Apple Introduces iOS 8
apple.com
apple.com
Edit: this extensibility stuff might be enough to tempt me back to Apple from Android, at last. Third party keyboards, too (I've gotten quite attached to the Android swiping stuff). Honestly, at this point, I'm not sure what keeps me on Android. I confidently predict that iOS Active Notification usage will be far higher than on Android, even though Android has had it for years.
I am not sure if you are serious or not.
What I meant to ask was, what do you mean by "enough"? Does this mean that:
1. iphone/ios/Apple suddenly provides better extendibility?
2. Would you be able to, say, open a link to any browser of your choice in iphone?
If any of the above answers is "no", then, yes, I am not sure if you were serious or not. Hence my comment.
(Edited for clarity)
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Meanwhile, in Android:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/05/your-android-phone-v...
> The malware prevents users from accessing the home screen of their phones, making it impossible to use most other apps installed on the phone.
Do that on an unjailbroken iPhone and we'll talk.
This is because I want to feel safe with my i.* things while using my bank applications and buying stuff from iTunes.
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.
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.)
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.
It also partly invalidates my point earlier.
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
I can understand why that frustrates developers but I can understand why Apple do it.
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.
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/chrome-web-browser-by-google...
> ...meaning that any non-Safari browser will remain inferior by intentional design
But you just said Safari is the only 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.
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.
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.
This is so true and so sad. Google Voice, why are you so almost great and so neglected?
I have to say though that my disappointment in Google Voice is quickly being matched by my disappointment in Google Maps which actually was great but continually gets less so with each release.
Traffic for freeways, on the other hand, is amazing.
This likely has to do with the quality of traffic data provided by the municipality. But Apple Maps doesn’t have the same problem. Their side-street traffic data is reliable around here – very surprising.
Same with taking traffic into account, especially in Japanese systems which have done that since like 2004.
If Google finally got around to adding those features that's great but hardly worthy of "brilliant" praise for something that's been around for years.
We only do that if it's Apple, right?
I'm pretty sure Maps didn't used to do dumb things like that.
Because it pisses off carriers (big telcos), and Android vendors (unlike Apple) really need carriers.
Turning on the iOS hotspot from OS X 10.10 even works exactly like tethering via Bluetooth used to work, from the menu bar.
Not sure why it took apple soooooo long to implement?
And then, Instagram happened. Seemed novel at the time - something I made 3 hours before hittin' the road.
They don't want to waste engineering talent on a product that doesn't even register on their bottom line, and shows no promise of explosive growth. But on the other hand, they want to build the next big thing in-house, rather than having to acquire it for billions or letting it grow into a competitor.
It's really tough predicting what the next big thing is, so they throw spaghetti at the wall.
From talking to PMs at Google, they have exactly this problem. Engineers are free to pick and choose what they work on.As soon as a product is released, hits "1.0", and the engineers have claimed whatever kudos they can, they move on to the "next big thing", leaving the PM alone with the product. That leads to situations where PMs can't even get basics like localizations to specifics countries / languages.
If you think through the logic on 20% time and deliberately developing as many different crazy projects as possible in the hope that a few of them pan out and hit the big time, this is the inevitable outcome.
God knows I suffer from that. The beginning of something new is always awesome but as time progresses and the "new" feeling vanishes I find it harder and harder to keep working on it.
When I was in Canada/US I couldn't really find any low cost options without a contract.
US is really costly when it comes to phone bills. One of the most advanced countries in the world, and can't give cheap internet.
People that pay more for a similar product are not just buying the product, they are also buying style and the ability to set themselves apart from their peers.
Hah!
I stick to Anroid for innovations like LastPass's 'fill into applications', link browser, Pocket, etc. They are so tightly integrated with Android that it is very pleasurable to use.
before 8 I always disabled it because I litterally had no use for it...
Health: it's stepping on the toes of many partners, but might be groundbreaking. It's extremely hard to crack healtcare, it's very closed, defensive system of people and bureaucracy, Apple might just have the power to do it.
Extensibility: intents are basically _the_ reason Android can work so much better in many cases than iOS. I hope MS will bring it to WP very soon.
Per Healthcare: that is a really exciting new feature and there is a LOT of potential here. But I wonder how successful it can actually be in the grand scheme of things. I.e. not everyone can have or wants an iPhone.
Edit, expanding a bit:
On the flip side, I am huge advocate for personal health records (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_health_record), but no one really knows about them and no really uses them because they don't work with your doctor. I don't think Apple has even remotely come close to solving the overall problem of integration and usefulness, but maybe it will get more people interested and thinking about the concept of a personal health record.
Re. Health: it can fly in the US, and if it does, then they've got the momentum to port the stuff to other mobile OSes. Health itself is such a big industry that they might not want/need to use it just as a promoter for their devices.
Yes Apple will have an iWatch but they would be more than happy having hundreds of dirt cheap equivalents that integrate seamlessly with the iPhone.
A cheap Android device could be used to help monitor the health of an elderly relative, however do you really perceive people leaving the latest iPhone with their dementia stricken parent?
Are expectant mothers going to be happy with having wireless transmissions constantly next to their unborn child (regardless of safety records)?
Are nurses going to have sterilised iPads for for the ward, where fluids are abound?
Health monitors haven't taken off because people do not care enough to want constant monitoring.
Care delivery is also an industry in which Apple has virtually zero market share - it's Microsoft through and through. Inpatient and outpatient EHRs all target Windows, hospital IT all runs Windows Server, and some of the more "forward-thinking" hospitals are even eyeing Windows tablets (I kid you not).
Potentially huge upside for them (which is obviously why they want to do it), but it's very difficult to penetrate, and they have almost no foothold there so far.
I believe this is primarily because the development environment is really simple for this class of software. Platforms such as .NET, COM, MFC and VB have been around a long time and it's easy to find programmers. It also doesn't hurt that the desktops running Windows are incredibly inexpensive and easy to procure and run Microsoft Windows.
But targeting the end users of healthcare (e.g. patients)... that's something else entirely which only recently has started to have any traction.
That said, what Apple announced was patient data collection support in the client OS. App developers take care of shipping it to physicians and hospitals. Apple isn't taking the patient's information the last mile to physicians themselves.
Disclosure: I'm a co-founder of a startup dedicated to improving mobile patient and physician communication (Care Thread, http://www.carethread.com). We already integrate with hospital and doctor's office workflows, and we've been looking forward to the introduction of this feature in order to collect relevant patient data.
Edit: spelling
When (not if) this happens with HealthKit/Health, it'll be slightly disappointing to see these kinds of integrations from behind a glass window. At least some aspects of HealthKit are already being integrated with major fitness companies (namely, Nike), so not everyone will miss the boat entirely.
Hopefully HealthKit will integrate well enough with third party hardware that you can do a lot of the stuff yourself and then bring the data to your doctor when you need to.
tort reform freudian slip?
[0] http://www.macworld.com/article/2050506/secrets-of-the-ios-7...
(I assume that, being UNIX under the hood, there actually are multiple users on an iOS device, for security. But these would presumably be invisible to the user, and not usable as login accounts).
> Why can't I create multiple accounts? I want this feature.
> Because iOS is single-user.
It's not circular sorry, I meant to say your answer is stating the question.
I don't mean to offend or start a fight. I just read the conversation similar to "I have X why can't I have Y" "Because you have "X". The "by design" is moot when Apple are the designers. It's not some real world construct or difficult problem to solve, they don't have multi-user because they don't want IOS to have multiuser.
> Why can't I create multiple accounts? I want this feature.
> Because we made the decision to make iOS single user because $BENEFITS
Multi-user is, in fact, a very difficult problem to solve from a variety of perspectives: UX, security, app development ...
Have a button somewhere that lets you switch to a different user. When you switch, you enter that other user's PIN or password. Then you see their apps, have their data, etc. When you switch back, you see your apps, have your data, etc.
It doesn't have to be very complicated. Even on a Mac, the "cruft" amounts to my name sitting in the menu bar, and having to choose who to log in as before I put in my password.
First, all my system settings wasn't cloned, to the new account i had to re-add things you take for granted like my localized keyboards and stuff like that, can't remember if wifi passwords were included or not. Then comes application settings, many apps are unusable before you configure them properly, even the web browser is unusable in the default state on high dpi devices, you must change the default zoom level. Then it seems some apps actually share state, and in some cases rightfully so, finding out how they share it is a mystery. Some are designed with multi user in mind so you can in fact have a mail app accessible on both accounts without sharing your mails as the system accounts are linked to different mail accounts. Others are the other way around, maybe you want your 10GB music collection to be accessible from every account? Drawing the line of where and what should be shared is very difficult.
It's not gonna happen.
I see no need to overcomplicate it. A user account system where each account acts like a separate device (aside from the unfortunate realities of sharing storage resources) would be fine. What apps share state? None! What music gets shared? None! What settings get shared? None!
When does something cross the line from "system wide driver/configuration" to "user specific data/configuration"? If absolutely everything should act like a separate device you might as well dual boot or use virtual machines.
One of my scenarios for shared data is that when I'm working i want to listen to my music, but when i have a party i want to use the same device as a jukebox with the same music but not open up access to my documents. I know that i'm not alone with this problem. Trusting your friends to not dig around is another topic but with pop up notifications and active widgets on the desktop even your most trusted friends might get private emails shoved in their face even if they are trying to avoid them.
The idea that keyboard localization should be system-wide is weird. Different people can speak and write different languages. Although it should be a non-issue, since a single person can speak and write multiple languages, and switching keyboards should be trivial.
Anyway, you can come up with scenarios where my "make it act like a fresh device" idea is inadequate. But my idea is still an absolute improvement over what we have now, and would be perfectly good for a lot of uses. You're describing a bunch of stuff you want but that is by no means required, and then using the complexity of that stuff to say that the whole feature is a bad idea. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
I let him use mine, and when he logs in, I want him to see a few educational apps... and that's it.
When we're at functions, we see parents let their kids use their iPads all the time, and they are always checking in to see if they've opened their email, or certain games, etc.
Maybe just a "Kids" login. It has NOTHING but a few apps of choice show up. Doesn't have to be a full user-account system, just a pseudo login that hides almost everything.
YT: "What do you want to watch? Some blood-drinking metal band from eastern Europe? Some fine ladies playing beach volleyball? Richard Hammond racing ice-cream trucks on fire? Or Bob the Builder?"
It seems to work well enough, but it could really do with more OS integration e.g. prevent access to the notification drawer and multitasking.
However, given the number of people I know who bought an additional iPad specifically for their kid, Apple probably doesn't need to encourage device sharing!
That said, my 3 and 4 year olds cause no problems with my iPad so I'm not sure how big a deal it is.
Of course, with the new family features, they want you to have a device each rather than share. Wasteful but drives up their earnings.
Perhaps a guest mode would be better, access to all the apps already there, but wipes when they log out.
Currently, I use a screen-shotted contact screen as my wallpaper for my ICE contact - just in case the worst were to happen. This will let me put more information, and might even let me have a wallpaper again!
If you're hit by a car and your phone is smashed...
"Completely new. Completely Mac."
I find meaningless slogans like these really disgusting and annoying. And it's not just Apple, every second startup does this.
You have to admit there is a little bit of irony in this.
Here is a small primer on the psychology of slogans: http://www.adslogans.co.uk/ww/prvwis11.html
More importantly when OP said the slogans were annoying/disgusting, it was a statement of OP's personal opinion. OP never said in general the public finds these slogans disgusting/annoying.
I'm a long time hobbyist programmer, got my start back in the days of Apple IIe, got my first Mac in 1984...and I'm still not switching back to iPhone until I can write my own software and run it on my own phone without paying Apple for the privilege.
I'm waiting for two simple words: "Unknown sources". Guess I have to wait some more. Not sure how low Apple's market share will have to go before they start allowing it.
Can't say I love programming for Android, Java just doesn't feel right to me, but I'm sticking with it as long as I can write my own software, run it on my phone or tablet, share it with others, even sell it without Google's permission.
You can write your own software, run it on any iOS device, share it with others, even sell it without anyone's permission.
Here is a PacMan style game, for example:
http://mrgan.tumblr.com/post/257187093/pie-guy
If that's not "hobbyist" friendly, I don't know what is.
There's a reason that there was a massive developer outcry at the "sweet solution" of HTML5 apps, causing Apple to release a native SDK instead.
A third-party editorial review is much more useful to me than a marketting brochure.
The integration, widgets, etc. will open up a lot of new possibilities too.
I'm not too excited about Swift but it looks like it could speed up the code, compile, load, test cycle.
-Spotlight Integration For third Party Apps.
-Multi-User Support Or Guest Mode
-iMessage For Android
-App Trials
-Fixing The Music App ( Artis-Album View is broken)
-Third Party Default Apps
What it doesn't have, is the context-aware switching. That is something really neat about the new keyboard. Switching context from a meeting being "postponed" to "boring" is great.
"Touch ID- For the first time, you’ll have the option of using Touch ID to sign in to third-party apps — there’s no need to enter a password. Your fingerprint data is protected and is never accessed by iOS or other apps."
Will this be used significantly by developers?
i do like the ideas for extensions apple presented, but they all seem to specific. the android intents i use day to day are way past this.
Look eg here to get an idea of what it means for webapp: http://www.photonstorm.com/html5/a-first-look-at-what-ios8-m...
Let me get my US-centric conversion calculator out... Fall > Autumn, carry the one, add 2, and oh look it's "coming this Spring".
This is a bit scary... This means that Apple not only knows who I talk to but now actually maintain an index on how I talk with everyone. 1984 is getting closer and closer.