Why my Mom Bought an Android, Returned It, and Got an iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://www.betabeat.com/2011/07/29/why-my-mom-bought-an-android-returned-it-and-got-an-iphone/ <comment><USER2> The real issue here is not the hardware and not Android, but what device manufacturers and network providers cram down the throats of their customers. Custom UI enhancements/replacements, useless bundled apps that can't be removed, and the removal of standard, OS-delivered features. None of this should have been new or a surprise to the writer's mom, who was coming to Android from a feature phone. Feature phones have been plagued with the same crap for years, except they don't have a marketplace full of replacement apps that range from the serviceable to the remarkable.

I'm glad the author's mom found a smartphone she likes, but this isn't an Android problem. It may very well be a Google problem, since Apple was indeed successful in keeping the kruft off the iPhone, but Android devices come to market in a completely different way than iPhones, and as long as we sign over our rights in exchange for a $400 device discount we're going to have to deal with some of it.

<comment><USER3> But this what you explained is exactly the problem with Android. With iPhone, carriers, phone manufacturers and such are not allowed to install their crapware/bloatware on the phone. With Android, they can do whatever they want, and the only sane option for an end user is to root the phone.

<comment><USER4> It's still a problem with US carriers. (Other countries have far better carriers and ecosystems than the US)

It still absolutely amazes me that you guys usually pay for incoming SMS messages.

I mean come on. W T F? If the carriers started charging each time you charge your battery the US public would just bend over and take it.

<comment><USER5> > It still absolutely amazes me that you guys usually pay for incoming SMS > messages.

What? I've never seen a carrier charge for incoming SMS.

<comment><USER6> Last time I checked (a few months ago), every large carrier in Canada charges 15 cents for each incoming SMS. That's Bell, Rogers, Telus...maybe some others.

Many people have a plan addon that includes receiving some SMS for free, but the basic stock plans do not.

<comment><USER7> Only Telus. Bell and Rogers are free incoming texts - or at least were, when I bought my phone (I have unlimited texting, but I like to make sure). However, that's not to say they don't try to jip you at every possibility.

For the last few years, texting to the US had always been at the same rate as Canada (and covered by texting plans). Rogers decided to switch that on me when I wasn't paying attention... although I'm pretty sure I asked, and the Sales guy lied.

In either case. One complaint to the FCC in the USA, or CCTS in Canada will get things your way. Both countries, from my experience, has pretty terrible customer service. I can barely understand half of Verizon's CS team, and one guy at Roger's CS actually told me I should just do nothing, even though I felt cheated, because "if you sue, our company has more money than you, and you'll lose for sure". Sigh.

<comment><USER8> Actually all three telecoms charge for incoming text messages. Telus pioneered it, Bell followed suit and then Rogers jumped on the bandwagon in 2009.

I called Bell to have them block all incoming text messages and they said that they could not do it because it was somehow tied to their emergency 911 location determination service. After much prodding they said they could turn off incoming texts (but I should hope that I never have to call 911 with my mobile) but came back with a $3/month plan for like 500 text messages so I just took that instead.

I switched to Rogers and am now on an iPhone plan which has text messaging but I would love to be able to block incoming texts again if iOS 5 and Google+ gets serious traction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> That was pretty misleading. Not Android was the culprit, but the carrier's crapware.

I never understood why people would not actually buy their phones and then decide on a contract or prepaid to go with it? I even bought mine off Ebay in excellent condition and almost full warranty (2 years in Germany) so much cheaper that I still have not reached the difference to the "normal full or subsidized price" with my monthly contract payments.

<comment><USER10> From what I understand, the mobile phone system in the EU works differently than in the US. In the US, almost all phones are bought at carrier-subsidized prices - i.e. much cheaper than buying the phone standalone. The catch is that you have to sign for a 2-year contract with that carrier to get the subsidized prices. The prices for mobile phone plans in the US are much higher because they include the phone subsidy.

And while in theory you could just buy a phone and then decide on a contract, if you do that, you don't get a discount on your plan - i.e. you're still paying for the phone subsidy that you never used. So, buying a phone then buying a contract for it costs even more.

It's a stupid system, but unfortunately the carriers are all evil and don't want to change it because it lets them overcharge and deliver crapware.

<comment><USER11> In the EU (well, I can speak for Greece), you get the phone with carrier subsidies, with year-long contracts. You can choose not to get a phone and deduct an amount off your contract each month.

The carrier-subsidized phones are usually exactly the same as the stock devices. Some carriers install one or two apps (rarely), but I've never seen a carrier-locked phone in the hundreds of devices I've seen. Any carrier- sponsored phone works with any other carrier.

It's your money, anyway.

<comment><USER12> In France, most carrier subsidized phones are locked to the carrier.

However they must unlock it for free after 6 months.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I am a recent convert to Android from iOS and while I'm mostly happy with it I have to say that Android really is like a PC and iPhone is, well, like an Apple. Android takes _alot_ more tweaking, settings aren't always easy to discover, apps run in the background without any obvious indication, etc.

As for the battery, my Droid X2 drained it like crazy for the first day, but as I used it it got better. I don't know why, but over time it got alot better. I can now go a whole day, with some serious app usage, and still have 60% at the end of the night.

Even with its quirks I prefer Android to Apple. I am now able to plug my phone into my Linux box and actually access the data on it! I am not forced to use iTunes to download only 'blessed by Steve' apps, I can write code for it without having to download a new 2G Xcode every 3 weeks.

Android is more free, and while it has some rough edges to it, I prefer the freedom of Android to Apple's vision of a Utopian phone.

<comment><USER14> I think you've hit the nail on the head.

For people like you, who want to be able to plug their phone into their Linux box and access their data - Android in its current state is a fantastic operating system.

For people like the author's mother (and my mother actually) who want their phones to "just work", Android in its current state isn't living up to its potential.

I have no doubt that if Apple allowed manufacturers and carriers to use whatever hardware they wanted, and install whatever apps they want on the iPhone, iOS would have exactly the same issues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Many people are saying its not Android but the carriers and manufacturers that do not understand user experience. The average user simply does not care. To her the biggest motivation to buy the phone is Android and it will receive the majority of the blame whether its deserved or not. That's just the way it is. Windows received a lot of flak because of dumb users which more or less it did not yet recover from. So that's just how it is.

The Android brand is being diluted and sullied by experiences like this and Apple is benefiting with its insistence on one model per device type. Google needs to tackle this very soon. If they get a bad reputation the markets in Asia will suffer. Android is expected to sell tons of phones in Asia and any bad reputation couple with Apple's growing image as a high end phone will be bad for Android.

<comment><USER16> Android is already selling tons of phones in Asia. HTC's rise as a top tier manufacturer is on the back of Android sales in Asia. Another data point: the Samsung Galaxy S2 has sold 5 million phones and it hasn't even been launched in the US yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Shouldn't this be "Why my Mom Bought a Samsung Charge from Verizon, Returned It, and Got an Apple iPhone" ?

Kind of strikes me as similar to writing "Why I bought an American car, junked it and bought a BMW M5" - the american car part isn't half as important as which one specifically.

<comment><USER18> The important thing here is that most of the Android ecosystem is like this. When you buy an iPhone, you're getting exactly what you paid for. No two Androids are sold the same though. Some have tons of crapware, some have an interface you can't change, and for someone who isn't looking to customize the crap out of their phone, hack it, uninstall things, none of that makes any sense.

The Nexus S is a great phone because Google sold it and it didn't come loaded with crap. Most of the other Android phones you buy from other carriers will be as crap filled as their average feature phones.

So the article could have been called "Why my Mom Bought an Android and Returned It." because the article is primarily about problems with the Android ecosystem.

<comment><USER4> > because the article is primarily about problems with the Android ecosystem.

IN THE U.S.A.

If you want better cellphones with better carriers who don't do stupidly intrusive things, move to Europe.

<comment><USER19> _If you want better cellphones with better carriers who don't do stupidly intrusive things, move to Europe._

That's practical advice, but I still haven't unpacked after moving to Canada to get affordable medical care.

<comment><USER4> It seems like Canada is half way along the awesome scale to Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Google needs to standardize the platform more, and get stricter with manufacturers. It was good to be more open in the beginning to grow, but I think they have enough growth right now, and getting stricter with their quality requirements and maybe even with using stock Android (something I'd actually like to happen) would benefit the whole ecosystem in the end, and especially the customers.

Android should be more like Windows (not WP7 - that's _too_ strict), where users still have a lot of choice, but it's standardized enough to work pretty well across different hardware. The way I see it from most open to most closed, it's something like this Linux > Android > Windows > WP7 > iOS.

I think Windows is a pretty good compromise for a multi-hardware OS, and it has already proven it works the best in the market, granted it got a big boost from IBM PC's early on with this standardization issue, while Android grew by itself _because_ of the extra openness. But as I said, I think it's about time to move to _more_ standardization now. I'm hoping they've been already working on this issue for a while, and they will start implementing this with Android 4.0.

</comment><comment><USER21> Can we PLEASE stop repeating that "30-40%" return figure? Even the source article says it only applies to SOME Android phones, which isn't really that big of a surprise - some phones, like the Charge from the sounds of it, are genuinely crap. No decent source is claiming that Android phones are being returned en masse, however, in fact I have my own source on some information: Phones 4 U (high street store in the UK) tell me that 40% of their monthly contracts were for Galaxy S II's, and that the return rate on them was "exceptionally low".

<comment><USER22> The problem with this is that I can't honestly recommend my family members to go get Android phones... they can't afford legit iphones (they're all on family or prepaid) either.

I spent about 3-4 hours researching what Android phones were available to what carriers, and gave up with all the potential research I still had left to do on the dozen or so options.

The OHA (and ultimately Google) stand to blame here for not setting decent quality standards and caring for the Android brand... a lot of ground could be gained by having a meaningful certification process that takes into account actual usability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Probably one of Android's biggest issues is the fact that the carriers keep messing with the phone - slowing it down, installing crapware, making unnecessary UI changes, etc. For example, any given Verizon Android phone has a bunch of crap apps that I can't remove or move to the SD card despite the fact that they are the primary reason that I am running out of space on the flash memory. And they completely reskinned the Droid 2's UI, and it looks _ugly_.

If the carriers would ship their phones with stock, performance-optimized Android software, people wouldn't have so many complaints about Android. No one buys "Visual Voice Mail" or "ThinkFree Office," and all it's doing is ticking people off.

However, at this point I have given up on finding motivations for the actions of Verizon and AT&T, and have concluded that they are just evil.

<comment><USER23> My take is that the carriers know that differentiation is crucial to keeping a loyal customer base. And since they are having a hard time adding value, they're trying to differentiate by removing value.

<comment><USER24> Carriers don't want to be a commodity, which in reality is what they are becoming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So the problem here appears to be Verizon, not android. Also, the fact that the writer bought the phone in a store without trying it out first.

I lost my Nexus one recently* and when I got around to replacing it my wife also decided she wanted a smartphone instead of the Blackberry she had. So now I had to look into family line sharing plans etc. and thought I'd better go to the T-Mobile store, and that I might as well scope out the newer phones while I was at it. So even though I'm tech savvy and know Android phones very well, I spent a good 45 minutes asking questions and playing with the store models. At the end of all that I decided to just get another Nexus One for myself and the same model for Mrs Browl; 4g wasn't so important to me because I don't watch videos or do big downloads on my phone, likewise I didn't need beefy CPU because I don't want to play 3d games on such a tiny screen, and I decided to stick with a naked Android phone because I didn't want all the vendor crud. Also, you can get a Nexus One new in the box for $250 now and avoid a service contract.

* Which is part of why I've been a bit unsocial of late IRL, btw - I owe lunch to a few people!

When I got the phones I upgraded both to the latest version of Android but otherwise left my wife's phone unconfigured, and gave her only minimal 'tech support' - I was curious to see how she'd choose to customize it, and also to get a more objective look at how she'd react to Android and the Google ecosystem (she didn't have a gmail account prior to this). While she had quite different tastes from me in terms of how she organizes it and what sort of apps she likes, she's been entirely comfortable with it.

Her main complaint is the rather mediocre selection of apps in the Android marketplace (she likes apps more than I do); mine is the glitchiness in the stock browser. On the upside, our total monthly bill for both phones is under $100.

</comment><comment><USER26> I heard from a few friends at google that there are pretty intense discussions going on right now about what they can demand from their partners.

They had to bend over backwards for the carriers and manufacturers at first because they were the new kid on a very crowded block. but now they are the market leader and should use that leverage to demand a certain standard for Android units.

<comment><USER27> > _now they are the market leader and should use that leverage to demand a > certain standard for Android units._

But there is little preventing a manufacturer or carrier from using the open- source (subset!) of Android to produce their own Android-compatible (but not "Google Experience") phones. The manufacturers and carriers actually have an incentive do so they can tout their "differentiated" phones.

<comment><USER28> >But there is little preventing a manufacturer or carrier from using the open- source (subset!) of Android

Except the losses from maintaining the stack separate from google, and potentially losing the google market might not be covered by the kickbacks for shovelware. The real competition will be if amazon steps up to provide a distro to phone manufactures.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I've known a few people who moved from a BB to an Android, returned it, then went with an iPhone.

While I love love love my Android phone, it's definitely a geek's phone that offers a much more capable mobile platform, but at the tradeoff of more exposed complexity. And most of the additional capability are things that most people don't care about (yay! I can add more home screens, and I have a tricorder app! and I've hacked my phone to run emacs!) vs. having access to more and higher quality consumer oriented apps.

I know that the BB platform is also complex, but most people just use it as a phone with a nice email client and one or two very basic (and very common) apps -- like facebook. That's really all they want.

When they buy a phone and it's loaded with crap, and they don't know how to get rid of it (or they can't for some idiotic reason that only the carrier could ever explain), they get turned off. When they go to the Apple store they can get a phone with just the main stuff they were looking for on the screen, and it's relatively easy to get their facebook app or whatever and be done with the entire experience.

<comment><USER30> >While I love love love my Android phone, it's definitely a geek's phone

Some geeks, like the Linux-user who authored the following long personal analysis, prefer iPhone to Android:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2811768> \-- "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the iOS," discussed on HN 2 days ago.

ADDED. In other words, let us not fall into the trap of rationalizing Android's lack of universal appeal by saying that the person who prefers iPhone is not geeky enough to appreciate Android.

<comment><USER29> I agree, but I _do_ find it interesting how well the iOS devices have caught on with the geek/nerd crowd...people who are usually comfortable with having to go to great lengths to get just that one extra bit out of their personal technology.

Some of that is echoed in this thread <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823502>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> "does most of her emailing on an iPad"

If she already has an iPad, isn't an iPhone the obvious choice? I love my Android phone, but if someone is already used to iOS and likes it, why not get them an iPhone?

<comment><USER32> Just a couple of illustrative data points:

If you want a Verizon individual plan that's compatible with an iPhone, you will end up paying at least $70/month, plus taxes and what-not, and at least $30 of that is for the data plan.

The cheapest MetroPCS plan is $40, including taxes and what-not, and includes unlimited data (although MetroPCS doesn't have 4G—you either put up with the slowness of EDGE or you pay for a 4G phone—and there are a lot of gaps in their coverage area).

So if you are satisfied by what a cheap plan offers you, it doesn't make sense to shell out a massive amount per month just for the sake of an iPhone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I can confirm that the Samsung Galaxy S2 also suffers from this.

Worse still, it's not just removing stock apps and loading Samsung ones, they've gone and removed the stock Android keyboard too.

My girlfriend hates the Samsung keyboard, and the only other alternative on the phone is Swype which she hates even more.

As a direct result of the keyboard not being the one she knew and loved her use of the phone has plummeted.

She still uses the phone, but not for anything that involves touching the keyboard. So SMS, email, web... all useless in her eyes. She uses maps still to see where she is, and she reads Twitter (but will wait until she's home to respond to things), but that's about it.

This current top of the range Android phone, with it's carrier dictated keyboard, has made the smartphone a paperweight that she lugs around just in case someone calls. She's even asked me if we can dig out the old Blackberry gathering dust in the shed just so that she can be in touch with people again.

I searched the Marketplace, but the Android stock keyboard isn't on there. So until I can afford a replacement for her, it looks like she'll just do all of her communication when she gets home each evening.

The big problem: As much as I explain this is the fault of Samsung, she just associates it to being an Android issue.

I'm just hoping it won't be too long before Cyanogen Mod is available for the S2 so that I can fix it for her.

<comment><USER34> _searched the Marketplace, but the Android stock keyboard isn't on there._

It's called "Keyboard from Android 2.3" and it's being compiled and delivered by someone else than Google. Works fine though and lets you download dictionaries as you need them.

Here, have a market-link: [https://market.android.com/details?id=com.moo.android.inputm...](https://market.android.com/details?id=com.moo.android.inputmethod.latin.free&feature=search_result&hl=en)

<comment><USER33> Fantastic, installed.

Had searched, but didn't know which one to trust.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Right from the beginning, it seems Verizon is the problem, not Android. They went to the Verizon store. Then they went home with an unactivated phone, and went through Verizon's crappy activation.

I bought my Epic (Sprint) at Radio Shack, and left the store with an activated phone. I deleted the minimal crapware at home and have no complaints.

<comment><USER36> I've never left a VZW store with an unactivated phone. Even with the android devices, they set it up in the store (even if I mention that I can do it later ::shrug::).

I've only ever had to activate phones I've gotten in the mail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is Verizon's longstanding tradition of crippling perfectly good devices for the sake of restricting users to using VZW's media services. I had a Verizon phone that was perfectly capable of Bluetooth and USB transfers which Verizon's OS had deliberately disabled because heaven forbid someone may transfer content to the phone that wasn't purchased from the Verizon mothership.

It's plain to see what took so long for Verizon to carry iPhone was Apple waited for Verizon to finally accept the condition that VZW can not bastardize and cripple the OS. To bad Google didn't enforce the same policy.

<comment><USER38> _This is Verizon's longstanding tradition of crippling perfectly good devices for the sake of restricting users to using VZW's media services._

Because, you know, if they force it on us long enough, we'll finally realize it's good!

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I always find the blame shifting in these sorts of threads interesting. My only comment is, if the user thinks it is Androids fault, then it is Android problem.

More interesting are some of the proposed solutions to tighten controls. So basically you want to introduce enough restrictions such that there is a more consistent UX across Android phones. Which is ... pretty much what Apple does with the iPhone!

I think iOS consistency is directly related to Apples way of doing business. If you want to improve Android and not end up like iOS, you may need a different strategy.

</comment><comment><USER40> It's really hard to understand all this crippling branding imposed by the manufacturers and the carriers in Android phones. Do you really want people to wince every time they see your brand?

<comment><USER41> When you buy a PC it comes with all these crap "toolbars" and "dashboards" and antivirus software installed because the manufacturer gets kickbacks from the software vendors. I think the same is probably true for Android phones in the US. I have an HTC Incredible (the first one), which is a great phone, but it has a bunch of third party apps I can't remove.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Although Android wasn't to blame in this article, I have sold my HTC Android to get an iPhone 4 as I was disappointed with the lack of international support.

Android didn't support the Thai language I needed and had to be installed via rooting and copying of font files. It also still doesn't have a native keyboard for the language.

I however booted my iPhone 4 and hey presto perfect Thai fonts and a native keyboard to boot.

Maybe it's not just Android because Thai fonts on Linux suck too.

</comment><comment><USER43> It seems that Google's mistake has been in allowing the carriers too much latitude in modifying an otherwise decent platform. The carriers have proven, definitively, that they provide negative value for end-user experience and overall device quality. If carrier interference isn't somehow controlled -- or even limited -- then Android's reputation will be severely damaged.

<comment><USER44> I think being pally with carriers is also whats gotten Android where it is. Among other missteps that Nokia has done - alienating carriers with things like Ovi is one of them - as a result Nokia phones are hard to find on most networks and customers cant buy what is unavailable on carriers. Yes Apple is the shining counter example but until the rest of the world figures out how to negotiate without conceding anything things are as they are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> If his Mum had lusted after an iPhone, that's what they would have bought.

Instead, she lusted after an HTC Incredible, so they bought a Samsung Charge...

In some ways, it was her son that distorted the picture, assuming that all Android phones were equivalent. Without his conviction, his Mum would have dragged him, and his Incredible into a store, and said "I want one like his".

</comment><comment><USER46> She's pretty tech savvy –uses Gmail, has a Tumblr, does most of her emailing on an iPad

That is all it takes to be called tech savvy these days?

</comment><comment><USER47> This is exactly the experience I had. I bought G1 the day it was released, then I bought Droid the day it was released. So yesterday I went to get Droid 3, and I did not buy it. Blur (Motorola's custom UI) makes the phone unusable. I absolutely need a phone with physical keyboard for ssh, so I am stuck. The bootloader is locked. I would actually PAY $50 extra to get a stock Android. Perhaps this is a business model idea for Motorola- charge extra for pure Android... I work for a company that has 10M+ users, and we have been making decisions whether focus on iOS or on Andorid app. Until recently, the thinking was that iOS will be reduced to 10% market share, much like Mac vs PC, so our long term focus should be Android. But recently, with the proliferation of custom bloatware on Android, and based on users' feedback, we are re- evaluating.

</comment><comment><USER48> I've had similar problems with my Android phone and LatAm carrier (Claro).

Claro has a deal with Yahoo, and they overwrote Browser's search provider configuration, which is a file owned by root, so that when I choose Google the search provider is really Yahoo. They also uninstall GTalk on all phones (which can't be re-installed from the app store) and I had to rely on shady links to .apks posted on forums to install it, and now don't have automatic updates for it.

While I can't directly blame it on Android or Google, I beleive Google should really be the one stepping into the mud and fighting my carrier in order to solve this. As a customer my chances against Claro are almost nil.

</comment><comment><USER49> "I'm a big Android fanboy and proud PC owner."

How are both related except being not-Apple? Almost as if you are supposed to pick sides - one being Apple and the other not-Apple. Use what suits you. Doesn't matter who makes it.

"... but I worry about the future."

The author's mom is much happier with an iPhone and the author suggests that everything works. Also a friend is mentioned who uses a Nexus S which is "a pleasure to use". Given how things are it's reasonable to say a stock Android will always exists which Google launches with every new Android release. So what's the worry about?

</comment><comment><USER50> I just got a samsung Gio from China Telecom. The Android Market is not there, instead there are three different lame market apps (estore, gomarket and samsung apps), google integration doesn't work, google maps is not available and it's really just a broken experience using this phone. I tried to install android market manually, but there are a lot of dependencies missing...

Now to be fair, for chinese users, gomarket is probably better and most people don't use google apps that much but it's really a pain...

</comment><comment><USER51> I never got this ostensible iPhone good for Mom, Android bad thing. My Mom is as technically ignorant as it can get. I gave her an Android phone connected to her home WiFi and with little help she can lock/unlock, make and take calls, see her GMail, visit any photo sharing links I send her etc. Similar story with my friend's parents.

For crying out loud - it's the same simple concept and mostly the same amount of complexity involved. Of course people have preferences - somebody's Mom might perceive iPhone as simpler or better - but that's not a platform issue, it's a preference issue.

Before this can be debated you have give a real thought to how people use their phones - take use cases and compare them on both phones. Checking email - on Android there were 3 different apps installed containing the name mail for example and there was 1 on iPhone. Most newer phones and launchers will allow you to hide apps you don't use - problem solved - one time thing. This is just an example but I don't think anyone goes to this level before claiming this is better or that - I don't think there is much difference now a days given my experience.

Also from the article - "Want to activate your phone? Take the battery out, write down a series of minuscule numbers" - Umm why? VZW will gladly activate and setup your phone and so will BestBuy.

[Edit: Oh she already had iPad experience - no wonder then.]

</comment><comment><USER52> I recently got the Charge (from Amazon Wireless, saved a couple hundred bucks), and I've had none of the problems listed in this article. This is my first Android phone, I came from an iPhone, and I've found the experience to be very pleasant so far. Perhaps I just "don't know better", but I'm still happy.

It sounds like this guy's experience was "This phone is different than my phone, and I can't do things the way I was expecting to. It sucks." It's like someone sitting at a computer running a different OS then they use, and saying "this sucks, I can't figure out where X is. In my OS X is right here, but it's not right here now. This OS is crap". It's also like someone switching from Office 2003 to Office 2007 and hating it because the menus are different.

Also, I feel like everyone overreacts to the installed apps you "can't" get rid of, and not just on this phone, but any phone including the iPhone (I'm looking at you Stocks app). I don't like or use them either, but it's not like they're getting the way, preventing you from doing anything, or taking up any noticeable amount of the phone's resources. For me, it's more frustrating to not have the option of removing them, then actually having them on my phone.

</comment><comment><USER53> Hazards of being open to manufacturers. It is a clear trade off, one we seen before with Windows. OEMs and carriers love this access, but more often than not they just fuck a good phone up. Of course, there are clear benefits, such as the ability to sell a phone for $150 outright with $35 a month unlimited data plans. It is a compromise, just like the iPhone model has compromise. It just happens the iPhone's compromises work better for those who have tons of attention to detail and a few extra dollars to burn. But at the end of the day, the Windows model works, even if it is at the expense of some frustrated customers and the scorn of the power users. Most users won't care, smart users will either avoid Android or go for an Android without such BS, and the world will still turn.

Reminds me of a movie quote: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122/quotes?qt0294371>

</comment><comment><USER54> I was torn between Android and the iPhone for a while. But fear of experiences just like the one described eventually led to pick the one I knew would work. I picked the one where the single responsible is the best in the world at sanding off all the rough edges of the user experience.

Past experience with Apple Care and with other devices having multiple responsible parties made it easy. When many are responsible, none are ultimately responsible. Except you, of course.

Apple goes out of its way to do everything for you that has a learning curve and where there's no point in you learning it. It just makes more sense to write a piece of software that performs a complex task well than to expect millions to struggle with it.

Yes, I know Android is infinitely flexible. But on a mission critical device like my phone, I don't want to have to infinitely flex.

</comment><comment><USER55> TL;DR: not Android is the problem, but the vendor crapware. As a rule, always only buy Nexus phones.

</comment><comment><USER56> I upgraded my Android phone (from HTC Hero to LG Optimus 2x / P990) very recently and I still cannot stop smiling when I pull it out. It's amazing. It is the first upgrade that actually feels like a leap forward. The Hero was okay, but this thing is stunning.

But - I did a lot of research before, compared reviews, checked prices and even made sure that this phone is supported by 3rd party ROMs. Obviously I'm a niche kind of power user - I got the phone and installed CM in the first hour of usage and tried a couple of different ROMs since then (now running MIUI).

Apart from the battery life (which, tbh, is really crap. Depending on usage and what kind of crazy stuff I'm running atm I get between 10 and 30 hours) I have zero complains. Best thing ever.

</comment><comment><USER57> Title is extremely misleading. Should be "Verizon Android Phone" instead of just Android.

</comment><comment><USER58> It's frustrating how little progress has been made. In a lot of ways I feel like the problems are getting worse not better. For the average person who has very low expectations and a high tolerance for pain it may not be a big issue but it really gets on my nerves to keep hitting the same issues over and over again every single day. I would be happier using stock Android but the process of rooting my phone is about 25 steps and requires downgrading to an old version of Android to root the device before installing a new ROM. (even though Motorola supposedly decided to unlock their boot loaders I haven't seen any change yet)

</comment><comment><USER59> _"Why not certify and approve a few of the best components and then place some sort of "premium Android experience" certification label on phones that pass tests and use components approved by Google?"_

This is a great idea.

</comment><comment><USER60> If one's nitpicky enough — there are _no_ smartphones that work _right_ — not a single one.

The only thing that varies (mostly between users, less frequently between devices) is what's considered "good enough".

</comment><comment><USER61> My mom did the exact same thing. She wanted to finally get her first smartphone, so she went to Best Buy to upgrade from her crappy flip phone to an iPhone 4, but the sales rep insisted that Android was "way better".

She knows how to use a computer, but she isn't the most tech-savvy person around. She was calling me constantly trying to figure out how to use her Android phone. I finally said she should probably switch to an iPhone instead, and a day after she did she was playing Angry Birds and sending me MMS picture messages, all without any help at all.

</comment><comment><USER62> _I'm sorry what? To make the phone work right I have to possibly void the warranty or brick the phone and load a customized operating system?_

To be fair, that's pretty much what you need to do with an iPhone, too.

<comment><USER63> That's not true at all, or not anymore after iOS 4, at least. (to be fair, lots of Androids don't need rooting at all, too)

In fact, it's quite the opposite of what rooting is intended to do _in the context of this article_ , which is putting the phone in a pure, clean state.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> As the owner of a Motorola Charm, I can relate to the lady.

The Moto Charm sucks. It is full of bugs.

I'm not a Motorola hater, as I've had a couple in the past (including the old v555, which lasted for a couple of years).

</comment><comment><USER65> The onus here is on Google. They are going to have to more rigorously enforce their platform or it will become useless. Say what you want about iOS, but I know exactly what to expect when I use or develop for it. That makes my life much easier. Android in its best case can be fantastic, but the problem is that there are many cases that are far from best case. I am hesitant to develop for Android due to this.

</comment><comment><USER66> This is an open/closed debate, nothing more. The OP likes closed systems. "I'd love to see Google somehow mandate the stock Android experience on all phones." He is afraid to customized his stuff and just wants it to work out of the box. Well, that's what Apple is. Go do that. Android is a different model entirely, for a different segment of consumers than yourself.

</comment><comment><USER67> As we are talking about portable miniature computers with phone capabilities, does anyone know an Android/Win7 phone that can do this kind of stuff...

[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/04/how-one-radio- reporter...](http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/04/how-one-radio-reporter- ditched-his-equipment-for-an-iphone-4094.html)

I'd need audio in and decent non-destructive editing

</comment><comment><USER68> This has turned out exactly like the Windows PC situation, it seems. Computer comes loaded with so much crap it's almost unusable, and you have to have a tech-savvy friend spend a day cleaning it up (or doing a clean reinstall) to make it usable. I wonder if Google will do more than Microsoft has done to try to retain control of the end user experience.

</comment><comment><USER69> new Android devices should come with MIUI Rom right out of the box. ;)

<comment><USER56> As far as I know those guys are in the process of releasing a phone of their own right now. It should be 'ready' in the beginning of August?

They start selling it in China but seem to be open to the idea of worldwide shipment..

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> The HTC Desire was the best phone I've ever bought. Especially coming from an iPhone 3G, which was very buggy and slow.

</comment><comment><USER71> This is why I will never buy an Android device. Device manufactures have ruined the platform.

</comment><comment><USER72> Everything has negatives.

Android: might have to deal with crapware. Apple: oh, you can't do that on an iPhone.

</comment><comment><USER73> This is verizon problem, not android. Buy smartphone from retailers who is not affiliated with any cell provider (i.e. without all this junk apps and customized UI), buy SIM card from cell provider, plug it in and use. This is how it works in Europe.

</comment><comment><USER74> I understand that the author is pissed because of the bad UX. But all he claims is a branding issue or a manufacturers fail.

Still it's Googles job to set boundaries to not let them do what they want.

In my opinion this is just one of many imprecised android reviews.

</comment><comment><USER75> I guess this illustrates one of the downsides of Google Android being free software: when just about any manufacturer can create a sub-standard phone that runs the operating system, it can really damage the brand as a whole.

What a shame.

</comment><comment><USER76> I've used at least three Android devices now and I always recommend people to buy only the flagship device of a manufacturer. They usually get upgrades...eventually (hello Samsung?) and the experience is usually better.

</comment><comment><USER77> A fairly similar experience to buying a laptop with Windows pre-installed. Tons of junk and third-party bullshit. Multiple anti-virus bollox, browser toolbars etc. Took me an hour to clean up.

</comment><comment><USER78> the user has an ipad. is used to an ipad.of course she isnt going to like android. of those smartphone users who started out with wm or palm who has went on most have went to android not iphone cause of its flexablity and IMHO look and feel. some has went the iphone route and love it. me i cant stand it. its just a feature phone to me. many android users wont buy an ipad they will buy an android tablet. reason being is the continuity. LOL

</comment><comment><USER79> What the author actually meant to title the post was, 'why my Mom bought a phone which was ruined by Verizon and returned it for a handset they couldn't pollute'.

</comment><comment><USER80> Can we stop blaming Android for what the carries do with their phones? Please?!

I have a Nexus S. I switched it on and it just worked.

In fact about 5 minutes after I switched it on, it informed me that there was an upgrade to Android available. "Do you want to upgrade?" Sure. Just like that, over the air.

Do that with an iPhone, you need iTunes installed (i.e. you need a computer somewhere).

There's no crappy software on it either.

<comment><USER58> Not anymore. iOS5 has OTA updates. (the last beta update was pushed OTA)

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> I wrote this up yesterday and didn't publish it because my Facebook friends couldn't care less.

CyanogenMod releases faster, has more stable [stable] releases, uses better, more mature, widely embraced software (mtd over bml, ext4, etc), has more (and more consistent) features. Carriers are asking the manufacturers to lock the bootloaders to keep you from flashing CyanogenMod on it and your mom having a stable phone that receives fast updates.

They prefer methods of control that cause users to want to upgrade because half their phone capacity is already being spent running Blur, Sense or some daemons that have running to support their proprietary front ends. And none of it, of course, is truly necessary. Extremely complex theming options are available, again via an open source feature developed by T-Mobile and shared with the OSS community.

And before anyone says it, my mother hated her Droid in it's later Froyo days. It was faster and better battery than Eclair but was also more prone to freezing and being low on memory. I installed CM7 stable, she gets push updates that are seamlessly handled via Rom Manager. The only thing I had to tell her was to make sure the "Backup checkbox is filled in". If need be, restoration instructions are very simple for me to give over the phone, but in ALL my days of flashing nightlies on several (of my) phones, I've never had to.

Same story with the brother's Droid Incredible with the horrendous and offensive previous versions of Sense. The sad thing is, Verizon killed the Gingerbread update. It was leaked and largely fully functional, but no phone will ever see it.

Not all Androids are created equally. [Just to be on the same page, I'm not using this as an excuse. It's a huge perception problem. End users don't know that the Thunderbolt, Nexus S, and Droid X all have different interfaces and complexities going on in the background.] I'm also not sure if I "want" Google to do anything about it, besides be more emphatic that the "Google" branding on the phone makes it better. (That branding is reserved for the clean, near- AOSP roms)]

<comment><USER82> _"Not all Androids are created equally."_

That, in many ways, is the nub of the problem.

<comment><USER83> It is only really a problem if you somehow want android to 'beat' iOS.

If as a consumer, I'm able to buy an Android phone that makes me happy, I think the situation is doing OK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> i will say that on every android article.

Android will only be relevant when we start to treat phones as PCs.

the mobile operators of today are the IBM of yesterday that rented mainframes time.

the unlocked mobile phones of today are the PCs of yesterday that you could install any OS you pleased. ...even that at the time you only had a bunch of DOS and BASIC shells, now you only have a couple android distros.

dumping your $600 on an iphone is like still be paying for a mainframe to use a slow clipper app over a slow terminal that could run 10x faster on a local PC.

give that up and buy an unlocked android phone, root it in 2 steps (all you need if it's unlocked), give everyone your SIP phone number (or gvoice if you're lazy like me) and keep changing operators every year to the cheaper promotions.

</comment><comment><USER85> She should have tried Windows Phone. Same benefits of iPhone with choice of hardware

</comment><comment><USER84> or, Why i got a non-subsided android phone and kept it.

yeah, it's bad to have some of my options crippled by bloatware. but i can still choose to avoid those. and still plenty of choices, with different screen sizes, batteries, prices, keyboards or not, etc.

iphone has lessbloatware, but no choices.

</comment><comment><USER84> where are the wireles data provider start ups?

</comment><comment><USER86> I guess the article was written by Steve Jobs.

</comment><comment><USER87> So you made a poor choice of device for your mom and you are blaming Android? If you know that the Nexus S is a pleasure to use, why would you buy a phone full of crapware? Why didnt you bought the Nexus S?

I like Android, but I always make a careful research before buy one or recommend one. I use a Nexus S and it is amazing. I will change it only for the next Nexus.

</comment><comment><USER88> To all those people saying that it isn't Android fault but the carrier's: it is Android fault.

Android wants to be open, and with openness comes crapware, just like your gigabytes of crapware installed on your "some-how-open" Windows machine. The solution? Make sure that carriers won't install crapware anymore, but then how would that be open anymore?</comment>


REI is going remote and selling its corporate headquarters - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/12/rei-seattle-headquarters-commercial-real-estate/ <comment><USER2> That headline is pretty misleading: 1) REI never moved into the planned new HQ, 2) they're going to use a combination of smaller offices around the greater Seattle area in combination with remote/WFH.

As an aside, it sounds like they'll be able to sell the new HQ for a profit (Source: local radio...probably KUOW)

</comment><comment><USER3> They need the liquidity.</comment>


The 2005 screenwriting book that's taken over Hollywood - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollywood_and_blake_snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.single.html <comment><USER4> I haven't read "Save the Cat" so I can't speak to it specifically, but the article doesn't do a great job of selling me on the idea that the book is responsible for the sameness of movie plots considering that for all the examples of "beats" given in the article, I can think of dozens and dozens of movies that hit those beats well before 2005 (when the supposedly ruinous screenplay manual was published).

If anything, it seems like the book was just clearly documenting what nearly every writer was already doing anyway, in some cases basically as far back as three act storytelling has existed (even prior to movies existing at all).

<comment><USER5> Since the author of the article says the same thing directly, this is a somewhat superficial critique of that article.

<comment><USER6> Really? I missed it. Granted, I didn't read it too carefully because I felt he got repetitive, but I definitely got the impression that he was claiming that the book caused the scripts, and not the other way around. Near the beginning:

 _Maybe that's what Snyder intended. But that's not how it turned out. In practice, Snyder's beat sheet has taken over Hollywood screenwriting. Movies big and small stick closely to his beats and page counts. Intentionally or not, it's become a formula — a formula that threatens the world of original screenwriting as we know it._

I read that as "this book caused this kind of screenwriting," not "this book documents the kind of screenwriting that goes on."

<comment><USER7> I suppose the point is, analysis of storytelling elements isn't new, there's many more books written about it than just the _Cat_ one.

An interesting question (and one that the article IMO does not quite attempts to answer) would be: the _Cat_ 's description of storytelling-elements is quite formulaic, descriptive and precise. did the explicitness of this particular book cause (or play an important role in causing) the explosion of formula Hollywood plot-lines[0], or is it merely part of a general movement, flavour of the times? in short, is this "beat-sheet" literally used as a "cheat-sheet", or does it just continues the tradition of storytelling deconstruction?

Maybe this is what you meant by the article not really selling you on it, though.

(there's a couple more questions along this line that I would think are interesting as well, but you can probably guess them)

[0] in particular, the part of phenomenon that is real and not based on selection bias.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As others have pointed out the concept of a more detailed screenplay structure has been around for a very long time, and typically pretty well understood by working screenwritters.

I remember reading about the 9 act structure in the 90s (can't remember if this is the guy who started it, but I think so): __Edit __corrected link (thanks to hncommenter13 below):[http://web.archive.org/web/19961103105817/http://dsiegel.com](http://web.archive.org/web/19961103105817/http://dsiegel.com)

The problem with modern blockbuster films as described in the article is for the most part not because of a better understanding of structure but because of less understanding. Perhaps poor writers are using tools like Save the Cat to believe they understand writing better then they do. Or perhaps studio executives (who are notoriously near pathologically risk averse to new ideas) reading new screenplays use a poor understanding of Save the Cat to validate perspective scripts.

I can say for sure that many modern movies, particularly summer movies, are absolutely not following these structures, good or bad. Mainstream narrative filmmaking always follows the hero's journey, whether your hero is a neurotic writer in new york, a young black girl in New Orleans, or a genetically modified super hero.

Summer blockbusters these days are focused on something different. Visceral response. Well structured storytelling (whether you think that's "Save the Cat" or something else), is about stories and human relatable emotions and characters. Recent films have started focusing more on the roller coster ride of the visuals, and will do any distortion of the story necessary to motivate a visceral impact on the audience. Good storytelling takes a second seat to putting the audience into the most intense situations possible.

This has been helping get people into the theaters because the trailers for these types of films make them seam very exciting. But I would argue that Hollywood is struggling right now - the visual effects industry in particular - due to the audience getting wise to these ploys. A bad film is still a bad film, formalized story telling structure won't save you. Even less so if you ignore it so that you can have a bigger explosion.

Want to be a good screenwriter? First learn how to write a story. And then guess what? You can still have explosions too.

<comment><USER9> > the trailers for these types of films make them seam very exciting.

The sad truth is that it's what people like (at least, if my friends are a representative sample). I personally wish there were more "12 angry men" type of movies. I'd even be willing to pay a premium to compensate for the fact that there is a smaller market for such movies. Which makes me wonder why price discrimination hasn't been tried on movies (not sure this is the right term). What if every movie was priced differently?

<comment><USER10> I'm interested in what you mean by "12 angry men" type movies. Do you mean ones with less action and more human drama?

If so, I think those films are out there. They just don't make it to the big cinemas very often. I've just checked my local art-house cinema and it's currently showing

\- a film about a Saudi girl who is banned from buying a bike

\- a re-telling of Snow White as a bullfighter

\- a "passionate ensemble drama of family dysfunction"

\- a documentary about Pussy Riot

\- a comedy about a bunch of blokes trying to recreate an epic pub crawl

<comment><USER9> I guess I meant movies that don't follow the "blockbuster recipe" in general (the movies you mentioned do sound good to me). I know they are out there but I feel they were more common in the past. Of course, it could just be due to the fact I don't hear about the mediocre old movies. That being said, I hear that opinion quite often so I'd say it's plausible that there's some truth to it.

<comment><USER11> Selection bias. You don't remember the films from the past that were bland pap. You're also taking the best 10 films from a decade (say) and comparing them to what came out this year or in the last 2 years.

<comment><USER9> Yes, I already said that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There's a sidebar that has the detailed outline, also called a "beat sheet".

[http://www.slate.com/content/slate/sidebars/2013/07/the_save...](http://www.slate.com/content/slate/sidebars/2013/07/the_save_the_cat_beat_sheet.html)

If you read that, you will notice that the arc of the hero almost exactly matches the one of the prototypical hero from many cultures and mythologies, as explained by John Campbell in "The Hero with a Thousand Faces."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces)

There are just so many elements one can make a compelling story out of.

<comment><USER13> My favorite screenwriting book is based on Joseph Campbell. It is called the Writer's Journey and applies the Hero's Journey to the three act structure.

Based on that book I've decided that Die Hard was one of the better scripts ever written. It just nails the Hero's Journey.

This topic has actually been on my todo list to write a blog post about for a while.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This reminds me of pop music. At some point you realize most of the songs on the radio are "verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, chorus" with only subtle variations in structure.

But in the end, I don't actually think that's a bad thing. There is a _lot_ of variations you can do, even within such a limiting structure. Summer blockbusters are the pop music of movies. And just like pop songs, even if you know the overall structure you can still be surprised and entertained throughout.

And, just like music, it doesn't mean that there can't be things that break the mold entirely, even if they aren't quite as popular. There's always going to be someone out there pushing the boundaries, and there's always going to be someone really skilled who makes something really popular that doesn't conform to the formula at all.

<comment><USER15> _This reminds me of pop music._

There was a book of this sort written for pop music, too: _The Manual, or How to Have a Number One the Easy Way_ by Bill Drummond and Jim Cauty, also known as The KLF.

It's brilliant and hilarious; at one point they describe "Never Gonna Give You Up" by Rick Astley as the perfect pop song because it plays so deliberately into schoolgirls' fantasies.

<comment><USER7> > It's brilliant and hilarious; at one point they describe "Never Gonna Give > You Up" by Rick Astley as the perfect pop song because it plays so > deliberately into schoolgirls' fantasies.

Oh I didn't catch that part, I only read it half-way. I should pick it up again :)

BTW anyone interested can find several plain text copies of this book with a simple search query. The KLF (Discordians) were pretty big on Kopyleft afaik, so I doubt they mind either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I may be somewhat odd for a professional filmmaker in this, but my reaction is less "aargh, no, my pure pure art!" and more "Hmm, interesting, I wonder if I have time to try that out?"

Frameworks work well for visual design, adverts, web design, music (to a certain extent), so I can't see a problem with them for films.

Of course, if one framework becomes the One Possible Framework, that's more of an issue. But there are enough filmmakers out there willing to try seriously wierd shit that I don't think that's a problem yet.

For example, David Lynch is working on a new feature film right now. Call me crazy, but I don't think he'll be sticking to Save The Cat's formula.

<comment><USER4> Well, among the supposedly "Hollywood killing" samey movies mentioned in the article is "The Dark Knight", regarded by many as the greatest "action" movie of all time.

Which goes to show that there's still plenty of creativity to be had while following classic structure, and proving once again that broad ideas are meaningless and execution is everything.

<comment><USER17> Th best action movie as determined by whom? Obviously the generally movie- going populace likes the movies that Hollywood produces otherwise they wouldn't go see them.

<comment><USER16> The comment above just said that TDK was "regarded by many as the greatest "action" movie of all time.", rather than making an absolute judgement.

I think that's a reasonably defensible statement - [http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-dark- knight](http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-dark-knight).

<comment><USER17> I'm questioning the validity of using the general population as an authoritative source of film critique. Although it's probably silly to ask for an artistic critique of an action film at all.

<comment><USER4> Who said I was using the general population as an authoritative source of film critique?

"regarded by many as the greatest "action" movie of all time" means just what it says. I never claimed nor even implied that the view was authoritative simply because it was widely held.

<comment><USER17> You stated explicitly that you thought it was a quality film due to its wide popularity.

(As an aside the article itself never criticizes Dark Knight for being poor only for being formulaic).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Some friends and I made a simple hot-or-not style site using the "Save the Cat" formula as a way to kill time on a 6 hour drive:

[http://www.pitchwar.com/](http://www.pitchwar.com/)

<comment><USER19> Haha. Those were some terrible pitches (sorry!). We have something similar on our IRC bot. Can be hilarious sometimes. :D

<me> !movieplot

<•rbot> Summary: He's a scrappy voodoo gangster from the Mississippi delta. She's a high-kicking mute pearl diver with the power to bend mens minds. They fight crime.

<•rbot> Summary: He's a Nobel prize-winning white trash rock star looking for a cure to the poison coursing through his veins. She's an enchanted African- American detective from the wrong side of the tracks. They fight crime.

etc etc.

<comment><USER20> There's at least one real physicist turned rock performer out there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> See KLF's "The Manual", which did the same thing for pop music.

[http://rocknerd.co.uk/2013/07/19/the-manual-hollywood- editio...](http://rocknerd.co.uk/2013/07/19/the-manual-hollywood-edition/)

Intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, middle-eight, chorus, chorus. Verse sixteen bars, others eight or sixteen bars.

This didn't _ruin_ pop music at the time (1988) because it was describing what was already happening. But the Manual damage over the next couple of decades is another question.

</comment><comment><USER22> All I have to say about this is _maybe_. I mean, tropes are used, overused, and come and go - that's how the industry works. Writers are who they are just like directors. You aren't all of a sudden going to turn Zack Snyder into Scorsese or Abrams into Tarantino.

But then again, Scorsese and Tarantino aren't making movies like 'Pirates of the Caribbean 7: Wet, Hot Caribbean Summer' that can be absolute shit, but as long a Johnny Depp is playing Jack Sparrow it's a billion dollars globally.

<comment><USER23> There are a lot of tropes - [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NarrativeTropes](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NarrativeTropes)

sort of think anyone who is going by a formula wasn't going to do a masterpiece in the first place.

<comment><USER24> Masterpiece != originality. Originality is extremely overrated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Monomyth ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth)) slightly adjusted for the 21st century? Sounds a lot like it.

<comment><USER26> On that point, I seem to recall Vogler's _The Writer 's Journey: Mythic Structure for Storytellers and Screenwriters_ (1992), which is more directly an adaptation and application of Campbell's monomyth, getting quite a bit of the same kind of "formula that's killing Hollywood originality" criticism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I was a pro screenwriter for 20 years and am intimately familiar with a great deal of 'prior art' in thinking about screenplays. There is nothing new in 'Save the Cat.'

</comment><comment><USER28> In the mid 90s, writer David Siegel argued (in his writing and consulting) that a very, very similar "9 act" structure was the key to Hollywood screenplay success, based on his study of hundreds of blockbusters. See:

[http://web.archive.org/web/19980206083911/http://www.dsiegel...](http://web.archive.org/web/19980206083911/http://www.dsiegel.com/film/Film_home.html)

So I agree with others that the 2005 book is more descriptive of long-existing patterns (and requirements of the movie format), than prescriptive and culpable for recent practice.

<comment><USER29> I remember that site! It's a shame he didn't get any recognition - IIRC his outline was a little more vague than the one being described in this article, and therefore had more room for surprise and creativity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> If you look at the actual beat sheet.

[http://www.slate.com/content/slate/sidebars/2013/07/the_save...](http://www.slate.com/content/slate/sidebars/2013/07/the_save_the_cat_beat_sheet.html)

They all seem pretty general. I'm pretty sure you could stick to the structure without being very formulaic.

And yes, I'm pretty sure most movies had a structure very similar to this one even before the book came along.

</comment><comment><USER31> It's odd that the article fails to mention the most high-profile film to follow Snyder's template, How To Train Your Dragon. Unlike the speculative examples in the article, the creators of that film have explicitly acknowledged Snyder's role in the development of their story (he's thanked in the credits). [1] I guess the fact that it was a huge commercial and critical hit (98% on Rotten Tomatoes) doesn't fit the simplistic, tabloid template that's taking over serious journalism.

[1] [http://www.blakesnyder.com/2010/03/26/how-the-dragon- really-...](http://www.blakesnyder.com/2010/03/26/how-the-dragon-really-got- trained/)

<comment><USER21> The three-minute pop song is as formulaic, as horrible done badly, and as wonderful done _well_. It's like haiku, for lots of money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> No way! I am pretty sure big data strongly indicated that based on the past performance of similar movie structures these are going to perform strongly in the future. And I am quite confident that the studios are already implementing a data driven decision making process. At least since Google went around pretending being able to predict the box office numbers/success of a movie [1]...

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/07/googles-s...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/07/googles- success-at-predicting-movie-success/)

<comment><USER33> Gladwell did a piece on using computers to predict a hit formula :

[http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_10_16_a_formula.html](http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_10_16_a_formula.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> What I'm more interested in, but the author (unfortunately) didn't expound upon: tell me what movies _don 't_ follow the expected "beats". Those are the ones I want to see.

</comment><comment><USER35> It makes sense we'd refine our theory of story telling. It is modelling an aspect of humanity, analogous to how lossy image compression models human visual perception.

Along the way, we might have a spuriously precise theory, that excludes perfectly good stories that would resonate with us.

But ultimately, when the theory is as accurate as it can be, it does not mean that stories become formulaic. I don't just mean that some variation is still possible. I mean that the theory is merely a way to communicate effectively - like spelling and grammar, like public speaking techniques, and the fundamental ancient story rules, like having a narrative, having characters, having a problem to solve, having help from outside. Is having a narrative - <USER2> sequence of events - really that limiting? Yes, it is. But you can still work within that structure. There are infinite possibilities within it, the same for any other framework for communication.

However, a more serious problem is that the "theory" of summer blockbusters is not modelling the human story perception at all - it is modelling the particular demographic of male-adolescent story perception. Who knew? I think it's perfectly fine that some particular demographic is being served - <USER3> bubble gum pop music. Other movies are still being made, with the long tail, as are books and blogs etc.

And, really, male adolescents are not _completely_ divorced from the rest of humanity. We can still enjoy their films.

</comment><comment><USER36> After seeing "Top Gun" ca. 1986, I said to those I went with that Hollywood had forgotten how to make movies. It knew how to make commercials (TG is full of sequences that would fit right into a Navy recruiting commercial) and music videos ("You've lost that loving feeling"), but that was about it. The rest of the movie was negligible, though perhaps I should have added in video games to allow for the fighter-jet stuff.

But was it ever that different? The stuff we still watch is the exception. Hollywood cranked out a hell of a lot of stuff 80 and 70 years ago that nobody but a film studies graduate student could bring himself to sit through. Read for example S.J. Perelman on how the studios worked.

As for "adolescent men coming to grips with who they are", arrested development is one of Hollywood's favorite subjects. I noticed this in watching "Sideways", but would Dean and Brando have ever made their names without it?

[Edit]

On consideration, isn't "adolescent men coming to grips with who they are" a large theme in Western literature? (And I suppose, but can't cite, other literatures also.) The Odyssey kicks off with Athena inspiring Telemachus to independence. Shakespeare's Henry IV plays are all about Prince Hal becoming Henry V. _War and Peace_ follows three men from adolescence to maturity, and one of them, Prince Andrei, to a couple of levels. And I think one could find examples of literature following adolescent women through.

</comment><comment><USER37> You don't actually have a problem with movies using formulas, you have a problem with them feeling formulaic. (Chances are.)

Formulas exist because, when followed properly, they work. For the casual movie viewer, I'm sure that 90% of your favorite movies adhere to this structure, more or less. That, alone, won't cause your movie to feel bad.

There are countless other variables that affect whether or not a movie feels formulaic but, very roughly, I'd suggest that it's when a writer/production team feels like the formula -alone- is enough, that it should work. The beats are just there, but there's still no pulse.

IMHO, this summer, Fast Six nailed the beats perfectly, and people walked away mostly satisfied. Man Of Steel didn't, people were unhappy. Most Pixar movies are lockstep with this structure. Few people gripe about the formulaic pixar movies.

You could probably convince me that movies, as an artform, are more or less built for this structure in the same way that sonnets have a particular rhyme scheme. Sure you can make other kinds of poems, but if the audience really likes sonnets, what's the point? I think the average movie-goer really likes Sonnets, so to speak. And there's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone has seen enough movies to develop an appetite for The Tree of Life.

Note: I've read Save the Cat, have studied screenwriting at a graduate level, and have a (very humble) IMDB listing. So consider this my 2.1 cents worth.

</comment><comment><USER38> I would argue that this trend stretches back well before "Save the Cat" or even Syd Field or Joseph Campbell, all the way to Aristotle. This isn't really new stuff.

A few years ago I was backpacking through the Gobi desert and stayed with a Mongolian family. On the floor next to my bed I found a copy of Syd Field's famous guide to screenwriting. Until that moment, I hadn't realized just how widespread this philosophy of storytelling had become.

</comment><comment><USER24> _When Snyder published his book in 2005, it was as if an explosion ripped through Hollywood._

Yes, like _The Writer 's Journey_ was an explosion that ripped through hollywood, and _Story_ and a bunch of other books. It's amusing and instructive to look at classics like the Iliad or Macbeth through this structural formule. Clearly, this nefarious writer also owns a time machine!

Hey, I think that story could sell...

</comment><comment><USER39> Sounds to me like someone just packaged up the Monomyth[0] in a version that makes more sense for movies. Formula in fiction is not necessarily new, as the article points out at the end. The trick is to dress it up, change it around, or throw it out if necessary.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth)

<comment><USER40> Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Writer%27s_Journey:_Mythic_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Writer%27s_Journey:_Mythic_Structure_For_Writers)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> It's not that they are so formulaic, it's that they are so identical. It's as if every one who used bootstrap for web design also used identical color schemes and layouts.

Take a look at the upcoming "RIP Department." It's like someone just took the Men in Black script and replaced all references to aliens with references to the undead. It's the same movie!

</comment><comment><USER42> Stories have always made use of templates and archetypes. However, I vastly prefer Dan Harmon's story circle: [http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/4570/673288-danharmonsto...](http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/4570/673288-danharmonstorytellingchartwired.jpg)

<comment><USER43> Apparently Michael Moorcock swears by the Lester Dent Master Plot Formula: [http://www.paper-dragon.com/1939/dent.html](http://www.paper- dragon.com/1939/dent.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I remember an old Vladimir Nabokov quote that is very apropos to this. I do not remember the quote exactly and i do not have the book with me, so I cannot look it up, but it went something like this:

"The play was in perfect harmony with the modern rules of drama and storytelling or, in other words, it was perfectly idiotic."

I read this quote about 10 years ago in a Nabokov short story but I keep getting reminded of it whenever I see a modern movie. And they are getting very idiotic. The strict plot structure is making characters say or do stupid things just so the action can follow the predefined plot lines. This really prevents one from creating believable characters. All the reverses (the false victories and false losses) often make characters reverse themselves until they become mostly unbelievable to anyone that tries to remember the entire movie from beginning to end.

</comment><comment><USER45> Structure is important to storytelling, or else you end up with something like this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xslyoK9uobE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xslyoK9uobE)

On the other hand, _dang_ , you need more than going beat-by-beat with nothing else to say.

</comment><comment><USER46> Oh boy, I can't wait to see the article Peter Suderman writes when he discovers tvtropes.com.

</comment><comment><USER46> See also Dan Harmon's story circle, a less detailed version of this: [http://channel101.wikia.com/wiki/Story_Structure_101:_Super_...](http://channel101.wikia.com/wiki/Story_Structure_101:_Super_Basic_Shit)

</comment><comment><USER47> Single page:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollyw...](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollywood_and_blake_snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.single.html)

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra These days I try to avoid going to movie unless it promises something genuinely new and interesting.

All kinds of comic-inspired movies are hard no.

And when you spend less time on crap you actually begin to explore the good parts!

<comment><USER48> Er, Avengers was pulled off pretty well.

I'm not sure that you should auto write-off comic movies...

<comment> guard-of-terra I'm not sure I lost anything by not watching it.

<comment><USER24> How would you know, though? I personally found it Good Fun, but some other films such as The Dark Knight mentioned above are masterpeices, comic origin or not.

Incidentally, Joss Whedon's latest film (which he made in his spare time between shooting and editin g _The Avengers_ ) is a fantastic rendition of Shakespeare's _Much Ado about nothing_ , and stars some of the same actors.

<comment> guard-of-terra I saw The Dark Knight and I would not have lost anything if I didn't. What's so good about it? Yes it has one or two nice jokes; the whole Joker character is nice; but not enough to agonize thru a 3 hour movie.

(Inception was even more boring, they have one good joke and no Joker)

While Avatar, for example, is a movie that does deliver something you would not have if you didn't watch it.

<comment><USER24> _De gustibus non est disputandem_ (an ancient proverb stating 'in matters of taste, there is nodispute [that can result in an objective conclusion]).

Ironically, the plot of Avatar is largely a retread of an animated 1992 film called Ferngully ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FernGully:_The_Last_Rainforest](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FernGully:_The_Last_Rainforest)). Other than showcasing some interesting 3d technology, and high-quality CG, it's not particularly groundbreaking. Come to think of it, the most impressive thing about Avatar (with a few years' perspective to think about it) was the marketing campaign.

<comment><USER49> Avatar also owes a lot to Disney's Pocahontas, which is itself a blend of an old American legend with West Side Story, which is a retelling of Romeo and Juliet, which was based on an old Italian story....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Notes on screenplay structures by Reddit's CEO Yishan Wong

[http://algeri-wong.com/yishan/things-i-learned-from-my- wifes...](http://algeri-wong.com/yishan/things-i-learned-from-my-wifes- screenwriting-education-part-i.html)

Vladimir Propp was the original pioneer of narrative structures, published the foundational research on fairytale sequences in 1928 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Propp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Propp)

<comment><USER24> You might want to check into Aristotle's _Poetics_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> For anyone still doubtful of how much structure and intent there is in a screenplay, this deconstruction of Jurassic Park is an amazing read: [http://www.blakesnyder.com/2013/04/05/the-jurassic-park- beat...](http://www.blakesnyder.com/2013/04/05/the-jurassic-park-beat-sheet/)

While not exactly following the 'save the cat' formula, and probably being a much better movie for that, it clearly rests on the same principles.

</comment><comment><USER52> I have read this book 3x and it has always been a favorite.

The thing is, as soon as you read this book, you'll recognize the formula in most movies you watch, _including_ movies that came out before the book and especially family + rom-com movies.

Personally, I doubt the book is responsible. It just heightened awareness. After all, Hollywood rarely likes to take risks. If a formula works, they're going to green light such projects.

</comment><comment><USER35> It's a refinement of the Hero's Journey (see Vogler's memo; Joseph Campbell).

The formula itself: [http://www.slate.com/content/slate/sidebars/2013/07/the_save...](http://www.slate.com/content/slate/sidebars/2013/07/the_save_the_cat_beat_sheet.html)

</comment><comment><USER53> Globalization is a significant influence on screenwriting big films. Because blockbuster are now being produced for a global market they turn up the special effects and visual action and turn down the plot subtlety and complexity which might otherwise be confusing to a non-English speaking audience.

<comment><USER54> I don't get it, why do you assume a non-English speaking audience would be more confused by subtlety and complexity? From my experience, Hollywood movies have always been less subtle than the films from most other countries. And not only in movies; for example, British comedy seems to be turned into a caricature of itself when remade in the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> About 2/3...3/4 the way through, the mood felt a bit forced, and it occurred to me that he was applying the formula to the piece itself.

This may be a taste of the problem... but I think it's more imperfect application than damning the formula itself.

Like grammar, it constrains but doesn't limit.

</comment><comment><USER55> Not surprised. It's not about making a good movie, but about making money. Specifically making money safely, with low risk. Making a different movie is risky, and thus producers prefer tried formulas, no rough edges, no thinking really.

Shame.

</comment><comment><USER56> The write lost me completely when he complained about the main character of the Oz movie being the main character of the book on which it's based.

That's just stupid. I want my three minutes back.

</comment><comment><USER57> It sounds like a good way to bootstrap a movie script. If someone came up with the same type of framework but for web development, would we end up with a lot of formulaic startups?

<comment><USER54> Well, we already have a lot of formulaic web designs thanks to Bootstrap.

<comment><USER57> It appears my reference was too oblique...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> couple notes:

\- did author himself followed some formula (essay, etc..)writing this article?

\- after watching many Hollywood movies during last decade, i recently re- watched (as i had almost forgot the content of the movie, it was almost like watching for the first time) "For a fistful of dollars" \- about half the movie in i was ready and felt like it was the climactic end with the showdown (bank robbery) and was genuinely surprised that it continues well beyond it

</comment><comment><USER17> For anyone else who doesn't like Hollywood here are some recent film recommendations:

New World (South Korea)

Le Capital (France)

The Berlin File (South Korea) (although the end is disappointingly formulaic)

After Fall, Winter

<comment><USER54> I liked Barbara (Germany) and Lore (Australia/Germany), both from last year. The former reminds me of a verse from Pink Floyd's _Time_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> It's like anything else - to create, it is first helpful to be able to deconstruct examples first and understand how they work.

</comment><comment><USER60> Is there an equivalent popular/influential book for modern fiction?</comment>


2009 Report on Internet Speeds in All 50 States - <AUTHOR> http://www.speedmatters.org/content/2009report <comment><USER2> The US lags behind top countries in Internet speed. It will take 15 years to catch up at this pace!</comment>


88% there: "Don't Mess With The Internet" billboard in Lamar Smith's district - <AUTHOR> https://www.crowdtilt.com/campaigns/dont-mess-with-the-internet-billboard-in-lamar-smiths-home-district#openinternet

<comment><USER2> Strange that they'd put together a whole page about this without ever mentioning who this person is or what he's doing that messes with the internet.

There seems to be a tendency among people who are _really involved with politics_ to assume that everybody else is also _really involved with politics_ , and therefore don't need any explanation about why we should be so angry about whatever it is we're supposed to be angry about.

But we're not. So if you want us to get behind your cause, you're going to need to tell us what it is. Possibly on your giant billboard itself.

<comment><USER3> Hopefully everyone in Lamar Smith's district knows who Lamar Smith is and what he stands for. SOPA triggered a mainstream debate and you don't need to be 'really involved in politics' to know that.

This sentiment that people with political agendas need to inform their potential constituents is what has created our current political problems in America. When people don't pay attention, anyone who can attract eyeballs and make a reasonable sounding argument gets to do as they please. If we were paying attention, we wouldn't let these people wreak havoc in our society.

edit: What does it mean to live in a democracy where nobody knows whats going on? I know we're all familiar with and jaded to the current state of affairs, but I'm asking that we spend more time thinking about that state of affairs and what we expect of ourselves and our politicians.

<comment><USER4> _"Hopefully everyone in Lamar Smith's district knows who Lamar Smith is and what he stands for."_

That's some misplaced hope.

<comment><USER5> _That's some misplaced hope._

Considering he was elected I kind of assume a lot people like what they think he stands for.

<comment><USER4> Texas's 21st congressional district had 651,619 people in 2000. The district contains parts of the Austin and San Antonio metro areas, which grew 37% and 25% respectively in the intervening decade. Let's use the lower value since there are rural areas in there as well. That gives a 2010 estimate of 814,523 people. 27.3% of Texans were under 18 in 2010, which gives a voting age population of 592,158.

In 2010, 236,284 people voted in the district, of which 162,763 voted for Smith. Let's assume all voters know who he is and what he stands for, and that everyone else probably doesn't. That gives us 40% of the district's population that know what's going on. Fewer voted for him, and even fewer _like_ what he stands for, since voting is usually a compromise.

This is an overestimate.

<comment><USER5> Thanks very much for this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I know all about the Lamar Smith debacle, and even to me, this billboard would be ridiculously vague.

This is more of a gloating-esque billboard, not an effective one. I completely support the idea, but I think this as poor of "an implementation" as possible.

<comment><USER7> I don't think the artwork shown is the actual billboard artwork. They said in the post they want to make sure they have money before spending effort on real art.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> As one of the co-founders of crowdtilt, I figure we'd mention that this is our fastest growing campaign to break $10k (2 days) to date. Not saying a _whole_ lot since it's only been about a month since launch, but still cool to see it go from Alexis' idea of "let's toss it up and see what happens" to ~90% funded in that time frame.

<comment><USER9> If you can be "imgur for crowdfunding", i.e. the crowdfunding platform that Redditors use, that's a pretty darn solid place to start from.

<comment><USER10> Kickstarter's got a pretty solid grasp on the reddit crowd at the moment, though.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, we think the models that Kickstarter/Indiegogo have for projects and pre-sale retail is pretty amazing and we actually see campaigns that go up on our site that are more suited for a model like Kickstarter. With Crowdtilt, we've essentially taken our favorite elements of crowdfunding models like those and provided it for groups of friends/existing networks instead (so think of it for funding a wedding gift between bridesmaids or renting out a bar for sxsw, instead of a documentary or creative project).

<comment><USER10> That's a pretty cool idea. I could see integrating it with facebook events and invites being a logical next step.

<comment><USER8> Thanks, and yes those are steps we're actually working on right now :)

Give the site a try sometime and let us know any feedback you have that could improve the experience: team @ crowdtilt.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder if the Billboard Owners are large pro-SOPA media companies. IT would suck if this money went right back into the Pro-SOPA lobby.

A better strategy might be hacking the billboard system by buying up remnant space and cancelling after a month. Since it costs money to take down Billboards, and remnant boards are remnant for a reason, they will probably stay up for several months without paying for more than a month. (If they get PSA pricing, it will be even cheaper.)

<comment><USER12> Aren't ClearChannel and Viacom the two big billboard companies? That's just going by the logos I see at the bottom.

If so, you're right. This is money going right back into their pockets.

Though I know area around his San Antonio office might have some private billboards set up by local landowners in the area. He's right off a major highway. Maybe one of those is a possible choice?

<comment><USER11> Also, CBS, Van Wagner and others... More importantly, the amount of red tape you have to go through to get a billboard up is crazy, so I can't imagine every billboard company isn't in bed with the politicians.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does anybody really think this is going to have an influence on Lamar Smith? Maybe I'm just jaded, but I don't see this as changing anything aside from giving money to a billboard company, and emptying the pockets of donors.

<comment><USER14> What do you suggest could be done? Is not bad to attack an opponent from different directions.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure. I just don't think this is it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The billboard should probably be Facebook, Reddit, Twitter etc logos with Lamar Smith holding a gun shooting them with "Stop Lamar Smith from destroying the internet".

<comment><USER16> The billboard should probably be a computer in cowboy hat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Having been born in Texas, I fully support this design. :D

<comment><USER18> Me too, go Texas! Although I'll never move back. Too hot!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It his the same thing as the super PAC that was started for this same purpose? Or is this an unrelated group of people doing a second billboard?

</comment><comment><USER20> I don't normally give to charity, but this is totally awesome.

</comment><comment><USER21> I love it :). It is fun watching this campaign move so fast.

</comment><comment><USER22> Love it - seriously awesome way to use crowdtilt

</comment><comment><USER23> a very interesting direction for Crowdtilt. I'm interested to see how democratised crowd funding for political intent plays out.</comment>


Ask HN: How many servers does Twitter have? - <AUTHOR>

Over the years we've gained an idea of the number of servers google along with some info on the number of datacenters. Facebook recently took on the project of building their own datacenter and previously released some numbers of servers. I have not however seen any numbers on twitter.<p>Does anyone know the number of servers twitter has? <comment><USER2> <http://www.quora.com/How-many-servers-does-Twitter-have></comment>


Ask HN: How to assess an application for investing purposes? - <AUTHOR>

A friend of mine intends to invest in a SW company. He's asked me to review their flagship. I'll probably get a chance to look at a demo, and maybe a sneak peek at the code.
Anyone has similar experience or suggestions about what I should be focusing on? (Architecture, Maintainability,  Security, Test Coverage, etc...)
Edit: spelling. <comment><USER2> Does the product solve a problem?

If so, what is the problem?

Does the problem exist for a large enough number of users?

Are those users likely to be paying users (or a sufficient percentage of them)? Or are there other relevant revenue models that exist - hopefully the company is aware of them?

The product isn't really the determination of whether the company is investment-worthy or not; it's whether the problem it is meant to address is inconvenient enough for users to WANT to get the product.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would say the team and market need is more important than the code (since he is investing in the company, not outright buying the IP).

</comment><comment><USER4> Do they have paying customers? Talk to them.

Do they have prospects evaluating it. Talk to them.

Can your friend supply expertise or connections in addition to money?</comment>