Well a recent announcement from T-Mobile said that the Cliq XT would not be getting an upgrade to 2.1. What I've learned is that the majority of the first generation Android phones weren't very future proof. However, if a lone developer can make Froyo work for the Behold II, why can't an elite team of developers do it for the Cliq XT?
I've always wondered why Google doesn't just accept help from CyanogenMod and his team of developers. The way I see it, Cyanogen is ahead of Google in development. While I suppose you could say that Google merely lays the framework for anyone else to fork off of, their attempt to pretty up Android with Gingerbread and Honeycomb says else wise. Hell, if you're having that much problem putting user interface polish on your operating system Google, then contact the developers of MIUI or some of the people that work on themes for Android ROMs.
I like what Google has done with Android so far (being that I started with version 1.5) and I'm really excited about some of the changes that they have made for Gingerbread and Honeycomb. That said, I think it seems like the Android team is a bit stretched thin. Unless there is a separate development team for the Google apps and Android itself, they're running into difficulties. Case in point is Gingerbread for the Nexus S. While it is relatively stable, there have been some hideous bugs like the SMS bug and the random reboot bug.
Google should have taken their time with Gingerbread instead of attempting to meet some arbitrary deadline. Had they have given Gingerbread a few more months we could have seen more phones get ready for it and older phones given the time to get to Froyo. The Nexus S might have been released with the dual core Orion chip set rather than the tried and true Hummingbird.
The word on the street is that Honeycomb is going to be for tablets and separate from the phone development. Then, after some time when cell phones are on par with the power of the tablets, the two lines will merge. Seems like a bad deal if you ask me. We already have rampant fragmentation. While fragmentation is beginning to wind down with almost every phone being released now with Froyo, there's still a long way to go.
With the speed that CyanogenMod is working on version 7 of their OS, you'd figure that Google would recruit them. They certainly have the additional resources to spare as Eric Schmidt went on to say that Google would make a billion dollars in advertising revenue this year from Android alone. I think with a dedicated team like CyanogenMod, Google could speed up development, identify and patch bugs more quickly, and add new unique features to Android to please the general public. It's not too much to ask is it?
Showing posts with label Android. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Android. Show all posts
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
The hardware of Android
I was reading a post by one of the lead developers for Honeycomb, the version of Android specifically tailored for tablets. He mentioned a some good points, none which this is about, but I found myself down in the comments section as I am want to do. It was here that someone mentioned the fact hardware manufacturers are moving too slow (in contrast to the belief many have which Google is moving to quick) and I agree. It wasn't until the Nexus One that manufacturers stepped up their game on hardware. Hell, if it wasn't for Android and the iPhone, I doubt we would be at the technological advance we are in mobile devices, dual core phones coming and all.
Anyway, someone mentioned that the manufacturers are practically going bankrupt on manufacturing these Android phones. For one, I think this is patently false. An independent website that analyzes the cost of hardware estimated that the cost of my Nexus One would be around $275 (at the time of its release, obviously a lot cheaper now) when the phone costed $530 off contract which is typical of high end cell phones. Subsidized prices I don't take into account because the difference is paid into by the carrier.
From here the post mentioned the fact some of the limitations of the Galaxy Tab compared to the iPad and the fact Samsung could only get the price down by $30. There's seems to be a big fallacy here. Couldn't the real truth be more likely Samsung is just attempting to maximize profits as much as possible? The reality of the situation is the Tab's main cost is the Super AMOLED screen which hasn't reduced itself in price enough to be totally affordable or even profitable. Obviously if you look around you don't see TVs with the technology or even laptops with it. The cost is simply too much right now.
However, even if the screen is the most costly thing about the tablet, it doesn't account for the fact the rest of it is rather cheap. Next in line would be the System-on-Chip with the processor, but after that, the majority of the hardware is cheap things like cameras. One must also remember there really is only one Galaxy Tab while there are several variations of the iPad which can go as high as $830, more than the cost of my laptop.
To think the hardware manufacturers are going bankrupt or barely recouping costs is just plain silly. They wouldn't sell their products at a loss now would they? (Obviously new tech like the Playstation 3 sold at a loss for a time, but Sony had the ridiculous capital to take the risk) What kind of capitalist business sense would that make? No, the only reason the hardware manufacturers are behind the times is because they are greedy.
We've had 1 GHz chips since late 2009, but they're not in every cell phone running Android right now. Why? Surely the cost must have came down since then. One has to consider the fact shoving an old 528 MHz 2005 processor into a 2011 phone must not cost a great deal. Then, consider the mark up when sold to the carriers for subsidization or consumers buying unlocked. The carrier recoups their cost on your contract. You're stuck in a 2-year contract with a low end phone while the manufacturer churns out new phones every three months.
Look, there's nothing wrong with making a profit. It's largely what America is based on. However, we're not talking about me only making $5 profit off a deal, but companies making millions and sometimes billions of dollars of profit. These companies are not hurting and I find it extremely disingenuous when manufacturers and carriers keep bringing out low-end tech which should have passed on a long time ago or high end tech with outdated software. So yeah, manufacturers aren't bringing out tech fast enough to keep up with Android because they keep recycling the same old tech. Of course, then you get the carriers wanting outdated versions of Android on their phones which is why you can see how disastrously out of whack Android is becoming.
This is why I stick with the Nexus phones. Google wanted to change the American way of purchasing phones in favor of the European way, but unfortunately, America is just too stupid right now. Maybe someday we'll figure it out the carriers are pitting us against the manufacturers and roadblocking us from purchasing whatever phone we want. In the meantime, I'll enjoy my timely updates of Android.
Anyway, someone mentioned that the manufacturers are practically going bankrupt on manufacturing these Android phones. For one, I think this is patently false. An independent website that analyzes the cost of hardware estimated that the cost of my Nexus One would be around $275 (at the time of its release, obviously a lot cheaper now) when the phone costed $530 off contract which is typical of high end cell phones. Subsidized prices I don't take into account because the difference is paid into by the carrier.
From here the post mentioned the fact some of the limitations of the Galaxy Tab compared to the iPad and the fact Samsung could only get the price down by $30. There's seems to be a big fallacy here. Couldn't the real truth be more likely Samsung is just attempting to maximize profits as much as possible? The reality of the situation is the Tab's main cost is the Super AMOLED screen which hasn't reduced itself in price enough to be totally affordable or even profitable. Obviously if you look around you don't see TVs with the technology or even laptops with it. The cost is simply too much right now.
However, even if the screen is the most costly thing about the tablet, it doesn't account for the fact the rest of it is rather cheap. Next in line would be the System-on-Chip with the processor, but after that, the majority of the hardware is cheap things like cameras. One must also remember there really is only one Galaxy Tab while there are several variations of the iPad which can go as high as $830, more than the cost of my laptop.
To think the hardware manufacturers are going bankrupt or barely recouping costs is just plain silly. They wouldn't sell their products at a loss now would they? (Obviously new tech like the Playstation 3 sold at a loss for a time, but Sony had the ridiculous capital to take the risk) What kind of capitalist business sense would that make? No, the only reason the hardware manufacturers are behind the times is because they are greedy.
We've had 1 GHz chips since late 2009, but they're not in every cell phone running Android right now. Why? Surely the cost must have came down since then. One has to consider the fact shoving an old 528 MHz 2005 processor into a 2011 phone must not cost a great deal. Then, consider the mark up when sold to the carriers for subsidization or consumers buying unlocked. The carrier recoups their cost on your contract. You're stuck in a 2-year contract with a low end phone while the manufacturer churns out new phones every three months.
Look, there's nothing wrong with making a profit. It's largely what America is based on. However, we're not talking about me only making $5 profit off a deal, but companies making millions and sometimes billions of dollars of profit. These companies are not hurting and I find it extremely disingenuous when manufacturers and carriers keep bringing out low-end tech which should have passed on a long time ago or high end tech with outdated software. So yeah, manufacturers aren't bringing out tech fast enough to keep up with Android because they keep recycling the same old tech. Of course, then you get the carriers wanting outdated versions of Android on their phones which is why you can see how disastrously out of whack Android is becoming.
This is why I stick with the Nexus phones. Google wanted to change the American way of purchasing phones in favor of the European way, but unfortunately, America is just too stupid right now. Maybe someday we'll figure it out the carriers are pitting us against the manufacturers and roadblocking us from purchasing whatever phone we want. In the meantime, I'll enjoy my timely updates of Android.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The sad realization of Android and handsets...
Samsung's piss poor support aside, I'm still getting the Nexus S next month. I'll be replacing my trusty Nexus One. It was at this point that I really began to think about why I was replacing it.
The Nexus One was a major technological leap for Android. It was the first one with a 1 GHz processor, Android 2.1, a new method of purchasing, and one of the phones (the Motorola Droid being the other one) that I believe started the Android revolution.
I then thought about the shortcomings of the Nexus One. Probably the biggest was the touch screen sensor. The Clearpad 2000 was terrible and it shows since the two finger rotation in Google maps 5 is disabled. The GPU is also pretty weak and the phone's got a pretty limited storage (though I've never had much of an issue with this).
I next thought about the Nexus S. It has a better touch screen sensor, GPU, a front facing camera, the NFC chip, super AMOLED display, and a unique design. Clearly, this phone would be worthy of long time ownership.
However, what bothers me now is all of the new phones coming out. No, I'm not having second thoughts about what to get. If I really wanted to, I could just spend the money on another phone and alternate. I realized that Android and the phones have became like PCs. While I have echoed this for some time that Android and smartphones would be like portable computers, I now see the downside.
There is a lot of growing concern with enthusiasts of Android about the fragmentation. There's really no problem on Google's end. They continue to produce the OS and new versions arrive quite quick. Almost too quick. No it seems that the carriers and manufacturers have entered in to the game of PCs.
PCs have always had one terrible stigma as long as I have used them and that's a new computer will be out in less than 3 months that is far better than the one you bought. We're still seeing some major leaps in computers, but we've hit the point where a decently priced unit with good specs will last you several years without the necessity to replace it. However, we're now stuck in the 90's with smartphones.
New smartphones are hitting the market everyday with better and better specs. However, there's a problem with this. The market is growing, but not nearly as fast as the PC market was. Adoption to PCs was quick and widespread because they were useful to the entire family or businesses or just a regular Joe. The cost of ownership was what you paid upfront. The choice to upgrade components or the operating system wasn't a necessity.
The problem with this rapid influx of new smartphones is the adoption rate of them is dramatically slower than with PCs. There are really only around 250 million smartphones worldwide roughly compared to the billions of computers (some households such as mine own multiple computers). The cost of ownership is much higher. One typically must enter into a contract with a cell phone carrier which will give them a subsidized cost on the phone varying anywhere from free to $200. These contracts (particularly in the US) usually have to keep a data plan on them costing around $30 generally. Contracts are signed the majority of the time for 2 years. Even if you obtain the lowest basic plan for talking and a $30 dollar data plan (you can sometimes get $15 plans, but the amount of data is so small it renders the main portion of the phone useless if you ask me), costing on average around $70 a month with the hottest, newest phone at $200, you're looking at around $1900. You could buy almost 4 to 5 decent PCs for that amount.
Since the customer is locked in the contract and can usually only upgrade 2 months before it ends, choosing a smartphone is almost like purchasing regret. Newer phones are being brought out monthly that make your purchase look inferior. The only choice at that point is to purchase a phone unsubsidized which usually runs $400 to $500 for a high end Android phone.
Do I think I'll feel regret after purchasing my Nexus S? Not likely. I still own the same laptop that I bought two years ago because it's still powerful. It may not run with the new big dogs out there, but it gets the job done for me. Likewise with the upgrade from Nexus One to Nexus S, I'm going to a much higher end phone in terms of graphical power, efficiency, and features.
Still, the manufacturers are over-saturating the market right now and the game is rigged. Manufacturers make all of their money on the initial purchase of the phone where the carriers rake in all the future dollars. With the carriers wanting to strip Android of specific features so that consumers must purchase their services and manufacturers having no urge to upgrade phones when you can purchase a new one, the consumer is getting screwed. All capable phones should be on 2.3.2, the latest version of Android, but these two knuckleheads are preventing it from happening to bend the customers over the rails. This is the sad state of Android and its openness. Open for manufacturers and carriers so that they can close the door for consumers.
The Nexus One was a major technological leap for Android. It was the first one with a 1 GHz processor, Android 2.1, a new method of purchasing, and one of the phones (the Motorola Droid being the other one) that I believe started the Android revolution.
I then thought about the shortcomings of the Nexus One. Probably the biggest was the touch screen sensor. The Clearpad 2000 was terrible and it shows since the two finger rotation in Google maps 5 is disabled. The GPU is also pretty weak and the phone's got a pretty limited storage (though I've never had much of an issue with this).
I next thought about the Nexus S. It has a better touch screen sensor, GPU, a front facing camera, the NFC chip, super AMOLED display, and a unique design. Clearly, this phone would be worthy of long time ownership.
However, what bothers me now is all of the new phones coming out. No, I'm not having second thoughts about what to get. If I really wanted to, I could just spend the money on another phone and alternate. I realized that Android and the phones have became like PCs. While I have echoed this for some time that Android and smartphones would be like portable computers, I now see the downside.
There is a lot of growing concern with enthusiasts of Android about the fragmentation. There's really no problem on Google's end. They continue to produce the OS and new versions arrive quite quick. Almost too quick. No it seems that the carriers and manufacturers have entered in to the game of PCs.
PCs have always had one terrible stigma as long as I have used them and that's a new computer will be out in less than 3 months that is far better than the one you bought. We're still seeing some major leaps in computers, but we've hit the point where a decently priced unit with good specs will last you several years without the necessity to replace it. However, we're now stuck in the 90's with smartphones.
New smartphones are hitting the market everyday with better and better specs. However, there's a problem with this. The market is growing, but not nearly as fast as the PC market was. Adoption to PCs was quick and widespread because they were useful to the entire family or businesses or just a regular Joe. The cost of ownership was what you paid upfront. The choice to upgrade components or the operating system wasn't a necessity.
The problem with this rapid influx of new smartphones is the adoption rate of them is dramatically slower than with PCs. There are really only around 250 million smartphones worldwide roughly compared to the billions of computers (some households such as mine own multiple computers). The cost of ownership is much higher. One typically must enter into a contract with a cell phone carrier which will give them a subsidized cost on the phone varying anywhere from free to $200. These contracts (particularly in the US) usually have to keep a data plan on them costing around $30 generally. Contracts are signed the majority of the time for 2 years. Even if you obtain the lowest basic plan for talking and a $30 dollar data plan (you can sometimes get $15 plans, but the amount of data is so small it renders the main portion of the phone useless if you ask me), costing on average around $70 a month with the hottest, newest phone at $200, you're looking at around $1900. You could buy almost 4 to 5 decent PCs for that amount.
Since the customer is locked in the contract and can usually only upgrade 2 months before it ends, choosing a smartphone is almost like purchasing regret. Newer phones are being brought out monthly that make your purchase look inferior. The only choice at that point is to purchase a phone unsubsidized which usually runs $400 to $500 for a high end Android phone.
Do I think I'll feel regret after purchasing my Nexus S? Not likely. I still own the same laptop that I bought two years ago because it's still powerful. It may not run with the new big dogs out there, but it gets the job done for me. Likewise with the upgrade from Nexus One to Nexus S, I'm going to a much higher end phone in terms of graphical power, efficiency, and features.
Still, the manufacturers are over-saturating the market right now and the game is rigged. Manufacturers make all of their money on the initial purchase of the phone where the carriers rake in all the future dollars. With the carriers wanting to strip Android of specific features so that consumers must purchase their services and manufacturers having no urge to upgrade phones when you can purchase a new one, the consumer is getting screwed. All capable phones should be on 2.3.2, the latest version of Android, but these two knuckleheads are preventing it from happening to bend the customers over the rails. This is the sad state of Android and its openness. Open for manufacturers and carriers so that they can close the door for consumers.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Samsung fails again, Android is spiraling, and other silliness
Well, Samsung did it again. I could have seen it coming a mile away. My first Android phone was a Behold II. At the time, rooting (or jailbreaking for the iPhone crowd) was unknown to me and the source code for the phone wasn't released (it would be released till almost a year after I ditched it) so there wasn't any reason to root. I almost gave up on Android early on just because of how bad this phone was.
Instead of giving up on Android, nearly two months after purchasing the Behold II, I opted to buy the Nexus One. My faith in Android, renewed from the overall performance of the phone and the timely updates of Google, brought me back in full force. I vowed to never purchase another Samsung device afterwards.
Samsung, however, came back with the Galaxy S series. It was a leap up in many technological areas that other phones couldn't touch. The phone was released internationally before it hit the USA. When it did hit the USA, Samsung and the carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile) did something unique which was to release the phone in many different incarnations depending on the carrier.
Coming out with Android 2.1 first and promising to upgrade to 2.2 shortly after it was released, I already knew what would happen. See the Behold II was released with version 1.5 and publicly promised an upgrade to 2.X. After months of dodging the question when we would see the update, Samsung announced that the phone could not go to 2.X and that 1.6 would be the only upgrade in order to avoid a potential lawsuit. This of course, turned out to be a bold faced lie as a hacker had managed to put a mostly function version of 2.2.1 on the Behold II after the source code was released.
Now we sit at the same crossroad again. Samsung has managed to upgrade the international version to 2.2, but none of the ones in the USA have it. Then, T-Mobile announces the Vibrant Plus (a upgraded version of the original Vibrant, T-Mobile's version of the Galaxy S with HSPA+, front facing camera) that ships with 2.2. The public was not happy. If the Vibrant Plus has 2.2, why doesn't the original have it if it's ready?
And now we see the disaster unfolding. Android is fragmenting rapidly. The only reason we don't see timely releases for the upgrades across all the carriers and manufacturers is greed. The carriers want certain features stripped from the releases like tethering to charge more to the customer. The manufacturers want to push new phones rather than updating old ones. Because the carriers have to strip out features, they keep sending the updates back to the manufacturers who then must make sure that the modifications don't interact with their user interface.
Google needs to step in. There's a time for neutrality and there's a time to take a stand. Google risks losing its rapidly developing user base because of the carriers and manufacturers. They need to be proactive and establish some guidelines for their clients in order to fix the fragmentation. Obviously since Android is open source they can't simply tell them no to that, but they could prevent carriers from using their closed source apps like the market or maps. Either way, Google needs to get all current cell phones on even footing this year or Android risks turning into Linux: a massive jumble of ROMs in which the consumer can't tell what is what and the OS loses any potential mainstream appeal.
The worst part: I intend to buy the Nexus S, but only because Google is behind the updates.
Instead of giving up on Android, nearly two months after purchasing the Behold II, I opted to buy the Nexus One. My faith in Android, renewed from the overall performance of the phone and the timely updates of Google, brought me back in full force. I vowed to never purchase another Samsung device afterwards.
Samsung, however, came back with the Galaxy S series. It was a leap up in many technological areas that other phones couldn't touch. The phone was released internationally before it hit the USA. When it did hit the USA, Samsung and the carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile) did something unique which was to release the phone in many different incarnations depending on the carrier.
Coming out with Android 2.1 first and promising to upgrade to 2.2 shortly after it was released, I already knew what would happen. See the Behold II was released with version 1.5 and publicly promised an upgrade to 2.X. After months of dodging the question when we would see the update, Samsung announced that the phone could not go to 2.X and that 1.6 would be the only upgrade in order to avoid a potential lawsuit. This of course, turned out to be a bold faced lie as a hacker had managed to put a mostly function version of 2.2.1 on the Behold II after the source code was released.
Now we sit at the same crossroad again. Samsung has managed to upgrade the international version to 2.2, but none of the ones in the USA have it. Then, T-Mobile announces the Vibrant Plus (a upgraded version of the original Vibrant, T-Mobile's version of the Galaxy S with HSPA+, front facing camera) that ships with 2.2. The public was not happy. If the Vibrant Plus has 2.2, why doesn't the original have it if it's ready?
And now we see the disaster unfolding. Android is fragmenting rapidly. The only reason we don't see timely releases for the upgrades across all the carriers and manufacturers is greed. The carriers want certain features stripped from the releases like tethering to charge more to the customer. The manufacturers want to push new phones rather than updating old ones. Because the carriers have to strip out features, they keep sending the updates back to the manufacturers who then must make sure that the modifications don't interact with their user interface.
Google needs to step in. There's a time for neutrality and there's a time to take a stand. Google risks losing its rapidly developing user base because of the carriers and manufacturers. They need to be proactive and establish some guidelines for their clients in order to fix the fragmentation. Obviously since Android is open source they can't simply tell them no to that, but they could prevent carriers from using their closed source apps like the market or maps. Either way, Google needs to get all current cell phones on even footing this year or Android risks turning into Linux: a massive jumble of ROMs in which the consumer can't tell what is what and the OS loses any potential mainstream appeal.
The worst part: I intend to buy the Nexus S, but only because Google is behind the updates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)