What bits exactly are you referring to? the operational aspect or the ability aspect or something else?

Essentially One UI is a skin over the Android system, you "should" be able to still do anything that any other Android user can do but it will either be hidden or renamed.

lNomNoml:

What bits exactly are you referring to? the operational aspect or the ability aspect or something else?

Essentially One UI is a skin over the Android system, you "should" be able to still do anything that any other Android user can do but it will either be hidden or renamed.

 

Geektastic: Surely then, since you can't buy a Pixel here easily, 99% of Android users in NZ will never know what stock Android is? Which makes reviews comparing (say) One UI with stock somewhat pointless?

Android One phones come with a stock standard android UI (with Nokia probably the most prominent in the NZ market).
Pretty sneaky of samsung to call their ui One when android one is already well established.

Dial111: You’ll be surprised how many Android users in NZ know and prefer vanilla android over a skinned version, 99% is a stretch.

Nexus devices were very popular in NZ and sold locally too. I prefer vanilla over anything else for the timely updates. Samsung are notoriously slow for updates.

I'm still slightly confused.

Since you can't get many phones with vanilla Android in NZ, what's better about it and if it's so good, why would handset makers mess about with it?

Geektastic:

I'm still slightly confused.

Since you can't get many phones with vanilla Android in NZ, what's better about it and if it's so good, why would handset makers mess about with it?

Having a customised android interface also has the effect of making "other" brands phones seem different and strange.

I imagine the manufacturers hope you might find it easier to stick with an interface you have got used to.

Personally I like what I have seen of vanilla android (mostly via lineage - well maybe not strictly vanilla - but closer than Samsung's ui).

Have found it quite annoying to try and tell someone how to do something with(say) a Huawei phone, only to find none of the settings seem even close to a Samsung for example.

1eStar: I've been a long time android user now, and am familiar with One UI, having previously used Touchwiz as it was named then. It is a very nuanced skin over android. When I have used raw android on the likes of nexus phones previously and when I have flashed it in various forms (cyanogenmod or lineage etc) onto my devices I've found the unskinned android to be rather lacking. It's just a personal thing.

It's hard to draw a line as to exactly where one ends and the other begins.

Apps are an easy start. If it's a Google app, it'll be the same across vendors and Android flavours. This has come to include more and more of the core OS via Google Play Services, so you'll get the same levels of base functionality for apps no matter what device you pick up, and of course includes the Play Store as well.

Samsung of course have their own suite of apps, including camera, calendar, calculator, browser, gallery, dialer, keyboard and so forth. This extends to the main elements of the interface you'll interact with, including the lockscreen, the settings menu, the drop-down notification shade, the soft keys/gesture navigation system, and the home screen/launcher. The settings menu for example will encompass the settings that are included in vanilla Android, but will often be reorganised, renamed, redesigned, and relocated.

There is a lot more customisation that goes on under the hood, beyond what's visible and accessible to end users. This will include everything from the kernel and the logic in the CPU frequency scheduler to the partition structure, drivers, bootloader, recovery modes, extra APIs, and much more. No element goes completely untouched by a top-tier vendor like Samsung unless it's against Google policies to do so, like the Play Store, Google's APIs, and bundled Google apps.

Android needs to be adapted to run on a wider range of hardware than any other operating system, with different sources and vendors for every single hardware component. Some devices will omit certain sensors entirely to cut costs, others will use vastly different memory/screen resolutions/System on a Chip vendors/charging protocols and every other permutation under the sun. There is a level at which all Android devices must be certified by Google in order to be licensed for the Play Store and services like Play Protect, called the CTS or Compatibility Test Suite. Having passed this is what results in "certified" at the bottom of the Play Store settings, and grants access to heavily DRM-laden/security focused apps like Netflix and banking.

As noted in this thread there are many reasons why vendors modify so much. Vanilla Android is fairly barebones, and while it has cribbed many useful features from vendors over the years, it is absolutely not for everyone. Despite the hardcore enthusiasts, average users who are accustomed to a full-featured suite of apps out of the box ala Samsung and Apple can and do find vanilla Android frustrating - consider Google Photos as the only photo gallery. Great service, terrible gallery app, much like Spotify is a great service and a pretty shoddy music player. Sure, there are alternatives for every app that can be downloaded from the Play Store, but the Play Store is a minefield of spammy ad-filled awfulness and users should not have to learn to navigate it to get basic functionality. Malware in torch apps for crying out loud. If every single Android device ran vanilla, we'd have Windows Phone, and hardware differentiation alone + 100% reliance on another company to define user experience is not a good call, nor does it address every user's needs - especially when it comes to localisation. Vanilla is absolutely not for everyone and Google's idea of what makes a great smartphone doesn't encompass all use-cases.

Creating a sticky and familiar experience is important, although I will point toward needless change for change's sake and dark patterns as reasons to prefer one skin over another. There is a lot of value that's added and vendor-customised versions of Android are where most of the innovation has occurred in the last few years.

I used Samsung devices through Galaxy S/S II/S III/Note II/Note III and then jumped ship to iOS because the software had not improved (and Apple had made a device large enough for my needs). Turned out the grass was not greener, but that's another story. Samsung have come a long way and to my mind unquestionably take the crown for "most improved," as their uncontested position as number one in the NZ market shows. I haven't used a Samsung device as a daily driver since the Note 5, although I am intimately familiar with the products and software and have an S10+ test unit on hand. They're good products and the software adds a lot of value. It's a far cry from the TouchWiz of years past.

I'm glad Android is a diverse and thriving ecosystem, more choice and competition are great for everyone.

Thanks @NikT - that shines some light into the dark corners for me!

And to everyone else too for their thoughts.

Personally I used iOS up to the 6+ then jumped ship to Samsung and (briefly) Sony. Not until the S10+ have I felt that Samsung has a product that competes from user perspective for the 'average' person who might rate 0 or +1 on a tech savvy scale where +5 is IT pro. The current Samsung phones are generally excellent I think. I did spit a bit this morning because I was looking back through Google Photos for something and my thumb kept hitting the hidden slider on screen right that jumps you months in moments. Grrrr! Would be easier for RH people if that slider was on the left I think.

Geektastic:

 

I'm still slightly confused.

 

Since you can't get many phones with vanilla Android in NZ, what's better about it and if it's so good, why would handset makers mess about with it?

 

they can get paid to bundle 3rd party apps , sometimes in a way that those app's cant be uninstalled (cough cough Samsung & Facebook app)
They can also add their own apps & thier own app stores , in the hope they make some more $ out of that .