Android and all-all

I am following with interest all tablet news. Having played with the first iPad (which was bought as if “for the wife”), I was looking forward to the emergence of a more technological competitor on the Android platform that I wanted to take for myself.



And now Samsung is rolling out its Galaxy news, Andriod 4.0 is coming out and I ... wipe out the drool and feel disappointed.





')

It took time to formulate a claim to Android. I read the n-th number of articles about the platform “dampness”, but I was not satisfied with the analysis of the “dampness”. I want to share in this article my vision of the problem.



Disclaimer (excuse): all thoughts in this article do not pretend to be the ultimate truth. I am not a Mac-Boy (moreover, I don't like the personality of Steve Jobs) or Android-Boy. I don't care who wins.



The main message of this article: problems (in terms of consumer properties) Android devices are not temporary. They will always be. These problems are a consequence of the chosen strategy for the development and promotion of Android.



And the following conclusion comes from this household: one should not wait for the appearance of an ideal (in terms of consumer properties) Android tablet. It may never be.



Let's start with the iPad. Apple’s strategy for its products is quite simple: Apple puts consumer properties of products in the first place.



The iPad is a computer that SUDDENLY stopped showing its “guts” to the user. There are no files or drivers. Instead, he plays music, shows videos, etc.



The following main consumer qualities of the tablet can be distinguished: simplicity (intuitive ease of interaction scenario), responsiveness (guaranteed and clear response) and safety (in a broad sense).



All product decisions must now pass through a rigid screen of selection. Flash is a powerful add-on browser. But the pluses go hand in hand with minuses and Flash fell under the knife. Because unsafe and unresponsive.



And you will not plug a USB drive into the iPad. Because it goes simplicity and security. Nasty files, nasty subdirectories and terrible executable applications appear.



We need to understand one more simple postulate related to the quality of “consumption”: the user will associate any negative experience with the product with the product itself.



This means that a single nasty application with a red font on a yellow background and a 5-minute response period will ruin all the impressions of the box, molded case, durable glass and the wonderful Home button.



Hence the tight control of software created for iPad.



So, Apple's strategy severely limits technological freedom (this is bad), but it raises the bar for consumer properties highly (this is good).



Turn to Android. This is a platform for the promotion of Google web services. It is clearly lagging behind in the development of competing iOS, but really wants to "catch up and overtake". How?



The competitor is strong and clearly ahead of the rest of the world. Competitor lifted the bar for quality. What to do?



Of course, look at the "bad" competitor. Here it is: "limiting technological freedom." Give rampant techno-freedom!



We will make processors faster (we solve more different tasks), displays are brighter (we involve more poorly seeing people), different sizes (more pockets fit), more filling (smart chips, stylus pens, etc.), more hardware buttons ( three instead of one). Etc.



This decision is a strategic defect of Android. Google sacrificed consumer quality tablets for the sake of technological freedom. Engineers defeated quality control departments.



What does this policy lead to? Let us examine in detail the three consumer problems / technological breakthroughs (underline the necessary) of the Android platform (I will not give references, it is not difficult to find).



1) auto-update Android apps



Android automatically updates Flash, Google Maps and something else if you have a web. This is great, because the user now does not even need to worry about updating the software. Everything happens automatically.



This techno-breakthrough leads to the following consumer experience: when roaming, an Android-smartphone without needing sly downloads tens of megabytes of data. People get gigantic bills and fucking up.



Ofigevayut immediately from two things: from the lost amounts, and even from the fact that they can not disable auto-update .



In some situations, the checkbox “Disable auto-update” disappears (!) From the Market. That is, the user logged in once - sees a check mark. Another time went - does not see.



Read the people's reaction on the forums: consumers consider themselves to be deceived.



2) Samsung Galaxy Note with stylus pen



Samsung has released an extremely interesting Android device: Samsung Galaxy Note. An interesting form factor - a kind of "notebook", which occupies an intermediate position between the phone and the tablet-book.



But the most important thing is the pen. Pen! The pen does not replace the finger, but complements favorably. We draw diagrams, draw pictures, emphasize interesting news. What a beauty, right?



A journalist at the exhibition approaches the Note and squeaks with delight. He takes a pen, draws a line, and the trace of a pen ... does not appear immediately.



The line does not have time for the pen, is late, behind.



Let's do this: grab the handle now and unplug the rod. Or flip the other end. Now “write” the word “Hello” on the monitor screen. Happened? Well done? And how did you know what was good?



The man is accustomed and expects that a trace remains from the pen. At school, "trained."



When there is no trace, our experience stops working. The brain has nothing to catch on. Instead of transferring the familiar experience from the real world to the tablet, we get ... again a hoax.



What is most striking about this? That the device passed quality control and got to the exhibition. The advanced model of the device with the avant-garde pen (which distinguishes this device from others) actually does not allow the pen to use.



And this is considered normal. Absurd? Conspiracy? No, just a policy of breakthrough technological freedom.



3) Widgets and Desktops



Desktops Android amaze with a wealth of colors. There is a rampage of live wallpapers and frantic flowering of various widgets.



So, I 'm going to open the Twenty-Fourth World Holy War here and I want to show that widgets are generally bad . Surprisingly.



I contend that widgets (on tablets and smartphones) are defective from a consumer point of view . They have no use, only beauty.



To begin, consider the scenarios of user interaction with the tablet from the point of view of Apple.



Scenario number one. The tablet is in the bag. Blocked. The owner is back and wants to understand what happened. It turns on the device and sees the list of notifications.



The main task of the lock screen is to give a quick answer to the question “what happened? what should I respond to? ”



The second scenario. The tablet is on, the host is reading the mail. Then he decides to read a book. Pressing "Home" and we see the desktop.



The iPad desktop is just ... a menu. Large, comfortable, multi-screen. From it we start applications and from them we delete them as superfluous.



There are no widgets, everything is simple and clear and economical in terms of effort.



Now Android.



Let's analyze a simple interaction script that includes widgets.



The user installed the Clock widget on the third left desktop. Took the whole screen. To be seen from afar.



On another desktop, put the widget with your favorite twitter. On the third desktop I put the widget with the weather.



Gone, back. So, "you need to know the weather, time and last favorite tweet." Click, the device is turned on. But ... something is wrong. What?



"Heck! But I see only one desktop! ”



To find out the necessary information from the widgets, the user will have to:



a) unlock



b) peel off at the first table;



c) scroll through all the tables from left to right, looking for the necessary widgets on them (phew!);



d) return to the table from which he started, because he is the main one and I want to leave him like this;



e) return the lock.



Simple, convenient? Efforts commensurate with the result?



Let's take another scenario. "I want to read a book . "



In Apple, this is the icon that will launch the application. In Android, the “Bookshelf” widget: there is a shelf, with books on it. You can sort through books.



From an Apple point of view. “I want to read a book” - find the iBookBook application icon, run it. The full-screen application will open and allow you to select a book and read it. Everything is simple and clear.



From the point of view of Android. "I want to read a book" - to find a widget with a bookshelf and ... what?



Choose a book? But it's not convenient for me to choose in the widget: it is small . And I have five thousand books there.



Instead of seeing my shelf on my entire bright-colorful-OLED screen, I only use its fifth part.



What for?



Do I need to simultaneously monitor nearby desktop widgets? No, I'm not Julius Caesar. I do one thing for one period of time.



The application will open my large bookcase full screen and I will immediately find a book. Why do I have to do a search in this little one?



So, looking for a book in a book shelf widget is inconvenient. What else can you do? Understand that I have a lot of books? What do they stand on the shelf?



What do they have beautiful covers?



Bookcase Widget. Beautiful, spectacular and ... useless.



With these examples of interaction scenarios, I wanted to show that the widget is a) a poor notifier and b) a poor replacement for the main application.



a) Widgets (and, therefore, notifications) are “spread” on desktops. This destroys the “quickly check what's new” scenario.



In addition, Android has a notification center (which Apple pulled down for its iOS). It turns out that we must also look there. Confusion of meanings, confusion.



b) Then maybe the widget acts as a small copy of a large application?



But how does the “bookshelf” widget help the user who wants to read a book? What function will it perform? How will he improve the interaction that comes down to finding and reading a book?



So why do we need a widget? Isn't that another “techno snag”?



Yes, it is freedom. Freedom pile on all sorts of different colors on desktops. It attracts views to devices in stores and exhibitions.



But in reality it is non-functional and uncomfortable. Widgets require effort to customize and use without giving away anything in return.



They can easily be excluded from any interaction scenario.



Lead the results. Android is a platform in which the quality of user interaction is sacrificed to techno-freedom according to the “ more, higher, stronger ” scenario.



From this position it is necessary to consider all the devices on this platform. Moreover, for this reason, geeks like the Android platform. Because geeks love techno-freedom and fast processors. They are ready to spend time and customize their favorite devices. Geeks also like the presence of eight thousand applications for playing music. Andriod Market is filled up with programs, but how many of them are really high-quality and useful?



It resembles the world of Linux. And ordinary users want everything to be set up and work “as needed”. If you decide to give a tablet to your grandmother, buy her an iPad.