I said before, Apple made the right decision in demanding carriers allow Apple to control the OS on the iPhone. One of the largest issues with cell phones has been carriers who shovel their own baked version of an OS onto their devices (with the appropriate crapware installed), and when updates become available they rarely push them out to users. There is no money in it for the carriers, so it's unimportant to them.
It would be like Dell selling you a computer that could only run Windows XP SP1, and never be upgraded to SP2 (or beyond). We don't put up with it on computers, why do we allow it on our portable devices to be feature frozen by the carrier?
Sure Apple has some fragmentation due to aging devices, but it's far far worse with an Android device.. even tablets that are not tied to a carrier who will sell new devices with older Android versions and be slow to update them (if ever).
Google wasn't responsible on putting Android on a device other than a Nexus (which do get updates), so why does it fall on Google to update another manufacturer's phone?
This is offensive. I bought my froyo device in the beginning of 2010, and it's basically unsupported since 2011. All apps are out of date on android market, even Facebook doesn't work, and Google just chooses to ignore.
200€ for that phone, I should've bought an iPod touch for the same price and use a feature phone. And it's not because of Sony, the phone is capable of running 2.3.7.
Right now, I forward my gmail to my iCloud account, and respond using that account. I do the same with my webmail account. Eventually everyone from my gmail account will email me using icloud.
I changed my search engine to Bing, without losing a thing.
I use safari, a faster browser, more integrated and better overall, despite the memory problem.
There's only youtube left, Google.
F*ckers.
The manufacturer chooses to ignore it not Google. Google has done it's part in updating the OS, it's up to the manufacturer to make it workable for their device. Google doesn't control the manufacturers, they don't listen even when Google tells them something. Google told Samsung not to copy iOS and they still did it, Google told Samsung not to put Gingerbread on a tablet and Samsung still did it. How can Google prevent a manufacturer from making a device with outdated components that can only run Gingerbread?
In fairness these version distribution graphs are produced so developers making apps to release through Google Play know which versions they should be targeting for potential customers - the fact that there are another X million devices out there that never access google play is irrelevant to the developers as they will never be a potential customer for the app in the first place...
Of course the big side effect of this is that it does make Androids fragmentation problem look a whole lot better than it would be if you included every cheap froyo / gingerbread running heap of junk that comes free with your packet of cereal.
It's also very deceptive. When a consumer chooses an Andriod phone over an iPhone for the same price, there is the assumption that it is better and will run any apps other new Android phones can run. For a new phone to run an OS that can't even access Google Play is not fair to the consumer. There should be a huge disclaimer required listing this fact everywhere its sold.
Google wasn't responsible on putting Android on a device other than a Nexus (which do get updates), so why does it fall on Google to update another manufacturer's phone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The manufacturer chooses to ignore it not Google. Google has done it's part in updating the OS, it's up to the manufacturer to make it workable for their device.
Funny. PC OEMs don't have a problem with Windoze updates. They're handled by Micro$oft.
That's where Google's problem (and your ignorance) comes in. Google should've made Android a Google-responsible update mechanism, the same way Micro$oft does for Windoze. Any way you try to defend Google other than that, you're wrong.
It's also very deceptive. When a consumer chooses an Andriod phone over an iPhone for the same price, there is the assumption that it is better and will run any apps other new Android phones can run. For a new phone to run an OS that can't even access Google Play is not fair to the consumer. There should be a huge disclaimer required listing this fact everywhere its sold.
What phone is that? I'm not aware of any phone that can't access Google Play, tablets yes phones no.
I said before, Apple made the right decision in demanding carriers allow Apple to control the OS on the iPhone. One of the largest issues with cell phones has been carriers who shovel their own baked version of an OS onto their devices (with the appropriate crapware installed), and when updates become available they rarely push them out to users. There is no money in it for the carriers, so it's unimportant to them.
It would be like Dell selling you a computer that could only run Windows XP SP1, and never be upgraded to SP2 (or beyond). We don't put up with it on computers, why do we allow it on our portable devices to be feature frozen by the carrier?
Sure Apple has some fragmentation due to aging devices, but it's far far worse with an Android device.. even tablets that are not tied to a carrier who will sell new devices with older Android versions and be slow to update them (if ever).
To be fair, the handset makers are equally to blame. They have no reason to support a product with updates anymore than the carriers. The only party with interest is Google and they do not take part in the device distribution.
The OS calculation is done this way to provide developers with better information on the target demographic. Activations are a bit different because even if the owner never access the play store, they're still likely to use Google's own services with the applications which are included.
That still is misleading because overall activations are also announced to court third party developers.
The announcement that everyone missed except android central was the fact that Google changed the feature upgrade system to include them within the Google play services framework. This means that Google can now implement api's that can be used on different versions of Android, and this will limit most fragmentation problems.
For example, a feature of jelly bean was photo sphere. This was packaged with android 4.1. But now with the new Google play framework, photo sphere can be called upon by developers to add to their camera applications.
Google has essentially made upgrading to a new version of android irrelevant. Most likely updates to Android from now on will be security updates and Linux kernel updates.
Some people discussed that this was Google way of getting back at Amazon. Since amazon doesn't use Google Play services framework, any updates to Android (in terms of features) won't be included in the AOSP build, so amazon won't be able to use them (so Kindle owners won't be getting Google Play Games Services)
Interesting, thanks for the link. I'm wondering if naming it differently had anything to do with it. Amazon doesn't mention Android but they also don't name the OS something else.
Comments
Google wasn't responsible on putting Android on a device other than a Nexus (which do get updates), so why does it fall on Google to update another manufacturer's phone?
The manufacturer chooses to ignore it not Google. Google has done it's part in updating the OS, it's up to the manufacturer to make it workable for their device. Google doesn't control the manufacturers, they don't listen even when Google tells them something. Google told Samsung not to copy iOS and they still did it, Google told Samsung not to put Gingerbread on a tablet and Samsung still did it. How can Google prevent a manufacturer from making a device with outdated components that can only run Gingerbread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Google wasn't responsible on putting Android on a device other than a Nexus (which do get updates), so why does it fall on Google to update another manufacturer's phone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The manufacturer chooses to ignore it not Google. Google has done it's part in updating the OS, it's up to the manufacturer to make it workable for their device.
Funny. PC OEMs don't have a problem with Windoze updates. They're handled by Micro$oft.
That's where Google's problem (and your ignorance) comes in. Google should've made Android a Google-responsible update mechanism, the same way Micro$oft does for Windoze. Any way you try to defend Google other than that, you're wrong.
What phone is that? I'm not aware of any phone that can't access Google Play, tablets yes phones no.
"the team spoke on a number of topics related to Google's overwhelmingly popular operating system."
Overwhelmingly popular?
I think most users of smart phones don't give the OS of their mobile phone a single thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Both 'in' and 'on' in this instance are acceptable and make sense.
It was a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA
on that note, within this forum is ideal.
If a tree falls in a dream, was there a dream?
If a tree falls on a dream then there's no more dream
That still is misleading because overall activations are also announced to court third party developers.
RC, why do you quote trolls? We need a list of
a) trolls,
b) those who quote trolls.
Then both could be blocked and real discussion could ensue.
Goggle doesn't copy anything. They put giant desserts on their lawn. Not the same as giant pixelized icons.
Originally Posted by os2baba
[post]
Shut up… and go away.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
If a tree falls on a dream then there's no more dream
If it falls on the dreamer.
Originally Posted by mhikl
RC, why do you quote trolls? We need a list of
a) trolls,
b) those who quote trolls.
Then both could be blocked and real discussion could ensue.
I have the former. The latter doesn't matter much when the former is gone.
For example, a feature of jelly bean was photo sphere. This was packaged with android 4.1. But now with the new Google play framework, photo sphere can be called upon by developers to add to their camera applications.
Google has essentially made upgrading to a new version of android irrelevant. Most likely updates to Android from now on will be security updates and Linux kernel updates.
Some people discussed that this was Google way of getting back at Amazon. Since amazon doesn't use Google Play services framework, any updates to Android (in terms of features) won't be included in the AOSP build, so amazon won't be able to use them (so Kindle owners won't be getting Google Play Games Services)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Google doesn't control the manufacturers, they don't listen even when Google tells them something.
Google told Acer not to release a phone running Aliyun, an Android fork.
Acer complied.
Nevermind. (Delete this post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by VL-Tone
Nevermind
good album, yeah
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
If a tree falls on a dream then there's no more dream
On or in or in on?
Interesting, thanks for the link. I'm wondering if naming it differently had anything to do with it. Amazon doesn't mention Android but they also don't name the OS something else.