Android is taking the Windows approach, and at the rate the OS is gaining marketshare id say its doing a damn good job.
Which sales reports are you looking at? Android had just 3.5 % of the smartphone market last quarter, growing slower than the iPhone did 2 years ago. Android will be lucky to take over the #4 spot from WinMo this quarter, behind the much larger Symbian, RIMM and iPhone OS, and I wouldn't even bet on that, because there are always plenty of people buying WinMo devices no matter how bad the reviews are. It 2010, once Bada comes pre-installed on the 10 million+ touchscreen phones Samsung is already shipping each quarter, Android will find itself handed down to #5 or #6 again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail
Both Motorola and Sony Ericsson come to mind. HTC just seems interested in hardware sales and not have to worry about the OS...let Google and Microsoft deal with that.
There's no guarantee that all 3 of these will stick around to support Android for much longer. Moto and SE are not profitable. The Droid was seen as the turnaround device for Moto, and Google has spoiled its sales over the last few weeks. Sony has repeatedly said that they might give up on the SE joint venture if it doesn't turn around soon. Some consolidation in the mobile phone market is bound to happen, and of all the big players the Android supporters seem to be among the weakest links.
However, with no other branding besides Google itself, it gives them full ownership of it's success and/or failure with no one else to blame. And for those that argue that Google isn't making the phone, HTC is, I want to remind you that Apple doesn't manufacture the iPhone either, it's produced by Foxconn. People don't remember hardware manufacturers, they remember the brands they are attached to!
Sorry, I am sick and tired of this stupid arguement from people who know very little about what they are talking about.
Assembling != producing brand
When HTC designs and builds phones for other companies and sticks their logos on them, thats HTC producing the product
When Apple designs, prototypes in house, manages every detail, and hands it off to companies who perform automated assembly, it is Apple producing the product.
Don't you see the damn difference?
Apple designed..... vs HTC designed
Its not just who assembles something, no one owns their own assembly lines anymore
In the cell phone and computer industries lots of companies use designs that are actually designed by others! stock Intel motherboards go into name brand computers, HTC makes most Windows and Android cellphones and handheld computers.
Apple isn't selling a product with Foxconn technology.... just like Microsoft doesn't sell Xbox's with Foxconn technology. In house designed products ARE NOT PRODUCED by outside firms, just assembled.
There, did my 50 repetitive ways of phrasing that sink in people??
It sounds like Google is continuing to follow the design by committee mentality that the phone companies have been doing forever. Partly designed by the carrier, the hardware manufacturer, and the operating system vendor. Nothing good ever comes out of this. I'm sure there will be some (that never used an iPhone) that will be happy with this phone. They will wonder why they need to buy a new phone to run the latest apps (or fail to run the old apps) a year after they get it (with half of their contract left) then either blame google or blame the carrier for a $350 termination fee. This is like having an orchestra with three conductors...
I can't understand why the majority of manufacturers can't stick with a similar design and build upon it. It seems that every non-Apple phone tries to reinvent the wheel every time. A product should get better over time... not just generate more variations of the same thing.
Someone's not reading their history books, no one wants to copy the Apple model, it would take too much work to catch up but [not] doing so is like playing hot potato with a gun.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Google, you've been phased...
Sorry, I am sick and tired of this stupid arguement from people who know very little about what they are talking about.
Assembling != producing brand
When HTC designs and builds phones for other companies and sticks their logos on them, thats HTC producing the product
When Apple designs, prototypes in house, manages every detail, and hands it off to companies who perform automated assembly, it is Apple producing the product.
Don't you see the damn difference?
Apple designed..... vs HTC designed
Its not just who assembles something, no one owns their own assembly lines anymore
In the cell phone and computer industries lots of companies use designs that are actually designed by others! stock Intel motherboards go into name brand computers, HTC makes most Windows and Android cellphones and handheld computers.
Apple isn't selling a product with Foxconn technology.... just like Microsoft doesn't sell Xbox's with Foxconn technology. In house designed products ARE NOT PRODUCED by outside firms, just assembled.
There, did my 50 repetitive ways of phrasing that sink in people??
There seems to be a trend of products that are designed and marketed by different companies. Hopefully this trend doesn't catch on. It is a horrible for the consumer because the manufacturer and the marketer will both lose interest in the product. They will hype it, sell as many as they can, then fail to continue to evolve the product. There may be other branded products, but they will not be compatible. Just look at the Zune for example...
Someone's not reading their history books, no one wants to copy the Apple model, it would take too much work to catch up but [not] doing so is like playing hot potato with a gun.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Google, you've been phased...
Unfortunately most companies don't care about real innovation anymore. If it takes more then a year, they are not interested in the investment. I think that has benefited Apple. It's been much easier for them to create hugely successful products because nobody else is in the same league due to lack of effort.
I seems that most of the industry has a "reactionary" attitude instead of planning and making a real investment. Lets make X product to combat Y product instead of lets make X product revolutionary. This "reactionary" attitude doesn't work against the iPhone because they would need to make a real investment. They can't just put components together in a different way.
It sounds like Google is continuing to follow the design by committee mentality that the phone companies have been doing forever. Partly designed by the carrier, the hardware manufacturer, and the operating system vendor. Nothing good ever comes out of this. I'm sure there will be some (that never used an iPhone) that will be happy with this phone. They will wonder why they need to buy a new phone to run the latest apps (or fail to run the old apps) a year after they get it (with half of their contract left) then either blame google or blame the carrier for a $350 termination fee. This is like having an orchestra with three conductors...
That sounds like a cool idea (in an Ornette Coleman kind of way)
...With a much smaller unit installed base and a library size of around 15,000 apps compared to Apple's 100,000, Google should find it easier to increase its percentage of growth faster than Apple, but that simply isn't happening...
This article certainly offers some good points, but this statement is just plain false. According to the caption on the graphic, this shows the percent increase of actual tracked downloads, not apps available for download in each app store. If you look at the percent increase of apps available, the Android Market went from 10,000 to over 20,000 since the Droid's release.
Just sayin'.
Then, obviously, the author's idea of what constitutes growth is different than yours. Just sayin'.
One would think that the sheer number of apps would increase quite quickly in the Android store, maybe for a variety of reasons: maybe there are thousands and thousands of developers all over the world that have traditionally developed apps for WinMo, Symbian, Java, etc. and are jumping on the new, hyped platform; maybe all the apps that got submitted to various stores opened by different phone manufacturers and different carriers all finally got submitted to the flagship store; whatever. One would hope that the apps are there with all this talk about how great Android will be and how all the phone manufacturers and carriers are going to get on board.
An obvious measure of real "growth" is not how many variations of a fart app a developer can come up with, but the real use of the store by customers. The author does well to recognize this. Everyone was surprised, probably most of all Apple, that there are 100,000 apps in the iTunes store.
Furthermore, an iPhone app developer need only produce one version of his app, instead of multiple versions for umpteen different phone configurations.
However, it is not so surprising that Apple can maintain consistent and accelerating growth on the buying/downloading side with their industry-leading store and experience with music downloads and movie rentals, etc. This is where the money is for the developers and this is what serves the customer, which in turn leads to even more growth.
Now, if Google is going to run their store like MS did, then the growth they want to see IS the number of apps alone: because they are fleecing the developer with subscription and submission fees and know that there are few customers who can actually figure out the store, figure out how to delve through all the crap about versions and hardware specs, and after all that, fewer still who will pay the exorbitant prices for that crap.
The author implies (and he has several articles on this) that the gap will only increase since everything Apple does is reinforcing its one mobile platform while Google does not seem to care that they are fragmenting theirs. There may be lots of apps on the Android store, but each potential customer can only use a given percentage of them depending on his phone, Android version and carrier; even apps that would work on a given hardware configuration will not be as readily useable since the OS version may be stuck until Google gets around to dealing with the carrier -- by contrast, iPhone OS updates are pushed out universally and ready for you when you synch with iTunes. This means that each Android customer cannot just browse the store and download just anything that strikes his fancy.
I have an iPod Touch and over 300 active apps in my iTunes library. I could download new apps all day long. I could do nothing but try out new apps all day long. Fortunately, I have some self-control and allow myself iTunes app sessions just a couple of times a month. I might download 20 or thirty apps in one go, that I have heard about or read a review of on a blog. If I just browsed iTunes app store on these occasions, I could easily happily spend hours and download hundreds of new apps.
Despite the billions of iPhone apps downloaded, not everyone with an iPhone or iPod Touch can yet relate to my interest in new apps -- my dad can't (he isn't into finding new apps yet, though he loves his iPhone). Yet he is now browsing iTunes with his new Apple TV. So, the potential for even more incredible growth is there just waiting to explode.
Watching Android rollout to date, I am left with two conflicting data points. One, is that everyone I talk to within Google is supremely confident that the data (that they are looking at) suggests that they are poised to win in the market. Two, I am confused relative to the battles and war analogy, what is the battle they are fighting and what is the war that they expect to win.
They need Android to put them in the right place relative to Microsoft to avoid Bing taking over in Search, and they need a strong enough platform to keep RIMM on their toes with exclusive search agreements. Same goes for having the "knighting power" on the carrier end, but they aren't anywhere near that position yet.
Google might be losing focus on Android though. I'm not so sure that they have the position they think they have on the hardware side, and once the easy prey are gone things might get harder...
it really looks like only blinders-wearing fanboys comment here...
Sorry guys, the Nexus has way more superior hardware than even the iPhone 3GS... :-(
I agree that the android market has less apps in terms of numbers, but in terms of functionality it is close to be there to have what you need. It even has iFarted. Many major iphone-apps are being released to the market on a regular base, the last of them being Evernote. Also the growth-rate of the market outpaces the growth of the saturated app-store.
The main difference between android and iphone-os is that iphone-os is available on one handset manufactured and controlled by one producer, and software development for it sucks (C? I was not even born when C was invented, and I'm not a youngster) since the hardware-producer wants to control the software that runs on it's device. That's worse than Microsoft does!
Android is an open-source, free and unrestricted system which as of today runs on 16 handsets made by 6 different companies. I did not count-in the non-phone devices as e.g. the Nook, or the Carmangi.
From a developer pov comparing android to iphone (java to C) is like driving a car vs riding a horse.
So guys, sorry. But it's just a matter of time before you will see android everywhere around you.
And app developers will also like the fact that their app not just runs on their mobile, but as well in their car, their digital picture frame, their GPS and so on.
Apple has done a great job. Especially I am thankful to them that they shook up the competitors. Their "control-freak" and "I-am-the-boss"-philosophy will pay back.
Edit: One major thing for developer-adoption I forgot is:
To hack android-apps you can use the OS of your choice. You are not humiliated into buying a $1000+ computer to get on hacking.
Bigpics, very well put. I read of lot of news feeds, often without looking at the site or writer, and can always tell when it's AppleInsider right away..... the obvious slant. It's all good though. I like macOS desktop and the iphone OS, but despise the iPhone ecosystem and outlandish ATT pricing caused by exclusivity, not to mention the App Store policies and overall tight grip apple has. If it weren't for Android, this situation would only get worse. We should feel good about supporting Google. In fact, the best situation we could hope for is to have 3 or 4 big players (iphone, android, blackberry, nokia). For sure, we do not want just one.
it really looks like only blinders-wearing fanboys comment here...
Sorry guys, the Nexus has way more superior hardware than even the iPhone 3GS... :-(
I agree that the android market has less apps in terms of numbers, but in terms of functionality it is close to be there to have what you need. It even has iFarted. Many major iphone-apps are being released to the market on a regular base, the last of them being Evernote. Also the growth-rate of the market outpaces the growth of the saturated app-store.
The main difference between android and iphone-os is that iphone-os is available on one handset manufactured and controlled by one producer, and software development for it sucks (C? I was not even born when C was invented, and I'm not a youngster) since the hardware-producer wants to control the software that runs on it's device. That's worse than Microsoft does!...
There may be a few more developers out there who already know how to code in Java versus those who already know C. And C may have older roots.
However, your characterization of development on the iPhone is a little off. Especially since many major developers have come right out and said it is not worth their while to consider developing for anything other than the iPhone, despite Apple's control. Not only that, the iPhone platform has by all accounts empowered every little guy with an idea who had the least inclination to try, to have a go at app development -- on the iPhone -- even if he never created another programme in his life. There may be grads coming out of schools who all had courses in java and platforms other than C; but I don't know that any of these others have been described as empowering or excited many newbies into just having a go at creating an app.
The main thing you are overlooking is that the iPhone model is directed at serving the user, not the app developer. If the developer likes that, he can get onboard and get developing. He has a few incentives, of course: the terms for subscription, submission and all the value he gets from the hosting and easy sales on iTunes are about the most favorable in the industry (heck, MS charges more per year, then per app submission, then per resubmission after rejection, and then per version for each phone configuration -- this is because the MS model is to make money off the developer and not the customer since it knows no customer wants the crap they supply).
Secondly, despite C's apparent age, the APIs supplied by Apple are state-of-the-art and ready for drag and drop deployment in moments. The focus is on getting a real useable, polished app out the door and onto the shelf so that Joe consumer can download it with a tap of his finger. Again, if the developer doesn't like this, but would rather pay more himself for the pleasure of being able to tinker around for ages as he hand writes every bit of his lame app so that he can have a uniquely ugly and awkward app, that is his business. But Apple provides the tools to quickly and easily come up with something that has predictable and familiar UI elements so that everyone's grandmother can use it and happily pay for it. Take a look at the UI's side by side sometime, and see how the flick of a finger makes an app on each platform respond, and then reevealuate your opinion about which platform is more future-proof.
The one App you mention by name, Evernote, is not a good example for you to use to make your case. Many apps like this have a special business model: they are free as phone apps and they are intended for use with the developer's website accounts, servers and desktop app for syncing (intending to draw subscription fees). They did not write an Android or other OS version of their app simply because they thought they could write a nicer app or give it any more functionality on another platform or something. They wrote it because they have customers already using their servers and desktop app who may be using all kinds of phones. That people use their service is not a testament to the java version of their phone app, but rather that people like the whole desktop to server to phone syncing setup.
I could almost guarantee that anyone who is really into Evernote and is a poweruser of that kind of app, will switch to an iPhone or iPod Touch the first chance they get. If such apps are a big part of their routine and they ever see how smoothly such apps operate on a friend's iPhone, they will be wanting one.
ok, if the pricing was comparable to other carriers, things would be different here. Still, the tight control kinda ruins the user experience, no freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
/yawn
I like the free iPhone I get on a plan in Australia luckily the iPhone isn't exclusive to AT&T.
Just FYI, this is only true for CDMA carriers with calls placed over 'the cell voice network' when no wifi is present. Fortunately, Android phones can make/receive VOIP calls over 3G without jailbreaking. Also, with Google Voice, inbound calls can be transferred without the other caller even knowing. Freedom...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
iDo let you use the Internet or check your email while on a call...
They need Android to put them in the right place relative to Microsoft to avoid Bing taking over in Search, and they need a strong enough platform to keep RIMM on their toes with exclusive search agreements. Same goes for having the "knighting power" on the carrier end, but they aren't anywhere near that position yet.
Google might be losing focus on Android though. I'm not so sure that they have the position they think they have on the hardware side, and once the easy prey are gone things might get harder...
One could argue, though, that they should focus on raising the floor - on the premise that anything that is good for the web is good for google - which is more inline with their original mission and broad multi-handset ecosystem approach (which is also inline with the other objectives you note), but which is unlikely to beat Apple/iPhone - OR focus on beating iPhone, which is more congruent with building their own device. Trying to do both simultaneously seems to be a recipe for a 1+1=<2 outcome, IMHO.
Droid = copyrighted name for the CDMA version of the Milestone, exclusive to Verizon,
The Google Voice beta program does not extend to Australia or many countries outside the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstring
Just FYI, this is only true for CDMA carriers with calls placed over 'the cell voice network' when no wifi is present. Fortunately, Android phones can make/receive VOIP calls over 3G without jailbreaking. Also, with Google Voice, inbound calls can be transferred without the other caller even knowing. Freedom...
Comments
This news makes me sad.
Solution 1: Jailbreak iPhone, install Backgrounder.
Solution 2: Don?t run 3rd-party apps on iPhone.
Android is taking the Windows approach, and at the rate the OS is gaining marketshare id say its doing a damn good job.
Which sales reports are you looking at? Android had just 3.5 % of the smartphone market last quarter, growing slower than the iPhone did 2 years ago. Android will be lucky to take over the #4 spot from WinMo this quarter, behind the much larger Symbian, RIMM and iPhone OS, and I wouldn't even bet on that, because there are always plenty of people buying WinMo devices no matter how bad the reviews are. It 2010, once Bada comes pre-installed on the 10 million+ touchscreen phones Samsung is already shipping each quarter, Android will find itself handed down to #5 or #6 again.
Both Motorola and Sony Ericsson come to mind. HTC just seems interested in hardware sales and not have to worry about the OS...let Google and Microsoft deal with that.
There's no guarantee that all 3 of these will stick around to support Android for much longer. Moto and SE are not profitable. The Droid was seen as the turnaround device for Moto, and Google has spoiled its sales over the last few weeks. Sony has repeatedly said that they might give up on the SE joint venture if it doesn't turn around soon. Some consolidation in the mobile phone market is bound to happen, and of all the big players the Android supporters seem to be among the weakest links.
However, with no other branding besides Google itself, it gives them full ownership of it's success and/or failure with no one else to blame. And for those that argue that Google isn't making the phone, HTC is, I want to remind you that Apple doesn't manufacture the iPhone either, it's produced by Foxconn. People don't remember hardware manufacturers, they remember the brands they are attached to!
Sorry, I am sick and tired of this stupid arguement from people who know very little about what they are talking about.
Assembling != producing brand
When HTC designs and builds phones for other companies and sticks their logos on them, thats HTC producing the product
When Apple designs, prototypes in house, manages every detail, and hands it off to companies who perform automated assembly, it is Apple producing the product.
Don't you see the damn difference?
Apple designed..... vs HTC designed
Its not just who assembles something, no one owns their own assembly lines anymore
In the cell phone and computer industries lots of companies use designs that are actually designed by others! stock Intel motherboards go into name brand computers, HTC makes most Windows and Android cellphones and handheld computers.
Apple isn't selling a product with Foxconn technology.... just like Microsoft doesn't sell Xbox's with Foxconn technology. In house designed products ARE NOT PRODUCED by outside firms, just assembled.
There, did my 50 repetitive ways of phrasing that sink in people??
I can't understand why the majority of manufacturers can't stick with a similar design and build upon it. It seems that every non-Apple phone tries to reinvent the wheel every time. A product should get better over time... not just generate more variations of the same thing.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Google, you've been phased...
Sorry, I am sick and tired of this stupid arguement from people who know very little about what they are talking about.
Assembling != producing brand
When HTC designs and builds phones for other companies and sticks their logos on them, thats HTC producing the product
When Apple designs, prototypes in house, manages every detail, and hands it off to companies who perform automated assembly, it is Apple producing the product.
Don't you see the damn difference?
Apple designed..... vs HTC designed
Its not just who assembles something, no one owns their own assembly lines anymore
In the cell phone and computer industries lots of companies use designs that are actually designed by others! stock Intel motherboards go into name brand computers, HTC makes most Windows and Android cellphones and handheld computers.
Apple isn't selling a product with Foxconn technology.... just like Microsoft doesn't sell Xbox's with Foxconn technology. In house designed products ARE NOT PRODUCED by outside firms, just assembled.
There, did my 50 repetitive ways of phrasing that sink in people??
There seems to be a trend of products that are designed and marketed by different companies. Hopefully this trend doesn't catch on. It is a horrible for the consumer because the manufacturer and the marketer will both lose interest in the product. They will hype it, sell as many as they can, then fail to continue to evolve the product. There may be other branded products, but they will not be compatible. Just look at the Zune for example...
Someone's not reading their history books, no one wants to copy the Apple model, it would take too much work to catch up but [not] doing so is like playing hot potato with a gun.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Google, you've been phased...
Unfortunately most companies don't care about real innovation anymore. If it takes more then a year, they are not interested in the investment. I think that has benefited Apple. It's been much easier for them to create hugely successful products because nobody else is in the same league due to lack of effort.
I seems that most of the industry has a "reactionary" attitude instead of planning and making a real investment. Lets make X product to combat Y product instead of lets make X product revolutionary. This "reactionary" attitude doesn't work against the iPhone because they would need to make a real investment. They can't just put components together in a different way.
It sounds like Google is continuing to follow the design by committee mentality that the phone companies have been doing forever. Partly designed by the carrier, the hardware manufacturer, and the operating system vendor. Nothing good ever comes out of this. I'm sure there will be some (that never used an iPhone) that will be happy with this phone. They will wonder why they need to buy a new phone to run the latest apps (or fail to run the old apps) a year after they get it (with half of their contract left) then either blame google or blame the carrier for a $350 termination fee. This is like having an orchestra with three conductors...
That sounds like a cool idea (in an Ornette Coleman kind of way)
...With a much smaller unit installed base and a library size of around 15,000 apps compared to Apple's 100,000, Google should find it easier to increase its percentage of growth faster than Apple, but that simply isn't happening...
This article certainly offers some good points, but this statement is just plain false. According to the caption on the graphic, this shows the percent increase of actual tracked downloads, not apps available for download in each app store. If you look at the percent increase of apps available, the Android Market went from 10,000 to over 20,000 since the Droid's release.
Just sayin'.
Then, obviously, the author's idea of what constitutes growth is different than yours. Just sayin'.
One would think that the sheer number of apps would increase quite quickly in the Android store, maybe for a variety of reasons: maybe there are thousands and thousands of developers all over the world that have traditionally developed apps for WinMo, Symbian, Java, etc. and are jumping on the new, hyped platform; maybe all the apps that got submitted to various stores opened by different phone manufacturers and different carriers all finally got submitted to the flagship store; whatever. One would hope that the apps are there with all this talk about how great Android will be and how all the phone manufacturers and carriers are going to get on board.
An obvious measure of real "growth" is not how many variations of a fart app a developer can come up with, but the real use of the store by customers. The author does well to recognize this. Everyone was surprised, probably most of all Apple, that there are 100,000 apps in the iTunes store.
Furthermore, an iPhone app developer need only produce one version of his app, instead of multiple versions for umpteen different phone configurations.
However, it is not so surprising that Apple can maintain consistent and accelerating growth on the buying/downloading side with their industry-leading store and experience with music downloads and movie rentals, etc. This is where the money is for the developers and this is what serves the customer, which in turn leads to even more growth.
Now, if Google is going to run their store like MS did, then the growth they want to see IS the number of apps alone: because they are fleecing the developer with subscription and submission fees and know that there are few customers who can actually figure out the store, figure out how to delve through all the crap about versions and hardware specs, and after all that, fewer still who will pay the exorbitant prices for that crap.
The author implies (and he has several articles on this) that the gap will only increase since everything Apple does is reinforcing its one mobile platform while Google does not seem to care that they are fragmenting theirs. There may be lots of apps on the Android store, but each potential customer can only use a given percentage of them depending on his phone, Android version and carrier; even apps that would work on a given hardware configuration will not be as readily useable since the OS version may be stuck until Google gets around to dealing with the carrier -- by contrast, iPhone OS updates are pushed out universally and ready for you when you synch with iTunes. This means that each Android customer cannot just browse the store and download just anything that strikes his fancy.
I have an iPod Touch and over 300 active apps in my iTunes library. I could download new apps all day long. I could do nothing but try out new apps all day long. Fortunately, I have some self-control and allow myself iTunes app sessions just a couple of times a month. I might download 20 or thirty apps in one go, that I have heard about or read a review of on a blog. If I just browsed iTunes app store on these occasions, I could easily happily spend hours and download hundreds of new apps.
Despite the billions of iPhone apps downloaded, not everyone with an iPhone or iPod Touch can yet relate to my interest in new apps -- my dad can't (he isn't into finding new apps yet, though he loves his iPhone). Yet he is now browsing iTunes with his new Apple TV. So, the potential for even more incredible growth is there just waiting to explode.
Watching Android rollout to date, I am left with two conflicting data points. One, is that everyone I talk to within Google is supremely confident that the data (that they are looking at) suggests that they are poised to win in the market. Two, I am confused relative to the battles and war analogy, what is the battle they are fighting and what is the war that they expect to win.
They need Android to put them in the right place relative to Microsoft to avoid Bing taking over in Search, and they need a strong enough platform to keep RIMM on their toes with exclusive search agreements. Same goes for having the "knighting power" on the carrier end, but they aren't anywhere near that position yet.
Google might be losing focus on Android though. I'm not so sure that they have the position they think they have on the hardware side, and once the easy prey are gone things might get harder...
it really looks like only blinders-wearing fanboys comment here...
Sorry guys, the Nexus has way more superior hardware than even the iPhone 3GS... :-(
I agree that the android market has less apps in terms of numbers, but in terms of functionality it is close to be there to have what you need. It even has iFarted. Many major iphone-apps are being released to the market on a regular base, the last of them being Evernote. Also the growth-rate of the market outpaces the growth of the saturated app-store.
The main difference between android and iphone-os is that iphone-os is available on one handset manufactured and controlled by one producer, and software development for it sucks (C? I was not even born when C was invented, and I'm not a youngster) since the hardware-producer wants to control the software that runs on it's device. That's worse than Microsoft does!
Android is an open-source, free and unrestricted system which as of today runs on 16 handsets made by 6 different companies. I did not count-in the non-phone devices as e.g. the Nook, or the Carmangi.
Look here
From a developer pov comparing android to iphone (java to C) is like driving a car vs riding a horse.
So guys, sorry. But it's just a matter of time before you will see android everywhere around you.
And app developers will also like the fact that their app not just runs on their mobile, but as well in their car, their digital picture frame, their GPS and so on.
Apple has done a great job. Especially I am thankful to them that they shook up the competitors. Their "control-freak" and "I-am-the-boss"-philosophy will pay back.
Edit: One major thing for developer-adoption I forgot is:
To hack android-apps you can use the OS of your choice. You are not humiliated into buying a $1000+ computer to get on hacking.
...Microsoft only killed its existing broadly licensed platform and turned the Zune into a tiny property of little consequence.
This is what we have been hearing since 2007.
Want to buy a HTC Magic?
We have some gathering dust in our storeroom, they have Google written on the back and everything.
PS the Nexus has similar hardware to the HTC Touch HD2 does it not?
If you replace HTC's video drivers with custom one's it almost catches up to the 3GS.
Hello world,
it really looks like only blinders-wearing fanboys comment here...
Sorry guys, the Nexus has way more superior hardware than even the iPhone 3GS...
...blah, blah, blah...
I like the free iPhone I get on a plan in Australia luckily the iPhone isn't exclusive to AT&T.
... but despise the iPhone ecosystem and outlandish ATT pricing caused by exclusivity,
Hello world,
it really looks like only blinders-wearing fanboys comment here...
Sorry guys, the Nexus has way more superior hardware than even the iPhone 3GS... :-(
I agree that the android market has less apps in terms of numbers, but in terms of functionality it is close to be there to have what you need. It even has iFarted. Many major iphone-apps are being released to the market on a regular base, the last of them being Evernote. Also the growth-rate of the market outpaces the growth of the saturated app-store.
The main difference between android and iphone-os is that iphone-os is available on one handset manufactured and controlled by one producer, and software development for it sucks (C? I was not even born when C was invented, and I'm not a youngster) since the hardware-producer wants to control the software that runs on it's device. That's worse than Microsoft does!...
There may be a few more developers out there who already know how to code in Java versus those who already know C. And C may have older roots.
However, your characterization of development on the iPhone is a little off. Especially since many major developers have come right out and said it is not worth their while to consider developing for anything other than the iPhone, despite Apple's control. Not only that, the iPhone platform has by all accounts empowered every little guy with an idea who had the least inclination to try, to have a go at app development -- on the iPhone -- even if he never created another programme in his life. There may be grads coming out of schools who all had courses in java and platforms other than C; but I don't know that any of these others have been described as empowering or excited many newbies into just having a go at creating an app.
The main thing you are overlooking is that the iPhone model is directed at serving the user, not the app developer. If the developer likes that, he can get onboard and get developing. He has a few incentives, of course: the terms for subscription, submission and all the value he gets from the hosting and easy sales on iTunes are about the most favorable in the industry (heck, MS charges more per year, then per app submission, then per resubmission after rejection, and then per version for each phone configuration -- this is because the MS model is to make money off the developer and not the customer since it knows no customer wants the crap they supply).
Secondly, despite C's apparent age, the APIs supplied by Apple are state-of-the-art and ready for drag and drop deployment in moments. The focus is on getting a real useable, polished app out the door and onto the shelf so that Joe consumer can download it with a tap of his finger. Again, if the developer doesn't like this, but would rather pay more himself for the pleasure of being able to tinker around for ages as he hand writes every bit of his lame app so that he can have a uniquely ugly and awkward app, that is his business. But Apple provides the tools to quickly and easily come up with something that has predictable and familiar UI elements so that everyone's grandmother can use it and happily pay for it. Take a look at the UI's side by side sometime, and see how the flick of a finger makes an app on each platform respond, and then reevealuate your opinion about which platform is more future-proof.
The one App you mention by name, Evernote, is not a good example for you to use to make your case. Many apps like this have a special business model: they are free as phone apps and they are intended for use with the developer's website accounts, servers and desktop app for syncing (intending to draw subscription fees). They did not write an Android or other OS version of their app simply because they thought they could write a nicer app or give it any more functionality on another platform or something. They wrote it because they have customers already using their servers and desktop app who may be using all kinds of phones. That people use their service is not a testament to the java version of their phone app, but rather that people like the whole desktop to server to phone syncing setup.
I could almost guarantee that anyone who is really into Evernote and is a poweruser of that kind of app, will switch to an iPhone or iPod Touch the first chance they get. If such apps are a big part of their routine and they ever see how smoothly such apps operate on a friend's iPhone, they will be wanting one.
/yawn
I like the free iPhone I get on a plan in Australia luckily the iPhone isn't exclusive to AT&T.
Just FYI, this is only true for CDMA carriers with calls placed over 'the cell voice network' when no wifi is present. Fortunately, Android phones can make/receive VOIP calls over 3G without jailbreaking. Also, with Google Voice, inbound calls can be transferred without the other caller even knowing. Freedom...
iDo let you use the Internet or check your email while on a call...
iDroid don't.
They need Android to put them in the right place relative to Microsoft to avoid Bing taking over in Search, and they need a strong enough platform to keep RIMM on their toes with exclusive search agreements. Same goes for having the "knighting power" on the carrier end, but they aren't anywhere near that position yet.
Google might be losing focus on Android though. I'm not so sure that they have the position they think they have on the hardware side, and once the easy prey are gone things might get harder...
One could argue, though, that they should focus on raising the floor - on the premise that anything that is good for the web is good for google - which is more inline with their original mission and broad multi-handset ecosystem approach (which is also inline with the other objectives you note), but which is unlikely to beat Apple/iPhone - OR focus on beating iPhone, which is more congruent with building their own device. Trying to do both simultaneously seems to be a recipe for a 1+1=<2 outcome, IMHO.
The Google Voice beta program does not extend to Australia or many countries outside the US.
Just FYI, this is only true for CDMA carriers with calls placed over 'the cell voice network' when no wifi is present. Fortunately, Android phones can make/receive VOIP calls over 3G without jailbreaking. Also, with Google Voice, inbound calls can be transferred without the other caller even knowing. Freedom...