or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google activating 300,000 Android devices per day, for free
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google activating 300,000 Android devices per day, for free - Page 4

post #121 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

"Android came from nowhere" ---- sure, an OS with the backing of Google is "from nowhere"

In the mobile phone space Google had zero presence of its own (aside from search). That's what I meant by "from nowhere". We all knew Google only as the search/e-mail company prior to that point. Would you have expected a search company to create a mobile OS that has such an impact?

Quote:
"Against a field of giants" ---- I think you mean on the backs of giants (HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc.)

And what's wrong with that? Google helped make Android enticing enough for those companies to decide to run with it. Like you said, these companies could have picked any OS at all. But they chose Android on its merits.

If Android's merits didn't fit, wouldn't those companies have continued to use their current OSs?

Quote:
"managed to shove aside WinMo" ---- Dude, WinMo was already dead

I'll give you that one. What I probably should have said was accelerated its death.

Quote:
Androids a great OS and all, but it isn't a little guy against the world success story, and OS marketshare is hardly the defining factor of success for Apple anyway (see OSX). The iPhone doesn't compete against Android, it competes against phones produced by other phone manufacturers, many of which are using Android right now. If a better OS becomes available to them, they will use that instead. Google should worry more about WP7 than iOS, because it's the OS that will try to lure hardware manufacturers away from Android (the open source MeeGo could also present a threat, but that remains to be seen). Apple and RIM aren't going to be licensing out their operating systems, so Google doesn't really need to worry about them too much.

Nothing worth getting bent out of shape to disagree with here. I will agree with your statement on WP7. At the moment, it doesn't seem to have gathered traction yet. Then again, Android was the exact same way when it first started out, so anything's possible.
\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 #122 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Quadra, nor I, said anything about a flop.

Oops. My fault. That should be 2cent I'm referring to.

Though my thoughts still stand.
\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 #123 of 174
Here are the actual results from each company over the past year compared to each other

Revenue (Billions): Google , Apple , Difference
Sept Quarter 09: 5.94 , 12.25 , 206%
Sept Quarter 10: 7.29 , 20.34 , 279%
\t\t\t
Net Profit (Billions): Google , Apple , Difference
Sept Quarter 09: 1.88 , 2.85 , 152%
Sept Quarter 10: 2.46 , 4.31 , 175%

Revenue: Google Total\t , iPhone (only) , Difference
Sept Quarter 10: 7.29 , 8.82 , 121%

Things to note from the above data
The iPhone alone generates more revenue then all of Google's activities put together, and is increasing.
Apple Revenue and Net Porfit figures are increasing at a much faster rate than Google as a whole
post #124 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2cents View Post

Ok,
Many different Androids, many different versions, many different carriers.
1 iPhone, 1 version, 1 carrier (for now)

and iPhone is still ahead of everyone else!
and everyone else has to GIVE AWAY phones to keep up!

Aside from bragging rights I don't see how this justifies that Android is a "flop".

Quote:
Originally Posted by BertieBig View Post

Android doesn't look like a platform to me. If there is one defining feature of a platform, it's that you write an application for the platform, and it works on all the machines that run on that platform. This doesn't happen on Android. See Rovio's Angry Brids experience or evidence.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...id-devices.ars

Android is a portfolio of technology that can be complied to run on commodity hardware and skinned. That's different. And I think the defining difference that does not allow for an accurate comparision between the installed base of Andriod and iOS.

So if I write a program for Windows 7 it should run on Windows 3.1?
\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 #125 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

...Androids a great OS and all, but it isn't a little guy against the world success story, and OS marketshare is hardly the defining factor of success for Apple anyway (see OSX). The iPhone doesn't compete against Android, it competes against phones produced by other phone manufacturers, many of which are using Android right now. If a better OS becomes available to them, they will use that instead. Google should worry more about WP7 than iOS, because it's the OS that will try to lure hardware manufacturers away from Android (the open source MeeGo could also present a threat, but that remains to be seen). Apple and RIM aren't going to be licensing out their operating systems, so Google doesn't really need to worry about them too much.

See cmf2 - there you go being all logical and stuff. Android cannot "beat" iOS without using the comparison of Android to the iPhone, so naturally that is what is being reported, and this point has been made both consistently and successfully - but it is also uniformly denied by the Android proponents - whose world view demands that their precious "open" OS be the champion of the world. This little stub from Linux is going to rectify all the languishing potential of Linux for the myriads of Open Source fans - hence the bends, twisting and concatenating of simple statistics into a lovely framework for this particular ideology.

Any OS or framework is only as good as it's uptake into the industry. By championing Android, Google was able to buy time to build out Chrome OS, which in no way was ready for prime-time on any platform. Gogle was very canny about switching form-factor from the previous Blackberry form to the iPhone form. Eric wasn't stupid he recognized the potential in what Apple was doing. It also forced Microsoft to revamp it's entire approach to WinMo, delaying entry into the fray by WinMo7, and allowing Google time to build out a marketshare before Microsoft came back to market with it's solution. It also meant that Google would, like any good illusionist, keep pointing at Apple while eroding Microsoft's mobile base.

Except that Microsoft wasn't watching where Google was pointing, and stepped in and offered HTC the choice of lawsuit or licensing touch interface from Microsoft. Cha-ching, now for HTC Android is costing them money. Motorola too. And for the Fandroids who keep insisting that Apple is the giant to kill, stop watching where Google is pointing and watch the other hand instead: Nokia/Symbian and RIM are the marketshares that lead for now, not Apple. You have been fooled and misdirected. Likewise Apploids, stop saying that Apple isn't concerned with marketshare - of course they are. Without marketshare you don't have sales and you lose. It may not be first priority and an absolute necessity like it is for Google/Android, but it is still important.

I'm sorry if this is too much commonsense for some of you but there you are. Google HAS to deeply penetrate the mobile ad space and Android is the trogan horse to do it - their business plan was plateauing with the installed desktop ad space and they needed to catch the next profit stream. It's all business folks. Fandroids, Goggle isn't the white knight championing open source out of the kindness of it's heart. It is prostituting the platform for it's own ends - and as long as the fans don't mind the metaphorical streetcorners and the "work" Android will bring in the revenue for Google. But if something else comes along
prettier and more profitable - Android will be put to rest.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #126 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

Oops. My fault. That should be 2cent I'm referring to.

Though my thoughts still stand.

If Android was up against iOS on its own [on edit - = one manufacturer] on one carrier it would be a flop. It takes almost every manufacturer and every carrier to make a dent in Apple's armour.

Knowing that I have to ask why iOS is so compelling. Is Android really worth its salt or is it only popular because it's being thrown onto the market in the millions by any and every manufacturer in town?

I'm not sure how this could be answered (reason for popularity).

One area where I'd like to see stats is how many "paid" apps are being bought on each os.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #127 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrstep View Post

I totally agree - my parents were incredibly excited when they realized that while the UI and performance may not be consistent, and the app selection is more limited and apps may or may not work well on their devices, that they could issue the above commands to compile their own kernel. I assume that's the main draw on GoogleTV as well?

So basically the only other tweet Rubin had was to counter Jobs, and then he totally missed the point of what the argument was. Nice.

That command is the UserInterface of the device
post #128 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

Google(android) isn't "outselling" anyone. They are GIVING it away.

Are you sure, because they were asking money for all the phones in the flyer I got yesterday.

Google might be giving it away, but the phone manufactures aren't
post #129 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

Aside from bragging rights I don't see how this justifies that Android is a "flop".



So if I write a program for Windows 7 it should run on Windows 3.1?

If you write a program on windows 7 then there is likelihood that it won't run on windows 7 itself

You picked a wrong example.
post #130 of 174
I used to read the articles on this site for apple related info. Unfortunately, many of the articles are now simply unadulterated one-sided and poorly written opinion pieces. sad.
post #131 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by enohpI View Post

That is because Google is trying to kill the iPhone. If not for that, it would be OK for them to coexist. But Google is trying to kill the iPhone.

Google makes quite a bit of money out of mobility. Why would they try to kill the iPhone?
post #132 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

In the mobile phone space Google had zero presence of its own (aside from search). That's what I meant by "from nowhere". We all knew Google only as the search/e-mail company prior to that point. Would you have expected a search company to create a mobile OS that has such an impact?

Google didn't create the OS, they bought it and refined it. I'd expect a company with the financial clout of Google to be able to break into new markets from time to time (they've done quite well in the email and web browser markets too). Breaking into the mobile market was impressive, don't get me wrong, I just don't agree with the disadvantaged connotations the term "from nowhere" brings with it.

Quote:
And what's wrong with that? Google helped make Android enticing enough for those companies to decide to run with it. Like you said, these companies could have picked any OS at all. But they chose Android on its merits.

On its merits vs WinMo, basically the only other option they had, which was my point. You said they were up against the giants of iOS, Symbian and BB. I was suggesting that wasn't true from a hardware manufacturers perspective since their only other "viable" option was WinMo (or to create their own OS).

Quote:
If Android's merits didn't fit, wouldn't those companies have continued to use their current OSs?

Again that current OS was WinMo, which you agree was on its way out. Androids been a great success for Google, I just like to keep things in perspective. Google doesn't make their own phones, it needs the continual support of phone manufacturers to stay in the game. Once upon a time WinMo was the mobile OS of choice for these manufacturers, but it didn't last forever. Android being open source and receiving frequent updates should help it avoid a similar fate, but I think it's important to properly identify why Android is successful and what it's really up against.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #133 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by BertieBig View Post

Android doesn't look like a platform to me. If there is one defining feature of a platform, it's that you write an application for the platform, and it works on all the machines that run on that platform. This doesn't happen on Android. See Rovio's Angry Brids experience or evidence.

Wrong. When Android releases a new version, there are new APIs that developers can leverage to add newly exposed features of the OS to their app. New applications can utilize these new APIs or existing applications can be updated to take advantage of the new features of the release. This is no different than software development on any other platform, including iOS.

In the case of Android, if an application requires *new* API's introduced in the latest platform release, then that app will only appear in the Market to users with the latest version. The key is that new platform releases do not modify existing APIs such that they break compatibility with existing apps that use those APIs. Android does not.

Also, multiple Angry Birds versions was an effort by Rovio to target older, slower, legacy hardware. There was no "platform problems" or "fragmentation", it was an effort by the developer to provided optimized experiences for different classes of hardware. Exactly like Id Software did for Rage on iOS.
post #134 of 174

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 1:17pm
post #135 of 174

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 1:17pm
post #136 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

214,000 per calendar day x 7 ~= 1,500,000 per calendar week

1,500,000 per calendar week / 5 ~= 300,000 per business day

Theres none of this business day nonsense in retail, it's seven days a week, phone companies are open to support activations seven days a week.

UNDERSTAND FUDGE

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

Would you have expected a search company to create a mobile OS that has such an impact?

Google didn't "create" an OS, they bought a company that did.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #137 of 174
I haven't read all this thread but was lolling a bit at the Fandroids popping in at page 1. There must be Fandroids who have an RSS feed to a site devoted to a different and competitive OS. And how sad is that. Meanwhile here am I in post 139. And me, a fan of Apple.

Lets clear something up: The report says that

while just days ago, the company reported a weekly activation number of 1.5 million, or just over 214,000 activations per day.

which means what it says. A few days ago the number of activations was 1.5 million a week. These figures are not plucked out of anyones arse, they are measured. As they made the announcement they didnt just pick up last August's figures, nor could something so rudimental a mistake ( were it a mistake) be made by the smallest marketing department in the smallest company. If they were selling 300K a day then a simple multiplication by 7 would have the marketing department announcing more than 2M a week. They didnt, because they weren't.

So is Rubin lying. No he is not. Rubin is telling us when Android passed the 300K a day mark; he is announcing this either a day or two later ( so he can say each), or maybe a week later. He was always going to tweet the 300K level, and rather than give the game away by saying " just passed 300K" he puts the tweet in a way it seems they always where . But they weren;t, or they would have said it.

So Android has been selling above their long term ( but clearly stalled) average since Black Friday and early Dec, which is what we would expect as shopping peaks now. That they weren't before then, that we can be surprised at. That includes the Samsung tablets ( and since the Samsung tablet is definitely included as an Android device we should include all iOS devices: tablet, phone and music players - anything with the full capabilities of iOS).

As for Apple, their iPod sales double each holiday - thats 20M, about 60% iPod touches, or more this year ( the new iPod touch is a steal). Thats assuming no Y-O-Y growth.
So 12-14 M iOS small form factor devices there,.

About 14-20m iPhones ( assuming the previous years Y-o-Y growth)

iPads at 4-8M. 4M would be sequentially the same, and I think is a massive underestimate for the holiday season.

Thats up to 42M devices: I am seeing that at up to 450K activations a day ( over 92 days - not 66 "working days") . 42M is more likely than not.

Android dominates in 2 markets, America ( a problem with the carriers) and China, a problem of price and the HTC brand, and carriers. Next year Apple will get past our Android fans again: in the US with more carrier coverage, in China with a greater brand awareness and new carriers, and with whatever new iPad, iDevice and whatever it does to the TV - which has to be better than anything google are doing.

The limitations of Androids platform will be become apparent as it tries to compete as an iDevice. It cant even run Angry Birds. Its not so loyal BOGO market will divert back to iOS, leaving the shut-ins to root their system and get angry on forums dedicated to iOS and Apple.

God love em.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #138 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

See cmf2 - there you go being all logical and stuff. Android cannot "beat" iOS without using the comparison of Android to the iPhone, so naturally that is what is being reported, and this point has been made both consistently and successfully - but it is also uniformly denied by the Android proponents - whose world view demands that their precious "open" OS be the champion of the world. This little stub from Linux is going to rectify all the languishing potential of Linux for the myriads of Open Source fans - hence the bends, twisting and concatenating of simple statistics into a lovely framework...

Great post, thanks!

Save your friends from Skynet - whoops, Google.  Recommend they use StartPage for search..

...and no, I am not paid to say this..

Reply

Save your friends from Skynet - whoops, Google.  Recommend they use StartPage for search..

...and no, I am not paid to say this..

Reply
post #139 of 174
After perusing 4 pages of Apple versus Android oneupisms I am simply reminded of that "can't we all just get along" mantra. As for me, I like the smartphone competition. And as long as there's a Verizon iPhone to choose next year, I don't care how many thousands of Android activations there are each day. I only want one iPhone activation.
post #140 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Theres none of this business day nonsense in retail, it's seven days a week, phone companies are open to support activations seven days a week.

UNDERSTAND FUDGE

First: Retail is not necessarily "seven days a week" -- often it is 5 or 6 days a week. I owned retail computer stores for 11 + years -- maybe 10 weeks in 11 years were we open 7 days in a row.

Second: Budgeting, Forecasting and Reporting in businesses is normally done on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis. Very seldom is it broken down smaller -- as it would be meaningless.

There are special exceptions, usually around holiday or special events: Easter Week; XMAS; Back To School; Super Bowl; Guy Fawkes Day; etc.

For these exceptions it is of little value to compare to the previous or following period -- rather comparison to the same period in prior and following years.

Third: Google is not a retail company. I suspect most of their employees and executives work 5 days per week, Mon-Fri. Those are the business days that comprise their week.

People who work a 5-day week tend to think in 5-day, 40 hour (US), weeks -- you make x amount of wages per week or month. You report progress or accomplishments in week or month increments.

Per day statistics are usually meaningless -- If 300,000 iPhones and 300,000 Android phones are activated on December 25, is it likely that that the same number will be activated December 26? December 31? February 17?


So where does Google get its numbers:

Is it the total activations per month / days in the month?

Is it the total activations per month / weeks in the month * days in a week?

What's a day?


My point is that a daily statistic, such as phone activations, is useful as a target or threshold accomplishment, but for little else.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #141 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

I agree. AppleInsider is more like a cult than a technology blog.

You mean other tech blogs aren't like cults too? The group-think at places like digg, engadget, and BGR is quite overwhelming.
post #142 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 cents View Post

Let me guess. You thought the whole computer and internet thing was a fad that would blow over. As my brother-in-law said, we can just go back to using paper.

Why?
I can't search paper.
At least not search it fast enough to be competitive at anything.
post #143 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

If Android was up against iOS on its own [on edit - = one manufacturer] on one carrier it would be a flop. It takes almost every manufacturer and every carrier to make a dent in Apple's armour.

Knowing that I have to ask why iOS is so compelling. Is Android really worth its salt or is it only popular because it's being thrown onto the market in the millions by any and every manufacturer in town?

I'm not sure how this could be answered (reason for popularity).

One area where I'd like to see stats is how many "paid" apps are being bought on each os.

This is a completely irrelevant scenario. Android is about CHOICE and openness and being able to build a phone however you want it.

iOS is 'so' compelling through branding and marketing to the mainstream market not because of the feature set of the phone itself which lacks compared to some of its competitors.
post #144 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by r00fus View Post

You mean other tech blogs aren't like cults too? The group-think at places like digg, engadget, and BGR is quite overwhelming.

Should probably have said suicide cult. Seeing as I wouldn't be surprised if half of you committed suicide if you woke up tomorrow and apple didn't exist.
post #145 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa View Post

From that 300,000, only 10% is comparable to iPhone 3GS, the rest are craps. Is it fair comparison?


If you are speaking about hardware alone, you are correct...but if you were talking about software, the IOS version is a very good version of the Android's 1.6.
post #146 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

This is a completely irrelevant scenario. Android is about CHOICE and openness and being able to build a phone however you want it.

iOS is 'so' compelling through branding and marketing to the mainstream market not because of the feature set of the phone itself which lacks compared to some of its competitors.

I'd say "horseshit" to that argument. I can almost guarantee you that the amount of people buying an Android phone who give a rat's ass about openness and and being able to build a phone however you want would amount to 10% or less of the market... 60% or more of the people who bought an Android phone were convinced by the seller that it was better to buy an Android phone because it supports flash...
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #147 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Should probably have said suicide cult. Seeing as I wouldn't be surprised if half of you committed suicide if you woke up tomorrow and apple didn't exist.

Well... for myself it would be a sad day but not worth committing suicide... on the other hand it would be a great day if I woke up tomorrow and you didn't exist.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #148 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoebetech View Post

If you are speaking about hardware alone, you are correct...but if you were talking about software, the IOS version is a very good version of the Android's 1.6.

Fair comparison:
Android 1.6 ~ iOS 1.0
Android 2.3 ~ iOS 2.2.1
Android 3.0 ~ iOS 3.1.3
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
post #149 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa View Post

From that 300,000, only 10% is comparable to iPhone 3GS, the rest are craps. Is it fair comparison?

I hope not. Otherwise, it would turn out Apple is loosing against crappy products, which doesn't put Apple product in good light either.

It is OK to loose against someone better than you, but loosing to (perceived) inferior... what does that make you..?
post #150 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm9843 View Post

Why do you think that? Smartphone sales have exploded (96% year-over-year) and the majority of those (with perhaps the exception of AT&T) are Android devices.

It is true. Google double counts things:

"Steve Jobs said Apple's 230,000 iOS activations are new activations and that "friends" are counting upgrades when they count their activations.

In other words, Jobs suggested that Eric Schmidt is full of it when he says there's 200,000 Android activations daily."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/steve...#ixzz17fc6dTOi
post #151 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

Who could be against being spoiled by choices?

Some people are confused by choices.

Sears uses the "Good, Better Best" strategy, as does Apple. They sell to the heartland of America.
post #152 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2cents View Post

Ok,
Many different Androids, many different versions, many different carriers.
1 iPhone, 1 version, 1 carrier (for now)

and iPhone is still ahead of everyone else!
and everyone else has to GIVE AWAY phones to keep up!

So where are all these free android phones people keep talking about?
post #153 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Google relies on third parties to install Android on their phones. iOS is unavailable to third parties, so is BB and so was Symbian at the time. The only competition Android had was WinMo which was not made for touch screens. If a company like HTC wanted to build a good touch screen phone, the Android OS became the best option. In fact a lot of Androids success stems from HTC building really good Android phones.

"Android came from nowhere" ---- sure, an OS with the backing of Google is "from nowhere"

"Against a field of giants" ---- I think you mean on the backs of giants (HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc.)

"managed to shove aside WinMo" ---- Dude, WinMo was already dead

Androids a great OS and all, but it isn't a little guy against the world success story, and OS marketshare is hardly the defining factor of success for Apple anyway (see OSX). The iPhone doesn't compete against Android, it competes against phones produced by other phone manufacturers, many of which are using Android right now. If a better OS becomes available to them, they will use that instead. Google should worry more about WP7 than iOS, because it's the OS that will try to lure hardware manufacturers away from Android (the open source MeeGo could also present a threat, but that remains to be seen). Apple and RIM aren't going to be licensing out their operating systems, so Google doesn't really need to worry about them too much.

You have some flawed logic. So Android was only competing against the only other open OS (WinMo) so their accomplishment does not count?

Really?

So when a customer goes to a store to buy a phone, they first sort themselves out by open or closed and then by which OS they want? Or do Open operating systems not compete with closed operating systems at all? I'd love to hear you explain this.

I'd say that basically tripling your activation rate and catching up to the other hot OS on the market in 1 year and getting set to topple the top seats in another year is not some piddling accomplishment.

Or do you also believe that Microsoft didn't achieve much because they were only competing against other open operating systems like Linux?

Seriously, is your bias that bad that you can't even acknowledge accomplishments like this one. Even if the comparison wasn't to iOS, the phenomenal growth achieved in 2010 alone is an accomplishment that should stand on its own. Give credit where it's due.
post #154 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by BertieBig View Post

Android doesn't look like a platform to me. If there is one defining feature of a platform, it's that you write an application for the platform, and it works on all the machines that run on that platform. This doesn't happen on Android. See Rovio's Angry Brids experience or evidence.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...id-devices.ars

Android is a portfolio of technology that can be complied to run on commodity hardware and skinned. That's different. And I think the defining difference that does not allow for an accurate comparision between the installed base of Andriod and iOS.



Good points. Reality is seldom what it seems. Android is not a platform.
post #155 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

I hope not. Otherwise, it would turn out Apple is loosing against crappy products, which doesn't put Apple product in good light either.

It is OK to loose against someone better than you, but loosing to (perceived) inferior... what does that make you..?

Even looser?
post #156 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

Aside from bragging rights I don't see how this justifies that Android is a "flop".



So if I write a program for Windows 7 it should run on Windows 3.1?

No. Windows 3.1 is obsolete.

Angry Birds doesn't run on the SE Xperia x10 Mini, an Android handset launched in Feb this year. That's because manufactures can slap Android on any old hardware and pitch it into the marketplace. It makes the Android world a mess, and clearly a nightmare to develop any software that relies on hardware with a minimum amount of grunt.

iOS on the other hand is not a mess. There are only a few hardware configurations to support and devs can choose how to do that.

The uncomfortable reality for Google is that if they want to solve these problems they need to become much more Apple-like. But, projecting more control over Android (tighter hardware definitions, consistent UIs, for example) kills a central part of their brand myth; that they're "open" and that they exist in part to defend to good guys from evil Apple and their "closed" systems (ignoring Apple's dependence on open web standards and their contributions to keeping the web open, like Webkit).

My guess is that senior people at Google value this myth so highly that they'll cling to it so tightly that Google will never try and make Android a proper platform. And without it being a proper platform, it doesn't matter how many handsets are out there. It only matters on how many devices a particular piece of software can run. The Rovio experience suggests that, for a sophisticated piece of software, this number is a relatively small portion of the total number of Android devices. So, each app defines it's own special Android "platform". That's a degree
post #157 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

Aside from bragging rights I don't see how this justifies that Android is a "flop".



So if I write a program for Windows 7 it should run on Windows 3.1?

No. Windows 3.1 is obsolete.

Angry Birds doesn't run on the SE Xperia x10 Mini, an Android handset launched in Feb this year. That's because manufactures can slap Android on any old hardware and pitch it into the marketplace. It makes the Android world a mess, and clearly a nightmare to develop any software that relies on hardware with a minimum amount of grunt.

iOS on the other hand is not a mess. There are only a few hardware configurations to support and devs can choose how to do that.

The uncomfortable reality for Google is that if they want to solve these problems they need to become much more Apple-like. But, projecting more control over Android (tighter hardware definitions, consistent UIs, for example) kills a central part of their brand myth; that they're "open" and that they exist in part to defend to good guys from evil Apple and their "closed" systems (ignoring Apple's dependence on open web standards and their contributions to keeping the web open, like Webkit).

My guess is that senior people at Google value this myth so highly that they'll cling to it so tightly that Google will never try and make Android a proper platform. And without it being a proper platform, it doesn't matter how many handsets are out there. It only matters on how many devices a particular piece of software can run. The Rovio experience suggests that, for a sophisticated piece of software, this number is a relatively small portion of the total number of Android devices. So, each app defines it's own special Android "platform". That's a very high degree of fragmentation.
post #158 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

I'd say "horseshit" to that argument. I can almost guarantee you that the amount of people buying an Android phone who give a rat's ass about openness and and being able to build a phone however you want would amount to 10% or less of the market... 60% or more of the people who bought an Android phone were convinced by the seller that it was better to buy an Android phone because it supports flash...

Exactly, CHOICE. They chose to buy a phone that can run flash if you CHOOSE to.
post #159 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa View Post

Fair comparison:
Android 1.6 ~ iOS 1.0
Android 2.3 ~ iOS 2.2.1
Android 3.0 ~ iOS 3.1.3

When the iphone got out in january 2007, Android was still vaporware and when Google show the alpha version to the world later in 2007 it was a blackberry clone. Then Android slowly became an iOS clone over the years.

I am seriously getting annoy by people saying Android was there before the iphone. The company was there in 2003, but the software was no were near like the 2007 iphone OS. The only reason Android is so popular is because its an "iphone like" alternative.
post #160 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

When the iphone got out in january 2007, Android was still vaporware and when Google show the alpha version to the world later in 2007 it was a blackberry clone. Then Android slowly became an iOS clone over the years.

I am seriously getting annoy by people saying Android was there before the iphone. The company was there in 2003, but the software was no were near like the 2007 iphone OS.

It all depends on how you define it. Those saying Android was before iPhone OS are surely only referring to the name tied to some initial OS software. I say let them have that as it does show how Android and others had to completely rethink what they were doing and use the iPhone as a template if they wanted to complete in the future of smartphones.

Its funny how so many experts said Apple couldnt compete in such a saturated market and overnight Apples model became the only one worth using if you want to survive.

Thats not to say that other innovations outside of Apple have not arisen, including ones that Apple has adopted and will adopt in future, just that the nearly buttonless, capacitance, multitouch smartphone with a rich web-browser is now the de facto standard because of Apples emergence into this industry. I have no doubt others would have figured it out, but when? Would Android be the most open Blackberry like device on the market had the iPhone not existed? I think so.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google activating 300,000 Android devices per day, for free