Apples and oranges, pun intended. While some ADVANCED first-party OS features are restricted to newer users who have the hardware to support it, the APIs used by third-party developers to create - and now advance - their programs are available to all iOS 6 users. You can't say the same thing about people running Gingerbread and the API improvements of Jellybean, now can you?
Actually, a lot of the time they can, because Google often provides API shims for use on older devices.
Not that it matters a lot. Most apps written for either iOS or Android don't need anything but basic APIs that have been around for years.
As Frood pointed out, because even core apps are separated from the OS, Android devices get core app updates all the time. This greatly reduces the need for the kind of updates that iOS devices need. There's also no need to wait for an OS update to change the homescreen layouts or add custom controls.
OS wise, Android started out with a lot of core functionality that iOS only got later on. Multitasking, voice i/o, widgets, notifications. Likewise, iOS was ahead with tablet UI support. Both systems have pretty much caught up to each other, so there's not much functionality or UI update that's needed for either.
The difference in updates really is apples and oranges, because they have different needs and methods.
Yep. Right on target the Google shills throw out information intended to mislead.
From your chart: "Note: Beginning in April, 2013, these charts are now built using data collected from each device when the user visits the Google Play Store."
Clearly, newer devices are more likely to install new apps than older devices, so those figures inflate the number of newer devices by a pretty large margin. When you look at installed base, the numbers you're objecting to are actually correct.
Google has no control over the updating of devices except for Nexus'. They weren't the ones that put Android on them in the first place so how could they be held accountable for updating them? The updated OS is right on their servers for the manufacturers to update their devices with.
Google has no control over the updating of devices except for Nexus'. They weren't the ones that put Android on them in the first place so how could they be held accountable for updating them? The updated OS is right on their servers for the manufacturers to update their devices with.
Maybe if they have a courage like Apple and cease to be carrier's bitch, instead of verbally being on a high ground aka open?
100% of phones running Jelly Bean can run Google Now.
What percentage of iOS6 users can run Siri? What about flyover view or whatever Apple calls it? What about turn by turn navigation?
Apple can make users feel good by telling them they're on iOS6 and therefore by definition 'not fragmented', but if they can't use half the features of it....
What percentage of iPhones running iOS 6 can run Google Now? The requirements just say iOS 5, so I'm guessing a pretty high percentage.
People always forget that even if core functionality is missing, generally 'there's an app for that'.
1) Sure, the accounting would have to change to match that of the iPods, iPhones, Apple TV, iPads, and their paid software and services. Seems to me the Mac is the only thing not using this accounting.
2) If it's such a horrible practice then why do so many other of their products utilize it.
3) It's possible that the pros don't outweigh the cons, which seems evident by the fact they don't currently use it, but as implied by myself and Ireland it's not out of the question to see how this could 1) increase sales of Macs, 2) make the average Mac experience better, and 3) reduce Mac OS costs for Apple which could then be passed to users.
1 and 2.) I'm not saying it's a horrible practice, but it's a practice that's FEASIBLE with iOS. When you're selling millions upon millions of devices per quarter, skimming a few dollars from each adds up very quickly. Thing is? To accumulate a similar some of money, you would need to surcharge a Mac purchaser $15 for every $1 that an iOS user is surcharged based on the number of iOS device sales compared to Mac OS device sales. If they're taking $5 out of every iPhone and iPad and iPod Touch? You're looking at $75 from each Mac. And I don't doubt they'd pass that on to you to preserve their existing profit margin. So over the three year window that the device is in warranty with an AppleCare extension... you'd get it with one OS, then get two more "for free". At an actual cost of $37.50 per OS, which is an increase of $17.50 over what you pay now. If you get three because of the way the calendar falls? You still pay a buck and change more. Oooh. Big savings you've achieved for yourself.
3.) Your argument here is specious because by your own logic, the PC market would have collapsed years ago. Given that one of my MacBook Pros came out during the Vista era and has since been upgraded to Windows 7 and now 8 - and runs it well - it's logical to assume that there are in fact genuine Windows PCs out there that have made similar leaps. Except nobody would do that in your world because holy cow, Windows is what? $100+ for an upgrade? Twice in the last four years, even. That averages out to $50 a year and if a fear of $20 yearly OS upgrades is holding back Mac sales, then CLEARLY a surcharge of two and a half times as much MUST be crippling the PC market.
What percentage of iPhones running iOS 6 can run Google Now? The requirements just say iOS 5, so I'm guessing a pretty high percentage.
People always forget that even if core functionality is missing, generally 'there's an app for that'.
Now how many Android phones can run Siri?
I think you're missing the point. Nobody is talking about cross-platform applications. The point is that there are no artificial restrictions on OS features in Android and that most core apps are updated independently of the OS.
That's likely because the "don't ask me again" option in iTunes doesn't work and one gets continuously harassed by the update dialog box when attaching the phone to the computer.
This is an obvious one which came from chitika long ago where they had said that the most number of mobile users accessing internet are from apple devices. iOS 6 is the latest version of apple's OS and because the updates are mostly free users get to use the latest version.
Google has no control over the updating of devices except for Nexus'. They weren't the ones that put Android on them in the first place so how could they be held accountable for updating them? The updated OS is right on their servers for the manufacturers to update their devices with.
As usual, you keep missing the point (or pretend to).
No one cares if it's Google's fault or Samsung's fault or AT&T's fault. The fact is that Android is badly fragmented as far as the user is concerned. There's no way to get an updated version on most handsets - even ones that are still in the market today.
He's not being petty. He's considering a potential road Apple could go down which could potentially make them more money even whilst potentially saving us money, and all with a potentially to increase the UX of Macs. Rememebr that the price was $129 for many, many years and only with Lion and ML has dropped to insanely low levels for an OS. Why not stick with $129? WHy not $99 or $49. Why $20. Apparently the cost has significantly dropped per user but why lower the price at all unless they want people to update their OS? Mine and Ireland's simple solution is merely to go down a well traveled route as "PCs" become just another device on the network.
Except for one thing - he has never demonstrated that Apple would sell more systems if they gave away free OS upgrades, so there's no real reason to believe that Apple would make more money by giving the upgrades away.
I can't imagine that many people who are going to buy a $2500 MBP because the upgrade in a few years will be free instead of $20.
100% of phones running Jelly Bean can run Google Now.
What percentage of iOS6 users can run Siri? What about flyover view or whatever Apple calls it? What about turn by turn navigation?
Apple can make users feel good by telling them they're on iOS6 and therefore by definition 'not fragmented', but if they can't use half the features of it....
The percentage is the same for Siri, turn by turn, and flyover...its everyone using a 4s or a 5. Thats still a much higher percentage than the Android users on Jelly Bean
100% of phones running Jelly Bean can run Google Now.
What percentage of iOS6 users can run Siri? What about flyover view or whatever Apple calls it? What about turn by turn navigation?
Apple can make users feel good by telling them they're on iOS6 and therefore by definition 'not fragmented', but if they can't use half the features of it....
The percentage is the same for Siri, turn by turn, and flyover...its everyone using a 4s or a 5. Thats still a much higher percentage than the Android users on Jelly Bean
As usual, you keep missing the point (or pretend to).
No one cares if it's Google's fault or Samsung's fault or AT&T's fault. The fact is that Android is badly fragmented as far as the user is concerned. There's no way to get an updated version on most handsets - even ones that are still in the market today.
It's not as big as a fragmented mess as you think it is. All Google apps are in the play store and therefore updated without a OS update.
It's not as big as a fragmented mess as you think it is. All Google apps are in the play store and therefore updated without a OS update.
In iOS, devs are required to support the N and N-1 versions of iOS. Is that the same with android? Or will they develop for the LCD (2.x) or the latest version?
In iOS, devs are required to support the N and N-1 versions of iOS.
Hmm. I haven't done iOS development in a while, but that doesn't sound correct to me.
With a few exceptions, you should be able to target almost any iOS version you wish. Exceptions include:
Including iPads in your deployment profile requires 4.3 or above, IIRC.
You cannot update your current app to target fewer people than it did before.
Nowadays you must include iPhone 5 and retina image support.
Obviously the version must support the APIs you use.
More recent information is welcome from current developers.
Quote:
Is that the same with android? Or will they develop for the LCD (2.x) or the latest version?
Whether iOS or Android, the developer decides what minimum APIs and hardware are required for their app to run.
On both, they can also check for such support during runtime, and take different paths. E.g. if you're missing a front camera, don't show buttons for it. Or if the device doesn't have the latest APIs, do a workaround with older ones.
With Android, it's easier to target really old OS versions, because even those had multitasking, notifications, widgets, etc. That's why fragmentation isn't the scary monster most people think.
Android development goes a bit further in supporting older devices: Google releases extra libraries that provide some recent OS functionality, so that even devices with older OS versions will look good. For example, the feature library supports the latest tablet UI fragments creation even on devices using Froyo.
The upshot is, a smart developer on any system always targets the minimum OS level that s/he requires, in order to maximize the number of potential users.
Comments
His argument is in no way that it costs too much money for the average user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skottichan
Apples and oranges, pun intended. While some ADVANCED first-party OS features are restricted to newer users who have the hardware to support it, the APIs used by third-party developers to create - and now advance - their programs are available to all iOS 6 users. You can't say the same thing about people running Gingerbread and the API improvements of Jellybean, now can you?
Actually, a lot of the time they can, because Google often provides API shims for use on older devices.
Not that it matters a lot. Most apps written for either iOS or Android don't need anything but basic APIs that have been around for years.
As Frood pointed out, because even core apps are separated from the OS, Android devices get core app updates all the time. This greatly reduces the need for the kind of updates that iOS devices need. There's also no need to wait for an OS update to change the homescreen layouts or add custom controls.
OS wise, Android started out with a lot of core functionality that iOS only got later on. Multitasking, voice i/o, widgets, notifications. Likewise, iOS was ahead with tablet UI support. Both systems have pretty much caught up to each other, so there's not much functionality or UI update that's needed for either.
The difference in updates really is apples and oranges, because they have different needs and methods.
Google has no control over the updating of devices except for Nexus'. They weren't the ones that put Android on them in the first place so how could they be held accountable for updating them? The updated OS is right on their servers for the manufacturers to update their devices with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by am8449
Those figures are quite astounding. I think it's partly due to iPhone users being excited about software updates.
I think it's partly due to iPhone users being annoyed by that red bubble on Settings app.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Google has no control over the updating of devices except for Nexus'. They weren't the ones that put Android on them in the first place so how could they be held accountable for updating them? The updated OS is right on their servers for the manufacturers to update their devices with.
Maybe if they have a courage like Apple and cease to be carrier's bitch, instead of verbally being on a high ground aka open?
What percentage of iPhones running iOS 6 can run Google Now? The requirements just say iOS 5, so I'm guessing a pretty high percentage.
People always forget that even if core functionality is missing, generally 'there's an app for that'.
Now how many Android phones can run Siri?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) Sure, the accounting would have to change to match that of the iPods, iPhones, Apple TV, iPads, and their paid software and services. Seems to me the Mac is the only thing not using this accounting.
2) If it's such a horrible practice then why do so many other of their products utilize it.
3) It's possible that the pros don't outweigh the cons, which seems evident by the fact they don't currently use it, but as implied by myself and Ireland it's not out of the question to see how this could 1) increase sales of Macs, 2) make the average Mac experience better, and 3) reduce Mac OS costs for Apple which could then be passed to users.
1 and 2.) I'm not saying it's a horrible practice, but it's a practice that's FEASIBLE with iOS. When you're selling millions upon millions of devices per quarter, skimming a few dollars from each adds up very quickly. Thing is? To accumulate a similar some of money, you would need to surcharge a Mac purchaser $15 for every $1 that an iOS user is surcharged based on the number of iOS device sales compared to Mac OS device sales. If they're taking $5 out of every iPhone and iPad and iPod Touch? You're looking at $75 from each Mac. And I don't doubt they'd pass that on to you to preserve their existing profit margin. So over the three year window that the device is in warranty with an AppleCare extension... you'd get it with one OS, then get two more "for free". At an actual cost of $37.50 per OS, which is an increase of $17.50 over what you pay now. If you get three because of the way the calendar falls? You still pay a buck and change more. Oooh. Big savings you've achieved for yourself.
3.) Your argument here is specious because by your own logic, the PC market would have collapsed years ago. Given that one of my MacBook Pros came out during the Vista era and has since been upgraded to Windows 7 and now 8 - and runs it well - it's logical to assume that there are in fact genuine Windows PCs out there that have made similar leaps. Except nobody would do that in your world because holy cow, Windows is what? $100+ for an upgrade? Twice in the last four years, even. That averages out to $50 a year and if a fear of $20 yearly OS upgrades is holding back Mac sales, then CLEARLY a surcharge of two and a half times as much MUST be crippling the PC market.
...except it's not.
I think you're missing the point. Nobody is talking about cross-platform applications. The point is that there are no artificial restrictions on OS features in Android and that most core apps are updated independently of the OS.
That's likely because the "don't ask me again" option in iTunes doesn't work and one gets continuously harassed by the update dialog box when attaching the phone to the computer.
They aren't the carriers bitch because they update the Nexus at will, it's the manufacturers that are the bitch.
This is an obvious one which came from chitika long ago where they had said that the most number of mobile users accessing internet are from apple devices. iOS 6 is the latest version of apple's OS and because the updates are mostly free users get to use the latest version.
Originally Posted by Jim Phong
Let's hope Tim Cook is not going to screw it up completely and ruin iOS with a Metro style iOS7 crap thing..
If that would happen as rumored kept saying for months few would upgrade to a Metro crap thing.
Shut up with the false concern.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
…while iOS 3 had a 0.1 percent share.
"I am the 0.1 percent."
As usual, you keep missing the point (or pretend to).
No one cares if it's Google's fault or Samsung's fault or AT&T's fault. The fact is that Android is badly fragmented as far as the user is concerned. There's no way to get an updated version on most handsets - even ones that are still in the market today.
Except for one thing - he has never demonstrated that Apple would sell more systems if they gave away free OS upgrades, so there's no real reason to believe that Apple would make more money by giving the upgrades away.
I can't imagine that many people who are going to buy a $2500 MBP because the upgrade in a few years will be free instead of $20.
features in Jelly Bean...
100% of phones running Jelly Bean can run Google Now.
What percentage of iOS6 users can run Siri? What about flyover view or whatever Apple calls it? What about turn by turn navigation?
Apple can make users feel good by telling them they're on iOS6 and therefore by definition 'not fragmented', but if they can't use half the features of it....
The percentage is the same for Siri, turn by turn, and flyover...its everyone using a 4s or a 5. Thats still a much higher percentage than the Android users on Jelly Beanfeatures in Jelly Bean...
100% of phones running Jelly Bean can run Google Now.
What percentage of iOS6 users can run Siri? What about flyover view or whatever Apple calls it? What about turn by turn navigation?
Apple can make users feel good by telling them they're on iOS6 and therefore by definition 'not fragmented', but if they can't use half the features of it....
The percentage is the same for Siri, turn by turn, and flyover...its everyone using a 4s or a 5. Thats still a much higher percentage than the Android users on Jelly BeanIt's not as big as a fragmented mess as you think it is. All Google apps are in the play store and therefore updated without a OS update.
In iOS, devs are required to support the N and N-1 versions of iOS. Is that the same with android? Or will they develop for the LCD (2.x) or the latest version?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
In iOS, devs are required to support the N and N-1 versions of iOS.
Hmm. I haven't done iOS development in a while, but that doesn't sound correct to me.
With a few exceptions, you should be able to target almost any iOS version you wish. Exceptions include:
Including iPads in your deployment profile requires 4.3 or above, IIRC.
You cannot update your current app to target fewer people than it did before.
Nowadays you must include iPhone 5 and retina image support.
Obviously the version must support the APIs you use.
More recent information is welcome from current developers.
Quote:
Is that the same with android? Or will they develop for the LCD (2.x) or the latest version?
Whether iOS or Android, the developer decides what minimum APIs and hardware are required for their app to run.
On both, they can also check for such support during runtime, and take different paths. E.g. if you're missing a front camera, don't show buttons for it. Or if the device doesn't have the latest APIs, do a workaround with older ones.
With Android, it's easier to target really old OS versions, because even those had multitasking, notifications, widgets, etc. That's why fragmentation isn't the scary monster most people think.
Android development goes a bit further in supporting older devices: Google releases extra libraries that provide some recent OS functionality, so that even devices with older OS versions will look good. For example, the feature library supports the latest tablet UI fragments creation even on devices using Froyo.
The upshot is, a smart developer on any system always targets the minimum OS level that s/he requires, in order to maximize the number of potential users.