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

Android is Google's Agent Smith

techvibes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: Android is Google's Agent Smith

#31

Post by wvenable »

semanticist wrote: post #21
wvenable wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your top statement. Every user knows what an operating system is -- they've been educated on that fact for decades. And any user of a "smartphone" knows they're really getting a little computer. The iPhone probably has the broadest market of non-technical users and even they periodically get OS upgrades -- you think their users don't know what that is? The problem with this conversation is lumping tog…

I worked as Nokia's UK and Ireland technical support, both tier 1 and 2, and you are entirely wrong. Almost no users, including people buying smartphones, have any idea what a phone operating system is. Most users, including people buying smartphones, struggle to tell you what their computer operating system is. Phones, including smartphones, are not sold like computers. Lots of people buy smartphones because they ha…

This idea that everyone is an idiot and nothing matters is somewhat depressing. There is no point in designing anything for intelligent people -- there aren't enough of them to matter. People, in general, aren't discriminating at all. It sounds like if you put two items in identical shiny cases, they'll just pick them at random. Putting any effort into making one item better (rather than shinier) is simply wasted.

I can't argue with your evidence -- the fact that Nokia still manages to sell smartphones at all proves nobody is looking too deeply.

Re: Android is Google's Agent Smith

#32

Post by semanticist »

wvenable wrote: post #31
semanticist wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked as Nokia's UK and Ireland technical support, both tier 1 and 2, and you are entirely wrong. Almost no users, including people buying smartphones, have any idea what a phone operating system is. Most users, including people buying smartphones, struggle to tell you what their computer operating system is. Phones, including smartphones, are not sold like computers. Lots of people buy smartphones because they ha…

This idea that everyone is an idiot and nothing matters is somewhat depressing. There is no point in designing anything for intelligent people -- there aren't enough of them to matter. People, in general, aren't discriminating at all. It sounds like if you put two items in identical shiny cases, they'll just pick them at random. Putting any effort into making one item better (rather than shinier) is simply wasted. I…

That's the thing: Nokia's smartphones are smartPHONEs, not PDAs with a cellular modem. The current smartphone obsession is being largely driven by American-style smartphones, which are mostly terrible at being phones.

Nokia screw up when they try to copy this style of device and forget that their strength is excellent telephony devices. Which, despite the trendiness of mobile browsing and 'apps', is what most people want from their mobile phone.

That's why Nokia still own the market, because their devices appeal to people who primarily want to make phone calls from their phone. iOS, Android, WebOS, and Windows Mobile will never crack that market.

Re: Android is Google's Agent Smith

#33

Post by wvenable »

semanticist wrote: post #32
wvenable wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea that everyone is an idiot and nothing matters is somewhat depressing. There is no point in designing anything for intelligent people -- there aren't enough of them to matter. People, in general, aren't discriminating at all. It sounds like if you put two items in identical shiny cases, they'll just pick them at random. Putting any effort into making one item better (rather than shinier) is simply wasted. I…

That's the thing: Nokia's smartphones are smartPHONEs, not PDAs with a cellular modem. The current smartphone obsession is being largely driven by American-style smartphones, which are mostly terrible at being phones. Nokia screw up when they try to copy this style of device and forget that their strength is excellent telephony devices. Which, despite the trendiness of mobile browsing and 'apps', is what most people…

Blackberry managed to crack into the mobile market by offering devices that didn't do telephony at all. The "current smartphone obsession" as you call it has been developing for a decade now. People who primarily want to make phone calls from their phone is a dwindling market. For business, on demand email is significantly more important. For teens, texting ability is much more important (my daughter never calls anyone). There's a cultural shift in the works here.

Telephony isn't that difficult and all "american-style" smartphones do a perfectly adequate job. If you can make calls and answer calls, it's a phone. Most people don't need anything more than that. I don't see what more Nokia can offer on that point but they lots of room to screw everything else up.

Re: Android is Google's Agent Smith

#34

Post by borisk »

usaar333 wrote: post #20
wvenable wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a user, I care about what OS version I have because that determines the features my phone has, its performance, its compatibility, and its stability. What you describe is the ideal for the manufacturers and the carriers -- they want to keep people in the dark about the software. But the reality is that everyone knows, every phone review includes it, and it's critically important to the end user. Every Android user…

It's a good thing then that you are on Hacker News. As a tech person who wants the latest software, you can spend a few minutes rooting your phone and installing a custom ROM with the latest Android version.

A few minutes if someone (who hasn't wasted his time on HN :D ) already compiled the latest version for your device. Otherwise one can spent months trying to get the poorly documented and sometimes incomplete code to work.

Re: Android is Google's Agent Smith

#35

Post by doron »

wvenable wrote: post #31
semanticist wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked as Nokia's UK and Ireland technical support, both tier 1 and 2, and you are entirely wrong. Almost no users, including people buying smartphones, have any idea what a phone operating system is. Most users, including people buying smartphones, struggle to tell you what their computer operating system is. Phones, including smartphones, are not sold like computers. Lots of people buy smartphones because they ha…

This idea that everyone is an idiot and nothing matters is somewhat depressing. There is no point in designing anything for intelligent people -- there aren't enough of them to matter. People, in general, aren't discriminating at all. It sounds like if you put two items in identical shiny cases, they'll just pick them at random. Putting any effort into making one item better (rather than shinier) is simply wasted. I…

The idea that people maybe called idiots just because they dont care what os runs their phone is depressing all the more.

I would go on a limb here and hazard to say, that just because certain people don't care about version numbers and esoteric features, doesn't mean they are not intelligent.

People discriminate in accordance to their passions. I can't make much of current shoe fashions and advanced textile materials, nor do I care, I hope that doesn't qualify me as an idiot.

Re: Android is Google's Agent Smith

#37

Post by 124816 »

mquander wrote: post #8
wvenable wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then people won't buy Dell phones But why must the software be explicitly tied to the hardware? We don't buy desktops or laptops that way. I periodically upgrade the ROM in my smartphone and the result is amazing. Why should I have to toss a perfectly good piece of hardware just to get software improvements?

Sorry, I deleted my comment because I felt it wasn't very useful. The software needs to be tied to the hardware because the carriers are completely incompetent at software, and are generally unable to expend the effort to QA all the crapware they have put on the phone for a new OS; they also have a financial incentive to force you to buy a new phone from them as often as possible.

> The software needs to be tied to the hardware because the carriers are completely incompetent at software

AFAIK, the real reason is that there is no standardized design for phones, whereas most desktop/laptop/servers look basically the same to the OS.

Re: Android is Google's Agent Smith

#38

Post by wvenable »

124816 wrote: post #37
mquander wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I deleted my comment because I felt it wasn't very useful. The software needs to be tied to the hardware because the carriers are completely incompetent at software, and are generally unable to expend the effort to QA all the crapware they have put on the phone for a new OS; they also have a financial incentive to force you to buy a new phone from them as often as possible.

> The software needs to be tied to the hardware because the carriers are completely incompetent at software AFAIK, the real reason is that there is no standardized design for phones, whereas most desktop/laptop/servers look basically the same to the OS.

Smartphones are remarkably similar. I can run Android on my older Windows Mobile phone with almost all the functions working (WiFi, phone, bluetooth, etc) because the hardware isn't vastly different. There are only a small number of mobile chipsets. Considering the huge variation of hardware a PC OS must handle, mobiles should be much easier.

Re: Android is Google's Agent Smith

#39

Post by wvenable »

doron wrote: post #35
wvenable wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea that everyone is an idiot and nothing matters is somewhat depressing. There is no point in designing anything for intelligent people -- there aren't enough of them to matter. People, in general, aren't discriminating at all. It sounds like if you put two items in identical shiny cases, they'll just pick them at random. Putting any effort into making one item better (rather than shinier) is simply wasted. I…

The idea that people maybe called idiots just because they dont care what os runs their phone is depressing all the more. I would go on a limb here and hazard to say, that just because certain people don't care about version numbers and esoteric features, doesn't mean they are not intelligent. People discriminate in accordance to their passions. I can't make much of current shoe fashions and advanced textile material…

I know nothing about photography, but before I drop a couple hundred bucks on a camera I'm going to learn about it and compare its features to other models. I don't know much about cars either but I spend the time researching the details and making comparisons before I make that kind of purchase too. I'm not passionate about photography or cars but I am an informed consumer. I'd like to think that most people are the same.

The comments here are that version numbers are some insignificant detail that nobody cares about. I don't think the version of Android your phone runs is an esoteric detail -- it's pretty fundamental to the capability and enjoyment of the device. I'm not sure why people comparing Android phones to purchase wouldn't consider that a detail worth knowing about.

Now this is a recent development; it used to be that the latest phone in existence had the latest OS. You didn't have to think about it. But Google is pumping out Android versions very quickly and new phones can run anywhere from 1.6 to 2.2. So now it is a point of comparison where it might not have been for old Nokia phones.

Re: Android is Google's Agent Smith

#40

Post by Calamitous »

uxp wrote: post #30
Unseelie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even not knowing what an OS is, a user is incredibly frustrated by crashes, lag, and sms errors. There may not be an 'android phone' but there is 'the alternative to the IPhone' which isn't, outside of the business market, the blackberry. Users use. And they do compare how well things work, and migrate. So in the larger sense, users should care about fragmentation. Eventually, its going to limit their choices.

Especially when manufacturers and vendors start selling devices with different Android versions, as they are now. Someone that physically breaks their Motorolla DroidX running 2.2 and buys a replacement Samsung Galaxy that runs 1.5 (now 1.6 I hear), and then realizes that the majority of the apps that they purchased aren't compatible with the lower version of the phone, and that the phone has a terrible UI (compared…

If they downgrade from a DroidX to a Samsung Galaxy, and it sucks, are they going to blame the OS or the phone?

Put another way, are you more likely to hear "My phone sucks" or "This lower version number of the OS I was previously happy with sucks"?

The market will drum out the bad apples who try to leave their Android phones stuck at ancient versions.

Post reply on HN