Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android Is a Dead End

osnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Android Is a Dead End

#41

Post by hota_mazi »

remir wrote: post #35

I would say apps are at a dead end. The way we are using our mobile devices with rows and rows of single purpose apps seems so... primitive now. I mean, you need "Pizza Place" app to order pizza, "TicketMaster" app to order concert tickets, "HotelWhatever" app for hotel reservation, "Parking Meter" app, "Fitness" app, "News" app, etc... Like I said; rows and rows of information silos taking place on your phone, unabl…

> you could just type "order pizza"

"Type"? What year is this, 2005?

That's a surprisingly narrow view of what the future looks like.

Today, you can already ask your phone "order pizza" and it will do just that. Whether it's done by an app or an intent or a web site is irrelevant: it just works.

Which is why the OP article "Android is a dead end" is so preposterous. There is no analysis, no reasoning, no evidence. Just a silly claim that criticizes the OS used by 80% of the phones in the entire world for simple click baiting.

Re: Android Is a Dead End

#42

Post by hota_mazi »

Pretty silly.

Let's take a look at the landscape:

- Windows Mobile: irrelevant market share, closed source.

- iOS: 10-20% market share depending on the country, closed source.

- Android: 80-90% market share. Based on Linux, open source.

I know who I'm rooting for.

Re: Android Is a Dead End

#43

Post by BenjiWiebe »

hota_mazi wrote: post #41
remir wrote: post #35

I would say apps are at a dead end. The way we are using our mobile devices with rows and rows of single purpose apps seems so... primitive now. I mean, you need "Pizza Place" app to order pizza, "TicketMaster" app to order concert tickets, "HotelWhatever" app for hotel reservation, "Parking Meter" app, "Fitness" app, "News" app, etc... Like I said; rows and rows of information silos taking place on your phone, unabl…

> you could just type "order pizza" "Type"? What year is this, 2005? That's a surprisingly narrow view of what the future looks like. Today, you can already ask your phone "order pizza" and it will do just that. Whether it's done by an app or an intent or a web site is irrelevant: it just works. Which is why the OP article "Android is a dead end" is so preposterous. There is no analysis, no reasoning, no evidence. Ju…

The year is 2017, and speech to text still isn't perfect.

Re: Android Is a Dead End

#44

Post by hota_mazi »

millstone wrote: post #40
chickenbane wrote: post #21

This is a very confusing argument. The summary seems to be Android defined as "a Linux kernel with libraries" is a dead end. Well, okay, although given its deployment on 2B devices it's probably the best argument for Linux. A couple of years ago Android replaced Dalvik, the runtime for all apps. Did anyone say Android is a dead end then? Nobody defines Android in this way, by a single component, and in a way the auth…

> Well, okay, although given its deployment on 2B devices it's probably the best argument for Linux. One could have said more or less the same about Symbian not that long ago. > Nobody defines Android in this way, by a single component, and in a way the author even acknowledges this. That's right, it's not defined by any particular software component. Any particular component can be replaced until the whole thing is…

> Development of mainline Android happens behind Google's closed doors, and is thrown over the wall to OEMs

You don't know much about Android, do you?

Here's Android: https://github.com/android

Developed behind closed door? I don't think so.

Maybe you meant iOS, though? Because that OS is certainly being developed behind closed doors.

Re: Android Is a Dead End

#45

Post by thanksgiving »

gizmo686 wrote: post #32
thanksgiving wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything from Apple's hardware advantage to the way Android handles background apps to the difference in built in library quality(core data vs 'use sqlite or something' for example) all make way more of a difference. I'd like to go off a tangent here. On LineageOS, under privacy settings you can deny apps permissions such as run at boot and run in background. I wish deny was default mode in all of Android and tha…

>What is this madness? If it were up to me, I'd ban the capital one app for this amount of ridiculousness. Fingerprinting devices to detect unusual logging activity? This is common. Heck, I've had Google lock me out until I confirmed with my recovery email after logging in from a new device. Much more common is simply getting an email after logging in from a new device. The most common method of doing this is for des…

> Fingerprinting devices to detect unusual logging activity? This is common. Heck, I've had Google lock me out until I confirmed with my recovery email after logging in from a new device. Much more common is simply getting an email after logging in from a new device. The most common method of doing this is for desktop sites is, I assume, IP address; which obviously does not work for phones.

This is too heavy-handed. Capital One lets me log in from any computer browser anywhere using just my username and password. As of Marshmallow,

> The most straightforward solution to identifying an application instance running on a device is to use an Instance ID, and this is the recommended solution in the majority of non-ads use-cases. Only the app instance for which it was provisioned can access this identifier, and it's (relatively) easily resettable because it only persists as long as the app is installed.

https://developer.android.com/training/articles/user-data-id...

The only pertinent use case the document details for using Phone permission for a credit card app:

> Abuse detection: Detecting high value stolen credentials > In this case, you are trying to detect if a single device is being used multiple times with high-value, stolen credentials (e.g. to make fraudulent payments).

> We Recommend: IMEI/IMSI (requires PHONE permission group in Android 6.0 (API level 23) and higher.)

> Why this Recommendation?

> With stolen credentials, devices can be used to monetize multiple high value stolen credentials (such as tokenized credit cards). In these scenarios, software IDs can be reset to avoid detection, so hardware identifiers may be used.

but the capital one app does none of those things! Even if it did, I'd imagine I am a pretty average user and all I want to be able to do is look at my list of transactions and pay my credit card bill every month and maybe cash out my reward. The phone permission can wait until you really need it.

If we criticize Amazon for encouraging users to make their devices less secure https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=... then we should criticize Capital One for permissions proliferation as well.

Re: Android Is a Dead End

#46

Post by rlayton2 »

hota_mazi wrote: post #41
remir wrote: post #35

I would say apps are at a dead end. The way we are using our mobile devices with rows and rows of single purpose apps seems so... primitive now. I mean, you need "Pizza Place" app to order pizza, "TicketMaster" app to order concert tickets, "HotelWhatever" app for hotel reservation, "Parking Meter" app, "Fitness" app, "News" app, etc... Like I said; rows and rows of information silos taking place on your phone, unabl…

> you could just type "order pizza" "Type"? What year is this, 2005? That's a surprisingly narrow view of what the future looks like. Today, you can already ask your phone "order pizza" and it will do just that. Whether it's done by an app or an intent or a web site is irrelevant: it just works. Which is why the OP article "Android is a dead end" is so preposterous. There is no analysis, no reasoning, no evidence. Ju…

I'm not going to have an argument with my phone on the train by talking and constantly trying to clarify the exact words I said. I use speech for when I'm driving, and that's about it, most of the time I'm going to be typing/tapping.

Re: Android Is a Dead End

#47

Post by hota_mazi »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #43
hota_mazi wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you could just type "order pizza" "Type"? What year is this, 2005? That's a surprisingly narrow view of what the future looks like. Today, you can already ask your phone "order pizza" and it will do just that. Whether it's done by an app or an intent or a web site is irrelevant: it just works. Which is why the OP article "Android is a dead end" is so preposterous. There is no analysis, no reasoning, no evidence. Ju…

The year is 2017, and speech to text still isn't perfect.

And it will never be.

For English, and this kind of specific sentence, it's above 99%, though. Good enough for you?

What you are doing is called the Nirvana fallacy. Look it up, and stop doing it.

Re: Android Is a Dead End

#48

Post by hota_mazi »

Animats wrote: post #14

Extend, engulf, devour. Most of the comments here miss the point of the article. The article author is saying that Google will replace the Linux component of Android with something proprietary. Then Google will have total control, and will be able to prevent Android clones. Already, Android apps make such heavy use of Google proprietary code that open source Android systems such as Cyanogen and FDroid have mostly giv…

> The article author is saying that Google will replace the Linux component of Android with something proprietary. Then Google will have total control, and will be able to prevent Android clones.

Sounds like a great conspiracy theory. Looking forward to the evidence to back up this link bait article.

Re: Android Is a Dead End

#49

Post by hota_mazi »

axaxs wrote: post #4
hoodoof wrote: post #2

Seems to me the long standing "Java is slow" versus "that's an old wives tale, Java software can be as fast native" all converges right down to the evidence of Android - compared to iOS, it's slow. If Java was just as fast then this would never come up.

Java can be performant, but still typically has a huge footprint and memory profile. Others will point out that there are multiple implementations of Java, which is true, but to what adoption? IMO, the only thing propping up Java is legacy enterprise and Android. The adoption of Go, Rust, et al show that people just aren't that into VMs anymore. They had a place in the self hosted world, but in the microservice/cloud…

> The adoption of Go, Rust, et al show that people just aren't that into VMs anymore.

Did you actually look at the numbers?

Go is certainly gaining some popularity, and Rust too (although an order of magnitude below Go) but both of these still have a fraction of the mind share that Java has.

You're being dazzled by the hype and forgetting to look at hard data.

Re: Android Is a Dead End

#50

Post by oconnor0 »

hota_mazi wrote: post #44
millstone wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, okay, although given its deployment on 2B devices it's probably the best argument for Linux. One could have said more or less the same about Symbian not that long ago. > Nobody defines Android in this way, by a single component, and in a way the author even acknowledges this. That's right, it's not defined by any particular software component. Any particular component can be replaced until the whole thing is…

> Development of mainline Android happens behind Google's closed doors, and is thrown over the wall to OEMs You don't know much about Android, do you? Here's Android: https://github.com/android Developed behind closed door? I don't think so. Maybe you meant iOS, though? Because that OS is certainly being developed behind closed doors.

"provides a read-only mirror" sounds like "developed behind closed doors" to me.
Post reply on HN