[ad_1]
There seems to be a consensus among critics that Android is the way to go. Seriously lighter and more vivid, the "intact" iteration of the operating system is systematically reviewed. Stock Android is one of the reasons why users are so attracted to Google Pixel phones, eager to use Google's pure vision of its operating system.
It is therefore surprising that so few Android devices offer the operating system in its purest form. Manufacturers such as Samsung, LG and Huawei distribute all their Android phones with unique skins that change its appearance and some of its features.
While some have improved the basics of the open source operating system, others have confused it, making it more complicated to use – or simply more ugly.
It turns out that there are strong incentives for large companies to offer modified versions of Android. It's also healthier for the Android market. We must also ask ourselves if Android is really the penultimate iteration of the operating system.
What is the interest of Android stock?
Stock Android, or Android Vanilla, is the most basic and "pure" version of the operating system, as Google wanted. With the stock, you do not get any additional functionality introduced by the manufacturers – or "bloatware". You only have apps and other features developed by Google.
Users love Android stock because of the way he feels keen. It has fewer background applications imposed by the manufacturers. There are also no duplicate versions of Google apps that take up space, such as a Samsung calendar and an existing Google calendar on the same device.
Vanilla appliances also benefit from faster updates. Manufacturers such as Samsung are known for their late updates, as the time spent upgrading their own applications is adapted to the needs of the latest updates, which may take more than six months after launch.
Meanwhile, Android devices like Pixel phones are updated instantly. Users can take advantage of a new operating system with the latest features and designs, while ensuring that security patches are updated.
Why do manufacturers always change their versions of Android?
Undeniably, pure Android has a lot of pros with which nobody would disagree. But most manufacturers involve deferring.
From a business point of view, creating unique features and appearances enhances customer retention, especially if they succeed. Take OnePlus with OxygenOS, their interpretation of Android, critically acclaimed. OxygenOS is close to stock, with very few OnePlus and "bloatware" applications. What this brings to the mix adds to the experience, including the ability to draw on a locked screen to open apps. These innovations create a cult and bring back customers.
Developers also benefit from collecting data through the applications that they install on their devices. Instead of all the user-related information that comes directly to Google, companies such as Samsung have created their own version of apps such as Bixby, Samsung Pay, Health and Calendar to create their own ecosystem of apps from which they can draw.
These additional applications provide access to important data, such as user habits, that they can analyze or sell, while contributing to innovation and improvement. All can not swim directly to Google.
While big techs have touted the pure Android, there are very few complaints from ordinary phone users against the custom operating systems they find themselves stuck with. Most users do not know the difference between stock and custom androids. There is not enough demand to encourage developers to stop pursuing their own iterations.
Some companies known for their interpretations of Androids have yielded and yielded to pure Android, probably to capture the niche audience very familiar with technology. The Xiaomi are known for their highly customized Android version called MIUI. But they had a change of plan recently, offering a cleaner and similar to the operating system with the Xiaomi Mi A3.
To break into the Android market, the Razer phone was also launched with integrated Nova Launcher, recognized for its proximity to a purely Android experience with customization options.
Is Android stock really the best?
Conversely, the very idea of a "pure Android" could be a Google marketing ploy, promoting its own operating system, creating a loyal audience. This has certainly helped the Pixel in its sales and other devices close to the initial vision of Google.
But the creator does not always know the best. Other iterations of Android have shown its creators what is missing. Samsung's struggles to implement its vision of the operating system have finally come to life with OneUI. It fills a void in stock on Android, offering real ease of use with one hand by placing its buttons on the screen lower, while remaining aesthetic and minimalist.
Other custom Androids have also introduced new features such as Dark Mode, which were later taken over by Google and offered in later versions of their operating system.
This brings us to the last point: having all phones meeting the standards of "pure" Android is ultimately not ideal, as it kills competition and creates complacency. The fact that more developers are working hard to create their own versions can result in a handful of ugly renderings, but the good ones show Google what it's missing.
We appreciate an Android market with a real variety; There are not two completely identical brands. You can always find a phone with other features that will interest you, privilege that you will not find on the Apple side, where all devices are standardized with the old iOS.
Stock Android does not need to be a standard on which we should be obsessed. Instead, we can take advantage of the wide variety and choice that is specific to this market.
[ad_2]
Source link