And where are you getting the stat? Years ago maybe not these days. The newer $100 mobiles sometimes are way better then say 200-300 mobiles. And btw messaging would be a app. Nobody uses sms where i live. All are on whatsapp.
Remember - the discussion is about what platform is dominant. The fact that messaging is implemented an app doesn't change that. New developments occur on iOS first for a reason.
The numbers don't lie, but you are focusing on the wrong one. Loss making businesses by cannot be dominant. Samsung is the only profitable Android maker and it is collapsing while Apple continues to grow.
If its loss making then why are companies continuously releasing new Android mobiles. They should have shut shop. Samsung isn't even dominant where i live. There are many local brands releasing one Android mobile over another.
Anyway it seems useless continuing this. I suppose you would come back some other Apple this and that line. I just wanted to know where you got the stat. Since i am not getting any references i assume you made it up.
Don't iOS require some additional software to copy over files. When the easiest and simplest way is just drag and drop which is available for Android users.
If you go by sales wouldn't then Android figures indicate that their approach was better?
> Don't iOS require some additional software to copy over files. When the easiest and simplest way is just drag and drop which is available for Android users.
Are your saying most android devices act like USB cards? I decided to test one of mine and it didn't show up so I don't quite know what you mean by that.
> If you go by sales wouldn't then Android figures indicate that their approach was better?
And if you go by profits it looks like Apple is better. Funny how that works out.
Yes most android devices act like that. I see my device as a drive in the system. Drag and Drop nothing is more simpler then that.
Op had mentioned "Apple starts from the user experience" which users prefer hence they have great sales. I questioned since Android has far better sales. I don't know what profits have to do with user experience. If users preferred Apple approach should it not then have more sales?
Android has more sales in the same way free apps have more sales than paid Apps. Apple only targets the high end which is why they reap a majority of the profits whilst most Android manufacturers can't even sell enough devices to cover costs, despite using a free OS they never had to sink R&D into.
As for UX I didn't think it could ever be argued that Android was even comparable to iOS, you can look at the sat ranking for how well iOS is received, or even browser market share where the majority of mobile web is still from iOS - which is a good indicator on how much devices are being used for non-phone features, despite having fewer devices in the wild.
So changing the parameters again? Apple has good sales in countries which have subsidies. If majority are buying at full price i would have agreed with you. But the subsidized prices equal to mid-budget mobiles where i live India(Buyers here actually pay the high end amount for Apple). If android was loss making those companies would have quit already.
In my opninion Material is way better then iOS.
" majority of mobile web " - statcounter, netshare already put chrome/android ahead!
Anyway the point was Apple UI is not always intuitive. I even didn't know that toolbar icons can be long pressed on my mac-pro for a long time!
And drag and drop is the simplest/intuitive way to copy files from medium to another which iOS totally messed it up.
The whole OS file system yes. But for most non technical people the desktop would be the file system. They usually created folders after folders. Those are very easy to learn and understand.
According to moonwalking with Einstein, no, it doesn't. And the author makes a pretty good argument about how chess players can easily remember the placement of multiple chess pieces on a board - as long as they are all in legal positions.
Show a chess player a board full of randomly placed pieces and they'll have great trouble remembering the placements. So if their memory doesn't even transfer to chess pieces, how can we expect it to transfer to other domains?
I think there're no "yes" or "no". It depends on many factors. You're talking about "Moonwalking with Einstein", but from other point of view there's a book "How life imitates chess" by Garry Kasparov, which I recommended a couple of comments below. For me, this source is reliable.
"Show a chess player a board full of randomly placed pieces and they'll have great trouble remembering the placements" - how about "Chess960"? It uses almost random positions in the beginning, which of course doesn't allow you to use already known debuts. But if we check the list of world champions, there're the same Top grossmeisters: Aronyan, Svidler, Nakamura.
I think we will have a very good practical answer in a few years. Because in 2011 the Ministry of Education of Armenia started an educational program about teaching chess in schools. This sounds very interesting and soon we will know if it helps to improve something or not.
Of course. It improves not only memory, but also logic, prudence, attention, etc. And you can easily use the same skills in real life. Let's take a situation when you're trying to convince an investor to invest in your project. And now imagine that you're just playing chess against him. At the beginning he has more power, this means he's playing white. And you're playing black. To be able to win (to get money in this case) you should think at least 3-4 steps forward, trying to take an initiative and wait for his mistake. Perhaps at some point you will sacrifice or exchange something to get benefit in the future. And so on. And chess can teach you how to do it.
But another very good example is a book of Garry Kasparov "How life imitates chess", where he explains how it can be transparently connected with each other.
In my opinion chess can be used as a model of real life and if someone wants to learn something useful from it, he can get it.
I read, just recently, that they gave novices and expert players chess positions to remember. The experts remembered real positions better. There was no difference in recall between the experts and the novices when they weren't real positions. This suggests that the ability for recall is highly contextual.
The Devise gem does that for free. I remember me coding it in my first Rails application so many years ago and I'm not keen to go back to it: it feels like wasted time. Phoenix didn't have it one year ago and it's sad to learn that it doesn't have it yet. Somebody will write it sooner or later because it's almost core functionality of a registration and authentication system.
Its actually pretty simple to implement on your own. I am not big of device. I feel it does too much magic. It should have been just a api layer and not touching views.
It's simple to write a password-based auth system. Then you must clear session appropriately.
Then you must create the login page.
Then the controller for authenticating. And then you need to ensure that the flow works with a test.
Then you need the email that actually activates the account, with the activation hash. So now you're setting up a mailer system, which Phoenix does not have by default.
Then people will want to recover passwords. So you need to write the logic for that. Oh, and the controllers and views. And routes.
And of course, you need to hash the password using some kind of encryption. Excrypt, comeonin, what have you. Choices choices choices.
You'll need a plug to act as the bouncer for your routes too, so nobody gets in where they shouldn't. So you'll have to write that.
You have to end-to-end test this, of course. And probably, if your business depends on it, get a couple other people to review the security of your system.
Simple. And takes a long time.
HTTP is pretty simple, but we use frameworks. SQL is pretty simple too, but we use Ecto now.
It's simple in its pieces, but I really don't wanna do all that work on every app. I'm lazy.
A state which has a disputed status, yet is claimed to be an "integral part" of India by the ruling political party - Its considered integral part of India by its citizens does not matter which political party is at power.
Sure it is a factually incorrect statement. J&K is special in that it has been given special powers of autonomy etc. But I wonder what you mean when you say disputed, just because someone starts to dispute that something of mine belongs to them doesn't make it disputed. The agreement of accession into India should make it pretty clear.
The agreement of accession was basically signed under duress by a Hindu ruler of a primarily Muslim state in 1947 when he was being attacked by Pakistani tribal lords. Our prime minister basically said - "Sign the agreement of accession or I am not protecting you". I don't think that agreement means anything. You might disagree but lets present facts as they were.
The story of Kashmir is full of broken promises by the Indian government and people. So before we call it an integral part of India, lets at least own our mistakes. Lets remove AFSPA in Kashmir. Lets hold the bloody referendum. Lets at least grant them more autonomy.
But thats not gonna happen. Any government which grants more autonomy to Kashmir will be voted out and hence they will not do it.
In my opinion, residents of J&K already get a number of privileges that other states don't. For example, laws passed by Parliament don't apply there until they're ratified by the State Assembly. Granting them additional autonomy and privileges isn't simple, because it doesn't square with the Constitution's tenet that all citizens are equal and deserve equal protection of laws. For example, Kashmiris can own property in the rest of India but other Indians can't own property in Kashmir.
You correctly call into question the agreement signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir, but I could just as easily ask about every other territory that's a part of the Union of India. Why should the writ of New Delhi run to places where the people are ethnically, linguistically and culturally different, such as Tamil Nadu? After all, at no point did Tamils accede to the Union and they have suffered discrimination before - such as when Delhi tried to impose Hindi on a Tamil-speaking population in 1965. Do Tamils deserve special privileges then? No, that's absurd.
To clarify, I think Article 370 that grants Kashmir special status should be scrapped, because they don't deserve special treatment. Apart from that, I think a referendum should be held there. I don't think it will bury the issue (look at Scotland), but it will mollify most people who live there for some time.
Hyderabad, Goa were acceded under duress/pressure. So let's break India apart and make some people happy? Naga separatists want separate nation too, let's do that as well. Nations are not built this way. Each and every inch of India is an integral part of India. J&K is special because a certain politician had some fancies.
Man, you really need to read up on stuff. There is a difference between saying "No you don't get a separate nation" and saying "No you don't get a separate nation, and yea I'm just going to put 800,000 armed troops here to shoot you without being subject to jurisdiction if you ever ask. yes that includes innocent children and women"
Here is the thing, dude — 70% of all people from outside Kashmir don't know what is going on there. They immediately resolve to cursing Pakistan or Kashmiris, portraying their troops and their dirty politics as a favor they're doing to us. You know why that referendum was never held? Because the answer is clear — Go away, or at the very least stop shooting our people.
Sadly most of India will never understand, because they aren't listening. Impose AFSPA in Delhi and Mumbai and tell me how that goes.
Don't try to wildly justify everything your people do just to show your kinship to them. It makes you a fanatic, not a patriot. Most of my friends are from India. I love them, and have deep admiration for them. India is a great nation, but sadly it has been very unfair to Kashmir. And successfully made it appear as though they are trying to help, being portrayed as martyrs to their own people.
Research. That will fill in the knowledge gaps you have with regard to kashmir. Then think about it on the grounds of humanity. You will be one step closer to realizing that the situation is actually much different from what you hear about in the news or what your politicians tell you.
Sure I am out of touch of reality and I need to read up. I watched in horror as the 800000 troops coerced millions to vote for a sham government while killing innocent children who refused to vote. Meanwhile Pakistani army had been sending flowers from across the border which resulted in some people dying. Some people from Pakistan cross over from time to time to deliver those flowers personally defying the evil Indian army which also drowned Kashmiris in the recent floods.
Flowerpots are hurled at Indian Army by fringe elements which results in casualties of evil Indian Army persons. A new trend has been seen in the peace loving Kashmiris led by ISI agents in disguise, who chose not to participate in the elections and instead have been seen showing the most peaceful organisation ISIS's flag to the media and the evil army.
Ok enough with the sarcasm, a minister of the elected government (who belongs to Kashmir) recently appeared on a television program to complaint about the media. She said the media only shows the 4k separatists (ISIS lovers) in the news and not the 4000k people who voted and want tourism from the rest of the country. I am more likely to believe her than the propaganda spewed by a random commenter.
Playing the gentleman and branding me a troll doesn't make you right. Whatever I said above can be verified with some googling. If you actually had a point you would call out my lies.
My friend hyderabad and Goa never saw an armed uprising like kashmmir did against India if you remember. You have little or no knowledge regarding the politics of India in general and Kashmir in particular. The politician that granted special status to J and K was your very own Mr. Nehru. One of the greatest Indian leaders. So when you say "Nations are not built that way", you are contradicting the person who probably contributed the most to building the Indian nation.
I will wait till you realise the sarcasm in the last sentence I wrote. Please do enlighten me, which armed uprising you are talking about.
And no, Nehru did not contributed the most, the whole of India was united by Sardar Patel with the exception of J&K which Nehru insisted on taking up. If you call that contribution ...
Everyone has left this thread so this comes late, but I wish the existence of Sundarlal's report and what it has to say is made more available and accessible.
Understanding does not come by hiding ugly thruths. In India its a common belief (among Hindus) that Hindus have never done anyone any wrong and were mind their own business peacefully an then all shit happened to them. False historical constructs are dangerous. Study of clear and open history backed by grassroots records is super important. If you, your dad is in Pakistan now, here's greetings from near his older home.
Well it has been seared at the time of its modern birth.
Its importance varies by region though. Some parts haven't been touched by communal violence ever since partition (apart from Babri related ones) whereas others are repeat offenders.
Nations change their borders, break up and reform all the time, and they agree to stay together all the time too. "Each and every inch of India is an integral part of India" is meaningless, countries are political constructs.
