All these companies have "Nokia disease" the term I use for those going into extintion, but the public, analysts and the companies themselves, don't realize it yet!
All these companies have "Nokia disease" the term I use for those going into extintion, but the public, analysts and the companies themselves, don't realize it yet!
I think Nokia is the 3rd most profitable handset maker, with RiM slightly ahead and Samsung slightly behind, with Apple far in the lead, of course. It?s the SE, LG, Moto and HTC that are barely hanging on right now.
I?d say that Nokia?s nature in the market has insulated them more than the others. They?ve lost marketshare on all fronts but they always made a profit and pulled in over $60 billion in revenue for 2010. I?d be more scared of what Nokia can do in the future than I would be about what Moto and HTC can do as Android-based vendors will likely end up like HP, Dell and Acer as commodity devices innovating to cheapness for the same Android users.
Why do you think that is fair and why do you think it’s then also fair to exclude their other devices that use the same OS that run the same apps without any change to the app or how it’s used?
I kind of like the separation of different devices in the statistics. It's always better to have more information and statistics for different devices can always be combined for a more general overview.
Of course, one has to be careful not to draw invalid conclusions from the data, such as saying something like "developers should focus on Android because they have the highest unit sales and fastest growth" (someone has actually said something like this to me!).
For that conclusion a far better data set would be the revenue generated from app sales on the entire platform, the number of app sales on the entire platform, or even the number of app sales for a specific type of app on the entire platform.
There are obviously a whole bunch of other things to consider as well such as the potential for related sales (like an tablet app that works with the smartphone app), the sale of online services, ad revenues, distribution costs etc etc
I suppose it all boils down to what the ROI is for any given platform.
All these companies have "Nokia disease" the term I use for those going into extintion, but the public, analysts and the companies themselves, don't realize it yet!
Nokia going into extinction? You really believe that?
Nokia going into extinction? You really believe that?
If the WP7 boat that they jump on were also sinking, their name as handset maker will come to extinction, and stay on cellular network business like Ericsson & Siemens.
Developers don't much like it, and manufacturers who fight to undercut each other just like Windows computer makers are completely at the mercy of Google's ability to keep it relevant. I see a very messy collapse for Android.
Since you cannot understand that it's illegitimate to bundle dozens of incompatible phone OSs together as one single monolithic "Android" platform for purposes of comparison, we know for a fact it isn't you.
It's a shame the thread is sinking into a disagreement over semantics.
As far as the industry is concerned, all Android phones use Android as the OS. There's not "dozens" of Android OS's. There are custom UI's applied over the Android OS, just as some who jailbreak iOS have changed the skin or UI on their device. But the base OS is still iOS (or Android as the case may be). I don't think you'll find any industry-accepted source that will agree with your definition of Android Mac-socist.
You're correct that the UI variations that some phone manufacturers apply on top of the Android OS are a source of delay in applying the latest updates. Some would also call it a form of fragmentation, perhaps rightly so. But Android phones all have one base OS. . . Android, just as all iPods, iPhones and iPads all make use of one base operating system, iOS.
It's a shame the thread is sinking into a disagreement over semantics.
As far as the industry is concerned, all Android phones use Android as the OS. There's not "dozens" of Android OS's. There are custom UI's applied over the Android OS, just as some who jailbreak iOS have changed the skin or UI on their device. But the base OS is still iOS (or Android as the case may be). I don't think you'll find any industry-accepted source that will agree with your definition of Android Mac-socist.
You're correct that the UI variations that some phone manufacturers apply on top of the Android OS are a source of delay in applying the latest updates. Some would also call it a form of fragmentation, perhaps rightly so. But Android phones all have one base OS. . . Android, just as all iPods, iPhones and iPads all make use of one base operating system, iOS.
I know that's the Party Line™, but that doesn't make it any more true. Ask the potential Android developers who are staying away in droves, including Epic.
EDIT: On second thought, I don't care whether it's true or not. Fine, let's believe you and say the OS is exactly the same across the board, with just "UI variations" from manufacturer to manufacturer. The UI is what people interact with. It's the make-or-break part of the user experience. Developers can develop separate versions of their apps for all of these different UIs—a non-starter, surely—or they can optimize their app for one of them, in which case all the rest will suck, or they can optimize for none of them, in which case they'll all suck. That's the "Android" dilemma. I don't envy them that, "Market Share" or no....
Since you cannot understand that it's illegitimate to bundle dozens of incompatible phone OSs together as one single monolithic "Android" platform for purposes of comparison, we know for a fact it isn't you.
Since you can't understand that the OS's aren't incompatible in the way it matters. The content they access and how to write apps for them. Yes, some phones might have an issue because of hardware, but at the end of the day, an App written with the SDK can work on any device running Android/Dalvik, no matter WHO makes it. That's what matters when you're talking marketshare, not if you can load HTC sense on a Motorola Droid.
By your logic, it's not fair to compare iOS to Android since iOS only has to compete against Windows, Android, BBerry, and WebOS while Android also has to compete against itself.
You're splitting hairs.
When you're talking about OS marketshare, you can wrap all versions of Android into one title (provided they have the DalvikVM, which any device with the Market has) just like you can combine all iOS devices (iPhones, iPads, iPod Touches)
When you're talking about company profitability and Profit margin, THEN who makes the device matters.
I know that's the Party Line?, but that doesn't make it any more true. Ask the potential Android developers who are staying away in droves, including Epic.
EDIT: On second thought, I don't care whether it's true or not. Fine, let's believe you and say the OS is exactly the same across the board, with just "UI variations" from manufacturer to manufacturer. The UI is what people interact with. It's the make-or-break part of the user experience. Developers can develop separate versions of their apps for all of these different UIs?a non-starter, surely?or they can optimize their app for one of them, in which case all the rest will suck, or they can optimize for none of them, in which case they'll all suck. That's the "Android" dilemma. I don't envy them that, "Market Share" or no....
If we?re just going to include a base OS regardless of the UI or apps are designed for it then why can?t Darwin be stated the way Android is which includes all OS X variants of Mac OS, iOS for iPhone/Touch, iOS for iPad, and iOS for AppleTV?
I know that's the Party Line?, but that doesn't make it any more true. Ask the potential Android developers who are staying away in droves, including Epic.
EDIT: On second thought, I don't care whether it's true or not. Fine, let's believe you and say the OS is exactly the same across the board, with just "UI variations" from manufacturer to manufacturer. The UI is what people interact with. It's the make-or-break part of the user experience. Developers can develop separate versions of their apps for all of these different UIs?a non-starter, surely?or they can optimize their app for one of them, in which case all the rest will suck, or they can optimize for none of them, in which case they'll all suck. That's the "Android" dilemma. I don't envy them that, "Market Share" or no....
If you actually read Epic's complaints, it has NOTHING to do with UI elements. And only an idiot develops an app to take advantage of a skin since you can DOWNLOAD different skins in the market. In fact, if you just code the Menu to work a certain way (use default values), the Phone will skin it appropriately. This is apparent to anyone who's ever flashed a Framework-res.apk. The menus are dynamic and will change with the UI unless the developer wants them to look exactly the same across devices.
The issue Epic has is how Android handles available memory. The reason they brought up the skins is because something like Blur requires a lot more memory than stock Android, so it makes it hard to program advanced since you can't accurately predict how much memory will be available. This is largely because they're developing using the NDK since advanced gaming elements don't appear in the SDK until 2.3 and 3.0. This means as customers adopt new phones, or old ones are upgraded, the issue will become less severe, but yes, it will still be an issue.
It's an issue with ANY smartphone OS. The only reason Epic can accept it with iOS is because the OS across the devices is consistent so the memory limitation is predictable, but even Epic said that it's far easier designing games for dedicated systems.
You're throwing everything you can under the term "incompatible OS" when in fact, most of the issues you're listing stem from you not understanding how the platform works.
And other studies, like the one AI posted about Developers talking about fragmentation (I'm sure you have it favorited) show that developers ARE looking at moving into android. or the article about iFund developers branching into Android. The "fragmentation" issue might be keeping some developers away, but that number is getting smaller.
If we?re just going to include a base OS regardless of the UI or apps are designed for it then why can?t Darwin be stated the way Android is which includes all OS X variants of Mac OS, iOS for iPhone/Touch, iOS for iPad, and iOS for AppleTV?
because you have to code an app differently for MacOS because of SOFTWARE differences that are bigger than an API level.
With Android, the SDK is the SDK, no matter if it is a Sony or a Motorola. Yes, there might be "Hardware" differences. But if you want to split them that way then you're just splitting hairs. At what point does a Windows PC not become a Windows PC? When it can't run Crysis? When if can't hit a certain framerate? I'm pretty sure the requirement of Windows PC is that it is running a Windows OS.
Android devices are running Android OS. They have the DalvikVM to handle apps and an app that runs on a DroidX thanks to the SDK will run fine on a HTC Incredible thanks to the SDK.
And app written for the iPhone will NOT run on a MacOSX computer.
If you can't see that difference, I don't know what to tell you.
(and no, you can't quote what I said in earlier posts in response to this because I was talking about CELLPHONES ON CONTRACT, not OS marketshare)
....And only an idiot develops an app to take advantage of a skin since you can DOWNLOAD different skins in the market. In fact, if you just code the Menu to work a certain way (use default values), the Phone will skin it appropriately. This is apparent to anyone who's ever flashed a Framework-res.apk....
Yes, I'm sure all the people who took a free Android phone when they upgraded from their flip-phone will do just that?maybe Andy Rubin could tweet them to that effect?
Seriously, if you don't see that the vast majority of phone customers are not the kind of propellerheads who are going to massage their OS to work with this or that app, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes, I'm sure all the people who took a free Android phone when they upgraded from their flip-phone will do just that?maybe Andy Rubin could tweet them to that effect?
Seriously, if you don't see that the vast majority of phone customers are not the kind of propellerheads who are going to massage their OS to work with this or that app, I don't know what to tell you.
I didn't bring that up to say that people should flash that APK. In fact, there's really not a reason to do so unless you're a power user.
I brought it up to show that developers arn't building for specific UI's because Android will format their app automatically to that skin unless they SPECIFICALLY tell it otherwise.
Comments
All these companies have "Nokia disease" the term I use for those going into extintion, but the public, analysts and the companies themselves, don't realize it yet!
I think Nokia is the 3rd most profitable handset maker, with RiM slightly ahead and Samsung slightly behind, with Apple far in the lead, of course. It?s the SE, LG, Moto and HTC that are barely hanging on right now.
I?d say that Nokia?s nature in the market has insulated them more than the others. They?ve lost marketshare on all fronts but they always made a profit and pulled in over $60 billion in revenue for 2010. I?d be more scared of what Nokia can do in the future than I would be about what Moto and HTC can do as Android-based vendors will likely end up like HP, Dell and Acer as commodity devices innovating to cheapness for the same Android users.
Why do you think that is fair and why do you think it’s then also fair to exclude their other devices that use the same OS that run the same apps without any change to the app or how it’s used?
I kind of like the separation of different devices in the statistics. It's always better to have more information and statistics for different devices can always be combined for a more general overview.
Of course, one has to be careful not to draw invalid conclusions from the data, such as saying something like "developers should focus on Android because they have the highest unit sales and fastest growth" (someone has actually said something like this to me!).
For that conclusion a far better data set would be the revenue generated from app sales on the entire platform, the number of app sales on the entire platform, or even the number of app sales for a specific type of app on the entire platform.
There are obviously a whole bunch of other things to consider as well such as the potential for related sales (like an tablet app that works with the smartphone app), the sale of online services, ad revenues, distribution costs etc etc
I suppose it all boils down to what the ROI is for any given platform.
All these companies have "Nokia disease" the term I use for those going into extintion, but the public, analysts and the companies themselves, don't realize it yet!
Nokia going into extinction? You really believe that?
Nokia going into extinction? You really believe that?
If the WP7 boat that they jump on were also sinking, their name as handset maker will come to extinction, and stay on cellular network business like Ericsson & Siemens.
I guess the entire world is wrong and you're the only smart person on the planet:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Android
Since you cannot understand that it's illegitimate to bundle dozens of incompatible phone OSs together as one single monolithic "Android" platform for purposes of comparison, we know for a fact it isn't you.
As far as the industry is concerned, all Android phones use Android as the OS. There's not "dozens" of Android OS's. There are custom UI's applied over the Android OS, just as some who jailbreak iOS have changed the skin or UI on their device. But the base OS is still iOS (or Android as the case may be). I don't think you'll find any industry-accepted source that will agree with your definition of Android Mac-socist.
You're correct that the UI variations that some phone manufacturers apply on top of the Android OS are a source of delay in applying the latest updates. Some would also call it a form of fragmentation, perhaps rightly so. But Android phones all have one base OS. . . Android, just as all iPods, iPhones and iPads all make use of one base operating system, iOS.
It's a shame the thread is sinking into a disagreement over semantics.
As far as the industry is concerned, all Android phones use Android as the OS. There's not "dozens" of Android OS's. There are custom UI's applied over the Android OS, just as some who jailbreak iOS have changed the skin or UI on their device. But the base OS is still iOS (or Android as the case may be). I don't think you'll find any industry-accepted source that will agree with your definition of Android Mac-socist.
You're correct that the UI variations that some phone manufacturers apply on top of the Android OS are a source of delay in applying the latest updates. Some would also call it a form of fragmentation, perhaps rightly so. But Android phones all have one base OS. . . Android, just as all iPods, iPhones and iPads all make use of one base operating system, iOS.
I know that's the Party Line™, but that doesn't make it any more true. Ask the potential Android developers who are staying away in droves, including Epic.
EDIT: On second thought, I don't care whether it's true or not. Fine, let's believe you and say the OS is exactly the same across the board, with just "UI variations" from manufacturer to manufacturer. The UI is what people interact with. It's the make-or-break part of the user experience. Developers can develop separate versions of their apps for all of these different UIs—a non-starter, surely—or they can optimize their app for one of them, in which case all the rest will suck, or they can optimize for none of them, in which case they'll all suck. That's the "Android" dilemma. I don't envy them that, "Market Share" or no....
Since you cannot understand that it's illegitimate to bundle dozens of incompatible phone OSs together as one single monolithic "Android" platform for purposes of comparison, we know for a fact it isn't you.
Since you can't understand that the OS's aren't incompatible in the way it matters. The content they access and how to write apps for them. Yes, some phones might have an issue because of hardware, but at the end of the day, an App written with the SDK can work on any device running Android/Dalvik, no matter WHO makes it. That's what matters when you're talking marketshare, not if you can load HTC sense on a Motorola Droid.
By your logic, it's not fair to compare iOS to Android since iOS only has to compete against Windows, Android, BBerry, and WebOS while Android also has to compete against itself.
You're splitting hairs.
When you're talking about OS marketshare, you can wrap all versions of Android into one title (provided they have the DalvikVM, which any device with the Market has) just like you can combine all iOS devices (iPhones, iPads, iPod Touches)
When you're talking about company profitability and Profit margin, THEN who makes the device matters.
I know that's the Party Line?, but that doesn't make it any more true. Ask the potential Android developers who are staying away in droves, including Epic.
EDIT: On second thought, I don't care whether it's true or not. Fine, let's believe you and say the OS is exactly the same across the board, with just "UI variations" from manufacturer to manufacturer. The UI is what people interact with. It's the make-or-break part of the user experience. Developers can develop separate versions of their apps for all of these different UIs?a non-starter, surely?or they can optimize their app for one of them, in which case all the rest will suck, or they can optimize for none of them, in which case they'll all suck. That's the "Android" dilemma. I don't envy them that, "Market Share" or no....
If we?re just going to include a base OS regardless of the UI or apps are designed for it then why can?t Darwin be stated the way Android is which includes all OS X variants of Mac OS, iOS for iPhone/Touch, iOS for iPad, and iOS for AppleTV?
I know that's the Party Line?, but that doesn't make it any more true. Ask the potential Android developers who are staying away in droves, including Epic.
EDIT: On second thought, I don't care whether it's true or not. Fine, let's believe you and say the OS is exactly the same across the board, with just "UI variations" from manufacturer to manufacturer. The UI is what people interact with. It's the make-or-break part of the user experience. Developers can develop separate versions of their apps for all of these different UIs?a non-starter, surely?or they can optimize their app for one of them, in which case all the rest will suck, or they can optimize for none of them, in which case they'll all suck. That's the "Android" dilemma. I don't envy them that, "Market Share" or no....
If you actually read Epic's complaints, it has NOTHING to do with UI elements. And only an idiot develops an app to take advantage of a skin since you can DOWNLOAD different skins in the market. In fact, if you just code the Menu to work a certain way (use default values), the Phone will skin it appropriately. This is apparent to anyone who's ever flashed a Framework-res.apk. The menus are dynamic and will change with the UI unless the developer wants them to look exactly the same across devices.
The issue Epic has is how Android handles available memory. The reason they brought up the skins is because something like Blur requires a lot more memory than stock Android, so it makes it hard to program advanced since you can't accurately predict how much memory will be available. This is largely because they're developing using the NDK since advanced gaming elements don't appear in the SDK until 2.3 and 3.0. This means as customers adopt new phones, or old ones are upgraded, the issue will become less severe, but yes, it will still be an issue.
It's an issue with ANY smartphone OS. The only reason Epic can accept it with iOS is because the OS across the devices is consistent so the memory limitation is predictable, but even Epic said that it's far easier designing games for dedicated systems.
You're throwing everything you can under the term "incompatible OS" when in fact, most of the issues you're listing stem from you not understanding how the platform works.
And other studies, like the one AI posted about Developers talking about fragmentation (I'm sure you have it favorited) show that developers ARE looking at moving into android. or the article about iFund developers branching into Android. The "fragmentation" issue might be keeping some developers away, but that number is getting smaller.
If we?re just going to include a base OS regardless of the UI or apps are designed for it then why can?t Darwin be stated the way Android is which includes all OS X variants of Mac OS, iOS for iPhone/Touch, iOS for iPad, and iOS for AppleTV?
because you have to code an app differently for MacOS because of SOFTWARE differences that are bigger than an API level.
With Android, the SDK is the SDK, no matter if it is a Sony or a Motorola. Yes, there might be "Hardware" differences. But if you want to split them that way then you're just splitting hairs. At what point does a Windows PC not become a Windows PC? When it can't run Crysis? When if can't hit a certain framerate? I'm pretty sure the requirement of Windows PC is that it is running a Windows OS.
Android devices are running Android OS. They have the DalvikVM to handle apps and an app that runs on a DroidX thanks to the SDK will run fine on a HTC Incredible thanks to the SDK.
And app written for the iPhone will NOT run on a MacOSX computer.
If you can't see that difference, I don't know what to tell you.
(and no, you can't quote what I said in earlier posts in response to this because I was talking about CELLPHONES ON CONTRACT, not OS marketshare)
....And only an idiot develops an app to take advantage of a skin since you can DOWNLOAD different skins in the market. In fact, if you just code the Menu to work a certain way (use default values), the Phone will skin it appropriately. This is apparent to anyone who's ever flashed a Framework-res.apk....
Yes, I'm sure all the people who took a free Android phone when they upgraded from their flip-phone will do just that?maybe Andy Rubin could tweet them to that effect?
Seriously, if you don't see that the vast majority of phone customers are not the kind of propellerheads who are going to massage their OS to work with this or that app, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes, I'm sure all the people who took a free Android phone when they upgraded from their flip-phone will do just that?maybe Andy Rubin could tweet them to that effect?
Seriously, if you don't see that the vast majority of phone customers are not the kind of propellerheads who are going to massage their OS to work with this or that app, I don't know what to tell you.
I didn't bring that up to say that people should flash that APK. In fact, there's really not a reason to do so unless you're a power user.
I brought it up to show that developers arn't building for specific UI's because Android will format their app automatically to that skin unless they SPECIFICALLY tell it otherwise.
Is it really that hard for you to grasp context?