or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Android tops BlackBerry, iPhone grows in US smartphone OS share
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Android tops BlackBerry, iPhone grows in US smartphone OS share - Page 7

post #241 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I trust the NYTimes before I trust what I read on PR Newswire. Google apologists may prefer the latter.

Sure he may not have picked the best source, but you can't go off of a single article which doesn't have all the information is is just filling in the holes with speculation.

However, it's now being reported that the FCC halted the talks. So it seems like the NY Times article did its job in making consumer advocates go paranoid over the just the notion of an "agreement". It's both good and sad that this happened. Good that the threat (that you're so concerned about) of disrupting net neutrality is over for now. Bad that we will never really know what they companies and the FCC were discussing and its outcome. For all we know, it could have actually benefited net neutrality while improving the speed at which the content that we all like is delivered to us A shame, really..
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #242 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Oh, right, after the backlash, Verizon is going to come out and honestly admit what they're up to? I can't believe you are posting a link to Verizon PR spin to try and discredit the NYTimes article.

Your paranoia is getting the best of you...

I prefer news from the source when available... as opposed to unsubstantiated speculation (NY Times) or regurgitators that often misreport and then spin erroneous data (blogs).
post #243 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

great post, thanks for the insight, i now understand the use of the apps to circumvent google search. great job

If you read my post in response to his lengthy one, you will realize that Dick's post is only 1/2 true.

Apps (especially the free ones) will still have ads in them that are served by AdMob (Google) and iAds (Apple). So even if you use apps to do your searches, you'll still see the ads that Google and Apple wants you to see if you had done a Google search.

Paid apps and apps that developers can support without needing the incoming provided by ads will "circumvent" a Google search. But with free apps taking up a large portion of the Market and App Store, it's pretty much guaranteed that you'll see the ads Google and Apple want you to see.

Though I'm curious to know what he took back in his post after mine and whether or not it was a response to me.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #244 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

We know a number of facts:

1. Apple said that a large number of apps rejected from the AppStore just didn't work at all.
2. Apple rejected a number of apps because they were of poor quality (they also rejected apps for other reasons, as well).
3. Many of the apps Apple rejected ended up on Android store.
4. Many apps initially rejected by Apple were improved by the developer to the point where they were acceptable.

Android store has no mechanism for rejection of inferior apps, so the apps that were rejected by Apple could end up there. The apps that were improved by the developer after Apple rejected them would not go through the same process on Android.

So, it is very reasonable to conclude that the AVERAGE app quality on Apple's store is better than on the Android store. That's not to say that there can't be both good and bad apps on either store, but on average, Apple is better.

Facts are facts but they mean nothing if certain users find value in what's in the Android market, regardless of facts you present or what you think is valuable. It's really simple... if you download a app that and find no value in, give it a bad rating, state your reasons and don't do it again--why is this hard? It's 3 minutes of your life at best, don't make a big deal out of it. So Android has no mechanism for rejecting inferior apps, do you think it's going to stay like this? This whole thing started about four years ago, it's a system in progress and it's improving. Granted, there are a lot of useless apps--I just don't download them and move on with my life--it's not a big deal There's a section on the market for apps at a price--get those! Pay the programmers and move on. I know developers, I'm one myself--we want to code and don't care who it's for. I do not code in an Apple OS environment because I've never been presented with an opportunity to. But if someone asked me to learn it, I'd go get a "pee on Windows logo" t-shirt and code to Apple's specs. I guess there are developers who do care but most that I've worked with do not--we just want to work and preferably in an environment we're familiar with.

Again--Android OS presents us with a unique opportunity to experience what open source development is like on the masses. We know that Apple can set a trend and have everyone follow--yeah, we get it. Now let's examine something else... Why? because it's what human beings are good at, invention, innovation and creativity.
post #245 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnb View Post

Your paranoia is getting the best of you...

I prefer news from the source when available... as opposed to unsubstantiated speculation (NY Times) or regurgitators that often misreport and then spin erroneous data (blogs).

Right, paranoia == being highly skeptical of statements companies make when caught with their pants down. In this case, news from the source would only consist of talking to someone involved in the negotiations, you know, like journalists do, not from press releases issued by companies as damage control.

It's hard to believe someone could be so naive as you appear.
post #246 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by semperlux View Post

... Again--Android OS presents us with a unique opportunity to experience what open source development is like on the masses. ...

Open source development? Well, you can't mean the Android Market apps, since as far as I can tell, most of them are not open source. You can't mean Android, because it isn't really open source -- many proprietary pieces, "open" Android code tightly controlled by Google, and, the version being used in China is no longer Android, it's OPhone, with it's own proprietary pieces, and the Google spyware components replaced by PRC spyware components.

It's discouraging to see so much shallow, uncritical thought displayed on Internet forums.
post #247 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

These are good thoughts... well worth discussion!

<...>

For example, why should a mobile user go to a browser (ads) issue a google search (ads) to find a nearby restaurant, theater, (whatever). He has one of several agents {mobile apps) that know his location, preferences, schedule, etc. He can get better results within the app! He does not need to compose searches, drill-down through ad-infested choices to obtain questionable results-- results that may be in the best interest of others than himself. The mobile user stays within his apps & doesn't need to give a penny to Google/Yahoo/Bing or any of their advertisers-- nor look at any unwanted ads.

<...>

So, Google is presently monetizing Android (so they claim) via traditional non-mobile search and ads. But if search and ads are increasingly bypassed by mobile apps, just what benefit does Android deliver to Google?

Interesting points... I don't necessarily disagree... just a couple other thoughts:

Many (free) apps are supported by persistent ads on the screen. Google's acquisition of Admob allows them to play in this space without a middle-man. There are other alternatives; but none with the online advertising experience (and success) of Google. Even if they don't "dominate" the space, they should be a key player. Now that Apple has entered this space, Android is at least looking like a smart insurance plan should Apple decide to block Google from serving iPhone ads.

Ads in browser searches (so far) have not been intrusive. Google typically places the "sponsored link" at the very bottom of the list of results, and you don't see it until you scroll to the bottom. So in a sense, they are less intrusive than the persistent ads in most applications. Browsers are also "location aware" and integrate location into searches (if allowed), so this is not an exclusive advantage to native applications.

I do agree that native apps usually provide a better experience than brower apps. But Google also provides some pretty slick native apps of their own. "Places" gives me one-touch access to the closest restaurants, gas stations, etc or anything else (you can add your own keywords) based on my exact location. It typically works better than the dozens other non-Google apps that do the same thing because it is simple and intuitive, and is basically a direct tie-in to the information Google already has in the cloud. This is a huge advantage for Google... they have years of experience compiling information and finding ways for the most "relevant" info to surface. One of the "other" apps may have restaurant info and reviews from one or two sites; the Google app has this info from ALL sites, with the true junk sorted out.

As far as being able to monetize this -- Google currently shows "sponsored links" in the lists -- maybe one per 25 results. But the possibilities for innovation are endless. If a restaurant is interested in advertising on Google, I would think that "we showed a customer details on your restaurant and navigated them to your location" is as valuable as 1,000 random ad impressions on search results.
post #248 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Right, paranoia == being highly skeptical of statements companies make when caught with their pants down. In this case, news from the source would only consist of talking to someone involved in the negotiations, you know, like journalists do, not from press releases issued by companies as damage control.

It's hard to believe someone could be so naive as you appear.

Actually, I find it rather ironic that someone posting on a Apple rumors website would seriously defend anonymous "inside sources" as reliable.

Most of the articles on this site prove that those sources are usually crap.

(Of course, individual posters getting riled up over crap sources = no surprise)
post #249 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

Your post is a bit confusing because it seems like you're talking about the NPD study itself and not my post that's been quoted. If that's not it, feel free to correct me. I just want to make sure I know what I'm responding to.

Sure. Sorry about the confusion. hit a wrong button. It is comment about the NPD... Here is something for you to compensate your "confusion":

http://www.fakesteve.net/
post #250 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum


These are good thoughts... well worth discussion!


I don't think we'll have any single company dominate the computer industry as it evolves into the mobile industry.

MIcrosoft will, likely, continue to dominate the desktop space-- though with an ever diminishing share of a diminishing market.

Android could become temporarily dominant in the mobile space. They are giving away a free OS in exchange for a path to advertising and search. But these are based on the desktop model, not the mobile model.

Ads and Search are changing for the mobile market. If nothing else, the mobile user has several attractive alternatives to unsolicited browser-based ads and search engine directed advertising.

For example, why should a mobile user go to a browser (ads) issue a google search (ads) to find a nearby restaurant, theater, (whatever). He has one of several agents {mobile apps) that know his location, preferences, schedule, etc. He can get better results within the app! He does not need to compose searches, drill-down through ad-infested choices to obtain questionable results-- results that may be in the best interest of others than himself. The mobile user stays within his apps & doesn't need to give a penny to Google/Yahoo/Bing or any of their advertisers-- nor look at any unwanted ads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

People still do Google/Bing/Yahoo searches because they are used to it and that even with the ever-increasing amount of apps, not all of them can contain the information they're looking for. Either there isn't an app for what they're looking for yet, or the apps out there don't have the same vast amounts of data a search engine has stored.

As I mentioned above, but you choose to ignore: Ads and Search are changing! We are in the early stages of that change. For now, people will continue to use Google/Yahoo/Bing search on the desktop, through the browser because they have little choice.

Increasingly, though, people set their browser to block pop-up windows, disable JavaScript and block Flash. Why? because browser searches increasingly present the user with disruptive, irritating and unwanted ads..

The user and the search service are enjoined in a battle-- where the user wants to get results and the search service wants ads and clicks.

I think that most users would be willing to accept browser/search ads in exchange for the service... if the ads are done properly.

But, the problem is that the search ads are not done properly... They Suck! They increasingly are an affront to the user and an impediment to productivity.

As I mention below, Googles latest ploy to redirect my searches is especially irritating-- to the point that every time it happens, I ignore the Google results and use a different search engine.

The Googles, Yahoos and Bings need to rethink their offerings as they are in danger of killing "the goose that laid the golden eggs".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

The real ad potential of the mobile apps is that they can deliver ads I want to see, when I want to see them.

Sure there will be a need for browsers and search engines, but this need is changing. I personally have noticed, and am very critical of Google (in particular) redirecting my searches to show me what they (and their advertisers) want me to see rather than what I asked to see.

So, Google is presently monetizing Android (so they claim) via traditional non-mobile search and ads. But if search and ads are increasingly bypassed by mobile apps, just what benefit does Android deliver to Google?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob

In regards to apps bypassing ads, this is actually not true at all. If you haven't noticed, a lot of apps also include ads inside of them. This is one way that developers can keep their app free for the users. Sure there are apps that remove the ads once you pay for them, but there are still a huge portion of free, quality apps that displays a small ad banner.

Actually, it is true! Some apps show ads, many do not! On iOS, even the ones that do show ads are limited, by the OS and the developer, in what they can present-- no popups, no Flash.


The advent of iAd, along with the limits placed on AdMob and others, should improve the user experience on iOS devices.

Our family are active users on the iOS platform with 6 iPhones (3 originals, 1 3G, 1 3GS, 1 iP4) and 2 iPads. We span 3 generations and have 510 active app store apps as of today. These span all categories, and age groups. By my estimate 65% are purchased and 35% are free. I guess that less than 3% of all apps show ads. In fact, I downloaded a few apps from the app store because they were reputed to include iAd ads (newly available in iOS 4). As an iOS developer, I wanted to see the quality and presentation on "real" iAds (as opposed to the sample you include in the SDK).

Typically, we download 5-10 apps a week, and I'd guess a mix of 50% free vs 50% pay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob

If the app is of great quality, I'm sure a lot of users are willing to deal with the small banner as a trade-off for being able to use it for free. Hell, most of the time I'm sure they don't even notice it.

I suspect you meant to say "If the ad is of great quality...".

I agree with this, and yes the users, likely, won't be put-off by a tasteful banner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob

And who do you think is behind those ads? Let me make it easy for you. Google. And Apple if it's on an iDevice.



Like I said above, the ads are still part of the apps and are still delivered by Google on Android and Apple on iDevices. So regardless if you use an app to find your information or the search function, you're still viewing ads.

As of today, I suspect AdMob (google) is responsible for most of the mobile ads on smart phone class mobile devices. I include the iPod Touch and iPad because, while not phones, they are potentially lucrative ad targets.

With an installed base of over 100 million devices and more than double the number of apps-- it makes sense, for purposes of this discussion, to focus on iOS devices.

AdMob may continue to serve ads to iOS devices, but they no longer are allowed to gather mobile analytics.

This precludes AdMob from targeting ads to iOS users except with a very broad brush.

I suspect, as the iOS platform evolves, iAd will be the predominant delivery vehicle for ads.

Further, based on Apple's track record, Steve's comments about iAd and Apples attention to "User Experience"-- i believe the ads will be targeted, high-quality, and well-received... with the user making the choice:

1) whether to receive any ads (pay or free programs)
2) minimalist, tasteful ad banners within the app
3) targeted to the user's current interests
4) user opt-in to view the ad without leaving the app
5) user opt-out an any time.

So, while it is true, that, likely, there will be ads in iOS apps-- they won't be anything like those served by browsers and search engines on the desktop.


If Steve has his way, the millions of iOS users will have a very positive ad experience.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob

Android is Google's way of bringing these small ad sliver to people on the go. The more Android devices that sell, the more ads that will be seen by the people. And the more reason Google has with continuing to develop Android so that it works better for the consumer as an OS so Google can deliver those ads.

Ahh... but here's the rub. Google has no track record in delivering a positive ad experience (on the desktop) and no reason to change their tactics on the non-iOS mobile devices.

To the contrary, Google seems to be taking the lead in presenting adds that are increasingly gratuitous, disruptive and irritating-- the antithesis to taste and class!

It is not too far a stretch to imagine that the typical Android app ad banner would look something like this:





Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob

Google has also stated that search in general has gone up 300% Q1 alone with Android. I believe this goes back to my statement above that, all the apps still won't be able to cover every single aspect of information like a Google search can.

Several things at work here:

1) Android is experiencing a growth spurt from a very small base-- a large % increase is expected, and readily attainable from a small base.
2) Android has a relatively small number of apps that run on all (or even the majority) of Android devices.

So, it is natural to compensate for app deficiency with browser searches-- resulting in search growth on a fast-growing platform.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Today's environment is totally different-- a highly-competitive multi-vendor mobile marketplace already exists.

Any one of today's mobile OS vendors could easily compete with Android on price (free) and offer a better product and user experience.

Or, in the case of Apple, they could offer iOS and the iTunes infrastructure as an alternative to Android and its search/ad baggage.

Crazy? Maybe... Maybe not! It all depends on long term objectives and how to attain them!

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob

It seems like you haven't heard that Apple is getting into the ads thing too with iAds. Free apps on iDevices have ads just like in Android. So it doesn't matter what OS is pushed. If the app is free, chances are high that there's a small ad banner somewhere in it.

Even Apple knows of how crucial ads will be for revenue (in-app and search) in the future. That's why they are trying to or have already locked out Google-served ads from iDevices because all it does is increase the amount of revenue for Google for every ad they sponsor that shows up on an iDevice.

Au Contraire! I am well aware of Apple's iAd offering in the mobile ad space. I watched the announcement and have been experimenting with iAd (since it became available in the SDK) as an iOS developer.

And it does matter what OS is pushed.

Apple has a goal of selling devices with the best user experience.

Android has a goal of selling ads.


Ad delivery has been marginally acceptable on the desktop, but sucks in the mobile environment.

On the desktop, you can open another window, do a search (blocking pop-ups, JavaScript, Flash) at your choice. Typically, the desktop user has multiple windows open, and is working on several things at once. If an ad is invasive, he can close the window, change windows, change apps and move on...

On the mobile device, the user operates differently-- the tendency is to spend small snippets of time: get in; do something; get out! If an ad is poorly targeted, poorly presented or invasive it is much more disruptive to the user and his productivity. If I am going to spend 20-30 seconds in an app, I don't, necessarily, want to be forced to spend another 30 seconds watching an ad, before I get to my purpose for using the app.

If you view Apple's iAd announcement, you will see that Apple's mobile iAds are targeted at improving the mobile user experience and enhancing the platform-- to sell more devices.

If you consider Google, they have no devices or platform to sell-- only ads.

If history is any guide, Google will attempt to get as many ads as they can, "in your face", as frequently as possible-- that's how they make their money.

I suspect that either:

1) Android will become a platform of poorly-targeted, poor-quality intrusive ads-- to the detriment of Android users and developers

2) Android will attempt to follow the iAd model with limited success (because of lack of incentive and lack of tenacity).

3) Google will abandon Android because it cannot deliver the "goods!"


Google wants to give away free razors-- but they may not have razorblades that anyone wants to buy!


.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #251 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

If you read my post in response to his lengthy one, you will realize that Dick's post is only 1/2 true.

Apps (especially the free ones) will still have ads in them that are served by AdMob (Google) and iAds (Apple). So even if you use apps to do your searches, you'll still see the ads that Google and Apple wants you to see if you had done a Google search.

Paid apps and apps that developers can support without needing the incoming provided by ads will "circumvent" a Google search. But with free apps taking up a large portion of the Market and App Store, it's pretty much guaranteed that you'll see the ads Google and Apple want you to see.

Though I'm curious to know what he took back in his post after mine and whether or not it was a response to me.

My post was lame! It was an emotional response to what I felt was a patronizing and condescending reply to my original post.

I regretted it, and removed it!

But, thanks to Chopper, who responded, I will repost it here-- with apologies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum


Oh thank you for your insight and wisdom-- as an IBM and AAPL shareholder, iOS developer and industry participant for 32 years, I guess I just missed all the points you raise. Especially iAd and AdMob -- that knowledge must be privy to a select few like yourself.

/tuna alert

I gave it some additional thought, overnight, and prepared a more suitable response-- one that addresses the issues in my original post, and those in your response.


As to your contention that my response is 1/2 true-- here is the part of my latest post that addresses that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Our family are active users on the iOS platform with 6 iPhones (3 originals, 1 3G, 1 3GS, 1 iP4) and 2 iPads. We span 3 generations and have 510 active app store apps as of today. These span all categories, and age groups. By my estimate 65% are purchased and 35% are free. I guess that less than 3% of all apps show ads. In fact, I downloaded a few apps from the app store because they were reputed to include iAd ads (newly available in iOS 4). As an iOS developer, I wanted to see the quality and presentation on "real" iAds (as opposed to the sample you include in the SDK).

Typically, we download 5-10 apps a week, and I'd guess a mix of 50% free vs 50% pay.

So my experience with 510 current iOS apps* is that 97% do not contain ads-- this is way off the mark when this poster claims: "Dick's post is only 1/2 true."

So, I must admit that my post is only 97% true!

* Many apps that we download are winnowed over time, for various reasons: poor quality; better similar app; upgrade; outgrow the need; universal app for all iOS devices replaces individual apps, etc. I estimate that we have downloaded 650-700 apps since the app store opened. Most of the deleted apps are older apps and did not include any ads! If I were to include these apps, likely, my overall experience with iOS apps containing ads is 1%-2% (lower than the 3% of current apps).

In addition, I must admit that I have no personal experience with the Android platform or Android apps. It could well be true, that for the Android platform 1/2 of the apps do contain ads-- it is up to the original poster to validate his claim!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #252 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Ahh... but here's the rub. Google has no track record in delivering a positive ad experience (on the desktop) and no reason to change their tactics on the non-iOS mobile devices.

To the contrary, Google seems to be taking the lead in presenting adds that are increasingly gratuitous, disruptive and irritating-- the antithesis to taste and class!

I would not call several plain text "sponsored links" at the top and right of Google searches "gratuitous, disruptive, and irritating". Where have you seen Google ads that fit into this category?

I hate the flash-based talking ads and the pop-over ones that you have to click to get rid of... I have never seen these on Google.

I always thought common consensus was that Google rules the desktop search world because their results are more relevant and their ads are clean and unobtrusive (unlike Yahoo, MSN, and the dozens of other cluttered crapfests that have died over the years).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Several things at work here:

1) Android is experiencing a growth spurt from a very small base-- a large % increase is expected, and readily attainable from a small base.
2) Android has a relatively small number of apps that run on al (or even the majority) of Android devices.

My experience is that #2 is patently false... do you have any supporting evidence?
post #253 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1st View Post

Sure. Sorry about the confusion. hit a wrong button. It is comment about the NPD... Here is something for you to compensate your "confusion":

http://www.fakesteve.net/

Ok then. I agree and maybe disagree with various parts.

First, in regards to the NPD study, I have to disagree. It is about the handsets in this case. Like I said in an earlier post, the reason it's done is so that we can quantify the claim of "selling the most" in the US. In this case, it's mobile phones. It's so all the key players knows how well they and their competitors are doing in relation to each other in terms of sales. If these companies didn't have this information, they wouldn't know how well their current business model is doing and if anything needs to be adjusted.

Outside the NPD study, I do agree that it's also all about the platform as a whole. The Fake Steve blog post was an amusing read. Something tells me that Google probably doesn't mind if Apple ends up getting the "premium" top 10%. There's no doubt that Apple knows that they're doing. So does Google. Their goal has always been to get Android out to as many people as possible to expand Google's search potential as wide as possible. That's why Android is free it use and works on virtually any electronic device.

If Apple's happy sitting at the very tip of the mountain earning the highest profits and Google is happy owning most of the rest of the mountain, I see no issues.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #254 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnb View Post

Actually, I find it rather ironic that someone posting on a Apple rumors website would seriously defend anonymous "inside sources" as reliable.

Most of the articles on this site prove that those sources are usually crap.

(Of course, individual posters getting riled up over crap sources = no surprise)

Oh, ok, I guess we should take self-serving PR spin as the definitive source on what companies are up to, they would never attempt to deceive us.
post #255 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Oh, ok, I guess we should take self-serving PR spin as the definitive source on what companies are up to, they would never attempt to deceive us.

Again, ironic considering where you are...
post #256 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnb View Post

I would not call several plain text "sponsored links" at the top and right of Google searches "gratuitous, disruptive, and irritating". Where have you seen Google ads that fit into this category?

I hate the flash-based talking ads and the pop-over ones that you have to click to get rid of... I have never seen these on Google.

I always thought common consensus was that Google rules the desktop search world because their results are more relevant and their ads are clean and unobtrusive (unlike Yahoo, MSN, and the dozens of other cluttered crapfests that have died over the years).




My experience is that #2 is patently false... do you have any supporting evidence?

No I don't! Are you saying that most Android apps run on all (or even the majority) of Android devices?

Again, I don't pay much attention to the Android platform! But over the last 5-6 months I have read various articles by developers and sites like AI that claim that fragmentation is a big problem because of device hardware differences, different OS versions to support, and dependency on the carrier OS skins, etc.

Aside:

Currently most apps that run on the original iPhone will run on all the current device and OS versions. The iPad is the exception. It has its own unique iOS version (3.2). Apple forked iOS development so that they could develop the iPad and iPhone concurrently. The iPad will get the latest iOS 4, this fall.

Until then, As a developer, you need to decide on what devices to target and proceed accordingly.

It is not exceedingly difficult to target all the devices-- it just takes some decisions and some planning.

Another consideration is that iOS devices have a long life-- old iPhones get handed down as phones or iPod Touch, game-boy alternatives. So a savvy developer can target a large population of older devices.



As an iOS developer with fewer devices (from a single manufacturer) with no carrier embellishments-- fragmentation is a consideration. Screen sizes & resolutions are pretty easy to to handle. Feature differences (camera, GPS, cell radio) tend to be more black and white. When there is a major difference-- as in the screen real estate on the iPad vs the smaller iPhone and iPod Touch, in many cases you must completely rethink the app. Taking a an iPhone app and enlarging it for an iPad just doesn't work, in many cases. So, you design a different app for the iPad.

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #257 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnb View Post

Again, ironic considering where you are...

Actually, it's not ironic at all, since it has nothing to do with where I am.
post #258 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

As I mentioned above, but you choose to ignore: Ads and Search are changing! We are in the early stages of that change. For now, people will continue to use Google/Yahoo/Bing search on the desktop, through the browser because they have little choice.

Increasingly, though, people set their browser to block pop-up windows, disable JavaScript and block Flash. Why? because browser searches increasingly present the user with disruptive, irritating and unwanted ads..

The user and the search service are enjoined in a battle-- where the user wants to get results and the search service wants ads and clicks.

I think that most users would be willing to accept browser/search ads in exchange for the service... if the ads are done properly.

But, the problem is that the search ads are not done properly... They Suck! They increasingly are an affront to the user and an impediment to productivity.

As I mention below, Googles latest ploy to redirect my searches is especially irritating-- to the point that every time it happens, I ignore the Google results and use a different search engine.

The Googles, Yahoos and Bings need to rethink their offerings as they are in danger of killing "the goose that laid the golden eggs".

I will still have to disagree with you there. I did a simple Google search on my phone and I get results laid out in the following order:

1. Images results
2. Relevant links to websites
3. News results
4. Video results
5. Book results
6. Similar suggested searches
7. Ad links

As you can see, the ads are placed all the way at the bottom of the screen, out of the way. The relevant search results in multiple media formats are presented up front for the user. I didn't see any indication of the engine trying to force or redirect me to their ads.

As for Flash ads. The only mobile OS that I'm aware of that'll run Flash is Android 2.2. The browser has an option to set Flash to run "on demand". Meaning that where the Flash item would normally be, the browser (and third-party browsers too it seems), will replace it with a clickable (tappable?) box. The Flash content will not run unless the user allows it to. Thus preventing the majority of those annoying Flash ads from getting in your face constantly.

Quote:
Actually, it is true! Some apps show ads, many do not! On iOS, even the ones that do show ads are limited, by the OS and the developer, in what they can present-- no popups, no Flash.


The advent of iAd, along with the limits placed on AdMob and others, should improve the user experience on iOS devices.

Our family are active users on the iOS platform with 6 iPhones (3 originals, 1 3G, 1 3GS, 1 iP4) and 2 iPads. We span 3 generations and have 510 active app store apps as of today. These span all categories, and age groups. By my estimate 65% are purchased and 35% are free. I guess that less than 3% of all apps show ads. In fact, I downloaded a few apps from the app store because they were reputed to include iAd ads (newly available in iOS 4). As an iOS developer, I wanted to see the quality and presentation on "real" iAds (as opposed to the sample you include in the SDK).

Typically, we download 5-10 apps a week, and I'd guess a mix of 50% free vs 50% pay.

I'm glad to hear this. But my point still stands. It may be a 3% of your apps that have ads, but you have to multiply this by the platform group as a whole. And remember that Apple has just gotten started with iAds. My guess is that as time moves on, I suspect you'll see more of them in your apps.

Your point (if I read it correctly) is that apps are starting to push out browser searches, making Android useless. Yet here we are still with ads in your apps. That 3% multiplied by the whole of the platform (iOS or Android) still can generate a lot of money.

The more people that buy Android phones, the more Google search and the ads will be viewed. As long as Android continues to evolve as an OS and adds more innovative features and the OEMs continue to pump out evolved hardware, the people will continue to buy the devices and guarantee the continued life of Android. It's my belief that the life of Android is actually determined by the people, not whether or not Google sees "usefulness" in it.

In the latest Q2 earning call, Google's CFO said that Android development costs were "not material". Clearly, Google's got the money to easily cover its development so as long as people keep buying Android devices, all it does it add to Google's search.

Quote:
I suspect you meant to say "If the ad is of great quality...".

I agree with this, and yes the users, likely, won't be put-off by a tasteful banner.

A little bit of both. If the ad's done well, then yes, the user won't care. If the app itself is a really good one and the ad is placed in an unobtrusive place (as the majority of ad banners are), most users will be willing to accept it.

Quote:
As of today, I suspect AdMob (google) is responsible for most of the mobile ads on smart phone class mobile devices. I include the iPod Touch and iPad because, while not phones, they are potentially lucrative ad targets.

With an installed base of over 100 million devices and more than double the number of apps-- it makes sense, for purposes of this discussion, to focus on iOS devices.

AdMob may continue to serve ads to iOS devices, but they no longer are allowed to gather mobile analytics.

This precludes AdMob from targeting ads to iOS users except with a very broad brush.

I suspect, as the iOS platform evolves, iAd will be the predominant delivery vehicle for ads.

Further, based on Apple's track record, Steve's comments about iAd and Apples attention to "User Experience"-- i believe the ads will be targeted, high-quality, and well-received... with the user making the choice:

1) whether to receive any ads (pay or free programs)
2) minimalist, tasteful ad banners within the app
3) targeted to the user's current interests
4) user opt-in to view the ad without leaving the app
5) user opt-out an any time.

So, while it is true, that, likely, there will be ads in iOS apps-- they won't be anything like those served by browsers and search engines on the desktop.


If Steve has his way, the millions of iOS users will have a very positive ad experience.

I have no qualms here. I do hope that iAds will give all those benefits in the future. It's a good balance of user experience and Apple earning money off of ads.

Quote:
Ahh... but here's the rub. Google has no track record in delivering a positive ad experience (on the desktop) and no reason to change their tactics on the non-iOS mobile devices.

To the contrary, Google seems to be taking the lead in presenting adds that are increasingly gratuitous, disruptive and irritating-- the antithesis to taste and class!

It is not too far a stretch to imagine that the typical Android app ad banner would look something like this:

Image removed to save space on the post

I'm assuming that you've never seen an Android app ad because it seems you don't own an Android device. It actually looks like this:



Notice how the ad itself sits at the very bottom of the screen where there's no content being displayed. Very out of the way. It rotates ads at a set cycle, but it does not move from that spot. I do believe that this is how Apple does its app ads as well.

And like Apple's iAds, there will be a variety of banner types. Ones that have a phone icon on it that allows you to call the company directly and ones that expand to show maps or be interactive.

Quote:
Several things at work here:

1) Android is experiencing a growth spurt from a very small base-- a large % increase is expected, and readily attainable from a small base.
2) Android has a relatively small number of apps that run on all (or even the majority) of Android devices.

So, it is natural to compensate for app deficiency with browser searches-- resulting in search growth on a fast-growing platform.

Yes, it's a smaller initial install base, but we all have to start from somewhere. This growth "spurt" doesn't seem to have any end in the near-term as every single new study that comes out shows yet more Android gain. Even with preparations by the carriers, the phones are still getting sold out within days. The people clearly want these phones.

I too will have to completely disagree with #2. Getting to the 2.x version of Android was the biggest hurdle in terms of app development. Now that 60%+ of devices are running 2.1 and above, the vast majority of Android apps are available to run on the majority of Android devices.

Quote:
Au Contraire! I am well aware of Apple's iAd offering in the mobile ad space. I watched the announcement and have been experimenting with iAd (since it became available in the SDK) as an iOS developer.

And it does matter what OS is pushed.

Apple has a goal of selling devices with the best user experience.

Android has a goal of selling ads.

Ad delivery has been marginally acceptable on the desktop, but sucks in the mobile environment.

On the desktop, you can open another window, do a search (blocking pop-ups, JavaScript, Flash) at your choice. Typically, the desktop user has multiple windows open, and is working on several things at once. If an ad is invasive, he can close the window, change windows, change apps and move on...

On the mobile device, the user operates differently-- the tendency is to spend small snippets of time: get in; do something; get out! If an ad is poorly targeted, poorly presented or invasive it is much more disruptive to the user and his productivity. If I am going to spend 20-30 seconds in an app, I don't, necessarily, want to be forced to spend another 30 seconds watching an ad, before I get to my purpose for using the app.

If you view Apple's iAd announcement, you will see that Apple's mobile iAds are targeted at improving the mobile user experience and enhancing the platform-- to sell more devices.

If you consider Google, they have no devices or platform to sell-- only ads.

If history is any guide, Google will attempt to get as many ads as they can, "in your face", as frequently as possible-- that's how they make their money.

I suspect that either:

1) Android will become a platform of poorly-targeted, poor-quality intrusive ads-- to the detriment of Android users and developers

2) Android will attempt to follow the iAd model with limited success (because of lack of incentive and lack of tenacity).

3) Google will abandon Android because it cannot deliver the "goods!"


Google wants to give away free razors-- but they may not have razorblades that anyone wants to buy!

Have you seen the Google I/O keynotes as well where they show off their ad experience? This is a link to the entire Google Day 2 keynote, but skip ahead to 38:00 where they show off how their ads work on Android:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY3U2GXhz44

In essence, it looks like your whole argument of Android failing because of the ads are based on limited knowledge of use of the platform.

I highly suggest you go and borrow an Android device from a friend and do a Google search and look at some of the apps with ads in them. You will find that:

1. The ads are targeted very well based on the user's past searches and location

2. The ads in the apps are very unobtrusive and clearly not "in your face" nor placed all over the place

3. There are a variety of ad types that will show in the app banners, but will not take up any more space that in the image I showed above, unless the user decides that the ad is interesting enough for them to click on.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #259 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

No I don't! Are you saying that most Android apps run on all (or even the majority) of Android devices?

Again, I don't pay much attention to the Android platform! But over the last 5-6 months I have read various articles by developers and sites like AI that claim that fragmentation is a big problem because of device hardware differences, different OS versions to support, and dependency on the carrier OS skins, etc.

.

I really can't answer that definitively... I know there are some fragmentation issues, but there are also mechanisms built into the system to make it a relatively non-issue for end users. I have a somewhat recent device (Nov-09) and have had no app compatibility issues at all; but I started with a 2.x OS and the carrier has kept it up-to-date. I don't think there are many "envelope-pushing" Android apps (yet?), so that probably helps too!!

I'd guess there are issues with older (1.x) devices not being compatible with the newest software... which of course is only made worse by the manufacturer/carrier having the decision whether or not to update the device. But to your point, I agree there will be some fragmentation issues for any platform that is moving forward...
post #260 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

I will still have to disagree with you there. I did a simple Google search on my phone and I get results laid out in the following order:

1. Images results
2. Relevant links to websites
3. News results
4. Video results
5. Book results
6. Similar suggested searches
7. Ad links

As you can see, the ads are placed all the way at the bottom of the screen, out of the way. The relevant search results in multiple media formats are presented up front for the user. I didn't see any indication of the engine trying to force or redirect me to their ads.

As for Flash ads. The only mobile OS that I'm aware of that'll run Flash is Android 2.2. The browser has an option to set Flash to run "on demand". Meaning that where the Flash item would normally be, the browser (and third-party browsers too it seems), will replace it with a clickable (tappable?) box. The Flash content will not run unless the user allows it to. Thus preventing the majority of those annoying Flash ads from getting in your face constantly.

I guess I wasn't clear, but I rarely do a search on my iPhone. I was talking about desktop searches-- that are increasingly offensive.

I just did a Google search on the desktop and on my iPhone for nascar photo.

Here are the results on the iPhone:



I added the red ovals to highlight the search, and the fact that sponsored links are sometimes shown at the top (another is at the bottom).



The oval indicates the url of the page shown when I clinked the topmost search result (the sponsored link)

The page contains a Flash movie, apparently with a Flash splash image-- so nothing is shown (thankfully).


Now, lets see how Google works on the Desktop.

Here's our search result:



Again, I added the red ovals to highlight the search, and the fact that sponsored links are sometimes shown at the top (no other is at the bottom).



The oval indicates the url of the page shown when I clinked the topmost search result (the sponsored link)

This is what pisses me off-- Google has decided to link me to another page than the one I requested-- a page full of unrelated ads. Google goes through an intermediate redirection process to do this, and it takes 3 "back" clicks to get to the original search results.

Sometimes, Google doesn't like a simple search request and takes me to a separate Google page where I need to enter an anti-spam sequence of characters (from a distorted image) to proceed.

This is getting tedious, and I am using Google, less and less on the desktop, and almost never on the mobile devices

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob

I'm glad to hear this. But my point still stands. It may be a 3% of your apps that have ads, but you have to multiply this by the platform group as a whole. And remember that Apple has just gotten started with iAds. My guess is that as time moves on, I suspect you'll see more of them in your apps.

I meant that 3% of the apps I have installed show any ads. What is a "platform group"? Ads have been available on the iPhone for a while (AIR, before Google bought AdMob, and before Android was available on any mobile device). i could be wrong, as there have not really been very many ads on iPhone apps (that I have seen).

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob

Your point (if I read it correctly) is that apps are starting to push out browser searches, making Android useless. Yet here we are still with ads in your apps. That 3% multiplied by the whole of the platform (iOS or Android) still can generate a lot of money.

Ahh... If you are saying that ads on 3% 0f 100 million iOS devices, I agree.

In fact the dynamic that Steve presented at the iAd announcement were so many potential ad views per hour (etc).

I agree that the potential is very powerful-- but it must be done correctly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob

The more people that buy Android phones, the more Google search and the ads will be viewed. As long as Android continues to evolve as an OS and adds more innovative features and the OEMs continue to pump out evolved hardware, the people will continue to buy the devices and guarantee the continued life of Android. It's my belief that the life of Android is actually determined by the people, not whether or not Google sees "usefulness" in it.

Here's where we disagree. Google is becoming increasingly intrusive. I resent it, to the point of reducing (eliminating, where I can) the use of their service. It is counter productive.

I see nothing that suggests that Google is interested in anything but serving ads. I might be willing to view ads but that is my choice, not Google's, Apple's or anyone's.

If Google's Android customers purchase apps [predominately] with ads, as you suggest, that is their choice.

If Android customers still require heavy use of search (and associated ads) that tells me there is something missing in the platform-- that Google cannot, or will not provide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob


In the latest Q2 earning call, Google's CFO said that Android development costs were "not material". Clearly, Google's got the money to easily cover its development so as long as people keep buying Android devices, all it does it add to Google's search.

Yes, Exactly! The ads pay for everything! That tells me all I need to know about Googles motivation.

If Apple had the same motivation to provide iOS, it would be equally suspect!

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob

A little bit of both. If the ad's done well, then yes, the user won't care. If the app itself is a really good one and the ad is placed in an unobtrusive place (as the majority of ad banners are), most users will be willing to accept it.



I have no qualms here. I do hope that iAds will give all those benefits in the future. It's a good balance of user experience and Apple earning money off of ads.



I'm assuming that you've never seen an Android app ad because it seems you don't own an Android device. It actually looks like this:




Notice how the ad itself sits at the very bottom of the screen where there's no content being displayed. Very out of the way. It rotates ads at a set cycle, but it does not move from that spot. I do believe that this is how Apple does its app ads as well.

And like Apple's iAds, there will be a variety of banner types. Ones that have a phone icon on it that allows you to call the company directly and ones that expand to show maps or be interactive.



Yes, it's a smaller initial install base, but we all have to start from somewhere. This growth "spurt" doesn't seem to have any end in the near-term as every single new study that comes out shows yet more Android gain. Even with preparations by the carriers, the phones are still getting sold out within days. The people clearly want these phones.

I too will have to completely disagree with #2. Getting to the 2.x version of Android was the biggest hurdle in terms of app development. Now that 60%+ of devices are running 2.1 and above, the vast majority of Android apps are available to run on the majority of Android devices.



Have you seen the Google I/O keynotes as well where they show off their ad experience? This is a link to the entire Google Day 2 keynote, but skip ahead to 38:00 where they show off how their ads work on Android:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY3U2GXhz44

I took your advice and briefly watched the ad preso. The first thing I saw was an ad containing scrolling text at the top of the screen-- reminiscent of an animated GIF. In all honesty, there were things that were quite similar to iAd features.

But, I was uncomfortable with the emphasis-- on the ads rather than the benefit to developers. And, I find the presenter's mannerisms to be flippant, condescending and off-putting. I tried to look beyond these personal characteristics to see the content-- I found it difficult.

Later, I will try again, to discern the quality and the benefits of the Android ad platform.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob


In essence, it looks like your whole argument of Android failing because of the ads are based on limited knowledge of use of the platform.

I highly suggest you go and borrow an Android device from a friend and do a Google search and look at some of the apps with ads in them. You will find that:

1. The ads are targeted very well based on the user's past searches and location

2. The ads in the apps are very unobtrusive and clearly not "in your face" nor placed all over the place

3. There are a variety of ad types that will show in the app banners, but will not take up any more space that in the image I showed above, unless the user decides that the ad is interesting enough for them to click on.

I hear what you say, but I saw what I saw!

I am downloading the Google press, it is quite large. When finished, I will create a short video of what I saw and post it here.


Update:

Below is the section of the Google video dedicated to Android ads.

http://web.me.com/dicklacara/Misc/Go...%20-%20ads.mov

Note:

1) the placement of the ad at the top of the screen
2) the animation of the ad which detracts from the app and potentially confuses the user
3) all ad formats (except the one patterned after iAd) leave the application-- maybe never to return*
4) some of the ads were imposed in the middle of the app's display (vertically)-- what's with that?
5) Does the Developer have control of which ads are shown> Where?
6) Can the user opt out?

* all of the ads except one use the "back button of the multi-tasking interface?" to return to the app-- it appears that a user of an app can easily use his way

The speaker says that Android is able to serve targeted ads based upon your location, browser history, search history.

Can the user opt in to this location, browser and search tracking?

Can the user opt out?

Is he warned that he is being tracked and monitored.?

With whom does Google share the detail analytic information?

With the advertisers?

With the Governments?

Is this an invasion of privacy?

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #261 of 266
removed
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #262 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


This is what pisses me off-- Google has decided to link me to another page than the one I requested-- a page full of unrelated ads. Google goes through an intermediate redirection process to do this, and it takes 3 "back" clicks to get to the original search results.

Sometimes, Google doesn't like a simple search request and takes me to a separate Google page where I need to enter an anti-spam sequence of characters (from a distorted image) to proceed.

.

I'm confused -- are you pissed because the "sponsored links" are actually there, or because you get redirected to Shopica.com on your desktop?

Getting redirected to Shopica.com and frequently getting the CAPTCHA screen from normal searches are normally two clear signs that you are infected with some sort of malware.

This is *not* normal Google behavior...

I'm assuming you're running Safari on Mac, so I don't know what to tell you... I didn't think these things happened on Macs...
post #263 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnb View Post

I'm confused -- are you pissed because the "sponsored links" are actually there, or because you get redirected to Shopica.com on your desktop?

Getting redirected to Shopica.com and frequently getting the CAPTCHA screen from normal searches are normally two clear signs that you are infected with some sort of malware.

This is *not* normal Google behavior...

I'm assuming you're running Safari on Mac, so I don't know what to tell you... I didn't think these things happened on Macs...

The sponsored links are tolerable-- though I think they should not be at the top of the list.

I am pissed about the redirection. iMac 24 with all the latest Mac OS X updates.

Never had a virus that I knew of -- but it's possible!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #264 of 266
Google isn't evil. They're just aimless plagiarists like the rest of the Apple copycats. Google just happens to throw their patchwork OS onto a lot more devices than the rest, a la Microsoft.

Might as well call it Windroid Mobile.
post #265 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

The sponsored links are tolerable-- though I think they should not be at the top of the list.

I am pissed about the redirection. iMac 24 with all the latest Mac OS X updates.

Never had a virus that I knew of -- but it's possible!

.

If you were on Win I would say you're probably infected...

Sounds like at least some sort of DNS redirect issue... may be a router problem? Definitely worth looking into...
post #266 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Google isn't evil. They're just aimless plagiarists like the rest of the Apple copycats. Google just happens to throw their patchwork OS onto a lot more devices than the rest, a la Microsoft.

Might as well call it Windroid Mobile.

So much mudslinging!

Call them whatever you like to make your ego feel good, but at the end of the day, you'll still have to call them and Android successful.

Does Apple have to be the only sucessful company?
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Android tops BlackBerry, iPhone grows in US smartphone OS share