That's funny enough, but the REALLY funny part is going to come this summer (assuming that Adobe finally releases Flash 10.1 which requires AndroidOS 2.2). All those people using Android phones are going to be wondering why their phone won't run Flash when Google and Adobe say it can.
I don't think that most people (and especially not "all those people") are stupid. I also think that when most people buy the older-model phones with the lower tech, they expect less in the way of updates.
Kind of like people who are right now buying a 3G iPhone. They too will be unable to update the OS, but hopefully, they are aware of that.
Now to your points about Andriod. You say people that are stuck on earlier Android OS's can just upgrade their phones. Should they have to?
It is the same situation with people who have old iPhones. They can either upgrade or use older OS versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Grain of Salt
Also, many of these people probably don't know they are using old OS's and need to upgrade. I doubt the phone shops tell them. They will just say, "Look at this great phone, it runs Android." Remember, many of the phones running the 1.x iterations are still being sold.
ISTM that is a problem in the phone stores, and not with the platform. People now buying 3G iPhones, for example, should be told that Apple is coming out with a new iPhone 4.0 with a new OS that will not be able to be installed on the 3G.
Is Apple telling that to people? The people buying devices with 1.x versions of Android should be told the same thing.
Quote:
I agree with you on the Apps. Once you get to a certain number, it just doesn't matter anymore.
Apple may be playing catchup on a few "features", but as an overall experience, I would think, Apple is a mile ahead of the field.
I'm not sure ahead or behind is appropriate to describe the overall experience. They are different.
iPhone is a luxury-goods sort of a user experience, with pampering and a protective nature, while Android is a cool little pocket computer that you use for whatever you want.
Some people like to go to a little place in the mountains and sample local food and culture, while others like to go to Club Med and be taken care of.
Neither experience is ahead or behind. They are different.
I'm surprised that this article doesn't delve into Android v2.2 (aka Froyo) and how it attempts to tackle fragmentation.
It's no use closing the stable door once the horse has bolted.
Stupid Google should have kept things a little more controlled to start with.
The way they are doing it now will either confuse or piss off consumers. They've just succeeded in doing what Microsoft did with the desktop platform (only sooner, and less market share at the end).
To be brutally honest, consumers don't care about Android at all, I think it will be forever a "geek mobile OS", I've seen maybe 8 Android devices in the wild in the 1+ years since they've been on the market.
It is the same situation with people who have old iPhones. They can either upgrade or use older OS versions.
You don't have to jump through hoops to upgrade a 1 year old iPhone (unlike some Android phones).
Quote:
iPhone is a luxury-goods sort of a user experience, with pampering and a protective nature, while Android is a cool little pocket computer that you use for whatever you want.
Except by your descriptions, nobody wants the "cool little pocket computer". Hardly fits the definition of cool really. Seeing as nearly everyone wants/has an iphone.
If the Android OS wasn't so buggy in the earlier versions then a majority of the users wouldn't care to upgrade to another version. Many people buy the smart phones for 3 things (i.e. phone calls, texts, and rich formatted emails). If those things work well enough then they aren't looking for fixes or OS updates.
ROTFLMAO.
So when arguing about Android, being able to upgrade to use Flash is unimportant, but it's a fatal flaw for the iPhone.
I don't think there has been a single phone that was sold with 1.5 or 1.6 that has been updated yet...
The Moto Droid on the other hand was sold with 2.0, and has already been updated to 2.1
(so the person above with the "DROID IDon't update" comment, you are flat out wrong)
The Samsung Moment and HTC hero are scheduled to get there update very soon, Moment is due to get 2.1 in the next 48 hr's or so, and hero with in the next week. As reported by the "Android and me" web site.
The G1 may not get 2.1 due to hardware requirements, then again i am running 2.1 on my G1 thanks to Cyanogen.
The Moto Cliq is going to get an update per an announcement by Moto.
Will there be some phones left behind because one of the 3 partners decides not to update? Probably, but that is a business decision.
Apple controls every aspect of the iPhone, even down to the applications you can install. This control does allow for a smother update process, but limits the amount of personal freedom you have on our device. Android on the other hand needs to have the hardware manufacture and the provider work together to bring you an update, so updates are more cumbersome and take longer. There is an advantage to this... Customizable UI's, personal freedom to install anything you like, and variety between different Android devices.
I am an Android guy and like my freedom of choice.
Apple will always make a great innovative product, but the amount of control they wield over the device is almost scary.
Anyway, i am sure i will get flamed here considering this is an Apple fan site, but i think Android will become the defacto OS for smart-phones in the next few years.
And notice the total coolness of my response - no flames here, just questions:
What does the marketshare show? Android has been around almost as long as the iPhone OS, what per cent of the market does it command?
Of what value is "personal freedom" in a mobile handset to the average consumer (again consulting marketshare is helpful in determining what consumers actually want)?
As an Android guy, would you prefer to be able to (for example) customize your vehicle freely, for fuel type, stopping distance, acceleration, power features, finish and horse-power? What if it means that your vehicle is less reliable (even though "feature-rich") and prone to dying at unexpected times, or accelerating unexpectedly? Would you be willing to accept the consequences of such ability to customize?
And if you are able to accept the consequences of the above customization example - have you in fact done so, and what have the results been?
It is the same situation with people who have old iPhones. They can either upgrade or use older OS versions.
I'm not sure ahead or behind is appropriate to describe the overall experience. They are different.
iPhone is a luxury-goods sort of a user experience, with pampering and a protective nature, while Android is a cool little pocket computer that you use for whatever you want.
Some people like to go to a little place in the mountains and sample local food and culture, while others like to go to Club Med and be taken care of.
Neither experience is ahead or behind. They are different.
I agree, except I would substitute appliance-goods for luxury-goods.
I have been using Apple gear (and interfacing Apple) since 1978. One of their strengths has always been choosing the markets they wish to enter, then delivering best-of-class solutions. They haven't always been successful, but with their mobile platform I believe they are executing according to plan.
I just think that iPhone fans and Android fans are after different things. I don't like tinkering with hardware - reliability, ease of use, and OS 'transparency' (OS becomes invisible and just allows you to perform your tasks) are far more important to me. I like that Apple has a plan and I really don't mind that Apple is a dictatorship as long as it's a benificent one. Say what you want about Apple products, none of them looks or feels like it was designed by a committee. There is a design and usefulness direction - you may not like the direction, but many of us do. Lack of multi-tasking has sorta sucked, but instead of willy-nilly 'me-first' bumfuzzle design, Apple is bringing efficient, elegant multi-tasking. To me, it's worth the wait. YMMV.
1. your browser continues to run in the background after you hit the back button on your android device
2. most of the apps on the android market are ad based.
3. background multitasking = every app that isn't well behaved continues to use bandwidth even when it doesn't have focus.
4. Google's "i own you" option on the device that does period location updates, etc. back to Google.
I don't really care about the web usage stats for Android. It is bloated as a result of multiple issues rather than popularity of the handset.
How is the battery working out for you on your Android device? Did you install a task-killer application yet? I use a Samsung phone running Android running 2.1
Oh, the stupid argument about Apple being your daddy when using an iPhone is the pot calling the Kettle black. You need an Google account to start using the Android phone. It is a question of trusting a company that indexes and searches your personal information for a living vs a company that manufactures devices with bundled software. The only thing I don't like is iAd. I hope it fails.
Reason why Android created such a big mess of fragmentation is because the people who are in charge of Android are engineers, similar to many other projects in Google going on. Google is a great company for engineers because they can do anything they want. This is why there are many technical innovations from Google.
However, engineers are not strategies. Engineers only tackle technical problems. No copy and paste? I add it. Multitasking, I can add it too. No Flash? I can work with Adobe. There you go. Fragmentation? It's not a technical problem. It's not my job.
Apple has many talented engineers like Google. But one part that Apple stands out is that they have Steve Jobs, who is a great strategist.
Except by your descriptions, nobody wants the "cool little pocket computer". Hardly fits the definition of cool really. Seeing as nearly everyone wants/has an iphone.
I remember the days when the cool ones were the ones who would think different.
As an Android guy, would you prefer to be able to (for example) customize your vehicle freely, for fuel type, stopping distance, acceleration, power features, finish and horse-power? What if it means that your vehicle is less reliable (even though "feature-rich") and prone to dying at unexpected times, or accelerating unexpectedly? Would you be willing to accept the consequences of such ability to customize?
In general, using Android results in no life-threatening situations.
I think that most people who have Android are like most people who have any other phone, and they enjoy the phone the way their husband/kid/salesman set it up for them.
At Thanksgiving, the grandkids update the wallpaper, and Uncle Joe gets taught how to see the pictures that Mom is always sending him.
Since Android first came out, I have been saying time and time-again on other threads that Android by its very nature will become fragmented. Handset makers have no motivation whatsoever to allow an (easy) OS upgrade path on what they consider to be 6+ month-old obsolete hardware. There is no incentive for them to do that since it would involve spending time and resources to implement the updates. They are in the business of selling hardware, not the software that runs it.
Android fanboys have constantly preached how this will not be the case due to <insert pixie-dust android technology here> being able to compensate for that. Total nonsense.
While serious geek-heads will be able to take a year-old Android phone and get the OS to install, most users will not even make the effort. That will just result in Android becoming a bottom-of-the-barrel OS that's cheap for the phone makers to implement for that particular time.
The majority of Android phones haven't been out for even a year yet and already it's breaking up. That's what happens when too many players are involved in the game. Wait until it's a year from now when the users of the "old" phones try to use a newer-OS app and cannot.
If this situation happened to Apple's iPhone OS, I would bet serious money that the Android fanboys would skewer Apple alive.
Clearly Android's strength is in serving a diverse user community. Android is also the #1 platform for developers who appreciate multitasking--coding and debugging for many platform configurations simultaneously.
Diverse is right. The question is if it's a good idea for them to be using 3 slightly different operating systems.
On this and some other Android-related threads there has been some discussion on the relative merits of the iTunes app store and Android market... the overriding theme has been: "after n (100. 200?) apps, there's no difference-- each platform has enough apps to satisfy most users.
I have tended to accept that as a reasonable assertion. So, I thought I'd do a little digging. Not being an Android user, I googled "android market":
To the post above there are over 40000 Apps in the android market. Most of the top Apps and games are the same top Apps and games on the iPhone. Where android really excells is third party browsers and other software that would be not be allowed on the iPhone app store. One is the skyfire browser which I mentioned in an earlier post, which has a lot of cool features. I found all my iPhone apps on the android market when I switched to android, but the app store probably has a lot of niche apps that are different or aren't avaliable on the android market. I'd say the apple app store is definently more mature and refined, but android market is very good too.
I don't see android fragmentation as much as a problem as people make it out to be. The iPhone has some fragmentation. For example you could buy an iPhone 3g today and not be able to upgrade to iPhone OS 4 in june. Lower end and older android phones may have somewhat of a problem, but that's just evolution, old hardware can't be expected to run the latest software. And apps also seem to be pretty well distributed despite the differences in hardware.
And here come the Android fans. *sigh* Fragmentation like this is pretty bad if applications start to require the latest version and everyone else is stuck on 1.x or somethin'. Bad enough the OS is on tablets when most applications support only phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomMcIn
Is this not similar to what happens with the multitude of hardware driver fixes required so Windows can run on the PCs?
That always come to my mind when I hear of this kinda news.
Comments
I have had my G1 since November 08. What bugs do you speak of?
I don't recall anything game breaking back then.
Here you go: http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=14572
You'll find a bunch doing a Google search.
I'm surprised that this article doesn't delve into Android v2.2 (aka Froyo) and how it attempts to tackle fragmentation.
What is Froyo doing to tackle fragmentation?
That's funny enough, but the REALLY funny part is going to come this summer (assuming that Adobe finally releases Flash 10.1 which requires AndroidOS 2.2). All those people using Android phones are going to be wondering why their phone won't run Flash when Google and Adobe say it can.
I don't think that most people (and especially not "all those people") are stupid. I also think that when most people buy the older-model phones with the lower tech, they expect less in the way of updates.
Kind of like people who are right now buying a 3G iPhone. They too will be unable to update the OS, but hopefully, they are aware of that.
Now to your points about Andriod. You say people that are stuck on earlier Android OS's can just upgrade their phones. Should they have to?
It is the same situation with people who have old iPhones. They can either upgrade or use older OS versions.
Also, many of these people probably don't know they are using old OS's and need to upgrade. I doubt the phone shops tell them. They will just say, "Look at this great phone, it runs Android." Remember, many of the phones running the 1.x iterations are still being sold.
ISTM that is a problem in the phone stores, and not with the platform. People now buying 3G iPhones, for example, should be told that Apple is coming out with a new iPhone 4.0 with a new OS that will not be able to be installed on the 3G.
Is Apple telling that to people? The people buying devices with 1.x versions of Android should be told the same thing.
I agree with you on the Apps. Once you get to a certain number, it just doesn't matter anymore.
Apple may be playing catchup on a few "features", but as an overall experience, I would think, Apple is a mile ahead of the field.
I'm not sure ahead or behind is appropriate to describe the overall experience. They are different.
iPhone is a luxury-goods sort of a user experience, with pampering and a protective nature, while Android is a cool little pocket computer that you use for whatever you want.
Some people like to go to a little place in the mountains and sample local food and culture, while others like to go to Club Med and be taken care of.
Neither experience is ahead or behind. They are different.
I'm surprised that this article doesn't delve into Android v2.2 (aka Froyo) and how it attempts to tackle fragmentation.
It's no use closing the stable door once the horse has bolted.
Stupid Google should have kept things a little more controlled to start with.
The way they are doing it now will either confuse or piss off consumers. They've just succeeded in doing what Microsoft did with the desktop platform (only sooner, and less market share at the end).
To be brutally honest, consumers don't care about Android at all, I think it will be forever a "geek mobile OS", I've seen maybe 8 Android devices in the wild in the 1+ years since they've been on the market.
It is the same situation with people who have old iPhones. They can either upgrade or use older OS versions.
You don't have to jump through hoops to upgrade a 1 year old iPhone (unlike some Android phones).
iPhone is a luxury-goods sort of a user experience, with pampering and a protective nature, while Android is a cool little pocket computer that you use for whatever you want.
Except by your descriptions, nobody wants the "cool little pocket computer". Hardly fits the definition of cool really. Seeing as nearly everyone wants/has an iphone.
If the Android OS wasn't so buggy in the earlier versions then a majority of the users wouldn't care to upgrade to another version. Many people buy the smart phones for 3 things (i.e. phone calls, texts, and rich formatted emails). If those things work well enough then they aren't looking for fixes or OS updates.
ROTFLMAO.
So when arguing about Android, being able to upgrade to use Flash is unimportant, but it's a fatal flaw for the iPhone.
Can you say 'hypocrite'?
I don't think there has been a single phone that was sold with 1.5 or 1.6 that has been updated yet...
The Moto Droid on the other hand was sold with 2.0, and has already been updated to 2.1
(so the person above with the "DROID IDon't update" comment, you are flat out wrong)
The Samsung Moment and HTC hero are scheduled to get there update very soon, Moment is due to get 2.1 in the next 48 hr's or so, and hero with in the next week. As reported by the "Android and me" web site.
The G1 may not get 2.1 due to hardware requirements, then again i am running 2.1 on my G1 thanks to Cyanogen.
The Moto Cliq is going to get an update per an announcement by Moto.
Will there be some phones left behind because one of the 3 partners decides not to update? Probably, but that is a business decision.
Apple controls every aspect of the iPhone, even down to the applications you can install. This control does allow for a smother update process, but limits the amount of personal freedom you have on our device. Android on the other hand needs to have the hardware manufacture and the provider work together to bring you an update, so updates are more cumbersome and take longer. There is an advantage to this... Customizable UI's, personal freedom to install anything you like, and variety between different Android devices.
I am an Android guy and like my freedom of choice.
Apple will always make a great innovative product, but the amount of control they wield over the device is almost scary.
Anyway, i am sure i will get flamed here considering this is an Apple fan site, but i think Android will become the defacto OS for smart-phones in the next few years.
And notice the total coolness of my response - no flames here, just questions:
What does the marketshare show? Android has been around almost as long as the iPhone OS, what per cent of the market does it command?
Of what value is "personal freedom" in a mobile handset to the average consumer (again consulting marketshare is helpful in determining what consumers actually want)?
As an Android guy, would you prefer to be able to (for example) customize your vehicle freely, for fuel type, stopping distance, acceleration, power features, finish and horse-power? What if it means that your vehicle is less reliable (even though "feature-rich") and prone to dying at unexpected times, or accelerating unexpectedly? Would you be willing to accept the consequences of such ability to customize?
And if you are able to accept the consequences of the above customization example - have you in fact done so, and what have the results been?
It is the same situation with people who have old iPhones. They can either upgrade or use older OS versions.
I'm not sure ahead or behind is appropriate to describe the overall experience. They are different.
iPhone is a luxury-goods sort of a user experience, with pampering and a protective nature, while Android is a cool little pocket computer that you use for whatever you want.
Some people like to go to a little place in the mountains and sample local food and culture, while others like to go to Club Med and be taken care of.
Neither experience is ahead or behind. They are different.
I agree, except I would substitute appliance-goods for luxury-goods.
I have been using Apple gear (and interfacing Apple) since 1978. One of their strengths has always been choosing the markets they wish to enter, then delivering best-of-class solutions. They haven't always been successful, but with their mobile platform I believe they are executing according to plan.
.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1630554/a...mobile-web-use
Given the fact that
1. your browser continues to run in the background after you hit the back button on your android device
2. most of the apps on the android market are ad based.
3. background multitasking = every app that isn't well behaved continues to use bandwidth even when it doesn't have focus.
4. Google's "i own you" option on the device that does period location updates, etc. back to Google.
I don't really care about the web usage stats for Android. It is bloated as a result of multiple issues rather than popularity of the handset.
How is the battery working out for you on your Android device? Did you install a task-killer application yet? I use a Samsung phone running Android running 2.1
Oh, the stupid argument about Apple being your daddy when using an iPhone is the pot calling the Kettle black. You need an Google account to start using the Android phone. It is a question of trusting a company that indexes and searches your personal information for a living vs a company that manufactures devices with bundled software. The only thing I don't like is iAd. I hope it fails.
However, engineers are not strategies. Engineers only tackle technical problems. No copy and paste? I add it. Multitasking, I can add it too. No Flash? I can work with Adobe. There you go. Fragmentation? It's not a technical problem. It's not my job.
Apple has many talented engineers like Google. But one part that Apple stands out is that they have Steve Jobs, who is a great strategist.
Except by your descriptions, nobody wants the "cool little pocket computer". Hardly fits the definition of cool really. Seeing as nearly everyone wants/has an iphone.
I remember the days when the cool ones were the ones who would think different.
How times change.
As an Android guy, would you prefer to be able to (for example) customize your vehicle freely, for fuel type, stopping distance, acceleration, power features, finish and horse-power? What if it means that your vehicle is less reliable (even though "feature-rich") and prone to dying at unexpected times, or accelerating unexpectedly? Would you be willing to accept the consequences of such ability to customize?
In general, using Android results in no life-threatening situations.
I think that most people who have Android are like most people who have any other phone, and they enjoy the phone the way their husband/kid/salesman set it up for them.
At Thanksgiving, the grandkids update the wallpaper, and Uncle Joe gets taught how to see the pictures that Mom is always sending him.
http://www.macworld.com/reviews/prod...ml?expand=true
http://www.macworld.com/reviews/prod...nexus_one.html
please read the comments, most are positive too
My point is, Android and iPhone OS are both awsome platform, and they will only keep getting better !
Android fanboys have constantly preached how this will not be the case due to <insert pixie-dust android technology here> being able to compensate for that. Total nonsense.
While serious geek-heads will be able to take a year-old Android phone and get the OS to install, most users will not even make the effort. That will just result in Android becoming a bottom-of-the-barrel OS that's cheap for the phone makers to implement for that particular time.
The majority of Android phones haven't been out for even a year yet and already it's breaking up. That's what happens when too many players are involved in the game. Wait until it's a year from now when the users of the "old" phones try to use a newer-OS app and cannot.
If this situation happened to Apple's iPhone OS, I would bet serious money that the Android fanboys would skewer Apple alive.
Clearly Android's strength is in serving a diverse user community. Android is also the #1 platform for developers who appreciate multitasking--coding and debugging for many platform configurations simultaneously.
Diverse is right. The question is if it's a good idea for them to be using 3 slightly different operating systems.
I have tended to accept that as a reasonable assertion. So, I thought I'd do a little digging. Not being an Android user, I googled "android market":
http://www.android.com/market/
I found a display of less than 40 paid apps, several of which were task killers or utility apps.
So here are the questions:
1) What are the popular apps for Android?
2) Where can you get them?
3) How many apps does the average Android user use?
4) What are the top 10?
Anybody?
.
I don't see android fragmentation as much as a problem as people make it out to be. The iPhone has some fragmentation. For example you could buy an iPhone 3g today and not be able to upgrade to iPhone OS 4 in june. Lower end and older android phones may have somewhat of a problem, but that's just evolution, old hardware can't be expected to run the latest software. And apps also seem to be pretty well distributed despite the differences in hardware.
Is this not similar to what happens with the multitude of hardware driver fixes required so Windows can run on the PCs?
That always come to my mind when I hear of this kinda news.