Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why the Google Android Phone Isn't Taking Off

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the know-thine-enemy-and-drive-him-nuts dept.

Cellphones 745

Hugh Pickens writes "Farhad Manjoo writes in Slate that while the iPhone commands nearly 14 percent of smartphone sales and BlackBerry about 21 percent, Android has only 3 percent. And even though Android is far friendlier to developers, it has failed to attract anywhere near the number of apps now clogging the iPhone. Manjoo writes that Google went wrong by giving handset manufacturers and carriers too much control over the design and marketing of Android phones so there is no idealized 'Google phone' — instead, Android devices get names like the T-Mobile G1 or the myTouch 3G, and each is marketed separately and comes with its own distinct capabilities and shortcomings. 'Outside handset manufacturers lack ambition — -none of them even seems to be trying to match the capabilities of the iPhone, let alone to knock us down with features that far surpass those of Apple's device,' writes Manjoo. 'A smart handset manufacturer could build a top-of-the-line Android device that outshines Apple's phone in at least a few areas — better battery life, a much better Web browser, a brighter or bigger screen, faster or more functional controls... something that might help Android inspire gadget lust. But so far, that's not happening.' John Gruber echoes this advice and adds this advice to Android manufacturers: 'If Apple is BMW, you can be Porsche.'"

cancel ×

745 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"It's the Network" (4, Informative)

Stupendoussteve (891822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180019)

The G1 and myTouch are nice, unfortunately they're on T-Mobile, which is nice but not nice everywhere. If T-Mobile worked in my area I would certainly try them out, at least.

Re:"It's the Network" (2, Informative)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180087)

That's my problem. T-mobile has some craptacular coverage out where I live.. (and it's even hit and miss closer to the big city...) I'd rather them get some decent coverage (and I hate AT&T as much as I do Microsoft.) But what's funny is that I'm not interested in an iPhone, even though I'm a mac-head. (I have 4 Macs of varying ages... evenly split between Intel and PowerPC.) I guess I'm not the target demographic, but I wouldn't hazard a guess as to what that demographic might be (I'll leave that to marketeers and the like.)

Here's to hoping T-Mobile fixes their service issues (to bring them on par with the AT&T/Verizon ubiquity.) Oh, and hopefully they won't lose customer data again. :)

Re:"It's the Network" (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180651)

T-Mobile has no data coverage where I am. Which is a real shame as I really wanted a T-Mobile G1; I would own one right now otherwise. :P I guess I'll just have to wait.

Re:"It's the Network" (3, Informative)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180141)

Agreed. Most people I know consider T-Mobile a second rate carrier and the only thing holding them back from getting the G1 or myTouch. It would be interesting to see what happened if they started selling them unlocked thus allowing them to be used on AT&T's network for some (closer to) direct competition with the iPhone.

Re:"It's the Network" (2, Informative)

sadler121 (735320) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180227)

An unlocked Android phone will only work on GSM/GPRS/EDGE. T-Mobile and AT&T use different frequency allocations for UMTS, UMTS 850/1900 for AT&T and 2100/1700 MHz for TMobile. What would be great is if we can get a quad band Android phone that supported those frequencies, but as of yet, there is none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Mobile_Telecommunications_System#Spectrum_allocation [wikipedia.org]

Re:"It's the Network" (1)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180255)

Wasn't aware they weren't quad band. So they update the hardware when they start selling them unlocked. Can't increase the cost that much. Three years ago I got a free dumb phone that's quad band.

Re:"It's the Network" (2, Informative)

JoeSavage (906113) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180543)

The bands for 2G (GSM/EDGE) and 3G (W-CDMA) are different, so you can have a phone that is "quad-band" for 2G but is single-band for 3G. The radio designs for W-CDMA are MUCH more complex than GSM/EDGE, thus having a phone that supports multiple W-CDMA bands significantly increases the BOM cost and the radio footprint compared with a single W-CDMA band design. Such phones are definitely being made, but at least it makes sense why a phone targeted for T-Mobile would only support their frequency bands. FYI, in the States, AT&T uses bands II and V while T-Mobile uses band IV. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands [wikipedia.org]

Re:"It's the Network" (3, Informative)

mini me (132455) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180579)

Rogers uses UMTS 850/1900 and offers the HTC Dream (same as the G1) and the HTC Magic. It shouldn't be impossible to get one into the US.

Re:"It's the Network" (4, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180187)

In the US that is tied to the lack of CDMA support. You have four major players. Number 1 Verizon and number 3 Sprint are CDMA. Number two AT&T is GSM but has the iPhone. That leaves only number four to push Android. Add in that HTC is heavy into Windows Mobil and you have a not great phone on the number four carrier. Too bad they didn't include CDMA from the start and got a phone maker like Samsung, LG, or Motorola the be the exclusive hardware partner.

Re:"It's the Network" (4, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180391)

But do you think Verizon would even -allow- a phone with Android to run? I mean, I've compared the same dumb phone (I think it was the Razr) across AT&T Sprint and Verizon, the AT&T and Sprint phones were pretty good but the Verizon phone was pretty much neutered to the point where they can't do anything beyond changing the background, changing it from ring to vibrate and using the camera. Verizon is -terrible- when it comes to phones, they might have the "network" but when all the phones are total crap, the network is useless. I think it even went as far as Verizon rejecting any phone with wi-fi.

Re:"It's the Network" (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180445)

Verizon's smartphones aren't so locked down as their regular offerings. I know my palm centro works great and can do anything any other centro can do. Verizon also is putting out an android phone by the holiday season I believe, named after some american city. With all that said, the level of lock-down of most of Verizon's phones is pretty goddamn appalling.

Re:"It's the Network" (4, Informative)

Bodero (136806) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180559)

Verizon Android Phones Are Officially Coming [phandroid.com] .

There exists a pretty strong misunderstanding that Verizon "locks down" their phones. They did, yes. But in the past year, they've stopped disabling GPS on their phones [intomobile.com] (including the Omnia, Storm and Tour), said that all future Blackberries will have Wifi [boygeniusreport.com] , and launched their Open Development Initiative [verizon.com] to get data devices (among other things) on their network.

Oh, and their next generation network (which is launching 2+ years before AT&T's) is LTE, based off the GSM standard. [engadget.com]

But I don't blame you, they've definitely had restrictive tendencies in the past.

Re:"It's the Network" (4, Interesting)

johndiii (229824) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180577)

The extent to which they locked down the Razr is the reason that I am no longer a Verizon customer. They were way too willing to cripple the phone so that they could charge me for services.

I have an iPhone now. I'm not wild about everything that Apple and AT&T do, but I'm much happier with them than Verizon.

Re:"It's the Network" (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180347)

Buy an unlocked phone and it will be on whatever network you want, I will never understand why people still buy phones through the network. Phone networks are no charities, you will definitely end up paying back the full value of the phone in the form of overpriced contracts and roaming charges. but people like to fool themselves into thinking they're getting a good deal

I was on the Isle of Man a few days ago and bought a sim card for my unlocked E63 and went on the interwebs for 1p a MB, if I was using my SIM from back home i'd be paying that per kb. My phone is also completely devoid of any firmware restrictions or carrier branding.

Unfortunately in the states the networks have done such a good job at passing off the idea that the phone, plan and network are so intrinsically related that most people there even on GSM networks don't know that a SIM card exists. and with the advent of the iPhone and the likes of Huawei making Vodafone-branded phones they are trying the same shit in Europe. The openness of GSM/3G is a great thing and I don't want to lose it

Re:"It's the Network" (3, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180451)

I will never understand why people still buy phones through the network. Phone networks are no charities, you will definitely end up paying back the full value of the phone in the form of overpriced contracts and roaming charges. but people like to fool themselves into thinking they're getting a good deal

Quite simple: the cellphone companies give no discounts for buying the phone from another supplier. So, you just paid more for a phone and the only advantage that you may get is being able to break the contract at less cost. Since the cost of breaking the contract is limited, it's not an irrational decision to buy the phone from the carrier.

Futhermore, T-Mobile will unlock one phone every 90 days at no charge.

Re:"It's the Network" (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180471)

they don't but they should. in my country they do, my plan costs half that of the same plan that includes a phone and my contract is only 30 days

Re:"It's the Network" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29180481)

They're not really all that nice...I have a G1 and an iPhone. The G1 is unlocked and I use it with my AT&T SIM card.

I really wanted to like it, but it's really not great to use. Development is easy, but the user experience blows.

iPhone actually paid attention to the user experience. They're lightyears ahead of anything else, which makes me sad.

Re:"It's the Network" (3, Interesting)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180487)

Exactly, as soon as there is a good andriod phone on a network with 3g in my area that doesn't restrict my ability to install applications I'm going to take it.

Apple has burned me and I am waiting to switch.

they could still do it if they wanted (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180035)

There's nothing, as far as I know, in any of the existing arrangements stopping Google from co-branding a phone with a manufacturer that's blessed as "the Google [whatever]". A Google-branded phone would probably be a stronger player--- moreso than a T-Mobile-branded phone that in the explanatory text tells you about how it runs Google Android.

Re:they could still do it if they wanted (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180169)

Except for the fact that most people don't buy third party phones (well, other than this one family who is the phone-murderer and keeps buying used phones off of E-Bay to replace the phones they killed...) and so if they don't have it in AT&T, Sprint, Verizon or T-Mobile's stores, no one will buy it unless there is -huge- hype about it like the iPhone, but other than that everyone pretty much just buys their phones from their cell phone company. And similarly, no one wants an expensive phone, $200 for a smartphone that seems to do -everything- seems to be the most anyone will pay, $300 unlocked will not sell well, people want cheap phones even if they are tied to an unholy contract or the phone isn't that great.

Re:they could still do it if they wanted (2, Informative)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180229)

$300 unlocked will not sell well

Right, because people didn't line up to buy their $599 (8GB) or $499 (4 GB) iPhones when they first launched. $300 unlocked would be a bargain for a smartphone.

Re:they could still do it if they wanted (1, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180321)

The difference is the iPhone had -everything- usable, polished and was honestly the best around phone without question. On the other hand Android while not terrible still doesn't have as good as web browser as Mobile Safari, the commonly available Android handsets lack a headphone jack, lack of apps, etc.

And at the time? Compare every available American handset to the iPhone and the iPhone was the only one that got everything right (minus the apps/3G, but they eventually corrected those). So its no surprise someone wanted to pay $500 on the one phone that actually worked decently.

re Lack of apps, developers? (4, Interesting)

jelizondo (183861) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180063)

Part of the lack of good apps is the lack of solid documentation and examples. I spent weeks learning the API, but anytime I wanted to do something more meaningful that display stuff on the screen, I would get bogged down trying to figure out how to do it.

I'm not a newbie, I started programming computers back in the eighties (Z80 and 6502 assembler) so I know my way around, but the documentation is horrible, sometimes you think you got it all figured out and it turns out is an earlier / later version of the API, which doesn't quite work that way anyway.

Also, for those of us outside the U.S., it's hard to get a real phone to play with, even when Google gave thousands aways at Google I/O, you can't get one internationally at a reduced price.(At least you couldn't last time I checked.)

I gave up and decided to come back when there was some organization to the docs and some real support for independent developers

Having said all that, I believe the platform will take off and do very well; it is simply too young.

Re:re Lack of apps, developers? (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180499)

platform

Sorry to take one word out of the context but this might be the key issue. If there are several, incompatible versions of the API then there will not be a platform.
Exactly this is one of the complaints of JavaME and Symbian and one big strength of Apple.

Unfortunately FOSS, and especially Linux, does not have a culture of keeping APIs unchanged, so whether Android can do it or not is yet to be seen.

Re:re Lack of apps, developers? (4, Informative)

cduffy (652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180625)

I'm curious -- have you done any development for Android, or are you armchair'ing this one?

They've been _extremely_ careful about what is declared a public API, to the point of holding back features on account thereof. That's one of the major reasons RFCOMM support (to pick something dear to my heart) has been unavailable for developers in every version released so far -- they're unwilling to declare the API stable until they have something they know they'll be able to maintain through newer versions of BlueZ and security audits/updates, and their compiler flags any attempts at using anything which isn't a public API (they've also released updates which break attempts to get around these measures and build software using version-specific, unreleased APIs).

Personally, I expect Android to take off on a larger scale when the fleet of phones expected to release late this year (from numerous manufacturers) make it out their respective doors.

Re:re Lack of apps, developers? (1)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180657)

I thought that the show stopper is Java/Web applications support only by Android and missing native apps SDK, i believe iPhone went ballistic right after the SDK for native software has been released and Apple got rid of that 'web applications only' mantra.

Excelsior, Manjoo (1)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180069)

I concur 100%. When it came to ditching my turdburger iPhone 3G, the thing that kept me from considering the Android phones was that the hardware was even sorrier than the 3G was. Someone ought to take HTC by the shoulders and shake them until they start putting batteries into their phones. I've got a feeling Samsung will come out with an Android phone worth buying at some point soon, though.

Re:Excelsior, Manjoo (2, Informative)

RedK (112790) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180573)

Samsung already has. The Samsung Galaxy. It is already available on O2 in Germany from what I can gather.

Because they let the carriers screw with it. (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180073)

I joined the dev programs so I could buy a completely unlocked phone. Honestly Google should have told carriers to stuff it and sold the GooglePhone completely unlocked.

Market the googlephone as well. Anyone seeing mine says "what is that?" nobody knows about them because apple out marketed everyone, and google is sitting there going, buy my stuff please? pretty please?

I'll give you a sucker, it's Pina Colada....

It's an example of lets not market this thing and let's laso make it very un-shiny.

Re:Because they let the carriers screw with it. (3, Funny)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180455)

let's laso make it

I think you meant "lasso." Honestly, I think Apple out-lassoes Google, the way they corral all apps through their app store, the way users get roped into a consistent look-and-feel at the expense of choice. Google, on the other hand, gives developers just enough rope...

It's the phones (4, Insightful)

bzzfzz (1542813) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180119)

I spent several months at a startup where we were going to make $$profit by writing and selling Android applications. The problem is that the phones are, well, awful. The iPhone has set the standard, and things like the G1 are simply uninspiring by comparison. We would try to raise money, and in a room full of tech-savvy investors, most people have iPhones. We would pass around the G1 so they could see our app. Bottom line, they were not interested in investing money in a product that ran on a phone that was ugly.

Consequently I now write SQL for a living and get paid by the hour.

Android has done some great things. The control the user can have, the security model, the interaction between apps are all well thought out. One of these days it's going to be significant. Probably right after Linux is ready for the desktop.

Re:It's the phones (2, Funny)

AndersBrownworth (448236) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180311)

"... right after Linux is ready for the desktop."

Here here.

You Have To Be Joking! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29180675)

"One of these days it's going to be significant. Probably right after Linux is ready for the desktop."

Are you actually that clueless?

I find it impossible for someone to actually be posting in a story about cellphones, claiming to actually have worked at a company focused on cellphones, and yet...is pretending to be ignorant that

THE ENTIRE CELLPHONE MARKET is rapidly standardizing on Android.

Every damn cellphone manufacture in the world other than Apple, Palm, and Blackberry are coming out with Android based phones.

Android is so popular with hardware manufactures it is spreading out into media devices, netbooks, sub-netbook devices, etc.

Companies like Motorola have created a 200 person team dedicated to...you guessed it...Android.

Google's Android has effectively wiped Windows Mobile right out of the market and taken its place as the default cellphone OS.

So, yeah, nice story about the startup. Has absolutely nothing to do with the reality that Android isn't just a success. It's an astonishing success to have taken over so quickly.

 

Citation needed (5, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180123)

And even though Android is far friendlier to developers, it has failed to attract anywhere near the number of apps now clogging the iPhone.

I hear people parroting the first part of that statement, invariably without any supporting evidence. Please explain - I'm asking this seriously - why Android is "far friendlier to developers". If the apps aren't being developed, I'd argue that's at least one piece of evidence running counter to that assumption. The iPhone (and iPod Touch) seemed to have a significant number of third-party apps already available at launch, so marketshare can't explain it all away. Besides, as people love saying here, the iPhone's market share is not really all that big compared to some others (no, you can't have it both ways).

So is Android actually friendlier to developers, or is it just the old "it's on Linux and Open Source, so it contains the maximum degree of friendliness possible no matter how much a pain in the butt it is to use"?

Re:Citation needed (4, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180155)

Well, you don't have to pay Apple money to develop for Android, and you don't have to get Apple's permission to distribute your app to users. Those are probably pluses even if you experiencing full-on reality distortion.

Apple may still be providing a more attractive program though, simply by bothering to market their phones.

Show some evidence (3, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180439)

Well, you don't have to pay Apple money to develop for Android, and you don't have to get Apple's permission to distribute your app to users.

Those are nice factors worth considering but you didn't really answer the question. Is it true that "Android is far friendlier to developers"? I don't actually know the answer and don't pretend to know. I've certainly seen no compelling evidence that Android actually is meaningfully friendlier (whatever that means) or better meets the needs/desires of developers. It might be but the evidence seems to be lacking.

Re:Show some evidence (4, Informative)

bobetov (448774) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180701)

What part of "don't have to pay Apple money to develop for Android" and "don't have to get Apple's permission to distribute" did you not understand?

Android is a platform that give much more, and more meaningful, freedoms to app developers.

I'll add another big one - on the Android platform, replacing core apps with your own version is *encouraged*, and in fact *designed into the platform*. Unlike Apple's recent filing about "altering the core experience" re: Google Voice. Apple could create an iPhone-themed app suite for the G1 tomorrow, host it on their own servers, and no one could say otherwise. That's a pretty fundamental difference.

Say what you will about the iPhone as a sexy beast, etc, but as a developer platform and ecosystem, the only thing Android is missing is higher handset sales.

The Apple App Store vs Google (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180197)

I imagine that Google will have a much more lenient application 'store' or method of downloading applications to your phone. As Apple recently blocked Google's Talk application, I doubt Android would do this.

Given Google's history, their record is pretty developer friendly:

  • Google Wave is open, including the source
  • Google Maps
  • Chrome/Chromium
  • Homepage
  • Gadgets (whatever Google calls it)

While it might not hold much weight for a business to say it but there is also 'do no evil'.

Re:Citation needed (4, Informative)

jelizondo (183861) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180247)

As I mentioned in my previous comment, the "friendlier" to developers is really that it is open source, that you can use open source tools (Eclipse, Ant, etc.) for development, but that's all folks! as the good bunny said.

Documentation sucks, most of developers are outside the U.S. (from my experience mainly India and Pakistan) where they can't get a developer's phone, the emulator is fine except that it can't emulate making calls or receiving them, etc. etc.

It is "friendlier" in a sense but like the Apple of old days (i.e. early 80's), when you could get real support, real docs and real machines to develop apps.

Someone needs to get behind developers' support right away!

Re:Citation needed (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180501)

Documentation sucks, most of developers are outside the U.S. (from my experience mainly India and Pakistan) where they can't get a developer's phone

BrightStor, who handles the distribution of the ADP ships the Android Dev Phone world wide. The issue is being able to fork out US$400 + the US$25 Android Developer enrolment fee. You'll also need a method of payment that BrightStor's bank will accept.

Re:Citation needed (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180293)

I haven't tried to figure out the API, but it appears that Android based phones are much harder to program for due to lack of documentation, but you are also much more likely to have your app see the light of day than on the iPhone.

Basically the iPhone is about control of developers and users. As long as you don't do anything Apple doesn't approve of, the iPhone is lots friendlier to program for than Android based phones.

I'm going to have to sit down with the Android API and see if its as hard to learn as people say.

Re:Citation needed (2, Informative)

josteos (455905) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180345)

I found Android to be a great platform to develop on. The biggest hurdle was using Eclipse after being a Win32/Visual Studio dev for 10 years.

I was attracted to it by the lower cost of entry (I didn't have to buy an apple!) and the lack of a GateKeeper at the app store. The pleasant development framework was an added bonus. The smaller user population isn't as cool right now, but I haven't invested so much into it that I can't afford to wait while the market grows.

Re:Citation needed (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180457)

Lets see here, I don't need to buy a Mac and can continue to use my 2 year old computer for development, I also don't need to pay $99 to be able to publish my own apps, I don't need to wade through an "approval" process, basically there is no financial hindrance for people. I'd like to develop for the iPhone sometimes but I don't want to spend $700 minimum for a bit of small income, on the other hand, I can continue using existing materials and develop for Android. But the biggest reason why Android is going to thrive is no approval process, if Apple had a decent, sane process it wouldn't be as big of a deal, but with the headaches of the app store I can see the lack of that being the killer feature for Android developers.

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29180529)

Installing and using application on the Android platform is VERY easy for end users. If it's published in the market place you select the app on the market, click download, then install. That's all there is to it.

I just got a myTouch 3G so basically I can say that yes I do like it over the iPhone for the sole reason of multitasking but the problem for now is the hardware. It lags a lot. Still I can tether, play music from sdcard and audio streaming, I have full GPS with copilot live, etc etc. The only thing iPhone has over Android at the moment is hardware.

Many problems... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180127)

Even though there are a lot of Android handsets out they are all for... T-Mobile. Now, while T-Mobile is great for talking and texting and they have decent coverage and are GSM they have a fatal flaw, a lack of a 3G network. Ok, in larger cities you can get 3G just fine, but in a medium sized town? No 3G, AT&T has 3G there on the other hand. Similarly, they could have made the phones unlocked so you could use it on a different network, however they didn't. While AT&T is no saint when it comes to cell networks, they do have pretty good 3G coverage, T-Mobile, while improving just isn't there yet. Can't say anything about Sprint or Verizon as I haven't used either (Verizon seems to neuter -all- their phones to the point of being unusable and Sprint seems to be expensive).

Also, there needs to be a common third-party to buy their cell phones from, perhaps a Google store?

Re:Many problems... (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180515)

Even though there are a lot of Android handsets out they are all for... T-Mobile.

The problem isn't with the HTC hardware, the problem is with the balkanisation of the US mobile networks. Each telco operates on its own frequency. HTC went with the most common 3G frequency in the world, the 2100 band. In Australia every telco maintains a HSPA 2100 MHz network although 2 telco's simultaneously operate other 3G networks (Telstra = 850 MHz, Optus = 900 MHz). HTC didn't make a bad decision, they made one that was not US centric, this explains why the HTC Dream/Magic is more popular in Europe then in the states.

Docs support (1)

PrimaryConsult (1546585) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180131)

I would be more inclined to ditch my Windows Mobile for Android if MS/Open Office type apps were free, or even if there were full Google Docs support... the open development environment and physical keyboard option kick iPhone's ass for my purposes.

Re:Docs support (1)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180661)

I just switched to the HTC Magic and I freaking love it - however, I must agree. The GDocs app is Free, which is nice and all... but Google really needs to get off their butt and make full Google Docs.

My wife and I both bought Android phones just recently (replacing a different smartphone) and we've been nothing but happy with them.

Requiring Developers to Collect Sales Tax (5, Interesting)

TimTucker (982832) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180151)

Signed up right away, got my Dev Phone 1 and then came the news that pretty much knocked most of the wind out of my sales when it came to development: Google announced that they were requiring developers to deal with collecting sales tax. I'd imagine that I'm not the only person wanting to write a few small apps in hopes of making a little extra income that was completely put off by the decision.

Re:Requiring Developers to Collect Sales Tax (5, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180285)

google is giving you a 98% tax cut, assuming even distribution among states for your sales. any billing zip code in your state you had better set aside and remit sales tax to the local authorities, but the other 49 states aren't your problem. if google collected sales tax they would have to collect on every transaction.

It's Linux! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29180161)

Google went wrong by giving handset manufacturers and carriers too much control over the design and marketing of Android phones so there is no idealized 'Google phone'

So.. It's like the Linux of phones?

Rough user interface (1, Insightful)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180173)

I find the Android ui to be kind of unpolished. It looks like something from several years ago. I know it sounds nitpicky, but it just doesn't have that "I want to use this" vibe.

Plus, how is Android more developer-friendly? The iPhone and Windows Mobile have nice SDKs, big communities, tons of code around, etc.

Re:Rough user interface (1)

SDFanboy (1338045) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180621)

Well for one thing, you need a Mac to write for the iPhone...

Well in Canada... (3, Informative)

seifried (12921) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180177)

No-one is selling the darn things (I've yet to see one in a store/cell phone kiosk). That could be part of the problem up here at least. If anyone knows where I can get one (in western Canada) please let me know, I'd love to be proven wrong.

Re:Well in Canada... (1)

hidden (135234) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180385)

Where are you? Here (Edmonton, AB) every rogers wireless ad features either the Dream (the g1) or the Magic

Where can you get one? well...any rogers store.

Re:Well in Canada... (1)

CreamyG31337 (1084693) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180461)

Uhh, you could try our only GSM provider... Robbers [rogers.com] $600? could that be why? I'm holding out for those cheap ones they're supposed to be saturating the market with any month now...

Re:Well in Canada... (1)

RedK (112790) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180637)

600$ ? No, you can get them for 79$ subsidized on a 3 year contract.

Even T-mobile affiats aren't offering (1)

kb9vcr (127764) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180179)

Even T-mobile affiliates like iWireless (in Iowa) don't offer the G1 or myTouch. Google needs to stop relying on T-mobile and get Android phones as offerings from all national carriers. I'd love to get an android phone to replace my current sub-par MS 6.1 based HTC smartphone. Time to start flexing some muscle google!

talk about not understanding the industry! (3, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180189)

Wow, just stunning. If the lack of an idealized phone were the problem, WinMo wouldn't have anywhere near the marketshare it has. For Android to take over, one simple thing needs to happen - a wider selection of Android phones on a wider selection of providers, at a wide selection of price points.

Re:talk about not understanding the industry! (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180639)

WinMo's market share is shrinking quickly. It's around 13% versus over 20% when the iPhone started shipping. It's losing share to Apple, Palm and RIM. The lack of an idealized phone really is a big deal. Most consumers don't care about the O/S. They care about the phone, it's features and applications and it's "coolness". Each in their own way Apple, Pre and RIM have done a better job in large part because they control the hardware design. After all, cell phone users don't go to the store to buy an O/S. They go to buy a "phone". Interestingly, as someone else pointed out, WinMo is far more "developer friendly" than Android, Blackberry and, for the moment, Pre. Market buzz and customers willing and eager to buy apps - a market and the potential for profit - is what attracts developers first and foremost.

All It Takes is ONE KILLER APP (0)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180203)

Whiners.

All it takes to win droves over to a single Android phone is One Killer App that you cannot get anywhere else. It has to be an idea so radical that its specific implementation can be patented and licensed in a proprietary manner because it requires the use of extensive parallel back-end processing for each front-end client. In addition to that, it requires a sort of database that is unique to each client--in every way except for the raw materials used to create its shape. It must have an ongoing data storage requirement for each customer, one that grows absolutely forever until that client stops being a customer and then all that constructed database structure is gone.

It takes a killer app that changes the game so much, one that makes your world different because it makes you a better human being--for whatever purpose you have in mind. This app is something that will not be as useful on the first day you get it as it will be years from then, when your usage patterns are in built to the system.

This thing I'm describing is complex, it has a lot of moving parts, a lot of parallel, asynchronous processing. Just building the thing in all its glory has been an ongoing project for years, with whole half years having been devoted to subsystems. I have a lot of time invested in what I've already done, for example. It's in Java because I didn't want to worry about the language, I wanted to worry about the architecture. I've been doing Java for about 13 years so I really can think in it, pardoning the Bruce Eckels echo.

Do I want to try to replicate all the client code in this new curiosity, Objective C? Do I want to put my energy into learning how Objective C compares to C or C++, or is my creativity better spent completing this idea in Java-friendly Android, knowing that all it will take is something really cool that people are talking about and using and that they want assurances from the company that this data structure they've built in it is safe and backed up.

The platform is trivial. The App is King. Long Live The Killer App.

Re:All It Takes is ONE KILLER APP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29180631)

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but I hope all the other cranks and weirdos stick to android too.

Where's the market? (3, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180205)

Where is the market? AT&T has the iPhone, the phone. The one everyone wants to beat.

Sprint has the Pre. It's a pretty decent phone with a few build quality issues. Once Palm gets a brain and starts letting apps come out, it could be pretty good.

Verizon has... who knows. Standard Blackberries?

And then there is little T-Mobile with.. Blackberries.

I don't remember seeing many (any?) ads for the G1. I don't remember anyone talking about it except release day calling it "the google phone" when it's not Googly in any way. Basically, not many people care, because I don't think many people know about it. My boss has one, and it's quite nice. But it has no mindshare.

Why should it? It doesn't have an amazing app store (like the iPhone). It doesn't have sexy hardware (like the iPhone or many imitators). It doesn't have an amazingly cheap price. There is nothing to stand out about it other than running "google OS". And since Android doesn't have a reputation yet, that doesn't sell phones.

Great apps would help, but people won't build those until the thing is more popular. Better hardware would help a little so it doesn't look so blocky (the G2 should help here).

Microsoft has this same problem. When Apple wants the hardware to do something, it builds it. When Microsoft wants it, they push and prod and within a few years it happens. Dell (et all) don't make sexy computers, or at least didn't start until after years of Apple taking the "good looking" market.

Android could be something great, even if it takes the "low end smartphone" market. But it could take years to get there, and companies may not be willing to wait that long. If Google had taken some of the risk and co-developed a phone (a Honda or Acura to Apple's BMW, instead of the Ford Focus we got) Android could be in a better spot.

But the Pre is the weakest right now, in my eyes. They've had months and released almost no apps. You know what they just released in the last week or two? Out of the 4 or 5 apps, two were to help people with Jewish observances. Not exactly "phone moving" applications. Floodgates may not open until Christmas or later, and without some lower-level stuff there might not be good games. Some strong funded development in apps and some marketing could really help Android. More phones certainly would.

The question is, will this be the next DOS/Windows (good enough, builds up to dominance), or OS/2 (better than the common, but never achieves critical mass and becomes irrelevant)?

How about a series of ads showing how easy it is to navigate/use the phone, compared to the nightmare of a UI that Blackberries use? Aim for that market. Aim for consumers (not necessarily businesses) who want a smartphone, but don't want and iPod.

Of course, I wouldn't want to fight against a $99 iPhone. The only reason that thing hasn't destroyed the market is it's tied to AT&T.

Re:Where's the market? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29180421)

The only reason that thing hasn't destroyed the market is it's tied to AT&T.

Bwahahahaha, you fanboys are in limited supply.

I'd like to get one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29180211)

I'd like to get an Android phone, but AT&T doesn't seem to offer one yet. T-Mobile does, but they don't do so well with coverage where I need it. I actually AM in the market for a new Smart Phone to replace a really old Windows Mobile device - and was considering both iPhone and Android as the front runners. However, after seeing how apple won't let me run what I want (and being a fairly new Google Voice user) I would much rather go with an Android. I hear they are supposed to have a bunch more Android phones on the market by the end of the year. I hope that AT&T will offer some decent ones, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Marketing trumps Quality (2, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180223)

We have known this for ages and we still act as if this is somehow surprising?

Most Apple users believe they are somehow better than everyone else and that they are somehow elite because they own an Apple product. -1 Troll me if you like, but there are many people who truly believe that and one classic twitter posting complaining about the reduction in prices of Apple notebook computers really expresses what everyone else is afraid to admit -- that buying a particular brand of anything somehow says something about who they are. People buying Harley Davidson motorcycles for weekend rides or having their bikes transported on trailers to motorcycle rallies like Sturgis somehow makes them a member of a biker's culture? It's not true. Slapping a popular label on your ass does not make anyone cooler or better, and yet people still persist in believing so and why?

The power of marketing influence is great! But these Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded.

Re:Marketing trumps Quality (3, Insightful)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180591)

that buying a particular brand of anything somehow says something about who they are.

You are correct that buying a brand says nothing about who you are. But the substance of what you buy does indeed say quite a bit about your priorities. You seem to hold a greatly simplified view of the market and the forces that drive it: that all consumers buy only by brand and that none choose on merit. With the exception of you, obviously, the only one able to look past branding and make an educated decision.

But, it appears that brands do indeed matter to you! You make a dismissal of Apple products based merely upon their popularity and trendy branding, with no mention of any objective shortcomings. Has it occurred to you that a certain subset of Apple's customers actually buy their products for superior usability? That a Harley Davidson rider may have comparison shopped and chosen a Harley based on its mechanical qualities?

Brand identity is indeed one major force in the marketplace. But it's far from the only one.

Re:Marketing trumps Quality (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180703)

The point of my comment is that Marketing trumps Quality. It would be off-point to go into the fact that most Apple products are pretty good. I service Apple products and I often get paid for it. I probably know a bit more about Apple products than you do -- the good the bad and the ugly. It's not relevant to the point I was making which is that marketing and brand names maintain a nearly hypnotic brain control over most people and this is all thanks to marketing. Marketing exploits the weak minded and wills them to buy and believe. It works. The quality of the products or services are irrelevant.

I don't recall dismissing Apple products in my most recent posting. I dismiss users who believe that owning and using Apple products somehow makes them better, more special people.

And let's be really clear on this point. Apple does not survive on quality. They survive on their loyal and fanatical fan base. This fact is well documented by all sorts of researchers and marketing experts all over the globe. It's not just my opinion, but the exploration of a rather interesting phenomenon.

The weak minded are those who cannot see (1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180617)

Most Apple users believe they are somehow better than everyone else and that they are somehow elite because they own an Apple product.

You know what? I've never met an Apple user like that. All the people I know who use macs are very friendly. Most have a lot of experience with Windows too, out of necessity at work. They know the good and the bad of each.

So who are the people who really think they are better than anyone else? To a man, I'd have to say the Apple Haters. They are always posting missives like yours, deriding people for falling under some kind of "marketing spell" because there's just no way they could simply find the devices useful, right? These people thus broadcast loud and clear that they are superior to you, the weak minded Apple user, because they have the strength of will to keep doing what they have always done!

So stay in that shiny rut sir, and admire the many mirrors around you... you seem too far gone to be able to survive outside your chamber of self-admiration.

Hello? .. Android is far friendlier to developers? (-1, Troll)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180241)

Did I read that right in the summary: Android is far friendlier to developers ???

A few answers down someone writes this: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1346125&cid=29180063 [slashdot.org]

I simply ask: how can anyone assume, that for a linux based phone operation system it can be easier to develop for, than for Mac OS X? Rofl ...

angel'o'sphere

Re:Hello? .. Android is far friendlier to develope (1)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180679)

Why is parent modded flamebait?

Look, it's a tradeoff. If you think the loosely-documented Android is an easier development environment than the fastidiously-documented and streamlined Cocoa Touch environment, you're probably deluding yourself and modding people down out of insecurity. However, when it comes to publishing, the reverse is true -- Make an Android app that Google doesn't like and you'll probably have a lot better chance of it getting into users' hands than if you make an iPhone app Apple doesn't like.

Both can be improved. Google can move toward a consolidation of developer documentation and resources, and Apple can loosen up about its functionality prohibitions.

Maybe the "smart" choice is to buy nothing. (1)

hoarier (1545701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180297)

Phones are social objects; they live and die on cultural perception, on our collective assessment of what carrying them can do for our style.

or so the article tells me. Huh? My main phone (a Casio, for Japan) lives and dies on its battery. It's reliable and legible and the payment plan makes it cheaper than most of the alternatives. It's about three years old, making it half the age of my other phone (Sony Eriksson, for Britain). So I'm happy with it, though you're welcome to enjoy your own, very different phone.

Pace Farhad Manjoo but I really couldn't give a bowel movement about my "style" (if any) and unless you're an available and unusually alluring specimen of the opposite sex I don't care what you think of it either.

Consider using your old phone [adbusters.org] and doing less to accelerate the degradation of the planet.

Re:Maybe the "smart" choice is to buy nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29180653)

Get a real phone, loser.

I've yet to see one in the wild... (2, Informative)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180299)

We've spent a lot of the past 6 months optimizing a mobile version of our website & ecommerce systems as well as developing native apps for the iPhone and Blackberry. I go around and test on anyone with a smartphone I see. And I've yet to meet a single person with a G1 or MyTouch.

Features... (1, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180301)

features that far surpass those of Apple's device,

Tethering, VOIP, and Google Voice alone would far outpace the iPhones selection of farts and beer glass pouring apps.

Yeah cuz the others don't have a head start ... (3, Insightful)

Hohlraum (135212) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180305)

I'm so sick of people making number comparisons between similar technologies that were released sometimes YEARS earlier than the others.

I am amazed nobody mentioned that yet (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180517)

The Android just came out.

waiting for a hero (1)

c0reboarder (885528) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180307)

Just waiting for the HTC Hero to hit the US on a carrier larger then t-mobile! (rumor dates are Oct 11th on Sprint...released in Europe in June) This phone seems to be in the same league as the iPhone and may help increase Android's popularity.

Here's why I don't have one (1)

blue l0g1c (1007517) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180319)

I'll tell you why I desperately want an Android phone, but won't buy one. It's because the carriers have locked-down what is supposed to be a "free, open source, and fully customizable mobile platform". If I get one that is unlocked through other means, it is prohibitively expensive and I'm pretty sure my carrier would still find a way to screw me.

Re:Here's why I don't have one (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180561)

I'll tell you why I desperately want an Android phone, but won't buy one. It's because the carriers have locked-down what is supposed to be a "free, open source, and fully customizable mobile platform".

Buy a HTC Dream or Magic unlocked from here [clove.co.uk] or here [mobicity.com.au] , root and install Cyanogen mod [xda-developers.com] on it. You still have to use a telco that has a 2100 MHz HSDPA 3G network but that's your problem, you have a free, open source and fully customisable mobile platform. If you dont like doing the work yourself then you are stuck with whatever the carrier chooses and again that's your problem.

Simple, it's all about design. (1)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180329)

For the most part, I consider the HTC Hero the first Android phone worth owning because it looks pleasing to use. That's what the iPhone was successful. The G1 looks like a god awful brick and the myTouch 3G is only a slight improvement on that. People buy phones to make a statement, and just wanting to support open source doesn't get a lot of "normal" people onto the platform. I think Android will change for the better once Sprint gets the HTC Hero on it's network.

I tried to get an Android phone, really I did... (1)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180351)

...but I wasn't about to change services just to get one. I have AT&T Wireless, and have been in the market for several years now for an upgrade. I've waited and waited for an Android phone to become available, but nothing ever came my way. So, I've settled for a Nokia E71x, which isn't my ideal phone, but it certainly beats the vaporware that is Android on AT&T Wireless.

Should google be a copycat? (1)

Skitsnack (1535783) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180361)

The article and the study looks at smartphones. There is a lot of people that just wants a nice phone that they can call other people with. A lot of these people also wants to take pictures or listen to music on their phone. Most of these people do not want to install third party applications on their phones. These handsets are much cheaper to buy and sells in much greater numbers. Some of these phones have the capabilities of what was really expensive phones a couple of years ago. So they need a shiny OS driving them.

If Google wanted to copy what Apple has been doing they could start selling a clone - the gPhone. But is Google really a hardware company? No, not really. As I understand it Google is trying to get Android to be the OS that other companies will want as the OS in their phones. Not Google's phones but their phones. In order to make that happen they have to give up total control.

Apple will probably be able to continue selling sexy expensive phones and make a great profit doing so. I think Google wants Android to be the OS that powers the rest of market. Look out Symbian.

MyTouch vs iPhone (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180373)

I was interested in a new smart phone and did a comparison between the MyTouch and the iPhone by playing around with each for about 15 minutes in a store. I wanted to like the MyTouch, but overall the iPhone experience was much nicer when playing with all the Apps. But one thing that really got me (and my older eyes) was that the iPhones screen (and hence icons) were much larger than the MyTouch - so it was a no brainer if I wanted to be able to see things on the phone. However in the end I still couldn't justify the cost of a 3GS for the way I use a phone.

I have a G1 (2, Insightful)

lattyware (934246) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180381)

And for me, it's far better than an iPhone would ever be. Why, because it syncs to my Google Apps for your domain account, so I can access emails on my phone in a very efficient manner, because I have an app which throws texts back the other way so I can read them on my PC, because it does everything I want from a phone extremely well, and more. Oh, and a qwerty keyboard helps a lot too.

Killer App (1)

deftmonkey (1624253) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180403)

If developer friendliness or freedom is the primary advantage of android, then someone needs to prove it by developing and marketing a useful and exciting app that can't exist on other mobile platforms due to their developer restrictions. That someone has to be Google, because nobody else is going to take the risk of putting in the time and effort for a platform with such a small user base.

Citation needed. (5, Interesting)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180407)

HTC's Dream and Magic are selling better then expected.

It was never Google's or HTC's plan to take the market by storm, they intended to bleed Android in slowly rather then try to shove it at everyone at once a la Apple.

The Android market growth is slow, but steady. Comparing Google Android to Apple iphone is like comparing the tortoise to the hare. Android has only been released for a bit over 9 months, Google is following its standard MO, release slowly and improve just like it does with all of its services (Gmail for example). Google is simply not rushing to market. In the 9 months that Android has been released we've had two updates 1.1 and 1.5 (which added a heap of functionality).

Android will continue to grow as more handsets are released for it. It's a fair point that the HTC hardware could be better (it's not that bad either) but compared with the gen 1 iphone the gen 1 Android phone (HTC Dream) is far superior and HTC failure and DOA rate is far lower then that of Apple (this is why HTC phones are so expensive). Android is a good OS and it's usage will continue to grow. HTC have released their third phone (HTC Hero), just not in the states, Motarola have 2 on the way ("Sholes" and "Morrison") and Sony has 1 (Xpeira "Rachel") which looks to be the best HW yet for Android. After 5 minutes of using my android phone I realised that it wasn't competing with the Iphone, Google is targeting WinMo and has every chance of supplanting WinMo if development continues at it's current breakneck pace.

As for a "killer app", it's called flash and is coming in Donut.

T-mobile, yet no UMA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29180411)

A big reason, in fact the only reason, that I went with t-mobile was for UMA calling. I live in a bad reception area regardless of carrier. I'd love to purchase an Android based phone... if you know... I could actually use it.

T Mobile is doing no favors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29180453)

I love my G1 but the T-Mobile network is absolutely atrocious. The hardware is great, the software is coming along just fine, but it's shackled to the worst of the big carriers. Android is a foxy mistress shackled to a homely girlfriend and there's no wingman in sight.

More Android on the way (1)

teopatl (162615) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180463)

Moto's releasing a couple Android phones (Sholes on VZW and Morrison on T-M) by the end of the year. The "leaked" photos don't look abortions, fwiw.

Re:More Android on the way (1)

teopatl (162615) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180473)

look like*

Better Marketing (1)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180469)

This is an easy one.

The only person to ever see my phone and know what it was just happened to be another G1 owner. Not another soul knew in nearly a year now. Instead I was met with, "What is that?"

Little Premature (2, Insightful)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180483)

Let's wait until the end of the year to declare Android dead. After all, there are (as far as I know) only three Android phones being sold in the U.S. right now, with far more announced for sale before the end of the year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_android#Forthcoming [wikipedia.org]

Also, the U.S. isn't the only market for mobile phones. There's also Europe and the Far East.

HTC, the seller of 80% of Windows Mobile phones, was the first provider to start selling Android phones.

What's likely to happen is that, since it's free, Android will supplant Windows Mobile, which Microsoft charges for.

Because the phone is bad and the network worse (1)

belcoop (1007715) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180493)

In the US, only T-mobile (known for the worse connection anywhere) offers an android phone. Moreover, the phone they offer costs as much to the client as the iPhone, while feeling, looking and acting cheaper. Bad starting point. Once a decent network offers a decent phone competition can start.

Android T Mobile (5, Insightful)

axx (1000412) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180505)

Reading the comments I got the feeling I was reading a 9 months old article, I actually went to check the date on comments a few times.

Might I remind you that Android handsets have been released around the world, not only in the USA.

In France for instance, the HTCMagic (the G2 I believe) had advertisement in the metro and was labeled as a Google Phone (it's the Android name that doesn't pushed get out there, not the Google name). In Australia there are also ads for the same phone in phone shops.
Also, they are about 4 phones available right now running android (HTCDream, Magic, Hero and Samsung Galaxy).
Always going back to the T Mobile G1 is a little backwards looking and sort of like complaining about how the iPhone 1 doesn't have 3G.

The HTC Hero has an entirely revamped UI for instance, so things are also evolving outside the hood as well as under (even if the Hero's hardware admittedly isn't good enough and not future-proof).

So although I agree that Android lacks a killer app and the I want one factor that the iPhone has, saying that Android has problems because T Mobile's network sucks is really USA-centric.
From the different reports we've seen, the Magic has sold a million units since it was released in May. Now we're nowhere near iPhone numbers, but it isn't exactly a failure commercially speaking.

Considering another 15 or so phones running Android should come out before the end of the year (probably quite a few Samsungs, at least one Sony-Ericsson and some more HTCs), Android is gearing up.

I'm not saying it doesn't need a whole lot more marketing, a lot more see how easy it is to do this on Android type ads on TV to explain to non tech-savvy people why it's good, better form factors and gadget lust or some unified branding to avoid having a same phone have 5 different names, but it's nowhere near the catastrophe some seem to see it as. As someone said, it's going to gain momentum slowly, not become the next big thing overnight.

Re:Android T Mobile (1)

axx (1000412) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180549)

The title was supposed to be Android [not equal] T Mobile.
Also, my french quotes were stripped.
What's up with "unusual" characters Slashdot ?

HTC seems like the best bet to make a porsche (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29180575)

They need a great phone ready when verizon upgrades their network to 4g. refuse to let verizon cripple the phone. A phone better than the iphone, that doesnt drop calls, on a network that actually has a service area would eat market share pretty fast. plus their are a lot of people tied to verizon for network coverage that would kill for a full feature, non crippled smartphone, and would pay any amount to get one.

Do Telcos (in Aust) really want to sell Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29180665)

In Australia if you want an Android phone you have to hunt for it. Currently the dominant player Telstra does not carry one and they are the only provider with significant coverage outside cities. While all the Telco's flood the marketing channels with deals and glossies on other touch screen and smart phones, I do not recall one such promo for an Android phone. The news and marketing for Android phones are limited to IT related media.

It will be interesting to see how Samsung handle the release of the Galaxy in Australia next month.

They shouldn't be emulating Apple. (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29180705)

I have no interest in the android because it's not open enough for my liking. If I wanted an iPhone, I would have gone out ant gotten an iPhone.

LK

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>