25
May
flame_suit
Last Updated: May 27th, 2012

First, A Brief Introduction...

If you've been paying even the slightest bit of attention to the tech world for the past year or two, you're probably well aware that Android has more or less taken over the smartphone scene. Way back in June of 2010, Google revealed that 160,000 Android devices were being activated per day - at the time, that was more than double the combined total of iPhone, Mac, and iPad activations. According to comScore, Android had already conquered 28.7% of the market in December of 2010. In March of 2011 - just a few short months later - comScore's numbers showed market share had leapt to 34.7%.

Fast forward a year and a half to February 2012, and activations were over 850,000 per day. Andy Rubin, Google's head of Android, also revealed that over 300 million Android devices had been activated, and there were over 450,000 apps in the Play Store. And comScore's numbers for March of 2012 showed that an absolutely astonishing 51% of smartphones ran Android - a difference of 16.3% year-over-year.

But enough self-capitulation; I've got my flame suit on and I'm ready for the nerd rage that's sure to ensue from the following post. Because I see a lot of problems with Android. Problems that could ultimately lead to its decline.

Let me clarify that statement - and please, read this before you head down to the comments to berate me. I'm not talking about the death or demise of Android, per se. In fact, I foresee Android continuing to sell by the literal boatload for years to come, so when I say decline, understand that I'm talking about market share in a market that's growing at an incredible pace. Do I see the end coming? Maybe - but it would be years down the road. This post is not in the sensationalist style of a crazy homeless man; the end is not nigh.

Perhaps most importantly, I'll be capping off the post on a positive note - although I see plenty of bad history and issues that will plague our beloved OS for some time, I also see signs that despite all its flaws, Android has the potential to continue its dominance for years to come.

If Google Were A Car, It Would Be A Camaro

google_camaro

Pictured: Google. Image source.

When it comes to being a fast-moving company, Google is a lot like an American muscle car: fast in a straight line and respectable stopping distance, but throw a few turns into the track and you're going to have a bad time. The company tends to come flying out of the gate with new products, but they're always half-assed. Disagree? Name one recent Google service that came out without serious shortcomings or flaws. I challenge you.

I don't think you can. Look at all the company's failed social experiments; even Google+ is a ghost town to all but the technophiles (though it remains my favorite social network by far). Google Wallet has been used by, at best, a fraction of a percent of the population, and uptake by manufacturers and carriers is abysmal. The Play Store's music and movie offerings launched without all the major players on board and still remain subpar. There are dozens of smaller services that simply fell by the wayside because they never even made a splash to begin with.

And that's without even touching the sore subject of Android. Honeycomb was, by the company's own admission, a rushed and weak approach to tablets, and even over a year after the first Android tablets were released, quality tablet-optimized apps are few and far between. Fragmentation runs rampant, as much a nightmare for consumers as for manufacturers and carriers. It took years - until Android 4.0 (3 years) if we're being honest, or Android 2.3 (2 years) if you want to be a dishonest fanboy - for the OS to reach some sort of respectable level of consistency and casual usability; either length of time is unacceptable. And oh, God, the sales disappointment that was Google TV, despite having some potential...

The App section of the Play Store has improved greatly over the years, sure. It went through a few UI makeovers, though it's still far from perfect on that front. But there are much deeper issues that haven't been addressed, both from the standpoint of developers and of customers. Malware is a serious threat on a nearly daily basis, a problem exacerbated by Android's popularity, as owners are increasingly likely to be tech-illiterate. The refund window is still just 15 minutes, a pitifully short time to find any major issues with an app. Think about it: would you trust a review of a game or app after the reviewer had spent just 15 minutes with it? Certainly not, so why would that amount of time be enough to decide if it's a worthwhile purchase?

For developers, Android can be a nightmare. They constantly have to fight an uphill battle, thanks to the huge number of existing apps (it's hard to get noticed), a customer base that's unforgiving and expects most apps to be free, and piracy that runs rampant. Play Store issues aside, the wide variety of devices that makes Android so beautiful is also one of the biggest curses. Some devices have tiny screens with resolutions like 320x480, run a single-core TI CPU at 800MHz, and have 4 capacitive buttons. Another device might pack a 4.7" screen at 720x1280, with a quad-core NVIDIA CPU clocked at 1.5GHz and only 3 capacitive buttons. And yet another may be a 10.1" tablet with a resolution of 1920x1200 and have no capacitive buttons at all. That's all before you even factor in that each of these devices may be running a different version of Android and manufacturer customizations... or worse still, be hacked and modified by the owner, running some Frankenstein-like combination of recovery, kernel, drivers, and ROM.

A lot of these issues are being partially addressed by Google, but very slowly and occasionally with ill effect. As alluded to above, complaints about the UI and usability of the Play Store have been addressed in various revisions, but the core issues remain. It took the company a few years, but they're starting to pick up their marketing game, and now advertise their various products and services, including Android. Presentations, while still fairly meh, are better than they were in the past, and will likely continue to improve. In short: as I said, a Camaro isn't good at tight turns, and neither is Google. Instead, they're making minor course corrections and zooming off in a better (if not completely on target) direction.

Android: The Sort Of "Free" That Comes With A Price Tag

One of Android's biggest selling points for manufacturers is that it's free - Google charges precisely nil for Android itself. Of course, for manufactures, there are two resulting benefits. First, they aren't responsible for developing and maintaining the code - merely for getting that code onto their devices. Second, they have access to the massive Play Store, a crucial piece of the smartphone puzzle.

But both benefits, as it turns out, come with a price tag. Getting Android to work on the bevy of devices offered by most manufacturers costs a massive amount of resources - in fact, it's one of the largest problems suffered by HTC and its huge lineup of extremely similar, but not-quite-the-same devices. The code has to be tweaked for each one, and each has to be individually quality tested. From there, it has to be rolled out to carriers for them to make their own customizations and then conduct their own QA, and only then does it become available to the end user - all on a phone-by-phone basis. It's for that exact reason that the company went back to the drawing board and streamlined their device lineup, coming away with the impressive three-pronged One series of devices. (This is, of course, excluding the additional manufacturing and hardware support costs for each minor variation.)

The absolutely mental state of patents and litigation makes the situation exponentially uglier. Trying to even comprehensively write about all the lawsuits flying around the Android world is, by my calculations, literally impossible for any one person to do. If we'd redirected the sheer amount of resources dumped into protecting bogus patents rather than innovating, we probably could have figured out cold fusion by now. And colonized Mars.

This simple graph explains it all, I think:

TechPatentWars

Source

Oh, I'm sorry, did I say "simple?" I meant goddamn ridiculous. The litigation costs alone are huge, and the implications therein doubly so. If the companies in a suit don't reach a licensing agreement, things can get so ugly that shipments of an entire line of devices can be halted. If they do reach a licensing agreement, the costs add up to just as much. For example, Samsung pays between $10 and $15 to Microsoft alone for every Android device it sells. And that's just the tip of the iceberg - the CEOs of Samsung and Apple met to discuss possibly settling, which further adds cost to each device. With all the lawsuits currently going on, it's likely there will be further payments from the Android camps, either in the form of licenses or settlements.

In sum, the costs of producing and supporting an Android device are fairly substantial, resulting in a huge bite out of profits. In 4Q11, Apple had 8.8% of total phone (all phones, not just smartphones) market share, yet made 73% of profits. Samsung came in second at 23.5% of the market and just 26% of profits, while HTC pulled a mere 1% of profits.

Nice Guys Finish Last

One of the most beautiful aspects of Android is the sheer customizability. You can literally change almost anything about the OS that you don't like, doubly so if you have the technical know-how. And yet that's something of an Achilles heel for Google; while it undoubtedly contributes to the popularity both among manufacturers and consumers, it also allows other companies to take Android, strip away the Google-ness, and come away with a free, well supported OS that they have to pay absolutely nothing for.

The most notable example is the Kindle Fire. While sales of Android tablets have been mediocre at best, the one bright point has been the Kindle Fire, which constituted 16.8% of tablet shipments in 4Q11 and 4% in 1Q12, but which also runs a heavily diluted version of Android that doesn't use Google services (including the Play Store). Instead, it sports Amazon's proprietary app, music, and movie services. As a result, it provides little revenue back to papa Goog. Nor does it profit the company from a marketing standpoint, since most consumers don't realize it's based on Android to begin with - rather, they see it as an Amazon product from top to bottom (which, quite frankly, it almost entirely is, aside from that Android core tucked way deep down in there).

But Amazon's hit-it-and-quit-it use of Android is nothing compared to the potential damage caused by China. Carriers and manufacturers there are doing just the same - taking the core and then slapping their own revenue streams on top, leaving nothing behind to help Google recoup costs.

A few lost revenue streams probably aren't going to stop Google from developing Android, at least for the time being. The company recognizes that limited or lost revenue in one stream isn't a big deal, because frequently it pays off in other areas. Still, in this case, there are likely no real payoffs anywhere, and while that's not a problem now, it may be in the long run.

Competition At Its Finest

It's no secret that the smartphone OS world is a chaotic whirlpool of competition. You've got the old companies violently trying to claw their way back up (e.g. Nokia and RIM), the steam-engine juggernaut that is Microsoft, the front-runner Apple, and up-and-comers like Tizen, all competing with our superior beloved Android.

Many are already counting Nokia and RIM out of the fight, but people (and companies) fight hardest when it's for survival - it's much too late to count them out now, and it looks like they plan to come out swinging. Nokia's partnership with Microsoft has resulted in Nokia's first competitive flagship in ages, the Lumia 900, which has been so well received that even Siri called it the "best smartphone ever." And RIM promises huge changes on the horizon with the catchingly named BlackBerry OS 10, though the company may have already lost too much steam. And then there's the possible of competition on the horizon, such as from the very similar Tizen - a Linux-based OS backed by Juggernauts Samsung and Intel, as well as The Linux Foundation and Sprint.

The most notable competition, really, comes from within. As mentioned above, Samsung pays Microsoft $10 to $15 for every Android device sold. Care to guess how much it costs for a Windows Phone 7 license? $15. Factor in other licensing costs - such as to Apple or other IP trolls owners, and what are likely much lower support costs (WP7 phones are virtually identical, so they require little customization on a device-by-device basis) - and the OS starts to look like more and more of a bargain. That's leaving out the massive marketing budget Microsoft devotes to WP7, and the strong potential exhibited by Windows 8 (and WP8).

Google's (And Android's) Saving Grace: Lots Of Horsepower

Remember how I complained that Google just zooms off in a direction without really taking the time to think it through first? Most of the time, jumping head-first with your eyes closed is a bad idea. But sometimes, that split-second you saved by not hesitating can be enough to give you an edge - a sort of creed that Google has essentially always operated by. There are a few notable examples of when that pays off, but let me explain why those successes can be so important.

The beauty of Google products and services is that they're all integrated with each other. That's key here, because people who use and enjoy one product by a company are likely to keep things with the same provider whenever possible - and Google is good at brand loyalty. Think about how many Google products people use on a regular basis, and how loyal they are to them - Search, Maps and Navigation, GMail, YouTube, Translate, Docs, Calendar.... the list goes on and on, and the best part is, they will go out of their way (to some extent, anyway) to get to Google services over competitors services. And once they're already part of that ecosystem, it makes sense to stay within it.

This integration lends excitement to some of the amazing, forward-thinking projects that Google is working on. Project Glass, for instance, has the potential to be revolutionary, and the video indicates there's incredibly tight integration with Android (if it doesn't run Android, that is - a strong possibility), and with nearly all of Google's other services. Google's driverless car is just as amazing, and the tech is now legal in Nevada.

Google's successful services never really fade away - they simply continue to adapt, kept alive and well by that tight integration. Android has clearly been a resounding success, and it's likely that both of the other projects listed - and a fair chunk of the other cutting-edge tech the company is working on - will catch on as well. As long as Google makes sure that new services continue to complement the old, it's unlikely the OS will fail any time soon.

Aaron Gingrich
Aaron is a geek who has always had a passion for technology. When not working or writing, he can be found spending time with his family, playing a game, or watching a movie.

  • Freak4Dell

    You bring up some good points. Nothing new, really, but still valid points. Some of them apply to other OSes, though, and I suspect would apply to whatever existed instead of Android if Android didn't exist. For example, the point about developers finding it hard to get noticed because of the sheer volume of apps is probably even more true of iOS, since there's more apps over there. Also, I think the patent lawsuits would be there regardless of whether Android was there or not. It's not like Apple has a problem with the name of Android. They have a problem with its success, so they would be out to squash anyone that competed against them. Apple would have started the patent wars regardless of who actually received the attack, and other companies would have jumped on that bandwagon just the same.

    I think Android's growth will become stagnant over time, just like anything, but I think iOS is in more danger at the moment. Apple hasn't innovated since the first iPhone, and even that was a pretty loose definition of the word innovation. Android kind has slowed the innovative roll, too, hence the strong push toward hardware comparisons these days, but Apple's been losing that game for years. Plus, they're pissing off everyone aside from their loyal followers by bullying other companies. We've already seen their marketshare decline, and I think it will just continue to do so, and at a faster pace than Android.

  • Tony Allen

    My biggest issue with your article is the comparison to a "new" Camaro, which doesn't struggle to go around corners at all, in fact.. it's quite good at it, being that it was built by Aussies at a chassis level ;)

    • Simon Belmont

      Haha. I thought the same thing.

      He should have said an F-body Camaro. They hated the curves.

      • Anon

        Uhm... I owned a 92 F-Body Camaro and it hugged the corners like glue. It was actually one of my favorite cars, next to my '98 Corvette.

    • Sootie

      Cause commodores are great at going around corners.......*roll*

      I have almost never seen a p plater in a commodore fall off the road as soon as someone turns a sprinkler on

      • wilks

        That just made my day :)

  • http://twitter.com/Dr_MBambi Moaz B. Bambi

    One reason why I love Android (and Google for that matter), is the rushed out services.

    It's like a group of enthusiastic developers working as friends to have fun building new stuff. Just get the idea to the world then fix it later (but relatively fast).

    This gets me some excitement and allow me to witness the app evolving, sometimes, watch it die half-baked (like Google Body, which I WISH they continue working on the other 50% of the app.)

    That's why I love Google, they make me live the experience.

  • adi19956

    Fantastic article, completely agree with most points, why I come to AP

  • Mark LaFlamme

    Excellent overview. It's easy to blindly love all things Google because they really do make our lives more fun. But yeah. Numerous problems, some I knew about, some I learned of in this piece. Well done. The emperor has no clothes and whatnot.

  • Spydie

    Keep one thing in mind... yes, android has a lot of problems, for us, the developers, the phone manufacturers and the carriers.. each with their own set of problems.  But if it wasn't for Android... what would all those phone manufacturers be making?  Windows phones?  There just isn't any other OS (past, present or future), that anyone is working on.  We would have no choices... you'd be on a windows phone or iOS.. that's IT... end of the road. We need Android... the phone manufacturers, developers and carriers all NEED android.  There's just no other game in town to BANK on.

    • http://codytoombs.wordpress.com/ Cody Toombs

      In all practicality there would have absolutely been an alternative.  Surely iOS and WP7 would have scored higher market share, but there would have inevitably been a Linux-based OS (most likely WebOS, but Tizen, the Ubuntu offshoot, or any one of about 10 other projects that have been mentioned over the years).

      If Android hadn't succeeded as amazingly as it has, I think we wouldn't be looking at 2 major contenders (iOS and Android) with about 5 hopeful contenders in the distant background...instead I think we'd be looking at a pretty massive 55%-60% market share by iPhone, 20% WebOS (be honest, it's dead because of Android), 10% Windows Phone, 10% Blackberry, and whatever is left is spread over no-name alternatives.  Of course, in that alternate version of history, AT&T caught back up with Verizon after successfully purchasing a virtually dead T-Mobile and Sprint is probably doing about the same thanks to an early tie-in with WebOS.Sure, a lot of companies (not just phone manufacturers) rely on Android as their OS, but iOS is about the only one that can't be licensed...They would find other alternatives.  To be fair, of the 500(-ish) companies making phones worldwide with Android (seriously, the last formal number I saw had it around 480), at least 2/3 of those companies are only making phones because Android was available...most would just make a different product and compete in some other marginally different sector.

      • Stocklone

        I think I would almost willing to trade Android for webOS not biting the dust. Tough choice there. That would be a fun article to write though: what if Android never existed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Parry/100000074928483 David Parry

    So you are saying a company sticking to the vanilla experience has to spend a ton of money to get Android to work on their phones? Yes if a company does not use the vanilla and wants to keep a fracture they should have to pay and it should cost them why not you have to pay for this bullocks. Here is something free and all will be used to one interface. But no the phone manufactures and carriers so no way we need to make it different since we can not really compete on price or hardware so we have to make a change to the UI. So lets all hope it can bankrupt the companies for making this stupid decisions that no one wants but cost us the consumer because of big companies.

    • Dima Aryeh

      First, your comment made very little sense. But I took something out of it. It would cost a lot of money to get AOSP to work on hardware too, considering how much hardware there is out there. Yes, custom UI's add to cost, but it isn't significant once the UI is finished. Getting it on the phone isn't money consuming. It slows down updates, but those UI's are VERY important. They offer differentiation (that Windows Phone doesn't have, which is a big failing point), they create brand loyalty and recognition, and they add a LOT to Android. A ton of the new features in ICS have been borrowed from Sense and TouchWiz and MAP. Touch to focus, camera settings, deleting individual notifications, etc etc. For the average customer, as in 90% or more of the people who purchase Android phones, the UI overlays are a good thing. A very very good thing. For those who hate them, then remove them. Samsung phones are open, nothing is locked, and AOKP/CM9 works flawlessly on the Galaxy SII. You lose features (I personally use TouchWiz ICS), but Android purists get what they want. If you bought Motorola, then hate on Motorola for locking bootloaders. But don't hate on UI overlays, they have furthered Android more than you can imagine and without them, Android would be a helluva lot worse. Proof: HTC Hero. Made Android NOT SUCK for the average consumer, when the G1 was really not a good general phone (but a hackers dream).

  • FrillArtist

    Watch out.

  • mesmorino

    Finally, *somebody* tells the truth about Google +

  • Eye4Detail

    Great article. I do have to bring something up though. You brought up the fragmentation of Android due to each manufacturer's different hardware and software tweaks. You even mention that all Windows Phones are the same so manufacturers would have an easier time with it. But this is not a problem with Android, it's a problem with manufacturers. They CHOOSE to steer way off course from the standards set by Android and Nexus and as such create a situation where they get to pick and choose which phones they feel like updating. Truth be told, if there wasn't such fierce competition between OEMs, they wouldn't bother with updates at all.

  • https://twitter.com/#!/psycho_maniac_ Jerry Lange

    I read this whole thing, which is a big surprise to to me lol, and I totally agree to everything! Very long, but totally worth the time to read! I've been thinking some of this stuff too

  • Noreen

    The mobile cell phone industry has come a long way.  I remember when cell phones were heavy, brick like phones. (I got my first "cell phone" back in the early 90's.)  It was limited to making phone calls...no applications, no internet, nothing fancy.  (Imagine that!)  But, I was "connected", if I should need to make a phone call.  And I was thankful just because it could do so. 

    My first smartphone, was an Android phone, given to me as a Christmas gift in December of 2010. (Yes, I begged my husband for the Android phone!)  I was blown away, by the new world it showed me...from the applications, to the settings and customizations, to the different evolutions in its operating systems, the internet browsing, and the many different handsets that one could choose from.  Just like many of the readers here, I have an interest in seeing, learning, and yearning especially for more that Google and its Android OS smartphones, and even, what other OS, have to offer.  (The Android OS is my first love, and I am strongly holding on to it.) 

    I hope that everybody is able to find and pick whichever smartphone/OS they wish to choose from.  There isn't a one phone fits all solution when it comes to this.  I hope that competition, innovation, creativity, planning, communications, insight, and a fierce passion lives inside the spirit of all the people that create, manufacture, sell, and provide "life" to such wonderful devices.  It's about communicating, connecting with and exploring an amazing world, with many people, with businesses, friends, and family.  It's also as colorful and as rich, and as the way you want to see and experience it, through your own mobile device.

     And as for me, quite simply...I am happy and love Android!  :-)

  • MacVities

    Goodbye.   That is all.

    You sold any credibility you had for sensationalist news reporting.    I am also removing you from my Google+ circles.

    Nothing I hate more than fickle people that switch allegiances to the underdog and then flip when the underdog becomes topdog.

    • AaronGingrich

      Don't let the door hit you on the way out :)

  • Bonerp

    a good article with lots of compelling argument.

    My main grip with Android is that apps dont work consistently.  Sometimes my phone app hangs for no reason.  Other times my google maps navigation locks the device.  Why does go sms kill my battery but for others on the same device/same os its fine.

    Too many inconsistencies that need to be addressed.  I pay over £500 for a sim free unlocked device with problems in the software....

    I love Android but understand why people love iOS too - it just 'works'

    • Bonerp

      oh and lets not get started on the fragmented updates and problems that follow - ICS G Note official a fine example where the kernel can bugger the phone up.  Not good..

    • http://codytoombs.wordpress.com/ Cody Toombs

      Apple has done better with those kinds of issues...but they are far from perfect.  There's a lot of iOS developers who've started adding a warning to their apps that people should restart their device after installing any app (and it's a very justified warning).  I've also noticed that somewhere in iOS 5 (at least running on an iPhone 4) that there are bugs related to the GPS becoming inaccessible after the device has been on long enough...Just to name a few things... :)  On Android, these problems would be noticed and mentioned frequently, but iPhone fans tend to just ignore them and avoid talking about them (much like they did during the whole antenna-gate thing).

      I should say, just from using one, it's clear Windows Phone suffers from stupid bugs and inconsistencies too.

  • reddragon72

    You see you missed the one major point in all this. When it came to the PC corperatios spoke. The PC wasn't designed for home use but was lived by geeks and had geeks treatment. Smart phones, or as I like to to say pocket PC( the one thing Microsoft had right in the early days of creating a truly portable PC) are by a corperations but not targeted at coperations. The smartphone is the first time that people and mainly geeks have a say in what is is going to win
    Microsoft may have a major foothold in the PC market with windows but it will never make it because this time around the geeks won and they wanted Linux. So say what you want but this round of is choice on a platform has been won by the voice of the geeks.

  • Alap R Naik Desai

    The Success of the Android Will truly depend on how well they reduce fragmentation.. 2.3.6, 3.2.1, 4.0.3.. Bring them ALL under one OS version & flavor.. Then Features like Tab-Syncing et all will work beautifully. Being able to tnker with the core of the OS like Kernel, ROM, Bootloader, Unlocking is sheer Icing on the Cake.. I never liked Windows Phone 7 or even iOS for that matter.. No fun.. Since No peaking under the hood or optimizing the engine!!
    However, If Android Tablets can somehow run a (legit) copy of Windows 8... One would have a dual boot system.. in which one can get office work done & 'Enjoy' on Android. I say this coz whether one likes it or not.. Windows is unavoidable..

  • Stocklone

    You pretty much nailed why my next phone will be made by RIM with BB10 or Nokia with WP8 before the year is up. I still plan buying a Galaxy Note 10.1 this summer though. It's going to be insanely awesome at work for taking notes.

  • Tee

    I think Android's biggest disadvantage is the OS itself. Having once a flagship phone, the original SGS, I've come across lots of problems regarding to the capability of the device. The OS is not flawless, far from it. And no matter how you pump up the engine under the hood, the bugs will be there. Even with ICS.

  • Tee

    And oh, yeah. Think of the pc world. If you have WinXP, you have XP, not XP.02 nor XP.0.0.01. And if you have Vista or 7, the same applies. There are no separate Win-versions from Dell, HP or any other manufacturer. They all work the same.

    But if you have Android, there is a high possibility that the OS in your device is a customized one. And the customization isn't there because of the power (or the lack of it) inside the hood. It's there because the manufacturer wants it that way. I wonder if they do the testing at all?

    'Growing out of the green robot realm towards Lumia, possibly'.

    • http://codytoombs.wordpress.com/ Cody Toombs

      When did you last buy a pre-built/laptop?  I just dumped more money than I had laying around to get a Sony VAIO (wanted to go ASUS, but two issues stopped me).  Before I reformatted and installed a clean copy of Win7 I saw a ton of Sony-specific bloat including a specialized launcher, customization to the theme, additional apps for managing aspects of the hardware and updating, etc...I'm not exaggerating when I say that the Inspire 4G from AT&T was less violated out of the box (to be fair, it was only like their 3rd Android phone, they hadn't quite learned how to screw up a phone yet).  The difference between the two is that it's typically harder to remove the crap from a phone (until you break down and go for custom roms).

      I don't disagree that this is a big problem with Android, it's also one of the best parts.  Consider the benefits Samsung has been able to deliver with the Galaxy Note or some of the legitimately forward thinking and inventive features shown off with the SGS3.  Manufacturer modification doesn't have to be a bad thing, it just needs to be stopped only when it's not adding a real value or if it's significantly harming operational quality.

    • blahblahyoutoo

      Uhmm... there's quite a few different builds of XP.

  • http://www.facebook.com/baldilocks73 Steve Hartsock

    I hope you know more about Android than you do about cars. The Camaro handles quite well around curves. It was tested on the Nuburgring after all. Maybe you should have said an OLD American muscle car. 

  • Joeocain

    Damn good article. Very good bullet points.you stripped Google's complex beautiful disaster and cramed it in a nutshell for all to stare at in aw.

Quantcast