Google

Are you serious? Are you only going to school for two years or something for a worthless Associate's Degree? You could easily take out a zero interest loan (most colleges offer it) for the cash and just buy a fully featured laptop instead for $500 or even less. No individual user with common sense is going to rent out a Chromebook.

 

This times 1000.

 

I think the best thing I saw google announce was the USB ports being supported on Android it really does make it a much more useful device.
As a demo they plugged in a 360 controller to play a game but I think being able to use things like portable harddrives, normal USB keyboard, mice et c would be amazing.

First thing that's really made me consider if a tablet could be useful to me.

 

The majority of colleges offer zero interest loans (I already said this in my original post but maybe you just didn't read it or something). It doesn't make sense to pay 20 bucks a month for 48 months (that's $960 total) when you can just get the loan, buy a laptop and then own it and not have to give it back. The majority of these loans even let you go for at least a year or two after school without having to pay them back.

It's more like you're going to make yourself lose a lot of money with your inability to have any sort of economic sense. :\

Also, your idea is "getting what I want no matter what the cost", but in an even less cost-effective way. Obviously you're going to need a computer of some sort for school. Why not actually own one instead of renting, and save yourself money in the long run? I really don't understand why you can't see this.

 

I used to think the same exactly way as you did. However, after using Android for a year and my iPod / iPad for 6 months, it's become clear that Google is way behind on it's Android offering.

Sure, there are a bazillion devices out there. Sure, Google has the market share numbers (Because, well, there are a bazillion devices out there), but that does not make Android the superior platform in any way shape or form. Use Android for a year, you'll see how far it truly lags behind iOS.

And don't get me wrong, Android is a great platform. It has A LOT going for it, and it has a lot of potential. I just don't think Google has what it takes to make Android a truly appetizing experience. The fragmentation everyone always speaks of on Android.. it's a real thing. I dropped any plans I had of coding for Android when I realized the game I wrote for my Incredible needed UI / Asset tweaks to run on my wife's Droid X. That got even worse when I wanted to run it on a Samsung Fascinate that has different DPI and resolution. It's a nightmare. And that's only displays. What about the 128MB memory in one device and 512 in another?

Sure, you could argue all you want that the end user doesn't care about fragmentation. You'd be correct, too. The end user does not care DIRECTLY about fragmentation. They do care, however, about the app store. When developers don't want the headache of developing for Android's 1000 devices, the app store suffers. When the app store suffers, so does the client base.

My personal feelings here is the market is smarter now then they were back in the early days. I don't think people are going to fall for the "We are installed everywhere, so we're better" line. People have come to expect quality in their phones and personal devices. Apple set that standard. I don't think you're going to see consumers easily give this up because the "other guy" has more market share. Because, quite honestly, if it weren't for all the .99 cent Android phones, Google would not have the market share. And once those people can afford to switch, you'd be crazy to think they wouldn't.

I also used to argue the "Well, Android devices are more powerful! Why use something that's already behind the curve!" point until I was blue in the face. Then I used my brother's iPhone and I realized, why do I need a dual core chip in my phone? What am I really gaining from this? Hell, look at the HTC Thunderbolt. Thing has specs that will blow your freaking mind. It's pretty incredible what that packed into the phone. They forgot one thing though: It's a phone. You can talk on it for 4, maybe 5 hours. Heavy usage? Maybe you'll get 3-4 hours. All that speed (4G), all that power, and it can't reliably be used as a phone.

Google also doesn't have a clear plan like Microsoft had back then. In case you haven't noticed, Google has 2 competing mobile operating systems: Android and ChromeOS. Which one is their focus? Which is the one they're really pushing? Which will be the one to succeed? Microsoft pushed DOS, and eventually Windows. They had a plan, they had a flag ship operating system. They knew where their money was going.

Google is doing what Google always does: Throw shit against the wall and see what sticks. That, IMO, does not foster a sense of trust I except to have in my Operating System provider. Sure, Apple are a bunch of control freaks. Sure, I hate that I cant' develop things the way I want. Sure, I hate most of what Apple does. But at the end of the day, I can be positive Apple will always invest in Mac OSX and iOS. I can't say for certain that Google will always invest in Android. If Chrome takes off, Android could easily go the way of Google Buzz. Likewise for Chrome if Android were to really take off.

I don't want to pile on to you on this one, but 20$ for 150MB? Really? That's 5$ more expensive then it is for Verizon's 150 MB cell phone plan. And also, if you think 150 MB is going to get you very far, please check your internet usage again.


That's my little tirade, please forgive me. Carry on =)

 

This times 1000

 

On the surface what you say gives the appearance of making a good argument, but in reality it's nothing more than the same old tired, talking points Apple has been throwing for the life of Android. Maybe in the beginning, some of it could have been true-but today? none of it holds water.

I've used my two iPod Touches for a total of three years and my Android for 7 months and there is no way I would ever consider an iPhone. To say the iOS is superior is simply a joke, a knee jerk reaction at best. Android is so much more versatile and customizable than the iOS will ever be. It has actual multi tasking, ability to customize the interface how ever you want it (even to emulate the iOS or WP7), the ability to use widgets-all without having to jailbreak or root the Android.

If you truly looked into developing for the Android you would know that just like the iDevices you can set the base requirements. Unlike the app store though, if your Android app doesn't work for a particular handset it doesn't show up in the marketplace. And this fragmentation meme really just needs to stop. I know it won't as Apple users need SOMETHING to cling to, but again it doesn't hold water. Apple has just as many fragemntation issues-2 tablets, 4 phones, 4 Touches, multiple versions of the iOS (some of which aren't fully compatible with older devices). So when you develop that IOS app, let me know how many of the devices they work on.

I actually have a Thunderbolt, and your battery usage is WAY off. If you're going to comment on something you should at least have some experience with it. I can go at least 12 hours of avg use before having to charge it. That includes, phone calls, web surfing, having 3G/4G on, etc.

The "until they can afford" comment is just another elitist, ignorant comment that has no reality. Verizon has 3GS iPhones for 49 bucks. The iPhone with a contract is no more expensive and in some cases cheaper than the top end Android handsets.

I could mention the .99 cent app comment but really, that smacks of desperation-esp if you look at whats in the app store for iDevices. How many fart apps are in there? How many top paid apps in the app store are .99 cents?

google doesn't have a clear plan? You know this how? Are you in their meetings? Was part of MS's plan to lose market share over the last 3 months or Apple to grow only half a percent? What is Apple's focus? The iOS or the Mac platform? Google has a long history of developing (sometimes successful sometimes not) a myriad of different apps and software. They have the money, the man power and the technology to do more than one thing at a time. Hell, all you have to do is look at their lab page to see what they're constantly developing. The difference between Chrome OS and Android is very clear even to the most casual observer. Android is devoted to the handsets and tablets. the CHromse OS is for their netbooks. At some point I imagine we'll see these two either merge into one, or at the least interrelate with one another. The idea that Google wouldn't invest in Android at some point is to put it bluntly ridiculous.

Finally, as for the 20 a month rental: you get the chromebook, tech support, end of life replacement and the 150 megs of 3G. I don't see anyone else offering that.

Before you start posting as if what you say is fact, do a little research.

 

As I understand it, you won't be getting a hardware upgrade until 3 years have passed. It's $20 a month of 3 years - it's a contract. If you want an upgrade at that point you can upgrade, presumably with another 3 year contract in tow. I don't doubt that you could upgrade early, but would be an early upgrade fee of some unknown amount. Not only that, but you'll be taking 10 Chromebooks under you wing, not one, because that's the minimum for the $20 per month thing. So that's $20 x 10 x 36 = $7200. Good choice!

Now you can buy the things outright, which is what's intended for consumers.

 

First of all, you say that you only need the Chromebook on a very short temporary basis...and then you say "omg hardware upgrade yes", implying that you want it for longer. This is also right after saying that the Chromebook fills every need you have. Secondly, if you bought a $500 laptop you could probably just sell it to someone for 200-300 and make back even more than the Chromebook. And it would have better hardware. So...what kind of ridiculous logic is this exactly? Also, it's hard to believe that anyone wouldn't need a computer right now...at least if they are not a monk or a farmer.

 

Maybe I'm just old and stubborn (Partial fanboy too), android is a pain in the ass...

 

First off. None of my comments were designed to elicit this debate, again. The OP gave his sidebar, I gave a rebuttable. Both are personal preference and opinions.

With that said, I'll respond because I'm a sucker.

Once again, this is another argument I've made until I was blue in the face. I used to argue the customization fact of Android to the point that I'm now mocked for it at work. When I gave my seminar at work about Android and developing for it, I mentioned "Android: Have it your way." I'm now constantly mocked for it.

I've been an avid Android fan since it was released. I've been through more Android phones than I can count: Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Fascinate, Continuum, and Incredible. I've not been fully satisfied by any of these phones.

It's all personal preference, yes, but I feel iOS is superior to Android in many ways. Sure, Android really has customizations going for it, but what else? Widgets? I love them. I can't live without them. I also hate the battery life most widgets suck. Beautiful Widgets, anyone?

My complaint about customizing on Android, though, was in order for me to get my phone the way I truly wanted it.. I had to root and start messing with ROMs. I went Cyanogen, to SkyRaider, to finally settle on MIUI on my Incredible. For a phone that's so customizable, why did I have to fall back to installing roms?

And yes, roms are a GREAT thing for the community. It's a great "feature" of Android. But what happens when I don't feel like tinkering anymore? Android, at it's base, does not satisfy me. It doesn't satisfy me because I have too many options. Options are great, but they frustrate me when I'm sick of tinkering. As I said, all personal preference.

I should also note that I think the Android architecture is FAR SUPERIOR to iOS. Android is hands own the better platform, technology and architecture wise. Intents are eloquently designed, and they work beautifully. JIT and memory management, awesome. Their notification system? LEAP YEARS ahead of iOS. Activities, tasks, content providers, broadcasts, etc.. all great stuff.

But ultimately when I'm using my device I'm a user, not a developer, and I put high importance on usability. And, I'm sorry, but Google (well, the OHA) is no Apple when it comes to usability. I personally find iOS to be far more usable, and more user friendly, than Android. A LOT of this has to do with Apple's control on the App Store. At anytime I can download an app from the Marketplace that crashes my device. I can be almost guaranteed this won't happen on iOS. Sure, some things slip through, but it's far less than what I see on Android.

With all due respect, you don't know what I have or have not coded for. I run the mobile R&D department for a software development company here in Connecticut. We currently have 2 enterprise Android apps (Phone and Xoom) and one iPad application. I was lead developer on all 3 applications. Not to mention my own personal projects. I have personal experience, both developing and supporting Android applications.

Sure, I can set my minimum specs, but is it worth it to limit the reach of my application and/or game? According to http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html, Android 2.1 still has 25% of the market. This means if I don't support Android 2.1, I lose 25% of my potential customer base. So, when supporting Android 2.1, I lose all sorts of cool functionality and features.. the biggest being Android 2.2 JIT. That's a huge performance loss. There's also OpenGL ES 2.0 in Android 2.2. Oh yeah, and Cloud to Device, which is huge in the industry I work in.

According to this link: http://blog.jcmultimedia.com.au/2011/03/is-it-worth-supporting-ios-3-in-2011.html, iOS 3.0 is down around 12% as of March this year. That's half of 25%. A much more swallowable pill if you were to chose to not back-support. Please note that this data consists of only about 100k data points. May not be all that accurate, but it's all I could find.

It's also worth noting that why, yes, new iOS SDKs offer more then previous versions, Apple is in COMPLETE control over releasing the updates. If a version goes out, all phone models can get it. If they can't, it pretty much means Apple has dropped support for that device. If that's the case (like Gen 1 and 2 iPhones), then I really don't have to support them and can't be expected to. This is not the case for Google (well, OHA) and Android. It's up to the manufacturer and carrier. Android 2.3 has been out for how long now? Yeah, it's on 4% (4%!) of all Android device. I don't think we need to compare those numbers to the latest iOS version to show the problem here.

I should have noted in my original post, the information I was using for this wasn't my own first hand knowledge. It's information I've gathered from friends, families, and co-workers using the Thunderbolt when I was thinking of buying one. They've all said the same thing: Great specs, powerful device, lucky to get 5-6 hours out of it with heavy voice and data usage (which I consider myself very heavy use. To be fair, my Incredible has crap battery life).

I think you read way too much into my comments here. There are plenty of studies that show iOS user's spend more in the app store than Android users. Once people have more spare change to start spending on apps, how can they not switch to iOS? The Marketplace is a joke compared to the App Store. Once again, just my personal opinion. I find more apps worth my money on the App Store than I do on the marketplace.

 

I suppose I did, whoops. Guess I didn't read carefully enough! My bad

About the UI, etc. This is all personal preference. The only "Stock" Android UI I semi enjoyed was Sense. I have since installed MIUI on my Incredible. It's far more usable and "pretty" for me. Once again, personal preference and opinion.

Apple has 5 devices, yes. And not all games work on all devices, sure. But it's far easier to justify not back supporting to iOS 3 than it is not back supporting to Android 2.1 or slower devices (simply because there are a lot of lower end Android phones out there).

See my post above for a more detailed response to this.

If I remember correctly, the Motorola Cliqx (is that what it was called?) was on sale at Verizon here around me for .99 for a little while. Or maybe it was free? It was either or!

I apologize if i came condescending. That was not my intent. I also would not be surprised if you were to see ChromeOS spill over into the mobile device market. Why would they do that? Because it's a fresh start.

I don't think Google can start putting control on Android, or it's devices. It's open source. Who are they to say how you can and can't use it. My personal belief is that if Android doesn't start getting some control over itself, and it's market, it will spiral out of control. ChromeOS, however, is closed source. Proprietary to Google. No ASOP, no OHA.

 

translation: i am ignoring the facts of basic arithmetic because i can't admit my ideas just aren't sound at all.

18 months renting chromebook for $20 each month = $360

500 dollar laptop or netbook (with much better stats and functionality than a chromebook) minus 200-300 you can sell it back for after you're done = cost of only 300-200

I guess people like you are the reason Google even thinks they can do something like this...and why "rent to own" places are incredibly popular in the United States, especially in poor areas.

 

I had the choice between an iPhone 4 and a T-Mobile G2X.

I picked the G2X, and haven't regretted it since.