On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:21 AM, lbcoder<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 1) security. No other OS has the underlying security of android where
> each program is run under its own user account. This is a server-type
> security model. It prevents one application from ever messing with
> restricted global settings or with other applications.
You can have #1 or #3, but Android can't provide both. (Maybe
someday..) The symbian signed program allows for a tighter security
model than Android, at the expense of developers (ISTR you can get
most perms for free but the 'goodies' require 3rd party certification
and so forth, about $200USD per app revision.)
> 2) reliability. If you've ever used a RIM for an extended period of
> time, you'll know why reliability is important (due to RIM being
> terribly unreliable -- EVERY RIM owner knows the "battery pull"
> trick), many 'droid owners don't even know how to find the battery.
Anyone who got it in 1.0/1.1 days knows exactly where the battery is.
:) (seems better in 1.5, or at least I hear about it less. 1.6 looks
like it adds a reboot option, hopefully that'll make it to devices.)
> 3) freedom. This is the complete opposite of apple. Apple forces you
> to use their OS without modification. They prevent you from making any
> modification. They prevent you from installing apps from outside THEIR
> distribution network. They prevent you from installing non-approved
> apps. They basically force you to do exactly what they approve and
> nothing else. With android, you can customize the OS, you can install
> apps from anywhere you like ('droid security makes this safe), in
> essence, you are in charge.
I challenge you to install a modified OS to a consumer android device
from an actual carrier without hacking it (g1, g2, 3g touch, etc). And
once it's hacked, all bets are off on both sides. (Advantage: apple. I
can back up an iphone and get all my data back after I have it
serviced. Without hacking it. If I do hack it I can even sim-unlock
it, install 3rd party apps, etc.)
> 4) WTF is symbian? Is that that nokia crud? I wouldn't even classify
> that as an OS, more like crap proprietary firmware. Open or not, its
> still doesn't do anything. Smartphone OS? More like stupidphone OS.
"I don't have a good answer so I'll pretend I don't know what that
is." So basically you don't know anything about the phone OS with the
largest install base in the world. OK great, but that throws your
other statements into question since you are missing a large chunk of
relevant knowledge.
> On Aug 24, 11:46 am, salza <[email protected]> wrote:
>> As you can read in many news every week Android is seen as THE
>> smartphone OS for the future (or even now).
>> I don't really understand, why there is such a hype for Android.
>>
>> Or maybe someone in here can tell me the advantages that Android has
>> in comparison to the other Smartphone OS like iPhone OS, Symbian, RIM
>> OS etc.
>>
>> I mean you could say that Android is open-source, but Symbian is in a
>> process to become also an open-source platform and they have
>> officially announced that they will be totally open-source in July
>> 2010.
>>
>> But beside that open-source discussion there should be other arguments
>> that Android is really better then the other OS, otherwise there
>> should not be such a Hype. What are these?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Android Discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
