Because third party iOS developers are still second class citizens compared to Apple in-house developers.
Google doesn't make third party developers second class citizens: it makes apps using the same tools and apis as available to everyone, and distributes them the same way that everyone else distributes their apps.
This is a step forward for Apple, but for example: Safari will remain the only browser available on iOS, and Apple's version of Safari will remain versions ahead of UIWebView meaning that any non-Safari browser will remain inferior by intentional design. True competition is prevented by design, and it takes 5 years to open up something as basic as the keyboard. How many more years until browser is opened up? 5 more?
It's an interesting move as far as platforms go, but I know that it's no where near what I want from a platform. It's still locked down, under featured and heavily controlled. For a non-tech user or someone who wants a dead simple phone, it seems great. But for those of us who love our devices, love customizing them in and out, and love trying to create the best experiences, Apple still is not a choice: we can't compete with Apple apps, we can't use their in-house APIs, and they still offer us inferior versions of the software/APIs that they use inhouse.
> Google doesn't make third party developers second class citizens: it makes apps using the same tools and apis as available to everyone, and distributes them the same way that everyone else distributes their apps.
This is exactly my problem with Google. They seem to prioritise developers over users. Apple does the opposite. As a developer I prefer this — I've been rejected many times, and many times it was because I failed to do something for my users.
I don't trust most developers to do right by their users. I don't trust them to respect user privacy, store data securely, ensure decent battery life, not be lazy, and so on. Developers don't have the right to develop for and sell on whatever store they want; they should follow the rules if they want their software on someone else's store.
The Safari UIWebView thing relates to memory protection. And really, there's not that much of a difference (I use JavaScriptCore pretty heavily at times).
Which Apple APIs, specifically, are you complaining about? As far as I see, the vast majority of what we use, Apple uses. Their APIs are often elegant and very well thought out. Also powerful.
What's so awesome about Android is that Google can't reject you, since you can just install any APKs you want. If you can't appreciate that (among all the other freedom features, like root, ADB, customization, etc), you don't really get Android's philosophy.
That's true — I'd acknowledge that as a nice aspect of Android from a developer or enthusiast user point of view.
I believe that iOS would be less successful if it had similar capability, though. (I'm also the kind of person that doesn't really mind spending $100/year on a Dev account to install what I want.)
The point is that for the vast majority, and for developers looking to make a living, the play store can reject you. So for my purposes Google is pretty much in full control here.
You really think Apple is threatened by the competition posed by an alternative keyboard or browser ? Pretty sure they care far more about maintaining their "99% of malware" exists on Android record.
The official reason is security but given that webgl has been running on Android and desktop browsers without incident and that its present in Safari Mobile and merely disabled, its more likely that Apple doesn't want to have webgl based apps taking from app store sales. A true alternative browser would open the doors to breaking the app store monopoly on games.
Yeah I got the news an hour ago. That's amazing, very happy about it! Been working on a webgl pet project and concerned about adoption with the iDevice market out of reach.
iOS has definitely been a sore point for selling WebGL solution until now because the only option was doing it as an app, so that was limiting 3D
It might still need some tweaks here and there but I'm already amazed this demo for a customer of mine from January works as-is (except I need to tweak the background shader, it was a quick test anyway), in the browser without plugin or app on an old iPad 2: https://twitter.com/wildpeaks/status/473672792689639424
Please look past the hype, malware on phones is a near non-issue.
Need I remind you that it was iOS devices being hijacked by hackers, not Android devices?
Claims like "99% of malware exist on Android" didn't prevent Apple users across the west from having their devices hijacked for ransom.
And no, Apple isn't threatened by the "competition".
I'm just saying: from the perspective of a tech-forward developer who spends a lot of time on their mobile computing device, the locked down reality of iOS, while marginally improving, is still leagues away from a platform that gives developers a deep and powerful ability to create wonderful mobile experiences that transcend the concept of "sandboxed app".
Sure iOS apps have some great modern flat-ui navigation, but how many iOS developers are trying to re-imagine what mobile means, how we use phones? How many iOS developers are capable of adjusting how we use the phone, the screens and service we see the most?
On Android: most developers can. I have a list of a dozen apps that improve on Google's core functions, and I'm sure hundreds more amazing apps exist. On iOS: None can and none are, outside of the small jailbreak scene. Everyone uses stock everything because that's all that's allowed. #innovation
> Claims like "99% of malware exist on Android" didn't prevent Apple users across the west from having their devices hijacked for ransom.
The feature used for this - remote locking of a stolen/lost phone - is present on both Android and iOS, as are weak passwords. That you're acting like that's an issue with the hardware/software involved is a good indication that you're trolling or fanboying.
"That you're acting like that's an issue with the hardware/software involved is a good indication that you're trolling or fanboying."
I'm pointing out that just because Tim Cook makes a random hypey statement, it doesn't MEAN anything. I rightfully showed that iOS, without malware, is suffering from hijacks that aren't occurring in Android. Personally, if remote locking is capable of a hijack, I'd call that malware, but that's just semantics.
If the attack can be done in both platforms I'm not clear on your point. By your logic Gmail, HN, and essentially every other site are infested with "malware" because some people get hacked with vulnerable passwords.
> Personally, if remote locking is capable of a hijack, I'd call that malware, but that's just semantics.
This seems a curious view for a self-professed "tech-forward developer". Your logic can extend to a lot of things. My credit card... Is that malware in my bank if someone guesses my PIN?
I'm no expert (as I wrote), but afaik the app install process (iTunes style) is sidetracked by running a program to install an App on your trusted computer.
Then you run the app.
I only use iTunes when I update the music on the iPhone, not programs. I assume most people do the same these days. (iOS 5?)
(But certainly, there is a possibility here -- maybe iTunes might tell the iDevice to update an application without informing the user? I can't say, Objective C was too much like Java for me. :-) I don't keep music on the iPad, so that is no problem.)
I'm unclear how jailbreaking impacts your device security in a meaningful fashion. All it does is give you the possibility to install something that could cause you trouble, but absolutely nothing on its own.
Most of the jailbreak apps are open source anyways. (MobileSubstrate and the majority of things that use them, for instance)
Pointing at any kind of positive to the locked-down-ness that Apple strives for, regardless of its truth, personally makes me feel very wrong as someone who values openness.
Edit: I love how asking a question is grounds for being downvoted into the negatives now.
>> Apple's version of Safari will remain versions ahead of UIWebView meaning that any non-Safari browser will remain inferior by intentional design.
My hope is that deep-linking can make this somewhat irrelevant. If you can deep link to Safari from where you'd otherwise use UIWebView, and design a system that allows you to return to the app you were in when you finish (an easy one, like letting the back button take you back to the previous app), then a lot of these issues are somewhat solved.
More accurately, Safari is (and presumably will remain) the only browser engine, but its possible for third party apps to reskin the engine and provide certain limited differences in non-core functionality and call it a different "browser".
I covered that in my post, please keep up: Chrome for iOS is powered by Safari on iOS, because Apple refuses to allow any other developer use the developers own code and libraries. Chrome is prevented from using Google's inhouse Blink rendering engine and the majority of the rest of the Chrome code and features we know and love on every other platform including Android.
Chrome is forced to use UIWebView, which is an OUTDATED and OLDER version of Safari than Safari.
If you use Chrome on iOS, you are getting an INFERIOR browser because Apple dictated that all other browsers must A) use Safari as their internal and B) must use outdated and old versions of Safari so they don't and can't compete with Safari fairly.
Which is MY WHOLE POINT, really, that Apple holds back innovation.
Do you have a source for UIWebView being an older version of safari than MobileSafari? I thought they were the same except for the Nitro (JIT) stuff, and even that seems to be changing for iOS8, especially with the Modern Webkit thing that's been showing up in webkit git commits.
Yes, Android intends are great, and that's why I was surprised when I read "this extensibility stuff might be enough to tempt me back to Apple from Android".
What I meant to ask was, what do you mean by "enough"? Does this mean that:
On 1, better than iOS was. Not sure if you mean better than Android, in which case, that remains to be seen. But the target should be "good enough".
On 2, third-party apps have long supported opening in a different app. Of course, it's up to that developer to include the x-callback-url and Apple apps won't use that preference.
It came across as being sarcastic hence the down votes.
And yes iOS8 does provide better extensibility than it did before and yes you would be able to open content in alternative browsers. Not sure about apps like Mail however.
I am fine with the downvotes. It's pretty easy on any Apple/Android/iOS/Google thread.
> And yes iOS8 does provide better extensibility than it did before
That wasn't my point. I asked specifically if iOS provides better extendibility than _Android_ (as the OP seemed to infer by stating his move back to iOS for that reason alone).
> not sure about apps like Mail however.
That's the point. Browser was just an example. Extendibility of a system does not mean in one or two places.
it doesn't have to better, it has to be good enough, which is the point the OP was trying to make. There are some things about Android that are better and there are some things about iOS that are better. Intents were a thing that has been better in the past on Android (by virtue of not existing on iOS), and a reason that some people have stuck with Android even though they might prefer iOS for a lot of things.
If the extensions stuff is "good enough" for the reasons people like intents, then that could easily be enough for people to switch from Android to iOS assuming they like iOS better overall.
But how does anyone one know if they are "good enough" already? Just because Apple published some of it? Or the claim came from actually developing appls that make use of it? I don't think somebody gained the experience within few hours of Apple's event.
You don't. That's why he said "might". Since it's not even out yet, I doubt anyone is buying a device based on the announcement today. We'll find out at some point after they release it and the reviews come in.
Google doesn't make third party developers second class citizens: it makes apps using the same tools and apis as available to everyone, and distributes them the same way that everyone else distributes their apps.
This is a step forward for Apple, but for example: Safari will remain the only browser available on iOS, and Apple's version of Safari will remain versions ahead of UIWebView meaning that any non-Safari browser will remain inferior by intentional design. True competition is prevented by design, and it takes 5 years to open up something as basic as the keyboard. How many more years until browser is opened up? 5 more?
It's an interesting move as far as platforms go, but I know that it's no where near what I want from a platform. It's still locked down, under featured and heavily controlled. For a non-tech user or someone who wants a dead simple phone, it seems great. But for those of us who love our devices, love customizing them in and out, and love trying to create the best experiences, Apple still is not a choice: we can't compete with Apple apps, we can't use their in-house APIs, and they still offer us inferior versions of the software/APIs that they use inhouse.