www.ditl.org

Ian has a point, to a degree. If you change carriers every time you change phones they you'll see a different version of Android with each phone. However if you stick with the same carrier you'll keep dealing with the same version of Android over an over, AT&T Android, Sprint Android, Verizon Android, etc. Now I agree, overall it would be nice to see an Android phone exactly like you see iPhones or Windows phones. However Google seems to be letting the carriers run all over it which is a bad idea. Stand up like the others and say "No, this is an Android phone take it or leave it," and count on the consumers to back them up. My carrier is just the logo on the bill, the phone is what I care about. I don't really give a shit about AT&T.

Tyyr wrote:Ian has a point, to a degree. If you change carriers every time you change phones they you'll see a different version of Android with each phone. However if you stick with the same carrier you'll keep dealing with the same version of Android over an over, AT&T Android, Sprint Android, Verizon Android, etc. Now I agree, overall it would be nice to see an Android phone exactly like you see iPhones or Windows phones. However Google seems to be letting the carriers run all over it which is a bad idea. Stand up like the others and say "No, this is an Android phone take it or leave it," and count on the consumers to back them up. My carrier is just the logo on the bill, the phone is what I care about. I don't really give a s**t about AT&T.

But even to an extent it also is who makes it, if it's HTC you have a nice look to it, but then going to something with Stock Android it's a different presentation, whereas Motorola is even more different. Do I have a problem with them customizing the layout, no, but I wish that they would allow for it to be removed.

It may be a personal thing but I think that is the strength of Android. A Different manufacturer caters for all ares of usage, Motorola focuses on kids so social networking, Samsung on multimedia and HTC on broad overall appeal. I, personally find that a good thing. If you want a clone phone, go right ahead and buy an iPhone or a Windows7 (id support the iPhone, tbh).

That's the marketing strength of Android, to be sure - but it's also the functional weakness, as far as this conversation goes. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of apps my brother-in-law got for his Android phone that are absolutely useless to him but now he can say that he has them. Unfortunately, what happens to him if he goes to another provider... or even stays with the same provider but chooses a device from a different manufacturer for his next phone? Of course, he can figure it out; he's an adult, and a tech-savvy guy to boot. However, it will not be instantly recognizable or functional for him "out of the box," as it were.

Perhaps so. Oh I don't know any more. So many choices, some better than others.

Mikey wrote:That's the marketing strength of Android, to be sure - but it's also the functional weakness, as far as this conversation goes. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of apps my brother-in-law got for his Android phone that are absolutely useless to him but now he can say that he has them. Unfortunately, what happens to him if he goes to another provider... or even stays with the same provider but chooses a device from a different manufacturer for his next phone? Of course, he can figure it out; he's an adult, and a tech-savvy guy to boot. However, it will not be instantly recognizable or functional for him "out of the box," as it were.

It only a marketing strength of Android while the phone you want has the feature you want. Once that is broken it's a marketing loss.

I meant of Android in general, not of a particular phone. Android is well-marketed, and has become a buzzword even though the majority of users have absolutely no use for the primary technical strengths of Android.

I've actually never seen any Android marketing at all. Are there any examples?

Maybe not over there as much, but here we have Droid Does, for Verizon, basically showing that Droid Does things that iPhone doesn't which other than a user replaceable battery, they are fairly equal now, however I understand the desire for a hard-wired battery, as it gives better battery life for the most part.

We have marketting for individual phones, Samsung, HTC snd Motorola predominantly.

Reliant121 wrote:We have marketting for individual phones, Samsung, HTC snd Motorola predominantly.

But none of those actually mention droid, not that I've noticed.

I think one of the Motorola DEFY adverts might have done, but only in passing. You are right, they advertise the phone and not the OS. HTC does a lot of advertising of it's VERSION of the OS because, to be honest, it is probably the best skin of the OS, and is it's major selling point.

Interestingly enough, It seems that Symbian has had a bit of a resurgance in popularity with the new Symbian^3. I know the sales figures globally are mostly from the scandinavian, Indian and south american markets but...They still appear to be king. This is IMO due to them offering so many smartphones in so many price ranges and in so many countries that no-one can really compete for pure selling power.

Yeah, sadly Symbian is dead after version 3. Nokia is planning on looking to Android for an OS for their phones one Symbian becomes too old.

....I highly doubt it, when their CEO last year said they were switching to Meego/Maemo (whatever the damn name of it is now).