Hacker News Reader

About your first paragraph - No, that's absolutely shit. My friend was one of the first to buy a Pixel 4 in the UK, and unfortunately dropped it and broke the screen. He contacted Google for a repair, and their response literally was that they don't repair Pixel phones, but they can sell him a new one at a slightly(by about £100) discounted price as a "good will gesture". That's absolutely unacceptable . Imagine if a car manufacturer sold you a car and then just didn't offer a repair option for out of warranty issues.

That's surprising, but there are many third party options to get it repaired. You can even DIY for $115 including required tools.

I know someone whose iPhone XR glass back broke after a year (they had a super robust case), Apple's response was it was not cost effective to repair. Ultimately devices designed to be repaired is the best answer (and maybe not have glass backs?), but I don't think there's that much difference in many cases here.

We'll I'm claiming that my pixel 3 is _in_ warranty, and google are claiming £300 for a replacement (not $300 sorry, that was a typo). The phone is less than two years old, but I don't know what recourse I have.

> Sure, some companies, like Samsung, try to offer some exclusive features. Just avoid them.

If your advice is to ignore the largest manufacturer and manufacturers of the most high end devices, that says a lot about the state of the ecosystem. Samsung and huawei have both had massive incompatiblies with other devices and android products - work profiles, pay, fit being my examples.

> Although there are a lot of cheap Android devices to choose from that can drag down the brand reputation, I would really push back against the suggestion Androids are exclusively "cheap" in the pejorative sense

I never claimed they were cheap. My experience is with flagship devices and premium manufacturers, who in many cases are the same price as apple - a galaxy s20 is £900, a oneplus 8 is £800.

Vendor discretion whether something is in warranty is a pain point, I've seen people bitten from all vendors. If they don't respond to pressure (for example, finding other people with the same problem for a united voice), it might be a minor problem. If you don't want to take it apart yourself (don't blame you) you could find a local authorized dealer who could hopefully fix it for not much money. I wish they would just offer hardware like this on a subscription.

I don't mean to avoid Samsung (or any other Android) devices altogether, just don't use anything that takes away your portability within the Android ecosystem (which, granted, has various lines in the sand when you rely on Google, outside going no-identity, which is impossible on iPhone). It was easy enough to do when I had my Note2, there are many people within user communities who care about things like this and make sure it's possible without much effort; for example by putting pressure on vendors to enable choice for what apps are used for what purposes. In my experience, Samsung offers its own App Store, I just ignored it, I used Google's calendar instead of Samsung's default enhanced one, etc.

There are some cases, per your examples, where there's a distinct branch in what's supported. Samsung and Huawei are really competitors to Apple more than Google in this case. I can only say that like repairability is the best answer to some questions, interoperability is the best answer to others. Being locked in to any ecosystem, especially over time as our digital lives become linked to health and wealth, is bad for everyone.

My last comment, about "cheap" perceptions, was intended for another comment in the thread, sorry about the confusion.

Yep it's awful, and something that is only solved by stricter warranty enforcement's. My (anecdotal) experience with apple warranties is the opposite - replacement device shipped that day and the courier picked up my broken one at the same time. Of course, I'm sure this was a one off, but it definitely left me feeling better.

Understand re; samsung, but as a consumer I don't want to spend weeks researching compatibility between all of the devices I own/plan on purchasing. Another example; I bought a sony bravia TV which runs android TV. Android tv advertised that it supports dvr recording features. Except sony force you to use another third party app "youvirw" which they ship an outdated version of which doesn't work with androids flavor of live recording.

Unfortunately this is rife across the android world; watches incompatible with payments, stock launchers that are incompatible with android OS features, the list goes on and on. And the issue is that all of these are sold as "android" devices, and it's not until you're knee deep in the ecosystem that you realise that it's all just lipstick on a pig.

Mt experience with the manufacturer-alternative apps is that in some cases their existence stops the alternative from working correctly (samsung knox vs android work profiles, fitbit pay vs google pay, huawei photos vs google photos),which just sucks. And you can only know about these issues if you research the compatibility of every app you want to use with your planned device...

And understand re; cheap devices, the comment thread is deep here!

I have a bad habit of constantly editing my replies (I think it helps me to think of how other people would read it after I've saved it). I tried to address your point about too much competition within Android in a later edit; that basically Android is a world unto itself, with multiple major players trying to distinguish themselves.

While Google tries to address this by centralizing everything to their services app (which is a nice Open Source solution since it can be swapped; we'll see what happens with Huawei), some vendors still want to claim their turf. I thought that has been getting better, but for the past few years I've found it best to buy Google's version of whichever product, and have been very happy with them (perhaps since I've become more conservative, the crazy pace of innovation lives on in the mainstream Android world, with Apple waiting to see what's sticks before they include it).

I don't "blame" people for buying iPhone, it's certainly a safe choice, but even though I'm not that demanding I just find iPhones to be too limiting (that is partially a Raskin vs Englebart thing). Oh yeah, and Google's on-device AI features are actually useful. However, in the long run Apple is developing a vast closed world akin to a monopoly that will create problems (and if I hear that cheesy default ring tone again or see another film/tv person pull out an Apple device which are the minority in use, I'm going to lose it).

> My 3 year old Pixel 2

is no longer guaranteed to receive security updates.

Neither are Apple handsets, though it's true Apple has been good about providing them for around five years. In both cases, it remains to be seen what updates will be available longer term, people expect most major providers to provide security updates past the guaranteed period.

Also worth mentioning, after three years most people who purchased a new handset will have upgraded. If they spend $400 on each handset, their long term expenditure will be lower, and they'll always have an up to date handset (the early cheap Androids were pretty bad, but a decent smartphone is a commodity these days, the main thing more money buys is better image capture, though Pixel kind of defies that for now). The hardware is probably still good, except maybe the battery, which becomes cost ineffective to replace (in this sense, the company that provides the most easily serviceable devices wins, which I heartily endorse). At that point, many Androids can have a third party OS installed for new features. Not so with Apple.