Android is Google's Agent Smith(techvibes.com)
techvibes.com
Android is Google's Agent Smith
http://www.techvibes.com/blog/android-is-googles-agent-smith
11 comments
Agreed. This is similar to the iPhone antenna problem: bloggers and developers making a shitstorm out of something almost nobody feels the effects of.
Even not knowing what an OS is, a user is incredibly frustrated by crashes, lag, and sms errors.
There may not be an 'android phone' but there is 'the alternative to the IPhone' which isn't, outside of the business market, the blackberry.
Users use. And they do compare how well things work, and migrate. So in the larger sense, users should care about fragmentation. Eventually, its going to limit their choices.
There may not be an 'android phone' but there is 'the alternative to the IPhone' which isn't, outside of the business market, the blackberry.
Users use. And they do compare how well things work, and migrate. So in the larger sense, users should care about fragmentation. Eventually, its going to limit their choices.
Especially when manufacturers and vendors start selling devices with different Android versions, as they are now.
Someone that physically breaks their Motorolla DroidX running 2.2 and buys a replacement Samsung Galaxy that runs 1.5 (now 1.6 I hear), and then realizes that the majority of the apps that they purchased aren't compatible with the lower version of the phone, and that the phone has a terrible UI (compared to the improved 2.2), is going to be mighty disappointed in both the carrier and the Android name.
The average user doesn't know how to root and upgrade the phone software to unofficial versions. The average user only knows that it is Android, and that Android now "sucks" in that situation.
Someone that physically breaks their Motorolla DroidX running 2.2 and buys a replacement Samsung Galaxy that runs 1.5 (now 1.6 I hear), and then realizes that the majority of the apps that they purchased aren't compatible with the lower version of the phone, and that the phone has a terrible UI (compared to the improved 2.2), is going to be mighty disappointed in both the carrier and the Android name.
The average user doesn't know how to root and upgrade the phone software to unofficial versions. The average user only knows that it is Android, and that Android now "sucks" in that situation.
If they downgrade from a DroidX to a Samsung Galaxy, and it sucks, are they going to blame the OS or the phone?
Put another way, are you more likely to hear "My phone sucks" or "This lower version number of the OS I was previously happy with sucks"?
The market will drum out the bad apples who try to leave their Android phones stuck at ancient versions.
Put another way, are you more likely to hear "My phone sucks" or "This lower version number of the OS I was previously happy with sucks"?
The market will drum out the bad apples who try to leave their Android phones stuck at ancient versions.
The same way people has complained for years about Linux drivers support. They don't care their printer or modems, or webcams manufacturers don't give technical info about their devices, they just want their devices to work as they are used to.
Ironically, now Linux support way more devices than Windows, and let you do things that no commercial vendor is going to let you do(e.g I have used an old scanner as spectrogram with very little money).
Ironically, now Linux support way more devices than Windows, and let you do things that no commercial vendor is going to let you do(e.g I have used an old scanner as spectrogram with very little money).
You're right but I think they end up with the same result. Whether or not it's "my phone sucks" or "my OS sucks," the result is just going to be people leaving for the main competitor (i.e., Apple).
Except that many of the latest and greatest and most hyped apps use Android's latest features and thus don't run on older versions of Android. This is why users will care.
As a user, I care about what OS version I have because that determines the features my phone has, its performance, its compatibility, and its stability. What you describe is the ideal for the manufacturers and the carriers -- they want to keep people in the dark about the software. But the reality is that everyone knows, every phone review includes it, and it's critically important to the end user.
Every Android user I've talked to knows exactly what version their phone runs. Many are patiently waiting for upgrades. Every single phone review tells me exactly what OS version the HTC EVO, Samsung Galaxy, Motorola Droid run and I doubt anyone here wouldn't consider that piece of information extremely important in their purchasing decision.
Every Android user I've talked to knows exactly what version their phone runs. Many are patiently waiting for upgrades. Every single phone review tells me exactly what OS version the HTC EVO, Samsung Galaxy, Motorola Droid run and I doubt anyone here wouldn't consider that piece of information extremely important in their purchasing decision.
Plenty of users buy phones without knowing what Android is or even what an "operating system" is. All thee know is compared to their old phone with a random proprietary OS, this phone has a much more polished interface and apps similar to their friends iPhone.
I'm sure most of the people that read HN care about the details you listed, but I wouldn't assume your average mall-shopper that walks into a cell phone store not knowing the difference between any two phones knows or cares about version numbers or compatibility.
Most non-technical people I've talked to about it have been so confused about the marketing of a phone named "droid" that they think any reference to "android" means that phone.
I'm sure most of the people that read HN care about the details you listed, but I wouldn't assume your average mall-shopper that walks into a cell phone store not knowing the difference between any two phones knows or cares about version numbers or compatibility.
Most non-technical people I've talked to about it have been so confused about the marketing of a phone named "droid" that they think any reference to "android" means that phone.
I disagree with your top statement. Every user knows what an operating system is -- they've been educated on that fact for decades. And any user of a "smartphone" knows they're really getting a little computer. The iPhone probably has the broadest market of non-technical users and even they periodically get OS upgrades -- you think their users don't know what that is?
The problem with this conversation is lumping together mobile phones and smartphones. There are very few Android phones marketed to "non-technical people". But they will come, they will be cheap, and nobody will care what OS they run. But the top of line phones, the expensive phones, and the profitable phones will be sold to semi-technical people who know what they're getting.
The problem with this conversation is lumping together mobile phones and smartphones. There are very few Android phones marketed to "non-technical people". But they will come, they will be cheap, and nobody will care what OS they run. But the top of line phones, the expensive phones, and the profitable phones will be sold to semi-technical people who know what they're getting.
I worked as Nokia's UK and Ireland technical support, both tier 1 and 2, and you are entirely wrong.
Almost no users, including people buying smartphones, have any idea what a phone operating system is. Most users, including people buying smartphones, struggle to tell you what their computer operating system is.
Phones, including smartphones, are not sold like computers. Lots of people buy smartphones because they have the best cameras, or because they're the 'top end' phone, or because 'they want a blackberry' and can't tell a Nokia E61 from a BlackBerry device.
Also, at least in the UK, there's a lot of smartphones - including Android devices - being marketed at the general consumer market. There's not really any phones sold to 'technical' people - the distinction you want to make is 'consumer' versus 'business'. Windows Mobile and BlackBerry are 'business' (traditionally). The iPhone is 'consumer', albeit high-end.
Android phones tend to be consumer-focussed, competing against the iPhone. There's a few Android phones that are priced to the mid- and low-end of the market, and there's a lot of Nokia S60 smartphones in this range. (A lot more than Android or iOS, actually. Nokia are still the #1 smartphone manufacturer.) Most people buying these devices are 'non-technical' and if they understand the difference between 'Android 1.5' and 'Android 2.1', they just don't care.
Almost no users, including people buying smartphones, have any idea what a phone operating system is. Most users, including people buying smartphones, struggle to tell you what their computer operating system is.
Phones, including smartphones, are not sold like computers. Lots of people buy smartphones because they have the best cameras, or because they're the 'top end' phone, or because 'they want a blackberry' and can't tell a Nokia E61 from a BlackBerry device.
Also, at least in the UK, there's a lot of smartphones - including Android devices - being marketed at the general consumer market. There's not really any phones sold to 'technical' people - the distinction you want to make is 'consumer' versus 'business'. Windows Mobile and BlackBerry are 'business' (traditionally). The iPhone is 'consumer', albeit high-end.
Android phones tend to be consumer-focussed, competing against the iPhone. There's a few Android phones that are priced to the mid- and low-end of the market, and there's a lot of Nokia S60 smartphones in this range. (A lot more than Android or iOS, actually. Nokia are still the #1 smartphone manufacturer.) Most people buying these devices are 'non-technical' and if they understand the difference between 'Android 1.5' and 'Android 2.1', they just don't care.
This idea that everyone is an idiot and nothing matters is somewhat depressing. There is no point in designing anything for intelligent people -- there aren't enough of them to matter. People, in general, aren't discriminating at all. It sounds like if you put two items in identical shiny cases, they'll just pick them at random. Putting any effort into making one item better (rather than shinier) is simply wasted.
I can't argue with your evidence -- the fact that Nokia still manages to sell smartphones at all proves nobody is looking too deeply.
I can't argue with your evidence -- the fact that Nokia still manages to sell smartphones at all proves nobody is looking too deeply.
The idea that people maybe called idiots just because they dont care what os runs their phone is depressing all the more.
I would go on a limb here and hazard to say, that just because certain people don't care about version numbers and esoteric features, doesn't mean they are not intelligent.
People discriminate in accordance to their passions. I can't make much of current shoe fashions and advanced textile materials, nor do I care, I hope that doesn't qualify me as an idiot.
I would go on a limb here and hazard to say, that just because certain people don't care about version numbers and esoteric features, doesn't mean they are not intelligent.
People discriminate in accordance to their passions. I can't make much of current shoe fashions and advanced textile materials, nor do I care, I hope that doesn't qualify me as an idiot.
I know nothing about photography, but before I drop a couple hundred bucks on a camera I'm going to learn about it and compare its features to other models. I don't know much about cars either but I spend the time researching the details and making comparisons before I make that kind of purchase too. I'm not passionate about photography or cars but I am an informed consumer. I'd like to think that most people are the same.
The comments here are that version numbers are some insignificant detail that nobody cares about. I don't think the version of Android your phone runs is an esoteric detail -- it's pretty fundamental to the capability and enjoyment of the device. I'm not sure why people comparing Android phones to purchase wouldn't consider that a detail worth knowing about.
Now this is a recent development; it used to be that the latest phone in existence had the latest OS. You didn't have to think about it. But Google is pumping out Android versions very quickly and new phones can run anywhere from 1.6 to 2.2. So now it is a point of comparison where it might not have been for old Nokia phones.
The comments here are that version numbers are some insignificant detail that nobody cares about. I don't think the version of Android your phone runs is an esoteric detail -- it's pretty fundamental to the capability and enjoyment of the device. I'm not sure why people comparing Android phones to purchase wouldn't consider that a detail worth knowing about.
Now this is a recent development; it used to be that the latest phone in existence had the latest OS. You didn't have to think about it. But Google is pumping out Android versions very quickly and new phones can run anywhere from 1.6 to 2.2. So now it is a point of comparison where it might not have been for old Nokia phones.
That's the thing: Nokia's smartphones are smartPHONEs, not PDAs with a cellular modem. The current smartphone obsession is being largely driven by American-style smartphones, which are mostly terrible at being phones.
Nokia screw up when they try to copy this style of device and forget that their strength is excellent telephony devices. Which, despite the trendiness of mobile browsing and 'apps', is what most people want from their mobile phone.
That's why Nokia still own the market, because their devices appeal to people who primarily want to make phone calls from their phone. iOS, Android, WebOS, and Windows Mobile will never crack that market.
Nokia screw up when they try to copy this style of device and forget that their strength is excellent telephony devices. Which, despite the trendiness of mobile browsing and 'apps', is what most people want from their mobile phone.
That's why Nokia still own the market, because their devices appeal to people who primarily want to make phone calls from their phone. iOS, Android, WebOS, and Windows Mobile will never crack that market.
Blackberry managed to crack into the mobile market by offering devices that didn't do telephony at all. The "current smartphone obsession" as you call it has been developing for a decade now. People who primarily want to make phone calls from their phone is a dwindling market. For business, on demand email is significantly more important. For teens, texting ability is much more important (my daughter never calls anyone). There's a cultural shift in the works here.
Telephony isn't that difficult and all "american-style" smartphones do a perfectly adequate job. If you can make calls and answer calls, it's a phone. Most people don't need anything more than that. I don't see what more Nokia can offer on that point but they lots of room to screw everything else up.
Telephony isn't that difficult and all "american-style" smartphones do a perfectly adequate job. If you can make calls and answer calls, it's a phone. Most people don't need anything more than that. I don't see what more Nokia can offer on that point but they lots of room to screw everything else up.
Really, you're totally wrong. :o)
I think you're confusing what 'people who read HN' want with 'what the majority want'. It happens really commonly in tech-literate circles.
I'll grant you that texting is important, but that revolution happened a decade ago with the Nokia 3310. You don't need a smartphone for that.
The calling experience on most smartphones is horrific. On my iPhone I need to find an icon and tap it before I can even start dialling. Once I do get through to someone, the signal reception is weak - and this is an iPhone 3G on a UK network.
Pick up a Nokia S60 smartphone. There's number buttons on the front of them (except their weak attempts at touchscreen phones). You push them. The signal quality is rock-solid. These are things that normal people don't even think about until they dismiss an iPhone or Android smartphone as 'too fiddly'.
I think you're confusing what 'people who read HN' want with 'what the majority want'. It happens really commonly in tech-literate circles.
I'll grant you that texting is important, but that revolution happened a decade ago with the Nokia 3310. You don't need a smartphone for that.
The calling experience on most smartphones is horrific. On my iPhone I need to find an icon and tap it before I can even start dialling. Once I do get through to someone, the signal reception is weak - and this is an iPhone 3G on a UK network.
Pick up a Nokia S60 smartphone. There's number buttons on the front of them (except their weak attempts at touchscreen phones). You push them. The signal quality is rock-solid. These are things that normal people don't even think about until they dismiss an iPhone or Android smartphone as 'too fiddly'.
I think you're still confusing smartphone users with the regular mobile phone users. The iPhone is huge but I can guarantee that most people are purchasing it because it's a mini portable connected computer and not because it's a phone. That's the point.
I'll just +1 this. I spent several years at a major app developer (ya, there were third party apps before the iPhone!) and my experience matches up exactly.
I still think your perspective on general knowledge is off. I think plenty of people with phones still don't know what an operating system is, especially people over the age of 30 who didn't grow up with the internet and ubiquitous computers in school. But I could be wrong.
If it's true that only technical users are buying Android phones because it's still exclusive to the smart-phone market, what your saying makes sense.
I wouldn't be suprised if non-technical users with money to burn buy smart phones they don't understand just for the sake of vanity though.
If it's true that only technical users are buying Android phones because it's still exclusive to the smart-phone market, what your saying makes sense.
I wouldn't be suprised if non-technical users with money to burn buy smart phones they don't understand just for the sake of vanity though.
It's a good thing then that you are on Hacker News. As a tech person who wants the latest software, you can spend a few minutes rooting your phone and installing a custom ROM with the latest Android version.
A few minutes if someone (who hasn't wasted his time on HN :D ) already compiled the latest version for your device. Otherwise one can spent months trying to get the poorly documented and sometimes incomplete code to work.
Good point. Definitely don't buy a device that isn't already popular with the rom making crowd.
[deleted]
I think this author and a lot of other bloggers are missing the point. Android was Google's attempt to get people on the web (an Internet where Google controls the lion's share of the ad market) with their phones. Google doesn't care about "liberating the masses" from the shackles of the carriers.
The reason why Google went with Android and didn't stick to Apple was because Apple didn't really share that interest. Apple wanted to sell iPhones and apps, so they were okay with reducing their market by charging a premium price. That wouldn't get as many people onto the web as a free/cheap, widely available and customizable OS that appeals to carriers and hardware manufacturers.
If you look at the Nexus One through this prism, it also kind of makes sense. The N1 was designed to push hardware specs to a point where multimedia on the Web could function at a satisfactory level, so then people would have more of a reason to buy a smartphone.
The reason why Google went with Android and didn't stick to Apple was because Apple didn't really share that interest. Apple wanted to sell iPhones and apps, so they were okay with reducing their market by charging a premium price. That wouldn't get as many people onto the web as a free/cheap, widely available and customizable OS that appeals to carriers and hardware manufacturers.
If you look at the Nexus One through this prism, it also kind of makes sense. The N1 was designed to push hardware specs to a point where multimedia on the Web could function at a satisfactory level, so then people would have more of a reason to buy a smartphone.
The summarizing line of the article:
For things to really work for them, maybe there should be one kind of device, one OS version and one App store (sounds familiar?).
I'm not saying I agree, I was disappointed with the author's opinions.
For things to really work for them, maybe there should be one kind of device, one OS version and one App store (sounds familiar?).
I'm not saying I agree, I was disappointed with the author's opinions.
What the author seems to be missing is that Google created Android to prevent Apple controlling the mobile space and locking them out. Fragmentation may not be the goal but its inevitable however google doesn't care. Google makes just as much money from iphones and ipads as it does from fragmented android phones. The goal is to ensure Apple doesn't have ultimate control of the mobile space because then they would just cut google out.
I think there is a really exciting opportunity for a startup to write some simple desktop software that would allow novice users to root their phone (any android compatible phone) and then choose from a selection of fun, interesting or just more up-to-date os's.
And if you think the folks at unrEVOked aren't doing their damnedest to achieve that goal, then I think you're mistaken.
However, the reason they don't have that toy (and the same reason another random startup won't) is because the process does carry some non-zero risk and complexity when viewed across the spectrum of all devices. It is my opinion that the risk is only going to get worse over time, given the animosity that hardware manufacturers feel toward the hacker community.
Jailbreakme.com is outstanding, but they only had to deal with a small microcosm of hardware/OS tuples (which, if I'm not mistaken, is actually the topic under discussion right now).
However, the reason they don't have that toy (and the same reason another random startup won't) is because the process does carry some non-zero risk and complexity when viewed across the spectrum of all devices. It is my opinion that the risk is only going to get worse over time, given the animosity that hardware manufacturers feel toward the hacker community.
Jailbreakme.com is outstanding, but they only had to deal with a small microcosm of hardware/OS tuples (which, if I'm not mistaken, is actually the topic under discussion right now).
[deleted](1)
It's going to be very interesting to see how aggressive Microsoft gets pushing Bing as the default search on Android phones. The rumor was VZ cost them $500-$600M. T-Mobile & Sprint are going to be much cheaper. So it seems for only about $1B they can capture a huge chunk of mobile search. It's way too late for Google to make some big anti-competitive push to ice out Bing. They'll have to pay their way onto their own platform. That's rough.
Consumers aren't going to tolerate that kind of lock-in, and in many cases will use Google just the same.
In order for Microsoft to actually get anything out of this, they're going to have to treat Android as a first-class platform, and beat the user experience of Google Maps, Search, Voice Search, Gmail, Goggles, and so on on Android.
Microsoft doesn't have those kind of engineering chops. They can barely even manage a decent UX on Windows Desktop. (We'll see about Windows Phone 7, but I will be very surprised if it's legitimately better than Android, even Android with Bing baked-in.)
In order for Microsoft to actually get anything out of this, they're going to have to treat Android as a first-class platform, and beat the user experience of Google Maps, Search, Voice Search, Gmail, Goggles, and so on on Android.
Microsoft doesn't have those kind of engineering chops. They can barely even manage a decent UX on Windows Desktop. (We'll see about Windows Phone 7, but I will be very surprised if it's legitimately better than Android, even Android with Bing baked-in.)
Over the past few months, the Tech world has been imploding over Android’s openness.
No wonder this office is staring to feel kind of cramped.
No wonder this office is staring to feel kind of cramped.
Why would Google care about fragmentation so long as apps in every version can display ads? I don't really see the author's point.
One OS, one device (or a small handful of very similar devices), and one app store is simpler, but not necessary. What didn't work was the crazy panoply of design options of the windows mobile world, where screens could vary from a large HTC device to a tiny clamshell screen and where you could have a number pad on one phone, a full hw keyboard on another, and a touch screen on another. That degree of diversity is difficult to make high quality apps for. However, android is a bit better, there is less diversity and especially fewer giant gaps in capabilities. The amount of additional effort it takes to write an app that works well on a Droid 2 as well as a Galaxy S is insignificant next to the comparable effort for targeting both an HTC 8525 and a tiny clamshell phone with no kb, no touchscreen, and a 120px resolution screen. The desktop PC world manages this challenge just fine.
And ultimately catering to users' particular individual needs is likely to be a better market strategy in the long term compared to the "one true device for everyone!" ideal of Apple.
And ultimately catering to users' particular individual needs is likely to be a better market strategy in the long term compared to the "one true device for everyone!" ideal of Apple.
People just want a phone that's fun and easy to use. If they don't like the phone they have, they will buy a new one when the contract is up, which likely will have a new version (the number of which they won't know or care about) and will work better.
Fragmentation is a big pain for developers and so on, but users don't care and shouldn't need to care.