5 ms·

What differentiates those premium phones? It runs the same Android of which I rather have a stock version than the bloat-ware rubbish that phone makers install

by cies 5y ago

What differentiates those premium phones? It runs the same Android of which I rather have a stock version than the bloat-ware rubbish that phone makers install on there for me. The iOS devices link into a web of ease-of-use, and come with a reasonably well make stock version of iOS. And then there's trust. Whom does an average user trust more with their data? (Apple/USgov, or Google/USgov+Samsung/SouthKorea+...)

oblio 5y ago
Believe it or not, but "stock Android" has been tried about 10 times. It failed. Only techies care. Regular users want a ton of features. Edit: Sales numbers tell you all you need to know about "stock Android" success :-)
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  Regular users don't actually know anything about the difference. They look at how many megapixels the camera has and the resolution of the screen and things like that, because they're numbers you can compare. Regular users don't know what "stock Android" is. And then they come home with a phone full of bloatware and complain about it after. Nobody actually buys the phone for the bloatware. These companies are wasting their money developing it. They just want the phone with the better camera. The real problem is that techies can't improve Android because the hardware vendors are shipping custom kernels and their hardware can't use the stock kernel. So Android is "open source" but there is no ecosystem of people scratching that itch with the improvements flowing to the ordinary users because it's so hard to modify what came with your device. Especially when many of the techies still care about the better screen and camera. Think about it this way. There is no reason every Android phone on the market shouldn't come with the option of stock Android. Even if you think the majority of "regular users" wouldn't want it, the availability of it would get them a few sales from techies, right? And then we would really find out what people want, because they get the choice without it being tied to the rest of the hardware.
  - oblio 5y ago
    > There is no reason every Android phone on the market shouldn't come with the option of stock Android. Umm...there is a very solid reason: support costs. Nobody wants to double the support matrix.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      The vendor's Android is going to be 99% stock Android and 1% things that will have higher rather than lower support costs than stock Android because it will have a smaller user base and be less likely to have the bugs already discovered and patched. Support costs would, if anything, go down.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    > Regular users don't actually know anything about the difference. They look at how many megapixels the camera has and the resolution of the screen and things like that, because they're numbers you can compare. > Nobody actually buys the phone for the bloatware. Often the bloatware is half of the silly stuff listed in the marketing specs on the box. The features might be junk, but they're bulletpoints in a list of features that people are looking at on the shelf. I see these kinds of "specs" listed all the time: digital zoom, "optimizers" of various sorts, social media "integrations", etc.
- creshal 5y ago
  Most regular users want as many features as they can get, for a reasonable price point. And Samsung is king in that market – their A series phones have a huge sales volume. Some users can afford real premium phones. And Samsung's offerings mostly just kinda suck software wise, even when the hardware is decent. Techies know this and have a huge variety of stock Android alternatives to choose from (which, somehow, continue to exist…), and even non-techies very quickly figure out that Apple or Google Pixel phones just work, unlike Samsung's.
  - oblio 5y ago
    > Google Pixel phones just work, unlike Samsung's Everything I've heard about Pixels tells me you're not right. They have a ton of bugs, besides the mediocre to bad hardware. And Samsung moves more premium phones (aka S-series) each year than all Pixel phones ever sold. You probably live in the US, but Pixel phones are also almost impossible to get outside the US (though things are getting slightly better) and their market share where they're available is minuscule in whichever market segment you're looking. Outside of the US Chinese phones, besides Samsung A-series, dominate. And in many countries flagship Chinese models are sold more than Apple phones. And BTW, if you thought Samsung adds bloatware, you should see what Xiaomi or Huawei add :-)) Regular users don't care about bloatware. It's a techie fetish. I've been around the block a ton of time and this discussion is so old and boring it's not even worth having. "Big binaries suck" -> Electron apps winning everywhere. "Lean operating systems" -> Windows never budging on the desktop and Android, which is kind of a mobile device pig winning the mobile battle. It's actually somewhat rare that techie (early adopter) interests align with regular user (late adopter or laggard) interests.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      > And in many countries flagship Chinese models are sold more than Apple phones. Is any one disputing this? The OP of this thread is about iPhones being 13% market share.
  - 015a 5y ago
    This is just... wrong. I mean, I don't know what bubble you're living in, but my bubble is not like this. Every single person I've ever met, except one, uses either an iPhone or a Galaxy. Probably a sample size of 100 people. The one exception uses a Pixel, and he's a software engineer. The reason why I'm confident enough in saying you're wrong, is because my experience tracks with US smartphone shipment metrics. Apple and Samsung are the leaders in the US. Pixel isn't even in view of the finish line. Bluntly: Nerds use Pixel devices. Legacy from the Nexus days. Most people wouldn't even know what a Pixel is. Modern Samsung devices are absolutely fantastic phones. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't used one since TouchWiz.
- musicale 5y ago
  I guess I'm a techie, because I don't want vendor crapware and I do want more than 2 years of software updates and security patches (though it has gotten better over the past few years - probably partially due to Android One, which is closer to stock Android!) And last I checked, Google's Pixel (5/6/etc.) phones seemed pretty decent.
  - dannyw 5y ago
    pixel is not stock android
    - musicale 5y ago
      I was responding primarily to the "only techies care" part. Although Pixel phones are at the top of "best stock Android phone" lists, they're not technically stock Android. "Granted, Pixel UI is very, very close to stock. However, it is not technically stock as Google adds in tons of Pixel-exclusive features and pre-installs apps here and there." https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-stock-android-845627/ https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-stock-android-84562... iPhones also (mostly) meet my criteria and are pretty good smartphones, and they don't run Android at all. ;-)
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  Regular users are heavily influenced by marketing. Hence, Samsung's and Apple's dominance.
tomjen3 5y ago
The expensive Samsungs are the foldables and things like the ultra, with super zoom cameras.
FpUser 5y ago
I suspect o called "average user" would probably trust anything. Non average: I have no idea but I personally just simply do not trust. Do not care what is the company name.

by cies 5y ago

oblio 5y ago

Believe it or not, but "stock Android" has been tried about 10 times. It failed. Only techies care. Regular users want a ton of features. Edit: Sales numbers tell you all you need to know about "stock Android" success :-)

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
Regular users don't actually know anything about the difference. They look at how many megapixels the camera has and the resolution of the screen and things like that, because they're numbers you can compare. Regular users don't know what "stock Android" is. And then they come home with a phone full of bloatware and complain about it after. Nobody actually buys the phone for the bloatware. These companies are wasting their money developing it. They just want the phone with the better camera. The real problem is that techies can't improve Android because the hardware vendors are shipping custom kernels and their hardware can't use the stock kernel. So Android is "open source" but there is no ecosystem of people scratching that itch with the improvements flowing to the ordinary users because it's so hard to modify what came with your device. Especially when many of the techies still care about the better screen and camera. Think about it this way. There is no reason every Android phone on the market shouldn't come with the option of stock Android. Even if you think the majority of "regular users" wouldn't want it, the availability of it would get them a few sales from techies, right? And then we would really find out what people want, because they get the choice without it being tied to the rest of the hardware.
- oblio 5y ago
  > There is no reason every Android phone on the market shouldn't come with the option of stock Android. Umm...there is a very solid reason: support costs. Nobody wants to double the support matrix.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    The vendor's Android is going to be 99% stock Android and 1% things that will have higher rather than lower support costs than stock Android because it will have a smaller user base and be less likely to have the bugs already discovered and patched. Support costs would, if anything, go down.
- kube-system 5y ago
  > Regular users don't actually know anything about the difference. They look at how many megapixels the camera has and the resolution of the screen and things like that, because they're numbers you can compare. > Nobody actually buys the phone for the bloatware. Often the bloatware is half of the silly stuff listed in the marketing specs on the box. The features might be junk, but they're bulletpoints in a list of features that people are looking at on the shelf. I see these kinds of "specs" listed all the time: digital zoom, "optimizers" of various sorts, social media "integrations", etc.
creshal 5y ago
Most regular users want as many features as they can get, for a reasonable price point. And Samsung is king in that market – their A series phones have a huge sales volume. Some users can afford real premium phones. And Samsung's offerings mostly just kinda suck software wise, even when the hardware is decent. Techies know this and have a huge variety of stock Android alternatives to choose from (which, somehow, continue to exist…), and even non-techies very quickly figure out that Apple or Google Pixel phones just work, unlike Samsung's.
- oblio 5y ago
  > Google Pixel phones just work, unlike Samsung's Everything I've heard about Pixels tells me you're not right. They have a ton of bugs, besides the mediocre to bad hardware. And Samsung moves more premium phones (aka S-series) each year than all Pixel phones ever sold. You probably live in the US, but Pixel phones are also almost impossible to get outside the US (though things are getting slightly better) and their market share where they're available is minuscule in whichever market segment you're looking. Outside of the US Chinese phones, besides Samsung A-series, dominate. And in many countries flagship Chinese models are sold more than Apple phones. And BTW, if you thought Samsung adds bloatware, you should see what Xiaomi or Huawei add :-)) Regular users don't care about bloatware. It's a techie fetish. I've been around the block a ton of time and this discussion is so old and boring it's not even worth having. "Big binaries suck" -> Electron apps winning everywhere. "Lean operating systems" -> Windows never budging on the desktop and Android, which is kind of a mobile device pig winning the mobile battle. It's actually somewhat rare that techie (early adopter) interests align with regular user (late adopter or laggard) interests.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    > And in many countries flagship Chinese models are sold more than Apple phones. Is any one disputing this? The OP of this thread is about iPhones being 13% market share.
- 015a 5y ago
  This is just... wrong. I mean, I don't know what bubble you're living in, but my bubble is not like this. Every single person I've ever met, except one, uses either an iPhone or a Galaxy. Probably a sample size of 100 people. The one exception uses a Pixel, and he's a software engineer. The reason why I'm confident enough in saying you're wrong, is because my experience tracks with US smartphone shipment metrics. Apple and Samsung are the leaders in the US. Pixel isn't even in view of the finish line. Bluntly: Nerds use Pixel devices. Legacy from the Nexus days. Most people wouldn't even know what a Pixel is. Modern Samsung devices are absolutely fantastic phones. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't used one since TouchWiz.
musicale 5y ago
I guess I'm a techie, because I don't want vendor crapware and I do want more than 2 years of software updates and security patches (though it has gotten better over the past few years - probably partially due to Android One, which is closer to stock Android!) And last I checked, Google's Pixel (5/6/etc.) phones seemed pretty decent.
- dannyw 5y ago
  pixel is not stock android
  - musicale 5y ago
    I was responding primarily to the "only techies care" part. Although Pixel phones are at the top of "best stock Android phone" lists, they're not technically stock Android. "Granted, Pixel UI is very, very close to stock. However, it is not technically stock as Google adds in tons of Pixel-exclusive features and pre-installs apps here and there." https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-stock-android-845627/ https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-stock-android-84562... iPhones also (mostly) meet my criteria and are pretty good smartphones, and they don't run Android at all. ;-)
lern_too_spel 5y ago
Regular users are heavily influenced by marketing. Hence, Samsung's and Apple's dominance.

tomjen3 5y ago

The expensive Samsungs are the foldables and things like the ultra, with super zoom cameras.

FpUser 5y ago

I suspect o called "average user" would probably trust anything. Non average: I have no idea but I personally just simply do not trust. Do not care what is the company name.