Bank: Without software mojo, Android OEMs are doomed to 'implode' You’ve heard that “when Wall Street sneezes, the world catches cold"*, and there are dozens of variations. But perhaps the line needs to be brought up to date. When a large technology platform company dozes off, companies that rely on it for innovation feel the chill – and the chill can be fatal. Ten days ago, investment bank …
samsung's problem is not that google crushed it's ui, it's that samsung is unwilling/unable to maintain software on it's devices and issue updates in a timely manner if at all
this is even on sim-free phones where samsung has no carriers to delay things with extra bloatware
fool me once etc., the s6 is lovely, but now there's no way i'm paying top whack for the latest samsung shiny if they're going to treat it as unmaintained landfill within a year or so
i'm no fan of the iphone, but this is one area apple really got it right
Close, but in my opinion the problem is more likely that Samsung's software is so utterly appalling that it's unmaintainable in any way, shape or form. This isn't just Samsung's take on standard apps (uninstallable), but their drivers and in particular the worst culprit is Kies. There is not a single redeeming component or feature in Kies, the entire experience is painful at best and just flawed or broken as a baseline.
Samsung are / were in an ideal position to supply real quality software for their phones, genuinely improving the stock android experience (but optionally), adding value with their own applications. However instead we have applications that require inexplicable permissions, are uninstallable or unstoppable and other general crud supplied as "system components" where they plainly aren't.
"Eventually they become cheap enough to include in a Christmas cracker. That’s undoubtedly a good thing – but it isn’t inevitable. Cars haven’t followed this path at all"
Cars have followed this path; but only to the extent that is physically possible given the cost of raw materials. A car in the early 20th Century required a ton of steel and today it still does. Cars used to be the plaything of the super-rich but now they are easily available to most working people and the features and capabilities of modern family cars are much better than the best cars from a century ago.
Never let hardware manufacturers create end-user software. They are almost all crap at it(*). I don't think any of them accord it the resources it needs so as a result the end-user experience suffers. If phone manufacturers need to rely on their software for differentiation they are probably screwed.
(*)Apple might be a rare exception here. I don't like their simplified interfaces personally but they do seem to do what people want and do seem to be reliable. Contrast with Sony where the hardware is great but the software (and the way customers who try and use it are treated) is crap.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "hardware manufacturer". Apple doesn't manufacture their phones, they only design them, but aside from Samsung few Android OEMs manufacture their own.
I think most would agree that Apple owes their success to the fact that they are a software company first. They design hardware as a vehicle to get their software in the hands of consumers in a way that provides the best possible experience for that software. Sony is a hardware manufacturer first, they regard software only as a necessary evil because it is required to get their hardware in the hands of consumers.
I think most would agree that Apple owes their success to the fact that they are a software company first. They design hardware as a vehicle to get their software in the hands of consumers in a way that provides the best possible experience for that software. Sony is a hardware manufacturer first, they regard software only as a necessary evil because it is required to get their hardware in the hands of consumers.
I beg to differ, Apple is a design company that makes a profit via hardware. Software was just a carrier until they started the iTunes and App Store infrastructure, and that is IMHO so costly for suppliers that even after the many years it's out there, there is still plenty desire to sidestep it. Unfortunately, that's only possible in OSX. If Apple was software focused it would charge similarly insane prices as Microsoft, and certainly not hand out the basics for free. If you get a default, cold Windows setup you have to go and get 3rd party software to turn the hardware you bought into something useful, whereas an OSX system is usable out of the box.
What sells Appel is design, which shines through in its UI. It's clever enough to avoid ramming new UI ideas down people's throat, instead, changes are incremental and retain usability.
The usability is why I personally now use mainly Apple gear. I don't care much for the whole cult thing, but I have work to do and for my specific use, the combination of an Apple OSX desktop and Linux server infrastructure is perfect. I don't have to constantly fight with proprietary attempts to lock me in, and I can use well designed commercial programs to do what I need to do. This is, of course, my personal preference, it may not work out for you.
You're looking at it backwards. Just because Apple charges money for iPhones and Macs but gives away iOS and OS X for free doesn't mean they're not a software company, because the two are bundled. If you want iOS or OS X you have to buy an iPhone or a Mac, that's the only way to get the software. Think of the price of the iPhone as buying the hardware plus free updates for that software for the next x years. It is much easier for customers to accept than if they charge less for the iPhone but had to pay for iOS upgrades - plus that would reduce uptake on iOS updates.
Just as Apple has with it's OS, Google needs to do with Android...hardware (phone) OEM's; manufacturers should not be the ones doing anything for or to the operating system.
You get to use a "free" OS but all the updating and features should come from the OS vendor not the phone manufacturer or carrier.
NO BLOATWARE, NO LOCKING ROMS, No spurious configurations, Nothing but a carrier splash screen and that's it.
These Android OS upgrades should clearly apply to all Android phones from all manufacturers and install only the necessary software based on the actual hardware in the phone. Only then will we see proper security of these systems.
All APP vendors will design software that only gets permissions for data it really needs (why does a camera App ever need your contact data?) and only after all private info in the phone is made unreachable forever.
Otherwise, we are stuck with the "Landfill Android" mentality we have now.
Andrew
This is not like the car market, that was a poor analogy. If you want to make comparisons then the obvious choice is the Windows world and it's OEM manufactures which you have mildly touched on but could have made a much more intelligent comparison. For example, the shitware that gets foisted on both PC buyers and phone buyers or restrictions on what hardware can be supplied with a particular SKU of windows.
As for the Android world, the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
MaG, that was going to be my observation with the addition that so many of the problems with Windows usually start and end with the OEM not providing a proper, working driver for Windows. And not following through as the OS goes through its upgrade process. Gee, that sounds just like Android and phones. Even down to the regular cure: Trade Linux for Windows, Trade Cyanogen for OEM's mangled Android.
I've used Android phones since 2.x.
ICS on Android has improved greatly and KitKat is good enough without OEM 'added value'.
In my experience with HTC & Samsung the customisation of Android just adds confusion (users think it's standard Android).
Android gets criticised for 'fragmentation' when much of that is caused by obsolete hardware that won't run latest software, or OEM makes no effort to update. Surely OEM customisation is essentially fragmentation too. Make your mind up critics, either you want same Android experience on all phones, similar to iOS, or you want customisation/innovation. Even latest iOS won't run on old iPhones, so is that fragmentation then?!
Handset saturation also inevitable. Most people I know now have a smart phone & not all offered free handset upgrades by their carrier, so if it's good enough no need to upgrade. That slows down new handset sales.
Me, I've been a CyanogenMod fan, as you get a fairly standard experience on different phones.
Plus it can extend life of older hardware, which the manufacturers don't want I guess (e.g. Samsung S2 runs CM11 KitKat 4.4.4 OK).
Android M will introduce finer granularity of app security similar to CyanogenMod Privacy Guard, so once that's out, might not need CM any more... we'll see.
Currently on a Samsung S4 with CM12 Lollipop 5.1 BTW.
Sorry, but I have to call bollocks here.
Samsung came up with KNOX for the enterprise market - and I'm pretty sure you will find that phones were shipping with KNOX (consumers hated it). Samsung created Touchwiz for Android - it has a bit of a mixed reception if we are being honest. HTC created Sense for it's phones - and generally it was quite well received.
I don't know what the "solution" to the "problem" is supposed to be - either - you allow OEMS to put stuff on top of Android - so that OS updates can continue to be timely, or you let OEMS tinker with the main workings of Android - ensuring that OS updates are NOT timely, security updates are NOT timely and certain apps might not actually work as expected or at all.
Or - the OEMS huddle up together and release something based on Android - fine OK, but you have a number of issues here the big one being - they are in business to make money, if they all make something the same - where is the thing that differentiates them? If they all make something different - what is the difference to what they have going on with Google? If they make something different enough that it goes right to the core of how Android works - you come back to the issue of Timely updates - both general and security.
S6 vs S5: Not waterproof, no MicroSD slot, USB 2.0 instead of 3, and has a non-removable battery.
Perhaps there are reasons why people did not rush to re-grade to S6, and the S5 continued to sell well. Samsung still have the largest market share in Q1 2015: 24.3%. Samsung have lost some market share - to other Android manufacturers.
As this is an Orlowski article, the obvious take home is that Samsung and doing well because of Android. Microsoft appear to have caught on, as they released Office for Android last year.
The only thing I find surprising about the article is that is does not mention that Windows Phone actually is in third place. This has been a goal and a false claim from Microsoft for years, but they are now up to 3% market share, 2% installed base and the other also-rans are finally lower. 'Also ran' is a bit generous. Crawled away to die might be more accurate.
I have to admit I did not expect Microsoft to get third place by default. I thought one of the newbies (Sailfish, Tizen, Firefox) would sneak in. (WP installed base is 47 million. CyanogenMod might be over 50 million but it gets lumped in with Android sufficiently often that the figure I have may suffer from different errors than the ones for Android, iOS and WP.)
Jusy security patches. Since ATT started sending android 5 to note 3 users like myself I have had to keep wifi disabled (going on 2 months now) to prevent it from installing. There is NOTHING in android 5 I want. I don't want new features. Phone works fine as it is. I don't care if you double the battery life and make it run twice as fast, phone works fine as it is. I'm already very careful what apps I install and i don't do any purchases or online banking on my phone.
I just wish I could use wifi again without risk getting android 5. I'm happy to try to live with android 5 if I buy a new device. But not on my existing device.
I can't help but feel a sense of irony. The reason I won't buy another samsung phone is BECAUSE of the software they layered on top. I don't want your horrible attempts at "improving android". It's one thing to make minor changes that add great functionality (I'm looking at you motorola) - but when you decide to completely change the UI, you lose me.
I don't want to blow $700 on a phone that doesn't get updates with new features for months to years because there's so much bloat that *insert vendor X* needs to test and re-test and validate against significant kernel changes.
At the VERY LEAST - let me check a box that says "I want touchwiz" so I can turn off what you think I want but don't.
I would buy an S6 in a hearbeat if it ran stock android.
Many journalists are so far up Apple's behind they don't see what is going on in the real world. But this takes the gold medal.
Android had already moved ahead of iOS in 2014 with flat design - forcing Apple to ditch its old fashioned skeumorphic look.. But then it took things a whole big step further, with material design and cards. This gave a much simpler interface with cards for everything and it moved away from Apple in design philosophy, closer to what happens on the Chrome desktop where cards are rapidly replacing many searches. Android is now better looking, more intuitive and quite simply cleverer than iOS in how it delivers information and sorts it.
The problem lies with the far eastern markets. A whole new raft of competitors emerged as the space commoditised - Huawei, Xiaomi and a host of others. Motorola also drove aggressively into markets at a much lower price. This drove the cost of phones down and Samsung, HTC and Sony were unable to keep up. A lot of unsold inventory in the channel then slowed innovation.
Samsung has responded by trying to take on Apple, going upmarket. HTC was too conservative this time around.- the team had split acrimoniously over the launch of the One.
This is a permanent change - people even in Western markets are beginning to realise that you can get a perfectly good phone for under £200 so why pay £600. And Android has been hit first as the operating system is the same on both. But Apple will find that price premium harder to justify, especially as its operating system continues to fall further and further behind.
You may want to check your facts. Apple dropped their skeuomorphism (along with Scott Forstall, who championed it) with iOS 7. This was released in 2013, not 2014, and was the first version of iOS to go 'flat', though iOS 8 did include a lot of visual refinements. (In any case, Apple aren't about doing something first, but in doing it *right*.)
The main problem with Android is Google.
Why would I pay $600+ for a "premium" phone that runs an OS made by a company that treats *me* as the product, and my own personal information as their corporate property? If I'm going to spend that kind of money, I'd rather spend it on a product that ensures I have full control over my own data. That means Apple or Microsoft.
As long as Samsung and HTC insist on relying on Google for their core software components, they're going to struggle to beat Apple at their own game.
A few months ago, I upgraded to a nice shiny new Samsung phone.
It was not an S6 or even an Edge. Those were complete fails before they are powered up.
It was not the software that informed my choice. It was the hardware. Samsung just dropped external storage and removable batteries from their new offering. I therefore dropped those.
I got a nice new Note4. Possibly not the very latest thing and certainly not the iShiniest one around either. Hardware wise, it is close enough to the S6. Like most Samsung offerings, it is a bit thin for comfortable use but the case cures that anyway.
Samsung software is not a selling point - far from it. It is a negative point. A few years ago, I had an S2 and learned that you need to avoid opening some of their offerings at all. It was an interesting learning experience that involved a couple of resets. It seems better now and there are no "hubs" to duplicate all of the functionality. I managed to avoid the Sammy calendar long enough to install the proper one and make it the default.
I now have a very functional device. It runs Android well and the "S-Pen" seems interesting. I can put in additional storage when I need it and can even get an even hight capacity battery. It does not have pretty round corners like the S6 but it has a much better battery.
The N4 camera software is probably non-standard but seems simple enough and the pictures still end up on my Google account.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
