store. but they never got rid of the prior web based SDK and it's still there. You can build apps, install them on users phones and completely bypass the App Store.
But you ideologists just ignore that because you want to bash the App Store.
Best case you're think we'll believe you're not biased. Worst case, you're deluding yourself.
Neither choice is a good one.
If you look at Apple's practices you can't find a single one that google doesn't emulate.
BTW, the restrictions on the App Store? They are there on the Play store as well.
The ability to develop Apps and run them on any device outside the store-- Has been on the iPhone since day one. Back when google was making blackberry clones you could release iPhone apps on the web (built using a Javascript/HTML/CSS platform, that web developers claim is the best anyway with hooks into the iOS API and phone capabilities).... but people hated it.
People here on Hacker News screamed bloody murder because they wanted native access to the hardware on iOS. So, Apple built it and the App Store. but they never got rid of the prior web based SDK and it's still there. You can build apps, install them on users phones and completely bypass the App Store.
But you ideologists just ignore that because you want to bash the App Store.
Best case you're think we'll believe you're not biased. Worst case, you're deluding yourself.
Neither choice is a good one.
I was talking about Apple this time. If we were talking about Android, I'd say the same thing. Me not seeing myself as an ideologist means that ideology is not what drives me to use Google or Apple - just pure aesthetics. I would gladly use Apple products if I found them aesthetically pleasing or technologically advanced above anything else. Same goes for any other product or way of life. In other words, I rather not let ideology dictate my life as its restricting. I prefer to deal with things on a case by case basis.
Me too, but I don't see this as presumptuous at all. They're trying to make it easy for people who want to migrate from Android. Who can blame them?
Those who might want to migrate the other way, perhaps.
Samsung has their own software to do this [1].
[1] http://www.samsung.com/au/support/smartswitch/#icloud
[1] http://www.samsung.com/au/support/smartswitch/#icloud
That tweet is simply dishonest. Expecting Apple to make a migration assistant to help people move off of its platform is absurd and hypocritical.
No, I want to make the migration assistant. How can I access on iOS the same data that Move accesses on Android?
Ask the user for their iCloud credentials. That would get you documents, photos, mail, contacts, calendars, reminders, bookmarks, notes, passwords and many app settings.
Then it should be just a matter of parsing a bunch of plist files and a few SQLite databases.
Then it should be just a matter of parsing a bunch of plist files and a few SQLite databases.
You can't do it from the device itself, but you can grab all that data over USB if the user has a desktop to sync with...
It seems a bit evil that Apple takes advantage of Android's open APIs to provide this tool, yet it's not possible to write a tool to go the other way because so much iOS user data is locked in by Apple.
(You can of course get some of this data from iOS, but things like preferences and settings from the default applications just are not accessible.)
iOS, the "Hotel California" of mobile?
(You can of course get some of this data from iOS, but things like preferences and settings from the default applications just are not accessible.)
iOS, the "Hotel California" of mobile?
Android does the same thing:
http://www.android.com/switch/
http://www.android.com/switch/
I think, if you look at it from the perspective of a user who wants to switch from Android to iOS, this tool makes the job easier. And I wouldn't fault Apple for making this transition smoother, they're being "customer-centric" in my books. Is it not that you can take your data and move to any other platform the entire selling point of Android and the openness?
I'd venture that Google's tightening its grip on Android and making it more closed than it ever was. A high profile engineer, JBQ, quit AOSP project for a reason. As an android user, one is already consuming a lot of Google resources for free; and Google isn't going to sit back and not make you pay for it.
I'd venture that Google's tightening its grip on Android and making it more closed than it ever was. A high profile engineer, JBQ, quit AOSP project for a reason. As an android user, one is already consuming a lot of Google resources for free; and Google isn't going to sit back and not make you pay for it.
So why aren't they being Customer centric by allowing such tools on the iOS AppStore. Heck, even the word "Android" is banned
http://www.techhive.com/article/188696/Apple_Bans_the_Word_A...
http://www.techhive.com/article/188696/Apple_Bans_the_Word_A...
> I'd venture that Google's tightening its grip on Android and making it more closed than it ever was. A high profile engineer, JBQ, quit AOSP project for a reason
It might seem nit-picky, but that is so vague as to be untrue. The reason JBQ quit, as I pieced together from his G+/tweets, was because of 3rd party drivers for a Nexus device that were not released as open source as he would have liked (he managed AOSP releases). Inferring from his posts at the time, this was something he realised as a potential problem ahead of time and notified legal, but it seemed nothing was done (or they failed in negotiating with manufacturer).
I'm not a Googler, so I could also be off-base here. I apologise ahead of time if I misrepresented anyone.
It might seem nit-picky, but that is so vague as to be untrue. The reason JBQ quit, as I pieced together from his G+/tweets, was because of 3rd party drivers for a Nexus device that were not released as open source as he would have liked (he managed AOSP releases). Inferring from his posts at the time, this was something he realised as a potential problem ahead of time and notified legal, but it seemed nothing was done (or they failed in negotiating with manufacturer).
I'm not a Googler, so I could also be off-base here. I apologise ahead of time if I misrepresented anyone.
You're right. JBQ quit because of the reasons you mention. But he was tired of AOSP in general and doubted the intentions of powers that be. Android was notorious for its non-cooperation with the rest of Google (remember the android browser vs chrome wars?), IIRC. Removal of Andy Rubin from the Android division was a sign enough... Ever since Sundar Pichai has taken over, Google has continued to close source a lot of code that was earlier part of AOSP.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/11/android-5-0-lollipop-...
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/11/android-5-0-lollipop-...
Evil is a very loaded word because the API is being used for the exact purpose it was created: to allow the users of the platform to move their data unimpeded.
This kind of reasoning central point of the copyleft vs. permissive licensing debate: should the goal be
- to maximize the freedom of choice for the end user even if the choice curtails his own freedom?
- or to maximize the freedom of the software / system itself even if that curtails the freedom of choice for the end user?
Whatever the path taken it is naive to expect people and companies to follow the spirit of the license instead of its letter when is more beneficial to them to follow the later. Neither imoral nor evil IMO.
This kind of reasoning central point of the copyleft vs. permissive licensing debate: should the goal be
- to maximize the freedom of choice for the end user even if the choice curtails his own freedom?
- or to maximize the freedom of the software / system itself even if that curtails the freedom of choice for the end user?
Whatever the path taken it is naive to expect people and companies to follow the spirit of the license instead of its letter when is more beneficial to them to follow the later. Neither imoral nor evil IMO.
It's one of those sad cases where someone "doing the right thing" opens doors for the bad guys. I remember Google having a page that "educated" about the potential pitfalls of having data locked up in Facebook (on the OAuth approval page). Maybe they will do the same thing here?
Thing is: for technical people like us it's a no-brainer, stay the hell away. This kind of thing is going to get a whole bunch of Aunt Tillys locked up in Apple. From that perspective the one option is clearly more "evil" as it preys on ignorance.
Thing is: for technical people like us it's a no-brainer, stay the hell away. This kind of thing is going to get a whole bunch of Aunt Tillys locked up in Apple. From that perspective the one option is clearly more "evil" as it preys on ignorance.
> Thing is: for technical people like us it's a no-brainer, stay the hell away.
Are you implying that technical people do not use iOS? Well, you might be surprised if you dig for some statistics.
Are you implying that technical people do not use iOS? Well, you might be surprised if you dig for some statistics.
No, just making an assumption about the target market of the feature: Android users. It's not a huge leap of faith to imagine that they would care more about issues like this.
How noble of Google to "educate" their users about their data being locked up in Facebook. I am sure they were doing for the benefit of their users and not so they could access the advertising goldmine that is Facebook. Especially since IIRC this education was happening around the time that Google+ was floundering.
Sure, it's not evil in the ISIS/Cheney sense, not even in the "banner that looks like a Download button on Sourceforge" sense...
But it's misleading because it creates the impression that users can easily move between mobile operating systems, when in fact this door Apple has built is strictly one-way. They won't tell you that ahead of time, of course.
To us technical users, it's obvious that moving data between closed server-based services is fraught with complications. But a lot of regular people don't understand those nuances. Copying data from a phone to another is just moving over some files, right? Apple is supporting that expectation.
But it's misleading because it creates the impression that users can easily move between mobile operating systems, when in fact this door Apple has built is strictly one-way. They won't tell you that ahead of time, of course.
To us technical users, it's obvious that moving data between closed server-based services is fraught with complications. But a lot of regular people don't understand those nuances. Copying data from a phone to another is just moving over some files, right? Apple is supporting that expectation.
The idea that you're locked up in an Evil Apple Fortress, while Google is the open land of the free is not only hyperbolic dogma, it's simply false.
Apple and Google both make access to the lists of songs, contacts, photos, etc data on your device and this app simply uses those APIs to transfer the DRM free music and other data from one device to the other.
It's true that your data being on one device makes it difficult for average people to migrate when they switch devices.
The only difference here is that Apple took the time to write a program to make the transfer onto their platform easy for users. They've had a similar migration assistant for OS X for around a decade.
This is consistent with Apple's focus on the user and building of consumer level technology.
Google's approach is different. Android is just a strategic action, not a product, and so they don't really care to put this level of effort in.
That doesn't make Google virtuous or Apple evil. In fact, I would say focusing on making your customers lives better is virtuous.
It's a shame that such an ideology has sprung up that everything Apple does is routinely asserted to be evil here, even though most of it is designed to protect users, while google, which does nothing to protect people and frequently violates users rights is sign as some paragon of virtue.
Apple and Google both make access to the lists of songs, contacts, photos, etc data on your device and this app simply uses those APIs to transfer the DRM free music and other data from one device to the other.
It's true that your data being on one device makes it difficult for average people to migrate when they switch devices.
The only difference here is that Apple took the time to write a program to make the transfer onto their platform easy for users. They've had a similar migration assistant for OS X for around a decade.
This is consistent with Apple's focus on the user and building of consumer level technology.
Google's approach is different. Android is just a strategic action, not a product, and so they don't really care to put this level of effort in.
That doesn't make Google virtuous or Apple evil. In fact, I would say focusing on making your customers lives better is virtuous.
It's a shame that such an ideology has sprung up that everything Apple does is routinely asserted to be evil here, even though most of it is designed to protect users, while google, which does nothing to protect people and frequently violates users rights is sign as some paragon of virtue.
I think most people dont care about how closed apple app ecosystem and is not the reason they call it evil. They call apple evil for introducing features in iOS copied from popular apps then outright ban or put hurdles in the way of that app.
I dont care that apple allows migration from Android to iOS but they should also allow it to go the other way as well.
Apple behaviour with ebook publishers, coders and now the with rumors going on about music shows a consistent. Immoral behaviour if not alway illegal. The Ceo of Apple harps about how people are stealing your data not respecting people privacy but at the same time introduces similar features. They wont be using to sell ad space but they are still getting and collecting the same data.
sumitviii(2)
For the record, you can get all of that data over USB if you have a computer handy, though these days not everyone does.
Your argument seems pretty misplaced to me. You actually think it's a good idea for third party apps to access preferences/settings from the system and other apps ? Personally I think it's a massive security and privacy risk that will be exploited and used for means that in 99.999% of cases the user never wants. I don't think Apple is being evil at all but rather looking out for their users.
You could already access most relevant information through secured authentication to iCloud anyway.
You could already access most relevant information through secured authentication to iCloud anyway.
Seriously, it's a bit annoying to have so many news related to apple products making it to the front page of HN today.
Just avoid HN for a week or so while WWDC is on. It is always like this
And the same for BUILD and IO. Tech geeks get excited when tech companies announce things, news at 11.
It was similar after Microsoft's BUILD conference and Google's IO conference. Though, comparing all three conferences, there were only big flame wars and bad behavior in MS conf related news.
Well, I haven't seen a lot of non-political stuff about the Apple announcements.
Even open sourcing Swift was criticized and used as an opportunity to bash Apple.
It's kinda bad when HNers are bashing a company for the "crime" of open sourcing a new programming language / platform.
Even open sourcing Swift was criticized and used as an opportunity to bash Apple.
It's kinda bad when HNers are bashing a company for the "crime" of open sourcing a new programming language / platform.
This is actually an Android openness success story. Even if Android is not as open as it should it still shows how much better it is in this subject.
Oh really? I notice that you all are just assuming so.
Exactly what data are apps not able to reach on iOS that they are able to reach on Android?
If Google cared about their customers they could write this kind of App as well.
But google is not in the same business as Apple. Apple is making the best platform they can. Google is in the business of commoditizing Apple's platform so that google can sell ads on it.
Apple charges for its platform and protects customer data. Google gives the platform away for free at the price of your immortal soul.
Exactly what data are apps not able to reach on iOS that they are able to reach on Android?
If Google cared about their customers they could write this kind of App as well.
But google is not in the same business as Apple. Apple is making the best platform they can. Google is in the business of commoditizing Apple's platform so that google can sell ads on it.
Apple charges for its platform and protects customer data. Google gives the platform away for free at the price of your immortal soul.
Google has provided cloud app storage for quite some time now and I believe with M they even said that they are doing full restores including the APK. The real issue as I understand it is that developers haven't taken advantage of all the services available to them.
everyone is entitled to their own opinion
The user you replied to certainly thinks so. He's posted variations of that comment several times on this thread. It does not seem to be well received, however.