If this guy's as good with statistics as he is with his core business of SEO, maybe that tells us everything we need to know about these claims.
Meanwhile, Digler's chart has only one line that's not in decline:
yes yes but 4% of the app market. Frankly most people would be better off burning money than developing for Andriod. That at least would keep them warm.
EDIT: and why is that chart comparing Android ( a platfrom) with the iPhone.
And this is relevant how? What major tech column does she write for? How does she compare to BGR, Engadget, SB Tech (where Most of Engadget went), Time, CNN, Etc?
it's not just her. she is just a very blatant example. there is the whole Techcrunch crowd (except the token Siegler). and many others among the dozens of tech blogs. look around. not to mention many commenters.
what's relevant now is their desperate stridency. because of iPad 2's runaway success of course. they were so close! Linux was going to finally win! Damn Apple! that is why the sudden burst of FUD. not the only reason why, but a very emotional one.
yes yes but 4% of the app market. Frankly most people would be better off burning money than developing for Andriod. That at least would keep them warm.
EDIT: and why is that chart comparing Android ( a platfrom) with the iPhone.
And a majority of people (including those that read for this site) are not developers. In fact, the original post has NOTHING to do with development.
This story is about WEB HITS. So development is meaningless in the context you're trying to imply anything from the listed data. THE ONLY thing this data is showing is that of the sites Stat Counter monitors, a larger percentage of iOS users navigated to those pages from a search engine than android did. If ANYTHING, this means that SEO is more important for iOS related devices, and even that is a stress.
Android is still largely a phone OS. tablet's make up less than 1% of the install base (honeycomb tablets make .2%) so the comparison is still rather valid, even though if you ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE the people DED is quoting already built in iPad and iPod numbers into other statistics as well.
Sometimes, reading the article, and the discussion that follows, is helpful before responding.
it's not just her. she is just a very blatant example. there is the whole Techcrunch crowd (except the token Siegler). and many others among the dozens of tech blogs. look around. not to mention many commenters.
what's relevant now is their desperate stridency. because of iPad 2's runaway success of course. they were so close! Linux was going to finally win! Damn Apple! that is why the sudden burst of FUD. not the only reason why, but a very emotional one.
The ONLY main author who really openly goes out for android in TC is Jason Kinkaid who (at least until recently) used an iOS device. The fact that they are critical of apple doesn't mean they don't use their devices. You can't go three days without TC posting something critical of Google either.
So where exactly are these well known bloggers that are BLATANTLY pro-android and don't use primarily apple products?
And you refused to say where that author you posted actually wrote. EDIT: Just saw. She writes for PC world, right? They also have some VERY heavy apple supporters there, who are better known than she is. She also largely writes on desktops, specifically linux and firefox, so any cellphone articles by her are commentary at best. If there is some pervasive anti-apple bias in the media, you shouldn't have to grasp at straws.
And a majority of people (including those that read for this site) are not developers. In fact, the original post has NOTHING to do with development.
Lol, except in the bit where it mentioned app revenue which is where I got my 4% android share from.
A report from February indicated that Apple continues to own 82.7 percent of all mobile software sales with its iOS App Store.
Quote:
This story is about WEB HITS. So development is meaningless in the context you're trying to imply anything from the listed data.
If you ACTUALLY READ the article:
While Android's year over year "percentage growth" in app sales was up an impressive 861.5 percent compared to Apple's 131.9 percent growth, Android's software revenues actually grew by $91 million over last year, while Apple's App Store grew by a whopping $1,013 million, more than 11 times as much real growth in terms of revenue dollars. Handset sales by all Android licensees combined were higher than Apple's in 2010, but that did not result in greater app sales nor even in greater web use by Android users.e.
Quote:
Sometimes, reading the article, and the discussion that follows, is helpful before responding.
yeah, try that. . ....
EDIT: added four more rolleyes, and frankly that is not enough. I am, perhaps, too kind.
Lol, except in the bit where it mentioned app revenue which is where I got my 4% android share from.
A report from February indicated that Apple continues to own 82.7 percent of all mobile software sales with its iOS App Store.
If you ACTUALLY READ the article:
A report from February indicated that Apple continues to own 82.7 percent of all mobile software sales with its iOS App Store.
yeah, try that. . .
The article is about a study published about webhits from stat counter. I'm not talking about the FUD commentary DED ads.
The ARTICLE is about web hits. DED added the bit about software sales because he likes kicking things for fun.
So again, it's NOT about mobile software sales, it's not about iOS App store. It is about SAFARI and CHROME.
ARTICLE TITLE: iOS, iPad web use still outpacing all Android devices combined.
The talk about mobile stores has NOTHING to do with the title, the sourced information, or the point of the article.
The first two paragraphs are on topic. The one you quoted has NOTHING to do with the context of the rest of the article. And then it closes with a rant on tablets (because the iPAd is helping iOS dominate webstats)
So again, read the article. Words are only meaningful in context.
The first two paragraphs are on topic. The one you quoted has NOTHING to do with the context of the rest of the article. And then it closes with a rant on tablets (because the iPAd is helping iOS dominate webstats)
So again, read the article. Words are only meaningful in context.
The topic is whatever DED writes about. Not only are you deciding what he can write about (which depends apparently on the headline*), you want to also proclaim on both what he can write about and what we can respond to. Feel free to go fuck yourself.
So again, read the article. Not just the bits you like, but the bits you dont like.
* Do you get mad when other characters other than Oliver Twist turn up in Oliver Twist?
The topic is whatever DED writes about. Not only are you deciding what he can write about (which depends apparently on the headline*), you want to also proclaim on both what he can write about and what we can respond to. Feel free to go fuck yourself.
So again, read the article. Not just the bits you like, but the bits you dont like.
* Do you get mad when other characters other than Oliver Twist turn up in Oliver Twist?
No, but I would get mad if I was reading an essay on oliver twist and the author started talking about his undying love of Twilight. And furthermore, if two people were talking about olver twist in the commentary, someone arguing for Twilight IN THAT CONTEXT would be wrong.
This ARTICLE (by the title and main theme) was about WEB HITS. The Graph you quoted was about WEB HITS, and the commenter you quoted was ALSO talking about WEB HITS.
Even if a portion of DED's article was about APP SALES, the conversation you're commenting on has NOTHING to do it with. In fact the ONLY reason he mentioned web sales is because it's another statistic where iOS is dominate. a "Oh yeah, and this" it's secondary information, NOT the point of the article.
I'm really sorry this is so hard for you to grasp.
The ONLY main author who really openly goes out for android in TC is Jason Kinkaid who (at least until recently) used an iOS device. The fact that they are critical of apple doesn't mean they don't use their devices. You can't go three days without TC posting something critical of Google either.
So where exactly are these well known bloggers that are BLATANTLY pro-android and don't use primarily apple products?
And you refused to say where that author you posted actually wrote. EDIT: Just saw. She writes for PC world, right? They also have some VERY heavy apple supporters there, who are better known than she is. She also largely writes on desktops, specifically linux and firefox, so any cellphone articles by her are commentary at best. If there is some pervasive anti-apple bias in the media, you shouldn't have to grasp at straws.
don't put your words in my mouth. my post was specifically about "the most strident fanDroids." you're complaining about some "pervasive bias" straw man comment of your own imagination, not mine.
just FYI if you don't know history, michael arrington, the poobah of Techcrunch, was a linux guy going back a good while. and remember his (Linux) Crunchpad flop over a year ago? he plainly favors Android now. but i would not call him "strident." he's admires the iPad, but prefers Android. nowadays, his main focus is the social web, something very different.
Why do some Apple fans feel so threatened by Android? Why is DED so threatened by Android than he feels the need to write 2,000 word rants about Google every week?
I've never really understood this kind of behaviour. I can enjoy the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad without needing to rubbish to the competition. Apple is big enough, rich enough and clever enough to succeed without fanboys spewing FUD over every corner of the Internet.
Actually it's interesting that you have this notion because my feeling is exactly opposite of yours. For me, it's why does Android fans and Google feel so threatened by iOS? First they "rubbish Apple" by laying false claims to how Android provides freedom from
a "draconian future". Then they make false comparisons to Apple by conglomerating all Android phone manufacturers to one group and then comparing it with only one iOS product, the iPhone, made by one company, Apple. As Dilger quoted, this is not a comparison of like kinds.
I think it's good that Android OS exists, but don't use false
ideologies and false comparisons to "rubbish the competition".
What did AppleInsider tell you when you asked them?
As I said in a previous post, Rovio is an outlier. In terms of paid apps Apple took 82% of all app store revenues last year, and Android came 4th.
Thats paid, not advertising. The question is - after Rovio - how much advertising budget is left. Ads on mobiles tend to be fairly well featured, particularly for iAds, but also for Ad Mobile. That means they come out of a marketing budgets not your average joe's classifieds. The number of advertisers willing to advertise is a product of the wider economic environment, not the number of apps available. An app like Rovio is taking the lions share of that advertising ( the advertisers want to be on Angry Birds) and thus gets a 100% fill rate. I dont know if they pay more for this, but they get it. This leaves the rest of the app market with less and less per app. Your app shows no advertisements most of the time ( the Fill rate is low).
It would be as if newspapers, solely dependent on advertisements rather than price, kept multiplying as the number of advertisers remained constant.
Some of googles advertising will leech from it's website, but its a different form of advertising.
For that reason, unpaid apps - except for minority outliers - will fail in advertising, more so than paid apps. There is no way to pay ot the $2B that Apple paid out in the last 2 years, unless your advertisers paid you $2B.
It it is telling that despite all of the noise about Android versus iPhone, Android is still a no-entity in the app business. This explains Google change of heart, they finally realized just how much damage their fragmentation was causing. Carriers and traditional phone manufacturers are actually pretty terrible at giving people a product they want. Apple has known this since 2007, Google caught on in 2011.
Now we may see some actual competition. This is when things get interesting.
Actually, their change of heart comes from the fact that SOFTWARE is their main business.
Apple and Google, like Apple and Microsoft, are ORTHOGONAL rivals at best; by that is meant that while Apple is essentially a hardware vendor that uses its own software to enhance its saleability, Google and Microsoft are in the main software companies that profit from licensing or advertising deals off their software. Nexus, Google TV and Zune/X-box/Kinect reflect their efforts to enter the hardware business, but are tiny in comparison to the revenues and resources backing their software business.
Now, for Apple to be so handily beating Google and Microsoft in the mobile App Store revenue stakes must be a massive, massive downer internally for those two software giants, far away from the spin doctors and pseudo-analysts with their emphasis on the accumulated market share of the mobile HARDWARE vendors.
Hence the need to stop believing the hype and actually taking steps to bridge the gap.
Comments
Curious: searching for "Jeff Tribble ROI365" turned up this as the first hit:
http://theorangeview.net/2011/04/who...ata-come-from/
If this guy's as good with statistics as he is with his core business of SEO, maybe that tells us everything we need to know about these claims.
Meanwhile, Digler's chart has only one line that's not in decline:
yes yes but 4% of the app market. Frankly most people would be better off burning money than developing for Andriod. That at least would keep them warm.
EDIT: and why is that chart comparing Android ( a platfrom) with the iPhone.
And this is relevant how? What major tech column does she write for? How does she compare to BGR, Engadget, SB Tech (where Most of Engadget went), Time, CNN, Etc?
it's not just her. she is just a very blatant example. there is the whole Techcrunch crowd (except the token Siegler). and many others among the dozens of tech blogs. look around. not to mention many commenters.
what's relevant now is their desperate stridency. because of iPad 2's runaway success of course. they were so close! Linux was going to finally win! Damn Apple! that is why the sudden burst of FUD. not the only reason why, but a very emotional one.
yes yes but 4% of the app market. Frankly most people would be better off burning money than developing for Andriod. That at least would keep them warm.
EDIT: and why is that chart comparing Android ( a platfrom) with the iPhone.
And a majority of people (including those that read for this site) are not developers. In fact, the original post has NOTHING to do with development.
This story is about WEB HITS. So development is meaningless in the context you're trying to imply anything from the listed data. THE ONLY thing this data is showing is that of the sites Stat Counter monitors, a larger percentage of iOS users navigated to those pages from a search engine than android did. If ANYTHING, this means that SEO is more important for iOS related devices, and even that is a stress.
Android is still largely a phone OS. tablet's make up less than 1% of the install base (honeycomb tablets make .2%) so the comparison is still rather valid, even though if you ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE the people DED is quoting already built in iPad and iPod numbers into other statistics as well.
Sometimes, reading the article, and the discussion that follows, is helpful before responding.
it's not just her. she is just a very blatant example. there is the whole Techcrunch crowd (except the token Siegler). and many others among the dozens of tech blogs. look around. not to mention many commenters.
what's relevant now is their desperate stridency. because of iPad 2's runaway success of course. they were so close! Linux was going to finally win! Damn Apple! that is why the sudden burst of FUD. not the only reason why, but a very emotional one.
The ONLY main author who really openly goes out for android in TC is Jason Kinkaid who (at least until recently) used an iOS device. The fact that they are critical of apple doesn't mean they don't use their devices. You can't go three days without TC posting something critical of Google either.
So where exactly are these well known bloggers that are BLATANTLY pro-android and don't use primarily apple products?
And you refused to say where that author you posted actually wrote. EDIT: Just saw. She writes for PC world, right? They also have some VERY heavy apple supporters there, who are better known than she is. She also largely writes on desktops, specifically linux and firefox, so any cellphone articles by her are commentary at best. If there is some pervasive anti-apple bias in the media, you shouldn't have to grasp at straws.
And a majority of people (including those that read for this site) are not developers. In fact, the original post has NOTHING to do with development.
Lol, except in the bit where it mentioned app revenue which is where I got my 4% android share from.
A report from February indicated that Apple continues to own 82.7 percent of all mobile software sales with its iOS App Store.
This story is about WEB HITS. So development is meaningless in the context you're trying to imply anything from the listed data.
If you ACTUALLY READ the article:
While Android's year over year "percentage growth" in app sales was up an impressive 861.5 percent compared to Apple's 131.9 percent growth, Android's software revenues actually grew by $91 million over last year, while Apple's App Store grew by a whopping $1,013 million, more than 11 times as much real growth in terms of revenue dollars. Handset sales by all Android licensees combined were higher than Apple's in 2010, but that did not result in greater app sales nor even in greater web use by Android users.e.
Sometimes, reading the article, and the discussion that follows, is helpful before responding.
yeah, try that. .
EDIT: added four more rolleyes, and frankly that is not enough. I am, perhaps, too kind.
Lol, except in the bit where it mentioned app revenue which is where I got my 4% android share from.
A report from February indicated that Apple continues to own 82.7 percent of all mobile software sales with its iOS App Store.
If you ACTUALLY READ the article:
A report from February indicated that Apple continues to own 82.7 percent of all mobile software sales with its iOS App Store.
yeah, try that. .
The article is about a study published about webhits from stat counter. I'm not talking about the FUD commentary DED ads.
The ARTICLE is about web hits. DED added the bit about software sales because he likes kicking things for fun.
So again, it's NOT about mobile software sales, it's not about iOS App store. It is about SAFARI and CHROME.
ARTICLE TITLE: iOS, iPad web use still outpacing all Android devices combined.
The talk about mobile stores has NOTHING to do with the title, the sourced information, or the point of the article.
The first two paragraphs are on topic. The one you quoted has NOTHING to do with the context of the rest of the article. And then it closes with a rant on tablets (because the iPAd is helping iOS dominate webstats)
So again, read the article. Words are only meaningful in context.
The article is about a study published about webhits from stat counter. I'm not talking about the FUD commentary DED ads.
The ARTICLE is about web hits. DED added the bit about software sales because he likes kicking things for fun.
So again, it's NOT about mobile software sales, it's not about iOS App store. It is about SAFARI and CHROME.
The article isnt what it is actually about? FFS man. Check in somewhere. Apparantly we cant comment on the parts of the article you dont like.
I am responsding to DEDs article where he cited two sources. Statcounter, and IHS screen digest.
Feel free to read it. To the end. There are numbers, and stuff.
T
The first two paragraphs are on topic. The one you quoted has NOTHING to do with the context of the rest of the article. And then it closes with a rant on tablets (because the iPAd is helping iOS dominate webstats)
So again, read the article. Words are only meaningful in context.
The topic is whatever DED writes about. Not only are you deciding what he can write about (which depends apparently on the headline*), you want to also proclaim on both what he can write about and what we can respond to. Feel free to go fuck yourself.
So again, read the article. Not just the bits you like, but the bits you dont like.
* Do you get mad when other characters other than Oliver Twist turn up in Oliver Twist?
The topic is whatever DED writes about. Not only are you deciding what he can write about (which depends apparently on the headline*), you want to also proclaim on both what he can write about and what we can respond to. Feel free to go fuck yourself.
So again, read the article. Not just the bits you like, but the bits you dont like.
* Do you get mad when other characters other than Oliver Twist turn up in Oliver Twist?
No, but I would get mad if I was reading an essay on oliver twist and the author started talking about his undying love of Twilight. And furthermore, if two people were talking about olver twist in the commentary, someone arguing for Twilight IN THAT CONTEXT would be wrong.
This ARTICLE (by the title and main theme) was about WEB HITS. The Graph you quoted was about WEB HITS, and the commenter you quoted was ALSO talking about WEB HITS.
Even if a portion of DED's article was about APP SALES, the conversation you're commenting on has NOTHING to do it with. In fact the ONLY reason he mentioned web sales is because it's another statistic where iOS is dominate. a "Oh yeah, and this" it's secondary information, NOT the point of the article.
I'm really sorry this is so hard for you to grasp.
The article isnt what it is actually about? FFS man. Check in somewhere. Apparantly we cant comment on the parts of the article you dont like.
I am responsding to DEDs article where he cited two sources. Statcounter, and IHS screen digest.
Feel free to read it. To the end. There are numbers, and stuff.
You actually responded to a commenter who was talking about (and used a graph of) ONLY web hits. You weren't responding to DED's article at all.
The ONLY main author who really openly goes out for android in TC is Jason Kinkaid who (at least until recently) used an iOS device. The fact that they are critical of apple doesn't mean they don't use their devices. You can't go three days without TC posting something critical of Google either.
So where exactly are these well known bloggers that are BLATANTLY pro-android and don't use primarily apple products?
And you refused to say where that author you posted actually wrote. EDIT: Just saw. She writes for PC world, right? They also have some VERY heavy apple supporters there, who are better known than she is. She also largely writes on desktops, specifically linux and firefox, so any cellphone articles by her are commentary at best. If there is some pervasive anti-apple bias in the media, you shouldn't have to grasp at straws.
don't put your words in my mouth. my post was specifically about "the most strident fanDroids." you're complaining about some "pervasive bias" straw man comment of your own imagination, not mine.
just FYI if you don't know history, michael arrington, the poobah of Techcrunch, was a linux guy going back a good while. and remember his (Linux) Crunchpad flop over a year ago? he plainly favors Android now. but i would not call him "strident." he's admires the iPad, but prefers Android. nowadays, his main focus is the social web, something very different.
Why do some Apple fans feel so threatened by Android? Why is DED so threatened by Android than he feels the need to write 2,000 word rants about Google every week?
I've never really understood this kind of behaviour. I can enjoy the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad without needing to rubbish to the competition. Apple is big enough, rich enough and clever enough to succeed without fanboys spewing FUD over every corner of the Internet.
Actually it's interesting that you have this notion because my feeling is exactly opposite of yours. For me, it's why does Android fans and Google feel so threatened by iOS? First they "rubbish Apple" by laying false claims to how Android provides freedom from
a "draconian future". Then they make false comparisons to Apple by conglomerating all Android phone manufacturers to one group and then comparing it with only one iOS product, the iPhone, made by one company, Apple. As Dilger quoted, this is not a comparison of like kinds.
I think it's good that Android OS exists, but don't use false
ideologies and false comparisons to "rubbish the competition".
Yeah, I guess the folks who made Angry Birds must be idiots:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Angry...s-170596.shtml
What did AppleInsider tell you when you asked them?
As I said in a previous post, Rovio is an outlier. In terms of paid apps Apple took 82% of all app store revenues last year, and Android came 4th.
Thats paid, not advertising. The question is - after Rovio - how much advertising budget is left. Ads on mobiles tend to be fairly well featured, particularly for iAds, but also for Ad Mobile. That means they come out of a marketing budgets not your average joe's classifieds. The number of advertisers willing to advertise is a product of the wider economic environment, not the number of apps available. An app like Rovio is taking the lions share of that advertising ( the advertisers want to be on Angry Birds) and thus gets a 100% fill rate. I dont know if they pay more for this, but they get it. This leaves the rest of the app market with less and less per app. Your app shows no advertisements most of the time ( the Fill rate is low).
It would be as if newspapers, solely dependent on advertisements rather than price, kept multiplying as the number of advertisers remained constant.
Some of googles advertising will leech from it's website, but its a different form of advertising.
For that reason, unpaid apps - except for minority outliers - will fail in advertising, more so than paid apps. There is no way to pay ot the $2B that Apple paid out in the last 2 years, unless your advertisers paid you $2B.
Originally Posted by Wovel
It it is telling that despite all of the noise about Android versus iPhone, Android is still a no-entity in the app business. This explains Google change of heart, they finally realized just how much damage their fragmentation was causing. Carriers and traditional phone manufacturers are actually pretty terrible at giving people a product they want. Apple has known this since 2007, Google caught on in 2011.
Now we may see some actual competition. This is when things get interesting.
Actually, their change of heart comes from the fact that SOFTWARE is their main business.
Apple and Google, like Apple and Microsoft, are ORTHOGONAL rivals at best; by that is meant that while Apple is essentially a hardware vendor that uses its own software to enhance its saleability, Google and Microsoft are in the main software companies that profit from licensing or advertising deals off their software. Nexus, Google TV and Zune/X-box/Kinect reflect their efforts to enter the hardware business, but are tiny in comparison to the revenues and resources backing their software business.
Now, for Apple to be so handily beating Google and Microsoft in the mobile App Store revenue stakes must be a massive, massive downer internally for those two software giants, far away from the spin doctors and pseudo-analysts with their emphasis on the accumulated market share of the mobile HARDWARE vendors.
Hence the need to stop believing the hype and actually taking steps to bridge the gap.