3 ms·
I'm not sure I'm understanding your point but let me clarify my own and see if that addresses it. What I'm saying is when people use the phone search they are
by TomOfTTB 16y ago
I'm not sure I'm understanding your point but let me clarify my own and see if that addresses it. What I'm saying is when people use the phone search they are trying to search the phone part of the device (SMS, email, etc...). That doesn't preclude developeres from putting search in their own apps they just can't clutter up the phone search with results from their apps.
That in mind I see Apple's point here as being "we think developers will abuse search if they are allowed in and we don't think users want that so we're keeping them out". Not "Google beat us to that feature"
Apple might not be right in thinking that I'm just trying to point out that's their design philosophy and not a sign that Android has leap frogged them.
- Tichy 16y agoHm, I am actually not sure what kind of searchability the OP is talking about. Of course you can't have random apps clutter a search in contacts. What happens on Android is that an App can specify that it is ready to answer certain types of searches. In certain situations, the user can choose the app he wants to search. Lot's of useful applications for that come to mind. Do I have to ship a spell checker with my app, or can all apps share a spell checker? And so on... Of course, yes, it could result in utter chaos, with 100reds of apps to choose from for a particular search. That kind of problem is really overblown, though, just like the multitasking problem. If an app annoys me or sucks too much energy, I just uninstall it... That goes for pretty much any kind of "developers are going to abuse feature X" argument - annoying apps just get uninstalled, end of story. There is a problem of potential sneaky apps, I guess. That is also existent on the iPhone, I suppose (don't they do their own user tracking), but of course there is slightly more potential with background tasks. Some common sense can eliminate most of the problems, though (ie why does an ebook reader need my GPS coordinates? Skip it).
- extension 16y agoAssuming the user can tell which app is misbehaving, they may already depend on it or be invested in it by the time they discover the problem. It may be the only app of it's kind. Clearly, Apple is not simply trying to block bad apps, they are trying to force apps to be better, through the platform. I too am skeptical of this approach, but I understand where they're coming from.
- pyre 16y ago> What I'm saying is when people use the phone search > they are trying to search the phone part of the > device (SMS, email, etc...). > That in mind I see Apple's point here as being > "we think developers will abuse search if they > are allowed in and we don't think users want that > so we're keeping them out" This is a straw man. Apple can weight the search so that search hits in the more important apps are always at the top of the results.
- TomOfTTB 16y agoOk well...first...you're using "straw man argument" wrong since I'm not trying to refute Apple's position (not trying to be snide but just to make you aware for future use) On your point you're certainly right but I'd argue this is where we get into the realm of "pragmatist vs perfectinist". There is a UI hit to returning 1,000 results as opposed to 2 or 3. It's a small hit but it is there. Apple, as the creator of the device, has the right to choose to be perfectionist about things even if it makes developers unhappy
- pyre 16y agoIn my original post: s/straw man/weak argument/ I'm in disagreement with the idea that developers will abuse something that Apple has ultimate control over.
- extension 16y agoA few will abuse it, ruining it for everyone, unless Apple polices it vigilantly, which is a lot of work and tends to cause PR problems.