Related
I hate the way Apple chooses to lock down their devices with iTunes and the App Store, but I'm equally as frustrated with every damn Android device running proprietary crapware on top of Android. There, I said it.
I mean, the selling point is, or should be, Android. Not Samsung or HTC's poor attempts to create superfluous software that does what Android (2.2 anyway) already does, only worse and laggier. I just started up a new contract on Vodafone (Germany) and got a Galaxy S for 149 Euro. I jailbroke and carrier unlocked my old iPhone 3G (from T-Mobile) and popped in my new Vodafone SIM and I'm probably going to put the Galaxy S on eBay to reap the profit off it while it's still high priced. (our contract phones are not carrier locked)
I mean, yea the iPhone 3G is laggy with iOS4, but with jailbreak it's still overall less frustrating than the Galaxy S has been for me. Google needs to *****slap the manufacturers into installing vanilla Android and vanilla Android ONLY. Let them install their proprietary apps like Samsung App Market (and third party apps like some carriers do). That can all be deleted once they are rooted anyway. It's this annoying ROM juggling that is ruining the Android experience for a lot of people who want to get away from Apple, RIM, Microsoft, etc. The only real option for a vanilla experience for most users right now is the Nexus One, which is no longer produced and to which there will be no successor. Why can't we just be given vanilla, and THEN decide whether we want Swype or Sense, or whatever else?
I'm not trying to slag the Android community, because they are great. And I'm far, far from an Apple "fanboy", it's just the manufacturers that are creating too much differentiation within Android. I mean of course Android will experience differentiation with multiple hardware manufactuers. It's part of being an open platform. The problem is it's exacerbated exponentially by the mountains of crapware shoveled onto each different phone.
That it appears Samsung decided to use an internal SD to run the OS and apps is frustrating as well. All that fantastic hardware paired with a slow internal SD with crap I/O performance is kind of....?! Shouldn't have to buy a class 6-10 microSD and partition it with ext4 just to get the phone running the way it should. Especially with the rest of the hardware being wonderful.
I mean.....maybe this is heresy here, but jailbreaking an iPhone4 and using Cydia, et al, seems to be less of a hassle than rooting and ROMing something like the Galaxy S. At least with the iPhone you don't need to remove third party crapware (although the case can be made for Apple's YouTube app being worthless non-removable third party crapware).
The reason I, co-workers and friends of mine find Android so appealing is the ability to install whatever we want, whenever we want. The ability to circumvent an "App Market" and install a Torrent manager to control torrents at home on the go, or to install third party browsers that may offer better performance/options, or other third party applications that technically "compete" with the native Android apps written by Google.
That's what we find so appealing. What we hate, and what keeps us holding out a little on Android (those of us without Nexus Ones) are the aforementioned problems. If the phones simply came with Vanilla Android or if there were a simple option for reverting the phones to Vanilla Android that didn't involve rooting and hunting around for custom ROMs (which often have their own superfluous crap installed) it would draw people towards the Android platform at an even quicker rate. At least with iOS4 we know what we're getting. With Android devices it's a grab bag of poorly written, superfluous crapware, where the only hope is that you can find a device with the least amount.
What is wrong with simply handing us Android devices with vanilla Android? Is every manufacturer afraid that without them guiding us through the experience with their own interpretation that the commonfolk will get lost in the vast sea of open source Android? I mean it's like the blind leading those with 20/20 vision at this point.
Or is it just greed reaching through trying to somehow claim that loading their devices up with crapware increases their profit margins and compensates for the people they wind up driving or keeping away from Android?
I'm just rambling at this point and need coffee. And a vanilla Android device.
I completely agree. I haven't tried the alternate UIs like HTC Sense, but I feel like if it does anything better than vanilla Android, then whatever it does that's better should just be added to vanilla Android.
1st off I too find Android to iPhoney to use. So after testing android for a couple weeks I'm back to WM. I just don't like hitting 6 buttons to do anything. That being said its not fair to compare a brand new phone that been on the market a couple weeks to a phone that launched in 2007. Thats really not fair to android or Samsung.
Standard Android is extremely unattractive to look at. Therefore manufacturers try to enhance it.
addicus said:
Standard Android is extremely unattractive to look at. Therefore manufacturers try to enhance it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I actually prefer the minimalistic look and feel of the standard Android, but that is probably just me.
I can see why you like the minimalist look but the eye candy is for attracting people. If you have never used a smartphone or come from the notmephone you want to be able to navigate through to the essentials the first time you pick it up. HTC Sense allows that, SPB Mobile Shell allows that but standard Android doesn't. Veteran users or Windows Mobile users like myself are fine with it.
Ok, basically my wife is looking into a new phone and our options are more or less limitless, she just wants advantages and disadvantages of each OS. She's not picky and doesn't always need the most popular OS, she wants form, factor, and function. I am looking for a phone that will take a sim so trying to avoid Verizon and Sprint phones. Heres my opinions on the ones I can think up.
iOS-I wouldnt touch it with a ten foot pole personally but regardless of my personal feelings if it's jailbroken it's not actually a terrible OS just a bit bland. The hardware limitations and the fact that they're still building the same updates for the 2g that they are for the 4g causes some immense limitations and I cant think of an update that made a real difference.
Android- Good but often laggy even with a snapdragon. The UI customization is nice but they're killing themselves not allowing a GPU accelerated UI. I have a Dell Streak for my "fun phone" and though I love it it does seem more appealing to have a phone that "just works" for her. I dont think android will be quite as long-lived though its doing well so far. How can one expect a UI to have devoted developers when you can get anything you want free.
Windows phone 7- Perfect business device, still in what seems almost an open beta phase and lacking a lot of basic features. More promise than any other OS but for the time being it's not living up to the hype.
BadaOS-Support? What support? plays out like a bad WebOS ripoff
Blackberry-Just the most boring thing in the world. Aside from battery life I cannot seem to realize how this OS sells well outside of the old people who dont really know how to use a phone but want something high end...
WebOS- It had it's day in the spotlight and that didn't last too long... I mean its functional but feels almost dirty compared to the more modern OSes
WM6.5- Great OS for someone who wants to devote hours and hours and hours to customizing it to be the most functional OS. Sadly the only device worth having thats wm6.5 anymore is the LEO/HD2.
These are all opinions of mine, she just wants to know the opinion of others. Thanks for your input.
What is her level of technical expertise?
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk
Moderate, a gaming device would be great but something with a pleasant UI is more appealing
If you don't mind about the limited hardware choice then iOS is very good, especially for newcomers. It'll probably make your life easier (less questions to answer).
Android is a different matter. The experience depends highly on what manufacturer you go for, but if you choose well then you get one of the best (functionality-wise) smartphone OSes out there together with a wide choice of hardware.
Personally I'd suggest the Nexus S (if you can cope with 16GB storage), or failing that the Galaxy S. Both are lovely devices, but the Nexus edges it with it's lovely display, GPU accelerated transitions (Android finally somewhat smooth) and Gingerbread.
Windows Phone 7? If you're a big business and/or Office user, then it's probably the easiest OS to get working with. It has good video/gaming capabilities and a GPU accelerated UI but currently suffers from limited storage space on most devices.
Choose if you love the UI or are a OneNote addict, otherwise I'd stick to the safer bet of Android/iOS for the time-being and wait for things to play out. You probably wouldn't buy a device running iOS 1 or Android 1.5 today, so I'd wait for Windows 7 to catch-up. It is good. It will be great, just in a little while.
That said you should have no problem editing/viewing Office docs or accessing Exchange email on either Android or iOS.
BlackBerry OS - used to be the pinnacle of a smartphone OS, but a lack of innovation and poor hardware has choked the platform, and RIM have said that in the future top-end BlackBerry devices will run the QNX OS they are running on the PlayBook.
WebOS - very good, but still failed to catch up fully with iOS/Android even with the recent update. That said, I think someone has to try a WebOS first - some people love it, some hate it. Limited range of apps.
WinMo 6.5 - Do not buy anymore, unless your business requires it.
Bada OS - Just no. No developers. No apps. No fantastic devices.
joeearl13 said:
If you don't mind about the limited hardware choice then iOS is very good, especially for newcomers. It'll probably make your life easier (less questions to answer).
Android is a different matter. The experience depends highly on what manufacturer you go for, but if you choose well then you get one of the best (functionality-wise) smartphone OSes out there together with a wide choice of hardware.
Personally I'd suggest the Nexus S (if you can cope with 16GB storage), or failing that the Galaxy S. Both are lovely devices, but the Nexus edges it with it's lovely display, GPU accelerated transitions (Android finally somewhat smooth) and Gingerbread.
Windows Phone 7? If you're a big business and/or Office user, then it's probably the easiest OS to get working with. It has good video/gaming capabilities and a GPU accelerated UI but currently suffers from limited storage space on most devices.
Choose if you love the UI or are a OneNote addict, otherwise I'd stick to the safer bet of Android/iOS for the time-being and wait for things to play out. You probably wouldn't buy a device running iOS 1 or Android 1.5 today, so I'd wait for Windows 7 to catch-up. It is good. It will be great, just in a little while.
That said you should have no problem editing/viewing Office docs or accessing Exchange email on either Android or iOS.
BlackBerry OS - used to be the pinnacle of a smartphone OS, but a lack of innovation and poor hardware has choked the platform, and RIM have said that in the future top-end BlackBerry devices will run the QNX OS they are running on the PlayBook.
WebOS - very good, but still failed to catch up fully with iOS/Android even with the recent update. That said, I think someone has to try a WebOS first - some people love it, some hate it. Limited range of apps.
WinMo 6.5 - Do not buy anymore, unless your business requires it.
Bada OS - Just no. No developers. No apps. No fantastic devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thank you for your reply my wife still wants WP7 but I keep trying to tell her that even though I use it it could take time to work the kinks out. She is considering android but samsung devices are hard to go with especially the galaxy S devices due to the buffer overrun issues. I think we've more or less narrowed it down to those two its just hard to pick which though she is in love with the netflix integration. I think its between the mytouch 4g and the samsung focus
The MT4G is a fantastic device. I'm sure she'd have more fun with it than WP7 and its limited options.
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk
Now when you say limited options what do you mean? I only ask because I recently converted to windows phone 7 after tinkering with android for 2 years and never once having something that felt 'complete.' Also is there any site that I can make one of those phone histories on or do I have to use paint?
WM: The most tested OS good and stable for business, thousands of apps, tweaks, themes, etc a lot of knowledge.
Android: Nice to play with as all is new and free but I got easily bored
WP7: So new, needs more time to get mature. Too closed similar to apple
The hardware limitations and the fact that they're still building the same updates for the 2g that they are for the 4g causes some immense limitations and I cant think of an update that made a real difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No they aren't. The 2g is stuck on Ios 3.2, while the Iphone 4 is on 4.2. Plus the hardware in the Iphone 4 is just about as fast as Snapdragon, and cortex. Hell, the A4 is a Cortex A8.
Android- I like Android a lot, but some of the manufactures don't take it as seriously as I like, and some manufactures are terrible with updates.(Samsung) And the UI isn't hardware accelerated AFAIK. But very easy to customize, I like that. Manufactures can make Android great, or bad.(Motorola, I'm talking to you with your Motoblur crap)
Ios- I like Ios too, but there are a few issues with it. AT&T is the big one, and the second issue because of that is limited data. I can't say that it's a bad thing that to make it useful to my standards, you have to jailbreak it because every Android phone I've had I've rooted for it to work great. I wish Apple would come out with an Iphone with a screen bigger than 3.7inch. And I wish Steve would not have so much hatred towards Adobe, because that means no real flash for Iphone while it's fully capable of it. Frash is okay for the Iphone, but real flash would be better.
BB Os- I'll tell you the same thing I tell people I sell these to. Blackberry is a business phone, so don't expect the fun and colorful UI you see in other OSes. It is very simple to use though, but RIM is stuck on hardware that was released almost 2 years ago. The Pre is originally clocked at 600 mhz like the Droid, the chip inside the Torch which is the newest Blackberry is only at 624 mhz, like the Storm, the Storm 2, the Bold, etc etc. Also, Blackberry does not like to update their phones to the current OS, despite most of the phones having the same specs. It is what it is.
Windows Mobile 6.5- Not bad, but not great. A nice business OS though.
Windows Phone 7- I like it a lot, but no flash support right now is a killer. I don't mind it not having things like bluetooth transfer since I really don't use it, but I would like copy and paste. Also they need to hurry up and expand to different carriers! D:
Symbian- Personally I never used it, but people say it is very versatile.
Webos- I like Webos a lot, I really do. But there simply isn't enough support behind it from developers, which means a huge lack of apps compared to Android and Ios. The big thing that kills me about it, is the fact that the Pre only has a 3inch screen, even the Pre 2 has a 3inch screen despite having specs that can be compared to the Droid 2!
Bada- Samsung, so I can't expect too much from it. I haven't tried it though, and I really don't want to.
What kind of user is your wife? If she wants a phone that does games, txt, email etc... then you have to take into consideration what is the best at these?
IOS even with it's limitations is probably the most "polished" out there. Has a huge base of followers, tons of apps, and it does work out of the box. Sure it's bland in its interface and your locked in with AT&T and the iWorld of Apple. Not to mention that you can't do anything with the hardware itself.
Android: Catching up to Apple - but still not the "iPhone killer" - yet. I personally love Android - and with enough tweaking I don't experience lag on my Captivate. But.. I would highly suggest NOT getting a Galaxy S phone. Too many issues with the devices to merit getting. I would go with an HTC.
Win Mobile 7: Although this looks promising.. if I wanted a boring interface and all the junk that goes with the OS? I'd have an iPhone. And not to mention it's still in its infancy - so who knows if it will go the way of the Do Do bird?
Should also mention about Android, if she gets an Android phone but doesn't root it, then she'll have to deal with all the bloatware the carriers put on the phone.
Can someone really tell me what WP7 and iphone comparisons there really are aside from their more strict markets. I mean yeah you cant sideload apps as easy as android but what motivation do devs have to continue developing if their apps are distributed for free.
For the simple love of sharing!!!
As it have been done for many years in WM
z33dev33l said:
Can someone really tell me what WP7 and iphone comparisons there really are aside from their more strict markets. I mean yeah you cant sideload apps as easy as android but what motivation do devs have to continue developing if their apps are distributed for free.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google says that Ice Cream Sandwich will defragment the Android OS. Obviously it will defragment in terms of bringing together phones, tablets & google TV but an iDevice level of defragmentation? I.E, all devices having the ability to upgrade to the latest version of the OS immediately or even eventually? It seems possible but it doesn't seem probable, but that is where I think Android needs to eventually end up.
Obviously if your hardware didn't warrant the software upgrade they could lock you out of a certain upgrade or warn you that it may cause significant issues with your device.
I can't wait to find out more about this =]
IMO, the defragmentation comes from the individual phone manufacturer, and different phone specs, less so than the different medium.
What they really need is something like the windows phone 7 has in terms of minimum hardware specs, certain buttons required, certain hardware, etc. That still allows a wide range of devices but allows for some conaistency. Google also needs to start taking over the updating of the phones which will help as well. Relying on manufacturers and carriers does not bode well for upgrades.
Tapped from my CherryPi Atrix
termleech said:
What they really need is something like the windows phone 7 has in terms of minimum hardware specs, certain buttons required, certain hardware, etc. That still allows a wide range of devices but allows for some conaistency. Google also needs to start taking over the updating of the phones which will help as well. Relying on manufacturers and carriers does not bode well for upgrades.
Tapped from my CherryPi Atrix
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're one step closer if ICS devices will no longer have physical buttons.
Does this mean Icecream cannot be installed on current Android phones?
SaqibArif said:
Does this mean Icecream cannot be installed on current Android phones?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It means that Devs will need to port it to older hardware, especially the phones that came out w/o 1GHz cores Single cores...Like the Legend, G1, Aria, Droid 1, hero, X10, etc...But phones with Sense or Touchwiz, or Timescape, or LG UI, will be waiting longer for a official update instead. ICS will most likely be intensive on the older phones that are weaker, Gingerbread kills many older phones already, so imagine ICS on them.
Ace42 said:
It means that Devs will need to port it to older hardware, especially the phones that came out w/o 1GHz cores Single cores...Like the Legend, G1, Aria, Droid 1, hero, X10, etc...But phones with Sense or Touchwiz, or Timescape, or LG UI, will be waiting longer for a official update instead. ICS will most likely be intensive on the older phones that are weaker, Gingerbread kills many older phones already, so imagine ICS on them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're actually correct except the fact that google said themselves at google IO before showing the digital zoom based on vocal recognition that ICS would have -no- hardware requirements so I think that it would be more intensive, but still optimized for the phones. Kind of like how you can run Linux on damn near anything.
Indirect said:
You're actually correct except the fact that google said themselves at google IO before showing the digital zoom based on vocal recognition that ICS would have -no- hardware requirements so I think that it would be more intensive, but still optimized for the phones. Kind of like how you can run Linux on damn near anything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Didn't know they stated that, well I guess that's good news for everyone then. But the performance on older phones is still questionable.
With the number of different devices utilizing different hardware sets, it will be damn near impossible to establish one version to fit all devices unless they take the windows approach on desktops and allow the user to apply driver updates separately from their device manufacturers.
Also there is the other issue with app fragmentation where folks like nvidia are paying the developers to use device specific codes to make the apps not compatible with other devices instead of utilizing standard openGL which is nearly identical.
I think that standardizing the android 'experience' with a standard set of buttons or hardware requirements is ultimately an exercise in futility. People still see the smartphone world in terms of manufacturers, not in terms of operating systems, and no amount of standardization is going to change the fact that when you look at your phone, you see Samsung or HTC, not android.
I think the question is more, do consumers really need to know or care whether their device runs android or something else? I think not. Your average consumer makes choices of phone based on hardware reliability, cost, carrier availability, aesthetic, popularity, and many other factors. I'm not completely discounting user experience, but I don't think it's as prominent in the decision making process as the enthusiasts assume (the decision making process of the general populace that is). When you consider this, fragmentation of the operating system across many different manufacturers really doesn't make much of a difference to the image of the OS itself.
The only reason that android fragmentation is even an issue/concept whose consequences need to be pondered is because on the other side of the fence we have Apple making consistent hardware that runs on the same OS, and making boatloads of money off it. On the other hand, android is doing fine (and exceeding the iOS market share in many markets) even though it has this market fragmented across many different manufacturers.
Google needs to fix the fragmentation!!!
Niksko said:
I think that standardizing the android 'experience' with a standard set of buttons or hardware requirements is ultimately an exercise in futility. People still see the smartphone world in terms of manufacturers, not in terms of operating systems, and no amount of standardization is going to change the fact that when you look at your phone, you see Samsung or HTC, not android.
I think the question is more, do consumers really need to know or care whether their device runs android or something else? I think not. Your average consumer makes choices of phone based on hardware reliability, cost, carrier availability, aesthetic, popularity, and many other factors. I'm not completely discounting user experience, but I don't think it's as prominent in the decision making process as the enthusiasts assume (the decision making process of the general populace that is). When you consider this, fragmentation of the operating system across many different manufacturers really doesn't make much of a difference to the image of the OS itself.
The only reason that android fragmentation is even an issue/concept whose consequences need to be pondered is because on the other side of the fence we have Apple making consistent hardware that runs on the same OS, and making boatloads of money off it. On the other hand, android is doing fine (and exceeding the iOS market share in many markets) even though it has this market fragmented across many different manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very well said!
I'm sure there will be plenty of ICS support for older devices from the dev community. I'd expect most, if not all of the devices currently supported by
Cyanogenmod to see an ICS upgrade when the time comes.
looks like i should wait a bit more longer b4 i upgrade some of my hardware
Lots of life left in the the super HTC Desire yet then....
Nice, I will enjoy seeing ICS hit retail, if for nothing else the conversations on this forum, lol.
yes of course...
it'll be 3 main pockets
all the hardware that was on 2.3.x GB are automatically compatible with ICS 4.x, so all those automatically will join the 4.x cloud
but we have all the 2.2 Froyo and 2.1 Eclair hardware that are too old for ICS both of those becomes 1 cloud, most 2.1 devices are already on 2.2 anyways.
so the last cloud are those super old 1.5 devices
so in reality we are better off now than before
if you imagine a pie chart it'll be like 1% AOSP 1.5.x devices 49% 2.2 AOSP devices, and 50% ICE 4.x devices
iLiberate said:
Google says that Ice Cream Sandwich will defragment the Android OS. Obviously it will defragment in terms of bringing together phones, tablets & google TV but an iDevice level of defragmentation? I.E, all devices having the ability to upgrade to the latest version of the OS immediately or even eventually? It seems possible but it doesn't seem probable, but that is where I think Android needs to eventually end up.
Obviously if your hardware didn't warrant the software upgrade they could lock you out of a certain upgrade or warn you that it may cause significant issues with your device.
I can't wait to find out more about this =]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
amaliapika said:
yes of course...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, love that you bumped a 6 month old thread with "yes of course". Struggling to reach 10 posts eh?
I just saw an ad on TV for an android device on one of the big us carriers (I forget which one) and it was really bad. It made me realize something I've never agreed with before: that indeed android fragmentation is a hinderence.
Hear me out. Obviously being an active xda member I'm pro-android, but most people with android devices aren't on xda and wont root or even use a different launcher. So that is why I realize carriers like Verizon or whoever have to show generic commercials with no or little focus on the actual operation system. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for the carriers, they are the ones that take forever to update android versions. But they don't have to. That's the "beauty" of android.
But this has never been more of an issue than right now, I argue. Android 4.2.x is excellent and beautiful. It is the first time an iPhone user could try android and actually feel like it could be in the same competition as iOS in terms of looks and general UI. Meanwhile only a very tiny percent of android users have the latest version.
So to bring it back around to the commercial I saw, which goes for pretty much all android commercials I've ever seen, they do not display android at all! Its always generic futuristic music and background fx and distractions. Meanwhile iOS always shows a closeup of the phone with a mere finger navigating the os.
The ironic thing is that android is better now! But carriers take months or a year to update so they can only advertise their ****ty versions of android which are always stale at the time so instead they just show the phone dancing to dubstep music in front of lightning. They should be showing how Google Now is already way better than siri, how the notification drop down was started by Android (taken by iOS) and is now beautiful and functional, and how the recents button has become essential, not just usable.
There should be a SHORT grace period for carriers to update to the newest version of Android. Only then will they realize that their biggest asset isn't their ability to have 20 different android phones, or their attempt at theming a ROM (sense, touchwiz), but you actually have the best operating system out now! You just don't have the latest version because you're a phone network company and not a software development company.
But I put the blame on android because surely they are able to have a bit more control over how the big carriers manipulate their os? Why wouldn't a company like Verizon want to display the freshest os and advertise that they have the newest version of android and will always be this first to update because they don't change a thing? They would advertise that if Google had some sort or mandate on update time periods. Then android wouldn't always be thought of as the poor mans iOS .
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
The problem is, I don't think the average user - the one you're talking about - cares about "updates". They're just something annoying that happens and you have to restart your phone for a while. They don't care if it has the "newest" Android OS, just that it does what they want - this is the rest of my family feels, and even some of my friends who ARE interested in tech.
My dad couldn't give a crap if he has ICS or JB and wouldn't be able to tell the difference. If you put 4.2 in front of him, I doubt he could tell you the difference without spending half an hour hunting it down - and after that, I would question if the changes are anything he would actually care about. That kind of a user doesn't really WANT fast change - they care that things are familiar and easy to use, they don't want to have to re-learn parts of their phone in a few months - that's one thing I can give to iOS - as boring as it is, it's well, the same.
People have always said that one particular iteration of Android is when it's "finally ready to take on iOS". I think ICS is fine in that regard. iOS is so stylistically "stagnant" that Android really doesn't have to do much to match it. The advantage of iOS is that it's always the same, that it's not changing, that you can upgrade your phone hardware and still have everything work exactly the way you knew.
"Constantly updating" appeals to tech geeks who love learning new things and better ways to use them - and that's what the Nexus line is for - that's what flashing ROMs is for. People that want that find it.
Basically, your average Android phone shopper is Windows, not Linux. They're there because they want a phone that fits their needs and price-point - something Apple isn't offering. Sure, some people are Windows people for other reasons - but we're talking the average person who just wants a computer they can afford that "just works".
A good example is my mom - I just helped her buy a tablet. She was a little afraid of the idea of an Android tablet because she had no brand familiarity. She'd seen people using iPads to do what she wanted, and was worried because she'd never heard of ASUS and better knew Samsung as an appliance-maker. These ads, the most important thing they can do is just get people to recognise the name. There have been studies done on this, and it's true - getting people to know your brand's name is one of the best things you can do. That way, the "average Joe" goes into the store and thinks, "Hey, that's Samsung - I've heard of that" and the human brain tends to go, "I've heard of that, so it must be good" - true or not. They aren't looking at the specs and comparing, they're looking for a device they can trust. Trust starts with familiarity. The iPhone came from a company that already had name-recognition, but they grew that into a much larger market by using exclusivity and ease of use. It's like with liquor - people see an expensive liquor and assume that it must be a better liquor. Simply jacking up prices has totally worked for some brands to gain success. I'm not even kidding. People do this with expensive purses and jeans and crap, too - even if it's all made in the same exact Chinese factories.
Um.
Sorry for the novel.
tl;dr : Our brains are often illogical
sd0070 said:
Android 4.2.x is excellent and beautiful. It is the first time an iPhone user could try android and actually feel like it could be in the same competition as iOS in terms of looks and general UI.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android has been able to compete in looks and general UI since 4.0 IMO, and easily since 2.2 with Sense. Smoothness is a completely different factor, but the actual look and feel of Android has been decent for a while. iOS isn't even a UI anymore, it's an app launcher and that is all. You can't do anything at all in iOS outside of the apps, which is frankly pathetic. iOS works as Apple wants it to, Android works like you want it to.
As a developer I do think Android fragmentation is a huge issue. I agree that Android 4.0+ is nice looking and has some very nice API's however developing Android applications that run consistently accross different devices is very difficult. I find more and more that a good portion of my code ends up being wrappers and reflection calls to support API's and classes not found in previous Android versions. For example, If I want to add media player lock-screen controls to my application it's not a problem in Android 4.0+ but the class isn't available in versions below 4.0. So, what am I supposed to do? Do I release a version to the play store and say my application supports lock screen controls ONLY if you run a specific version of Android? That certainly won't ecourage people to use the application. Just my opinion.
I agree it can be a problem for development.
However, I think it's reasonable to say, "this feature will only work on 4.0+" - people are used to that, if you have a Windows 98 machine still, I hope you're not expecting to be able to run everything a Windows 7 machine could, for example. I see things like designations requiring XP/Vista/7, et cetera on packages - I don't think it's unreasonable that at some point Android is the same - you can only reasonably support so far back because at some point it's just not worth your time.
If it's possible to implement below 4.0 and it's worth your time to make it happen - that's the cost of business to decide if it's worth it or not to support the older devices based on what your market looks like.
What do you think when someone asks you about the worst part about Android? Chances are, Android fragmentation is one of the first things that flies through your head. But I've been thinking about it and I haven't noticed anything to suggest that I am not alone.
It is well known that Android owns the smartphone market globally. It has done this by being open source. This has become it's greatest strength and it greatest weakness. For the first point, it is currently on over a billion devices all over the world. As for the second, I think you can guess: fragmentation. God knows how many different companies have taken Android and twisted it to their laggy and unsupported preference. I would really like to point towards the manufacturers that basically releases a new phone every month to three months. These include Samsung, Blu, and countless others. Here looks like a good place to say that I HATE THOSE LITTLE COMPANIES WITH THEIR CRAP TABLETS ON AMAZON. Anyway, Samsung probably is the worst right? With their big fancy skin and slow updates....well look at Blu! They have at least two dozen phones, tablets, and everything in between, most of which don't get a single update (to the next large update like 5.0, 5.1, etc. This doesn't include small patches, though I'm sure that they don't give many of those). Now I know that this is starting to turn into a rant, but that's OK. I'm almost ready to point out my...point. :l
If any of your friends, co-workers, acquaintances have iPhones, you might have heard the "why does my iPhone 4 on iOS 6 not support this app" complaint (or something similar). I've found that most apps work with Android Jelly Bean, ICS, or even Gingerbread, all of which are as old or older than iOS 6. Android apps support older versions of Android better than iOS does, which has very few fragmentation problems. Quick note: Some people haven't updated their iDevices to the newest version, so please don't give me crap for it. So that is my first supporting argument, which is a little harder to go against than my final point.
Quick recap: there to many different skinned versions of Android. This might seem to contradict my rage about "THOSE LITTLE COMPANIES WITH THEIR CRAP TABLETS ON AMAZON", but no one cares since most people probably agree with me on that. We should all calm down about the slow updates on our devices. Don't get angry at me and say that I must have a Nexus or a Motorola and I've never known the struggle; I have the LG Optimus G AT&T version and it hasn't gotten the official Kitkat release. Actually, I haven't even gotten an official update since 4.1.2. Thanks to custom ROMs, I'm on Lollipop right now. But that isn't the point. Maybe we shouldn't think of Android as "be together, not he same", but more like "be not the same, not together." That didn't quite work the way I hoped...
So I'm starting to think of Android a only a base and that we should think of skinned versions of Android more like Linux and it's distros. Ubuntu is based off Linux, but it isn't Linux (not actually sure if there is a pure Linux...would it be text based?). It rather another creation of it. The candied named Android versions are just new standards and aren't really necessary. I'm pretty sure that Samsung could take the current version and just add the security and new features in as they need it. Well, maybe some dev could correct me on that? Anyway, I'd like to end this summing up this thread (b/c it isn't very organized to my eyes) by saying that it's OK that you don't have the newest update and that Samsung really should add in the new features if not update the whole OS.
:silly: