Apple obsoletes old devices in an interesting way. Even long after you can no longer update an older device like the original iPhone, it can still access the App Store. However there is no way to find apps that run on an original iPhone on the App Store. You can't just list compatible apps and at this point the only apps that would still run on that device are ones that have not been updated in several years to use newer versions of iOS. Even knowing that, finding apps that work is extremely difficult. Even if you have purchased apps in the past, chances are that they have been updated to require a version of iOS that no longer runs on your iPhone. The App Store is particularly unhelpful in this case telling you to update your version of iOS to one that does not run on your iPhone. They should just go ahead and tell you to update your iPhone.
None of the above is really a complaint. While I would love it if the App Store had an option to show only apps that run on your device and version of iOS, I recognize that one way or another old iOS devices will become obsolete some day. I keep waiting for the App Store to reject older versions of iOS. I am a bit surprised this has not already happened. Apple has chosen to go the route of obsolescence by neglect.
Apple are not making the comparison, AI is. If you follow the Apple Developer link in the story you will see Apple only show the iOS distribution. Even the graphs are different; Google use white lines to separate the pies, Apple don't and they use different legend styling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64
Does it say that Apple provided the comparison? Looks to me like AppleInsider is the source of the side by side comparison. And the article highlights the fact that this data is even available at all and then compares it to the sad state of affairs on the other side.
I may a bit confused but wasn't this a comparison that Tim Cook had made at the WWDC 2013 Keynote? It may not be the actual pie charts, but he did say something about how more than 90% were on the latest iOS, but only a third were on the latest Android.
I'd prefer if Apple just focus on marketing its own strengths. Comparison marketing simply draws attention to the competition.
You don 't understand, Apple was marketing this to the developers and these facts are important to them. Developers know all about Android being out there.
I may a bit confused but wasn't this a comparison that Tim Cook had made at the WWDC 2013 Keynote? It may not be the actual pie charts, but he did say something about how more than 90% were on the latest iOS, but only a third were on the latest Android.
This is an updated pie chart on Android since the keynote. It looks better, but still stinks.
The first iPad was introduced in 2010 and was 'wildly successful', ditto iPod Touch, therefore there are millions out there unable to upgrade to the latest OS, so presumably they've either been chucked away in despair or just written out of the equation. I cant believe that they represent such a small percentage of that pie chart! I am very disappointed that I can't update my original iPad in any way even if the limitations of the device prevents access to certain features.
The reason you can not update your stuff is that it lacks the horsepower to run the new iOS or current apps in a satisfactory manner. It's not like Apple is punishing you, it's a protection.
I have a friend with an older iPod Touch. The apps he bought when the iPod was newer still run fine and he can add all the songs he wants. Nothing about the device is a problem running the older iOS, he just can't do things with it that he couldn't do when he bought it. What's the big deal!?
The biggest point is, that people that buy BRAND NEW Android devices can't run apps that their hardware would support because (A) their Android OS is an older version, or (B) developers are writing for the older OS because that's where the bulk of the crap still is at.
The longer Apple can keep a device updatable, the better. My MacBook 2007 (fall edition) just missed Mnt Lion. Apple released four versions of the MB that year and had I purchased three weeks later . . .
Apple released two versions, not four, of the MacBook in 2007, the MacBook (13-inch Mid 2007 or 2,1), released in May 2007, and the MacBook (13-inch Late 2007 or 3,1), released in November 2007, which both can run up to and including Mac OS X 10.7.5.
Mac OS X 10.8 is not supported until the MacBook (13 inch, Aluminum, Late 2008 or 5,1), which was released in October 2008.
Between those models Apple released the MacBook (13-inch Early 2008 or 4,1) and the MacBook (13-inch Late 2008 or 4,1), released in February and October 2008, respectively. Technically these are one model, the 4,1. The MacBook (13-inch Late 2008) was actually a speed bumped version of the MacBook (13-inch Early 2008) released at the same time as the MacBook (13 inch, Aluminum, Late 2008).
Unless you purchased your "MacBook 2007 (fall edition)", which I assume is the MacBook (13-inch Late 2007), in September 2008, seven months after the MacBook (13-inch Early 2008) was released, something is not adding up. Maybe you purchased the MacBook (13-inch Early 2008) just before the MacBook (13 inch, Aluminum, Late 2008) was released. This would make more sense.
as for stelligent's comment. Normally I would say yes ... concentrate on strengths ... but isn't the fact that there isn't such fragmentation a strength (for the platform and developers) unto itself?
Compare the following:
You're so short.
I am tall. You're short.
Look at what I can reach - high, higher and highest.
Compare, " Hey developers, here are the versions of software users are using," to what you said and tell us where it fits.
That's rich. But are you admitting you are the same troll as Korea rling, or are there two disingenuous Android master baiters here?
So they're trolls because they don't agree with you? Trolls are the ones with one line posts that are pure Apple hatred with no substance nor rhyme or reason. You may not agree with KDarling or DroidFTW but that alone doesn't make them a troll. Difference of opinions that are well written and with respect is what makes a thread interesting. We can politely and respectively agree to disagree.
Seriously? The user joined Appleinsider using the name DroidFTW. You question calling that peron a troll? That's not enough for you? Read the posts. It is not about disagreement.
Compare, " Hey developers, here are the versions of software users are using," to what you said and tell us where it fits.
You clearly have that upside down.
Seriously? The user joined Appleinsider using the name DroidFTW. You question calling that peron a troll? That's not enough for you? Read the posts. It is not about disagreement.
Yea I'd agree it's upside down and while DroidFTW would indicate a troll he hasn't spewed pure hatred like some that have Apple centric names.
Well, that's hardly "just like Google's Android" as the headline says. There's a world of difference between the levels of fragmentation.
You forgot the /S, or maybe you just missed it.
Apple literally just added this to their developer site. Prior to this you never really knew the numbers unless you got them from Chitika (or similar) or if Apple provided a press release stating xxx million downloads in only yyy weeks.
This is an obvious barb pointed towards Android. They could have represented the data in a number of ways but chose to copy Google's pie chart (except for the color change). They even copied the text stating the data represents the last 14 days ending on "insert date here".
Apple also copied Apple in that these numbers represent people accessing the App Store (just like Google changed their numbers to reflect people accessing Google Play). So in reality there aren't 93% of users on iOS 6. Instead, of the people who visited the App Store, 93% of them were on iOS 6. Apple is cheating just like Google is, but they really had no choice. They have to use the same methods to make the comparison fair. And it really shows how bad Android fragmentation is.
First off: if your point is thoughtful and interesting, you don't need big type or all caps to get attention.
Secondly: you conflate a series of ideas together in trying to make your point. Are you arguing that old hardware should support new features? Are you arguing that devices like the iPod touch should be supported for many. many more years of future iOS updates, or some specific multiplier of Android's "less than one year, if that"? What's fair, an expectation of Apple that is 4-5 times better than Google in every respect? How many times better than Google does Apple have to be to satisfy you? Just curious.
I think KDarling is asserting that it's more meaningful to think of fragmentation in terms of functionality instead of version number. With this perspective, IOS is more fragmented than the pie-chart might suggest because there are effectively several versions of IOS6, each supporting a different set of features. Similarly, android is somewhat less fragmented because key apps like Gmail are decoupled from the core system and updated through google play. Neither KDarling nor the original article make any claim about the underlying reasons for the fragmentation, such as genuine lack of hardware support or artificial obsolescence.
Windows RT takes the IOS no fragmentation model even further by only allowing IE.
Android, like Windows XP has that fragmented browser system that allows Firefox, full Opera and suchlike. IOS only allows browsers to use the Webkit frame but strangely IOS does seems to have two versions of webkit installed.
While iOS 5 is only a small percent - it is still a significant piece that isn't going to just disappear like iOS 6 should. I can't think of any device that iOS 6 is running on right now that can't move to iOS 7, but that isn't the same with iOS 5. iPad 1 is stuck at 5 and there are still a lot of iPad 1s out there that are still in use. As a dev myself I wouldn't drop support for it.
Yes but it's the manufacturers job to get the ball rolling. I'd agree with you if there were instances in which a carrier blocked an update that a manufacturer proposed. If it has happened I'm unaware of it.
typically each carrier will only release the update after 'approving' it, i.e. adding their bloatware and branding, the only way around it is acquiring an alternate image and manually updating, which is beyond most people - some carriers never release the update, even though the manufacturer made it available long ago
it's exacerbated by some carriers having contractual terms blocking the release of generic updates to sim-free phones until after they, eventually, deploy their own update to their sim-locked user base
it's not a new problem and it's not only android that suffers, except for the iphone, pretty much every phone with update capability has had the same issue, it goes waaaay back, it's the carrier's fault, not samsung/nokia/motorola/etc.
one of apple's best moves was to treat the iphone as a computer, manage update release availability itself and resist all demands, i'd bet there were a lot, by carriers to have control
presumably the first carriers were sufficiently desperate to offer the iphone that they caved on this, after that the steamroller was in motion and resistance by new carriers was futile
The first iPad was introduced in 2010 and was 'wildly successful', ditto iPod Touch, therefore there are millions out there unable to upgrade to the latest OS, so presumably they've either been chucked away in despair or just written out of the equation. I cant believe that they represent such a small percentage of that pie chart!
I also don't believe earlier versions of iOS are such a small percentage. Girlfriend's iPod Touch (2nd gen) can't upgrade past v4.0, but it's still perfectly useful. I'm sad it can't be upgraded any further, but not angry at Apple. It's old enough that I understand suporting it would be prohibitive.
What I find truly unacceptable is app developers who disable their earlier versions when they release new apps which require iOS 5 or higher. We've had more than a few media outlets here do that. You want to show off the best and newest? Fine. Don't penalize those who can't take advantage of it. Frankly, I'm surprised Apple allows that.
So they're trolls because they don't agree with you? Trolls are the ones with one line posts that are pure Apple hatred with no substance nor rhyme or reason. You may not agree with KDarling or DroidFTW but that alone doesn't make them a troll. Difference of opinions that are well written and with respect is what makes a thread interesting. We can politely and respectively agree to disagree.
You appear to be in the minority here as a moderate. Anyone espousing anything but Apple on this site is branded a troll and Apple hater. Outside of this site, they would merely be informed individuals who are trying to educate others on how things are in their world but here it is different. Pulling away the passion from most of the posts you can get to the point that most people are trying to make but sometime it is hard. That being said, I'm actually surprised that the number is not 100% I thought users were forced to upgrade. Glad to see that Apple is finally publishing this data though.
Does it say that Apple provided the comparison? Looks to me like AppleInsider is the source of the side by side comparison. And the article highlights the fact that this data is even available at all and then compares it to the sad state of affairs on the other side.
I do wonder a bit about the Other category - could it be there are few devices prior to a given version because those devices just cant access the store? I have an original iPad which is limited and most stuff on there I either bought way back or tried out on higher devices first then put it on the old iPad, does that show up on the chart or is second download of same title not counted? In other words, this may not really be an accurate look at devices in the wild or even a fully detailed comparison of Apple and Android, especially if Android allows older versions to connect to the store even if there is little or not content available for them to use. So the co-requisite grain-o-salt applies here.
On the other hand it is a good story I think and certainly helps the developers - on the other - other hand it will no doubt offend SOMEBODY that their 5 year old devices can't use the latest App.
There is no 'Other' category. If you mean 'earlier iOS' then it is referring to individual devices running iOS 4 or earlier which accessed the App Store within the dates indicated. Downloading apps has nothing to do with it (or at least it shouldn't.) I can only assume (because this would be the best way to gather the data), that Apple counted each unique device which accessed the App Store between the dates indicated - also noting the iOS version - then amalgamated this data. Anything which (a) can't access the App Store (because its running a version of iOS which doesn't have the App Store) - or (b) didn't (ie the App Store wasn't used during this time on a particular device) - wouldn't be included in 'earlier iOS' as 1) there is no possible way to determine the number of (a) and (b) and 2) this isn't what 'earlier iOS' means in this chart.
Comments
None of the above is really a complaint. While I would love it if the App Store had an option to show only apps that run on your device and version of iOS, I recognize that one way or another old iOS devices will become obsolete some day. I keep waiting for the App Store to reject older versions of iOS. I am a bit surprised this has not already happened. Apple has chosen to go the route of obsolescence by neglect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by binex
Apple are not making the comparison, AI is. If you follow the Apple Developer link in the story you will see Apple only show the iOS distribution. Even the graphs are different; Google use white lines to separate the pies, Apple don't and they use different legend styling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64
Does it say that Apple provided the comparison? Looks to me like AppleInsider is the source of the side by side comparison. And the article highlights the fact that this data is even available at all and then compares it to the sad state of affairs on the other side.
I may a bit confused but wasn't this a comparison that Tim Cook had made at the WWDC 2013 Keynote? It may not be the actual pie charts, but he did say something about how more than 90% were on the latest iOS, but only a third were on the latest Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
I'd prefer if Apple just focus on marketing its own strengths. Comparison marketing simply draws attention to the competition.
You don 't understand, Apple was marketing this to the developers and these facts are important to them. Developers know all about Android being out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret
I may a bit confused but wasn't this a comparison that Tim Cook had made at the WWDC 2013 Keynote? It may not be the actual pie charts, but he did say something about how more than 90% were on the latest iOS, but only a third were on the latest Android.
This is an updated pie chart on Android since the keynote. It looks better, but still stinks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by john_l_uk
The first iPad was introduced in 2010 and was 'wildly successful', ditto iPod Touch, therefore there are millions out there unable to upgrade to the latest OS, so presumably they've either been chucked away in despair or just written out of the equation. I cant believe that they represent such a small percentage of that pie chart! I am very disappointed that I can't update my original iPad in any way even if the limitations of the device prevents access to certain features.
The reason you can not update your stuff is that it lacks the horsepower to run the new iOS or current apps in a satisfactory manner. It's not like Apple is punishing you, it's a protection.
I have a friend with an older iPod Touch. The apps he bought when the iPod was newer still run fine and he can add all the songs he wants. Nothing about the device is a problem running the older iOS, he just can't do things with it that he couldn't do when he bought it. What's the big deal!?
The biggest point is, that people that buy BRAND NEW Android devices can't run apps that their hardware would support because (A) their Android OS is an older version, or (B) developers are writing for the older OS because that's where the bulk of the crap still is at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhikl
The longer Apple can keep a device updatable, the better. My MacBook 2007 (fall edition) just missed Mnt Lion. Apple released four versions of the MB that year and had I purchased three weeks later . . .
Apple released two versions, not four, of the MacBook in 2007, the MacBook (13-inch Mid 2007 or 2,1), released in May 2007, and the MacBook (13-inch Late 2007 or 3,1), released in November 2007, which both can run up to and including Mac OS X 10.7.5.
Mac OS X 10.8 is not supported until the MacBook (13 inch, Aluminum, Late 2008 or 5,1), which was released in October 2008.
Between those models Apple released the MacBook (13-inch Early 2008 or 4,1) and the MacBook (13-inch Late 2008 or 4,1), released in February and October 2008, respectively. Technically these are one model, the 4,1. The MacBook (13-inch Late 2008) was actually a speed bumped version of the MacBook (13-inch Early 2008) released at the same time as the MacBook (13 inch, Aluminum, Late 2008).
Unless you purchased your "MacBook 2007 (fall edition)", which I assume is the MacBook (13-inch Late 2007), in September 2008, seven months after the MacBook (13-inch Early 2008) was released, something is not adding up. Maybe you purchased the MacBook (13-inch Early 2008) just before the MacBook (13 inch, Aluminum, Late 2008) was released. This would make more sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
True, but melodramatic. How about:
100% of Android users with access to a market can download a Google Now or Siri equivalent.
100% of iPhone 4 owners cannot use Siri... even though their device would've been able to if Apple hadn't bought it.
~40% of iOS devices ever sold can't use Siri. (Even more have been left out of Airdrop, panoramic photos, etc.)
~85% of iPod touch devices ever sold are left out of iOS 7 upgrade.
See. Anyone can come up with fun statistics.
What's important is, does your device do the things you want it to do?
The OS version doesn't matter. Especially with iOS, where the same number on various devices might or might not have major features included.
Around 90% of mobile viruses are on Android.
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Q1-2013-Game-Changer-for-Android-Malware-1790298.htm
Compare, " Hey developers, here are the versions of software users are using," to what you said and tell us where it fits.
You clearly have that upside down.
Seriously? The user joined Appleinsider using the name DroidFTW. You question calling that peron a troll? That's not enough for you? Read the posts. It is not about disagreement.
Yea I'd agree it's upside down and while DroidFTW would indicate a troll he hasn't spewed pure hatred like some that have Apple centric names.
apple wants to be Just Like Mic
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Well, that's hardly "just like Google's Android" as the headline says. There's a world of difference between the levels of fragmentation.
You forgot the /S, or maybe you just missed it.
Apple literally just added this to their developer site. Prior to this you never really knew the numbers unless you got them from Chitika (or similar) or if Apple provided a press release stating xxx million downloads in only yyy weeks.
This is an obvious barb pointed towards Android. They could have represented the data in a number of ways but chose to copy Google's pie chart (except for the color change). They even copied the text stating the data represents the last 14 days ending on "insert date here".
Apple also copied Apple in that these numbers represent people accessing the App Store (just like Google changed their numbers to reflect people accessing Google Play). So in reality there aren't 93% of users on iOS 6. Instead, of the people who visited the App Store, 93% of them were on iOS 6. Apple is cheating just like Google is, but they really had no choice. They have to use the same methods to make the comparison fair. And it really shows how bad Android fragmentation is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
First off: if your point is thoughtful and interesting, you don't need big type or all caps to get attention.
Secondly: you conflate a series of ideas together in trying to make your point. Are you arguing that old hardware should support new features? Are you arguing that devices like the iPod touch should be supported for many. many more years of future iOS updates, or some specific multiplier of Android's "less than one year, if that"? What's fair, an expectation of Apple that is 4-5 times better than Google in every respect? How many times better than Google does Apple have to be to satisfy you? Just curious.
I think KDarling is asserting that it's more meaningful to think of fragmentation in terms of functionality instead of version number. With this perspective, IOS is more fragmented than the pie-chart might suggest because there are effectively several versions of IOS6, each supporting a different set of features. Similarly, android is somewhat less fragmented because key apps like Gmail are decoupled from the core system and updated through google play. Neither KDarling nor the original article make any claim about the underlying reasons for the fragmentation, such as genuine lack of hardware support or artificial obsolescence.
Android, like Windows XP has that fragmented browser system that allows Firefox, full Opera and suchlike.
IOS only allows browsers to use the Webkit frame but strangely IOS does seems to have two versions of webkit installed.
"Around 90% of mobile viruses are on Android."
Sadly 'around 99.9% of IOS malware goes unreported'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Yes but it's the manufacturers job to get the ball rolling. I'd agree with you if there were instances in which a carrier blocked an update that a manufacturer proposed. If it has happened I'm unaware of it.
typically each carrier will only release the update after 'approving' it, i.e. adding their bloatware and branding, the only way around it is acquiring an alternate image and manually updating, which is beyond most people - some carriers never release the update, even though the manufacturer made it available long ago
it's exacerbated by some carriers having contractual terms blocking the release of generic updates to sim-free phones until after they, eventually, deploy their own update to their sim-locked user base
it's not a new problem and it's not only android that suffers, except for the iphone, pretty much every phone with update capability has had the same issue, it goes waaaay back, it's the carrier's fault, not samsung/nokia/motorola/etc.
one of apple's best moves was to treat the iphone as a computer, manage update release availability itself and resist all demands, i'd bet there were a lot, by carriers to have control
presumably the first carriers were sufficiently desperate to offer the iphone that they caved on this, after that the steamroller was in motion and resistance by new carriers was futile
Quote:
Originally Posted by john_l_uk
The first iPad was introduced in 2010 and was 'wildly successful', ditto iPod Touch, therefore there are millions out there unable to upgrade to the latest OS, so presumably they've either been chucked away in despair or just written out of the equation. I cant believe that they represent such a small percentage of that pie chart!
I also don't believe earlier versions of iOS are such a small percentage. Girlfriend's iPod Touch (2nd gen) can't upgrade past v4.0, but it's still perfectly useful. I'm sad it can't be upgraded any further, but not angry at Apple. It's old enough that I understand suporting it would be prohibitive.
What I find truly unacceptable is app developers who disable their earlier versions when they release new apps which require iOS 5 or higher. We've had more than a few media outlets here do that. You want to show off the best and newest? Fine. Don't penalize those who can't take advantage of it. Frankly, I'm surprised Apple allows that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
So they're trolls because they don't agree with you? Trolls are the ones with one line posts that are pure Apple hatred with no substance nor rhyme or reason. You may not agree with KDarling or DroidFTW but that alone doesn't make them a troll. Difference of opinions that are well written and with respect is what makes a thread interesting. We can politely and respectively agree to disagree.
You appear to be in the minority here as a moderate. Anyone espousing anything but Apple on this site is branded a troll and Apple hater. Outside of this site, they would merely be informed individuals who are trying to educate others on how things are in their world but here it is different. Pulling away the passion from most of the posts you can get to the point that most people are trying to make but sometime it is hard. That being said, I'm actually surprised that the number is not 100% I thought users were forced to upgrade. Glad to see that Apple is finally publishing this data though.
There is no 'Other' category. If you mean 'earlier iOS' then it is referring to individual devices running iOS 4 or earlier which accessed the App Store within the dates indicated. Downloading apps has nothing to do with it (or at least it shouldn't.) I can only assume (because this would be the best way to gather the data), that Apple counted each unique device which accessed the App Store between the dates indicated - also noting the iOS version - then amalgamated this data. Anything which (a) can't access the App Store (because its running a version of iOS which doesn't have the App Store) - or (b) didn't (ie the App Store wasn't used during this time on a particular device) - wouldn't be included in 'earlier iOS' as 1) there is no possible way to determine the number of (a) and (b) and 2) this isn't what 'earlier iOS' means in this chart.
When you have any idea what you're talking about, feel free to expound.