Android!

[schild]

(1) At the very least until flexible/roll up displays (maybe retinal displays not sure I am ready to risk that type of burn in) hit the phone world I don't think it is possible to get what you seem to be wanting.  (2) With the current hardware you just can't have a decent phone form factor that can display a web page reasonably well. (3) At least with blue tooth headsets and speaker phone you aren't limited to using it like a traditional phone. (4) From the 2nd hand info I have gleaned the droid sounds like a great phone as far as voice quality goes and that certainly is the foundation the phone you desire needs.

1. This is just silly.
2. I have not yet asked for a web browser in this particular line of conversation. In fact, web browsing as far as I'm concerned, is just fine on the current iteration of phones. I certainly don't WANT flash on my phones and the phone you've mentioned, the Droid, is particularly good at it.
3. I'm not sure what your point is here.
4. It's still hamstrung by the terribad email app, less than pleasing SMS app (understatement), a totally flat keyboard (wtf?), and the Android market attracting tinker mouthbreathers shoveling out crap with no quality control in sight.

It seems like you're arguing outside of the scope of what I was getting at. I'm upset at CORE functionality on phones. "Core" implies shit that ships on the phone. Shit that comes from the CREATOR of the OS occupying the phone (or, god forbid, the handset maker (ugh ugh ugh)). On a smart phone, TODAY, this includes: SMS, Email, Browser (Yes, a browser, and like I said, they happen to be just fine right now), the phone book, and apparently maps (they're great atm), and the call handling itself.

The browser and Maps, ironically, are not core things I'd associate with a phone, but they became as much due to culture, which is fine. Everything besides those, however, have suffered so that they could be better. Perhaps it's a "back to the chalkboard" situation. Perhaps someone has working prototypes of something awesome. Or maybe Google will get their precious third party that fixes all the problems with Android. I really don't see that happening though.

Edit: "Core" in the post iPhone era also includes an app store. But there's no question the only company tackling that even in the realm of "right" is Apple, and they're doing a shitty job too. But really, it's the most infantile of all these functions so I'll give it a total pass simply because "well, shit, I guess they work."

[Quinton]

I still think we're talking past each other.

I am not saying that third party apps are an acceptable substitute for a poor built-in app experience.  I think that a great product should have an great out of the box software experience, should not depend on users downloading software to compensate for poor core functionality, and I agree that many (most?) of the smartphones out there today fail in one or more key areas.

I am saying that even if the built-in app experience is great, it's not going to be good for everyone, it's not going to do what everyone wants, and there will be a lot of markets (large and small) where third party software can fill the gaps.  That, in my mind, is the awesome thing about personal computers -- software can make them do just about anything.  It can fill very specific niches.  It can do things the original designers of the machine or the OS never thought of.

I am also saying that since modern smartphones *are* general purpose computing devices, it is silly to arbitrarily restrict the ability to develop software for and install software on them.  I think we got started with all this in response to "why does open app development and distribution matter to users" or the like.  My answer is "because it lets them do things beyond the imagining of the creators of the product."

Please note, again, that none of the above is me saying "third party software is a substitute for a good out of the box product experience."  I'm not saying that.  I never have said that.  OF COURSE people want the software on their phone to JUST WORK and to be really good.  Duh!  Even with built-in app stores, many users download few or no applications and the basic functionality is what they care about.

So, honestly, I have no idea what we're arguing about, because I think we are mostly in agreement here.

[Quinton]

I can tell you, quite seriously, that Google does not believe that third party apps are an acceptable answer for "why does built in app X not work well."  I'm pretty sure both Apple and Microsoft share that opinion in regard to iphone and winmobile.

Maybe there's some belief that somehow supporting third party apps actively makes the built in apps worse, but that's sort of misguided -- the resources to support third party apps in a modern system have quite high overlap with the resources to support in-house apps.  These are, after all, general purpose operating systems even if somewhat specialized for a mobile space.

[schild]

Win7 has decided to treat my net connection very poorly. I had a long response. It's gone now.

In short, it was "the mass market expects Google and Apple to supply them with enough awesome that they don't need an imagination."

There was a point there but I doubt this post will even make it through before the net gives out again.

[Salamok]

(1) At the very least until flexible/roll up displays (maybe retinal displays not sure I am ready to risk that type of burn in) hit the phone world I don't think it is possible to get what you seem to be wanting.  (2) With the current hardware you just can't have a decent phone form factor that can display a web page reasonably well. (3) At least with blue tooth headsets and speaker phone you aren't limited to using it like a traditional phone. (4) From the 2nd hand info I have gleaned the droid sounds like a great phone as far as voice quality goes and that certainly is the foundation the phone you desire needs.

1. This is just silly.
2. I have not yet asked for a web browser in this particular line of conversation. In fact, web browsing as far as I'm concerned, is just fine on the current iteration of phones. I certainly don't WANT flash on my phones and the phone you've mentioned, the Droid, is particularly good at it.
3. I'm not sure what your point is here.
4. It's still hamstrung by the terribad email app, less than pleasing SMS app (understatement), a totally flat keyboard (wtf?), and the Android market attracting tinker mouthbreathers shoveling out crap with no quality control in sight.

It seems like you're arguing outside of the scope of what I was getting at. I'm upset at CORE functionality on phones. "Core" implies shit that ships on the phone. Shit that comes from the CREATOR of the OS occupying the phone (or, god forbid, the handset maker (ugh ugh ugh)). On a smart phone, TODAY, this includes: SMS, Email, Browser (Yes, a browser, and like I said, they happen to be just fine right now), the phone book, and apparently maps (they're great atm), and the call handling itself.

The browser and Maps, ironically, are not core things I'd associate with a phone, but they became as much due to culture, which is fine. Everything besides those, however, have suffered so that they could be better. Perhaps it's a "back to the chalkboard" situation. Perhaps someone has working prototypes of something awesome. Or maybe Google will get their precious third party that fixes all the problems with Android. I really don't see that happening though.

Edit: "Core" in the post iPhone era also includes an app store. But there's no question the only company tackling that even in the realm of "right" is Apple, and they're doing a shitty job too. But really, it's the most infantile of all these functions so I'll give it a total pass simply because "well, shit, I guess they work."

My point is that the the droid is to date the best possible phone to get you where you want to be and it will do so exactly because it appeals to the "tinker mouthbreathers shoveling out crap with no quality control in sight".  Most of these people are going to write apps for themselves that solve problems they think need solving without thought to how they are going to cash in on it, as opposed to the iphone developer (majority of which probably have never held a professional dev job) who's primary goal seems to be how do I design the next fart sound board app to cash in on.  

By designing a phone that personally appeals to developers and tinkerers they have opened the floodgates on a huge brainstorming/rapid development endeavor that will hopefully have a huge impact on android 3.0.  I am sure if a developer creates an app that fits with Google's vision of where android is headed and vastly improves on existing core functionality Google will be quick to snatch it up and incorporate it.  Isn't this exactly what the android app development contests Google has sponsored been about?

[Quinton]

The ADC is also a great way to find awesome engineering talent.  We've hired a number of ADC1 developers who've gone on to do fantastic work for the Android platform.

[schild]

My point is that the the droid is to date the best possible phone to get you where you want to be and it will do so exactly because it appeals to the "tinker mouthbreathers shoveling out crap with no quality control in sight".

No, it really isn't. It's the BEST Android phone and comes with all the problems of the out-of-box Android experience. And those tinkerers aren't seeing enough money in that marketplace for a big player to come in and actually make something meaningful. We'd need the Mozilla folks to come along and do that or someone (who?) better.

By designing a phone that personally appeals to developers and tinkerers they have opened the floodgates on a huge brainstorming/rapid development endeavor that will hopefully have a huge impact on android 3.0.  I am sure if a developer creates an app that fits with Google's vision of where android is headed and vastly improves on existing core functionality Google will be quick to snatch it up and incorporate it.  Isn't this exactly what the android app development contests Google has sponsored been about?

Unfortunately, it hasn't happened yet and ADC2 has yet to prove otherwise. ADC1 was mostly obnoxious crap.

The ADC is also a great way to find awesome engineering talent.  We've hired a number of ADC1 developers who've gone on to do fantastic work for the Android platform.

Now this, I believe. Also, when ADC1 went on, I downloaded nearly everything and I'm fairly confident none of them were GUI designers.

Edit: But it was obviously filled with fantastic engineers who just happened to be making obnoxious crap.

[Salamok]

In short, it was "the mass market expects Google and Apple to supply them with enough awesome that they don't need an imagination."

I 100% agree that to date this has been what is going on but I don't want Apple to tell me what is cool and I never have.  Apple's greatest strength has always been it's biggest weakness, they design with a tight control over form, function and style specifically so that people (including devs) don't have the freedom to fuck them up.  Unfortunately this also limits people from realizing the full potential of the machine that Apple has presented them with (OS X might be the only exception to this rule).

I'll take the imperfect anything goes sandbox over a rigid development framework and day of the week.

[schild]

I'll take the imperfect anything goes sandbox over a rigid development framework and day of the week.

In theory, I do too. In practice, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, not so much. At least, not yet.

[Salamok]

I'll take the imperfect anything goes sandbox over a rigid development framework and day of the week.

In theory, I do too. In practice, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, not so much. At least, not yet.

Your inner Dieter is too strong to let you cast aside Apple's eurotrash design nazi framework:

Dieter would definitely use an iPhone.

edit: and on the flip side I'd probably say that Moss would prefer the droid:

If I had to pick one of these fictional characters to give me advice on which cellphone to get I'd rather go with a techie over a fashion icon.

[lamaros]

Pretty sure that the WoW interface is better now because they let people fuck around with it and then stole the better and more user friendly of these ideas. Why wouldn't you think opening up basic apps to third party devs wouldn't have a similar bonus for the company apps on an iphone?

If apple said "ok, you can make email apps if you like" does that mean that most of it's user are going to go out and fuck themselves over by using a poorly made third party one? No, it just means that those who want to might be able to find a third party app that does what they want better. And if they do it so much better, maybe kickback and force Apple ot make their defaul app better as well.

[KallDrexx]

Honestly, people outside of the hardcore geek circles don't care about openness.  You try talking to 90% of the iphone users about rejected apps and they will shrug and move on.  They want something that works well and is intuitive and easy to use. 

It's why I know of quite a few companies who switched from BB to Iphones, even though BB really is the better business phone.  The hardcore geeks at the companies hated it because the Iphones didn't do what they wanted, but everyone else jizzed in their pants for having an Iphone, and still do every time an update occurs. 

Hell give me a real list of apps that people here would use that have been rejected by Apple (besides Google Voice).  By that I mean apps you would use on a regular basis that have actually been denied, not some fantasy uber email app that no one has even attempted. 

I love my Palm Pre, which is a completely open phone (sideloading apps is supported, a lot of the OS is written in javascript and easily modifiable, etc) but the only reason I love it is for the UI presentation, gestures and multi-tasking.  I really couldn't care less about it being open.

[Venkman]

How much of the iPhone is locked down because Apple said so versus AT&T requirements. For a brief time you could buy (maybe you still can buy?) an iPhone with no carrier... for 50% more than the cost of an ok laptop. That's not a choice most will make. And that categorizes the iPhone in the dead-and-buried "PDA" industry they're very careful to keep the Touch out of as well.

So if these locked-down portions are imposed by AT&T, we're back to asking Apple to solve problems of the industry, not become less fascist.

None of this matters to the other happy geekery going on here of course

[Ingmar]

In other words, Android is chasing a mythical animal of a market that doesn't yet exist or never will exist.

You are seriously underestimating the size of the business mobile market I think. Apple does not do that so well that Android won't be able to take a chunk out of them, especially given the carrier flexibility.

[Prospero]

I can see the carrier flexibility being tempting for corporations, but the development tools in place for custom app developers are fantastic. Private apps don't have the rigorous approval process that the main app store has, and Apple provides a nice assortment of tools for managing your iPhone deployment. I'm sure there are ways Apple needs to improve their corporate offerings, but what they have doesn't suck either.

[Quinton]

So if these locked-down portions are imposed by AT&T, we're back to asking Apple to solve problems of the industry, not become less fascist.

Well 3/4 of the major US carriers now ship non-locked-down Android devices.  I think it's only a matter of time until we're 4/4.   

Personally, I think Steve likes being able to use AT&T as an excuse for his arbitrary policies, but what do I know.

Prediction: even if AT&T ships much more open Android devices, iPhone will remain a walled garden.

[caladein]

Honestly, people outside of the hardcore geek circles don't care about openness.  You try talking to 90% of the iphone users about rejected apps and they will shrug and move on.  They want something that works well and is intuitive and easy to use.

On your first point you're right, openness in the abstract is something just for geeks.  Everyone else cares about openness because it makes for a better experience.  The easiest example would be Twitter clients.  Competing clients on the iPhone (and desktop) have made both themselves and the Twitter service itself better.  That simply wouldn't have occurred if Apple had launched the iPhone with a Twitter client and the "no replication" rule was in effect.

As to "something that works well and is intuitive and easy to use" being universal... I don't think you actually believe that.

[KallDrexx]

On your first point you're right, openness in the abstract is something just for geeks.  Everyone else cares about openness because it makes for a better experience.  The easiest example would be Twitter clients.  Competing clients on the iPhone (and desktop) have made both themselves and the Twitter service itself better.  That simply wouldn't have occurred if Apple had launched the iPhone with a Twitter client and the "no replication" rule was in effect.

As to "something that works well and is intuitive and easy to use" being universal... I don't think you actually believe that.

What?  Why wouldn't I believe that?  People want to pick up a piece of software or hardware and be able to use it instantly, without having to resort to figuring out how to tweak it or look at a manual.  This has been how Apple has been so successful with every one of their products. 

I'm not sure why it's such a foreign concept.  Most people will drop a game within 10 minutes if it's not intuitive and enjoyable instantly. 

Furthermore, you are wrong that most people care about openness because it makes for better experience.  Look at the operating system world.  Almost all non-geeks don't give a shit that Microsoft has been anti-competitive.  They like it even when good alternatives are around because it works instantly, it's intuitive, and is what they are used to.  That's why IE has so many users even though chrome and Firefox are faster and more efficient web browsing clients.  You try telling them that there are better alternatives and they don't care.  Thinking that "everyone else cares about openness because it makes for a better experience" is just being naive about human nature.  Most people don't even put those two things together.

[Venkman]

So if these locked-down portions are imposed by AT&T, we're back to asking Apple to solve problems of the industry, not become less fascist.

Well 3/4 of the major US carriers now ship non-locked-down Android devices.  I think it's only a matter of time until we're 4/4.   

And again I ask: what is this giving to the average end user that they weren't already suffering under getting in the pre-iPhone mobile feature phone market? How many of these Android devices offer a complete end to end user experience that is better than the iTunes/iPhone/media complete system for the mass market consumer?

Of course everyone is going to offer an open-standard Android. Gives them a new reason to offer yet more confusing models and shiftiing standards. But is that fulfilling a worldwind demand or just pushing a supply?

Besides, all this will become moot when Google launches their own device anyway 

[Ingmar]

The true average end user, I suspect, is still not actually using a smartphone.

[caladein]

Furthermore, you are wrong that most people care about openness because it makes for better experience.  Look at the operating system world.  Almost all non-geeks don't give a shit that Microsoft has been anti-competitive.  They like it even when good alternatives are around because it works instantly, it's intuitive, and is what they are used to.  That's why IE has so many users even though chrome and Firefox are faster and more efficient web browsing clients.  You try telling them that there are better alternatives and they don't care.  Thinking that "everyone else cares about openness because it makes for a better experience" is just being naive about human nature.  Most people don't even put those two things together.

IE8 is only as good as it is because of Firefox.  Firefox is refocusing on speed because of Chrome.

Even if you don't use the competing products, the competition from those other products makes the "default" get better or continue to lose market share.  Either way, it's a win all around.

As for "something that works well and is intuitive and easy to use", what I meant was: what works well and is easy to use for me isn't going to be same for you in all cases.

[MahrinSkel]

And Microsoft won out over Apple back in the day because it was an "open" OS that anyone could develop for without MS's permission, while Apple had pretty much the same problems as the iPhone.  You had to run everything through them, and if they picked a winner for a certain type of app, everyone else might as well go home.  At which point, that winner had no reason to get any better, so it stagnated while PC applications caught up and then passed it.  The only place Apple held on was with artists, and when Adobe decided to port to PC it required huge truckloads of cash from MS to keep Apple afloat (as anti-trust insurance) long enough for the iPod and OSX to save them.

The iPhone sucks balls for what it does, it's just that *nothing* else did it at all (Blackberries were even more locked down).  Android will eat their lunch, even if it takes a couple more years.

--Dave

[Quinton]

I don't think Apple's going anywhere.  They've good at this -- they know how to deliver that last 10% that really makes a product slick.  They have a very loyal userbase that keeps coming back to buy their new shiny year after year.  They don't need to own the entire market to make a ton of money (witness where they are with laptops -- margins are razor thin for most of the laptop market, but Apple makes nice profits on their stuff).

[Venkman]

The iPhone sucks balls for what it does, it's just that *nothing* else did it at all (Blackberries were even more locked down).  Android will eat their lunch, even if it takes a couple more years.

Ok, this has come up in vague terms before, but I'm really curious about specifics. What exactly does the iPhone suck balls at that matters to the average consumer? I'm not looking to play Apple fanboi and cut down your list or anything. I just want to know what the tech set thinks the iPhone doesn't do well and how that compares to what a consumer looks for. Can't use Google Voice nor emulators either because those already causing problems, and because they don't matter to the "average".

And since it's a new page, I'll remind:

• I want competition because monopolies cause laziness and complacency; and,
• I really want to see how "open" actually helps.

As to your Apple/Windows thing, MS wasn't successful because they were open. They were successful because they were ubiquitous through various, err, "creative" business deals with PC makers. Adobe, Macromedia and Aldus all uses to be separate competing companies. And all of them were Mac-only for a time, unfortunately back when with myopically focused on being taken seriously as a business machine rather than  as a tool for any use (which PC makers got right).

[lamaros]

• I want competition because monopolies cause laziness and complacency; and,
• I really want to see how "open" actually helps.

So you don't think openness encourages competition?

[MahrinSkel]

Ok, this has come up in vague terms before, but I'm really curious about specifics. What exactly does the iPhone suck balls at that matters to the average consumer? I'm not looking to play Apple fanboi and cut down your list or anything. I just want to know what the tech set thinks the iPhone doesn't do well and how that compares to what a consumer looks for. Can't use Google Voice nor emulators either because those already causing problems, and because they don't matter to the "average".

Let's say that I want to make a new app for finding you a good restaurant near where you are.  I'm going to do a lot more than just run a Google search and reformat it for you, I'm going to tap into Zagat and Michelin, and customer reviews of people who have liked the restaurants will be eHarmonized into the results.  You can hit this app in the middle of a strange city and it will take you to the best culinary experience that it can possibly offer you, it's fucking magical.  Problems:

1) The list of "Most popular restaurant picker" apps is full of things that have hundreds of thousands of downloads, and I'll never get into it.

2) The approval process for new applications takes months.  Until you're through that, I can't even beta outside of devkit phones.

3) It may be rejected for some completely bullshit reason, up to and including the Apple employee reviewing it thinking there's already too many restaurant picker apps.

4) Once I'm through that, if I need to change my app, it's weeks and another opportunity for my app to be pulled from the AppStore to update the application.

5) Steve Jobs controls my oxygen supply.  If he decides the new Apple cut is 90%, what am I going to do?  Sell it through someone else?  Port it to some other hardware?

Approximately 99.9% of the most popular apps on the iPhone are so simple they could be whipped up over a weekend.  That's because most of them *were*, jumped out in front on sales, and have been locked there ever since because there's no way for anyone to find or buy an app except through the app store, and they are not being improved because it's too damned much of a PITA vs. shoveling out another brain-dead simple app, and there's no incentive because even if someone else makes a better app, once the top 10 list is full nobody will ever know about it.

As a continuous-presence all-in-one communications and computing device, iPhone's only merit is that it is not *quite* as hard to make and sell programs for as the Blackberry, it's not *quite* as over-priced, it's not *quite* as locked down.  But it still sucks balls.

--Dave

[schild]

And when/if the Android market place gets some serious steam behind it, your shit will get on there as well as everyone else's and their cousins and other cousins and 90% of the apps will crash _all_the_time_ because a gibbering 8 year old coded it because hobbyist types run the gamut and you'll be buried among 9,000 other apps named RESTAURANTS4U2PICKFRUM.

They both have their pros and cons. But some quality control is needed.

[KallDrexx]

\
Approximately 99.9% of the most popular apps on the iPhone are so simple they could be whipped up over a weekend.  That's because most of them *were*, jumped out in front on sales, and have been locked there ever since because there's no way for anyone to find or buy an app except through the app store, and they are not being improved because it's too damned much of a PITA vs. shoveling out another brain-dead simple app, and there's no incentive because even if someone else makes a better app, once the top 10 list is full nobody will ever know about it.

Err no.

99.9% of the most popular apps on the iPhone are whipped up over a weekend because there are so many apps being created that you only have the few days of "New Apps" to get visibility.  Once you get off that list the chance people will find your app drops immensely.  Thus the only way to achieve a decent revenue is to create very small, simple and cheap apps to keep something of yours on the recently added list.  There have been quite a few articles on this from successful Iphone developers about how almost all of your sales come from when the app is on the "Recently Added list".

So once your restaurant finder app gets knocked off the recently added list, your app is now one of MANY (hell my Palm Pre, which only has 456-ish or so apps has at least 10) it is extremely hard to market it.  And if you are selling it for money you have to somehow convince people that it is better than all the apps without them actually using the application (since there are no demos).  The fact is, most people are going to go to the highest rated one and stop there and thus, if your app doesn't get rated highest, you won't get many sales.  It is hard to get visibility and the same thing will occur on the Android if it takes off, except (as schild said) people will see the buggy ones and just give up.

[Salamok]

Isn't Google going to allow apps to be loaded from sources other than the android market place?

[schild]

Isn't Google going to allow apps to be loaded from sources other than the android market place?

Yes, but short of porn I don't see that really taking off. The infrastructure is too much of a pain in the ass.

[Salamok]

Isn't Google going to allow apps to be loaded from sources other than the android market place?

Yes, but short of porn I don't see that really taking off. The infrastructure is too much of a pain in the ass.

Well if they don't have to go through google to sell/install I can see quite a few desktop software co's releasing their own apps direct to the customer.  Trust me, not having to count on an approval process and having your customers wade through the multitude of crap in a centralized app store to find your product will take off eventually.

[Viin]

Well if they don't have to go through google to sell/install I can see quite a few desktop software co's releasing their own apps direct to the customer.  Trust me, not having to count on an approval process and having your customers wade through the multitude of crap in a centralized app store to find your product will take off eventually.

Isn't that how Blackberry works?

[Quinton]

Isn't Google going to allow apps to be loaded from sources other than the android market place?

That feature has been in since 1.0.

You can just click on SomeApp.apk on a website, etc.  First time you do that, if you haven't chosen "allow untrusted sources" you'll be prompted to enable that if you want to install apps from outside the market.

Hell, there are a couple third party app stores available.

That said, obviously the bulk of users will find apps through the built in market app, and schild's many gripes about its UI limitations do hold.  The market team is working to improve things on many fronts (user experience, billing options, better search, web interface, etc, etc).

[sidereal]

Apple spends tens to hundreds of millions of dollars on ad campaigns highlighting third party apps as the SOLE SELLING POINT of their phone and you idiots are arguing about whether third party development matters.  This has convinced me that the F13 Phone would be a colossal fucking failure.

In other Android news, Nook delayed until after Xmas (unless you have a pre-order?  Maybe)

[schild]

Apple spends tens to hundreds of millions of dollars on ad campaigns highlighting third party apps as the SOLE SELLING POINT of their phone and you idiots are arguing about whether third party development matters.  This has convinced me that the F13 Phone would be a colossal fucking failure.

The phone was already a success prior to this. After the app store became a key feature (which we discussed), they started highlighting more than a tiny subsection of apps.