Hacker News Reader

Comment by cheald | Hacker News Reader

The claim was "the OS doesn't manage power consumption of apps adequately". My counterclaim is that it's perfectly adequate (when apps manage their locks well, the OS management of power consumption works just as you'd expect) but that Android simply defers judgement for what is an acceptable lock to the app (and the user) rather than imposing restrictions that save power at the cost of functionality. It uses a cooperative strategy, rather than a restrictive strategy.

If what you meant is "Android allows apps to consume power when iOS wouldn't", then yes, you're right. That's quite a far cry from "Android doesn't manage power consumption adequately".

View on HN

Sorry, more straw man. You have taken that claim out of context.

Android forces the user to do power management where iOS does it for the user. If the user is involved where they don't have to be, that is inadequate.

Nothing you have said contradicts that.

His argument is not a straw man and Android does not force the user to do power management, as you claimed. It is an optional.

Optional if you want good battery life, sure.

The stated claim seems entirely in context. And in fact, your restated argument is still rebutted by the post you're replying to. You can't just say "straw man" or "out of context" and then provide no explanation to those claims. Well, obviously you can, because you have been, but it makes your arguments fall flat.

I would restate the grandparent's claim to further argue, but clearly that's an effort in futility.

It's not rebutted. Nowhere does he address the point that android makes the user manage the power where iOS does not. Instead he simply attempts to reframe the debate into the usual old saw about Apple's approach being restrictive vs Android.

This simply does not rebut the idea that Android is making the user do the work, whereas iOS is doing it for the user. It just tries to make it sound like a good thing rather than a failing.

Your assertion that Android makes the user manage power is so far off base that it's difficult to speak to. It permits the user do, but neither expects nor demands it. The average Android user has no need or desire to proactively manage their power usage by killing tasks or whatnot. You're tilting at windmills here.

When exactly did you last use an Android device?

What is the value of permitting it if it's unnecessary?

Surely it hasn't escaped your notice that it's rather par for the course for Android to give users the ability to do things they way they want, whether necessary or not.

Android doesn't presume to dictate acceptable feature sets for applications; as a result, sometimes apps will do things that the user did not expect or want (which may still in fact be a valid feature of the app, or may just be a bug), and then it provides tools to allow users to identify and correct the problem if it is unacceptable for their use case. This is the pathological case, though, and not the norm. The general assumption is that the user's preferences trump the OS's, which is a large part of the reason that so many people like Android to begin with.

Of course it hasn't. You are precisely stating my point.

Android requires the user to do more work because it manages less of the experience itself and offers needless choices.

The reason so many people like Android is because it is cheap, widely available, and can be tailored to the carriers wishes. No serious commentator believes that it's because the majority of people want to manage power consumption manually.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com