3 ms·

> "For OEMs/handset makers, choice means the ability to do more with software" Please no, this would only yield to more bloatware. The move of Google is smart,

> "For OEMs/handset makers, choice means the ability to do more with software" Please no, this would only yield to more bloatware. The move of Google is smart, moving the OS away from OEMs. [Most] manufacturers have demonstrated again and again that they cannot be trusted with software, since they only care about profit and putting more and more useless apps into the OS. We might need more mobile OS, but not for this reason.

throwawaymsft 12y ago
Yep. The thesis of this essay is that choice is unequivocally good for users, handset makers, everyone. Experience doesn't play that out. The experience of a curated, pruned garden vs. a wild west scammy bazaar isn't a good one for users. Here's what happens when you search facebook on Windows Store: http://imgur.com/QDHcpG0 http://imgur.com/QDHcpG0 Choice is great! You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one. Incompetent OEMs can "choose" to override system behavior. After all, Dell, HP & friends were known for really improving the PC software experience.
- Brakenshire 12y ago
  > The experience of a curated, pruned garden vs. a wild west scammy bazaar isn't a good one for users. But that is a choice. For example, I would prefer to recommend to my parents a system with more granular control over permissions than stock Android, and a market which is more curated than Google Play. It's fairly absurd that they can send off all of their contacts to some random third party server because they installed a flashlight app. > Choice is great! You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one. To avoid that, you want to choose not to have to make that choice, by going to a more curated platform. I think the key to creating that alternative is by making both Android and HTML5 apps genuinely cross platform. Blackberry, CyanogenMod and/or Sailfish should support the emerging W3C Web API standards and Cordova, and then create a clear target for Android developers to deploy Android apps that don't rely on Play Services. The real need isn't for a third OS, it's for a real cross-platform development ecosystem, then there will be genuine space for innovation.
- userbinator 12y ago
  That screenshot is more a product of bad UI design (no indication of the publisher?) than anything else. You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one Those are not the only two categories of apps. This quote also comes to mind: "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
  - throwawaymsft 12y ago
    Even if the publisher is listed, Microsoft reviewers should be vetting logo infringement. As a developer, sure, become root and install whatever you want. As grandma, just trying to install Facebook on her tablet, do not allow any mistakes. No junkware allowed.
- bko 12y ago
  I'm not sure when that screenshot was taken but its probably an exaggeration. Actual search results: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/search#q=facebook&s=Store http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/search#q=facebook... You do have a point about a free for all. There was this great blog post about a month ago about someone installing the top 10 free downloads from download.com and the mayhem that ensues. http://www.howtogeek.com/198622/heres-what-happens-when-you-install-the-top-10-download.com-apps/?PageSpeed=noscript http://www.howtogeek.com/198622/heres-what-happens-when-you-...
  - throwawaymsft 12y ago
    The screenshot was real, but from about a year ago. Maybe things have changed. Here's a blog post showing the cesspool that was search results less than a year ago: http://www.fixedbyvonnie.com/2014/08/microsoft-windows-store-seriously-sucks/ http://www.fixedbyvonnie.com/2014/08/microsoft-windows-store...
- asyncwords 12y ago
  Your screenshot is out of date. Here's what actually happens when you search Facebook on Windows Store: http://i.imgur.com/crP7LDd.png http://i.imgur.com/crP7LDd.png
aceperry 12y ago
That's pretty funny. It seems that Google and most Android devs don't really like what the OEMs are doing. From one googler's explanation, the OEM really believes that they're offering something that users are asking for or wanting. I have been impressed with some manufacturers that put pure Android on their phones though. Hopefully those phones become more popular and creates a trend.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Not to mention that having more mobile OS's creates a much worse form of "fragmentation" than Android ever had. Imagine having developers write native apps for 5-6 totally different mobile operating systems. If anything that will slow down innovation. Innovation at the base is welcome in the beginning, until the providers "figure out" what's best (for the most part), but after that you really need to focus on higher levels, that are closer to the end-user and bring the innovation there. For that to happen, and to reach masses of people you need some standardization at the base. Imagine if we'd all still be arguing about the "innovation" in lightbulb sockets - having different shape, width and height sockets in the market, instead of standardizing on one type of socket that everyone has, and then focusing the innovation on what goes inside the socket (the lightbulb technology itself).
soylentcola 12y ago
That's just it. People can talk about how we "need" an OS that isn't dependent on Apple or Google services but there are already other options out there that OEMs could (and occasionally do) use and none has seemed to gain much traction or support. Even now can't an OEM fork Android or use AOSP as a base without any Googly stuff while providing their own replacements for gapps? I honestly don't see a lot of interest in this from the OEMs other than maybe Amazon (which isn't exactly a great example). I'd imagine they don't want to invest the extra resources into that sort of development when they can stick to skinning and questionable add-on software while letting Google or whoever handle the rest. And as a user, even if I didn't really want the Play Store or whatever, does anyone really expect HTC or Samsung to do better? Best case scenario you end up with questionable Samsung or HTC services instead of Google services. And Google makes their money from software and attached services instead of hardware so at least they have some level of interest in running those services. Everything I've seen so far tells me that OEMs are even worse than the software companies in terms of developing/maintaining an OS or a fork of an existing one. It would be interesting to see a company that makes their money from hardware getting into the OS space but so far, Apple is the only one that seems to have the resources and interest to do that fairly well while the software companies like Microsoft and Google live and die by convincing OEMs to license their platforms and bring in more customers for associated services.

throwawaymsft 12y ago

Yep. The thesis of this essay is that choice is unequivocally good for users, handset makers, everyone. Experience doesn't play that out. The experience of a curated, pruned garden vs. a wild west scammy bazaar isn't a good one for users. Here's what happens when you search facebook on Windows Store: http://imgur.com/QDHcpG0 http://imgur.com/QDHcpG0 Choice is great! You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one. Incompetent OEMs can "choose" to override system behavior. After all, Dell, HP & friends were known for really improving the PC software experience.

Brakenshire 12y ago
> The experience of a curated, pruned garden vs. a wild west scammy bazaar isn't a good one for users. But that is a choice. For example, I would prefer to recommend to my parents a system with more granular control over permissions than stock Android, and a market which is more curated than Google Play. It's fairly absurd that they can send off all of their contacts to some random third party server because they installed a flashlight app. > Choice is great! You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one. To avoid that, you want to choose not to have to make that choice, by going to a more curated platform. I think the key to creating that alternative is by making both Android and HTML5 apps genuinely cross platform. Blackberry, CyanogenMod and/or Sailfish should support the emerging W3C Web API standards and Cordova, and then create a clear target for Android developers to deploy Android apps that don't rely on Play Services. The real need isn't for a third OS, it's for a real cross-platform development ecosystem, then there will be genuine space for innovation.
userbinator 12y ago
That screenshot is more a product of bad UI design (no indication of the publisher?) than anything else. You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one Those are not the only two categories of apps. This quote also comes to mind: "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
- throwawaymsft 12y ago
  Even if the publisher is listed, Microsoft reviewers should be vetting logo infringement. As a developer, sure, become root and install whatever you want. As grandma, just trying to install Facebook on her tablet, do not allow any mistakes. No junkware allowed.
bko 12y ago
I'm not sure when that screenshot was taken but its probably an exaggeration. Actual search results: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/search#q=facebook&s=Store http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/search#q=facebook... You do have a point about a free for all. There was this great blog post about a month ago about someone installing the top 10 free downloads from download.com and the mayhem that ensues. http://www.howtogeek.com/198622/heres-what-happens-when-you-install-the-top-10-download.com-apps/?PageSpeed=noscript http://www.howtogeek.com/198622/heres-what-happens-when-you-...
- throwawaymsft 12y ago
  The screenshot was real, but from about a year ago. Maybe things have changed. Here's a blog post showing the cesspool that was search results less than a year ago: http://www.fixedbyvonnie.com/2014/08/microsoft-windows-store-seriously-sucks/ http://www.fixedbyvonnie.com/2014/08/microsoft-windows-store...
asyncwords 12y ago
Your screenshot is out of date. Here's what actually happens when you search Facebook on Windows Store: http://i.imgur.com/crP7LDd.png http://i.imgur.com/crP7LDd.png

aceperry 12y ago

That's pretty funny. It seems that Google and most Android devs don't really like what the OEMs are doing. From one googler's explanation, the OEM really believes that they're offering something that users are asking for or wanting. I have been impressed with some manufacturers that put pure Android on their phones though. Hopefully those phones become more popular and creates a trend.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Not to mention that having more mobile OS's creates a much worse form of "fragmentation" than Android ever had. Imagine having developers write native apps for 5-6 totally different mobile operating systems. If anything that will slow down innovation. Innovation at the base is welcome in the beginning, until the providers "figure out" what's best (for the most part), but after that you really need to focus on higher levels, that are closer to the end-user and bring the innovation there. For that to happen, and to reach masses of people you need some standardization at the base. Imagine if we'd all still be arguing about the "innovation" in lightbulb sockets - having different shape, width and height sockets in the market, instead of standardizing on one type of socket that everyone has, and then focusing the innovation on what goes inside the socket (the lightbulb technology itself).

soylentcola 12y ago

That's just it. People can talk about how we "need" an OS that isn't dependent on Apple or Google services but there are already other options out there that OEMs could (and occasionally do) use and none has seemed to gain much traction or support. Even now can't an OEM fork Android or use AOSP as a base without any Googly stuff while providing their own replacements for gapps? I honestly don't see a lot of interest in this from the OEMs other than maybe Amazon (which isn't exactly a great example). I'd imagine they don't want to invest the extra resources into that sort of development when they can stick to skinning and questionable add-on software while letting Google or whoever handle the rest. And as a user, even if I didn't really want the Play Store or whatever, does anyone really expect HTC or Samsung to do better? Best case scenario you end up with questionable Samsung or HTC services instead of Google services. And Google makes their money from software and attached services instead of hardware so at least they have some level of interest in running those services. Everything I've seen so far tells me that OEMs are even worse than the software companies in terms of developing/maintaining an OS or a fork of an existing one. It would be interesting to see a company that makes their money from hardware getting into the OS space but so far, Apple is the only one that seems to have the resources and interest to do that fairly well while the software companies like Microsoft and Google live and die by convincing OEMs to license their platforms and bring in more customers for associated services.