Yes
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Browser72 Apr 09, 2014 3:23 PM EDT |
Unfortunately, yes iOS is better for developers. My sister is a manager at an independent firm of software developers and they can't find enough iOS developers. They aren't looking for Android developers. The reason comes down to Enterprise apps. The Enterprise mobile solution is always iOS these days. Because you can lock it down and reasonably control your employees' cell phones. They aren't concerned at all with the better technologies offered by Samsung, because those can all be rooted, leaving Enterprise vulnerable in ways that they don't like. And that's where the money is when it comes to developing apps for the iOS platform. B2B. Now, don't get me wrong, I am a dedicated FLOSS advocate...for personal use. But I do think it would be reasonable for some Android device manufacturers to pursue a more locked down version of the their phones so they can appeal to Enterprise use. This wouldn't hinder the rights of individual users to own the devices they want that are free and open. And it would also help to promote the platform to bring in more high-quality apps to the platform. |
| penguinist Apr 09, 2014 5:29 PM EDT |
It all comes down to this, who controls the device? - end user - end user's employer - device manufacturer - service provider Browser72, you are expressing the view that the end user's employer should control the device, and I might sympathize with your point of view in those specific cases where the device is purchased by the employer for use inside its business. But most of us are buying our own devices and we insist on retaining control for ourselves. I will never stop fighting attempts from service providers, manufacturers, and others to assume control of _my_ device. For this reason, I purchase devices that are supplied with vendor supported root access like the Nokia devices before Microsoft turned them south, and HP tablets before they mysteriously disappeared from the scene, and unlocked Android products purchased directly from Google. With root access to my device, I have the ability to take control of it, secure it, monitor its activities, and prevent attempts from carriers and others to assert control over what I consider to be _my_ domain. |
| Steven_Rosenber Apr 09, 2014 5:50 PM EDT |
As a longtime Android user who has picked up an iOS device in the past few weeks, I can say that from a usability standpoint, iOS is lacking. In iOS, I can't share things from app to app like I can in Android. The Buffer (http://bufferapp.com) service is basically broken without that functionality. I miss the "back" button. iOS 7 hates Linux, and until new libraries move into the distributions I can't get Rhythmbox to play nicely with the device. And when it comes to development, Google has a full SDK for any platform you wish, including Linux. If I understand it correctly, to develop for iOS, you need a Mac. Perhaps ironically (don't know if this matches the irony test), the whole .NET, C#/Mono world of Miguel de Icaza might be a work-around for non-Mac users to develop for iOS. All that said, even though the iOS market for apps is really tanking of late if you ask developers, the Android market is no better and probably worse. |
| Browser72 Apr 09, 2014 7:31 PM EDT |
penguinist. I don't disagree with you at all on your selection of personal devices. But large corporations with heavily protected intellectual property WILL control the phones that they give to employees. That's why Android hasn't wiped out iOS completely. As things stand, iOS will always maintain complete control of the Enterprise market. Not everyone is a web developer and can simply BYOD. IP control for corporate and military applications requires controlled phones at many locations. |
| notbob Apr 09, 2014 9:08 PM EDT |
I'm with you, penguinist. Give me portable device freedom or eff off! In fact, I don't want a corporate provided device. Too much like old beepers. Jes another leash around yer neck. If I must suffer a leash (be on call), let me know going in and you pay for it, lock stock and barrel. Otherwise, get outta my face. |
| penguinist Apr 09, 2014 11:18 PM EDT |
Browser72, I have one question for you. Since the manufacturer has chosen to close the iOS software and its associated hardware, how is it that enterprises perceive that _they_ are in control? and is this perception based in fact or is it that they have been sold an illusion of control? I maintain that the only chance to establish true control of devices, whether they be your own personal devices or your company's devices, is by way of transparent and open systems. Systems which have been closed by the vendor require that you trust the vendor, i.e. you must trust the entity which has true control of your devices. |
| Browser72 Apr 10, 2014 2:31 PM EDT |
I'm just explaining why the answer to this headline is a yes, peng. If you think it shouldn't be so, try talking to a corporate IT executive. You won't find a thicker-headed kind of person in the world. But they have the reigns. If you want to sell them something, you better clamp it down, charge a lot of money for it and sign some kind of warranty that you half-intend to back up. |
| mbaehrlxer Apr 10, 2014 8:24 PM EDT |
penguinist: the enterprises don't need to be in control. they contract apple to be in control for them. they just don't want the users to be in control, because users can't be trusted. and yes, i would not trust them either, but other than that i don't get what's the point of locking down a device. how does locking down my employees devices protect my company from rooted phones? should i forbid personal devices? like that's going to go over well. and that still does not protect my network from access outside the building. i think the gist is this: Browser72 is basically right that if enterprises want to be in control then they need a device that can't be rooted. but on the other hand, i believe most of those enterprises are wanting to be in control for the wrong reasons (or maybe for the right reasons, but they have no clue that they are not actually achieving what they want), and therefore i am hoping that android device makers don't follow his suggestion to produce more locked down devices, because i believe that "the rights of individual users to own the devices they want that are free and open" will be reduced, because most devices are selected by carriers, and guess what, carriers also want locked down devices. actually, such a right does not exist in the first place. in some countries rooting is considered illegal, in most it at least voids the warranty, both of which i do not consider giving me access to devices that are free and open. also, since when are iphones protected from jailbreaking? seems to me that the idea that iphones are more secure is a phantasy, just like the idea that locked down phones protect my company... greetings, eMBee. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!