Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 29th Dec 2011 16:22 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless It all started with Apple/TechCrunch blogger M.G. Siegler making a huge fuss over something he didn't understand, and while that in and of itself isn't particularly interesting, one of the outcomes of this little internet drama is a comment on Google+ (the tenth one) that so perfectly encapsulates just how important Android is for the world that I felt the need to share it with you. It's the holiday season after all.
Thread beginning with comment 501584
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Revolutionary?
by earksiinni on Thu 29th Dec 2011 16:44 UTC in reply to "Revolutionary?"
earksiinni
Member since:
2009-03-27

Gotta love it when techies miss the main point.

Reply Parent Score: 17

RE[2]: Revolutionary?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 29th Dec 2011 16:48 in reply to "RE: Revolutionary?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Gotta love it when techies miss the main point.


+1.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Revolutionary?
by _xmv on Thu 29th Dec 2011 16:54 in reply to "RE: Revolutionary?"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

The point is that "Android is so cool it's what history books will remember, as being the open source OS that changed things"

Well, as pointed out, it's not actually open. Plus, if anything, it's Linux which made the difference.

Finally, it's just marketing bs obviously. Just like iOS fans would claim iOS changed the face of the mobile (and thus the mobile web) and will make it into history books.

Heck. Freaking fanboi world.

What makes it into history books is the winner, no matter how, no matter why. The winner is the biggest seller. And that's Android.

That's still not revolutionary.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Revolutionary?
by earksiinni on Thu 29th Dec 2011 17:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Revolutionary?"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

The point is that "Android is so cool it's what history books will remember, as being the open source OS that changed things"


Nope.

What makes it into history books is the winner, no matter how, no matter why. The winner is the biggest seller. And that's Android.


Closer, but still not quite there.

Edited 2011-12-29 17:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Revolutionary?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 30th Dec 2011 00:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Revolutionary?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I think the whole point was that Android will make the most impact in everyday people's lives, because it will be available to them at a low cost and high quality.

Just like windows put PC's at everyone's desktop, Android will put pocket-able computer phones in everyone's pocket.

The effect of everyone having a computer in their pocket will be revolutionary. Not necissiarily the UI, the design, the code, the "openness", the patents, the what-ever geeks argue about these days. The effect on people having such technology in their hands.

That is what Thom is referring to. But, instead you responded with a bunch of technical and geeky oriented retorts, completely unrelated to article.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Revolutionary?
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri 30th Dec 2011 02:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Revolutionary?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

The history books are full of losers who's ideas won in the end.

Reply Parent Score: 2

v RE[2]: Revolutionary?
by bonchbonch on Thu 29th Dec 2011 18:13 in reply to "RE: Revolutionary?"
RE[3]: Revolutionary?
by earksiinni on Thu 29th Dec 2011 18:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Revolutionary?"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Thom's central point, if I've understood him correctly, is an analogy: Nokia is to the global spread of dumbphones and cellular telecommunications what Android is to the global spread of smartphones and the (mobile) Internet. The Android revolution is not its development or business model per se but rather a broader social revolution where even dalits in Mumbai have the sum of human knowledge in their hands. To that effect, the iPhone has made very little inroads into third-world markets whereas Thom is implying/saying that Android has (or more generally, non-first world markets).

Personally, I disagree that the iPhone is less revolutionary because I think that the revolution in rich markets was of supreme importance, but that doesn't take away from Thom's main point. What might detract from Thom's point on the other hand is if market stats show that Android has not in fact made significant inroads into poorer markets, but I don't know the issue well enough to evaluate that claim.

I just get annoyed when people don't spend the time to read an article properly and instead insist on bringing their own experience to bear regardless of whether their experience is relevant whatsoever. Happens way too often on this site.

Edited 2011-12-29 18:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Revolutionary?
by tomcat on Sun 1st Jan 2012 03:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Revolutionary?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

"Gotta love it when techies miss the main point.

Note that you didn't actually refute any arguments or even explain what the main point is supposed to be.

This article comes off like a cheerleading essay for Linux-loving techies on OSNews. That's obvious the moment it tries to dismiss the massive sea change of the iPhone, which practically kicked off the current smartphone industry and set the paradigm that Android has followed ever since. Thom Holwerda has something of a reputation for these kinds of crowd-pleasing posts.
"e

And that bias is one of the reasons why this site isn't that interesting anymore.

Edited 2012-01-01 03:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1