I had an Android phone for roughly a year, after having a not-smart flip-phone for about 7 years! And even though I found real value in my old phone for 7 years, I tossed the Android for an iPhone 4S almost as soon as the new iPhone came out.
When I first bought the Android phone (HTC Hero) I thought it was amazing. It really had some neat features, and there were things the iPhone couldn't do (like totally change the home screen manager).
But it was never updated. Not once. It took just months to start seeing apps in the Android Market that only worked with newer OS versions.
I'd also discovered battery issues; it was abundantly clear that the carrier, Sprint, had the phone pre-loaded with apps (in the ROM so they could not be removed). Not only did ALL of these stupid things auto-start when the phone was powered on, but they were apparently set up to start themselves every hour or so because even with an app-killer I'd still see this junk back in memory sooner or later.
Say what you will about Apple, but they keep the crap off your phone. Carriers can't put a damn thing on there that you don't want. I've also already received 2 OS updates from Apple, which is 2 more updates than I ever received with Android.
I also realized that even though Apple doesn't let you customize as much, their UI is also not broken the way Android's is. For instance, some of the default HTC Sense UI did really stupid things in my opinion. Sure I was able to "fix" problems by downloading replacement keyboards, etc. but with iOS I don't even feel the need for that because Apple's UI is by default more sensible.
(Granted, Google's complicit to the carrier's requests here too -- however, I'm still perfectly able to install anything I want on my phone.)
But it was never updated. Not once. It took just months to start seeing apps in the Android Market that only worked with newer OS versions. [...] I've also already received 2 OS updates from Apple, which is 2 more updates than I ever received with Android.
> (Granted, Google's complicit to the carrier's requests here too -- however, I'm still perfectly able to install anything I want on my phone.)
This is not a valid argument for the average Android user, since they would have to root their device first. Jailbreaking an iPhone would also allow you to install anything you like.
You don't have to root a device to install anything, you just have to enable "Unknown sources" (Android will prompt you to enable it when you try to install an APK). A non-negligible amount of people do this -- it's how the Amazon Appstore works on everything (save for the Kindle Fire): http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&ref=mas_gs...
to install anything useful to your phone you have to root it. e.g. try installing tethering or VPN apps when your operator image denies it.
also, all processes that involve rooting/flashing will involve one step that you remove the firmware locks from the device, allowing a thief to peek at your data at will even if the phone is password protected.
*downvoters, also contribute to the discussion saying how you enable tethering on, say, a thunderbolt bought from at&t. thank you.
Someone has already covered tethering, so I'll just emphasize there are plenty of other useful things you can get by enabling "Unknown sources" without rooting: other app stores (Amazon [noted upthread], GetJar, MiKandi, ...) often with their own exclusives, software under development (Swype Beta, Mozilla's Aurora and Nightly, ...) and so on.
Separately, if you managed to buy a Thunderbolt from AT&T you have much bigger problems than getting tethering working. The Thunderbolt is a Verizon-specific CDMA/LTE phone that doesn't support any of AT&T's networks (AT&T's LTE is on a different band).
yeah, the thunderbolt wasn't mine :) had no idea which operator locked it. but it was locked beyond hope.
and i wasn't saying 'non-google-store-sources-aka-unkown-sources is a bad thing. i was just saying it's not enough to 'do what you want' with your device.
I haven't owned an iPhone, so I've kept myself content by keeping CyanogenMod ROMs on my phones just to keep them updated.
I do think Apple's iron grip on certain parts of the OS is a problem though. For example, I really dislike the iOS virtual keyboard. All caps all the time? Really? I love that in Android there are dozens of replacement keyboards I can use if I want. Unfortunately, I don't think Apple will ever loosen it's grip and that's the biggest thing that keeps me away from the platform.
I think (he|she)'s referring to the displayed case of the graphemes on the US iPhone's on-screen keyboard; that is, all letters are always displayed in upper-case, regardless of the state of the ``shift'' key.
I guess the trade off is against having a massive visual change every time you tap shift that could draw your eye away from the cursor position in the middle of typing.
It's quite amazing how besides charging carriers the full retail price for an iPhone, which gives them like $350 in profit per phone, they also don't allow them to install any of their apps. If only Google had the same negotiation skills.
There are so many things that Google could do for the benefit of their users, not necessarily for themselves, if only they took a tougher stance with the carriers, or convince them somehow that letting the customer be the #1 priority, and not the carrier itself, is actually a good thing in the long-term for the carrier. And a good example of that is the iPhone, which even though had the customer (and Apple itself) as the priority, the carrier still benefited a lot from all the customers and more expensive plans.
I had an original Droid from Verizon, and Verizon still pushed updates to me even at the two year mark, including an upgrade to the latest Android OS a year after purchase.
yeah... except a vast majority of users from the nexus one have one or more hardware problems that both google and HTC denies warranty.
- touchscreen ghosting
- touchscreen crazy-mode when hot
- worse than iphone4 3G reception
- battery cells life cut in half after 1st year
i was luck to have 2 and 4 on mine. bought from google using google checkout. they never returned emails or letters regarding this. people on forums that bought at stores had HTC take them in and return the same way.
All you have to do to adjust your expectations of the quality of vendor bloatware is take a quick look at the trash that PC vendors install on new Windows laptops. Why should we expect these same companies to do any better with their Android apps? Apple definitely has a big advantage here.
It's a shame really, because I think iOS has largely stagnated from a UI perspective or perhaps even degenerated with the ridiculous skeuomorphisms of their recent apps.
I still have the HTC Hero (EU). I put custom rom on it (currently VillainROM, I think) and it's still usable. And it's bulletproof, even more than most Nokias which would always chip in the corner if you dropped (had 3 different ones). I dropped it about 5-6 times and not a scratch (it does fall apart everytime, which is probably the reason it's undamaged).
The main benefit of Android, in my opinion, is the large selection of hardware. I like hardware keyboards, for example, and so I at least have some choice if I want it (unlike Apple).
However, that diversity in hardware is also the biggest problem with the platform. Handset manufacturers seem to look at a device as a "sell and forget" sort of item. They make it, sell it, and then move on to the next project.
It's too expensive, in their minds, to support a handset that they've already sold. They make money by selling more handsets, not by putting large amounts of effort into supporting and updating old hardware from which there is no revenue stream.
Apple, on the other hand, actually has a significant revenue stream from existing hardware through the sales of apps, music, and books. So, by providing updates for older versions of the hardware they are improving their ability to collect additional revenue. For example, when they added in-app payments, those APIs were available to all existing iPhone users, not just the newest users and thus were able to extract more profits from those existing users.
In the Android world, a manufacturer only makes money from the original sale. So, it seems that in order for Google to encourage on-going support, they should:
1. Participate in a revenue sharing program from app sales from the manufacturers phones that are running the most current release of the OS.
2. Improve the situation with drivers the large variety of hardware. If the Google distribution supported a large amount of hardware (CPUs, GPUs, sensors, etc) "out of the box", perhaps it would be easier for manufacturers to get the OS running on their devices and thus take less time to get updates to market. Or perhaps I'm being naive and there's something else that's holding up updates other than technical issues with drivers/hardware compatibility.
"Or perhaps I'm being naive and there's something else that's holding up updates other than technical issues with drivers/hardware compatibility."
In the United States at least, mobile firmware updates are subject to the approval of mobile carriers. Most phones that are released in both the United States and Europe are updated in the latter region before the former. American carriers are also a primary reason why most phones do not run stock Android [1].
Since some revenue sharing is already in place [2], and carriers make money regardless of what Android version their customers are on, I do not think it is the answer. Unless Google can find a way to reduce the control that carriers have (by weaning Americans off of subsidized phones, or by restricting Android software customization similar to iOS or Windows Phone), I am not sure things will change for the better.
I can't find a reference for what firmware covers. Could it be as small as something like the BIOS on a PC that doesn't have to change between OS updates?
I am using firmware to reference the entire mobile operating system, from the kernel and radio interface libraries all the way to the crapware applications installed by mobile carriers.
On Android devices, the best analog to the BIOS would be the bootloader. Since most Android bootloaders are locked to prevent unsigned kernels from running, they are updated during OS updates. See http://www.extremetech.com/computing/120771-what-is-a-bootlo... .
I was thinking that "subject to the approval of the carriers" was a legal requirement, along the lines of anything that could alter the operation of the radio would have to be approved. The hope being that a thin layer that deals directly with the hardware could be subject to approval, but the rest of the stack could be updated without approval.
On further reflection, I suspect it's more of a contractual obligation, and that neither party is all that interested in keeping 6 month old phones up to date. It's a shame, because Android developers can't reasonably expect ICS to be widespread for at least a year or longer.
I'll strongly second point 2. As far as I can tell, the biggest issue with ICS upgrades seems to be the amount and sheer complexity of the low-level changes (new GPU driver framework, move to 3.x kernel, new memory allocator, ...).
I also think Google made this a lot worse by not being more open with ICS development. If Google had been more open with the kernel and drivers along the way, I think ICS upgrades could have been much easier and could be moving much faster as well.
It took almost 12 months between the Gingerbread/2.3 release and my phone actually getting updated. It has a vanilla Google interface, manufactured by HTC and a small amount of crap/carrierware. They can't do the simple 2.2 to 2.3 upgrade in a reasonable amount of time where none of your reasons apply.
Put in perspective - it took about 12 minutes after finding out about a new iOS release and having it on my device, and 12 months for the Android device.
Yes, for some phones it takes a lot longer or some never get an update. But I think the discussion here was about how fast can an ICS update come? Gingerbread updates and Froyo updates started rolling out about 2 months after they were released. It took 4 months for ICS to upgrade from 2.3, but about 2 months for Honeycomb tablets. Plus there's the whole issue that manufacturers wanted to renew their skins as well.
"Apple, on the other hand, actually has a significant revenue stream from existing hardware … "
FWIW, Apple don't exactly have an unblemished record in treating owners of existing iPhones properly, as anyone who suffered through the first few iOS upgrades on iPhone3G's after the 3GS came out. For a while even Apple native apps like Messages (the SMS app) were all but unusable on a fully updated 3G…
Having said that, I'm still overall much happier with the OS upgrade path my original iPhone -> iPhone 3G -> iPhone 4S has had, compared to the long delays in getting _any_ OS upgrades for my Galaxy S II (largely due to the carriers here in .au rather than Google's fault, but that doesn't make the feeling of lack of support any easier to stomach…)
Samsung (and other manufacturers) should really pull the trick it used in the UK with the SGS2 more often: Telling the world when the update was delivered to the carriers and letting them sit on the hot seat instead.
i like hardware keyboards. the ONLY one you can buy today is from motorola locked to verizon... great device option i have.
when i first bought my dreadful nexus one, the only newly launched keyboard option i had was the backflip! a brick was faster. it was already announced to be relegated to 1.5 forever, and 1.6 was launched before it was out. or something like that. older keyboard availables, G1, too slow, no support. droid. slow, no memory, no GSM.
There's also the myTouch 4G Slide (T-Mobile US) and the Samsung Captivate Glide (AT&T). Both work internationally though neither are sold outside the US (and Canada for the Captivate Glide), AFAIK.
The Desire Z is still sold though it is getting harder to find (e.g. retailers like expansys don't seem to have it any more). On the other hand, T-Mobile also recently had a surprise revival sale (now over, I believe) on its twin (the G2).
There are also a fair number of lower-end QWERTY devices (both Blackberry-style and sliders), but there is absolutely room for a high-end QWERTY "hero". Personally, I'm rooting for an HTC One Z (with a T-Mobile G3 twin?), but we'll see.
SE Xperia Pro, Slide, Captivate Glide, Desire Z? It seems like another problem with the diversity of hardware is coming up with names that don't sound like something you would buy from a vending machine in a truck stop restroom.
Apple doesn‘t have a significant revenue stream from existing devices. Why does everyone think they are making lots of money by selling apps and media? They do not.
I think the biggest reason Apple still supports old hardware is they're still selling it (see: iPhone 3GS and now iPad 2).
That being said, it is interesting how Apple's support of old hardware is the dual of Google's.
Google does a bad job of getting OS updates to older hardware, but they do an impressively good job of supporting their applications on older hardware and OSes. Outside of the deliberate exception of the Chrome Beta, I can't think of an official Google app for Android that doesn't support at least Froyo and many go back further. My G1 (running Donut) was still getting Google app updates for a good chunk of last year. I happen to know that because I picked it up for a memorial tweet on the G1's third anniversary and was surprised with all the update notifications I got.
Meanwhile, Apple is very good about getting OS updates to older devices. But when you look at their app support, it doesn't look nearly so good. Everyone talks about Siri, but did you also know that the original iPad doesn't support iPhoto or iMovie (see: http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/9/2856499/iphoto-ios-app-ipad... )? iMovie is particularly damning because the first iOS version (for the iPhone 4) was released less than 3 months after the original iPad.
And note that while older Apple devices nearly all get the new version number, sometimes that's about all they get in the way of features from the upgrade.
I understand why Android geeks are desperate to have the very latest OS version running on their device (as a weird point of OCD-geek pride). I have no idea why Apple fans should care so much about what version number Android phones have when Google is near constantly updating the software that runs of them. Seems to run counter to their stance on the features vs. specs debate on hardware, where user experience is more important than the number attached to something.
"Normal people" on the other hand, clearly don't give a damn, if they are even aware of this "issue", and have no reason to.
I don't think it's the main reason either. The reason is customer loyalty. But I believe that media and app sales are more important than you think, because it's the entire integrated ecosystem that keeps people inside Apple's fold. Secondly, Apple is investing huge amounts into expanding their software/services/media offering, so current sales might not be telling you very much about their motivation.
my bet is that they locked themselves in because of some contract with corporation (trying to beat RIM at some time) or government.
And those contracts are still giving them money, otherwise they wouldn't think twice about breaking it. All apple actions can be directly translated to immediate profit goal.
That must be why Apple is still providing cheap OS upgrades for my four year old Mac. Or maybe they're smart enough to realize that I might not buy their products again if they were obsoleted as soon as possible?
One other thing, if Android/Google execs read this: for the love of God go ahead and admit that there is a need for tablet apps. It's the first step in solving the problem - admitting you have a problem. As long as you have the attitude that phone apps work "just as well" on tablets, developers will have the exact same attitude and will not care as much. It also "helps" that you don't really want to emphasize tablet apps in their own categories, so devs have little incentive to build them.
Also, wake up and promote this heavily, before you lose the tablet market forever. The iPad advantage is growing by the day, and Windows 8 tablets are coming, too, and even though I'm not a fan of Windows 8, I'm almost certain Microsoft will be able to brag about having more apps for ARM tablets than Android has for tablets at the time, because I'm sure they will be just as aggressive about it as they are with WP7 apps. You simply can't afford to stay on your asses and let apps come to you. I know that's Google's attitude towards it right now, because it's obvious from how Andy Rubin and Eric Schmidt speak at events. Change that! Fast!
It's simply inexcusable that you've launched Honeycomb more than a year ago and all you have to show for it is a few hundred tablet apps. The Nexus tablet will not change that if it's only 7", even if it's a popular tablet. I don't think devs will bother to make "tablet apps" for a 7" tablet. They'll just leave the phone apps, which look rather well on 7", and Kindle Fire is an example of that.
So I don't know what you have to do, pay each developer, hold a $100 million contest for Android tablet apps, reject their apps if they don't also make a tablet version within 6 months - whatever. Just do it and be very aggressive about it, because you've lost a lot of time with the Honeycomb launch failure, and now you only have little time before Amazon's ecosystem or Microsoft's ecosystem become bigger than Android on tablets, too. And that's without even mentioning the enormous and growing iPad ecosystem. That's why you need to start being pro-active about tablets apps like yesterday.
I strongly agree. I've been averse to owning a tablet for a while; generally, I prefer to have a laptop: if I want to do work on it, I can. I've recently tried a different approach: use the laptop (/tablet, now) for all my entertainment needs, and my desktop for work (in order to encourage myself to do more/better work on my desktop).
So, to facilitate that, I grabbed a cheap HP TouchPad, and flashed the (admittedly still reasonably raw) CM9 ICS build onto it. ICS itself is pleasant: the notifications system is great, the multitasking is easily on par with WebOS, and the action bar is a good step forward. The screen wasn't so great, but I knew that going in; most of the "real" Android tablets have beautiful hardware.
The state of the apps, however, is shocking. Even Facebook and Twitter haven't bothered to build tablet apps. I believe Google is somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place here, however, and it boils down to an argument I've often thought entirely facetious - fragmentation. While they introduced decent APIs in ICS for making apps that work well on both phones and tablets, the vast majority of phone hardware out there is still running Gingerbread or older. Meaning that developers can't use those new ICS APIs, because their apps will no longer run on most user's devices.
I don't know how Google can address that easily, but I'd wager it proves to be a significant impediment to those trying to target Android tablets: either they do the whole thing manually in Gingerbread, or fork their codebase into an ICS version, and a Gingerbread version. Neither is an overly pleasant solution.
(for the record, I ended up drooling over/buying an iPad 3. The apps are much better)
They actually have a compatibility package[1] to let apps use the new tablet layout classes on Android versions back to 1.6. Developers have no excuse.
Given that webOS has some fantastic tablet apps, why on Earth remove it from the Touchpad and install ICS which has a lot less tablet apps? I see people doing this all of the time, and frankly it confuses me because they just by-pass the best feature of the Touchpad: webOS.
I should clarify that: I agree that WebOS is an amazing OS. I had a great time using it. I really liked the Enyo framework, and most of the apps were well optimised for tablet. Despite that, the app ecosystem as it stands is dying, and I wanted to see what things were like on the other side of the fence. Installing Android was straightforward (I'm going to develop a nervous tick with relation to the iPad in a few months, no doubt).
Note that you don't remove WebOS when you flash Android onto a Touchpad; it sets itself up to dualboot :).
I know it's dual boot, but I also know a lot of people who just bought a cheep Touchpad to install Android, and never booted into webOS. Many never even gave it a chance, and hence are missing out on arguable a better tablet experience than ICS (it certainly has more tablet-optimized apps).
As for the webOS ecosystem dying, I'm willing to wait and see what happens with Open webOS later this year before I agree with you there. It's certainly in a lull with no new hardware on the way, but once Open webOS hits that issue is no longer relevant as I can install it on any existing hardware that supports Android.
> _So I don't know what you have to do, pay each developer, hold a $100 million contest for Android tablet apps, reject their apps if they don't also make a tablet version within 6 months - whatever_
One thing they can do is promote good apps, not the way they're currently doing it (e.g. Staff picks, Top developer), but with something like the Apple's approval system, but not to the extreme of "the app is either approved or denied". I was thinking more like the dev can pay a fee to get his app reviewed (UI, performance, ...etc) and when "approved", it gets a symbol (check mark, star, whatever) and put on a category of "approved" apps. This will probably encourage more devs to work more on their apps to get them promoted.
iOS (iPod and iPad2) and Android user (Samsung Exhibit II) here.
The OP brings up many valid concerns, and asks, as a consumer, how much is one willing to tolerate this?
My answer: A very long time, as long as Android phones and plans continue to smoke iPhone on price and provide an "almost iOS" experience.
The Exhibit II has Android 2.3.5 installed. T-Mobile charges US$30 per month for 100 minutes of talk, unlimited messaging, and 5GB of 4G data; thereafter it reverts to slower data and 10 cents per minute of talk. I am not a heavy talker, nor do I stream video or audio (and when I do it's usually within wifi range). When I was looking for a plan, I saw a similar offer for a Virgin plan (I think it was US$35). Friends overseas tell me even cheaper Android plans are offered through local carriers.
For owners of Android handsets, using Facebook, Twitter, email, Web, and most mobile news sites is comparable to iOS. I miss Instagram, but it is coming soon to Android, and in the meantime I make do with Path. There are a few other missing Android apps, and the UX is slightly inferior, but considering it's $30/month, it's good enough.
To many people, that's the value of Android. The UX is very similar to iOS, it handles most smartphone functions, and it's a lot cheaper.
So what about WP7? Both as a user and as a developer I was completely frustrated with Android, so I went out and got myself a Lumia 800.
Here in Europe you pay about $525 for this device (off contract), and the 710 and 610 are about $330 and $260 respectively. An HTC radar goes for $380.
As another Android user looking for other options, I'd love to hear your opinion of WP7. Especially on how you're finding the selection and quality of the available apps.
It all depends on what you're using your device for. Personally I'm missing internet tethering (update coming soon, apparently) and Spotify, which exists but is so buggy I removed it and downgraded my account. I'm not too happy with the calendar app but I've been too lazy to look for a replacement. You're tied into Bing for search which I don't appreciate. File transfers over bluetooth are not supported, not sure if anyone still does this.
On the other hand, the UI is silky smooth, not at all like the Galaxy Nexus I have lying around here for development. I guess it's just a personal thing, but I really can't live with the UI lag and jitter on Android. You don't have a ton of options to play around with, but the features that are there just work without hassle.
Things like email, messaging, facebook all work great. The browser is nice and responsive too. You get Office for free so you can open Word documents on the go, and Nokia Drive 2.0 gives you free navigation with free offline maps. It works well here in the Netherlands and is a big plus for me. Skype is available as a beta which is still rough around the edges, but it's nice to be able to call my mom over Wi-Fi without wasting minutes.
So I guess it's a bit of a mixed bag. For me the positives greatly outweigh the negatives, so I'm a happy camper. Maybe you should just go play with one at a store and see if it's for you.
valid point. i'm actually considering a WP phone recently.
i had to switch to android when nokia made me a sucker with the lousy E70 right before the N9, making me hate them so much to the point of never buying from them again.
now android just did the same with the lousy Nexus one. i simply can't see myself buying another android.
that leaves me with windows phone for now, mostly for the benefit of doubt they still have... IF we still care about phones in a while. big IF there. i strongly feel that phones as we use today will soon be the devices of the unwashed mases of late adopters
> iOS (iPod and iPad2) and Android user (Samsung Exhibit II) here.
When I first read your post, I thought you intended this as a snarky remark about the ongoing lawsuits, until I looked it up and found that Samsung really does have a phone named the "Exhibit II". Why do phone manufacturers in particular have such poor taste in naming, and keep picking names with no obvious naming scheme or consistency?
I would be very curious to know the history of this phenomenon (product naming, and in particular electronic product naming). It seems like Sony electronics in the 80's followed this pattern. It was always like the Trinitron DX-3095 and the DX-2085.
Cell phones also follow this throwaway name pattern. I guess there are brands like the RAZR and Droid, but the individual models have throwaway names.
Where do those numbers come from? Does some one just make up some nonsense? Sometimes they put the screen diagonal in there but I think more often than not they have no bearing on the product.
Is it because finding trademarks is hard? After all, Apple paid a ton of money for the iPhone trademark.
Was there a time, like back in the 50's, where companies used normal names for electronic products like stereos?
Software used to follow version numbers, like 1.0, 2.0, etc. But then Microsoft changed it to 95, 98, 2000, XP, etc. And then Apple changed it to Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion, etc. Which I think are more friendly names. Ubuntu seemed to follow in Apple's lead with Hardy Haron and so forth.
I guess with software you have a linear sequence of products. With hardware, they seem to produce a lot of useless variants (except Apple), so you can't number them 1,2,3 / A,B,C.
I do not see why you think "Exhibit II" on the one hand and "DX-3095" and the "DX-2085" follow the same naming pattern.
To me, the first looks like a marketing name, and the second like one that only makes sense to the manufacturer. I am assuming that the numbers do have meaning here.
Marketing names may or may not be intended to be short-lived. Sometimes, they just become short-lived, either because of how they behave in the market (see: Edsel), of internal politics (a new brand manager steps in; (s)he cannot claim the previous manager did a fine job, so something must change), or due to short-term profit hunting ("device named 'X' sells well! Let's make a low-budget one and sell even more!"-"But we would have to cut quality to make it cheaper"-"Yeah so?")
There also seems to be this notion "if consumers are confused, they will pick a brand at random. The more brands there are, the easier they get confused. I will make lots of brands, so that they will get confused, and pick a random brand. Since I have so many brands, chances are they will pick mine.". That approach leads to short-lived brand names.
As to that DX-3095 naming scheme: chances are that it was taken directly from the manufacturer's internal tracking system. The first digit might indicate the factory or the PCB version, or whatever, the second the quality of the tube, etc. That may or may not give useful information to customers.
I've found the android phone and apple tablet is a good combination.
The ipad is good for things I want comfort for (reading, web-browsing, etc.) and they are reasonably price competitive (assuming you get the wifi only version, not a plan), but the android phone is much more versitile (if sometimes annoying to use) and generally cheaper than a tie-in iphone plan.
Plus then you get to use applications for either OS.
Am I the only one that's happy with their Android phone? Sure, I wish I could get cyangen mod on my phone, but oh well that I can't. I prefer the experience far over iOS and others. I like being able to change various aspects of my phone without jail breaking it. I like the user experience vastly more than iPhone's, primarily because of that back button. And, even on my old Motorola Droid, I never saw a "your phone can't support this app" problem.
What phone do you have? CM (including custom versions of it) is available for an astounding number of phones, maybe you need to dig deeper into XDA forums :-)...
Well, the phone can be rooted and there are already half-baked ports of CM floating around - shouldn't be long before the phone (which is still pretty new) is supported officially or a good unofficial CM-based ROM is released. Have patience :-)...
I am extremely happy with mine. HTC Sense adds a lot to the experience and I am glad they were allowed to do this.
I do not get why people feel entitled to OS updates on their phones (apart from security fixes of course). If the OS right now is not good enough for you, then why buy a phone with it?
On the other hand, I chose an Android phone because then I was free to use ROMs, root, and control the phone as I like, eg block internet access, adblock, control permissions, install random apps from random websites (no piracy...).
It's the transition period from cellphones to computers. A cellphone doesn't need updates, it's a hard-coded brick that's released once and then it works until it gets broken. A computer is a platform, mostly made out of software and the freshness of the software platform is a key part of its nature: we've used to updating our linux and windows boxes for fifteen years.
Now, smartphones are still a bit in between. They're basically computers but still regarded as phones. It'll take some time for everyone to catch up to the same level, maybe some years. Apple does it already and others must follow as soon as they get the order back in their development chain.
Ideally, an Android phone would be like Ubuntu with per-device kernels. It would continuously stream new packages over the net and the kernel would handle all device specific things so that Android userspace doesn't have to. It basically works like this already, it's just the update process that hasn't been mechanized. And there are a small number of device specific tricks in the userspace too, these days, because OEMs think they can tailor Android for their product. It's as bad as an OEM that would want to sell laptops with an OEM customized Ubuntu distribution. It works one time but gets left back as soon as the real Ubuntu makes the next release.
Note that security holes have been found in the dumber phones such as specially crafted SMS messages that cause grief.
In the case of a highly connected device that has a web browser (eg a "smartphone") there are guaranteed to be many security holes. That is the biggest problem with Android non-updates. It is bad enough being behind on functionality updates, but being vulnerable is even worse.
I think we have yet another example of someone just not getting it.
The OP repeatedly laments the fate of people less technically minded than himself, how hideous the experience must be for them if someone do clued up is having such a terrible time... The fact is that those users to whom he is referring exist in a realm of blissful ignorance.
I wonder what proportion Android users out there even know what ICS is. I'm willing to bet it's a tiny fraction and I'm willing to bet that Google knows that. That's what makes the whole Android story such a cynical one IMO-the platform was (still is to a large degree) touted as the ultimate geek device. Something beautiful that google was goig to give to the techies out there... What it is is a shallow, lowest common denominator.
I had such high hopes for the 'Google phone' of 2006 but I have never owned and Android device and really do not care to.
You are right.
I work in cellphones. When I say the words Ice Cream Sandwich, they laugh. Same goes for the previous versions of android. When they hold the Galaxy Nexus, they want it. Same goes with the iPhones.
It's what the device does and how it looks let's an average customer decide, not the technical mumbo jumbo. And the price.
I picked up a Galaxy S2 recently because a client asked me to do an Android port of an iOS app.
As a communication device, I think it easily trounces the iPhone, even though its only running 2.3. The Google accounts integration is a lot smoother than mail on the iPhone and the phone features are better overall. And I never want to go back to pecking out text messages one letter at a time after using Swype.
However, as an apps platform it sucks for all the well known reasons. I think the reason that Android phones have sold so well is that the core features are at least as good as the iPhone. It's too bad, because I actually prefer the way they do a lot of things in the SDK (resource management, for instance). But I agree Google needs to get things under control soon.
Smartphones are a commodity. I hate my Samsung Galaxy. It destroyed the Samsung and Android brands for me. When it's time for me to get a new phone, I'll definitely pick an alternative (probably an iPhone). Doesn't matter if there's a Galaxy 5 running Android 6 by then.
Same thing played out with US vs Japanese car manufacturers. People have lasting memories when they feel that they spent money on an inferior product.
I hate my iPhone 3GS, because after my PC died I couldn't sync it any more without losing my media, couldn't update the OS because I had jailbroken it (never installed pirated apps either), and because the battery life is horrible on 3G - it heats up, drops a few percentage points in a few minutes, and I often have to power off the phone.
I told myself I was running off to Android where I wouldn't have to deal with a walled garden any more, so I'm kind of like the reverse of you - going to get a non-iPhone after my bad experience with Apple.
What I'd like to know is whether Android is still worth going to. Will I be able to sync without worries, install apps as I like, and root the device easily? I keep seeing mention of CyanogenMod and I don't know if that's what I'll have to install to get the full control I want. Is installing CM what rooting (mostly) involves?
I've been meaning to pick up the Galaxy Nexus, but bad press about its camera and uncertainties about the degree of freedom it allows have been keeping me back. I was even considering getting a Galaxy S II and installing ICS. I appreciate any advice from the Android users among you.
I'd say there are two key things to pay attention to:
1. Does the device have an officially unlockable bootloader?
Many Android devices do (e.g. Nexus devices, most HTC devices, most Sony Ericsson phones (though that may change as they are absorbed into Sony, the Asus Transformer Prime, ...), some do not (most Motorola phones, Sony's Android tablets and Google TV devices, etc.) and then there are some in the middle (they're relatively easy to unlock, but the unlock isn't official - e.g. most Samsung and LG devices).
2. Is the device getting an official version of ICS?
As I and others have noted elsewhere in this thread, ICS is a technically demanding upgrade (particularly at the kernel and driver level). If your device has gotten or is getting official ICS, then any custom ICS ROMs will have an official kernel (with source) and a full set of third-party drivers to build on, which is big leg up on devices that don't have that.
Most Apple, I guess? The jailbreaking prevented OS updates, but the inability to sync and battery life were most likely due to the device itself.
In the first place, I want to be able to install programs from wherever I like (which was why I needed to jailbreak - to install an important app which had no official iOS release at the time), so having to jailbreak for that capability is still a drawback (or 'failing') of Apple/iOS relative to my requirements.
I hope the Nexus won't get in the way of my needs - I don't want to have to wrangle with anything when an OS update is issued, even if I root my phone. And I also don't want 0 updates. Does any phone fit my use case?
Not being able to update may well have limited you from getting battery related bug-fixes, and jailbreaking is notorious for allowing power-inefficient mods or apps to run - indeed that's the reason many people choose to do it.
I guess my point is that you knew in advance that the device wouldn't do what you wanted, so it's not really surprising that you didn't have a great experience and I think it's hard to blame that on Apple.
Personally I think that anyone who would need to Jailbreak an iPhone would have their needs better served with a good Android phone. In this regard they are simply aimed at different customers.
Most of the people I know that have trouble with their Android phones barely even correlate the manufacturer with the problems they're having. They only know it's an Android phone, and it sucks, and they're never getting an Android phone again.
Rational carriers and android hardware manufacturers would understand what's at stake here. Do they really want to hand the entire mobile device market to Apple because of a few updates?
The update situation has improved quite a bit since the early days of Android. I don't see any reason to think that "all of a sudden now" the market will shift entirely to Apple. The new iPhone caused some market shift, and new Android handsets and OS version will likely cause some shift back.
Hopefully Google's new "streamlined and integrated" philosophy will continue to reduce update times and further polish and unify the interface. Only time will tell.
It is nice to have a good new contender on the scene with Windows Phone though.
In regards to regular updates, Windows Phone is looking more and more like Android. Even on Microsoft's "preferred" US carrier, smaller bugfix updates are being delayed or skipped by AT&T:
Previously, Microsoft provided exact details on when specific phones on specific carriers would be getting software updates, but this policy ended in January 2012:
I’ll point them towards Apple’s iOS and Microsoft’s Windows Phone instead. At least with these platforms, you’re guaranteed core OS updates and bugfixes for the length of your contract.
I think this just isn't true. Maybe WP is currently more homogeneous than Android but clearly MS is somewhat at the mercy of the carriers here too.
I doubt that would ever happen typically technology runs a two party system. I would more look to windows phone 7 catching up. The only saving grace of android is that I would say Java developer slightly outnumber C# developers. If they don't change soon and basically actually try administrating the system it might come to an end. Google needs to hiring someone primarily for administrating android not just people to innovate for it.
I'm sick of Android's permissions system. As you can't reject individual permissions it suffers from permission creep. In their first versions, applications tended to request only permissions they really need. Then every update they request more and more, usually wildly different from the purpose of the application.
For example, Google Maps requires "Allows the application to call phone numbers without your intervention" since last update. I don't want to grant that (it just needs to show a map ffs), but must, or stay behind.
What would great is to be able to selectively grant permissions to applications. I've read that cyanogenmod can do that, but have been careful with reflashing my phone. Maybe I'll give that a try now...
If anyone's interested, on CyanogenMod 7.2 the relevant setting's in Settings -> CyanogenMod settings -> Application -> Permission management. After that, you can turn permissions on and off from the app manager. (As far as I can tell, this hasn't been implemented in any of the CM9 nightlies.)
The problem with this approach is that the app expects the permission and will most likely crash if rejected. One alternative which works better is the LBE Privacy Guard app, what it does is, instead of denying the app to read the contacts list for example, it simply gives it an empty one.
That's probably so you can call phone numbers for businesses from inside Google Maps, without having to ask for permission at that point each time. I doubt it means it can call on its own.
But even so, I agree that the permission system is so generic and creepy, and sometimes you freak out when you see some (probably harmless) permissions, because you don't really know what to expect, and you don't know what kind of power Google has given to developers through these permissions.
Though others claim that for calling it launches the phone app, and doesn't call out itself...
Anyway -- it is just a pretty harmless example. Some games are much worse. I don't have time to research or decompile all interesting apps to see what they are doing with a certain permission.
I never call from my map, so don't want to grant it. It may also use the permission for calling premium/foreign numbers behind my back and cramming my cellphone bill. I don't like the "Accept it all or leave" approach.
Afaik, the way permissions work on Android is that each application is its own user, and each permission is a group. If you have a rooted device, you can simply log in and remove the user from the group to un-grant that permission.
I doubt it will help you though, because it will most likely cause some function somewhere to throw an exception which will in turn cause the app to crash.
I doubt it will help you though, because it will most likely cause some function somewhere to throw an exception which will in turn cause the app to crash.
That's why I blame the Android platform and not just the apps. If Android made it clear from the start that permissions are optional, and that requests for them can be rejected, applications would be written to cope with that. It would also force developers to explain why they need a certain permission.
You're absolutely right. Not having a distinction between required permissions (e.g. a music player is pretty useless without the permission to read the SD card) and optional ones (e.g. a Twitter app can attach your location to your tweets if you want it to, but it doesn't have to) is the biggest problem with Android's permissions system.
Ironically, it is more of a social problem than a technical one. If people were expected to gracefully handle the exceptions thrown when permissions are denied, we'd be 80% of the way there, I think.
I think a lot of app crashes are due to the fact that app developers simply don't know what to expect. This is a direct result of shoddy documentation.
For example, the Android API has a tendency to return null from functions even when the documentation doesn't say it will (i.e. WifiManager.getScanResults and friends), or simply doesn't document return values at all (i.e. ConnectionManager.getActiveNetworkInfo). The Google guys aren't real stars when it comes to documenting what exceptions may be thrown either.
You can't blame app developers for not gracefully handling exceptions and return values that are not documented.
Apparently I was only partly right. Each app is its own user, and certain permissions such as sockets and files are enforced using groups.
However, when the functionality that is being protected is implemented in a system service (which runs in a different process), it's the responsibility of the callee to check the permissions of the caller using Android's own 'permissions validation mechanism'.
Do phones really /need/ to be updated to new OS versions? I recently upgraded to a Galaxy Nexus, and while ICS is pretty nice, I honestly think I could have lived with Froyo or Gingerbread for another couple years.
Yes, it's interesting to me how (as with so many things), Apple frames the debate in which other things are judged. iOS screen resolution way lower than other phones? Doesn't matter. Retina display arrives -> screen resolution is everything, major selling point! iOS has no built in voice recognition? Doesn't matter. Siri - major selling point, when is Google going to respond?! And the same with the OS updates; if Apple wasn't delivering updates so well, would we even have this question at all?
I have a feeling it is primarily a geek obsession and for all the ranting of geeks it isn't going to make much difference. Android will always have the latest and greatest and simultaneously the oldest and cruftiest stuff going around, and by and large consumers won't care because all of them play Angry Birds.
Of course they don't need to be updated, but when I'm paying $50+/month for essentially a luxury (I could live with a prepaid dumb phone), my expectations go up. I'm paying a lot for fun/interesting technology and I want to partake now in the new whizzy things that people are raving about, not 9 months from now.
What "new whizzy things" are people raving about? I haven't seen anyone get even close to excited over a new OS feature since iOS 4's multitasking -- from the people I know, the response to iCloud, FaceTime, iMessages, Notification Center, ICS's Face Unlock, etc. has been a collective "meh". The only thing I've heard anyone seriously happy about recently was Windows Phone 7.5's ringtone manager.
Doesn't have to be a new OS feature directly. I'd like to run the new Chrome browser but can't. In any case, I'd like to decide "meh" or not for myself.
You're right that most changes have very little impact, so this is largely psychological. It hits in two ways for me: 1) the delay between the product's "release" and when I can get it, 2) the uncertainty of whether an upgrade will even come at all for my phone.
First, I know many people make a big deal about the transition to Android 4.0 being too slow, but I just think the issue is that it's a lot harder for manufacturers, and even the hacker community (hence no stable ICS ROM yet) to transition from 2.3 to 4.0, than it was to transition from 2.2 to 2.3 or from Honeycomb to ICS/4.0. I do believe/hope that the transition to 5.0 or 4.5 from 4.0 will be much faster.
Also remember that Google releases their version as soon as it's ready for them, unlike Microsoft who keeps the OS from being released until at least a few manufacturers have it on their devices and ready to ship. Should Google adopt the same model and in this case keep ICS from being released until summer 2012, when all manufacturers would be ready to release devices with it at once? Perhaps, but keep in mind that this would also mean using obsolete hardware, just like with all WP7 phones, and it also means they would be way behind iPhones and iPads in terms of hardware, when they adopt a model like this.
Second, can the solution for standardization be having some kind of a "virtual hardware layer", and by that I mean more than just what the Dalvik VM currently does - more like "universal drivers" that would make Android easy to upgrade and install on any ARM phone? That would be a dream come true for any Android fan.
One thing I know for sure is that Google needs to be working on something like this - even if it takes them years to do it, whether it's because it's hard to do technically, or because they need a lot of time to set-up all the right partnerships.
This goal is well worth pursuing, until things become too complex (thousands of devices). But I'm hoping they've been working on it already, and we're only 1-2 years away from seeing it.
One solution (at least to some of the problems) is to use third party ROMs - there are plenty of them out there for every phone, made by people who know this stuff better than the manufacturers themselves. Support them and use their versions of Android - latest versions, fast, sleek, free to modify however you wish - what's not to love?
I have my old Droid and I won't upgrade until it's dead - it's running CyanogenMod (Gingerbread), has a wicked custom home screen, it's overclocked, undervolted, can run OnLive games, Angry Space Birds :-), One Piece for GameBoy Advance (loved that game on my GB!), Skype on 3G, and a s*it ton more...
I'll get a Droid 3 when I upgrade, as well - I feel crippled without a dedicated keyboard...
I see smartphones (and laptops, tablets) as simple platforms to customize to your liking - obviously, networks would have a problem with that if everyone thought that way, but it's the best way...
"If someone like me who is an astute observer of the industry has to do such intense research on which Android device to buy based on the potential for ongoing support and then ends up getting burned in the process, what is the average consumer to do?"
In a nutshell, the reason I haven't seriously considered an Android device. I was burned by my last Nokia/Symbian phone not getting any OS updates or bug fixes, and quickly decided that I wouldn't be able to predict which of the numerous Android devices would turn out to be the lucky ones that would be supported and maintained.
I was proud to call myself an Android Fan Boy and urged my friends to get one (last year I convinced about 10 friends to get an Android phone and they did). I'm now a frustrated user myself and the worse part is when those friends read article like this and ridicule me.
Sick to death because he can't update to a new version of an operating system??
I know this psychological feeling of wanting the latest craze, but the reality is probably that the old versions of Android work just fine. We have somehow been trained to crave new OS versions, but that is nothing to commit suicide over.
As an Android consumer, one of my biggest gripes is paid apps slowly increasing their permissions until they require everything.
Google has to allow downloads of previous versions if a paid app starts upping permission requirements OR providing an app by app permission blacklist for non-rooted phones.
"variety of manufacturers devices with varying feature sets that gives consumers the added benefit of choosing exactly what product suits their specific needs."
If you want an update just root it download the update. People who are wanting the latest greatest incremental release are usually a bit techie anyway, so its not that hard is it?
Fair enough - I thought the ability was widely available - seems not. I've only owned one android device - a method of rooting it came out about a month after it was released (a Huawai 7" tablet)
This is true techy people have this option, but google needs to think ourside this market. Android needs to move beyond the 18-20 year old college or college bound male demographic if it's going to grow. It needs to simple enough for your grandma run it. Your phone should update with the latest features as soon as they are available not a year down the line. It's like playing roulette when buying a phone trying to find out which OEM will update there OS on time and which will not.
I consider myself to be a moderate 'techy' but rooting is not fun at all and rooted device is not fully functional. I own a HTC MyTouch. I recently rooted my device and upgraded to ICS. Camera didn't work nor did wifi calling. Finally someone else came up with another ROM (http://www.zipsnet.mobi/). Camera worked but wifi didn't and microphone was almost useless. He updated the ROM and now everything works except the microphone (the receiver on the other side complains that he/she can barely hear). I agree with you that your phone should update as soon as they are available.
Android needs to move beyond the 18-20 year old college or college bound male demographic if it's going to grow.
Around half of all smartphones sold today run Android. I don't think there are that many 18 year olds.
Your phone should update with the latest features as soon as they are available not a year down the line.
Yes, it should. But most users don't really care, as long as it makes calls and can get on Facebook and run Angry Birds. Apple/MS fanboys are correct that Android geeks aren't representative. But neither are they.
It's like playing roulette when buying a phone trying to find out which OEM will update there OS on time and which will not.
People don't relize that when you marker things to people like face to unlock for android that when people buy the phone that's what they want the app market is proof they want more than just angry bird they want the apps their friends are using. It would make me angry if I wasn't a techy and a bought a new with a OS not know a app could play a game on my brand new phone because it wasn't updated.
I think it should auto update. My mom who has a iphone likes it because she plugs into her computer and she can get all the new stuff she sees on TV. Older people don't understand tech, but they still understand commercial that are marketed to them. People who are techies want to the features market to the lock face to unlock. It's crazy to market features to people and not give them the features for 8 months.
What we have to think about here is that this guy, and probably anyone reading this blog (myself included), is a nerd. The average consumer doesn't give a f* about Ice Cream Sandwich. If their phone does what it needs to do on a daily basis they are happy. It has the same features as it did when they bought it and new apps come out every day. It's not much different with Apple, aside from a few minor features, updates are merely bug fixes. As for us nerds, the internet is crawling with custom roms and custom updates that allow us to fiddle to our heart's content. So no, I don't think Android has much to worry about.
That was my first reaction playing with my tablet with the Android for the first time. I am a Windows user and I could not believe how Microsoft blew this field.
I think it's obvious that sometimes open is not best. Business at a certain point don't really care about customers if they aren't getting profit. They sell millions of phone if they were to let say charge $5-$10 to people in order to upgrade the OS this would solve the problem. Yes giving upgrades for free would be the right thing to do for a moral human being, but this is a company not a person. Companies have not moral compass and you can't guilt them into doing something.
That's why I think for businesses who want to go open source, the best model is the Chrome/Chromium model. Keep Chromium as open as you want, but keep Chrome - that is built on it - only for yourself, and only you can control and modify it. If only Android worked the same way...
I believe all Chromebooks even get all the updates from Google, though it remains to be seen if that can be maintained with more than a few devices.
Blame the carriers. That carriers lock their phones, and customize the OS with spam. Google offers them this "free OS" they can't refuse, then they lock their phones, and don't keep up to date with anything. Why would they care, you already bought the phone, they already have your money and you are forced into a 2 year plan. You'd have to be nuts to buy into a mismanaged nightmare like this.
If you're sick of Android usage you should try Android development, that would really make your day. In any case, if you're looking for an open platform try a Symbian or MeeGo. The Nokia N9 is one of the best smartphones ever made and, if you can get it, you will have a real user experience. Also, if you're a mobile developer who is not into BDSM you will be happy to hear that you don't have to write your programs in Java, although if you really want to you probably can.
Symbian and MeeGo are also getting constant OS updates although Nokia's official direction has shifted away to Windows Phone, and will continue like that for several years.
As for Android, Google is treating it like an ugly retarded kid that they don't really want but are forced to take care of.
Depends why you are doing development. Ultimately it is going to be about potential market and profitability. (Yes there are some "hobbyists" doing it for fun but they are not particularly relevant.)
You don't have to write Android apps in Java - that is just the normal way of doing it. You can write them in anything that is executed by native code including C, C++, C# (Mono) and there are many engines available including ones for Adobe Flash, Unity (C#) and even apportable.com which lets you use Objective C as has reimplemented the iOS APIs on Android. Google also have a SL4A that lets you use Python, or you could compile Python yourself.
If you want real pain, try doing Blackberry development, where you had no choice but Java, crappy APIs, overzealous procedures and crummy dev environment.
The hardest part of Android development isn't the code writing but user support - Android Market plays up, various devices you have never heard have quirks/bugs, feature support varies etc.
The N9 is easily worse than every other phone I have used and every phone anyone I know has used. I feel very silly for paying for it. Can you introduce me to someone who shares your opinion of it and does not have one yet?
From the home screen, hitting "Music" -> "Songs" involves about 20 seconds of waiting before you can pick "Shuffle." The ssh app is significantly worse than similar apps for other OSes because it is missing important keys. Putting music on the device took a couple hours because it would repeatedly spend a great deal of time indexing the music before telling me that I did not have any music. The UI is generally less responsive than is tolerable, even when doing extremely simple things like dialing a phone number. I do not enjoy going to the phone app, hitting a few numbers and waiting a few seconds before the phone makes any sound to assure me that it knows I am hitting numbers.
The swipe gesture is really cool until a bunch of apps also want to use swipe within the app. At that point, you get to play the fun game of trying to perform a swipe that is long enough to get the app to acknowledge it without starting at the edge of your screen, because that would cause the OS to switch out of the app.
There is no option to display 24-hour time and YMD other than by setting the locale. My phone now thinks that I am Japanese because I want it to display 24-hour time and YMD, but I do not know any Japanese, so every bit of software that localizes based on my locale is somewhat difficult to read.
It took a couple days to get IMAP IDLE to work, but even once it worked it would often repeatedly attempt to download a huge amount of email, fail midway through, and start again from the beginning rather than keeping whatever portion it had finished.
It is also missing a lot of software that two other OSes have, but I at least knew that would be true before buying it.
You'll be happy to know (or sad, depending on how you look at it) that your N9 is defective. It takes me 5 seconds at most from the home screen until I can hit shuffle, with all the loading, animations and whatnot, I never have the feeling that I am waiting. I also used the included USB cable to transfer my music to the phone, can't say I have experience with the ssh app.
The fact that you hit numbers in the dialing screen and have to wait a few seconds before the phone makes any sound is another strong indicator that your phone is broken and you need to have it replaced under warranty. It is not supposed to be behaving like that.
I have not seen any swipe conflict between the applications and the phone's UI, which is basically because for the built-in gestures you swipe from the edges, whereas for the apps you swipe from inside the window. I don't see how you can get a conflict out of that. Can you give me an example of app that does that? Seem like an app fault, not phone fault.
Somewhat off topic, but I am very disappointed in your "ugly retarded kid" comment; both that you made it in the first place; and that nobody else called you out on it.
Discussion of sexism has been very prominent on HN lately; I strongly suspect if that comment read "it's like the ugly wife that you want to divorce but can't afford to" then you would have got some kind of reaction. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that people with disabilities are worthy of the same kind of consideration and respect as everyone else.
> Perhaps we should remind ourselves that people with disabilities are worthy of the same kind of consideration and respect as everyone else.
Of course, but that was not the point of my post. It's Google who seems to be trying to distance itself from Android but can't, because they're in too deep.
When I first bought the Android phone (HTC Hero) I thought it was amazing. It really had some neat features, and there were things the iPhone couldn't do (like totally change the home screen manager).
But it was never updated. Not once. It took just months to start seeing apps in the Android Market that only worked with newer OS versions.
I'd also discovered battery issues; it was abundantly clear that the carrier, Sprint, had the phone pre-loaded with apps (in the ROM so they could not be removed). Not only did ALL of these stupid things auto-start when the phone was powered on, but they were apparently set up to start themselves every hour or so because even with an app-killer I'd still see this junk back in memory sooner or later.
Say what you will about Apple, but they keep the crap off your phone. Carriers can't put a damn thing on there that you don't want. I've also already received 2 OS updates from Apple, which is 2 more updates than I ever received with Android.
I also realized that even though Apple doesn't let you customize as much, their UI is also not broken the way Android's is. For instance, some of the default HTC Sense UI did really stupid things in my opinion. Sure I was able to "fix" problems by downloading replacement keyboards, etc. but with iOS I don't even feel the need for that because Apple's UI is by default more sensible.