Hacker News Reader

Comment by realize | Hacker News Reader

MG's point is completely valid. The world is divided into two groups: those for whom the little details like UI responsiveness are supremely important, and those who don't notice it or don't care so much.

I'd also note that gadget sites like The Verge are incentivised to make Android seem interesting and competitive, even when it doesn't live up, because their business model is based on churning out large numbers of announcements and reviews. If they acknowledge that the devices are second-rate then why would their readers care to click their pages?

View on HN

Josh's problem is with the way MG put it. He framed it as "Mercedes vs Honda". There's a strong, implicit class implication there.

If you took price out of the equation and just looked at the two products, the comparison may be apt, but Josh is staring the price matter in the face and calling foul. I can't say I blame him. I drive a luxury brand car, but I cringe a little bit when people ask me what I drive because I'm concious of the fact that people associate brand, value, and quality.

A better analogy might have been artwork. Some people will look at the Mona Lisa and see a painting of a plain woman. Others look at it and see one of the greatest paintings ever created. But like Josh points out, the world is not black & white. Some will see the quality of the Mona Lisa, but will not care. They may like other styles better. They may prefer work from an entirely generation.

Josh is opposed creating class warfare out of device functionality. In my view, MG's assessment of iOS as "more polished" is true, and I happen to place a high value on that polish, but I understand that I trade other aspects of the device in order to obtain that polish. Others won't make that same choice. Others won't see the polish at all. That doesn't make those people better or worse than me. It only makes them different.

Even the most rudimentary trolls use car analogies to summon little tempests. It's right up there with religion and Hitler.

Agree 100%. This is earnest advice. It may seem like a snarky quip, but it's not. This is dead serious:

Never use a car analogy. Never.

Cars are too intimate. This is especially endemic to American culture. Too many people identify with their car. You may intend to contrast the horsepower of one car to another, but the reader will inevitable contrast the values most dear to them. "A coupe versus a saloon! HOW DARE YOU!?!?!"

I really hope you're being ironic.

I'd say that Josh is reading class warfare into an analogy that doesn't mean anything of the sort. Maybe there is a better analogy, but in an opinion piece the author is entitled to use his poetic license.

As far as the Mercedes-Honda analogy I think it is very appropriate. It's not that Mercedes are more expensive, it's that they are made with much more attention to detail, and higher quality fit and finish.

Besides, isn't the Galaxy Nexus more expensive?? I don't get the class warfare accusation.

MG's post has nothing to do with "device functionality". Your last paragraph basically summarises MG's argument, so I guess you agree with him, and just don't like the analogy. I think Josh is making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

"Josh's problem is with the way MG put it. He framed it as "Mercedes vs Honda". There's a strong, implicit class implication there."

Except that you can get a cheap used Mercedes for less than a new Honda, if you can't afford a new Benz and value the workmanship (or brand) enough to take the risk. And Honda made the NSX. There are Acura models priced in the same ballpark as lower-end new Mercedes.

Honda had a Formula 1 racing team until 2008. It was sold off, and was eventually bought by Mercedes Benz.

So the 'class' question is muddled, to say the least. Unless you think the NSX is the car of the proletariat and a 1990 Mercedes with 100,000 miles is the vehicle of the 1%.

I'm not sure if you're being humorous but if not then this over-analysis of the analogy doesn't really serve any useful purpose.

For all intents and purposes Mercedes=quality+luxury while Honda=cheapy+functional and this was the primary meaning behind the analogy utilized in Siegler's article.

I'd say Honda = affordable and dependable, not especially luxurious or loaded with features, but not necessarily cheap either. There are Honda models that start near $30k, and other models that start around $20k but have configurations over $30k.

I'd think Kia or Hyundai would would be seen as the "cheap" brand.

And the Honda company certainly doesn't shy away from serving the luxury market with their Acura brand.

In any case, the comparison of Mercedes vs. Honda was about fit and finish and creature comforts, not price. It works just as well when comparing a loaded, well-kept $9000 used Mercedes to a brand-new $15,000 Civic.

"The world is divided into two groups, those that think little details like freedom are supremely important and those who don't notice or don't care so much"

"The world is divided into two groups, those that think little details like enterprise integration are supremely import and those who don't notice or don't care so much"

The argument holds no water. I can draw a line in the sand however I'd like to make any product seem better, and anyone who disagrees is just in that other group.

This whole "argument" is inane. People have preferences, and the rational ones will act in accordance to those preferences if they have the means. Getting huffy because someone dares to disagree with your preferences is asinine.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Your first two statements are true, but not related to the posts we are discussing. Your second two points actually agree with MG's point.

For people who prefer the iPhone the UI-responsiveness isn't some arbitrary line in the sand, it is what they judge to be important (one of the things). And MG's whole point is that some people don't find this important and will probably love the Galaxy Nexus, and that is fine. Josh is the one getting huffy.

His point is that the first two points are not true. It's not even that people disagree on how important freedom is, they even disagree with what freedom means.

The same is true for your views on iOS and Android. Here, let me throw it back at you.

"iOS users just don't notice the small details. Things like built im turn by turn navigation. Being able to fully dictate all text throughout all applications. The ability to return purchases on the market place. Full disk level encryption.

You either see it or you don't. For a lot of users, details and features like these don't matter. You might be happy with your Toyota, but I prefer the full featured BMW."

See how easy it is? Perhaps you'll also see how obnoxious these types of posts are when it's turned around.

I still don't see the problem. Yes, for people who really care about built in turn by turn navigation the iphone probably isn't the right phone. Some probably aren't even aware its possible, and others just don't need it. That isn't obnoxious, its just a fact.

The first two points are true - if people didn't disagree on the importance of freedom then much of 20th century history would be very different.

Imagine if you will that I release a phone that everyone in the world unanimously decided had a more responsive and beautiful UI than iOS, but only a battery life of 20 minutes. Would MG and every other person "whom the little details like UI responsiveness are supremely important" stand in line for weeks to get? Of course not.

Decisions as simple as "What phone will I buy" are an insanely complicated calculus of thousands of micro-decisions and trade offs.

People like MG like to pretend that they have themselves all figured out, and THE reason that the iPhone is superior for him is "the little things," or they buy Android because "its an open platform."

Its all bunk, they bought it because, hey the phone does what they need it to, and for some damn reason that particular configuration of options happened to strike a chord with them.

I agree with everything you've just said.

So isn't that a defence of MG's article? It was even titled "An iPhone Lover's Take on the Galaxy Nexus". The point was describing his impressions of the nexus from the perspective of someone who does* care about the things that the iphone does well.

Of course its a combination of lots of things. And for people who like the iphone, they are happy with the combination of tradeoffs that it makes. UI responsiveness and battery life being two of the important ones for the iphone.

No it's not. Look, MG didn't use a comparison of a Toyota to a Honda -- brands considered to be on equal footing. He likened the iPhone to a high end brand (Mercedes) and the Nexus to an economy brand (Honda).

This is not a comparison of equals, but a comparison of Luxury vs. Standard. That's no longer about preferences, that's about one being better.

No, he didn't compare the iPhone to a Mercedes and the Nexus to a Honda, at least not as flat comparisons. Read it again. He was explaining that to an iphone fan, ICS still does not have the same level of "polish", even though its features may be great. He gives examples, such as: how you have to click again to type in text fields, even after you've selected them; pages not rendering correctly on the browser; tap to zoom not working quite right; occasional stutters in the UI; crashing apps.

MG's point is not valid, because iOS isn't noticeably better than android. I own an iPad and use an android tablet for testing at work. I find that my iPad has just as many inconsistencies and annoyances as android does. both operating systems are far from perfect.

he's right that some people notice the little things in their UIs and some don't. he's wrong in implying that the apple users are the ones who notice. I'd argue that apple fanboys like MG Seigler and John Gruber, who never seem to have any complaints about iOS, must fall squarely into the group of people who aren't able to notice the little details.

MG isn't saying that iOS is "better". He's saying that there are some things in iOS that are better, and for the people who care about those things this means that Android is so far not acceptable.

And if you read either of those authors regularly, you'd know that they often do criticise things in iOS and Apple in general.

when i say better, i mean better with regard to the subjects being discussed here. We're talking about UI and 'polish'. in this regard, i don't believe there is a significant difference between the quality of iOS and android.

I read Daring Fireball fairly regularly, his criticisms are in different areas to the topic of this discussion. I don't read MG Seigler, i can't comment there.

"The Verge are incentivised to make Android seem interesting and competitive"

I think as it currently stands, it IS interesting and competitve. I don't want to begin a flame war. Merely saying the Galaxy Nexus vs. iPhone 4S matchup is pretty damn close. It really boils down to which philosophy you agree with. But don't call them "second-rate", because they are not.

I'm not saying that some devices aren't interesting and competitive, just that The Verge would be incentivised to make them appear so even if they aren't.

I agree that the Galaxy Nexus is a very good phone. But there are a LOT of completely rubbish phones that also get too much attention.

>those for whom the little details like UI responsiveness are supremely important

That isn't what he said. The general angle of MG and Gruber is that iOS is universally superior to Android.

I remember trying out the iPhone and being shocked at how terrible -- almost childish -- the notification system was. On Android it was graceful and well thought out. The same goes for application integration, where on Android it was well thought out from day one, while on iOS you have silos of applications.

There are a thousand and one ways that Android is more refined and has the "little details" that are superior to iOS. None of these ever matter to Gruber or MG. But where iOS has a nicer bounce after a scroll, well that's critically important.

If we want to go with car analogies, iOS would more correctly be a pimped up Honda Civic. The owner is sure it's a refined, idealized car, but they are the ones who don't realize what they're missing.

Yes, that is the point that MG was making an analogy about, which Josh found offensive. This horse-shit-storm is not about the "general angle" of MG and Gruber but about that analogy and the point it was making.

And it's not just the "nicer bounce after a scroll", its the whole UI interaction. The thing that iPhone fans like about their products is how the interface disappears and you don't need to think about it. The touch interaction model makes the user think that they are directly interacting with the content itself, rather than through the intermediate of a controller, and that this content is actually physical, rather than a representation on the screen. It's an illusion, but it is a compelling one. Examples: * The right bounce after a scroll, and the right inertia when you flick to scroll through a list; * Dragging your finger to pan around a map or large web page; * Icons and buttons changing their appearance instantly to show that they've been pressed.

It's little things that give immediate feedback to the user that create this illusion, and it doesn't take much to break it and remind you that you're using a device. What MG and Gruber keep pointing out is that Android keeps breaking this illusion, for example with stuttery scrolling or laggy/inappropriate feedback when you push buttons.

That sounds pretty cut and dry. Of course in reality it is absolutely nothing like that.

I've experienced plenty of lag on iOS devices. I've had buttons not respond, apps crash, and behaviours that left you wondering what you're supposed to do. As has everyone else who lacks the delusion spell. iOS is just an imperfect OS like every other, and adding hysterical narrative gushing about its profound perfection is, honestly, embarrassing for everyone.

I'm not saying that there are lots of big and little details iOS gets right and Android gets wrong. It is obvious there are. The reason Josh found MG's analogy offensive is that there are also lots of big and little details that Android gets right and iOS gets wrong.

For example, take a look at cross-application cooperation and integration. It is good that iOS 5 added Twitter integration, but to an Android user the Twitter-specific integration makes iOS devices look crippled (in this area). With appropriate applications installed, even the more than three-year-old G1 is integrated with Twitter, Facebook, Picasa and whatever else you want. And these integration details matter because they are what allow Android users to create sophisticated, dynamic cross-application workflows.

Claiming that one side has a subtle superiority that only the right people can appreciate when the reality is more balanced is what is offensive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com