SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the avoided-Betteridge's-Law-of-Headlines dept.
I've been an Android user since Froyo, over several devices. I'm beginning to think that there must be a better way.
First, although I liked Android, especially the part that was Open Source, I'll suggest that the whole Android ecosystem represents a dead end.
At a minimum, it seems like madness to rely on two or more layers of outside partners to deliver software patches and updates. It's just not reasonable or safe for end users to wait for months or years until device makers and wireless carriers deliver patches from Google - if they ever do.
That there's no way a user can update their system without their cooperation is just not acceptable today.
Second, even if an update or patch does arrive, it brings with it the likelihood that some feature or application that you have been using will be hobbled, eliminated, or just plain be made unusable by Google. Services provided by Google are subject to changes that, depending on your circumstances, make them significantly less usable. (Gmail being a prime example) Standalone apps like Reader or MyTracks may just stop working one day if Google loses interest.
Finally, there's the Play store, and the millions of apps available to users. I think that most people would agree that trying to find a usable app for a specific purpose is an exercise in frustration.
[Continues...]
The current system pretty much requires you to guess on a search term to find an app, then wade through dozens or hundreds of possible results.
App ratings are filled with obvious astroturf, or one word disses - neither of these help you tell if an app actually works. Without someone actually moderating the ratings system it is pretty much of no value.
There's no practical way to tell if an app is a finished product, or an abandoned half-baked pastime. Our only option, even with paid apps, is to install it and find out if it works.
There is speculation that Google may be preparing to abandon Android, but will a new Google OS really be any better for end users?
The problem is that Android has more or less become the only game in town, so what alternative will we see emerge?
Obvious notes:
a) Cyanogenmod - been there, done that. Not a realistic option for the vast majority of end users. And honestly, I just don't have the time and inclination to root and install it these days.
b) iPhone - actually owned a Powerbook for three years as my primary machine. Gave it my best go, but just don't like the way Apple machines do things. YMMV.
c) BlackBerry - actually really loved the BlackBerry, except that it REALLY didn't play well with Google contacts, and they refuse to support either Linux, or individual end users.
c) Linux - yup. Guess I'm spoiled. Stuff generally doesn't break, and if I need a specific tool or function — someone, somewhere has almost always created it.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday September 12 2016, @04:41PM
As far as I can tell, Google released Android so the mobile world wasn't locked to a control-freak company that would be guaranteed to implement a non-open experience as soon as they had a big enough market share.
Is the control freak company you speak of Microsoft? At the time Android was in development, Apple unveiled iOS. Google saw the icon touch interface and scrambled to copy it. Prior to that, Android looked much different. Google wasn't concerned with Microsoft as Microsoft wasn't in the game. They were making bulky hand held organizers with a stylus. The modern UI of tablets and phones came from Apple.
Sure you can. But just how useful do people find it? Face it, without all of google's services, Android is not very useful as a mobile OS. People have tried to create alternative ecosystems but the majority followed the ad revenue streams. The rest is history.
I have never heard this rumor. Chrome OS was another attempt of google to throw money until something sticks. It was more of an experiment to see just how useful a pure web platform really is. Again, nothing to do with Microsoft.
This was about the Microsoft store. The original rumors were that Microsoft was going to move to a store like system for *all* application distribution. This sent off alarms as companies like Google and Valvle were nervous about more anti-competitive behaviour. But it turned out the store is optional. Steam and Chrome can be installed without a store or MS account.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday September 12 2016, @06:04PM
Probably Apple, who historically was more control-freaky than Microsoft: Steve Jobs' vision involved Apple-made applications running on an Apple-made OS running on Apple-made hardware, communicating to other Apple-made applications running on an Apple-made OS running on Apple-made hardware using an Apple-made network protocol.
They've relented on the network protocol, mostly. They've kinda relented on the applications, so long as they get a cut from the application developer. They've only sorta relented on the OS with their switch to a BSD-based system. But their vision has always been Apple controls everything.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:32PM
What Google service do you think is so essential? The only one I ever use on my phone (Galaxy S5) is the Play store (unless you count YouTube, but half the time I just open YouTube in the browser anyway.) And even though I've never used them I'm aware of at least three alternatives to the Play store just off the top of my head. Tons of devices ship without it included at all.