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

Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

forum.xda-developers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#91

Post by pieter »

It's interesting how this works in the Dutch market: the Galaxy S phones aren't carrier-branded here (they're all called Galaxy S). On phone sites, you can select the phone first, and then choose for a contract from any of the 3 main carriers. It also means that when Samsung ships an update, you can use that update for your phone, whichever carrier you're on.

Samsung released Froyo in November, and you can install it on any Galaxy S phone bought here. The update isn't over the air though; you have to connect your phone to your pc, and which auto-updates it. In any case, the carriers have nothing to do with this update so any delays are purely Samsung's fault.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#92

Post by lwhi »

danudey wrote: post #83
potatolicious wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depressingly true, but there's a flip side: - Brand loyalty. Apple's fans are die-hard partly because Apple doesn't (often) screw their users. You can expect timely (even major) updates to your iPhone for quite some time after release. When's the last time someone reported that they won't buy anything but LG/Samsung/Motorola? - Apple also loves having you on the upgrade cycle. The difference is that these have been l…

I would argue that there is a reason why Samsung, LG, Motorola, et al cannot follow this model – Apple is a player in the high end of the mobile market. They come out with a new phone once a year, and it's hotly anticipated because in most (if not all) respects the new phone will be the most impressive phone on the market. Couple that with new OS features, and it creates quite a buzz. If Samsung (for example) just ma…

I'm assuming you're an iPhone owner.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#93

Post by henriklied »

EnigmaCurry wrote: post #74
icarus_drowning wrote: post #52

As an Android user (and promoter to my friends/family), I'm starting to get worried about Google's approach to the product. Not because of "fragmentation" (which to me is an argument that essentially says "Android isn't going to ever be successful because its too successful now"), but because of the lack of attention it seems to be getting from Google . It isn't just the OS itself-- several of Google's own apps are g…

To be fair, Listen isn't an official google project, it's a 20% project, and the devs that started it probably just got bored with it, and/or busy. http://groups.google.com/group/listen-discuss/browse_thread/...

I don't think that's relevant. Most Android users have no idea it's a 20% project. It's an app that's available on their phones.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#94

Post by e40 »

henriklied wrote: post #93
EnigmaCurry wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Listen isn't an official google project, it's a 20% project, and the devs that started it probably just got bored with it, and/or busy. http://groups.google.com/group/listen-discuss/browse_thread/...

I don't think that's relevant. Most Android users have no idea it's a 20% project. It's an app that's available on their phones.

Agreed! I hate it when people pull out this excuse. If google is going to offer a basic app/service on their phone, they should be behind it. Period.

I ended up buy DoggCatcher and I'm pretty happy with it. The UI is a little clunky and confusing at times, but it gets the job done and has the features I need. And, it works in all the areas that it should. It was $6.99 and I can say it was the best purchase for my phone.

[I am not affiliated with them in any way.]

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#95

Post by lwhi »

danudey wrote: post #83
potatolicious wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depressingly true, but there's a flip side: - Brand loyalty. Apple's fans are die-hard partly because Apple doesn't (often) screw their users. You can expect timely (even major) updates to your iPhone for quite some time after release. When's the last time someone reported that they won't buy anything but LG/Samsung/Motorola? - Apple also loves having you on the upgrade cycle. The difference is that these have been l…

I would argue that there is a reason why Samsung, LG, Motorola, et al cannot follow this model – Apple is a player in the high end of the mobile market. They come out with a new phone once a year, and it's hotly anticipated because in most (if not all) respects the new phone will be the most impressive phone on the market. Couple that with new OS features, and it creates quite a buzz. If Samsung (for example) just ma…

Okay, I'll backup my assumption.

The reason I called you out as an iPhone owner, was that your summary of the situation seems to be quite polarised (TL:DR: Apple makes the best, the rest can't compete).

The reason why these other companies can't follow this model is more complex.

--

In many ways Apple is re-running the battle it fought in the 80s and 90s with regard to the personal desktop computing.

Where Google (via Android) - together with its group of handset manufacturers - is taking the place of Microsoft and the associated group of PC-compatible hardware manufacturers.

--

The situation comes down to compliments and commodities. The hardware is commoditised - this drives the price of hardware down - because so many companies can produce hardware for the Android OS, each is forced to become as competitive as it can. Android OS then takes a place as a necessary compliment.

In Apple's 80s/90s war, they did their best to stamp out any Mac-compatible machines. I remember in the early 90s there were quite a few manufacturers who tried to produce hardware that would be compatible with MacOS and they were stopped dead in their tracks.

In comparison, Microsoft's rights agreement with IBM spawned the birth of the 'PC Compatible'. Of course, the machine was arguably worse that the Apple Macintosh - but the fact that an ecosystem of hardware manufacturers was able to develop and create a life of its own, meant that Microsoft could produce software to compliment this commoditised hardware.

Microsoft won the war.

In my mind, due to Apple's philosophy - Android will most probably 'win' this war too. Unfortunately, shear force in numbers will generally trump beauty and intelligence.

I think the most amazing thing about Apple, is the absolute, total and utter control its able to exert on the way it's perceived. The word 'marketing' almost doesn't do it justice. Every owner becomes written in as a 'supporter' - there's a culture brought about through ownership that supports its main brand messages. It's superbly clever - and if Apple does win out, I'm sure this will be a large part of the reason behind its success.

--

The problem I have with your analysis, is that you don't allow for the possibility that one of these manufacturers could step up to produce a phone that can compete with the iPhone's quality.

Android OS is creating a hardware ecosystem, in much the same way that the lack of licensing restriction allowed a PC hardware ecosystem to form.

From the past (and the development of the PC compatible platform), we can see that many different classes of hardware emerged - from bargain basement offerings to very expensive, luxury machines.

I can't see any reason why the same won't happen for Android OS. In fact many reviews have already reported that some of the newer Android phones are strong contenders for the iPhone's crown.

So, once again .. I'm led to believe that you might be an iPhone owner ;)

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#96

Post by [deleted] »

kenjackson wrote: post #39
marshray wrote: post #8

Gee, I'd kind of liked Samsung because they seemed to focus on delivering good technology at a good price. I'd figured they perceived themselves as something of an underdog in the past (perhaps relative to the Japanese tech industry). This makes it seem like they're hiring Marketers and MBAs who think the best plan is to try to squeeze as much as they can out of their contract customers (the cell carriers) rather tha…

In fairness to Samsung they do incur non-trivial cost doing this. Imagine this situation Verizon says, "Our Samsung Galaxy S phone must get 2.2" while Sprint says, "No need". Should Sprint have to pay for what Verizon is getting? The issue is that you're going to pay, whether its Samsung or HTC. Some companies will build the price into the phone, others will price it in some other way (or some companies could eat the…

[deleted]

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#97

Post by [deleted] »

kenjackson wrote: post #39
marshray wrote: post #8

Gee, I'd kind of liked Samsung because they seemed to focus on delivering good technology at a good price. I'd figured they perceived themselves as something of an underdog in the past (perhaps relative to the Japanese tech industry). This makes it seem like they're hiring Marketers and MBAs who think the best plan is to try to squeeze as much as they can out of their contract customers (the cell carriers) rather tha…

In fairness to Samsung they do incur non-trivial cost doing this. Imagine this situation Verizon says, "Our Samsung Galaxy S phone must get 2.2" while Sprint says, "No need". Should Sprint have to pay for what Verizon is getting? The issue is that you're going to pay, whether its Samsung or HTC. Some companies will build the price into the phone, others will price it in some other way (or some companies could eat the…

[deleted]

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#98

Post by [deleted] »

kenjackson wrote: post #39
marshray wrote: post #8

Gee, I'd kind of liked Samsung because they seemed to focus on delivering good technology at a good price. I'd figured they perceived themselves as something of an underdog in the past (perhaps relative to the Japanese tech industry). This makes it seem like they're hiring Marketers and MBAs who think the best plan is to try to squeeze as much as they can out of their contract customers (the cell carriers) rather tha…

In fairness to Samsung they do incur non-trivial cost doing this. Imagine this situation Verizon says, "Our Samsung Galaxy S phone must get 2.2" while Sprint says, "No need". Should Sprint have to pay for what Verizon is getting? The issue is that you're going to pay, whether its Samsung or HTC. Some companies will build the price into the phone, others will price it in some other way (or some companies could eat the…

[deleted]

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#99

Post by marshray »

kenjackson wrote: post #39
marshray wrote: post #8

Gee, I'd kind of liked Samsung because they seemed to focus on delivering good technology at a good price. I'd figured they perceived themselves as something of an underdog in the past (perhaps relative to the Japanese tech industry). This makes it seem like they're hiring Marketers and MBAs who think the best plan is to try to squeeze as much as they can out of their contract customers (the cell carriers) rather tha…

In fairness to Samsung they do incur non-trivial cost doing this. Imagine this situation Verizon says, "Our Samsung Galaxy S phone must get 2.2" while Sprint says, "No need". Should Sprint have to pay for what Verizon is getting? The issue is that you're going to pay, whether its Samsung or HTC. Some companies will build the price into the phone, others will price it in some other way (or some companies could eat the…

I know the goal is to run lean and all, but there are these principles called "cost of doing business" and "not chiseling your customers to the point they feel cheated". The problem is they're hard to quantify, so businesses with more spreadsheets than soul are doomed to go down this road.

I'm a software developer and I've built a Linux kernel my share of times. I don't know anything about Android though. But it seems to me we're talking about porting a kernel and some device drivers that you already have working to a new version.

If a new version of Android such a big deal to you then maybe you shouldn't be in the smart phone business? Just sayin.

Like I said, I don't know Android, so someone could 'spain it to me.

Re: Why U.S. Galaxy S Phones run Android 2.1

#100

Post by wmf »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #86
wmf wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Samsung release full source to their Eclair port, the community would be happy to forward-port the drivers to Froyo. But without source they can't.

Are we missing even Eclair source? I know Froyo and GB have changed things enough with some of the drivers that forward porting has been harder than expected... but if Eclair's source is missing, it seems the proper response is some sort of campaign to get Samsung in gear. I do think that HTC responded to GPL complaints when they had held out so long on releasing their kernel mods.

As I said elsewhere in the thread, vendors don't have to release source for drivers (kernel modules); AFAIK every Android phone uses proprietary GPU drivers at least. So even if a vendor released all the source that they're required to release, that may not be enough to create a custom ROM with a future version of Android.
Post reply on HN