Amit's Mindlog..

"These frail and fragile bodies don’t always work the way we want them to. Steve Jobs understood that. Steve Jobs succumbed to that. But he also left us things that make that easier, that let us touch people we might not otherwise. That will always touch me."

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/10/steve-jobs-disability/

But you know what I love most about the Android operating system so far? I’ve had this thing for a little under a month and I still get lost. That may seem like a knock to some of you folks, but I absolutely love that it’s taking me this long to learn all the ins and outs of the device. Within a day on iOS, I knew exactly what it was and wasn’t capable of. Android? No clue… but that gets my jazzed in a geeky way for what’s on the horizon.

"...we'll forgive the older software because Kyocera had to do extensive customization to add dual-screen support to seven core apps like the browser, email, and messaging. The seven optimized apps can be run on each screen individually so you can have the browser up top and email below, and several of them include useful full-dual-screen views as well. There's also a new dual-screen app manager, which is brought up by tapping the two screens simultaneously."

Marco Arment had spoken about this devises overdose issue in his blog. Regarding the Android devices, one comment that he makes is:

But again, as with any point not so pro-android, there is someone who has a view that defends it. Preston Galla, in his post at computer world, tries exactly that.

But for the vast majority of users, it simply doesn't matter. Whatever operating system is on the smartphone they buy is the operating system they're used to. They don't anxiously await updates that may well give them absolutely nothing they're interested in. In fact, if an updated operating system is different than what they're used to, they may not be particularly happy with it.

Jobs spoke not only to the analysts on the call and the influencers who were following (and blogging) it, but to developers, citing TweetDeck as an example of an app that had to be coded for 100 different versions of Android running on 244 different devices, where iOS typically has 2 versions (current and one previous) and largely binary compatible devices. He also pointed out that while Android still struggles to sell apps, and Verizon, Vodafone, and Amazon look to fragment Android Market, Apple has a unified App Store with unified billing and customers that pay for apps.

Preston Gralla, at his blog on computer world, raises the known-and-discussed question about Froyo rollouts again.

The fact that the Droid X, arguably the premier Android device on the market today, still hasn't gotten Froyo and may not get it for three more weeks, only makes things worse.

To those who live and die by following technology, all of this sounds like a very big deal.

But in the long run, does it really matter? Will Android lose market share because operating system updates have been problematic?

1) It should be aesthetically "attractive".
2) It should have "easy", "simple" and "attractive" social collaboration tools.
3) It should have "attractive" time wasters build into it.

And many more. But the point I am trying to make is for a social network to be successful, it has to be alluring and simple enough for people to spend hours of their time on it.

Now which of the product from Google can you say you can spend hours with (except for YouTube which has been a time chomper from even before Google acquired it). All the recent attempts from Google at being social, iGoogle, Profiles, Buzz, Wave have been technologically sound, but that is all they could become. They do not (and one that 'waved' goodbye, did not) have what it takes to attract the crowd that makes a social network successful. Even its recent modifications to its "on-the-verge-of-'waving'-good-bye" service, Orkut, can be tagged ludicrous at the best.

Fact remains, Google spends a lot of attention to being technologically forward, but neglects the simplicity and aesthetics which are equally important. Android, as it was when launched, is another example.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has been an organization focusing equally, rather a lot more, on attractiveness of a product. So much so that they even neglect the performance for making it an eye candy (eg Office'07). Even its brand of confused services, named live, had a pleasing UI.

Add to that Microsoft has not entered the social networking field and for sure would like to do so sooner rather than later. And IMO, if any organization can beat Facebook at being simple and attractive, it is Microsoft. Not Google. Google Me? Well it would be another of Google's attempt at showing how technologically sound product in the field of social media would look like.

It makes me feel like everything I’ve posted over the past four years on Twitter, Jaiku, Friendfeed, Plurk, Pownce, and, yes, Google Buzz, has been an immense waste of time. I was shouting into a vast echo chamber where no one could hear me because they were too busy shouting themselves. All this time I’ve been pumping content into the void like some chatterbox Onan. How humiliating. How demoralizing.