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

Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support

theunderstatement.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 235 posts

Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support

#211

Post by jessedhillon »

gcb wrote: post #181
jamesfrank wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be some truth to that for the type of person who reads HN, but it's certainly not true for the wider public. Most people don't care about having full control of their mobile device, they just want it to work.

exactly. and for them both this discussion and the long term support is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant to them -- it's a concern that they are unable to articulate.

Anecdotal support: for the Android users I know who fall into this group, it manifests as a vague set of complaints -- certain apps don't run, had to take it into the store a lot, app claiming to be available for Android not available for their phone -- which are all symptoms of having what is called here an orphaned phone.

So yeah, they don't know or care whether they are running version 1.x or 2.y. But they do know that they are generally dissatisfied with their phone.

Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support

#212

Post by rbanffy »

chollida1 wrote: post #190
rbanffy wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess "crossgrade" means installing another equivalent version of Windows. Installing anything other would most probably be an "upgrade".

:) I knew who wrote this comment before I read the name.

You are being unfair. "Anything else" could include newer versions of Windows.

Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support

#213

Post by vacri »

degusta wrote: post #2

I wrote the piece / did the research. Happy to answer any questions or comments people might have.

It's an apple fanboy piece, presenting heavily skewed data, be it from either straight-out falsity or improper definitions:

1) Original iphone can't run iOS 4, but it gets green all the way through. Similar issues with 3G and iOS5. EDIT: I see now that the way you've done the timelines makes it confusing, and seems to be done intentionally to make your point rather than clarify what's going on.

2) 2.1 to 2.2 is a minor release. 2.1 to 3.0 is a major release. And Android 3.0 isn't a phone release at all - specifically stated as such. It's impossible for a phone to be "3 major releases behind" when there are only two major releases available.

Go back and remake the graph fairly. It will still show the story you want to tell, but you will be able to claim impartiality - and with it, better authority.

Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support

#214

Post by mambodog »

guelo wrote: post #170
technoslut wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The other point is that iOS is chockfull of crapware, though for some reason people ignore crapware if it comes straight from Apple. iOS 5 even prevents you from hiding some of the crap inside folders, I noticed this with the Newsstand app.

I think you're kind of missing the point of why the carrier crapware is bad. It isn't solely because you can't hide it or remove it, it's because in addition to that it is generally really poorly written software that has a terrible user experience and often only exists as an advertisement to some other product or service (ie. NASCAR app). Additionally in the case of some manufacturers and carriers, the standard UI is replaced with potentially less usable, but more importantly non-standard, creating an inconsistant user experience which fragments the platform.

TL;DR: if you buy an iOS device you get a consistant user experience. Thanks to the crapware, from Android you do not.

Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support

#215

Post by drivebyacct2 »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #201
d_r wrote: post #6

The 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…

>This is quite different from buying, say, a Dell/HP PC vs. a Mac -- in both cases do you get a working, upgradeable machine. But if you buy phones with unlocked bootloaders, it's just largely the same. As long as there is a device maintainer that has written an overlay for CM, you will get the newer OS updates. Before you jump on me and tell me "consumers shouldn't have to watch out for that", let's just remember th…

This is a controversial post? "Secure Boot" (without a way to disable or specify keys) is exactly like a locked bootloader on an Android phone.

Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support

#216

Post by valley_guy_12 »

jameshart wrote: post #193
airlineuser wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any specific APIs or features in mind? I think most app devs look at the installed base numbers and choose to support 2.1+ or 2.2+. I can't think of any APIs in 2.3 or 3.0 (or even 4.0) that are so wonderful that they are worth cutting off such a large part of the potential customer base.

So in that case, what about customers who DO buy new devices? Your argument suggests that developers won't build software to target the new capabilities their devices have. In which case the manufacturers' refusal to keep their old devices up to date is actually undermining their ability to sell new hardware ("Why should I buy a new android phone; all the software is written to target my existing two year old model")

Apple faces this problem too.

There are many ways to make a new device attractive besides making it incompatible with old devices. Support for new radio standards. Larger, brighter, higher resolution screens. More flash storage, a better camera, more attractive industrial design, more built-in apps, and a more polished UI for built-in apps.

Will this sort of backwards-compatible improvement always be possible? Probably not. Someday all the specs will be maxed out. But for now it's a good strategy.

Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support

#217

Post by fluidcruft »

andrewpi wrote: post #206
fluidcruft wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here, I'll fill in a data point you missed: Motorola Milestone XT720 released June 2011 (USA: August) Runs 2.1 No bugfixes No updates No upgrades Buggy as hell. 2.2 upgrades and flash support pledged by Motorola sales/support at the time of release in the US -- later clarified that those employees had been "confused" when the mothballing was made official in late November. Those Apple green bars look quite nice, but…

This phone was released in 2010, not 2011, right?

Yup, sorry, don't know why I typed that.

Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support

#218

Post by billjings »

dman wrote: post #146
billjings wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

HP, Dell, Lenovo and Sony would like to have a word with you - they have been selling PC's without custom UI's all this time.

Every one of those companies has survived by finding some way to decommodify their business. Lenovo and Sony by hardware design, Dell and HP by sales and service.

Also: Windows PC manufacturers have always attempted to differentiate themselves in software as much as was feasible. They were never as free to modify the platform as Android manufacturers are, though.

Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support

#219

Post by asmosoinio »

Looking at the big picture from Android Market point-of-view, developer can easily ignore the 1.5/1.6 crowd, and 2.1 is a small part of the whole:

1.5/1.6: 2.5% 2.1: 11.7% 2.2: 45.3% 2.3.x: 38.7% 3.x: 1.9%

http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-ve...

Re: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support

#220

Post by nieve »

gcb wrote: post #179
RK wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a hardware issue? Never had a touchscreen problem myself when charging.

a combination of hardware and software. cheap hardware used in some lots require software recalibration on the driver. if this does not happen to your phone you are in the happy minority of nexus one users. to the rest of us, while using the touch screen for extended periods of time (shorted if using both fingers and/or charging) it will start to behave erradicaly. Touching one area will register a touch somewhere el…

I saw a very similar bug with my Motorola Cliq (which eventually, half-heartedly got updates) using the stock T-Mobile ROMs and Cyanogen Mod. Though I didn't track it down to that specific case I actually tended to use it while charging pretty heavily. Not sure if they're using the same hardware for part of the touchscreen, the S definitely had higher-end hw in general.
Post reply on HN