Google
 
Web www.howardforums.com
Pages: 1

Steve Jobs - Android will hurt google

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: FL1134

Quote:
“Having created a phone, it’s a lot harder than it looks,” he said. “We’ll see how good their software is and we’ll see how consumers like it and how quickly it is adopted.” In seeking not to get locked out of the mobile phone world, “I actually think Google has achieved their goal without Android, and I now think Android hurts them more than it helps them. It’s just going to divide them and people who want to be their partners.”

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...-of-steve-jobs/


Sounds like he's bitter about not being able to replicate the ipod success.


Posted by: SomethingClever

Quote:
Originally Posted by FL1134
Sounds like he's bitter about not being able to replicate the ipod success.


Steve's a putz... imho (and what do I know )

Apple products are overpriced and WAY overhyped and they don't seem to respect their rabid fanbase enough. They need to because it's the apple loyalists that push any apple venture (itunes etc) into early success.


Posted by: zephxiii

screw steve. He's just mad that theres another player stepping in the game.


Posted by: frankie

lol someone is jealous


Posted by: Ultimo119

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
lol someone is jealous


yea ,big time


Posted by: scr00ge

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
lol someone is jealous

yerp... exactly

isn't a board member of apple helping to headline the open handset alliance? steve is known to be jerk anyway. and the way i see it, apple has predicted great things in the past. but when they are wrong, they are dead wrong. isn't that why microsoft had to help revive them? now they are biting the hand that feeds them. and if they think about getting slick and snatching google apps off of the iphone they will flop.

im waiting patiently for the first couple of android handsets to arrive. i predict it will be awesome.


Posted by: Elfreshcuh

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
lol someone is jealous

Definately LOL


Posted by: shand0

Google can't lose


Posted by: QwietStorm

Steve Jobs - "Android will hurt Google."

Translation - "I will send my hordes of Apple martyrs to cause physical harm on Google CEOs and high ranking officials upon moving forward with Android."


Posted by: wshwe

The Android prototypes shown at WMC were unremarkable.


Posted by: FL1134

Quote:
Originally Posted by wshwe
The Android prototypes shown at WMC were unremarkable.


Those weren't even prototypes, just old hardware that could run linux.


Posted by: CoolWireless

Keep cutting your product prices in half 6- months after they're released (so that people will feel enthused- to run out and buy early again next time and not just wait 6 months.)

Keep on creating products that will only work on a single mobile provider in every market.

Keep on creating phones that have broadband intensive capabilities, but only work on slower GSM based network technology...

Keep on making products that if a customer decides they want to buy your product and use it on another provider, should they download your upgrades their device will turn into a brick.

~CW


Posted by: splicitysplat

I loved my iphone as a phone but now its the most expensive paper weight I've ever bought.

JK i would never by and iphone.

BUT if i did have one i would try my hardest to put android on it when android came out.


Posted by: Zap2

I think he'd be right...if it was only Google trying to make a phone(both the OS and hardware by itself)...but its Google, teamed with some many other people, making phones...they'll be fine...and Android should be awesome!


Posted by: wshwe

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolWireless
Keep cutting your product prices in half 6- months after they're released (so that people will feel enthused- to run out and buy early again next time and not just wait 6 months.)

Keep on creating products that will only work on a single mobile provider in every market.

Keep on creating phones that have broadband intensive capabilities, but only work on slower GSM based network technology...

Keep on making products that if a customer decides they want to buy your product and use it on another provider, should they download your upgrades their device will turn into a brick.

~CW

Most iPhone owners don't care about your points. If they did they wouldn't have bought iPhones in the first place!

I'm currently on T-Mobile. The only 3G phones that will work on TMo's 3G network will be TMo's own 3G phones. I won't be able to buy an unlocked phone on the open market and expect it to work on TMo's 3G network.


Posted by: sfdteam

Hey there,

in fact Android and iPhone are two completely different types of beasts. Where iPhone is all closed and restriccted, the Android is a complete opposite. iPhone is just a one device, Android is the whole operating system+platform. Android is much better for device manufacturers (no fees and royalties to pay -> cheaper devices) and for users who want to 100% control their gadgets and use ZILLIOS of upcoming FREEWARE (movement started: www.android-freeware.org) applications and services.

They are sooo different. Apple is passing it's hype now, stocks dropped and laying flat. Apple disrespect support and international users (except US & West Europe). They won't survive with this kind of thinking and doing business in this World.


Posted by: wshwe

Most people don't care that their phones are closed.


Posted by: sfdteam

Quote:
Originally Posted by wshwe
Most people don't care that their phones are closed.


This is often said, but I would disagree with you completely. Remember wining about iPhone tied to AT&T only? How ppl would go for another carrier, but couldn't. Custom almost illegal hacks and bricked "updated" phones.


Posted by: Zap2

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfdteam
Apple is passing it's hype now, stocks dropped and laying flat. Apple disrespect support and international users (except US & West Europe). They won't survive with this kind of thinking and doing business in this World.



I think Apple is more then able to "survive" infact, they are doing great. You can disagree with their plans, but saying they are failing is STUPID.



And their stock is still very high, higher then MS, who are much bigger then them.


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by wshwe
Most people don't care that their phones are closed.

I disagree. There are LOTS more people using Windows Mobile devices than iPhones for that very reason...


Posted by: wshwe

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDawg
I disagree. There are LOTS more people using Windows Mobile devices than iPhones for that very reason...
Windows Mobile has been available a lot longer than the iPhone. The iPhone shipped less than 1 year ago. A fairer comparison would be 1st year sales of Windows Mobile phones vs. the iPhone.


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by wshwe
Windows Mobile has been available a lot longer than the iPhone. The iPhone shipped less than 1 year ago.

Yeah, exactly. Windows Mobile created a market for the iPhone. There were plenty of Windows Mobile customers who are already used to spending $500+ on a phone, and they refused to switch to an iPhone because of it's closed setup.


Posted by: red014

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap2


I think Apple is more then able to "survive" infact, they are doing great. You can disagree with their plans, but saying they are failing is STUPID.



And their stock is still very high, higher then MS, who are much bigger then them.

Not familiar with the stock market, are we? You can't just look at the stock price--that tells you nothing. You have to look at the number of shares on the market too (among other things). Microsoft's market cap is 2.5x higher than Apple. Even when their stock was $200 a share they were worth less than M$. And they're just a software company...

They're not failing by any means, but why is their value only 60% of what it was back in December?


Posted by: wshwe

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDawg
Yeah, exactly. Windows Mobile created a market for the iPhone. There were plenty of Windows Mobile customers who are already used to spending $500+ on a phone, and they refused to switch to an iPhone because of it's closed setup.
A fairer comparison would be 1st year sales of Windows Mobile phones vs. the iPhone.


Posted by: Zap2

Quote:
Originally Posted by red014
Not familiar with the stock market, are we?





Quote:
Originally Posted by red014
Microsoft's market cap is 2.5x higher than Apple.


Do you realize how much bigger MS is then Apple? Apple has 5-8 percent of the market, MS has 90%+..Apple is a lot smaller, yet their difference in market cap, isn't all that much(compared to the size of Apple and MS)

Apple stock is so high because they are going somewhere. MS, err, no so much. Vista wasn't nearly as big as they wanted it to be.

The reason Apple stock dropped, most likely because MacWorld wasn't as great as it could have been, plus the "recession" in the US, which is resulting in all stocks going down....not just Apple.


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by wshwe
A fairer comparison would be 1st year sales of Windows Mobile phones vs. the iPhone.

That wouldn't be fairer though. Windows Mobile phones were a pretty new thing back then. PDA phones were brand new. Nobody was spending the $650 on a phone that the first few Windows Mobile phones cost back then. And nobody was used to carrying around huge bricks either.

When the first PDA (Windows Mobile) phones hit, it was a completely different scenario than when the iPhone hit.

Again, when the iPhone hit, there was already a huge market of people to sell to. People that were used to carrying around "bricks" and spending over $500 for them. The first Windows Mobile phones didn't have the luxury of a market that was used to spending over $500 on a brick...


Posted by: red014

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap2

Do you realize how much bigger MS is then Apple? Apple has 5-8 percent of the market, MS has 90%+..Apple is a lot smaller, yet their difference in market cap, isn't all that much(compared to the size of Apple and MS)

Apple stock is so high because they are going somewhere. MS, err, no so much. Vista wasn't nearly as big as they wanted it to be.

The reason Apple stock dropped, most likely because MacWorld wasn't as great as it could have been, plus the "recession" in the US, which is resulting in all stocks going down....not just Apple.

I was responding to this part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap2
And their stock is still very high, higher then MS, who are much bigger then them.

A comment like that doesn't exactly show off any knowledge. Comparing two companies by looking at their stock prices is irrelevant. COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. You could have said they are performing better, but you didn't--so I responded. I realize the size differences, the recent trends...

You also didn't mention that Apple makes money on their phone hardware, software, and contracts. They almost have the mp3 player market and the digital music store markets cornered. Trust me, they have many more customers than the 5-8% of computer users that run Mac OS. Their sizes aren't exactly David vs. Goliath.


Posted by: wshwe

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDawg
That wouldn't be fairer though. Windows Mobile phones were a pretty new thing back then. PDA phones were brand new. Nobody was spending the $650 on a phone that the first few Windows Mobile phones cost back then. And nobody was used to carrying around huge bricks either.

When the first PDA (Windows Mobile) phones hit, it was a completely different scenario than when the iPhone hit.

Again, when the iPhone hit, there was already a huge market of people to sell to. People that were used to carrying around "bricks" and spending over $500 for them. The first Windows Mobile phones didn't have the luxury of a market that was used to spending over $500 on a brick...
Your original comparison is no more fair than my above suggestion. As an alternative compare past year sales of the iPhone with past year sales of Windows Mobile phones on AT&T.


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by wshwe
Your original comparison is no more fair than my above suggestion. As an alternative compare past year sales of the iPhone with past year sales of Windows Mobile phones on AT&T.
Yeah, that would be a more fair comparison than your first one, no question about it. But I don't know what you meant by my "original comparison" as I haven't made any comparisons at all yet in this thread. All I said was there are a lot of Windows Mobile users who won't even consider the iPhone because of their closed nature. And it's true. I'm one myself.
In just about every Windows Mobile forum on the net, in all the hype leading up to the iPhone's release, you had 99% of the board saying they wouldn't consider it because of it's closed nature. I have no idea why this is news to you, but it's really pretty common knowledge. Go to any Windows Mobile forum and ask why they aren't using an iPhone if you don't beleive me...


Posted by: wshwe

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDawg
Go to any Windows Mobile forum and ask why they aren't using an iPhone if you don't beleive me...
There are legions of Blackberry, Treo and Symbian users that would never touch a WM phone. Every platform has its adherents and detractors. This really proves nothing. There are many reasons why people use or don't use WM phones.


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by wshwe
There are legions of Blackberry, Treo and Symbian users that would never touch a WM phone. Every platform has its adherents and detractors. This really proves nothing. There are many reasons why people use or don't use WM phones.

Not sure if you really understand what you're talking about here... let me explain:
1: Blackberry is not a closed platform. It's open (similar to Windows Mobile).
2: Treos use both Palm and Windows Mobile. In both cases, it's an open platform.
3: Symbian is also an open platform.

None of that discredits my claim that the main knock against the iPhone is its closed platform.
Think about it- what kind of "smartphone" won't run 3rd party software? It kind of contradicts the whole idea behind owning a "smartphone."


Posted by: sfdteam

that thing happened to Apple about 20 years ago. They almost dominated the personal computer market, they thought "ok we are on top now, we are Jesus now" then lost the trend and lost the market. About half a year ago they were on top again with all that hype. Now see them slowly coming down and loosing the hype. This is just a normal thing which happens in life and in the industry every day. The interesting thing about Apple is that it takes the market by making some people become in love with them and associate themselves with the brand. If you enjoy and use the products - it's cool, nothing against it. Be sure they are making lots of money on you


Posted by: Zap2

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDawg
Not sure if you really understand what you're talking about here... let me explain:
1: Blackberry is not a closed platform. It's open (similar to Windows Mobile).
2: Treos use both Palm and Windows Mobile. In both cases, it's an open platform.
3: Symbian is also an open platform.

None of that discredits my claim that the main knock against the iPhone is its closed platform.
Think about it- what kind of "smartphone" won't run 3rd party software? It kind of contradicts the whole idea behind owning a "smartphone."



Since Apple has an SDK coming, you're all point is a bit mute, no?


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap2
Since Apple has an SDK coming, you're all point is a bit mute, no?

Not yet. It will probably be moot in a few years or so, but as of right now there is no SDK, and no 3rd party software.

Not many people are going to leave Windows Mobile for an iPhone until the iPhone can do everything a Windows Mobile device can do. Sure, after an SDK is released then the iPhone can finally get the ball rolling, but it will take some time to get there.

In short, I know the iPhone will get there eventually. I'm not saying it won't ever get there, just that it isn't there yet.


Posted by: manchuia

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDawg
Not yet. It will probably be moot in a few years or so, but as of right now there is no SDK, and no 3rd party software.

Not many people are going to leave Windows Mobile for an iPhone until the iPhone can do everything a Windows Mobile device can do. Sure, after an SDK is released then the iPhone can finally get the ball rolling, but it will take some time to get there.

In short, I know the iPhone will get there eventually. I'm not saying it won't ever get there, just that it isn't there yet.



Actually the iphone already has third party support and programs written for it. It has a thriving third party community that has put out a number of programs.

These aren't official, but they are real programs that are loaded up and use the phone.

There are already manuals being written on how to program "official" programs , and in less than a month the SDK will be released allowing "official" programs to be created by those already doing a lot of the underground work.

Just because these aren't official programs, doesn't mean they are any less than something that is sanctioned by Apple


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by manchuia
Actually the iphone already has third party support and programs written for it. It has a thriving third party community that has put out a number of programs.

These aren't official, but they are real programs that are loaded up and use the phone.

There are already manuals being written on how to program "official" programs , and in less than a month the SDK will be released allowing "official" programs to be created by those already doing a lot of the underground work.

Just because these aren't official programs, doesn't mean they are any less than something that is sanctioned by Apple

Well there are tens of thousands of "official" Windows Mobile apps that you can buy from "real" stores, and thousands more that are written by amatuers. Just because there are a few underground iPhone apps doesn't mean it's ready to start competing with Windows Mobile just yet.
It will take some time to get there, but releasing that SDK is certainly a step in the right direction.


Posted by: manchuia

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDawg
Well there are tens of thousands of "official" Windows Mobile apps that you can buy from "real" stores, and thousands more that are written by amatuers. Just because there are a few underground iPhone apps doesn't mean it's ready to start competing with Windows Mobile just yet.
It will take some time to get there, but releasing that SDK is certainly a step in the right direction.


.. see.. here's a map.. where you jump to various... conclusions.

You called it a closed system, I stated otherwise. Stating a system that has been opened up by an ambitious but incredibly underground community isn't as prolific as a system that has been freely giving away its SDK since day one (with that day one being almost a decade ago as a lot of the basics of windows mobile programming haven't changed despite the revision changes) is like saying the sky is blue.

Yeah the community with more time and resources has a ton more options, but that wasn't the point of the response, the point was to say that arguing that it's a closed system is an invalid argument due to a number of already created third party programs created by the previously mentioned underground community.

S60 v3 has fewer programs than Windows mobile and blackberry less than that, but it hasn't stopped either OS from leading or taking large market shares away from windows mobile. It's not the size of the library, its the quality of the OS and the device. The apple OS and device (iphone) have already proven that they are pretty good without the expandability that comes from a comprehensive library of applications.


Posted by: FL1134

Quote:
Originally Posted by manchuia
...

There are already manuals being written on how to program "official" programs , and in less than a month the SDK will be released allowing "official" programs to be created by those already doing a lot of the underground work.

Just because these aren't official programs, doesn't mean they are any less than something that is sanctioned by Apple


No business/enterprise is going to use the iphone without official third party support. Until the SDK is released, the iphone is completely locked and useless to businesses and normal customers.


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by manchuia
.. see.. here's a map.. where you jump to various... conclusions.

You called it a closed system, I stated otherwise. Stating a system that has been opened up by an ambitious but incredibly underground community isn't as prolific as a system that has been freely giving away its SDK since day one (with that day one being almost a decade ago as a lot of the basics of windows mobile programming haven't changed despite the revision changes) is like saying the sky is blue.

Yeah the community with more time and resources has a ton more options, but that wasn't the point of the response, the point was to say that arguing that it's a closed system is an invalid argument due to a number of already created third party programs created by the previously mentioned underground community.

S60 v3 has fewer programs than Windows mobile and blackberry less than that, but it hasn't stopped either OS from leading or taking large market shares away from windows mobile. It's not the size of the library, its the quality of the OS and the device. The apple OS and device (iphone) have already proven that they are pretty good without the expandability that comes from a comprehensive library of applications.

And you're missing the point... The iPhone IS a closed system. Your response that "the SDK will eventually be released" doesn't change the fact that it's a closed system right now.
Again, just because a few hackers figured out how to load a few apps on it doesn't change the fact that it's a closed system. The average Joe won't even know about the 3rd party apps, and of the few (percentage wise) people the do know about it, a large portion of them won't want to risk bricking their phone by hacking it.
So, again, yes, I know you can techically install a couple of apps- unofficially of course, and nothing that can be bought through normal retail channels. But that doesn't change the fact that the iPhone is a closed system.
After that SDK is released, then the iPhone will be a true competitor to Windows Mobile. But as of right now it isn't. Most of the people who own one right now are people who don't know any better (never owned a PDA phone before), people who just hate Microsoft (and probably never tried Windows Mobile), Apple fanboys, and people who just wanted the new cool gadget. Most people that have been using PDA phones for years would never consider the iPhone until there was "official" 3rd party support (and 3G).


Posted by: zephxiii

I would consider the iphone closed, because thats what it is by default and officially. As far as i'm concerned, the SDK does not exist, its only been vaporware, and its been February for a while now.....


Posted by: manchuia

So your definition of a closed system is:

Closed System: Any system that does not have an officially distributed SDK for programming applications on its native OS, with those applications distributed in a way where customers are aware of their existence.

I think that is an accurate summary of your post.

1.) The iphone SDK has been developed and has already been distributed to trusted developers. If this wasn't the case, we couldn't have manuals already being written to teach other developers how to code for the system.

This is a normal process of the release of SDKs. For example, when Microsoft decides to release something new, those with full MSDN subscriptions get it MONTHS ahead of a publicly released option. Most reports show the same is happening with Apple. The official day of release does not mean that they were still working on it till 11pm the night before.

I am not sure how familiar you are with programming, but I can get more technical if you like.

2.) I have friends that run windows mobile that don't know how to get programs for it. Customer awareness of options as a determining factor of a systems "openess" or "closedness" is a faulty measuring stick as a LARGE number of people that get windows mobile forced onto them (through the office, or as a gift from tech friends or through store recommendations) don't know what to do with it. This was proven by the 21% of smartphones given as gifts being returned to their store over the holiday season.

Compare this to the rough estimates that a quarter of all iphones (1.45 million as of Jan 28th) were thought to be unlocked and roaming on other networks, and you have a user base in the iphone that seems to at least know how to unlock their phone and as such probably knows how to install a third party program.

BTW: I use windows mobile. I have a hacked MDA running modified Touch firmware with a host of third party programs to tweak it to my liking. The unsupported iphone solution for installing third party programs is 200% easier than the windows mobile version for installing programs. I will only assume that the official method will only be that much more intuitive (through itunes).


Neither point above determine if a system is open or closed. Its binary. Either you can find a way to write a program for the thing, or you can not. It's not about retail location, what other systems it integrates with, exchange / BES / lotus / etc., it's not about having the features that another system has. It's either open and people have provided examples of code that run on the device, or it's closed and no one can find a way in.

The iphone is an open system. Openess is not a popularity contest, and just because it doesn't have something you like, it doesn't change the fact that there are installable third party programs on the device.

Also.. there are people that have used PDA phones for years that have switched to blackberries and S60 in droves, and the last time I checked, there wasn't a 3G blackberry and only two (both non qwerty and both media centric) 3G S60 devices.


Posted by: zephxiii

Looks like you are over analyzing it and over complicating it.

Can you take an iphone straight out of the box and install apps on it (not little web apps)? No, you have to hack it first. Hell, at first you couldn't even put your own damned ringtones on it without hacking it. To me, thats not open.

If you take an s60, WM, UIQ, palm OS, BB out of the box, you can install native apps right on it. For instance, you can go to opera.com and download and install a web browser, without hacking, thats a bit more open imo.

I would like to like the iphone, but not with the amount of control everything you do on it, let go of it jobs, jesus.

"ITS MY IDEA, ITS MY IPHONE, YOU ALL WILL PAY DEARLY FOR IT, AND THEN I WON'T LET DO VERY MUCH WITH IT, YOU CAN'T EVEN PUT YOUR OWN RINGTONES ON IT UNLESS YOU BUY IT FROM ME!!! I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO MAKE ANY APPS FOR IT THAT WOULD MAKE THE IPHONE BETTER THAN MY ORIGINAL IDEAS AND SOFTWARE BECAUSE I'M A GREEDY LITTLE ASSBAG WHO WANTS ALL THE GLORY! YOU WILL ONLY DO WHAT I WILL LET YOU DO, AND IT WON'T BE VERY MUCH HAHA. NO MMS FOR YOU EITHER!"

thats the most open phone ever!


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by manchuia
So your definition of a closed system is:

Closed System: Any system that does not have an officially distributed SDK for programming applications on its native OS, with those applications distributed in a way where customers are aware of their existence.

I think that is an accurate summary of your post.

1.) The iphone SDK has been developed and has already been distributed to trusted developers. If this wasn't the case, we couldn't have manuals already being written to teach other developers how to code for the system.

This is a normal process of the release of SDKs. For example, when Microsoft decides to release something new, those with full MSDN subscriptions get it MONTHS ahead of a publicly released option. Most reports show the same is happening with Apple. The official day of release does not mean that they were still working on it till 11pm the night before.

I am not sure how familiar you are with programming, but I can get more technical if you like.

I'm very much familiar with programming and how the process works. Again, what you are saying here is the iPhone WILL SOMEDAY be open, but right now it's closed. There's just no way around it. You keep saying "I'm positive the SDK WILL be released, and probably has already been released to developers" but the fact of the matter is RIGHT NOW the only way to install a 3rd party app on an iPhone is to hack it and risk bricking it. That is a closed system.


Quote:
Originally Posted by manchuia
2.) I have friends that run windows mobile that don't know how to get programs for it. Customer awareness of options as a determining factor of a systems "openess" or "closedness" is a faulty measuring stick as a LARGE number of people that get windows mobile forced onto them (through the office, or as a gift from tech friends or through store recommendations) don't know what to do with it. This was proven by the 21% of smartphones given as gifts being returned to their store over the holiday season.

Compare this to the rough estimates that a quarter of all iphones (1.45 million as of Jan 28th) were thought to be unlocked and roaming on other networks, and you have a user base in the iphone that seems to at least know how to unlock their phone and as such probably knows how to install a third party program.

BTW: I use windows mobile. I have a hacked MDA running modified Touch firmware with a host of third party programs to tweak it to my liking. The unsupported iphone solution for installing third party programs is 200% easier than the windows mobile version for installing programs. I will only assume that the official method will only be that much more intuitive (through itunes).


Neither point above determine if a system is open or closed. Its binary. Either you can find a way to write a program for the thing, or you can not. It's not about retail location, what other systems it integrates with, exchange / BES / lotus / etc., it's not about having the features that another system has. It's either open and people have provided examples of code that run on the device, or it's closed and no one can find a way in.

The iphone is an open system. Openess is not a popularity contest, and just because it doesn't have something you like, it doesn't change the fact that there are installable third party programs on the device.

Also.. there are people that have used PDA phones for years that have switched to blackberries and S60 in droves, and the last time I checked, there wasn't a 3G blackberry and only two (both non qwerty and both media centric) 3G S60 devices.

As for your friend who doesn't know where to get Windows Mobile apps- tell him go to Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart, or anyplace else that sells apps for a PC. I just bought a GPS app while I was on a trip a couple weeks ago, and Walmart, Best Buy, and Circuit City all had it. I chose Best Buy because I needed a few other things too (speakers, and a cigarette lighter power adapter- forget paying extra for GPS in a rental). He could also check ebay, handango, amazon, or anyplace else that sells computer or phone type merchandise online. If he can't find anything, he hasn't looked.
As far as ease of installing programs, I laugh at that. Are you seriously claiming the average Joe would find it easier to
  1. Hack an iPhone.
  2. Locate some unsupported, unofficial, underground 3rd party app.
  3. Get said app installed without bricking the iPhone.
Rather than just go to any software retailer and install a cab file (which consists of just clicking it and letting it do the rest)?
I don't think so.
As for 3G Blackberry, Sprint has had multiple 3G Blackberries for a while.


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by zephxiii
Looks like you are over analyzing it and over complicating it.

Can you take an iphone straight out of the box and install apps on it (not little web apps)? No, you have to hack it first. Hell, at first you couldn't even put your own damned ringtones on it without hacking it. To me, thats not open.

If you take an s60, WM, UIQ, palm OS, BB out of the box, you can install native apps right on it. For instance, you can go to opera.com and download and install a web browser, without hacking, thats a bit more open imo.

I would like to like the iphone, but not with the amount of control everything you do on it, let go of it jobs, jesus.

"ITS MY IDEA, ITS MY IPHONE, YOU ALL WILL PAY DEARLY FOR IT, AND THEN I WON'T LET DO VERY MUCH WITH IT, YOU CAN'T EVEN PUT YOUR OWN RINGTONES ON IT UNLESS YOU BUY IT FROM ME!!! I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO MAKE ANY APPS FOR IT THAT WOULD MAKE THE IPHONE BETTER THAN MY ORIGINAL IDEAS AND SOFTWARE BECAUSE I'M A GREEDY LITTLE ASSBAG WHO WANTS ALL THE GLORY! YOU WILL ONLY DO WHAT I WILL LET YOU DO, AND IT WON'T BE VERY MUCH HAHA. NO MMS FOR YOU EITHER!"

thats the most open phone ever!

Exactly! All of this "could" and "probably will" change in the future, but this is how it is as of right now.


Posted by: FL1134

Quote:
Originally Posted by manchuia
So your definition of a closed system is:

Closed System: Any system that does not have an officially distributed SDK for programming applications on its native OS, with those applications distributed in a way where customers are aware of their existence.

I think that is an accurate summary of your post.

1.) SDK isn't out, and until the day it is, it is a closed system.

...

2.) Anecdotal evidence from friends. Anecdotal evidence about *customers, *not businesses, returning phones.

Assumption that the iphones aren't unlocked and sent overseas to EU, China, etc.

Anecdotal evidence of you using WM vs hacked iphone.


Neither point above determine if a system is open or closed...

The iphone is an open system. Openess is not a popularity contest, and just because it doesn't have something you like, it doesn't change the fact that there are installable third party programs on the device...


You mean people and businesses that like official third party support. I'm sure businesses deployed thousands of iphones in the field on the basis that newer updates will be hacked.

Is that you CowboyNYC?


Posted by: manchuia

Quote:
Originally Posted by FL1134

Is that you CowboyNYC?


wow... that's what you devolve to? I have a comprehensive history of posting on this forum.

The comments on the SDK are not based on a false hope. Simply becuase there is not a public sdk available does not mean that there is not an sdk available to programmers. Again, I reference microsoft that FREQUENTLY releases SDKs, envionments, languages, and the like through MSDN months before they are available to non partners. Just because non partners don't have it does not mean that the SDK does not exist.

Another example of SDK management would be Danger's method of getting third party programs. In order to qualify for a developer's key and get an SDK in order to program for a sidekick, you have submit an entire project plan to Danger, have them review it and only upon approval will you get an SDK.

Because it's not publically accessible, is it a closed system? No, there are third party applications available only through the Danger catalogue. The method is more restrictive than other OSes, but that's a procedural thing and not a designation of the OS being open (which it is as it allows third party development) or closed.

Back to the iphone, the fact that an unofficial SDK is available for many people to create completely installable applications shows that the system is open. The fact that this method is not the prescribed method of installing applications from the original vendor is a different (and valid, I agree) point of contention.

How about looking at it this way. If you took a moto Razr v3 could you make a native program to run on it? How about a nokia 6133? There aren't any means in which to do this, so that is a closed system. What about anything through Verizon or spring (not PPC / Blackberry)?

I completely agree that the installer method is an unsupported metod, but the programs are real ports and working code. Real working code being able to run natively on a system is an open system. Having an official SDK being publicly released will only facilitate more programs coming to the iphone.

To rephrase my point in the form of a question: Do you believe there is anything in the SDK that changes the firmware on the phone in order to make it "open", or is the phone already open and the SDK provides instructions on how to utilize that?

By definition SDKs are the latter.

As of right now there is a way to run code on the phone using an instruction set provided. It's not official, but it is there. As such the iphone would classify as open. May not be official, but it's still there.

As far as businessmen / IT / etc. are concerned. That is still more fluff to an original question. I have never once stated that I expect business to run hacked iphones as a solution. I referenced business software to state that the choice of applications is irrelevant to the closed or open nature of the system.

And as far as being able to locate software. I was actually unaware best buy sold PPC software, I mostly use handango. My friend's inability to find software was more a reference to awareness. This is the same lack of awareness in the general public that allows iphone commercials to keep toting that they have the "real" internet when opera mini and S60 have had the same internet for multiple years.

Yes, I know it's out there, you know it's out there, and most people that have taken the time to sign up, read, and post on a mobile phone community knows it's out there. Never forget that we are a minority (especially in the US) for understanding the capabilities of phones, and what may seem like product saturation for you is still a whisper in the winds for those that don't get it (and end up returning their smartphones because of that)


Posted by: SaltyDawg

No, the iPhone is not open. Again, just because you can hack it and get something on there does NOT mean it's open.
As for Danger, no, it's not open either. That's why not many people dumped their PDA for a sidekick. Sidekicks were only meant to be for teens to text and surf the web.
If you have to buy all your software from Danger, then no, it is NOT an open system.

And if you have to hack it in order to get your apps anywhere else except Apple, then no, it isn't an open system.

As for the public not being informed, and the people on this board being in the minority- I would say that does not apply to PDA users. You better beleive anyone spending the $600 on a Windows Mobile phone knows darn well that it has the "real" internet. And even if they didn't, you better beleive the sales rep would stress that point to them in order to try to make a sale.

As for the SDK changing the firmware- yes, I fully beleive there will be an update to the firmware, just like there was when people first started hacking the iPhone.

And, again, the way Microsoft releases SDK's is irrelevent. Windows Mobile is already an open system, with plenty of 3rd party software, that you do NOT have to buy from Microsoft, and you do NOT have to hack anything to install it.

There is just no comparison there, and no way you can possibly call an iPhone an open system right now. If you have to hack your phone to install a 3rd party app, then no, it isn't an open system. It's a closed system that's been hacked. And a lot of people don't want anything to do with the risks that come along with hacking your phone. Especially the people who had theirs bricked when the new update was released. Even the people that didn't have theirs bricked- lots of people saw on the news and read online about hacked iPhones getting bricked by a new update.

So, again, just because you will SOMEDAY be able to buy legit 3rd party apps and install them without hacking your phone, does NOT make it an open system right now. It just means that at best the iPhone will someday be an open system.


Posted by: manchuia

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDawg
No, the iPhone is not open. Again, just because you can hack it and get something on there does NOT mean it's open.
As for Danger, no, it's not open either. That's why not many people dumped their PDA for a sidekick. Sidekicks were only meant to be for teens to text and surf the web.
If you have to buy all your software from Danger, then no, it is NOT an open system.

And if you have to hack it in order to get your apps anywhere else except Apple, then no, it isn't an open system.



So I figured out what is going on here. There are actually two arguments happening. One is a semantic argument and the other is a procedural / process argument. Both relate to ideas of what is open. In the semantic argument there is a set definition and either a system meets that definition or it does not. Again, I propose the definition of an open system as:

Open System: Any device that allows third party programs to be written for it, where the third party programs interact directly with the device and not through an interpreter.

This definition rules out Java acceptable phones as there is a Java interpreter on the phone that allows the program to run.


The procedural / process argument about whether a system is open contains the other questions revolving around a system. How do the programs get on? How does one obtain these programs? How cooperative is the company in providing support for third party support? What type of programs can you make for the device? What is the process for making these programs?

These are all VERY important to understanding the nature of the COMPANY that makes the device, but does not change the semantic argument of a whether a device is open or closed. If the device is a closed device then none of those procedural / process questions can be answered as they all involve programs that literally can't exist.

By definition, this is what an SDK is:

SDK (wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sdk
SDK (about.com): http://cplus.about.com/od/glossar1/g/sdkdefinition.htm

Using Google, you will find other sites listing roughly the same definition. All an SDK is, is a toolkit. Much like for a mechanic. The SDK does not make the OS, but helps people make programs for the OS. In order to open up the OS it has to be written to accept code from the start. Allowing code to run natively on the system requires great forethought. If you just "decided" to make a closed system open, you would have to redo the entire OS which means a possible recoding and definite recompilation of everything that ran on the phone. This is reserved for actual OS changes (S60 v2 -> S60 v3) not simply to run an SDK on a phone.

In the SEMANTIC debate, the iphone is an open system, as is Danger, and as is any other phone that allows third party software to run.

In the PROCEDURAL / PROCESS debate yes, you have a VERY VERY VERY good point. A vertical system like Danger (and what Apple may do) is not good for "openess" as all the creativity has to go through a major bureaucracy before it gets to the consumer. This means that the company decides what is best for us and more often than not gets it wrong.

We are fortunate to have the internet where ideas, programs, and information flow freely, and for those of us that pay a premium on our devices we expect nothing short of what we get in our daily lives (freedom of choice, and expression of individualism). That is very true, and I agree with you. It's why people run Linux, and why people shun apple. The comment alone, made by Steve Jobs, about how we needed to be saved from ourselves because we would all brick our phones if given freedom is a clear example of corporate ego run amok.

Yes, I agree with you and would like the same open development seen in Windows Mobile and in the Apple underground so far.

That does not change the semantic debate of open or closed. I still believe (and by all definitions have proved) SEMANTICALLY the iphone is an open system, Procedurally / PROCESS wise it is a closed system.

I will leave this issue with an analogy. Imagine you had a door attached to a brick wall. If you open it you are still not going through the door. That is a closed system.

Now imagine you had a door attached to a house.

If you break the door down, you can still go into the house. It's not the best method of getting in, but you are still PHYSICALLY in the house. This is the iphone right now. We are in the house, but we are not using the best methods to get in.

If you got the key to the house, but were sectioned off into a small room upon entering allowing to only go further after a full scan and body cavity search, you are still PHYSICALLY in the house, and will be allowed full access. This is Danger and (possibly) the iphone in the future. You get in the house, but most people don't want to waist the time for someone else to let them through, they have a business to run.

Now, say you get the key. You go in and ... that's it. You have full run of the house, and no one to tell you no. You are still PHYSICALLY in the house, but you did it the easiest way possible and you have everything at your fingertips. This is the best way to allow someone to fully appreciate and use the house to its best.

Being physically in the house is a definition of an open system on a semantic level. How you get in, is the definition of an open process for programmers. There can be a house without the proper entry method.

As far as the side debate on smartphone users. Subsidized smartphones (especially phones like the black jack) are cheap. As such, someone goes to a store, and says "I want the internet, music, something to keep me organized, and something I can play games on!" They are handed a smartphone and leave the store. They didn't do the massive amounts of research, they have no idea what windows mobile is. They don't even particularly know that the phone has windows mobile (as they don't know there are other operating systems out there. For example: How many friends or relatives, if asked specifically what OS they have on their computer will say "oh it's a Dell" or "it's a Compaq". These are computers that run 100s of dollars (sometimes a grand or more) and the people STILL don't know what they have). These people have no idea how to install programs correctly and don't know where to get the programs in the first place.

I know you did your research. I know I do my research. As you can tell, I freakin love researching stuff and finding out the details that are important to making a logical and rational decision. I would easily say 90% of this country is not like that. They buy something it "works" or "doesn't work" and that is life. You can not think the world does the amount of even casual research that we do on this forum, it honestly doesn't happen. That's why the return rate of smartphones is so high, and why phones with a closed process are so in vogue (sidekick, most Verizon phones, iphone). They don't make you think about what your PHONE should do for you, and a large number of people seem to like that.


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Where you are most incorrect, is where you assume the entire worls shares your definition of "open."
I completely disagree with your definition.
To me, an open system is one where you can not only create and install 3rd party software, but also buy 3rd party software from 3rd parties (not from the manufacturer).
And this all has to be official. Hacking a device does not make it open. It just makes it a closed environment that has been hacked.
Unless the manufacturer is officially supporting the use of 3rd party software, it is not an open system.


Posted by: manchuia

I guess that's the thing I don't get. I don't understand what a company's sales policy has to do with the system itself. So basically, if the iphone and apple allowed third party partners to sell iphone software on a third party site for 1 month, the sysem would be open for one month and closed the next month, even though there were no system changes to the iphone itself?

That is where it doesn't make sense for me. Sales policy doesn't change the makeup of the OS and the ability to code for it.


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by manchuia
I guess that's the thing I don't get. I don't understand what a company's sales policy has to do with the system itself. So basically, if the iphone and apple allowed third party partners to sell iphone software on a third party site for 1 month, the sysem would be open for one month and closed the next month, even though there were no system changes to the iphone itself?

That is where it doesn't make sense for me. Sales policy doesn't change the makeup of the OS and the ability to code for it.

Not only would they have to allow the sales by a third party, but the device itself would need to support the installation of the apps without being hacked.

As long as you need to hack the device to install 3rd party apps, then it's a closed system. As long as you need to buy all of the "official" apps from Apple, then it's a closed device.

And when you develop apps for it, if you have to get Apple's approval before an app can be sold, then it's a closed device.


Posted by: manchuia

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDawg
Not only would they have to allow the sales by a third party, but the device itself would need to support the installation of the apps without being hacked.

As long as you need to hack the device to install 3rd party apps, then it's a closed system. As long as you need to buy all of the "official" apps from Apple, then it's a closed device.

And when you develop apps for it, if you have to get Apple's approval before an app can be sold, then it's a closed device.



See I still think it's an either/or not an all or nothing.

Your scenario #1 (support of installation without being hacked): That's a policy decision (whether or not to release code for an installer), not a reflection on the operating system itself (the OS can run third party programs).

Your scenario #2 (Buying official apps from only one location): Again, policy. They are still programs that are made by someone that is not Apple or any other company. That is a third party (company X) program that is distributed only by the first party. This ONLY affects consumers and again has no bearing on the actual software being written or run on the device.

Your scenario #3 (Main Company approval before sold or developed): Policy decision. A third party company is still writing all the code and they are submitting it for review where they (or even the main company) create an installer for the package and give it to customers. This has no bearing on the OS or the program written, just provides red tape.

On a policy level I agree 1000000000% that those practices suck and should not be in the software development business, but not one of those scenarios affects the ability of the Operating System on the device to run code created by a third party. It may affect delivery of the code to the consumer and it may affect installation practices, but it does not affect the ability of the Operating System to run the code. As such that operating system (be it OSX on an iphone or Danger OS on a sidekick) is an open system.

Danger and (maybe) Apple are taking a tight leashed approach to third party developers. This type of control will lead to more trouble (as seen from the ongoing war with the hacker community) than it's worth. Google, I think, knows that the best people to decide what's best for the community is the community itself.


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Tomato tomahto. The bottom line is Apple is not allowing 3rd party apps to be installed, and they are requiring anything installed to come from Apple.

Policy or not, it's a closed system.

Could it change in the future? Absolutely. But as of right now, it's a closed system.

I'm not debating why it's a closed system (policy, OS, delivery, whatever). I'm just saying that it is a closed system.

Which brings us back to the original point of this thread- Android will be open from day 1. Steve Jobs is out of his mind saying it won't be successful...


Posted by: simonwong7

The official SDK for developing NATIVE applications has not been released, but there are design guides, and published APIs for Web 2.0 applications. For example, take a look at the FaceBook Web 2.0 for the iPhone. It rivals (almost) any native application when it comes to functionality and responsiveness.

As a iPhone owner, HTC TYTN owner, Symbian owner (S60, S80 and UIQ) I kinda take exception when someone says I don't know any better when I bought the iPhone. Sure, currently I use the TYTN more for day to day stuff, but if it wasn't for the lack of MS Exchange support, 3G and (ahem) SlingPlayer support, I'd use the iPhone.

Now, as a developer, I challenge your definition of "Open System". Windows Mobile isn't "Open" by your definition. Sure you can install 3rd party applications, but you still need to buy Microsoft Tools to develop and compile applications. The only real exception to this rule is Java applications (J2ME)

What's the difference between MS giving you tools and Company X (ie. Open Source)? Nothing really, just a level of support. Open Source, in fact, is probably more responsive and tuned towards customer needs.

A closed system is one that isn't "expandable" (ie. no APIs, no add ons). Both the iPhone OSX and WM6 do not fit that definition. Both are expandable (just that one currently is only officially expandable by Apple).


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonwong7
Both are expandable (just that one currently is only officially expandable by Apple).

And as long as it's only expandable by Apple, then it is a closed system. Apple can open it up whenever they want, but it's currently closed.


Posted by: manchuia

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonwong7
The official SDK for developing NATIVE applications has not been released, but there are design guides, and published APIs for Web 2.0 applications. For example, take a look at the FaceBook Web 2.0 for the iPhone. It rivals (almost) any native application when it comes to functionality and responsiveness.

Now, as a developer, I challenge your definition of "Open System". Windows Mobile isn't "Open" by your definition. Sure you can install 3rd party applications, but you still need to buy Microsoft Tools to develop and compile applications. The only real exception to this rule is Java applications (J2ME)

What's the difference between MS giving you tools and Company X (ie. Open Source)? Nothing really, just a level of support. Open Source, in fact, is probably more responsive and tuned towards customer needs.

A closed system is one that isn't "expandable" (ie. no APIs, no add ons). Both the iPhone OSX and WM6 do not fit that definition. Both are expandable (just that one currently is only officially expandable by Apple).



Thanks I am totally in line with you and that is what I was trying to get at with my posts. I am happy to see I am not the only one looking at it from a developer's perspective.

For a while there I thought I was on crazy pills, I mean Zoolander only has ONE LOOK!


Posted by: FL1134

Quote:
wow... that's what you devolve to? I have a comprehensive history of posting on this forum.


It's a joke, lighten up. CowboyNYC got worked up similarly when anyone disagreed with himself or Apple's actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manchuia
...I am happy to see I am not the only one looking at it from a developer's perspective.

For a while there I thought I was on crazy pills, I mean Zoolander only has ONE LOOK!


Semantics? This is a forum for endusers/consumers. It is a closed system until the SDK is released to the public, not a beta version to developers under an NDA. There's nothing really here to argue about and you're taking this thread further OT.


Posted by: FL1134

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonwong7
The official SDK for developing NATIVE applications has not been released, ...

...

Now, as a developer, I challenge your definition of "Open System". Windows Mobile isn't "Open" by your definition. Sure you can install 3rd party applications, but you still need to buy Microsoft Tools to develop and compile applications. The only real exception to this rule is Java applications (J2ME)

What's the difference between MS giving you tools and Company X (ie. Open Source)?...

A closed system is one that isn't "expandable" (ie. no APIs, no add ons). Both the iPhone OSX and WM6 do not fit that definition. One is expandable and the other has to be expanded via proprietary software, eventually having a SDK.


The iphone isn't open source.


Posted by: simonwong7

Yes, the iPhone isn't Open Source, but neither is Windows Mobile. Andriod is though.

---------> Open Source doesn't mean Open System. <----------------------

I think why Steve says it's an uphill battle with Andriod is that, like windows, when you have a mish-mash of hardware platforms, it's kinda hard to make something as stable as a standard phone with a standard OS. I reboot my TYTN every day... I can't remember when I did that to the iPhone (granted I don't use it as much).

It's actually the underlying point in the Mac vs. PC battle: Standardized Software & Hardware vs. More Choice. Personally I'd like my smartphone to at least be as reliable as my old Nokia 232.


Posted by: FL1134

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonwong7
Yes, the iPhone isn't Open Source, but neither is Windows Mobile. Andriod is though.


Quote:
"The Apache license allows manufacturers and mobile operators to innovate using the platform without the requirement to contribute those innovations back to the open-source community."


The kernel and webkit are the only open source thing about android so far. There is an SDK, it is open therefore; however, android is not 100% open source. There will be a few companies (China, Taiwan, etc) that will release their version of android source.

Quote:
---------> Open Source doesn't mean Open System. <----------------------


If I have the source with no licensing restrictions or GPL, I can change anything I want and redistribute.

Quote:
I think why Steve says it's an uphill battle with Andriod is that, like windows, when you have a mish-mash of hardware platforms, it's kinda hard to make something as stable as a standard phone with a standard OS. I reboot my TYTN every day... I can't remember when I did that to the iPhone (granted I don't use it as much).

It's actually the underlying point in the Mac vs. PC battle: Standardized Software & Hardware vs. More Choice. Personally I'd like my smartphone to at least be as reliable as my old Nokia 232.


Uphill battle? Linux has been on phones since 2000:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7556981668.html
No kidding you reboot your TYTN. It runs WM; did you expect anything else?

The linux kernel has been stable for embedded devices for a while. There really isn't much to do but make sure the rest of the software stack is just as stable.

"The underlying point in the Mac vs. PC battle" is the proprietary Windows OS vs the proprietary Mac OS. I'm confident that the linux kernel would make your smartphone just as reliable.


Posted by: manchuia

Quote:
Originally Posted by FL1134
It's a joke, lighten up. CowboyNYC got worked up similarly when anyone disagreed with himself or Apple's actions.


Semantics? This is a forum for endusers/consumers. It is a closed system until the SDK is released to the public, not a beta version to developers under an NDA. There's nothing really here to argue about and you're taking this thread further OT.


Sorry about taking the joke too seriously. I REALLY don't like cowboynyc and up until then the conversation had been fairly serious, so I was not aware you were making a joke (internet and all). That's why the disappointment, because you provide more solid responses than "you are acting like a 'tard"

As far as semantics. While consumers are a large consideration and base on Hofo, there are programmers (especially in the android forum, and as such I will continue to argue that the OS (OSX) is open, but the policies are closed, there is one without the other and as such, I understand the frustration from a consumer point of view, but the working of the phrase "closed system" is inherently wrong. I moved the thread back OT when I brought my last statement back to Jobs and his initial claims.

If we want to continue arguing what I think is a semantic battle, I will, but ultimately this is not the point of the thread. I wanted to bring up why I didn't agree with a statement and explain my disagreement. The topic of openess can be saved (and the responses reproduced) for another forum and another time.


Posted by: simonwong7

Motorola's been doing Linux phone for awhile and hasn't really gotten any traction. I actually had a A768i for a few days (a long time ago), but it was horribly slow and I also had to reboot it every day or so. I went back to my P900 after that.

Yes, Linux kernels run in almost everything now, but you seem to forget that iPhone OSX was written on the Mach BSD kernel.

Stability come from a good OS (Which can be said for all phone OSs -- WM, OSX, Linux), but the difference is the hardware and drivers that are layered on top of it. Ever since the Macintosh showed up it was more stable than Windows. Why? Because Apple limited the type of hardware it supported (ie. it's own). Drivers could be refined, and developers didn't have to worry about whether a computer had ISA or PCI devices.

I'm not saying that Apple's way is the best way, but it certainly is the most straighforward approach for stability, which is most important in a cell phone.


Posted by: FL1134

Quote:
Originally Posted by manchuia
....

As far as semantics. While consumers are a large consideration and base on Hofo, there are programmers (especially in the android forum, and as such I will continue to argue that the OS (OSX) is open, but the policies are closed, there is one without the other and as such, I understand the frustration from a consumer point of view, but the working of the phrase "closed system" is inherently wrong. I moved the thread back OT when I brought my last statement back to Jobs and his initial claims.

If we want to continue arguing what I think is a semantic battle, I will, but ultimately this is not the point of the thread. I wanted to bring up why I didn't agree with a statement and explain my disagreement. The topic of openess can be saved (and the responses reproduced) for another forum and another time.


ok.

_____________


Posted by: FL1134

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonwong7
Motorola's been doing Linux phone for awhile and hasn't really gotten any traction. I actually had a A768i for a few days (a long time ago), but it was horribly slow and I also had to reboot it every day or so. I went back to my P900 after that.

Yes, Linux kernels run in almost everything now, but you seem to forget that iPhone OSX was written on the Mach BSD kernel.

Stability come from a good OS (Which can be said for all phone OSs -- WM, OSX, Linux), but the difference is the hardware and drivers that are layered on top of it. Ever since the Macintosh showed up it was more stable than Windows. Why? Because Apple limited the type of hardware it supported (ie. it's own). Drivers could be refined, and developers didn't have to worry about whether a computer had ISA or PCI devices.

I'm not saying that Apple's way is the best way, but it certainly is the most straighforward approach for stability, which is most important in a cell phone.


I hate to bring this back up, but the reason for Motorola not getting any traction with linux is because they hid the source code. IIRC, someone paid $2,000 just to get the GPL source, only to find out Motorola didn't provide drivers or documentation. You could then boot your GPL version, but the gsmd, camera, gps, etc don't work. Factor in that motorola put linux on a select group of unpopular handsets didn't help in a community developing around the devices.

The linux kernel has been improved drastically through the iterations from 2.4 to 2.6. Optimization, scalability, and embedded support is currently available. Google's choice only solidifies the readiness.

Android will hurt google is like saying linux will hurt google. An exploit/bug found in Android is spotted by the community, fixed, and available for download. Any exploit/bug found on the iphone has to be sent to Apple, they have to fix it, test it, then release it to the public. Once Android is on most phones, google really does nothing besides make sure google products are on it and bugs are getting fixed. They don't design/make hardware or own spectrum/networks (current Auction73 guesses). I don't see how being nothing more than a maintainer of an embedded linux distro will hurt google. Apple chose to add the complexity of hardware design, manufacturing, marketing, and partnering with carriers.

OT-

I agree that stability is very important for an OS. However, where does one but the balance between stability and draconian control? Most people are switching to Mac because of the follies of MS and vista. OSX is stable and very easy to use but that doesn't make them any less proprietary or controlling as MS. Apple will have their version of vista and users will be back in the same position as they were with MS.


Posted by: Goodearl

Quote:
Originally Posted by FL1134
Sounds like he's bitter about not being able to replicate the ipod success.


Keep in mind the ipod is just an over glorified Walkman... But imagine, with the Android, there being the possibility of streaming media from your home computer to your phone, which is connected to your car stereo via blue tooth! No matter where you are in the world, if you have service you could have access to your data, be it music (format of your choice is key here), video, documents, etc.


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodearl
Keep in mind the ipod is just an over glorified Walkman... But imagine, with the Android, there being the possibility of streaming media from your home computer to your phone, which is connected to your car stereo via blue tooth! No matter where you are in the world, if you have service you could have access to your data, be it music (format of your choice is key here), video, documents, etc.

You can already do all of that with a Windows Mobile phone, so I would be VERY surprised if Android launches without that ability.


Posted by: manchuia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodearl
Keep in mind the ipod is just an over glorified Walkman... But imagine, with the Android, there being the possibility of streaming media from your home computer to your phone, which is connected to your car stereo via blue tooth! No matter where you are in the world, if you have service you could have access to your data, be it music (format of your choice is key here), video, documents, etc.


it's called orb...

http://www.orb.com/


Posted by: red014

Quote:
Originally Posted by manchuia
it's called orb...

http://www.orb.com/

Orb + TV Tuner FTW!


Posted by: mypape

or you can get a slingbox


Posted by: DDRMacintosh

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfdteam
This is often said, but I would disagree with you completely. Remember wining about iPhone tied to AT&T only? How ppl would go for another carrier, but couldn't. Custom almost illegal hacks and bricked "updated" phones.


You realize that the amount of people with the knowledge of many users on HoFo are scarce in the real world right? You're thinking in the mindset of someone who knows phones well. Go up to someone random on the street and ask them if they know what data is, or GSM, CDMA, or a SIM card. I almost guarantee you 90% of the people you ask will stare at you blankly.

The reality is you can disagree with him, but he's right. Many people don't care abouot closed phones because they have NO IDEA of unlocking, debranding, or that you can buy a phone on the market and pop a SIM card in it.


Posted by: Adi23

THIS THREAD MAKES ME WANT TO CLOSE MY MIND AAAGGGGGHHHHHH

Am I really viewing posts with people debating whether or not the Iphone is truely a closed device??

Is there ever a thread in which someone points out a fault of a manufacturer that doesnt turn into an arguement???

Give it a rest people.


Posted by: es_bih

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap2





Do you realize how much bigger MS is then Apple? Apple has 5-8 percent of the market, MS has 90%+..Apple is a lot smaller, yet their difference in market cap, isn't all that much(compared to the size of Apple and MS)

Apple stock is so high because they are going somewhere. MS, err, no so much. Vista wasn't nearly as big as they wanted it to be.

The reason Apple stock dropped, most likely because MacWorld wasn't as great as it could have been, plus the "recession" in the US, which is resulting in all stocks going down....not just Apple.



And I still rather have my Vista notebook than an apple one because I won't have to pay an overpriced sticker price for it, nor am i restricted to a few applications that more or less I have to get from apple.


Posted by: es_bih

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adi23
THIS THREAD MAKES ME WANT TO CLOSE MY MIND AAAGGGGGHHHHHH

Am I really viewing posts with people debating whether or not the Iphone is truely a closed device??

Is there ever a thread in which someone points out a fault of a manufacturer that doesnt turn into an arguement???

Give it a rest people.


Can you download a simple multi - IM app for I-Phone? ... It's not an open device then... Simple deduction of facts.


And you are right, its just a criticism, no reason for a holy Appelonian crusade.


Posted by: simonwong7

I'm not sure the point of this either, since Apple has releases their SDK a month ago..

Btw, you can download Apollo IM for the iPhone, a "simple multi - IM app for the iPhone"


Posted by: klowngoblin

Quote:
Originally Posted by wshwe
Most people don't care that their phones are closed.


most people are too stupid to realize their phone is locked down and is capable of so much more. since they are too stupid to even know whats out there, they probably wont even use the features that COULD have been avalible.

even the iphone is capable of blowing away most phones, but apple had to cut its balls off.

it has a 620MHz CPU FFS!!! thats faster than most WM and S60 phones.


Posted by: mobileobsession

Quote:
Originally Posted by wshwe
Most iPhone owners don't care about your points. If they did they wouldn't have bought iPhones in the first place!

I'm currently on T-Mobile. The only 3G phones that will work on TMo's 3G network will be TMo's own 3G phones. I won't be able to buy an unlocked phone on the open market and expect it to work on TMo's 3G network.


I'm sure there will be some manufacturers, like HTC maybe, that will go with the "Kitchen Sink" 3G approach on their more fully featured lines akin to the TyTn/Kaiser. Then again T-Mo would be smart to include a locked version of it in their lineup.


Posted by: thekidinside

Quote:
Originally Posted by FL1134
Sounds like he's bitter about not being able to replicate the ipod success.


+1.

jobs is a moron for saying that. It doesn't even make any sense, "how the consumers like it?" what does that mean? they won't like the fact that it's open source and it will destroy the piece of crap I-phone?


Posted by: k.heiner

To me it sounds like more people are concerned with the fact that Apple has created a device that everyone thinks is amazing in it's function, but wishes they could customize it to their own network.

As far as I know, there isn't a single phone that has created such a worldwide demand; and for that iPhone has satisfied more of the market than it had anticipated.

When Android us fully functional and released OUT OF THE BOX on phones, then we can make the honest comparison. It is my strong belief that when Android comes to light in the general communities, that it will be treated as a face in the crowd. The layperson won't care what it's capable of, because out of the box it's not going to be an iPhone. Apple has created the precedent, and the market has proven it.

I can only hope that Android comes in with a strong presence, and stays exclusive to specific handsets for it's launch. To make it so universal is going to kill whatever rolling interest might accumulate as a result of it's power.

Back to the topic of consumerism; half of the population would swing wildly at the concept of "open source." The only reason most of the world knows about unlocked phones is because of the iPhone. As far as SDK, there's much more of a demand for iPhone 3rd party apps than any other device (and in part because 5 months ago it was unheard of.)

Hopefully Android comes in a nice package at a lesser cost than it's competition, because that's the essence of sales. It's all in the fluff.


Posted by: FL1134

"wishes they could...[use] their network" = unmet consumer preferences = lost chance for more handset sales. I hope that locking the iphone comes back to haunt apple as the worst decision made.

You have heard of the RAZR?

People are smart and can make informed decisions. Release an expensive, non-3g iphone, drop the price a few months, lock customers into more contracts, release a mediocre SDK, and then release the 3G iphone one year later. I don't know how people still stay loyal to apple after that.

Show a 3G, open handset, no contract, not locked to one carrier, free GPS, WiFi, open source, fosters third party support, and comes with google applications preloaded; then show an iphone or 3G iphone. Tough choice.

HTC Dream will be THE handset. Why does it have to stay to specific handsets? "I hate WM on my old HTC." -- load android (some handsets work right now). Google just converted previously sold handsets to android. How would that kill interest?

Quote:
As far as SDK, there's much more of a demand for iPhone 3rd party apps than any other device.


Cognitive Dissonance; people are upset over the clear disregard of third party applications by apple. Android will look very tempting to the consumer and business fence sitters (which is a lot based on how few iphones remain in America).

Android's entrance will reduce the price across the board. Even apple will have to adjust the "apple tax" on the 3G iphone.


Posted by: Quatre

if implemented right Android should crush iphone crap and even make M$ step up their windows mobile game. competition is good.

also while even i have the HTC Dream in my wishlist, i think that is just one prototype phone and that there will be more then one phone with the android os even in the beginning.

I'm hoping that they make it something you can install on your WM phone like how you can install linux on your pc.


Posted by: klowngoblin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quatre

I'm hoping that they make it something you can install on your WM phone like how you can install linux on your pc.



your hoping? i already got android running on both my Kaiser and Vogue. its kinda buggy because i concider it to be a pre-alpha but still, its running, it can send and recv, txt, etc


Posted by: Quatre

oh nice. so are they saying it is something they are going to offer that you can install on any phone with windows mobile?

will it be free like linux?


Posted by: bpm2000

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quatre
oh nice. so are they saying it is something they are going to offer that you can install on any phone with windows mobile?

will it be free like linux?


n00b here

also want to know the same thing: I am contemplating on a WM phone in the future (touch pro, X1, etc) and am thinking I may end up not liking the OS so much (but will like the hardware). Is Android being released so you can just install it in place of another OS like that?


Posted by: zephxiii

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpm2000
n00b here

also want to know the same thing: I am contemplating on a WM phone in the future (touch pro, X1, etc) and am thinking I may end up not liking the OS so much (but will like the hardware). Is Android being released so you can just install it in place of another OS like that?


Someone actually has to make the software work on whatever particular device, and you can bet it won't be the manufacturer.


Posted by: SaltyDawg

Quote:
Originally Posted by zephxiii
Someone actually has to make the software work on whatever particular device, and you can bet it won't be the manufacturer.

Sounds like a job for the experts over at xda-developers and ppcgeeks


Posted by: y0ungSir

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolWireless
Keep cutting your product prices in half 6- months after they're released (so that people will feel enthused- to run out and buy early again next time and not just wait 6 months.)

Keep on creating products that will only work on a single mobile provider in every market.

Keep on creating phones that have broadband intensive capabilities, but only work on slower GSM based network technology...

Keep on making products that if a customer decides they want to buy your product and use it on another provider, should they download your upgrades their device will turn into a brick.

~CW


Hey! THAT'S NOT TRUE!!!! It was three months lol..........


Posted by: k.heiner

I'm trying to understand... Someone who's INFOline says they have T-Mobile and have 3 data intensive devices (sidekick, wing, w/e) and then in their post thereafter said "only work with one network." Sidekick works with more than one network??
"Inferior GSM network data compatability" tell me where T-Mobile uses their high speed data network again...?
It sounds like your issue is that a gigantic company paid billions of dollars to deal exclusively (under conditions) with another gigantic company. Apple definately is not losing in their decisions, and I'm willing to bet that if it Apple sold the iphone with T-Mobile USA they would have to charge $900 per phone to come close to the prift margins they made with AT&T.

As much as we can dream, Android is not going to be an out of the box option, and for that very reason, won't be the instant success that the iPhone was.


Posted by: Quatre

Android os is going to be a much huger success then iphone ever was or ever will or dream to be.

Its 2 different things anyway. Android is an os and supposedly it will be able to installed on WM phones which would be really smart as there are so many wm phones and they are really popular. That will have an instant huge user base and a ton of phones already able to use android while the iphone is one phone and the only one with the apple os.

iphone is restricted basically to att which while it is basically the best carrier being that its gsm meaning you can switch phones just by swapping sim cards (unlike cdma sprint and verizon) and its the gsm carrier with 3g (t-mobile only has high speed in nyc and needs the 1700 band which very very few phones have) Also the iphone uses itunes which many ppl including myself hate with a passion and refuse to use and uses other propietary apple stuff.

Android os will apparently be able to be installed on almost any wm phone (according to an android beta tester) which every carrier has so that means android will instantly be available on every carrier and on so many phones with new ones I'm sure made specifically even more so catered to maximize the capabilities of the android os. Also it probably will be somewhat open source which is the opposite of the iphone.

Android ftw and if Steve Jobs really said that it will hurt google, then he just comes off as an idiot or jealous and worried about androids possible huge success to the point of out shining and out doing the iphone to the point it becomes old news and not popular anymore even by the apple fan boys and marketing brainwashed masses of sheep that think it is the cool device to have.


Posted by: lordhamster

IMO Android is DOA. Too little (and with today's announcement) way too late.


Posted by: yangster258

Way too late for what? Competing against the iPhone?


Posted by: kamal183

Quote:
Originally Posted by yangster258
Way too late for what? Competing against the iPhone?


The iPhone been on the market what? 11 months? Some would say it's TOO late for Apple. It's never to late.


Posted by: FL1134

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordhamster
IMO Android is DOA. Too little (and with today's announcement) way too late.


Just the announcement of andoid is enough to cause the entire mobile OS market to consolidate: WiMo, LiMo, android, and symbian foundation. And it's DOA? You are aware the linux has been successfully running on motorola handsets for a while now? It is still the 2nd half of 2008 which is within the time frame for release.


Posted by: trigatch4

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordhamster
IMO Android is DOA.


Say that to his face:





vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser