I mean say what you want about their current products, but their entire deal has been putting software on devices that for the vast bulk of users doesn't suck. So you want to go around saying things like
raise more interesting questions — about why the free-market system rewards companies for pulling off miracles at the hardware level, but not for fixing software bugs that should be easy to catch
Well it does reward companies for doing just that. What the author really wants to complain about is either his inability/lack of desire to do basic research before buying a piece of crap phone (How free markets punish people for not making informed decisions) or That LG isn't sufficiently punished for doing what he things is a bad job. The latter is a case of his overgeneralizing what he feels is important to what everyone else feels is important.
Right and it's the same with equivalent cost Android phones too, but the problem here is that he's bought a cheap crappy device and decided to complain that it's cheap and crappy.
He wants iPhone/High end Android quality at budget Android price, which is stupid.
Can't you read? The argument: is why does the software have to suck? If you buy a Pentium, or an i3 or an i7 and put Fedora on each of them you don't have to expect that the software on the Pentium breaks in magical ways that the other two do not. (Well maybe you would if Intel segements their low end so much that whole groupings of instruction sets are missing...) I think the question is valid. The nuance of the answer, in that the phone maker has no incentive to do legitimate QA or release software updat
But that's exactly the point isn't it? The assumption that software magically "just works" when you move it on to shittier hardware is complete nonsense. That's never been the case, not even on the desktop.
When you buy cheap you're not just buying cheaper hardware, you're buying a more cheaply QA'd phone, you're buying a less tested phone, you're buying a phone that has had less investment in bug fixing. Your analogy of Intel's i series is completely off base as it's not simply the process version that changes - everything from the wireless chip, to the screen size, to the quality of memory, to the amount of storage space, to the graphics processor will also often change. All that can make stuff that works on high end devices just fine fail miserably on low end devices.
It's all part of the package - the idea that it's cheap but the software should be just as great is complete bollocks. Software has a cost too, and just as you pay for better hardware quality and assurance by upping the amount you spend you also pay for better software quality and assurance by upping the amount you spend.
Isn't this Apple's entire shtick ? (Score:2)
I mean say what you want about their current products, but their entire deal has been putting software on devices that for the vast bulk of users doesn't suck.
So you want to go around saying things like
raise more interesting questions — about why the free-market system rewards companies for pulling off miracles at the hardware level, but not for fixing software bugs that should be easy to catch
Well it does reward companies for doing just that. What the author really wants to complain about is either his inability/lack of desire to do basic research before buying a piece of crap phone (How free markets punish people for not making informed decisions) or That LG isn't sufficiently punished for doing what he things is a bad job. The latter is a case of his overgeneralizing what he feels is important to what everyone else feels is important.
Re: (Score:2)
Right and it's the same with equivalent cost Android phones too, but the problem here is that he's bought a cheap crappy device and decided to complain that it's cheap and crappy.
He wants iPhone/High end Android quality at budget Android price, which is stupid.
Re: (Score:0)
Can't you read? The argument: is why does the software have to suck? If you buy a Pentium, or an i3 or an i7 and put Fedora on each of them you don't have to expect that the software on the Pentium breaks in magical ways that the other two do not. (Well maybe you would if Intel segements their low end so much that whole groupings of instruction sets are missing...) I think the question is valid. The nuance of the answer, in that the phone maker has no incentive to do legitimate QA or release software updat
Re:Isn't this Apple's entire shtick ? (Score:2)
But that's exactly the point isn't it? The assumption that software magically "just works" when you move it on to shittier hardware is complete nonsense. That's never been the case, not even on the desktop.
When you buy cheap you're not just buying cheaper hardware, you're buying a more cheaply QA'd phone, you're buying a less tested phone, you're buying a phone that has had less investment in bug fixing. Your analogy of Intel's i series is completely off base as it's not simply the process version that changes - everything from the wireless chip, to the screen size, to the quality of memory, to the amount of storage space, to the graphics processor will also often change. All that can make stuff that works on high end devices just fine fail miserably on low end devices.
It's all part of the package - the idea that it's cheap but the software should be just as great is complete bollocks. Software has a cost too, and just as you pay for better hardware quality and assurance by upping the amount you spend you also pay for better software quality and assurance by upping the amount you spend.