The Android Thread

[ElNono]

Good point and I do think that in some cases it does enhance user experience. I like HTC Sense, thought it was good, but I don't use it anymore. You could say that I use Vanilla Android on my phone, but that isn't completely true. I use CM 6.1 with ADW launcher, so in effect there is still a skin.

Will there be companies that produce what I believe to be a crappy product? Yes! (looking at you motoblur), but even those serve purposes. From what I understand people who are not nerds, and are not into modding, or rooting, etc and LOVE social networking are those who love motoblur. These choices allow one OS to more accurately serve a diverse customer base.

As far as the walled gardens and crippling the hardware, the only android product manufacturer that I know that does that is Moto (though I will be candid here and admit that I don't know every single thing about every android device on the market).

I think it has more to do with trying to please the carrier(s) more than anything. Moto is leading, but I expect it to only get worse. Vendors such as HTC had the leverage that carriers were desperate to have an iPhone killer, and Apple itself had the leverage that it was initially one of a kind.

But you can see the grip tightening on both ends (Moto on the Android side, iPhone losing the unlimited plans).

Fair enough, however this doesn't seem to be a the problem he made it out to be.

You know, I don't want to come through as a Jobs apologist, but the issue was real when he said it. Google has surely improved Android a lot since then where you now have better tools to deal with that. I think the 3.0 release will help moving apps over even more (Panels being a nice feature and in App purchases being huge).

[Cry Havoc]

Agreed.

Depends. Does the changes on interface and usability add to the product or are simply there to differentiate? I think that's the actual question you have to ask to tell the two apart. People appreciate an genous interface because it removes the learning curve. At the same time, innovation is always a premium. A good example of what I call fragmentation would be Windows Vista. It really added nothing to the XP experience, it only made you have to learn a new way to do things while being more intrusive. You could call that "choice", but it was really something to differentiate from XP and sell new copies.

I wish Google had full control of the Android experience. I think an geneous experience would be nicer than what vendors will always push for: More walled gardens and unnecessary crippling of the experience in order to achieve that.

tbh, the "fragmentation" term as was used by Jobs referred to the complexity of targeting the mul ude of devices, screen sizes, etc out there for developers. He's not necessarily wrong about that.

You're talking about standardization vs. choice. Apple's argument is that the more standardization you have, the more level the playing field is for everyone, and therefore the better the experience.

But in nearly every industry, this is a very delicate balance. Apple is basically telling users that they can have the new top of the line Prius, but ONLY the Prius, in only one color, and that it's going to be a rock solid car for them. I seriously doubt you will ever see a phone from Apple again that is ahead of the curve technologically, because they will simply refuse to play that game. For people who want performance or cost/benefit ratio, they're going to have to go elsewhere (or buy an older "Prius").

What Apple's doing is smart, and from an economical standpoint, makes a lot of sense. But once Android really takes hold (and it's already starting to), it's going to be hard for Apple to earn any marketshare back. Yes, every release of the iPhone is going to be huge, but that's it. Meanwhile, Android keeps developing and improving and offering customers not only a Prius, but a Mustang, a Focus, and a Viper. And as the phone industry develops, and true computing power on a handset comes into it's own, I think more people are going to start asking how many Ghz the processor is, or how fast it is. To say nothing of the incredible growth of the gaming industry and how many gamers are going to want to play Final Fantasy XIII on their Droid 4.

I think Google's point is that they are about improvement in any way possible. They want to win and they'll do whatever consumers will buy to do that. If the Atrix dominates the sales market, you'll see more attention from Google toward that kind of device. If people choose to leave Motorola for locking down their phones and the pricing, Android will simply march past them to the phone that people WILL buy en masse, like the Evo, or the Droid, or the Galaxy S.

[The_Worlds_finest]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380382,00.asp big surprise nobody likes droid

[Drachen]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380382,00.asp big surprise nobody likes droid

Funny, I don't see where he said he didn't like Android. I did see where he said he didn't like some of the UI's. In fact he seemed to say he absolutely liked Honeycomb. Maybe I missed it. Looks like HTC is the clear winner here. It's great to have choice.

[ElNono]

You're talking about standardization vs. choice. Apple's argument is that the more standardization you have, the more level the playing field is for everyone, and therefore the better the experience.

Not really. I'm talking specifically about the baseline OS experience. You have the choice to make any UI you want in an app, with both OSes.
I like what Android has done with widgets, for example. I just wish moto didn't come around and install their own widgets and change the baseline user experience from the get go. It's very similar to what you see in the desktop side with all the bloatware that come preinstalled with PCs these days. It's detrimental to the user experience, IMO, and has nothing to do with 'choice'.

But in nearly every industry, this is a very delicate balance. Apple is basically telling users that they can have the new top of the line Prius, but ONLY the Prius, in only one color, and that it's going to be a rock solid car for them. I seriously doubt you will ever see a phone from Apple again that is ahead of the curve technologically, because they will simply refuse to play that game. For people who want performance or cost/benefit ratio, they're going to have to go elsewhere (or buy an older "Prius").

I disagree that Apple is just selling you just a piece of hardware. Or merely a piece of software. They're selling you an "experience", which is made up by the combination of certain hardware with certain software, which they carefully designed to create said experience.
I don't think Apple is in a race to technologically outdo anybody. I don't think they should be either, as seen on the desktop market. I think Apple's race is to outdo itself on the overall experience satisfaction. Or if a compe or comes up with a better, or more satisfying experience, to outdo them.
Being ahead of the curve technologically can help you with that, but it's not automatic.

What Apple's doing is smart, and from an economical standpoint, makes a lot of sense. But once Android really takes hold (and it's already starting to), it's going to be hard for Apple to earn any marketshare back. Yes, every release of the iPhone is going to be huge, but that's it. Meanwhile, Android keeps developing and improving and offering customers not only a Prius, but a Mustang, a Focus, and a Viper. And as the phone industry develops, and true computing power on a handset comes into it's own, I think more people are going to start asking how many Ghz the processor is, or how fast it is. To say nothing of the incredible growth of the gaming industry and how many gamers are going to want to play Final Fantasy XIII on their Droid 4.

I completely disagree with this assessment. I think people and companies have learned from the desktop evolution that eventually hardware features will surpass their needs (we're talking general users here, obviously power-users like gamers are a different story), and so the questions really ends up being: Does this device runs X, Y or Z app? Can it print? Can I get my outlook contacts here? It ends up being a lot more about integration and software than hardware. But overall, it's much more about the day to day use and their experience with it more than anything else.

I think what will make or break Apple's market share is wether other devices match the experience or surpass it. The other factor is that since the experience is tightly coupled with the mobile operators, the availability with the most popular carriers is essential.

I think Google's point is that they are about improvement in any way possible. They want to win and they'll do whatever consumers will buy to do that. If the Atrix dominates the sales market, you'll see more attention from Google toward that kind of device. If people choose to leave Motorola for locking down their phones and the pricing, Android will simply march past them to the phone that people WILL buy en masse, like the Evo, or the Droid, or the Galaxy S.

I think Google is much more concerned with being on every device rather than what the user experience is. I think it's a sound business plan for them.

I actually think this synergy between Google and Apple works great for consumers. It makes Google care about the user experience because it has to match Apple's, and at the same time it forces Apple to outdo itself on that.

[leemajors]

Funny, I don't see where he said he didn't like Android. I did see where he said he didn't like some of the UI's. In fact he seemed to say he absolutely liked Honeycomb. Maybe I missed it. Looks like HTC is the clear winner here. It's great to have choice.

Exactly, pretty clear he likes Android but not carriers customizing it.

[ElNono]

Funny, I don't see where he said he didn't like Android.

Here at PCMag, if we encounter a laptop or a desktop that comes with bloatware that can't be removed, or doesn't allow for regular software updates, we wouldn't recommend it. Period. So for me, come phone-buying time, I'm dropping out of the Android game, and checking out Apple, HP, or Microsoft handsets instead.

[ElNono]

FWIW, I agree this is not Android's fault, but the carrier(s), manufacturer(s)... but this is exactly what I'm telling you that ends up reflecting bad on the OS...

[balli]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380382,00.asp big surprise nobody likes droid

Yoy are a snivelling, idiot, ankle-biter. Pleade resist your natural inclinations towards being such a head and ignorant asshole.

[Drachen]

Exactly, pretty clear he likes Android but not carriers customizing it.

Agreed. FWIW even though I have an HTC phone, which has the Sense UI (widely held to be the best of the custom UIs from carriers), I still went to stock (through the Cyanogenmod 6.1 Custom ROM).
Differentiation for the sake of differentiation is never a sound business plan.

[Drachen]

Here at PCMag, if we encounter a laptop or a desktop that comes with bloatware that can't be removed, or doesn't allow for regular software updates, we wouldn't recommend it. Period. So for me, come phone-buying time, I'm dropping out of the Android game, and checking out Apple, HP, or Microsoft handsets instead.

Eh, close enough I guess. He could just buy a google phone and be done with it. It is obvious from this article that he likes android, but hates the carrier attempts at customized UIs. That being said, WP7 may be good as may the WebOS phones. I have had no experience with those, but I can't see myself switching from android. Its flawless integration with gmail (and everything that is included therein), combined with the large development community (among other things) may end up keeping me here.

FWIW, I agree this is not Android's fault, but the carrier(s), manufacturer(s)... but this is exactly what I'm telling you that ends up reflecting bad on the OS...

This, of course, makes sense. For the great majority of the masses who don't research before they buy and don't have the intellectual curiosity to find out what can be done with their consumer electronics, this can reflect badly where it shouldn't.

Yoy are a snivelling, idiot, ankle-biter. Pleade resist your natural inclinations towards being such a head and ignorant asshole.

Whoa! Do you two have history? where did that come from?

[Cry Havoc]

Not really. I'm talking specifically about the baseline OS experience. You have the choice to make any UI you want in an app, with both OSes.
I like what Android has done with widgets, for example. I just wish moto didn't come around and install their own widgets and change the baseline user experience from the get go. It's very similar to what you see in the desktop side with all the bloatware that come preinstalled with PCs these days. It's detrimental to the user experience, IMO, and has nothing to do with 'choice'.

I agree that Motoblur is bloated and unnecessary, but keep in mind that this is essentially first-gen stuff. Before the Droid, there was no single phone running Android that had a large user base. The manufacturers are still figuring out how to integrate Google's OS with their own experience. Again, if you'll recall, the iPhone and even the iPhone 3G did not even have certain basic functions like copy-paste for a while. It took Apple quite some time to tinker with the product to get it to the level it's at now, and I recall many a gnashing of teeth back in the day about the iPhone not having a slew of features following it's first 18-24 month's of existence. These things take time, and I think there's a lot of opportunity for Motorola/HTC/etc to improve their UIs to be more friendly and streamlined.

I disagree that Apple is just selling you just a piece of hardware. Or merely a piece of software. They're selling you an "experience", which is made up by the combination of certain hardware with certain software, which they carefully designed to create said experience.

There's a fair amount of marketing babble in what you just said. Every major purchase you buy creates a user experience. Driving a Prius is much different than driving a Taurus or a Leaf, for instance, even though all of them are cars that do almost the exact same things. Android is, at worst, nearly as capable as iOS. There isn't a lot of separation between them, especially for the average person who just wants to make calls, play Angry Birds, and text to people. For the technically savvy, it's arguable that Android has already surpassed iOS.

I don't think Apple is in a race to technologically outdo anybody. I don't think they should be either, as seen on the desktop market. I think Apple's race is to outdo itself on the overall experience satisfaction. Or if a compe or comes up with a better, or more satisfying experience, to outdo them.
Being ahead of the curve technologically can help you with that, but it's not automatic.

This is all well and good, but the next huge group of people to be introduced into the cell phone world are the ones that grew up playing Halo, Call of Duty, and had Ps2s when they were young. A "really solid user experience" is going to impress them far less than a phone that can outperform a laptop from 2008. In fact, Apple is going to run into a crunch between people who don't want to pay $200 for a smartphone and people who want the bleeding edge hardware, I think. It just seems like it's going to be increasingly hard to market a phone that's behind the times technologically and as expensive as the top of the line Android devices. Are they in trouble? No way, they're going to retain a large part of their consumer base who are loyal to them because of the stellar reviews the past iPhones have received. But they're going to have a lot of trouble expanding, unless they do something truly magical with the iPhone 5. Should be interesting to see the next rabbit they have in their hat.

I completely disagree with this assessment. I think people and companies have learned from the desktop evolution that eventually hardware features will surpass their needs (we're talking general users here, obviously power-users like gamers are a different story), and so the questions really ends up being: Does this device runs X, Y or Z app? Can it print? Can I get my outlook contacts here? It ends up being a lot more about integration and software than hardware. But overall, it's much more about the day to day use and their experience with it more than anything else.

I would say that at this point an Android is just as easy to check your mail on, surf with an included browser on, and to do most of the basic functions that an iPhone does. If basic functionality is the issue, then I'm not sure how much longer iOS will be ahead of Android or even Windows 7 Mobile.

I think what will make or break Apple's market share is wether other devices match the experience or surpass it. The other factor is that since the experience is tightly coupled with the mobile operators, the availability with the most popular carriers is essential.

I think it's going to have to be nothing less than pure innovation from Apple at this point. Android has already become the best selling operating system in mobile devices in the States. Apple is going to have to do something seriously potent with their new phone to convert people, but I feel like I'm being redundant now.

I actually think this synergy between Google and Apple works great for consumers. It makes Google care about the user experience because it has to match Apple's, and at the same time it forces Apple to outdo itself on that.

I hope it continues. My worry is that Apple will stick their heads in the sand and rely on their ultra-slick marketing to drive sales, rather than to continually improve their phone year by year to keep up with the other manufacturers.

Whoa! Do you two have history? where did that come from?

I think most of it came from T_W_F opening his mouth and inserting his foot repeatedly, then bashing others for calling him out on it.

[leemajors]

I agree that Motoblur is bloated and unnecessary, but keep in mind that this is essentially first-gen stuff. Before the Droid, there was no single phone running Android that had a large user base. The manufacturers are still figuring out how to integrate Google's OS with their own experience. Again, if you'll recall, the iPhone and even the iPhone 3G did not even have certain basic functions like copy-paste for a while. It took Apple quite some time to tinker with the product to get it to the level it's at now, and I recall many a gnashing of teeth back in the day about the iPhone not having a slew of features following it's first 18-24 month's of existence. These things take time, and I think there's a lot of opportunity for Motorola/HTC/etc to improve their UIs to be more friendly and streamlined.



There's a fair amount of marketing babble in what you just said. Every major purchase you buy creates a user experience. Driving a Prius is much different than driving a Taurus or a Leaf, for instance, even though all of them are cars that do almost the exact same things. Android is, at worst, nearly as capable as iOS. There isn't a lot of separation between them, especially for the average person who just wants to make calls, play Angry Birds, and text to people. For the technically savvy, it's arguable that Android has already surpassed iOS.



This is all well and good, but the next huge group of people to be introduced into the cell phone world are the ones that grew up playing Halo, Call of Duty, and had Ps2s when they were young. A "really solid user experience" is going to impress them far less than a phone that can outperform a laptop from 2008. In fact, Apple is going to run into a crunch between people who don't want to pay $200 for a smartphone and people who want the bleeding edge hardware, I think. It just seems like it's going to be increasingly hard to market a phone that's behind the times technologically and as expensive as the top of the line Android devices. Are they in trouble? No way, they're going to retain a large part of their consumer base who are loyal to them because of the stellar reviews the past iPhones have received. But they're going to have a lot of trouble expanding, unless they do something truly magical with the iPhone 5. Should be interesting to see the next rabbit they have in their hat.



I would say that at this point an Android is just as easy to check your mail on, surf with an included browser on, and to do most of the basic functions that an iPhone does. If basic functionality is the issue, then I'm not sure how much longer iOS will be ahead of Android or even Windows 7 Mobile.



I think it's going to have to be nothing less than pure innovation from Apple at this point. Android has already become the best selling operating system in mobile devices in the States. Apple is going to have to do something seriously potent with their new phone to convert people, but I feel like I'm being redundant now.



I hope it continues. My worry is that Apple will stick their heads in the sand and rely on their ultra-slick marketing to drive sales, rather than to continually improve their phone year by year to keep up with the other manufacturers.



I think most of it came from T_W_F opening his mouth and inserting his foot repeatedly, then bashing others for calling him out on it.

Using the best selling OS argument could easily be seen as marketing babble - i'm sure Cricket is pimping lots of Huawei and Sanyo Android phones, but I don't think either of us would waste much time extolling any virtues they may or may not have. Until very recently, iOS devices were only available on two models at a time, with one carrier. Android is on way more devices, so of course it's going to quickly outstrip iOS as far as sales numbers go.
I also don't see any carrier dipping very far below the $200 price point for new devices/tech for very long, seeing as they sell at a loss by subsidizing and make up for it on the length of a contract. The iPhone will remain a viable choice at that price point, and their release schedule for new models is very predictable.

[Cry Havoc]

Using the best selling OS argument could easily be seen as marketing babble - i'm sure Cricket is pimping lots of Huawei and Sanyo Android phones, but I don't think either of us would waste much time extolling any virtues they may or may not have.

It's completely viable with Android vs. iOS because they both have very similar app stores and companies are now largely going cross-platform with their software development. The Android market is growing faster geometrically right now. If carriers sell 2x as many Android phones as iPhones, how long do you think it will be before the Android Market swings ahead -- or at least equals -- the App Store, which is one of the primary reasons as of now to have an iPhone? Cricket isn't in contention because they don't have an app market like Android or iOS.

Until very recently, iOS devices were only available on two models at a time, with one carrier. Android is on way more devices, so of course it's going to quickly outstrip iOS as far as sales numbers go.

Which is a big reason that Apple's isolationist policies struggle to keep up in a market that responsible for the fastest growing/improving consumer tech in any industry right now. It's basically a race up the mountain, and unless I'm completely mis-guessing Apple's strategy, they don't care what pace anyone else is running as long as they keep trotting along. What are they going to do to respond to the Snapdragon 2.5 Ghz Quad Core tech, unless they adopt it themselves?

I also don't see any carrier dipping very far below the $200 price point for new devices/tech for very long, seeing as they sell at a loss by subsidizing and make up for it on the length of a contract. The iPhone will remain a viable choice at that price point, and their release schedule for new models is very predictable.

There are Android devices on sale for $50 right now. And unless Apple somehow REALLY pushes the hardware, the iPhone 5 could well be inferior to the new Android devices the day it comes out, to say nothing of a few months down the road.

[Drachen]

It's completely viable with Android vs. iOS because they both have very similar app stores and companies are now largely going cross-platform with their software development. The Android market is growing faster geometrically right now. If carriers sell 2x as many Android phones as iPhones, how long do you think it will be before the Android Market swings ahead -- or at least equals -- the App Store, which is one of the primary reasons as of now to have an iPhone? Cricket isn't in contention because they don't have an app market like Android or iOS.

I think you misunderstood something right here. The two phones that he referenced in regards to Cricket are Sanyo and Huawei. These are the android offerings that Cricket has. (i.e. they are android phones and have access to the same android market that you are referencing).

[Cry Havoc]

I think you misunderstood something right here. The two phones that he referenced in regards to Cricket are Sanyo and Huawei. These are the android offerings that Cricket has. (i.e. they are android phones and have access to the same android market that you are referencing).

I'm aware of that. But it's not Cricket's marketplace. It's Google's. And the number of phones they have in the field -- Cricket made handsets included, are certainly going to drive the number of companies developing for each OS.

[leemajors]

It's completely viable with Android vs. iOS because they both have very similar app stores and companies are now largely going cross-platform with their software development. The Android market is growing faster geometrically right now. If carriers sell 2x as many Android phones as iPhones, how long do you think it will be before the Android Market swings ahead -- or at least equals -- the App Store, which is one of the primary reasons as of now to have an iPhone? Cricket isn't in contention because they don't have an app market like Android or iOS.




Which is a big reason that Apple's isolationist policies struggle to keep up in a market that responsible for the fastest growing/improving consumer tech in any industry right now. It's basically a race up the mountain, and unless I'm completely mis-guessing Apple's strategy, they don't care what pace anyone else is running as long as they keep trotting along. What are they going to do to respond to the Snapdragon 2.5 Ghz Quad Core tech, unless they adopt it themselves?



There are Android devices on sale for $50 right now. And unless Apple somehow REALLY pushes the hardware, the iPhone 5 could well be inferior to the new Android devices the day it comes out, to say nothing of a few months down the road.

How is Apple struggling to keep up with anyone? Their counter was to buy Intrinsic last summer, who designs custom ARM processors. Just because they don't go around announcing their in-house tech doesn't mean they aren't thinking ahead. Their App Store is still on top by a wide margin (from what I can find, accounting for 89% of mobile broadband traffic, compared to 9% for Android in 2010), and since a lot of customers have a significant amount of money invested in it, it stands to reason their customer base is not eroding despite what sales numbers for handsets Android can boast. They learned from their mistakes in the past, and built a platform that is incredibly successful and has a very, very strong base. Google chose to put their OS on as many phones as possible and seemingly neglecting developing an solid App ecosystem. Android's market share in sales is certainly very, very impressive but people aren't leaving the platform in droves like they are RIM - iOS is still making steady gains. I am interested to see what Verizon does for the iPhone/iOS numbers.

[ElNono]

I agree that Motoblur is bloated and unnecessary, but keep in mind that this is essentially first-gen stuff. Before the Droid, there was no single phone running Android that had a large user base. The manufacturers are still figuring out how to integrate Google's OS with their own experience. Again, if you'll recall, the iPhone and even the iPhone 3G did not even have certain basic functions like copy-paste for a while. It took Apple quite some time to tinker with the product to get it to the level it's at now, and I recall many a gnashing of teeth back in the day about the iPhone not having a slew of features following it's first 18-24 month's of existence. These things take time, and I think there's a lot of opportunity for Motorola/HTC/etc to improve their UIs to be more friendly and streamlined.

We obviously won't agree. I think the experience of the base OS should be set by the actual OS manufacturer. I'm not advocating for Google to just sit back and not improve Android, and let vendors do that instead. To the contrary, I think it should be Google, and only Google the one that defines what the base OS experience is. I don't mind if vendors or carriers want to include certain apps with their handsets. I do think letting vendors do whatever they want on the base OS itself, and thus on the baseline user experience, is what really is counterproductive to the experience, and ultimately reflects badly on the OS.
I really don't trust vendors/carriers to make determinations like that over a company like Google. If it were up to them, they would lock up every feature and start charging for them.

There's a fair amount of marketing babble in what you just said. Every major purchase you buy creates a user experience. Driving a Prius is much different than driving a Taurus or a Leaf, for instance, even though all of them are cars that do almost the exact same things. Android is, at worst, nearly as capable as iOS. There isn't a lot of separation between them, especially for the average person who just wants to make calls, play Angry Birds, and text to people. For the technically savvy, it's arguable that Android has already surpassed iOS.

Seriously, I'm not a marketing guy, so I would be hard pressed to pretend to be one. However, working on a satisfactory experience is something I deal with every day writing software.

I don't think Android is less capable than iOS, never made that claim.

I do think that they obviously have things to improve to match Apple's experience in some aspects, ie: their app store being a mess, or even a very minimal version of the walled garden that ensures that apps deliver what they advertise. I would also prefer if they had the ability so vendors and carriers didn't bas ize the base OS, so I could take any Android device and have a geneous experience using them. They also seem to have no authority over vendors trying to use Android in less capable devices (ie: the first versions of the Galaxy tablet was slow as , poor choice of touch screen tech, battery life sometimes is not even a concern for some vendors, etc).

Those are ALL factors that contribute to the user experience, and I think Android would be much better served if Google had more control over that instead of individual vendors/carriers.

This is all well and good, but the next huge group of people to be introduced into the cell phone world are the ones that grew up playing Halo, Call of Duty, and had Ps2s when they were young. A "really solid user experience" is going to impress them far less than a phone that can outperform a laptop from 2008. In fact, Apple is going to run into a crunch between people who don't want to pay $200 for a smartphone and people who want the bleeding edge hardware, I think. It just seems like it's going to be increasingly hard to market a phone that's behind the times technologically and as expensive as the top of the line Android devices. Are they in trouble? No way, they're going to retain a large part of their consumer base who are loyal to them because of the stellar reviews the past iPhones have received. But they're going to have a lot of trouble expanding, unless they do something truly magical with the iPhone 5. Should be interesting to see the next rabbit they have in their hat.

Apple has released a new phone every year, and in each case it has always been top of the line as far as technology goes. But it goes beyond that.
You know the device you get will run the OS it comes with optimally, it will basically have a near zero learning curve (if you already pre-owned an earlier model), and you will be able to take the software and data you had on the old one and it will run as well or better. From a user standpoint, you don't need to know what the CPU speed is, or how many cores it has. It has enough to do what you've been doing faster, better, and exactly the same way you've been doing it. That's experience.

I would say that at this point an Android is just as easy to check your mail on, surf with an included browser on, and to do most of the basic functions that an iPhone does. If basic functionality is the issue, then I'm not sure how much longer iOS will be ahead of Android or even Windows 7 Mobile.

The difference is really two-fold:
One, is the arbitrary learning curve. Android might be real easy to do all that, but if every vendor decides how to do that differently, then you're introducing a stupid learning curve that simply shouldn't be there.
The second part is having a large software ecosystem. When certain apps become critical to everyday use, then the platform becomes critical too. It's like when Microsoft didn't have a Mac version of Office, people just wouldn't buy Macs because you couldn't run Office (nevermind that most of that people could have gotten by with things like OpenOffice). Familiarity in software is certainly underrated.

I think it's going to have to be nothing less than pure innovation from Apple at this point. Android has already become the best selling operating system in mobile devices in the States. Apple is going to have to do something seriously potent with their new phone to convert people, but I feel like I'm being redundant now.

Well, Apple is in multiple markets with iOS, has been growing at a faster rate than expected, and I don't think they're interested in licensing the OS to other vendors, thus I don't think you're really comparing apples to apples (pun intended).
I'm not saying they can't have a dud here or there ( o AppleTV), but I think their mobile strategy has been pretty successful so far.
You also have to remember they sell a load of iPods that include iOS also, which are normally not included in those rankings either.

I hope it continues. My worry is that Apple will stick their heads in the sand and rely on their ultra-slick marketing to drive sales, rather than to continually improve their phone year by year to keep up with the other manufacturers.

I don't think they have a choice. Ultimately, they're not oblivious to a potential up, so they're obviously threading thin, but that's part of the risks of being a vendor.

[Cry Havoc]

We obviously won't agree. I think the experience of the base OS should be set by the actual OS manufacturer. I'm not advocating for Google to just sit back and not improve Android, and let vendors do that instead. To the contrary, I think it should be Google, and only Google the one that defines what the base OS experience is. I don't mind if vendors or carriers want to include certain apps with their handsets. I do think letting vendors do whatever they want on the base OS itself, and thus on the baseline user experience, is what really is counterproductive to the experience, and ultimately reflects badly on the OS.

I didn't say that at all. What I meant is that the skins from the manufacturers are going to improve over time. Motoblur might suck right now, but it's also only been around for about a year on a device that they've never really used before. A full touchscreen phone is new territory for everyone right now except Apple. And yes, the way things stand it's much better to have a vanilla Android out of the box, but that doesn't mean that stuff like HTC Sense has zero potential down the road. If they streamline it, add the option to remove it, and give more widgets, what's not to say that it couldn't actually bolster the experience?

I really don't trust vendors/carriers to make determinations like that over a company like Google. If it were up to them, they would lock up every feature and start charging for them.

I think there should just be a choice here. Do you want a vanilla Android? No problem. Do you want the weather widget and facebook feed exclusively by HTC on your phone? That's doable too, and probably handy if you don't want to tinker with your settings.

I don't think Android is less capable than iOS, never made that claim.

I was just approaching it from the at ude about potential. Never meant to insinuate that you did.

I do think that they obviously have things to improve to match Apple's experience in some aspects, ie: their app store being a mess, or even a very minimal version of the walled garden that ensures that apps deliver what they advertise.

I think there's a lot of potential in that. Google is the king of search indexing, after all. I think they just wanted the doors as wide open as possible to get their market up and running. I wouldn't be surprised to see major changes with 3.0.

I would also prefer if they had the ability so vendors and carriers didn't bas ize the base OS, so I could take any Android device and have a geneous experience using them.

See my earlier statement. If you could just turn the vendor stuff off, that would be absolutely perfect.

They also seem to have no authority over vendors trying to use Android in less capable devices (ie: the first versions of the Galaxy tablet was slow as , poor choice of touch screen tech, battery life sometimes is not even a concern for some vendors, etc).

Eh, I'm not sure they care about that. Devices like that are doomed to die a quick death. But that's a good point, perhaps Google should be more concerned with what's running Android, although there's NO way to guarantee that a vendor will have a smoothly functioning piece of hardware.

Apple has released a new phone every year, and in each case it has always been top of the line as far as technology goes. But it goes beyond that.
You know the device you get will run the OS it comes with optimally, it will basically have a near zero learning curve (if you already pre-owned an earlier model), and you will be able to take the software and data you had on the old one and it will run as well or better. From a user standpoint, you don't need to know what the CPU speed is, or how many cores it has. It has enough to do what you've been doing faster, better, and exactly the same way you've been doing it. That's experience.

There have only been 4 iPhones, so I'm not sure that just 4 years of this situation is enough to say that Apple is always at the front technologically speaking. They have been so far because no one else has made a phone that's close to the capability of the iPhone until Android came along. So it's really new territory for Apple. If they can keep up with the multiple vendors out there making new chipsets, it will be a credit to them. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them drop the A-series of processors for their phone to pick up another line, the way they did with Intel in their laptops.

The difference is really two-fold:
One, is the arbitrary learning curve. Android might be real easy to do all that, but if every vendor decides how to do that differently, then you're introducing a stupid learning curve that simply shouldn't be there.
The second part is having a large software ecosystem. When certain apps become critical to everyday use, then the platform becomes critical too. It's like when Microsoft didn't have a Mac version of Office, people just wouldn't buy Macs because you couldn't run Office (nevermind that most of that people could have gotten by with things like OpenOffice). Familiarity in software is certainly underrated.

It's going to be interesting to see how it all plays out, really. I think you're underestimating how tech-savvy the next couple generations of people that are now becoming cell phone owners are, though. A large majority of people that grew up using computers are going to have no problem at all figuring out how to use Android.

Well, Apple is in multiple markets with iOS, has been growing at a faster rate than expected, and I don't think they're interested in licensing the OS to other vendors, thus I don't think you're really comparing apples to apples (pun intended).
I'm not saying they can't have a dud here or there ( o AppleTV), but I think their mobile strategy has been pretty successful so far.
You also have to remember they sell a load of iPods that include iOS also, which are normally not included in those rankings either.

I wasn't trying to take anything away from Apple. The iPhone 3G was probably the biggest technological leap I'll ever make in a portable device, to be honest. I went from a Sony Ericsson 810i (a very respectable phone for it's day) to the iPhone. The difference between those is far, far greater than the one I feel exists between the iPhone and Android phones, which are identical in many ways. They've done marvelously and I expect they'll continue to do so.

I don't think they have a choice. Ultimately, they're not oblivious to a potential up, so they're obviously threading thin, but that's part of the risks of being a vendor.

I think when you isolate yourself as Apple has done, you've already made that choice. I just don't see a way they can compete unless they cooperate and start using tech from other companies.

[koriwhat]

CryBaby will be the first to call anyone out for being a "fanboy" but look at how much this dude sucks his favorite companies and technologies off. i like android but playing around with that samsung tablet the other day, i am glad i bought my ipad instead. only thing that upsets me is the fact there's no camera on my ipad.

[koriwhat]

I think when you isolate yourself as Apple has done, you've already made that choice. I just don't see a way they can compete unless they cooperate and start using tech from other companies.

who's competing? they set the standard and even though android is on a mul ude of phones and tablets with higher tech specs and more features, the user experience is lackluster. it all boils down to user experience.

[rickross]

who's competing? they set the standard and even though android is on a mul ude of phones and tablets with higher tech specs and more features, the user experience is lackluster. it all boils down to user experience.

son your failin so hard it bugs my mind how u do it on a daily basis. Gotta be a gene or smth tbh.

[Cry Havoc]

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/31/c...selling-smart/

Android is now the best selling mobile phone operating system in the world.

[koriwhat]

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/31/c...selling-smart/

Android is now the best selling mobile phone operating system in the world.

how do you sell a gpl operating system?

[ElNono]

how do you sell a gpl operating system?

You don't.
I think what Cry is trying to tell us is that it has the largest installed base...

Which is only expected seeing that the OS is free and it's installed by multiple vendors... the really alarming thing would be if they're not #1...