Google thought that in the long run,
the plan would pay off in two ways. First, it believed a free OS would
push phone makers to create better Web-enabled phones, and better phones
would let people spend more time on the Internet. More time online
means more opportunities to use Google’s service and see Google
ads—i.e., ka-ching!
Android also provided a strategic benefit: If phone makers adopted
Google’s OS, the search company would retain some influence on the
devices people used to get its services. If it weren’t for Android,
Google’s customers would have been using devices controlled by Apple,
Microsoft, Nokia, or RIM, all of which had incentives to limit Google’s
reach. Android lets Google control its own destiny.
The strategy worked brilliantly. Android is now the world’s most popular mobile operating system. It’s unclear if Google makes much money from Android directly—by some estimates Google
makes as much from ads on Apple’s iOS devices as it does on Android
machines. But there’s no question that Android has helped lower the
prices of smartphones across the globe, which can only help Google’s ad
business. It’s hard to call Android anything other than a resounding
success.
Well, except for one small thing: Most Android phones are crap. As part of aNew Year’s resolution, I promised to trade in my beloved iPhone 5 for
an Android phone sometime in 2013. I reasoned that, as a tech writer, I
should spend more time with the world’s most popular operating system.
Phone makers and carriers have regularly sent me Android phones to test
out in the past, but I’d never given most of them more than a passing
look—I’d open them up, turn them on, get aggravated by their bad
keyboards or poor touchscreens or frustrating add-on software, and I
immediately package them up and send them back.
This shouldn’t be surprising—most
Android phones are very cheap, and you get what you pay for. Over the
last few months, though, I’ve been testing two of the most expensive,
most advanced Android phones on the market, the Samsung Galaxy S4 and
the HTC One. Actually, I’ve been doing more than that. I’ve been using two versions
of each of these phones—the standard phone that you get for $199 when
you sign a two-year cellular contract, and a second “Google Play
edition,” which is a special, full-priced version that features only the
essential software you need on a smartphone. (The Play edition HTC one is $599, and the S4 is $649.)
I’ve been switching between these four devices, using one or the other
as my primary phone at all times. Except for the brief period during
whichI tested out Apple’s new version of iOS, my iPhone hasn’t been charged in weeks, poor guy.
Altogether I experienced the best
and worst of Android—and I saw, up close, Android’s basic problem. I’d
sum it up as follows. Google makes a fine mobile operating system. Some
phone manufacturers make attractive, powerful Android handsets. These
phones have the potential to be really wonderful machines, even as great
as Apple’s flagship phone. But then, at the last second, the phone
makers and the world’s cellular carriers snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory. They ruin the phones’ potential with unnecessary features and
apps that lower the devices’ battery life, uglify their home screens,
and make everything you want to do extra annoying.
This is one of the most important
advantages Apple has over Android devices. When you buy an iPhone, it
works exactly as Apple intended; it’s never adulterated by “features”
that the company didn’t approve. But when you buy an Android phone, even
a really great one, you’re not getting the device that Google’s
designers had in mind when they created the OS. You’re not even getting
the device that the phone manufacturer—Samsung and HTC, in this case—had
in mind. Instead you’re getting a bastardized version, a phone replete
with software that has been altered by many players along the way,
usually in a clumsy, money-grubbing fashion.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar