Related
I don't program since very, very long. But I've a half-done Visual Basic Project to support racing sailors during startups and races. It was supposed to be a low cost software (professional softwares cost a fortune both because of the complexity and because of the very restricted market), only based on the GPS signal available on a boat. Several year after, any mobile smartphone has an embeded GPS and the responsiveness is quite improved.
Being a detailed analysit for this project will require basic knowledge of sailing and trigonometry, but all in all development (and testing!) should be fun. I do think there is quite some opportunity for producing an application that could be sold in the range of 15-30$ per copy, via the Android market. I suppose there is quite some coincidence between owners of high cost smartphones and sailors (supposed to be a high cost sport: nobody considers that at times to have a boat you have to renounce to a car ).
Anyone interested in collaborating? I'd be the specs provider (to the level of pseudocode) and tester of the software. I'll be happy with 0% of revenue and work for free, if an analysis and a developper join.
Hello,
Im currently writing an academic paper on android and openness in my master's programme. If all goes well, it will be submitted for a conference soon.
I'm looking for your opinions on having an android device open for operating system level modifications or not. As you may know, some phones have a signed bootloader such as the Motorola Milestone, t-mobile g2 (who made the phone reinstall stock OS when breached), and probably many others. Google however, make their devices open, even though they are sold as consumer devices. Many others do not bother to install circumvention mechanics.
Obviously, the people here will be biased towards allowing modification to the OS, therefore, i would like to get a discussion going, to discern what problems and possibilities you see in the long run for hardware manufacturers.
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
I would really appericiate your opinions and discussion!
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
As a beginner app developer, this has yet to bother me. I do enjoy being able to add apps that add functionality to my phone but I haven't bothered to get down into the "root" area. So no I do not check nor does it impact my decision...I own a Samsung fascinate by the way
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
My opinion on measures to prevent changes is all about PR and performance. If enough people hacked a phone and the hack caused the phone to work below is ability then the only news report you will see is the phone sucks.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
This is also a give and take if question 2 is not of a concern to them, then its def a gain for the company and to all of the developers out there that do search for the best phone and nick pick around until they find it.
Are there enough of those kind of people out there to affect a companies buttom line. Maybe not yet but in another couple of years who knows.
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
It hasnt yet been a deciding factor on which device to get, primarily because sooner or later they all get cracked open.
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
One reason could be that the carriers demand it as a way to keep any revenue that they get from the preinstalled bloatware.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
The percentage of people that actually tinker in this area is very slim, so the manufacturers most likely don't see that as a big market opportunity.
Don't have any answers, but would like to read your paper when done...sounds interesting and a Masters Thesis is always fun to read! LOL
It's not a thesis, just a short article. I might make a survey for it but I need to ask the right questions.
Not all devices get fully customized, root is common, but in my phone for example it is not possible to load a custom kernel, as the bootloader checks for signed code (Motorola's secret key). There's been a massive uproar from the owners of the Milestone, as people didn't expect to be hustled like that when getting an android phone. The main problem is of course, that Motorola takes a long time to release updates. Even as of today, Froyo has still not been released for my phone by Motorola.
While I am not sure about it, I suspect Sony Ericsson X10i owners are in the same boat, and they will get a really rotten deal, seeing as 2.1 has been officially declared the last version the device will recieve. Yet, an enthusiast could release a perfectly fine version of 2.3 if the phone accepted custom firmware and he had access to drivers etc.
So basically, you buy a piece of hardware that is very capable, but The Company decides for you which software you could run.
Imagine if you bought a Windows Vista PC right before Windows 7 was released, and the only way you could get Windows 7 on it was if that particular PC manufacturer released an official update containing all it's bloatware and applications you don't want. Since the update needs to go through all kinds of verifications and approvals, it might be delayed for a half a year, or maybe 9 months, after the new OS release. Why do we accept this on our phones and tablets?
Hi,
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your desicion?
For me personally, yes, most definately. I like to be able to get in and play, see how things work, change stuff. And i think custom ROMs IMO are a big drawcard of Android.
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
To try and ensure the device works as they want it to. Minimise support costs etc.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
Definately. Encourages improvement of existing features, and development of new stuff beyond the manufacturers initial product scope, which can be integrated in future products.
Android OS its self is an example of this - the developer community is writing apps, logging bugs, and contributing code to the benefit of future releases of Android, which in turn benefits device manufacturers.
- jc
my two cents
1. Does the possibility of making OS level modifications affect your willingness to purchase an android product? i.e. do you check if it can be modified before buying? And how much of an impact does it make on your decision?
>> Personally, I feel like the ability to modify my phone at the core level is something I as a power user can use to tailor my phone's experience in the way I need to make it the most efficient device it can be. This is especially necessary as my phone is my primary connectivity device (I really only use my laptop for things the phone just really isn't capable of handling yet, such as video conversion)
2. Why do you think hardware manufacturers put in measures to prevent custom android OS builds to be installed? Put on the corporate hat and try to see their strategy.
I think this is less the decision of the manufacturers and more of the carriers themselves. This really is because each device has to be tailored to be sold to the average user, rather than power users (read: 85-90% of people who will read this reply) and as a result is designed with an experience in mind. To the suits, anyone who take a phone that is supposed to have a specific experience in mind, and changes that, it becomes a different phone, and anyone who looks at that phone will see that. This means, TMo/HTC can't sell a G2, because everything that my office mates will see when they look at my phone is my android customizations, not a G2. my office mate, who is shopping for a phone, can get an android phone anywhere... but they can only get a /G2/ from TMo/HTC. Similarly, if I like my G2 experience, when i get a new phone, i will be more inclined to continue enjoying that experience with a G3, rather than buying any on sale android phone and making it just like my last one. Hence the need to have a G2 experience on every G2 phone. Just my 2 cents. I am not a businessman, lawyer, or doctor.
3. Do you think manufacturers have anything to gain by making devices open and free for modification, with source code for drivers and the like publically available?
Yes, but nowhere near as much as they can get by keeping their cards close to their hand. see my answer to number 2.
Hi XDA-Samsung Users,
I've been a member of XDA since Jan last year. I went from owning a Nexus One to a Samsung Galaxy S i9000. The reason for the change was for the better specs and superior hardware of the Samsung Galaxy.
The phone is an incredible piece of machinery, but is severely hampered by the modifications that Samsung makes to the Android OS. I admit that the codec support within TouchWiz is impressive, but too much of the core framework of the phone is inefficient and sluggish.
Even using the latest release of unofficial firmware Samsung, Android 2.2.1 (JPY), there is still the occasional hang and the missing RAM (which is there somewhere, but not for user applications).
Samsung is mostly to blame, but there is also a quality control element that Google should be responsible for.
I have prepared an open letter that I sent to Android via Google Press and then forwarded on to Samsung for their reference. This were all through publicly available channels so will have to filter through customer service centers and the like.
I'm not expecting much, Google appears to use Amazon's customer service approach, "No customer service is good customer service".
But would like to post it here to hopefully get it out into the wilderness.
I tweeted it here http://twitter.com/#!/ibproud/status/27528781828722688
and would appreciate if you agreed with the content to retweet it. Hopefully it should give it a bit more weight.
It would be interesting to get the communities feedback on how mature they believe Android is.
Do they need to keep trying to make everyone happy or can they start to use the weight of their OS to get manufacturers to align the user experience?
Dear Android Team,
I am writing this letter to air my frustrations and to hopefully get some peace of mind that your strategy for Android will resolve some of the main issues plaguing the platform.
I have now been with Android for over 12 months. I used to be an iPhone user, but couldn’t stand the walled garden that Apple put me in. I couldn’t download directly to the phone, replace the messaging app or sync wirelessly. I went to Android because I wanted the freedom to use my phone more as a desktop replacement than as a phone/mp3 player.
When I joined the Android family (January 2010), I started with the Google Nexus One. I was so keen to get into the Android community I didn’t even wait for it to be on sale in Australia to get it, thus I hit eBay and bought it outright.
I was very pleased with the platform but could still see a few rough edges around the Operating System. It had the usability I was looking for but was lacking the polish I had grown use to with Apple. There was good news on the horizon with an Éclair update that would give the already beautiful phone a nudge in the right direction. As I was in Australia and the phone wasn’t here yet, I had to push the update through myself, after seeing how easy this was and getting the feeling of being a little phone hacker, I was hooked, I started preaching Android to the masses. Australia is still building momentum for the platform and it’s taking some time. Most of the major carriers stock between 4-6 Android devices, most of which are low end or outdated in the overseas markets.
I follow all the key players in the industry through Twitter and have a majority of Google News trackers picking up articles with android related words. I have also now converted my Wife to Android (HTC Desire Z, also not available in Aus) and I picked up the Samsung Galaxy S and gave my sister the Nexus One. The problem I face now is that I’ve run out of money and can’t go out and buy a new Android phone just to be up to date with the latest Android OS (Gingerbread), this would also be the case for most consumers. The Nexus S is so similar to my current hardware that I must be able to leverage the extra performance from the update.
But alas, we reach the major problem with the platform. Fragmentation. I’m not referring to the Fragmentation of the various app stores and apps available based on different OS versions but more to the Fragmentation of the OS based on the custom skins and manufacturer update cycles. The open platform that is closed at 2 levels, Manufactures and Carriers. I will continue to buy my phones outright as it gives me the freedom and flexibility to upgrade my plans as better ones become available. This always guarantees that I’m free from the bloatware that is preloaded on most Carrier bought phones and free from 1 of the barriers to the true AOSP experience. The next barrier is one that is running rampant in the interwebs rumour mill at the moment and that’s manufacturer updates and in my case I refer to Samsung.
Samsung Galaxy S phones come loaded with Android 2.1, most of them internationally are running Android 2.2 and just recently as select group of the devices is getting Android 2.2.1. This is now a month after Android 2.3 was released. For Samsung I would consider this largely negligent, considering they had the opportunity to work with Google to build a Google Experience Phone (Nexus S). The specs of this phone are so similar to the Galaxy range that a port shouldn’t be too difficult. I understand that there are a lot of constraints and dependencies in the development cycle that could cause delays as well as manufacturers agendas (mostly in unit sales). It is great that Samsung have sold so many devices globally but at a cost of the user experience as well as potential damages to long term retention.
I understand the Open nature of Android and the push to encourage manufacturers to put there own spin on the platform, but Android is getting bigger and more mature, it doesn’t need to be High school girl bending to the whims and peer pressure from the carriers and manufacturers.
There are a team of Devs in Germany who are working to port CyanogenMod 7 (Gingerbread) to Galaxy S i9000, but these guys have now spent over four months just trying to get through Samsungs drivers. The team didn’t start just to customise the phone but to actually make the phone work properly, I of course refer to the RFS lag issue and Samsungs modification to the framework that slowed it down. The goal of the team is to maximise the potential of the hardware and operating system.
It would be great to see some muscle from Google thrown into the mix, there doesn’t need to be requirements dictated, but maybe ethics encouraged.
There seems to be a few options here:
- Encourage device manufacturers to share their drivers, if it is too sensitive to share at least work with the community to help them do it themselves.
- Start to break down the way the platform is customised so that way the manufactures (Samsung/HTC/Motorola) skin the platform can sit a layer above the core code, thus be a quick implementation/customisation to get their skins working.
- Get each manufacturer to offer the AOSP experience to advanced users. This can be done through an agreement between the user and manufacture that states this will void the warranty and have its own terms and conditions.
- This last one is a long stretch, but how about taking all the manufacturers drivers into a repository, the way Windows do updates. When a new Android version is developed the drivers can be updated or incorporated and be packaged out through the Android SDK.
I may be completely off the mark. I’m not a developer and couldn’t pretend to know what effort is involved at any stage of the process, from building Android to rolling it out into the latest and greatest phone. The one thing I am though is an End User, a person that wants my phone to do more, to get close to being a desktop replacement.
Maybe I’m also being a bit idealistic.
I hope the Android platform continues to flourish and for it to become the Windows of the mobile era.
Sincerely,
Irwin Proud
E: [email protected]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's really an excellent summary. Consider there're even more black sheeps out there. For example Sony Ericcson which ones recently made a statement like Android is their favourite Smartphone OS and left Symbian in Nokias hands.
But we found also the good ones like HTC, which every Manufacturer should have HTC as its Paragon concerning Android Software Development.
Great write-up; I agree 100%
I agree with your post fully, and concur that the Windows Phone 7 model for OS updates is more efficient, and strikes a happy medium between iOS and Android's approach to upgrades. However it is also more restrictive in terms of handset hardware limitations
I suppose the idea is that customers should vote with their wallets and buy from companies with good software and firmware support. The problem with that is a majority of phone users (android or otherwise) are technically savvy enough to take such support into consideration when looking at the latest and greatest fancy phone in a store. We could all buy the Nexus One or Nexus S only, but this too is restrictive to the customer as other phones offer more/different features
my 2 cents worth:
I agree on your points - but I'd skip the first few paragraphs if I were the one who write the letter. Other than that, thank you for making the effort.
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
What Google should do?
Toss3 said:
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please allow me to politely disagree. Google can do a lot about this and they have done this also. When I say they have done this - I am talking about not having Market application on Android OSes which come on non-phone hardware.
Google should put similar restrictions for loosley coupled skins, upgradable drivers. I had been giving this a lot of thought lately. I will sum up my thoughts with above letter as above:-
i) Device manufacturer skinning - Google should mandate that it should be just another APK within AOSP and users should be given a choice to turn it off.
ii) Device Drivers - Google should mandate there should be a better way of installing device drivers - similar to what we have in MS Windows (MS Windows is an excellent model of how hardware device should be handled - this lead to the exponential growth Windows is enjoying now).
iii) Android OS Update - If Google can achieve the above two, then the choice to upgrade the OS should be at user discretion. Of course, Google should mandate that there is OTA availble as an option. And obviously this OTA would be served by Google, not by device manufacturers. This would also free up time, effort and cash spent by device manufacturers in upgrading the OS.
So this is in the best of interest of everybody.
These restrictions if put in place, would free us all from this phenomena of running outdated OS.
Not sure what ti say on this one. It's true that Samsung has failed on some levels, however I must say that this is the first phone that has allowed me to get to know so much about the internals of the Android OS.
Modifying kernels, ROM's, reading about different file-systems etc... it's not a thing for the common user but I expect the people on this forum to be interested in such things.
Ok, if Samsung had done it right, we may have discussed these things anyway but it would've drawn less attention as people would not be looking for solutions to their problems.
But of course we have to strive to quality for everyone and this letter may just open some people's eyes at both Google and Samsung.
Thank you so far for the feedback.
poundesville said:
my 2 cents worth:
I agree on your points - but I'd skip the first few paragraphs if I were the one who write the letter. Other than that, thank you for making the effort.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Remember most members of XDA would be a cut above the average user. The reason this letter was written the way it was, was to demonstrate that I am a typical end user. Although I would consider myself leaning slightly to the more advanced side I wrote the letter based on a very general experience of the platform, an experience a lot of consumers would go through.
Toss3 said:
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What am I trying to achieve with this letter?
I really don’t know, but it helps to just get the thoughts out there.
With approximately 300,000 activations daily, I don’t think Android sees the true reflection of how their platform is received.
When the Galaxy range of phones was released in the US, they would have been seen as the closest thing to an iPhone that non-AT&T customers could get. So sales and activations shouldn’t be seen as the indicator of clever consumers or consumers wanting an open platform, but of consumers who wanted an iPhone but for the various reasons didn’t want to go with AT&T.
Remember: The international Samsung Galaxy is the only Android phone I know of that looks more like an iPhone than any other phone.
What I would really like to see is, that annually google will release a major version of Android. So V1, V2, V3, etc…. the mobile manufacturers commit to any minor or incremental updates per major version. So if Google says they are releasing Android 2.4 then they are saying to the manufacturer that this version will also work on any phone that currently supports v2.1 to v2.3.
As more and more people move to smartphones and tablets, more and more will we see hackers, spammers, botnets and so on attempt to access our devices. If we can’t have the latest updates that close any open holes then our phones become a huge liability.
Pierreken said:
Not sure what ti say on this one. It's true that Samsung has failed on some levels, however I must say that this is the first phone that has allowed me to get to know so much about the internals of the Android OS.
Modifying kernels, ROM's, reading about different file-systems etc... it's not a thing for the common user but I expect the people on this forum to be interested in such things.
Ok, if Samsung had done it right, we may have discussed these things anyway but it would've drawn less attention as people would not be looking for solutions to their problems.
But of course we have to strive to quality for everyone and this letter may just open some people's eyes at both Google and Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really sure if Samsung has failed as such, but have put too much focus on unit sales rather than quality control and great user experience. They started releasing different iterations and modifications to the same phone without considering that each minor tweak to the hardware would mean more resources to develop updates and maintain each device.
I also agree that without Samsung I would know very little about linux filesystems, kernel and custom roms, but shouldn't all of these be more to push the phone above it's limits and not to just get it working properly?
There's nothing wrong with knowing the advanced stuff, however it shouldn't be a necessity.
The problem ironically is that Android is open source. I agree wit the letter above, but I can;t see how you can stop manufacturers doing what they want.
Also the Drivers being proprietary isn't going to change and device manufacturers aren't going to suddenly start releasing their closed driver sources.
Agreed Google should stand up and restrict the Skins to a single APK that can be removed, this would stop all the associated problems with HTC and Samsung skinning too deep in to the OS that it becomes impossible to remove it. The problem with that is, then any manufacturers APK will be installable on any phone. Which is something we know they don't want.
We already know Androids biggest downfall and so does Google. Fragmentation.
I believe once Google has the strong position they want and users demand Android when they buy a new phone, they will start to put their foot down and try to enforce standardisation across Manufacturers, but until they get to what they feel is that point, we're stuck.
Anyway much luck with the letter, I hope someone who matters get's to see it.
Logicalstep
Microsoft and Nokia have just announced a broad partnership which could possibly mean a big threat to HTC.
What do you guys think about this?
Open Letter from CEO Stephen Elop, Nokia and CEO Steve Ballmer, Microsoft
Microsoft blog editor
10 Feb 2011 8:51 PM
Today in London, our two companies announced plans for a broad strategic partnership that combines the respective strengths of our companies and builds a new global mobile ecosystem. The partnership increases our scale, which will result in significant benefits for consumers, developers, mobile operators and businesses around the world. We both are incredibly excited about the journey we are on together.
While the specific details of the deal are being worked out, here’s a quick summary of what we are working towards:
• Nokia will adopt Windows Phone as its primary smartphone strategy, innovating on top of the platform in areas such as imaging, where Nokia is a market leader.
• Nokia will help drive and define the future of Windows Phone. Nokia will contribute its expertise on hardware design, language support, and help bring Windows Phone to a larger range of price points, market segments and geographies.
• Nokia and Microsoft will closely collaborate on development, joint marketing initiatives and a shared development roadmap to align on the future evolution of mobile products.
• Bing will power Nokia’s search services across Nokia devices and services, giving customers access to Bing’s next generation search capabilities. Microsoft adCenter will provide search advertising services on Nokia’s line of devices and services.
• Nokia Maps will be a core part of Microsoft’s mapping services. For example, Maps would be integrated with Microsoft’s Bing search engine and AdCenter advertising platform to form a unique local search and advertising experience
• Nokia’s extensive operator billing agreements will make it easier for consumers to purchase Nokia Windows Phone services in countries where credit-card use is low.
• Microsoft development tools will be used to create applications to run on Nokia Windows Phones, allowing developers to easily leverage the ecosystem’s global reach.
• Microsoft will continue to invest in the development of Windows Phone and cloud services so customers can do more with their phone, across their work and personal lives.
• Nokia’s content and application store will be integrated with Microsoft Marketplace for a more compelling consumer experience.
We each bring incredible assets to the table. Nokia’s history of innovation in the hardware space, global hardware scale, strong history of intellectual property creation and navigation assets are second to none. Microsoft is a leader in software and services; the company’s incredible expertise in platform creation forms the opportunity for its billions of customers and millions of partners to get more out of their devices.
Together, we have some of the world’s most admired brands, including Windows, Office, Bing, Xbox Live, NAVTEQ and Nokia. We also have a shared understanding of what it takes to build and sustain a mobile ecosystem, which includes the entire experience from the device to the software to the applications, services and the marketplace.
Today, the battle is moving from one of mobile devices to one of mobile ecosystems, and our strengths here are complementary. Ecosystems thrive when they reach scale, when they are fueled by energy and innovation and when they provide benefits and value to each person or company who participates. This is what we are creating; this is our vision; this is the work we are driving from this day forward.
There are other mobile ecosystems. We will disrupt them.
There will be challenges. We will overcome them.
Success requires speed. We will be swift.
Together, we see the opportunity, and we have the will, the resources and the drive to succeed.
Stephen Elop, CEO, NOKIA and Steve Ballmer, CEO, MICROSOFT
I think this will help wp7 become a major competitor of android and iphone. It will bring some competition to HTC, but that's what brings innovation and creativity. HTC will be fine. We might be seeing some nice devices from nokia... and nokia devices have always been pretty hackable. So whether this is good or bad for HTC, I think this will be good for us consumers.
• Nokia will help drive and define the future of Windows Phone. Nokia will contribute its expertise on hardware design, language support, and help bring Windows Phone to a larger range of price points, market segments and geographies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm guessing by "Larger range of price points" they mostly mean cheaper phones. While budget phones have traditionally been one of Nokia's strong points, I think it's not necessarily a good idea for Microsoft to use WP7 for this. Given the hardware requirements for WP7, they simply won't be able to beat Android there. At the same time, they will most likely be eroding WP7's image as a premium experience. This, to me, seems like a huge mistake.
• Nokia and Microsoft will closely collaborate on development, joint marketing initiatives and a shared development roadmap to align on the future evolution of mobile products.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great! I can't wait for Nokia to add the same magical touch to WP7 that made their own flagship phones, like the N97, such a joy to use!
• Nokia’s content and application store will be integrated with Microsoft Marketplace for a more compelling consumer experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're not talking about that OVI stuff, are they? A more compelling consumer experience, really? From what I can see, Microsoft's Marketplace is doing quite well as it is.
Overall, I see this as a desperate move by both players involved. Nokia has failed utterly to bring something worthwhile to the smartphone market in the past years. I'm guessing Microsoft is just desperate to put more WP7 hardware out there - right now, it seems that for every WP7 phone, the same manufacturer will have at least 10 Android phones in its line-up.
I like this. Nokia is still a huge player. And both could benefit from this.
Nokia is known for its great and robust hardware.
Nokia could bring a n95 like device, with a larger screen, slide out nummeric or qwerty keyboard and carl zeiss optics, where HTC has to do it with other camera lenses.
Good move all round.
I think it is a good move allround remember Nokia own NAVTEQ
the leading global provider of maps, traffic and location data.
It’s not like they can put out cheep W7P, due to the minimum speck Microsoft has I am looking forward to a high end W7P in about a year, when my contract runs out.
WP7 may be superior to Apple iOS when used by the novice consumer. Nokia does create marvelous hardware.
Together, they may give Apple and Google a real run for the money.
I think the best thing for us is real competion in the market.
Plus I really hope that the new WP7 will grow strong in time - after all the having choice is the best thing for us - the consumers.
Btw. I found this thing on the net no so long ago - wonder if this will be real
http://www.nokiaphones.net/nokia-concept-windows-phone-7-smartphone/
looks pretty nice and apparently it's designed by a design studio from poland
http://www.mindsailors.com/
I would change the term "threat" from the thread title to "chance".
HTC has been the strongest fighter for the Windows Mobile platform, and they are the strongest competitor with Windows Phone 7, too.
Microsoft won´t be that stupid to endanger that valuable long-term partnership.
In the opposite, I do believe the new partnership between MS and Nokia might bring a certain boost to WP7. But then again, 2 big losers in the same ship doesn´t mean this makes everything a winner. Both of them missed too many opportunities for too much time.
Problem is usually, they are too big, too slow, too far away from us, the users.
In the sum, HTC might be one of the bigger winners on the long run.
I have the 2012 Note 10.1 for personal use and have come to the unfortunate resolution that Android just isn't going to cut it from a business perspective. I am not putting the full blame on either the manufacturers or Android itself but without timely updates to a specific platform, I can not justify the use of these in a production environment. There is no way company can justify replacing their hardware yearly, or regularly, in order to get the latest features and security fixes that are provided in updates. Ignoring the additional features for the time being, from a security stand point there has to be a way to patch the devices in a timely manner. The additional features being provided drives the developers to migrate to the newer operating systems and leaving the old systems behind. A lot of times this creates a huge disadvantage in the fact you can run a particular application on one Android device but is unsupported on another.
Now to be fair. I am focusing on Android in this post but have tested Microsoft and iPad devices as well. All have certain advantages and disadvantages but the clear loser so far has been Android. If Android is going to survive in the business world, the manufacturers are going to have to step up and maintain their products actively for at least the full two years of their life expectancy.Android itself will have to hold the manufacturers accountable for keeping their devices maintained. From a personal use perspective, I think it is a great platform and love my Note 10.1. Would I like to see it get updated, I would love to see 4.4.2 on the device to allow me to run application I need that are no longer compatible with 4.1.2. However, I require vulnerability patches in a timely manner and that just isn't happening.
My last job had hired a full time developer to build a custom ROM and patch or update when needed for all the tablets being used on the floor. This approach worked for them because there was only one model in use across all departments.
You should blame Samsung for the late major update for GT-N80XX.
Android actively pushing regular update (minor & major).
Actually Samsung also pushing regular update, but it's only 1 major update (ICS to JB) & some minor/security updates.
If a business used the nexus tablets, they wouldn't have this problem.
theatomizer90 said:
If a business used the nexus tablets, they wouldn't have this problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not necessarily true. Most current android version is 4.4.4 while my N7 LTE still sits at 4.4.3 with no update even spoken of. So if a business has data enabled tablets, they're still behind current version.
What OP posted doesn't really apply to large businesses. Between KNOX and other third party equivalents sensitive data is sandboxed and doesn't rely on the core B2C version of the OS to protect it. As much as Google may see Android's potential in the business environment no one I know in IT at a bunch of Fortune 1K companies is looking at mobile OS's (either Android or iOS) to replace desktop/laptops as "standard" issue. Tablet and smartphone apps have niche opportunities (commercial pilot manuals and logs, flight attendant passenger service tools, gate agent/hotel staff roaming terminals, sales people inventory access, remote staff automated forms, etc.) but migrating the entire enterprise to mobile architecture just doesn't make sense. So Android can't lose anything it never had and, outside Google's wishes, isn't seriously considered for. The lack of Chromebook adoption by the enterprise demonstrates their disinterest.
BarryH_GEG said:
What OP posted doesn't really apply to large businesses. Between KNOX and other third party equivalents sensitive data is sandboxed and doesn't rely on the core B2C version of the OS to protect it. As much as Google may see Android's potential in the business environment no one I know in IT at a bunch of Fortune 1K companies is looking at mobile OS's (either Android or iOS) to replace desktop/laptops as "standard" issue. Tablet and smartphone apps have niche opportunities (commercial pilot manuals and logs, flight attendant passenger service tools, gate agent/hotel staff roaming terminals, sales people inventory access, remote staff automated forms, etc.) but migrating the entire enterprise to mobile architecture just doesn't make sense. So Android can't lose anything it never had and, outside Google's wishes, isn't seriously considered for. The lack of Chromebook adoption by the enterprise demonstrates their disinterest.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure if I totally agree with the application only being a niche market. I work for a call center and find that the tablets are becoming an indispensable tool. We have people walking the floor with these devices and using them to keep track of various statistics as well as using them to report potential issues. The ability to pull up data about current client information to respond in an almost instant manner has shaped things drastically. Having a sandbox is really great for protecting certain information, such as email, etc.. but can not protect the device data in flux, such as web browser content. If the system is compromised and access to the file system is obtained then all the data previously obtained becomes available to the attacker. Some measure can be made such as requiring Citrix as your primary form of connectivity but you are only pushing the security back to another device. The focus of this article was to point out the shortcomings of the this tablet as it pertains to the lack of updates.
Don't get me wrong, I truly love Android and will continue to use it as a personal device. However, there is no way I can risk releasing these devices into a production environment without the proper support. And yes, I blame the manufacturer for release and forget, and I blame Android for not enforcing the manufactures to keep these update. It is crucial to both parties to work together and produce something that is not just desirable but maintained for a reasonable amount of time. If Android could come up with a way to provide updates to devices directly and bypass the manufacturer they would have an unbeatable platform.
Zeab said:
Not sure if I totally agree with the application only being a niche market. I work for a call center and find that the tablets are becoming an indispensable tool. We have people walking the floor with these devices and using them to keep track of various statistics as well as using them to report potential issues. The ability to pull up data about current client information to respond in an almost instant manner has shaped things drastically. Having a sandbox is really great for protecting certain information, such as email, etc.. but can not protect the device data in flux, such as web browser content. If the system is compromised and access to the file system is obtained then all the data previously obtained becomes available to the attacker. Some measure can be made such as requiring Citrix as your primary form of connectivity but you are only pushing the security back to another device. The focus of this article was to point out the shortcomings of the this tablet as it pertains to the lack of updates.
Don't get me wrong, I truly love Android and will continue to use it as a personal device. However, there is no way I can risk releasing these devices into a production environment without the proper support. And yes, I blame the manufacturer for release and forget, and I blame Android for not enforcing the manufactures to keep these update. It is crucial to both parties to work together and produce something that is not just desirable but maintained for a reasonable amount of time. If Android could come up with a way to provide updates to devices directly and bypass the manufacturer they would have an unbeatable platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anytime a serious security breach that can be used from without to effect changes on a device have come to light I have seen updates come out on all my tablets and phones, which is blessedly rare. Android does not operate in the way you are thinking. There is no need to constantly shove out security updates like windows. The system is pretty well secure unless you unsecure it yourself, new versions of the OS usually just add functions, however there is a current (when is there not?) RUMOR of a adobe bug on all versions of android lower than 4.0. Personally I still prefere windows for business simply because of ease of function and with baytrail cpu's and even more promising hardware coming this year I find no reason not to use windows for hard business needs if your business can benefit from tablet use. There are a plethora of cheap windows tablets coming and the current hp omni 10 is powerful enough to suit any light tablet buisness needs for just 299.00 if your business needs more power pay the premium for a surface pro with a full on i3,5,7 cpu fully capable of doing the work of a high end laptop. All that said, I feel Android is if anything more secure than a windows machine. Nothing comes in unless you invite it. Updates not needed until such time as Android can add base functionality in the realm of windows 7, and it is close imho.
Check the trends
Have to agree with Zeab. The university I work for is now supporting apple mobile devices but not android. And despite my having pressured for some support, what support is was for android devices is disappearing. Why ?
Android from one device to the next is different enough to make support difficult if not impossible. Providing advice on connections to secure servers and use of common software falls foul of the same issue.
Android device manufacturers have attempted to sequester their market by creating difference, but all they'll achieve is failure. Add to that the early obsolescence they have engineered and android is dying, even as its market share grows!
We now as a family have windows, apple and android devices. If I include TVs and media devices the list lengthens. The only option that provides continuity of operating system and software, and longer term support with updates is Apple. Given the way Microsoft has gone off the rails with windows 8.1 (I really do believe that OSs should make my computing experience easier, not harder), I think we will be going Apple in the future.