Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Oct 2010 21:42 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Steve Jobs' rant against Android, RIM, and 7" tablets couldn't go by unnoticed, of course. We already had the rather dry response from Google's Andy Rubin, but Mountain View isn't the only one who responded. TweetDeck's CEO wasn't particularly pleased by Jobs distorting TweetDeck's story on developing for Android, and now we have RIM's co-CEO Jim Balsillie who slammed Cupertino pretty hard.
Order by: Score:
well said RIM
by poundsmack on Tue 19th Oct 2010 22:14 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

Couldn't have said it better myself. Well done RIM, hope that knocks Jobs down a peg or too. I'm sure it won't though, but it would be nice.

Reply Score: 7

RE: well said RIM
by Moochman on Tue 19th Oct 2010 22:39 UTC in reply to "well said RIM"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Meh. Show me a RIM device with an e-mail client that doesn't force me to pay my wireless provider for the privilege, and then I'll believe RIM really understands what the customer wants.

Reply Score: 2

RE: well said RIM
by Alex Forster on Wed 20th Oct 2010 02:56 UTC in reply to "well said RIM"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

RIM's response was rambling and the talking points were lofty and abstract, not to mention unoriginal. I don't care which side you're on, Jobs hits Android square in the nose with this one. Android has fragmented, and that has demonstrable effects on both users and developers. Linux has shown that fragmentation is the death knell for a platform. iOS on the other hand is as unified and cohesive as Android is fragmented. All apps are forward compatible, and iOS4 can still be run on three-generations-old iPhones. You have to give it to him that he spun 'closed' in a very interesting way.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: well said RIM
by No it isnt on Wed 20th Oct 2010 09:19 UTC in reply to "RE: well said RIM"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Uhm, Jobs "hits Android square in the nose" with a non-issue. Your supposed "demonstrable effect" was just refuted by actual developers (oh look, it's in the story above). Like a moronic fanboy, you're perpetuating FUD.

As for the Linux desktop, it's about 1/8 of the Mac's market share. If that's dead, then the Mac is certainly not doing well.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: well said RIM
by wirespot on Wed 20th Oct 2010 09:30 UTC in reply to "RE: well said RIM"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Linux has shown that fragmentation is the death knell for a platform.


iOS is powering exactly one (1) type of device. Linux is everywhere, on stuff ranging from wrist watches to supercomputers, and still managing to hold its own against super-specialized software on their home turf. "A platform"? Try a thousand platforms. More platforms appear everyday and you can bet Linux is tried at some point on all of them.

But ok, let's look at one single platform. The one I'm assuming you mean is the PC desktop. Where Linux has had a slowly climbing adoption rate for the past decade, fighting against super-rich companies. And still what it has to offer today is on par with the best from Microsoft or Apple. Pretty good for a free OS with no advertising, no direct income, no focused goals. How's that for dead?

If you had any notion of biology you would know that diversity ensures survival, while super-specialization leads to dead-ends. It's an immutable fact of life. Any key change in the environment (technical, business, social) and super-specialized software goes down like a brick. I trust you can think up some past examples on your own.

I will give you only one. It's crude and merciless but that's how life is. If Steve Jobs dies tomorrow, it's the end for Apple. May God bless him and may he have a long life, because he's irreplaceable. I doubt we will see somebody with the exact same vision, taste and dedication to perfection replace him.

And another thing: integration is good for the end user, granted. But in accepting extreme integration the user gives up control and customization. And not all people like that. If they did there would be no iPhone jailbreaking and no Android adoption.

You have to give it to him that he spun 'closed' in a very interesting way.


This whole thing is just Jobs drumming up the flamewar just in time for the holiday season. Free publicity and all that. I mean please, Windows = open? You'd have to be an idiot to even entertain the notion, and he's not.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: well said RIM
by M.Onty on Wed 20th Oct 2010 12:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: well said RIM"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

I will give you only one. It's crude and merciless but that's how life is. If Steve Jobs dies tomorrow, it's the end for Apple. May God bless him and may he have a long life, because he's irreplaceable. I doubt we will see somebody with the exact same vision, taste and dedication to perfection replace him.


We won't, no. However I think that Jobs might have now got Apple into a similar position to Disney's position when Walt died. That is to say, it loses its central dynamic force, but has enough momentum to keep on going as a huge, powerful company nonetheless. It would be a worse Apple after Job's death, but probably still a strong one that continued to grow.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: well said RIM
by wirespot on Wed 20th Oct 2010 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: well said RIM"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Oh, no doubt about that. Just by sitting on the accumulated cash and they would last quite a while.

I mean, look at Microsoft after Bill Gates. It lost whatever vision it had (ruthless and unremarkable as it was) and just goes through the motions. But it still has piles of cash and keeps on lurching. Short of wasting it on something stupid (such as a bad major aquisition, barely dodged a bullet there with Yahoo) they will last a while longer.

Reply Score: 2

RE: well said RIM
by fithisux on Wed 20th Oct 2010 17:47 UTC in reply to "well said RIM"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

RIM could open QNX wide open to put their code where their mouth is. It could be a better QN-X than OS-X.

Reply Score: 2

Flash
by WorknMan on Tue 19th Oct 2010 22:28 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

IMHO, I think one thing Apple did right was not including Flash in IOS. Of course, one could argue that they had ulterior motives and I am not inclined to disagree, but I also believe that less Flash on the web is better for everyone (except Adobe), so I don't really care why Apple is doing it, as long as they're doing it.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Flash
by lemur2 on Wed 20th Oct 2010 00:13 UTC in reply to "Flash"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

IMHO, I think one thing Apple did right was not including Flash in IOS. Of course, one could argue that they had ulterior motives and I am not inclined to disagree, but I also believe that less Flash on the web is better for everyone (except Adobe), so I don't really care why Apple is doing it, as long as they're doing it.


IMHO, Apple started out to do the right thing by not including Flash, but then proceeded to do totally the wrong thing by people by also not including non-proprietary open codecs (specifically, WebM, Vorbis and Theora). Every browser except Apple's will support the latter.

IMHO, that means that Apple deserve to end up in a position where rich web content won't work on their iDevices at all.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Flash
by WorknMan on Wed 20th Oct 2010 02:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Flash"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

IMHO, Apple started out to do the right thing by not including Flash, but then proceeded to do totally the wrong thing by people by also not including non-proprietary open codecs (specifically, WebM, Vorbis and Theora). Every browser except Apple's will support the latter.


Meh, I don't care about open codecs. I only care about the closed ones that really suck ass, and Flash falls under that category. If it works out of the box and doesn't require Flash, I'm a happy camper. I don't even mind paying a small license fee for the privilege. Just get rid of f**king Flash.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Flash
by No it isnt on Wed 20th Oct 2010 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Flash"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

It's impossible to both have a free web and support the iOS platform at the same time (without making a special "iOS version" in parallel). If that's unimportant to you, then you're probably one of those who think it's just great to have your old documents stuck in a format you have to pay money to read. You're giving your content away to the patent holders.

Oh, wait, you're just a consumer, and don't own the content yourself.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Flash
by WorknMan on Wed 20th Oct 2010 12:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flash"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If that's unimportant to you, then you're probably one of those who think it's just great to have your old documents stuck in a format you have to pay money to read. You're giving your content away to the patent holders.


Well, it's like this... I graduated from high school about 15 years ago. Thus, I didn't come from the Entitlement Generation who expects everything to be handed to them for free. So no, I don't mind paying a little something for the apps I use.

In regards to accessing the content, if you're going to use a proprietary format for that, just make sure you're using something that can export to other formats if needed. Later on down the road, you can always use an emulator if you absolutely need to get at the app you used to create it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Flash
by organgtool on Wed 20th Oct 2010 13:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Flash"
organgtool Member since:
2010-02-25

Thus, I didn't come from the Entitlement Generation who expects everything to be handed to them for free.

Slightly offtopic, but the Entitlement Generation is always one generation after your generation.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Flash
by phoenix on Wed 20th Oct 2010 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flash"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Hah ha ha!! So true. It's never our generation's fault, it's always the one before us, or the one after us. ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Flash
by No it isnt on Wed 20th Oct 2010 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Flash"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Hm, you seriously don't get it at all, and your sleazy double ad hominem is entirely unimpressive. What you just said is that you're younger and less educated than me.

There's more to a free web than in "free to consume". When using non-free codecs, there is an extra cost of producing content as well, a part-transfer of ownership to the patent holders. Should every video on the web be entagled in MPEG-LA's patents? Apple thinks so: it makes all internet video their own property, to some rather small degree. You think you're willing to pay for that because your not part of the "Entitlement Generation". In reality, you think it's worth paying for because you're fucking crazy.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Flash
by WorknMan on Wed 20th Oct 2010 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flash"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

There's more to a free web than in "free to consume". When using non-free codecs, there is an extra cost of producing content as well, a part-transfer of ownership to the patent holders. Should every video on the web be entagled in MPEG-LA's patents? Apple thinks so: it makes all internet video their own property, to some rather small degree.


I don't know much about video, but I assume it works like audio in that you record in a raw format (such as a .wav file) and then compress it when you're done for mass consumption. As long as you have the original (uncompressed) content, the owner of the compression algorithm doesn't 'own' a thing. But, if you record in a proprietary format and have no way to convert it to something else, then... well, you're a moron.

Anyway, if you're going to use a compression algorithm that somebody else owns and wants money for it, then yeah... you're probably going to have to pay for it. Why shouldn't you? Just because somebody's labor comes in the form of 1's and 0's doesn't automatically entitle you to have access to it for $0. And in this case, unless the owner is selling t-shirts or coffee mugs, there's no way he can give away the source and/or offer it up royalty free and still profit from it (AFAIK).

Edited 2010-10-20 22:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Flash
by No it isnt on Wed 20th Oct 2010 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Flash"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

There are several free codecs available that Apple won't support -- or even allow others to support -- in order to force people to use patented technology if they want to make their content available for the iOS platform. I'm not asking Apple to free their tech, I'm just pointing out that they want people to pay a toll to make their own content available to iOS users. They're restricting freedom of information.

For someone so hung-up on "entitlement", you sure are oblivious to Apple's entitlement to control internet media. But perhaps you're being intentionally dense for the sake of argument.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Flash
by SlackerJack on Wed 20th Oct 2010 14:46 UTC in reply to "Flash"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Well, if you like browsing the web back in the 90s then Apple devices are for you. Despite the the issues with Flash, it provides a richer web, along with WebM which Apple doesn't support.

People make the assumption Flash is bad based on the desktop version, when Flash on Android has proved this not to be the case on hand-held devices.

I hope Apple device owners enjoy animated gifs but I've got to hand it to Apple though. They're the first company to make their 21st century devices act like a time machine, to view the web back in the 90s.

Edited 2010-10-20 14:48 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

It's nice how people twist the truth to their advantage. (Of course everyone does this, Apple no exception).

Jobs however talked about fragmentation and how in the end it's worse specifically for users but even for developers. He gave the example of TweeterDeck's charts. However, he never claimed that TweeterDeck was complaining about Android Development.


I'd say that you are not an exception either. Had Mr. jobs not misquote TweeterDeck, there would be no reaction from their part. But he did, and no spin doctor can make it seem right to any non fanboys. Yeah he lied, he also lied about the antenna, he also lied about the motives of not supporting flash and so on and so on. I suggest you get to grips with the fact that he is not a god, and money is his primary motive. Not your best interest, but money.

He has taken a page right from microsoft when it comes to competing with oss. Start with a bit of FUD, sprinkle a little bit of propaganda and voila ... you are still relevant despite sub par hardware and mediocre (to say the least) software

Reply Score: 9

molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

OK, here we go again (reposted from a previous thread)

I read their blog about a week ago... their tone is rather celebratory, along the lines of "look how cool is that." I don't think Jobs' way of using TweetDeck in his rant is a faithful representation of what they actually claim on their blog. It's a huge spin. "Has to contend with" dramatizes the whole situation, and he concludes with depicting coding for Android a "daunting challenge." If this is not spin for you, I don't know what is. TweetDeck developers recognized it as such and debunked it.

I hope this clarifies it for you... I didn't know this needed to be explained, but some people seem to have a problem grasping the obvious.

Reply Score: 6

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

TweeterDeck's charts. However, he never claimed that TweeterDeck was complaining about Android Development.


He used them as an example that fragmentation was a problem. From the post they said that fragmentation wasn't a problem. The fact that there were so many different versions of android but tweetdeck had no problems running on all the different versions.

So what if there is fragmentation? As long as apps work in the same way where is the problem in having choice?


OK some people like choice, but what this leads to is the mess that is the Android Market and similar stores and numerous handsets with almost no differentiation (consequently filled with crapware by the vendors so they can stand out).


So here you're telling me that the iOS app store is not filled to the brim with crapware?

Reply Score: 7

gfacer Member since:
2005-11-10

Yes, and I am no mobile developer, but how hard can it be for a twitter client to adapt.....not very I'd imagine. The more intensely an app pushes the boundary of what any hardware is capable of, the more 100 variations (or whatever) becomes a problem.

In my recent buying decision, Apple was the devil I know, and not just because I owed a 1st gen itouch. I simply could not be sure if a) whatever brand of android handset would be upgradable to newer OS's (due to hardware maker or network's resistance) and b) if all apps I might be interested would work without hassle on whatever particular handset I bought.

Since all the handsets are subsidized (Canada), I choose the Iphone. However, time will tell regarding both points. Certain handset makers will have a better or worse reputation for upgrades and people will complain more or less about fragmentation / compatibility. If my fears were unfounded, my next phone might very well be android.

Reply Score: 1

3rdalbum Member since:
2008-05-26

I simply could not be sure if a) whatever brand of android handset would be upgradable to newer OS's (due to hardware maker or network's resistance)


So you bought an iPhone, where nothing is guaranteed to work on a handset that is not the current or previous model. Dudey, Apple is probably the worst offender when it comes to this.

In order to use the latest iPod, you need the latest iTunes, which requires the latest operating system, which will only run on the latest Macs. Okay, that's a bit of an overstatement, but Jobs himself said that you should only target the latest and previous iPhones - which makes my father's 16-month-old iPhone 3G officially unsupported.

Whereas, with a custom firmware, you can pretty much run Android 2.2 on a 2-year-old HTC Dream.

Reply Score: 6

Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

1) The only iPhone that's depreciated is the 2G, which is ~four years old. Your father's 3G can run iOS4.

2) All applications are forwards compatible. Expecting applications to also be backwards compatible is insane; that would mean the featureset of the phone could never be improved on.

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

1) The only iPhone that's depreciated is the 2G, which is ~four years old. Your father's 3G can run iOS4.

And with how much features disabled exactly ?

I find these discussions about firmware upgrades a bit pointless. Upgrading a firmware is a dangerous task which can break the device if something goes wrong. Not to mention potential performance issues, with iOS4-like market fragmentation as the sole known alternative, and usability ones if the new firmware behaves differently in some way (I've seen a real-life example of this with an iTouch which had been upgraded to iOS 4). Average users just shouldn't have to care about it.

If you were satisfied with the device you bought and if app compatibility is done right, you shouldn't need the upgrade. If you weren't satisfied, you shouldn't have bought the device in the first place.

Now, if you tell me that upgrading the firmware is for geeks only, then I'm okay with that. But geeks have enough knowledge to install a custom FW, and to try to fix the device themselves if they break it.

Edited 2010-10-20 06:11 UTC

Reply Score: 1

jackeebleu Member since:
2006-01-26

"I simply could not be sure if a) whatever brand of android handset would be upgradable to newer OS's (due to hardware maker or network's resistance)

Whereas, with a custom firmware, you can pretty much run Android 2.2 on a 2-year-old HTC Dream.
"

And exactly where does the average village idiot get custom firmware? How does the average village idiot install that huh? The world does not revolve around geeks friend. It's about usability.

Reply Score: 4

tuzor Member since:
2007-08-07

"you are still relevant despite sub par hardware and mediocre (to say the least) software"

I guess you're right there. That would explain Apple topping consumer satisfaction charts year after year (by quite a margin).

"So here you're telling me that the iOS app store is not filled to the brim with crapware?"

There's crapware and then there's crapware.
Have you ever used the Android Market? I have, and boy is it a mess.

All retailers apply some censorship when it comes to putting up goods on their shelves. They don't just put up whatever's available to them.
The good one's do this more than others because people don't want junk.

Reply Score: 0

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

"you are still relevant despite sub par hardware and mediocre (to say the least) software"

I guess you're right there. That would explain Apple topping consumer satisfaction charts year after year (by quite a margin).

"So here you're telling me that the iOS app store is not filled to the brim with crapware?"

There's crapware and then there's crapware.
Have you ever used the Android Market? I have, and boy is it a mess.

All retailers apply some censorship when it comes to putting up goods on their shelves. They don't just put up whatever's available to them.
The good one's do this more than others because people don't want junk.


Everything you say is just as applicable to the ios app store as any other.

Reply Score: 4

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

The paradox of choice is about something else entirely. You're doing exactly what you're accusing others of.

Reply Score: 3

Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

For those of us who live outside of Apple's distortion field, we know that 7-inch tablets will actually be a big portion of the market and we know that Adobe Flash support actually matters to customers who want a real web experience.


What 7-inch tablets? You’re not shipping one to next year. _actually_, really? Odd use of tense there. You didn’t say _good_ web experience, just experience. Flash has been shown to be a bad experience. It halves the load speed of pages that have Flash ads and the only good in good experience is "good enough". Flash on mobile shows you the content, yes, but you pay a price for that in everything else.

customers want to fully access the overwhelming majority of web sites that use Flash.


Overwhelming majority? Hold on there. I do very highly doubt that an "overwhelming majority" of sites contain Flash _content_. Oh, Flash _ads_, sure. I would wager that an 'overwhelming majority' of consumers wouldn’t want those.

Reply Score: 1

Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

"For those of us who live outside of Apple's distortion field, we know that 7-inch tablets will actually be a big portion of the market and we know that Adobe Flash support actually matters to customers who want a real web experience.
What 7-inch tablets? "

Those 7-inch tablets that aready sells like hotcakes, I would venture to guess. Lots of different models are readily avalible. As an example, when viewing this site without adblock, i get regular ads from lightinthebox who sells several different tablets.

That the "brand" names are a little late in the game and that the shipping tablets are low-spec compared to the iPad, does not change the fact. Those 7-inch tablests sell. The main reason I would think is the very competive price(IMHO the rigth price range for such limited/specialized devices).

Edited 2010-10-20 06:41 UTC

Reply Score: 4

bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Kroc pointed out...

For those of us who live outside of Apple's distortion field, we know that 7-inch tablets will actually be a big portion of the market and we know that Adobe Flash support actually matters to customers who want a real web experience.

What 7-inch tablets? You’re not shipping one to next year.


They're already here--admittedly they're not running RIM's OS, but they're still here already. I have one myself, a Pandigital Novel with Android 2.0 as its base OS. Once unlocked, (and hacking one of these is as simple as pushing a home\launcher replacement across the USB cord via adb) you end up with a rather nice and inexpensive Android tablet.

Is it as good as the iPad? Of course not, it was intended as an eBook reader and based on what I keep seeing at Slatedroid clearly slapped together by a bunch of monkeys with no optimization done to make even the advertised features (like video and audio playing) work well. Yet the category does exist. I think what Balsillie is really saying here is "Don't count out the 7'' tablets as a category until we get ours out the door and can show you what we can do." Myself I think he's a bit late to the party, as there are literally hundreds of Android based tablets being developed and making their way around the world from China right now.

Sure these aren't all going to be powerhouses or as good as the iPad, but my Pandigital Novel lets me play movies (depending on the firmware older ones work better on my v1 board) listen to music, read eBooks with Laputa or Aldiko, catch up on my feeds with FeedR my offline feed reader, get my email, facebook, even play Angry Birds* and other great games! All for a mere $139 after some pricematching and coupon work at Kohl's. And with the SD card slot I can easily expand my storage all the way up to 32GB...try that with an iPad!

--bornagainpenguin

*Angry Birds has some graphical issues still on my 800x600 screen, but it still works. Hopefully as the code gets optimized more and more it will run better and better.

Reply Score: 3

Ummm, who's misquoting whom here?
by mrhasbean on Wed 20th Oct 2010 01:02 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

"Twitter client TwitterDeck [sic] recently launched their Android app, and had to contend with 100 different versions of software on 244 different handsets," Jobs said, "That's a daunting challenge."


"Did we at any point say it was a nightmare developing on Android? Errr nope, no we didn't."


And neither did Jobs. "Daunting challenge" is hardly calling it a "nightmare". And Jobs is right, it is something that's daunting when you first look at the project, and then want to make sure the thing works across all of those variations. How can they even be sure it will without specifically testing it on every variation? Personally I probably would have called that prospect a "nightmare", but that's not what Jobs said. Misquoting him in order to appeal to geekdom is nothing but grandstanding.

Similarly with the comments by Mr RIM. Using the classic approach of diverting attention from their own weaknesses by attacking things that are perceptions created in the minds of those who have no ability to understand something is just schoolyard bullying tactics, something I'd expect from a 12 year old. Other than making baseless claims about distorted sales figures did he in any way refute the main point Jobs was making? Instead he chose to use rhetoric to attack something that clearly RIM, like many manufacturers as well as some who frequent this forum, don't have the logic and reasoning abilities to comprehend.

Reply Score: 1

Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

Great point. Even if it's not hard to write an app that runs stably across the hundred software/hardware combinations, you still can't be sure the app doesn't crash unless you've tested it on on every single one of them. That's the daunting part.

Reply Score: 2

organgtool Member since:
2010-02-25

You're right. As someone who has developed desktop software, I always made sure to buy every possible combination of computer hardware and test my software on those boxes so that I can be sure that I knew it worked.

Reply Score: 2

molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Are you a clone of Piot?
http://www.osnews.com/thread?445801

Reply Score: 4

Janglin_Jack Member since:
2010-10-20

If diferent hardware/OS version is bad for programmers, how the hell is everyone still doing apps for windows?

Do you think one has to try every combination of hard/soft before deploing? because that would be just insane....

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

And neither did Jobs. "Daunting challenge" is hardly calling it a "nightmare".


"This is pedantry up with which I will not put." -Winston Churchill, after being criticized for ending a sentence with a preposition

Reply Score: 2

Wow, rotten fruit fan bois sure are blind
by uteck on Wed 20th Oct 2010 05:00 UTC
uteck
Member since:
2006-07-16

It is sure amazing that the fruity fan bois here can nit pick over the mistake Tweetdeck made, but can completely ignore the amazing liver-mans distortion about what they originally posted.

I know Android is so scary for fruit loving folk with the hundreds of phones in various styles, some even with keyboards. No right thinking person should be subject to so much choice.

And the gods forbid that the phone companies have some control over the phone and store on their network. That is something only the phone maker should be allowed to dictate.

Reply Score: 7

M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

+ 1 insightful, methinks

Edited 2010-10-20 12:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

He is right about 7" tablets and Flash
by nt_jerkface on Wed 20th Oct 2010 15:09 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

The ipad isn't that portable, I see people hauling them around in ipad cases which are no more convenient than a laptop in a skin.

Not having Flash on the iphone is fine since its main purpose is to make phone calls. However a tablet is all about surfing and should provide a full experience. If battery life is a concern then Flash should be opt/in when the tablet is not plugged in.

Android fragmentation is a real problem though especially on the hardware side. The new 3.0 release at least has minimum hardware specs which will help the situation.

Edited 2010-10-20 15:12 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Tweetdeck confirmed it then...
by rubberneck on Wed 20th Oct 2010 17:58 UTC
rubberneck
Member since:
2009-06-16

I own and mobile software company, and we never have 2 developers work on 1 project. + all they are doing is porting the app. He just basically confirmed the reasons why I don't do Android yet. Costs to much.

I can see putting the effort out for a very high volume app though..

Edited 2010-10-20 17:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1