So clearly part of this is just Apple cleaning up and endorsing a solution. Likewise they might have to give up on the home button. Exactly how many times can we tap it to still add something?
The solution I proposed would let them keep the single home button. I think this is important and why Apple?s paradigm works. Even now many companies try to compete with Apple priming spec sheets with bolt on features. This is fine for some but I want ease of use to be a primary goal, and that includes longevity of use. Having an extra button for every new feature defeats the purpose just as having every app run in the background, slowing down the UI, worsening my user experience and draining the battery even faster.It
It needs to be controlled and well thought out for a device you expect to carry on your person and use throughout an entire day. WebOS, Android, WinMo and others it wrong, IMO.
Palm had announced that they were working on a PNS, too, but I have a feeling that it has failed. I think it?s great. I have 4 apps that I essentially have on all the time yet only have simple process running to get updates. Except for internet radio there is no other common 3rd-party app type that really needs constant background running in the background.
One thing WebOS and Android get right is the notifications system. It?s just so primitive on the iPhone. I expect this to be updated with v4.0. I also hope, though doubtful, that they?ll create an API for developers to create Home Screen and Menu Bar widgets so you can get a variety of data without unlocking your device. This would be simple background apps so the aforementioned task would have to have added in some regard for this to work. I can go on with changes I want to see, but I?ll save that for another thread.
Quote:
I have no doubt that even if they could add it to the prior iPhones, they probably won't. What better to inspire shiny new sales than shiny new features.
They have been good with giving out new robust updates each year. Eventually they have to stop and I was surprised that your iPhone got v3.0. Three full years of OS support seems a little much to me, then again I by anew phone and computer every year so I?m atypical in that sense. Still, they give the update for all the devices at once and this year it came out before the 3GS actually hit the street so it could have made some forego an update if they felt the v3.0 OS was more than suitable.
If you get the next iPhone you are going to be amazed at how fast it is compared to yours. Going from the 3G to the 3GS was night and day. I?d say the HW and OS didn?t really come into it?s own until the 3GS. OS X might be refined and Apple may have done a great job making it work in the iPhone, but it?s still a hefty OS for a mobile platform.
I disagree. Google, like Microsoft, coasts on a cash cow that it blundered into. For Google, it's search advertising revenue. That's it. They, like Microsoft, are a one trick pony. Like Microsoft, it's a big trick - but it's a single important revenue stream none-the-less.
To say that is too not understand Google at all. Google understands the consumer and consumer experience better then Apple. Google only offers free products, or in the case of Google Nexus One, probably a product they make no profit on. All Google cares about is consumer experience. Google is in the business of connecting with consumers and making user experience the best it can be, then making money off b2b. Why do you think they held off so long displaying ads in youtube? They let everyone else run ads until we got used to seeing them, then added them to youtube and we don't care because its the same or better service we get from anywhere else and it's free!
They are going to do the same exact thing with their phone. They will not care about profit at all with the OS, the phone, or the wireless. They just want the best possible user experience for the consumer so that it guarantees they are the ones who are connected to the consumer because that is where the money and power is.
They are going to do the same exact thing with their phone. They will not care about profit at all with the OS, the phone, or the wireless. They just want the best possible user experience for the consumer so that it guarantees they are the ones who are connected to the consumer because that is where the money and power is.
Google only cares about making money by advertising and data(services).
Their profit is based on that.
As far as I know You can't run an Andriod phone without a Google Account.
Google only cares about making money by advertising and data(services).
Their profit is based on that.
As far as I know You can't run an Andriod phone without a Google Account.
That's not the user experience I prefer.
Google tries to use ads to add the user experience. At least with search I often find myself clicking on ads because they sometimes are more relevant. How is getting a Google account that bad of a user experience? It doesn't take much effort to sign up for a gmail account, much easier then signing up for an iTunes account.
Unless developers are the majority purchasers of the phone, their wants are pretty much useless at this point.
It's not about the developer, it's about the user.
Having said that, I think you are discounting what Apple has - they have a pretty compelling and mature developer environment. If they didn't, you wouldn't see the kinds of Apps that are being produced.
So you can hang on to open source and superior hardware all you want but in the end they don't mean squat if the rest of the equation sucks - or doesn't even stand up to what Apple provides as part of the whole package. Individual parts aren't going to cut it - you have to compete with the whole iPhone ecosystem if you hope to surpass it. So far no one else seems to have a coherent plan other then shouting random thoughts like "It's the network" or "our hardware has more features" or "our software is open source". Most people could care less about any one of those individual components. It's only when geeks gather in places like this with other geeks (see internet echo chamber) that the importance of all this techie jargon matters. I guarantee you most of my friends or family couldn't care less about 98% of what is being argued in this thread.
That, in a nutshell, is why Apple is (and unless some major attitudes change, will continue to be) successful.
Google tries to use ads to add the user experience. At least with search I often find myself clicking on ads because they sometimes are more relevant. How is getting a Google account that bad of a user experience? It doesn't take much effort to sign up for a gmail account, much easier then signing up for an iTunes account.
I try to avoid advertising because it takes the focus on my current work.
I can't see how personalized ads help me to do my job in a more efficient way.
They just help me to improve consumption and desire to buy things.
I can use iTunes without an iTunes-Account and as long I don't open the shop or enable Genius I can just concentrate on my music.
The google account is mostly about productivity tools like mail, calendar, docs.
I prefer ad-free alternatives for my work. BTW I don't use chat, social networking etc. very much and I turn down notifications for programs because I hate to be disturbed. So I pay for my applications, servers etc. to get a as productive environment as possible.
You might call me unprogressive, but I want to store my stuff on my devices and my servers with my local account.
Just my decision. No blame to people who think different.
They are going to do the same exact thing with their phone. They will not care about profit at all with the OS, the phone, or the wireless. They just want the best possible user experience for the consumer so that it guarantees they are the ones who are connected to the consumer because that is where the money and power is.
You misspelled your forum name... it should be "impractical"
I'm actually a Google fan... but I wouldn't ever consider them a "consumer-oriented company". What does make Google "good", is that they stick to the "KISS" principle: Keep-It-Simple-Sam (Sucker).
RE. people who said 11 pages are not enough, granted, but wait up a few months because I am sure OS 4.0 will have a spanking new approach to app management to complement the current one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
He writes for a fanboi site - what do you expect? Just filter out the obvious over the top stuff and move on.
Or don't read his articles.
Honestly I don't understand why so many people get worked up over his articles. He's up front about what they are - either read and enjoy them or don't. But the continual whining about his writing style is beyond tired at this point \
Exactly, the articles are very well written stylistically and of much higher level intellectually than pretty much every run of the mill pc site. If some points seem like they are made for preaching to the choir, well, that's the whole point.
i have 3 pages worth of game already, then 1 each for messaging/social, shopping, traveling, tools, education, lookups (encyclopedias, stocks, etc), news, apple's default apps. so it adds up pretty quickly.
the ideal number of pages for me would be about 20. i like the ways the apps are layed out, it just seems like a strange artificial limit.
I think it would work better if they use folders in addition to the pages. It seems to me that people prefer to organize their apps in categories. I want to be able to have a folder for games, social, news... etc. I think there is something similar used in jailbroken iPhones.
I was not trying to prove a point that the Android Market grew more than the Apple App Store, I was simply saying that the author's words were directly contradicting the chart cited in his article. I further explained myself in post #17 and shouldn't have to again for your benefit; facts are facts. And I apologize for using slang in my original post (i.e. just sayin'). I only meant to reinforce what I thought was an obvious error.
I don't feel it is an obvious error as the whole paragraph surrounding the graphic is dealing with downloads. He doesn't shift gears in the last sentence of the paragraph merely because he has inserted an extra phrase that describes the sizes of the stores. If you read many of this author's articles you will discover they may require a bit of close reading. And they deserve it since they are packed with more context, history and analysis than the average tech article; indeed he will throw in a lot of phrases that will deepen the picture and I admit that these can distract from his point.
In this case, I can only assume he didn't flesh out the point, as you have alluded to below, that one would think the Android store has more potential for growth: maybe the Apple store has peaked and all the apps that anyone can conceive of or has up their sleeves have already been written (I kind of doubt that, though); maybe the Android platform has more possibilities for different types of apps because it has less control, as you keep arguing (though I doubt this too, since the surface has barely been scratched for iPhone control of external devices and hardware addons!).
Despite these factors, however, and though the Android store has shown a higher percentage gain in number of apps added -- who's actually using the most? And which platform is seeing more rapid growth in their use? People on one phone on a limited number of carriers, or people who have a choice of handsets and carriers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapper31
While true, this really only strengthens the argument for Android's Market. How many of the 150,000+ apps from Apple's store are unique? Of course any application store for any platform will have redundancies, but the great thing about the Android Market is that it is not restricted and allows you to make your phone yours. Don't like the default home screen? Grab a replacement. Don't like the size, color, or name of any of the shortcuts on your home screen? Grab an app that will change them. I feel that this is "the real use of the store by customers," to do what they want to do with their phone and not have its basic functionality controlled by the manufacturer.
Oh this is great! This is like MS Windows and PCs all over again! Great, you get to "customize" your desktop and stick your own stickers all over an ugly device to cover up all the ugly stickers and logos the manufacturer, the OS creator and the carrier put all over them. Whoopee. I change the opening screen pic on my iPhone from time to time. But hey, it's all about the apps and what I actually get done with it. I don't care what the thing looks like (well, actually I do, which is another reason to appreciate Apple's understated but superior industrial design and solid glass and aluminum/stainless stell materials and great form factor).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapper31
As for everything else, the Android Market is developing so quickly that for any app on the Apple Store (aside from games, Apple wins there,[for now ]) there is one on the Market that will offer the same function.
Great, let me know when my three-year old has a cool animated tracing program for him to practice writing letters and simple words; or when I can measure a room's dimensions by pointing the camera; or a thousand other interesting things that are actually quite useful and well implemented so I (or my three-year old) don't have to think twice about how they work, it's just obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapper31
And Apple wasn't surprised they had over 100,000 apps in their store, they reviewed and approved every single one.
For sure, but I don't think anyone would have predicted this turn out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapper31
Itunes most definitely has a stronghold on the digital media distribution market, that is for sure. Although I don't see much opportunity here for other developers to make money, unless I'm missing something?
Well, I have to agree: no, they don't. Unless you count the possibility of web apps or something. But this is one of the points that supports the whole article, isn't it? That the iPhone OS platform is actually growing the most and in all likelihood will continue to do so. Do you dispute this? The fact is, iTunes and Apple's experience with the iPod over the years is a great track record for why people should actually have confidence that Apple knows what it is doing and can continue to grow as they apply their experience to new markets. Really, this is quite evident. So much for the difficulty that these "computer guys" would face as they entered the market of phones for the first time in competition with the big guys in the industry who had been doing it for years. I guess the big guys got shook up.
Will Android now shake up the phone market again? That is the question, isn't it. The Android platform may be more "interesting" to you and your friends; but the plain interest among Joe consumer in the iPhone platform, despite the fear among the overly geeky and hobbyist set as to the perceived Apple control factor, cannot be denied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapper31
Personally I can't stand Itunes (I know, you weren't expecting THAT, right?) because of its proprietary nature. But again, that's just me, and I totally understand how easy it makes everything for so many people.
Don't worry, rumor has it that APple is experimenting with direct internet access. It's LP special content for example, is apparently composed of pure HTML5 with some clever java script libraries. Apple and Google see eye to eye on the need for open internet standards. I am confident that Apple can hold its own in this arena, too. Really, have you compared the look and feel of Apple's websites and online services and apps to those of Google? Google sure has a real eye for detail, design and usability. Apple better watch out . Oh yeah, I forgot, it's all about freedom of expression; doesn't matter if you can use the darn thing or not! Let's just say, most Apple users like to express themselves in the work and projects they produce with their tools, rather than having their tools doing the expressing. Apple empowers the creative soul here by taking a back seat so that you can get on with your work. You may dispute this, each to his own though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapper31
This one I think is a bit off-base. The Android platform as a whole (the OS, the developer's kit, etc.) is open-source. Google offers it all for free. No one pays Google to develop on Android. Plus, since Android is Linux based, there are many, many people out there who are familiar with the operating system and know how to program for it. And as I said before, now that the Droid and N1 are bringing Android into the mainstream I think the platform will stabilize. But who knows, I've been wrong at least once before (probably in this post) .
I wasn't saying that Google now charges developers. But if the focus is on all this "freedom", how can the developer develop his own viable business? That is a significant question for the Android platform. Who is the developer aiming at? What device or spec or OS version should he concentrate on? Does he have a big potential market or not? Great, more carriers and more phone producers are using Android than iPhone -- doesn't mean the actual market for each developer's app is actually larger. Far from it. That's one of the issues affecting growth here. Sure seems to make the Android platform less "interesting" for developers.
And yeah, it's "free": if you like intrusive ads all over everything. We'll see an Apple alternative soon as they develop a web business model for real content that consumers will value enough to pay for. Hence one already sees a plethora of iPhone apps that are essentially just direct links to content providers, such as WSJ, Sports channels, etc. These are some of the most popular apps there are.
Regarding MS: Google "seems" to be making some of the mistakes that MS has historically made. Here Apple, and RIM, have proven that "making the whole widget" may be preferable in this market. Google could do this despite having never before made hardware, yet they seem to be going the MS Desktop OS route -- and without the control (your bugaboo) that MS historically held over its hardware partners Google seems to be fracturing their platform (another point from this author). Apple, on the other hand, is not looking to the Desktop OS for a model, but to the iPod. Let's see which is rewarded with more sustainable growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapper31
Please see my opinions about Google's strategy above.
I shall do that. Though the question arises whether Google has a real strategy -- other than stopping MS from closing the web and mobile devices to Google's ads. If they have a strategy for Android, it seems pretty confusing. I am sure it is confusing to most Android developers too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapper31
Apple most definitely has their business model in place (keep everything straight-forward, easy to use, and wrap it up nice and pretty) and that is perfect for so many people. I just like at least a little bit of freedom (or customization, or options, or whatever you'd like to call it).
Well, please see my opinions about Apple's strategy above -- Yeah, the web is Google's thing, but I think Apple will continue to develop new technologies for the web and computing in general, and they will continue to develop new platforms, devices and business models that the most people will find the most interesting, thus leading to the most growth. It's that simple.
In this case, I can only assume he didn't flesh out the point, as you have alluded to below, that one would think the Android store has more potential for growth: maybe the Apple store has peaked and all the apps that anyone can conceive of or has up their sleeves have already been written (I kind of doubt that, though); maybe the Android platform has more possibilities for different types of apps because it has less control, as you keep arguing (though I doubt this too, since the surface has barely been scratched for iPhone control of external devices and hardware addons!).
The App Store is here to stay, and will only get bigger. As Apple increases the capabilities of the iPhone and its OS, new possibilities will open up for greater app variety, in terms of apps taking advantage of new phone features and functions. There's no stopping the iPhone or the App Store. Apple has way too much momentum and mindhsare on its side, and it looks like the iPhone is turning into an iPod phenomenon.
As new technologies become available Apple will gradually allow them in, they'll loosen control here and there but still maintain their position as gatekeeper, and so they should. New tech might appear for other platforms first, but it will only become truly meaningful and popular when it comes to the iPhone. This is the reality of the situation.
If you thought Att's 3G coverage sucked, wait until you use T-Mobile.
That being said, I'd still use T-Mobile.
allowing the phone to spread to other carriers pulls some of the complaints off the phone and to the carriers where they belong. and could potentially reduce strain on ATT's network to the benefit of all customers.
not to mention that some healthy compet could benefit us rates wise.
all of this is part of why many people do not buy any rumors about switching to a new carrier in the summer. because it just doesn't make any sense in the long run.
Once the next iPhone hits it's back to the drawing-board for everyone else.
That's possible but I thinks its improbable. Even if the 4th iPhone has a 1GHz processor its still gonna run an OS that can also run on the iPhone 2G. I'm sure that Apple can make a rockin OS for the 3GS but doesn't. Backwards compatibilty is gonna hinder Apple real soon real fast.
Yep agreed. In fact I bet everyone else stays at their drawing boards (or is it copy machines) round the clock waiting for the next Apple product whatever it is! No one else seems to have an R&D department anymore!
Can you remind me what exciting new features the 3GS provided?
Faster Processor - pretty standard feature on every new phone
Better Graphics - again pretty standard
MMS - Apple finally added what was a pretty standard feature on every other phone
Video Recording - again, pretty standard on every other phone with a camera
Voice Command - already available on plenty of other phones
Tethering - pretty standard on other smart phones (and still not available in the U.S.)
Magnetometer - Score one for Apple!
Oleophobic Coating - Number two!
Maybe it's just me but Apple's R&D dept isn't looking very good when all it came up with for new was a compass and a screen coating for the 3GS. Hardly features to salivate over.
But you don't hear people here saying how Apple copied features like MMS and video recording...
Comments
So clearly part of this is just Apple cleaning up and endorsing a solution. Likewise they might have to give up on the home button. Exactly how many times can we tap it to still add something?
The solution I proposed would let them keep the single home button. I think this is important and why Apple?s paradigm works. Even now many companies try to compete with Apple priming spec sheets with bolt on features. This is fine for some but I want ease of use to be a primary goal, and that includes longevity of use. Having an extra button for every new feature defeats the purpose just as having every app run in the background, slowing down the UI, worsening my user experience and draining the battery even faster.It
It needs to be controlled and well thought out for a device you expect to carry on your person and use throughout an entire day. WebOS, Android, WinMo and others it wrong, IMO.
Palm had announced that they were working on a PNS, too, but I have a feeling that it has failed. I think it?s great. I have 4 apps that I essentially have on all the time yet only have simple process running to get updates. Except for internet radio there is no other common 3rd-party app type that really needs constant background running in the background.
One thing WebOS and Android get right is the notifications system. It?s just so primitive on the iPhone. I expect this to be updated with v4.0. I also hope, though doubtful, that they?ll create an API for developers to create Home Screen and Menu Bar widgets so you can get a variety of data without unlocking your device. This would be simple background apps so the aforementioned task would have to have added in some regard for this to work. I can go on with changes I want to see, but I?ll save that for another thread.
I have no doubt that even if they could add it to the prior iPhones, they probably won't. What better to inspire shiny new sales than shiny new features.
They have been good with giving out new robust updates each year. Eventually they have to stop and I was surprised that your iPhone got v3.0. Three full years of OS support seems a little much to me, then again I by anew phone and computer every year so I?m atypical in that sense. Still, they give the update for all the devices at once and this year it came out before the 3GS actually hit the street so it could have made some forego an update if they felt the v3.0 OS was more than suitable.
If you get the next iPhone you are going to be amazed at how fast it is compared to yours. Going from the 3G to the 3GS was night and day. I?d say the HW and OS didn?t really come into it?s own until the 3GS. OS X might be refined and Apple may have done a great job making it work in the iPhone, but it?s still a hefty OS for a mobile platform.
[CENTER]CAUSE THEDROIDAIN'T A ROBOT!!!![/CENTER]
I disagree. Google, like Microsoft, coasts on a cash cow that it blundered into. For Google, it's search advertising revenue. That's it. They, like Microsoft, are a one trick pony. Like Microsoft, it's a big trick - but it's a single important revenue stream none-the-less.
To say that is too not understand Google at all. Google understands the consumer and consumer experience better then Apple. Google only offers free products, or in the case of Google Nexus One, probably a product they make no profit on. All Google cares about is consumer experience. Google is in the business of connecting with consumers and making user experience the best it can be, then making money off b2b. Why do you think they held off so long displaying ads in youtube? They let everyone else run ads until we got used to seeing them, then added them to youtube and we don't care because its the same or better service we get from anywhere else and it's free!
They are going to do the same exact thing with their phone. They will not care about profit at all with the OS, the phone, or the wireless. They just want the best possible user experience for the consumer so that it guarantees they are the ones who are connected to the consumer because that is where the money and power is.
They are going to do the same exact thing with their phone. They will not care about profit at all with the OS, the phone, or the wireless. They just want the best possible user experience for the consumer so that it guarantees they are the ones who are connected to the consumer because that is where the money and power is.
Google only cares about making money by advertising and data(services).
Their profit is based on that.
As far as I know You can't run an Andriod phone without a Google Account.
That's not the user experience I prefer.
Google only cares about making money by advertising and data(services).
Their profit is based on that.
As far as I know You can't run an Andriod phone without a Google Account.
That's not the user experience I prefer.
Google tries to use ads to add the user experience. At least with search I often find myself clicking on ads because they sometimes are more relevant. How is getting a Google account that bad of a user experience? It doesn't take much effort to sign up for a gmail account, much easier then signing up for an iTunes account.
Unless developers are the majority purchasers of the phone, their wants are pretty much useless at this point.
It's not about the developer, it's about the user.
Having said that, I think you are discounting what Apple has - they have a pretty compelling and mature developer environment. If they didn't, you wouldn't see the kinds of Apps that are being produced.
So you can hang on to open source and superior hardware all you want but in the end they don't mean squat if the rest of the equation sucks - or doesn't even stand up to what Apple provides as part of the whole package. Individual parts aren't going to cut it - you have to compete with the whole iPhone ecosystem if you hope to surpass it. So far no one else seems to have a coherent plan other then shouting random thoughts like "It's the network" or "our hardware has more features" or "our software is open source". Most people could care less about any one of those individual components. It's only when geeks gather in places like this with other geeks (see internet echo chamber) that the importance of all this techie jargon matters. I guarantee you most of my friends or family couldn't care less about 98% of what is being argued in this thread.
That, in a nutshell, is why Apple is (and unless some major attitudes change, will continue to be) successful.
Bingo!
Google tries to use ads to add the user experience. At least with search I often find myself clicking on ads because they sometimes are more relevant. How is getting a Google account that bad of a user experience? It doesn't take much effort to sign up for a gmail account, much easier then signing up for an iTunes account.
I try to avoid advertising because it takes the focus on my current work.
I can't see how personalized ads help me to do my job in a more efficient way.
They just help me to improve consumption and desire to buy things.
I can use iTunes without an iTunes-Account and as long I don't open the shop or enable Genius I can just concentrate on my music.
The google account is mostly about productivity tools like mail, calendar, docs.
I prefer ad-free alternatives for my work. BTW I don't use chat, social networking etc. very much and I turn down notifications for programs because I hate to be disturbed. So I pay for my applications, servers etc. to get a as productive environment as possible.
You might call me unprogressive, but I want to store my stuff on my devices and my servers with my local account.
Just my decision. No blame to people who think different.
To say that ... bla-bla...bla-bla...
They are going to do the same exact thing with their phone. They will not care about profit at all with the OS, the phone, or the wireless. They just want the best possible user experience for the consumer so that it guarantees they are the ones who are connected to the consumer because that is where the money and power is.
You misspelled your forum name... it should be "impractical"
I'm actually a Google fan... but I wouldn't ever consider them a "consumer-oriented company". What does make Google "good", is that they stick to the "KISS" principle: Keep-It-Simple-Sam (Sucker).
He writes for a fanboi site - what do you expect? Just filter out the obvious over the top stuff and move on.
Or don't read his articles.
Honestly I don't understand why so many people get worked up over his articles. He's up front about what they are - either read and enjoy them or don't. But the continual whining about his writing style is beyond tired at this point
Exactly, the articles are very well written stylistically and of much higher level intellectually than pretty much every run of the mill pc site. If some points seem like they are made for preaching to the choir, well, that's the whole point.
i have 3 pages worth of game already, then 1 each for messaging/social, shopping, traveling, tools, education, lookups (encyclopedias, stocks, etc), news, apple's default apps. so it adds up pretty quickly.
the ideal number of pages for me would be about 20. i like the ways the apps are layed out, it just seems like a strange artificial limit.
I think it would work better if they use folders in addition to the pages. It seems to me that people prefer to organize their apps in categories. I want to be able to have a folder for games, social, news... etc. I think there is something similar used in jailbroken iPhones.
I'll be buying a Nexus One if I can buy it unlocked and use it on T-mo. Sorry, Steve. You need to end exclusivity... and fast.
No he doesn't. And we won't miss you.
Yes, but when will that be? Can Apple afford to just update annually, now that more and more competitors are entering the fray?
Of course they can, and they're probably glad to have something to leap frog over.
I was not trying to prove a point that the Android Market grew more than the Apple App Store, I was simply saying that the author's words were directly contradicting the chart cited in his article. I further explained myself in post #17 and shouldn't have to again for your benefit; facts are facts. And I apologize for using slang in my original post (i.e. just sayin'). I only meant to reinforce what I thought was an obvious error.
I don't feel it is an obvious error as the whole paragraph surrounding the graphic is dealing with downloads. He doesn't shift gears in the last sentence of the paragraph merely because he has inserted an extra phrase that describes the sizes of the stores. If you read many of this author's articles you will discover they may require a bit of close reading. And they deserve it since they are packed with more context, history and analysis than the average tech article; indeed he will throw in a lot of phrases that will deepen the picture and I admit that these can distract from his point.
In this case, I can only assume he didn't flesh out the point, as you have alluded to below, that one would think the Android store has more potential for growth: maybe the Apple store has peaked and all the apps that anyone can conceive of or has up their sleeves have already been written (I kind of doubt that, though); maybe the Android platform has more possibilities for different types of apps because it has less control, as you keep arguing (though I doubt this too, since the surface has barely been scratched for iPhone control of external devices and hardware addons!).
Despite these factors, however, and though the Android store has shown a higher percentage gain in number of apps added -- who's actually using the most? And which platform is seeing more rapid growth in their use? People on one phone on a limited number of carriers, or people who have a choice of handsets and carriers?
While true, this really only strengthens the argument for Android's Market. How many of the 150,000+ apps from Apple's store are unique? Of course any application store for any platform will have redundancies, but the great thing about the Android Market is that it is not restricted and allows you to make your phone yours. Don't like the default home screen? Grab a replacement. Don't like the size, color, or name of any of the shortcuts on your home screen? Grab an app that will change them. I feel that this is "the real use of the store by customers," to do what they want to do with their phone and not have its basic functionality controlled by the manufacturer.
Oh this is great! This is like MS Windows and PCs all over again! Great, you get to "customize" your desktop and stick your own stickers all over an ugly device to cover up all the ugly stickers and logos the manufacturer, the OS creator and the carrier put all over them. Whoopee. I change the opening screen pic on my iPhone from time to time. But hey, it's all about the apps and what I actually get done with it. I don't care what the thing looks like (well, actually I do, which is another reason to appreciate Apple's understated but superior industrial design and solid glass and aluminum/stainless stell materials and great form factor).
As for everything else, the Android Market is developing so quickly that for any app on the Apple Store (aside from games, Apple wins there,[for now
Great, let me know when my three-year old has a cool animated tracing program for him to practice writing letters and simple words; or when I can measure a room's dimensions by pointing the camera; or a thousand other interesting things that are actually quite useful and well implemented so I (or my three-year old) don't have to think twice about how they work, it's just obvious.
And Apple wasn't surprised they had over 100,000 apps in their store, they reviewed and approved every single one.
For sure, but I don't think anyone would have predicted this turn out.
Itunes most definitely has a stronghold on the digital media distribution market, that is for sure. Although I don't see much opportunity here for other developers to make money, unless I'm missing something?
Well, I have to agree: no, they don't. Unless you count the possibility of web apps or something. But this is one of the points that supports the whole article, isn't it? That the iPhone OS platform is actually growing the most and in all likelihood will continue to do so. Do you dispute this? The fact is, iTunes and Apple's experience with the iPod over the years is a great track record for why people should actually have confidence that Apple knows what it is doing and can continue to grow as they apply their experience to new markets. Really, this is quite evident. So much for the difficulty that these "computer guys" would face as they entered the market of phones for the first time in competition with the big guys in the industry who had been doing it for years. I guess the big guys got shook up.
Will Android now shake up the phone market again? That is the question, isn't it. The Android platform may be more "interesting" to you and your friends; but the plain interest among Joe consumer in the iPhone platform, despite the fear among the overly geeky and hobbyist set as to the perceived Apple control factor, cannot be denied.
Personally I can't stand Itunes (I know, you weren't expecting THAT, right?
Don't worry, rumor has it that APple is experimenting with direct internet access. It's LP special content for example, is apparently composed of pure HTML5 with some clever java script libraries. Apple and Google see eye to eye on the need for open internet standards. I am confident that Apple can hold its own in this arena, too. Really, have you compared the look and feel of Apple's websites and online services and apps to those of Google? Google sure has a real eye for detail, design and usability. Apple better watch out
This one I think is a bit off-base. The Android platform as a whole (the OS, the developer's kit, etc.) is open-source. Google offers it all for free. No one pays Google to develop on Android. Plus, since Android is Linux based, there are many, many people out there who are familiar with the operating system and know how to program for it. And as I said before, now that the Droid and N1 are bringing Android into the mainstream I think the platform will stabilize. But who knows, I've been wrong at least once before (probably in this post)
I wasn't saying that Google now charges developers. But if the focus is on all this "freedom", how can the developer develop his own viable business? That is a significant question for the Android platform. Who is the developer aiming at? What device or spec or OS version should he concentrate on? Does he have a big potential market or not? Great, more carriers and more phone producers are using Android than iPhone -- doesn't mean the actual market for each developer's app is actually larger. Far from it. That's one of the issues affecting growth here. Sure seems to make the Android platform less "interesting" for developers.
And yeah, it's "free": if you like intrusive ads all over everything. We'll see an Apple alternative soon as they develop a web business model for real content that consumers will value enough to pay for. Hence one already sees a plethora of iPhone apps that are essentially just direct links to content providers, such as WSJ, Sports channels, etc. These are some of the most popular apps there are.
Regarding MS: Google "seems" to be making some of the mistakes that MS has historically made. Here Apple, and RIM, have proven that "making the whole widget" may be preferable in this market. Google could do this despite having never before made hardware, yet they seem to be going the MS Desktop OS route -- and without the control (your bugaboo) that MS historically held over its hardware partners Google seems to be fracturing their platform (another point from this author). Apple, on the other hand, is not looking to the Desktop OS for a model, but to the iPod. Let's see which is rewarded with more sustainable growth.
Please see my opinions about Google's strategy above.
I shall do that. Though the question arises whether Google has a real strategy -- other than stopping MS from closing the web and mobile devices to Google's ads. If they have a strategy for Android, it seems pretty confusing. I am sure it is confusing to most Android developers too.
Apple most definitely has their business model in place (keep everything straight-forward, easy to use, and wrap it up nice and pretty) and that is perfect for so many people. I just like at least a little bit of freedom (or customization, or options, or whatever you'd like to call it).
Well, please see my opinions about Apple's strategy above -- Yeah, the web is Google's thing, but I think Apple will continue to develop new technologies for the web and computing in general, and they will continue to develop new platforms, devices and business models that the most people will find the most interesting, thus leading to the most growth. It's that simple.
P.S. Apple has a TV service now??
Stay tuned
In this case, I can only assume he didn't flesh out the point, as you have alluded to below, that one would think the Android store has more potential for growth: maybe the Apple store has peaked and all the apps that anyone can conceive of or has up their sleeves have already been written (I kind of doubt that, though); maybe the Android platform has more possibilities for different types of apps because it has less control, as you keep arguing (though I doubt this too, since the surface has barely been scratched for iPhone control of external devices and hardware addons!).
The App Store is here to stay, and will only get bigger. As Apple increases the capabilities of the iPhone and its OS, new possibilities will open up for greater app variety, in terms of apps taking advantage of new phone features and functions. There's no stopping the iPhone or the App Store. Apple has way too much momentum and mindhsare on its side, and it looks like the iPhone is turning into an iPod phenomenon.
As new technologies become available Apple will gradually allow them in, they'll loosen control here and there but still maintain their position as gatekeeper, and so they should. New tech might appear for other platforms first, but it will only become truly meaningful and popular when it comes to the iPhone. This is the reality of the situation.
If you thought Att's 3G coverage sucked, wait until you use T-Mobile.
That being said, I'd still use T-Mobile.
allowing the phone to spread to other carriers pulls some of the complaints off the phone and to the carriers where they belong. and could potentially reduce strain on ATT's network to the benefit of all customers.
not to mention that some healthy compet could benefit us rates wise.
all of this is part of why many people do not buy any rumors about switching to a new carrier in the summer. because it just doesn't make any sense in the long run.
Once the next iPhone hits it's back to the drawing-board for everyone else.
That's possible but I thinks its improbable. Even if the 4th iPhone has a 1GHz processor its still gonna run an OS that can also run on the iPhone 2G. I'm sure that Apple can make a rockin OS for the 3GS but doesn't. Backwards compatibilty is gonna hinder Apple real soon real fast.
So . . . Google's phone is going to take on their other phone that is manufactured by the company they partnered with?
Hmmm . . . .
Yep agreed. In fact I bet everyone else stays at their drawing boards (or is it copy machines) round the clock waiting for the next Apple product whatever it is! No one else seems to have an R&D department anymore!
Can you remind me what exciting new features the 3GS provided?
Faster Processor - pretty standard feature on every new phone
Better Graphics - again pretty standard
MMS - Apple finally added what was a pretty standard feature on every other phone
Video Recording - again, pretty standard on every other phone with a camera
Voice Command - already available on plenty of other phones
Tethering - pretty standard on other smart phones (and still not available in the U.S.)
Magnetometer - Score one for Apple!
Oleophobic Coating - Number two!
Maybe it's just me but Apple's R&D dept isn't looking very good when all it came up with for new was a compass and a screen coating for the 3GS. Hardly features to salivate over.
But you don't hear people here saying how Apple copied features like MMS and video recording...