
What Makes Android Revolutionary - thomholwerda
http://www.osnews.com/story/25465/What_Makes_Android_Revolutionary
======
moocow01
"The iPhone is heralded as the most revolutionary mobile phone in human
history, but the cold and harsh truth is that for all the cheering and
punditry, the iPhone's impact on the world is negligible."

Don't care for Android vs. iPhone arguments but lets at least admit that
iPhone was a significant catalyst that moved forward the smartphone movement
initially at the least. Androids would probably still exist if Apple never put
out the iPhone but the iPhone has certainly been one of the biggest influences
on Android's development not to mention the entire mobile industry. In that
regard I see the author's statement as pretty narrow. Its like saying Unix had
no impact on computing because Microsoft had the lion's share.

~~~
masklinn
> Androids would probably still exist if Apple never put out the iPhone

While Android would definitely exist (it predates the iPhone's unveiling by
years) it would be a very, very different beast. It might have moved towards
its current state over time, but its first handsets would have been much more
similar to the Blackberries of the time. In fact, this (recorded) origin still
plagues the platform to this day, it's one of the sources of the structural
issues leading to "insufficient" responsiveness.

~~~
geuis
Android was released September 20, 2008. The first iPhone, thus iOS, was
released June 27, 2007. I fail to see how Android predates iOS by years.

*Edit for folks who are voting this down:

I am not making any kind of argument in favor of one platform or another. I am
simply commenting on what was said in the parent comment.

The release dates are simple fact. Go to Wikipedia like I did and find it for
yourself. Apple got to the market over a year before Google released its first
product based on Android.

The first version of iOS was in development for a long time, as was the first
version of Android, before the world ever really got to see them. Thus, saying
that Android was in development years before iOS implies that iOS was some
last minute project Apple threw together. It's simply not true in either case.

~~~
mike-cardwell
Google didn't wake up on June 28th 2007 and say, "Shit, we'd better make a
phone OS", and then release it 15 months later.

Both were under development for years before they were released. The idiots
who think Android is just an iOS clone, forget this point.

~~~
beatle
Yeah but Android used to look like this before the iPhone was unveiled.

[http://news.cnet.com/i/ne/p/2008/android_prototype_550x385.j...](http://news.cnet.com/i/ne/p/2008/android_prototype_550x385.jpg)

~~~
css771
Incorrect. That image is banded around just to serve a particular viewpoint.
There was already a capacitive touchscreen android device in the prototype
stages at the same time. Look at this video:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1FJHYqE0RDg#t=174s)

~~~
beatle
I don't think so.

~~~
css771
You can think whatever you want. Fact is fact.

~~~
beatle
it's not fact. you're deluding yourself.

~~~
mike-cardwell
You're not making a very convincing argument.

------
richardburton
_For the first time, a smartphone operating system is going to impact more
than rich people in the US and Europe, and that is pretty darn revolutionary._

Simply and powerfully put. As third-world countries come online they are going
to be starting and staying with the mobile web. You can already see this at
work in a number of African countries where mobile payments have proliferated
and matured at an astonishing rate. That is just an early signal of the
tectonic shift occurring.

~~~
phaus
I just hope that the poor of the world don't end up with a $180 phone bill
like I have to deal with in order to have mobile web access. Sadly, in some
countries that would be almost 6 months' income.

~~~
mike-cardwell
Here in the UK, my mobile phone bill is £3.33/month and I get 500MB of data
with that.

EDIT: I do this by using T-Mobile PAYG and buying their 6 month Internet
booster for £20, twice a year. I've managed to convince all my regular
contacts to use Kik Messenger instead of SMS, so I don't have to pay for SMS.
I very rarely make phone calls, but I have VOIP with localphone.com when I
have to.

~~~
freehunter
Unfortunately that's not an option for many. In the US and Canada, there is
absolutely no way to get mobile data for less than $5/mo.

~~~
dasil003
£3.33 is not less than $5

~~~
freehunter
At the time I wrote the post, Google's conversion told me it was in the high
$4 range. Right now it's saying it is $5.17. Close enough to let the point
stand.

------
cbs
This is an interesting take on the long view of the smartphone market. I think
the linked google plus comment is more insightful than the article itself, if
you skipped it the first time go back and give it a read.

Apple is building a luxury device. Google is turning what was once luxury into
a commodity.

It makes sense too. The difference in revenue streams boils down to, Apple
makes cash from the upgrade train, Google makes cash when people use the web.
Getting the web in everyones hands is a plus for google, but a huge plus for
humankind. I'm glad that their interests so closely line up with the big
picture in this situation.

Not specific to phones, I just love it when things get commoditized. It means
that the next round of new and exciting things built upon it can finally gain
some steam.

------
jballanc
It is interesting to note that the term "Open Source" was coined as a
counterpart/in opposition to "Free Software" by those who were interested in
sharing code but who did not ascribe to some of the more extreme aspects of
Stallman's philosophy. It is interesting, because really, what has Android
being "Open Source" really done? Are customers less beholden to telecoms for
their devices? Have prices dropped or competition increased? What percent of
Android device owners have compiled their own kernel? Have read the Android
source?

> In ten to fifteen years' time, we will look back and regard Android as the
> technology that enabled even the poorest people in this world to have access
> to the web (and thus, knowledge), just like we regard Nokia as the company
> that put the mobile phone in every corner of the globe.

...and just like we regard Microsoft as the company that put computers into
every home.

~~~
clintonb11
I think prices are lower than they would have been without android. Without
debating the openness of the software, Android still gave phone manufacturers
a huge code base for their smart phones that they would have had to develop
otherwise, and their software probably wouldn't have been as good. Just look
at the selection of "free" smart phones from T-mobile:
<http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/?shape=smp>

I doubt the diversity and quality of those phones would have been possible
without Android.

~~~
jballanc
The cost of a Windows license was never a material factor in the cost of a
computer. Windows just happened to work on the widest range of hardware, much
like Android. Being "open" has little to nothing to do with that.

What I find lacking in all of this Android chest-bumping is the recognition of
what made it possible for so many smart phones to be priced reasonably: the
decreasing price of flash storage. If we're going to point to anything as the
cause for smart phone ubiquity, shouldn't we consider what Apple has done to
drive down the price of flash?

~~~
clintonb11
The difference in this case is that Android can be customized and tailored
however a carrier or manufacturer wants, because the source code is in fact
available. Windows never allowed for that.

------
awolf
For the author revolutionary seems to mean "reaches the most people". My
definition is closer to "radically new or innovative".

The iPhone drastically redefined the smartphone market including the
competitors that followed it. Hard for me to swallow that its effect on the
world has been negligible.

~~~
thomholwerda
[author here]

Nope. It doesn't mean "reaches the most people". It means "has the most impact
on the world". I think that Android will be the technology that allows people
in poorer places of the world to have the internet - and thus, knowledge, and
thus, power - in their pocket. That is going to change the world in a
significant way.

Even something as simple as this: the internet may have information on the
best way to treat sick cattle, or how to best treat certain crops. Heck, in
more developed areas, it may cut the reaction time of aid services
drastically.

(you already see this happening in Kenya, as linked in the article:
[http://singularityhub.com/2011/08/16/80-android-phone-
sells-...](http://singularityhub.com/2011/08/16/80-android-phone-sells-like-
hotcakes-in-kenya-the-world-next/) ).

~~~
epo
Time will tell. I think you're wrong. Most of the third world doesn't even
have a reliable cell phone service and, of course, little money, so there are
few consumers to target ads at.

On a practical note, battery life matters in impoverished regions, best of
luck with your "might last 24 hours, 36 if you're really lucky" Android
handset.

Your second paragraph is warm and fuzzy nonsense, you should be ashamed of
yourself for writing it.

Smartphones are designed for the needs of the developed world, the less
developed world has it's requirements too, I doubt that internet enabled smart
phones are high on the list.

And those alleged $80 handsets, how long exactly until they break and require
servicing? Google "android failure rate", (less than e.g. iPhones, you can
check), compare it those to conventional mobile phones.

~~~
mtts
> Most of the third world doesn't even have a reliable cell phone service

Wrong. Most of the third world has excellent cell phone service and they're
using cell phones for far more stuff than we do. In Kenya, for instance, you
can make small payments using your regular, non-smart cell phone.

> of course, little money, so there are few consumers to target ads at

They have advertising in the third world as well. I doubt that's because
there's no money going around.

> On a practical note, battery life matters in impoverished regions, best of
> luck with your "might last 24 hours, 36 if you're really lucky" Android
> handset.

This needs to be solved, agreed. Chances are, however, that the phones that
solve this problem will run some form of Android.

~~~
fpgeek
> > On a practical note, battery life matters in impoverished regions, best of
> luck with your "might last 24 hours, 36 if you're really lucky" Android
> handset.

> This needs to be solved, agreed. Chances are, however, that the phones that
> solve this problem will run some form of Android.

It is worth noting that some Android phones are already doing impressive
things on this front. See, for example, the Samsung Replenish (that can slowly
charge from sunlight with an alternative battery cover):
<http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/10/samsung-replenish-review/>

------
Yhippa
I think the iPhone set the bar for user experience and helped pull everybody
out of the dark ages of jamming scaled-down desktop experiences on a tiny
screen.

I really agree with the post though. One day enough people with time on their
hands will be able to adapt Android to all sorts of cheap hardware which might
scale greatly for the developing world.

~~~
fpgeek
Android is already scaling for the developing world. See the Kenyan Android
phone: <http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/37877/>

------
da_n
I was unfortunate enough to own one of the first Android devices, the HTC
Magic (aka MyTouch3G). This was prior to, and also one of the first victims
of, Android fragmentation. The process of discovering who was responsible for
updates was the least open and opaque process I could have imagined. I had to
resort to seeking out the information from other users on the Vodafone forum
to discover that basically, no one actually cared. I had already bought the
device so HTC had their money and didn't care, I was signed up to a 2 year
contract so Vodafone had their money and didn't care, and Google got to
license the phone as a Google Experience one, selling their app suite as well
as me using their services. Google maybe cared a little, but they do not
provide support or after care really unless talking to a perl script counts as
support.

The underlying OS might be revolutionary in some ways, but the update process
(at least the one sanctioned by Google) is so far away from revolutionary I
find it hard to fathom the Android Reality Distortion Field I sometimes hear
about this. It sucks. It gives the user next to no after care, it is all about
the upfront purchase to the handset maker, the vampire like carrier fees, and
the services provided by Google including all the advertising on the devices.
I think people are evangelising this beyond what is rational.

~~~
mtts
Ah, but if I'm a poor(ish) African villager, what's important to me is not
updating my phone to the latest and greatest Android version, but the fact
that I could buy a cheap smartphone to begin with.

~~~
da_n
Ah, so you are a poor African villager then? It's good to have you weigh-in on
the discussion. We here in the first world are mostly ignorant and think that
people in the third world only expect shitty technology with no updates.

------
aforty
Sure, Rubin's definition of open ("mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u
git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make") would
still apply today without the iPhone but let's be real: Android, without the
iPhone, would at best be a Blackberry clone. One could argue the market would
have ignored it because it would have offered very little new. It had wide
adoption among hardware manufacturers were desperate because they needed to
compete against the iPhone. Would the same have been true if they were still
competing against Blackberry, a Blackberry clone and whatever Microsoft would
eventually come out with?

Android is what it is today because of Apple and the iPhone.

------
notatoad
can we please stop responding to MG Seigler? I don't read his blog so i don't
know if he actually does post intelligent thought sometimes, but every single
thing the blogs have picked up from him is pure fanboy trollbait.

~~~
guywithabike
If you don't read his blog, why do you feel qualified to comment on the
content of his blog?

~~~
code_duck
Probably because he is a one purpose writer, setting out to 'support Apple in
every way, always', similar to John Gruber. I like Apple too, but the way
these two always conclude that Apple is right in whatever they did, and
anything Apple does is better than any other company, isn't very interesting
to read.

------
cageface
Here in Vietnam where the yearly average income is still under $2000 USD
_everybody_ wants an iPhone. Perfectly capable Android phones are widely
available but the iPhone is the public status signal everybody is chasing.
Maybe this is a cultural thing but if people in other developing countries are
similarly willing to buy such an extravagantly expensive device just to keep
up with the Joneses next door the value proposition of cheaper Android phones
may not be so strong. By all accounts Apple still has a lot of room to cut
prices but stay in the black too.

~~~
dasil003
I think this says more about branding and sociology than actual value
proposition.

~~~
cageface
That's my point exactly. Even in poor countries branding may trump economy and
undercut Android's price advantage.

------
Eeko
Smartphone-proliferation requires a strong network capable of moving bytes in
much larger scale than currently feasible or economical in most 3rd world
networks. Hell, many 1st world countries struggle with growing data.

The OS of the phone is much irrelevant (Windows, linux, meego, webos etc. are
"cheap and good enough" if you really have the demand of billion such devices.
Having open source OS helps, but I'd say it's more about who can sell the
network cheap enough to suit the smartphones.

------
eigenvector
People keep fixating on the fact that Android is not Free Software. It doesn't
matter.

Android is giving us the option to use an open source OS on arbitrary
commoditized hardware without paying any license fees or asking anyone for
permission. The Android OS can and has been ported to all manner of devices
without any first-party support.

When the only other comparably advanced mobile OS is totally proprietary AND
only available on proprietary hardware made by the OS manufacturer, the
existence of Android is a massive leap forward for openness and choice.

iOS is great, I love it. But it will be forever locked to Apple's hardware,
and you will only ever have access to that technology in the forms that make
good business sense for Apple. That is not true of Android.

------
runjake
I disagree with most of the article, but the one point I'll make regard his
comments about the iPhone being for rich people/countries.

First, I have to assume he's talking about contract prices, because the
cheapest Android devices are a little under $250 off-contract, which is cost-
prohibitive for "non-rich"countries.

So, how is this valid, when I can get an iPhone 3GS for free (on contract) and
an iPhone 4 for $99? This is on close price parity with Android devices --
from the free/cheap prepaid LG Optimus Android devices to the Galaxy Nexus.

Edit: If you're going to downvote this into oblivion, at least do me the favor
of explaining where my thinking is incorrect?

~~~
dannyr
You disagree based on your knowledge of the US market? How about the rest of
the world? Sorry but this is a US-centric world view. The US cellphone market
is very different from the rest of the world.

The author is not assuming contract prices. You are. In developing countries,
at least 80% of cellphone users are prepaid.

In Africa, you can get an Android phone for $80, without contract. And as time
passes, they will get cheaper.

[http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/93176-cheap-android-
phone-...](http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/93176-cheap-android-phone-leads-
the-app-charge-in-africa)

~~~
runjake
This is a great response. Thanks for the info and link.

~~~
fpgeek
Meanwhile in the US, it seems you can now get a no-contract Android for
_$59.99_ :

[http://www.bestbuy.com/site/MetroPCS+-+Huawei+M835+No-
Contra...](http://www.bestbuy.com/site/MetroPCS+-+Huawei+M835+No-
Contract+Mobile+Phone+-+Black/2947111.p?id=1218365974161&skuId=2947111)

------
adpowers
My major take away from the MG Sieler post was that Rubin deleted a tweeted,
which makes it look like he's trying to hide something, regardless of the true
reason for deleting it. Why does he need to delete a tweet that whose commands
no longer work? A tweet is a point in time snapshot that represents a thought
or opinion at a certain point in time. They aren't wikis that need to be
constantly updated and maintained. If someone tried the command and it didn't
work, they could always search for the up to date instructions. I'm not sure
how this became a platform flame war.

~~~
nextparadigms
Still, MG clearly overreacted, which makes him look rather foolish right now.
It just shows how biased he is against Android and Google, that he will make a
big problem out of nothing, which is actually very much like he's doing his
reviews. Downplays Android advantages, and makes a big deal of some of the
disadvantages.

------
Apocryphon
Maybe webOS will have its chance to play the same role. Android is getting hit
hard by the patent wars. webOS is soon to be open, has a strong community of
tinkerers already, and to develop for it all you need to know are HTML/CSS/JS
- much like developing for the mobile web. If HP plays their cards right, and
Android as a platform is enervated enough by the companies that have an
interest in it muddling it up with suits and countersuits, perhaps webOS will
get its chance to shine.

------
snowwrestler
"I'm even more excited about seeing a $25 mobile device that has access to a
killer web browser and endless mobile apps, and watching that device appear in
the hands of a billion school children over the next 10 years."

I would be excited to see that too. Can anyone point me towards such a device?

"What Nokia did for the mobile phone, Android is doing for the smartphone."

I don't see how, because Nokia is a hardware manufacturer who actually makes
phones, and Android is just an operating system. It seems to me the hard part
of getting to the $25 unlocked price point is the hardware, not the OS.
Android is not even the only open-source phone operating system--how about
Meego, created by (aptly) Nokia, and hosted by the nonprofit Linux Foundation?

Android is a cool product, but I have a hard time swallowing the self-
congratulatory posturing. So far Android has not done a single thing for the
3rd world poor. As far as I can tell, so far all it has done is provided the
skeleton for a bunch of proprietary implementations by first-world hardware
manufacturers and mobile operators.

------
Senthee
It is one of the best futuristic statements about Android and I certainly
agree and I am seeing that happen in Second and Third world.

------
x3c
What I very much appreciate is that the article, rightly, gives credit to
Nokia for proliferation of mobiles in developing world. I'm from India and I
still remember my first phone was Nokia 3310 in 2002. I'm sure Nokia did it
for the profit but that doesn't change the fact that I became loyal to nokia
for making quality product and helping me better my life.

The same thing will happen to android, I hope. Nokia provided excellent
hardware for me and Android will provide excellent software for the younger
generation of India, Africa etc. And that is the point of the post.

Sure, Apple provided a huge boost to smartphones and industry will be indebted
to Apple. But, as I'm indebted to Nokia not the company that boosted the
mobile phones, future generations will be indebted to Android and not to Apple
that boosted the smartphone market.

------
AlisdairO
I think the wrangling over Apple's sold/shipped devices is a little over the
top - unlike some of the unreliable figures released for adroid tablets, for
example, I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that Apple doesn't sell
the large majority of the devices it ships.

~~~
shadowfiend
Yeah, with shipping estimates of 1-2 weeks on the Apple Store, it looks like
Apple is still selling more or less every iPhone it makes at the moment.

A nitpick, of course, but the soreness doesn't help the rest of the argument,
which is a good argument to make.

------
battaile
I'm not seeing why this is rated so highly, its just some android blogger
making snarky comments about an iOS blogger and reposting a bunch of hyperbole
from a google+ comment.

------
atirip
"I'm even more excited about seeing a $25 mobile device that has access to a
killer web browser and endless mobile apps, and watching that device appear in
the hands of a billion school children over the next 10 years."

All those billion kids who did got Android or Blackberry instead of iPhone for
Christmas are currently crying over Twitter about how they hate their
parents...

------
fleitz
I still don't see what makes it revolutionary, I'm not sure what price point
an android capable handset adresses that a 3GS doesn't. There is honestly very
little difference on pricing, if you can afford a droid you can afford a 3GS
or 4. It's a few percent difference not a an order of magnitude. Beating a
competitors price by a few dollars is hardly what I'd call a revolution. iOS
is just as accessible to starving African children as android. What matters
far more than a few dollars for a phone is the kleptocratic governance in
those countries. A real revolution would be governance open to doing business
and enriching the populace.

------
rd108
Thank you for cutting through the bullshit. Especially in developing (not
fully industrialized) economies, the power of the web on everyone's phone will
change our world.

------
albb0920
I'm wondering why all the credits goes to iPhone/Android rather than Windows
Mobile(Pocket PC) which is a great mobile os in it's time.

------
buff-a
_the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u
git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"_

>make install.

oh.

------
listening
Why couldn't they have used the Inferno OS for their VM?

Code reuse at Google is huge.

So what were their reasons for not choosing it?

Apologies if this has been asked and answered.

~~~
masklinn
1\. Google did not build Android from scratch, Google bought the company which
created Android, and built it to a releasable platform from there.

2\. Inferno has nothing to do with Google, the only (remote) link is that
Inferno is that Ken Thompson worked on its predecessor (Plan9). I'm not even
sure Thompson worked on Inferno itself.

3\. I've never seen any claim that Google uses Inferno anywhere.

So a better question would be: what makes you bring up Inferno in a place
where it has no reason whatsoever to be?

~~~
listening
Apologies.

s/Android/Dalvik

Google had a choice of which virtual machine to use on Android. They went with
a modified Dalvik.

Could they have chosen Inferno?

If they looked at it and decided against it, what were the reasons?

------
desireco42
Nothing... I have android phone.

------
Ihavenoname
You can talk up your favorite team, principle or country without a point by
point attack on your rivals. Apple has had some great successes and failures
that open source can learn from and can stand on their shoulders to make an
even better product. Characterizing Apple and Jobs as some one dimensional
boogy man doent really contribute to growth. No need for flame ware rehash.

tl;dr Dont waste your time on this article.

~~~
shadowfiend
But the article has a perfectly good point to make. That it's couched in the
usual rivalry terms is unfortunate, but hey, that's the way of the world.

It's legitimate to say that Android will be the driving force for
commoditizing smartphones, however. iOS will not be that force, and I think
that's fine. That has never been Apple's goal, and it shows. It's like saying
Mercedes won't drive commoditization of the latest feature in their car (e.g.,
HUDs or auto-parallel-parking). No, that'll be a smaller company. Mercedes is
in charge of being up front putting it in to begin with for the people willing
to pay more to get it. Once it's become cheaper, Ford can then integrate it in
their upper lines, and then their mid-levels, and then it becomes a standard
feature for pretty much all cars.

Similarly, Apple basically rewrote the book on smartphone UIs. There is very
little you can say to truly countermand that. They may not be the 100%
originators of all of the ideas, but the iPhone was the first phone of its
kind. Android followed along, and started out expensive, then got cheaper, and
now they're moving towards ultra-cheap smartphones running Android. Same
evolution. The products have different purposes and different targets, that's
all.

The only reason I bring this up is that I really don't often see flamewars
between Mercedes drivers and Ford drivers. I suppose this might be because car
companies differentiate tiers by brand, while in the case of Android, there
are both high-end and low-end Android phones that are marketed under the exact
same name, and these will obviously provide a different experience.

~~~
masklinn
> It's legitimate to say that Android will be the driving force for
> commoditizing smartphones, however. iOS will not be that force, and I think
> that's fine.

I'm not sure about that, cheaper iPhones have been available with every new
release, last year european operators already offered 0€ iPhones with 2 years
contracts, and the 3GS has gotten one more year lease on life being advertised
as a $99 phone in the US.

edit: -1 without any discussion because I point out iphones are available "for
free", which seriously sounds like commoditization? That's an interesting HN
dynamic.

~~~
frankydp
Subsidy purchasing is not free. Most low end markets are hugely bias to pay as
you go due to income variances from agriculture incomes. iOS devices in that
regard are a much higher price of entry point than alternatives. Not that I
down voted but this is may be why.

~~~
shadowfiend
Yeah, masklinn, you make a decent point in richer markets, but I think it's
unlikely we'll see a $25, no-contract iPhone or iPad, while we've already seen
(extremely crappy) Android devices that are remarkably close to that range.
frankydp is right in that the free 2-year-contract iPhones are still quite
expensive without a contract when we're talking about poorer nations.

Or perhaps I should hedge and say I think Android will get there first, and
probably much before. Who knows whether Apple will decide to go after that
segment or not in the long run (though it's not exactly their style).

------
drivebyacct2
I can already see how much of this thread is going to play out. Before we get
into a fight about whether Android is "open" enough or not, can we defer to
the thread about Macro's post? There have already been dozens of comments
about the subject today.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Wow. Scumbag HN, downvotes comment asking to refer to discussion that occurred
minutes before. Repeats discussion that occurred minutes before. I guess I
don't mind if this gets downvotes, the dozen or two comments in the middle of
this are more or less copy and pasted from the discussion that occurred
earlier today.

~~~
dasil003
Downvoted for being a whiny douche, not for referring to previous discussion.

~~~
drivebyacct2
"whiny douche"? Well, that pretty much put the nail in the coffin. Guess the
other reply today about proggit compared to here was probably right. Tis a
shame.

Sorry the "post by Marco" wasn't relevant enough when it was sitting right
next to this link, said "marco.com" and had hundreds of comments.

Dasil003, you're really going to call me a douche when _you_ were even
commenting in that thread? Sorry, I'm not going to resort to calling you a
name.

------
denzil_correa
Also the fact that they steal.

------
happyman
Very much true.

~~~
happyman
I'm from one of the poorest countries. I could buy my first smart-phone
because of the availability of cheaper Android phones. I'm bit of geek because
of the openness of Android, at least I'm aware of what software runs inside my
phone. I expressed my true sentiments and my post was down voted. What a
irony!

~~~
GFischer
I didn't downvote you, but I might imagine it's because your post didn't
contribute to the conversation.

From the Hacker News welcome:

<http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html>

"The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments.
Thoughtful in both senses: both civil and substantial.

The test for substance is a lot like it is for links. Does your comment teach
us anything?"

I'm also from a poor country, and an Android phone was my first true
smarthphone (this Christmas :) ).

------
bluekeybox
Another troll/crowd-pleasing post from Thom Holwerda.

------
peterwwillis
Re-edit: I am annoyed that this device is so buggy, and am getting rid of it.
Google, please provide better testing for your revolutionary devices so I
don't have to suffer through endless crashing and freezing up of stock apps.

I would agree with the whole "This is the new S60" idea, except I don't
remember S60 ever being as fragmented and broken as Android is. Also S60
always had priority on the phone and lock functions so even if an app was
having problems I could still receive a phone call - please implement this,
Android team.

~~~
stanleydrew
Seems more like a problem with the maps application and not android in general
dont you think? In any case this comment isn't at all relevant to the content
of the post.

