And that somehow implies that these products were infringing on existing patents? Try again.
Considering that EVERY company has lost at least SOME of these patents, not to mention settling out of court countless times does mean that they violated those patents.
Apple (famously) lost patent lawsuits to Creative over the iPod, to another company over Coverflow, and settled out of court with Nokia over other's still.
In fact, with the motorola and Samsung lawsuits, apple is NOT denying that they infringe on those patents. They're saying that those companies are trying to charge too high a fee for them, so they refused to pay and violated them anyway.
The fragmentation problem for Google is the obvious one...Baidu's fork will essentially kill Android growth in China while doing nothing to iOS and moderate to wp7. It doesn't MATTER to Google if the apps run on Baidu phones if Google is shut out of its Android monetization plans in China. Heaven help Google if this fork gains traction outside of China and into asia proper (unlikely in the extreme).
However, Korean Android or whatever also potentially locks out Google although less likely to. Unless, of course, MS writes someone an appropriately big check.
Amazon's fork, while still using the Google search engine as default, kills a lot of the tie in for other Google services and eyeball count.
So here you are as Google, out millions/billions for Android development and then another $12B for Moto and you STILL don't have your second revenue stream locked down. When is Android going in the black? And if it can't why dump more money down this particular pit as opposed to pulling another Google Wave and "gifting" the code to open source?
Because the code is ALREADY gifted as open source, which is why BAIDU can fork it. If the code wasn't available forking it would be IMPOSSIBLE.
This isn't rocket science here. It's not even particularly geeky.
Google pulled a lot OUT of china because of filtering restrictions. Baidu's Android fork will have little, if anything to do with impeding growth there since it's the Government (not user choice) that is restricting them.
why would they target just a phone? that would be retarded. you can target specs so if your app requires phones with such and such minimum specs then it'll show only for phones that meet those requirements. API exists only in 2.3+? then boom. ultimately it seems you don't know as much about android as you think you do. logically you shouldn't make such sweeping assessments while being uninformed.
but that just makes sense.
Uninformed about what?! My post is about business/marketing for developers and NOT technical specs. Maybe you should learn reading comprehension before posting. The developer can make an app that works with specs for many phones but as far as reaching a viable market s/he would be best to look at actual phones. If someone is buying a phone because it is waterproof then they probably don't care that much about apps. Your app might run on the phone but that isn't who you are targeting. You would be targeting another phone with users that have in fact bought the phone specifically for apps. Both phones might have the same (or similar) specs and can run your app but that doesn't mean it's smart to target both equally.
Maybe you think coming up with 3-4 versions of an app to reach everybody whether s/he is in your market or not is wise? To which point I would say that you would be wrong.
Uninformed about what?! My post is about business/marketing for developers and NOT technical specs. Maybe you should learn reading comprehension before posting. The developer can make an app that works with specs for many phones but as far as reaching a viable market s/he would be best to look at actual phones. If someone is buying a phone because it is waterproof then they probably don't care that much about apps. Your app might run on the phone but that isn't who you are targeting. You would be targeting another phone with users that have in fact bought the phone specifically for apps. Both phones might have the same (or similar) specs and can run your app but that doesn't mean it's smart to target both equally.
Maybe you think coming up with 3-4 versions of an app to reach everybody whether s/he is in your market or not is wise? To which point I would say that you would be wrong.
And you can do that, easily with Android. That's why Google releases marketshare stats frequently (for OS Versions/API levels). Developers also get Very detailed feedback once they publish an application as to what users are looking for in phones. If you're developing a high end game and plan on charging $4 or more for it, developing it for a phone that's free on contract because it's a minimum spec device is pointless, is it not?
Before, you had people STILL downloading the app even though the phone wasn't made for it. Now, developers can filter it out.
And you can do that, easily with Android. That's why Google releases marketshare stats frequently (for OS Versions/API levels). Developers also get Very detailed feedback once they publish an application as to what users are looking for in phones. If you're developing a high end game and plan on charging $4 or more for it, developing it for a phone that's free on contract because it's a minimum spec device is pointless, is it not?
Before, you had people STILL downloading the app even though the phone wasn't made for it. Now, developers can filter it out.
I am aware of the filtering. My original point was that the Android ecosystem is pretty dang loose which means total marketshare doesn't help developers much at all since there will many in the marketplace choosing those phones based solely on hardware specifics like waterproofing and hard keyboards and not on apps.
I am aware of the filtering. My original point was that the Android ecosystem is pretty dang loose which means total marketshare doesn't help developers much at all since there will many in the marketplace choosing those phones based solely on hardware specifics like waterproofing and hard keyboards and not on apps.
Like I mentioned in another comment thread. The alternative is HTC, Samsung, Motorola, etc all making up their own OS with completely incompatible source code. Android is "lose" but you can hit the "majority" of your target market with only a couple customizations. You go more detailed than that, and you're aiming for the outlier (waterproof phone, etc)
Like I mentioned in another comment thread. The alternative is HTC, Samsung, Motorola, etc all making up their own OS with completely incompatible source code. Android is "lose" but you can hit the "majority" of your target market with only a couple customizations. You go more detailed than that, and you're aiming for the outlier (waterproof phone, etc)
Firstly, I said "loose" not "lose.". I don't want anyone to think I was insulting Android because I'm not a fan of ad homs and/or insults.
Secondly, I see your point but what is stopping the other handset makers from forking Android at a certain point meaning the source code in the beginning is in fact compatible. Of course the problem arises after that fact once each company starts adding it's own customizations and updates but by that time developers would just do what I already stated - looking at each phone/brand for markets are and usage patterns. In fact, with that scenario, you might even see OEMs paying development houses for exclusive apps to advertise/differentiate their phones.
An overwhelming majority of apps can run across multiple devices. And by that I mean approaching 90% or more (at least of the popular ones) Not to mention that even cheaper devices are running off of snapdragon/TI chipsets now, so there's not anywhere near the hardware fragmentation their used to be.
Of those that can't (Netflix, Tegra only, etc) It's not because the other hardware can't run it. Take Netflix. It apparently "Can't run" on my Galaxy tab, but if I pull the file from my Incredible and install it on my tab (without touching the coding AT ALL) it works flawlessly. Whatever it is "checking" for it obviously finds in my Tab, so it plays. Yet Netflix decided not to offer it in the market.
For tegra games, all you need to do is have a rooted non-tegra device and you can get a file that will say that the phone is running a tegra chipset, and the games will play. The file of the game itself is again not altered. Yes, these games require dual core still, but most of them have single core versions as well.
I don't doubt that Apple's tighter integration of hardware and software allows for easier compatability across models, I'm just saying that the "Fragmentation" issue tends to get blown out of proportion. It does exist, but it's not the major issue people claim it is unless THEY make it so, or in very specific use-cases.
(People like to mention Angry birds not running on older devices. Angry birds ran fine on older devices, it was the ads that messed it up)
I don't know if we can come up with an accurate percentage, but I've read that it's much less than 90%. but most apps that do run across the spectrum are written for older versions of Android, that may be updated, but are not really using the features. Just like with iOS, OS X, Windows, Linux, etc. A lot of apps need to be updated, or completely rewritten whenever an OS undergoes a major update. It's more of a problem with Android than with iOS because of all the versions hanging out there. The three latest do carry most of the devices, but the latest is not close to a majority.
In addition there are a lot of business, medical, education, scientific and other apps that are not being written for Android, and many will likely never be written for it. The app developers claim that it IS because of fragmentation. Of course, for tablets, it's because of fragmentation and the fact that the iPad is close to a 90% marketshare in reality, as opposed to the silly comparisons made to manufacturers claiming tablets shipped, rather than sold to the end user. In a number of instances, the developers, which in many cases are rather big companies in their fields, say they have no interest in even looking at Android.
And as the expression goes, something we used to hear in the Windows/Mac debates: It's the software stupid!
Thats a bold (and false) statement that most Froyo application doesn't work on Gingerbread. You bother to provide any sources to support that bogus claim ?
Not bogus at all. I'll bet you've never even run It your self. But the real problem is Honeycomb.
Quote:
It is the same assumption that there are many people who run final version of iOS 5. There might be some people, but they are not allowed to answer your question. Generally speaking, both platforms are doing pretty decent job in backward compatibility.
Can you explain the "not allowed" statement?
Quote:
Hm, maybe it is problem for you, or that crowd of sheeple who will need to spend a night in the queue to get the iPhone X the very first day it is released, otherwise their life is ruined forever. Vast majority of the mobile users have no clue what version of OS they are using, and all they care their favorite app is available for their phone. Which is pretty much the case with both iOS 3, 4, 5 and Android Froyo, Gingerbread and Ice Cream Sandwich.
it's pretty obvious that you have your own strong bias, and so we can disregard your opinion, right?
I was curious about that so I searched around. This is the list I found of UNIX certified OS versions/brands for anyone who might be interested. Not sure if the list needs updating since Lion is not included.
""With our latest update, we worked hard to bring Angry Birds to even more Android devices. Despite our efforts, we were unsuccessful in delivering optimal performance,"
"it's going to create a second version of its flagship game for lower-end Android devices after finding "severe performance issues."
"despite having "hesitated to create multiple versions of Angry Birds" for Android, that's exactly what they're being forced to do in order to meet their goal of having it available on as many Android phones as possible."
And that was before some of the latest big forks.
Anyone who says that fragmentation isn't a problem for Android is dreaming.
It's a pretend world for Android techies. But most Android users use the phone mostly for calls, surfing, messaging, etc. They aren't big App users, so the problem isn't as noticeable as it would be.
It's a pretend world for Android techies. But most Android users use the phone mostly for calls, surfing, messaging, etc. They aren't big App users, so the problem isn't as noticeable as it would be.
Thanks for summarizing what I was trying to say in a paragraph that only took you two sentences. Android has a very loose ecosystem and size of its markets are isn't/doesn't mean much due to this fact.
It's a pretend world for Android techies. But most Android users use the phone mostly for calls, surfing, messaging, etc. They aren't big App users, so the problem isn't as noticeable as it would be.
Mel, on what do you base the claim that Android users don't download apps? No doubt that iOS users have downloaded the most apps per user, particularly since they've been doing so longer than those with android devices, and had the larger market share until sometime last year. But "not as many" isn't the same as not being big app users.
I think where you two are not seeing eye-to-eye is the fact that OS X wasn't "officially" registered as Unix until Leopard (10.5). Prior to that, it was more accurate to say it was Unix-based. I honestly don't know the ins-and-outs of what it means to be a registered Unix but OS X only achieved that designation with 10.5.
Truly splitting hairs, I know, but hopefully that clarifies the point you're arguing.
Apple didn't apply for certification until then. It doesn't mean it wasn't UNIX until they received the certification. Most companies simply don't bother. But OS X could run UNIX programs without a problem. I did. You just needed to install X windows from Apple's install disk.
No doubt that iOS users have downloaded the most apps per user, particularly since they've been doing so longer than those with android devices, and had the larger market share until sometime last year. But "not as many" isn't the same as not being big app users.
iOS users had only been downloading native apps for 3 months longer than Android users. The app store launched in July 2008 and Android Marketplace launched in October 2008. Jailbreakers of course had apps longer but I wouldn't count them since they are not the typical iPhone user.
In addition there are a lot of business, medical, education, scientific and other apps that are not being written for Android, and many will likely never be written for it. The app developers claim that it IS because of fragmentation. Of course, for tablets, it's because of fragmentation and the fact that the iPad is close to a 90% marketshare in reality, as opposed to the silly comparisons made to manufacturers claiming tablets shipped, rather than sold to the end user. In a number of instances, the developers, which in many cases are rather big companies in their fields, say they have no interest in even looking at Android.
And as the expression goes, something we used to hear in the Windows/Mac debates: It's the software stupid!
This is an excellent point. Even though the iPad had the advantages of being first to market and a year lead time without meaningful competition, Apple did not court or sell to the enterprise/IT community.
Yet, enterprise has adopted iPads almost exclusively. Every week or so you read a story where this or that organization is deploying large multiples of iPads to implement a specific solution. I can't recall any such deployments of competitive tablets.
Certainly, you would think that Android would have appeal to IT and organizational developers (install base, several hardware alternatives, [relatively] open source, etc.) But, it appears that just the opposite has happened -- they have been turned off by lack of standardization, lack of a complete [implementation of a] hardware/softare package, ease of hacking, susceptibility to viruses, lack of security, etc.
The very things about android, that appeal to the techie consumers -- are a turnoff for enterprise/IT.
It becomes a very easy business decision: The iPad gives us [most] everything we need [with very little downside] at an excellent price -- Why waste time [and opportunity] looking at anything else?
iOS users had only been downloading native apps for 3 months longer than Android users. The app store launched in July 2008 and Android Marketplace launched in October 2008. Jailbreakers of course had apps longer but I wouldn't count them since they are not the typical iPhone user.
Realistically IMO the Android Market didn't open shop until March of '09 when the first paid apps became available. Prior to that the few apps that the Market offered were simple and/or direct from Google themselves. On the market share side, until the original Droid was released in October/2009, Android phones were just an afterthought with no real market presence at all. That puts the Android push just two years old, tho technically there were Android phones and a limited Android Market before then.
But really that's doesn't affect Mels' claim that as a rule Android users use their smartphones as a phone and browser while Apple users would actually use apps, downloading many times more than their typical Android counterparts. I disagree with his assessment.
The problem with some Android manufacturers is that they have to make a version of Android for each particular model.
Some phones run one skin... some run another. That's why it takes months before an Android phone can be upgraded to the latest version.
But really.... they would rather not take the time to do that. They are busy pumping out new phones every month.
If you're a company with over a dozen models coming out every year... you focus on new sales... not supporting old models.
If I buy an Android phone tomorrow... what are the chances it will run Ice Cream Sandwich someday?
But it's also Google's fault. They come out with new upgrades several times a year. I know they call them updates, but they aren't. They're mini upgrades. apple issues updates. We get security improvements, bug fixes, and sometimes a minor feature. But Google delivers upgrade features. Sometimes they change the way software interacts with the OS, and even the hardware. There is no way that OEM's, working on several phone releases each year can keep up with that. So there is no sync between new phones and new upgrades. The more change a phone model has, the longer it takes to produce, so we see the strange fact of a new phone coming out with an OS version one or two versions behind. And often, they never get upgraded. Samsung, the most popular Android manufacturer is famous for that. But the others do it to.
The problem is that they don't know what Google is going to do with Android, so they can't anticipate it in their newest designs. I get a very strong feeling that Google doesn't know what they're going to do with their OS a year in advance. So much of it is posthaste in competition with what Apple does. A bit of a "let's do this before Apple does, quickly!" But it isn't well thought out, which is why most reviewers say that Android always seems unfinished, and crude.
So they do one better with notifications, but it's not nearly as much as they could have. Now, Apple does something that Android fans say is a copy, just because it comes down from the top of the screen, as though there is another way to do it. But Apple's is vastly more sophisticated. Likely, they've been working on it for years.
Comments
And that somehow implies that these products were infringing on existing patents? Try again.
Considering that EVERY company has lost at least SOME of these patents, not to mention settling out of court countless times does mean that they violated those patents.
Apple (famously) lost patent lawsuits to Creative over the iPod, to another company over Coverflow, and settled out of court with Nokia over other's still.
In fact, with the motorola and Samsung lawsuits, apple is NOT denying that they infringe on those patents. They're saying that those companies are trying to charge too high a fee for them, so they refused to pay and violated them anyway.
The fragmentation problem for Google is the obvious one...Baidu's fork will essentially kill Android growth in China while doing nothing to iOS and moderate to wp7. It doesn't MATTER to Google if the apps run on Baidu phones if Google is shut out of its Android monetization plans in China. Heaven help Google if this fork gains traction outside of China and into asia proper (unlikely in the extreme).
However, Korean Android or whatever also potentially locks out Google although less likely to. Unless, of course, MS writes someone an appropriately big check.
Amazon's fork, while still using the Google search engine as default, kills a lot of the tie in for other Google services and eyeball count.
So here you are as Google, out millions/billions for Android development and then another $12B for Moto and you STILL don't have your second revenue stream locked down. When is Android going in the black? And if it can't why dump more money down this particular pit as opposed to pulling another Google Wave and "gifting" the code to open source?
Because the code is ALREADY gifted as open source, which is why BAIDU can fork it. If the code wasn't available forking it would be IMPOSSIBLE.
This isn't rocket science here. It's not even particularly geeky.
Google pulled a lot OUT of china because of filtering restrictions. Baidu's Android fork will have little, if anything to do with impeding growth there since it's the Government (not user choice) that is restricting them.
why would they target just a phone? that would be retarded. you can target specs so if your app requires phones with such and such minimum specs then it'll show only for phones that meet those requirements. API exists only in 2.3+? then boom. ultimately it seems you don't know as much about android as you think you do. logically you shouldn't make such sweeping assessments while being uninformed.
but that just makes sense.
Uninformed about what?! My post is about business/marketing for developers and NOT technical specs. Maybe you should learn reading comprehension before posting. The developer can make an app that works with specs for many phones but as far as reaching a viable market s/he would be best to look at actual phones. If someone is buying a phone because it is waterproof then they probably don't care that much about apps. Your app might run on the phone but that isn't who you are targeting. You would be targeting another phone with users that have in fact bought the phone specifically for apps. Both phones might have the same (or similar) specs and can run your app but that doesn't mean it's smart to target both equally.
Maybe you think coming up with 3-4 versions of an app to reach everybody whether s/he is in your market or not is wise? To which point I would say that you would be wrong.
Uninformed about what?! My post is about business/marketing for developers and NOT technical specs. Maybe you should learn reading comprehension before posting. The developer can make an app that works with specs for many phones but as far as reaching a viable market s/he would be best to look at actual phones. If someone is buying a phone because it is waterproof then they probably don't care that much about apps. Your app might run on the phone but that isn't who you are targeting. You would be targeting another phone with users that have in fact bought the phone specifically for apps. Both phones might have the same (or similar) specs and can run your app but that doesn't mean it's smart to target both equally.
Maybe you think coming up with 3-4 versions of an app to reach everybody whether s/he is in your market or not is wise? To which point I would say that you would be wrong.
And you can do that, easily with Android. That's why Google releases marketshare stats frequently (for OS Versions/API levels). Developers also get Very detailed feedback once they publish an application as to what users are looking for in phones. If you're developing a high end game and plan on charging $4 or more for it, developing it for a phone that's free on contract because it's a minimum spec device is pointless, is it not?
Before, you had people STILL downloading the app even though the phone wasn't made for it. Now, developers can filter it out.
And you can do that, easily with Android. That's why Google releases marketshare stats frequently (for OS Versions/API levels). Developers also get Very detailed feedback once they publish an application as to what users are looking for in phones. If you're developing a high end game and plan on charging $4 or more for it, developing it for a phone that's free on contract because it's a minimum spec device is pointless, is it not?
Before, you had people STILL downloading the app even though the phone wasn't made for it. Now, developers can filter it out.
I am aware of the filtering. My original point was that the Android ecosystem is pretty dang loose which means total marketshare doesn't help developers much at all since there will many in the marketplace choosing those phones based solely on hardware specifics like waterproofing and hard keyboards and not on apps.
I am aware of the filtering. My original point was that the Android ecosystem is pretty dang loose which means total marketshare doesn't help developers much at all since there will many in the marketplace choosing those phones based solely on hardware specifics like waterproofing and hard keyboards and not on apps.
Like I mentioned in another comment thread. The alternative is HTC, Samsung, Motorola, etc all making up their own OS with completely incompatible source code. Android is "lose" but you can hit the "majority" of your target market with only a couple customizations. You go more detailed than that, and you're aiming for the outlier (waterproof phone, etc)
Like I mentioned in another comment thread. The alternative is HTC, Samsung, Motorola, etc all making up their own OS with completely incompatible source code. Android is "lose" but you can hit the "majority" of your target market with only a couple customizations. You go more detailed than that, and you're aiming for the outlier (waterproof phone, etc)
Firstly, I said "loose" not "lose.". I don't want anyone to think I was insulting Android because I'm not a fan of ad homs and/or insults.
Secondly, I see your point but what is stopping the other handset makers from forking Android at a certain point meaning the source code in the beginning is in fact compatible. Of course the problem arises after that fact once each company starts adding it's own customizations and updates but by that time developers would just do what I already stated - looking at each phone/brand for markets are and usage patterns. In fact, with that scenario, you might even see OEMs paying development houses for exclusive apps to advertise/differentiate their phones.
It's an OPEN source system, how can they sue, it's not like say Java or something that you pay royalties on.
Bad example! Oracle is arguing that it IS like Java
An overwhelming majority of apps can run across multiple devices. And by that I mean approaching 90% or more (at least of the popular ones) Not to mention that even cheaper devices are running off of snapdragon/TI chipsets now, so there's not anywhere near the hardware fragmentation their used to be.
Of those that can't (Netflix, Tegra only, etc) It's not because the other hardware can't run it. Take Netflix. It apparently "Can't run" on my Galaxy tab, but if I pull the file from my Incredible and install it on my tab (without touching the coding AT ALL) it works flawlessly. Whatever it is "checking" for it obviously finds in my Tab, so it plays. Yet Netflix decided not to offer it in the market.
For tegra games, all you need to do is have a rooted non-tegra device and you can get a file that will say that the phone is running a tegra chipset, and the games will play. The file of the game itself is again not altered. Yes, these games require dual core still, but most of them have single core versions as well.
I don't doubt that Apple's tighter integration of hardware and software allows for easier compatability across models, I'm just saying that the "Fragmentation" issue tends to get blown out of proportion. It does exist, but it's not the major issue people claim it is unless THEY make it so, or in very specific use-cases.
(People like to mention Angry birds not running on older devices. Angry birds ran fine on older devices, it was the ads that messed it up)
I don't know if we can come up with an accurate percentage, but I've read that it's much less than 90%. but most apps that do run across the spectrum are written for older versions of Android, that may be updated, but are not really using the features. Just like with iOS, OS X, Windows, Linux, etc. A lot of apps need to be updated, or completely rewritten whenever an OS undergoes a major update. It's more of a problem with Android than with iOS because of all the versions hanging out there. The three latest do carry most of the devices, but the latest is not close to a majority.
In addition there are a lot of business, medical, education, scientific and other apps that are not being written for Android, and many will likely never be written for it. The app developers claim that it IS because of fragmentation. Of course, for tablets, it's because of fragmentation and the fact that the iPad is close to a 90% marketshare in reality, as opposed to the silly comparisons made to manufacturers claiming tablets shipped, rather than sold to the end user. In a number of instances, the developers, which in many cases are rather big companies in their fields, say they have no interest in even looking at Android.
And as the expression goes, something we used to hear in the Windows/Mac debates: It's the software stupid!
Thats a bold (and false) statement that most Froyo application doesn't work on Gingerbread. You bother to provide any sources to support that bogus claim ?
Not bogus at all. I'll bet you've never even run It your self. But the real problem is Honeycomb.
It is the same assumption that there are many people who run final version of iOS 5. There might be some people, but they are not allowed to answer your question. Generally speaking, both platforms are doing pretty decent job in backward compatibility.
Can you explain the "not allowed" statement?
Hm, maybe it is problem for you, or that crowd of sheeple who will need to spend a night in the queue to get the iPhone X the very first day it is released, otherwise their life is ruined forever. Vast majority of the mobile users have no clue what version of OS they are using, and all they care their favorite app is available for their phone. Which is pretty much the case with both iOS 3, 4, 5 and Android Froyo, Gingerbread and Ice Cream Sandwich.
it's pretty obvious that you have your own strong bias, and so we can disregard your opinion, right?
I was curious about that so I searched around. This is the list I found of UNIX certified OS versions/brands for anyone who might be interested. Not sure if the list needs updating since Lion is not included.
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
I didn't know that HP got theirs certified. Good for them. Otherwise, just the three I mentioned.
Funny, but the developer of Angry Birds doesn't agree with you that it isn't a big deal:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20023199-264.html
""With our latest update, we worked hard to bring Angry Birds to even more Android devices. Despite our efforts, we were unsuccessful in delivering optimal performance,"
"it's going to create a second version of its flagship game for lower-end Android devices after finding "severe performance issues."
Or maybe:
http://gizmodo.com/5693428/angry-bir...entation-means
"despite having "hesitated to create multiple versions of Angry Birds" for Android, that's exactly what they're being forced to do in order to meet their goal of having it available on as many Android phones as possible."
And that was before some of the latest big forks.
Anyone who says that fragmentation isn't a problem for Android is dreaming.
It's a pretend world for Android techies. But most Android users use the phone mostly for calls, surfing, messaging, etc. They aren't big App users, so the problem isn't as noticeable as it would be.
It's a pretend world for Android techies. But most Android users use the phone mostly for calls, surfing, messaging, etc. They aren't big App users, so the problem isn't as noticeable as it would be.
Thanks for summarizing what I was trying to say in a paragraph that only took you two sentences. Android has a very loose ecosystem and size of its markets are isn't/doesn't mean much due to this fact.
Nice... Where is QNX?
Not there apparently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX
It's a pretend world for Android techies. But most Android users use the phone mostly for calls, surfing, messaging, etc. They aren't big App users, so the problem isn't as noticeable as it would be.
Mel, on what do you base the claim that Android users don't download apps? No doubt that iOS users have downloaded the most apps per user, particularly since they've been doing so longer than those with android devices, and had the larger market share until sometime last year. But "not as many" isn't the same as not being big app users.
I think where you two are not seeing eye-to-eye is the fact that OS X wasn't "officially" registered as Unix until Leopard (10.5). Prior to that, it was more accurate to say it was Unix-based. I honestly don't know the ins-and-outs of what it means to be a registered Unix but OS X only achieved that designation with 10.5.
Truly splitting hairs, I know, but hopefully that clarifies the point you're arguing.
Apple didn't apply for certification until then. It doesn't mean it wasn't UNIX until they received the certification. Most companies simply don't bother. But OS X could run UNIX programs without a problem. I did. You just needed to install X windows from Apple's install disk.
No doubt that iOS users have downloaded the most apps per user, particularly since they've been doing so longer than those with android devices, and had the larger market share until sometime last year. But "not as many" isn't the same as not being big app users.
iOS users had only been downloading native apps for 3 months longer than Android users. The app store launched in July 2008 and Android Marketplace launched in October 2008. Jailbreakers of course had apps longer but I wouldn't count them since they are not the typical iPhone user.
In addition there are a lot of business, medical, education, scientific and other apps that are not being written for Android, and many will likely never be written for it. The app developers claim that it IS because of fragmentation. Of course, for tablets, it's because of fragmentation and the fact that the iPad is close to a 90% marketshare in reality, as opposed to the silly comparisons made to manufacturers claiming tablets shipped, rather than sold to the end user. In a number of instances, the developers, which in many cases are rather big companies in their fields, say they have no interest in even looking at Android.
And as the expression goes, something we used to hear in the Windows/Mac debates: It's the software stupid!
This is an excellent point. Even though the iPad had the advantages of being first to market and a year lead time without meaningful competition, Apple did not court or sell to the enterprise/IT community.
Yet, enterprise has adopted iPads almost exclusively. Every week or so you read a story where this or that organization is deploying large multiples of iPads to implement a specific solution. I can't recall any such deployments of competitive tablets.
Certainly, you would think that Android would have appeal to IT and organizational developers (install base, several hardware alternatives, [relatively] open source, etc.) But, it appears that just the opposite has happened -- they have been turned off by lack of standardization, lack of a complete [implementation of a] hardware/softare package, ease of hacking, susceptibility to viruses, lack of security, etc.
The very things about android, that appeal to the techie consumers -- are a turnoff for enterprise/IT.
It becomes a very easy business decision: The iPad gives us [most] everything we need [with very little downside] at an excellent price -- Why waste time [and opportunity] looking at anything else?
Indeed!
iOS users had only been downloading native apps for 3 months longer than Android users. The app store launched in July 2008 and Android Marketplace launched in October 2008. Jailbreakers of course had apps longer but I wouldn't count them since they are not the typical iPhone user.
Realistically IMO the Android Market didn't open shop until March of '09 when the first paid apps became available. Prior to that the few apps that the Market offered were simple and/or direct from Google themselves. On the market share side, until the original Droid was released in October/2009, Android phones were just an afterthought with no real market presence at all. That puts the Android push just two years old, tho technically there were Android phones and a limited Android Market before then.
But really that's doesn't affect Mels' claim that as a rule Android users use their smartphones as a phone and browser while Apple users would actually use apps, downloading many times more than their typical Android counterparts. I disagree with his assessment.
The problem with some Android manufacturers is that they have to make a version of Android for each particular model.
Some phones run one skin... some run another. That's why it takes months before an Android phone can be upgraded to the latest version.
But really.... they would rather not take the time to do that. They are busy pumping out new phones every month.
If you're a company with over a dozen models coming out every year... you focus on new sales... not supporting old models.
If I buy an Android phone tomorrow... what are the chances it will run Ice Cream Sandwich someday?
But it's also Google's fault. They come out with new upgrades several times a year. I know they call them updates, but they aren't. They're mini upgrades. apple issues updates. We get security improvements, bug fixes, and sometimes a minor feature. But Google delivers upgrade features. Sometimes they change the way software interacts with the OS, and even the hardware. There is no way that OEM's, working on several phone releases each year can keep up with that. So there is no sync between new phones and new upgrades. The more change a phone model has, the longer it takes to produce, so we see the strange fact of a new phone coming out with an OS version one or two versions behind. And often, they never get upgraded. Samsung, the most popular Android manufacturer is famous for that. But the others do it to.
The problem is that they don't know what Google is going to do with Android, so they can't anticipate it in their newest designs. I get a very strong feeling that Google doesn't know what they're going to do with their OS a year in advance. So much of it is posthaste in competition with what Apple does. A bit of a "let's do this before Apple does, quickly!" But it isn't well thought out, which is why most reviewers say that Android always seems unfinished, and crude.
So they do one better with notifications, but it's not nearly as much as they could have. Now, Apple does something that Android fans say is a copy, just because it comes down from the top of the screen, as though there is another way to do it. But Apple's is vastly more sophisticated. Likely, they've been working on it for years.