[drivebyacct2]

>And if, as I suspect, you're a die hard Apple fan who hates all things Android to the core: play around with a device running ICS or JB. I think you'll be surprised at how impressive they are.

I understand why it's hard to get people to believe this, but it's absolutely insane how hard it is to convince people of this. I've seen more and more people floored at Jelly Bean. They watched the demo video and are amazed at how nice it looks and how slick it is. I don't have the heart to tell them that Honeycomb was 50% of the way there (Between Froyo and JB) and that ICS was... 99.9% of the way there. There are hardly any visual changes outside of the "Project Butter" between ICS and JB and yet all the people are acting like JB is this big visual refresh.

Don't get me wrong Project Butter uped the ante, but not that much. It's as smoother or smoother than the iPhone, but ICS was nearly there. The 60Hz vsync just made it that much nicer. Plus, none of that 2002-2003-esque skeuomorphism. It almost pains me to see iOS in places after Holo in ICS, it reminds me of plasticy KDE.

[pkulak]

The problem is the hardware. It's always the hardware with Android. If the phone has a nice camera the GPS is crap. If the GPS works, the screen is shit. Or it's got hardware buttons a year after ICS came out. And if you're lucky enough to get all that? Then it'll have a locked bootloader so you're stuck with whatever TouchSenseBlur crap the manufacturer's marketing department decided to vomit all over the beautiful, stock Android.

[ChuckMcM]

I suspect this is a significant challenge for Google and Android branding in general. When people compare their experiences "with Android" it seems they don't mention the particular hardware they are using. Unlike Apple where if you're using an 'iOS phone' the hardware is known. So its perfectly understandable when two people have diametrically opposed opinions on Android, switch hardware, and switch sides. Its like every dessert was named 'ice cream' and yet some people ate mars bars and some people m&ms and some twizzlers.

[biafra]

What is wrong with the Galaxy Nexus?

[cageface]

iOS has been my bread and butter for the last year but I really think Apple is losing ground here. If Google wasn't having such a hard time getting OS updates out there I think Apple would be in serious trouble.

I think Apple's simplistic, app-centric model helped get the iPhone out the door in 2007 but it's showing its age now and Apple's regressive, skeuomorphic designs look increasingly dated compared to the competition.

[ChuckMcM]

Google has been way behind in terms of execution with their Android story, I keep hoping that Motorola Mobility will inject their execution DNA into Google rather than the other way round, only time will tell.

[cageface]

I think Google's software engineering team has mostly been doing a very good job evolving and refining the platform.

Unfortunately Google hasn't done very well corralling the various OEMs into getting their work out there into users' hands and I agree their execution needs to improve there, although I'm not sure specifically what they can do without pushing OEMs away from the platform altogether.

[drivebyacct2]

Google has been way behind in terms of execution with their Android story

What does this mean? I'm not sure I agree or maybe I just don't understand

[ChuckMcM]

This means that if you are an OS vendor but not the system vendor, you have to do things (aka execute) which allow complete systems (hw + OS) to be brought to market. You have to define a HAL for example, and a way to evolve that HAL, and a way to probe what parts of the HAL need to be implemented in software because the hardware bits are missing. You need to provide a bullet proof schedule (which usually means prioritizing software availability over feature availability) at pre-defined times. You need to have a strong relationship with chipset and other silicon vendors to enable solid device support, which is at least backward compatible and ideally forward compatible as well. You need to be able to work with a hardware partner to get their stuff up and running, you need clear APIs that don't change and solid training materials to bring engineers up to speed. You need to create a series of test suites and compatibility suites to provide confidence on your vendors part that they are doing it right. And perhaps most importantly you should provide legal indemnification for your partners who use your software.

When you execute well, all those things are there. When you execute poorly there are parts missing, or parts that are confusing.

The result of poor execution is incompatibility flareups, your partners product shipments slip because they haven't had enough integration time, you screw some partners with a release they cannot ever run on their hardware, and your partners take punches in court for you over their decision to use your OS. That's painful.

I was working at Google when Android was released and while not part of that team, participated in the early development contests and worked on a 'loaner' G1 to test various things. That first release with T-mobile was when Google still felt that could release on open source (mostly) OS, and a reference implementation, and the rest of the world could just pick it up and go wild. (this is sometimes referred to as the 'throw it over the wall' strategy). Fortunately, this failed really hard, really fast as evidenced by the pretty sizable gap between the first Android phone and the second. But Google is nothing if not resilient. When I left in 2010 they were still struggling with the notion of 'software releases have timelines' kind of thing because all of Google's other properties just pushed out to their own hardware in their data centers which meant alpha was beta was release all wrapped in one. Not only that but major changes could occur between any step. Hardware partners really really don't like it when you make a major change between one release and the next.

Much of the early thrashing in the Android market was due to inexperience on Google's part. The fact that Jelly Bean has been released and Ice Cream Sandwich is hardly anywhere is, in my opinion, and artifact of this learning process.

[Mythbusters]

Apple's UI and app centric approach is showing its age for sure. With Android Google has shown that it can take chances with the UI. Android UI has eveolved much more in last 4 years as compared to Apple's.

Of course Windows Phone though the most beautiful OS of the three is well behind these two.

[lotides]

> Of course Windows Phone though the most beautiful OS of the three is well behind these two.

Agreed.

And iOS 6 is pathetic. I feel completely let down. Apple continues their push to make iOS look like shit with each release by adopting more skeuomorphic UI themes. They ignore all the issues with iTunes. Really, this is the first release of iOS, ever, that I haven't been eagerly anticipating the release.

[majormajor]

And if you think that's tough, try convincing an iOS or Android fan that MS actually built a spectacular user interface... all you hear is marketshare numbers.

[nhebb]

  ICS
  JB
  Honeycomb
  Froyo
  Project Butter
  Holo

Off topic: the Andoid namesapce sure is getting polluted with jargon.

[drivebyacct2]

Sorry, Android 4.0, 4.1, 2.2, "a project to make it butter smooth", "the default UI".

It's jargon because it's HN and I'm used to being able to get away with it. I don't see how a code or release name is "polluting".

Maybe they should just call it "magical" every release and drop the versioning. Oh. Maybe "I want Android.". Not "I want an Android phone". Since, you know, the cool guys can't do version numbers or articles now because their devices are too magical for them. (This is a real thing, btw, you'll note that Apple doesn't use articles near their iDevices).

[TheGateKeeper]

Android devs really need to step up their game and give these non-childish names. Jellybean? where am I, disney.com?

[taligent]

Shame that when you actually USE an ICS/JB device all you notice is how inconsistent and unpolished the UI/UX is across the OS, vendor additions and the apps. And this is on the Samsung Galaxy 3 the supposed flagship phone.

It's confusing enough just knowing when to use the hardware "back" button or not.

[w1ntermute]

> And this is on the Samsung Galaxy 3 the supposed flagship phone.

The Galaxy S3 was never the "supposed flagship phone." I don't know where you heard that, but whoever told you was wrong. The only "flagship" phones for Android are the Nexus phones.

[drivebyacct2]

Samsung has a skin on it, it's minimal, but it's still there.

I have a dozen nonstock app installed... and they all fit with the style just fine or perfectly.

>It's confusing enough just knowing when to use the hardware "back" button or not.

I've never understood and may never understand this confusion though I hear it and try to address it constantly. It's the same in almost every app and is different in only a very few apps where the overridden behavior makes a lot of sense.