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

We Need to Talk About Android

speirs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 158 posts

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#41

Post by vibrunazo »

ricardobeat wrote: post #38
zrgiu_ wrote: post #4

Android 2.2+ is not that bad, feature-wise. And with the release of several compatibility packages, it's rather easy to make app that run on more than 90% of the available Android devices. APIs haven't changed that much from 2.2 to 4.0, for the design you can easily implement your own, and with the introduction of Fragments it's even easier to make apps that look good on both phones and tablets for Android than for i…

Android apps that look good on tablets? With 2.2?? Dream on.

What he is saying is that you can develop with current APIs fpr 3.0 or 4.0. And still use those to make apps for 2.x. Because many of the newer APIs were made backwards compatible (such as fragments). Android allows you to build a 4.0 tablet optimized app that is also backwards compatible to a 2.2 phone optimized app, while reusing a lot of code and even layout between them.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#42

Post by vibrunazo »

erohead wrote: post #26
tomschlick wrote: post #7

A lot of the points made here are exactly why I'm going from an android device to an iPhone once my device cycle from Verizon is up later this year. I'm so tired of hearing about all the new awesome things that are happening with the android operating system and not being able to get them. Even when my device (HTC Incredible) would support such features it's always a question of if HTC/Verizon is going to put in the…

Buy a nexus phone?

I did that. That's the one reason why I bought a Nexus S.

It's March, about 4 or so months after Android 4.0 launched. I still have 2.3 on my Nexus S, because of delays for my region and carrier.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#43

Post by jodrellblank »

mark_integerdsv wrote: post #31
mikeash wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is not talking about what wins a market. In fact, it explicitly disclaims any attempt to apply these lessons to the wider world. It's simply a discussion of where Android falls short as relates to his particular needs. As such, this comment seems awfully off topic.

Fans of the platform seem to hammer on about market share an awful lot. Stockholm Syndrome? I really cannot fathom why a consumer, assuming they have no stock in the platform outside their own purchase should be so concerned about something as trivial as market share. Were the platform in danger of disappearing due to low market share (WebOS) I'd understand that but puffing up your chest because the OS on your smartp…

a) it attracts developers and other content providers, and b) it is a reflection of device popularity (i.e. if a lot of people think it's a good device, there must be something to it).

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#44

Post by _ea1k »

2.2 and 2.3 currently represent about 90% of the market. From an API standpoint, these are very similar. Is iOS really that much less fragmented in real-world terms?

The dramatic variations in hardware are actually a much more interesting problem than the supposed issue of OS version fragmentation, IMO.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#45

Post by cageface »

marquis wrote: post #20

This leaves a really good space for the Android manufacturer who gets this right. I'm due to upgrade my phone and am seriously considering between iPhone and Android. The fact that my current Android phone, just a year old LG that only now runs 2.2, so quickly went out of usability makes me wonder exactly the same thing. If someone can deliver to me solid technology that keeps working with Android as it evolves (to a…

The problem is that even if one manufacturer really nails it, the overall market remains confusing and balkanized to both the developer and consumer unless that manufacturer is successful enough to drive out the alternatives.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#46

Post by sounds »

thought_alarm wrote: post #21

You are not Samsung's customer. Phone manufactures sell phones to carriers, not consumers. Success in the phone industry depends entirely how well you meet the demands of the carriers. RIM knows it (or knew it), Nokia knows it, Samsung knows it. Android is merely a platform that allows Samsung to tailor their devices to the carrier's requirements, in a way they couldn't do when they were selling Windows Mobile device…

I've seen the opposite trend, frequently:

Unless you're a customer of AT&T or Verizon (which I admit, are a lot), you likely:

1. Choose your own handset and ignore the carrier-provided ones

2. Purchase it from a number of quality retailers

3. I'm not too happy with Samsung phones, but they are popular among people in the group I'm talking about

So I sort of agree with you, that Samsung's not going to roll out Android 4 very fast. But their loyalty to US carriers is almost certainly dying.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#47

Post by Shank »

As an Android user and developer, there are really good points made here.

> Fragmentation - This is a huge issue. The thing now is that at the last Google IO, Google made it clear that you must agree to update your devices in a timely fashion to the latest OS rev if they can run it.

> Backups - This is also a big issue, although 4.x supports a secure, encrypted backup (as well as entire phone encryption) system

> Security - This argument can be made for both platforms. Sure, Apple has an approval process, but they've had that slip before, and on apparently the worst possible things (most notably tethering apps and such) - Unknown sources is turned off by default and usually discouraged from the end user toggling it

> Apps - Agree. There isn't near as much effort put into designing solid apps on Android as there is on iOS.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#48

Post by ajross »

bunderbunder wrote: post #37
ajross wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Handset vendors and carriers push security patches routinely (though not commonly, the sandbox architecture makes it a lot less needed than on a desktop OS). It's OS upgrades that are slow. Holes get closed.

The article links another article which shows, graphically, how long a number of popular Android phones were getting updates - including security patches. According to it, Android users are lucky to be getting updates after a mere 10 months. Including security patches. And that's assuming you buy the phone immediately after it hits the market.

Not sure which article you mean. You're saying you're aware of an unpatched vulnerability on an android handset?

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#49

Post by Xuzz »

stdbrouw wrote: post #36
eykanal wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an excellent line in the middle of the Android Support Visualization article he links to ( http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-orphan... ): "In other words, Apple’s way of getting you to buy a new phone is to make you really happy with your current one, whereas apparently Android phone makers think they can get you to buy a new phone by making you really unhappy with your current one." 85% i…

Judging from the amount of people on old iPhones and iPads complaining about how every new version of iOS slows things down or is just plain not supported on their older model, that quote sounds rather... imaginative.

So, strangely, for app testing purposes, I actually own one of each model of iPhone and iPad ever made by Apple. The performance, as you said, certainly does vary. However, from my experience, there's been only one really bad moment: the iPhone 3G on iOS 4. I'd put the next worst as the original iPad on iOS 4.3 (it's better on iOS 5, actually), but even that was nowhere near as bad and still completely usable.

However, this is actually an interesting point about Android. While you might not get updates, you can be reasonably certain that it isn't going to break: if an update is going to run horribly on a device and carriers/manufacturers only update a few devices, you're probably safe. In contrast, on iOS, Apple uses code signing to actually enforce usage of the latest release — you simply cannot downgrade.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#50

Post by usaar333 »

eykanal wrote: post #13
shingen wrote: post #3

The endless parade of fragmentation discussions regarding Android all prove one thing: a lot of people don't understand what wins a market. Customers lacking in technological savvy make up the radical majority of Android owners, they are never going to care about this issue so long as their smart phone functions at 85% good enough. 85% good enough, is more than enough to win a market if you have substantial other adv…

There's an excellent line in the middle of the Android Support Visualization article he links to ( http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-orphan... ): "In other words, Apple’s way of getting you to buy a new phone is to make you really happy with your current one, whereas apparently Android phone makers think they can get you to buy a new phone by making you really unhappy with your current one." 85% i…

An issue I have with his claims:

> A Price Observation All of the even slightly cheaper phones are much worse than the iPhone when it comes to OS support, but it’s interesting to note that most of the phones on this list were actually not cheaper than the iPhone when they were released

The chart really doesn't quote pricing correctly. I'd prefer if he just used the un-subsidized cost. The subsidized costs are meaningless as different carriers charge radically different amounts. I bought a Sprint HTC Hero in Fall 2009. He claims it was a mere $20 cheaper than the iPhone; in reality I was paying at least $15 less per month than an ATT customer with an equivalent plan. Over the contract, that's $380 cheaper.

Post reply on HN