

Android is Google's Agent Smith - roblewis
http://www.techvibes.com/blog/android-is-googles-agent-smith

======
dusklight
uhhhh .. I think the majority of the people don't know what version of android
is on their phone, don't know why it matters, and don't care. The branding for
the various android phones so far is tied to the carrier and the phone
manufacturer, not the phone. There is no AndroidPhone. There is the HTC EVO,
Samsung Galaxy, Motorola Droid.

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.

~~~
wvenable
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.

~~~
daten
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.

~~~
wvenable
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.

~~~
semanticist
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.

~~~
wvenable
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.

~~~
doron
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.

~~~
wvenable
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.

------
ENOTTY
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.

------
daten
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.

------
rfolstad
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.

------
jay_kyburz
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.

~~~
mdaniel
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).

------
jsz0
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.

~~~
sprout
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.)

------
pvg
_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.

------
donaq
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.

------
InclinedPlane
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.

------
jscore
Android is Google's attempt to destroy Apple's App Store model.

~~~
Que
No, no it isn't.

