cybercod wrote on Tuesday, January 10, 2012:
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/01/08/069204/leaked-memo-says-apple-provides-backdoor-to-governments
This quote is retarded:
“Android basically gives you two options: Accept what Google gives you, or fork the entire codebase. Other than the ability to roll your own version of Android, it’s really no different than iOS, which works on a similar “take what Apple gives you” model.”
The reason it is retarded is that iOS is not open AT ALL. Either you, or the original author is confusing the term “source code” with “APK”.
Yes, Google does hold some bits of Android close to its chest temporarily, but it DOES get released eventually. You CANNOT fork iOS. And the ability to fork is the defining aspect of open source. Open source does NOT mean they will do whatever you tell them to, it means that you can take a snapshot of what they have and change it, and re-release it. With Android you can get entire re-rolled distros like Replicant. http://replicant.us/about/
If someone tried to do that with iOS, Apple would sue them back to the dark ages.
On the subject of fragmentation, while it is currently considered a hindrance, it will eventually prove to be a boon (and some say it already has) as Android evolves to cope with a myriad of different devices and situations. I think the old saying “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” applies here.
It can also be argued that fragmentation and its current (if diminished) level openness are already making Android a much more attractive platform for the following reason: device lifespan.
With Android, in many cases, you can take a device that is no longer supported by its manufacturer and install a newer firmware that increases its functionality and provides new features and compatibility. http://www.cyanogenmod.com/
This means that old devices will get refreshed with increased usability and remain viable and workable tools as a result, saving them from the landfill, reducing consumerism and adding resale value. Android devices will get used until they fall apart, but an iOS device will become technically obsolete whenever Apple decides to stop supporting it, forcing the user to upgrade.
And while you chew on all that, think about iOS security stance; providing a back door to governments (and not just yours) to enter the device. And maybe you trust the government, and you’re fine with that, but backdoors don’t stay secret forever. http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/01/08/069204/leaked-memo-says-apple-provides-backdoor-to-governments
Yet the Android is secure enough for the NSA itself to use, after some custom tweaking. http://selinuxproject.org/page/SEAndroid
And as a result of Android’s open-source nature, the changes the NSA made are available to end users also.
So what would you recommend to a doctor? A tablet that the Indian government (and most assuredly a lot of other governments) have access to, which could eventually be accessible by any nerd with a chip on a his shoulder if it leaks, which will likely have to be replaced long before it gets physically broken, and is many times the price…
Or a tablet that can be updated even if its parent company files chapter eleven, can be configured to a level of security usually only reserved for secret agents, that will be useful until the day its hardware gives out?
With iPads, a doctor or hospital would have only Apple to turn to for support as they generally don’t like 3rd party repair services. With Android, hospitals could hire an in-house technician to service the devices, maintain their own customized interface, and respond instantly to issues the users face, perhaps even have a spare-parts pool as they become broken to refurbish units and further reduce the hardware costs associated with having a fleet of tablets.
I said it once before, but it bears repeating. iPads do not deserve the popularity they are enjoying.
If you have any further arguments after this post, other than undeserved popularity, please feel free to list them. I think debate is a healthy thing, and bear you no animosity.