I've always said that Android users are cheap, and here is yet more evidence proving my point. Most Android people primarily base their purchasing decisions on price alone, and they go for what is cheap. The cheaper, the better, and free is best of all, even if it comes with a ton of annoying ads.
I've looked briefly around the Android market and it's complete garbage. Hardly any music apps for a person like me, and the majority of apps looks like it was made by complete amateurs and people with no sense of style and piss poor design skills, not to mention the fragmentation problems that Android has.
If the average iOS user has $100 in content per device, how much does the average Android user have? I will guess less than $10.
You are the kind of people who ends up buying $100 cables.
You do not have the ability,aptitude or the finesse to make a judgement.
If app A costs $99.99 and app B costs $149.99 you would think app B is better even though app B may have less functionality than A.
Sad,that you cannot use your Apple purchases to enjoy your life and see it as a way of remedying your inferiority complex.
So it that $100 in content or apps. If content includes music then that's irrelevant as it would work on another device. If it is apps, then is that actually apps people are still using? Having $50 of apps you've deleted isn't going to affect your moving decision. Android phones also cost over $100 less so it's not like you can't just replace your content.
Having said all that I was looking at Android phones at the weekend and came to the conclusion that they all look rubbish. In part they look like cheap iPhones, but at the same time they look like the phones that we're around before iPhones but with the keypad removed. The same low quality icons in a grid layout.
I suspect most Android phones being sold are the really cheap ones as there arn't many other cheap phones left. In comparison I'd say the long term competition at the high end is with WP7 particularly once mango comes out.
Am I the only one who sees something really wrong with the graph in this article? According to it, there were about 80 MILLION installed base of iOS devices THREE MONTHS BEFORE the first iPhone was released!! And another problem I'm seeing here is the fact that users have spent 22 billion dollars on content. I remember Steve Jobs recently saying that Apple has paid out 2.5 billion to developers. I'm no math wiz, but thats not quite 70%, is it?
Am I the only one who sees something really wrong with the graph in this article? According to it, there were about 80 MILLION installed base of iOS devices THREE MONTHS BEFORE the first iPhone was released!! And another problem I'm seeing here is the fact that users have spent 22 billion dollars on content. I remember Steve Jobs recently saying that Apple has paid out 2.5 billion to developers. I'm no math wiz, but thats not quite 70%, is it?
That $22B figure includes music purchases, which is the the bulk of the content bought.
I'm happy to accept that - if you can tell me why. What is misinformation in my post? Let's look at the points one-by-one shall we?
Price. An HTC Desire S costs $293 less than the cheapest iPhone 4. A Samsung Galaxy SII costs $187 less.
Apple will come out with a cheaper version someday. However this has nothing to do with stickability.
Quote:
Apps. Fact: Android has more free apps.
Thats probably wrong if you compare iOS ( incl the 150K on iPad) to Android. And iOS has more apps in general, including paid. So if the user's apps are free, stickability is reduced; if it isn't there or costs on the Android platform, people will stay on iOS.
Quote:
Flash. iOS does not do Flash.
Widgets. iOS doesn't have widgets.
Is there a school for Lovers of Android where people are trained to say the SAME THING. If this were relevant to stickiness of the iOS platform then they wouldn't have been on the platform in the first place.
Quote:
Where then, exactly, is this "remarkable density of mis-information"?
Not so much mis-information as irrelevance to the topic at hand.
I had an Android... Flash sucks! It kills battery life, is quite slow, and it crashes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Yes it is. At the same time Google Navigation adds it's own degree of stickiness to Android. Each platform has a few apps that users might find hard to replace if they decide to try out the competition.
Google Navigation is great, until you're in the middle of nowhere with no data access or need to roam. With Tom Tom which I have or any of the other GPS apps, all the maps are loaded onto my phone.
I had an Android... Flash sucks! It kills battery life, is quite slow, and it crashes!
Google Navigation is great, until you're in the middle of nowhere with no data access or need to roam. With Tom Tom which I have or any of the other GPS apps, all the maps are loaded onto my phone.
With the latest update to Google Navigation (v5.7), local area maps are now downloaded directly to your device and stored, avoiding the issue of a lost data connection.
Why is app portability a right? Or even a need? It is certainly not a given on PCs, where portability is far more important.
He didn't say it was a right, you read that into his comment despite there being no apparent basis to do so. All I see is a hypothetical if they decided they wanted to do so.
That being said, I don't know what the motivation would be. On computers, some developers did offer ways to swap licenses for apps on other OSs, they might, I don't know. Most mobile software is inexpensive enough that it's not worth the cost to provide discounts to allow someone to switch to a different device platform. Paying someone to take a call or email and transmit a discount code probably costs more than they'll get for the converted app. Setting up an automated means to allow discounted platform switching of apps also costs dev and potential support time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Stickiness has been a concept in economics for years
I'm afraid your victorian maidenly sensibilities will just have to cope.
Yeah, "stickiness" isn't a new concept, it has been mentioned in several AI stories in the past. I don't recall anyone here complaining about it before.
A related report this morning concerning the two big app markets gives an indication that developers may be starting to target Android first, with an equivalent iOS app following sometime later. The reasoning is the faster take-up of Android devices recently, coupled with the (reported) lengthy approval times from Apple. Consider the source of course. . .
However this [PRICE] has nothing to do with stickability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not so much mis-information as irrelevance to the topic at hand.
It is not at all irrelevant. If you have $100 invested in apps, and you can get a replacement phone for more than $100 less in cost, how does the $100 invested in apps reflect "stickiness"?
The whole point of the article was that "stickiness" is induced by people suffering financial penalty if they move away from iOS. That they lose their investment in apps. This is not the case.
Comments
I've always said that Android users are cheap, and here is yet more evidence proving my point. Most Android people primarily base their purchasing decisions on price alone, and they go for what is cheap. The cheaper, the better, and free is best of all, even if it comes with a ton of annoying ads.
I've looked briefly around the Android market and it's complete garbage. Hardly any music apps for a person like me, and the majority of apps looks like it was made by complete amateurs and people with no sense of style and piss poor design skills, not to mention the fragmentation problems that Android has.
If the average iOS user has $100 in content per device, how much does the average Android user have? I will guess less than $10.
You are the kind of people who ends up buying $100 cables.
You do not have the ability,aptitude or the finesse to make a judgement.
If app A costs $99.99 and app B costs $149.99 you would think app B is better even though app B may have less functionality than A.
Sad,that you cannot use your Apple purchases to enjoy your life and see it as a way of remedying your inferiority complex.
Having said all that I was looking at Android phones at the weekend and came to the conclusion that they all look rubbish. In part they look like cheap iPhones, but at the same time they look like the phones that we're around before iPhones but with the keypad removed. The same low quality icons in a grid layout.
I suspect most Android phones being sold are the really cheap ones as there arn't many other cheap phones left. In comparison I'd say the long term competition at the high end is with WP7 particularly once mango comes out.
Am I the only one who sees something really wrong with the graph in this article? According to it, there were about 80 MILLION installed base of iOS devices THREE MONTHS BEFORE the first iPhone was released!!
That $22B figure includes music purchases, which is the the bulk of the content bought.
I'm happy to accept that - if you can tell me why. What is misinformation in my post? Let's look at the points one-by-one shall we?
Price. An HTC Desire S costs $293 less than the cheapest iPhone 4. A Samsung Galaxy SII costs $187 less.
Apple will come out with a cheaper version someday. However this has nothing to do with stickability.
Apps. Fact: Android has more free apps.
Thats probably wrong if you compare iOS ( incl the 150K on iPad) to Android. And iOS has more apps in general, including paid. So if the user's apps are free, stickability is reduced; if it isn't there or costs on the Android platform, people will stay on iOS.
Flash. iOS does not do Flash.
Widgets. iOS doesn't have widgets.
Is there a school for Lovers of Android where people are trained to say the SAME THING. If this were relevant to stickiness of the iOS platform then they wouldn't have been on the platform in the first place.
Where then, exactly, is this "remarkable density of mis-information"?
Not so much mis-information as irrelevance to the topic at hand.
Yes it is. At the same time Google Navigation adds it's own degree of stickiness to Android. Each platform has a few apps that users might find hard to replace if they decide to try out the competition.
Google Navigation is great, until you're in the middle of nowhere with no data access or need to roam. With Tom Tom which I have or any of the other GPS apps, all the maps are loaded onto my phone.
I had an Android... Flash sucks! It kills battery life, is quite slow, and it crashes!
Google Navigation is great, until you're in the middle of nowhere with no data access or need to roam. With Tom Tom which I have or any of the other GPS apps, all the maps are loaded onto my phone.
With the latest update to Google Navigation (v5.7), local area maps are now downloaded directly to your device and stored, avoiding the issue of a lost data connection.
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=8445
Why is app portability a right? Or even a need? It is certainly not a given on PCs, where portability is far more important.
He didn't say it was a right, you read that into his comment despite there being no apparent basis to do so. All I see is a hypothetical if they decided they wanted to do so.
That being said, I don't know what the motivation would be. On computers, some developers did offer ways to swap licenses for apps on other OSs, they might, I don't know. Most mobile software is inexpensive enough that it's not worth the cost to provide discounts to allow someone to switch to a different device platform. Paying someone to take a call or email and transmit a discount code probably costs more than they'll get for the converted app. Setting up an automated means to allow discounted platform switching of apps also costs dev and potential support time.
Stickiness has been a concept in economics for years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_(economics)
I'm afraid your victorian maidenly sensibilities will just have to cope.
Yeah, "stickiness" isn't a new concept, it has been mentioned in several AI stories in the past. I don't recall anyone here complaining about it before.
http://9to5google.com/2011/07/13/whi...roval-process/
However this [PRICE] has nothing to do with stickability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not so much mis-information as irrelevance to the topic at hand.
It is not at all irrelevant. If you have $100 invested in apps, and you can get a replacement phone for more than $100 less in cost, how does the $100 invested in apps reflect "stickiness"?
The whole point of the article was that "stickiness" is induced by people suffering financial penalty if they move away from iOS. That they lose their investment in apps. This is not the case.