141–150 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just make it so the batteries are easily replaceable. It's wasteful to buy a brand new phone when all you need is a new battery.
Ease of maintenance is rarely a marketable feature in mass-market consumer products, and most often is deprioritized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like an excuse for poor engineering on the part of Android. Microsoft also sells Windows to multiple OEMs and has done so for decades. OEMs also are free to add bloatware as well as the retailers (ie Best Buy adds its own bloat), but Microsoft doesn’t have this problem.
Yeah but Windows was created for existing hardware, in fact at first even running on an existing OS. IBM PC compatibles were a thing since the 80s on which DOS flavour from various vendor were running which in turn ran on x86. Microsoft actually waited really long until they combined normal end user Windows with NT which was it's own OS since early 90s but also had a lot of restrictions when it came to drivers, end u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment and most replies use "carrier" as shorthand for "carrier and/or manufacturer". This looks funny to me because my carrier is T-Mobile and doesn't add bloatware AFAICT. Using "manufacturer" as the shorthand would make more sense to me.
T-Mobile does add software to phones. Wi-Fi calling requires T-Mobile-specific OS-level modifications. You won't be able to use it on unbranded unlocked phones. It's definitely not bloatware though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>which extends the life of old phones. Except they were caught purposely throttling older phones with those updates, not exactly what i'd call extending life.
> purposely throttling So that the phones don't randomly shut off because their lithium ion batteries were old. Yes, they should have told people but it wasn't done maliciously.
"old" - they were less than two years old. They were used up significantly faster than on other phones because Apple was pulling more power to get better benchmarks. This significantly lowered their lifetime and then "forced" them to make phones slower than advertised way before normal lifetime ended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet Apple has been able to do that for well over a decade and sells phones via carriers. Even if you buy an unlocked Android phone directly you can update it without carrier intervention.
OK, you're a carrier and have millions of Apple and Samsung devices on your network. 0.01% of your users know how to update the OS on their Samsung phones themselves, or jailbreak their iPhones. A software update from the manufacturer could brick millions of those phones on you network. Which risk keeps you awake at night: A few Samsung phone users bricking their phones occasionally A few iPhone users bricking their…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s because they cared about the end user experience. I'm sure 100% of any revenue going to Apple and not shared with anyone had nothing to do with that.
It may have, but I doubt it was the primary motivation. Steve Jobs famously cared a lot about user experience, security and reliability. Remember that Apple under his leadership took a firm stance and loudly and publicly refused to allow Flash on its devices, despite the fact that many websites back then relied on Flash.
A less generous take on that would be that he/Apple also wanted to push their app store. At the time Flash was popular for publishing apps and games on the web. Yes their decision helped move everyone away from Flash but it also meant they would be getting their 30% cut from iOS apps.
Edit: I stand corrected. "While originally developing iPhone prior to its unveiling in 2007, Apple's then-CEO Steve Jobs did not intend to let third-party developers build native apps for iOS, instead directing them to make web applications for the Safari web browser." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS)#iOS_SDK
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but Windows was created for existing hardware, in fact at first even running on an existing OS. IBM PC compatibles were a thing since the 80s on which DOS flavour from various vendor were running which in turn ran on x86. Microsoft actually waited really long until they combined normal end user Windows with NT which was it's own OS since early 90s but also had a lot of restrictions when it came to drivers, end u…
The whole idea behind WinHEC early on was that Microsoft was guiding hardware manufacturers to the plug and play standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may have, but I doubt it was the primary motivation. Steve Jobs famously cared a lot about user experience, security and reliability. Remember that Apple under his leadership took a firm stance and loudly and publicly refused to allow Flash on its devices, despite the fact that many websites back then relied on Flash.
> Steve Jobs famously cared a lot about user experience, security and reliability. Remember that Apple under his leadership took a firm stance and loudly and publicly refused to allow Flash on its devices, despite the fact that many websites back then relied on Flash. A less generous take on that would be that he/Apple also wanted to push their app store. At the time Flash was popular for publishing apps and games on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to be getting a lot of attention, so as an Android Engineer with some security and framework experience let me try to explain. This is a side effect of Android's initial approach to it's open nature. Android allows a manufacturer to modify its framework for their own use case. Then the manufacturer can allow a specific carrier to input their own system applications and firmware on to the devices well (your…
This is what I love about Apple. They gave the carriers a big middle finger when it comes to the usual bullshit of bloatware, sticking their logos on things or getting in the middle of updates. That’s because they cared about the end user experience. Google was happy to just grab market share at the expense of the users by allowing carriers to continue with their usual shenanigans. For this reason Apple will have my…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may have, but I doubt it was the primary motivation. Steve Jobs famously cared a lot about user experience, security and reliability. Remember that Apple under his leadership took a firm stance and loudly and publicly refused to allow Flash on its devices, despite the fact that many websites back then relied on Flash.
> Steve Jobs famously cared a lot about user experience, security and reliability. Remember that Apple under his leadership took a firm stance and loudly and publicly refused to allow Flash on its devices, despite the fact that many websites back then relied on Flash. A less generous take on that would be that he/Apple also wanted to push their app store. At the time Flash was popular for publishing apps and games on…