Android is the New Windows

[Yopaz]

We've got to accept Android for what it is. A lightweight phone OS. Windows is so much more than Android and the intended use are vastly different. Now MicroSoft is trying to take over a missing part of the market with their horrid phone OS and make a variation of that run on tablets, Xbox and PC. Windows is the majority

Oh yes lets just attach a BIG OLD BOX to our PHONE with a CORD so we can play games like a REAL DESKTOP COMPUTER.

Making Mobile devices immobile. Using the most ass way possible.

That totally IS the future. /sarcasm

Well, I think you're being unfair here. You act like you think cell phones should be all about convenience and that they should fit into your pocket. The future isn't making things smaller and easier to use. I swear, in 10 or 15 years we will be carrying cell phones in a suitcase with wheel in order to always have a complete gaming system with 5 wires to various external components.

 

[Twilight_guy]

The market will probably always favor one type of OS so long as each OS has distinct APIs that programmers have to work with. Nobody wants to remake things from the ground up for a different API. They want one standard and that means favoring one OS. I don't really give 2 shits which OS that is. It's been windows simply because Windows got it first and nothing has lead to some other OS getting it. Windows is the biggest because its the biggest, people gravitate towards it for its large market and don't want to port to other systems. Somebody will always dominate and the quality of said dominating system will always be arguable since no one system is the best at everything. This isn't even a technology issues, its a sociology issue.

 

[Phoenixlight]

The architecture between Andriod and Windows/Machintosh/Linux is completely different. Andriod is far weaker and has isn't compatible with a lot of common software applications.

 

[BreakfastMan]

It's also really easy to develop trivial applications for, so this can only be a good thing.

No, no it really isn't. From what my friends tell me who have actually worked with the device, it is a ***** to program for.

OT: So what? Android is used a lot by phones; who cares? Traditional, windows-based OS systems will still rule the desktop space, despite microsoft's "experiments". Having lot of Android powered mobile devices won't change that.

 

[An Inferior]

I think the main problem with the article is that he compares android mobile sales to Windows PC sales. Generally speaking, people buy new phones more often then buying a new computer.

 

[J Tyran]

I think what we'll see is android (or similar) phones that connect to your TV through HDMI and game controllers through USB or bluetooth (for entertainment and gaming), and a mouse and keyboard through bluetooth or USB (for productivity).

Already there, most of the midrange phones and above can connect via HDMI and the higher end phones do it wirelessly as well. You need a TV that supports it for it to work best, if not there are wireless HDMI dongle type devices. In my own experience the dongles work poorly compared to either a HDMI cable or TVs with built in support though.

The Ouya will have to be very cheap to compete in my opinion, why bother with it when you can just carry your phone and have to connect to the TV wirelessly unless its cheaper than a £500 phone. The latest high end phones probably exceed the Ouya in performance and the phones arriving over the next 18 months certainly will.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I was mainly thinking about Moore's law, but I guess at some point you're going to be hitting up against some basic laws of the universe when it comes to miniaturization. We're already getting there when it comes to the amount of power you can get out of a single CPU core using current manufacturing techniques.

Edit: Moores law, and the law of diminishing returns as it applies to economics (why pay more to get a more powerful system when this one already does what I need?). Problem is, if we're gonna apply it to economics, we may as well apply it to engineering too (how many more improvements can be made before we're hitting up on molecule sized transistors that can't be made smaller?)

We're already pretty much at our limit as far as transistor size on 2 d space with the current lithography we have. That and the smaller you go the science we have breaks down as far as stuff to do with electrons go which is why Quantum physics is used at that stage.

The reason we don't use Gallium Arsenide semi-conductors in general use when they should be is already there as cost. It is why everything is made out of silicon aside from its general good usability.

If we do hit that limit why would people switch over to phones to play their games if they are really interested? Something like a desktop will be more power, more efficient and as you admitted not have the heat problems of smaller surface area.

This doesn't even include the havoc trying to do this with the power requirements would do to your phone's battery.

 

[BeerTent]

In closing, Apps are a big thing now, but Android will never hit a full computer. PDA's, Phones, Players, glasses... Never a full PC.

The question I suppose one should ask is how long will PCs matter for the general public. Other devices perform the trivial and frivolous functions of the device adequately - from information retrieval and storage to organization and communication. Useful functionality is regularly placed on the hands of computers elsewhere even when using a PC undermining their use there. Aside from gaming, what benefit actually comes in having a PC? Peripherals? Those are available for many popular handheld devices. Raw power? Perhaps useful to professionals but hardly necessary for most usage patterns.

The PC (including the Mac) is waning. Sure, hobbyists will still use them, professionals will still find a need but people in general? They don't need them. Hell, they never liked them in the first place.

They may be waning, but they'll never disappear. Not for 20+ years. Consider always having a "Central" location for all of your digital needs. Again, you could argue tablets could be this "central" location provided they're docked, but if my phone's Office application is to be believed, we're still light years behind having that, with or without a dock to serve as a keyboard. I'm not saying it'll never happen. But laptops are going to be on the main stage at least for 20+ years.

And even though the average "Email/Youtuber"[footnote]The user who checks their email, begrudgingly with this weird piece of furniture that has impacted their home and done little but chew power and repair bills.[/footnote] isn't a fan of where computer technology is, and wants something simpler. Today, and well into the future they will always find a use for the laptop, or in their eyes, the cheaper variant, the desktop. Office workers, Students, anyone who works with digital entertainment, ETC.

 

[crotchdot]

Android is the new Windows?
C'mon... Android's not that bad, is it?

 

[Yopaz]

-

Eh, I was just following your sarcasm with some sarcasm of my own. I don't want to be dragging around a suitcase just for my phone any more than anyone else.

 

[Esotera]

It's also really easy to develop trivial applications for, so this can only be a good thing.

No, no it really isn't. From what my friends tell me who have actually worked with the device, it is a ***** to program for.

OT: So what? Android is used a lot by phones; who cares? Traditional, windows-based OS systems will still rule the desktop space, despite microsoft's "experiments". Having lot of Android powered mobile devices won't change that.

It's really not that hard compared to a PC application, as Google have already made loads of design decisions that reduce development complexity. For instance, there's a standard way to store strings, meaning that if you want to translate an app, you just open one or two files & call the translator in. The API is well-documented and present on all phones, so you can take photos/videos et cetera without having to get a third-party webcam API that you would for Windows.

At least that's my personal experience of Android development...declaring 'intents' is a bit counterintuitive to me, but that's mostly because I haven't made any large apps. My one criticism of Android would be that at the moment, you're essentially limited to the Java programming language, but even that is changing.

 

[Heronblade]

The desktop is already dead as far as the general market is concerned. The only ones using them these days are enthusiasts (read: gamers), businesses, and scientists, and I honestly believe even businesses and gamers will drop it once prebuilt systems like laptops and cellphones in, say, the $400 and under range are powerful enough that the extra performance in an enthusiast machine isn't worth the extra cost. Desktops will always have a home in science, both because the easy configuration makes it possible to specialize for experiments, and because certain fields just need a lot of processing power. Otherwise the supercomputer wouldn't be a thing.

There will come a time when the gap in between the two is less pronounced than it has been in the past, but when mobility and volume are non issues (as is the case for the majority of gamers and businessmen, plenty of others as well), a desktop will ALWAYS beat a laptop of similar quality in every conceivable category, not just power, from the quality of visual/audio output to ease of maintenance. Sorry to burst your bubble, but compacting a system that way confers massive design disadvantages that are at least nearly impossible to overcome.

In fact, as mobile devices become more and more capable of working in tandem with other systems, I strongly suspect that the desktop market will grow again fairly soon. Laptops and smartphones work better as complementary devices than on their own.

P.S. Extra cost? Laptops are generally priced between 25-100% more than their equivalent desktop counterparts. I've never seen one that was cheaper, barring unusual coincidences in sale prices.

 

[jbassic]

One piece of technology I am really excited for is the Ouya, which operates completely on the Android operating system, which I find really impressive. Windows has kind of let itself go these past couple of years and the whole fiasco with the initial release of Vista being awful led them down.

 

[thesilentman]

I decided to wait a bit before I got into the nitty-gritty of the thread. Seems to be pretty interesting so far. I apologize for the wall of text, if that bothers anyone.

The desktop is already dead as far as the general market is concerned. The only ones using them these days are enthusiasts (read: gamers), businesses, and scientists, and I honestly believe even businesses and gamers will drop it once prebuilt systems like laptops and cellphones in, say, the $400 and under range are powerful enough that the extra performance in an enthusiast machine isn't worth the extra cost. Desktops will always have a home in science, both because the easy configuration makes it possible to specialize for experiments, and because certain fields just need a lot of processing power. Otherwise the supercomputer wouldn't be a thing.

As for apps being something different from applications: what are you smoking? App is an abbreviation for application that has been in use forever, but exploded in use because the people in charge of marketing the iPhone figured the name would sell well, and apparently they hit it out of the park on that one. If you're thinking app=tied to an app store, application=can be installed in whatever way you want, Windows 8 is geared more towards that definition of app than android is[footnote]edit: Yes, you can install programs from outside of the windows app store on Windows 8, but there's a major caveat: they don't go on your home screen, they're segragated inside the desktop app, which is pretty useless in Windows 8. On an android phone, sideloaded apps are treated just like apps from the Google Play store, with the only exception being that Google Play doesn't update them for you, just like Steam doesn't automatically update games you didn't install through it.[/footnote]. Android has an app store (actually there's several for it), but you can manually install any program you want. All you need is a .apk[footnote]this is essentially the Android equivalent of a .msi file for windows. The fact that it's got a name that's not used in other operating systems is okay -- it's not like OSX and Linux are identical to Windows on that front, either[/footnote] file for the program in question, and there's plenty of places to get them from beyond the Google Play store.

Try coding on an Android. As in LITERALLY coding on an Android. Come back and prove me wrong when you can.

I really don't fell like going into a long discussion so here's the TL; DR: Apps are short applications designed as a "pick up and use" service. Applications are designed as the place where you can do nitty-gritty work. That's my current definition of the two[footnote]Current from what I see anyway.[/footnote].

Desktops are already dead? What are you smoking? Many laptops cannot compete with desktops power wise at this point. Many people know how to make a monster gaming machine (and anything else, but gaming is what came to my mind first) for 1000 USD. At 1000 USD, I can only get a laptop with an i5 and integrated graphics[footnote]Everyone's different, but that's what I see as the norm in tech stores where I live.[/footnote]. Yes, as we go on, laptops will get more powerful along with our mobile devices, but are we able to efficiently use them? I don't need a quad core processor for work on my phone of all things. I'd rather have that on a fully featured desktop that has much more use than a phone. The only advantage of a mobile device is just that, it's mobile. Other than that, I see nothing that absolutely compels me to get an Android/iOS/Windows Phone at this point. Most of us don't need the extra phone processing power.

I'm a nerd who barely represents any large demographic out there, but I own an android powered phone and I barely find myself voluntarily using it for much of anything besides a few basic functions like calling people and playing music.

Sure it may be powerful and capable, but it's just too small and awkward for doing anything serious with. I'm not going to try to do work on it, I can't play any good games on it, I might be able to surf the web but most of the web still isn't formatted to such a small screen. There's not much portable devices can do that isn't much easier and better on a desktop or other large device. So why would I use them?

The android OS is good at what it is but it just doesn't feel like it's even really in competition with Windows. If anything with Windows 8 and the Windows Phone it seems microsoft is working harder to try and push out Android than vice versa.

Edit: I also don't see people ever plugging their phones into a monitor at their desk and using it like that. If I'm going to sit at a desk I want the full benefit of a desktop CPU. Why suffer through the worst of both worlds? It seems more probable that handhelds will be linked or synced with our desktops or larger platforms so that all files and information can still be effortlessly accessed from either one like a mini-cloud but still kept as two separate devices to remain useful for every occasion.

That's the biggest problem with these fun things: they need peripherals!

Spoiler: For size

We've got to accept Android for what it is. A lightweight phone OS. Windows is so much more than Android and the intended use are vastly different. Now MicroSoft is trying to take over a missing part of the market with their horrid phone OS and make a variation of that run on tablets, Xbox and PC. Windows is the majority

Oh yes lets just attach a BIG OLD BOX to our PHONE with a CORD so we can play games like a REAL DESKTOP COMPUTER.

Making Mobile devices immobile. Using the most ass way possible.

That totally IS the future. /sarcasm

Well, I think you're being unfair here. You act like you think cell phones should be all about convenience and that they should fit into your pocket. The future isn't making things smaller and easier to use. I swear, in 10 or 15 years we will be carrying cell phones in a suitcase with wheel in order to always have a complete gaming system with 5 wires to various external components.

Well that defeats the point of a mobile device then. And I think that Windows Phone 8 has a good interface. I'm tired of seeing the iOS/Android style of tile arrangements...

 

[gorfias]

Uh.. what? What games work with Android?

The best ever was Onlive, which is dead. They were a browser based App that you could play just about anything upon.

My latest download is GTA 3 which is running very well. Problem is getting used to touch controls. But I've hooked up Android tablets to the 55" LED and a wireless controller, and it was a lot like playing on any console.
Posted previously:

Things may look a little like this:
and games already look like this

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I decided to wait a bit before I got into the nitty-gritty of the thread. Seems to be pretty interesting so far. I apologize for the wall of text, if that bothers anyone.

The desktop is already dead as far as the general market is concerned. The only ones using them these days are enthusiasts (read: gamers), businesses, and scientists, and I honestly believe even businesses and gamers will drop it once prebuilt systems like laptops and cellphones in, say, the $400 and under range are powerful enough that the extra performance in an enthusiast machine isn't worth the extra cost. Desktops will always have a home in science, both because the easy configuration makes it possible to specialize for experiments, and because certain fields just need a lot of processing power. Otherwise the supercomputer wouldn't be a thing.

As for apps being something different from applications: what are you smoking? App is an abbreviation for application that has been in use forever, but exploded in use because the people in charge of marketing the iPhone figured the name would sell well, and apparently they hit it out of the park on that one. If you're thinking app=tied to an app store, application=can be installed in whatever way you want, Windows 8 is geared more towards that definition of app than android is[footnote]edit: Yes, you can install programs from outside of the windows app store on Windows 8, but there's a major caveat: they don't go on your home screen, they're segragated inside the desktop app, which is pretty useless in Windows 8. On an android phone, sideloaded apps are treated just like apps from the Google Play store, with the only exception being that Google Play doesn't update them for you, just like Steam doesn't automatically update games you didn't install through it.[/footnote]. Android has an app store (actually there's several for it), but you can manually install any program you want. All you need is a .apk[footnote]this is essentially the Android equivalent of a .msi file for windows. The fact that it's got a name that's not used in other operating systems is okay -- it's not like OSX and Linux are identical to Windows on that front, either[/footnote] file for the program in question, and there's plenty of places to get them from beyond the Google Play store.

Try coding on an Android. As in LITERALLY coding on an Android. Come back and prove me wrong when you can.

I really don't fell like going into a long discussion so here's the TL; DR: Apps are short applications designed as a "pick up and use" service. Applications are designed as the place where you can do nitty-gritty work. That's my current definition of the two[footnote]Current from what I see anyway.[/footnote].

Desktops are already dead? What are you smoking? Many laptops cannot compete with desktops power wise at this point. Many people know how to make a monster gaming machine (and anything else, but gaming is what came to my mind first) for 1000 USD. At 1000 USD, I can only get a laptop with an i5 and integrated graphics[footnote]Everyone's different, but that's what I see as the norm in tech stores where I live.[/footnote]. Yes, as we go on, laptops will get more powerful along with our mobile devices, but are we able to efficiently use them? I don't need a quad core processor for work on my phone of all things. I'd rather have that on a fully featured desktop that has much more use than a phone. The only advantage of a mobile device is just that, it's mobile. Other than that, I see nothing that absolutely compels me to get an Android/iOS/Windows Phone at this point. Most of us don't need the extra phone processing power.

I'm a nerd who barely represents any large demographic out there, but I own an android powered phone and I barely find myself voluntarily using it for much of anything besides a few basic functions like calling people and playing music.

Sure it may be powerful and capable, but it's just too small and awkward for doing anything serious with. I'm not going to try to do work on it, I can't play any good games on it, I might be able to surf the web but most of the web still isn't formatted to such a small screen. There's not much portable devices can do that isn't much easier and better on a desktop or other large device. So why would I use them?

The android OS is good at what it is but it just doesn't feel like it's even really in competition with Windows. If anything with Windows 8 and the Windows Phone it seems microsoft is working harder to try and push out Android than vice versa.

Edit: I also don't see people ever plugging their phones into a monitor at their desk and using it like that. If I'm going to sit at a desk I want the full benefit of a desktop CPU. Why suffer through the worst of both worlds? It seems more probable that handhelds will be linked or synced with our desktops or larger platforms so that all files and information can still be effortlessly accessed from either one like a mini-cloud but still kept as two separate devices to remain useful for every occasion.

That's the biggest problem with these fun things: they need peripherals!

Spoiler: For size

We've got to accept Android for what it is. A lightweight phone OS. Windows is so much more than Android and the intended use are vastly different. Now MicroSoft is trying to take over a missing part of the market with their horrid phone OS and make a variation of that run on tablets, Xbox and PC. Windows is the majority

Oh yes lets just attach a BIG OLD BOX to our PHONE with a CORD so we can play games like a REAL DESKTOP COMPUTER.

Making Mobile devices immobile. Using the most ass way possible.

That totally IS the future. /sarcasm

Well, I think you're being unfair here. You act like you think cell phones should be all about convenience and that they should fit into your pocket. The future isn't making things smaller and easier to use. I swear, in 10 or 15 years we will be carrying cell phones in a suitcase with wheel in order to always have a complete gaming system with 5 wires to various external components.

Well that defeats the point of a mobile device then. And I think that Windows Phone 8 has a good interface. I'm tired of seeing the iOS/Android style of tile arrangements...

Okay, so you're making up definitions for words (app does not mean what you think it means, and you can't expect me to psychically know your personal meaning), and you're ignoring that I said the desktop was dead for all but a very few groups -- and gamers were one of those groups. You're further ignoring that I'm talking about 10, 20 years in the future, when pocket sized hardware is powerful enough that that $1000 for a monster rig really won't be worth it when a $200 phone already has, say, Pixar level graphics. Heck, even today most PC gamers aren't building the $1000 monsters, they're building $600 machines that are able to run everything on high or ultra. The extra $400 would get more power, but what are you gonna use it on?

Edit: as for coding without a computer: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.aide.ui&hl=en

Right on your phone, and that's just the first app that shows up on google. As for your condescending comic, you're missing the point. The idea is that you've got a device that seamlessly translates between being a full workstation at home, and a pocket sized tool on the go.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Even in the future, graphic cards would look like this:

You cant turn something modern into something small enough to fit into your pocket. You just can't. Couple that with heat issues, and you get an impossibility.

We tried computers on wheels before. Its clumsy, expensive, and short lived. There is a reason we dropped that idea.

Where are you going to get 700 watts of power? Minimum? Out of a mobile battery without sticking you plug in to a socket and turning it into an inferior version of a desktop?

You can still buy a sound card that looks like this:

But I can now get good digital 5.1 surround sound from my mother board. The Tegra chip is now quad core with an extra 5th core for lower functions. Intel Chips now have HD 4000 graphics that may be on a path to do what the mother board did for those sound cards and make them nice but optional(I'm an enthusiast. I have an HD 7970 but I'm excited about the future and what may come).

I play a version of GTA 3 on my android phone. It was for the original PS2. Remember that behemouth? No heat issues either.

But there's a lot of talk of mobile apps and more.

1) Phones and tablets can be hooked up to any size TV if they have a mini HDMI output. My Android ASUS tablet does.
2) In the future, you're going to have some kind of OS on your TV. The question will be, will it do for you what a computer with Windows does? I think it will be easy (short of games).

Within 5 years, you may hook a wireless keyboard up to a box that is hooked to HDMI to a 80" OLED TV and 7.1 surround sound and game, or stream video or link your phone to it all to transfer media... and I think Android has a good basis to be that thing on your 80".

>PS2
>Behemoth
>>>heat issues.


The PS2 is a relic, a outdated big box that shouldn't have heat issues. The same with GTA III.


games on old tech that is over 6 years old. Not games on modern capabilities NOT hampered by consoles.

And secondly, I said GRAPHICS CARDS. Sound cards are useless without a GPU. Even then sound
cards are a bit of a joke unless you are an audiophile.

and third, why bother making mobile devices IMMOBILE to do things a computer can? relying on TV when the internet is making people cut the cord?

There is no good reason to.

It's not making a mobile device immobile. It's condensing the brains of your immobile device into a form factor that can be combined with your mobile device. As for old tech: it's called the law of diminishing returns. Eventually, six year old tech will be lower quality than current tech, but powerful enough to do everything the average user needs. Give it enough time, and that will include gaming. It's already there with things like facebook, youtube, and word processing.

Oh, and HDMI and DVI are essentially the same standard. You can hook up an HDMI cord to a DVI monitor with a simple adaptor, and vice versa. So if for some reason the TV goes the way of the dodo (despite the cord people have been cutting being cable, not power -- people still like having big screen TVs for other sources even if they're not using it with cable) but the computer monitor doesn't, mini HDMI out still covers it.