I agree with you that Android itself doesn't generate much money for Google, but the point of it is to further drive Google's main revenue stream (Ads). I don't think they'll ever show a clear segmented number for Android alone. It's pretty much the same for all of Google's services, everything is about driving Ad revenue.
The worst case situation for the handset manufacturers is for some group to take over development of Android or switch to yet another OS. What about all of their investment into Android then? I'm sure they're used to spending money on products that don't sell (Xoom) so whatever they'll have to do to stay in the game in the future will just be regular business. We'll see how much these handset makers really invest into Android by how well they would really keep up with updates.
I mean its fine if every manufacture makes their own Android OS based on the open-source system, but many developers I think won't accept it that they have to *bomb* their consumers with advertisements. Advertisements are fine as long as you are not overstepping the line.
Still some developers are upset that their app can't find on every device. Otherwise when you do an app for the iPhone, you can get it for every iPhone Generation and iPod Touch. iPad provides a really fun base for app developers to extend what they were limited on the iPhone, the resolution but thats a dif topic.
Google is turning in my opinion into a monopoly and thats wrong. Google tries to do everything today. Probably starting tomorrow we will get recipes from Google on how to cook.
PS: This is my first time writing a reply, but I have been watching AI quite a long time.
I agree with you that Android itself doesn't generate much money for Google, but the point of it is to further drive Google's main revenue stream (Ads). I don't think they'll ever show a clear segmented number for Android alone. It's pretty much the same for all of Google's services, everything is about driving Ad revenue.
I agree that it may, one day, make money for Google, and that would be from ads.
Sure they are, when it comes to creating a market. But their competitors blatantly rip them off and use Apple's ideas as a springboard to leapfrog ahead of Apple and innovate further while Apple slowly crawls forward with their ideas. Cut and paste, multi-tasking, notifications...Apple needs to stay ahead of the curve with these types of things or they're going to be left behind.
Google says their next big update will feature a new user interface, so I'm guessing they plan to do away with the "App tiles" look they copied from Apple. This will be the first time they've gone in their own direction in this area with Android phones. If it turns out like the last time they went in their own direction with Android (the abortion that is Gingerbread), they're probably going to piss a lot of people off because it's just too different and too difficult for casual users to get into. This would give Apple a perfect chance to swoop in with a new, improved, innovative, and most of all user-friendly iOS 5 to woo the public again.
Then Google can just copy the new look of iOS and we start back from the beginning...
if you're really so set on swiping the top of the screen just get an android phone. the notifications on iOS are just fine compared to android. they could use some work, but android is not better at notifications.
Yes, android and pretty much all other smartphones handle notifications better than the iphone, sorry.
Of course it matters. It matters for software devs and peripheral manufacturers. I want to see Apple at 40% which they can do.
If Apple is constantly selling more iPhones and iPads even if their market share is dipping then why would developers suddenly begin to lose money supporting iOS.
That's ridiculous.
There's another item being sold today that has less than 10% share of its market and it makes tons of money for developers... it's called OSX and Apple Macintosh computers... you may have heard of them.
Wonder how much space you get on Googles cloud service. I have 4+ terra in my itunes. I guess I wont be able to upload it all to their service.
I have about 93 GB, which according to iTunes is about 40 days worth of music. I would say it is on average at about 256kbps. So, assuming you had your music in a similar format, that would be about 47 years worth of music (94 if you only listen to music 12 hours out of the day, every day), if you never listened to the same song twice. Even in a lossless format, it would be over 5 years (10 if you listen 12 hours a day, 365 days a year) worth of music.
Keeping a ridiculous amount more music than you could possibly ever listen to in a lifetime on your hard drive, is asinine. I'm not sure why it would occur to anyone that they need to store this much music (most of which you've never heard before) in the cloud.
OS X does not have the range of software that windows has, and a lot of it is late. That has changed recently and it changed as the platform got bigger. I love Apple products but fuck this ghetto mentality.
I have about 93 GB, which according to iTunes is about 40 days worth of music. I would say it is on average at about 256kbps. So, assuming you had your music in a similar format, that would be about 47 years worth of music (94 if you only listen to music 12 hours out of the day, every day), if you never listened to the same song twice. Even in a lossless format, it would be over 5 years (10 if you listen 12 hours a day, 365 days a year) worth of music.
Keeping a ridiculous amount more music than you could possibly ever listen to in a lifetime on your hard drive, is asinine. I'm not sure why it would occur to anyone that they need to store this much music (most of which you've never heard before) in the cloud.
How asinine is it to assume he doesn't have a lot of Video?
Yet chrome still exists. If google is claiming one OS to rule them all, why isn't chrome joining android? It's not even like chrome is trying to be a full fledged OS like OS X, and even OS X shares it's viable APIs between the two systems.
Google is getting to diversified for their own good, even when they concentrate their products down, they still are re-inventing the wheel and competing against themselves.
Just because Apple has been successful in things that they do doesn't mean that companies like Google and Amazon can be successful in venturing into the same lines of business. First it was Google's Nexus One. Flop. Second it was Honeycomb on XOOM. Flop. Amazon's Cloud Services has been very quiet since launch. People just don't care about it period.
The only reason why Google seems to be successful with Android is because handset manufacturers have some sort of identity crises with their native OS. And even then, no handset vendor running Android can compete with iPhone when it comes to consumer patronage. Because they fell into a trap which made it harder for them to differentiate their products from other competing Android devices.
One thing that these companies should understand: there is this so-called "Apple Only Market" that is really hard to break up. No matter how hard the other companies try, at best, they will only end up playing second fiddle to Apple,
According to other blog sites reporting on this event, Google will provide updates up to 18 months after the release of the device BUT only if the device's hardware is capable of supporting it.
Not to take anything away from Google but I still much prefer the way Apple supports it iDevices vs Google. At least I know my device is good for at least 2 years.
Indeed.
And Apple does it by version number not by date. 18 months means nothing if they don't update the OS for 19 months. With iOS, you get a promise that you will get all the point updates for the OS that's on it when you buy it, plus the next full number OS, plus the point updates for that next OS.
The caveat of "if your device is capable of supporting it" also makes even the 18 month promise essentially useless. Logically, Googles statements on this reduce to the simple statement:
"If we release updates you will get them if your device is capable of handling them."
Yet chrome still exists. If google is claiming one OS to rule them all, why isn't chrome joining android? It's not even like chrome is trying to be a full fledged OS like OS X, and even OS X shares it's viable APIs between the two systems.
Google is getting to diversified for their own good, even when they concentrate their products down, they still are re-inventing the wheel and competing against themselves.
It's the same old scatter-shot approach that Microsoft was famous for.
- Throw out a hundred ideas, knowing 99 of them will fail.
- Buy twenty companies and kill their products dead through incompetence and failure to understand the market or the audience.
Some people think this is admirable because they are "bravely trying new things" and are "willing to fail" and all that BS. In reality, it just shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of what they are doing and who they are doing it for.
Comments
Exactly that!!
Why does anyone give a shit about figures and percentages comparing Android and Apple.
You're the first one to get it. Congrats!
Actually... there are quite a few people on here that have said that it's not about market percentage.
Exactly that!!
Why does anyone give a shit about figures and percentages comparing Android and Apple.
You're the first one to get it. Congrats!
Of course it matters. It matters for software devs and peripheral manufacturers. I want to see Apple at 40% which they can do.
I agree with you that Android itself doesn't generate much money for Google, but the point of it is to further drive Google's main revenue stream (Ads). I don't think they'll ever show a clear segmented number for Android alone. It's pretty much the same for all of Google's services, everything is about driving Ad revenue.
The worst case situation for the handset manufacturers is for some group to take over development of Android or switch to yet another OS. What about all of their investment into Android then? I'm sure they're used to spending money on products that don't sell (Xoom) so whatever they'll have to do to stay in the game in the future will just be regular business. We'll see how much these handset makers really invest into Android by how well they would really keep up with updates.
I mean its fine if every manufacture makes their own Android OS based on the open-source system, but many developers I think won't accept it that they have to *bomb* their consumers with advertisements. Advertisements are fine as long as you are not overstepping the line.
Still some developers are upset that their app can't find on every device. Otherwise when you do an app for the iPhone, you can get it for every iPhone Generation and iPod Touch. iPad provides a really fun base for app developers to extend what they were limited on the iPhone, the resolution but thats a dif topic.
Google is turning in my opinion into a monopoly and thats wrong. Google tries to do everything today. Probably starting tomorrow we will get recipes from Google on how to cook.
PS: This is my first time writing a reply, but I have been watching AI quite a long time.
Welcome to AI!
It said the next user interface would be "state of the art.
Translation: "The current one sucks".
I agree with you that Android itself doesn't generate much money for Google, but the point of it is to further drive Google's main revenue stream (Ads). I don't think they'll ever show a clear segmented number for Android alone. It's pretty much the same for all of Google's services, everything is about driving Ad revenue.
I agree that it may, one day, make money for Google, and that would be from ads.
I am simply saying that day is not here yet.
Of course it matters. It matters for software devs and peripheral manufacturers. I want to see Apple at 40% which they can do.
So far, it does not seem to have mattered much for Apple, does it?
Sure they are, when it comes to creating a market. But their competitors blatantly rip them off and use Apple's ideas as a springboard to leapfrog ahead of Apple and innovate further while Apple slowly crawls forward with their ideas. Cut and paste, multi-tasking, notifications...Apple needs to stay ahead of the curve with these types of things or they're going to be left behind.
Google says their next big update will feature a new user interface, so I'm guessing they plan to do away with the "App tiles" look they copied from Apple. This will be the first time they've gone in their own direction in this area with Android phones. If it turns out like the last time they went in their own direction with Android (the abortion that is Gingerbread), they're probably going to piss a lot of people off because it's just too different and too difficult for casual users to get into. This would give Apple a perfect chance to swoop in with a new, improved, innovative, and most of all user-friendly iOS 5 to woo the public again.
Then Google can just copy the new look of iOS and we start back from the beginning...
Yeah!
This says it all!
if you're really so set on swiping the top of the screen just get an android phone. the notifications on iOS are just fine compared to android. they could use some work, but android is not better at notifications.
Yes, android and pretty much all other smartphones handle notifications better than the iphone, sorry.
Of course it matters. It matters for software devs and peripheral manufacturers. I want to see Apple at 40% which they can do.
If Apple is constantly selling more iPhones and iPads even if their market share is dipping then why would developers suddenly begin to lose money supporting iOS.
That's ridiculous.
There's another item being sold today that has less than 10% share of its market and it makes tons of money for developers... it's called OSX and Apple Macintosh computers... you may have heard of them.
Wonder how much space you get on Googles cloud service. I have 4+ terra in my itunes. I guess I wont be able to upload it all to their service.
I have about 93 GB, which according to iTunes is about 40 days worth of music. I would say it is on average at about 256kbps. So, assuming you had your music in a similar format, that would be about 47 years worth of music (94 if you only listen to music 12 hours out of the day, every day), if you never listened to the same song twice. Even in a lossless format, it would be over 5 years (10 if you listen 12 hours a day, 365 days a year) worth of music.
Keeping a ridiculous amount more music than you could possibly ever listen to in a lifetime on your hard drive, is asinine. I'm not sure why it would occur to anyone that they need to store this much music (most of which you've never heard before) in the cloud.
So far, it does not seem to have mattered much for Apple, does it?
Um, yeah but that's because Apple have increased their Market share in tablets and smartphones from 0%.
They need to keep growing.
I have about 93 GB, which according to iTunes is about 40 days worth of music. I would say it is on average at about 256kbps. So, assuming you had your music in a similar format, that would be about 47 years worth of music (94 if you only listen to music 12 hours out of the day, every day), if you never listened to the same song twice. Even in a lossless format, it would be over 5 years (10 if you listen 12 hours a day, 365 days a year) worth of music.
Keeping a ridiculous amount more music than you could possibly ever listen to in a lifetime on your hard drive, is asinine. I'm not sure why it would occur to anyone that they need to store this much music (most of which you've never heard before) in the cloud.
How asinine is it to assume he doesn't have a lot of Video?
How asinine is it to assume he doesn't have a lot of Video?
rockstheparty just got SERVED.
Google is getting to diversified for their own good, even when they concentrate their products down, they still are re-inventing the wheel and competing against themselves.
The only reason why Google seems to be successful with Android is because handset manufacturers have some sort of identity crises with their native OS. And even then, no handset vendor running Android can compete with iPhone when it comes to consumer patronage. Because they fell into a trap which made it harder for them to differentiate their products from other competing Android devices.
One thing that these companies should understand: there is this so-called "Apple Only Market" that is really hard to break up. No matter how hard the other companies try, at best, they will only end up playing second fiddle to Apple,
According to other blog sites reporting on this event, Google will provide updates up to 18 months after the release of the device BUT only if the device's hardware is capable of supporting it.
Not to take anything away from Google but I still much prefer the way Apple supports it iDevices vs Google. At least I know my device is good for at least 2 years.
Indeed.
And Apple does it by version number not by date. 18 months means nothing if they don't update the OS for 19 months. With iOS, you get a promise that you will get all the point updates for the OS that's on it when you buy it, plus the next full number OS, plus the point updates for that next OS.
The caveat of "if your device is capable of supporting it" also makes even the 18 month promise essentially useless. Logically, Googles statements on this reduce to the simple statement:
"If we release updates you will get them if your device is capable of handling them."
This is the classic 'empty promise.'
Ice Cream Sandwich (ICS) seems like a back-cronymed swipe at IOS.
It's a ridiculous name. It fails even on the "whimsy" front and that icon is one of the worst POS I've ever seen.
It's like they aren't even trying
Yet chrome still exists. If google is claiming one OS to rule them all, why isn't chrome joining android? It's not even like chrome is trying to be a full fledged OS like OS X, and even OS X shares it's viable APIs between the two systems.
Google is getting to diversified for their own good, even when they concentrate their products down, they still are re-inventing the wheel and competing against themselves.
It's the same old scatter-shot approach that Microsoft was famous for.
- Throw out a hundred ideas, knowing 99 of them will fail.
- Buy twenty companies and kill their products dead through incompetence and failure to understand the market or the audience.
Some people think this is admirable because they are "bravely trying new things" and are "willing to fail" and all that BS. In reality, it just shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of what they are doing and who they are doing it for.
Lack of focus.