Android

[tufty]

Disclaimer: I have an android device, but (to my eternal shame as a :macwanker:) I don't have an iOS device.

iOS puts a minor speedbump in the way of piracy - piracy is possible, but a pain in the arse. That's all that's needed to stop casual users from doing it when the price of a game / app is around the price of a coffee (different from the case on, for example, the PSP). Android doesn't have that speedbump, and in addition it's easier to find and evaluate stuff via google than via the android market - it's more painful to use the market than to simply download an apk and install it. It's no surprise Android software gets pirated.

In the days of the 8 and 16 bit computers, the barriers to pirating software were largely social - you needed to know people who had access to the originals to do it. These days all you need is a browser, and google handily provide one for free with the os.

[gilesgoat]

Disclaimer: I have an android device, but (to my eternal shame as a ) I don't have an iOS device.

iOS puts a minor speedbump in the way of piracy - piracy is possible, but a pain in the arse. That's all that's needed to stop casual users from doing it when the price of a game / app is around the price of a coffee (different from the case on, for example, the PSP). Android doesn't have that speedbump, and in addition it's easier to find and evaluate stuff via google than via the android market - it's more painful to use the market than to simply download an apk and install it. It's no surprise Android software gets pirated.

In the days of the 8 and 16 bit computers, the barriers to pirating software were largely social - you needed to know people who had access to the originals to do it. These days all you need is a browser, and google handily provide one for free with the os.

In those days of the 8 and 16 - I know quite well - you had to start finding some friend that heard something somewhere that had to know another friend that he knew someone that had a little bit of something but then he knew someone else that you had to gain some trust before to get introduced to ...

Piracy was very social and very 'phisical', you literally had to 'take your bike and go to meet in person some people in sometime strange places' to get your floppy disks or tape with the SW, the biggest piracy thing I can remember was when the Super NES came out with that thing with the floppies, that was the last 'biggest piracy traffic of stuff' I can remember of and proportions were really 'big'.

Sometime it really was 'go in that hour in that bar in that place wait for that guy, order something and someone will join you and will give you some floppies under a table'

There was no google at that time and not even internet really.

Back to now I think part of the problem is that "the world of Andorid did start bad since the beginning and probably its inception as well".

For ( quite ) some people it's stuck in their minds that "On Anrodid you DO NOT PAY for ANYTHING, it's free, it's open, everything is free in there." those people trust me would NEVER pay one single penny for an Android appl no matter what and no matter the cost of the application because 'anything > 0 is not good for them, it should be 0".

I think there are quite some people that identify "Open" as "totally free as totally free".

A lot also are as you say "I don't really know what I need/want, I install, I look 5 mins, if I don't like it I'll install something else, rinse and repeat".

And/or also the "I installed this because I heard from someone else about it", but if maybe there's something else 10 times better than that I never heard about it I'll never find it because there's not a chance I'll ever LOOK for it.

Of course not everyone is like that but a big chunk is and I think there's also for quite some a bit the perception that "of course Android is NOT the Apple market" it really is a bit 'the second much cheaper choice' so adds to the 'why should I pay for it ?'.

Lot of people gets Android because 'costs X cheap and there's a fuckload for free and that can be found for free quite easily'.

And that cheap adds to some perception as well I think, when you spend 100 quids for a thing you expect certain things, when you pay 600 or 700 for it you see it a bit differently.

However I think that Google could have done really bit much better *IF* they *REALLY* wanted Android to be "a market like any other", thing is, they really did not think ( much ) about that and I don't even think it really was in their goals, I am not so sure they started also with the idea of ".. and this is the place were we are going to SELL applications for a profit".

But "hopefully is going to be interesting" because "a phone is not a phone any more", actually it's more like "a small portable PC with the phone option", it would be almost completely worthless if it would not be running applications.

So again in reality is still is applications making the value of the phone, if there would not be those applications nobody would buy that phone, now how do we conciliate this with developers ?

Question/problem number 3 "Are LOTS of mediocre applications but almost free so much better than less better applications but with a cost ?", probably the answer is "for the casual user yes" the causal user picks up 'whatever in the wind passes by in that moment'.

Moral : boh ?

Really .. boh .. I mean what can one make out from all that ?

[gilesgoat]

Disclaimer: I have an android device, but (to my eternal shame as a ) I don't have an iOS device.

What kind of curse you threw on me then that made me end up in having certainly more iOS/OSX devices than what you have and spend SO much time on them

If you see the bookmarks menu of my Safari ( on the Mac ) is 99.99% full of "Apple docs" about OSX/iOS, code samples, Apple guidelines, etc.

It's all your fault ...

[zip accident]

Just been reading that a credit card number is required before you can use your new iPhone, is that correct?

For example : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 935AAI7KIX

It's one barrier to making a sale that's down from day 1 if true.

For me that's a huge no-no. I've been vaguely thinking about an iPad, but if it won't work without a credit card number, it's definitely not for me.

[pogo]

Just been reading that a credit card number is required before you can use your new iPhone, is that correct?

For example : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 935AAI7KIX

It's one barrier to making a sale that's down from day 1 if true.

For me that's a huge no-no. I've been vaguely thinking about an iPad, but if it won't work without a credit card number, it's definitely not for me.

No, you don't need a credit card:
Creating an iTunes Store, App Store, iBookstore, and Mac App Store account without a credit card
Obviously you need one, or iTunes gift cards, to pay for stuff. But if you never buy anything from the store (and presumably pay cash for the iPhone/iPad) then you can get an Apple ID without a credit card.

[zip accident]

No, you don't need a credit card:
Creating an iTunes Store, App Store, iBookstore, and Mac App Store account without a credit card
Obviously you need one, or iTunes gift cards, to pay for stuff.

Buying myself gift cards to pay for stuff is doable.

I just don't trust random people on the internet.

[pogo]

I just don't trust random people on the internet.

Apple are hardly random though. Apple's schtick is making great products and making it as easy as possible for you to get them. It doesn't collect user information for nefarious reasons. Apple tried adding an Amazonesque "you might also like" to iTunes but gave it up as their heart wasn't in it. Unlike Amazon or, say, Google, they weren't interested in collecting masses of information on customers, even if it was to help those customers.

Google are the one I'd be worried about. Apple's products are things like the iPhone, iPad. Google don't have any products they sell to end users: Android, Chrome, search, GMail are all free to end users (most phone makers pay Microsoft a fee for using Android because of the MS patents it infringes, but Google get nothing for it).

Google's biggest product is their users. The way Google make money is by selling information collected on users to firms you've never heard of, so they can target you with adverts and marketing campaigns. And they collects that information in legal and illegal ways; they've just been fined over $20 million for using a browser hack to bypass Safari's security, and are still in trouble for collecting lots of private information snooped by street mapping vans. And this is just the things we know about: the ones that have come to light as Google were less than careful keeping their activities secret.

[tufty]

Don't be caught being evil

[disciple]

they've just been fined over $20 million for using a browser hack to bypass Safari's security

I'm not arguing Google was right to do what they did, but it was because Safari's default is to disallow third party cookies, making creating standard cross browser functionality (if you use them) a bit of a PITA. If you're a developer trying to get your stuff working you can see how this sort of thing might happen. Google wasn't the only company using this, it's just the one that got all the publicity.

The hack actually used to be in Facebook's "best practices" document, till it all kicked off with Google at which point it quickly disappeared. The default policy is why a number of Facebook apps don't work properly on Safari, which of course explains how it came to be in FB's best practice document.

On a related note it's also interesting that MS are saying IE10 will have a 'do not track' option and it'll be turned on by default. This is going to be a world of pain for Google. Of course Microsoft will publicise it as IE10 being the browser that cares about your privacy but the reality is their motivation for this lies elsewhere, they've seen Google's achilles heel (as perhaps Apple did).

It's also going to impact other companies whose revenue stream is advertising, for example newspapers. Though how much of an impact I have no idea.

[pogo]

The proper response to a browser disabling tracking cookies is to respect that (as users have chosen that browser maybe for that feature, or have left it enabled knowingly). Not hack the browser to get around it. Then lie about it to users (as they in their own help pages said that the browser setting was respected).

The reason the fine's so big though is it's not the first time Google's been in trouble. They got in trouble before because of privacy violations with their Buzz service, after which they agreed to better inform users how they handle such privacy matters. So this being their second appearance before the FTC, in direct violation of the agreement that came out of the first, they were hit with a record fine. And this is separate from their problems with streetview data collection, and patent problems in courts around the world.

Facebook I think is quite different. They often seem as annoyingly intrusive, but in ways that are largely open: thing you do, things you like, even off FB, appear on your wall/timeline. Until you remove them which you can. And they've been pro-active in revising their policies to fix problems, such as games spamming your wall, and have introduced much finer controls over who can see what. FB are actually pretty poor at exploiting users, although this may change now they have shareholders.

[disciple]

The proper response to a browser disabling tracking cookies is to respect that (as users have chosen that browser maybe for that feature, or have left it enabled knowingly). Not hack the browser to get around it. Then lie about it to users (as they in their own help pages said that the browser setting was respected).

Yeah it's easy to say that, you'll find loads of posts on Stackoverflow with people asking how the fuck they get their 'thing' working on Safari and talking about ways to get cookies on there.

Often when developers encounter a problem it's straight to Google, find answer, problem solved; without really thinking about the big picture. Not that Google did that but often the focus is "I just need to get it working". Let's be honest no-one really gave a fuck about cookies till last year when all the EU cookie laws brought it to everyone's attention.

As I say, I'm not saying what Google did was correct.

Facebook I think is quite different. They often seem as annoyingly intrusive, but in ways that are largely open: thing you do, things you like, even off FB, appear on your wall/timeline. Until you remove them which you can. And they've been pro-active in revising their policies to fix problems, such as games spamming your wall, and have introduced much finer controls over who can see what. FB are actually pretty poor at exploiting users, although this may change now they have shareholders.

LOL!

[pogo]

People used not to care about cookies when they were just used so you didn't have to re-enter your password/ID at sites like these. But the assumption was they were associated with a particular site: the way cookies work is they're associated with a domain. When advertisers started using them to track you across domains it woke a lot of people up, and the EU laws are just one response. Changes to browsers are another, and many users use tools to delete tracking cookies at the same time as viruses and malware. So it's not just the EU, and it's been an issue for a long time. Of course companies like Google would prefer you not worry about it: the last thing they want is users and regulators peering inside the sausage factory where they turn naïve users' activities into advertising $.

As for Facebook I really think they're nowhere near as evil as Google. They'd like to be able to make more money but that's secondary to making the best social network. Which is why they're so popular and also why they're such a shit investment, with shares down by almost 50% since they first went on sale only three months ago.

[disciple]

Most users don't give a monkeys, or even know what a third party cookie is.

Also targeted advertising is a perfectly legitimate business model. You might not like it but without support from advertising (which by it's nature wants to hit a target audience) many sites and services would not be viable. It is certainly not inherently evil.

[zip accident]

Most users don't give a monkeys, or even know what a third party cookie is.

I've had cookies turned off since 1998 or '99, I always thought they were malware, and I'm becoming more convinced of it.

Also targeted advertising is a perfectly legitimate business model.

Only if the target is foolish enough to agree to it. Otherwise it's very dirty.

You might not like it but without support from advertising (which by it's nature wants to hit a target audience) many sites and services would not be viable.

Without it, some alternative would have to be found. Whether there is an alternative has not yet been tested.

It is certainly not inherently evil.

In so far as I believe anything is evil, I disagree.

[pogo]

Most users don't give a monkeys, or even know what a third party cookie is.

Also targeted advertising is a perfectly legitimate business model. You might not like it but without support from advertising (which by it's nature wants to hit a target audience) many sites and services would not be viable. It is certainly not inherently evil.

'Evil' is a bit old fashioned, and the FTC is not the Catholic Church, but it's $22.5 million worth of illegal, the largest fine issued by the FTC, so about as bad as it gets.

And yes, people have been dealing with cookies for a long time. Now many tools explain what they are and give you the option to delete them which many users do, alongside malware, viruses and other crap they don't want on their machines. Browsers have had options to do this, and been turning off third party cookies, for many years. And users can and do find the cookies by hand and delete them. Eventually authorities felt obliged to act because companies were simply ignoring peoples preferences, recreating deleted cookies, using hacks to circumvent privacy settings and generally riding roughshod over people's rights. But that's only after many years of complaints from users.