Related
I get annoyed when I buy a phone or piece of software only to find I need to wait for firmware or other patches to fix it.
Microsoft have got away with it for years.
Take the magician, T-mobile say now no further upgrades. How easy would it be to add native a2dp, it claims bluetooth 1.2
The universal no working fax s/w, modem drivers, native usb disk drivers as opposed to active sync. No a2dp
Avantgo and other s/w not working on the supplied t-mobile build requiring a firmware upgrade and newer version of wm5 from t-mobile.
What constitues a working device? How many of you have had to use hacked or ftp'd rom's to get a stable device, no memory leaks.
How many people have bought a web camera?, printer only to find that the latest windows version does not have a driver, manufacturer won't supply one.
I think under environment and disposal laws , manufacturers should be made to support the devices for at least 5 years.
Consumers invest money and expect some care for their hard earned $.
I think there should be a better enforced 'suitability for intended purpose' on electronic equipment... we are unlucky with PPCs in that they are such an emerging technology right now, so they are full of bugs.
It is a valid issue you've raised.
The problems inherant in rushing a product to market are as old as the capitalist system!
If a company delays too long trying to get all the bugs out of a product they risk being beaten to the market by a competitor ... which is apparently bad. We have seen cases where superior hardware platforms have failed because they took too long to get to market, and software development was all committed to the first product, even though it was far inferior.
Continued development for an old product is less profitable than releasing a new product.
The irony is that companies can get away with releasing new products which have MORE bugs than the old one ... and people will actually pay money to upgrade. Often because they are attracted by features that they don't need, and which aren't properly implemented anyway.
But new or 'upgraded' laws will never stop this. Companies regularly break laws with little concern because they know that they can reap large profits which will offset the problems that may arise IF they are caught.
A pefect example of this is the body of laws governing the environment and abuse of it for dumping etc.
Companies react much more readily to market forces ... really bad publicity will do more to change a company's activities than laws. Look at Sony and their lovely little rootkit.
And the majority of consumers are simply apathetic.
At the risk of inflating egos ... people who can actually be bothered to seek out and participate in a forum like this are the elite. To actually consider flashing a new ROM onto your device is a concept that most members of the public would find overwhelming.
Blogs, webforums, and participating in projects like those carried out by XDA-DEV are more likely to impact on the future of Pocket PC's than laws which are unlikely to be written, and if they are, won't be enforced properly anyway.
That is true... it would be nice to think that perhaps the developers of Windows CE visit this site and learn from what the greatest members of this community has achieved.
I am a middle school multimedia/computer teacher. Our district is currently exploring options to replace textbooks with tablets and it's coming down to Android vs Apple. I obviously support and favor Android. I have begun to develop an outline to present to the powers that be in attempt to persuade them to see the benefits of Android in education. I will be posting this on several forums...all I'm looking for is some feedback/suggestions/things I may have missed from members of the Android community. Please forgive the formatting. I cut and pasted from a word document and it did not translate very well. I appreciate your reading and suggestions. Thank you in advance for your time.
Before I begin, it is important that we keep a few things in mind. The subject of this document is NOT about the Nook vs the Ipad, it is about Android tablets in general vs the Ipad. As a school district, we are trying to find a device that provides the greatest benefit for our students while at the same time keeping bottom line costs at a minimum. Although it is not an exhaustive list, below are a few reasons that I believe make upcoming Android tablets superior to the Ipad.
- Android is based on the Linux operating system. You can install the newest version of Android or Linux on older hardware and it actually improves the performance of the device. (I have proven this by installing the current version of Linux on over 25 of our school's EEEpc devices, essentially turning outdated paperweights into functional machines for students to use – potentially saving the district thousands of dollars that it would cost to purchase new hardware and keeping technology in our students' hands)
- Android is open-source. This means that anyone can legally modify the operating system to suit his or her needs. Apple, on the other hand, is proprietary, and only legally allows their operating system to be installed on Apple hardware.
- Many Android tablets are expandable via MicroSD cards. In order to expand the storage of the Ipad, an external card reader must be purchased. (once again, this is proprietary, and it's an external device. In other words, if you want to expand the Ipad storage, you're going to have a plug-in card reader sticking out of it).
- With the Ipad, you have only one option. With Android tablets, you have many options, similar to purchasing a computer. If you purchase an Apple computer, you're limited to a few Apple brand configurations. If you purchase an HP, Dell, Toshiba, Acer, etc, all of these brands are reputable and will accomplish the same tasks.
- As more manufacturers begin to market Android tablets, this will drive prices down. Apple has traditionally been FAR more expensive than equivalent specced PCs. I expect this trend to continue with tablets in the long run...(when I say the long run, I mean starting as early as June, if not sooner.
- In order to administer and back up an Android tablet it's as simple as putting data on an SD card and then copying it to the device. Back up is done from the device itself, requiring no additional hardware. In order to administer and sync a cart of 30 Ipads, it is necessary to purchase an Apple laptop. As I said earlier, Apple is expensive...In my professional opinion, this is an unnecessary additional expense at a crucial time for our district to save money).
Q: If Android is so great, why aren't other schools in the area using it? Most of them are using Ipads if anything.
A. There could be several reasons Android is not being used by other schools in the area:
1. Quality tablet technology is a relatively new concept:
a. The Ipad itself is only about a year old.
b. One of the first true quality Android tablets is the Motorola XOOM and it has only been out about 2 months.
- the XOOM carried a hefty $800 price tag when it was released and was sold by Verizon (schools would not be interested in this tablet because most would have no use for a Verizon wireless service contract...schools would want a wifi only version.)
- The wifi only version of the XOOM was just released last Friday. It carries a $600 price tag (which is still pricey, but Motorola is able to price high because it currently is one of the only companies that has an Android tablet with its specs).
1. This will change dramatically in the coming months, for example, in June, Samsung will release an Android tablet comparable to the XOOM (actually better in several aspects) with a $500 price tag.
2. In other words, as more tablets are released, competition will cause prices to drop.
2. Currently, Apple does a better job of marketing than Android.
a. Turn on your TV for a few hours, chances are you're going to see people in your favorite shows using a computer with a huge Apple logo on it...for years, Apple has successfully marketed their products in movies and television shows.
b. Android is free and open source, (where Apple software is restricted to Apple hardware)
1. The fact that Android is open source is both a positive and a negative when it comes to marketing.
- It is a positive because this allows Android to be installed on devices by several manufacturers. (think of it in the same way that you think of Windows being able to be installed on Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc computers)
- It could be a negative because Android could be the best operating system in the world and if you install it on a poor quality device, it's not going to work as well as if you installed it on a high quality device.
c. Apple as a company has been around since April 1, 1976, The Android operating system was released on October 21, 2008. Apple has enjoyed a 32 year head start on marketing.
3. Because the Android is new, it is very possible that personnel in various school districts currently do not fully understand Android, and therefore may be hesitant to adopt it.
Q: What is the Nook Color?
A. $250 (approximate) E-Reader device by Barnes & Noble. It is capable of being rooted to run a full version of the Android operating system.
1. 8 GB of internal storage
a. can be expanded with external micro SD cards
b. external cards can be up to 32 GB
Q: We are purchasing a tablet to be primarily a textbook replacement. Why not just leave it at that, and be satisfied. The device will be serving its intended purpose.
A. I compare this to purchasing a satellite dish with 250 channels and only watching PBS, or
Q: What is “rooting”? Are you going to “hack” this device? Is this legal?
A: When referring to a Nook Color or any other Android Device, I have used the terms “rooting” and “hacking” interchangeably.
1. Rooting simply means overriding any lock downs on the device and granting administrator access to it. (modifying it to allow the injection of additional or altered code)
a. This also means that you will get more bang for your buck because you are essentially giving a $250 device many of the same capabilities that much more expensive devices have.
b. This means that a person can install the base Android operating system on the
device and customize it.
2. Rooting is COMPLETELY LEGAL! (The worst that could happen is that Barnes & Noble releases a future software update to make the device more difficult to root)
3. The bottom line is once you buy the device, it's yours to do what you want with.
4. According to the Barnes & Noble Terms of Service, rooting the nook color will void your warranty.
a. This is true, however, it is possible to restore a rooted device back to stock (the way it was when you first opened the box).
-Restoring the device back to stock (and therefore preserving your warranty) can be done easily in under a half hour in the event you needed to make a warranty claim and ship the device back to the manufacturer.
b. It is also possible to run Android entirely off the SD card, leaving the stock operating system intact and STILL giving you full customization ability. This will NOT void your warranty because you are leaving the base system untouched.
- I compare this to playing Nintendo. (Your experience depends on what disc or cartridge you have in the device).
- If you have the SD card in, the device runs the custom Android (with all the extra bells and whistles)
- If you do not have the SD card in, the device will run the basic Nook Color operating system.
Is this suppose to be a suggestion? community awareness? anyways i would totally go for android. Why? because it is much much more customizable then ipad/mac...and also not to mention the support of Flash playing in android is just great. Now lets talk about why more people go towards ipad/mac? answer is simple. People just don't want to spend time going through features and they want something optimized and "easy to use", you can say they are lazy? or whatever the reason is. Another point is that people go after the publicity, so lets say, my friend bought an iphone/ipad and his friends are impressed by it, they would buy it too...because it's expensive when compared to android...people would show off...and think that this is something important...so more people buy it to show off...then it goes on and on when for Android, people try not to get into this OS because it's quite complicated to actually know all the functions + the app market is huge so it's just like google search engine where you can choose 1 or the other when they both do the same job (choice) when in apple products it's more of 1 app where 1 app does the needs and it's not to complicated to learn as well.
Hope i clarified more...
shad0wboss said:
Is this suppose to be a suggestion? community awareness? anyways i would totally go for android. Why? because it is much much more customizable then ipad/mac...and also not to mention the support of Flash playing in android is just great. Now lets talk about why more people go towards ipad/mac? answer is simple. People just don't want to spend time going through features and they want something optimized and "easy to use", you can say they are lazy? or whatever the reason is. Another point is that people go after the publicity, so lets say, my friend bought an iphone/ipad and his friends are impressed by it, they would buy it too...because it's expensive when compared to android...people would show off...and think that this is something important...so more people buy it to show off...then it goes on and on when for Android, people try not to get into this OS because it's quite complicated to actually know all the functions + the app market is huge so it's just like google search engine where you can choose 1 or the other when they both do the same job (choice) when in apple products it's more of 1 app where 1 app does the needs and it's not to complicated to learn as well.
Hope i clarified more...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for the response. I've received several suggestions between various forums and email correspondence and we have 2 Nook Colors now...One for me and one for the Language Arts teacher. I'm running various mods off SD card installs and tweaking features. Once I get things the way I want them I'll give the Language Arts teacher hers and modify as necessary.
Yes, yes, technically the Google-Motorola deal still isn’t final. In other words, anything could still go wrong and Motorola may just back out of the big deal of the moment.
But for now, we’re still all delirious about how Google has announced its near-definite purchase of Motorola Mobility, makers of such landmark phones as the RAZR of yesteryear and the Droid series.
And yet Google is not a hardware firm, while Motorola Mobility (let’s just call them Motorola for simplicity) is all about the hardware. So pundits have been abuzz about how Moto may not be a good fit for the Google ad-based ecosystem, or how its presence in Google’s arsenal could actually be a liability when dealing with other phone makers.
Well, here’s what I think: I think it can work… but Google will have to break up Motorola.
The way I see it, Motorola has four core sources of value:
•The patent portfolio, which has been Google’s target all along
•Manufacturing capabilities
•People and talents
•The brand legacy
Google needs two of these cores and can do without the other two. Can you guess which ones?
Yup. Patents. And people.
Therefore, if I were Google CEO Larry Page, here’s what I’ll do after the acquisition process has been completed:
•Move the patent portfolio from Motorola’s assets into Google’s assets – yup, let Google own them directly
•Reorganize Motorola so that Google gets to pluck some of their more brilliant groups and talents. Larry Dignan of ZDNet says there’s gold in Motorola’s enterprise sales team. I’d go further and say take them out and create a separate Google-Moto enterprise SWAT team to help bundle the entire Google experience
•Spin off Motorola into a fully-owned but autonomous design and manufacturing operation, with a Google-appointed board of directors… and with no patents of its own for now
As a Google-owned corporation, Motorola benefits from getting cheap (or free) use of the patent portfolio which it developed in the first place. And they still get to do their own thing like before… except now they have to do Android the way Google wants them to do Android. Bonus: no cash flow worries.
And with Motorola being a separate entity, partners like Samsung and HTC will have peace of mind.
Extreme case: Google strips all patents out of Motorola, and then SELLS Motorola off again since it doesn’t have any use for a hardware firm.
Google, meanwhile, will find itself in the pleasant situation of becoming a patent repository. They will realize that a patent is, after all, information… and hey, they’re in the information business, right?
So this may lead to a potentially new business model. Right now, they have Google Patents, and it serves only as a helpful but non-revenue-generating search engine. But what if it could become a revenue-generating search business too?
What if businesses search for patents that they need and, right next to the results entries, they can click on a rights purchase plan that they can take right there and then? Google then becomes the financial intermediary between inventors and commercial developers… and they get a royalty cut per unit sold.
In the scheme of things, 17,000 patents isn’t that much, but it’s a start. Google can now start commercializing these patents and putting price tags on them, available to whoever wishes to get them. And maybe pricier if you happen to be Microsoft or Apple.
Far out? I don’t think so. It may not happen exactly this way, but I think something like it is inevitable in the future.
I'm not sure if you know, but Motorola is separate from Motorola Mobility. The company split in two earlier this year I believe. Hence why Motorola phones now have red Ms as logos to signify Motorola Mobility. So Google is buying the mobile phone portion of Motorola, not Motorola as a whole.
And Google being in the business of hardware is not a bad thing. They will set the standards for builds and hardware that will (hopefully) unify the other Android manufacturers. They aren't out for blood with this move, they are out to:
1. Create a solid and unchanging platform model to develop their OS against.
2. Protect themselves from Apple.
3. Protect competitors of Motorola from being sued by Motorola.
I don't see this as a vicious take over of the Android hardware arena, but more as an attempt to unify, set standards, and cover their butt. Apple is acting like a-holes, so this HAD to happen. If this was about cornering the market in hardware, they would have taken the open clause out of Android completely.
majorpay said:
And Google being in the business of hardware is not a bad thing. They will set the standards for builds and hardware that will (hopefully) unify the other Android manufacturers. They aren't out for blood with this move, they are out to:
1. Create a solid and unchanging platform model to develop their OS against.
2. Protect themselves from Apple.
3. Protect competitors of Motorola from being sued by Motorola.
I don't see this as a vicious take over of the Android hardware arena, but more as an attempt to unify, set standards, and cover their butt. Apple is acting like a-holes, so this HAD to happen. If this was about cornering the market in hardware, they would have taken the open clause out of Android completely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. Apple is a software company who outsources their hardware manufacturing; They don't make their own parts. But people assume and treat them like they do. "OMG the iPhone 4 is beautiful, Apple builds them so well too". No, Apple DESIGNED them, but they didn't BUILD them. All the credit is given to Apple. You see what I'm getting at?
Google doesn't have a "face" in the market. The average person doesn't know Android is made by Google (who actually didn't make it themselves to begin with, but that's another story). At least now people will have a brand to associate with Google.
Product F(RED) said:
I agree. Apple is a software company who outsources their hardware manufacturing; They don't make their own parts. But people assume and treat them like they do. "OMG the iPhone 4 is beautiful, Apple builds them so well too". No, Apple DESIGNED them, but they didn't BUILD them. All the credit is given to Apple. You see what I'm getting at?
Google doesn't have a "face" in the market. The average person doesn't know Android is made by Google (who actually didn't make it themselves to begin with, but that's another story). At least now people will have a brand to associate with Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In most cases (getting technical), Apple actually didn't design anything either. They either acquired the I.P. through buying other companies, or in other cases, they license a third party manufacturer to create something that is pretty much the same as everything else, except with proprietary functions and perhaps a unique case design. Look at the state of their modern PCs. They are, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than a PC, BUT they contain some proprietary interfaces to ensure a lack of compatibility.
As far as Google having a name in the hardware arena, Motorola has always been that face, as anyone who has heard of Android has heard of Droid, and by by-proxy Motorola (of course, their fame extends to the Razr as well in the mobile sector).
Closed
As much interesting your post can be, all related topics must be posted in here
On July 21st, Zimperium Mobile Security group dropped word of the most pervasive and threatening Android vulnerability discovered to date: Stagefright. With the ability to remotely execute commands on an Android phone just by sending an MMS media message to an unprotected phone number, Stagefright is a rare exploit offering the entire keys to a user's castle. The fallout over the past few weeks has been swift, with Google moving rapidly to patch the underlying Android system vulnerability and push updates to manufacturers. Problem solved.
Except for the multi-millions of Android owners still using older phones which are no longer supported with regular system updates from their carrier. Currently, there is no plan from major cellphone manufacturers nor the telecom carriers to protect Android owners who still operate older model phones. This protection gap also extends into no-contract cellphone resellers who cannot pass through regular system updates. As such, there are currently a substantial number of Android owners who are not protected from Stagefright and the potential for having personal data monitored and stolen.
Given the severe implications of identity theft, financial loss, or personal embarrassment and endangerment due to the exposure of private information, have we arrived at a point when digital data security must be considered a matter of consumer safety? It is well established that car manufacturers must recall certain models due to defective parts or systems which endangered lives. Therefore, should phone carriers then also be expected to issue phone recalls when a serious security exploit is identified?
There are some past examples of phone carriers issuing recalls for defective batteries or total system faults that render phones inoperable, but no significant instance of a recall for a security related vulnerability. At best, carriers could take the initiative to implement low-cost phone exchange programs with no additional service obligation for users with outdated phones. Meanwhile, phones with current Android versions can largely be patched through ongoing updates. At worst, carriers can continue to place the greater burden of data security onto individuals and abuse emerging security vulnerabilities as a marketing device to drive more purchases of their newer devices. Regardless of how much or little of the cost carriers will assume, the stakes for personal data security will only continue to grow.
Greetings all,
I have been unable to find any sort of best practices for this, on this or any other site, so I hope you can provide some insights.
My company has just started to deploy Android tablets to users in the field and I am looking for guidance on the recommended replacement/retirement interval for standard consumer-level Android tablets. For standard desktops and laptops this interval would typically be 3 or 4 years, but given how quickly the Android OS changes and how quickly a device may be obsoleted by virtue of end-of-life or lack or ongoing OS upgrades I would assume that the effective lifespan of a tablet would be shorter than that, not to mention that these are going to be used by non-technical people who may not be treating them as electronic devices but more like paperbacks that run on batteries.
Already we are seeing devices coming back in for repair due to forced charging cable insertions and/or bent micro-USB connectors, as well as the standard cracked screens and such, so these may end up being destroyed before their expected usefulness has been achieved, and as much as we have made the case to management that we ought to be deploying ruggedized devices supported by enterprise-level MDM, they insisted on launching with Samsung Tab S2's and SOTI Mobicontrol for MDM.
So, choice of device and MDM aside, when would you,if you were administering this deployment, plan on refreshing the devices in the field? That is, taking the old ones back in and providing all-new ones before they begin to show age (not wear) related problems? Accounting can write them off over any interval but we want to replace them before the support becomes too burdensome and the devices too unreliable (affecting productivity).
2 years? 3? Something else?
Many thanks,
Matt