PDA

View Full Version : Android vs iOS



NanoSpore
November 1, 2010, 5:36 PM
Made a new topic so as not to make anyone angry by posting off-topic in a different thread.

Quoting Zeta:
"I decided to get the 800lb. gorilla out of the way, since Apple haters tend to forget about its many contributions to the field of computers (especially in the realm of usability). Others (with Google's Android OS being the latest) have ripped off all of these advancements (without improving on them) and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."

Saying others have ripped off these advances is a ridiculous argument. Yes, iPhone reinvented what a smartphone "is" and has pushed the tech market forward. That doesn't mean that every other company to make something using that technology has ripped it off. If it did, then anybody that makes a LED tv after someone else would be "ripping it off". I recognize that it is important for companies to advance the technology that they are using but it is also nice to have the current technology on more than one device to allow a wider audience.

Now, I'm an android user. Have been since the beginning with the G1. I admit that these phones probably wouldn't be where they are today without the iPhone and Apple's advancements. That being said, I think the iPhone gets a little too many pats on the back. Android phones give you expandable memory, the capability of battery replacement, widgets, cloud syncing, etc. An android user can find an app online and it will download to their phone without having to touch it. They also don't have to plug their phone into their computer to perform updates.
A few other notes:
Android supports flash as well as HTML5, Apple finds conflict with flash and only uses HTML5.
iOS is playing catch-up with it's new updates. Multi-tasking, threaded e-mails, folders, video sharing, touch focus, copy and paste, has been on android devices since the beginning.



With that all said, I am in no way an apple-hater. I love my mac for photo-editing and the like. I also know that since Android is on so many devices, there are poorly integrated ones. A plus to the iPhone is that it has a specific model, and that's it. You don't have to worry about if this phone has this or that - it does.

Zeta-G
November 1, 2010, 6:54 PM
Made a new topic so as not to make anyone angry by posting off-topic in a different thread.

Quoting Zeta:
"I decided to get the 800lb. gorilla out of the way, since Apple haters tend to forget about its many contributions to the field of computers (especially in the realm of usability). Others (with Google's Android OS being the latest) have ripped off all of these advancements (without improving on them) and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."

Saying others have ripped off these advances is a ridiculous argument. Yes, iPhone reinvented what a smartphone "is" and has pushed the tech market forward. That doesn't mean that every other company to make something using that technology has ripped it off. If it did, then anybody that makes a LED tv after someone else would be "ripping it off". I recognize that it is important for companies to advance the technology that they are using but it is also nice to have the current technology on more than one device to allow a wider audience.

Now, I'm an android user. Have been since the beginning with the G1. I admit that these phones probably wouldn't be where they are today without the iPhone and Apple's advancements. That being said, I think the iPhone gets a little too many pats on the back. Android phones give you expandable memory, the capability of battery replacement, widgets, cloud syncing, etc. An android user can find an app online and it will download to their phone without having to touch it. They also don't have to plug their phone into their computer to perform updates.
A few other notes:
Android supports flash as well as HTML5, Apple finds conflict with flash and only uses HTML5.
iOS is playing catch-up with it's new updates. Multi-tasking, threaded e-mails, folders, video sharing, touch focus, copy and paste, has been on android devices since the beginning.



With that all said, I am in no way an apple-hater. I love my mac for photo-editing and the like. I also know that since Android is on so many devices, there are poorly integrated ones. A plus to the iPhone is that it has a specific model, and that's it. You don't have to worry about if this phone has this or that - it does.
My point was throughout its history, Apple has spent a lot of time thinking about how to improve the usability of computers and other companies tend to just copy/borrow/rip off their ideas. I think competition is good; I just want it to have some original ideas (I.e. Palm and webOS, or Be Inc. and BeOS, or even Windows Phone 7's interface).
Android is a piss poor knockoff that hasn't contributed a damn thing. Palm beat Android (and iOS) to multitasking on a modern smartphone and it did it in an elegant, easy to understand way. Blackberry fueled the growth of email/messaging phones. Android is for Linux geeks, google fanboys, and apple/AT&T haters. There is not a damn thing android does that is better than its competitors. iOS is the example that all the others are trying to match. Palm, RIM, and Microsoft are at least trying to come up with their own advantages. Google's modus operandi seems to be "we're Google so we get to steal other companies' (Apple, Oracle, etc.) work, since we claim to do no evil!"
At least Microsoft tries unique approaches in addition to ripping off and/or buying small competitors; they may crash and burn at it (Kin, ZunePass, clippy, etc.), but they try to advance the art of computing.
Oh wait! I got google's mobile contributions! The not-an-iPhone-but-kinda-like-it-smartphone-for-Verizon-users, modern smartphone viruses, and blatant IP theft in the Android marketplace. Flash is garbage; as a Mac user you should know this (Click2Flash is awesome).

As for iOS's advantages/innovations:

First modern smartphone

Multitouch interface.

Consistant GUI.

Ease of use (even toddlers and great great grandmas can figure out how to use an iPad without instruction).

Scalable (unlike Android, which has to be recoded for tablets or else it runs like crap-straight from google).

AppleCare is number one for customer service 7 years running.

iOS has the highest satisfaction rating and lowest number of defectors among consumers.

The App Store redefined the mobile software ecosystem.
It made browsing, buying, and updating apps an easy and consistent affair.
It removes the threat of viruses and spyware from accessing your mobile data (which is a treasure trove for identity thieves).
It has an app for pretty much everything, including ones of stellar quality (especially true on the iPad).
Apps CAN be installed over the air; ditto for iTunes content and books.

A working mobile web browser (I used mobile browsers before iPhone- they were utter crap; now the built in browsers are all WebKit based [aside from Microsoft's]).

iTunes integration.

Hardware bought 2 years ago is still eligible for software updates (unlike Android phones released 6 months ago; most Android phones have not and will not be able to be upgraded to froyo, even if they have capable enough silicon to run it. Why? Because HTC/Moto/etc. want you to buy their new hardware, even if it only has a negligible level of improvement over your last phone).

Your device (and its data) is automatically backed up on your computer.

Syncing over a wire reduces the likelihood that an update will brick your phone, since the phone will have a steady power supply (I guarantee you that there are people stupid enough to try to update their phone's OS over the air with maximum brightness and 1% battery life).

Mac OS X (and, by extension, UNIX) is at iOS's core.

Better Enterprise security (not as high as RIM's, but closer to RIM than Android).

VoiceOver and numerous other standard features allow the blind, the paralyzed, and others with various disabilities to use the devices. They are not expensive add ons or after thoughts; they are full blown features built into the OS.

I could go on and on (especially if we were to include all the other standards in the computer industry created, enhanced, or pushed by Apple that others have benefitted from), but I'll end it with this:
iOS is the innovative, high-end product, while Android is the cheap, low end, knock off that markets itself to those potential customers, who for whatever reason can't afford an iOS device or don't want it for frivolous reasons (FOSS advocates come to mind). Android is a worthless mimic (if a weak, POS G1 can't convince you of that, nothing will). I'd like to see a decent competitor actually take Apple on at it's own game (I had hoped Palm would do it, but they never could manage themselves very well; hopefully, HP can make them more competitive in terms of marketshare, since they are already competitive in terms of ideas). Ultimately innovative competitors drive each other to improve, causing the market as a whole to improve, while me-too competitors just suck marketshare and capital from the innovators. Apple, Microsoft, Palm, and RIM are all innovators (to varying degrees), while Google is a parasite in every market they enter (even their innovative search algorithms are essentially parasitic, in that they feed off of other people's work/data, including the user, whom they are "serving").

[Revision 1] Disclaimer: I like Google (both its products/services and its business practices) about as much as a cancer patient likes the cancer that is slowly killing them. I do NOT own stocks (or any other stakes, besides being a customer) in any of the companies that I have discussed. Google is Big Brother/Skynet in waiting, and they have zero problems with poking or violating the law/users' trust to see what they can get away with. To the FOSS folks, who think that Google is fighting the good fight for them against the evil, proprietary, closed source Apple/Microsoft duopoly: don't kid yourselves; Google is only interested in selling you ads (and acquiring your personal info, so they can charge higher prices for those ads). At least Apple wants to sell you a system (be it Mac, iPod, iPhone or iPad) and MS wants to sell you Windows, Office, and a 360. They are not looking to profit from your private information; Google is.

[Revision 2] P.S. Lovely job of sidestepping the main point (and removing the context) of the thread you quoted me from. And I didn't say people couldn't use, for instance, multitouch, I just expect them to do more than copy Apple's approach; I expect them to come up with their own distinct take on the tech, if they can't, then they ARE knock offs. People/companies, who come up with something, should be rewarded for their work/innovations; a person/company, who cannot come up with their own take on things, should not be rewarded for making a knockoff of an innovative product and selling it for less. The last time that happened in the computing industry (Mac-Windows), we nearly lost the innovative company to the cheap knockoffs; think about what Apple has done for computers over the last dozen years or so, and imagine what it would have been like without their various innovations during the period. During the dark years of Apple teetering on bankruptcy, Microsoft came up with clippy and desktop wallpaper (thankfully MS has gotten better with regards to innovation, as a result of having to fight tooth and nail in non-PC markets). Palm is already circling the drain, Microsoft is putting out it's last great effort (after the massive flop that was the kin), and RIM is slowly but surely sinking as carriers offer B1G1 deals on android devices. Do you really want the mobile market to reward the copycats at the expense of the innovators? What happens when this abuse of innovative companies leaves the market with only (or dominated by) the copycats? You get the video game crash of the early 80s, you get Windows ME, you get Android; in other words, you are left with only useless crap.

m1ck3y
November 1, 2010, 10:26 PM
Interesting points, and well researched. Apple has since its inception dominated the market as far as "first movers" are concerned. From their computer operating systems to the phone market to the (Still unchallenged) iPad. They are an elegant company that definitely focus's more on "fun" usability and intuitive aesthetics. They aren't afraid to start new trends or release technology that has never been seen before by the general public.


That being said, they ARE becoming the closed source nightmare that many of us have feared. They certainly aren't evil or nefarious but they do keep a very tight grip on what software you are allowed to run on your system. It is for this reason that a computer hobbiest like myself sticks with open source machines. Now I by no means think that my computing choices are the best for the general public, I in fact recommend Apple products to all of my not-so-computer-savvy friends and family members. Apple products are a great out-of-the box experience, but they are painful to customize or improve upon. A large part of this, I'm aware, comes from the fact that they still remain the only company that maintains an exclusive hardware-software experience which is great for some things but terrible for others.

To be honest, I think it's ridiculous that there still isn't a real affordable Apple computer on the market, yes I'm aware you can get a Mac Mini for $700 but that's entirely ridiculous. This, in combination with the fact that Apple puts out a rather pathetic hardware range, really turns me off. I'm not saying they can please everyone, but the hardware options are far too limited. Also ever since they switched to Intel chips it has become painfully apparent to me that there is nothing unique about Apple hardware, in fact there isn't anything but an EULA stopping the public from using there software on any other computer.

Next topic, gaming. One point that I feel is tough to argue is Apple operating systems terrible 3-d performance. They still don't support OpenGL updates from years ago. Not that most companies put out games for Mac's but even if they did it would be a sad display.

Now, Google has for a few years now remained a benevolent force in the public's eyes while they're certainly becoming the big-brother figure that so many of us have feared for so long. They read my mail, keep track of my searches, and are unafraid of showing me this in the form of frighteningly customized ads on nearly every page I visit, they also have failed at most of the software-side projects they've attempted over the years (Oh...google doc's... ) but they certainly are alive and doing well in the smartphone world. As for the virus problems that have been while somewhat hysterical, problematic with the Android market, there is no doubt Apple would never have had those problems, but at what cost? There isn't a month that goes by that I don't hear of some artist or programmer that I like being denied entry into Apple's app market, typically for political or taste issues. This is not something I want from a next generation phone. I want freedom to access bleeding edge technology and a phone that fits my taste (even if that taste isn't shared by others). I also relish the idea of writing my own app's when I can't find one online, and porting it onto my phone.

In a somewhat convoluted conclusion (Sorry for the lack of fluidity in my post, school is destroying me) I think that Apple's advancements are under-appreciated and do deserve honorable mention. However there are a great many problems I have with them too. They can be oppressive as far as software goes, they still haven't even come close to entering the business world as far as computers go, and often times there hardware is overpriced and inferior. On top of this their products often only work well if the user subscribes to the i-World. Android provides a nice alternative for people to buy a smartphone that requires nothing more from them, and while the open-source world isn't for all, for those of us who are a part of it all, an open-source phone can really make quite an amazing difference.

P.S Please don't tone your comments down because I am an, scratch that, the only administrator on the forum :) Let the flaming begin.

Zeta-G
November 2, 2010, 12:27 AM
Interesting points, and well researched. Apple has since its inception dominated the market as far as "first movers" are concerned. From their computer operating systems to the phone market to the (Still unchallenged) iPad. They are an elegant company that definitely focus's more on "fun" usability and intuitive aesthetics. They aren't afraid to start new trends or release technology that has never been seen before by the general public.


That being said, they ARE becoming the closed source nightmare that many of us have feared. They certainly aren't evil or nefarious but they do keep a very tight grip on what software you are allowed to run on your system. It is for this reason that a computer hobbiest like myself sticks with open source machines. Now I by no means think that my computing choices are the best for the general public, I in fact recommend Apple products to all of my not-so-computer-savvy friends and family members. Apple products are a great out-of-the box experience, but they are painful to customize or improve upon. A large part of this, I'm aware, comes from the fact that they still remain the only company that maintains an exclusive hardware-software experience which is great for some things but terrible for others.

To be honest, I think it's ridiculous that there still isn't a real affordable Apple computer on the market, yes I'm aware you can get a Mac Mini for $700 but that's entirely ridiculous. This, in combination with the fact that Apple puts out a rather pathetic hardware range, really turns me off. I'm not saying they can please everyone, but the hardware options are far too limited. Also ever since they switched to Intel chips it has become painfully apparent to me that there is nothing unique about Apple hardware, in fact there isn't anything but an EULA stopping the public from using there software on any other computer.

Next topic, gaming. One point that I feel is tough to argue is Apple operating systems terrible 3-d performance. They still don't support OpenGL updates from years ago. Not that most companies put out games for Mac's but even if they did it would be a sad display.

Now, Google has for a few years now remained a benevolent force in the public's eyes while they're certainly becoming the big-brother figure that so many of us have feared for so long. They read my mail, keep track of my searches, and are unafraid of showing me this in the form of frighteningly customized ads on nearly every page I visit, they also have failed at most of the software-side projects they've attempted over the years (Oh...google doc's... ) but they certainly are alive and doing well in the smartphone world. As for the virus problems that have been while somewhat hysterical, problematic with the Android market, there is no doubt Apple would never have had those problems, but at what cost? There isn't a month that goes by that I don't hear of some artist or programmer that I like being denied entry into Apple's app market, typically for political or taste issues. This is not something I want from a next generation phone. I want freedom to access bleeding edge technology and a phone that fits my taste (even if that taste isn't shared by others). I also relish the idea of writing my own app's when I can't find one online, and porting it onto my phone.

In a somewhat convoluted conclusion (Sorry for the lack of fluidity in my post, school is destroying me) I think that Apple's advancements are under-appreciated and do deserve honorable mention. However there are a great many problems I have with them too. They can be oppressive as far as software goes, they still haven't even come close to entering the business world as far as computers go, and often times there hardware is overpriced and inferior. On top of this their products often only work well if the user subscribes to the i-World. Android provides a nice alternative for people to buy a smartphone that requires nothing more from them, and while the open-source world isn't for all, for those of us who are a part of it all, an open-source phone can really make quite an amazing difference.

P.S Please don't tone your comments down because I am an, scratch that, the only administrator on the forum :) Let the flaming begin.
Oh my! M1ck3y actually made a post outside of Help & Feedback. The end of days must be upon us! :P

In all seriousness, the closed system model does have its own unique issues (hardware selection being the biggest), but it is by no means only used by Apple; outside of the PC market, the model is everywhere. Media tablet (I.e. iPad, for now at least)? Integrated system. RiM? Integrated systems. Palm? Integrated systems. Nokia gobbled up symbian, and is now designing integrated systems. Oracle (yes, Oracle!) has been on a roll pushing the idea of closed systems ever since it acquired Sun Microsystems (RIP old friend). iPod? Integrated systems. Zune? Integrated systems. PS3? Integrated systems. 360? Integrated systems. Wii? Integrated systems. Ditto for every dedicated game console in history outside of the 3DO. The list goes on and on in consumer electronics. The PC market is a fluke (likely due to a combination of Apple ousting Jobs in the 80s and Commodore mismanaging/mismarketing its Amiga line), when viewed in this context.

I by no means hate open source; I use quite a bit of it (I even used to monkey around with Linux). But quite a few of FOSS's devotees have an irrational hatred of Apple and its supposedly closed nature. Apple makes the whole enchilada; this much is true. They do it to maintain a certain level of quality and user expectations. They even tried the clone market in the dark years; most of the cloners were just leeches and lowered the average quality of the Mac, so Apple killed all but the best one by refusing to renew their licenses; they dealt with the best one the old fashioned way (bribery/paid them to stop producing clones).
As for their current Macs, they focus on quality builds with good design, not bleeding edge gamers' boxes.
The primary markets for Macs are students, journalists, and creative professionals; their boxes are designed with these markets in mind first. Another point to keep in mind is that Apple doesn't make machines for the low end of the market; you need to compare them with business-grade machines (which lo and behold run in the same ballpark for sticker price). Every new Mac also includes iLife (a suite of consumer creative applications) which really has no equal on Windows (or Linux). Also factor in the cost of antivirus for your windows box over its lifetime. The auxiliary costs associated with a Windows box start to add up. As for PowerPC don't get me started; I miss it terribly, and something tells me my intel Mac won't live as long as my PowerPC machines (damn Wii/360/PS3 for all seeking IBM developed PowerPC-based chips)...

With OpenGL, they lagged behind due in large part to a lack of games needing the new features (Mac gaming market basically fell apart when Bungie was bought by MS 10 years ago). The sudden importance of gaming on iOS, and Valve's entry into the Mac game market has caused them to get serious about it again; they've released OpenGL updates in a point update to Snow Leopard (Mac OS 10.6.x) since then, and have been working with Valve to make better use of OpenGL; if I were a betting man, I'd say Lion (10.7.x) will be getting some beefier OpenGL updates.

Businesses like dull predictability; Apple lives for exciting new features. They don't really fit, although the Mac presence in businesses has been growing based on two things:
1) Upper Management types tend to like Apple products and so they make IT support them.
2) The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) tends to be lower and Return on Investment (ROI) tends to be higher, resulting in Apple products having a better cost/benefit analysis.
Why is this you ask? Mac OS X (and its native applications) is more intuitive and has a higher level of consistency than its competitors, resulting in less down time for employees and lower IT costs due to fewer problems (be they technological or human). Mac OS X also lacks the virus issues that Windows suffers from; and the few trojans (which are not the same as viruses) that do exist require administrative access and can be removed via simple terminal commands, making the containment of such issues relatively straight forward. Finally OS X, since Leopard (10.5.x) is a fully compliant UNIX system (with some pretty frills on top). Any corporate IT guy worth his pay grade, knows how to work with, manage, & secure UNIX and UNIX-like systems. What they don't like about Apple is that the use of Apple products threatens their job security. Windows is clunky, temperamental, inelegant, and buggy (7 is better than earlier versions, but that's not exactly saying much); it is also more crudded up than your average lady/man of the night. Linux is simply terrifying/intimidating to the average user (Ubuntu is more approachable than most Linux systems, but even it is fairly intimidating to the average office drone); the same flexibility to customize it to your every desire, also makes it far easier to (and practically mandates you to) break usability/approachability/consistency. Mac OS X may seem like it isn't customizable, but in fact it is; there are a plethora of apps which modify and/or replace basic functionality; the more extreme of these will of course run the risk of breaking certain software, but the same issue exists with other systems. The Terminal also hosts a wide variety of hidden preferences (which are only hidden to prevent grandma from nuking her system). iOS is what is locked down, but such devices are appliances, not traditional PCs (as in personal computers, not Windows).

Apple is a regular user of and contributer to open source software and open standards/protocols (perhaps not GPL'ed code, but who can blame them... the FSF is whackaloon central ;) ). Darwin (the core of OS X) and WebKit are both Apple open source products. OS X itself is based on NeXT, which was itself a BSD derivative. It was Apple who added OpenCL support to its OS, instead of the proprietary CUDA, and it uses OpenGL (albeit an older version), instead of a proprietary graphics layer (such as Windows' DirectX). Apple sits on the board for the Blu-Ray Disc Association, despite not supporting commercial disc playback (their reasons are simple enough: BR requires a metric ton of DRM to be built into and running in the OS for approval). They pushed USB as a standard, when others were too lazy/incompetent to do so (referring mostly to Windows OEMs not MS itself). They helped develop FireWire (which was and is superior to USB in so many ways) and sent it off to become an IEEE standard. Even with FaceTime, a marquee feature of their newest iPhone and iPod Touch, they opened the protocol. Apple is not against openess by any means. Their relationship with it is just... complicated, for lack of a better word. Their chief concern has always been making technology approachable. Sometimes openness helps, sometimes it doesn't. Simplicity and consistency almost always help, although they will throw even those things aside, if they defy common sense. Geeks (myself included) may not have any issues dealing with technology's many little eccentricities, but for the average user, it can be a bit much; People tend to like their stuff to "Just Work."

Apple is a (if not the) computer company that leads by force of its example, control over its own hardware and software, and its willingness to do things differently (the Think Different campaign encapsulated their mindset perfectly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oAB83Z1ydE&feature=youtube_gdata_player). They "do not go to where the puck was, but to where it will be", and that is what makes them who they are.

The iPad is truly the end product of 30+ years of Apple's/His Steveness's quest to make the computer approachable to every "mere mortal". :P

P.S. As an inhabiter of the all Apple ecosystem, I can tell you this: it really does work. The computer just melts away and lets you do what you want to do. And the one time out of a very large number that the Apple ecosystem has an internal glitch, you know who to call: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIuLQQlSlWo&feature=youtube_gdata_player (actually AppleCare, but I couldn't resist linking to more tracks from the Apple Boogie; Jobs probably wants to wipe that cassette from existence... :P)

P.P.S. I didn't intend to veer off topic, but the god (a.k.a. the administrator) of Gundam Forums actually posting practically required a response... :oops:

Update on Flash: Apple has approved an app which transcodes Flash video into HTML5 (http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/02/technology/skyfire/index.htm), so, for those of you with a hankering to view videos stored in an obsolete format, enjoy Flash (but not really) video on iOS; regardless, Flash is still a steaming pile of crap, which won't be touching my iPad (or iPhone), any more than I would allow an ancient, outdated floppy drive to be attached to my old iMac G3 (let alone my current MacBook Pro).

NanoSpore
November 4, 2010, 1:09 PM
I wasn't sidestepping your point, and I'm not denying apple's contributions to technology, that paragraph is the only part I wanted to reply to, and I didn't want to turn that thread into a "this is better than that" fanboy thread. I enjoy discussions on the subject so I put it here. :)
Coming from an animation aspect, flash is a wonderfully useful tool for displaying animation, video, and games on the internet.
Now, I'm a heavy google user and so this phone appeals to me. I'm also a fan of the hardware keyboard - there are some things that just can't be done efficiently on a touch screen. These things called buttons can come in handy too.


(I wouldn't say your last post was off topic. I think the discussion of apple vs microsoft, etc is a fun debate and still fits into the topic.)

Zeta-G
November 4, 2010, 3:55 PM
I wasn't sidestepping your point, and I'm not denying apple's contributions to technology, that paragraph is the only part I wanted to reply to, and I didn't want to turn that thread into a "this is better than that" fanboy thread. I enjoy discussions on the subject so I put it here. :)
Coming from an animation aspect, flash is a wonderfully useful tool for displaying animation, video, and games on the internet.
Now, I'm a heavy google user and so this phone appeals to me. I'm also a fan of the hardware keyboard - there are some things that just can't be done efficiently on a touch screen. These things called buttons can come in handy too.


(I wouldn't say your last post was off topic. I think the discussion of apple vs microsoft, etc is a fun debate and still fits into the topic.)
Being a gamer, I can understand the desire to have some physical buttons (Kinect, for instance, is severely limited compared to Move and Wii); but, as for myself, I type much faster on my touchscreen keyboard. Flash is a bloated mess. There are other technologies that do all of those things better; Flash had its time, but now it needs to be taken behind a woodshed so that newer, better technologies can take its place (kind of like how we had to kill the floppy for CDs to really take off, or how serial and parallel ports had to be cut for USB).

Sidenote: my point for my original topic was how computers/technology can be used in a tangible way to improve lives (such as that of the kid in the story I linked to); Apple only got brought up because that's always been their thing: making technology accessible and therefore useful/beneficial for people.

Edit: http://www.macworld.com/article/155484/2010/11/streetview_iphone.html Yet another reason google can't be trusted with privacy information. They were ordered to comply with privacy requests regarding their street view service (in Germany) and blur the images properties of people, who requested that their property be concealed, and then delete the original version; in typical Google fashion they engineered it to look like they had complied with the order, but didn't actually destroy the data, as a "glitch" (and zooming from adjacent images) revealed. As a general rule, corporations cannot ever be truly trusted, but Google is one of the ones that really cannot be trusted with private information, because a) that's what they use to make money and b) they've repeatly shown that they will attempt to skirt the law and abuse any trust given to them by their customers.

As it has demonstrated repeatedly, Google is malevolent (with regards to privacy) on such a level that even Microsoft (in its most abusive years) cannot match it. Some people may not have an issue with Big Brother (Google) constantly watching them and knowing their every move and communication, but I do have a problem with it.

Zeta-G
January 24, 2011, 9:29 PM
I moved this to the battleground, because the topic will likely heat up as iPad competitors (such as Android optimized for tablets [as opposed to Android optimized for phones bolted onto tablets], HP-Palm's webOS for tablets, and RIM's Playbook) hit the market.

Zeta-G
February 25, 2011, 3:28 AM
A Thunderbolt port (the intel-designed I/O port formerly known as Light Peak) is now included as a standard feature across the MacBook Pro line. Twin bidirectional 10Gbps connections per cable (real world usable bandwidth, not theoretical, unlike, say, USB3). Each lane is over 12x faster than FireWire 800's theoretical limit, 20 times faster than USB 2's, and 2x USB 3's theoretical limit. It also supports transferring 10x the amount of power that USB 3 can, daisy chaining (like FireWire and SCSI), peer to peer connections (like FireWire and Ethernet), Target Disc Mode (like FireWire on Macs), video quality greater than 1080p @ 60fps, PCIe 2.0, and numerous other features. The standard connector is shaped like a Mini Display Port (a VESA standard) and can be used as a MDP slot. It is also backwards compatible with USB 2.0/3.0, FireWire, eSATA, Ethernet, VGA, DVI, etc. via cable adapters. Intel will be building the controller into its Core series chipsets, so if you get a new computer with intel's newest chipset, and it doesn't have (at least) one of these awesome ports, blame your POS Windows/Linux hardware manufacturers.
Personally I can't wait for the iMac and Mac Pro refreshes (both of which should be around the corner; it's that time of the year ;) ). It's perfect timing for this sort of port to come out since I'll probably be replacing my trusty old MBP either this year or next with a shiny new desktop (my iPad handles everything I need to do on the go). An iPhone 5 with native support for an iPod connector to Thunderbolt cable would be freaking awesome (lightening fast syncing for media junkies and faster charging would be possible with a Thunderbolt connection).

Side note: anyone care to guess the only development partner named by intel?
Apple, Who else? :lol:
Ars coverage: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/02/thunderbolt-smokes-usb-firewire-with-10gbps-throughput.ars
Macworld coverage: http://www.macworld.com/article/158145/2011/02/thunderbolt_what_you_need_to_know.html

Zeta-G
November 14, 2011, 9:07 PM
I realize it's slightly old news by this point, but I thought I'd post it here for those not in the know: Adobe Flash Mobile was officially killed off by Adobe, because of its numerous shortcomings as outlined by Apple (basically it sucked). Existing devices will get security updates for a short while (my impression is that the mobile version will get these patches until they stop arriving for desktop flash 11), but the mobile version of Flash will not be upgradable to Flash 12 (which is in development for Windows/Mac/etc.). Adobe will instead focus their mobile efforts on developing HTML5 tools and multi-platform app development tools based on AIR. Basically Adobe has acknowledged the fact that Flash will eventually die off, even on the desktop (since mobile web browsing is rapidly growing, the discontinuation of Mobile Flash means Flash websites will have to switch to HTML5 or port their sites/games/videos to native apps or they will lose their market).