Android
DROID DOES
Welcome to the droidymcdroidface-iest, Lemmyest (Lemmiest), test, bestest, phoniest, pluckiest, snarkiest, and spiciest Android community on Lemmy (Do not respond)! Here you can participate in amazing discussions and events relating to all things Android.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules
1. All posts must be relevant to Android devices/operating system.
2. Posts cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
3. No spam, self promotion, or upvote farming. Sources engaging in these behavior will be added to the Blacklist.
4. Non-whitelisted bots will be banned.
5. Engage respectfully: Harassment, flamebaiting, bad faith engagement, or agenda posting will result in your posts being removed. Excessive violations will result in temporary or permanent ban, depending on severity.
6. Memes are not allowed to be posts, but are allowed in the comments.
7. Posts from clickbait sources are heavily discouraged. Please de-clickbait titles if it needs to be submitted.
8. Submission statements of any length composed of your own thoughts inside the post text field are mandatory for any microblog posts, and are optional but recommended for article/image/video posts.
Community Resources:
We are Android girls*,
In our Lemmy.world.
The back is plastic,
It's fantastic.
*Well, not just girls: people of all gender identities are welcomed here.
Our Partner Communities:
view the rest of the comments
Agreed on that count - I like that UI consistency is an option for those who prefer it.
As long as it's an option, I really don't care. I like stuff having their distinctive look, but I will never say no to more options, especially regarding customization.
But companies like to brand for, among others, usability and legal reasons. They aren't going to participate in neutering the brand they have invested so much in. It doesn't really matter if the user "likes" it because it's pretty. What matters is if the companies pouring money into app development like it, and if the users can easily identify the apps they want to use. That's why it has such low adoption.
Most apps aren't "choice" apps. Things like banking, transit, etc. I doubt you'd change your bank or refuse to take the bus just because they don't allow their app to be colored based on a random pixel measurement from a background image. I'll go out on a limb and guess you'd also not choose an app with that option but fewer features. And if so, I'd like to think you'd be in the limited minority.
Edit to clarify: Good companies, given a choice, will by and large invest in material (pun intended) improvements over a confusing and variable prettification feature with no real usability advantage.
Because big companies have a lot more on their plate than startups or open source that may or may not pan out.
Anyone with a modicum of skill in observation who has worked in such environments knows exactly why the little guy (especially a little guy with free labor) spends a lot more time or money on less essential UI.
I've been in UX design and marketing/branding for over 20 years, mostly enterprise (large corporations.)
It's not hard to throw together a few vector lines to shape an icon. What's hard is designing one that will work in all situations and meet requirements across various platforms, rendering appropriately in all screen sizes and resolutions at any relevant size, as well as when printed on a billboard or on the side of a pen in one to four+ colors.
But designing icons falls under illustration/graphic design, which isn't paid nearly as well as UX design for a reason. I do things like the above paragraph if I need to rest my brain for half an hour.
So believe me when I talk about why the people who invest the most in tech generally aren't interested in throwing a monkey wrench into that just because a few designers and users like the novelty. There are, of course, a few exceptions to that general pattern.