Low-Cost Android One Phones Coming To The US, Says Report (theverge.com) 91
The Android One platform is a program designed by Google to provide budget-friendly Android smartphones to developing markets. The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, competing services, and a lack of software and security updates -- the stuff that most low-end smartphones contain. According to a report from The Information, the program is about to make its way to the U.S. market. The Verge reports: Android One phones have historically been produced by companies you probably haven't heard of, like Micromax, Cherry, and QMobile. Originally Google had a direct hand in detailing what components would go into the phone, but apparently became more flexible over time and eventually expanded the program beyond India to parts of Africa, Spain, and Portugal. Android One may not have been the rousing worldwide success Google was hoping for, but it's still an important initiative for the company. Especially at the low end, there's a lot of incentive for manufacturers to pile on extra software in a bid to make those devices more profitable -- but that could cut against Google's efforts to make its own services more pervasive and popular. If Google really does put some real effort behind Android One, it could make its plans for Android a little clearer. Google itself has taken a stand that it wants to make its own hardware at the high-end of the smartphone market with the Pixel, and if The Information's report is accurate, it wants to ensure that its services are not cut out from the low end.
No bloatware? (Score:2, Insightful)
Did they finally remove all the Google datamining tools that slow down Android to a complete stop then?
Re: (Score:3)
. . . or all the carrier-specific crap. I have a ton of apps I simply cannot remove from my Sprint-network phone (and no, Sprint is not my provider, I use Ting. . .)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't wasteland, it was all a huge hunting preserve. In some cases you might be right but what was done to the Cherokee nation in Georgia was in my opinion the single biggest atrocity ever perpetrated by the US government. Every time I drive by the capitol dome in Atlanta and see the gold on it there I am ashamed.
Re: (Score:3)
I never knew slashdot users to be so xenophobic.
You haven't been paying attention or you browse at +2. Browse at 0 and it's a sea of hateful drek.
Slashdot didn't use to be this way but in the last couple of years the right-wing whackos and the bigots have found it to be a target-rich playground.
no lte (Score:1)
the best one says 3G but i bet the us ones will have lte; even blu's lowest has lte. the lava pixel ones not to bad.
Price has other factors (Score:4, Insightful)
If the phone isn't getting even security updates as they come out the OS version it runs, it's not a deal. Google needs to do two things to make it a real deal at any price:
1. Force the carriers to let you update it as they release patches.
2. Actually support the OS.
Having to replace a phone to get security updates is not a deal. It's just an environmentally-unsound model for moving cheap hardware.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the phone isn't getting even security updates as they come out the OS version it runs, it's not a deal. Google needs to do two things to make it a real deal at any price:
1. Force the carriers to let you update it as they release patches.
2. Actually support the OS.
Having to replace a phone to get security updates is not a deal. It's just an environmentally-unsound model for moving cheap hardware.
Given the prevalence of outdated, insecure hardware floating around, you forgot about the last part:
3. Find a consumer base who gives a shit about security enough to care.
Re: (Score:2)
If the phone isn't getting even security updates as they come out the OS version it runs, it's not a deal.
Do they get updates or not? I couldn't parse the awful headline:
"The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, competing services, and a lack of software and security updates"
Re: (Score:2)
Do they get updates or not? I couldn't parse the awful headline:
"The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, competing services, and a lack of software and security updates"
You have to parse it as "The phones are attractive because they contain no ... lack of software and security updates," suggesting that as part of the program, Google dictates that there will be software and security updates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Both of the linked articles say that it will get updates. The subscription walled article says that updates are guaranteed for at least two years from the sale date in the text that's visible even without a subscription.
But what the hell... we're living in the post truth world now. Being outraged by imaginary problems and not bothering to confirm anything before seems to be the new norm. You'll fit right in.
Re:Price has other factors (Score:5, Informative)
Being outraged by imaginary problems and not bothering to confirm anything before seems to be the new norm. You'll fit right in.
No, the problem was the summary: "The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, competing services, and a lack of software and security updates"
Parallel construction grammar fail. That should have read, "The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, no competing services, and won't lack software and security updates." The summary meant to negate all three parts.
Re: (Score:2)
Being outraged by imaginary problems and not bothering to confirm anything before seems to be the new norm. You'll fit right in.
No, the problem was the summary: "The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, competing services, and a lack of software and security updates"
Parallel construction grammar fail. That should have read, "The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, no competing services, and won't lack software and security updates." The summary meant to negate all three parts.
Or they could have said "a lack of software, and security updates". For want of a comma, the meaning was lost.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think I meant by "not bothering to confirm anything"?
Confusing summary? Why look at the article and see if the summary is wrong when you can bitch about it in the comments!
Re: (Score:3)
Parallel construction grammar fail. That should have read, "The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, no competing services, and won't lack software and security updates."
Bingo. The original sentence should be taken out and shot.
Mediatek and ADUPS (Score:3)
All of that will not help you in the slightest if the chipset vendor baked in spyware [cpbotha.net]. Mediatek is the master of the cheap chipset, and they have compromised the OS in both Russia and the US with dozens and dozens of OEM devices.
Re: (Score:2)
that updates are guaranteed for at least two years from the sale date
Who out there thinks 2 years is enough? If people keep using these things after 2 years, then they'd better get updates. I think 3-4 years is a more reasonable lifespan for a phone these days. At some point, of course, they're going to stop getting updates - and maybe they should lose their ability to connect to the internet at that point. But having them become disposable after 2 years makes them a lot less of a bargain.
That said, many of today's flagship phones don't provide much better support - in m
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Hardware is moving at a pretty fast pace. Targeting phones 2 years from the last sell date (not introduction date) seems to be extremely fair. Especially if we are talking about low price phones.
Re: (Score:2)
If the phone isn't getting even security updates as they come out the OS version it runs, it's not a deal. Google needs to do two things to make it a real deal at any price:
1. Force the carriers to let you update it as they release patches. 2. Actually support the OS.
Having to replace a phone to get security updates is not a deal. It's just an environmentally-unsound model for moving cheap hardware.
3. Open the platform for third party ROMs / OS developers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Open the platform for third party ROMs / OS developers.
If they used this method, the the complaint would be that Google is abusing free volunteer time to support their devices.
Re: (Score:3)
What now? (Score:5, Insightful)
No bloatware or Google trying to make its services more pervasive.
Hey, Google? 99% of the bloatware that litters our Android phones IS your services!
One type of phone not tried (Score:2, Interesting)
Has Google thought of exploring the neglected maket segment of phones that are NOT 5" PHABLETS AND ARE NOT SHIT ?
They also do not need to be thin, don't have to be made of fragile glass and we don't give a shit how tiny the bezel is.
Have they ? Have they considered it ?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I had a small, fat Nokia 3210. It was a great phone, in a form factor that was perfect for me, and it did not break.
I had a small, fat Treo. It was a great smartphone, in a form factor that was perfect for me, and it did not break.
I had a small, fat Palm Pre. It was a great smartphone, in a form factor that was perfect for me, but more fragile.
But now I CANNOT BUY a small Android phone that is not totally underpowered and outrageously fragile.
WHY NOT ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love it except I have a kid (Score:5, Funny)
My iPhone 6 Plus its battery died so while getting it repaired, I got a cheap Android phone (a second-hand LG Nexus 5). Since I took care to only buy/use apps that appear in both the App Store and Google Play, the shift was easy. I thought, when that expensive phone comes back I'll just sell it.
However, I didn't think it through because when it came to making pictures, I was a bit disappointed. Now shooting photos might not be the most important thing in the world for you, but I've got a three year old daughter and don't want to look at crappy shots later in life. So as soon as my iPhone comes back, I'll be happy to go back to an expensive phone again.
Re: (Score:3)
No phone comes anywhere near even a mediocre real camera.
That's true but I'm pretty happy with the camera on my iPhone 6 Plus. It's optically stabilized and makes pretty good pics as long as there's enough light.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, there have been tests over the years, and the current crop of cameras in phones do a pretty [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No phone comes anywhere near even a mediocre real camera.
That's true but I'm pretty happy with the camera on my iPhone 6 Plus. It's optically stabilized and makes pretty good pics as long as there's enough light.
While I have been pretty tough on smartphone cameras, and while it's true that they fall short in many ways compared to a DSLR, they are a marked improvement over the 110 cameras that used to be the mainstay of the regular consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
kids never held still for the daguerreotype, did they?
Which is why a lot of the kids photos form that time were when they were in caskets - I shit you not!
Re: (Score:2)
'member MagicCubes? [wikia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
'member MagicCubes? [wikia.com]
Burned myself on them many times. Those thigs put out a lot of light though.
Re: (Score:2)
Except when it comes to convenience, where a phone wins every time.
He says he has a 3 year old - 3 year olds aren't very good at holding a pose or extending a moment while you run around looking for your camera, turn it on, realize the battery is dead so you have to go get another one to put in it, find a memory card because there's never one in the camera, then wait for the auto-focus and take the picture.
Photography on phones is a huge thing because of the convenience - you always have it, it's charged an
Re: (Score:2)
The Nexus 5 was a good value midrange phone, but the camera was an acknowledged weak point in reviews back in 2013 when it was released.
I got a cheap second hand LG G4 which is a more recent model and the camera is miles better.
Re: (Score:2)
I got a cheap second hand LG G4 which is a more recent model and the camera is miles better.
Although I'm an iOS developer, I sometimes get kinda of fed up with using iOS all the time. I might have a look for the G4, so thanks for the pointer!
Re: (Score:1)
Are you some kind of fucking moron?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you some kind of fucking moron?
That is a great question -- "am I some kind of fucking moron" and I'd say it entirely depends on what you mean by "fucking" and "moron", for instance If one would interpret these two terms in the best possible light, perhaps while laughing out loud as a compliment to a joke well made, with a slap on the back, at the pub, after a good evening of dozens of locally brewn pilsners, then by all accounts I'd be delighted to be called a fucking moron and I'd gladly take it with a prize for the longest fucking sent
How much for a phone without Google's services? (Score:3)
I have no use for many of Google's apps which come preinstalled and can't be removed, and I'd be happy to get back the storage and battery they use (however little that may be).
I'd be nice if the phone came also with root enabled and was officially supported. I have no problem with not being able to use for payments or other things which require a "secure" or certified phone.
I have, in principle, no problem with the data-driven economy. It's, IMO, a legit option as long as there's also an option to only pay with your money (which, sadly, is becoming less and less common these days).
Re: (Score:2)
I will be happy if the phones have an unlockable bootloader, so I can install CM/LineageOS. If Google does this, that is the main thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey Google? How much would you charge for a phone without your services? They can be installed on purchase as long as I'm able to uninstall them.
All devices Google sells come with an unlockable bootloader, so you can unlock and flash a different system that doesn't have the Google stuff. Be sure you re-lock after flashing, otherwise your device can be reflashed with malicious software by anyone who gets hold of it.
So, the price is the cost of buying the device from the Play store, plus a few minutes to unlock and reflash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the info. Sadly I don't like the phones Google releases
Then why did you ask how much one would cost?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I meant Android phones in general. Google is the OS maker and forces phone makers to install a lot of Google apps in Android phones. I'd like a Samsung or LG made phone with a "stripped down" Android
Okay, that's not what you wrote. Your question should be directed to Samsung or LG, then, not Google.
I'd also point out that the Nexus 5X is an LG-made phone. Personally, I'd prefer the Huawei-made 6P, or one of the HTC-made Pixels.
Copperhead OS (Score:2)
No GAPPS? No problem. [copperhead.co]
Re: (Score:2)
Low cost phones are here (Score:1)
$40 GoPhone at any big box store, and you have an android powered smartphone.
What does a $700 phone actually "do" ?
The Lava Pixel v1 looks quite interesting. (Score:2)
Unfortunately it seems impossible to buy it on either the US nor Europe. Any ideas on the pricing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, that's a lot of phone for the price. Wish it was available in the rest of the world...
What it is important to know: (Score:2)
Easy to save on RAM, but RAM is cheap (Score:2)
It's easy to save on RAM, but RAM is cheap. With the zram module in Linux, you can create a zram block device 2x the size of RAM with mem_limit set to 50% of RAM and experience approximately no performance hit--faulting out of zram is approximately twice as heavy as a worst-case cache miss. I've had a 1GB server run 700MB into zram swap trying to run Gitlab, with 40MB of available RAM (including disk cache), and not show any visible sign of performance degradation; note that that's about 230MB of RAM act
I have another name for them (Score:2)
why? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I am still on 1st gen MotoG. I got the 16MB model but it is nearly unusable.
To upgrade the phone, I need to upgrade the plan which will cost an extra $60/year with Republic Wireless. Grrrr.
I don't want Android. (Score:1)
I want a real Linux.