Isn't iAds more successful than anything that comes from google (mobile)?
A few articles here at AI have obviously confused some readers. No sir they are not. You've mistaken some statistics that might show Google gets more of their (US?) mobile ad revenue from iOS users than Android as evidence that Apple is more successful than Google in mobile advertising efforts. iAd revenue is reportedly lagging behind Google, Facebook, Pandora, and Twitter, in fact far behind the first two.
Ah. He's not talking about changing the user agent.
He's pointing out that stock Chrome says it's "AppleWebKit", which might confuse poor sniffing tools.
Likewise, the Kindle Fire's Silk server based browser used to claim that it was a Mac in its user agent string.
Neither of these required user intervention for dumber stat counters to get confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
That must be why iAds is so successful. Advertisers are more than willing to pay the additional fees that Apple asks to avoid dealing with those poor and ignorant Android owners.
Note that iAds is only used inside apps. Not the web.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You're right about apps versus websites, but the study does not purport to do the former.
In any event, see all the problems that arise with this type of survey-based nonsense that is trotted out, especially when the methodology or validity is never made clear -- like you do every time when you quote Chitika (or whatever the heck they're called) data? (In fact, I am suprised you haven't brought it up yet in this thread).
Exactly right. I have consistently said that web view, ad count, and Android Dashboard statistics do not give us any useful figures about sales.
Without knowing the exact methodology and the sales data ahead of time, those stats also fail to inform us about usage.
When results don't make any sense, something is obviously askew. We need more info. Too bad we don't have app+web use+comm stats from that internal carrier block of code that everyone cried about last year and is now probably removed.
I am honestly not trying to be a smartass here, but my reaction to this article is "So what?" How does anyone benefit from knowing that the majority of mobile web traffic comes from iOS devices? What does it mean? Why would anyone bother to check?
"A new report indicates that Volvo drivers use their cup holders more than Mercedes owners." It seems like an utterly meaningless data point.
You can't be that stupid.
- How about webmasters deciding if they should make specific versions of their site for iPhone or iPad users?
- Advertisers deciding where to spend their money.
- Software developers deciding which platform they should bring their new service/App to first?
But the most useful by far: shoving facts into the faces of all the losers/haters who refuse to look at evidence and come back with the "Android haz more market sharez" comments.
It would be nice to get a list of what UA strings they're associating with what device.
I ask this because Chrome on my Galaxy Nexus has "Mozilla/5.0(Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_3) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.151 Safari/535.19 as its UA string.
The stock browser UA is very different (Undeniably Android) but if you've got Chrome (50m downloads), why would you use that?
This is ignoring all the other browsers you're not blocked from (and therefore able to) install on Android.
Oh for crying out loud. People still bringing up that user agent crap? What is this, 2010?
As I've said before, changing your user agent DOES NOT fool modern analytics software, which looks at device makes & models, not what the browser reports. This is more garbage spewed by Android users who refuse to accept facts or evidence that show most Android users don't actually use their phones.
Not only is that a weird selection of websites, but who does not use an app to go to LinkedIn on their phone? Or apps or widgets for any of those?
Web usage does not correlate to sales.
Depending on the counting method, it could sometimes relate to how often the browser reloads pages.
Or it could show that Android users are more likely to use an app or widget than a web browser.
That could be because Android has a Back button to make navigating around apps easier by keeping a context trail. (On iOS the equivalent experience would be using a browser with a Back button, which might explain its popularity as a usage method.)
More bull from you-know-who. More Android users are likely to use an App? You have any evidence to back that up? Oh no, you don't.
Nobody said web usage = sales. But it's a great indicator of what people do with their devices. Everyone knows there are boatloads of low-end Android feature phones being sold. The only ones who still haven't figured this out yet are the trolls and haters.
Ah. He's not talking about changing the user agent.
He's pointing out that stock Chrome says it's "AppleWebKit", which might confuse poor sniffing tools.
Likewise, the Kindle Fire's Silk server based browser used to claim that it was a Mac in its user agent string.
Neither of these required user intervention for dumber stat counters to get confused.
Note that iAds is only used inside apps. Not the web.
Exactly right. I have consistently said that web view, ad count, and Android Dashboard statistics do not give us any useful figures about sales.
Without knowing the exact methodology and the sales data ahead of time, those stats also fail to inform us about usage.
When results don't make any sense, something is obviously askew. We need more info. Too bad we don't have app+web use+comm stats from that internal carrier block of code that everyone cried about last year and is now probably removed.
Don't make sense? They make perfect sense. Especially when study after study from different companies using different methods of gathering data ALL COME UP WITH THE SAME RESULTS. How ignorant can you be not to see something so obvious?
Poor sniffing tools? So now you're claiming the data is bad because they use poor quality analytics? I'll tell you what poor analytics software does - it uses the user agent - something nobody does anymore (though the fandroids seem to think it's still widely used).
Do you manage any websites? If so, do what I've suggested numerous times on AI - install Google Analytics. I find it hilarious that a Google tool is telling me that 2/3 of the visitors to my site are using iOS. Google's own tool telling me I should target iOS over Android.
I am honestly not trying to be a smartass here, but my reaction to this article is "So what?" How does anyone benefit from knowing that the majority of mobile web traffic comes from iOS devices? What does it mean? Why would anyone bother to check?
It gives an indication of how users use their smart phone. Makes you wonder if many Androiders use their androids as just phones/texting. Again this is just one data point.
When results don't make any sense, something is obviously askew.
Sure, that would be the interpretation of Fandroiders, hanging around in Apple forums.
For those who are pro-Apple in this forum, the results make perfect sense. It's consistent with the explanation that Android share numbers are badly exaggerated.
That's the stock browser. Which is also Chrome, but not the one that's explicitly labelled Chrome.
If that is true and even if it isn't it only proves that Google is a liar when it comes to identifying their browser. The fact that they call themselves Mobile Safari is to get picked up by developers who happen to be looking for just that phrase. Google just wants to be able to access the specific presentations that developers are creating for iOS. If they go so far as to call themselves Intel Mac OS X when actually they are Android, then I find it difficult to understand what is keeping them from calling themselves iPhone - since they steal everything else about iPhone they might as well steal the name too.
If that is true and even if it isn't it only proves that Google is a liar when it comes to identifying their browser. The fact that they call themselves Mobile Safari is to get picked up by developers who happen to be looking for just that phrase. Google just wants to be able to access the specific presentations that developers are creating for iOS. If they go so far as to call themselves Intel Mac OS X when actually they are Android, then I find it difficult to understand what is keeping them from calling themselves iPhone - since they steal everything else about iPhone they might as well steal the name too.
That's an interesting rant, but I fail to see the relevance to this topic.
Ordinarily, however, an apology for accusing me of being a liar would be forthcoming.
This fits my own observations: a lot of Android phones are low-end AWFUL devices that get no media attention and their users did not seek them out (any may not even know what they have). They're just whatever freebie some carrier used to sell a costly service plan.
I have friends with this kind of Android phone (and some with "real" ones too of course) and they hate using them. Even for basic things like email they hate them. Slow, awkward, tiny screens--plus the usual Android issues like malware, instant abandonment (updates), and poor backup/restore.
This is a win-win for the carrier: they get the income of selling a data plan, AND they don't actually have to deliver much data! And if the person doesn't like their phone, all a salesperson has to do in 2 years is convince them that the next free low-end junk is 2 years better than than the one they hate (which is true)! Or give them a "real" phone. Either way, the carrier can simply blame the bad phone and not lose a customer in future.
Now, there are good reasons to not use a "real" Android phone as much, too. But we forget just how bad low-end Android phones go. (A reminder that any "low-end" iPhone Apple might ever consider will really be mid-range, not low-end at all.)
Okay then you explain why the Chrome UA string is so wrong.
Why it's wrong/misleading is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
What's relevant is what it is. Which, unless my device is misreporting it (I wish. It would mean I'd changed the UA on my browser permanently. For whatever reason a permanent change is difficult) is what I posted.
If you're trying to figure out why it might be wrong/misleading, however, then if you think about what sort of device will most commonly use it, you'll be on the right track. Its primary goal isn't satisfying human curiosity.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Isn't iAds more successful than anything that comes from google (mobile)?
A few articles here at AI have obviously confused some readers. No sir they are not. You've mistaken some statistics that might show Google gets more of their (US?) mobile ad revenue from iOS users than Android as evidence that Apple is more successful than Google in mobile advertising efforts. iAd revenue is reportedly lagging behind Google, Facebook, Pandora, and Twitter, in fact far behind the first two.
http://marketingland.com/emarketer-google-to-take-more-than-half-of-mobile-advertising-dollars-but-facebook-will-win-majority-of-mobile-display-market-38937
If that's the case why isn't web usage 0%?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
And how many non-geeks actually do this?
Ah. He's not talking about changing the user agent.
He's pointing out that stock Chrome says it's "AppleWebKit", which might confuse poor sniffing tools.
Likewise, the Kindle Fire's Silk server based browser used to claim that it was a Mac in its user agent string.
Neither of these required user intervention for dumber stat counters to get confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
That must be why iAds is so successful. Advertisers are more than willing to pay the additional fees that Apple asks to avoid dealing with those poor and ignorant Android owners.
Note that iAds is only used inside apps. Not the web.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You're right about apps versus websites, but the study does not purport to do the former.
In any event, see all the problems that arise with this type of survey-based nonsense that is trotted out, especially when the methodology or validity is never made clear -- like you do every time when you quote Chitika (or whatever the heck they're called) data? (In fact, I am suprised you haven't brought it up yet in this thread).
Exactly right. I have consistently said that web view, ad count, and Android Dashboard statistics do not give us any useful figures about sales.
Without knowing the exact methodology and the sales data ahead of time, those stats also fail to inform us about usage.
When results don't make any sense, something is obviously askew. We need more info. Too bad we don't have app+web use+comm stats from that internal carrier block of code that everyone cried about last year and is now probably removed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
I am honestly not trying to be a smartass here, but my reaction to this article is "So what?" How does anyone benefit from knowing that the majority of mobile web traffic comes from iOS devices? What does it mean? Why would anyone bother to check?
"A new report indicates that Volvo drivers use their cup holders more than Mercedes owners." It seems like an utterly meaningless data point.
You can't be that stupid.
- How about webmasters deciding if they should make specific versions of their site for iPhone or iPad users?
- Advertisers deciding where to spend their money.
- Software developers deciding which platform they should bring their new service/App to first?
But the most useful by far: shoving facts into the faces of all the losers/haters who refuse to look at evidence and come back with the "Android haz more market sharez" comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Bray
It would be nice to get a list of what UA strings they're associating with what device.
I ask this because Chrome on my Galaxy Nexus has "Mozilla/5.0(Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_3) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.151 Safari/535.19 as its UA string.
The stock browser UA is very different (Undeniably Android) but if you've got Chrome (50m downloads), why would you use that?
This is ignoring all the other browsers you're not blocked from (and therefore able to) install on Android.
Oh for crying out loud. People still bringing up that user agent crap? What is this, 2010?
As I've said before, changing your user agent DOES NOT fool modern analytics software, which looks at device makes & models, not what the browser reports. This is more garbage spewed by Android users who refuse to accept facts or evidence that show most Android users don't actually use their phones.
Originally Posted by Robert Bray
It would be nice to get a list of what UA strings they're associating with what device.
No one actually does this, so stop talking about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Not only is that a weird selection of websites, but who does not use an app to go to LinkedIn on their phone? Or apps or widgets for any of those?
Web usage does not correlate to sales.
Depending on the counting method, it could sometimes relate to how often the browser reloads pages.
Or it could show that Android users are more likely to use an app or widget than a web browser.
That could be because Android has a Back button to make navigating around apps easier by keeping a context trail. (On iOS the equivalent experience would be using a browser with a Back button, which might explain its popularity as a usage method.)
More bull from you-know-who. More Android users are likely to use an App? You have any evidence to back that up? Oh no, you don't.
Nobody said web usage = sales. But it's a great indicator of what people do with their devices. Everyone knows there are boatloads of low-end Android feature phones being sold. The only ones who still haven't figured this out yet are the trolls and haters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Ah. He's not talking about changing the user agent.
He's pointing out that stock Chrome says it's "AppleWebKit", which might confuse poor sniffing tools.
Likewise, the Kindle Fire's Silk server based browser used to claim that it was a Mac in its user agent string.
Neither of these required user intervention for dumber stat counters to get confused.
Note that iAds is only used inside apps. Not the web.
Exactly right. I have consistently said that web view, ad count, and Android Dashboard statistics do not give us any useful figures about sales.
Without knowing the exact methodology and the sales data ahead of time, those stats also fail to inform us about usage.
When results don't make any sense, something is obviously askew. We need more info. Too bad we don't have app+web use+comm stats from that internal carrier block of code that everyone cried about last year and is now probably removed.
Don't make sense? They make perfect sense. Especially when study after study from different companies using different methods of gathering data ALL COME UP WITH THE SAME RESULTS. How ignorant can you be not to see something so obvious?
Poor sniffing tools? So now you're claiming the data is bad because they use poor quality analytics? I'll tell you what poor analytics software does - it uses the user agent - something nobody does anymore (though the fandroids seem to think it's still widely used).
Do you manage any websites? If so, do what I've suggested numerous times on AI - install Google Analytics. I find it hilarious that a Google tool is telling me that 2/3 of the visitors to my site are using iOS. Google's own tool telling me I should target iOS over Android.
It gives an indication of how users use their smart phone. Makes you wonder if many Androiders use their androids as just phones/texting. Again this is just one data point.
How is the OS checked? When I'm looking this up, all I get is User Agent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
When results don't make any sense, something is obviously askew.
Sure, that would be the interpretation of Fandroiders, hanging around in Apple forums.
For those who are pro-Apple in this forum, the results make perfect sense. It's consistent with the explanation that Android share numbers are badly exaggerated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
And how many non-geeks actually do this?
Ah. He's not talking about changing the user agent.
He's pointing out that stock Chrome says it's "AppleWebKit", which might confuse poor sniffing tools.
Actually he is talking about changing the UA string, or perhaps I should say lying about changing it because that is not the default string. This is:
https://developers.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/user-agent
That's the stock browser. Which is also Chrome, but not the one that's explicitly labelled Chrome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Bray
That's the stock browser. Which is also Chrome, but not the one that's explicitly labelled Chrome.
If that is true and even if it isn't it only proves that Google is a liar when it comes to identifying their browser. The fact that they call themselves Mobile Safari is to get picked up by developers who happen to be looking for just that phrase. Google just wants to be able to access the specific presentations that developers are creating for iOS. If they go so far as to call themselves Intel Mac OS X when actually they are Android, then I find it difficult to understand what is keeping them from calling themselves iPhone - since they steal everything else about iPhone they might as well steal the name too.
I agree. We need more info about Android activation number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
If that is true and even if it isn't it only proves that Google is a liar when it comes to identifying their browser. The fact that they call themselves Mobile Safari is to get picked up by developers who happen to be looking for just that phrase. Google just wants to be able to access the specific presentations that developers are creating for iOS. If they go so far as to call themselves Intel Mac OS X when actually they are Android, then I find it difficult to understand what is keeping them from calling themselves iPhone - since they steal everything else about iPhone they might as well steal the name too.
That's an interesting rant, but I fail to see the relevance to this topic.
Ordinarily, however, an apology for accusing me of being a liar would be forthcoming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Bray
That's an interesting rant, but I fail to see the relevance to this topic.
Okay then you explain why the Chrome UA string is so wrong.
I have friends with this kind of Android phone (and some with "real" ones too of course) and they hate using them. Even for basic things like email they hate them. Slow, awkward, tiny screens--plus the usual Android issues like malware, instant abandonment (updates), and poor backup/restore.
This is a win-win for the carrier: they get the income of selling a data plan, AND they don't actually have to deliver much data! And if the person doesn't like their phone, all a salesperson has to do in 2 years is convince them that the next free low-end junk is 2 years better than than the one they hate (which is true)! Or give them a "real" phone. Either way, the carrier can simply blame the bad phone and not lose a customer in future.
Now, there are good reasons to not use a "real" Android phone as much, too. But we forget just how bad low-end Android phones go. (A reminder that any "low-end" iPhone Apple might ever consider will really be mid-range, not low-end at all.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Okay then you explain why the Chrome UA string is so wrong.
Why it's wrong/misleading is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
What's relevant is what it is. Which, unless my device is misreporting it (I wish. It would mean I'd changed the UA on my browser permanently. For whatever reason a permanent change is difficult) is what I posted.
If you're trying to figure out why it might be wrong/misleading, however, then if you think about what sort of device will most commonly use it, you'll be on the right track. Its primary goal isn't satisfying human curiosity.