OSNews

Hardware manufacturers suck at software interface design, with the possible exception of Apple. None of the custom OEM ROMs provide a single damn thing over stock Android, except for that one Chinese phone that comes with MIUI preinstalled.

I don't agree. Both Samsung and HTC have added some goodies that made early Androids less lacking in the feature front, not to mention the fact that a lot of their ideas were later put on stock Android (using sick US law logic they should sue Google now).
Sony corner icon approach on the other hand actually makes a lot of sense on their mini devices.
A number of changes are simply required to support additional hardware.
E.g Galaxy Note has narrow touch mode to make it bearable for one handed use. I also hail Samsung decision to leave HW buttons at the bottom as Google decision to put back action at top left corner is brain-dead given the trend to expand screen size.


Not that they always hit the spot frequently shipping downright buggy code, but as time passes they are getting better. GS3 is for one an impressive device even on stock skin.

Getting the Android OEM community to use a generic version of Android may be quite difficult. They are obviously looking for ways to differentiate their products and the limitations of the smart phone form factor and build components do not make easy to make something distinctive.

That's why customisation of Android is so popular, both the OEMs and the carriers love to load up their handsets with apps and customisations, the problems is that neither the OEMs or the carriers have shown much ability in terms of software development so their efforts tend to be poor and tend to degrade user experience and satisfaction. Their lack of software development ability will be made worse now that they will be all trying not to appear to copy Apple and will thus be more inclined to try ill considered experiments.

The problem for the Android OEM community as a whole is that it is financially so precarious and the only OEM that has made a business success of Android has now been found guilty of copying Apple, a strategy which appears to have paid of as it has allowed Samsung to create a high brand profile and to make high profits, now however they face the difficult task of retaining that brand profile whilst coming out with designs that cannot be confused with Apple's.

Apple sucks at being even a semi-decent corporation, so I would say that anything potentially positive about them is null and void. They don't get my respect or acknowledgement of possible "good" they've done or "innovations" they've made. It's a corrupt corporation and clearly Mr. Dead Jobs must have chosen a successor that will keep the company going down the same path he set it on (ie. scumbagginess, not that that's a word) before he croaked.

Edited 2012-08-28 04:58 UTC

If anything, Apple nowadays are more of a software company which happens to build some hardware, like Microsoft, than a hardware company trying to get into software, like PC OEMs.

As far as I can tell, the last time they introduced a significant innovation in the realm of hardware design, rather than "stealing" or buying it, was with the iPod click wheel and the iMac G4 in the early 2000s. Nowadays, it seems to me that all they do in this realm is picking standard components on the market, sometimes buying a shiny extra from a smaller company that does actual hardware R&D, and then putting a pretty shell around the bunch.

On the few occasions where they still design something, like with their SoCs or the aforementioned casing, they do so in a very conservative way, with little bold moves (think Eee pad transformer, Galaxy Note, Xperia X10 Mini and Sola for examples of "risky" hardware design). And even then, they still manage to make beginner mistakes sometimes, like with the iPhone 4's unprotected glass panes and failing antennas.

No, really, if I were to find a good example of companies that are skilled at both hardware and software design, I would rather take a look at some of IBM's business offering (think AS/400, nowadays ironically called "i Series" if I'm not misunderstood). Sure, these are not designed to appeal to the general public, but for what they do, they provide an interesting example of a blend of clever software and hardware design, with lots of integration between both.

Edited 2012-08-28 08:31 UTC

No, Google does not have as such strict requirements when it comes to hardware. If you want to create a wrist watch phone with 200x 200 px display, go ahead. If you want a 7inch phone, with a 640x 480 display, be their guests. Or a tablet with a keyboard on the back of the display. Or maybe no always connected display at all.

MS would prohibits all of those, Google would prohibit none and let the market place decide which are terrible.

W/o any software customization those extreme form factors would be useless. Only opennes of Android makes going to market with such variability at least justifiable. With stock Android a lot of designs would be useless.

Innovation can only happen when an OEM slaps an iOS-like skin on Android? I'm glad Google is sticking it to Samsung.

How was Apple's lawsuit meant to "spur UI innovation"? I'm 99% sure it was meant to extinguish it. Unless you think Apple are the only one's capable of UI innovation.

That was irony, but reading mainstream press, this view seems to be dominating.