Slashdot Mirror
Ten Features To Love About Android 1.5
An anonymous reader writes "Last month, Google officially announced the Android 1.5 update, dubbed 'cupcake.' The new software is apparently ready to roll out to Android-powered devices beginning tomorrow. Make no mistake, Android 1.5 is a major upgrade — they could have called it 2.0. The software brings a host of new capabilities, some of which can't be found on rival mobile platforms, including video recording and sharing."
There were (and still are) plenty of apps for the Palm devices, but ultimately its limitations did it in. In many ways it had fewer limitations that the current iPhone does as well. The iPhone has better marketing though.
I really like Android as concept. Unfortunately, in the USA the number of devices are not very appealing (the ones that are available). My carrier doesn't even have android phones. Strange, because the whole point of Android I figured was to allow manufacturers to focus on innovative cell phone designs. Maybe manufacturers will eventually make more phones with Android, but right now they are kinda lousy IMHO.
Until better hardware, the future is Palm Pre or iPhone
Actually, you have the issue backwards. Your selection of MS-Exchange as a messaging platform has limited the financially viable choices available to your firm to basically, Windows Mobile. Don't blame your vendor lock in on anyone other than your messaging vendor and the person who decided to buy MS-Exchange. You didn't HAVE TO do it.
-- $G
Apple has met it's match... As Samsung, Motorola, HTC, and others bring more Android hardware to market and Verizon, Sprint and other carriers offer Android to their customers, the tide will turn quickly on software development as well.
People have been saying this since before the G1 came out, but the market numbers just aren't meeting these predictions yet. When are all these amazing phones going to arrive at my carrier (Verizon)? And how open is this Android thing really going to be? Google has already demonstrated that it is willing to pull certain apps that T-mobile doesn't like.
Verizon is one of the big players in the industry and last I heard, it was backing away from Android. But think of the carnage Verizon would wreak on an open-source platform. (We both know they would lock it down so hard you couldn't do anything useful with it anyway.)
AT&T is the other big player and they have a conflict of interest with their iPhone, for now at least.
Currently, Android seems a lot like Linux. It's theoretically open source, but it has limited industry support and is only available on (extremely) limited hardware. But the key difference is that the cell phone industry is dominated by the carriers, who don't seem fully sold on it yet and it's not like we can just go ahead and replace our phone's OS without voiding all sorts of warranties and support.
I do hope this changes with time though. And for what it's worth, I have emailed Verizon and urged them to adopt the OS, but I am not holding my breath.
> Google has already demonstrated that it is willing to pull certain apps that T-mobile doesn't like.
Except it doesn't matter, because on an Android phone you can install an apk package from anywhere on the web without rooting your phone. (There is a single checkbox in the settings you need to check first.) The Market actually has a strong incentive to be less fascist than the app store, because if it is perceived as hampering developers, developers will simply go elsewhere. I have no doubt that Google knew this when they designed the OS, and that they intend to be more egalitarian in the future. They're also still getting used to this thing, so I'm cutting a little slack. Have no doubt that if, in the future, Google decides to be dicks about the Market, I will put the apps I develop for Android online somewhere else.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Just because something has a feature the Jesusphone doesn't, doesn't mean it is mindblowing and revolutionary...
There's a difference between "having a feature" and "having a feature that's actually usable".
My Nokia E71 has loads of features. And most of them are so crummy and hard to use, that they might as well not exist. It has GPS. Which is so cumbersome to use that I never use it. It has web-browser. But browsing with it is so frustrating and clumsy that I only use it when I desperately need to check something online.
The thing is that when the iPhone was released, people compared it to other phones (like Nokias) and said "my phone has had those features for a long time already, how exactly is the iPhone "revolutioary?". But they fail to understand that it's not about list of checkboxes called "features", it's about features that people can actually use.
Like I said, my E71 has a web-browser. It also has WiFI. But for some reason I never use it for web-browsing at home through my Wifi, I use my iPod touch for that.
You can't compare phones (or any other devices for that matter) by staring at a piece of paper that lists their specs. You need to actually USE the devices to make that judgement. And the thing is that iPhone might not have every single bell and whistle some other phone has, but the bells and whistles it has. are so usable that people actually use them. Nokia has been piling features to their phones for years, but since they are implemented in such a crappy way, they go mostly unused.
If your phone has a feature that no-one uses, is it really a feature?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
If your phone has a feature that no-one uses, is it really a feature?
Eh yes. Because sometimes, the use of a feature is also a function of the user's intelligence, training, awareness or needs. My mother might use my PC, but I'm pretty sure /she/ wouldn't touch the gcc installed on it. Yet my PC continues to 'feature' gcc.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Agreed. This is usually the way to spot the Apple fanboi.
When they bring up how Apple's App Store has 35,000 applications and Windows Mobile (or some other phone) has only however many thousand, point out that Windows has far more applications available than Mac OS X, so it is obviously superior.
I did this once. It was great fun to watch him stammer. "But, but, but...it's completely different! How many word processors to do you need?" "Oh, I don't know, probably about as many tip calculators, fart noise generators, and flashlights."
Your concept of a smartphone is that of companies like Blackberry and Palm's 24 months ago.
Apple saw a market for a consumer smartphone and exploited the fuck out of it. Now all the traditional business smartphone companies are trying to catch up.