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

81–90 of 158 posts

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#81

Post by paganel »

CoffeeDregs wrote: post #23
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…

>85% is good enough to have someone buy your crap, >but it's not enough to make them loyal to your crap. I get tired of the fanboistic comments in a lot of these threads. There is a big, strategic, complex, technology game going on and, apparently, a bunch of smart hackers think phones are like simple breakfast cereals (and even those aren't simple). A big battle is afoot. Act like it. Stop pretending that one side w…

> I get tired of the fanboistic comments in a lot of these threads. There is a big, strategic, complex, technology game going on and, apparently, a bunch of smart hackers think phones are like simple breakfast cereals (and even those aren't simple).

I also upvoted you, even though I don't think you're quite correct. I personally don't believe that "hackers (...) think that phones are like simple breakfast cereals". Not that I'm a "hacker" or anything, but most of us HN-ers know how difficult is to "make things just work". Apple does that, ie "making things just work".

And, trust me, I'm not an Apple fanboy. I use a Windows 7 machine for development at work, all my websites are hosted on Ubuntu, and the only Apple products I own are my laptop and my phone.

I know it's only anecdotal, but until yesterday I was the very happy owner of an iPhone 3 (not even 3GS). Everything had been working just fine for the last 2 years, apart from a slightly decreased battery-life and Facebook's native app suddenly not working anymore, which was the moment when I realized that maybe it was time for an upgrade. What did I do then? I went straight into the store and bought an iPhone 4, because that way I knew for a fact that for the next 2-3 years I would have no problems in using my phone. I have no such guarantee from Android phones, even though most of them are similarly priced.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#82

Post by CountSessine »

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…

Ouch.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#84

Post by djhworld »

ericabiz wrote: post #52
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…

Already been done. The Nexus line of phones have the latest software directly from Google, and no carrier bloat. Really, anyone technical enough to read HN should go with a Galaxy Nexus or Nexus S vs. ANY other Android phone.

I'm thinking about the Nexus but the reviews have all slated the camera which is putting me off a bit

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#85

Post by djhworld »

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…

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?

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#86

Post by gnaffle »

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?

The actual problem is the carriers/manufacturers, but Google could have put in requirements regarding upgrade policies. However, they're apparently not in a strong enough position to do that, after all they need to get the manufacturers on board on the promise that they have more freedom with Android.

They could also have made it easier on the manufacturers to do upgrades (ie. giving out continuous updates during development instead of just a source dump at launch time).

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#87

Post by simonh »

jodrellblank wrote: post #43
mark_integerdsv wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#88

Post by nextparadigms »

elithrar wrote: post #12
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…

> 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…

Office is Microsoft's own software. And 2002 is still one year later compared to when XP was launched. Manufacturers generally start using the new version of Android 6-12 months later, too.

The difference between Windows and Android is that even if Microsoft finished XP in 2000, they waited until all the manufacturers put it on new hardware to release it. Google doesn't do that. They release it as soon as it's ready, and then manufacturers have to put it on hardware. It's just a matter of perception of who has it "faster".

But I suppose Google could do the same - finish Android 5.0 this spring, and then only release it in winter with a bunch of manufacturers at once.

As for Chrome, this is really an exception, and I don't think you can point any other example where an app only works on Android 4.0. This happened because Android 4.0 is a pretty big overhaul, and Google didn't want to bother with the legacy, when they know that within a year 50% of Android devices will have the 4.0 version. They just wanted to take advantage of all the new API's and not have to find workarounds for the other versions. It's kind of like Microsoft not wanting to make IE9 work on XP anymore, because it's a much different version than Vista and 7.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#89

Post by bad_user »

chrisbolt wrote: post #73
bad_user wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is kind of funny because I remember when people bitched about the iPhone not being suitable for the enterprise. What people are missing is that when a product gets really popular amongst consumers, the enterprise will follow regardless of its shortcomings. Plus, Android does have advantages for the enterprise. Like its integration with the other Google services. For instance I love that my whole contacts…

What people are missing is that when a product gets really popular amongst consumers, the enterprise will follow regardless of its shortcomings. Do you have any other examples of this? I hadn't really heard this before the iPhone or iPad.

I can think of Mac OS X, Gmail, Windows 95, Firefox, Chrome, GitHub.

Of course, such a thing only happens when there's overlap. There's not much use for an XBox or a Wii in a company, with the exception of having a fun and games room as an added benefit to employees.

But when a product is useful for the enterprise and popular amongst consumers, it will enter that space, simply because enthusiastic employees can move mountains. See for instance Linux's growth in the ninties, in spite of Windows, IBM AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, or other OSes that were definitely more ready for the enterprise. Basically an immature Unix clone, that can't even keep binary compatibility between versions, is killing all proprietary Unix distributions, except OS X.

Re: We Need to Talk About Android

#90

Post by nextparadigms »

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…

Nor do I understand why fans of Apple products tout Apple's high profit? Isn't that a form of Stockholm syndrom, too? Being happy that the company you buy from makes a lot of money from you?
Post reply on HN