Android Migration
apple.com
apple.com
(You can of course get some of this data from iOS, but things like preferences and settings from the default applications just are not accessible.)
iOS, the "Hotel California" of mobile?
This kind of reasoning central point of the copyleft vs. permissive licensing debate: should the goal be
- to maximize the freedom of choice for the end user even if the choice curtails his own freedom?
- or to maximize the freedom of the software / system itself even if that curtails the freedom of choice for the end user?
Whatever the path taken it is naive to expect people and companies to follow the spirit of the license instead of its letter when is more beneficial to them to follow the later. Neither imoral nor evil IMO.
Thing is: for technical people like us it's a no-brainer, stay the hell away. This kind of thing is going to get a whole bunch of Aunt Tillys locked up in Apple. From that perspective the one option is clearly more "evil" as it preys on ignorance.
Are you implying that technical people do not use iOS? Well, you might be surprised if you dig for some statistics.
But it's misleading because it creates the impression that users can easily move between mobile operating systems, when in fact this door Apple has built is strictly one-way. They won't tell you that ahead of time, of course.
To us technical users, it's obvious that moving data between closed server-based services is fraught with complications. But a lot of regular people don't understand those nuances. Copying data from a phone to another is just moving over some files, right? Apple is supporting that expectation.
Apple and Google both make access to the lists of songs, contacts, photos, etc data on your device and this app simply uses those APIs to transfer the DRM free music and other data from one device to the other.
It's true that your data being on one device makes it difficult for average people to migrate when they switch devices.
The only difference here is that Apple took the time to write a program to make the transfer onto their platform easy for users. They've had a similar migration assistant for OS X for around a decade.
This is consistent with Apple's focus on the user and building of consumer level technology.
Google's approach is different. Android is just a strategic action, not a product, and so they don't really care to put this level of effort in.
That doesn't make Google virtuous or Apple evil. In fact, I would say focusing on making your customers lives better is virtuous.
It's a shame that such an ideology has sprung up that everything Apple does is routinely asserted to be evil here, even though most of it is designed to protect users, while google, which does nothing to protect people and frequently violates users rights is sign as some paragon of virtue.
You could already access most relevant information through secured authentication to iCloud anyway.
I'd venture that Google's tightening its grip on Android and making it more closed than it ever was. A high profile engineer, JBQ, quit AOSP project for a reason. As an android user, one is already consuming a lot of Google resources for free; and Google isn't going to sit back and not make you pay for it.
http://www.techhive.com/article/188696/Apple_Bans_the_Word_A...
It might seem nit-picky, but that is so vague as to be untrue. The reason JBQ quit, as I pieced together from his G+/tweets, was because of 3rd party drivers for a Nexus device that were not released as open source as he would have liked (he managed AOSP releases). Inferring from his posts at the time, this was something he realised as a potential problem ahead of time and notified legal, but it seemed nothing was done (or they failed in negotiating with manufacturer).
I'm not a Googler, so I could also be off-base here. I apologise ahead of time if I misrepresented anyone.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/11/android-5-0-lollipop-...
The Evil Apple mythology is pure political ideology on the part of Apple haters / Google Zealots.
And I've been hearing this kind of Apple bashing since the 1980s.
Yes, yes, Apple sells more expensive stuff. Apple focuses on design. Apple doesn't compete in the low end (though they are damn price competitive when you compare like systems.)
This does not make Apple evil. The idea that Android is "open" simply because linux is an open source operating system is silly- Darwin is open source as well, and Apple and Google both keep the application layer closed source.
All those knockoff phones sold in China that you're desperate to count as "Android" to claim Apple's losing (Yet nobody ever actually counts real sales of android devices, because android phone makers keep this data secret, unlike Apple that reports it quarterly to the SEC...why is that I wonder? Maybe the illusion that Android is "winning" would be shattered, hmmm? Meanwhile only %8 of "android" devices are running a current operating system???!? How is that "Winning"?)..... those knock off MediaTec phones are not "Android" and are not running google Apps (unless they've been cracked) because google has just as stringent licensing terms as Apple, actually much worse. And of course those apps are not open source either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29
"On July 25, 2006, the OpenDarwin team announced that the project was shutting down, as they felt OpenDarwin had "become a mere hosting facility for Mac OS X related projects," and that the efforts to create a standalone Darwin operating system had failed. They also state: "Availability of sources, interaction with Apple representatives, difficulty building and tracking sources, and a lack of interest from the community have all contributed to this."[24] "
Darwin is open source, but to compare that to linux is laughable. Google is one of the top contributers upstream to Linux and subsequntly hundreds of millions of devices are better off because of it.
I'm unaware of any modern darwin based distro's and I'm unaware of any iOS mods like Cyanagenmod. To say Apple and Google are about the same when it comes to Open Source is a joke. Based on Steve Jobs stopping all donations to charity I'm fairly certain the fact that Darwin is open source is because the licensing requires it to be. Otherwise Darwin would be proprietary so fast no one would notice because it's too difficult to work with anyway.
Exactly what data are apps not able to reach on iOS that they are able to reach on Android?
If Google cared about their customers they could write this kind of App as well.
But google is not in the same business as Apple. Apple is making the best platform they can. Google is in the business of commoditizing Apple's platform so that google can sell ads on it.
Apple charges for its platform and protects customer data. Google gives the platform away for free at the price of your immortal soul.
https://www.motorola.com/us/motorola-migrate/motorola-migrat...
Google only copies system settings and list of installed apps, but not "sd card" data with local music, photos, apps' settings or data.
You don't need to transfer music if you're using Google Play Music (including the option to upload your own music), Spotify (has a similar options), or something else like that.
I'll give you application settings, but that's only because the applications didn't bother implementing the backup services.
I get it's easier, but that's not the point here.
Case in point it took me a month to upload my music to iTunes Match (and it already has fingerprinting).
It looks like Google either doesn't care or deliberately cripples experience for users who don't go all-in on all their services (given that Maps explicitly refuses to save recent searches locally I'm think it's the latter).
I've migrated from Nexus 4 to 5 and it was a mess (Google Play is full of dodgy and incomplete 3rd party backup apps. Android File Transfer is slow and leaves partial copies behind when any error happens, and errors happen often, etc.)
I could see your point when it comes to privacy, but the photos are still available locally as well. By the time you're replacing phone the photos will probably only be used for archival anyway.
Simple read access to the contents of an Android device was always one of the big "pluses" in my experience. Then if you find that too difficult for whatever reason, there are Google apps that do the same thing. The only bits that can be annoying are app settings as you mentioned. Even that has improved and I notice a lot of that stuff showing up when I sign into a new device. Still, I hope to see some improvement on that front in the future. Third party migration apps (like the one on my Moto X) can do it so Google should definitely offer something similar. It currently works for some settings/data but I'd hope they're working on adding support for more.
Automatic app settings backup (to google drive) is finally coming to Android M [0]. Third party solutions have existed more or less forever, though the best ones require root. For the local music/photos stuff, is it really that hard to plug both phones into a computer and transfer stuff that way? It would take maybe an hour.
[0] http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/05/android-m-makes-anoth...
I don't think this will have a huge impact in conversions, I think the path Apple is on is already doing that, but it's not a terrible idea.
The idea that Apple won't let google applications on their store is just google zealot paranoid fantasy.
Hell, Apple's bringing Apple Music to android. It's treating it like a real platform.
"Google Maps for mobile is the world's most popular app for smartphones, with over 54% of global smartphone owners using it at least once during the month of August 2013.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps
I think your bias might be showing?
Even open sourcing Swift was criticized and used as an opportunity to bash Apple.
It's kinda bad when HNers are bashing a company for the "crime" of open sourcing a new programming language / platform.
I mean they'd only have to pay 0.7x the cost of the apps, if that.
> And your paid apps are added to your iTunes Wish List.
Oh how convenient!
I wonder if they will allow an app that lets people migrate from iOS to something else on their app store. The reality distortion field at Cupertino remains strong.
However my anecdotal evidence is that having paid for apps on one platform isn't a barrier to switching for a lot of people. It seems to be an afterthought, a realisation only when they come to download (and pay) for the app again. By that point its too late.
More than that, even on iOS the paid App model is going away and free apps with in-app-purchase or other premium models are what's succeeding. (not watch this get downvoted.)
Well, that's quite petty insinuating that the Android device is essentially garbage.
Then it should be just a matter of parsing a bunch of plist files and a few SQLite databases.
If you look at Apple's practices you can't find a single one that google doesn't emulate.
BTW, the restrictions on the App Store? They are there on the Play store as well.
The ability to develop Apps and run them on any device outside the store-- Has been on the iPhone since day one. Back when google was making blackberry clones you could release iPhone apps on the web (built using a Javascript/HTML/CSS platform, that web developers claim is the best anyway with hooks into the iOS API and phone capabilities).... but people hated it.
People here on Hacker News screamed bloody murder because they wanted native access to the hardware on iOS. So, Apple built it and the App Store. but they never got rid of the prior web based SDK and it's still there. You can build apps, install them on users phones and completely bypass the App Store.
But you ideologists just ignore that because you want to bash the App Store.
Best case you're think we'll believe you're not biased. Worst case, you're deluding yourself.
Neither choice is a good one.