Apple will always be limited in some way by its walled-garden. Even with its hugely impressive sales figures, in terms of overall market share, Apple made up just 18.3 percent of smartphone sales in the first quarter of 2015, while Android dominated with 78 percent. Growing iPhone sales in China will help bridge the gap somewhat, but even then they face fierce competition from budget Android handsets.
What’s interesting, though, is how similar the platforms are becoming. Android firms are doing a pretty good job of matching Apple’s design smarts, while Apple has clearly noticed how much people like Google Now. The platforms may be bitter rivals, but their battle is driving big improvements in both iPhones and Android devices - and that means everybody’s a winner.
OS X is a solid operating system for those who enjoy Apple's vision of the ideal desktop. It offers access to pro-level applications that many industries rely on. Yet it isn't always the most practical operating system for the casual end user. In fact, in some cases, it's completely overkill.
In this article, I'll explore why I believe Linux is a more practical solution than OS X, if local techs would simply bother to support it. This article isn't about which platform is “better.” Instead, it's a matter of which platform is more practical.
As we’ve seen countless times in the past, neither iOS nor Android is objectively “better” than the other — both platforms have pluses and minuses and there are legitimate reasons for people to choose either one. Business Insider‘s Antonio Villas-Boas had been a Galaxy S6 owner for a while who was curious enough to give the iPhone 6 a shot. However, he’s gone back to Android after just two weeks with Apple’s smartphone for three key reasons.
The Acer Chromebook 13 so impressed me when I reviewed it months ago that I bought one. After using it for months it has replaced the 13-inch MacBook Pro as my daily work system in the office.
Apple announced last week that its Swift programming language — a currently fully proprietary software successor to Objective C — will probably be partially released under an OSI-approved license eventually. Apple explicitly stated though that such released software will not be copylefted. (Apple's pathological hatred of copyleft is reasonably well documented.) Apple's announcement remained completely silent on patents, and we should expect the chosen non-copyleft license will not contain a patent grant. (I've explained at great length in the past why software patents are a particularly dangerous threat to programming language infrastructure.)
There are multiple operating systems powering our mobile devices today. For both indie developers and large companies, there is a critical question that needs to be answered before development begins: what platform should be targeted first? For larger companies, with more resources, development can be done simultaneously for different platforms, while for smaller shops, it is a very critical question, which could determine the success or failure of the business.
The whole Oracle v. Google Android-Java copyright infringement litigation would never have happened if Google had adopted Java under the GPL (the license under which Sun Microsystems already made Java code available before being acquired by Oracle), but it feared that copyleft would prevent its device makers from differentiating through proprietary add-ons.
Apple brought out the big guns, from CEO Tim Cook to musical performer Drake, but perhaps the loudest reaction at the company's Worldwide Developers' Conference Monday in San Francisco resulted from news that the Swift programming language is being open sourced.
Apple today announced Swift 2, the latest version of its programming language for iOS, OS X and watchOS with all-new Whole Module Optimization technology. Apple executive Craig Federighi also announced that Swift will be open source and made available for Linux later this year.
Open source software fans hate walled gardens. After all, they believe in communities supporting each other for the greater good. Sure, they fight over the details and who gets the most support, but that's part of what it means to be a creator, an owner, a participant in both the journey and the final result.