Al, Android requires three (extrinsic) things: users, carriers and developers. Any particular feature/restriction may be independently regarded as good or bad by the members of these three groups.
Seeing particular security related restrictions only within the narrow context of what suits developers and some users, ignores the importance of carriers in cementing Android as a widely deployed mobile platform. Historically, for reasons I'm not knowledgeable enough to describe, carriers have wielded a great deal of power over the devices and applications that operate on their networks and as a consequence developers are rightly wary of any constraints put on their applications. Nevertheless, it's difficult to see Android as anything but a huge leap forward in terms of open mobile application development; criticisms over the simplifications used to describe elements of this hugely complex technology, don't change that. Tom. On Oct 22, 6:50 pm, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not necessarily what hasn't been released in documentation/source > form, it's the measures which could be seen as steps taken to > deliberately ensure that competitors can't access the same functionality > as is available to approved applications which have been signed by the > platform certificate. > > From what you've said it is impossible for anyone else to deliver an > updater which will allow the user to install an updated version of the > application without having to go through the system UI (Does Marketplace > have to do that?) . It would be impossible for a third party to write a > comprehensive dialling interface because it would be blocked from making > emergency services calls (Is the shipped dialler blocked from doing > that?). > > It took a lot of complaints to get the anti-trust suits started, and > they were all based around functionality which wasn't available to third > parties, isn't that what you've just said Android has? > > Al. > > hackbod wrote: > > On Oct 22, 12:49 am, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Friendly suggestion, read up on the lawsuits against Microsoft for not > >> releasing API details (here's a recent > >> onehttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/microsoft_goes_open/) > > >http://git.source.android.com/ > > > Exactly what details haven't been released? > > -- > Al Sutton > > W:www.alsutton.com > B: alsutton.wordpress.com > T: twitter.com/alsutton --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
