While the world focus is on smartphones , these Android based gadgets have really shown way ahead for new generation of smart products - The wearable devices like the Helmet with a 180 degree view , The watch with NFC, the TV box and the micro satellites.
Where does Apple IOS stand in terms offering competitive products?
It's not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing that Android is becoming like Windows or Wintel. Of course, if you happen to think it's a bad thing--for competition or otherwise--it's worth explaining why....
Nothing is bad or good. It all depends on where you are. I am not sure Apple is happy for the rise of Android. Microsoft may hate it also. But for the legions of firms in Asia, Android has made the progress easier as anyone can own a phone factory without the huge cost involved ins software development.
This is one of the reasons why Google will be the stock of the decade. I do not see the value in Microsoft or Yahoo when you remember that Google owns Android which is becoming the operating system of the 21st century.
Why would that distinction go to Google and not to Apple's iOS? I see the two battling it out as they already are in industries such as automotive. iOS and Android could become the defining rivalry of the future of ubiquitous computing devices.
>> iOS and Android could become the defining rivalry of the future of ubiquitous computing devices.
They are already. I do not think anything comes close. Most embedded microprocessors now are powerred by Android. Very soon, the only that will mattter to build embedded systems will be Android. I am not sure of iOS with its closed strategy which affects the speed of penetration.
The problem with most of the devices is limited targeted audience. But if the price is right then i find robo phones very interesting and useful as i would not be worried about placing the phone at the right place.
The motorcycle helmet is an ideal place to put heads-up "smart features." Being a motorcycle rider, I'd be very happy to have gages and navigation available without taking my eyes off the road. A built-in camera would be nice as well.
"On the other hand, reports of malware affecting these systems represent the flipside to the open-source coin." open source has nothing to do with the malware issue befalling Android devices.
The only reason why there aren't many malware issues with Apple is becaue their app store is locked down. It has little to do with OS security measures.
If you take this out of the equation the only reason why an an Android device is insecure (Linux after all) is because users don't want passwords etc. when running apps on their smartphone. The same thing befalls iOS and windows phones.
The locked up app store from Apple is both it's biggest asset and flaw.
That said a lot of the devices shown here would have apps installed and so wouldn't have malware issues anyway.
It is my understanding that while Apple's closed system is not ideal for encouraging app developers to do their thing, it nonetheless is good for preveniting the spread of malware by controlling what gets into the ecosystem.
iOS is just another BSD variant, so it is still open source based, just that unlike Android they don't release the full source tree. The fact that Android gets peer-reviewed is a strong advantage, the community is able to provide resources that even Google alone couldn't provide, this is also why Google don't trample on groups like cyanogenmod and xda-developers because they provide a great debug and development resource.
The fundamental difference between iOS and Android is the ecosystem logic and business rules, not the technology. That is unless we want to say that BSD is more secure than Linux, but that is a different debate.
it was never particularly easy sneaking a bomb on a plane...the only way people were able to circumbent airport security was through the use of boxcutters....in other words, to extend your analogy, the difficulties encountered with the technology have been there for some time and are there for a reason....it takes crafty, innovative thinking to get around the protections that exist in order to achieve one's objective.
The challenge today is that when someone has many fences around a specific technology, users over time will look for an alternative. I do not simply believe that if other players improve and get to Apple quality that its closed nature will survice. More than anything, the reason Myspace failed with inability to allow 3rd party developers to build add-ons to it. So, advertisers, companies were forced to use Facebook
@goafrit yes that is true but iOS was the leading phone OS 2-3 years ago but the malware problem wasn't there. You need an attack vector and users installing malware infected SW is what plagues the WinPC world. Now imagine PC's were not able to download SW via the internet and users could onlt get there SW from one shop that checked all of the SW professionally before it was rleased and they could only use the sanctioned installer. The PC malware problem would disappear overnight, except users wouldn't be happy. The phone market place doesn't need to be as open to function (although Android is) so Apple didn't open it. This is the reason why Apple has virtually no malware.
I personally use an iPhone because their app store concept gives me a more secure platform, not because I think they are a better phone, in fact some aspects of it I loath.
I'm not saying Android is wrong in having an open store, just that it makes it less secure even though the OS itself might be better and more secure of itself.
I respect the Apple strategy but when I see how embedded systems from Microchip to Altera are building systems for Android, I think Apple may miss a new revolution because of its closed strategy. Imagine your kettle, fridge, etc all connected to your Android device. Tough for iOS because the vendors have no access to experiment.
@goafrit I agree completely with what you are saying, it's a double edged sword. I wanted to write a few apps for my iOS phone for my own use but didn't want to by an overpriced Mac that would basicly only be able to do that for me. Also Apple's attitude makes it impossible for an app developer to fix fundamental flaws in their basic functions like not being able to send an sms to a group contact, or sync your calendar with something other than iCal or run a proper browser. Still because I look at my phone as a phone first and a portable message centre second and don't want security issues with it because of internet banking etc. I've bitten the bullet and decided I'm just going to grin and bare it. That said I did buy an android tablet instead of an iPad because that needs to be more if it's going to coexist with a phone otherwise why bother. I only wish that Zinio would fix their magazine app so it wouldn't crash when zooming in on PDF's and would require an internet connection at startup that you have to first bypass. It's not an Android issue per se but apple's mag app doesn't have those annoying issues. Definite advantages to Google's approach.
Apple definitely seems to be running a risk by turning away potential software development and apps developers as it pursues it somewhat Quixotic strategy of making everything a part of a closed, completely controlled ecosystem. One never knows where the next Big Thing might come from and there's just not that much of a vision for what's on the horizon when one is completely closed off from everything around oneself.
@zewde Yes they are difinitely running that risk, and the current state of affairs with Android overtaking iOS is a direct result of it I believe. Every case I can think of in history where someone has clsoed the doors it has gone really wrong for them. China is a good example although it took a while for it to happen, now they are opening up to their advantage. TI made computers that were closed and lost all of their share, Apple now, Hitachi Peach, Commodore Amiga, Atari? Only the IBM PC was open and is now the major player. I think Linux if it can settle on a mainstream distribution that almost everyone adopt will dominate over windoze in a few years and Apple's OSX will then also falter except for a few diehard supporters.
>> I think Linux if it can settle on a mainstream distribution that almost everyone adopt will
Linux is not a good example. I do not understand why that young man gave that thing away. IBM makes money out of him, Google via Android makes money of him. All he does is give talks and no wealth for his family. He gave away one of the best tools of the 20th century away. I do not know why. Linux could have had 30% of the valuation of Windows (yes, Microsoft)
@goafrit if you look at Linux now and Linux when Linus "gave it away" you would see that the only thing he really gave away was the IDEA of a free (as in freedom) operating system. The amount of hours that IBM, Google, Nokia, SCO (yep even the much maligned SCO) and a countless swathe of others have contributed to Linux would pale almost into insignificance Linus's original offer. That is why Linux is so good, you get the finest minds in the industry all putting in their 2 bob's worth creating what is one of the creates OS's going. And why do they spend millions of man hours on a community project? because they see that they could never achieve it on their own (see OS2). Linus didn't give it away anyway, he sells rights to contribute and the contribution is his payment for what hw couldn't live long enough to do on his own.
Look at MS's business model, get engineers fresh out of uni with little experience and put them in a sweat shop that discourages innovation and spends most of their time thinking of how to screw the competition rather than how to build a great OS. They do this so there's little risk of windoze being "contaminated" by other people's source code but what they have is a unweilding dinosaur that has so many inefficiencies and security holes that it can't compete with Linux. I could write a whole article on the issues I've come across. I'm not surprised that MS's valuation is so low, it's past the point where any real innovation get in, it's now all about lock-in and forcing ugrades fo little or no value. There's no wonder there's a slump in PC sales, no one wants to buy a PC and end up with windows 8. For me I face a cost of around $20,000 if I downgrade to win8 by buying a new PC and all I get is one that is maybe 5% faster than the last one. It's cheaper to keep it alive for another 10 years.
At the end of the day the OS is an enabler that gives applications access to the HW and provides other services so that an application can see a constent interface largely independent of the machine it's running on. It's really the piece of SW that can benefit most from an open source approach.
We may disagree on whether this is a good business model or not, but the fact that Red Hat typically trades higher than MS is for me proof the investor community agrees with me.
>> We may disagree on whether this is a good business model or not, but the fact that Red Hat typically trades higher than MS is for me proof the investor community agrees with me.
He is a nice young man but I know he does not own Red Hat. Also, the individual value of a stock is not the main deal, it is the total value of a company. It is about $300B vs. $60B. Linux gets his royalties and that works for him. But if I had his talent, I would have done it differently.
your missing something or made a assumption that you are not aware of...
Torvolis NEVER would have seen his masive innovation and added value if he DID NOT "give it away"
The only other avenue would have been to sell out to MS, Oracle,IBM,,,
Not sure but he probably would have jumped off a bridge instead of that option.
Bless his soule connected mind)
Not all wealth or value is measured in $'s.
His legacy is consumer driven choice (complete freedom) of applications and not applications tethered to the mothership MS or die ecosystem of a past monopolistic software ecosystem/vertical protected ownership/enslavement.
And the fact that MS is not even relevent to the progress now happening with IOS and Android dominance should be answer enough for anyone wishing to look forward.
Application slavery to any OS does not allow true open advancement like happens in the open source reality playing out before us.
Its orders of magnitude kind of a thing that even MS knows it must at least appear to play fair in the new App sandbox of today.
They are just barely able to stay relevent with the innovations that are being rolled out.
Its not easy playing for keeps in a world of free for all solutions that what Torvolis created envisioned and allowed. It has now grown and has its own free for all momentum, organically creating what is needed one person, module at a time.
>> Torvolis NEVER would have seen his masive innovation and added value if he DID NOT "give it away"
He is a great guy but yet to see him in the Bloomberg Billionaire Index or Forbes Global. You can give your idea away, anyone has that right. But that does not mean it is the best as Oracle, IBM etc build upon Linux and create wealth for others.
yes thats what MS failed at doing, Apple finally got its chance to suceed and dominate but it to can't compete with Open OS environment for ever as has been shown to be true with Android overtaking IOS.
Its the preverbeal dumb pipe syndrome, protect from becoming one by limiting choice...good for vertical market creation (good $s), but in the end when true choice or more choice is offered people will choose to leave the vertical silo.
>> Apple finally got its chance to suceed and dominate but it to can't compete with Open OS environment for ever as has been shown to be true with Android overtaking IOS.
Android demonstrated the best model anyone can imagine when developing new ways of giving things away to profit. The innovation is iconic as Google used Android to weaken Apple and in the process is making lots of money through ads. It a far more superior model than what Linux did