This guy is a hero :)
Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support
111–120 of 235 posts
Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support
#112The current situation is somewhat unfair to the indiscrete / non-tech-savvy consumer since they might buy an Android phone without understanding the differences from the iOS ecosystem. At least several of my friends did. "They're about the same right? And this one was $30 cheaper!" And I genuinely feel bad every time this happens. Note that I of course have no gripes with Android OS/concept itself -- it's a good cont…
>And don't forget the mandatory "crapware" that carriers pre-install. ICS supposedly solves this problem but one has to wonder how many low-end Android phones will be sold in the next year (or even two?) that won't support ICS since the N1 won't be getting it.
How does it solve the issue? By making the UI better? But won't OEMs want to "differentiate" by installing their own bloated flashy custom UI?
Not to mention the uninstallable adware and junkware installed and always running in the background. Does ICS solve this?
Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support
#113How many PC users are still using XP, a 10 year old OS? If the version of the OS you have still works, it still works. The real issue here is security updates. Google need a way to update core OS component that aren't affected by the manufacturer's UI skinning.
That's more a comment on a rejection of Vista by the market. The difference can be seen with 7 which, being a viable upgrade, is displacing XP.
Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support
#114There's a major point that can be added to the Why Don’t Android Phones Get Updated? section: Third party skins and interfaces. HTC's Sense, Motorola's Motoblur and co can only introduce an engineering overhead and delays in upgrading. I would much rather they concentrated on making awsome hardware and leaving the UI to Google, rather than attempting to differentiate themselves in this way.
If I were Motorola or Samsung, though, there's no way I'd do that. Without differentiation, you're selling a commodity product. If you're selling a commodity, there are no margins. I agree with you that it would be better for the Android ecosystem if they would, though.
Yep. And if you look at all the internal politics that has been exposed by Nokia converting to Win Phone. All that politics will be duplicated at Samsung, Motorola, HTC etc. There will design, software and UI departments that are doing this stuff to justify thier existence.
Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are OS updates really that important for most consumers? I have a Desire running Froyo. I don't think I've really missed out on a huge amount by not getting Gingerbread.
"I heard about this really cool new game, but it won't work on my three month old phone" really doesn't endear devices to the masses.
But that doesn't happen, because it's easy for game developers to support FroYo+ devices with the same APK.
Example: The latest hot Android game is "Wind-up Knight". It supports Android 2.2 and up.
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.robotinvader.knigh...
Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support
#116Apples and oranges. An actually useful version of this graph would compare the Google phones to the Apple phones, and then in a separate table, compare the support for OS updates for other parties using the operating system (Apple would have no entries in that second chart, of course, but that's their choice).
In the first hypothetical chart, I believe Google's support for Google phones compares acceptably well with Apple's support for Apple phones.
Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support
#117I'm getting sick of Google's "see what sticks" and "let the end user fend for himself" attitude. I really wanted their various platforms to work, but now I'm just getting tired.
Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support
#118Apples and oranges. An actually useful version of this graph would compare the Google phones to the Apple phones, and then in a separate table, compare the support for OS updates for other parties using the operating system (Apple would have no entries in that second chart, of course, but that's their choice). In the first hypothetical chart, I believe Google's support for Google phones compares acceptably well with…
Semantics. What matters to consumers is whether their phones get the new features, not who wins this pissing match.
Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can hide it within preferences which is probably the main issue with many users. From what I've seen these apps matter very little in terms of storage.
Depends on the phone and how much crapware is installed. I ended up having to flash my UK Orange-branded HTC Desire because they'd installed so much that there was only enough storage left to install a few user apps. Newer phones are much better off in this regard.
I am using a branded T-Mobile HTC phone and I cannot agree more about unwanted crapware. I have a "Top Ten Apps" app on my phone which is preinstalled by T-Mobile, is not removable und runs permanently as a background process with 14mb ram (and I never started it) -.- I don't need to mention all those facebook, twitter and other "social" stuff where I don't even have accounts for.
Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support
#120And this is one reason why Google bought Motorola Mobility.