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

101–110 of 158 posts

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#101

Post by rlpb »

"You're either buying into a platform or you're buying gadgets."

This is it. Manufacturers are still in the mindset of selling gadgets, not a platform. Each gadget ships with featureset that doesn't change after it is shipped (ie. they don't expect to upgrade the OS).

On the other hand, we're buying into a brand that represents a platform. We expect apps written after the phone was released to work.

I think it's interesting that this is exactly what a Linux distribution solves. The "gadget" (ie. computer) does not matter any more.

My laptop is the same as your laptop, except perhaps in the specs. But we can run the same version of the same OS if we choose to. But my Android phone probably isn't running the same version of Android as your Android phone, and we would probably struggle to achieve this if we tried to.

What we need is a vendor-independent Android distribution. Is CyanogenMod the future?

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#102

Post by ZeroGravitas »

gnaffle wrote: post #99
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #93

Maybe I'm crazy, but why is it bad to release a phone with 2.3 and update it to 4.0 a month or two later? Apart from the blog reviewers and the early adopters who actually even gets to see the old version? Would they really be served by delaying the hardware? Just to satisfy some neat-freak OCD tendency? How is this different from someone buying an iPhone a few months before the new one comes out with an iOS bump? Is…

There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that Sony Ericsson (and others) have made many promises on upgrades that they have been unable to keep. If Apple released the iPhone 5 running iOS 3 while promising to update it to iOS 5 later, at the very least people would be thinking that Apple could use some improvement in their development process. If Google had been more open in their development of Android, all m…

You're begging the question. Apple doesn't do it for iOS, but why does that make it unthinkable? Apple don't perfectly sync up their Mac OS X and hardware releases, you buy your hardware and then shortly afterwards you pay(!) to upgrade.

If Apple can do it for laptops (and the first iPad), why can't Sony do it for phones? Because a third party has released a device with a fourth parties updated software? I understand that Google's releases schedule is different from Microsoft Windows and Apple's Mac OS X and iOS, I'm looking for reasons why a consumer should care. Personally I see benefits to their approach e.g. rapid evolution.

(Note, I understand that making promises and breaking them is bad, it just seems most of the comments focus not on the breaking of a promise, but the very thought of disjoint hardware and software release dates)

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#103

Post by bookwormAT »

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…

"Phone manufactures sell phones to carriers, not consumers."

Where do you get that data from? I just tried to challenge your claim, but I did not find any worldwide statistic about how many people buy smartphones with or without contract.

My personal guess is that not only do a lot of people buy their phones from Samsung (e.g. through amazon.de/co.uk).

From the people who buy on contract, many people are in a position to choose between many providers with very similar services and prices. Meaning that they choose the contract by the price and quality of the phone, not the contract.

At least in Europe that's the case, and I believe it is similar in most Asian markets.

Companies like Samsung are not primary concerned about carrier satisfaction, because in most parts of the world, carriers are exchangeable pipe providers that need Samsung more than Samsung needs them.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#104

Post by gnaffle »

ktizo wrote: post #95
ugh wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not understand you. What should schools deploy other than consumer level devices? That’s what schools have been doing for years, they usually bought consumer level PCs. It’s just normal.

Things being normal does not mean they are a good idea. How will teaching a class of 30 be improved with the addition of 30 tablets or smartphones, apart from in the rare occasions that you are teaching how to program the things?

It's a very good question. Maybe Apples new interactive textbook initiative will help, although I'm not sure about that. But I think that if _any_ electronic device is going to make a difference and be usable in education, it will be a tablet-like device instead of a traditional laptop, simply because they are more portable, take up less space and have longer battery lives.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#105

Post by veeti »

rogerbinns wrote: post #61
ricardobeat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Android supply a compatibility library that lets you use new functionality even on older Android platforms. You can read about and download it here: http://developer.android.com/sdk/compatibility-library.html If you want to use the ActionBar UI style then there is a library that will work on Android 1.6+ using the native one when available else an emulated one. http://actionbarsherlock.com/

> If you want to use the ActionBar UI style

More like "if you want to design your app according to standards". ABS is a necessity for any new app.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#106

Post by dagw »

nodata wrote: post #70
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.

Can you flesh out your statement a bit? You distinguish between security updates and OS updates. I'm not aware of any difference, an update is an update. I've never seen an OTA update that wasn't a point release. How are these deployed differently?

My old SE phone got random OTA updates regularly, but non of them changed the android version number. I have no idea what those updates where though.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#107

Post by dagw »

simonh wrote: post #87
jodrellblank wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Except that a) iOS has a dramatically healthier app ecosystem, and b) the poster even points out that most people who buy Android phones don't care about the platform. Sorry, but the 'Android is dominating' meme took a sever credibility shock with the last round of Android handset manufacturer profit slides. But you know, they'll make it up in volume. Or something.

What does market dominance have to do with profit margins? The two are pretty much orthogonal.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#108

Post by edderly »

runako wrote: post #69
edderly wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only relationship between the version of the OS and fragmentation is that a new OS rev usually introduces an additional API level. So if you write an app to API level 15 (4.0 IIRC) that will be available and work on subsequent revs.

I think you're missing the point. Putting it another way: When the 4.1 APIs are released, how long do you need to wait to add 4.1 as a dependency for the core cool new feature in your app? Obviously you can use the 4.0 APIs that are still there, but you have to admit that your ability to push new features to your whole user base is impeded by the rag-tag update schedule.

Yes I agree that you cannot target the the latest API, and there is a lag, which has been exceptionally long because of the Honeycomb blip.

But it just means that, form factor and to a certain extent performance differences are more likely to be a problem than perceived platform level fragmentation IMO.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#109

Post by gnaffle »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #102
gnaffle wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that Sony Ericsson (and others) have made many promises on upgrades that they have been unable to keep. If Apple released the iPhone 5 running iOS 3 while promising to update it to iOS 5 later, at the very least people would be thinking that Apple could use some improvement in their development process. If Google had been more open in their development of Android, all m…

You're begging the question. Apple doesn't do it for iOS, but why does that make it unthinkable? Apple don't perfectly sync up their Mac OS X and hardware releases, you buy your hardware and then shortly afterwards you pay(!) to upgrade. If Apple can do it for laptops (and the first iPad), why can't Sony do it for phones? Because a third party has released a device with a fourth parties updated software? I understand…

The focus of the comments is not the disjoint between software and hardware releases, but rather that manufacturers are very slow to update to newer software releases. That's what everyone's complaining about. Sony Ericsson releasing a new phone with an old operating system is just another indication of that.

For your comparison to be accurate, Apple would have had to release a new Mac that didn't run Mountain Lion, two months after Mountain Lion was released.

Or, HP would have had to release a new laptop that didn't run Windows 7 after Windows 7 was released. There's nothing wrong with doing that, but it's unlikely to happen simply because Microsoft is providing HP with prereleases way before a new Windows version is announced, while Google is currently only providing that service to their Nexus launch partner (at least that's the excuse that Sony Ericsson had).

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#110

Post by edderly »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #74
edderly wrote: post #5

I think by the end of the year this will be less of a problem. Consider that last year two OS versions were released and the first was Honeycomb which had a very binding legal agreement associated with it so as not to appear on phone form factor devices. Then Icecream Sandwich comes out and as usual most of the Android ecosystem does not see any of the codeline until the AOSP release. So now it's 3 months down the ro…

Here is an interesting graph http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/26/2826022/android-fragmentat... Eclair took about 9 months to peak, Froyo about a year, Gingerbread still looks like it hasn't peaked about 15 months since release. To fix fragmentation, you want everybody on the same page. If they are releasing new features each major version, then I suppose this means you want them on the same major version. At this rate,…

Nice data, thanks, you might be right with your estimate.
Post reply on HN