Technology catch-all thread

[chw42]

Is it just me, or has it become a thing from Apple/Microsoft and now Google to all converge on the same basic design principals?

 

Everything looks like flat, borderless tiles on every single mobile OS now. Android/iOS and Windows Mobile all seem very similar to each other now.

 

MS went with it first. Then Android. Then iOS. And now Android is looking more like iOS.

 

I love flat design BTW, so I think it's good.

[chw42]

Android Auto is very interesting. You tether your phone to the car and it basically mirrors your phone's features to your car.

 

This way, you don't have to update the car's software, which makes a lot of sense. Most people won't get a new car every year or two. They get a new one every 10 years.

[Y2HH]

MS went with it first. Then Android. Then iOS. And now Android is looking more like iOS.

 

I love flat design BTW, so I think it's good.

 

I agree I think it's good design...but only to a certain point. I felt I enjoyed it more when all three had their own look and feel...now that they're all converging into something very similar...meh.

 

Honestly, I don't really see Windows Mobile as a valid choice...at least with Apple you get Google stuff, as Google doesn't support windows mobile much at all, and with Google you get the openness of having a lot of choice available.

 

What exactly do you get with Windows Mobile aside from being stuck on Bing and IE?

[chw42]

I agree I think it's good design...but only to a certain point. I felt I enjoyed it more when all three had their own look and feel...now that they're all converging into something very similar...meh.

 

Honestly, I don't really see Windows Mobile as a valid choice...at least with Apple you get Google stuff, as Google doesn't support windows mobile much at all, and with Google you get the openness of having a lot of choice available.

 

What exactly do you get with Windows Mobile aside from being stuck on Bing and IE?

 

Windows Phones have good cameras? I don't know. I don't see them as a real option honestly. No Google services. Smaller app library.

 

It's the same reason why I don't use Fire tablets or why I don't want that new Fire phone. No Google = no go for me.

[Y2HH]

Windows Phones have good cameras? I don't know. I don't see them as a real option honestly. No Google services. Smaller app library.

 

It's the same reason why I don't use Fire tablets or why I don't want that new Fire phone. No Google = no go for me.

 

I agree ... outside of iOS and Android, I wouldn't even consider another ecosystem right now, and that includes Amazon services and Windows Mobile. Depending on the person, I recommend Apple or Google.

 

I can't be mad Android exists, it's pushed Apple as of late, just as Apple once pushed everyone else.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Android Auto is very interesting. You tether your phone to the car and it basically mirrors your phone's features to your car.

 

This way, you don't have to update the car's software, which makes a lot of sense. Most people won't get a new car every year or two. They get a new one every 10 years.

THat being said, I want ALL devices to be be compatible with the in-car systems. I dont want a system that locks me into Android, or iOS, or WIndows Phone. I want a "dumb" system that allows me to connect my device.

 

Mybe my wife has an iOS device, or my work phone is iOS, but my personal phone is Android.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Athomeboy_2000

[Y2HH]

THat being said, I want ALL devices to be be compatible with the in-car systems. I dont want a system that locks me into Android, or iOS, or WIndows Phone. I want a "dumb" system that allows me to connect my device.

 

Mybe my wife has an iOS device, or my work phone is iOS, but my personal phone is Android.

 

I hate saying "this", but ... this.

[chw42]

THat being said, I want ALL devices to be be compatible with the in-car systems. I dont want a system that locks me into Android, or iOS, or WIndows Phone. I want a "dumb" system that allows me to connect my device.

 

Mybe my wife has an iOS device, or my work phone is iOS, but my personal phone is Android.

 

They'd have to create some kind of universal standard to sync data between the car and your phone (no, not Bluetooth), which I don't see happening.

 

There's no incentive for Apple, Google, or Microsoft to do this.

[chw42]

LG G Watch and Samsung Gear Live are going to be $200 apiece. I want to wait around for the Moto 360, but I may get impatient and buy one of those. They'll be up for pre-order on Google Play today.

Edited June 25, 2014 by chw42

[HuskyCaucasian]

They'd have to create some kind of universal standard to sync data between the car and your phone (no, not Bluetooth), which I don't see happening.

 

There's no incentive for Apple, Google, or Microsoft to do this.

In many ways, it's not syncing. Google treats it as a second screen, in a sense. It takes the phones apps, and repackages them for a dashboard screen. It wouldnt be hard to make that kind of technology cross platform.

[chw42]

In many ways, it's not syncing. Google treats it as a second screen, in a sense. It takes the phones apps, and repackages them for a dashboard screen. It wouldnt be hard to make that kind of technology cross platform.

 

Yeah, it wouldn't be hard, but nobody has an incentive to do it so it is hard.

 

Apple wouldn't want it, they want you to use their services. Microsoft wouldn't want it, they want you to use their services. Google's the only company with a history of developing for other platforms since they're a software company and not a hardware company, but even they wouldn't really want that since they'd rather have you use Android.

 

It's good for the consumer to have something like that, but it doesn't benefit the companies making it, so it probably won't happen.

[HuskyCaucasian]

hmmm.... I guess it may be possible to have BOTH CarPlay and Android Auto in the same car:

Car makers will offer Android Auto alongside CarPlay later this year

a long list of both new and old members of the Open Automotive Alliance have confirmed support for the new feature. Many of which are also confirmed partners for CarPlay and at least some plan to launch both platforms simultaneously in upcoming vehicles.

-----

Up until now there was some question about how a platform from Google might co-exist alongside Apple’s platform, but it appear at least some manufacturers plan to offer both of the competing platforms side by side in new vehicles.

-----

Honda, also a confirmed Apple partner, released a similar announcement on Android Auto saying the feature will appear in select vehicles starting in 2015. It noted “Applicable Honda vehicles will be cross-compatible with CarPlay and Android Auto. The vehicle will automatically detect the smart phone OS.”

 

[Y2HH]

Yeah, it wouldn't be hard, but nobody has an incentive to do it so it is hard.

 

Apple wouldn't want it, they want you to use their services. Microsoft wouldn't want it, they want you to use their services. Google's the only company with a history of developing for other platforms since they're a software company and not a hardware company, but even they wouldn't really want that since they'd rather have you use Android.

 

It's good for the consumer to have something like that, but it doesn't benefit the companies making it, so it probably won't happen.

 

Except google doesn't make software for windows outside of web apps...so not entirely true.

[Jake]

I agree I think it's good design...but only to a certain point. I felt I enjoyed it more when all three had their own look and feel...now that they're all converging into something very similar...meh.

 

Honestly, I don't really see Windows Mobile as a valid choice...at least with Apple you get Google stuff, as Google doesn't support windows mobile much at all, and with Google you get the openness of having a lot of choice available.

 

What exactly do you get with Windows Mobile aside from being stuck on Bing and IE?

 

I would really like to test drive a Windows Phone for a while to see if the shortcomings are as glaring as they might seem. I love the interface and a lot of MS is doing, but not enough to pull the trigger on a WP and gamble on years of owning one.

 

I think Google is really targeting MS in various ways. They don't see Apple as much as a serious competitor, because Apple is less interested in market domination as much as niche domination. Google obviously doesn't want Apple to dominate its market segments, but that's more tolerable than MS, who has always been more Google-like in their desire to be in as many places as possible. Google wants to knock out Windows on desktop, in mobile, and in enterprise (which includes desktop/mobile, but also office applications, hosted services, etc.). By not supporting MS products, Google makes MS much less appealing. IMO, it doesn't make MS a worst choice in many situations (no way in hell am I abandoning MS Office), but it makes both choices have flaws instead of Google looking like an obviously inferior choice.

[Y2HH]

I would really like to test drive a Windows Phone for a while to see if the shortcomings are as glaring as they might seem. I love the interface and a lot of MS is doing, but not enough to pull the trigger on a WP and gamble on years of owning one.

 

I think Google is really targeting MS in various ways. They don't see Apple as much as a serious competitor, because Apple is less interested in market domination as much as niche domination. Google obviously doesn't want Apple to dominate its market segments, but that's more tolerable than MS, who has always been more Google-like in their desire to be in as many places as possible. Google wants to knock out Windows on desktop, in mobile, and in enterprise (which includes desktop/mobile, but also office applications, hosted services, etc.). By not supporting MS products, Google makes MS much less appealing. IMO, it doesn't make MS a worst choice in many situations (no way in hell am I abandoning MS Office), but it makes both choices have flaws instead of Google looking like an obviously inferior choice.

 

My friend had one for a quite a while, and the interface is top notch, the issue is support. Not a lot of devices available, and not a lot of software support for those devices, and to name a major one, Google.

 

IMO:

 

Apple has the best design, and a lot of that comes from being vertically integrated. What they do implement they tend to implement well both in terms of hardware and software, but this can lead to feature lag (which is apparent), however, they eventually come around.

 

Microsoft can't seem to decide if they're engineers or designers in that they're interfaces tend to be nice, but very cluttered to the point it's sometimes hard to find what you're looking for even though you already know where it is (or where it WAS until they moved it for no reason).

 

Google are engineers first, designers ... way later. Google is usually the first to adopt and implement, but their design often lags the features, and this is apparent across most of their applications, including Gmail, which is in serious need of overhaul. Googles ability to quickly introduce features is unparalleled (it's one thing I really like about them), but their lack of focus on design is bothersome.

 

There really is no "best choice", but at least there is choice these days.

 

From 1993 until about 2003 there was pretty much only one choice (Microsoft), and all that resulted in was a stagnant industry.

[RockRaines]

I would really like to test drive a Windows Phone for a while to see if the shortcomings are as glaring as they might seem. I love the interface and a lot of MS is doing, but not enough to pull the trigger on a WP and gamble on years of owning one.

 

I think Google is really targeting MS in various ways. They don't see Apple as much as a serious competitor, because Apple is less interested in market domination as much as niche domination. Google obviously doesn't want Apple to dominate its market segments, but that's more tolerable than MS, who has always been more Google-like in their desire to be in as many places as possible. Google wants to knock out Windows on desktop, in mobile, and in enterprise (which includes desktop/mobile, but also office applications, hosted services, etc.). By not supporting MS products, Google makes MS much less appealing. IMO, it doesn't make MS a worst choice in many situations (no way in hell am I abandoning MS Office), but it makes both choices have flaws instead of Google looking like an obviously inferior choice.

In what way? Hosted software? Maybe. Microsoft and Google are locked in a cloud software battle that Apple will never participate in since they want to control all aspects of the user experience. But make no mistake, when it comes to personal devices, Apple is still what companies aim for.

[Jake]

In what way? Hosted software? Maybe. Microsoft and Google are locked in a cloud software battle that Apple will never participate in since they want to control all aspects of the user experience. But make no mistake, when it comes to personal devices, Apple is still what companies aim for.

 

Yes, I don't think Google is as worried about Apple because Google (I think) is content with a world where Apple has its own corner of the market selling their own devices.

 

Google started out by being the eminent web service, but now sees that intimately intertwined with being the default software provider. Just like it has long been Microsoft unless otherwise specified on PCs, Google sees a convergent mobile-tablet-PC web-software world as one in which they want to be the dominant force.

 

They want people to say about Microsoft and Apple what many people say about Apple now (though not nearly so much as they used to, and for good reason): "I just want all my favorite programs/services/apps to work." If you've pretty much only used Chrome, Gmail, Google Search, Google Drive, Android, etc., suddenly those are the things you can't live without. I'd imagine we may eventually see Google with a fairly "closed" ecosystem, which will be pretty interesting since I see no interest in making hardware.

 

For now, though, Microsoft is on all but 15% of personal computers and that gives them a big advantage. Google wants to snuff out any additional advantages Microsoft could get, such as allowing people to continue using half-baked Google services on Windows Phone or W8 Metro.

 

I'm totally dumbfounded as to how this will all sort out. I think all three companies are doing a fabulous job right now, but Microsoft is clearly the one with the most troubling trajectory. Apple has never gone for total market domination, so their success is a little more difficult to measure...but I think they're doing fine if not better than ever. The low end of their personal computer line is better than it has ever been. They still own the high end of the tablet market and are winning the upper echelon of the US smartphone market.

 

Still, Google seems to be doing best and it sort of scares me. There's got to be a dystopian novel/film/comic where the same company sells everything. The worst part is that it's hard to say that Google is doing anything especially wrong; as far as giant companies go, they don't seem any more evil than anybody else. Perhaps less so. Still, we are entrusting a lot of stuff to them between our personal information and a growing number of services that power our everyday lives.

 

I find myself rooting for Microsoft as the underdog, which is sort of hilarious. They've kind of branded themselves that way of late, too. "Get away from evil Google and Apple! Stick with the little guy, Microsoft!"

[RockRaines]

Yes, I don't think Google is as worried about Apple because Google (I think) is content with a world where Apple has its own corner of the market selling their own devices.

 

Google started out by being the eminent web service, but now sees that intimately intertwined with being the default software provider. Just like it has long been Microsoft unless otherwise specified on PCs, Google sees a convergent mobile-tablet-PC web-software world as one in which they want to be the dominant force.

 

They want people to say about Microsoft and Apple what many people say about Apple now (though not nearly so much as they used to, and for good reason): "I just want all my favorite programs/services/apps to work." If you've pretty much only used Chrome, Gmail, Google Search, Google Drive, Android, etc., suddenly those are the things you can't live without. I'd imagine we may eventually see Google with a fairly "closed" ecosystem, which will be pretty interesting since I see no interest in making hardware.

 

For now, though, Microsoft is on all but 15% of personal computers and that gives them a big advantage. Google wants to snuff out any additional advantages Microsoft could get, such as allowing people to continue using half-baked Google services on Windows Phone or W8 Metro.

 

I'm totally dumbfounded as to how this will all sort out. I think all three companies are doing a fabulous job right now, but Microsoft is clearly the one with the most troubling trajectory. Apple has never gone for total market domination, so their success is a little more difficult to measure...but I think they're doing fine if not better than ever. The low end of their personal computer line is better than it has ever been. They still own the high end of the tablet market and are winning the upper echelon of the US smartphone market.

 

Still, Google seems to be doing best and it sort of scares me. There's got to be a dystopian novel/film/comic where the same company sells everything. The worst part is that it's hard to say that Google is doing anything especially wrong; as far as giant companies go, they don't seem any more evil than anybody else. Perhaps less so. Still, we are entrusting a lot of stuff to them between our personal information and a growing number of services that power our everyday lives.

 

I find myself rooting for Microsoft as the underdog, which is sort of hilarious. They've kind of branded themselves that way of late, too. "Get away from evil Google and Apple! Stick with the little guy, Microsoft!"

Microsoft's corporate direction is to get software OFF of users devices, starting with rolling everyone off of office. They are playing right into google's hands.

[Jake]

Microsoft's corporate direction is to get software OFF of users devices, starting with rolling everyone off of office. They are playing right into google's hands.

 

I don't know exactly what you mean by that

[Y2HH]

I don't know exactly what you mean by that

 

Me either? I think Microsoft made a LOT of horrible decisions under Bamler, but purposefully trying to get people to stop using their products wasn't one of them. I believe Microsoft is in much better hands now.

 

Aside from that, Android L *finally* looks like an OS I can take seriously, and no, I couldn't take previous versions seriously, as I personally believe they had horrendous UIs (and apparently Google agreed with me hence the change).

Edited June 26, 2014 by Y2HH

[RockRaines]

I don't know exactly what you mean by that

Their largest pieces of software used by most people is office, they are trying to take that to their hosted service instead of actually selling it on the desktop. They are selling more dumb computers or tablets which eliminates the full windows license. They are trying to get people away from on prem Active Directory by moving them to Azure. Essentially trying to have everyone use their service which directly competes with what Google does.

[chw42]

Me either? I think Microsoft made a LOT of horrible decisions under Bamler, but purposefully trying to get people to stop using their products wasn't one of them. I believe Microsoft is in much better hands now.

 

Aside from that, Android L *finally* looks like an OS I can take seriously, and no, I couldn't take previous versions seriously, as I personally believe they had horrendous UIs (and apparently Google agreed with me hence the change).

 

Are you sure you're talking about Android 4.4 and not Android 2.3? Here's a comparison of what's visually different: http://www.androidbeat.com/2014/06/android...ual-comparison/

 

Android L does look nice. I tried out the preview yesterday. None of the Google Apps are updated yet, but the stock apps look decent. The animations a bit more fluid, which is nice. It's also using ART as the default runtime instead of Dalvik, which might be why.

Edited June 27, 2014 by chw42

[Y2HH]

Are you sure you're talking about Android 4.4 and not Android 2.3? Here's a comparison of what's visually different: http://www.androidbeat.com/2014/06/android...ual-comparison/

 

Android L does look nice. I tried out the preview yesterday. None of the Google Apps are updated yet, but the stock apps look decent. The animations a bit more fluid, which is nice. It's also using ART as the default runtime instead of Dalvik, which might be why.

 

I did not particularly like later versions of Android despite being smoother/better than early versions. Android has always been lacking in uniformity and slickness, some of which was caused by 3rd parties such as Samsung or HTC re-skinning Android, and some of it was because Google was just all over the place on the design front, where programs often had settings in different locations, and it's overall feeling of lack of optimization. To be sure, there was nothing 'wrong' with later versions of Android, but to me, it was like using Windows. It worked, it did what it was supposed to do ... but it just wasn't very ... good, and if you wanted to make it good, it took a lot of customization and digging around.

 

Ten years ago I would have been all over Android because of that ability to customize it into exactly what I wanted...I used to hack and tinker with everything, and it was great because it taught me the in's and out's of a device/operating system, and at that point in my life that was important to me. Even now I get the bug once in a while, but it fades quickly, and I just want whatever I'm using to work without hassle...and after a few days of making iOS or Android look unique, it gets old and I fall back to the, "Jesus, could you please just work when I try to do X, Y or Z, instead of me having to figure stuff out?"

 

Android L, however, looks like it's approaching the uniform/optimized/fluid state I expect out of modern hardware/operating systems.

[chw42]

I did not particularly like later versions of Android despite being smoother/better than early versions. Android has always been lacking in uniformity and slickness, some of which was caused by 3rd parties such as Samsung or HTC re-skinning Android, and some of it was because Google was just all over the place on the design front, where programs often had settings in different locations, and it's overall feeling of lack of optimization. To be sure, there was nothing 'wrong' with later versions of Android, but to me, it was like using Windows. It worked, it did what it was supposed to do ... but it just wasn't very ... good, and if you wanted to make it good, it took a lot of customization and digging around.

 

Ten years ago I would have been all over Android because of that ability to customize it into exactly what I wanted...I used to hack and tinker with everything, and it was great because it taught me the in's and out's of a device/operating system, and at that point in my life that was important to me. Even now I get the bug once in a while, but it fades quickly, and I just want whatever I'm using to work without hassle...and after a few days of making iOS or Android look unique, it gets old and I fall back to the, "Jesus, could you please just work when I try to do X, Y or Z, instead of me having to figure stuff out?"

 

Android L, however, looks like it's approaching the uniform/optimized/fluid state I expect out of modern hardware/operating systems.

 

So...you're saying Google's design guidelines were bad because third parties decided to ignore them and create terrible skins? I don't think that's a fair assessment.

[Y2HH]

So...you're saying Google's design guidelines were bad because third parties decided to ignore them and create terrible skins? I don't think that's a fair assessment.

 

I said they were part of the issue, but Google wasn't much better themselves. Google has always been pretty notoriously terrible at UI design.