Why Android Honeycomb should have Apple scared

[the8thark]

Yes I agree. Everyone wants to beat Apple at it's own game and be better. None really are trying to be the best at their own thing. MS kinect is one exception. But to the that's just MS trying to beat Nintendo at it's own game.

 

[RavingMac]

Not to get off subject, but does anyone really believe that without competition Apple would not improve their products as quickly or as aggressively? I'm fine with other options in the marketplace, but I don't see it as a "necessity" for improvement/progress when it comes to Apple products. -maybe it's just me?

They may not need the spur of competition to aggressively pursue innovation, but since no one can think of everything competition spurs creativity as competitors "borrow" from each other.
So, yes, I really do believe Apple needs competition to be the best it can be.

 

[iggibar]

In my opinion, these "new" tablet operating systems that are being shown as being the future, are so different, that I can actually see it being the end result of a future PC operating system. That's not good. I'm not a fan of how they cram so many things into the OS itself. Make it simple, and let the owners decide what they want on it. Otherwise, it just seems like a gimmick to me.

 

[XJ-linux]

I'm looking forward to Honeycomb. It shows very well in the few video snippets I've seen online. Other than that, there's not much to say until some of the devices sporting it get out there and some applications that exploit the OS features get distributed. Honestly, I see room for both iOS and Android and feel the biggest loser on the "consumer" side of things is Microsoft. Then again, MS isn't about to give up enterprise without a fight and it will be interesting to see what they front when they finally quit playing around with old ideas.

 

[vansmith]

I'm not a fan of how they cram so many things into the OS itself. Make it simple, and let the owners decide what they want on it.

Android is by no means unique here. It really seems that the smartphone market is now characterized as one where success is defined by those who can cram the most into the OS while also making it usable. If you showed someone from five years ago was the smartphone is now, I'm sure they'd be perplexed by the sheer number of features and this applies to all of them (BB OS, Android, iOS and WP7). My question then is simply this: do we need all of these features? This is besides the point though.

 

[baggss]

My question then is simply this: do we need all of these features?

The more important question, IMO, is "Do we even need any of this stuff itself? By "stuff" I mean iPhones and iPads and so on. Sure we can all justify having it, but we don't really need any of it.

 

[Doug b]

The more important question, IMO, is "Do we even need any of this stuff itself? By "stuff" I mean iPhones and iPads and so on. Sure we can all justify having it, but we don't really need any of it.

Actually yes, we do need it. All of it. Collectively speaking and in a very existential way mind you. Without "it", society wouldn't be anywhere near as civilized, advanced or enthusiastic about the continuation of the human race in genaral. Bah, I can't get into that now though, too tired!

D.

 

[the8thark]

The more important question, IMO, is "Do we even need any of this stuff itself? By "stuff" I mean iPhones and iPads and so on. Sure we can all justify having it, but we don't really need any of it.

50 years ago people said did we need TV. And before that radio etc etc. My point is that new technologies come around and we become so dependant on them. To the point where our lives would cease to function as we know it without them. And smart phones are no exception here. People have become dependant on them.

 

[baggss]

Actually yes, we do need it. All of it. Collectively speaking and in a very existential way mind you. Without "it", society wouldn't be anywhere near as civilized, advanced or enthusiastic about the continuation of the human race in genaral. Bah, I can't get into that now though, too tired!

I would disagree. I'm not sure society is nearly as civilized as we think and that technology simply provides the thin veneer that we like to call civilization. When the technology fails we tend to revert to out natural, not so friendly, state.

50 years ago people said did we need TV. And before that radio etc etc. My point is that new technologies come around and we become so dependant on them. To the point where our lives would cease to function as we know it without them. And smart phones are no exception here. People have become dependant

There's the justification that I mentioned. Our lives don't really depend on any of this stuff, we just like to believe that they do. Our lives would not be the same, but we would still be alive and well if Apple had never made an iPhone or an iPad. A different life doesn't mean no life the progression of technology along certain lines doesn't life would end if that line of progression had been different. It would just be different is all, not necessarily better or worse, just different.

 

[RavingMac]

I agree that we don't truly 'need' most of our Hi-tech toys. If I had to I could get by quite well without almost all of it with the exception of A/C. I spent to many hot sticky nights as a child to willingly part with that, though society would probably be better off without it.
There was a lot to be said for a world where the streets were under constant adult supervision because it was too hot to sit inside, and kids were outside pretty continuously except for meals and sleeping (and sometimes for those).

 

[vansmith]

I would disagree. I'm not sure society is nearly as civilized as we think and that technology simply provides the thin veneer that we like to call civilization. When the technology fails we tend to revert to out natural, not so friendly, state.

Agreed. A perceived increase in civilized nature is both subjective and lacks any recognition of the complexity of what it is to be civilized. I would say that social discourse and the ways in which people treat each other is much more symbolic of an increase in civilized nature. Using that, the very fact that people seem to use technology to argue with others in a non-civilized way with much less compunction would make it seem as if technology in some ways hurts.

There's the justification that I mentioned. Our lives don't really depend on any of this stuff, we just like to believe that they do. Our lives would not be the same, but we would still be alive and well if Apple had never made an iPhone or an iPad. A different life doesn't mean no life the progression of technology along certain lines doesn't life would end if that line of progression had been different. It would just be different is all, not necessarily better or worse, just different.

You're two for two . The dependence on this technology is initially a product of marketing which then creates what appears to be an essential dependence. I would able to do what it is I do everyday and although it may be harder in some respects, it may be easier. Technology is a double edged sword and those who think we absolutely need it only seem to see the positives.

 

[XJ-linux]

I'm sure we could live just fine without an iPad, Android phone or television. We can "live" without most "modern" technologies and conveniences, if given sufficient time to adapt. Our species has been there and done that before. The "adapting" part is the tricky part. Until then, technology is actually a sort of liability if a "lights out" scenario ever unfolds. In my estimation, the population concentration in most American cities render them unsustainable by the resources available within them or the local area. Things like food and fuel aren't produced in close proximity to their consumption points anymore, and as such many places are unsustainable without the technology used to keep "just in time" delivery viable. There isn't enough wild game in all of Illinois to feed Chicago for a week, even if you could kill it all, transport it and distribute it before it spoiled. Without the technology used to (for example) ship, preserve, package and inventory goods cities would fall apart within a very short time. Technology does do a wonderful job of leveling the overall playing field as far as competition for increasingly stretched resources. Remove that buffer/crutch/handicap, and then let Darwin throw a pop quiz, and we will likely see what technologies, skills, values and social compacts (and by extension which groups) will hold weight and which will fall by the wayside.

 

[vansmith]

I think it's important though to distinguish between consumer electronics/technology and industrial technology. The consumer category is largely built on desire in that much of it isn't required. Industrial technology on the other hand is largely developed to either meet that desire or as you discussed XJ, to meet the needs of the population (wherever it may be).

The question then becomes - what do we define as necessary and what is not necessary considering that for many, what used to be unnecessary is now essential regardless of whether or not it has to be that way.

 

[Gary86]

I just watched the video about Honeycomb, looks kinda cool. Hoping the iPad 2 has some improvements. I like the UI and how the notifications is set up on it.

Still an Apple fan tho.

 

[vansmith]

Still an Apple fan tho.

Nothing precludes you from liking both .

 

[Doug b]

I would disagree. I'm not sure society is nearly as civilized as we think and that technology simply provides the thin veneer that we like to call civilization. When the technology fails we tend to revert to out natural, not so friendly, state.



There's the justification that I mentioned. Our lives don't really depend on any of this stuff, we just like to believe that they do. Our lives would not be the same, but we would still be alive and well if Apple had never made an iPhone or an iPad. A different life doesn't mean no life the progression of technology along certain lines doesn't life would end if that line of progression had been different. It would just be different is all, not necessarily better or worse, just different.

For now, I'm just going to say that I disagree. Not in every single way though, since what you stated holds water, but again, in a very philosophical sense. Not in the mood for such a debate, but you know me, I have to say sooomething just to keep myself in the mix Now go back to your big screen tv and the silly superbowl.

Doug

 

[baggss]

Now go back to your big screen tv and the silly superbowl.

Sorry, not a big football fan. I tune in for the commercials from time to time. Otherwise I've spent my afternoon watching reruns of "Law and Order" or killing hookers in GTA IV. Sadly there were no Hockey games on interest to me on today.

I think it's important though to distinguish between consumer electronics/technology and industrial technology. The consumer category is largely built on desire in that much of it isn't required. Industrial technology on the other hand is largely developed to either meet that desire or as you discussed XJ, to meet the needs of the population (wherever it may be).

The question then becomes - what do we define as necessary and what is not necessary considering that for many, what used to be unnecessary is now essential regardless of whether or not it has to be that way.

Agreed. I've been strictly talking about consumer electronics technology. There is a large section of industrial technology on which our lives, quite literally, depend on. When the Supermarket runs out of supplies is when that thin veneer falls away and all heck breaks loose. When Apple fails to release an update to iOS 4 or the iPhone 5 in a timely manner it's a minor annoyance that means exactly zero, not withstanding whatever superficial value we place on it.

 

[RONE]

Nothing precludes you from liking both .

Just a little thing called the space time continuum. No biggie. LOL