Android users switching to iOS annually: 14%. iOS users switching to Android annually: 4%. I guess the "better" part must be pretty well hidden within the operating system.
Since nearly the dawn of the duopoly, Apple and others have claimed that some annually significant percentage of Android users have switched to iOS. Oddly though Android continues to exist a decade and a half later, and in good numbers. How can that be if 10-14% of the ecosystem switch to Apple devices every year and smartphone adoption numbers aren't rising?
Never been a fan of twitter and I have no plans of using threads either. They remind me of middle school. It far too often brings out the worst on people.
I'm fine with change if the change makes sense to me.
File management in userland on iOS only made some sense way back in the very early days of iOS and even then was questionable. File management (as in files and folders) isn't 'complexity'.
Files and folders work.
Things as mundane as email attachments became an issue because Apple refused to support them on-device and wanted to shunt users up into the cloud. That was just unnecessary. By the time iOS came around, everybody was familiar with the concept of a 'Downloads' folder.
The notion that somehow space is constrained on mobile screens and therefore it's better to avoid classic folder structures due to complexity doesn't make sense either.
Everyone understands the concept of folder structures and interfaces with cloud content via mobile without issue using folders. Why would they experience issues navigating local storage?
The core of the system itself is directory based. I can understand the idea of abstraction and wanting everything to be filed and retrieved by apps, but only to a point and that only really works for some limited scenarios and is limiting flexibility for the user and simply ends up causing headaches. To the point that Apple had to give in in the end and try to remedy a situation its own design caused, but it is still an issue.
The best option would be to simply allow users to manage their files and have the system deal with it. Of course, that would make it work like Android but then again, Apple's approach was shortsighted from the outset so that is inevitable.
Even in the old days iTunes would be flexible enough to allow you to add files from anywhere or copy them to a central location. Users were still at the mercy of an archaic syncing process that was fraught with issues and extremely slow.
Terminal is a power tool for power users. It is only there in the first place because because the root system uses shells. It's for users who are accustomed to command line interfaces and who use them regularly. Just like programming, you really need a breadth of 'extra' knowledge like syntax requirements etc to feel comfortable. The Mac was created to free us of prompts.
I've dabbled with Terminal only because of limitations at higher levels with applications. Often shortcomings at higher levels.
Yes, Terminal can do what Disk Utility did but that doesn't tackle my point. That was that functionality was eroded to make things easier for Apple, not the user.
Exactly the same thing happened with iTunes.
We use applications like Word the way we do for a huge reason and it is precisely to get away from command line interfaces.
If I wanted 'power' in text creation I would use TeX. Sometimes I've had to, but 'coding' text and compiling files is only a valid option (like with Terminal) if you are accustomed to it and are going to use it regularly.
In terms of 'new' versus 'old' and technology advances, some things always surprised me.
Finder was technically much better in OSX than Classic Mac OS. Just like modern file systems are better than older ones.
The problem from day one was that the 'new' Finder was a pale shadow of its former self in spite of its solid foundational changes. The Classic Finder always gave you the sensation it was one step ahead of you. Ready to give you what you wanted just when you needed it. It may have been built on a house of cards (like HFS) but in its own way, it was surprisingly solid and nimble. Robust even.
So, along came OSX Finder and all its modern underpinnings but it felt lobotomised and along with it came the spinning beach all of death. In usability it was very much a step back.
Better technology doesn't always lead to better solutions in userland.
Apple has got many things wrong with iOS on a conceptual level and has had to change tack in some key areas. The same has happened in hardware. Files is just one example. Customisation is another and again the 'complexity' notion comes back into focus. The iOS settings panels have always been a mess.
This is a situation that never needed to exist in the first place and, in its essence, was also resolved back in Classic OS.
Simple Finder.
The debate over simplicity vs complexity played out within Finder and was resolved by a toggle switch. Erm, simple. If you wanted to keep things simple, simple finder was there.
My Android phones have always had the option to hide complex settings away but it was always an option, never an imposition.
I have always challenged the 'Apple knows best' line. Apple definitely doesn't and it has shown over the years.
Safari was introduced as a smiley face for WebKit. It was touted as a small, lightweight, fast browser. It had to be because Apple couldn't go head to head with Firefox or Chrome at the time so they played on the 'simple' theme.
However, that was never going to cut it, and slowly Safari has been laden with more functionality (along with WebKit) over the years. There are still way too many areas where it just fails and Chrome will do the job. The reasons are many but in userland, getting the job done is what matters.
That aspect, as people try to do more and more on their mobile devices has exacerbated the limitations within iOS and is possibly the reason why iOS has been adopting so many features that have been present on Android. A few years ago I got the sensation that almost every new feature announced at WWDC was already present on Android and it was widely commented on at the time.
When HarmonyOS was revealed in 2019 the concept of multi-device interoperability was brought to the fore and their developer conference through up a screen showing the different device operating systems and how each system was effectively 'siloed' from the rest. Getting them to 'talk' to each other 'natively' was going to be problematic unless the system had been designed with multi device interoperability in mind from the outset.
Since then every WWDC has given us something along the multi device interoperability line. The question has to be. At what cost? Are they kludging it together like Classic MacOS reached its goals? Are they re-tooling things at a foundational level?
Are the different Apple operating systems designed for distributed file systems, shared busses, distributed security, seamless networking?
The entire networking stack for HarmonyOS was re-written to provide the backbone for everything sitting on top of it. From speed, through stability to security.
I see the 'new' functionality' (sometimes announced but labeled as coming sometime in the future) and wonder what's going on down below the surface.
At the end of the day, 'change' boils down to if it improves things for users. Change for the sake of change (especially aesthetic design change) can be frustrating. Especially if things change too much in a relatively short period of time.
Whatsapp on iOS and Android is an example. Although apparently not a system related change, they are playing with moving the 'state, chats, calls...' tabs from the top of the screen (where they are on Android) to the bottom (to where they are on iOS).
I've seen stealth updates where they move to the bottom of the screen and then suddenly they are at the top.
When similar changes are made at an OS level it raises questions and those questions often lead to very poor answers.
You keep bringing up WhatsApp, which is most certainly a web-based app (EDIT: it is web based), and doesn't follow any sort of platform design guidelines. I can assure you that it does not look nor feel nor function the same as native iOS apps. Which is also most likely why you don't have things like good share sheet integration and similar. Here's Apple's official guidelines for app design on their platforms.
Another thing I notice about most free, web-based apps that make money from data harvesting is that they purposely lock you into them. Meaning, when you do something like click a link, it stays within that app (never sends you to a full web browser). The reason is because they want to keep harvesting every bit of information about what you do, and if they send you to another app (Safari in this case), they can't do that. The lack of a share sheet is likely the same thing: they'd much rather you share something to someone from within their app, rather than sending you to another app to do it. They likely allow it on Android because they can track you across apps.
Seriously, turn your questions about free apps into questions about the business model and why they force you to do things a certain way or limit features. Chances are it has to do with keeping you within their app for as long as possible so they can get as much data as possible. There's actually a movie which discusses this. It's the exact opposite of making your app as efficient and intuitive as possible (the goals of user interface design when I first started out as a software engineer).
As for challenging "Apple knows best", here's the thing: almost every single tech enthusiast I know and have worked with is so fixated on technology and the intricate details of it that, I feel, most have lost sight of the human purpose of it and how it can be used to benefit people who don't have the same kind of mind as them. They're so caught up in the feature wars that they don't even see that most of these features don't contribute to the central purpose of the technology and just create confusion/clutter for those who don't have any interest in technology and just want to use it to accomplish natural, human activities like communication with others, finding information, or capturing memories/information as simply as possible.
You talk about change for the sake of change, yet you want Apple to change things to add a whole bunch of features you've seen in the past. Most of which have disappeared over time for good reason. Advanced filesystem maintenance? Did people other than tech enthusiasts ever really want to do that? It was only necessary because of the design limitations of technology at the time (e.g. things like defragmenting your filesystem, yuck). I think a lot of tech people have a hard time coming to terms that they've spent so much time learning about things which, when you take a step back, were only necessary to know because of technical limitations and/or poor design at the time. It really feels like wasted time when you see it that way. And that's where I'm at: I assess whether it's worth my time to learn something, or whether I can find something else designed differently to avoid spending all that unnecessary time.
Honestly, at this point it's simply a matter of what you've gotten used to between Android and iOS. I'm a highly technical person, and I get confounded trying to find things in Android simply because I'm not used to it, and because every device manufacturer throws their own spin on things. I can do everything I need extremely efficiently in iOS. Mobile phone style devices have pretty much matured to the point where the interactions are well defined and known, and it comes down to familiarity with the organization and paradigms of each OS. The next major evolution in technology is in wearables (getting devices even more out of your way).
gatorguy said: Since nearly the dawn of the duopoly, Apple and others have claimed that some annually significant percentage of Android users have switched to iOS. Oddly though Android continues to exist a decade and a half later, and in good numbers. How can that be if 10-14% of the ecosystem switch to Apple devices every year and smartphone adoption numbers aren't rising?
Hint: it's not 14% of the entire Android user base. It's 14% of iPhone buyers in a given year.
Oh. So 15 years later nearly the entire current iOS ownership base comes from what were originally Android owners? 10-15% every year is a substantial turnover, in total a collectively huge percentage of today's iPhone owners, and a massive Android ecosystem loss. Goodness, how have they survived?
It seems math, more accurately statistic, is not your strong point. The 14% is the percent of new iPhone buyers every year, that had switched from Android. Not 14% of all Android users or 14% of all iPhone users.
14% last year. Then 14% the year before. Then another 14% in 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, etc.
Sounds like it might be approaching a majority of iPhone owners having once been Android owners. But as you said, I'm neither a mathematician nor plan to be.
No, it won't work that way because as you go backwards, the percentage of users buying their first mobile device was also greater. So say in 2014, if 14% of new iPhone sales were switchers, there might have been 20% of sales to first time mobile device users. Back then maybe less than 50% of the world population owned a mobile phone. Thus more iPhone sales were to new users than to switchers. The iPhone user base would then increase more by new first time iPhone users that never owned an Android phone, than by switchers. It is only recently because now over 90% of the world population owns a mobile phone, that switchers are outnumbering iPhone users buying their first mobile phone, each year. But you are still looking at the 14% of new iPhone sold to switches each year only representing maybe 3% of the 1B iPhone user base changing. It's not 14% of the iOS user base that changes each year. So it's only going forward, that there will come a time when the majority of iOS users would had once used an Android phone, if Apple manages to sell more and more iPhones each year.
Anytime you have to make a claim that something is the best that means it isn't the best. Excellence always speaks for itself.
Quotes like that are meaningless unless they are able to articulate a reason why they believe it to be true. As others have mentioned, Apple has hurt their business model by stopping much of their ad tracking. Clearly they want more users to be on Android... hence the vague and inaccurate claims about Android being better.
Android users switching to iOS annually: 14%. iOS users switching to Android annually: 4%. I guess the "better" part must be pretty well hidden within the operating system.
Since nearly the dawn of the duopoly, Apple and others have claimed that some annually significant percentage of Android users have switched to iOS. Oddly though Android continues to exist a decade and a half later, and in good numbers. How can that be if 10-14% of the ecosystem switch to Apple devices every year and smartphone adoption numbers aren't rising?
A conundrum.
"Apple's iOS, however, reigns supreme in the United States. Android takes the top spot at 70.89% market share globally, beating iOS by a 42.53% difference with a 28.36% market share. Meanwhile, in the US, Apple continues to dominate at 57.39% market share, beating Android by a 15.12% difference."
Apple's market share is growing and in the US, Apple has now passed Android by a considerable margin. So, where people can afford to buy nice things, Apple wins. In third world countries where the average selling price for a phone is $200, sure Android wins because Apple doesn't even compete in that low end part of the market. There is no conundrum.
Anytime you have to make a claim that something is the best that means it isn't the best. Excellence always speaks for itself.
Quotes like that are meaningless unless they are able to articulate a reason why they believe it to be true. As others have mentioned, Apple has hurt their business model by stopping much of their ad tracking. Clearly they want more users to be on Android... hence the vague and inaccurate claims about Android being better.
Android users switching to iOS annually: 14%. iOS users switching to Android annually: 4%. I guess the "better" part must be pretty well hidden within the operating system.
Since nearly the dawn of the duopoly, Apple and others have claimed that some annually significant percentage of Android users have switched to iOS. Oddly though Android continues to exist a decade and a half later, and in good numbers. How can that be if 10-14% of the ecosystem switch to Apple devices every year and smartphone adoption numbers aren't rising?
A conundrum.
"Apple's iOS, however, reigns supreme in the United States. Android takes the top spot at 70.89% market share globally, beating iOS by a 42.53% difference with a 28.36% market share. Meanwhile, in the US, Apple continues to dominate at 57.39% market share, beating Android by a 15.12% difference."
Apple's market share is growing and in the US, Apple has now passed Android by a considerable margin. So, where people can afford to buy nice things, Apple wins. In third world countries where the average selling price for a phone is $200, sure Android wins because Apple doesn't even compete in that low end part of the market. There is no conundrum.
The stat pertains to "mobile" OS. So this includes the iPad for Apple and the iPad is still over 50% of the tablets sold in the US each year. The iPad adds about 4 to 6% to Apple US mobile OS market share total for iOS, each year.
But note that it has only been recently (since the latter half of 2022), that there are now more iPhone users in the US, than Android phone users. It's only been in the past several years that Apple have began to consistently sell more iPhones than Android phones. Even though iOS have been the leading mobile OS in the US for over 10 years.
This has a lot to do with Android users switching to iOS. With so few new mobile device users entering the market because nearly everyone in the US owns a mobile phone now, Apple have to rely on getting Android users to switch to iOS, in order to grow their US market share. Plus maintain their high loyalty rating of current iOS users, that will buy another iPhone with their next upgrade. The numbers shows (in the US at least) that Apple is doing a pretty good job of it, so far.
Comments
Another thing I notice about most free, web-based apps that make money from data harvesting is that they purposely lock you into them. Meaning, when you do something like click a link, it stays within that app (never sends you to a full web browser). The reason is because they want to keep harvesting every bit of information about what you do, and if they send you to another app (Safari in this case), they can't do that. The lack of a share sheet is likely the same thing: they'd much rather you share something to someone from within their app, rather than sending you to another app to do it. They likely allow it on Android because they can track you across apps.
Seriously, turn your questions about free apps into questions about the business model and why they force you to do things a certain way or limit features. Chances are it has to do with keeping you within their app for as long as possible so they can get as much data as possible. There's actually a movie which discusses this. It's the exact opposite of making your app as efficient and intuitive as possible (the goals of user interface design when I first started out as a software engineer).
As for challenging "Apple knows best", here's the thing: almost every single tech enthusiast I know and have worked with is so fixated on technology and the intricate details of it that, I feel, most have lost sight of the human purpose of it and how it can be used to benefit people who don't have the same kind of mind as them. They're so caught up in the feature wars that they don't even see that most of these features don't contribute to the central purpose of the technology and just create confusion/clutter for those who don't have any interest in technology and just want to use it to accomplish natural, human activities like communication with others, finding information, or capturing memories/information as simply as possible.
You talk about change for the sake of change, yet you want Apple to change things to add a whole bunch of features you've seen in the past. Most of which have disappeared over time for good reason. Advanced filesystem maintenance? Did people other than tech enthusiasts ever really want to do that? It was only necessary because of the design limitations of technology at the time (e.g. things like defragmenting your filesystem, yuck). I think a lot of tech people have a hard time coming to terms that they've spent so much time learning about things which, when you take a step back, were only necessary to know because of technical limitations and/or poor design at the time. It really feels like wasted time when you see it that way. And that's where I'm at: I assess whether it's worth my time to learn something, or whether I can find something else designed differently to avoid spending all that unnecessary time.
Honestly, at this point it's simply a matter of what you've gotten used to between Android and iOS. I'm a highly technical person, and I get confounded trying to find things in Android simply because I'm not used to it, and because every device manufacturer throws their own spin on things. I can do everything I need extremely efficiently in iOS. Mobile phone style devices have pretty much matured to the point where the interactions are well defined and known, and it comes down to familiarity with the organization and paradigms of each OS. The next major evolution in technology is in wearables (getting devices even more out of your way).
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america/#monthly-201211-202306