Android did not succeed just because someone wanted to compete with iOS. Lots of companies tried to compete with iOS and still failed. Android succeeded because there was DEMAND for an alternative to iOS. Android was supplying something that iOS was not, so people went there.
Right, there was as a demand for it because Apple had created iOS in the first place, without iOS would there have been a demand? Maybe, IDK. I know that other companies tried to compete with iOS and failed, I know that Android isn't and wasn't the only competitor. Android thrived and still thirves today and is ever growing today because of how open it is,
but that does not make it better for everyone.
Yeah, probably. Because like I said, iOS just represents one idea of how things should be done. If it wasnt iOS, it would be someone else. Someone would have tried the nanny/totalitarian/I-know-whats-best-for-you approach. And a lot of people would still have found that appealing if it allowed for an appealing product to be delivered.
True
We have already seen this war before. This is just a rehash of the Mac vs PC crap from a few decades ago. And it will end exactly the same way IMO (and for the same reasons)...the open standards will dominate the market and the control-freak nanny standards will occupy niche markets.
Agree here as well
Apple got a head start...that is the only reason they are doing as well as they have been. But as you can see from the marketshare figures, it didnt help them. Android came on the scene and rocketed past them, and is still increasing it's lead (although the rate of increase is slowing as the market becomes saturated). Apple started out way ahead of Android, and now Android is way ahead of Apple. Despite (and this is important) the fact that even Apple's detractors agree that they have an awesome product.
Apple may have had a head start, but its hard to really compare market share, iOS is occupied on less than 10 devices. How many devices use Android? Thousands? I mean, sure that's Apple's fault for not allowing other companies use iOS, but that's just the way Apple is. I think comparing market share here is apples to oranges, IMHO, and If I remember correctly, iOS actually holds a higher
Profit Share than Android does it not? If so, does Apple care about Market Share if its Profit Share is higher?
I totally disagree with this, and I think the majority of people do too. A closed system locks you in and restricts your choices. It is no accident that owning Apple products costs a lot more than owning PC or Android alternatives. It is no accident that they use proprietary standards. Thats what closed systems lead to. Once you have committed cash to your closed system, you are a lot less likely to leave, which means you keep spending money on the closed system.
Well you disagree cause you actually
care. Others dont. And for those who don't care, there is nothing wrong with a closed system, cause well, they don't care. Just like my mom and sisters don't care, which is why they went from Android to iPhone. iPhone easier for them, iPhone is easier cause Apple controls all aspects, it works, and its a great products, again not for me, but there are ppl out there who really just don't care.
People arent stupid...they can see this. Thats why open systems are appealing. You are not trapped into one product in an open system. Open systems are also more likely to encourage competition for this reason.
I never said ppl are stupid, just when it comes to tech and phones and the such some ppl just don't care about the open/closed debate.
And you're right, it does encourage competition, between the likes of Moto and HTC and LG and Sammy all creating their own version of software on top of Android, this competition would not have come out if Android was closed.
A closed system does not work better. See above. There are inherent weaknesses in a closed system that cant be avoided. Apple is successful because of their advertising IMO...not necessarily because their product is better.
But a closed system
can potentially work better. Both closed and open systems have weak and strong points, no system is perfect and will ever perfect. And yes, part of Apple's success is marketing, but you have to market a great product to be successful over the long run as they have done so.
Why not? Wouldn't it be better if everyone were on the better standard? This is what you were arguing when you argued in favor of browser restrictions. That the masses dont know what is best for them, so Google has to take the initiative and yank Flash support for their own good.
Define the better standard? We talking phones here or the Flash debate? With phones, again there is no perfect standard, the consumers get to pick here, and as they should, its their hard earned money that they get to spend on whatever phone they want.
With Flash vs HTML5, a majority of ppl really won't know what happened when the transition happens from Flash to HTML5 (a few might notice here and there), its just gonna be transparent, for us who actually look in on from the outside cause that's what we techies like to do, we actually see what's going on and forget that we represent a very very very small portion of the general public users. Unfortunetlly, the companies don't care about us when in regards to this transition. I highly doubt they do. So yes, in regards to HTML5 and Flash the masses really don't know what is best, they really don't, so Google, Adobe, and Apple are taking maters into their own hands.
So then, you think Google should include Flash support on Chrome? I was under the impression you were supporting their decision to exclude it.
Yes, because I think we should have a choice, I think we should have a choice because I see both sides of the argument and the transition won't be transparent to me.
No, because it will push the transition to HTML5 harder and faster, and the likes of Apple, Google, and Adobe supporting HTML5 over Flash tells us what? That it really is better and that its time for Flash to die off.
Will Flash die off slowly if everything supports both? I really don't know, probably? Who knows. But one thing is for sure, if those three companies want Flash to die, then Flash is going to die, we don't have a choice. But, why should we care right? If HTML5 is better and the transition is transparent for the most part, then why start huge wars and arguments and debates over it? Its a video player for our web content...
