4 ms·

Not the device vendors. Some device vendors did that. Some other device vendors would have preferred to use the Android branding and comply with Google's restri

Not the device vendors. Some device vendors did that. Some other device vendors would have preferred to use the Android branding and comply with Google's restrictions than to alienate the existing userbase. Can you really imagine Samsung selling SamsungOS phones? Once Android was established it was well within Google's possibilities to impose restrictions, but they instead chose to let the manufacturers do whatever they pleased.

scarface74 4y ago
How many people knew or cared that Verizon “Droids” were Android phones back in the day?
- deadbeeves 4y ago
  When are we talking about?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    About a decade ago. But most of the 40% of people who use Android in the US aren’t looking for “Android phones” they are looking for cheap phones. The average selling price of an Android phone in the US is less than $300. The average Android buyer in the US is getting a less than optimal experience and don’t seem to care. They would buy any phone that could make phone calls, surf the web and watch YouTube and get on Facebook.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      It's amazing to me that $300 is the threshold of 'cheap' phones. Apple really has pushed up the baseline price for flagship devices.
      - ulfw 4y ago
        It's a portable mini computer with different radios, nice screens, audio/video, cameras etc etc etc. How much cheaper to you think a proper smartphone could be?
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Did they get so much more capable since 2015?
        scarface74 4y ago
        As of right this second, a 2015 iPhone 6S can still run the latest released version of iOS.
filmgirlcw 4y ago
At this point people who are in the Samsung ecosystem like the Samsung UI. The Galaxy brand is arguably just as valuable as the Android brand, if you want to be real about it. Samsung absolutely would have sold their own SamsungOS-branded phones. The first truly successful Android devices were the Motorola Droid and the original Samsung Galaxy. Even back then, in the Android 2.X days, they were making modifications to the style of Android, similar to the way Samsung and HTC and others had similarly customized Windows Mobile in the pre-iPhone smartphone era. Android managed to get a stronghold thanks to Google’s aggressive investment and the fact that they didn’t charge OEMs a royalty to use it (which Microsoft did and Symbian did. Also, neither Symbian nor Windows Mobile were at all competitive to iOS and Android was after Google pivoted post-iPhone launch) and the fact that they let carriers and OEMs do whatever they wanted to the interface and add whatever bloatware they wanted. It wasn’t until well past the success of the Galaxy line that Google started to try to rein in the diversions and UX forks. And Samsung, which has a UX that at this point many of its customers prefer, has received a light touch from a lot of these attempts because they are consistently one of the largest Android OEMs. Android largely has a userbase because Google let the OEMs do whatever they wanted, similar to what Symbian and Windows Mobile had allowed before.
- travisgriggs 4y ago
  > The Galaxy brand is arguably just as valuable as the Android brand, if you want to be real about it. Wintel duopoly all over again. I wrote/maintain two Android apps. 20 years ago, I wrote/maintained some Windows desktop apps. It’s amazing to me how it’s all different, but yet feels so much the same.
type0 4y ago
Android is parallel to Windows, except on mobile and arguably worse because of the hardware disparities and non standard cryptic driver implementations.

scarface74 4y ago

How many people knew or cared that Verizon “Droids” were Android phones back in the day?

deadbeeves 4y ago
When are we talking about?
- scarface74 4y ago
  About a decade ago. But most of the 40% of people who use Android in the US aren’t looking for “Android phones” they are looking for cheap phones. The average selling price of an Android phone in the US is less than $300. The average Android buyer in the US is getting a less than optimal experience and don’t seem to care. They would buy any phone that could make phone calls, surf the web and watch YouTube and get on Facebook.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    It's amazing to me that $300 is the threshold of 'cheap' phones. Apple really has pushed up the baseline price for flagship devices.
    - ulfw 4y ago
      It's a portable mini computer with different radios, nice screens, audio/video, cameras etc etc etc. How much cheaper to you think a proper smartphone could be?
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Did they get so much more capable since 2015?
        scarface74 4y ago
        As of right this second, a 2015 iPhone 6S can still run the latest released version of iOS.

filmgirlcw 4y ago

At this point people who are in the Samsung ecosystem like the Samsung UI. The Galaxy brand is arguably just as valuable as the Android brand, if you want to be real about it. Samsung absolutely would have sold their own SamsungOS-branded phones. The first truly successful Android devices were the Motorola Droid and the original Samsung Galaxy. Even back then, in the Android 2.X days, they were making modifications to the style of Android, similar to the way Samsung and HTC and others had similarly customized Windows Mobile in the pre-iPhone smartphone era. Android managed to get a stronghold thanks to Google’s aggressive investment and the fact that they didn’t charge OEMs a royalty to use it (which Microsoft did and Symbian did. Also, neither Symbian nor Windows Mobile were at all competitive to iOS and Android was after Google pivoted post-iPhone launch) and the fact that they let carriers and OEMs do whatever they wanted to the interface and add whatever bloatware they wanted. It wasn’t until well past the success of the Galaxy line that Google started to try to rein in the diversions and UX forks. And Samsung, which has a UX that at this point many of its customers prefer, has received a light touch from a lot of these attempts because they are consistently one of the largest Android OEMs. Android largely has a userbase because Google let the OEMs do whatever they wanted, similar to what Symbian and Windows Mobile had allowed before.

travisgriggs 4y ago
> The Galaxy brand is arguably just as valuable as the Android brand, if you want to be real about it. Wintel duopoly all over again. I wrote/maintain two Android apps. 20 years ago, I wrote/maintained some Windows desktop apps. It’s amazing to me how it’s all different, but yet feels so much the same.

type0 4y ago

Android is parallel to Windows, except on mobile and arguably worse because of the hardware disparities and non standard cryptic driver implementations.