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

131–140 of 158 posts

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#131

Post by fluidcruft »

ajross wrote: post #48
bunderbunder wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are many, many unpatched vulnerabilities on Motorola Milestone XT720 (and many others). Google doesn't even release security patches for old releases (until recently)--their opinion seems to be that all manufacturers should update to Gingerbread or whatever the latest OS happens to be. Google finally seems to have pulled their heads out of the sand or stopped humming with their fingers in their ears recently and made security point release for Froyo a few weeks ago that backported some security fixes that had been in Gingerbread for a long time, though.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#132

Post by Jun8 »

bunderbunder wrote: post #11
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…

If the only goal were market share then yes, Android is virtually guaranteed to dominate the market for the same reason Windows has been, and that would be a trump card in this conversation. However, I don't really think the criticisms about Android fragmentation amount to nothing but beating around the "market share" bush. I think that, believe it or not, folks who are criticizing Android mean what they're saying. W…

Spot on! Look at the two big market share holders, Nokia (worldwide & India) and Motorola (US & China). They achieved this by operating on razor thin margins (both, but mostly Nokia) and bending to carriers' every whim (Motorola). See how quickly that market share argument evaporated.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#133

Post by bunderbunder »

djhworld wrote: post #85
bunderbunder wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the only goal were market share then yes, Android is virtually guaranteed to dominate the market for the same reason Windows has been, and that would be a trump card in this conversation. However, I don't really think the criticisms about Android fragmentation amount to nothing but beating around the "market share" bush. I think that, believe it or not, folks who are criticizing Android mean what they're saying. W…

It's irritating that people blame Android, Google have been steadily releasing new editions of the OS. Surely the actual problem is the carriers/manufacturers?

Android isn't just Google. It's also the carriers and manufacturers.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#134

Post by huxley »

ajross wrote: post #34
elithrar wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Circa 2002 they had '95, 98, ME, and XP spread across over half a billion units. With further varied patch configurations and service packs. It's worth pointing out that this comparison isn't the same. You could, in 2002, run the latest version of Office on all of their operating systems. With Android, there are situations where even Google's own software (see Chrome on Android) only runs on the absolute latest ver…

Chrome is a beta released three weeks ago. And while I like it, it's a long way from being production quality. Are there any other examples of ICS-only software? Anywhere? Really the only serious bump in the Android API has been Froyo. There are lots of apps that require Froyo. Honestly I can't think of a single one (other than trial stuff like Chrome or niche things like handset-specific root tools, etc...) that req…

I thought that was part of what Frasier is getting at, fragmentation gets you both coming and going.

Both ICS and iOS 5 were released at about the same time, iOS 5 is now the majority OS for iOS devices. On the other hand, ICS is available on about minuscule percentage of Android devices.

Software written for ICS won't work on the vast majority of devices and there is little incentive to write for ICS (which will keep hurting Android tablets).

Developers can start taking advantage of iOS 5 APIs today and incentive is growing. At this rate, iOS 6 will be the majority OS on iOS before ICS gets that title for Android.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#135

Post by ricardobeat »

vibrunazo wrote: post #41
ricardobeat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, he is not saying that. He said that 2.2+ is not that bad, but it is (for a tablet).

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#136

Post by gnaffle »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #115
gnaffle wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Other people not doing it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it (as you yourself have pointed out twice) so... what makes it bad? Google lets consumers use products that it labels as "beta"? Is this bad? Why? Google only let people with invites into Gmail at first. Is this bad? Why Google tests changes by pushing them to random subsets of web visitors. Is this bad? Why? Google pushed the last version of the mar…

This is not really about "Android vs Apple" or Apple fanboys trying to push a certain view on others. What it's about is carriers and cell phone manufacturers being used to shipping phones with a single OS release, and never having to provide any updates at all (except for serious bugs).

The only thing special about Apples software update policy is that it's more similar to how things are done in the PC industry, where you get OS updates as long as your hardware supports the new operating systems (although Apple is quicker in discontinuing iOS devices, something I don't like).

I can't think of a single reason why delaying, or not shipping a software release for a capable (but discontinued) handset is _good_ for the customer. I can think of many examples of why it is bad.

If your theory is right and a year from now I'll be able to upgrade an Android 4.x phone to be feature equivalent with Android 5 through app downloads, then great, why would anyone really complain about that?

An example of the PC and mobile worlds colliding: When Nokia discontinued the 770 with the Tablet OS 2007 release, do you think the outraged 770 owners were rabid Apple fanboys? No, they were PC users that expected the expensive toy they just bought to be supported for more than a year and two months with software updates.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#137

Post by redacted »

gbaygon wrote: post #8

> where are the apps to challenge iMovie, GarageBand, Keynote, OmniFocus About GarageBand, there is a known problem with sound latency in android that prevents real time audio apps to be developed and it doesn't seem to be fixed in ICS. This stops developers from writing musical apps that could compete with those available on iPhone or iPad. iOS latency is around 6ms, in android devices it varies between 100ms and 40…

I believe this is the bug report in question

http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3434

Note that this issue has been open for more than 2.5 years

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#138

Post by ajross »

huxley wrote: post #134
ajross wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome is a beta released three weeks ago. And while I like it, it's a long way from being production quality. Are there any other examples of ICS-only software? Anywhere? Really the only serious bump in the Android API has been Froyo. There are lots of apps that require Froyo. Honestly I can't think of a single one (other than trial stuff like Chrome or niche things like handset-specific root tools, etc...) that req…

I thought that was part of what Frasier is getting at, fragmentation gets you both coming and going. Both ICS and iOS 5 were released at about the same time, iOS 5 is now the majority OS for iOS devices. On the other hand, ICS is available on about minuscule percentage of Android devices. Software written for ICS won't work on the vast majority of devices and there is little incentive to write for ICS (which will kee…

Which is a valid point, I think. New features don't get adopted quickly in Android apps because of the need to support legacy handsets (one big one was the gesture support that landed in Gingerbread -- Froyo-compatible apps can't use it, or must use it only for non-critical functionality).

But no, that was clearly not Frasier's point at all. "With Android [...] even Google's own software [...] only runs on the absolute latest version." is a complaint that recent software isn't backwards compatible. And that's just wrong.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#139

Post by bad_user »

huxley wrote: post #134
ajross wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome is a beta released three weeks ago. And while I like it, it's a long way from being production quality. Are there any other examples of ICS-only software? Anywhere? Really the only serious bump in the Android API has been Froyo. There are lots of apps that require Froyo. Honestly I can't think of a single one (other than trial stuff like Chrome or niche things like handset-specific root tools, etc...) that req…

I thought that was part of what Frasier is getting at, fragmentation gets you both coming and going. Both ICS and iOS 5 were released at about the same time, iOS 5 is now the majority OS for iOS devices. On the other hand, ICS is available on about minuscule percentage of Android devices. Software written for ICS won't work on the vast majority of devices and there is little incentive to write for ICS (which will kee…

Except that you can build apps that are optimized for ICS and that degrade nicely for older versions / less capable devices.

That's how smart developers always operated. I remember when Id's Quake 1 first appeared ... I could play it on a 2 year old Pentium processor on MS-DOS 6.22, even though Windows 95 was capturing the headlights.

You can start taking advantage of ICS APIs today. It's more work because you have to test and workaround older versions too, but the thing that differentiates Android from other frameworks is that it was built with degradation in mind.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#140

Post by bad_user »

batista wrote: post #114
mrb wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not change his point. Many Windows users are not regularly applying security patches or upgrading to the latest Windows version, making the Windows ecosystem fragmented, yet this did not prevent it from becoming a market leader on desktops, with a large Windows development economy flourishing and producing apps compatible with many different Windows versions and service pack levels. For the same reason, Andro…

or upgrading to the latest Windows version, making the Windows ecosystem fragmented No, this did not made the Window ecosystem "fragmented" in the sense that Android is. Windows always had excellent backwards and forward compatibility, which meant you could develop for XP and still run on Vista and vice versa. You just couldn't take advantage of the latest and greatest APIs, but most apps used the classic APIs anyway…

     which meant you could develop for XP and still
     run on Vista and vice versa
That's not the case. A lot of apps and drivers broke on Vista.

You should really go and read The Old New Thing, as it's really enlightening: http://amzn.to/wW0Okn

Post reply on HN