Leaving the iPhone(mattcutts.com)
mattcutts.com
Leaving the iPhone
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/switch-iphone-to-android/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mattcutts%2FuJBW+%28Matt+Cutts%3A+Gadgets%2C+Google%2C+and+SEO%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
27 comments
i'm having a hard time getting through this guy's review since there is so much bias and incorrect information.
One real issue I have with all of the Android phones is the four hardware buttons they all have: back, menu, home, and search. Three of the four shouldn't be there. Coming from Google, I can understand the emphasis on search, but it simply doesn't belong in a hardware button. I don't need to search while I'm playing a game, for example. Likewise, the menu button isn't applicable in all situations, nor is the back button. Of the four, only the home button really needs to be a hardware button, and it's not a coincidence that Apple made that exact design choice.
most android software is designed with these 4 buttons in mind, and i use all 4 of them very frequently. the search button is not restricted to searching the web or anything, and many applications have some implementation of searching within them. the back and menu buttons are required in almost every application since there are no on-screen buttons like most iphone applications have (which look different from app to app).
When you hit the home button, the previous application keeps running, which means it keeps eating memory, keeps using processor cycles, and keeps eating battery.
oh, you mean just like every mac os application that, when closed by clicking the "x" button, stays running unless you go through its menu and quit?
To truly quit most applications requires a multi-step navigation that is neither intuitive nor well-documented.
many have a quit function in their menu, or just hitting the back button at its main screen usually quits it. i can't speak for every 3rd party application.
The ability to have more than one GUI application at a time on a device with such a small screen isn't as important as some make it out to be, since you can't actually interact with more than one a time.
on my mac i usually have to command+tab to work with more than one application at a time. it's no different on android. holding down the home button brings up a list of running applications that looks just like command+tab on a mac, and allows you to quickly jump between two applications. on the iphone, doing that (which would require going to the home screen between each jump) would restart each app every time, losing your context.
In the early days, I was a big proponent of having Apple add the ability to run multiple apps to the iPhone OS, but I've come to change my mind on that. I think most people don't need it and Android's implementation only confirms it.
ok, then most won't use it. that's no reason not to implement it. what percentage of iphone owners use copy-and-paste of text, or holding down home and power to take a screenshot?
even if users don't want to keep switching between apps, allowing background functionality is essential for using things like pandora to play music, or a location-tracking application to keep updating your status in the background. even if you just have to switch into an app to look at a phone number, or look at a map, not having to quit those other apps is very useful.
The day of my flight home from the U.K., I set alarms on both devices (I'm paranoid bout missing flights). It took me quite literally three to four times as long to configure and enable the alarms on the Nexus One as it did on the iPhone. Add that extra time by the number of tasks you do on your phone in a given day, and it can add up to a considerable amount of time.
and this is surprising why? you're used to how it works on an iphone and aren't used to how it works on android. it would be no different if you were used to windows and switched to a mac. once you get used to the new method, you'll do it quicker than the previous one.
One real issue I have with all of the Android phones is the four hardware buttons they all have: back, menu, home, and search. Three of the four shouldn't be there. Coming from Google, I can understand the emphasis on search, but it simply doesn't belong in a hardware button. I don't need to search while I'm playing a game, for example. Likewise, the menu button isn't applicable in all situations, nor is the back button. Of the four, only the home button really needs to be a hardware button, and it's not a coincidence that Apple made that exact design choice.
most android software is designed with these 4 buttons in mind, and i use all 4 of them very frequently. the search button is not restricted to searching the web or anything, and many applications have some implementation of searching within them. the back and menu buttons are required in almost every application since there are no on-screen buttons like most iphone applications have (which look different from app to app).
When you hit the home button, the previous application keeps running, which means it keeps eating memory, keeps using processor cycles, and keeps eating battery.
oh, you mean just like every mac os application that, when closed by clicking the "x" button, stays running unless you go through its menu and quit?
To truly quit most applications requires a multi-step navigation that is neither intuitive nor well-documented.
many have a quit function in their menu, or just hitting the back button at its main screen usually quits it. i can't speak for every 3rd party application.
The ability to have more than one GUI application at a time on a device with such a small screen isn't as important as some make it out to be, since you can't actually interact with more than one a time.
on my mac i usually have to command+tab to work with more than one application at a time. it's no different on android. holding down the home button brings up a list of running applications that looks just like command+tab on a mac, and allows you to quickly jump between two applications. on the iphone, doing that (which would require going to the home screen between each jump) would restart each app every time, losing your context.
In the early days, I was a big proponent of having Apple add the ability to run multiple apps to the iPhone OS, but I've come to change my mind on that. I think most people don't need it and Android's implementation only confirms it.
ok, then most won't use it. that's no reason not to implement it. what percentage of iphone owners use copy-and-paste of text, or holding down home and power to take a screenshot?
even if users don't want to keep switching between apps, allowing background functionality is essential for using things like pandora to play music, or a location-tracking application to keep updating your status in the background. even if you just have to switch into an app to look at a phone number, or look at a map, not having to quit those other apps is very useful.
The day of my flight home from the U.K., I set alarms on both devices (I'm paranoid bout missing flights). It took me quite literally three to four times as long to configure and enable the alarms on the Nexus One as it did on the iPhone. Add that extra time by the number of tasks you do on your phone in a given day, and it can add up to a considerable amount of time.
and this is surprising why? you're used to how it works on an iphone and aren't used to how it works on android. it would be no different if you were used to windows and switched to a mac. once you get used to the new method, you'll do it quicker than the previous one.
When you hit the home button, the previous application keeps running, which means it keeps eating memory, keeps using processor cycles, and keeps eating battery.....To truly quit most applications requires a multi-step navigation that is neither intuitive nor well-documented.
That one is one of the most pernicious bits of misinformation about the Android platform. Applications that are no longer visible to the user are NOT "background" applications like they are on a desktop OS. Applications that are no longer visible to the user are stopped. They no longer consume CPU resources, but the OS does hold them in memory in case the user returns to the app. Stopped applications may be killed by the OS, thereby freeing up the memory used by them, at any time by the OS when it determines it needs resources. Think of it like caching. The app state is cached in memory so that if you switch momentarily to another app (to answer a call for example) you can return immediately to the previous app with minimal delay and minimal resource cost (ie, the app doesn't need to be re-loaded, etc). The Android developer docs have more information: http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/fundamentals.html#...
The only things that truly run in the background on Android are service process. These are somewhat like worker threads that are created specifically to handle long running background tasks (like playing music, or downloading data over the network, etc).
There is absolutely no need to go through any "multistep navigation" to quit apps, nor do non-visible apps continue "using processor cycles and eating battery" (with the exception of course of apps that are supposed to be using processor cycles, ie, music players, etc. running in a background service process).
That one is one of the most pernicious bits of misinformation about the Android platform. Applications that are no longer visible to the user are NOT "background" applications like they are on a desktop OS. Applications that are no longer visible to the user are stopped. They no longer consume CPU resources, but the OS does hold them in memory in case the user returns to the app. Stopped applications may be killed by the OS, thereby freeing up the memory used by them, at any time by the OS when it determines it needs resources. Think of it like caching. The app state is cached in memory so that if you switch momentarily to another app (to answer a call for example) you can return immediately to the previous app with minimal delay and minimal resource cost (ie, the app doesn't need to be re-loaded, etc). The Android developer docs have more information: http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/fundamentals.html#...
The only things that truly run in the background on Android are service process. These are somewhat like worker threads that are created specifically to handle long running background tasks (like playing music, or downloading data over the network, etc).
There is absolutely no need to go through any "multistep navigation" to quit apps, nor do non-visible apps continue "using processor cycles and eating battery" (with the exception of course of apps that are supposed to be using processor cycles, ie, music players, etc. running in a background service process).
Thanks I was hoping someone would say this. There is a general lack of knowledge about how android handles processes. I've seen it all over the place and commonly from android users who try and get "auto-kill" apps to save power.
> i'm having a hard time getting through this guy's review since there is so much bias and incorrect information.
Sir, stop it. You're accusing someone of bias and then demanding they share your preferences. Nothing you've claimed here is actually strictly incorrect or "biased" towards iphone anymore than the man's opinion.
Examples for your consideration:
1. He said, "I prefer one button." You said, "but i need four for frequent use in apps!" Incorrect: No. Explicit iPhone bias? No (his explanation is reasoned and applicable to other phones).
2. He said, "On phones, I don't want multitasking due to performance and power considerations." You said, "macs multitask what now?" This is a non-sequitur. The behavior of a desktop OS has little bearing on the behavior of mobile OSs.
3. He said, "I've come to agree with Apple about multi-tasking." You said, "okay but still put it in." Not really an argument either way. What's more, you are strictly incorrect; Apple has implemented multi-tasking in the phone.
You are lowering the quality of discourse on hackernews with these histrionics. It's clear you can make a neutral and consistent argument (i.e., requests for Pandora to run in-background).
It is just a phone. Can we please be civil?
Sir, stop it. You're accusing someone of bias and then demanding they share your preferences. Nothing you've claimed here is actually strictly incorrect or "biased" towards iphone anymore than the man's opinion.
Examples for your consideration:
1. He said, "I prefer one button." You said, "but i need four for frequent use in apps!" Incorrect: No. Explicit iPhone bias? No (his explanation is reasoned and applicable to other phones).
2. He said, "On phones, I don't want multitasking due to performance and power considerations." You said, "macs multitask what now?" This is a non-sequitur. The behavior of a desktop OS has little bearing on the behavior of mobile OSs.
3. He said, "I've come to agree with Apple about multi-tasking." You said, "okay but still put it in." Not really an argument either way. What's more, you are strictly incorrect; Apple has implemented multi-tasking in the phone.
You are lowering the quality of discourse on hackernews with these histrionics. It's clear you can make a neutral and consistent argument (i.e., requests for Pandora to run in-background).
It is just a phone. Can we please be civil?
"oh, you mean just like every mac os application that, when closed by clicking the "x" button, stays running unless you go through its menu and quit?"
If you're not wedded to the Windows way of doing things (in which windows, not applications, are primary), it's not that unintuitive. But even if you ignore that, there's rarely any harm to leaving an app "running" with no windows open--such an app isn't doing anything anyway, so it doesn't consume CPU, and it's faster to reopen again. And for some applications--instant messengers, for instance--Windows works the same way. Even if you quit all your Pidgin windows on a Windows box, Pidgin keeps running in the taskbar. Mac OS X's global menu bar and application concept at the very least provide consistent behavior.
"on the iphone, doing that (which would require going to the home screen between each jump) would restart each app every time, losing your context."
iPhone apps save state upon exit and reload state upon start. Considering that a background app that you're ignoring is probably going to swap to "disk" anyway, that's not much different from what you'd see in a multitasking environment.
If you're not wedded to the Windows way of doing things (in which windows, not applications, are primary), it's not that unintuitive. But even if you ignore that, there's rarely any harm to leaving an app "running" with no windows open--such an app isn't doing anything anyway, so it doesn't consume CPU, and it's faster to reopen again. And for some applications--instant messengers, for instance--Windows works the same way. Even if you quit all your Pidgin windows on a Windows box, Pidgin keeps running in the taskbar. Mac OS X's global menu bar and application concept at the very least provide consistent behavior.
"on the iphone, doing that (which would require going to the home screen between each jump) would restart each app every time, losing your context."
iPhone apps save state upon exit and reload state upon start. Considering that a background app that you're ignoring is probably going to swap to "disk" anyway, that's not much different from what you'd see in a multitasking environment.
Wait, so a google employee likes android and it's not to be believed, but someone with a blog named (no joke) "iPhone Development" is a neutral arbiter whose take is far more interesting? I mean, come on. Can't we have just a little content with that plate of ad hominem?
Android is pretty slick and the Nexus One is a nice phone, but there will always be employee bias. I can't imagine an Apple employee publicly stating they prefer BlackBerry to iPhone. Or a Microsoftie admitting to having "iPhone envy" (see http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2009/11/thank...).
And, as I mentioned, Jeff is the author of two books dedicated to iPhone software development. What else would his blog be called? And no, he's not neutral, no one is. But Jeff isn't a Google employee.
And, as I mentioned, Jeff is the author of two books dedicated to iPhone software development. What else would his blog be called? And no, he's not neutral, no one is. But Jeff isn't a Google employee.
Reading both of the two blogs, it looks like the Googler is trying much harder to by fair to the strengths and weaknesses of both platforms. Jeff comes across as though he couldn't possibly be satisfied with the N1 unless it was identical in every way to his iPhone.
I don't follow. Jeff wrote two books and derives personal wealth from the success of the iPhone platform. How is that not exactly the same incentive as working for Apple in this case?
My point was that the whole line of argument is dumb. Tell me what one author got right or the other wrong. Don't spin one as "biased" and then turn right around and in the next sentence tell me to believe another without evidence.
My point was that the whole line of argument is dumb. Tell me what one author got right or the other wrong. Don't spin one as "biased" and then turn right around and in the next sentence tell me to believe another without evidence.
I am leaving iPhone.
Reason: I can write code in Java and load it on my phone without paying money to anybody. I can not afford to pay $100 to Apple every year just to load apps on my phone written by me.
It's $100 plus the cost of a mac to write iPhone apps.
In my mind there's a big difference between costs caused by things that would be hard for you to do (build and support a reliable cross-compiling Obj-C development environment on Windows) and costs caused by things that are easy for you to not do (SDK charges).
The former I'll overlook even if they are two and a half times as much as the latter. ($500 second hand mac mini every two years vs $100/yr.)
The former I'll overlook even if they are two and a half times as much as the latter. ($500 second hand mac mini every two years vs $100/yr.)
Little mention of gaming; how's the Android app market on that front? The iPhone is getting popular DS ports. And they're even significantly cheaper than the originals. I'm not the type that cares to bother with more than one portable device, so the iPhone being a gaming device that is popular with big developers is quite the plus.
Pretty much like a Nokia employee raving about the N900. Can you say biased?
and the iPhone is simpler for a non-tech-savvy person to understand.
It's a backhanded compliment, or spin. The real meaning of that phrase is, "and the iPhone is simpler to understand." But he doesn't want to say it like that, so he marginalizes the statements potential backers by implying that they're non-tech savvy if the find the iPhone easier to use.
"I should be allowed to run the programs I want on my own computer."
Except wifi tethering? Contrary to popular memes Google imposes a number of restrictions on the Android Market:
http://www.android.com/us/developer-content-policy.html
Except wifi tethering? Contrary to popular memes Google imposes a number of restrictions on the Android Market:
http://www.android.com/us/developer-content-policy.html
I don't know about wifi tethering, but USB and Bluetooth tethering are both supported by PDANet (http://www.junefabrics.com/android/index.php). The iPhone version of PdaNet requires a jailbroken iPhone. The Android version is in the Android Market and works directly on any stock, unmodified Android phone.
BTW.. Another difference between the iPhone and Android platforms. If an app is not in the iPhone apps store, there is literally no way for a user to install it on a non-jailbroken iPhone. With Android, it only requires checking one checkbox in the Android settings to allow you to install non-market apps on an Android phone. No rooting, jail-breaking, etc. required.
BTW.. Another difference between the iPhone and Android platforms. If an app is not in the iPhone apps store, there is literally no way for a user to install it on a non-jailbroken iPhone. With Android, it only requires checking one checkbox in the Android settings to allow you to install non-market apps on an Android phone. No rooting, jail-breaking, etc. required.
No doubt Android is more open but I do think if someone really wants to advocate open platforms there are better choices. Not just due to the Android Market but also closed source drivers & middle-ware. Slow developer updates due to delayed source/SDK releases, etc. I own an Android phone and quite like it but if Apple is a 1 out of 5 for openness & transparency then Android is probably a 3. I'm all about the 1 or the 5. Anything in the middle just gets the worst of both worlds and none of the benefits.
Maybe, but other than the iPhone with the App Store, on Android you are not tied to the Android Market.
I think for tethering you still need to root the phone, but that is because of security restrictions for common apps. They usually can't change the routing table or something (I am not an expert on this). I think rooting is also not frowned upon on Android.
I think for tethering you still need to root the phone, but that is because of security restrictions for common apps. They usually can't change the routing table or something (I am not an expert on this). I think rooting is also not frowned upon on Android.
I won’t be able to get to 0% sugar ..., but I’m trying to stop eating sugar, ...
I guess we have to be worried if we don't hear from him any more.
I guess we have to be worried if we don't hear from him any more.
I see other people here have raised the issue of what source this is coming from. Let me raise another one.
Ultimately though, what matters the most to me is control. I have a simple rule of thumb, which is that I don’t put data somewhere that I can’t get it back. That’s the reason that I didn’t buy songs in iTunes, purchase ebooks for the Amazon Kindle, or really log into Facebook at all. It’s also the reason that I recently switched my computer from Microsoft Windows to Ubuntu Linux.
Not to make this into an OS flamewar, but is he implying that just because Windows is closed source you do not have control over your data on the Windows platform? That Microsoft prevents you or apps from doing things or prevents you from removing things once you are done?
That seems like a long shot.
Ultimately though, what matters the most to me is control. I have a simple rule of thumb, which is that I don’t put data somewhere that I can’t get it back. That’s the reason that I didn’t buy songs in iTunes, purchase ebooks for the Amazon Kindle, or really log into Facebook at all. It’s also the reason that I recently switched my computer from Microsoft Windows to Ubuntu Linux.
Not to make this into an OS flamewar, but is he implying that just because Windows is closed source you do not have control over your data on the Windows platform? That Microsoft prevents you or apps from doing things or prevents you from removing things once you are done?
That seems like a long shot.
I hear that the Nexus One has a lack of Python support. You would think it would. Anyone know why this is?
Python is one of the languages supported by the Android Scripting Environment: http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/
I believe ASE is using CPython running as native code, with some kind of bridge into the Dalvik VM.
I'm not sure what the status if JPython on Android is, but my understanding is that for many JVM languages it's non-trivial to port to Android, since many of them are expecting to be able to JIT to JVM bytecodes. This is problematic since Android doesn't use JVM bytecodes, it uses Dalvik bytecodes.
I believe ASE is using CPython running as native code, with some kind of bridge into the Dalvik VM.
I'm not sure what the status if JPython on Android is, but my understanding is that for many JVM languages it's non-trivial to port to Android, since many of them are expecting to be able to JIT to JVM bytecodes. This is problematic since Android doesn't use JVM bytecodes, it uses Dalvik bytecodes.
Don't know about it, but not sure why there would be lack of Python support. I suppose for standard apps they would have to run on a Java VM, so only Jython would be possible. Don't know about the state of Jython...
I assume if you root the phone, you can also run native apps, so why shouldn't Python work?
I assume if you root the phone, you can also run native apps, so why shouldn't Python work?
It works fine. Python (outside of the admittedly limited scripting SDK) is not a first-class API for Android. But it was running on the G1 within weeks of release (as was most of debian, FWIW) and there are certainly no barriers to using it.
But the supported API is Java-based, and that legitimately annoys some people even if it pleases others. Google isn't banning python, certainly, but neither are they pushing it. No different than any other phone, I guess.
But the supported API is Java-based, and that legitimately annoys some people even if it pleases others. Google isn't banning python, certainly, but neither are they pushing it. No different than any other phone, I guess.
Jeff LaMarche, a prominent iPhone developer and author of a couple iPhone programming books, wrote about this from the opposite side: switching from an iPhone to the Nexus One. I think his take is far more interesting: http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2010/02/nexus-one-from...