There’s a distinction here between choosing and tinkering.
This is the crux of the argument. That choice is bad, and the people who like Android actually like tinkering, and don't really like customization, and it's just wrong.
I personally use my phone more than any other non-work device, and I love having it personalized to make everything I do often easy to access, and put everything else to the background.
I chose the best phone for me out of the very few real contenders on the market, I chose to replace my OS with Cyanogenmod, chose Nova Launcher, chose my layout and shortcut gestures, and chose my default keyboards as Google's English and Japanese keyboards. I haven't touched any of these for a couple of months, with the exception of replacing a couple of the gestures.
Phone usage differs a ton between individuals, and I'm glad I didn't lock myself into a one-size-fits-all solution.
I know I'll get downvoted to hell for this, but the problem with Android can be explained with the well-documented phenomenon called the Paradox of Choice.
This is a poor application of the principle. You don't have to make this choice repeatedly so the effects are negligible. Sure, it might apply to constant tinkerers but they are a tiny fraction of the actual users.
The rest of us might feel less happy setting it up than if we hadn't been allowed to set it up, because of the mental effort of making a large number of small choices.
But then you get to use a phone for a long long time that is suited to your needs and will be more happy because that small bit of one time unhappiness has increased your happiness during day to day use.
It's why, I assume, I keep hearing about a solution to the paradox of choice in the canonical example, food shopping, that consists of picking your favourites and then just buying those all the time instead of scanning the shelves making a new decision every time.
You don't avoid the paradox of choice problem by allowing other people to arbitrarily pick things for you, that's a pretty ridiculous overreaction to an issue that is concerned with long term repeated making of choices.
You don't have to make any of these choices though. I'm not sure why people keep thinking you have to make any choices, other than perhaps which device has the features you want.
The vast majority of users run most of their stuff stock, and are fine with that, thus they are not affected by the Paradox of choice (remember that the crux of the problem is having to chose, stock is not typically a choice but a non-choice).
I think the important distinction for choice vs tinker is how you find the option to choose. Going in order of preference: optional choice > no choice >>> forced choice. Having no choice is a lot better than being forced to choose, but being able to choose has its advantages.
I personally frame the android thing as "If I don't like it I can change it". I have found that helps even with problems I can't solve, by being able to look at alternatives I actually consider the value of what I am annoyed about, and sometimes decide the downsides are a logical compromise.
> This is the crux of the argument. That choice is bad, and the people who like Android actually like tinkering, and don't really like customization, and it's just wrong.
I think you do qualify as a tinkerer, at least in comparison to most people I know who use phones. You have optimised your phone for your use by making technical choices, and it's probable that if improvements are made in the future, you will consider them and incorporate them into your workflow.
Ten years ago, I used to optimise my Windows and Linux PC for my use. Made everything perfect — the way you describe. From the UI layout, associated tools, extensions. I would set it up and make it perfect, perhaps every year or two I would incorporate improvements or drastically change something. I was definitely a tinkerer, even though I went through long stretches of not touching a "perfect" setup.
Choice with reasonable defaults sounds ideal to me. The suggestion that you HAVE to make all these choices is FUD.
To bring a bit more consumer psychology into the discussion, people love SUVs because they give them the choice to go driving off-road, driving in snow, etc. Those SUV owners aren't then suddenly overwhelmed each morning with the question "Should I commute to work or should I drive to Tahoe?"
Android is a flexible tool that allows you to make choices when you want to make choices.
Extend that concept of choice to things like support for FLAC, mkv and a host of other formats. How is this a bad thing? The absence of these things is limiting, but having the choice is bad?
If choice is bad, why not prune the App Store and remove the multiple calendar apps, or the multiple memory mapping tools, navigation tools, etc - and allow one choice only.
FTA: I think many who extol Android’s flexibility fall into the tinkerer category, including some tech bloggers. [...] That’s fun for them; but they’ve made the mistake of not understanding how their motivation differs from the rest of us.
The problem with usability nuts and Apple nuts is that they fall into the "one perfect solution exists" category. That's fun for them, as they like their uniform devices just fine and get to write whiny blog posts about how all the other phones are Just Wrong. But they've made the mistake of not understanding how their motivation differs from the rest of us who like to have a deeper connection with our tools.
Yawn. Take all the fancy verbiage away and this is just another platform flame. Use what you like. Don't tell me how to use my phone.
As an Apple user, and former Apple engineer I disagree...
I don't think one perfect solution exists, but I also don't think pushing a lot of decisions to the user is a good idea. The fallacy is thinking the goal is to provide a solution for all users. Stake out a position make choices, be the best product for the users that you work for, and let someone else cater to the other users.
I don't personally like Windows Phone, but I think it is a great platform that has a vision and has made an interesting set of choices. It simply does not hit my specific needs.
On the other hand I think Android is a just a confusing mess to use, and I say this as someone who is fairly familiar with its innards and has been hired to write Android firmware code.
> On the other hand I think Android is a just a confusing mess to use, and I say this as someone who is fairly familiar with its innards and has been hired to write Android firmware code.
That's funny, because my grandma uses Android just fine, even though she had never touched a computer in her life before using Android. Being "familiar with its innards" and having written Android firmware doesn't give you very good insight into how average users interact with the device.
There was nothing to "set up", she created a Google account and that was about it. The biggest difficulty she had was learning to type with a QWERTY keyboard, since she had never used a typewriter or computer before. So she instead uses the mazec2 Handwriting Recognition keyboard[0] with a stylus. That's something you definitely could have never done on Apple's locked-down platform.
My mother bought an Anroid phone and it was a disaster. I used to be an idiot loser who pushed all the nerdy ideologically sound products and solutions on friends and family...when I was 16. When I found out that's what she got I bought her an iPhone and it's been smooth sailing ever since.
THe decisions aren't there unless if you seek them. You're not going to be prompted to change your keyboard if you didn't install a new one, for example...
>The problem with usability nuts and Apple nuts is that they fall into the "one perfect solution exists" category.
The problem with pointing out any real or perceived flaw in Android is that you are immediately branded as "apple nut" or "trapped in a walled garden" or " An enemy of open source" or some other nonsense
>That's fun for them, as they like their uniform devices just fine and get to write whiny blog posts about how all the other phones are Just Wrong.
That is funny - all his other blog posts are about how Android is better than iPhone
> Use what you like. Don't tell me how to use my phone.
This goes both ways. Android bloggers/users are no better in this respect.
Good grief. It was sarcasm. I was pointing out that the same prose can be used in the other direction with only minimal changes in the logic. Generally that makes for good evidence that the logic is basically flawed and that the "argument" being presented is just an opinion.
And yes: this blogger surely has much better content in other posts, and surely the same nonsense exists on the other side. But this post was only nonsense in one direction.
You fandroids are just ridiculous. The author is an Android developer who blogs an awful lot about how much better Android is than just about anything else. He criticises one aspect and you lot (usual suspects) come out and ardently defend the fail with the typical snarks and passive-agressiveness. They irony of this is that you project this behaviour onto 'Apple nuts', derogatorily describing the author as such. Seriously. It really needs to stop. There are a lot of things wrong with Android, and the sooner the community talks about them, the greater the chance Android has of becoming what you all want it to be.
>There are a lot of things wrong with Android, and the sooner the community talks about them, the greater the chance Android has of becoming what you all want it to be
That could take a while. Just remember back a few years when Android 1.x was out against the iPhone. Oh how the fandroids were gushing just how awesome their android is compared to the iPhone and when met with the clearly shortcomings of Android, they acted just like the fandroid you replied to.
You know, back then, iPhone has always had a smooth UI. There were no lacks or jitters. Nothing. Can't say the same thing about Android. Oh what a laggy mess that was but cue the fandroid boasting "Mine doesn't lack. It is pretty much smooth". Complete reality distortion. But how would they even know? How would they know what a smooth UI looks like? They wouldn't dare touch an iPhone so they just like to set their user experience with Android as the nonplusultra and it just doesn't get better than this. Who could make a better functioning UI? Certainly not Apple is what they'd say.
Seeing as how long it took Android to finally start with hardware acceleration to help with the UI responsiveness and how that didn't even out all the kinks, it is clear that Android always had disadvantages that other OSs don't have. But far be it from the fandroids to admit to that. That would be weakness.
Not the same. You are comparing a new OS on old hardware. The (rather abrupt) OP was comparing a new OS on new hardware. This is similar to my experience with Android.
To give a historical perspective, there was a similar issue with Unix OS's a while back.
You'd jump from a Linux box to a Solaris box, and things wouldn't work the same way? Simple things, like flags on "ps". Or, more seriously, the "shutdown" command (shudder).
That's only the CLI. Then you get into what Window Manager you're using, what desktop environment, etc.
Did any of this benefit the end user? In the end, most of this all ended up coming back to something that looks somewhat like OS X or Windows. A launcher bar and a menu bar, and maybe some status icons. Frequently ones that looked and worked exactly the same as OS X or Windows.
Fundamentally, all that choice didn't help Unix get market share. It hindered it. People didn't know what to expect, and wanted consistency. The same commands doing the same thing for the rest of eternity.
Incidentally, this also explains the Windows 8 backlash. I'm pretty sure that most non-technical people would prefer a innards-updated, security-fixed version of 8 that looks and works identically to XP.
In short, the problem is not choice, it's lack of consistency.
I think Linux stood a real chance with the introduction of Ubuntu a long time ago. Graphical package management was enormous, coupled with Gnome and a very simple installation. But stagnation came very quickly. That distribution is 10 years old and all the changes to it only added more fluff, more bulk, annoying notifications, uglier windows, sprites and mini icons all over the place.
It looks the exact same except worse. I'm sure that some improvements have been made behind all the fluff. But they're ones you can't see and I'm having trouble thinking back remembering any problems earlier.
The problem wasn't lack of consistency or choice. It was like going from Windows 7 to Windows 8. Now I can only see myself using Linux as a stepping stone or rescue procedure for failed machines. I think we might be off topic though as hardware and software are very different things.
This article is about hardware, badly titled though it is.
> I think Linux stood a real chance with the introduction of Ubuntu a long time ago. Graphical package management was enormous, coupled with Gnome and a very simple installation.
From that perspective Ubuntu didn't add much to Debian, or existing variants like Knoppix.
> The problem wasn't lack of consistency or choice. It was like going from Windows 7 to Windows 8. Now I can only see myself using Linux as a stepping stone or rescue procedure for failed machines.
I don't follow. You thought Ubuntu was OK, and among one of the good things was consistency and opinionated UI -- and you think that's still there -- but you don't like it because of the theming?
There is obviously a market for a phone with minimal choice, and it's filled nicely by Apple. I tend to agree that Android can be overwhelming, especially to new users, given the overwhelming number of choices, both critical and trivial.
In my opinion though, the solution is not less choice, but better and stronger defaults. There's no reason why android phones couldn't be as simple as iphones out of the box, but have more options for configuration for users who wish to dig deeper. Instead, at the moment we generally have phones full of bloatware, where many of the defaults seem designed to sell products and services of questionable value, rather than to aid the user.
The example of default application bindings in the article is a good one. That system is indeed terrible currently, but there's no reason it needs to be. At a minimum it should be possible to edit the bindings of any installed application, rather than simply clearing them all. (Right now it almost seems like the designers were trying to follow this philosophy of minimizing choice, but ended up with a hybrid that is both more overwhelming and less customizable than it could be.) There is also no reason why users necessarily have to be interrupted by the choice of app to perform a given action. Instead, an app could be chosen based on some predefined hierarchy, such as first installed. Then let the user override that choice if desired. (For example, by pressing the menu button within X seconds of one app launching another, then choosing the appropriate option.) You get the same benefit without overwhelming less knowledgeable users with choice. (And yes, some users might never realize that there was a choice at all, but that's a fair sight better than there indeed not being one.)
think many who extol Android’s flexibility fall into the tinkerer category, including some tech bloggers. They love all the ways they can customize their phones, not because they’re seeking some perfect setup, but because they can swap in a new launcher every week. That’s fun for them; but they’ve made the mistake of not understanding how their motivation differs from the rest of us.
Everytime I hear this argument, I can only think that these people have developed a bad taste of Android and haven't used a stock experience for enough time. You don't need to tinker anything. The stock Android experience is a good experience* by itself... but the option to tinker is there if you want it. If Apple made a car, the option to tinker wouldn't exist.
That's the big issue though; most people who like to write about how Android isn't good for some rather stupid reason probably haven't really given enough thought to ... anything.
What confuses me most is that it looks like most of the author's income comes from an Android SMS replacement application.
You should also revise "These phones represent a fraction of the overall android market" to "These phones represent the majority of the overall android market."
If you're building a knock-off phone in a Chinese sweatshop, are you going to hire a team of engineers to spend man-decades developing an OS, or are you going to use the FREE one?
Yeah, that's why the whole Android "market share" charade is a bunch of bullshit.
"Samsung shipped a record 213 million smartphones, due in large part to its new Galaxy S2 and S3 models.
Apple shipped a reported (estimated) 135.8 million smartphones — iPhone5 and iPhone4 models."
The S2 and S3 are hardly "knock-off phones".
That there aren't any low-end iphone, and the fact that you can use most apps on low end Android phones as well as on high end ones, just makes Android that more attractive in my opinion.
My previous phone was a Samsung S1 (unfortunately they were a bit rushed, and had crappy GPS -- even if everything else was great). My current phone is a Galaxy Note II -- and I also have a cheap, spare HTC Explorer phone that I can use for prototyping ideas with a physical device (anything that needs GPS/Accelerometer/Screen/Camera+software). And it could be used for deploying pretty much anything in a very cheap and straightforward package (even has usb, wifi and bluetooth for linking with other systems...).
There's a problem with Android/Linux? Starting from a false premise
doesn't make for a good argument...
Assuming all Android devices would, could or should have the same
interface is like wishing all BSD-derived system were the same. Clearly
there's room for NetBSD, FreeBSD, DragonflyBSD as well as OS X and a
multitude of embedded systems?
If there weren't any differences between an LG phone and a Samsung phone
or a HTC product -- how would they compete? There is no Android
without (some) fragmentation.
Does this complexity cost (money, effort, q&a and developer time
etc...)? Certainly.
But to me the price is well worth it with the likes of the Cyanogen
project -- that allows all kinds of freedoms. For me personally it's
good -- but if I were in charge of developing some kind of system (say
handing out internal devices at a company) -- it's be much more
valuable. I'd be in control of upgrades and features. I could maybe
patch some minor issues myself. I could hold off on unimportand updates,
and rush those that affected my users. I can't see how you could both have
this, and at the same time avoid having a somewhat heterogeneous system.
I know Amazon agrees (look at the latest kindle tablet).
The problem with the argument is that it conflates choice with consistency. What every mobile vendor including Apple is principally attempting to do is to create a feature which a user will miss if they switch away, and for a lot of people Android wins because choice is a feature you'll lose or restrict on iOS.
I agree that a lot of time has been wasted by Android vendors on differentiation for differentiations sake. It's easier to superficially fuck with the UI than actually create a useful features.
These days I don't think many people are arguing that the iOS UI is significantly better than stock Android, Android has closed the gap or jumped beyond iOS depending on your personal preferences (Hotelling's law). Then consider how many people won't even consider iPhones because the screen size is too small (loss aversion).
It's not a bad thing that Verizon offers a slew of different Android phones and tablets with different features and price points. Choice is good. Choice is driving competition to create the best hardware to run android. Crappy hardware will fail, and good hardware will thrive.
For the context of this article I think there's a distinction to be made when it comes to choice and flexibility. Sure, when you go to buy an Android you're forced to choose. But when it comes to using an Android device a lot of decisions are made by default you just have the option/flexibility to change the behavior (ie there's a default keyboard but you can swap it out if you'd like). Ultimately I think the flexibility is a good thing, day to day with my Android tablet I don't feel bombarded with choices yet if there's something I don't like about it I'm more likely to be able to fix it then with iOS.
1. when i pick a launcher, i like to have 10,figuratively speaking, to choose from, not 1. i'll probably be using it for a long time..
2. i like the feeling. that if i ever need to change something, i probably can. its just a search away.
3. i like it that i can change things beyond even what the article was talking about if i wanted. e.g. say the if the silk browser was reviewed to be much faster than webkit/chrome/ff and i wanted to try it out on my lg phone..i can try...
4. 'choice' may even open up new functionality perhaps? does ios have llama/automateit/tasker equivalents?
Another issue with this article is it ignores a fundamental human trait that can be demonstrated through a number of consumer industries - people like choice.
While setting defaults in stone and never changing them might work if some people like your choices, being flexible has always been the greater path to success.
Witness the car industry, fashion industry, PC industry, etc... For better or worse, we like having alot of choices available.
What happens when the user downloads a PDF? Where does an app go after it is installed by the user?
These choices have to be answered one way or the other. The author of the article suggests that the company is better left answering these choices on behalf of the user.
Why would the company be better qualified to answer these choices over their users? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
there is also the choice in android to say no. I use a pretty stripped down android, only have one app for basically any given tasks. My intents screen never comes up with more than two choices for a task... It is possible to live a very full life on android without being drowned in options.
This is the crux of the argument. That choice is bad, and the people who like Android actually like tinkering, and don't really like customization, and it's just wrong.
I personally use my phone more than any other non-work device, and I love having it personalized to make everything I do often easy to access, and put everything else to the background.
I chose the best phone for me out of the very few real contenders on the market, I chose to replace my OS with Cyanogenmod, chose Nova Launcher, chose my layout and shortcut gestures, and chose my default keyboards as Google's English and Japanese keyboards. I haven't touched any of these for a couple of months, with the exception of replacing a couple of the gestures.
Phone usage differs a ton between individuals, and I'm glad I didn't lock myself into a one-size-fits-all solution.