Who should dominate the lower end market? Android or Windows Phone.
I know Android is the leader in all smart phone market segments. No matter what demographic you slice it by, unless you're constructing arbitrary useless lines in the sand, Android today has more devices in more hands than anyone else. Even in the countries where iOS and WP8 are stronger than they are in North America.
But that doesn't mean it is the way that things should be.
High end Android phones are good. Nexus phones and even some high end Samsung devices (and I'm sure a small handful of others) are reliable, high end little pieces of modern engineering. On these top end devices almost every piece of Android software runs at least as well as it was coded. And, for the average person looking into this high end segment you'll find Android is the right answer. In my opinion, Android surpassed iOS in terms of usability, extensibility, etc... long ago, and you've always had a better selection of phones with Android. Plus, if you're there to fit in with others, more people own Android. Against iOS it wins hands down both as a smart phone and as a status symbol. Sorry Apple fans :(.
My experience on the low-mid end of the cell phone market is starkly different. Budget Android phones are crap and budget iOS devices don't exist (the iPhone 5c is practically priced into the high end FFS). This isn't Google's fault. Directly. There are basically no limitations in terms of hardware, implementation, or the extent to which you can modify the OS. As a result, most budget Android phone are the Frankenstein's monsters of the cell phone world. Corners will be cut in the hardware department. To keep respectable SoC parts in there so they still look good on paper they will cheap out on amount and/or quality of RAM or touch screen components or even on the cellular radios. As a result, even when software run on the devices it can be glitchy, or "different" in a way that degrades the experience.
But then there is the openness of the OS. For some reason, despite the success of the Nexus line, every single non-Nexus Android phone I've ever personally seen or heard of has a modified version of Android running on it. And, as with hardware, on budget devices, corners are cut. Random, weird modifications are made to virtually every aspect of the core AOSP. They make no bloody sense most of the time. And they break completely random shit. But, because it is a budget project, they don't budget any time/money to support the bastardized OS. All in the name of differentiating their product OEM's screw over consumers simply because they can.
And, in the past couple of years this has spread like a contagion to even the mid-level devices as well. The Android handset market is over saturated with competitors and so virtually no one makes money on handsets any more. Basically, if you want a phone running a version of Android that has some true level of support your choices are clear; get a Nexus phone or the OEM's "hero" phone. As a very general rule of thumb, all other Android devices will be terrible. And even some of those hero phones will still suck.
So, how is the situation on Windows Phone? Infinitely better. Windows Phone has, I'd argue the best base OS (think out of the box experience only). The platform has specific hardware requirements and the OS is closed source. As a result, the entire OS and the bulk of the apps are available and run virtually identically across ALL Windows Phone devices, including the cheapest of the cheap. OEM's can't cut corners on hardware in any meaningful way. They also can't muck about with low level parts of the OS for shiggles. It was also built with low end hardware in mind and runs better on lower specs than Android does.
This means that aside from things like the quality of the camera or for the those with 512MB RAM phones, getting the full catalogue of apps a Lumia 520 is just as good as Lumia 930. Your daily experience with the phone will generally be the same.
And, if Windows Phone does somehow manage to overtake the smart phone market, that may actually become its biggest weakness; a lack of internal differentiation between high and low end devices.
But that doesn't mean it is the way that things should be.
High end Android phones are good. Nexus phones and even some high end Samsung devices (and I'm sure a small handful of others) are reliable, high end little pieces of modern engineering. On these top end devices almost every piece of Android software runs at least as well as it was coded. And, for the average person looking into this high end segment you'll find Android is the right answer. In my opinion, Android surpassed iOS in terms of usability, extensibility, etc... long ago, and you've always had a better selection of phones with Android. Plus, if you're there to fit in with others, more people own Android. Against iOS it wins hands down both as a smart phone and as a status symbol. Sorry Apple fans :(.
My experience on the low-mid end of the cell phone market is starkly different. Budget Android phones are crap and budget iOS devices don't exist (the iPhone 5c is practically priced into the high end FFS). This isn't Google's fault. Directly. There are basically no limitations in terms of hardware, implementation, or the extent to which you can modify the OS. As a result, most budget Android phone are the Frankenstein's monsters of the cell phone world. Corners will be cut in the hardware department. To keep respectable SoC parts in there so they still look good on paper they will cheap out on amount and/or quality of RAM or touch screen components or even on the cellular radios. As a result, even when software run on the devices it can be glitchy, or "different" in a way that degrades the experience.
But then there is the openness of the OS. For some reason, despite the success of the Nexus line, every single non-Nexus Android phone I've ever personally seen or heard of has a modified version of Android running on it. And, as with hardware, on budget devices, corners are cut. Random, weird modifications are made to virtually every aspect of the core AOSP. They make no bloody sense most of the time. And they break completely random shit. But, because it is a budget project, they don't budget any time/money to support the bastardized OS. All in the name of differentiating their product OEM's screw over consumers simply because they can.
And, in the past couple of years this has spread like a contagion to even the mid-level devices as well. The Android handset market is over saturated with competitors and so virtually no one makes money on handsets any more. Basically, if you want a phone running a version of Android that has some true level of support your choices are clear; get a Nexus phone or the OEM's "hero" phone. As a very general rule of thumb, all other Android devices will be terrible. And even some of those hero phones will still suck.
So, how is the situation on Windows Phone? Infinitely better. Windows Phone has, I'd argue the best base OS (think out of the box experience only). The platform has specific hardware requirements and the OS is closed source. As a result, the entire OS and the bulk of the apps are available and run virtually identically across ALL Windows Phone devices, including the cheapest of the cheap. OEM's can't cut corners on hardware in any meaningful way. They also can't muck about with low level parts of the OS for shiggles. It was also built with low end hardware in mind and runs better on lower specs than Android does.
This means that aside from things like the quality of the camera or for the those with 512MB RAM phones, getting the full catalogue of apps a Lumia 520 is just as good as Lumia 930. Your daily experience with the phone will generally be the same.
And, if Windows Phone does somehow manage to overtake the smart phone market, that may actually become its biggest weakness; a lack of internal differentiation between high and low end devices.
Comments
Post a Comment