The difference between Google and Apple is that Apple want to make money from their own software while Google want to make money from other "revenue streams" such as advertising and getting a chunk of the line rental. This makes Google much more "pure" in what they want to do with their kill switch. If Apple killed a competing product which was both better and free, it proves that their interest is financial and not levelled at eliminating malware. They've done so. If Google do the same, so be it - condemn them for the same crime. In the mean time, let's see how many times they save us from malware apps trying to call premium rate numbers with 56k modems streaming incredibly low quality porn.
With Android being open and modifiable, there is little to protect. They don't want to protect their OS from people tinkering with it. They want people to tinker with it. Think of this as a centralised version of an antivirus/antispyware system, so you don't have to waste your battery with scanning files or your memory with definition lists.
"The difference between Google and Apple is that Apple want to make money from their own software while Google want to make money from other "revenue streams" such as advertising and getting a chunk of the line rental"
No, Apple want to make money from their hardware sales - which comes with their software for 'free'. Any additional updates for the iPhone from Apple come for free (iTouch is not an iPhone) with the exception of games. Though I'm sure there will be a time were a point iPhone release doesn't meet minimum spec on a old gen iPhone.
"This makes Google much more "pure" in what they want to do with their kill switch."
Hahaha hilarious, seriously, you think by going for an ad related revenue stream is a more "pure" form for the consumer. You think where revenue model is dependent on the income generated by 3rd party commercial companies won't have any bias. Or if Google is sharing revenue with the phone provider they'll have no bias, or be more "pure". You think this "pure" revenue model phone provider will allow a tethering app for Android in this current form - which I'm sure will happen one day but only because of competition pressure - mostly likely pushed by Apple with the iPhone as they have with unlimited mobile net use.
"If Apple killed a competing product which was both better and free, it proves that their interest is financial and not levelled at eliminating malware."
Apple have never used their kill switch - not selling an app in their OWN store is a different argument, and don't get me started on that - any withdrawn iPhone app already brought by someone has never been removed/killed on an individual iPhone. So yes while their invention of the iPhone is a financial decision - the last I checked Apple was a publicly owned business, and not from a bunch of THOSH (Tree Hugging Open Source Hippies) to mess around with - the kill switch isn't a financial one.
"If Google do the same, so be it - condemn them for the same crime. In the mean time, let's see how many times they save us from malware apps trying to call premium rate numbers with 56k modems streaming incredibly low quality porn."
Hypocrites. So you're saying leave Google alone until they have done the crime (in regards to the kill switch). Then why are you all THOSH basing Apple, not waiting to see what Apple does before burning the 'Witch'. Oh I'm sorry I forgot their Apple, so they must have evil intentions, who made you the mind reader?
"With Android being open and modifiable, there is little to protect. They don't want to protect their OS from people tinkering with it. They want people to tinker with it."
To a point which is why they have imposed some rules and limitations.
"Think of this as a centralised version of an antivirus/antispyware system, so you don't have to waste your battery with scanning files or your memory with definition lists." Uitility LoL. Beautiful, So now its become an AntiVirus App. As well as a Energy Saver Utility. But it's not 'Evil' like Apple's kill switch. Good One.
You THOSH make me sick.
DISCLOSURE:
- I have no problem with Google, in fact I am a fan and a customer
- I have no problem with Google's Android platform, I love the fact that there is a platform with a different business model then the iPhone.
- I just happen to prefer the iPhone model, it suits my needs more, but I like the idea that others have the choice of a different model like Android and me the iPhone. But I find it strange that those THOSH we bang on so much about freedom of choice want to take the choice away from me by this crusade of trying to get Apple to change with model.
FTR, I'm not a THOSH... Microsoft all the way for me. I'm a .Net developer and loving it. But if they introduced a "kill switch" for Windows apps I would be not a happy bunny.
Look at what Google produce and allow people to use for "nothing", such as Google Earth, Google Docs, Google Mail, etc. Because they get their money from somewhere other than the consumer, their focus is very different. They have a very different business model to Apple. And nothing they've done so far has been aggressively anti-competitive. They simply quietly go and do what the competitors are doing better and then slap it down on the counter in front of them. Though it'll be a while before Chrome gets good, before which time their in-browser earth exploration may well be "invisible" to a great many potential users.
We already have Killbits for ActiveX in Windows, BTW, and have had for quite some time. But Microsoft have limited its scope to their browser.
Consumers do pay for the use of all Google products, they are not free as everyone seems to think, they are paid by the ads that Goolge places on our screens when we use their products. Granted we are not pay in currency sense but were are paying in some from or another. Now I'm not saying this is the right or wrong way to conduct business but nor does it make Apple's business model a right or wrong way to do business. Their just different methods of doing business.
I pay for MobileMe for email so I don't get ads on my webmail or worse at the end of each email I send, that is the choice I like to make and the user experience I enjoy. Though I am glad that there is a free ad supported model for consumers who do not mind ads or cannot afford to pay for their email. It's good to have both.
I just fine it strange that THOSH and you seem to think it's wrong of Apple to do the 'paid closed' business model, or that this some how shows signs of being "evil".
Lastly being anti-competitive is not against the law, it's good business sense they all do - if you honestly think Google doesn't you need to do a little bit more research. It's only when you're a monopoly and then mix in anti-competitive behavior in the mix does it become illegal.
Android has to serve the interest of not only the consumer but Googles own cloud apps, the open source community, the telecoms like T-Mobile, their hardware makers starting with HTC and most alarming the corporations funding the Google universe through advertising.
Where do you think advertising budgets come from? Googles advertising revenue comes from businesses and corporations trying to sell to the consumer. A part of the cost of each item you buy from these corporations goes right back into a corporations advertising budget.
Nothing is ever free - we all pay for it one way or another.
Me personally I rather pay for hardware or a service up front and not get pounded by advertising.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
The difference between Google and Apple is that Apple want to make money from their own software while Google want to make money from other "revenue streams" such as advertising and getting a chunk of the line rental. This makes Google much more "pure" in what they want to do with their kill switch. If Apple killed a competing product which was both better and free, it proves that their interest is financial and not levelled at eliminating malware. They've done so. If Google do the same, so be it - condemn them for the same crime. In the mean time, let's see how many times they save us from malware apps trying to call premium rate numbers with 56k modems streaming incredibly low quality porn.
With Android being open and modifiable, there is little to protect. They don't want to protect their OS from people tinkering with it. They want people to tinker with it. Think of this as a centralised version of an antivirus/antispyware system, so you don't have to waste your battery with scanning files or your memory with definition lists.
"incredibly low quality porn"
Heh, I imagine this would be a decent video clip compressed and down-converted so many times that it ends up a single, blinking pixel.
Hawt, I tell you.
"The difference between Google and Apple is that Apple want to make money from their own software while Google want to make money from other "revenue streams" such as advertising and getting a chunk of the line rental"
No, Apple want to make money from their hardware sales - which comes with their software for 'free'. Any additional updates for the iPhone from Apple come for free (iTouch is not an iPhone) with the exception of games. Though I'm sure there will be a time were a point iPhone release doesn't meet minimum spec on a old gen iPhone.
"This makes Google much more "pure" in what they want to do with their kill switch."
Hahaha hilarious, seriously, you think by going for an ad related revenue stream is a more "pure" form for the consumer. You think where revenue model is dependent on the income generated by 3rd party commercial companies won't have any bias. Or if Google is sharing revenue with the phone provider they'll have no bias, or be more "pure". You think this "pure" revenue model phone provider will allow a tethering app for Android in this current form - which I'm sure will happen one day but only because of competition pressure - mostly likely pushed by Apple with the iPhone as they have with unlimited mobile net use.
"If Apple killed a competing product which was both better and free, it proves that their interest is financial and not levelled at eliminating malware."
Apple have never used their kill switch - not selling an app in their OWN store is a different argument, and don't get me started on that - any withdrawn iPhone app already brought by someone has never been removed/killed on an individual iPhone. So yes while their invention of the iPhone is a financial decision - the last I checked Apple was a publicly owned business, and not from a bunch of THOSH (Tree Hugging Open Source Hippies) to mess around with - the kill switch isn't a financial one.
"If Google do the same, so be it - condemn them for the same crime. In the mean time, let's see how many times they save us from malware apps trying to call premium rate numbers with 56k modems streaming incredibly low quality porn."
Hypocrites. So you're saying leave Google alone until they have done the crime (in regards to the kill switch). Then why are you all THOSH basing Apple, not waiting to see what Apple does before burning the 'Witch'. Oh I'm sorry I forgot their Apple, so they must have evil intentions, who made you the mind reader?
"With Android being open and modifiable, there is little to protect. They don't want to protect their OS from people tinkering with it. They want people to tinker with it."
To a point which is why they have imposed some rules and limitations.
"Think of this as a centralised version of an antivirus/antispyware system, so you don't have to waste your battery with scanning files or your memory with definition lists."
Uitility
LoL. Beautiful, So now its become an AntiVirus App. As well as a Energy Saver Utility. But it's not 'Evil' like Apple's kill switch. Good One.
You THOSH make me sick.
DISCLOSURE:
- I have no problem with Google, in fact I am a fan and a customer
- I have no problem with Google's Android platform, I love the fact that there is a platform with a different business model then the iPhone.
- I just happen to prefer the iPhone model, it suits my needs more, but I like the idea that others have the choice of a different model like Android and me the iPhone. But I find it strange that those THOSH we bang on so much about freedom of choice want to take the choice away from me by this crusade of trying to get Apple to change with model.
FTR, I'm not a THOSH... Microsoft all the way for me. I'm a .Net developer and loving it. But if they introduced a "kill switch" for Windows apps I would be not a happy bunny.
Look at what Google produce and allow people to use for "nothing", such as Google Earth, Google Docs, Google Mail, etc. Because they get their money from somewhere other than the consumer, their focus is very different. They have a very different business model to Apple. And nothing they've done so far has been aggressively anti-competitive. They simply quietly go and do what the competitors are doing better and then slap it down on the counter in front of them. Though it'll be a while before Chrome gets good, before which time their in-browser earth exploration may well be "invisible" to a great many potential users.
We already have Killbits for ActiveX in Windows, BTW, and have had for quite some time. But Microsoft have limited its scope to their browser.
Consumers do pay for the use of all Google products, they are not free as everyone seems to think, they are paid by the ads that Goolge places on our screens when we use their products. Granted we are not pay in currency sense but were are paying in some from or another. Now I'm not saying this is the right or wrong way to conduct business but nor does it make Apple's business model a right or wrong way to do business. Their just different methods of doing business.
I pay for MobileMe for email so I don't get ads on my webmail or worse at the end of each email I send, that is the choice I like to make and the user experience I enjoy. Though I am glad that there is a free ad supported model for consumers who do not mind ads or cannot afford to pay for their email. It's good to have both.
I just fine it strange that THOSH and you seem to think it's wrong of Apple to do the 'paid closed' business model, or that this some how shows signs of being "evil".
Lastly being anti-competitive is not against the law, it's good business sense they all do - if you honestly think Google doesn't you need to do a little bit more research. It's only when you're a monopoly and then mix in anti-competitive behavior in the mix does it become illegal.
@ Hugh
Android has to serve the interest of not only the consumer but Googles own cloud apps, the open source community, the telecoms like T-Mobile, their hardware makers starting with HTC and most alarming the corporations funding the Google universe through advertising.
Where do you think advertising budgets come from? Googles advertising revenue comes from businesses and corporations trying to sell to the consumer. A part of the cost of each item you buy from these corporations goes right back into a corporations advertising budget.
Nothing is ever free - we all pay for it one way or another.
Me personally I rather pay for hardware or a service up front and not get pounded by advertising.