/yawn, we get it you don't like Apple, will you stop posting now? Somehow they have wronged you so you come here just to bash them, no one cares...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What's wrong with Android on a tablet?
- Thread starter iCarabma
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
/yawn, we get it you don't like Apple, will you stop posting now? Somehow they have wronged you so you come here just to bash them, no one cares...
Ice Cream Sandwich is a major improvement. And from experience all mobile browser suck!
Don't forget that android phones are sold at practically almost no cost as well. I know I have seen plenty of flyers where it is buy one get one free or $29 for a new android phone with 2 yr contract. Big difference from Apples $199, $299, $399 price structure. Half the people just want to make calls, text, Facebook, tweet, and maybe use an Internet browser. In that case the $29 phone works. Or maybe they are getting their kids phones and the buy one get one free option is appealing to them. Hence more android phones sold.
Not dogging on them really since to each their own but I have had an iPhone since the 3G model and will probably stick with it. Like someone else said, they just work and that is what I need. Not a phone that locks up, not a phone that randomly reboots, or dies in 2 hrs of usage.
Apples price structure of .01, 99, 199, 299, 399, you mean which caters to virtually all price segments.
I'm not saying that I won't buy Android devices, it's just that when you have a heads up comparison, Android as a mobile OS has weaknesses that have nothing to do with the developers of the OS. If a device is out there, I will most likely buy it. Manufacturers of Android phones and tablets have a blanket strategy which is to crank out as many cheap Android devices to flood the market. When you do that, most people will end up picking up a device due to the price. They are hoping that they'll gain steam by having those people upgrade but in many cases, people may only use the device as a backup or it's too complicated for them so they go to iOS or a dumbphone.
I personally like the Transformer Prime a LOT and also the Samsung Galaxy Tab but for normal use, I use the iPad because it's just more efficient and I don't have app problems like I do on the Transformer Prime and the Galaxy Tab. I kinda want to try the Galaxy Note and the HTC Flyer but the size is just not conducive to work/productivity.
I personally like the Transformer Prime a LOT and also the Samsung Galaxy Tab but for normal use, I use the iPad because it's just more efficient and I don't have app problems like I do on the Transformer Prime and the Galaxy Tab. I kinda want to try the Galaxy Note and the HTC Flyer but the size is just not conducive to work/productivity.
whtrbt7, I agree with all your points except this one. It's not up to Google to make Android easier to upgrade.
The reasons why it's up to assemblers (Samsung, ASUS, ...) to create updates, and why they're slow at it, or sometimes unable or unwilling to do so:
- Hardware drivers
- UI skins
Blocking factor 1 - Hardware drivers
By the time a new version of Android is to be released, the kernel has been upgraded as well by the Linux team. Google have their own fork with Android-specific patches but the bulk of it is untouched.
Some hardware components (often times: GPU, radios, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) require drivers (kernel modules) that aren't part of the Linux kernel or the Android fork. Since they're not supported or even tested by the kernel team before release, third party manufacturers have to continually keep up with kernel updates. They don't necessarily do a good job at it.
Some drivers are open-source. If the license allows, the assembler may update it on its own. Otherwise, as well as for closed-source drivers, assemblers rely on these third parties (themselves in the case of Samsung) to be provided with updated drivers so they can integrate it in a new Android version and make a custom release for their tablet.
The whole process of updating -- or waiting for third-parties to update -- kernel modules for hardware parts, to keep up with the updated kernel version in new Android releases, is one factor for their slowness.
Even Google's own phones require closed-source kernel modules (distributed as BLOBs). So, to me, the hardware-drivers argument is acceptable.
Blocking factor 2 - UI skins
Assemblers, as I imagine, during their days-long committees, have concluded they *need* to differentiate from the competition. Who cares about what the end-user really wants (plain pure Android in my case), or if their product is better, as long as it's *different*
. They'll even throw in unremovable crapware (sometimes trial versions), so they can add some more bullet points to their features-list.Adding battery draining widgets, tearing apart existing good UIs, adding crapware, locking down the bootloader, creating a web-based bootloader unlocker (for rightly furious users doing them bad press on social networks)...
All this takes a long time. Especially when everything has to be redone from scratch after a major Android overhaul (2.3.x => 4.0.x).
Conclusion
Google releases source code for Android, for assemblers to use. It's generic only up to a point (drivers). The stock version can't run on all hardware. Assemblers then need to acquire or make drivers for the updated kernel. And crap up the UI and bootloader.
I think Google are doing their best as it is. I can't imagine how they can avoid fragmentation. Within a model where they don't control the hardware, and allows for their OS to be customized, fragmentation is the assemblers' and internals manufacturers' fault.
I like Microsoft's approach with Windows Phone 7 where they control both the OS and the drivers (and as a consequence, the internals ending up in tablets and phones), yet leaving assemblers some leeway to package those up in custom chassis, with custom displays. I don't know enough about Windows 8 but I don't think it's the same model (this would be a shame).
Last edited:
I thought about that actually before I posted but decided on not putting it post for a reason. The lower priced Apple phones are the older models such as the 3GS and the iPhone 4 which the are not making new one of. They are only selling off the stock that they have at a lower price to make something off of it instead of letting it sit in a warehouse collecting dust. Each time a new iPhone comes out it is priced starting at $199 and up depending on the storage size.
Now there are dozens of different model android phones out there, so many that I have no idea of all thier names and brands. Even when they are released though they are released at substancially low prices that almost anyone will buy one if looking for a new phone unless they are out for something specific like an iPhone or one of the more popular, more powerful android phones (I stopped paying attention to them awhile back since they seemed to release a new one every few weeks, I couldn't keep up with them all). The higher end android devices play towards a specific techy group of people just like the iPhone plays towards the Apple fans. The lower end android phones play to everyone else. They sell based on volume versus quality. 2 for 1 sales, $29, etc.... They still do a bunch of different things but they don't do anything really well, depending on how much of a power user you are with your phones.
Like I said, if you just surf the net, send email, text, phone calls, twitter and facebook, then the majority of those low end android phones will probably cover 90% of those people's needs. If you do more like remote into your computer, stream video and music, navigation apps, graphic intensive games, use productivity apps for work like pages or numbers (sorry, only have iOS apps to draw from for experience) then you will need a higher end phone like an iphone or whatever the newer android based ones are like the Nexus II or whatever the new one is called
Either way, to each their own.
whtrbt7, I agree with all your points except this one. It's not up to Google to make Android easier to upgrade.
The reasons why it's up to assemblers (Samsung, ASUS, ...) to create updates, and why they're slow at it, or sometimes unable or unwilling to do so:
- Hardware drivers
- UI skins
Blocking factor 1 - Hardware drivers
By the time a new version of Android is to be released, the kernel has been upgraded as well by the Linux team. Google have their own fork with Android-specific patches but the bulk of it is untouched.
Some hardware components (often times: GPU, radios, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) require drivers (kernel modules) that aren't part of the Linux kernel or the Android fork. Since they're not supported or even tested by the kernel team before release, third party manufacturers have to continually keep up with kernel updates. They don't necessarily do a good job at it.
Some drivers are open-source. If the license allows, the assembler may update it on its own. Otherwise, as well as for closed-source drivers, assemblers rely on these third parties (themselves in the case of Samsung) to be provided with updated drivers so they can integrate it in a new Android version and make a custom release for their tablet.
The whole process of updating -- or waiting for third-parties to update -- kernel modules for hardware parts, to keep up with the updated kernel version in new Android releases, is one factor for their slowness.
Even Google's own phones require closed-source kernel modules (distributed as BLOBs). So, to me, the hardware-drivers argument is acceptable.
Blocking factor 2 - UI skins
Assemblers, as I imagine, during their days-long committees, have concluded they *need* to differentiate from the competition. Who cares about what the end-user really wants (plain pure Android in my case), or if their product is better, as long as it's *different*
Adding battery draining widgets, tearing apart existing good UIs, adding crapware, locking down the bootloader, creating a web-based bootloader unlocker (for rightly furious users doing them bad press on social networks)...
All this takes a long time. Especially when everything has to be redone from scratch after a major Android overhaul (2.3.x => 4.0.x).
Conclusion
Google releases source code for Android, for assemblers to use. It's generic only up to a point (drivers). The stock version can't run on all hardware. Assemblers then need to acquire or make drivers for the updated kernel. And crap up the UI and bootloader.
I think Google are doing their best as it is. I can't imagine how they can avoid fragmentation. Within a model where they don't control the hardware, and allows for their OS to be customized, fragmentation is the assemblers' and internals manufacturers' fault.
I like Microsoft's approach with Windows Phone 7 where they control both the OS and the drivers (and as a consequence, the internals ending up in tablets and phones), yet leaving assemblers some leeway to package those up in custom chassis, with custom displays. I don't know enough about Windows 8 but I don't think it's the same model (this would be a shame).
Awesome post! Thanks for pulling back the kimono a little right there on Android OS and it's inner workings. I agree that Google is doing the best they can since they don't control the hardware. I do think however that Android developers probably feel that their OS is going to the dogs because of what the assemblers/manufacturers are doing. I did some ROM development back then and I know how tough it is to get the drivers/kext for the hardware set. So really the manufacturers/assemblers can't be put at fault really because they are doing their jobs. This however is the specific business model's fault because it encourages manufacturers/assemblers to ruin Android by version fragmentation. So while Google and the manufacturers are doing their best, they just can't hope to really do any better because that's their model.
Windows Phone 7 has had a very long lineage with about 4-5 name changes and generational changes. MS created the mobile OS to run off of ARM just like the new Windows 8 ARM runs off of ARM processors. They've been at it almost 2 decades. MS does take charge of the drivers and gives manufacturers specs for what hardware they will support. Sometimes manufacturers build in little knick knacks and then MS drivers are then not useful. The model is pretty much similar to Google's Android model so the same snaffus can happen. There was a point when Windows Phone/Mobile/CE was so fragmented between versions that no software was compatible between them. It wasn't that long ago either.
The lower priced iPhone comparison is directly comparable. They are not ALL old stock. They are likely still being manufactured, just cheaper, Apple's supply line wouldn't have manufactured that much old stock. They are likely maintaining those old product lines, made manufacturing cost reductions, etc. to keep them profitable.
A 3GS is perfectly acceptable as a smartphone for some users. Most of the general populus not the uber nerds you see in here. A 3GS works just fine for some facebook and SMS and making calls. It did for many of the uber nerds in here just 2 or 3 years ago. For aunts, uncles, grandma's, especially those with poorer eyesight that can't appreciate the retina display, lower price is perfectly ideal.
"
Like I said, if you just surf the net, send email, text, phone calls, twitter and facebook, then the majority of those low end android phones will probably cover 90% of those people's needs." Yes, those low end phones have less power cpu's, crappier cameras, less pixel dense displays etc... oh just like a 3GS vs. a 4S. ;=)
Hmmm...still trying to decide which tablet to buy which is why I checked out this thread. Pretty annoying that 80% of you still can't concede the opposing device of your choice has some benefits and just wasted my time plus added aggravation. Thanks to those of you who took the blinders off and participated in an actual discussion.
I find Android more useful with widgets and customization. Widgets are incredibly useful to me.
On the other hand, the iPad is more fluid and stable, with more high quality apps (at least that's my impression).
I can only judge from using an iPad for a few days (giving it as a gift, but setting some stuff up on it beforehand), and my Android phone. I thought testing out this iPad would make my decision easier, but it's actually even more difficult.
I agree the fragmentation of Android has really hurt it's progress. I wish the iPad would adopt widgets and it would make my decision a lot easier.
The one thing that has seriously turned me off from the iPad is only the inability to cherry pick which photos I want to put on it. I don't want to rely on a wireless solution for those times when it may not be available. And I really do not like to use iPhoto on my Mac so it's a trade off I might have to get used to. Maybe someone has a simple solution because I haven't found one yet.
I find Android more useful with widgets and customization. Widgets are incredibly useful to me.
On the other hand, the iPad is more fluid and stable, with more high quality apps (at least that's my impression).
I can only judge from using an iPad for a few days (giving it as a gift, but setting some stuff up on it beforehand), and my Android phone. I thought testing out this iPad would make my decision easier, but it's actually even more difficult.
I agree the fragmentation of Android has really hurt it's progress. I wish the iPad would adopt widgets and it would make my decision a lot easier.
The one thing that has seriously turned me off from the iPad is only the inability to cherry pick which photos I want to put on it. I don't want to rely on a wireless solution for those times when it may not be available. And I really do not like to use iPhoto on my Mac so it's a trade off I might have to get used to. Maybe someone has a simple solution because I haven't found one yet.
Android is a good choice despite all the issues. Try to get an ICS tablet though because the price cuts on the Honeycomb tablets will make them pretty much worthless within a year.
I agree that widgets are just flat out awesome. It's fast access to information. Apple may never adopt this system even though it's a great way to get info that you need quickly. It's just a little tougher for people to use and understand. My mother would be a prime example of why it wouldn't work for Apple products. She would just never understand the idea of a widget.
Regarding the photos, you can actually cherry pick what photos you want on the iPad from iPhoto albums. You can also do this with the camera connection kit. It's pretty flexible. The SD card just needs to have standard DCIM file structure and you're ready to import selected photos. Android has a similar system except you normally need to copy paste from a file browser. If you have a microSD in the Android device all the time, you just need a DCIM file structure and Android will read it. I'm really partial to the iPad since iPhoto is just flat out amazing for photo management.
Exactly why I got my mother an iPad. Widgets would add a little too much 'complexity' for her at this time. Not to mention Android UI's are not as straight forward as the iPad. I think Apple will add widgets down the line, but perhaps with a different approach. It's basically just like Dashboard on Macs so maybe they'll limit them to their own page likewise.
Thanks for the tips on adding photos. I know of the iPhoto route, but the reason I don't use iPhoto is because in my family I basically am responsible for archiving and backing up all our pictures. But I'm the only one who uses a Mac. I'm also totally happy with using Picasa.
I will basically cherry pick photos to add on my mother's iPad periodically from my computer. Unfortunately with the way iPad only 'syncs' with a source she can't remove pictures at will from the iPad if she wants. Right now I have an album I dedicate for my mother's iPad in Picasa, and export it to a folder every time I make changes, then sync that folder with the iPad. Not a very elegant solution. And Picasa doesn't support sub-albums so all the photos are lumped into one pile each time. So you'd have to manually organize them into albums each time.
Like I said, I think it's a trade off I'm going to have to live with for now. Unless I use a 3rd party app (does one exist?) which I haven't explored yet.
Ah, regarding the pictures, I set up a Flickr account for my mother so I can manage photos for her without ever being with the device. You just use the Flickr Studio app to browse through photos and it's complete. I manage my entire families photos via iPhoto because I'm the only one who bothered to digitally archive photos back from the 1930s and 1940s. With a Flickr account and iPads/iPhones it's a pretty good solution to allow access to the photos to family without losing control of photos in total. Now with iPhoto for iOS, the process has gotten even faster so I can archive photos to Flickr on-the-go.
With this gift it's already given me the idea to start scanning in old photos that we don't have a digital version of. I can imagine it took you a long time! I'm not looking forward to it but I also can't wait to have everything digital.
When she views photos, are they already downloaded on her iPad by the app (so she can scroll through photos instantaneously) or are they strictly available when an internet connection is up (might have to wait a few seconds to look at a new photo on a slower connection)? I have read a little bit on using Flickr or a Picasa Web app but haven't really had time to test them out yet. TIA!
The Flickr Studio app will show photo thumbnails within milli-seconds. You can then click on the photos to get a high res version which can then be downloaded to the iPad in a click. It's really nice to have the entire archive available to multiple iPads and iPhones with a single app launch.
I had a transformer prime and returned it. The wifi was terrible as well as the GPS. I found that most of the apps that appealed to me were not formatted for a tablet and they either crashed or they looked terrible. I liked the usb and hdmi ports. I set up streaming to my TV through my bluray player easily. A lot of folks decided to live with the wifi and overlooked the GPS problems. I refused to spend $500 + $150 (keyboard) for a tablet that has problems and Asus has pretty much ignored those problems. You know you bought a "pos" tablet when Asus announces a replacement before the Prime even hit the shelves...I'm happy with my new iPad even though I lost a usb and hdmi port...
http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/02/ics-reaches-2-9-percent-of-active-android-devices-63-7-percent/
New Android fragmentation numbers just got released for ICS users. 2.9 percent just seems ridiculously low. Is nobody picking up ICS?
New Android fragmentation numbers just got released for ICS users. 2.9 percent just seems ridiculously low. Is nobody picking up ICS?