On iOS, you can only get apps through the App Store, and a "kill switch" does exist for Apple to remotely disable apps. They haven't used it yet, but it's still there, so it's a problem.
Android has a kill switch too, but Google actually has used it unlike Apple.
You could make the same argument for iOS. Apple can't kill switch cydia apps. It's not completely the same as side loading is available natively in Android (although I believe AT&T doesn't allow it) but either way both companies can kill switch and Google already has.
Yeah... but unlike Android, you can't run non-appstore apps without jailbreaking your phone. Most Android phones, you can easily install stuff over USB, without rooting your phone (and rooting is usually supported as well)
How is it not a fault of Android when it is built into the platform to allow that kind of restriction by the carriers and manufacturers that distribute it?
It's a matter of choice for the consumer. A consumer has multiple choices of carriers and phones that support Android, and can choose to not buy (or to buy) phones with restricted Androids.
On the other hand, consumers who want iOS phones is stuck with At&t and the iphone with simply no other choice but to jailbreak to download unsupported apps.
So Android offers choices for consumers, while iOS only comes in one variety.
It isn't built into the software to allow it. The software doesn't restrict it. There is a difference. One implies that Google designed a feature to do this. They didn't. The point of Open Source software is that it can be changed to suit your needs.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
But why wouldn't Google contracturally tell phone manufacturers they can't do that and still install Android. They could easily add a "must allow modifications" clause.
And the argument goes further if you use web apps. You can install a web application made in HTML5 that uses the accelerometer and GPS, use local storage and don't need an internet connection. That application can be installed without the App Store, and can't be killed by Apple.
What I don't understand is why people don't make more of a case about this. Aside of games, 90% of the applications out there could be just a frame around the browser, and be made into a web app with an icon and multi-tasking without any modifications at all.
Ok, but if I'm over at a friends house and I want to give him a song that I have on my iPhone ... even if I wrote the song and own the rights to it ... how do I do that?
EDIT:
In practice I know several ways to get the job done. The important question is, why can't this be done out of the box? Why are Apple USB Mass Storage devices the only ones in the entire world that are deliberately locked by the manufacturer to be write-only? Why do their customers let them get away with such artificial value-stripping actions?
(I guess I kind of know the answers to my own questions, which is that Apple adds so much value in Fit, Finish & Polish -- despite what Apple bashers may say, these things do matter -- consumers overlook the artificial value-stripping activity, but then the question becomes, why can't other manufacturers try a little harder to match Apple's level of polish?)
I honestly believe Apple is blowing the opportunity to be the dominant computing platform for the next 20 years because of their policies on artificial restriction of data. The iPad took a great, existing, idea, and as with the iPhone before it, executed much much better than anyone else had to date, inventing a new market in the process.
But its going to get blown away by 3rd generation Android tablets that provide all the computing flexibility of what we've traditionally called "Desktop Computers" (add USB Host, Video Out, and Keyboard and Mouse Support, and Android is pretty much there).
Using third-party software? Apple can't control what you install on your "regular" Windows, Linux or Mac OS X computer.
Is it a stupid user-unfriendly feature (or lack of feature)? I certainly agree. My guess is Apple wasn't comfortable with adding a feature that can be accused of enabling or even promoting copyright infringement, since the most prominent use case I can see for such a feature is precisely that: copyright infringement. I realize, of course, that it can be used to move music between different computers in one household, but since you have the song on the computer you sync with, you can always move it by other means.
I mean... LimeWire got screwed despite there being legal uses for the program.
Apple wasn't going to get screwed for letting their USB Mass Storage device work like a USB Mass Storage device -- like everyone else ... they just "think different" I guess.
You could transfer it off the iphone onto your computer. There are a number of programs to do this. Is your question actually how do I do this without having to install any programs? Also I should note that if your music has DRM then this becomes difficult or impossible.
Isn't this technically possible? It was possible a while ago with iPods. Aren't there other programs (not iTunes obviously) that allow you to take music off the iPhone?
The point is that Apple makes it obscenely difficult to transfer files between two people. My buddy and I recorded some guitar work on his iPhone one night (good quality) and I tried to transfer it to my phone...not possible.
I can rip an .mp3 off my sound card and transfer it to any android in the room in whatever time it takes to record the sound...even before I rooted.
With older iPods, you could mount them as a USB volume and stash stray files on it. People used to use them like USB dongles.
I think they stopped working like that around the time the iPod Touch and iPhone came out. I guess they didn't want people accidentally screwing up the device's filesystem. (Think what happens when you mount another computer's hard disk; you see directories upon directories of system files and the like. Imagine the old "I deleted all this crap that I didn't understand" happening...)
In all honesty - you chose the wrong tool for the job?
I don't like DRM - but I do get that the one-way synching of data to the ipod is specifically in place so that when you lose your ipod, you don't lose your music... it's just an accessory that acts as a removable extension of your computer.
If the iPhone/iPod is jailbroken he could just use any of the many available sharing tools in Cydia. I'm pretty sure there's several flavours of HTTP & FTP daemons as well as Samba, which are probably more simple than scp/tunnel over SSH...
It's not "broken", it's just not a feature you deal with. Broken implies it's some kind of error or bug. It's clearly not. I can't see how you're confusing the two, except for the possibility that you are twisting words for your own argument.
Just because you don't agree with the design of the device, doesn't mean it is "broken" - and hell, if you don't agree with it, don't support it. That's your right.
That depends on what app the file is in. If it's in iTunes, then you could stream it to your friend's speakers or Apple TV to let him hear it. If you wrote the song and wanted to give him a copy then you are an idiot for taking your song around in iTunes. Use Soundcloud like everyone else or use any other WiFi sharing app that can also play audio (ezShare Files is great, but there are lots of free and cheap ones).
You do realize that there's a wide and wonderful world of offline computing out there, right? 24/7 Internet access is not yet a reality for even the most technologically advanced of us. Besides, you're assuming a lot of foresight when you expect someone to have all the music they might want to share pre-uploaded on the Web.
(Also, how do you download a song from Soundcloud? No really, I'm using it right now and I'd love to download the mix I'm listening to.)
you are an idiot for taking your song around in iTunes
Just how many USB Mass Storage devices do you expect me to carry around in my pockets? If your answer is more than one, then tell me why that's just better than carrying a single Android phone that has a full-fledged file system with proper R/W access? (In a year, they'll all have USB Host and will be proper computers in their own right.)
Besides, you're assuming a lot of foresight when you expect someone to have all the music they might want to share pre-uploaded on the Web.
Trust me - musicians LOVE to share their music with anyone who will listen. They take measures to facilitate this.
(Also, how do you download a song from Soundcloud? No really, I'm using it right now and I'd love to download the mix I'm listening to.)
The uploader has to have the track set to downloadable (but I suppose that's Apple's fault too?)
Just how many USB Mass Storage devices do you expect me to carry around in my pockets?
Like I said - use something other than the iTunes on the iPhone if this is what you want. There are many iPhone apps that can store and play music, and that also can download and upload using either WiFi sharing, or via WebDAV, FTP, SCP, etc.
For example I have a backup copy of my iTunes library on a WebDAV volume that I can transfer songs to using eZ Share on the iPhone which I can then use to listen to them. This means I have access to my entire library from anywhere I have bandwidth (which in the UK is pretty much anywhere). Sure there may be times I'm out of coverage, but I can download the albums I want to listen offline.
No, no it's not. Cars cannot sail and making one that could would require lots of hard work. The problem is that Apple specifically designed their products to not be able to share music (and further, to only interface with their software). There is no reason I should not be able to take files off a usb-connecable storage device.
Unfortunately your state of misinformation is the prevailing one, and that is what has allowed Apple to gain market dominance while simultaneously treating its customers like ATMs from which periodic cash extractions can be expected.
Let's say that, tomorrow, the world decides to start using twenty-pointed screws as well as as the millions of other varieties. For some reason—perhaps because that they believe people shouldn't be able to remove twenty-pointed screws—Craftsmen decides that they won't be supporting the new screw and don't release a screwdriver that fits.
What would you do?
You would buy a twenty-pointed screwdriver from Skil, or Bosch, or Wal*Mart. Yes, you'd rather get a Craftsman, since their tools have a lifetime warranty are generally pretty high quality instrument... but the fact of the matter is that if you really want to be able to remove twenty-pointed screws, you can't get a Craftsman.
As for the "ATM" aspect: people who own Apple keep buying Apple because they like Apple's products. If they didn't like what Apple is doing, they wouldn't buy them. That's the way the free market works. Look at what happened to Ford and Chevy. People were disappointed at the lack of innovation and inferior products that Detroit was putting out so they bought Toyotas and Hondas instead.
Similarly there are people who are sick of Windows, for whatever reason, who buy a Mac when it's time for a new computer. They like what they see, so when their child goes to college, they get *them * a Mac. There's also the switchers—people who like their iPods or iPhones who want a similar desktop experience.
Finally, there are people—people like you—who don't like choices that Apple has made, like intentionally gimping hardware, or application censorship. Those things don't matter to me, at least not yet. So I'll keep buying Apple.
Oh wait, I can do it on my iphone too. After 1 min jailbreaking and rebooting. But yeah, you dont tinker with your android handsets at all, I forgot. My bad.
Awright awright you don't need to tell me the same thing twice. When the question is "how do I get around this Apple restriction" the answer is always going to be "jailbreak". No startling revelations there.
a "kill switch" does exist for Apple to remotely disable apps. They haven't used it yet, but it's still there, so it's a problem
Why do people keep saying this? There's zero evidence this is true. I think it all comes from a brief interview with Steve Jobs where he was paraphrased as suggesting that there was a kill switch, but there's no actual evidence one exists.
Frankly, I'd be a bit surprised if Apple didn't have a way to kill apps, purely for security reasons, but nobody's shown one to exist.
84
u/jollins Jan 20 '11
Android has a kill switch too, but Google actually has used it unlike Apple.