Google Fires Back Over Jobs's Android Comments

[exfileme]

Android creator Andy Rubin defined "open" for Steve Jobs.

Google Fires Back Over Jobs's Android Comments : Read more

 

[Shadow703793]

Classic! That was well played by Andy Rubin.

 

[Shadow703793]

As an example of the fragmentation, he used the Twitter client app TweetDeck, claiming that the developer had to implement support for 100 different combinations of Android and UIs and 244 devices. Steve Jobs called the challenge "daunting."

"Errr nope, no we didn't. It wasn't." He later added that only two people were assigned to develop the Twitter app for Google's Android OS, pointing out that fragmentation was a rather small issue.

LOL! Perhaps Apple should get better developers.

 

[NatureTM]

I get it now! Steve Jobs doesn't hate openness, he just never understood the concept!

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]naturetm[/nom]I get it now! Steve Jobs doesn't hate openness, he just never understood the concept![/citation]

Yes he does hate it. And he's right. And he's wrong. It depends on the person. Open is definitely not better all the time, and neither is proprietary. For Apple users, there's a huge advantage to the simplicity and ease of getting what they want, and using their machines. For Android, or whatever, there are more choices of vendors, and in the future, probably a wider swath of applications written for it. Some people will prefer the former, some people will prefer the latter. Both work.

 

[borisof007]

Yeah, apparently doing the same thing for an Apple O/S would be daunting, so he applied the same logic to an open source system... which backfired.... terribly.

 

[steveismyiconartist]

Wow! Steve popped out of his coffin!

Apple doesn't have developers or engineers..just high school and film studies dropouts who lie about their credentials.
My absolute favorite is a guy named John Geleynse who has been one of craApple's "software expert"/evangelists for the last several years who keeps lying about having a "Computer Science" degree...one problem: The community college that he claims to have gone to does not offer computer science degrees!
Typically, these morons get hired through their psychotic church affiliates who happen to work at apple and bring in more of their fellow illiterate psychopaths.

 

[steveismyiconartist]

by the way what makes you think andy rubin created the android OS?

 

[AMD_pitbull]

This is one battle, that seems like it could be fun. I'd love to see which of those involved can show they have personalities: something not often shown from CEO's.

 

[milktea]

Being open source is an advantage to the developers. Because it is a lot easier to find out why an API isn't working by digging into the OS core (Android). Not that every manufactures would want to modify the Android core. It just simplifies the development process.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]Yes he does hate it. And he's right. And he's wrong. It depends on the person. Open is definitely not better all the time, and neither is proprietary. For Apple users, there's a huge advantage to the simplicity and ease of getting what they want, and using their machines. For Android, or whatever, there are more choices of vendors, and in the future, probably a wider swath of applications written for it. Some people will prefer the former, some people will prefer the latter. Both work.[/citation]

The worst downside to the open platform is bugs. Thats how it has been for Windows since it has to be developed to support a wide combination of hardware. Android is no different. But in that also lies choice which thus means competition and lower prices and better stuff.

Closed, much like Apples products, biggest downside is that you can only do what they say you can do and nothing more. They control the hardware and the software. This also means they control the price. Its much like the rumored thinner Mac Book Air. $1200 bucks but doesn't have nearly the features of a $1200 dollar laptop. In fact it mostly seems to match a $300 dollar Netbook more than anything.

I am a little tired of Jobs though. He seems to be getting into attack mode. I think he knows that iOS isn't going to retain the market share much longer and will have to actually compete with Android and WP7. And he doesn't like it at all.

 

[tacoslave]

[citation][nom]Shadow703793[/nom]LOL! Perhaps Apple should get better developers.[/citation]
theres an app for that

 

[Trueno07]

Did he almost compliment Windows to jab at Android?

 

[Travis Beane]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]Yes he does hate it. And he's right. And he's wrong. It depends on the person. Open is definitely not better all the time, and neither is proprietary. For Apple users, there's a huge advantage to the simplicity and ease of getting what they want, and using their machines. For Android, or whatever, there are more choices of vendors, and in the future, probably a wider swath of applications written for it. Some people will prefer the former, some people will prefer the latter. Both work.[/citation]
Nicely said.

 

[Mr Pizza]

Haha! Ah Google.. you guys crack me up! Kill that fucker Jobs

 

[frostyfireball]

Andy Rubin's response is epic.

Side note, I think the spammers have a new record on here as there are 4 items of spam on one page of comments.

 

[rohitbaran]

[citation][nom]Shadow703793[/nom]LOL! Perhaps Apple should get better developers.[/citation]
They should get someone who can put a leash on their CEO's tongue.

 

[Guest]

What does it matter at the end of the day whether a platform is open or closed? There are arguments for and against for both and ultimately it is the user who choses which platform fits his or her use best. Both are functional. http/thesecondopiniontribune.blogspot.com/2010/10/android-or-apple-open-or-not-open-thats.html

 

[idlerp]

You kind of missed the point. He didn't tweet any of Androids code, he tweeted the commands to compile the source from a repository, demonstrating that anyone can build it.

 

[matt87_50]

honestly... that's not the type of 'open' we, as consumers are looking for.

that IS the thing that leads to fragmentation: i.e. because its as easy as that: ANYONE can get the code and make THERE OWN build. making it impossible to keep up to date.

while Andy's definition of Android's openness may be 'open source',

google's definition is about CUSTOMER FREEDOM, be it app developers, carriers, and most importantly, US. so lets hope that they succeed with 3.0, in making it like windows, with just ONE OFFICIAL 'retail' version of the OS.

by all means, keep the 'Android operating system' open source.
but make the 'Android smartphone platform' more like PC windows.
plz.

in a perfect world, you would have the ONE version of 'retail android' that came installed on every retail 'android phone' and then, if you felt inclined, you could easily install any other distro of android you wanted, just like you do with linux. and carriers would NOT feel tempted to ship with their own distro of android, because the 'retail' version would give them the freedom they wanted (through custom 'widgets' 'skins' 'drivers' ect)

you know... basically EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE PC WORLD WORKS.
is it really that hard? they've only been doing it for 30 years...

oh yeah, and obviously Jobs is a moron, trying to tell people that they can only have HIS closed system, or horrible fragmentation... he even MENTIONS windows, how they do it right... he should be quaking in his boots knowing its only a matter of time until they get android right. then it will be just like PC vs MAC: i.e. iphone with like 5% market share...