3 ms·

Devices like these can be very harmful to Android's image in the public, especially if their only feature/selling point is "powered by Android". My brother bou

by frb 16y ago

Devices like these can be very harmful to Android's image in the public, especially if their only feature/selling point is "powered by Android". My brother bought a Samsung Galaxy cellphone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy). The half-baked combination of hardware and software, with no updates available, made him soon regret the purchase. He was angry at Samsung and Google/Android for "producing such crap". Somehow he managed to return it and got an iPhone instead. This experience made him to not buy an Android phone again. More of such bad examples/devices could become a really big problem for Android.

hvs 16y ago
Conversely, the Samsung Galaxy S class of phones (I have the Captivate from AT&T) is a wonderful device. The only limitation is that it is still on 2.1, but it is supposed to be upgrade "sometime". That's AT&T's fault, though.
- frb 16y ago
  I think they've learned their lessons since the first Galaxy. It seems that there's much dependency on carriers and manufacturers in the Android world. What if security related bugs are discovered? Are there minor updates to fix these? And how fast are they deployed by the carrier or manufacturer?
- tuxychandru 16y ago
  It is not entirely carriers' fault though. Samsung is yet to roll-out the update even in out countries like India, where carriers don't interfere with it at all. To top it all off, they've disabled OTA and need a Windows only desktop software (Kies) to update the OS. The latest version of this doesn't upgrade even minor upgrades of the firmware. A HN user suggested a workaround on another thread by downgrading the version of Kies. When I tried it, it didn't even show that a minor firmware upgrade was available. While Galaxy is wonderful on the hardware side, it has miles to go with its software.
  - hvs 16y ago
    I agree, but that's generally true of hardware companies. Intel's software (other than their compiler) is terrible. I wish hardware companies would just agree on a standard and let the software companies (Apple, Microsoft, etc.) handle synchronization. Yes, I know it is isn't as easy as that, but it would have to be better than the ghetto that is hardware company-supplied software.
motters 16y ago
Right, and tablets generally. If a lot of ordinary users buy these or receive them as Christmas presents they may just conclude that tablets and/or Android are worthless and should be avoided in any future purchases.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  More likely, they'll think, "I should've gotten an iPad!"

by frb 16y ago

hvs 16y ago

Conversely, the Samsung Galaxy S class of phones (I have the Captivate from AT&T) is a wonderful device. The only limitation is that it is still on 2.1, but it is supposed to be upgrade "sometime". That's AT&T's fault, though.

frb 16y ago
I think they've learned their lessons since the first Galaxy. It seems that there's much dependency on carriers and manufacturers in the Android world. What if security related bugs are discovered? Are there minor updates to fix these? And how fast are they deployed by the carrier or manufacturer?
tuxychandru 16y ago
It is not entirely carriers' fault though. Samsung is yet to roll-out the update even in out countries like India, where carriers don't interfere with it at all. To top it all off, they've disabled OTA and need a Windows only desktop software (Kies) to update the OS. The latest version of this doesn't upgrade even minor upgrades of the firmware. A HN user suggested a workaround on another thread by downgrading the version of Kies. When I tried it, it didn't even show that a minor firmware upgrade was available. While Galaxy is wonderful on the hardware side, it has miles to go with its software.
- hvs 16y ago
  I agree, but that's generally true of hardware companies. Intel's software (other than their compiler) is terrible. I wish hardware companies would just agree on a standard and let the software companies (Apple, Microsoft, etc.) handle synchronization. Yes, I know it is isn't as easy as that, but it would have to be better than the ghetto that is hardware company-supplied software.

motters 16y ago

Right, and tablets generally. If a lot of ordinary users buy these or receive them as Christmas presents they may just conclude that tablets and/or Android are worthless and should be avoided in any future purchases.

stcredzero 16y ago
More likely, they'll think, "I should've gotten an iPad!"