iPhone or Google Nexus?
This topic has a poll - login to enter
Posted 17/06/2010 - 13:47
Link
Unlocker wrote:
My Playstation 3 was designed for me to be able to install Linux and plug in a keyboard and mouse into it's USB ports. This turns it into a general purpose computer, it was designed to do this.
Yes Apple is the only current manufacturer to dictate which software is available in their app store (don't forget you can run any unapproved web app on it as well). The next manufacturer to use this approach will be, wait for it.. Microsoft.
Windows Series 7 phones will also have a curated App Store, with approvals that developers have to pay for. There will be no sideloading of apps, and there will be no compatibility between old and new versions of Windows Mobile. Basically, It's a direct copy of Apple's approach.
This is where my point is though. You have made a point of saying that this is a bad thing, if it was desktop computers we were debating, I would agree. We are talking mobile phones here though and I think this is a bad thing.
As was mentioned before
I do not want the possibility that someone out there will write an app that is called 'HSBC online banking' and put it on an app store unchecked, then everyone downloads it and types their user / pass into it with it just being a scam. The way that Android is setup, this is possible, in fact 50 people could do it at the same time! Which do you download, which do you trust with your details, which one of the 10 that says it's official really is official? Why would you think this is a good idea?
At least if you got it from Apples App Store you will know that it will do exactly what it says on the tin. Don't forget that the number one reason why apps are rejected by Apple is that 'they do not do what they say they do'. Just think about that for a moment. No really, think about it. Apple reject over 500 apps a week because they do not do what they say they do.
If you bought an App to remember all your passwords, would you like to know that all the details are not being sent off in the background for someone else to use? Not possible with the App store, it would get rejected, but possible on every other available platform.
Having worked in the mobile industry for over 14 years now, I have seen virus infected Symbian and Windows phones and their memory cards on a regular basis, and indeed made money out of repairing them. I see every day the problems people have with their phones. In that time and with the experience I have the iPhone platform is the only one I can trust, as it is the only one with some control.
In a nutshell open platforms are good on the desktop, but not so good on mobile!
Can't disagree with anything you've written there Danny. Spot on.
MrCynical wrote:
1. Game consoles are not general-purpose computers, as Apple markets the iPhone
Apple does not market the iPhone as a general purpose computer (probably because they sell general purpose computers), Nokia used to market their N series phones as multimedia computers, but don't now (because they now sell laptops as well??)1. Game consoles are not general-purpose computers, as Apple markets the iPhone
My Playstation 3 was designed for me to be able to install Linux and plug in a keyboard and mouse into it's USB ports. This turns it into a general purpose computer, it was designed to do this.
MrCynical wrote:
2. Game consoles are not designed to run third-party software (of course criticisms can be made of that). The iPhone on the other hand is (see Point 1).
Games consoles are designed to run third party software, these are commonly known as 'games'2. Game consoles are not designed to run third-party software (of course criticisms can be made of that). The iPhone on the other hand is (see Point 1).
MrCynical wrote:
3. There is a difference in the two markets. All games consoles work to the same standard - the Xbox 360 is no more or less restrictive than the Playstation 3 for example. Apple, however, is the only manufacturer of smartphones to dictate which software their owners run on them - phones running Symbian, Windows Mobile, Android and Blackberry OS will accept whatever compatible software the user installs.
The XBox 360 is a heck of a lot more restrictive than the PS3 as highlighted above, cannot install another operating system, only uses proprietary hard drives (PS3 uses industry standard ones) etc.etc.3. There is a difference in the two markets. All games consoles work to the same standard - the Xbox 360 is no more or less restrictive than the Playstation 3 for example. Apple, however, is the only manufacturer of smartphones to dictate which software their owners run on them - phones running Symbian, Windows Mobile, Android and Blackberry OS will accept whatever compatible software the user installs.
Yes Apple is the only current manufacturer to dictate which software is available in their app store (don't forget you can run any unapproved web app on it as well). The next manufacturer to use this approach will be, wait for it.. Microsoft.
Windows Series 7 phones will also have a curated App Store, with approvals that developers have to pay for. There will be no sideloading of apps, and there will be no compatibility between old and new versions of Windows Mobile. Basically, It's a direct copy of Apple's approach.
MrCynical wrote:
4. Thus the user is forbidden to install software which Apple has not approved for its App Store. With Android, on the other hand, if software is excluded from the Google App Store (or any of the handset maker App Stores) then the user can download it directly from the developer's website
This is true. Not gonna argue it.4. Thus the user is forbidden to install software which Apple has not approved for its App Store. With Android, on the other hand, if software is excluded from the Google App Store (or any of the handset maker App Stores) then the user can download it directly from the developer's website
This is where my point is though. You have made a point of saying that this is a bad thing, if it was desktop computers we were debating, I would agree. We are talking mobile phones here though and I think this is a bad thing.
As was mentioned before
cardiff_gareth wrote:
I really don't care what operating system it uses, why would it be of a concern, I don't try nor do I have any inclin to crack into it or 'play' with it ?
I really don't care what operating system it uses, why would it be of a concern, I don't try nor do I have any inclin to crack into it or 'play' with it ?
johnriley wrote:
That probably applies to most users. They are only interested in what it does easily and efficiently without messing about.
The vast majority of people just want a phone to work with no messing about.That probably applies to most users. They are only interested in what it does easily and efficiently without messing about.
I do not want the possibility that someone out there will write an app that is called 'HSBC online banking' and put it on an app store unchecked, then everyone downloads it and types their user / pass into it with it just being a scam. The way that Android is setup, this is possible, in fact 50 people could do it at the same time! Which do you download, which do you trust with your details, which one of the 10 that says it's official really is official? Why would you think this is a good idea?
At least if you got it from Apples App Store you will know that it will do exactly what it says on the tin. Don't forget that the number one reason why apps are rejected by Apple is that 'they do not do what they say they do'. Just think about that for a moment. No really, think about it. Apple reject over 500 apps a week because they do not do what they say they do.
If you bought an App to remember all your passwords, would you like to know that all the details are not being sent off in the background for someone else to use? Not possible with the App store, it would get rejected, but possible on every other available platform.
Having worked in the mobile industry for over 14 years now, I have seen virus infected Symbian and Windows phones and their memory cards on a regular basis, and indeed made money out of repairing them. I see every day the problems people have with their phones. In that time and with the experience I have the iPhone platform is the only one I can trust, as it is the only one with some control.
In a nutshell open platforms are good on the desktop, but not so good on mobile!
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Posted 17/06/2010 - 13:47
Link
Anvh wrote:
Does Apple guarantee that the apps from their App Store are save to use?
I mean it's great they check their apps but even if one faulty one slip through can you hold them responsible?
I coulnd't find it in the terms of use so fast and I need to go over 10 minutes
Have you not got their terms in an easy-reference diagram?
Does Apple guarantee that the apps from their App Store are save to use?
I mean it's great they check their apps but even if one faulty one slip through can you hold them responsible?
I coulnd't find it in the terms of use so fast and I need to go over 10 minutes
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Posted 17/06/2010 - 15:19
Link
Unlocker wrote:
My Playstation 3 was designed for me to be able to install Linux and plug in a keyboard and mouse into it's USB ports. This turns it into a general purpose computer, it was designed to do this.
When you use your Playstation 3 as a general purpose computer, Sony does not dictate which software you may and may not run. Any application which is compatible with the Linux distribution you select can run - you do not need to ask Sony for permission to use your preferred software supplier, nor do they need to give Sony a cut of their earnings.My Playstation 3 was designed for me to be able to install Linux and plug in a keyboard and mouse into it's USB ports. This turns it into a general purpose computer, it was designed to do this.
Unlocker wrote:
Games consoles are designed to run third party software, these are commonly known as 'games'
They are not designed to run third-party software from anyone with the necessary programming ability. They are only intended to run software from large professional developers, with the ability to produce software on the same scale as others who release software for the platform. The iPhone, on the other hand, like other computers and like other smartphones, is intended to run software from developers who have no direct relationship with the platform creator (unlike game development for consoles, where approved developers receive extensive support and custom development hardware from the console maker).Games consoles are designed to run third party software, these are commonly known as 'games'
Unlocker wrote:
The XBox 360 is a heck of a lot more restrictive than the PS3 as highlighted above, cannot install another operating system, only uses proprietary hard drives (PS3 uses industry standard ones) etc.etc.
The PS3 no longer supports the installation of a different operating system (Sony recently changed this). The choice of hardware accessories does not affect the user's degree of freedom to install software (which is the issue under discussion): one cannot install and play (for example) ioquake3 on the Playstation 3's industry standard hard drive any easier than on the Xbox 360's proprietary hard drive (or for that matter the Nintendo Wii's industry standard flash memory).The XBox 360 is a heck of a lot more restrictive than the PS3 as highlighted above, cannot install another operating system, only uses proprietary hard drives (PS3 uses industry standard ones) etc.etc.
Quote:
I do not want the possibility that someone out there will write an app that is called 'HSBC online banking' and put it on an app store unchecked, then everyone downloads it and types their user / pass into it with it just being a scam. The way that Android is setup, this is possible, in fact 50 people could do it at the same time! Which do you download, which do you trust with your details, which one of the 10 that says it's official really is official? Why would you think this is a good idea?
At least if you got it from Apples App Store you will know that it will do exactly what it says on the tin. Don't forget that the number one reason why apps are rejected by Apple is that 'they do not do what they say they do'. Just think about that for a moment. No really, think about it. Apple reject over 500 apps a week because they do not do what they say they do.
If you bought an App to remember all your passwords, would you like to know that all the details are not being sent off in the background for someone else to use? Not possible with the App store, it would get rejected, but possible on every other available platform.
I trust my own judgement on the suitability of software more than I trust an Apple employee who a) I do not know, b) Whose software security qualifications I have no knowledge of, and c) Will not be liable to me in damages in the event that their judgement is wrong.I do not want the possibility that someone out there will write an app that is called 'HSBC online banking' and put it on an app store unchecked, then everyone downloads it and types their user / pass into it with it just being a scam. The way that Android is setup, this is possible, in fact 50 people could do it at the same time! Which do you download, which do you trust with your details, which one of the 10 that says it's official really is official? Why would you think this is a good idea?
At least if you got it from Apples App Store you will know that it will do exactly what it says on the tin. Don't forget that the number one reason why apps are rejected by Apple is that 'they do not do what they say they do'. Just think about that for a moment. No really, think about it. Apple reject over 500 apps a week because they do not do what they say they do.
If you bought an App to remember all your passwords, would you like to know that all the details are not being sent off in the background for someone else to use? Not possible with the App store, it would get rejected, but possible on every other available platform.
Furthermore, the fact that software is approved by Apple does not mean that it does not violate user privacy, only that it does not violate user privacy in a way that Apple considers inappropriate.
For example the new iAd technology developed by Apple (and intended for third party software developers) enables software to phone home (metaphorically speaking!) to external advertisers and supply them with the user's personal details (including IP address and by implication their location) without the user's knowledge or consent.
So I do not believe that Apple can be trusted to judge whether a piece of software violates my privacy - for the record I would not trust Google, Microsoft or RIM to make such a judgement either.
Posted 17/06/2010 - 15:30
Link
What I don't understand is that people seem to be taking stance of:
"I want an iPhone but I want to be able to install whatever software I want on it"
Surely it's just the case that what they really want isn't an iPhone.
I don't buy a car and complain that I want the clutch to be the right pedal not the left, or that the manufacturer doesn't leave room for my luggage under the bonnet, but rather in the boot.
You know what the product is, you know the rules Apple are applying. If you don't like it, then there are plenty of other phones on the market, buy one of them instead.
"I want an iPhone but I want to be able to install whatever software I want on it"
Surely it's just the case that what they really want isn't an iPhone.
I don't buy a car and complain that I want the clutch to be the right pedal not the left, or that the manufacturer doesn't leave room for my luggage under the bonnet, but rather in the boot.
You know what the product is, you know the rules Apple are applying. If you don't like it, then there are plenty of other phones on the market, buy one of them instead.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Posted 17/06/2010 - 17:45
Link
MrCynical wrote:
software. . .approved by Apple
I honestly hate to break this news to faithful here but the spiel about the app approval process guaranteeing some sort of superior and pure user experience is just another line of Steve Jobs’ patented bullshit.software. . .approved by Apple
In response to the iTunes store rejection of the Google voice app last year on the most flimsy and spurious grounds, the FTC demanded from Apple details of their hitherto utterly mysterious and esoteric approval process.
Based on Apple’s grudging provision of staffing numbers for the team it was easy to calculate that if everybody so employed spent all of their working time, without holidays, lunch/toilet/ciggie breaks, and without spending even a millisecond on internal meetings, emails, etc, then based on the number of apps submitted each one receives fully 6 man minutes of undivided scrutiny and attention.
What a joke.
Posted 17/06/2010 - 17:59
Link
robbie_d wrote:
What I don't understand is that people seem to be taking stance of:
"I want an iPhone but I want to be able to install whatever software I want on it"
Surely it's just the case that what they really want isn't an iPhone.
My own personal experience in the shop gives me the answer to that question, as I challenge everyone who asks me if I will jailbreak their iPhones (not a service I provide by the way). What I don't understand is that people seem to be taking stance of:
"I want an iPhone but I want to be able to install whatever software I want on it"
Surely it's just the case that what they really want isn't an iPhone.
When I ask what they want to do with a jailbroken iPhone that they cannot do by getting an App off the App store, the normal answer in way more than 50% of cases is 'so I can put TomTom on it'. Then I point out that I do not understand as it is on the App store, you do not need to jail break your phone. 'cos you can get it free off da net innit' is the reply.
So the simple answer is so you can steal software. It's been easily done on every other platform since day one as they are open, but with the iPhone being a closed system, piracy is harder to do, or to the more casual person, not possible.
Posted 19/06/2010 - 15:37
Link
thoughton wrote:
Yes, of course they do Stefan. They also guarantee that the iPhone will make you smarter, wealthier, and more attractive to the opposite sex.
Thank you Tim, is that why you bought one?Yes, of course they do Stefan. They also guarantee that the iPhone will make you smarter, wealthier, and more attractive to the opposite sex.
Since it's a store and they check everything if it works al right, why wouldn't they give a guarantee if they stand behind the apps they sell and their quality check?
I mean you can check all you want but if you don't give a guarantee on the end that you've checked it well it doesn't come over that strongly
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 19/06/2010 - 15:45
Link
Nothing in this world is totally guaranteed Stefan.
Do I want an iPhone that is secure and virus free? Yes.
Do I want spurious Apps from all and sundry that can crash the system? No.
So for myself, the stance of Apple is just fine by me. Those who want to delve deeper into the software can buy an Android phone.
Do I want an iPhone that is secure and virus free? Yes.
Do I want spurious Apps from all and sundry that can crash the system? No.
So for myself, the stance of Apple is just fine by me. Those who want to delve deeper into the software can buy an Android phone.
Best regards, John
Posted 19/06/2010 - 16:17
Link
John that's not what I really meant.
If someone provides a service they themselves stand behind then it comes over more strongly if they give a form of guarantee over that or at least share responsibility.
You, yourself just said this.
Do I want an iPhone that is secure and virus free? Yes.
Do I want spurious Apps from all and sundry that can crash the system? No.
That's not Apples responsibility or at least if they screw this up with letting through a dodgy App then they aren't covering your lost and it's all the developers fault.
If someone provides a service they themselves stand behind then it comes over more strongly if they give a form of guarantee over that or at least share responsibility.
You, yourself just said this.
Do I want an iPhone that is secure and virus free? Yes.
Do I want spurious Apps from all and sundry that can crash the system? No.
That's not Apples responsibility or at least if they screw this up with letting through a dodgy App then they aren't covering your lost and it's all the developers fault.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 19/06/2010 - 16:24
Link
If something goes wrong I don't really care about finding someone to make them responsible, I just want a solution, quickly and efficiently.
Apportioning blame wastes time and energy IMHO.
I wonder, are we aware of any rogue iPhone Apps slipping through? Or is the system working very nicely?
Apportioning blame wastes time and energy IMHO.
I wonder, are we aware of any rogue iPhone Apps slipping through? Or is the system working very nicely?
Best regards, John
Posted 26/06/2010 - 08:42
Link
johnriley wrote:
I wonder, are we aware of any rogue iPhone Apps slipping through? Or is the system working very nicely?
If by rogue you understand apps that acquire personal data and transmit that on without your express permission then the answer is yes.I wonder, are we aware of any rogue iPhone Apps slipping through? Or is the system working very nicely?
If you mean along the lines of PC based - and typically browsing delivered - malware then the answer is probably no – at least for now.
But the fact that the current iPhone OS generation is not multitasking enabled generally makes installing malicious code much harder, and with a flavour of this enabled in the new version, it undoubtedly significantly opens up attack options.
Posted 26/06/2010 - 08:47
Link
Quote:
If you mean along the lines of PC based - and typically browsing delivered - malware then the answer is probably no – at least for now.
That was what I meant. I suspected that was the case, and it is an advantage to those who don't want to mess about with computers but just want a device to use.
If you mean along the lines of PC based - and typically browsing delivered - malware then the answer is probably no – at least for now.
Best regards, John
Posted 26/06/2010 - 09:03
Link
johnriley wrote:
John, the situation is much more complex and nuanced.Quote:
If you mean along the lines of PC based - and typically browsing delivered - malware then the answer is probably no – at least for now.
That was what I meant. I suspected that was the case, and it is an advantage to those who don't want to mess about with computers but just want a device to use.If you mean along the lines of PC based - and typically browsing delivered - malware then the answer is probably no – at least for now.
First of all there is the issue of multitasking; if that is not enabled intuitively you can not run malicious code at the same time as a legit app.
However, it is not yet clear the extent to which the new iPhone OS delivers true multitasking, but you should never underestimate the fiendish ingenuity of the criminal malware industry.
Secondly there are already proof of concept trojans out there for non-jailbroken iPhones. And there are strong grounds to believe that Apple is ambivalent about addressing this since they appear anxious to perpetuate the myth that their systems are invulnerable to attack across the board. For example in the case of the iPhone, they have made noises that they would not view favourably the submission of antivirus apps.
Posted 26/06/2010 - 13:59
Link
Talking without knowing again, eh Shaky? The iPhone already has multitasking and has had it since version 1. It just isn't available via an API to third party developers. I'm not sure the lack of an API would stop malware producers, so your argument seems to be on Shaky ground already. Again.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
3241 posts
18 years
Worcestershire
You can see some of my shots at my Flickr account.