No, but when Andoid supplier does not provide upgrades, it may be a simple as that they believe no upgrades will enhance their sales. No short term money in free upgrades, and when you don't have customers you expect any degree of loyalty from, you either provide a reason for loyalty, or you go for the fast money.
Are there feature phones that run Google Android, meaning the Google licensed version required for using the PlayStore (afaik)? I had just assumed that a smartphone would be required to offer Google services, a part of Google Android.
Way to miss the point.
It's exactly because the feature phones don't access GooglePlay that the entire premise of this 'study' is flawed.
Let's say that there are 1 M Android feature phones in use and 1 M Android smart phones. And let's say that 500,000 of the smartphones accessed Google Play during the past 2 weeks. and 50,000 of the phones that accessed Google Play were running ICS.
Now:
1. Google reports that as '10% of Android phones are using ICS'. But that's not true. There are 2 M Android phones total so the actual percentage would only be 5% - at best. Google didn't say '10% of Smartphones', they said '10% of Android phones' (which includes smartphones AND feature phones).
2. They are assuming that the percentage of phones using ICS is the same for the 500,000 smart phones that accessed GooglePlay as it is for the ones that didn't. For the reasons given above, that's an erroneous assumption. So the actual percentage would be even lower than 5% (using the numbers above).
Way to miss the point.
It's exactly because the feature phones don't access GooglePlay that the entire premise of this 'study' is flawed.
Let's say that there are 1 M Android feature phones in use and 1 M Android smart phones. And let's say that 500,000 of the smartphones accessed Google Play during the past 2 weeks. and 50,000 of the phones that accessed Google Play were running ICS.
Now:
1. Google reports that as '10% of Android phones are using ICS'. But that's not true. There are 2 M Android phones total so the actual percentage would only be 5% - at best. Google didn't say '10% of Smartphones', they said '10% of Android phones' (which includes smartphones AND feature phones).
2. They are assuming that the percentage of phones using ICS is the same for the 500,000 smart phones that accessed GooglePlay as it is for the ones that didn't. For the reasons given above, that's an erroneous assumption. So the actual percentage would be even lower than 5% (using the numbers above).
I'll ask you one more time -- can you name a single feature phone running Android?
Further, assuming that these mythical Android-powered feature phones aren't accessing the Play Store, then why do developers care what version of the OS they run? The brunt of the discussion has been about "fragmentation" and the alleged inability of developers to use new OS features in their apps. If these mythical Android feature phone users aren't installing apps, they they're not relevant to the discussion.
In android, the impovement over previous version is mere version number ????. That's why many don't bother to upgrade, and most of the devices that have newest version installed are new devices????. Or we can say, the common practise to upgrade android is buying new device????.
If only that were the case, so many of the new android devices coming out are still using older version of android, lots of new phones come out with 2.3.3 & new i mean new tablets are coming out with 3.1.
& just as bad as that, if you just bought one of these devices you may never get an OS update :O EVER!!! Dun dun duuunnn!!!
I'll ask you one more time -- can you name a single feature phone running Android?
"One more time"? This is the first time you asked that question. Before, you asked for a list of feature phones that ran Android and could connect to GooglePlay - which is a very different question.
But feature phones that run Android? Sure. I guess Google is too difficult for you:
Further, assuming that these mythical Android-powered feature phones aren't accessing the Play Store, then why do developers care what version of the OS they run? The brunt of the discussion has been about "fragmentation" and the alleged inability of developers to use new OS features in their apps. If these mythical Android feature phone users aren't installing apps, they they're not relevant to the discussion.
I don't know why developers should care. Nor do I care. I do know that when Google says that 11% of Android phones are running ICS, they are incorrect for all the reasons I gave earlier and which you keep ignoring.
It's exactly because the feature phones don't access GooglePlay that the entire premise of this 'study' is flawed.
Let's say that there are 1 M Android feature phones in use and 1 M Android smart phones. And let's say that 500,000 of the smartphones accessed Google Play during the past 2 weeks. and 50,000 of the phones that accessed Google Play were running ICS.
Now:
1. Google reports that as '10% of Android phones are using ICS'. But that's not true. There are 2 M Android phones total so the actual percentage would only be 5% - at best. Google didn't say '10% of Smartphones', they said '10% of Android phones' (which includes smartphones AND feature phones).
2. They are assuming that the percentage of phones using ICS is the same for the 500,000 smart phones that accessed GooglePlay as it is for the ones that didn't. For the reasons given above, that's an erroneous assumption. So the actual percentage would be even lower than 5% (using the numbers above).
No I understood the point you were making, and it probably has some small impact if those "feature phones" aren't capable of using GooglePlay but still counted in activation numbers. I personally have no idea if they can or can't use GooglePlay, nor whether or how many might exist. I don't think it's much of an issue in any case, tho you certainly have a valid question about it.
Huh? The Galaxy Pro is clearly not a feature phone. If you're going to call that a feature phone, then you'd have to call a BlackBerry a feature phone. That's not whining, it's just the truth.
The Pantech Swift doesn't even run Android. It runs Brew. So I really have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
This entire thead has been a waste of time. You don't have an argument. You hate Google, and you're just trying to smear their reputation with increasingly ridiculous claims. Enjoy your 4th. I'm not going to waste any more time responding to this noise.
Huh? The Galaxy Pro is clearly not a feature phone. If you're going to call that a feature phone, then you'd have to call a BlackBerry a feature phone. That's not whining, it's just the truth.
The Pantech Swift doesn't even run Android. It runs Brew. So I really have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
This entire thead has been a waste of time. You don't have an argument. You hate Google, and you're just trying to smear their reputation with increasingly ridiculous claims. Enjoy your 4th. I'm not going to waste any more time responding to this noise.
I'm not the one who called them feature phones. I'm going by what the manufacturer and/or carrier calls them. If you're going to argue that you know more than all of the above sources, you'd better provide some evidence.
As for the rest, I stated my arguments clearly - and you haven't refuted a single one. Let me spell them out again and please point out the flaws in my arguments. No need for your tantrums or tangents, just point out the logical fallacies:
1. This article only looks at phones which can access GooglePlay and not feature phones. If there's even a single feature phone running Android, then this method is overstating the percentage using ICS. Since I've demonstrated that there are, in fact, feature phones running Android, Google's numbers are too high. More importantly, even if a phone is actually a smart phone, if it is used as a feature phone and never accesses GooglePlay, it would not be counted and again Google is overstating the percentage using ICS.
For example, my daughter just got an Android 2.2 phone that would probably qualify as a smart phone. It is capable of accessing Google Play, but she has never done so (and probably never will). Essentially, by looking only at Google Play, Google is understating the total number of Android phones out there, and therefore overstating the percent on ICS.
2. Most ICS phones are relatively new. Most people access GooglePlay much more with a new phone than an old one - so newer phones are overrepresented.
3. Just setting up a new phone causes most people to access GooglePlay to sign up the phone to their account. Even if they never use GooglePlay any other time, they get one access when the phone is new. Again, this overemphasizes the number of new phones.
4. I do not believe that GooglePlay is available in all countries. In particular, some third world countries (notably Iran) can not access it. Since those countries are likely to have fewer (if any) of the latest ICS devices, again, this source overestimates ICS penetration.
Have at it. Please tell me the logical fallacy in any of my arguments. No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument.
The wonder of Android when 2.x devices are still being sold and most manufacturers refuse to offer updates to newer versions. How is that "diversity" a good thing for users?
I see now, "diversity" is the new spin on "fragmentation".
I'm not the one who called them feature phones. I'm going by what the manufacturer and/or carrier calls them. If you're going to argue that you know more than all of the above sources, you'd better provide some evidence.
As for the rest, I stated my arguments clearly - and you haven't refuted a single one. Let me spell them out again and please point out the flaws in my arguments. No need for your tantrums or tangents, just point out the logical fallacies:
1. This article only looks at phones which can access GooglePlay and not feature phones. If there's even a single feature phone running Android, then this method is overstating the percentage using ICS. Since I've demonstrated that there are, in fact, feature phones running Android, Google's numbers are too high. More importantly, even if a phone is actually a smart phone, if it is used as a feature phone and never accesses GooglePlay, it would not be counted and again Google is overstating the percentage using ICS.
For example, my daughter just got an Android 2.2 phone that would probably qualify as a smart phone. It is capable of accessing Google Play, but she has never done so (and probably never will). Essentially, by looking only at Google Play, Google is understating the total number of Android phones out there, and therefore overstating the percent on ICS.
2. Most ICS phones are relatively new. Most people access GooglePlay much more with a new phone than an old one - so newer phones are overrepresented.
3. Just setting up a new phone causes most people to access GooglePlay to sign up the phone to their account. Even if they never use GooglePlay any other time, they get one access when the phone is new. Again, this overemphasizes the number of new phones.
4. I do not believe that GooglePlay is available in all countries. In particular, some third world countries (notably Iran) can not access it. Since those countries are likely to have fewer (if any) of the latest ICS devices, again, this source overestimates ICS penetration.
Have at it. Please tell me the logical fallacy in any of my arguments. No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument.
That's a well-constructed argument Jr. Well-done. Now please read the advice you gave in your last sentence and use it in your own future replies. We can all politely disagree and make the forums much more pleasant and welcoming.
I'm not the one who called them feature phones. I'm going by what the manufacturer and/or carrier calls them. If you're going to argue that you know more than all of the above sources, you'd better provide some evidence.
As for the rest, I stated my arguments clearly - and you haven't refuted a single one. Let me spell them out again and please point out the flaws in my arguments. No need for your tantrums or tangents, just point out the logical fallacies:
1. This article only looks at phones which can access GooglePlay and not feature phones. If there's even a single feature phone running Android, then this method is overstating the percentage using ICS. Since I've demonstrated that there are, in fact, feature phones running Android, Google's numbers are too high. More importantly, even if a phone is actually a smart phone, if it is used as a feature phone and never accesses GooglePlay, it would not be counted and again Google is overstating the percentage using ICS.
For example, my daughter just got an Android 2.2 phone that would probably qualify as a smart phone. It is capable of accessing Google Play, but she has never done so (and probably never will). Essentially, by looking only at Google Play, Google is understating the total number of Android phones out there, and therefore overstating the percent on ICS.
2. Most ICS phones are relatively new. Most people access GooglePlay much more with a new phone than an old one - so newer phones are overrepresented.
3. Just setting up a new phone causes most people to access GooglePlay to sign up the phone to their account. Even if they never use GooglePlay any other time, they get one access when the phone is new. Again, this overemphasizes the number of new phones.
4. I do not believe that GooglePlay is available in all countries. In particular, some third world countries (notably Iran) can not access it. Since those countries are likely to have fewer (if any) of the latest ICS devices, again, this source overestimates ICS penetration.
Have at it. Please tell me the logical fallacy in any of my arguments. No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument.
Here is the problem: unlike Apple, Google phone manufacturers hav no financial incentive to update older phones. Until Google shares the revenue with the manufactures, Fragmentation it is.
I seriously do not mean to be a jerk here, but how do you share revenue on a free operating system? Are you suggesting that Google begin releasing OS specific paid applications and offer revenue sharing on those apps? Or are you suggesting make Google adwords somehow OS specific and share revenue via some sort of graduated system where the newest OS receives a disproportionate incentive?
The moment they start charging for the Android OS in order to share revenue it breaks their model, and drives up the cost of devices.
Comments
No, but when Andoid supplier does not provide upgrades, it may be a simple as that they believe no upgrades will enhance their sales. No short term money in free upgrades, and when you don't have customers you expect any degree of loyalty from, you either provide a reason for loyalty, or you go for the fast money.
Way to miss the point.
It's exactly because the feature phones don't access GooglePlay that the entire premise of this 'study' is flawed.
Let's say that there are 1 M Android feature phones in use and 1 M Android smart phones. And let's say that 500,000 of the smartphones accessed Google Play during the past 2 weeks. and 50,000 of the phones that accessed Google Play were running ICS.
Now:
1. Google reports that as '10% of Android phones are using ICS'. But that's not true. There are 2 M Android phones total so the actual percentage would only be 5% - at best. Google didn't say '10% of Smartphones', they said '10% of Android phones' (which includes smartphones AND feature phones).
2. They are assuming that the percentage of phones using ICS is the same for the 500,000 smart phones that accessed GooglePlay as it is for the ones that didn't. For the reasons given above, that's an erroneous assumption. So the actual percentage would be even lower than 5% (using the numbers above).
I'll ask you one more time -- can you name a single feature phone running Android?
Further, assuming that these mythical Android-powered feature phones aren't accessing the Play Store, then why do developers care what version of the OS they run? The brunt of the discussion has been about "fragmentation" and the alleged inability of developers to use new OS features in their apps. If these mythical Android feature phone users aren't installing apps, they they're not relevant to the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa
In android, the impovement over previous version is mere version number ????. That's why many don't bother to upgrade, and most of the devices that have newest version installed are new devices????. Or we can say, the common practise to upgrade android is buying new device????.
If only that were the case, so many of the new android devices coming out are still using older version of android, lots of new phones come out with 2.3.3 & new i mean new tablets are coming out with 3.1.
& just as bad as that, if you just bought one of these devices you may never get an OS update :O EVER!!! Dun dun duuunnn!!!
"One more time"? This is the first time you asked that question. Before, you asked for a list of feature phones that ran Android and could connect to GooglePlay - which is a very different question.
But feature phones that run Android? Sure. I guess Google is too difficult for you:
http://pocketnow.com/android/lg-adds-android-os-to-env-touch-feature-phone-follow-up
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gadgetreviews/samsung-unveils-android-based-galaxy-pro-feature-phone/22864
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/10/13/leap-plans-android-feature-phone-wait-what/
http://www.thetechcheck.com/phones/android-phones/samsungs-new-android-based-galaxy-pro-feature-phone/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405974,00.asp
And plenty more. Of course, you'll whine and complain that those are really smart phones, but in each case, the manufacturer and/or carrier calls them feature phones.
I don't know why developers should care. Nor do I care. I do know that when Google says that 11% of Android phones are running ICS, they are incorrect for all the reasons I gave earlier and which you keep ignoring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Way to miss the point.
It's exactly because the feature phones don't access GooglePlay that the entire premise of this 'study' is flawed.
Let's say that there are 1 M Android feature phones in use and 1 M Android smart phones. And let's say that 500,000 of the smartphones accessed Google Play during the past 2 weeks. and 50,000 of the phones that accessed Google Play were running ICS.
Now:
1. Google reports that as '10% of Android phones are using ICS'. But that's not true. There are 2 M Android phones total so the actual percentage would only be 5% - at best. Google didn't say '10% of Smartphones', they said '10% of Android phones' (which includes smartphones AND feature phones).
2. They are assuming that the percentage of phones using ICS is the same for the 500,000 smart phones that accessed GooglePlay as it is for the ones that didn't. For the reasons given above, that's an erroneous assumption. So the actual percentage would be even lower than 5% (using the numbers above).
No I understood the point you were making, and it probably has some small impact if those "feature phones" aren't capable of using GooglePlay but still counted in activation numbers. I personally have no idea if they can or can't use GooglePlay, nor whether or how many might exist. I don't think it's much of an issue in any case, tho you certainly have a valid question about it.
Wasn't diversity an old old wooden ship?
Huh? The Galaxy Pro is clearly not a feature phone. If you're going to call that a feature phone, then you'd have to call a BlackBerry a feature phone. That's not whining, it's just the truth.
The Pantech Swift doesn't even run Android. It runs Brew. So I really have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
This entire thead has been a waste of time. You don't have an argument. You hate Google, and you're just trying to smear their reputation with increasingly ridiculous claims. Enjoy your 4th. I'm not going to waste any more time responding to this noise.
I'm not the one who called them feature phones. I'm going by what the manufacturer and/or carrier calls them. If you're going to argue that you know more than all of the above sources, you'd better provide some evidence.
As for the rest, I stated my arguments clearly - and you haven't refuted a single one. Let me spell them out again and please point out the flaws in my arguments. No need for your tantrums or tangents, just point out the logical fallacies:
1. This article only looks at phones which can access GooglePlay and not feature phones. If there's even a single feature phone running Android, then this method is overstating the percentage using ICS. Since I've demonstrated that there are, in fact, feature phones running Android, Google's numbers are too high. More importantly, even if a phone is actually a smart phone, if it is used as a feature phone and never accesses GooglePlay, it would not be counted and again Google is overstating the percentage using ICS.
For example, my daughter just got an Android 2.2 phone that would probably qualify as a smart phone. It is capable of accessing Google Play, but she has never done so (and probably never will). Essentially, by looking only at Google Play, Google is understating the total number of Android phones out there, and therefore overstating the percent on ICS.
2. Most ICS phones are relatively new. Most people access GooglePlay much more with a new phone than an old one - so newer phones are overrepresented.
3. Just setting up a new phone causes most people to access GooglePlay to sign up the phone to their account. Even if they never use GooglePlay any other time, they get one access when the phone is new. Again, this overemphasizes the number of new phones.
4. I do not believe that GooglePlay is available in all countries. In particular, some third world countries (notably Iran) can not access it. Since those countries are likely to have fewer (if any) of the latest ICS devices, again, this source overestimates ICS penetration.
Have at it. Please tell me the logical fallacy in any of my arguments. No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument.
The wonder of Android when 2.x devices are still being sold and most manufacturers refuse to offer updates to newer versions. How is that "diversity" a good thing for users?
I see now, "diversity" is the new spin on "fragmentation".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I'm not the one who called them feature phones. I'm going by what the manufacturer and/or carrier calls them. If you're going to argue that you know more than all of the above sources, you'd better provide some evidence.
As for the rest, I stated my arguments clearly - and you haven't refuted a single one. Let me spell them out again and please point out the flaws in my arguments. No need for your tantrums or tangents, just point out the logical fallacies:
1. This article only looks at phones which can access GooglePlay and not feature phones. If there's even a single feature phone running Android, then this method is overstating the percentage using ICS. Since I've demonstrated that there are, in fact, feature phones running Android, Google's numbers are too high. More importantly, even if a phone is actually a smart phone, if it is used as a feature phone and never accesses GooglePlay, it would not be counted and again Google is overstating the percentage using ICS.
For example, my daughter just got an Android 2.2 phone that would probably qualify as a smart phone. It is capable of accessing Google Play, but she has never done so (and probably never will). Essentially, by looking only at Google Play, Google is understating the total number of Android phones out there, and therefore overstating the percent on ICS.
2. Most ICS phones are relatively new. Most people access GooglePlay much more with a new phone than an old one - so newer phones are overrepresented.
3. Just setting up a new phone causes most people to access GooglePlay to sign up the phone to their account. Even if they never use GooglePlay any other time, they get one access when the phone is new. Again, this overemphasizes the number of new phones.
4. I do not believe that GooglePlay is available in all countries. In particular, some third world countries (notably Iran) can not access it. Since those countries are likely to have fewer (if any) of the latest ICS devices, again, this source overestimates ICS penetration.
Have at it. Please tell me the logical fallacy in any of my arguments. No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument.
That's a well-constructed argument Jr. Well-done. Now please read the advice you gave in your last sentence and use it in your own future replies. We can all politely disagree and make the forums much more pleasant and welcoming.
I missed one:
5. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/07/04/why-the-latest-version-of-apple-ios-is-more-import.aspx
"Since the Kindle Fire is technically an Android device, that means that the percentage of users on Ice Cream Sandwich is even slimmer than what's reported."
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
Here is the problem: unlike Apple, Google phone manufacturers hav no financial incentive to update older phones. Until Google shares the revenue with the manufactures, Fragmentation it is.
I seriously do not mean to be a jerk here, but how do you share revenue on a free operating system? Are you suggesting that Google begin releasing OS specific paid applications and offer revenue sharing on those apps? Or are you suggesting make Google adwords somehow OS specific and share revenue via some sort of graduated system where the newest OS receives a disproportionate incentive?
The moment they start charging for the Android OS in order to share revenue it breaks their model, and drives up the cost of devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And, yes, there are feature phones that run Android.
Can you cite an example or two?
I already did (see post #101). Please learn to read.