Ebook readers?

[Nickswitz]

Duh, thank you.

[Reliant121]

The problem with Ubuntu is that it isnt working. Android just is. Its very quickly taking sales shares from the two highest sellers, Grandpa symbian and Middle Manager Blackberry. The wide choices are exactly that. Choice of budget, choice of quality, choice of features. People seem to like that.

[IanKennedy]

The problem with Ubuntu is that it isnt working. Android just is. Its very quickly taking sales shares from the two highest sellers, Grandpa symbian and Middle Manager Blackberry. The wide choices are exactly that. Choice of budget, choice of quality, choice of features. People seem to like that.

No they don't, that is exactly my point. The techy people like the choice because they understand the underlying concepts. Ordinary people, who just want a phone that works the way they're used to that type of phone working don't like it. If you tell them that it's an android phone they will expect it to work like an android phone. They will not expect it to be missing large parts of what it means to be an android phone, nor will they expect it to work in a completely different way.

Apple has got that and with Windows 7 Phone even Microsoft was go it. Neither will allow the phone provider to change the basic operational capabilities of the phone. A Windows 7 Phone will work the same way no matter who you buy it from. There is no choice for the manufacturer or the network provider. Google should be doing the same with Android, but they aren't. They're allowing providers and networks to remove the features they don't like. This means that you can't even rely on the exact same phone from different networks working in the same way or having the same features. That just stinks and not only for the users, it's a major PITA for developers. How do you write an app for a device when half the OS could be missing at the whim of a network provider.

[Mikey]

In my VERY limited expertise in this field, I think Ian's got it right. What Android has going for it is a hugely successful marketing campaign and the subsequent one-ups-man-ship - "What? You don't have an Android phone yet? Do you even know what a cell phone is, you neanderthal?" As I don't mess around with my OS, and I have very little need for the majority of apps out there, I have absolutely no need for an Android phone - like the bulk of the public. Unlike the bulk of the public, however, I can actually recognize that fact. This is where Microsoft is missing the boat; with the massive penetration of Windows in the PC marketplace, MS should be screaming from every mountaintop about ease of use and familiarity for the vast majority of the market.

[Reliant121]

Perhaps you are right. Whatever the reason, sales figures are still increasing and that has to stand for something. It used to be people all wanted iPhones and it IS chsnging, whethet you will admit it or not. I cant back that up because, evidently, I csnt gauge the opinions of millions but from the last time sales figures showed up it was going Androids way.

[IanKennedy]

Perhaps you are right. Whatever the reason, sales figures are still increasing and that has to stand for something.

Because it's the big new thing. People only know the machine they have. The problem will come in a year or two's time when they try and replace the machine with a new one and it's completely different and perhaps will be missing features that their own phone had, just because they where troublesome for the network provider. It's simpler for the provider to simple disable the feature than improve the network to cope.

[IanKennedy]

Perhaps you are right. Whatever the reason, sales figures are still increasing and that has to stand for something. It used to be people all wanted iPhones and it IS chsnging, whethet you will admit it or not. I cant back that up because, evidently, I csnt gauge the opinions of millions but from the last time sales figures showed up it was going Androids way.

Your slip of the pen is very telling, Androids indeed. Many different ones. and that's the problem.

[Reliant121]

The backbone of Android is no different, the organisation isnt any different, the actual way it works is not changed. simply the presentation and hardware. The differences between HTC and Samsung are one uses a slightly different menu snd camera interface, as well as some sligthtly altered graphics on notification bars etc. Besides, its not new at all, its nearly 3 years old IIRC.

And what is wrong with choice? Difference? People want options, thats why there are different types of car.

[Nickswitz]

Ian isn't talking about the hardware companies now, he's talking about the carriers, who have been the determining factor of a lot of thing on Android, you can't run unsigned apps if you are on AT&T, any other carrier you can, you can't use Skype unless you are on Verizon Wireless, you can't use the Mobile hotspot unless you are on Verizon or I want to say Sprint, but I may be wrong. This is US based of course.

The Carriers determine what is on Android, as opposed to Windows Phone 7 and the iPhone, even the iPad. So Android has a serious amount of fragmentation.

[Reliant121]

This is true. I don't know, I have never owned a non-sim Free android phone. For us, there is no app fragmentation but the carriers often dictate update points. Unless you're Orange, where they often install entire skins as an option.

[IanKennedy]

This is true. I don't know, I have never owned a non-sim Free android phone. For us, there is no app fragmentation but the carriers often dictate update points. Unless you're Orange, where they often install entire skins as an option.

I'm sorry, but did you just say there is no fragmentation except were there is

[Reliant121]

I said "app fragmentation" not overall fragmentation.

[Nickswitz]

App Fragmentation, as well as update points together make up a huge portion of entire fragmentation. Especially the update points, some phones you can get that are 2 years old and have 2.2 whereas some just now coming out still have 2.1 on them, which is ridiculous, but Google lets the carriers decide.

[Reliant121]

There is point to that, but you will generally find that those less advanced ones are considerably cheaper (apart from Anomalous phones, like the HTC Magic for instance). The basic ethos of just about anything: Pay more, get more. A vast majority of people cannot afford the contracts for the iPhones or the Windows Phone 7 (which I might start a topic about, since I've had one in the house for a while). I think its a wonderful thing that there are android phones to cater for all budgets.

[mwhittington]

Ian isn't talking about the hardware companies now, he's talking about the carriers, who have been the determining factor of a lot of thing on Android, you can't run unsigned apps if you are on AT&T, any other carrier you can, you can't use Skype unless you are on Verizon Wireless, you can't use the Mobile hotspot unless you are on Verizon or I want to say Sprint, but I may be wrong. This is US based of course.

The Carriers determine what is on Android, as opposed to Windows Phone 7 and the iPhone, even the iPad. So Android has a serious amount of fragmentation.

Mobile hotspot is available on Verizon and Sprint for $30/month extra on your bill, where T Mobile has it for free on the Samsung Vibrant. I don't think AT&T has it at all.