Anti-iPhone iPhone game makes it past Apple's review process
itunes.apple.com
itunes.apple.com
- The original iPhone was released in June of 2007, and had the newest iOS (3.x) available until the release of iOS 4 in June 2010.
- The iPhone 3GS was released in June of 2009, and is still getting OS updates, even to iOS 5 released later this year.
How many Android phones are obsolete in 6 months, never receiving another software update? The impetus to upgrade and chuck the old phone is much higher in their case as obsolescence starts nearly immediately because the manufacturers only make money on the hardware itself.
You'll likely get at least 3 years of OS updates out of Apple, whereas you might get one if you're lucky and the manufacturer still likes the product with Android.
I do agree that it's a manufacturer issue - specifically with a revenue model that give no reward for staying up to date (which is also horrible for device security...).
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ0abA1fksE www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovUMS3f-QLw
do you rather wait 2seg for an feature to finish executing or not have the feature at all? (as it would be if you had bought an iphone 3G instead of the G1 at the time)
As much as one likes Apple, this is not something that I would call "long term support".
The original iPhone got all updates released for 3 years from its release date.
> 3GS supported for ~2 years
So far, as far as I know iOS 5 runs on 3GS. The 3G is the only one which got a slightly reduced support life so far (no iOS 4.3, for pretty obvious — to 3G owners — hardware-related reasons)
Then you've never owned a smartphone before? If you can find a pre (or even post) iPhone smartphone that gets updates for 3 years+, I would love to see it.
If you've only worked with phones, you might have an inflated view of what "Long Term" means. The servers here, for example, run for 5 years between reboots. http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
I disagree. Apple is bringing smartphone software support out of it's "6 months then give up" cycle. I think that's worth applauding.
> If you've only worked with phones, you might have an inflated view of what "Long Term" means.
Right, I have a warped view of what long term support means because I'm comparing it to other consumer electronics instead of dedicated servers.
I'm sure if you are used to buying cars, seeing your phone's hardware warranty is pretty disappointing too. Expectations are a bitch.
Of course the turnover in the mobile phone world is a lot higher than with 'general purpose computers' but imagine if the whole electronics industry had a three year time to replacement.
Pretty sad. Especially since the biggest component of a smartphone is the software. The argument that newer phones have faster hardware is a non-starter for me because I believe that it should be possible to comfortably get the kind of functionality that a typical phone displays to the user out of something a lot more anemic than the kind of hardware found in the average phone.
Manufacturers that push for their users to upgrade their phones before they die due to unfortunate events are all guilty of pollution and resource depletion.
Even if you only play games and such the old phones don't have gyroscopes, compasses, and all the other goodies that newer phones have.
Anecdotally I have a Nexus One and it feels just as dated as an iPhone 3GS (which I previously owned). To me that indicates it's not a problem with any manufacturer, it's the industry moving forward at breakneck speed.
Mobile hardware technology is moving so rapidly that it's almost inevitable to see shorter refresh cycles than you would in a more mature space, i.e., in laptops or desktops.
77% of surveyed iPhone 4 users were upgraders! Source : http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/handicapping-apples-iphone-4-d...
They're not unique in this respect, too. WEEE and RoHS compliance is basically mandatory for Europe, so that requires manufacturers to have a safe disposal system in place for their electronics.
Samsung has a program with several local partners(http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/citizenship/usactivit...). Motorola(http://responsibility.motorola.com/index.php/environment/pro...) and Nokia(http://www.nokia.com/environment/recycling/where-and-how-to-...) also have programs to recycle your old electronics.
HTC does not seem to have a consumer recycling program in place, at least with the quick Google searches I've done.
EDIT: I have been corrected, as my Google-fu is weak. HTC does have several programs in place. Thanks!
http://www.htcinc.net/news.cfm?id=56
http://htcpedia.com/news/htc-goes-green-and-lets-you-trade-u...
They will even give you a rebate on HTC phones in some locations if you turn in any old phone. That's not a proper recycling program because it requires the phone to boot, but it does take a lot of old phones out of circulation.
HTC should probably add a recycling section to their main website, the international nature of their website probably makes that problematic because they chose to have all these little local programs rather than one big universal one.
Apple sells one new device each year and supports it well with updates. Google sells one new device each year and supports it well with updates.
The Nexus devices even have an advantage here, in that Google is not the only party that makes android-based operating systems for the series.
3 years is the bare minimum time I would expect a mobile phone to be supported, given the prevalence of 3-year lock-in phone contracts. If you enter a contract for 3 years, the expected natural lifetime of that product is 3 years. It doesn't have to have the latest features, but no company should leave the OS a buggy, broken mess and then dump it.
Apple's control of the App Store is not without good reason. It seeks to protect users (and their children) from malware, pornography and offence (and protect Apple from bad publicity and legal action by selling such things to its users).
While an overzealous employee might take it onto themselves to try to protect Apple from criticism in this way: it is not Apple policy to do so.
Note also that Apple has always reacted sensibly to any accusations of abuse and/or suicide in it's supplier's factories. Plus, Foxconn's suicide rate is far below both China's and the US's rate for a similar demographic.
Do people really still buy this line? If they're trying to protect users and their children from "malware, pornography and offence," shouldn't they be blocking those things in the iPhone web browser as well? And what about on the Mac? All those things should be blocked on there as well.
There's quite a bit of difference in responsibility when money changes hands.
> There's quite a bit of difference in responsibility when money changes hands.
So if apps are free, it should be OK, right? Because there's no implied responsibility.
What line? Why else would they do it?
The control that they over the iOS platform has provided the first truly safe computing environment. This is, in my opinion, more important to its long-term success than the innovative user interface. This is the part that other companies have so-far failed to copy.
Apple don't seek control for it's own sake—it's a lot of work and very expensive—which is why other companies balk at it.
How does the App Store banning a magazine for Android users fit into your view of how the App Store operates?
To line their own coffers, of course. By banning apps that the majority of people don't mind (see: Google Voice unbanned), they're able to increase their own profits.
This is much like the difference between the US and PRC governments. The latter is able to optimize its economy to a much greater degree than the former, thanks to its top-down control. But at what price?
1) Legacy
2) Professional requirements: huge apps with massive libraries etc
However, the Mac App Store does have similar rules and if you stick to only installing software through the App Store you will have a much safer computing environment.
Once the next round of sandboxing is added to the Mac it will be very similar to iOS.
I don't think the safety has ever been an issue with Mac apps. And there are plenty of ways to attack an iPhone, including via the App Store - just look at this story. All Apple's policies do are allow it to ban apps that aren't in its best interest and give its users a false sense of security.
http://thebln.com/2011/09/did-apple-find-a-sick-sense-of-hum...
15.2 Apps that depict violence or abuse of children will be rejected
16.1 Apps that present excessively objectionable or crude content will be rejected
Also, I'd imagine Apple would've been slammed for rejecting an app which claims to be donating proceeds to charity so it'd be less controversial to let it through.
"You cannot say anywhere in the application description, support materials, or the application itself that some or all of the proceeds will go to any given charity" http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/01/app-store-lessons-...
"Published 2 years ago"
And I think in all fairness, one should add that from that article it looks like this comes down to certain accounting requirements and regulations that Apple was not able to meet (at least back then) - not from them not wanting anyone to give to charity.
You have a front-row seat to that now, the app has been pulled.
I'm sure they'll use the 'donating proceeds to charity' as the reason why they pulled it.
According to wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_ra...), the average total number of suicides per 100,000 in China is around 6.6.
So you get, depending on the actual number of workers, either the national average for China, or slightly below it.
You mean... by buying more iPhones?
I'm have absolutely no idea if Apple is going to pull it. I wouldn't be surprised either way, yet I think whatever happens, I'll be surprised.
http://thebln.com/2011/09/did-apple-find-a-sick-sense-of-hum...
Looks like Apple already implemented everything you asked for.