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

Android and Wear OS are getting a redesign

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 144 posts

Re: Android and Wear OS are getting a redesign

#111

Post by microtonal »

chris_pie wrote: post #88
jsheard wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with a Pixel is the hardware is always a step or two behind what other vendors are doing at the same price point, and they tend to be weirdly buggy for a first-party device. For example the bug where Pixel phones are randomly unable to call emergency services has been happening for years and keeps regressing again and again. 2021 https://www.vice.com/en/article/google-pixel-bug-prevented-u... 2022 https:/…

I've been using Pixel 8 for nearly a year now and I agree that it's surprisingly buggy. Also, the chip is excessively power-hungry, especially for the performance it offers. In addition: the modem is bad and very power-hungry as well. And the cherry on top for me was the subpar fingerprint scanner. Can't recommend.

Agree with Pixel Beware though that the Pixel 9a still uses the old modem and an optical fingerprint reader.

Until the 9a prices drop it probably doesn't make sense to get a 9a anyway, since the 9 is barely more expensive on a discount.

Re: Android and Wear OS are getting a redesign

#113

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

microtonal wrote: post #110
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also no microSD slot. Decent internal storage, but the ability to expand, swap, and pull from a dead phone shouldn't be underestimated.

Being able to pull it from a dead phone seems like a huge security issue? Shouldn't storage be encrypted using private material from a secure element? I understand that people here are tech-savvy enough to only store music, etc. on an SD card. But I think a lot of less technically-inclined users would set themselves up for losing private data.

Depends on your threat model and priorities. Historically the biggest thing I wanted to pull off the SD card was encrypted backups, which were in fact encrypted enough that an attacker getting them wouldn't be a serious problem, but which were rather handy to have. (And yes, I can completely push those off-device, but an SD card is a handy middle ground of local, fast, easy, safe from the things I tend to be worried about (mostly, bricking the device), and big enough that dumping 10s of GB on there is fine.)

Re: Android and Wear OS are getting a redesign

#114

Post by computerthings »

vvillena wrote: post #72
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A headphone jack is unfortunately a problem with a pixel. Otherwise I would still own one. I had a Pixel 1, then a pixel 3a, then Google decided to get rid of a basic feature that every phone should have. So I stopped buying them.

For everyday use, wireless headphones offer a superior experience simply due to the lack of a cable, and for the cases where an audio output is desired, it should be easy to connect the phone to an audio interface. Is any of this a problem in the Android ecosystem?

[dead]

Re: Android and Wear OS are getting a redesign

#115

Post by codethief »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #36

Given how much of a downgrade the last visual refresh was (Android 12 I think?), this is news I do not welcome. Anyone else remember the lock screen being a giant two line clock with no way to customize it, or the way the settings buttons got way bigger for no good reason? It was awful. I don't look forward to seeing what they will screw up this time.

Agreed. I'm still incredibly annoyed by the fact that in airplane mode I can no longer change my SIM settings (in particular: disable roaming before I disable airplane mode again and potentially get charged :rage.jpg:) and they subsumed all network-related settings under "Internet". (Because clearly WiFi networks are pointless if they don't offer internet. /s)

Re: Android and Wear OS are getting a redesign

#116

Post by microtonal »

brunoqc wrote: post #62
ErrorNoBrain wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that annoyed me as well (pixel 8a) but i just switched to my go-to launcher, Nova. I've used it quite a bit over the last years.

Wasn't Nova sold to some advertising company?

Apparently LawnChair is a popular Pixel Launcher replacement now:

https://lawnchair.app/

Haven't tried it, because the Pixel Launcher is fine for me (but yes, I'm in camp "they should make the search bar removable.)

Re: Android and Wear OS are getting a redesign

#117

Post by mvdtnz »

Good lord I do not need my phone to be "expressive". I need the camera to open without janking out my podcasts, I need my browser to not have to reload pages if I switch to another app, I need my password manager to be able to reliably autofill apps. I do not need "expressive".

Re: Android and Wear OS are getting a redesign

#118

Post by mvdtnz »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #16
ndneighbor wrote: post #9

The number one issue I have with Android is that while this looks cool, because of the fragmentation of the OS delivery between vendors- I have no idea which phone or timeframe when I could see the rollout of Material 3 Expressive. More than 10 years later, shopping for an Android phone with the latest OS is a nightmare. Android leadership keeps on getting shuffled around, Google changes priorities every 6 months it…

If you care about always having the latest software with the latest Google features just get a Pixel. 7 years of OS and security updates: https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705?hl=en Google doesn't control what other vendors do; that's the beauty of open source. (You can argue how open Android really is these days but it's still more open than iOS.)

It's also not offered in my country, so your advice is worthless to me.

Re: Android and Wear OS are getting a redesign

#119

Post by dns_snek »

Wear OS needs core development and an army of QA testers, not another redesign. The design is fine, but overall the functionality of the product feels like a beta test (and I think that's being generous), even on their own hardware.

I answer a call on my phone and the audio is routed to my watch, or vice versa, the official weather app claims it can't get my location even though it has access to the GPS (and it's actively being used by Fitbit to track exercise) and wifi positioning. Google Maps on the watch doesn't load results half the time, the other half the time it'll get stuck on "starting navigation" - sometimes unstuck by launching Maps on the phone (despite having offline maps downloaded to the watch) and other times it's just stuck forever. Fitbit will display some static/mock/fake exercise values until the display is woken up when OS-level always on display is disabled but AOD is enabled in Fitbit during exercise. I could go on.

Re: Android and Wear OS are getting a redesign

#120

Post by alpaca128 »

ranger_danger wrote: post #97
doright wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've gone through like 3 of those for one of my other devices. They're way too easy to lose and sometimes they outright don't work. It's a product that should not have to exist in 2025. I use my built-in headphone jack daily and would buy another phone if it went out.

I understand your frustration but I think the reality is that the vast majority of people simply do not use wired headphones, so it doesn't make financial sense for them to keep it.

Then why do they keep it in Macbooks if it makes no sense? To repeat excuses in this thread, people could just use an external DAC if they like cables so much.

Comparisons with CD drives I see here are absurd, those drives actually take up a massive amount of space, are obsolete and used by almost no one anymore. Meanwhile headphone jacks are still very widely used. To the people saying "just use an adapter" I would suggest trying your own advice every day for a month, you'll see why it's not comparable.

And saying the vast majority of people don't use wired headphones when wired headphones are actively made inconvenient and incompatible is not a very convincing argument.

The removal was simply unnecessary, comes with no noticeable upside in return and is suspiciously convenient for those companies considering they also sell wireless headphones as the solution.

If so many people are still complaining about it, perhaps it's not because they're dumb but because there is still a real need for it.

Post reply on HN