Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
How about before they spend all the time on new features, they spend 5 minutes removing the 100MB download limit from the Apple App Store. (Apple requires a wifi connection. I have unlimited LTE data.)
I can't tell you how stupid it is to still have this tiny limit... Yes, there is a (every changing) workaround but it's incredibly annoying.
I don't have any real data limit either and I fail to see what's so annoying about it.. If I really can't be bothered to wait until I am back on wifi a couple of hours or days later, I just go to App Store and hit the Update All..
The problem is I no longer use wifi at all. With unlimited data there is no need. The security update I'm referring to is 150MB. And it is obviously not the first time I've run into this arbitrary limit.
I think you'll see more and more people just using the phones and iPads on LTE. Once 5G is available that number will explode.
All Apple has do is warn people that they're downloading a large file, and let them decide if they want to continue.
T-mobile doesn't start prioritizing traffic until about 30GB. I've exceed that amount several times, whatever prioritizing that occurred wasn't noticeable.
Apple is still living in the past with the 100MB limit. There is no logical reason it still exists...
As for "threatening" you... what are you smoking? I'm voicing a common criticism on Apple's Forums. I don't care about "new" features, fixing things that don't work well is time better spent.
If you want to argue against what I've said, give me a good reason for the 100MB limit with no way to bypass it.
Apple has over a billion active iOS devices in play and nearly all users have WiFi. If you think it's about time this limitation should end, then go ahead and submit a request to Apple through the proper channels—posting here does nothing.
The push back you're getting here isn't because you've presented a unique user scenario, it's that you 1) stated that Apple should do something because it would benefit you, and 2) made no statements as to what you currently do for a workaround, at least for iOS 8.
A 3 second search found me one workaround for App Store apps.
Another option, if you have a Mac or another iDevice, is to tether since that tells the device you're connecting via WiFi.
Soli, I don't think Apple's claim is a Billion active iOS devices is it? I thought it was a billion active devices period which would include Mac's. Further I believe DED estimated around a half-billion were iPhones which is the potential bottleneck you're referring to if everyone used only cellular data to update?
How about before they spend all the time on new features, they spend 5 minutes removing the 100MB download limit from the Apple App Store. (Apple requires a wifi connection. I have unlimited LTE data.)
I can't tell you how stupid it is to still have this tiny limit... Yes, there is a (every changing) workaround but it's incredibly annoying.
I don't have any real data limit either and I fail to see what's so annoying about it.. If I really can't be bothered to wait until I am back on wifi a couple of hours or days later, I just go to App Store and hit the Update All..
The problem is I no longer use wifi at all. With unlimited data there is no need. The security update I'm referring to is 150MB. And it is obviously not the first time I've run into this arbitrary limit.
I think you'll see more and more people just using the phones and iPads on LTE. Once 5G is available that number will explode.
All Apple has do is warn people that they're downloading a large file, and let them decide if they want to continue.
T-mobile doesn't start prioritizing traffic until about 30GB. I've exceed that amount several times, whatever prioritizing that occurred wasn't noticeable.
Apple is still living in the past with the 100MB limit. There is no logical reason it still exists...
As for "threatening" you... what are you smoking? I'm voicing a common criticism on Apple's Forums. I don't care about "new" features, fixing things that don't work well is time better spent.
If you want to argue against what I've said, give me a good reason for the 100MB limit with no way to bypass it.
Apple has over a billion active iOS devices in play and nearly all users have WiFi. If you think it's about time this limitation should end, then go ahead and submit a request to Apple through the proper channels—posting here does nothing.
The push back you're getting here isn't because you've presented a unique user scenario, it's that you 1) stated that Apple should do something because it would benefit you, and 2) made no statements as to what you currently do for a workaround, at least for iOS 8.
A 3 second search found me one workaround for App Store apps.
Another option, if you have a Mac or another iDevice, is to tether since that tells the device you're connecting via WiFi.
Soli, I don't think Apple's claim is a Billion active iOS devices is it? I thought it was a billion active devices period which would include Mac's. Further I believe DED estimated around a half-billion were iPhones which is the potential bottleneck you're referring to if everyone used only cellular data to update?
They do have over 1 billion active devices in use, so I'd assume that there are over 1 billion of them are iOS-based, by now.
Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false.
The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista), then to destroy IPhone and replace it with Google's own open version of Windows on mobile devices.
If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
G1, Honeycomb tablets, Nexus, Chrome, Pixel ...
Google just failed to do that in any area other than the low-end market that Apple doesn't care about, the province of Symbian, Linux and Java ME.
If that's what Google really intended to do, it could have simply annnounced that it wanted to be the OS for <$300 phones and remained partnered with Apple on iPhones.
If it had had done that, it would still have its Maps, voice and search on iPhones as the default. Instead it lost out on all of that, and helped turn Apple into a major rival in data services.
Google not only failed in hardware, but also sparked a major non-hardware competitor in Apple.
Meanwhile, despite all of its research and good ideas, google is incapable of successfully delivering real products. Even David Pierce of Wired (who crowed praise of Glass, Motorola, etc) has come around on this.
Soli, I don't think Apple's claim is a Billion active iOS devices is it? I thought it was a billion active devices period which would include Mac's. Further I believe DED estimated around a half-billion were iPhones which is the potential bottleneck you're referring to if everyone used only cellular data to update?
Apple reported (not really a "claim" is it?) 1 billion active devices at the beginning of 2016, and added that represented 25% growth over the previous year.
Over a year later there's been ~20m Macs added to the ~100-150m installed base, ~40m iPads and well over 200m iPhones. So likely more than 25% growth in the "1B active devices" cited at the beginning of 2016.
So yeah, there are now more than 1B iOS devices alone, but I conservatively estimated a lower number from a year and a half ago to compare against the 100M newer Android devices that are capable of running Assistant today.
Apple sells +40% of all smartphones in the US, and the actual installed base among most carriers is likely higher due to a longer usable lifespan vs Android and WM. If nearly half of your subscribers rush to get 6GB iOS updates ~6 times a year (plus weekly updates of 350mb FB and other apps), that's a tremendous load on their LTE networks that could be avoided by simply limiting updates so they occur off peak on home or office WiFi.
I thought Google also announced an easy way to update android which includes even down to graphics drivers, did I dream that?
Let's see if we actually start to see more than a tiny sliver of Android handsets using the current version of Android. It's not enough to propose an alleged way of defragmenting the platform. It has to work in actual practice, otherwise, I'd say you just dreamed it or it was just more vaporware from Google.
Vendors and/or Google have been getting better. Version 7.x, which was officially released in late-August 2016, is running on 7.1% of handsets, according to Google.
Actually it's not getting better. It's getting worse. At the same time last year, Android 6.x had reached a slightly higher 7.5% penetration, and two years ago Android 5.x was well above 9%.
New, commercially relevant Android is effectively going away, sliding into obscurity. To distract, Google is showing off cool apps (Lens, Assistant) that don't even work across more than a tenth of it's installed base.
Thats is why Google is bringing those things to iOS, because Apple's platform is modern, functional, growing and healthy.
The base of "really old Android" is actually growing faster, perhaps in part because some devices don't get upgrades yet stick around, but also because new devices continue to ship in large volumes with very outdated software.
The Android apologists like to focus on flagship new Androids, but those models don't sell in enough quantity to matter. Most Androids are barely functional feature phones aimed at selling for $100.
Low margin exporters don't work to get the most updated software working on their basic hardware for that kind of money. They ship 2-3 year old products, unchanged. That is the majority of Android.
That's not what I recall so I looked up the history in Internet Archive. Android 6.0 only had 2.3% on this calendar day in 2016.
However, it was released on 05 October 2015, which is 44 days in the calendar year past 7.0's release on 22 August 2016, so if we move 6.0's compare date up to 05 July to get the same number of days available, we do get Marshmallow with a 10.1%.
So according to your numbers it's actually WORSE than what DED said? I used the Internet Archive and went back to check on Lollipop. It was at 18.1% after the same number of days.
Lollipop: 18.1% Marshmallow: 10.1% Nougat: 7.1%
Basically DED is correct in his original article that Android adoption rate is going down for the newest release.
Basically DED is correct in his original article that Android adoption rate is going down for the newest release.
Yes, as my research found. But I'm confused since your comment seems to suggest I was saying the opposite.
Your post stated: "Vendors and/or Google have been getting better. Version 7.x, which was officially released in late-August 2016, is running on 7.1% of handsets, according to Google."
That sounds to me like you're saying Google is getting better at newer handsets running the latest version.
Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false.
The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista), then to destroy IPhone and replace it with Google's own open version of Windows on mobile devices.
If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
G1, Honeycomb tablets, Nexus, Chrome, Pixel ...
Google just failed to do that in any area other than the low-end market that Apple doesn't care about, the province of Symbian, Linux and Java ME.
If that's what Google really intended to do, it could have simply annnounced that it wanted to be the OS for <$300 phones and remained partnered with Apple on iPhones.
If it had had done that, it would still have its Maps, voice and search on iPhones as the default. Instead it lost out on all of that, and helped turn Apple into a major rival in data services.
Google not only failed in hardware, but also sparked a major non-hardware competitor in Apple.
Meanwhile, despite all of its research and good ideas, google is incapable of successfully delivering real products. Even David Pierce of Wired (who crowed praise of Glass, Motorola, etc) has come around on this.
It just warms my heard watching Google trying so hard to get BACK into the walled garden. I had to laugh watching them try to integrate themselves back into Apple.
Nothing pisses me off more than unoriginal, lazy copy cats who have to take everything from Apple literally to an "i". There's absolutely no reason for that letter to be lower case. ZERO.
It's just a stylized I/O, not copying from Apple. It doesn't even refer to an OS.
Don't kid yourself. There is absolutely no reason to "stylize" it after the iconic Apple lower case "i". I/O actually looks cooler.
Though it MAY have been a brilliant hint at Google trying to get into the walled garden again.
Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The actual quote was "
Google, though, like Microsoft, is not a hardware manufacturer. It has never been, despite the existence of Chromecasts, Google Homes and Microsoft's Surface tablets. It provides internet and cloud based services, and make them do things we love so we all keep using them."
If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
Ummmm, isn't it Apple that decides whether to partner with Google and not the other way around?
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false.
The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista),
100% false?? You yourself said it was about services in your own response...
Where in heck did you pull THAT from? Google said that? Now it appears you're completely making stuff up just to suit your argument. I'm sure you wouldn't actually stoop to that so I'm guessing you've confused this with something else.
DanielEran said: ....rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
Wow, missed that announcement altogether. When was that? A link would be wonderful so I don't assume you've become confused again.
Basically DED is correct in his original article that Android adoption rate is going down for the newest release.
Yes, as my research found. But I'm confused since your comment seems to suggest I was saying the opposite.
Your post stated: "Vendors and/or Google have been getting better. Version 7.x, which was officially released in late-August 2016, is running on 7.1% of handsets, according to Google."
That sounds to me like you're saying Google is getting better at newer handsets running the latest version.
In the comment you quoted, where did you get that impression? I thought I was very clear in my research that compared both the same day of the calendar year and a comparison of the same number of days the primary OS versions have been available. In fact, I thought I went above and beyond by including both sets of values in my reply.
Basically DED is correct in his original article that Android adoption rate is going down for the newest release.
Yes, as my research found. But I'm confused since your comment seems to suggest I was saying the opposite.
Your post stated: "Vendors and/or Google have been getting better. Version 7.x, which was officially released in late-August 2016, is running on 7.1% of handsets, according to Google."
That sounds to me like you're saying Google is getting better at newer handsets running the latest version.
In the comment you quoted, where did you get that impression? I thought I was very clear in my research that compared both the same day of the calendar year and a comparison of the same number of days the primary OS versions have been available. In fact, I thought I went above and beyond by including both sets of values in my reply.
Nothing pisses me off more than unoriginal, lazy copy cats who have to take everything from Apple literally to an "i". There's absolutely no reason for that letter to be lower case. ZERO.
It's just a stylized I/O, not copying from Apple. It doesn't even refer to an OS.
Don't kid yourself. There is absolutely no reason to "stylize" it after the iconic Apple lower case "i". I/O actually looks cooler.
Though it MAY have been a brilliant hint at Google trying to get into the walled garden again.
They use both, and have for years. Note that the 'o' in I/O is also lowercase when the 'i' is lowercase, so it's not a camel case term starting with 'i'. And if you want to take issue with making the first letter lowercase, then Google beats the "iPhone" by many years.
Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false.
The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista), then to destroy IPhone and replace it with Google's own open version of Windows on mobile devices.
If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
G1, Honeycomb tablets, Nexus, Chrome, Pixel ...
Google just failed to do that in any area other than the low-end market that Apple doesn't care about, the province of Symbian, Linux and Java ME.
If that's what Google really intended to do, it could have simply annnounced that it wanted to be the OS for <$300 phones and remained partnered with Apple on iPhones.
If it had had done that, it would still have its Maps, voice and search on iPhones as the default. Instead it lost out on all of that, and helped turn Apple into a major rival in data services.
Google not only failed in hardware, but also sparked a major non-hardware competitor in Apple.
Meanwhile, despite all of its research and good ideas, google is incapable of successfully delivering real products. Even David Pierce of Wired (who crowed praise of Glass, Motorola, etc) has come around on this.
It just warms my heard watching Google trying so hard to get BACK into the walled garden. I had to laugh watching them try to integrate themselves back into Apple.
Don't kid yourself. There is absolutely no reason to "stylize" it after the iconic Apple lower case "i". I/O actually looks cooler.
Though it MAY have been a brilliant hint at Google trying to get into the walled garden again.
Google never left the Walled Garden. Apple just kicked their Maps app out for their own. But Maps is still available and in fact one the the most popular iPhone apps in the App Store. Other Google services are among the most popular too.
The article should have the title "Why Apple has nothing to learn from Google because it can already do all that or has done it before".
Most of what Google has done this time around is on execution - improving assistant, photos, updates rather than flashy new features.
Maybe that's boring and maybe Apple can execute much better than Google. But Apple fans should have at least some grudging respect for this approach given that much of Apples success is in executing products better than anyone else.
I am using Assistant and Photos quite a bit and they are impressive products. It's ok to admit that and learn something from it.
Basically DED is correct in his original article that Android adoption rate is going down for the newest release.
Yes, as my research found. But I'm confused since your comment seems to suggest I was saying the opposite.
Your post stated: "Vendors and/or Google have been getting better. Version 7.x, which was officially released in late-August 2016, is running on 7.1% of handsets, according to Google."
That sounds to me like you're saying Google is getting better at newer handsets running the latest version.
In the comment you quoted, where did you get that impression? I thought I was very clear in my research that compared both the same day of the calendar year and a comparison of the same number of days the primary OS versions have been available. In fact, I thought I went above and beyond by including both sets of values in my reply.
First off, Longpath posted this: "Let's see if we actually start to see more than a tiny sliver of Android handsets using the current version of Android. It's not enough to propose an alleged way of defragmenting the platform. It has to work in actual practice, otherwise, I'd say you just dreamed it or it was just more vaporware from Google."
Your reply to this comment (which you quoted) was: "Vendors and/or Google have been getting better. Version 7.x, which was officially released in late-August 2016, is running on 7.1% of handsets, according to Google."
Longpath was making an observation that a tiny fraction of handsets run the latest version of Android. The first thing you said was "Vendors and/or Google have been getting better." To me this sure sounds like you're saying that Google and Vendors have been getting better at......"getting the newest version of Android on their handsets."
Now if you meant something else, I'm curious why you made this particular statement. Especially since your subsequent posts clearly agree with what Longpath (and DED) originally said.
Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false.
The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista), then to destroy IPhone and replace it with Google's own open version of Windows on mobile devices.
If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
G1, Honeycomb tablets, Nexus, Chrome, Pixel ...
Google just failed to do that in any area other than the low-end market that Apple doesn't care about, the province of Symbian, Linux and Java ME.
If that's what Google really intended to do, it could have simply annnounced that it wanted to be the OS for <$300 phones and remained partnered with Apple on iPhones.
If it had had done that, it would still have its Maps, voice and search on iPhones as the default. Instead it lost out on all of that, and helped turn Apple into a major rival in data services.
Google not only failed in hardware, but also sparked a major non-hardware competitor in Apple.
Meanwhile, despite all of its research and good ideas, google is incapable of successfully delivering real products. Even David Pierce of Wired (who crowed praise of Glass, Motorola, etc) has come around on this.
It just warms my heard watching Google trying so hard to get BACK into the walled garden. I had to laugh watching them try to integrate themselves back into Apple.
Don't kid yourself. There is absolutely no reason to "stylize" it after the iconic Apple lower case "i". I/O actually looks cooler.
Though it MAY have been a brilliant hint at Google trying to get into the walled garden again.
Google never left the Walled Garden. Apple just kicked their Maps app out for their own. But Maps is still available and in fact one the the most popular iPhone apps in the App Store. Other Google services are among the most popular too.
Sure. Let's forget that Google never allowed Apple to have access to turn-by-turn navigation or vector based graphics, and kept these advantages for their own Android version of Google Maps. And funny enough, shortly after iOS 6 with Apple Maps came out Google suddenly brought those missing features to the iOS version of Google Maps.
Of course Google wants to be on iOS. It's the most valuable mobile platform/user base in the world.
Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false.
The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista), then to destroy IPhone and replace it with Google's own open version of Windows on mobile devices.
If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
G1, Honeycomb tablets, Nexus, Chrome, Pixel ...
Google just failed to do that in any area other than the low-end market that Apple doesn't care about, the province of Symbian, Linux and Java ME.
If that's what Google really intended to do, it could have simply annnounced that it wanted to be the OS for <$300 phones and remained partnered with Apple on iPhones.
If it had had done that, it would still have its Maps, voice and search on iPhones as the default. Instead it lost out on all of that, and helped turn Apple into a major rival in data services.
Google not only failed in hardware, but also sparked a major non-hardware competitor in Apple.
Meanwhile, despite all of its research and good ideas, google is incapable of successfully delivering real products. Even David Pierce of Wired (who crowed praise of Glass, Motorola, etc) has come around on this.
It just warms my heard watching Google trying so hard to get BACK into the walled garden. I had to laugh watching them try to integrate themselves back into Apple.
Don't kid yourself. There is absolutely no reason to "stylize" it after the iconic Apple lower case "i". I/O actually looks cooler.
Though it MAY have been a brilliant hint at Google trying to get into the walled garden again.
Google never left the Walled Garden. Apple just kicked their Maps app out for their own. But Maps is still available and in fact one the the most popular iPhone apps in the App Store. Other Google services are among the most popular too.
Sure. Let's forget that Google never allowed Apple to have access to turn-by-turn navigation or vector based graphics, and kept these advantages for their own Android version of Google Maps. And funny enough, shortly after iOS 6 with Apple Maps came out Google suddenly brought those missing features to the iOS version of Google Maps.
Of course Google wants to be on iOS. It's the most valuable mobile platform/user base in the world.
Trust GatorGuy to ignore the circumstances in which Google Maps was kicked off iOS.
"Apple kicked Google Maps off, but it is one of the most popular apps on the App Store". All true, but not the full picture. Classic troll-speak.
Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false.
The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista), then to destroy IPhone and replace it with Google's own open version of Windows on mobile devices.
If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
G1, Honeycomb tablets, Nexus, Chrome, Pixel ...
Google just failed to do that in any area other than the low-end market that Apple doesn't care about, the province of Symbian, Linux and Java ME.
If that's what Google really intended to do, it could have simply annnounced that it wanted to be the OS for <$300 phones and remained partnered with Apple on iPhones.
If it had had done that, it would still have its Maps, voice and search on iPhones as the default. Instead it lost out on all of that, and helped turn Apple into a major rival in data services.
Google not only failed in hardware, but also sparked a major non-hardware competitor in Apple.
Meanwhile, despite all of its research and good ideas, google is incapable of successfully delivering real products. Even David Pierce of Wired (who crowed praise of Glass, Motorola, etc) has come around on this.
It just warms my heard watching Google trying so hard to get BACK into the walled garden. I had to laugh watching them try to integrate themselves back into Apple.
Don't kid yourself. There is absolutely no reason to "stylize" it after the iconic Apple lower case "i". I/O actually looks cooler.
Though it MAY have been a brilliant hint at Google trying to get into the walled garden again.
Google never left the Walled Garden. Apple just kicked their Maps app out for their own. But Maps is still available and in fact one the the most popular iPhone apps in the App Store. Other Google services are among the most popular too.
Sure. Let's forget that Google never allowed Apple to have access to turn-by-turn navigation or vector based graphics, and kept these advantages for their own Android version of Google Maps. And funny enough, shortly after iOS 6 with Apple Maps came out Google suddenly brought those missing features to the iOS version of Google Maps.
Of course Google wants to be on iOS. It's the most valuable mobile platform/user base in the world.
Trust GatorGuy to ignore the circumstances in which Google Maps was kicked off iOS.
"Apple kicked Google Maps off, but it is one of the most popular apps on the App Store". All true, but not the full picture. Classic troll-speak.
Oh, circumstances? So what did Apple say was the reason to replace Google Maps? Since you're implying I left out that very important fact do the rest of the membership a favor and fill in the rest of the picture for us please.
Comments
http://www.androidcentral.com/when-it-stops-being-about-hardware-googles-way-forward-and-all-new-kind-cloud
Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false.
The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista), then to destroy IPhone and replace it with Google's own open version of Windows on mobile devices.
If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
G1, Honeycomb tablets, Nexus, Chrome, Pixel ...
Google just failed to do that in any area other than the low-end market that Apple doesn't care about, the province of Symbian, Linux and Java ME.
If that's what Google really intended to do, it could have simply annnounced that it wanted to be the OS for <$300 phones and remained partnered with Apple on iPhones.
If it had had done that, it would still have its Maps, voice and search on iPhones as the default. Instead it lost out on all of that, and helped turn Apple into a major rival in data services.
Google not only failed in hardware, but also sparked a major non-hardware competitor in Apple.
Meanwhile, despite all of its research and good ideas, google is incapable of successfully delivering real products. Even David Pierce of Wired (who crowed praise of Glass, Motorola, etc) has come around on this.
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/googles-perfect-future-will-always-just-around-corner/
Apple reported (not really a "claim" is it?) 1 billion active devices at the beginning of 2016, and added that represented 25% growth over the previous year.
Over a year later there's been ~20m Macs added to the ~100-150m installed base, ~40m iPads and well over 200m iPhones. So likely more than 25% growth in the "1B active devices" cited at the beginning of 2016.
So yeah, there are now more than 1B iOS devices alone, but I conservatively estimated a lower number from a year and a half ago to compare against the 100M newer Android devices that are capable of running Assistant today.
Apple sells +40% of all smartphones in the US, and the actual installed base among most carriers is likely higher due to a longer usable lifespan vs Android and WM. If nearly half of your subscribers rush to get 6GB iOS updates ~6 times a year (plus weekly updates of 350mb FB and other apps), that's a tremendous load on their LTE networks that could be avoided by simply limiting updates so they occur off peak on home or office WiFi.
So according to your numbers it's actually WORSE than what DED said? I used the Internet Archive and went back to check on Lollipop. It was at 18.1% after the same number of days.
Lollipop: 18.1%
Marshmallow: 10.1%
Nougat: 7.1%
Basically DED is correct in his original article that Android adoption rate is going down for the newest release.
Your post stated: "Vendors and/or Google have been getting better. Version 7.x, which was officially released in late-August 2016, is running on 7.1% of handsets, according to Google."
That sounds to me like you're saying Google is getting better at newer handsets running the latest version.
Don't kid yourself. There is absolutely no reason to "stylize" it after the iconic Apple lower case "i". I/O actually looks cooler.
Though it MAY have been a brilliant hint at Google trying to get into the walled garden again.
Where in heck did you pull THAT from? Google said that? Now it appears you're completely making stuff up just to suit your argument. I'm sure you wouldn't actually stoop to that so I'm guessing you've confused this with something else.
Wow, missed that announcement altogether. When was that? A link would be wonderful so I don't assume you've become confused again.
Most of what Google has done this time around is on execution - improving assistant, photos, updates rather than flashy new features.
Maybe that's boring and maybe Apple can execute much better than Google. But Apple fans should have at least some grudging respect for this approach given that much of Apples success is in executing products better than anyone else.
I am using Assistant and Photos quite a bit and they are impressive products. It's ok to admit that and learn something from it.
First off, Longpath posted this: "Let's see if we actually start to see more than a tiny sliver of Android handsets using the current version of Android. It's not enough to propose an alleged way of defragmenting the platform. It has to work in actual practice, otherwise, I'd say you just dreamed it or it was just more vaporware from Google."
Your reply to this comment (which you quoted) was: "Vendors and/or Google have been getting better. Version 7.x, which was officially released in late-August 2016, is running on 7.1% of handsets, according to Google."
Longpath was making an observation that a tiny fraction of handsets run the latest version of Android. The first thing you said was "Vendors and/or Google have been getting better." To me this sure sounds like you're saying that Google and Vendors have been getting better at......"getting the newest version of Android on their handsets."
Now if you meant something else, I'm curious why you made this particular statement. Especially since your subsequent posts clearly agree with what Longpath (and DED) originally said.
Sure. Let's forget that Google never allowed Apple to have access to turn-by-turn navigation or vector based graphics, and kept these advantages for their own Android version of Google Maps. And funny enough, shortly after iOS 6 with Apple Maps came out Google suddenly brought those missing features to the iOS version of Google Maps.
Of course Google wants to be on iOS. It's the most valuable mobile platform/user base in the world.
Trust GatorGuy to ignore the circumstances in which Google Maps was kicked off iOS.
"Apple kicked Google Maps off, but it is one of the most popular apps on the App Store". All true, but not the full picture. Classic troll-speak.