So the Anandtech staff prefers Apple?

[MrX8503]

The GSIII. Check how many Android users are using the travesty that is the latest version of TouchWiz.

General public (majority) > tech geeks (minority)

 

[BenSkywalker]

Look, I'm not sure what your beef is but I really enjoy Anand's reviews & have no problem with what he chooses to use as his personal devices.

My beef is the rather extremely skewed perspective.

Buy new phone- drive home with it, install software on your computer, hook phone up to unlock it before you can use it= reasonable

Buy new phone- throw a browser and launcher on it as you are walking out of the store= unreasonable

Do I think Anand should have left iDevices locked, which was the actual out of box experience that a certain group of posters claims is what is important? Of course not, because it would be idiotic to assume that people wouldn't fix the glaring problem Apple shipped their devices with. But then I'm supposed to assume that it is unreasonable to think that people would fix the glaring problem Android devices shipped with.

Pretty much, if you are rabidly pro iOS I'm not suggesting anything be changed for your devices. What I am saying is for those who want Android devices how the device is actually going to work when we use it is far more important then it how it works out of the box.

probably 90-99% of consumers.

That frequent AT? I'd say it's closer to 0%-9%

 

[badb0y]

BenSkywalker never disappoints.

 

[Geekbabe]

My beef is the rather extremely skewed perspective.

Buy new phone- drive home with it, install software on your computer, hook phone up to unlock it before you can use it= reasonable

Buy new phone- throw a browser and launcher on it as you are walking out of the store= unreasonable

Do I think Anand should have left iDevices locked, which was the actual out of box experience that a certain group of posters claims is what is important? Of course not, because it would be idiotic to assume that people wouldn't fix the glaring problem Apple shipped their devices with. But then I'm supposed to assume that it is unreasonable to think that people would fix the glaring problem Android devices shipped with.

Pretty much, if you are rabidly pro iOS I'm not suggesting anything be changed for your devices. What I am saying is for those who want Android devices how the device is actually going to work when we use it is far more important then it how it works out of the box.



That frequent AT? I'd say it's closer to 0%-9%

I'm not "rabidly pro" anything. I like how Anand does his reviews, if you dislike his android reviews you are of course free to simply not read them & find a reviewer who does things more to your liking.

 

[pm]

Buy new phone- drive home with it, install software on your computer, hook phone up to unlock it before you can use it= reasonable

They activate it in the store. You don't need to use iTunes for anything nowadays.

And your point is really that reviewers are supposed to deactivate the installed launcher (Touchwiz) and install a 3rd party browser before reviewing it? Really?

 

[ControlD]

They activate it in the store. You don't need to use iTunes for anything nowadays.

And your point is really that reviewers are supposed to deactivate the installed launcher (Touchwiz) and install a 3rd party browser before reviewing it? Really?

Is that a new thing? I had to activate both of my 4S phones (one was defective) by myself. I guess I should say I tried to. The second one would only activate after Verizon removed and threw away the SIM card in my second unit. Then again, it is Verizon. I have come to expect no better.

 

[buckshot24]

They activate it in the store. You don't need to use iTunes for anything nowadays.

And your point is really that reviewers are supposed to deactivate the installed launcher (Touchwiz) and install a 3rd party browser before reviewing it? Really?

I think one of the pluses for android is the fact that you can do these things and, in fact, most of Anand's readers DO these things to improve their android devices according to their tastes. I think installing Opera or Chrome or something else on the device is not that big of a deal to do and it would be useful information to know how these popular browsers run on the newer devices. When they review video cards they sometimes use two or more sets of drivers which is more of a burden. Even trying a few popular launchers isn't that big of a deal and would be useful information to hear about.

I guess, Ben's point is that because he doesn't see it mentioned it shows him that AT may just have a different mindset, an IOS mindset where you just can't change anything from what the manufacturer says you can have.

 

[soccerballtux]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2270612

 

[pm]

Is that a new thing? I had to activate both of my 4S phones (one was defective) by myself. I guess I should say I tried to. The second one would only activate after Verizon removed and threw away the SIM card in my second unit. Then again, it is Verizon. I have come to expect no better.

I don't know if it's new. When I bought my wife's 4S last year, AT&T activated it in the store. My memory is that they stuck it in with some USB connector and handed it back and it was working and then they walked her through the features of the phone in the store, and, yeah, and while we were there they copied her contacts off of her Nokia SIM card and put it in the iPhone for her... I am certain that they activated it in the store. Then they demo'd visual voicemail and a couple of other things and we walked out.

I think one of the pluses for android is the fact that you can do these things and, in fact, most of Anand's readers DO these things to improve their android devices according to their tastes. I think installing Opera or Chrome or something else on the device is not that big of a deal to do and it would be useful information to know how these popular browsers run on the newer devices. When they review video cards they sometimes use two or more sets of drivers which is more of a burden. Even trying a few popular launchers isn't that big of a deal and would be useful information to hear about.

I guess, Ben's point is that because he doesn't see it mentioned it shows him that AT may just have a different mindset, an IOS mindset where you just can't change anything from what the manufacturer says you can have.

Ok, when you explain it like that it makes a bit more sense to me. When we are evaluating computers, we benchmark lots of programs, we don't just run Windows apps only. Ok, I am starting to be swayed here.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2270612

Yeah, your point is understood. The thought crossed my mine to merge these two, but it's such a sensitive subject I don't want to be accused of censoring anything. And they are a bit different - one is commenting on a specific article and the other is commenting on the phone that the staff actually use. But, yeah, I hear you. And I did ponder it before I left it alone.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I'm not "rabidly pro" anything. I like how Anand does his reviews, if you dislike his android reviews you are of course free to simply not read them & find a reviewer who does things more to your liking.

I'm forced to, anyone who is interested in a decent Android review is forced to. Is this something that they are incapable of fixing? Not at all. They just need to have someone review Android devices who doesn't sound like their first exposure to Android came in the fifteen minutes before they wrote the review. I know AT can do much better then have their resident iOS fans review a platform they very clearly don't care for.

And your point is really that reviewers are supposed to deactivate the installed launcher (Touchwiz) and install a 3rd party browser before reviewing it? Really?

Go- 50 Million
Launcher Pro 10 Million
ADW 5 Million
Nova 1 Million
Launcher 7- 1 Million
Regina 3D- 1 Million

That is the million plus download launchers on Play(a rather lengthy list between 100K-999K one of them being SPB over 500K at $15 a pop). People seem to think I'm talking about some tiny percentage of people. The people installing launchers on Android devices dwarfs the number of people buying WinPhone and BB devices combined. My suggestion is really that much of a stretch?

I guess, Ben's point is that because he doesn't see it mentioned it shows him that AT may just have a different mindset, an IOS mindset where you just can't change anything from what the manufacturer says you can have.

Very much so. It is the appliance mindset. There is nothing inherently wrong with that mindset, but it is not the one that should be used to review Android devices.

When we are evaluating computers, we benchmark lots of programs, we don't just run Windows apps only.

Another slight twist to that, when reviewing the latest i7 does Anand stick to on die graphics? He goes through the trouble of adding in an extremely expensive add in graphics card to get the most out of the processor. I say with absolute certainty there is no possible way that someone can install a graphics card and get it running faster then you can install a launcher on an Android device.

As a general example-

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6118/motorola-atrix-hd-review-fast-sharp-bargain/4

Blur gets more words devoted to it then the display or camera. Blur takes a few seconds, maybe a few minutes if you don't have great transfer speeds, to swap out. He laments the default contact widget Moto used in prior phones and mentions how they fixed it for this one, I honestly can't say I would be able to tell you the default contacts widget looked like on the predecessors because like pretty much any Android phone user who owns a device I dump any UI I don't care for without a second thought.

If I was someone who lived in the iOS ecosystem I may wonder what's wrong with that. As someone who lives in the Android ecosystem all I can think of is that it would have taken less time to swap out the launcher then it took you to gripe about the one the phone came with. If you don't like it, change it.

Obviously the hardware of the phone, and the underlying version of Android it is running is important. Every review of Android devices we see on AT devotes a rather absurd amount of space to pretty much tell us the same thing- the stock launcher sucks, here's how.

Putting in a couple of sentences of how it handles the most popular launchers is worth far more then the in depth analysis we get on the default launcher. Honestly, I think their reviews would be better overall if they didn't bother handling software at all compared to how they do it now barring pointing out any massive issues(think LG stability type ones).

 

[Geekbabe]

One thing you need to keep in mind is that once you start doing reviews that involve "swapping things out" you then face headaches from end users that have issues with said swap. Also, not all apps run perfectly on all devices, you might then have people bashing a product because it doesn't run a particular 3rd party app well, a disservice to the OEM of that product.

Expecting a hardware reviewer to customize a stock device & then include details about that customization in their post is over the top. There are plenty of places to get app reviews, plenty of device specific threads on forums here & other sites for those who wish to experiment or customize. Hell, there are sticky threads here with tons of links to assist those who desire to alter stock configurations.

 

[mosco]

Go- 50 Million
Launcher Pro 10 Million
ADW 5 Million
Nova 1 Million
Launcher 7- 1 Million
Regina 3D- 1 Million

That is the million plus download launchers on Play(a rather lengthy list between 100K-999K one of them being SPB over 500K at $15 a pop). People seem to think I'm talking about some tiny percentage of people. The people installing launchers on Android devices dwarfs the number of people buying WinPhone and BB devices combined. My suggestion is really that much of a stretch?

Well there are 500 million android devices. I don't know if those totals include updates to the app, or just individual installs. But if they don't, that's 14% of android installs.

I could be wrong, but I am going to assume that if you took those numbers and removed the number of downloads by people that downloaded multiple launchers, the numbers of downloads by people upgrading devices or with multiple devices, it would be alot less than 14%.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I think one of the pluses for android is the fact that you can do these things and, in fact, most of Anand's readers DO these things to improve their android devices according to their tastes. I think installing Opera or Chrome or something else on the device is not that big of a deal to do and it would be useful information to know how these popular browsers run on the newer devices. When they review video cards they sometimes use two or more sets of drivers which is more of a burden. Even trying a few popular launchers isn't that big of a deal and would be useful information to hear about.

I guess, Ben's point is that because he doesn't see it mentioned it shows him that AT may just have a different mindset, an IOS mindset where you just can't change anything from what the manufacturer says you can have.

Try modifying 10 - 20 phones in a single review...

And try having to do that again when an update comes out for one of those devices.

It's tedious.

I know that for a fact because as a developer, I have to work with at least that many Android devices at once... just to make sure my app works well across all of those configurations. I can try to skip while debugging, but while doing a final test, there is no way around it, and it usually takes an entire day just to do that... for one app. Now add individual modifications to each of those phones and...

So instead of taking just a few hours, it'd take Anand staffs days after days every time they do a phone review. That's not realistic at all. You gotta take into account the fact that they don't just do phone reviews. They also have to review a dozen of laptops and PC hardwares as well.

And it wouldn't be representative of the experience of the readers at all because... face it, you'll have different people modifying their phones differently, and each of those modifications would impact performance differently as well.

Once Anand starts modifying one phone, people will keep going back and asking for their own modifications to be included in the benchmark. It's a never-ending cycle.

So I'd think... if Android manufacturers don't want their devices to be painted that way, they should try to come up with the optimal config for the phone out of the box. If the user has to modify the device to make it run right, something is inherently wrong.

Edit: and just to make it clear... it's also VERY TEDIOUS for a developer to make sure their app runs "right" on every config... and most of the time, the goal is missed by a long mile because of the user's ability to update/downgrade or modify the phone to whatever it is that they want. If functionality doesn't go down the drain (because user can modify memory management parameters to make the Garbage Collector fire like crazy or not at all), then interface would go down the drain.

You don't know how happy I am when the client says they only need the app to run on ONE device. It's a godsend.

 

[WelshBloke]

...
And your point is really that reviewers are supposed to deactivate the installed launcher (Touchwiz) and install a 3rd party browser before reviewing it? Really?

I have a feeling that you think both those things are more difficult than they are.

Changing the launcher in Android is the same as installing any other app, its a lot easier than updating drivers on a video card. Hell its a lot easier than running the benchmark! :biggrin:

 

[pm]

I have a feeling that you think both those things are more difficult than they are.

Changing the launcher in Android is the same as installing any other app, its a lot easier than updating drivers on a video card. Hell its a lot easier than running the benchmark! :biggrin:

No, I'm well aware of how relatively easy it is... I have a couple of Android devices now. And I'm not a fan of Touchwiz so it's one of the first things that I do to Samsung stuff.

It just seems like a really odd thing to do... to me anyway. You buy a phone and then you proceed to modify it in order to review it.

Like I said in my follow-up post I am starting to come around and maybe it's just a way of thinking about things... I think of a phone as a phone. To me it is a complete product as it is - there are apps are additions that you make to it, but they aren't the phone, they are additions. And, to my way of thinking about things, you shouldn't have to add additions in order to review a product. It is what it is and you review it as it is. To add things to a product is to change it and by changing it, you aren't reviewing the product any more, you are reviewing your modified version of it.

But as far as I'm understanding Ben's point, it's that a phone is not really a phone. It's a compute platform, it's an ecosystem or something, and apps aren't additions, they are the reason for why you have the platform. So just as you don't review a video card by running the driver software on it, you wouldn't review a compute platform without actually running real external programs. It's a bit of a different way of thinking about things, and I'm trying to figure out how I feel about it.

The thing is, I would totally agree with the compute platform concept - or whatever you guys call this idea - except that all Android phones are not Nexus phones. The OEM's think that the changes that they make, the software that they add, are their key differentiators. They think that is what makes their product better than the other guys'.

At first I thought Mr.Skywalker was totally off-base, but I'm now mostly agreeing with his point. I'm just wondering what the right way to do things actually is.

 

[mosco]

I think that the initial reviews should be for the device out of the box. There there could be follow up reviews for specific launchers (that wouldn't really be specific to any device).

 

[Aikouka]

Another slight twist to that, when reviewing the latest i7 does Anand stick to on die graphics? He goes through the trouble of adding in an extremely expensive add in graphics card to get the most out of the processor.

Umm of course they add in a powerful graphics card. The point is to test how the CPU (not the CPU + iGPU) affects frames per second, which means they need to ensure the GPU isn't a limiting factor. Anandtech still tests the iGPUs.

EDIT:

But as far as I'm understanding Ben's point, it's that a phone is not really a phone. It's a compute platform, it's an ecosystem or something, and apps aren't additions, they are the reason for why you have the platform. So just as you don't review a video card by running the driver software on it, you wouldn't review a compute platform without actually running real external programs. It's a bit of a different way of thinking about things, and I'm trying to figure out how I feel about it.

I don't think that applies at all. The things that people run on compute systems are benchmark tools, which could be things like games or other applications that have benchmarking utility. So, of course you run Crysis on the video card... it's for testing the video card's graphical computation capability. Adding a new launcher to Android isn't a benchmarking utility. They obviously do install stuff on Android phones such as Geekbench, etc.

Also, you have to consider that Anandtech typically tests/reviews/previews mobile operating systems separately from devices. They may discuss how well Android runs on a device, but that isn't really becoming a point of contention anymore with how powerful the devices are becoming.

 

[buckshot24]

Try modifying 10 - 20 phones in a single review...

And try having to do that again when an update comes out for one of those devices.

It's tedious.

I'm sure it is, but as far as I can tell they review one phone at a time once, they don't have to keep reviewing it as updates are made.

And it wouldn't be representative of the experience of the readers at all because... face it, you'll have different people modifying their phones differently, and each of those modifications would impact performance differently as well.

I think you review the phones as is then make a few quick modifications that any AT reader would make and see how things run and make mention of it. I don't think you go out and make all sorts of mods THEN review.

 

[Raduque]

I like the sweeping generalizations BenSkywalker threw up all over this thread.

I'm a highly technical Android user. All my Android devices are rooted and running non-stock firmware (OS image and kernel).

I use Samsung's TouchWiz UX and the stock Samsung browser on my Galaxy S II. I dislike Chrome on my phone. I very rarely use it on my tablet. I use it as my primary browser on my PC.

I'm long past the whole "FLASH ALL THE ROMS!" stage. I want a device that just works, and I want it to run Android. I also don't much care for Vanilla Android from Google, which is why I buy Samsung devices. They also have the best hardware, imo.

 

[TheStu]

I'm sure it is, but as far as I can tell they review one phone at a time once, they don't have to keep reviewing it as updates are made.


I think you review the phones as is then make a few quick modifications that any AT reader would make and see how things run and make mention of it. I don't think you go out and make all sorts of mods THEN review.

I wouldn't be averse to this. Maybe just with the browsers 'So, that's how the Galaxy S III does with the stock browser, but WHOA look at those numbers in Chrome!'

 

[WelshBloke]

I like the sweeping generalizations BenSkywalker threw up all over this thread.

I'm a highly technical Android user. All my Android devices are rooted and running non-stock firmware (OS image and kernel).

I use Samsung's TouchWiz UX and the stock Samsung browser on my Galaxy S II. I dislike Chrome on my phone. I very rarely use it on my tablet. I use it as my primary browser on my PC.

I'm long past the whole "FLASH ALL THE ROMS!" stage. I want a device that just works, and I want it to run Android. I also don't much care for Vanilla Android from Google, which is why I buy Samsung devices. They also have the best hardware, imo.

I think a lot of the Touchwiz hate is overblown.

I dont particularly like the Touchwiz launcher but theres a lot more to touchwiz than just the launcher.

The AOSP calender is no where near as good as the touchwiz one. The TW camera app is also better.

Now yes, theres some useless bloat that comes with TW ROMS, but if youre the kind of person thats going to flash an AOSP rom you should know how to debloat it anyway.

 

[Aikouka]

I wouldn't be averse to this. Maybe just with the browsers 'So, that's how the Galaxy S III does with the stock browser, but WHOA look at those numbers in Chrome!'

I think it's much more suited to a separate article detailing browser performance. The device review should be limited to the device.

Anandtech does post things on browsers and such:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5517/google-releases-chrome-for-android

 

[tvdang7]

i know the verge is. and they finally proved it in an article where they switched from the iphone to the htc one x and said he was apple biased. Not cool when you are a biased reviewer. but AT is cool and has alot of information that no other reviewers have.

 

[BenSkywalker]

At first I thought Mr.Skywalker was totally off-base, but I'm now mostly agreeing with his point. I'm just wondering what the right way to do things actually is.

I'm not suggesting that I have an ideal solution, what I am suggesting is that wasting a page of *every* Android device review to tell us that the manufacture skin sucks- think we all know that by now- is both a complete waste of space and insulting to the people who read AT who use Android devices. As you yourself pointed out, you don't like TouchWiz, you change it. It is really that simple.

Perhaps for the iOS users a good way to put it would be if AT spent a page every review bashing iOS's wallpaper. Every iPhone, iPad, iPod device that came out- full page bashing the wallpaper. Stupid, annoying and pointless? Yep. That''s the point.

I don't think that applies at all. The things that people run on compute systems are benchmark tools, which could be things like games or other applications that have benchmarking utility.

AT *IS* reviewing apps, apps that their readership for the most part never uses. They are devoting an entire page to one particular app for Android devices and coming to pretty much the same conclusion every time. I am saying either stop wasting time reviewing one particular app for each phone, or take the time to use an app that their readership can be reasonably expected to use.

I'm a highly technical Android user. All my Android devices are rooted and running non-stock firmware (OS image and kernel).

Why do people keep bringing this up? When have I mentioned changing out the ROM on any device, or hell even rooting it? Launcher. When you go off about custom ROMs when I am talking about installing a launcher it makes me question if you have ever even seen an ad for an Android device

I think it's much more suited to a separate article detailing browser performance.

You said they shouldn't be testing software, but testing the launcher is OK and testing the browser is OK in the reviews? The browser in particular impacts three of the main benches AT uses for Android devices. I have one device here that ranges from 650-1500 in Vellamo depending on the browser it is using. Because of the way AT handles its' reviews, only the 650 number ever got reported. Was that inaccurate on their part? No, I'm sure they reported the numbers they got. The problem was they were using a POS app that AT users wouldn't have been using(the built in browser).

Now yes, theres some useless bloat that comes with TW ROMS, but if youre the kind of person thats going to flash an AOSP rom you should know how to debloat it anyway.

This is kind of off topic but, I could care less about bloat on the launchers. What I don't like is how fugly and clunky they are.

 

[runawayprisoner]

...I don't think you go out and make all sorts of mods THEN review.

But that's exactly what people are asking...

They want CyanogenMod, or a re-review with Android 4.0 or 4.1 updates... with results from every other Android handset in the chart.

...because Android 2.3.3 on Galaxy S2 losing to iOS 5.1.1 on iPhone 4S is totally preposterous and unacceptable.

But that's not to say I disagree that there is "bias" toward iPhones. Just that... it's generally "easier" and less time-consuming to mass-upgrade iOS devices as opposed to Android devices.