I would think that sideloading of non-approved apps would be a drawback as well.
That requires the user changing the default setting that only allows Android Market apps to be installed.
As for Android the OS being inherently more insecure than iOS, that's not really true IMHO. Android's issue is the Android Market rather than Android itself. Without a curated market like Apple's, the chances of malware sneaking into the Android market are much higher, tho still not a common occurance and little cause for worry in my view, at least so far. Used more as FUD than a current concern for all Android users. Google will need to make changes, sooner rather than later, to keep app malware issues rare. With so many devices it's an attractive target. Apple's idea of running on lockdown may have to be considered one day.
Both OS's are considered more secure than desktop versions, but both can still be hacked and are susceptible to several types of attack. In fact iOS encryption is considered particularly weak, with passwords easily broken, while Android's dependence on the user making the correct decision on app permissions is probably not as good an idea as Apple's choice to, well, not allow those choices. The syncing process it viewed as a particular concern and a weak link in the security chain on both platforms. fortunately syncing is rarely needed on Android devices, and upcoming iOS versions should reduce the need as well.
ITWorld had a brief but informative article on the two platforms here:
I am not trying to engage you in a dialog -- but you keep raising interesting points! Yer' on a roll tonight!
Are you saying Google has difficulty selling ads on Android -- because Android doesn't properly deliver the ads to many devices?
Doesn't Google need the ads even more than the developers?
Shouldn't they fix that?
Engage!
Yes, yes, and yes!
The problem, as I see it, is that the well known problem of convincing people to buy apps is forcing developers to make a decision. Either to develop for Android, and lose money, or take advertising. I believe that Google is selling Ads without a problem. But the real problem is that if many apps with Ads won't run on many devices, then Google won't be getting the revenue it wants, and needs. Neither will the developers.
So, somehow, Google has to figure out how to do this so that it runs across most phones, and most OS upgrades. Sure, they need to figure this out, but can they?
This is a problem of their own making. Is it fixable? Good question! If the "skins" are causing problems, if the different SoC's are causing problems, then I don't know what they can do. Supposedly, they are trying to limit what OEMs can do to future releases. But can they? I've read articles that say that Google's contracts limit what can be done only in using Android name, receiving help from Google, and getting OS upgrades early. If an OEM decides to forgo this, they can go their own way, possibly. If so, there's nothing Google can do.
Google also wants information from us, and they get it from their own apps, and possibly third party apps as well.
No, I'm saying that it's very possible they used it as an excuse to leave. Baidu was kicking their asses in China. It would be embarrassing to leave because they were losing money. But to leave for reasons of freedom, well, what could be better publicity elsewhere? As they say, priceless!
Gosh, I guess it is possible. What isn't?
Perhaps Apple is secretly paying Baidu to fork Android. Or Google and Apple are actually working together behind the scenes to take over the world's information systems. Or you being a clever Google plant, working your way into a position of trust with other AI members, waiting for just the right moment to turn.
So is your Google/China idea a likelihood in your opinion, or just some FUD you thought of that can't be disproved, and thus must be considered.
Aren't these searchable with some kind of LexisNexis technology?
If not, this looks/smells like a business opportunity!
I know of two companies, currently engaged in patent litigation, who are also expert in large data store and search technology!
Edit: Hmmm... I just realized something:
Larry Ellison doesn't want to take over Android -- he wants to take over Google!
Have you ever tried to look up some obscure bit of technology in any of this, hoping to find a patent that has it? I have. Brrr! While you might find something, you might not find exactly what you need. You might not find anything. The indexing is not the greatest, and neither is the search. Honestly, it's almost impossible. Some patents go on for hundreds of pages, and you may need the images. That's why one hires experts to do this, and they likely will still miss things.
The most recent survey I find indicated that Android owners actually have quite a number of apps, an average of 35 per user several months ago, likely higher now. Not so different from iOS, and in line with my earlier guess that iOS leads the way but Android isn't far behind. Android owners also use their apps just about as much as iOS owners.
I don't know what it is that your find harder than to use than Apple's Appstore. Any details on how the Apple store is easier to navigate than Google's Android Market in your view?
EDIT: BTW, thanks for the AndroidAuthority link to Android smartphone versions. Hadn't seen that one yet.
As we've both used them, you know, since you asked, that it's hard to pin down exactly why. But it just is. As I said, it's gotten better in the AM, since their big upgrade of the site. It's still, I don't know exactly, less definitive? It's one of those thongs where you have to have been there, hard to explain.
The last estimate I saw of iPhone apps, several months ago was 60 apps per iPhone. It's likely higher now.
[QUOTE=melgross;1936697]You just have to look at the number of phones sold over some period, and look at the number of downloads. Apple has claimed over 15 billion several months ago. It's possibly close to 20 billion by now. Then get the number from the Android Market, and if it makes you feel better, add another 30% to account for the other stores around. Divide the number of apps downloaded by the number of phones sold, and you've got your answer.I just don't remember the number of Android apps downloaded, though the numbers are out there. Be careful to not use some guys estimates, but an official number./QUOTE]
Why are you attempting to make the numbers so difficult? Is there something about the Nielsen survey results I linked that bothers you? I thought it was pretty straightforward, perhaps the reason you're attempting to make things look muddy?
Of all Android devices to access Google's App Market over the past two weeks, half are still running last summer's Android 2.2 Froyo and only 30 percent are using Google's latest smartphone release, Android 2.3 Gingerbread. More than 16 percent are running a build older than Froyo, preventing them from being able to run modern apps.
Google's latest tablet-centric release, Android 3.0 Honeycomb, powers less than 2 percent of active devices, but it isn't used by a variety of tablet makers including Barnes & Noble Nook Color and Amazon's upcoming
Parts like this make me laugh.
"Baidu forks Android to introduce its own mobile OS for China". Okay....
So what does that have to do with Android versions? Nothing at all.
"More than 16% are running a build older than Froyo". Well that's to be expected. More than 16% of current iphones are older than the 3GS. This also prevents them from having a functioning phone since Apple decided to push out an iOS version that they knew those older phones couldn't handle.
As far as running apps, that has nothing to do with the Android version. Let's say you want an app that needs the API to access your front facing camera. Well, if you have an Android with a front facing camera, guess what. It already has a version with APIs that deep. If you don't have a front facing camera, then it doesn't really matter anyway does it? Because you do not require that version of android. Your older version of Android is completely capable of running a vast majority of apps. Have a super old Android? There's a gingerbread rom available for it because each phone has it's own unique dev community. This fragmentation thing is completely over exaggerated in every way.
"Google's latest tablet-centric release..." STOPPED READING THERE. Was the article about tablets? No? Then why mention it? What does the nook color have to do with anything? Of course it's less than 2%, because there's an insane amount of android PHONES out there. With PHONE OSs.
Even the author of this article felt that it was necessary to just squeeze that little section in at the end.
Which is different than the average number of apps that users have currently installed on their phones. The Asymco link might imply there's quite a high number of apps that iOS owners had downloaded and subsequently found not worth keeping.
Which is different than the average number of apps that users have currently installed on their phones. The Asymco link might imply there's quite a high number of apps that iOS owners had downloaded and subsequently found not worth keeping.
Regardless if people still use the app or not isn't what's being measured. I certainly only use a handful of the hundreds of apps I've bought on regular basis. Most recently I bought Skeleton System Pro II (NOVA Series) when it was half-off. Great app, BTW. I'll probably only use once every couple weeks, but that doesn't mean it's a crappy app.
That requires the user changing the default setting that only allows Android Market apps to be installed.
As for Android the OS being inherently more insecure than iOS, that's not really true IMHO. Android's issue is the Android Market rather than Android itself. Without a curated market like Apple's, the chances of malware sneaking into the Android market are much higher, tho still not a common occurance and little cause for worry in my view, at least so far. Used more as FUD than a current concern for all Android users. Google will need to make changes, sooner rather than later, to keep app malware issues rare. With so many devices it's an attractive target. Apple's idea of running on lockdown may have to be considered one day.
Both OS's are considered more secure than desktop versions, but both can still be hacked and are susceptible to several types of attack. In fact iOS encryption is considered particularly weak, with passwords easily broken, while Android's dependence on the user making the correct decision on app permissions is probably not as good an idea as Apple's choice to, well, not allow those choices. The syncing process it viewed as a particular concern and a weak link in the security chain on both platforms. fortunately syncing is rarely needed on Android devices, and upcoming iOS versions should reduce the need as well.
ITWorld had a brief but informative article on the two platforms here:
Reports of Android security issues are way overblown in my opinion, and sometimes imagined.
The problem with Android security is that attacks are increasing. At some point, hundreds of thousands will be affected, and that will be very bad publicity.
Google MUST step up. I don't think they want to because of liability, and the large cost. It's estimated that it can cost Apple $50 million a year. Google's plans are for Android to be as low a cost to them as possible, because most of their money comes from Android app advertising, and from Google search.
The liability issues are interesting. How do they decide if something is malware? apple can get by refusing apps for many reasons. But if Google refuses them just for malware, the developer can sue them.
In addition, Apple filters apps so they don't have apps that violate user/carrier contracts, such as free tethering apps. Getting around contracts is one reason some people go with Android rather than iOS. Right now, Google can say that they have no real control over what appears on the AM. But if they look at all apps first, they won't be able to say that. Would they need to disallow apps that violate contracts, copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc.? If so, they will anger many Android users.
Have you ever tried to look up some obscure bit of technology in any of this, hoping to find a patent that has it? I have. Brrr! While you might find something, you might not find exactly what you need. You might not find anything. The indexing is not the greatest, and neither is the search. Honestly, it's almost impossible. Some patents go on for hundreds of pages, and you may need the images. That's why one hires experts to do this, and they likely will still miss things.
My old eyes go back to the days of [analog] microfilm and then microfiche -- IBM had their entire technical knowledge base on it: source code, hardware diagrams, docs. etc.
Those were the days of KWIC indexes (Key Words In Context) -- I usually could find whatever I needed.
Fast forward 50 years where everything is digital: program-scanable, indexable, searchable -- why can't we search patents by keywords and in-context phrases extracted and weighted from the content -- translated from legalese into english.
Isn't that what Google does with totally random information, across multiple disciplines and multiple languages?
As an aside: One of the jewels of Final Cut Pro X is a fantastic data management facility -- based on:
1) Content Metadata
2) The actual content itself
3) Content analysis (people, video/sound/quality and problems, color, shot range (closeup, wide...)
4) User supplied keywords
5) smart collections
Everything is searchable -- with simple or complex searches.
Basically, the computer does the heavy lifting -- does the analysis and creates most of the "searchable data".
A user can sit watching a video clip and assign [user defined] keywords while watching the video;
My God, these are random video clips we are talking about!
Why couldn't those same technologies be used to classify patents (or any other content) into a reliably searchable data store?
Perhaps Apple is secretly paying Baidu to fork Android. Or Google and Apple are actually working together behind the scenes to take over the world's information systems. Or you being a clever Google plant, working your way into a position of trust with other AI members, waiting for just the right moment to turn.
So is your Google/China idea a likelihood in your opinion, or just some FUD you thought of that can't be disproved, and thus must be considered.
No, it's been brought up in some business publications when it happened. It's not really so difficult to believe. Stranger things have happened. We know they were doing poorly in China, their own financial reports said that. The Chinese are very patriotic in their own way. While Apple has caché there, Google doesn't, because of its stances. Baidu was growing at phenomenal rates.
And with Google's silly "Do No evil." Slogan, what else would they need to pull out.
Regardless if people still use the app or not isn't what's being measured. I certainly only use a handful of the hundreds of apps I've bought on regular basis.
Of course it's what's being measured.
Mel's claim was that Android owners don't really use apps (see post #153), instead seeing their smartphones as phones and browsers. I gave evidence that wasn't true. What did you think was being discussed?
You just have to look at the number of phones sold over some period, and look at the number of downloads. Apple has claimed over 15 billion several months ago. It's possibly close to 20 billion by now. Then get the number from the Android Market, and if it makes you feel better, add another 30% to account for the other stores around. Divide the number of apps downloaded by the number of phones sold, and you've got your answer.I just don't remember the number of Android apps downloaded, though the numbers are out there. Be careful to not use some guys estimates, but an official number./QUOTE]
Why are you attempting to make the numbers so difficult? Is there something about the Nielsen survey results I linked that bothers you? I thought it was pretty straightforward, perhaps the reason you're attempting to make things look muddy?
Because surveys aren't always useful. Going by the real, known numbers tells us more. You don't have to of course. Nielsen has had its own scandals in the past. I rather use real numbers if possible.
No, it's been brought up in some business publications when it happened. It's not really so difficult to believe. Stranger things have happened. We know they were doing poorly in China, their own financial reports said that. The Chinese are very patriotic in their own way. While Apple has caché there, Google doesn't, because of its stances. Baidu was growing at phenomenal rates.
And with Google's silly "Do No evil." Slogan, what else would they need to pull out.
It's not as odd an idea as you want to think.
So they created an international incident to cover for poor results. . .
Strange Mel, very strange if you truly believe that's a realistic scenario
I remember reading the number, but not where I read it. Of course, if you use me in a survey, I'll bollux up the results. I have over 200 apps on my phone, and over 300 on my iPad.
Because surveys aren't always useful. Going by the real, known numbers tells us more. You don't have to of course. Nielsen has had its own scandals in the past. I rather use real numbers if possible.
Except you have no method to determine the average number of apps that a user has on his/her phone, nor how often they use them.
Numbers of apps sold has nothing to do with number of apps kept and used, so your numbers based on the number of phones sold compared to the number of app downloaded, allowing for devices no longer in use, and subtracting for "other" app markets, then. . .
Well you get the idea. Your number would tell us nothing concerning the claim you made that Android owners don't use apps. It's only intended for confusion.
Comments
I would think that sideloading of non-approved apps would be a drawback as well.
That requires the user changing the default setting that only allows Android Market apps to be installed.
As for Android the OS being inherently more insecure than iOS, that's not really true IMHO. Android's issue is the Android Market rather than Android itself. Without a curated market like Apple's, the chances of malware sneaking into the Android market are much higher, tho still not a common occurance and little cause for worry in my view, at least so far. Used more as FUD than a current concern for all Android users. Google will need to make changes, sooner rather than later, to keep app malware issues rare. With so many devices it's an attractive target. Apple's idea of running on lockdown may have to be considered one day.
Both OS's are considered more secure than desktop versions, but both can still be hacked and are susceptible to several types of attack. In fact iOS encryption is considered particularly weak, with passwords easily broken, while Android's dependence on the user making the correct decision on app permissions is probably not as good an idea as Apple's choice to, well, not allow those choices. The syncing process it viewed as a particular concern and a weak link in the security chain on both platforms. fortunately syncing is rarely needed on Android devices, and upcoming iOS versions should reduce the need as well.
ITWorld had a brief but informative article on the two platforms here:
http://www.itworld.com/security/1783...ore-secure-pcs
Reports of Android security issues are way overblown in my opinion, and sometimes imagined.
@melgross
I am not trying to engage you in a dialog -- but you keep raising interesting points! Yer' on a roll tonight!
Are you saying Google has difficulty selling ads on Android -- because Android doesn't properly deliver the ads to many devices?
Doesn't Google need the ads even more than the developers?
Shouldn't they fix that?
Engage!
Yes, yes, and yes!
The problem, as I see it, is that the well known problem of convincing people to buy apps is forcing developers to make a decision. Either to develop for Android, and lose money, or take advertising. I believe that Google is selling Ads without a problem. But the real problem is that if many apps with Ads won't run on many devices, then Google won't be getting the revenue it wants, and needs. Neither will the developers.
So, somehow, Google has to figure out how to do this so that it runs across most phones, and most OS upgrades. Sure, they need to figure this out, but can they?
This is a problem of their own making. Is it fixable? Good question! If the "skins" are causing problems, if the different SoC's are causing problems, then I don't know what they can do. Supposedly, they are trying to limit what OEMs can do to future releases. But can they? I've read articles that say that Google's contracts limit what can be done only in using Android name, receiving help from Google, and getting OS upgrades early. If an OEM decides to forgo this, they can go their own way, possibly. If so, there's nothing Google can do.
Google also wants information from us, and they get it from their own apps, and possibly third party apps as well.
No, I'm saying that it's very possible they used it as an excuse to leave. Baidu was kicking their asses in China. It would be embarrassing to leave because they were losing money. But to leave for reasons of freedom, well, what could be better publicity elsewhere? As they say, priceless!
Gosh, I guess it is possible.
Perhaps Apple is secretly paying Baidu to fork Android. Or Google and Apple are actually working together behind the scenes to take over the world's information systems. Or you being a clever Google plant, working your way into a position of trust with other AI members, waiting for just the right moment to turn.
So is your Google/China idea a likelihood in your opinion, or just some FUD you thought of that can't be disproved, and thus must be considered.
Aren't all US patents listed by the USPTO?
Aren't these searchable with some kind of LexisNexis technology?
If not, this looks/smells like a business opportunity!
I know of two companies, currently engaged in patent litigation, who are also expert in large data store and search technology!
Edit: Hmmm... I just realized something:
Larry Ellison doesn't want to take over Android -- he wants to take over Google!
Have you ever tried to look up some obscure bit of technology in any of this, hoping to find a patent that has it? I have. Brrr! While you might find something, you might not find exactly what you need. You might not find anything. The indexing is not the greatest, and neither is the search. Honestly, it's almost impossible. Some patents go on for hundreds of pages, and you may need the images. That's why one hires experts to do this, and they likely will still miss things.
The most recent survey I find indicated that Android owners actually have quite a number of apps, an average of 35 per user several months ago, likely higher now. Not so different from iOS, and in line with my earlier guess that iOS leads the way but Android isn't far behind. Android owners also use their apps just about as much as iOS owners.
http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...pp-downloaders
I imagine you've actually used the Android Market to see how the process of locating apps works, but for those that haven't:
https://market.android.com
I don't know what it is that your find harder than to use than Apple's Appstore. Any details on how the Apple store is easier to navigate than Google's Android Market in your view?
EDIT: BTW, thanks for the AndroidAuthority link to Android smartphone versions. Hadn't seen that one yet.
As we've both used them, you know, since you asked, that it's hard to pin down exactly why. But it just is. As I said, it's gotten better in the AM, since their big upgrade of the site. It's still, I don't know exactly, less definitive? It's one of those thongs where you have to have been there, hard to explain.
The last estimate I saw of iPhone apps, several months ago was 60 apps per iPhone. It's likely higher now.
Why are you attempting to make the numbers so difficult? Is there something about the Nielsen survey results I linked that bothers you? I thought it was pretty straightforward, perhaps the reason you're attempting to make things look muddy?
http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...pp-downloaders
i
The last estimate I saw of iPhone apps, several months ago was 60 apps per iPhone. It's likely higher now.
Missed that one. Link?
I would think that sideloading of non-approved apps would be a drawback as well.
Yes. It's why people are told that jail breaking iOS can lead to the same security and malware problems that Android suffers from.
Of all Android devices to access Google's App Market over the past two weeks, half are still running last summer's Android 2.2 Froyo and only 30 percent are using Google's latest smartphone release, Android 2.3 Gingerbread. More than 16 percent are running a build older than Froyo, preventing them from being able to run modern apps.
Google's latest tablet-centric release, Android 3.0 Honeycomb, powers less than 2 percent of active devices, but it isn't used by a variety of tablet makers including Barnes & Noble Nook Color and Amazon's upcoming
Parts like this make me laugh.
"Baidu forks Android to introduce its own mobile OS for China". Okay....
So what does that have to do with Android versions? Nothing at all.
"More than 16% are running a build older than Froyo". Well that's to be expected. More than 16% of current iphones are older than the 3GS. This also prevents them from having a functioning phone since Apple decided to push out an iOS version that they knew those older phones couldn't handle.
As far as running apps, that has nothing to do with the Android version. Let's say you want an app that needs the API to access your front facing camera. Well, if you have an Android with a front facing camera, guess what. It already has a version with APIs that deep. If you don't have a front facing camera, then it doesn't really matter anyway does it? Because you do not require that version of android. Your older version of Android is completely capable of running a vast majority of apps. Have a super old Android? There's a gingerbread rom available for it because each phone has it's own unique dev community. This fragmentation thing is completely over exaggerated in every way.
"Google's latest tablet-centric release..." STOPPED READING THERE. Was the article about tablets? No? Then why mention it? What does the nook color have to do with anything? Of course it's less than 2%, because there's an insane amount of android PHONES out there. With PHONE OSs.
Even the author of this article felt that it was necessary to just squeeze that little section in at the end.
Missed that one. Link?
This one backs up Melgross' statement but it 9 months old. I'd think the average would have increased in that time, not decreased.
This one backs up Melgross' statement but it 9 months old. I'd think the average would have increased in that time, not decreased.
Which is different than the average number of apps that users have currently installed on their phones. The Asymco link might imply there's quite a high number of apps that iOS owners had downloaded and subsequently found not worth keeping.
Which is different than the average number of apps that users have currently installed on their phones. The Asymco link might imply there's quite a high number of apps that iOS owners had downloaded and subsequently found not worth keeping.
Regardless if people still use the app or not isn't what's being measured. I certainly only use a handful of the hundreds of apps I've bought on regular basis. Most recently I bought Skeleton System Pro II (NOVA Series) when it was half-off. Great app, BTW. I'll probably only use once every couple weeks, but that doesn't mean it's a crappy app.
That requires the user changing the default setting that only allows Android Market apps to be installed.
As for Android the OS being inherently more insecure than iOS, that's not really true IMHO. Android's issue is the Android Market rather than Android itself. Without a curated market like Apple's, the chances of malware sneaking into the Android market are much higher, tho still not a common occurance and little cause for worry in my view, at least so far. Used more as FUD than a current concern for all Android users. Google will need to make changes, sooner rather than later, to keep app malware issues rare. With so many devices it's an attractive target. Apple's idea of running on lockdown may have to be considered one day.
Both OS's are considered more secure than desktop versions, but both can still be hacked and are susceptible to several types of attack. In fact iOS encryption is considered particularly weak, with passwords easily broken, while Android's dependence on the user making the correct decision on app permissions is probably not as good an idea as Apple's choice to, well, not allow those choices. The syncing process it viewed as a particular concern and a weak link in the security chain on both platforms. fortunately syncing is rarely needed on Android devices, and upcoming iOS versions should reduce the need as well.
ITWorld had a brief but informative article on the two platforms here:
http://www.itworld.com/security/1783...ore-secure-pcs
Reports of Android security issues are way overblown in my opinion, and sometimes imagined.
The problem with Android security is that attacks are increasing. At some point, hundreds of thousands will be affected, and that will be very bad publicity.
Google MUST step up. I don't think they want to because of liability, and the large cost. It's estimated that it can cost Apple $50 million a year. Google's plans are for Android to be as low a cost to them as possible, because most of their money comes from Android app advertising, and from Google search.
The liability issues are interesting. How do they decide if something is malware? apple can get by refusing apps for many reasons. But if Google refuses them just for malware, the developer can sue them.
In addition, Apple filters apps so they don't have apps that violate user/carrier contracts, such as free tethering apps. Getting around contracts is one reason some people go with Android rather than iOS. Right now, Google can say that they have no real control over what appears on the AM. But if they look at all apps first, they won't be able to say that. Would they need to disallow apps that violate contracts, copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc.? If so, they will anger many Android users.
They are between a rock and a hard place.
Have you ever tried to look up some obscure bit of technology in any of this, hoping to find a patent that has it? I have. Brrr! While you might find something, you might not find exactly what you need. You might not find anything. The indexing is not the greatest, and neither is the search. Honestly, it's almost impossible. Some patents go on for hundreds of pages, and you may need the images. That's why one hires experts to do this, and they likely will still miss things.
My old eyes go back to the days of [analog] microfilm and then microfiche -- IBM had their entire technical knowledge base on it: source code, hardware diagrams, docs. etc.
Those were the days of KWIC indexes (Key Words In Context) -- I usually could find whatever I needed.
Fast forward 50 years where everything is digital: program-scanable, indexable, searchable -- why can't we search patents by keywords and in-context phrases extracted and weighted from the content -- translated from legalese into english.
Isn't that what Google does with totally random information, across multiple disciplines and multiple languages?
As an aside: One of the jewels of Final Cut Pro X is a fantastic data management facility -- based on:
1) Content Metadata
2) The actual content itself
3) Content analysis (people, video/sound/quality and problems, color, shot range (closeup, wide...)
4) User supplied keywords
5) smart collections
Everything is searchable -- with simple or complex searches.
Basically, the computer does the heavy lifting -- does the analysis and creates most of the "searchable data".
A user can sit watching a video clip and assign [user defined] keywords while watching the video;
My God, these are random video clips we are talking about!
Why couldn't those same technologies be used to classify patents (or any other content) into a reliably searchable data store?
Gosh, I guess it is possible.
Perhaps Apple is secretly paying Baidu to fork Android. Or Google and Apple are actually working together behind the scenes to take over the world's information systems. Or you being a clever Google plant, working your way into a position of trust with other AI members, waiting for just the right moment to turn.
So is your Google/China idea a likelihood in your opinion, or just some FUD you thought of that can't be disproved, and thus must be considered.
No, it's been brought up in some business publications when it happened. It's not really so difficult to believe. Stranger things have happened. We know they were doing poorly in China, their own financial reports said that. The Chinese are very patriotic in their own way. While Apple has caché there, Google doesn't, because of its stances. Baidu was growing at phenomenal rates.
And with Google's silly "Do No evil." Slogan, what else would they need to pull out.
It's not as odd an idea as you want to think.
Regardless if people still use the app or not isn't what's being measured. I certainly only use a handful of the hundreds of apps I've bought on regular basis.
Of course it's what's being measured.
Mel's claim was that Android owners don't really use apps (see post #153), instead seeing their smartphones as phones and browsers. I gave evidence that wasn't true. What did you think was being discussed?
You just have to look at the number of phones sold over some period, and look at the number of downloads. Apple has claimed over 15 billion several months ago. It's possibly close to 20 billion by now. Then get the number from the Android Market, and if it makes you feel better, add another 30% to account for the other stores around. Divide the number of apps downloaded by the number of phones sold, and you've got your answer.I just don't remember the number of Android apps downloaded, though the numbers are out there. Be careful to not use some guys estimates, but an official number./QUOTE]
Why are you attempting to make the numbers so difficult? Is there something about the Nielsen survey results I linked that bothers you? I thought it was pretty straightforward, perhaps the reason you're attempting to make things look muddy?
http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...pp-downloaders
i
Because surveys aren't always useful. Going by the real, known numbers tells us more. You don't have to of course. Nielsen has had its own scandals in the past. I rather use real numbers if possible.
No, it's been brought up in some business publications when it happened. It's not really so difficult to believe. Stranger things have happened. We know they were doing poorly in China, their own financial reports said that. The Chinese are very patriotic in their own way. While Apple has caché there, Google doesn't, because of its stances. Baidu was growing at phenomenal rates.
And with Google's silly "Do No evil." Slogan, what else would they need to pull out.
It's not as odd an idea as you want to think.
So they created an international incident to cover for poor results. . .
Strange Mel, very strange if you truly believe that's a realistic scenario
Missed that one. Link?
I remember reading the number, but not where I read it. Of course, if you use me in a survey, I'll bollux up the results. I have over 200 apps on my phone, and over 300 on my iPad.
Because surveys aren't always useful. Going by the real, known numbers tells us more. You don't have to of course. Nielsen has had its own scandals in the past. I rather use real numbers if possible.
Except you have no method to determine the average number of apps that a user has on his/her phone, nor how often they use them.
Numbers of apps sold has nothing to do with number of apps kept and used, so your numbers based on the number of phones sold compared to the number of app downloaded, allowing for devices no longer in use, and subtracting for "other" app markets, then. . .
Well you get the idea. Your number would tell us nothing concerning the claim you made that Android owners don't use apps. It's only intended for confusion.