4 ms·

Because they spend a ton of money on crap "enhancements" to the original UI (except for HTC sense which I don't really care about, all others I've seen are crap

by nkassis 16y ago

Because they spend a ton of money on crap "enhancements" to the original UI (except for HTC sense which I don't really care about, all others I've seen are crap). If they just released plain Android they wouldn't have anything to differentiate themselves. The problem with their plan is that they suck at software development and their enhancements make the phones worse and outdated.

glhaynes 16y ago
I suppose you're right. Seems strange for those things to apparently be so badly broken by OS upgrades that they need months/years to fix. You'd think the savings on support costs alone would be substantial from not having to support older, presumably buggier, versions of the OS. Though I suppose most of the support for these devices comes from the telcos not from the handset makers. Anyway, here's a radical and not necessarily good idea: what if the base "Android" release didn't have a launcher/etc at all, leaving what's commonly called "the UI" entirely up to handset makers. Sure, spin off the existing launcher as a separate open source project, but make it just one competitor among many. If diversity in this area is good and manufacturers really do want to differentiate themselves, make that a core part of the platform. It's not like it's that expensive to write a launcher.
tvon 16y ago
Hardware manufacturers don't see themselves as Android distributors, they don't want to compete to see who can make the best home for vanilla Android. They see Android as a jumping off point, not a final product.
- iuhjytgfbnjhmk 16y ago
  They should - Dell doesn't differentiate it's smartphone from HTC's by CPU spec. Users of cell phones care about UI and only UI - judging from the queues outside the Apple store even the ability to make calls come second.
- rryyan 16y ago
  Agreed. The problem is, I don't think phone manufacturers are adding enough value in their enhancements for customers to care. As it stands now, the new features that Google adds in every update to Android are much more desirable than whatever features the manufacturers are tacking on.

by nkassis 16y ago

glhaynes 16y ago

I suppose you're right. Seems strange for those things to apparently be so badly broken by OS upgrades that they need months/years to fix. You'd think the savings on support costs alone would be substantial from not having to support older, presumably buggier, versions of the OS. Though I suppose most of the support for these devices comes from the telcos not from the handset makers. Anyway, here's a radical and not necessarily good idea: what if the base "Android" release didn't have a launcher/etc at all, leaving what's commonly called "the UI" entirely up to handset makers. Sure, spin off the existing launcher as a separate open source project, but make it just one competitor among many. If diversity in this area is good and manufacturers really do want to differentiate themselves, make that a core part of the platform. It's not like it's that expensive to write a launcher.

tvon 16y ago

Hardware manufacturers don't see themselves as Android distributors, they don't want to compete to see who can make the best home for vanilla Android. They see Android as a jumping off point, not a final product.

iuhjytgfbnjhmk 16y ago
They should - Dell doesn't differentiate it's smartphone from HTC's by CPU spec. Users of cell phones care about UI and only UI - judging from the queues outside the Apple store even the ability to make calls come second.
rryyan 16y ago
Agreed. The problem is, I don't think phone manufacturers are adding enough value in their enhancements for customers to care. As it stands now, the new features that Google adds in every update to Android are much more desirable than whatever features the manufacturers are tacking on.