...and just so we can see what Steve Jobs thought of Android v iOS and whether he felt they were direct rivals (ie direct comparos to be made):

Apple CEO Steve Jobs yesterday took shots at Google and dismissed iPad wannabes as "dead on arrival" during his company's earnings call with Wall Street analysts.

In a rare appearance on the quarterly call, Jobs took the floor to boast of the iPhone's success, defend iOS' top-to-bottom integration and rebut claims that Google's Android was a better bet for smartphones and tablets.

Analysts took note of Jobs' combative comments. "Apple's playing hardball," said Ezra Gottheil of Technology Business Research. "I think he scored some points in making the case for a user experience that just works."

Jobs was blunt when he talked about Google, still a partner in some endeavors but since Android's introduction, a fierce rival.

"Google loves to characterize Android as open, and iOS and iPhone as closed," Jobs said. "We find this a bit disingenuous and clouding the real difference between our two approaches."

Rather than worry about definitions, the focus should be on the end result. "We think the open versus closed argument is just a smokescreen to try and hide the real issue, which is, what's best for the customer, fragmented versus integrated?" Jobs asked. "We think Android is very, very fragmented and becoming more fragmented by the day."

Developers see iOS and Android as direct choice options, it appears:

Jobs cited a comment made last week by TweetDeck, developers of a popular Twitter client that runs on both iOS and Android, to back up his claim of Android fragmentation. "They reported that they had to contend with more than 100 different versions of Android software on 244 different handsets," said Jobs. "The multiple hardware and software iterations present developers with a daunting challenge."

Not so fast, said Ian Dodsworth, the CEO of TweetDeck. "Did we at any point say it was a nightmare developing on Android? Errr nope, no we didn't. It wasn't," Dodsworth said on Twitter early Tuesday.

Looks like the "Android is disseminated and fragmented with SO many different makers" is just a Jobs Fanboi reiteration (which developers don't seem to agree with...)

--from 2010

Quote from: Mr. Whippy on June 26, 2014, 03:10:06 PM

Quote from: bomber on June 26, 2014, 02:54:47 PM

Quote from: dm_gsx1300r on June 26, 2014, 02:43:12 PM

You're comparing apples and oranges. There is no 'Android' brand phone. It's an operating system on top of a vendor's hardware.

Carl

This is a salient point . . . . .folks are interested, most of em, in features. If smart, benefits.

Remember the brazillions that Intel spent trying to get something from the branding on their processors? Didnt' do much for em, and they stopped.

No, that doesn't apply at all.  The Intel comparo would be if you were comparing Chipsets, which run the same OS.  Intel vs AMD for example or Intel vs Motorola with the same OS.   

Android v iOS is the same as Windows v OSX for example.

LOL . . . . Well, Whip, I was talking about branding of technology, stuff most folks don't pay attention to. Not Chipsets, nor OSes.  It generally doesn't do much for the comapny spending the money, which is why most companies don't do it anymore.

I don't really see how that relates to this.

From my experience, someone looking for a smartphone starts with:
Am I going for an iPhone or not? (if no)
Am I going to try the windows phone or stay with an Android (if stays with Android)...

Which Android phone am I getting?


For tablets, it goes:
iPad or not?
if not, Am I going to get a Amazon Fire or other Android Tab?
Which Android tablet do I like best?

Those two scenarios are really Apple v Android (vs Windows) Not Apple v HTC nor Samsung or Motorola.

Once the decision is made to go with Android, THEN the contenders come into play.

damn, I used to be pissed about just being handed things (I-phone, I-pad, Toshiba laptop) from my employer. but, on second thought maybe it's not so bad?? saves a lot of decisions...

 

For me, it's pretty easy.  I get something that fits the old sheath, and preferably has a mechanical keyboard.

This subject really jumped the shark as many of them do. The fact of the matter is many news outlets are biased by corporate and political leanings. They cater to their corporate donors. It's really as simple as that. Over the last half century the ownership of the various media outlets has gone from thousands of individuals to five corporations. There are now a total of five corporations in the US that control every form of media.

If you pay any attention to the headlines you see merger after merger. Since 1983 it went form 50 to 5 corporations in control of the media in the US. In that time I think we have seen a significant dumbing down of news and information in general. There seems to be less investigative reporting and many stories that just aren't told. Fortunately with the explosion of information on the internet there are many more alternative sources of information. If you chooses to be spoon fed by the corporate machine you deserve to be the typical uninformed American. Sometimes you need to look around and see what else is out there instead of being lazy and just accepting what your given. There are plenty of good news outlets around that are not mainstream, yet still give good, accurate, unbiased information.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login