Quoting johnd:

Quote:
Quoting scotthm:

Quote:

The fact that Apple has entered into an exclusive carrier agreement anywhere disproves your claim of "openness".

Nope. It just an abberation of the US telecommunications industry. The fact that Apple is currently looking at a sim design that allows you to change your carrier on-the-fly demonstrates that they are not happy with what they were forced to do to enter the mobile phone field. (And, no, the idea hasn't been scuttled by the carriers. They just wish the idea would go away).

Quote:
One app store. How, exactly, is this a problem?

Quote:
It presents no problem to me, but it's hardly the hallmark of an "open" company.

Since anyone can develop apps and submit them to the store, I would hardly call it closed.

You see, like so many people you have fallen for the "religious" argument that somehow phones built on Android represent some sort of "open" ideal, while phones built on a OS platform that is managed and demands adherance to certain standards and quaility, that anyone can develop for provided they adhere to those standards and quality, is somehow bad.

A good example of this is demonstrated in the music industry. Professionals that use PCs for sound recording have a hell of a time getting software and hardware to provide a clean sound to match Apples capability. I use PCs all the time because apps for GIS and photography are great and don't depend on strict hardware software marriages but if this wasn't the case, I don't know if I'd still be a PC guy. It seems that smartphones apps can be very hardware dependent and would likely need a more rigorous implementation.

Quote:

In the end, the vast majority of users do not select their phone based on some measure of "openness". They don't care. They want a phone that works, that provides a consistent and conherent experience, and that meets their needs. iOS provides this, and Android has the potential to provide this. Believing that "openness" has something to do with it is the reason why linux still languishes in the backwater of the desktop. Linux proponents fail to realise that the majority of users do not care about "openness". They want email, web browsing, and World of Warcraft without having to jump though a lot of technical hoops to get them.

I think Linux has done well in the server market because it is a good flexible, secure and reliable OS if your a geek. Even the most user friendly Linux system is still hard to implement. Over the years I've tried to use Linux a few times and could not get my tablette to work. Documentation is horable.

I have yet to use anything that resembles a manual with my iPhone. I think this will be the new standard for any system. Ease of use. Software that works the first time and is intuative.

Quote:

If Android is to be truly open, this is what Google must do:

* Exert control over hardware specs, so there is not so much fragmentation. This vastly improves the environment for developers.
* Exert control over the mobile OS upgrade path. They need to cut carriers out of this, and deliver updates and upgrades directly to the user, the way Apple currently does.
* Produce and enforce a clear set of "user experience" standards, the way Apple does. This ensures that users get a consistent experience from apps. One of my main announaces with the Cydia store apps is that a lot of them do not adhere to any rational user experience guidelines.
* Kill off "exclusive deals" with carriers that allow Android phones to be cluttered with junk apps that cannot be removed. This would need to go into the licencing of the OS to pull hardware vendors into line.
* Design and release a "clean" Android image that can be installed on any phone meeting the hardware specs.
* Develop an open and clear roadmap. Currently, Google does not communicate it's current development roadmap to anyone outside the company. This is not the action of a company promoting "open" software. You see open development planning with linux, and you should see this with Android.

Apart from those, I notice that you failed to address any of my arguments. You just spout the party line that Android is "open" (whatever that means) and Apple is "closed" (whatever that means.)

That's about all that you can expect I'm afraid. I'm not an Apple fan but its hard to ignore they're positive aspects. I hope they don't ignore what has made Microsoft so dominant when all other contenders had failed and that is upward compatibility. I was a little ticked when iOS 4 was no longer compatible with my iPod 1G. I realize that at some point the hardware can't keep up with the advances in features but this can be used as an excuse to sell more hardware when it isn't necessary. We'll see.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
I like one brand of phone.  It's a fantastic piece of hardware.  I wouldn't want anything else....

I like one app store....

OK.  I have no objections.  Proprietary isn't worse than "open", it's just not "open".

---------------

I'm a computer programmer, so I get the argument.  I hate proprietary stuff.  But when it's my phone I prefer it to work.  The geek side of me would love an Android phone where I could play and tinker.  But the part of me that enjoys picking up my phone and having it function prefers Apple's model where my phone is a very stable device.  I can tinker on my PC at home.

I think you've nailed it. My iPhone is my only phone. I can't have it lock up and crash all the time. There is always the potential for a rogue app to start routing calls through my phone to Nigeria. My home computer is for fun and as long as I don't lose my personal data and I haven't lost any in the past thirty years (Ya ya so I've had a PC since they first came out so what I don't care all that much and my work computor well that's not my problem that's for the propeler heads to solve.