5 ms·

It's meaningless to say "Android" hardware fails more often v. Apple iPhones and RIM Blackberrys; such a statement is like saying sedans fail more often v. BMW

It's meaningless to say "Android" hardware fails more often v. Apple iPhones and RIM Blackberrys; such a statement is like saying sedans fail more often v. BMW M3s and Toyota RAV4s. Apple and RIM are single companies, Android phones are produced by dozens. "LG hardware [or even "LG Android phones"] fails more often than iPhone, Blackberry", for instance, would be a far more useful study.

awolf 15y ago
"Android" is a brand. Phones of this brand fail more often. Why is that a meaningless statement?
- ConstantineXVI 15y ago
  Because it's a software brand, not a hardware brand.
  - awolf 15y ago
    It's a software brand defined by being "open" and thus freely available for shitty hardware producers to use on their shitty products.
    - tadfisher 15y ago
      And equally available for quality hardware producers to use on their quality products. iOS and Blackberry OS are available for Apple's and RIM's use only.
    - chugger 15y ago
      @tadfisher, looks like there are way more crappy Android phones out there than high quality ones.
      - tadfisher 15y ago
        And this statement, while valid and testable under some definition of "crappy", has nothing to do with comparing hardware quality between manufacturers. This reminds me of the smear campaigns Apple used to wage against beige boxes, nevermind the sheer diversity of hardware running Windows and the homogeneity of Macs.
  - chugger 15y ago
    Android is a "platform" brand.
danssig 15y ago
That's a cop-out. I bet you're totally OK with people saying "Android is destroying iPhone in the marketplace!". You can't have it both ways.
- wccrawford 15y ago
  Actually you can. One is comparing the software, and the other is comparing the hardware.
  - danssig 15y ago
    That's not what most people have in mind when they talk about Android vs. iPhone (not IOS!) and you know it. What does it say about people who have to tweak numbers to get the results they want to be true?
    - joebadmo 15y ago
      But there's no such thing as "Android hardware". There's hardware that runs Android. This hardware is of varying quality. It's not meaningful to lump all of that hardware together. But if you're talking about software OS marketshare, it is meaningful to talk about Android as a whole.
- ConstantineXVI 15y ago
  Android is an OS. It competes with iOS. The LG Revolution is a phone. It competes with the iPhone. Android is a fine OS. The LG Revolution is crap. In terms of hardware failure, the manufacturer means more than the software.
  - rickmode 15y ago
    There one phone with iOS so if the context is phones, "Android competes with iOS" is exactly equivalent to "Android competes with iPhone".
    - tadfisher 15y ago
chugger 15y ago
No it's a perfectly valid comparison. it's like saying cars made in Detroit fail more often than cars made by BMW. Android is widely considered as a low-quality OS running on low-quality hardware. Android's strength (ubiquity) is also its weakness (it runs on crap hardware).
- sp332 15y ago
  Android is software, not hardware. This post is complaining about hardware, but somehow blaming software instead.
  - chugger 15y ago
    Android is not just software, it's a platform. If the hardware is low-quality, that's still an Android issue.
caller9 15y ago
I would say the comparison is more like saying windows laptops have hardware failures more than Mac laptops. That is probably a true statement, but I bet that is affected by a few crappy manufacturers. When you compare an OS with a hardware platform it is just silly. I think this kind of lame comparison is a sign of either fear or sour grapes. Reassuring for Android in a way.

awolf 15y ago

"Android" is a brand. Phones of this brand fail more often. Why is that a meaningless statement?

ConstantineXVI 15y ago
Because it's a software brand, not a hardware brand.
- awolf 15y ago
  It's a software brand defined by being "open" and thus freely available for shitty hardware producers to use on their shitty products.
  - tadfisher 15y ago
    And equally available for quality hardware producers to use on their quality products. iOS and Blackberry OS are available for Apple's and RIM's use only.
  - chugger 15y ago
    @tadfisher, looks like there are way more crappy Android phones out there than high quality ones.
    - tadfisher 15y ago
      And this statement, while valid and testable under some definition of "crappy", has nothing to do with comparing hardware quality between manufacturers. This reminds me of the smear campaigns Apple used to wage against beige boxes, nevermind the sheer diversity of hardware running Windows and the homogeneity of Macs.
- chugger 15y ago
  Android is a "platform" brand.

danssig 15y ago

That's a cop-out. I bet you're totally OK with people saying "Android is destroying iPhone in the marketplace!". You can't have it both ways.

wccrawford 15y ago
Actually you can. One is comparing the software, and the other is comparing the hardware.
- danssig 15y ago
  That's not what most people have in mind when they talk about Android vs. iPhone (not IOS!) and you know it. What does it say about people who have to tweak numbers to get the results they want to be true?
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    But there's no such thing as "Android hardware". There's hardware that runs Android. This hardware is of varying quality. It's not meaningful to lump all of that hardware together. But if you're talking about software OS marketshare, it is meaningful to talk about Android as a whole.
ConstantineXVI 15y ago
Android is an OS. It competes with iOS. The LG Revolution is a phone. It competes with the iPhone. Android is a fine OS. The LG Revolution is crap. In terms of hardware failure, the manufacturer means more than the software.
- rickmode 15y ago
  There one phone with iOS so if the context is phones, "Android competes with iOS" is exactly equivalent to "Android competes with iPhone".
  - tadfisher 15y ago

chugger 15y ago

No it's a perfectly valid comparison. it's like saying cars made in Detroit fail more often than cars made by BMW. Android is widely considered as a low-quality OS running on low-quality hardware. Android's strength (ubiquity) is also its weakness (it runs on crap hardware).

sp332 15y ago
Android is software, not hardware. This post is complaining about hardware, but somehow blaming software instead.
- chugger 15y ago
  Android is not just software, it's a platform. If the hardware is low-quality, that's still an Android issue.

caller9 15y ago

I would say the comparison is more like saying windows laptops have hardware failures more than Mac laptops. That is probably a true statement, but I bet that is affected by a few crappy manufacturers. When you compare an OS with a hardware platform it is just silly. I think this kind of lame comparison is a sign of either fear or sour grapes. Reassuring for Android in a way.