[BasketofPuppies]

Whenever I read an entry in a gadget blog about a phone that runs Windows Mobile or Symbian S60, I see countless comments from people saying that the phone is terrible because it runs Windows Mobile or Symbian S60, but it would be a great phone if it ran Android.

I don't get this. Sure, the Android operating system has potential, but there isn't much that you can do on an Android phone that you can't also do on a phone that runs a competing so-called smartphone operating system, much less better than on a phone running a competing smartphone operating system, and there are a lot of things that those competing smartphone platforms can do that Android currently can't.

If there's something that you want your smartphone to do that it can't do out of the box, if you're smartphone is running Windows Mobile or Symbian S60 or BlackBerry or iPhone OS or even the near-dead Palm OS or the completely dead Symbian UIQ, you can probably find software that will allow you to do it. On an Android phone, you're currently less likely to find what you need, and the quality of available software tends to be lower.

You could argue the same thing about the iPhone when it was introduced, but while, at the time, the iPhone couldn't do a number of basic things that other smartphones could do (third party software, MMS, copy and paste), it could also do things that other phones couldn't do or did them better (visual voice mail; easy, stylus-free touchscreen controls; making difficult to use features on other consumer phones easy to use).

Am I missing something, or is this just nerds being nerds and loving Android because of the combination of the Google brand and kind of open source?

[ctt1wbw]

Not sure for me. I've actually never even seen an Android device before.

[shifuimam]

I think it's that a phone that can run its stock OS and android gives the user some options, whereas a phone that only runs one OS is less flexible.

When you read comments on gadget blogs, you're mostly reading comments from geeks. Geeks like to hack things, and geeks like options in their geek toys.

[besson3c]

I think geeks are optimistic about the future of Android given its open nature and backing, with good reason in both regards.

[chabig]

Yes. Android is all about HOPE.

[besson3c]

A little Android 2 video:

Android 2.0 Platform Officially Unveiled - Mac Rumors

[ort888]

I don't know. I played with my brother-in-laws Android phone (HTC MyTouch) for about 20 minutes and I was not impressed. The browser sucked, and the whole thing was very confusing and sluggish. He also didn't have any interesting apps. I don't know if that's his fault or not, but every app I tried was either completely lame or something an iPhone app does 10 times better.

He was also not very happy with it. He wishes he had bought an iPhone.

[olePigeon]

Android is free to use. Cell Phone companies can potentially save millions of dollars simply by not using Windows.

[besson3c]

It's interesting to me how Google releases betas, and sometimes software that is used in earnest with a beta label on it, yet they never seem to be terribly hurt by bad first reviews. It's great for developers and phone makers to improve a system like this in response to customers so long as customers don't mind being guinea pigs, I guess. It's not like other cell phone software outside of the iPhone is all that refined anyway (although I haven't spent much time with recent Blackberry/Palm/Windows phones).

[Chuckit]

Seems to me Android is behind the iPhone but roughly on par with everybody else, so I can't really fault Google. I'd probably get an Android phone if a good one were offered on T-Mobile. (Of course, I'd rather get an iPhone if that were available at all on T-Mobile, but that isn't the case either.)

[ctt1wbw]

Is ATT Wireless not good in San Diego?

[ort888]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's interesting to me how Google releases betas, and sometimes software that is used in earnest with a beta label on it, yet they never seem to be terribly hurt by bad first reviews. It's great for developers and phone makers to improve a system like this in response to customers so long as customers don't mind being guinea pigs, I guess. It's not like other cell phone software outside of the iPhone is all that refined anyway (although I haven't spent much time with recent Blackberry/Palm/Windows phones).

Yeah, maybe I'm an Apple/usability fanboy, but I've found every single cell phone interface I've encountered to be completely horrible. Going back a decade they have all been terrible. Every cell manufacturer has a completely different way to do anything, and it would change all the time. I consider myself a fairly tech savvy guy, and if someone hands me a phone and asks me to do something basic and I can't figure it out in 2 minutes, then there is a problem.

[starman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Yeah, maybe I'm an Apple/usability fanboy, but I've found every single cell phone interface I've encountered to be completely horrible. Going back a decade they have all been terrible. Every cell manufacturer has a completely different way to do anything, and it would change all the time. I consider myself a fairly tech savvy guy, and if someone hands me a phone and asks me to do something basic and I can't figure it out in 2 minutes, then there is a problem.

This.

But I think some people don't care or accept it. "It's free/cheap" is their excuse. In the meantime, i see people struggling with things I can do in a second on the iPhone.

Meh.

[Laminar]

Verizon has a pretty standard UI across most of their phones. Which means I can switch most phones from English to Portuguese pretty easily.

[shifuimam]

Verizon's method of flashing over a handset manufacturer's firmware with their own is good and bad - bad because it removes manufacturer-supported features, good because it means that your new phone will work more or less like your old phone.

Fortunately, at least with Motorola phones, it's pretty easy to restore the disabled features (like USB file transfer). My Moto V325 from my Verizon days was definitely more hackable than my iPhone.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Is ATT Wireless not good in San Diego?

The way they treat their customers is terrible anywhere you go.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Verizon's method of flashing over a handset manufacturer's firmware with their own is good and bad - bad because it removes manufacturer-supported features, good because it means that your new phone will work more or less like your old phone.

Bad because now you have to buy a new phone if you want to switch carriers.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Bad because now you have to buy a new phone if you want to switch carriers.

Verizon's phones wouldn't work on any other carriers anyway. The only other carrier to use CDMA is Sprint, and they have a different method for identifying phones than Verizon does.

You used to be able to use Verizon phones on Alltel, but now they're the same company...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Verizon's phones wouldn't work on any other carriers anyway.

That's precisely my point. If you get a GSM phone, you can use it on absolutely any other GSM carrier, anywhere in the world. In Europe they sell SIM cards like prepaid phone cards so you don't have to pay roaming charges or other stupid charges from U.S. carriers.

Originally Posted by jokell82 

The only other carrier to use CDMA is Sprint, and they have a different method for identifying phones than Verizon does.

There are lots of CDMA carriers in the U.S.: Verizon, Sprint/Virgin, MetroPCS, U.S. Cellular, Cellular One, and TracFone.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That's precisely my point. If you get a GSM phone, you can use it on absolutely any other GSM carrier, anywhere in the world. In Europe they sell SIM cards like prepaid phone cards so you don't have to pay roaming charges or other stupid charges from U.S. carriers.

Right, I'm not arguing with you there. But Verizon flashing the firmware has little to do with phone compatibility amongst other carriers.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There are lots of CDMA carriers in the U.S.: Verizon, Sprint/Virgin, MetroPCS, U.S. Cellular, Cellular One, and TracFone.

Well only two national carriers, and their phones are incompatible despite using the same technology.

[GSixZero]

I love my iPhone and my apps a ton, but I'm pretty sure my next phone will be android. The real advantage of Android in my opinion is the open development environment. iPhone apps are held to a high standard (which I like) because Apple lords over the approval process. While that generally makes for good user experience, I can't stand the bullsh*t that Apple does in regards to what is approved and what isn't.

Andriod is still pretty young and hasn't had the the advantage of the press, marketing, and brand of apple to quickly develop a huge mature app marketplace. I think as Andriod develops, it will overtake iPhone OS and will become the standard for most non-Apple smartphones.

As was mentioned above, it's an open and free OS available to manufactures. As it matures, more and more manufactures will move to it and it will allow you to move your apps and expereince from one phone to another, regardless of manufacturer.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That's precisely my point. If you get a GSM phone, you can use it on absolutely any other GSM carrier, anywhere in the world. In Europe they sell SIM cards like prepaid phone cards so you don't have to pay roaming charges or other stupid charges from U.S. carriers.

Except that in the U.S., GSM phones are carrier-locked...

It's not really Verizon's fault that the rest of the world (except for Japan and Canada, apparently) went the GSM route and mostly eschewed CDMA.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The way they treat their customers is terrible anywhere you go.

I have never encountered that. I feel that way about Verizon and Sprint. But ATT has been very professional to me. It may be because I'm on a government type account from when I was active duty.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies 

If there's something that you want your smartphone to do that it can't do out of the box, if you're smartphone is running Windows Mobile or Symbian S60 or BlackBerry or iPhone OS or even the near-dead Palm OS or the completely dead Symbian UIQ, you can probably find software that will allow you to do it. On an Android phone, you're currently less likely to find what you need, and the quality of available software tends to be lower.

[…]

Am I missing something, or is this just nerds being nerds and loving Android because of the combination of the Google brand and kind of open source?

A couple of thoughts:

First, the iPhone has shown from the very get-go - even before the app store - to all who understand why it's successful, that it's not about finding software that will allow you to do something, it's about finding software that will allow you to WANT to do something.

Second, the people who knee-jerk in a flash of "Open Source would be so much better" have absolutely NO ****ing clue about the previous point, or utterly fail to realize that it is the most important thing in ANY product you're not actually being PAID to operate.

Third, Android holds great promise because it doesn't carry the baggage of a million man-hours invested in a product that fails on a basic conceptual level (Windows Mobile), and because it's open-source and thus likely to be vastly improved in every way - though, and this is the big caveat that once again the people mentioned above don't see, the danger is in being vastly "improved" by complete geeks who have absolutely no clue about the first point above.


Apart from that, there's nothing rational or much worth pondering about the exclamations of a bunch of fourteen-year-olds with no clue and probably even less hope of affording one of these coveted devices at this point.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The way they treat their customers is terrible anywhere you go.

I keep hearing this, but never experienced it. *shrug*

-t

[turtle777]

Open-source doesn't guarantee a good GUI and end-user experience.

Otherwise, Linux would have passed OS X years ago. Yet, it is still a niche player for geeks.

-t

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Open-source doesn't guarantee a good GUI and end-user experience.

Otherwise, Linux would have passed OS X years ago. Yet, it is still a niche player for geeks.

-t

I'm pretty sure that OS X was built off of NEXTSTEP, which was built off of Unix (BSD). That's the beauty of the thing... you can make it into anything you want.

See here: A Brief History of Mac OS X
And here: http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/ancien...cosx/arch.html
for some information on the history of OS X.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I'm pretty sure that OS X was built off of NEXTSTEP, which was built off of Unix (BSD). That's the beauty of the thing... you can make it into anything you want.

Dude, you're soooooo missing the boat here.

Yes, you theoretically can.

But everyone except Apple fails.
And what's more: groups of independent open-source geeks EPIC FAIL at it.

-t

[besson3c]

Where the open source angle is most relevant is not in designing GUI apps, but in advancing standards and protocols, and allowing connectivity with other software without necessarily needing to work with proprietary systems that are controlled by companies.

Connectivity with your phone up to the iPhone has mostly been a complicated mess, and it is only easy with the iPhone operating in the little Apple bubble. Standards for interacting with other phones would useful, as would syncing with desktop computers, creating secure tunnels, and probably a gazillion other things we could all come up with if we put some thought into it.

Without openness, we have a bunch of walled gardens, and it is already bad enough that the phone carriers want to assert their control over these devices too. To me this is the usefulness of open source here - in making communicating and doing interesting things with these devices possible and thinking of them less so as walled gardens.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where the open source angle is most relevant is not in designing GUI apps, but in advancing standards and protocols, and allowing connectivity with other software without necessarily needing to work with proprietary systems that are controlled by companies.

I agree with this, but it just doesn't automatically make it a good end-user experience.

Touting Droid as the iPhone killar because it's "open sauce" is a very weak argument.

-t

[besson3c]

I agree with your agreeing. I think many people conflate the importance of open source protocols and formats (which are very important and useful) with open source applications. Most open source tools are not complete applications, yet are so vital to our ecosystem.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

A couple of thoughts:

First, the iPhone has shown from the very get-go - even before the app store - to all who understand why it's successful, that it's not about finding software that will allow you to do something, it's about finding software that will allow you to WANT to do something.

Second, the people who knee-jerk in a flash of "Open Source would be so much better" have absolutely NO ****ing clue about the previous point, or utterly fail to realize that it is the most important thing in ANY product you're not actually being PAID to operate.

Third, Android holds great promise because it doesn't carry the baggage of a million man-hours invested in a product that fails on a basic conceptual level (Windows Mobile), and because it's open-source and thus likely to be vastly improved in every way - though, and this is the big caveat that once again the people mentioned above don't see, the danger is in being vastly "improved" by complete geeks who have absolutely no clue about the first point above.


Apart from that, there's nothing rational or much worth pondering about the exclamations of a bunch of fourteen-year-olds with no clue and probably even less hope of affording one of these coveted devices at this point.

Exactly.

People jump on open source because it's still believed that because it's open, it'll kick ass. Well, in reality, very few open source projects have the same kind of respect that Apache does. Linux is great in the server arena but blows in the home. You get a bunch of open source geeks together to try and make something and even after 15 years, it still hasn't taken over the desktop. Couple that with dropped projects and I'm really not too keen on Android unless a dedicated group of people put effort into it, and even then, who'd want to do that for free?

I think Android's a great concept on paper, but in my experience with open source software, I'd be surprised if something worthwhile came out of it.

[shifuimam]

Apache certainly isn't the only quality OSS product out there - Firefox (and other Mozilla products), GAIM/Pidgin, MySQL, and PHP (the latter two are not in any way dependent on Apache, btw) come to mind. A ColdFusion server product went open-source earlier this year, which means that I can finally run CF on my own server.

It'll be ages before Linux ever becomes a viable consumer OS, but these days, it really is pretty easy to set up and use for basic day-to-day functionality.

I'm also not saying that Android awesome because it's open source - just that it has some appeal because it's not as locked down as the iPhone OS, and, as others have mentioned, it doesn't carry the same negative reputation as WinMo. I wouldn't be surprised if Android had a sizable market share in a few years. With nationwide carriers offering Android phones, it's got an easy entrance into consumers' lives, and the fact that the hardware is predictable (more or less) could mean that software for the phones will end up being better in the long run.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by starman 

Exactly.

People jump on open source because it's still believed that because it's open, it'll kick ass. Well, in reality, very few open source projects have the same kind of respect that Apache does. Linux is great in the server arena but blows in the home. You get a bunch of open source geeks together to try and make something and even after 15 years, it still hasn't taken over the desktop. Couple that with dropped projects and I'm really not too keen on Android unless a dedicated group of people put effort into it, and even then, who'd want to do that for free?

I think Android's a great concept on paper, but in my experience with open source software, I'd be surprised if something worthwhile came out of it.

There actually is financial incentive to improve Android — the stronger it is as a platform, the more people will own it. The more people who own it, the more people to buy your awesome Android app.

The question is really whether this is a better value proposition than the iPhone, and the answer looks like a pretty clear "no."

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I think it is because people love google and next to the iPhone it is probably the best option. I hear the interface is really inconsistent and all the hardware doesn't really do much for me but it is still waaaaay better than Windows mobile and Symbian.

[starman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Apache certainly isn't the only quality OSS product out there - Firefox (and other Mozilla products), GAIM/Pidgin, MySQL, and PHP (the latter two are not in any way dependent on Apache, btw) come to mind. A ColdFusion server product went open-source earlier this year, which means that I can finally run CF on my own server.

It'll be ages before Linux ever becomes a viable consumer OS, but these days, it really is pretty easy to set up and use for basic day-to-day functionality.

I'm also not saying that Android awesome because it's open source - just that it has some appeal because it's not as locked down as the iPhone OS, and, as others have mentioned, it doesn't carry the same negative reputation as WinMo. I wouldn't be surprised if Android had a sizable market share in a few years. With nationwide carriers offering Android phones, it's got an easy entrance into consumers' lives, and the fact that the hardware is predictable (more or less) could mean that software for the phones will end up being better in the long run.

While I agree that locking down the iPhone OS is annoying as hell, as a DEVELOPER, I understand where Apple's coming from. OSS has this stigma of being half-assed, written by code monkey in basements. I don't know if I want THAT on my phone. All it takes is a dereference of a NULL pointer and BAM, the phone could die if it's not properly protected. Similarly, do we know how well the Android will be protected? If there's an iPhone app that does potential damage, it gets rejected or removed. How do we know that someone's looking out for all the Android users? Android hasn't really PROVEN itself yet and that's where the iPhone beats it.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years, but I don't see the Android getting more than the niche geek market for now. It looks clunky. It doesn't have the backing of number of software developers the iPhone has, especially the big boys. And now that Apple's marketing the iPhone as a gaming platform, that puts much more pressure on Android.

[Chuckit]

Um, do userspace segfaults ever bring down a whole Linux system?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Um, do userspace segfaults ever bring down a whole Linux system?

They shouldn't, but who knows what's going on in there?

[besson3c]

Your generalizations about OSS are really pretty incomprehensible starman. Bad software is bad software, it doesn't matter whether it is open source, closed source, shareware, donationware, whatever. There is nothing inherent in open source software that leads to bad code, open source primarily relates to how the software will be used.

What you might be seeing is that there is a great *quantity* of bad open source projects, but this because there is a great quantity of open source software - moreso than any other type of software. This doesn't necessarily mean that the per percentage open source software is worse, and even if you could prove this, it still doesn't mean a whole lot. Open source software is only as good as its developers, and the interest driving the project which reflects the strength of the idea. The other aspect to open source software is that often times developers go into the projects with no business plan and just put together the project out of a labor of love or as a hobby. There is nothing "wrong" with these sorts of projects either, the motivation is different than a commercial project. Scratching your own itch is a much different venture than trying to scratch other people's.

[starman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your generalizations about OSS are really pretty incomprehensible starman. Bad software is bad software, it doesn't matter whether it is open source, closed source, shareware, donationware, whatever. There is nothing inherent in open source software that leads to bad code, open source primarily relates to how the software will be used.

Except I find that software with financial incentives does much better than the free stuff.

Case in point: Gimp vs. Photoshop

Sure, you could argue that Gimp isn't MEANT to be a "free Photoshop", but it's just written BADLY, and how long has it been out?

I have to deal with OSS on a DAILY basis. I have yet to find a single piece of software that is FULLY supported (meaning instant help from the author(s)), written correctly, follows some kind of guidelines (F1 for save? Who writes that??), or is just plain bad.

[Laminar]

Gimp blows.

[besson3c]

Would it be safe to say that you guys are point and click guys? Perhaps graphic designers? If so, I don't disagree with you, but it is not fair to base a sweeping generalization around a very small portion of all open source software, particularly the weakest part of it.

I would also wager a guess that there are many areas where open source is used that many are not even aware of. For instance, did you know that the bare metal VMWare hypervisor is a Linux based kernel?

[starman]

No. Software engineer, both front and back end.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Would it be safe to say that you guys are point and click guys? Perhaps graphic designers? If so, I don't disagree with you, but it is not fair to base a sweeping generalization around a very small portion of all open source software, particularly the weakest part of it.

I would also wager a guess that there are many areas where open source is used that many are not even aware of. For instance, did you know that the bare metal VMWare hypervisor is a Linux based kernel?

I'm an end-user with family and priorities beyond fiddling with stuff to make it work.

If it doesn't work right or gets in my way, it gets thrown out unless it's absolutely essential and there's no other option.

As long as you're not paying me for my time, I'm sticking with the iPhone.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Would it be safe to say that you guys are point and click guys? Perhaps graphic designers? If so, I don't disagree with you, but it is not fair to base a sweeping generalization around a very small portion of all open source software, particularly the weakest part of it.

I would also wager a guess that there are many areas where open source is used that many are not even aware of. For instance, did you know that the bare metal VMWare hypervisor is a Linux based kernel?

That's well and good, but I think cell phone user experience is more about point-and-click than it is about bare-metal VMWare implementations.

[besson3c]

I know, I was speaking broadly. I've already addressed where I see OSS being useful with phones, namely in protocols and formats and such.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I know, I was speaking broadly. I've already addressed where I see OSS being useful with phones, namely in protocols and formats and such.

What phone in the recent years has sold mainly based on protocols and formats and such ?

These days, those things are expected to be great. It's a no brainer.

The GUI and user experience makes the difference in success.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What phone in the recent years has sold mainly based on protocols and formats and such ?

These days, those things are expected to be great. It's a no brainer.

The GUI and user experience makes the difference in success.

-t

Are you suggesting that compatibility with certain software and/or other phones/networks/carriers/cloud services is of no value to consumers? The need to get data to and from phones is growing, as is the annoyance factor of being limited by the phone maker, the Desktop applications that host this data, and being limited and/or gouged by the carrier/network, and sometimes even the network service (e.g. can you explain what sort of dance and combination of products you need to get push email to work?) There are too many walled gardens in this industry, and the way to change that is by developing ways for these devices to speak to each other, and for software developers to support these technologies. This extends to the cloud too.

[starman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you suggesting that compatibility with certain software and/or other phones/networks/carriers/cloud services is of no value to consumers? The need to get data to and from phones is growing, as is the annoyance factor of being limited by the phone maker, the Desktop applications that host this data, and being limited and/or gouged by the carrier/network, and sometimes even the network service (e.g. can you explain what sort of dance and combination of products you need to get push email to work?) There are too many walled gardens in this industry, and the way to change that is by developing ways for these devices to speak to each other, and for software developers to support these technologies. This extends to the cloud too.

That's not what he said. Communication with other devices is pretty much a given now. It's currently about the user experience.

Y'know, like the iPhone.

I had a Nokia N95. Great phone, sh*tty UI.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you suggesting that compatibility with certain software and/or other phones/networks/carriers/cloud services is of no value to consumers? .

No, I'm suggesting to read my post again.

-t