The facts are simple. Android is going to lead the market share with phones, tablets, and whatever other venture they want to get into. They are going to do it with lower hardware costs, buy one get one free deals from carriers and a non-carrier exclusive mantra. They aren't going to make iOS obsolete or anything of that nature. They both will co-exist just fine. In the end you, vote with your wallet. I chose iOS.
Because Apple isn't going to make a WP7 phone and the iPhone demand isn't likely to drop even if some users switch? The issue isn't just consumer preference but the options on the table for consumers. WM6 is simply not competitive in the phone market so device makers aren't pushing new designs until WP7.
If folks are looking for non-iphone alternative and the only options are three android phones it's obvious android wins. If on the other hand there are 2 android phones and a Wp7 phone. IMHO WP7 is far more likely to take momentum from Android than iPhone.
Quote:
Hard core Apple users (with multiple Apple products) will stay in their ecosystem for ever, but for number of Windows users there is more dissadvantage than advantage in iTunes tie-up and number of other restrictions Apple has imposed to the iPhone.
You mean like a decent app store? I'm not sure why you think iTunes on the PC sucks any more or any less than iTunes on a Mac.
Android is gaining share for two reasons: buy-one-get-one firesales and the lack of iPhone on Verizon. The sun is shining for Android now, but the one-two punch of Oracle's lawsuit and iPhone on Verizon will hit Android like nuclear winter. The clock is ticking, Google...
The single biggest thing holding back Android adoption by Mac users is that there's no Android app to sync your phone with your Mac. And no, I don't want Google knowing everything about my phone any time I want to update my Calendar.
RIM's had a hard time lately, but at least they have their own free desktop-based app for syncing Contacts, Calendar and iTunes with a Mac.
I'd switch to Blackberry long before I ever consider an Android device.
Doubletwist will sync your music, playlists and any non DRM protected videos.
I really do not have a problem with my address book and calendar syncing through GMAIL. It works great, it's free, and I have an on-line backup of my contacts and calendar?
Actually not having to use iTunes to sync everything with my phone is something i like about my Droid...
For me, it's a huge deal. I will never buy another cell phone that doesn't play nice with my Mac. And I want that functionality out of the box, not interested in 3rd party connectivity solutions for something as baseline as syncing contacts and such.
I happen to agree that the largest draw for Android is that iPhone is only available on ATT. Granted there are other attractions to Android, such as Apple hateGirls, flashtards, and I'm sure some other constituents like the free software fanatics, but the dynamic for Android is hugely different without the iPhone exclusivity, imo.
I like Apple product too, but I can see the world without wearing my Apple filtered goggles. I cannot believe that you people really think Android is doomed because of a few little issues here and there ( many of which Apple has to deal with as well )
I have to ask:
1) Do you really think Android is doomed because a few older phones cannot be upgraded to the latest version?
2) Do you really think all Android phones are crap because a few manufactures chose to release them without the latest OS installed?
3) Do you really think the everyone will stop developing apps for the Android phones because they have to deal with different versions of the OS?
I just want to know if you guys really believe this is true or not.
Speaking only for myself, and as a long time Apple fan, no, I don't think Android is doomed, because I don't think the smartphone market has reached maturity yet. There's still room for game-changing (both in hardware and software). Apple has to keep up the pace of innovation and find the next big thing. Having RFID and an infrastructure for making retail purchases with your phone could be that kind of thing. I'd love to just wave my iPhone in front of a vending machine instead of fishing for exact change.
I also don't believe that the race has come down to two players. Nokia, RIM, and yes even Microsoft are still contenders (I know, I expected to be flamed on that one). Palm would be a contender, but I fully expect HP to screw it up and doom WebOS to niche status. Android isn't unstoppable, but it's not going to disappear. I think the wild card yet to be played in this game is Windows Phone 7. Yes, I've gleefully derided it, but I do think Microsoft has clout and its partners will ship Windows phones in 2011, and if it cannibalizes marketshare, it will be mainly from Android, not iOS. That's my prediction.
On your other questions:
2. Do I think Android phones are crap? Some of them, yes. It's not Android (or a lack of upgrading) that makes them crap, it's the design, components chosen, and manufacturing that makes them crap. Of all the Android phones, the Droid Incredible by Motorola is the nicest of the bunch, IMO, but I still think the iPhone 4 has better components (screen, sensors, and camera).
3. Do I think developers will stop writing Android apps because of OS versioning? I don't think that is the only issue that Android developers face. There's also no real single hardware platform, so you have to make an extra effort to tune and test your games on a variety of handsets with different CPUs, GPUs, screen resolutions, etc. No one is forcing all handset manufacturers to, say, add a front-facing camera with a particular resolution or gyros, so software programmers can't rely on any new hardware being present across the Android "platform". I don't think these challenges will stop programmers from writing Android apps.
Actually, it is not a premise, but instead, a conclusion.
I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to identify the necessary premises. And if it interests you, try to identify the necessary implications as well.
Oh, like how I concluded that time spent browsing on the insignificant number of iPads is not insignificant because the iPad is the *perfect* browsing device and I use it to do most of my browsing? I think that was the "premise" that you called me on...
Rather, I started with the PREMISE that, of all the mobile browsing that may be done, a disproportionate amount may be done by a device that accounts for a small percentage of the browsing capable mobile devices out there. Indeed, studies have shown that very thing over the last 3 years -- the iPhone accounted for some 70% of mobile browsing in many studies, of which I am sure you have read and about which you duly graced others with your *conclusions*.
Of course, these studies, just as the one under discussion in this thread, tend to ignore the iPod and more recently, the iPad. I will go out on a limb and say that I believe that the iPad will account for no less (nay more) disproportionate browsing figures. Having used an iPad, and having read about people that do use iPads; that is my theory, and from it I conclude that Apple has made (sorry, designed) something that is jolly good for browsing (among other things).
So, according to your semantics, you *conclude* that Apple fans buy new Apple gear as soon as it is released, because something must account for the successes of Apple and the fact that it sells record numbers of items each quarter? If so, your conclusions are pretty faulty. It's a fact that half the sales in the Apple Stores are to customers new to Apple. It's a fact that schools are buying MacBooks and iPods and iPads for whole classes of kids. It's a fact that companies are equipping salesforces with iPads.
Rather, I propose that you have started with a fact, the fact that Apple is successfully selling hardware, and you want to propose a theory that accounts for it without giving Apple credit where credit is due; so, you employ your prejudices and draw upon your predisposed assumption (call it a premise if you like) that no-one in their right mind except rabid Apple Fans would buy Apple products given any intelligence and half a choice. [your comments are rife with assumptions like this throughout, so it is no stretch for me to conclude this]. Then I put it to you that you CONCLUDE that the two are related in such a way that your so called *conclusion* is the only explanation that could possibly account for the facts. And as I said, your real conclusions are out to lunch, not to mention your assumptions.
Of course, the implication of all this is that we have patiently indulged you far too much already.
Google's multi-carrier, multi-manufacturer strategy seems to be working. During the second quarter of this year, shipments of Android-based smartphones outpaced iPhones for the first time.
It was bound to happen. It's a repeat of the Mac vs. Windows story of 20-25 years ago for exactly the same reasons:
1- Apple's refusal to license the iOS which forced Google to write its own Android operating system;
2- Apple using its early lead and superior OS as a reason to overcharge early adopters with a profit margin of 200% or 250% hidden by a compulsory cell phone contract;
3- Apple sacrificing its long term interest and market share to realize quick, huge profits on the short term, mostly for the benefit of the CEO and his VPs who receive unheard of stock option bonuses.
Android mobile OS is the new Windows of smartphones. Unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't charge anything for its operating system, a definite cost advantage for iPhone competitors. When you add the choice of models and makers, the choice of features and carriers, a better choice of software not restricted by the App Store, quick innovation and a lower price, Android phones are bound to overtake the smartphone market over the long term.
Windows 95 crushed Apple once. What will remain this time, once Steve Jobs leaves Apple to retire or for medical reasons?
Did Steve Jobs build a house of cards with his monopolistic strategy of exclusive cell phone carriers and expensive cell phone contracts?
I also don't believe that the race has come down to two players. Nokia, RIM, and yes even Microsoft are still contenders (I know, I expected to be flamed on that one). Palm would be a contender, but I fully expect HP to screw it up and doom WebOS to niche status. Android isn't unstoppable, but it's not going to disappear. I think the wild card yet to be played in this game is Windows Phone 7. Yes, I've gleefully derided it, but I do think Microsoft has clout and its partners will ship Windows phones in 2011, and if it cannibalizes marketshare, it will be mainly from Android, not iOS. That's my prediction.
What remains a bottleneck for Android is: how do Android developers (not Android App developers) make money? Currently, because Google funds that. Fine. How does Google make money from Android? If they can sell other products or services (e.g. Nexus, Google Apps, Ads). Funding Android to make money on Google Apps would be the equivalent of Microsoft making Windows free to make money on Office. Making money with hardware development is something that Google will have to spend ages on to become a competitor (buying them from HTC does not count). Ads and paid search is the open option. Currently, Google makes mobile money via mobile ads on web sites. They do not make mony on third party apps. They will need some sort of iAd program to make money from ads in the app world.
Android itself costs Google money, it does not earn them money. They need Android to protect a share of the mobile web ad market. Will that in the end be enough?
I wonder: which open source / free system has ever been a huge success in the consumer world en produced its own momentum in terms of revenue that pays for ongoing development?
At least credit Fred Brooks if you are going to make his argument for him. But today even he says the numeric assumptions of team communications are wrong today in a properly run dev team that writes well incapsulated code and good interfaces. Technology and techniques have made those old equations way overstated... for the well run projects. The poorly run ones are still affected as you noted.
Essentially you end up limiting many parts of your project to the Two Pizza Rule, but not the size of the entire project. It's not hard, but the lead has to know what they are doing and be a bit of a hardcase early on to keep the interface and encapsulation ground rules in place. It's only good dev practice in the first place, but it is amazing how much of that has been ignored over the years because of ego and not-invented-here syndrome.
Certainly the Fred Brooks (there were 2 at IBM, when I worked there) should be credited for some these ideas-- as should C. Northcote Parkinson and others.
The "expediting takes a little longer" observation (also known as the "Des Plaines Directive") was made by me as the result of a study I performed on the IBM "Pricing and Forecasting" process. *
The study showed that a project with 1 line of code and 1 sentence of documentation (already completed) would take 13 months to get through the process. To expedite the process, required an additional 2 weeks (at minimum) to get the required approvals.
* I used PERT and POP (Piss On Pert) to define all the steps, sign-offs, and interactions to get through the complex process.
As to "technology and techniques" making these old equations overstated-- yes and no. Certainly, in a well run software project "APIs" and "Code Encapsulation" will help with "communication" issues.
But, in a project involving more than just software, "APIs" and "Code Encapsulation" provide less benefit.
In my experience, there is an "almost magical" way that a good, small team works together -- you just know what the others are doing, with little or no communication necessary: You're on the same wave-length!
Finally, I'll leave you with this:
"When any organizational entity expands beyond 21 members, the real power will be in some smaller body."
The "expediting takes a little longer" observation (also known as the "Des Plaines Directive") was made by me as the result of a study I performed on the IBM "Pricing and Forecasting" process. *
The study showed that a project with 1 line of code and 1 sentence of documentation (already completed) would take 13 months to get through the process. To expedite the process, required an additional 2 weeks (at minimum) to get the required approvals.
3. Do I think developers will stop writing Android apps because of OS versioning? I don't think that is the only issue that Android developers face. There's also no real single hardware platform, so you have to make an extra effort to tune and test your games on a variety of handsets with different CPUs, GPUs, screen resolutions, etc. No one is forcing all handset manufacturers to, say, add a front-facing camera with a particular resolution or gyros, so software programmers can't rely on any new hardware being present across the Android "platform". I don't think these challenges will stop programmers from writing Android apps.
This is interesting! I've been "developing" iOS apps since the SDK became available. I do not have any apps in the app store-- rather I use Ad Hoc distro for remote users and local install through XCode for friends and neighbors.
I am in the final stages of testing my first app for submission to the app store as a free app.
One of the objectives is that I want the app to run on all iDevices and to include iAd where applicable.
That means that I have to test on:
-- original iPhone - iOS 3.1.3
-- iPhone 3G - iOS 4.1
-- iPhone 3GS - iOS 4.1
-- iPhone 4 - iOS 4.1
-- iPad - iOS 3.2
The iP4 and the iP 3GS are activated and have a MicroSIM and a SIM, respectively.
Fortunately, this first app scales well and does not require a version tailored to the iPad's larger screen real estate.
But, other apps need to be redesigned to work well on (exploit) the major screen-size difference.
Then, there is the fact of life of different SDK/iOS versions -- there are usually 3 SDKs/target iOSes available:
-- the current released version targeting earlier iOS devices, e.g. iOS 2.x, 3.x.
-- the current released version, e.g. iOS 4.0
-- the next beta version, e.g. iOS 4.1
Until November, there is the iPad only version-- iOS 3.2
Soon, I expect we will see an iOS 4.2 beta.
I have lots of older iPods but no iPod Touches. I stopped buying iPods when the iPhone was announced. 3 original iPhones are SIM-less and used as iPod Touches by the grandkids-- I can commandeer one of these for testing apps.
But, to test apps for the app store, it appears that I should by at least the current iPod Touch (and maybe an earlier version, too).
So, if I want to submit an app to the app store. it looks like I need over $1,000 of hardware and at least 1 carrier contract.
And, testing the app against each device/OS combination is rather involved
How does a small Android developer address this?
-- Must he purchase every device he intends to target?
-- Does he purchase a different device for each OS version available for that device?
-- Can he easily upgrade/downgrade the OS on a device for testing
-- Does each device require a carrier contract and activation?
-- AFAIK, Verizon phones are SIM-less, does this cause problems?
-- Don't some (most?) Android phone mfgrs add their own skin on top of Android?
-- Does this create any difficulties/complications for developing and testing?
Seriously, the fragmentation within Apple's iOS and iDevice versions requires quite an effort and expense to develop and test an app. That's just one manufacturer, an evolving set of features, and [mostly] consistent UI and Skin.
It would appear that the small Android developer has these problems in spades!
What does he do-- write for the lowest common denominator, or try to cherry-pick a few popular devices?
Backup, apps, music, contacts and all the lockups and delays. That is the rigamarole. Especially if you've moved movies and music from the download folder to their permanent home - iTunes can't even figure out what happened.
Hell, you can't even minimize the window when it is doing its thing.
If you add one thing, it sometimes adds it to the iPhone it in a reasonable amount of time. But if you have hundreds of contacts and gigs of music, iTunes blows chunks.
It was bound to happen. It's a repeat of the Mac vs. Windows story of 20-25 years ago for exactly the same reasons:
1- Apple's refusal to license the iOS which forced Google to write its own Android operating system;
2- Apple using its early lead and superior OS as a reason to overcharge early adopters with a profit margin of 200% or 250% hidden by a compulsory cell phone contract;
3- Apple sacrificing its long term interest and market share to realize quick, huge profits on the short term, mostly for the benefit of the CEO and his VPs who receive unheard of stock option bonuses.
Android mobile OS is the new Windows of smartphones. Unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't charge anything for its operating system, a definite cost advantage for iPhone competitors. When you add the choice of models and makers, the choice of features and carriers, a better choice of software not restricted by the App Store, quick innovation and a lower price, Android phones are bound to overtake the smartphone market over the long term.
Windows 95 crushed Apple once. What will remain this time, once Steve Jobs leaves Apple to retire or for medical reasons?
Did Steve Jobs build a house of cards with his monopolistic strategy of exclusive cell phone carriers and expensive cell phone contracts?
How will anyone "crush" Apple when Apple commands that lion's share of the profits by continually selling on margin and not volume?
How will anyone "crush" Apple when Apple finally decides to open the floodgates and spread to other US Carriers. Android will become a Nokia-like bargain-basement brand. Already well on its way.
Nokia leads by far in unit sales, yet they produce the most shitastic phones known to mankind. Are they "crushing" anyone? Nope. Instead they're suffering continual embarrassment (with highest market share.)
Apple's already established their reputation for providing hands-down the best User Experience in the market. That won't change anytime soon.
Learn the fundamentals of Apple's business strategy in 2010 before spouting off about unit sales, Steve Jobs' health, etc.
What makes you think that? I personally know quite a few Windows PC users with iPhone that are considering to replace it with something else on their next phone refresh... me included.
Me too.
When I got my 3GS is was clearly the best phone on the market. But now there are lots of great alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
None of them hate iPhone - it is good product in general... but many will simply take other products into consideration (at least).
I find it bizarre how so many here express product preferences in terms of extreme emotions.
Comments
What makes you think that?
Because Apple isn't going to make a WP7 phone and the iPhone demand isn't likely to drop even if some users switch? The issue isn't just consumer preference but the options on the table for consumers. WM6 is simply not competitive in the phone market so device makers aren't pushing new designs until WP7.
If folks are looking for non-iphone alternative and the only options are three android phones it's obvious android wins. If on the other hand there are 2 android phones and a Wp7 phone. IMHO WP7 is far more likely to take momentum from Android than iPhone.
Hard core Apple users (with multiple Apple products) will stay in their ecosystem for ever, but for number of Windows users there is more dissadvantage than advantage in iTunes tie-up and number of other restrictions Apple has imposed to the iPhone.
You mean like a decent app store? I'm not sure why you think iTunes on the PC sucks any more or any less than iTunes on a Mac.
Android is gaining share for two reasons: buy-one-get-one firesales and the lack of iPhone on Verizon. The sun is shining for Android now, but the one-two punch of Oracle's lawsuit and iPhone on Verizon will hit Android like nuclear winter. The clock is ticking, Google...
Dream on Fangirl.
The single biggest thing holding back Android adoption by Mac users is that there's no Android app to sync your phone with your Mac. And no, I don't want Google knowing everything about my phone any time I want to update my Calendar.
RIM's had a hard time lately, but at least they have their own free desktop-based app for syncing Contacts, Calendar and iTunes with a Mac.
I'd switch to Blackberry long before I ever consider an Android device.
+1 Agree wholeheartedly
Is this really big deal?
Doubletwist will sync your music, playlists and any non DRM protected videos.
I really do not have a problem with my address book and calendar syncing through GMAIL. It works great, it's free, and I have an on-line backup of my contacts and calendar?
Actually not having to use iTunes to sync everything with my phone is something i like about my Droid...
For me, it's a huge deal. I will never buy another cell phone that doesn't play nice with my Mac. And I want that functionality out of the box, not interested in 3rd party connectivity solutions for something as baseline as syncing contacts and such.
Dream on Fangirl.
Maybe you're the fangirl Bettie..
I happen to agree that the largest draw for Android is that iPhone is only available on ATT. Granted there are other attractions to Android, such as Apple hateGirls, flashtards, and I'm sure some other constituents like the free software fanatics, but the dynamic for Android is hugely different without the iPhone exclusivity, imo.
I like Apple product too, but I can see the world without wearing my Apple filtered goggles. I cannot believe that you people really think Android is doomed because of a few little issues here and there ( many of which Apple has to deal with as well )
I have to ask:
1) Do you really think Android is doomed because a few older phones cannot be upgraded to the latest version?
2) Do you really think all Android phones are crap because a few manufactures chose to release them without the latest OS installed?
3) Do you really think the everyone will stop developing apps for the Android phones because they have to deal with different versions of the OS?
I just want to know if you guys really believe this is true or not.
Speaking only for myself, and as a long time Apple fan, no, I don't think Android is doomed, because I don't think the smartphone market has reached maturity yet. There's still room for game-changing (both in hardware and software). Apple has to keep up the pace of innovation and find the next big thing. Having RFID and an infrastructure for making retail purchases with your phone could be that kind of thing. I'd love to just wave my iPhone in front of a vending machine instead of fishing for exact change.
I also don't believe that the race has come down to two players. Nokia, RIM, and yes even Microsoft are still contenders (I know, I expected to be flamed on that one). Palm would be a contender, but I fully expect HP to screw it up and doom WebOS to niche status. Android isn't unstoppable, but it's not going to disappear. I think the wild card yet to be played in this game is Windows Phone 7. Yes, I've gleefully derided it, but I do think Microsoft has clout and its partners will ship Windows phones in 2011, and if it cannibalizes marketshare, it will be mainly from Android, not iOS. That's my prediction.
On your other questions:
2. Do I think Android phones are crap? Some of them, yes. It's not Android (or a lack of upgrading) that makes them crap, it's the design, components chosen, and manufacturing that makes them crap. Of all the Android phones, the Droid Incredible by Motorola is the nicest of the bunch, IMO, but I still think the iPhone 4 has better components (screen, sensors, and camera).
3. Do I think developers will stop writing Android apps because of OS versioning? I don't think that is the only issue that Android developers face. There's also no real single hardware platform, so you have to make an extra effort to tune and test your games on a variety of handsets with different CPUs, GPUs, screen resolutions, etc. No one is forcing all handset manufacturers to, say, add a front-facing camera with a particular resolution or gyros, so software programmers can't rely on any new hardware being present across the Android "platform". I don't think these challenges will stop programmers from writing Android apps.
Actually, it is not a premise, but instead, a conclusion.
I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to identify the necessary premises. And if it interests you, try to identify the necessary implications as well.
Oh, like how I concluded that time spent browsing on the insignificant number of iPads is not insignificant because the iPad is the *perfect* browsing device and I use it to do most of my browsing? I think that was the "premise" that you called me on...
Rather, I started with the PREMISE that, of all the mobile browsing that may be done, a disproportionate amount may be done by a device that accounts for a small percentage of the browsing capable mobile devices out there. Indeed, studies have shown that very thing over the last 3 years -- the iPhone accounted for some 70% of mobile browsing in many studies, of which I am sure you have read and about which you duly graced others with your *conclusions*.
Of course, these studies, just as the one under discussion in this thread, tend to ignore the iPod and more recently, the iPad. I will go out on a limb and say that I believe that the iPad will account for no less (nay more) disproportionate browsing figures. Having used an iPad, and having read about people that do use iPads; that is my theory, and from it I conclude that Apple has made (sorry, designed) something that is jolly good for browsing (among other things).
So, according to your semantics, you *conclude* that Apple fans buy new Apple gear as soon as it is released, because something must account for the successes of Apple and the fact that it sells record numbers of items each quarter? If so, your conclusions are pretty faulty. It's a fact that half the sales in the Apple Stores are to customers new to Apple. It's a fact that schools are buying MacBooks and iPods and iPads for whole classes of kids. It's a fact that companies are equipping salesforces with iPads.
Rather, I propose that you have started with a fact, the fact that Apple is successfully selling hardware, and you want to propose a theory that accounts for it without giving Apple credit where credit is due; so, you employ your prejudices and draw upon your predisposed assumption (call it a premise if you like) that no-one in their right mind except rabid Apple Fans would buy Apple products given any intelligence and half a choice. [your comments are rife with assumptions like this throughout, so it is no stretch for me to conclude this]. Then I put it to you that you CONCLUDE that the two are related in such a way that your so called *conclusion* is the only explanation that could possibly account for the facts. And as I said, your real conclusions are out to lunch, not to mention your assumptions.
Of course, the implication of all this is that we have patiently indulged you far too much already.
Google's multi-carrier, multi-manufacturer strategy seems to be working. During the second quarter of this year, shipments of Android-based smartphones outpaced iPhones for the first time.
It was bound to happen. It's a repeat of the Mac vs. Windows story of 20-25 years ago for exactly the same reasons:
1- Apple's refusal to license the iOS which forced Google to write its own Android operating system;
2- Apple using its early lead and superior OS as a reason to overcharge early adopters with a profit margin of 200% or 250% hidden by a compulsory cell phone contract;
3- Apple sacrificing its long term interest and market share to realize quick, huge profits on the short term, mostly for the benefit of the CEO and his VPs who receive unheard of stock option bonuses.
Android mobile OS is the new Windows of smartphones. Unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't charge anything for its operating system, a definite cost advantage for iPhone competitors. When you add the choice of models and makers, the choice of features and carriers, a better choice of software not restricted by the App Store, quick innovation and a lower price, Android phones are bound to overtake the smartphone market over the long term.
Windows 95 crushed Apple once. What will remain this time, once Steve Jobs leaves Apple to retire or for medical reasons?
Did Steve Jobs build a house of cards with his monopolistic strategy of exclusive cell phone carriers and expensive cell phone contracts?
I also don't believe that the race has come down to two players. Nokia, RIM, and yes even Microsoft are still contenders (I know, I expected to be flamed on that one). Palm would be a contender, but I fully expect HP to screw it up and doom WebOS to niche status. Android isn't unstoppable, but it's not going to disappear. I think the wild card yet to be played in this game is Windows Phone 7. Yes, I've gleefully derided it, but I do think Microsoft has clout and its partners will ship Windows phones in 2011, and if it cannibalizes marketshare, it will be mainly from Android, not iOS. That's my prediction.
What remains a bottleneck for Android is: how do Android developers (not Android App developers) make money? Currently, because Google funds that. Fine. How does Google make money from Android? If they can sell other products or services (e.g. Nexus, Google Apps, Ads). Funding Android to make money on Google Apps would be the equivalent of Microsoft making Windows free to make money on Office. Making money with hardware development is something that Google will have to spend ages on to become a competitor (buying them from HTC does not count). Ads and paid search is the open option. Currently, Google makes mobile money via mobile ads on web sites. They do not make mony on third party apps. They will need some sort of iAd program to make money from ads in the app world.
Android itself costs Google money, it does not earn them money. They need Android to protect a share of the mobile web ad market. Will that in the end be enough?
I wonder: which open source / free system has ever been a huge success in the consumer world en produced its own momentum in terms of revenue that pays for ongoing development?
At least credit Fred Brooks if you are going to make his argument for him. But today even he says the numeric assumptions of team communications are wrong today in a properly run dev team that writes well incapsulated code and good interfaces. Technology and techniques have made those old equations way overstated... for the well run projects. The poorly run ones are still affected as you noted.
Essentially you end up limiting many parts of your project to the Two Pizza Rule, but not the size of the entire project. It's not hard, but the lead has to know what they are doing and be a bit of a hardcase early on to keep the interface and encapsulation ground rules in place. It's only good dev practice in the first place, but it is amazing how much of that has been ignored over the years because of ego and not-invented-here syndrome.
Certainly the Fred Brooks (there were 2 at IBM, when I worked there) should be credited for some these ideas-- as should C. Northcote Parkinson and others.
The "expediting takes a little longer" observation (also known as the "Des Plaines Directive") was made by me as the result of a study I performed on the IBM "Pricing and Forecasting" process. *
The study showed that a project with 1 line of code and 1 sentence of documentation (already completed) would take 13 months to get through the process. To expedite the process, required an additional 2 weeks (at minimum) to get the required approvals.
* I used PERT and POP (Piss On Pert) to define all the steps, sign-offs, and interactions to get through the complex process.
As to "technology and techniques" making these old equations overstated-- yes and no. Certainly, in a well run software project "APIs" and "Code Encapsulation" will help with "communication" issues.
But, in a project involving more than just software, "APIs" and "Code Encapsulation" provide less benefit.
In my experience, there is an "almost magical" way that a good, small team works together -- you just know what the others are doing, with little or no communication necessary: You're on the same wave-length!
Finally, I'll leave you with this:
"When any organizational entity expands beyond 21 members, the real power will be in some smaller body."
--C. Northcote Parkinson
.
The "expediting takes a little longer" observation (also known as the "Des Plaines Directive") was made by me as the result of a study I performed on the IBM "Pricing and Forecasting" process. *
The study showed that a project with 1 line of code and 1 sentence of documentation (already completed) would take 13 months to get through the process. To expedite the process, required an additional 2 weeks (at minimum) to get the required approvals.
1 line of code...
Are we talking IEFBR14?
3. Do I think developers will stop writing Android apps because of OS versioning? I don't think that is the only issue that Android developers face. There's also no real single hardware platform, so you have to make an extra effort to tune and test your games on a variety of handsets with different CPUs, GPUs, screen resolutions, etc. No one is forcing all handset manufacturers to, say, add a front-facing camera with a particular resolution or gyros, so software programmers can't rely on any new hardware being present across the Android "platform". I don't think these challenges will stop programmers from writing Android apps.
This is interesting! I've been "developing" iOS apps since the SDK became available. I do not have any apps in the app store-- rather I use Ad Hoc distro for remote users and local install through XCode for friends and neighbors.
I am in the final stages of testing my first app for submission to the app store as a free app.
One of the objectives is that I want the app to run on all iDevices and to include iAd where applicable.
That means that I have to test on:
-- original iPhone - iOS 3.1.3
-- iPhone 3G - iOS 4.1
-- iPhone 3GS - iOS 4.1
-- iPhone 4 - iOS 4.1
-- iPad - iOS 3.2
The iP4 and the iP 3GS are activated and have a MicroSIM and a SIM, respectively.
Fortunately, this first app scales well and does not require a version tailored to the iPad's larger screen real estate.
But, other apps need to be redesigned to work well on (exploit) the major screen-size difference.
Then, there is the fact of life of different SDK/iOS versions -- there are usually 3 SDKs/target iOSes available:
-- the current released version targeting earlier iOS devices, e.g. iOS 2.x, 3.x.
-- the current released version, e.g. iOS 4.0
-- the next beta version, e.g. iOS 4.1
Until November, there is the iPad only version-- iOS 3.2
Soon, I expect we will see an iOS 4.2 beta.
I have lots of older iPods but no iPod Touches. I stopped buying iPods when the iPhone was announced. 3 original iPhones are SIM-less and used as iPod Touches by the grandkids-- I can commandeer one of these for testing apps.
But, to test apps for the app store, it appears that I should by at least the current iPod Touch (and maybe an earlier version, too).
So, if I want to submit an app to the app store. it looks like I need over $1,000 of hardware and at least 1 carrier contract.
And, testing the app against each device/OS combination is rather involved
How does a small Android developer address this?
-- Must he purchase every device he intends to target?
-- Does he purchase a different device for each OS version available for that device?
-- Can he easily upgrade/downgrade the OS on a device for testing
-- Does each device require a carrier contract and activation?
-- AFAIK, Verizon phones are SIM-less, does this cause problems?
-- Don't some (most?) Android phone mfgrs add their own skin on top of Android?
-- Does this create any difficulties/complications for developing and testing?
Seriously, the fragmentation within Apple's iOS and iDevice versions requires quite an effort and expense to develop and test an app. That's just one manufacturer, an evolving set of features, and [mostly] consistent UI and Skin.
It would appear that the small Android developer has these problems in spades!
What does he do-- write for the lowest common denominator, or try to cherry-pick a few popular devices?
.
What rigamarole? Plug it in and sync.
Backup, apps, music, contacts and all the lockups and delays. That is the rigamarole. Especially if you've moved movies and music from the download folder to their permanent home - iTunes can't even figure out what happened.
Hell, you can't even minimize the window when it is doing its thing.
If you add one thing, it sometimes adds it to the iPhone it in a reasonable amount of time. But if you have hundreds of contacts and gigs of music, iTunes blows chunks.
It was bound to happen. It's a repeat of the Mac vs. Windows story of 20-25 years ago for exactly the same reasons:
1- Apple's refusal to license the iOS which forced Google to write its own Android operating system;
2- Apple using its early lead and superior OS as a reason to overcharge early adopters with a profit margin of 200% or 250% hidden by a compulsory cell phone contract;
3- Apple sacrificing its long term interest and market share to realize quick, huge profits on the short term, mostly for the benefit of the CEO and his VPs who receive unheard of stock option bonuses.
Android mobile OS is the new Windows of smartphones. Unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't charge anything for its operating system, a definite cost advantage for iPhone competitors. When you add the choice of models and makers, the choice of features and carriers, a better choice of software not restricted by the App Store, quick innovation and a lower price, Android phones are bound to overtake the smartphone market over the long term.
Windows 95 crushed Apple once. What will remain this time, once Steve Jobs leaves Apple to retire or for medical reasons?
Did Steve Jobs build a house of cards with his monopolistic strategy of exclusive cell phone carriers and expensive cell phone contracts?
How will anyone "crush" Apple when Apple commands that lion's share of the profits by continually selling on margin and not volume?
How will anyone "crush" Apple when Apple finally decides to open the floodgates and spread to other US Carriers. Android will become a Nokia-like bargain-basement brand. Already well on its way.
Nokia leads by far in unit sales, yet they produce the most shitastic phones known to mankind. Are they "crushing" anyone? Nope. Instead they're suffering continual embarrassment (with highest market share.)
Apple's already established their reputation for providing hands-down the best User Experience in the market. That won't change anytime soon.
Learn the fundamentals of Apple's business strategy in 2010 before spouting off about unit sales, Steve Jobs' health, etc.
Man I'm glad apple products are irrelevant...... irrelevance must equal huge stock price gins.
The subject was the Mac, and not "Apple products".
HTH.
What makes you think that? I personally know quite a few Windows PC users with iPhone that are considering to replace it with something else on their next phone refresh... me included.
Me too.
When I got my 3GS is was clearly the best phone on the market. But now there are lots of great alternatives.
None of them hate iPhone - it is good product in general... but many will simply take other products into consideration (at least).
I find it bizarre how so many here express product preferences in terms of extreme emotions.
I'm not sure why you think iTunes on the PC sucks any more or any less than iTunes on a Mac.
I always assumed that iTunes worked so badly because I was using a PC. Are you saying that it runs poorly on Macs too?
For me, it's a huge deal. I will never buy another cell phone that doesn't play nice with my Mac.
That makes perfect sense. But it is too bad that you are so restricted in your choices.
Maybe you're the fangirl Bettie..
I happen to agree that the largest draw for Android is that iPhone is only available on ATT.
You ignore or too heavily discount multiple important factors.