Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

iOS (well, software and hardware) security model blows Android out of the water in design; in implementation, it tends to be much more bug free as well. It's the one area where you can clearly say iOS is superior to Android; openness is the one area where Android is unambiguously better than iOS.


Unfortunately Android is unambiguously not open.

If you want to make an Android device, you must sign up to a restrictive contract with Google.

There is an open source subset of Android called AOSP, which you can use as a basis for your OS, but Google prohibits these from being called Android.

No Android system is open.


It's entirely better than iOS for openness. As an app developer, it's dramatically more open -- you can override the core functionality of the OS if you want (browser, mail, etc.); you can't on iOS.

I'm willing to tolerate the closed nature of iOS for better security and (personally) an interface/hardware I prefer. But stuff like blocking Bitcoin apps is making me question this.


This point is true, although I hesitate to use the word 'open' to describe that.

Android certainly gives apps more control over the user's device. Whether this is 'better' remains to be seen.

As an owner of a small quantity of bitcoin, I am personally irritated by the blocking of bitcoin apps, but I'd rather that than have my phone be part of a botnet.


What? I thought that only applied if you wanted google services on the device. Android itself is FOSS.


Nope. If you want to make an Android device, you must sign up for Google's service.

You are free to fork AOSP for your own projects which must not be called Android, but that is the extent of the 'openness'.


Could you kindly link me to this? As far as I can tell, AOSP itself is under the Apache license, and terms like the ones you mention are incompatible with that license.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: