Hacker News Reader

Comment by al3x | Hacker News Reader

I was frustrated by the same aspect of the Android ecosystem, until I had this minor revelation: it's not really about "the" phone, it's about the phone that works best for you. The nice thing about Android is that you can pick the carrier, form factor, and price point that work for you.

Want a keyboard and like Verizon? Get a Droid. Like Verizon but don't need a keyboard? Get an HTC Incredible later this month. Like the Nexus One but want the freedom of a SIM card? Use it on T-Mobile or AT&T. Want a cheaper phone with a keyboard? Get one of the new Motorola models that are coming out for just about every carrier.

You can think of it as confusing, or you can think of it as having options. Both are probably true :)

View on HN

Right. Hardly anybody asks themselves "which is the Official Best Windows Computer?"

Android is not a single, tightly-controlled product line. It's an OS. Buy whatever hardware you think you'd like to run it on.

It's just a different approach than Apple's, and one that has worked well in PCs.

Has it really worked well in PCs? The average PC manufacturer is hardly rolling in money, unlike Apple. Nor is the average PC user likely to be too happy with their computer. Meanwhile in the Apple ecosystem both the normal user and the supplier seem to be rather happy. There is something to be said for tight integration of hardware and software in providing a good user experience.

(That said, personally I hate my MacBook Pro from work with the fire of a thousand suns, and have only used an iPhone for playing music on long plane trips since getting a Nexus 1.)

I know many happy PC users and (call me crazy) I tend to think that due to Jobs' cultish following that a lot of Apple shortcomings go unreported.

> Has it really worked well in PCs? The average PC manufacturer is hardly rolling in money, unlike Apple.

Assuming we are segmenting the Mac market from the PC market, it is much better to be in the PC market whether you are consumer or a producer. For manufacturers, it sucks to be in Apple's market if you are not Apple (PsyStar?). For consumers, they get a wider selection of products at lower price points, though they do not get the design cachet.

To make a belabored car analogy, would you rather be in the market for Italian supercars or that of the rest of the world? Both producers and consumers tend to choose the latter.

For consumers, they get a wider selection of products at lower price points

Lower price points, but a Windows PC is cheaper than a Mac only if your time and frustration is worth nothing.

Actually, if you want a quality desktop (quality meaning zippy specs and at least a 27" 2500x1500 bright high quality monitor) you might find Apple cheaper.

Nobody else is really in Apple's market right now because selling high quality hardware and a great experience is impossible when you're wedded to Microsoft garbage. It's probably a worthwhile market, though, if you could get the millions necessary to start up.

Even though Apple was in trouble in the 90's, it was and is and has been since the 1970's the most profitable computer manufacturer in the world almost every year.

Your argument doesn't make sense here.

Most consumers would choose to be at the luxury end of almost every product. It's just not a choice for almost everyone.

As to producers, it isn't inherently better to be a luxury market or a general market -- it's highly dependent on your product, market, and competitors.

For consumers, they get a wider selection of products at lower price points, though they do not get the design cachet.

That's a kind way of saying that consumers have a very diverse pile of crap to choose from.

Some people are just rich and can buy whatever they want.

But other people buy fancy houses, fancy cars, fancy computers, fancy holidays, fancy clothes etc. by virtue of choosing what is important to them and spending less on everything else. You can't spend more than average on everything unless you have more than average money. On average, people don't.

> The average PC manufacturer is hardly rolling in money, unlike Apple.

How much of that money is coming from iPods, iTunes, and the iPhone?

Huh? I think you're making the wrong comparison. It worked well for Microsoft, the creator of Windows, not for PC manufacturers.

I think a lot of Apple's recent success comes from how nice their computers and products look. The iMac has one cord. Compare that to a Dell. Ugh. The PC market contains inexpensive computers that look cheap.

>>Has it really worked well in PCs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...

90-10 in favour of windows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com