Most apps from before version X work flawlessly on version X...like 95%+ those that don't would have to be either 1.X old or unsupported by the devs which is not Google's fault at all.
Except we know that's not true. Plenty of apps don't work across upgrades, and never will, plenty of apps don't work across phones, and many never will. We've got evidence about Angry Birds posted right here in the thread. They aren't close to being the only ones, just possibly, the most well known. Google hides apps that don't work on devices that can't run then, so it's not surprising that people aren't aware of what won't work on their own device.
Most people don't read ArsTechnica, or Anandtech, or Appleinsider, etc. They just read popular sites and mags. They aren't even aware when a new OS upgrade comes out!
Quote:
Funny...Google refusing to cave to China's totalitarian rules yet Apple and MS not minding said rules and you still wanna say Google sucks? lol
Google is all flash. I don't believe a thing they say anymore. They weren't doing well in China before, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just gave it up to cut their losses, and to market that decision in other countries. After all, that's what they are, a marketing and advertising company.
Because the code is ALREADY gifted as open source, which is why BAIDU can fork it. If the code wasn't available forking it would be IMPOSSIBLE.
2.x is gifted.
3.x is not.
4.x is most likely to be open.
5.x ?????
The point isn't whether or not that Baidu or Amazon could fork...they did. The question is whether Android stays open past the promised ICS release or if Google forks an open version of android driven by "the community" and one, more fully featured version, for Google Market handsets.
Will Google fund the development of competing ecosystems?
Yes, Android fragmentation can be an issue for some minor number of applications. My son has run into some games he'd like to run that aren't compatible with his inexpensive prepaid phone. Not at all common, but there are a few. So I'd have to agree that hardware choices by the handset manufacturer's can cause some app compatibility problems, an issue that will need to be addressed. Google has indicated they agree with that assessment and are attempting to get the Handset Alliance members to standardize pertinent hardware. No idea if they'll be successful.
But IMHO it's no more of an issue for the developers and users than the inability to even find good apps in Apple's Appstore. Not offering categories, or even an easy way to find highly rated applications, makes finding and purchasing newly released but quality apps a big problem. If you don't know the name you're looking for, how do you find them? Stumbling around? If I'm interested in subscribing to a tech magazine, how do I search? Or looking for a time manager, same question. The Android Market doesn't have the same problems in identifying quality apps in the area you're interested in. Search by name, keyword, categories or rating.
Both platforms have issues with the application markets. One is poorly designed (IMO), failing to anticipate that the huge number of apps if offers would create it's own problems, a issue that goes on uncorrected. The other has different hardware combos limiting some app compatibility, along with some apps reportedly not being the same quality as their iOS counterpart. There's very few active devices on old OS versions creating an incompatibility problem.
So which app store is worse? Which creates more roadblocks for a new developer?
It's not that hard. And until recently, it was almost impossible to find anything in the Android Market. Then Google redesigned it to look more like Apple's App Store.
Apple has plenty of categories, and you can always type a word and selections will come up. Not as hard as you think.
Is it perfect? Of course not. It will never be perfect when there are so many apps. But it's not bad, and Apple improves it as time goes on.
Google is all flash. I don't believe a thing they say anymore. They weren't doing well in China before, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just gave it up to cut their losses, and to market that decision in other countries. After all, that's what they are, a marketing and advertising company.
I consider that an insult... to the marketing and advertising professions.
Google is all flash. I don't believe a thing they say anymore. They weren't doing well in China before, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just gave it up to cut their losses, and to market that decision in other countries. After all, that's what they are, a marketing and advertising company.
Are you proposing that Google made up the whole Chinese Gov't hacking of dissident email accounts simply to giove them cover for giving up on a failed China strategy? The hacking of US Government and Fortune 500 companies another fairy-tale that Google made up about the Chinese government? Surely your head isn't buried that far in the sand Mel.
You may want to believe everything about Google is evil, but at least give them props when they do the right thing.
And I'm telling you, that problem is bullshit. If that DRM was required by studios, it would be BUILT IN to the .apk (which it used to be). But with the newest version of the application, for several versions now infact, all you have to do is side-load it onto your device and it works flawlessly. You'll also notice that the list of "approved" devices has no pattern to it. All chipsets, all OS "skins" and multiple OS versions are represented. The block is purely a political move, or at least something done for non-DRM reasons. If it was a DRM issue, then ALL tegra2 devices would be certified, not just one or two of them.
Note, this is NOT hacking the software itself. I don't believe you should do this if there are DRM issues involved (no matter what I think about said issues) because doing that will just give the studios fuel for the fire. This is why I haven't downloaded the "modified" Google Video file that will let me play rentals on my Rooted phone. All you have to do with the netflix is pull the file from a phone it can be installed on, and then side-load it, unaltered, into your new device.
When you install the app, it checks to make sure it can install, and then when you sign in it registers it with the service. At both points, DRM would be checked. And guess what? It passes. Netflix will work on basically ANY smartphone/tablet, but for whatever reason Netflix is only allowing certain devices to download it directly from the market.
So why would they self limit their customer base? No company does that intentionally. Other than compatibility problems with DRM, licenses and possibly some other problems large and small, what possible reason would they have to do this? You haven't given a reason for that. You must have some explanation.
If my collective memory is short, then so is yours. We don't live in the world of 5 years ago.
The reason only geeks installed apps 5 years ago was because the only other people using smartphones needed them for work, usually just for email and to them it was just a WORK TOOL.
One of the things that's happened since then is the iPhone, maybe you heard of it? See, the thing about the iPhone WASN'T that it just redefined the smartphone, which it did. The thing about it is it redefined the MARKET for the smartphone. Suddenly people who weren't "Geeks" wanted to put stuff on their devices, or use their phone to get their email. This new market will NOT go away just because a few companies decide to Fork android, specifically because these companies DO NOT market these forks AS android.
The other thing that happened in the past 5 years is that being a "geek" started becoming cool again. People are on computers more than they ever were, and they're using apps like Twitter, Foursquare, Facebook, Google+, etc. to keep in contact with eachother, and meet strangers, more than they ever have. The internet isn't some "big scary" place anymore, it's a community for a lot of people, and embracing that community and the "geekiness" of it is being celebrated.
Being a Geek is mainstream, or close enough to it that it no longer is a fringe.
We won't revert to 5 years ago because we can't. Yes, there are android markets springing up all over the place. But do you want to know the NUMBER ONE reason devs are putting apps in different markets? It's to reach countries that don't have paid access in the Android market yet (and that number is quickly shinking). Amazon has it's own app store, yes. but devs hate it. Maybe they won't when they get the Kindle tablet running, but even then it's not that big of a deal.
And Baidu? Baidu will have a chinese government curated market. That's the only way it will get approved. Most app developers have no interest in that anyway. And the ones that do have a huge potential market to access, so the fork WILL BE WORTH IT.
And let me ask you what's worse: Coding a new app FROM SCRATCH because Baidu decided to write their own OS instead, or modifying existing code from your android app so it works with their fork?
If android Couldn't fork we'd have a greater number of incompatible operating systems, not just "fragmented" ones. Or are you blind enough to assume that all of these companies "forking" android would just be content not making their own ecosystems and paying to be part of iOS instead?
I agree with everything you've said here, except the part about geeks. People haven't turned into geeks, and it's not really cool, except to other geeks. What's happened is what always happens to technology. It became simpler. Just as when cars first came out. You had to crank them, oil them, check pressure, grease the chain - every 6 miles! So few people owned one. Those who did were like the geeks of today.
But today, almost everyone owns, or at least drives a car. No geeks there, except for the few who still fuss around. For them, the fussing is more important than the using. Same thing with computer tech. Most people are users, simple. But the geeks like to fuss around more than use the device. The pride is in the fussing, not the use.
The issue keeping AAA apps from Android is monitization more than fragmentation. I'm not in denial about Android fragmentation. I've admitted COUNTLESS times that it existed. What I'm saying is that it is not the deal-breaker you're trying to make it out to be. I've even provided links where DEVELOPERS say as much. There are many others. And there are others on top of THAT from developers who've made money with Android.
There are TWO. Let's me say that again, TWO major app stores for android. If you want to hit most users you just need to develop for ONE. (amazon doesn't currently hit ANY devices the android market does not). The other app stores exist to offer paid app content to countries where the Android market can't offer it yet, and that list of countries is shrinking dramatically. Most app developers, if they even bother with those markets, will choose one or two markets to host content on, and that's it. There's not "20 different markets" they have to worry about hitting. That's a fallacy made up by people who don't use android, and parroted by people here who don't know any better.
and Rovio's angry birds port ran like shit because of the ADS. If you downloaded the (ad free) demo, it worked flawlessly on low end devices, or if these devices were rooted and ran an ad-blocker (which I don't support) it also ran well. The problem wasn't their app, it was their shitty implementation of ads. Apps with ads can run great on low end devices with ads enabled, so it wasn't ads causing the problem, just their implementation.
Fragmentation is a minor issue for all but an extreme minority of app-types. The problem is, developers want to port over their hard coded app from iOS and have it run flawlessly. These developers are stupid. the Android team has dozens of tutorials up on how to code around the screen size and OS issues, most of the developers you hear complaining are talking about points already dealt with in these tutorials.
The problem is the money. Android doesn't have an ecosystem like iTunes behind it. They don't have giftcards available everywhere, or a CHEAP non-smartphone device that can access the content (ipod touch) to expand the market past smartphone users. Heck, look at the amazon app store as an example. Developers pretty much universally agree it's SHIT to develop for because updates take weeks to push through, Amazon changes the terms all the time, and it's US only. And yet because of the ECOSYSTEM Amazon has, it's attracted new apps to the Android platform, some of which still have their apps exclusively on the limited market.
Ah! Ok, interesting point about the Ads. You can't separate the Ads from the app. You can't separate out the Ads from the platform. So if Angry Birds works well on only a few Android devices because of the Ads, guess what? That's fragmentation. Why, because for Android, Ads are a required part of the platform, because so few Android users will pay for apps. Remember that they said they went with Ads because they sold so few.
So, if it's the Ads that are causing the problem for some apps, that's because of fragmentation. And that's important because most developers want to make money from their work, and if they can't sell something, then they NEED Ads. And if the apps won't run on most devices because of fragmentation that won't handle the Ad mechanism properly, that's a problem, for all of Android, and for all of the users, because they won't be able to get all the apps they want, as the platform is built around Ads.
It's an OPEN source system, how can they sue, it's not like say Java or something that you pay royalties on.
They are claiming, in the lawsuit with Microsoft, that Microsoft showed "highly confidential" Android code to someone Microsoft has working for them on the case. Google claims that this code is proprietary to them. This is the code that's been characterized as being stolen from Linux, and derived from same, which apparently, it was. That code must also be under the GNU 2 license, but Google doesn't care.
Ya gotta love Google. Not only do they steal from big profit making companies, but they also steal from profit free open software organizations. They are a truly equal opportunity employer. Employer of other's code, that is.
Ah! Ok, interesting point about the Ads. You can't separate the Ads from the app. You can't separate out the Ads from the platform. So if Angry Birds works well on only a few Android devices because of the Ads, guess what? That's fragmentation. Why, because for Android, Ads are a required part of the platform, because so few Android users will pay for apps. Remember that they said they went with Ads because they sold so few.
So, if it's the Ads that are causing the problem for some apps, that's because of fragmentation. And that's important because most developers want to make money from their work, and if they can't sell something, then they NEED Ads. And if the apps won't run on most devices because of fragmentation that won't handle the Ad mechanism properly, that's a problem, for all of Android, and for all of the users, because they won't be able to get all the apps they want, as the platform is built around Ads.
These days, anything complex? Yeah, it's pretty much impossible. Most patents are not findable by those wanting to use the code. So they use the code without knowing it's been invented before, and wait to see if someone comes out of the woodwork. Most of the time, there's no problem, and a license is negotiated. But sometimes, the owner wants too much, or the user doesn't believe the patent is viable, etc.
But most large companies have a way of working this out by listing all of their licensable patents. That way, a company can look through defined groups of patents to see if some are needed.
But there are enough patents that aren't listed, because the company doesn't normally license them. It's very difficult to find patents that are relevant, because many are so technical, that the name the patent is listed under doesn't adequately describe it to someone looking for what it does.
I am not trying to engage you in a dialog -- but you keep raising interesting points! Yer' on a roll tonight!
Are you saying Google has difficulty selling ads on Android -- because Android doesn't properly deliver the ads to many devices?
Doesn't Google need the ads even more than the developers?
Shouldn't they fix that?
With all of this rumored forking, I'm still at a loss for how Google plans to actually make money off of this. If you look at the purchase of Android, Motorola, cost of development AND legal fees thus far, that's gonna take nearly a decade of mobile advertising just to recoup Google's costs.
The fragmentation problem for Google is the obvious one...Baidu's fork will essentially kill Android growth in China while doing nothing to iOS and moderate to wp7. It doesn't MATTER to Google if the apps run on Baidu phones if Google is shut out of its Android monetization plans in China. Heaven help Google if this fork gains traction outside of China and into asia proper (unlikely in the extreme).
However, Korean Android or whatever also potentially locks out Google although less likely to. Unless, of course, MS writes someone an appropriately big check.
Amazon's fork, while still using the Google search engine as default, kills a lot of the tie in for other Google services and eyeball count.
So here you are as Google, out millions/billions for Android development and then another $12B for Moto and you STILL don't have your second revenue stream locked down. When is Android going in the black? And if it can't why dump more money down this particular pit as opposed to pulling another Google Wave and "gifting" the code to open source?
What I believe will happen is that companies, and even governments, will look at these extreme forks to see if they work out. I believe the S. Korean government recently said they were looking into making an OS themselves. This could be a problem for interoperability.
Google depends on advertising for 97% of their revenue and profits, according to their financial reports. If Ads don't go back to them, they are in trouble. If this happens in China, what happens in India next? They are also indifferent to other countries companies. Then what? Brazil? Iran? This could get nasty.
I know some people want to shrug this off, but it's not so simple. Android was bought because Google wanted a way to monetize mobile. First the BB. When they saw the iPhone jump up, they decided to copy that instead. Mobile terrifies Google. It has them shivering down their spine. They know it could kill them, or at least shunt them into a backwater of the Internet.
Their big problem is with apps. Their biggest problem is with Apple's apps. I use Google search on my iPhone and iPad far less often than I do on my Mac. I'm willing to bet everyone else does the same. It's all apps. If I need info, I go to the apps that do it best. I don't need Google most of the time. That's a killer! Over 80% of Google's revenue and profit comes from Ads in the sidebars and at the top of the search results in Google search.
If we don't use Google search, then that's 80% of their sales gone down the tube. So it's bad enough that iPhone and other non Android users are abandoning them to a large extent, but this fragmentation, if it cuts out Google's Ads, will be murder. Baidu is likely to put their own Ads agency in charge, and cut Google out of most, if not all of it. That could happen everywhere.
What if it's possible for Samsung and others to figure out a way to remove the Ads seen in Angry Birds, for example, and substitute the ones they sell? If Google can't prevent that, and we don't have the contracts, so we don't know if they could, they are again screwed. And from the small amount of profit these companies are making from selling their phones, you can bet they're looking for ways to make money from them elsewhere. They can have my idea for free if they haven't already thought of it.
It's possible they can even get out of their contracts with Google if they decide not to use "Android" in the name.
These days, anything complex? Yeah, it's pretty much impossible. Most patents are not findable by those wanting to use the code. So they use the code without knowing it's been invented before, and wait to see if someone comes out of the woodwork. Most of the time, there's no problem, and a license is negotiated. But sometimes, the owner wants too much, or the user doesn't believe the patent is viable, etc.
But most large companies have a way of working this out by listing all of their licensable patents. That way, a company can look through defined groups of patents to see if some are needed.
But there are enough patents that aren't listed, because the company doesn't normally license them. It's very difficult to find patents that are relevant, because many are so technical, that the name the patent is listed under doesn't adequately describe it to someone looking for what it does.
It's becoming more difficult all the time.
Aren't all US patents listed by the USPTO?
Aren't these searchable with some kind of LexisNexis technology?
If not, this looks/smells like a business opportunity!
I know of two companies, currently engaged in patent litigation, who are also expert in large data store and search technology!
Edit: Hmmm... I just realized something:
Larry Ellison doesn't want to take over Android -- he wants to take over Google!
Mel, on what do you base the claim that Android users don't download apps? No doubt that iOS users have downloaded the most apps per user, particularly since they've been doing so longer than those with android devices, and had the larger market share until sometime last year. But "not as many" isn't the same as not being big app users.
Go to the business sites. Computerworld, eWeek, Infoworld, InformationWeek. These are all sites that deal mostly with the business end of the computing and telecommunications industries. They had plenty of articles that used surveys of large numbers of people that show that Android users, in general, use many less apps than do iOS users, and they tend to center around a much smaller group of what they do use, mostly social networking apps.
It's also why more than 60% of the apps in Apple's store are paid, while, I think the number is closer to 25% in the Android Market. It's also harder to find apps in the Android Market than in the App Store, though it's been getting better.
I meant to post this earlier in a post about fragmentation, but it works here to as it's a reason.
Go to the business sites. Computerworld, eWeek, Infoworld, InformationWeek. These are all sites that deal mostly with the business end of the computing and telecommunications industries. They had plenty of articles that used surveys of large numbers of people that show that Android users, in general, use many less apps than do iOS users, and they tend to center around a much smaller group of what they do use, mostly social networking apps.
It's also why more than 60% of the apps in Apple's store are paid, while, I think the number is closer to 25% in the Android Market. It's also harder to find apps in the Android Market than in the App Store, though it's been getting better.
I meant to post this earlier in a post about fragmentation, but it works here to as it's a reason.
The most recent survey I find indicated that Android owners actually have quite a number of apps, an average of 35 per user several months ago, likely higher now. Not so different from iOS, and in line with my earlier guess that iOS leads the way but Android isn't far behind. Android owners also use their apps just about as much as iOS owners.
I don't know what it is that your find harder than to use than Apple's Appstore. Any details on how the Apple store is easier to navigate than Google's Android Market in your view?
EDIT: BTW, thanks for the AndroidAuthority link to Android smartphone versions. Hadn't seen that one yet.
This is an excellent point. Even though the iPad had the advantages of being first to market and a year lead time without meaningful competition, Apple did not court or sell to the enterprise/IT community.
Yet, enterprise has adopted iPads almost exclusively. Every week or so you read a story where this or that organization is deploying large multiples of iPads to implement a specific solution. I can't recall any such deployments of competitive tablets.
Certainly, you would think that Android would have appeal to IT and organizational developers (install base, several hardware alternatives, [relatively] open source, etc.) But, it appears that just the opposite has happened -- they have been turned off by lack of standardization, lack of a complete [implementation of a] hardware/softare package, ease of hacking, susceptibility to viruses, lack of security, etc.
The very things about android, that appeal to the techie consumers -- are a turnoff for enterprise/IT.
It becomes a very easy business decision: The iPad gives us [most] everything we need [with very little downside] at an excellent price -- Why waste time [and opportunity] looking at anything else?
Indeed!
So far, and it could change, Android is considered to be the mobile platform most affected by malware, a direct consequence of Google's intentions for Android and how they want to handle it, and the least secure.
Until those problems are taken care of, it's doubtful that Android will move into most major businesses in a big way.
And companies like to write once, use everywhere, despite some who say that writing five or more versions is easy to do. It may be easy, but it costs money to do so, and that's a major disadvantage. The more complex the app, the more it costs for different versions, and the longer it takes.
So far, and it could change, Android is considered to be the mobile platform most affected by malware, a direct consequence of Google's intentions for Android and how they want to handle it, and the least secure.
Until those problems are taken care of, it's doubtful that Android will move into most major businesses in a big way.
And companies like to write once, use everywhere, despite some who say that writing five or more versions is easy to do. It may be easy, but it costs money to do so, and that's a major disadvantage. The more complex the app, the more it costs for different versions, and the longer it takes.
I would think that sideloading of non-approved apps would be a drawback as well.
Realistically IMO the Android Market didn't open shop until March of '09 when the first paid apps became available. Prior to that the few apps that the Market offered were simple and/or direct from Google themselves. On the market share side, until the original Droid was released in October/2009, Android phones were just an afterthought with no real market presence at all. That puts the Android push just two years old, tho technically there were Android phones and a limited Android Market before then.
But really that's doesn't affect Mels' claim that as a rule Android users use their smartphones as a phone and browser while Apple users would actually use apps, downloading many times more than their typical Android counterparts. I disagree with his assessment.
You just have to look at the number of phones sold over some period, and look at the number of downloads. Apple has claimed over 15 billion several months ago. It's possibly close to 20 billion by now. Then get the number from the Android Market, and if it makes you feel better, add another 30% to account for the other stores around. Divide the number of apps downloaded by the number of phones sold, and you've got your answer.I just don't remember the number of Android apps downloaded, though the numbers are out there. Be careful to not use some guys estimates, but an official number.
It's like the number of apps out there. We know exactly how many iOs apps there are, because the store has some mechanism sites use to get the latest apps as soon as they get to the store. I use one site called appshopper. I'm not endorsing that site, and there are others, but it was the first I'd seen, and it's pretty good so I stick with it. It's also a great way of discovering new and updated apps.
We were reading, at the beginning of the summer, that there were 275,000 apps in the Android Marketplace vs. 300,000 in the AppStore and that by august, there would be more than in the App Store. Heh! Not so. In fact, there were far less in the AM and more in the AS.
Estimates for the AM vary considerably. Here's one from an Android centric site recently:
So, is this true? If so, it's a lot less than some others are reporting.
Ok, I found the number of Android apps downloaded in total. The number keeps updating, but it's not a realtime update, just an estimate of how many apps are downloaded per second. It's also not official.
Still, it's about 6 billion. Now you can find the number of Android phones out there in total. But I'm not sure exactly what this is counting, it could be more than just the AM.
Are you proposing that Google made up the whole Chinese Gov't hacking of dissident email accounts simply to giove them cover for giving up on a failed China strategy? The hacking of US Government and Fortune 500 companies another fairy-tale that Google made up about the Chinese government? Surely your head isn't buried that far in the sand Mel.
You may want to believe everything about Google is evil, but at least give them props when they do the right thing.
No, I'm saying that it's very possible they used it as an excuse to leave. Baidu was kicking their asses in China. It would be embarrassing to leave because they were losing money. But to leave for reasons of freedom, well, what could be better publicity elsewhere? As they say, priceless!
Comments
Most apps from before version X work flawlessly on version X...like 95%+ those that don't would have to be either 1.X old or unsupported by the devs which is not Google's fault at all.
Except we know that's not true. Plenty of apps don't work across upgrades, and never will, plenty of apps don't work across phones, and many never will. We've got evidence about Angry Birds posted right here in the thread. They aren't close to being the only ones, just possibly, the most well known. Google hides apps that don't work on devices that can't run then, so it's not surprising that people aren't aware of what won't work on their own device.
Most people don't read ArsTechnica, or Anandtech, or Appleinsider, etc. They just read popular sites and mags. They aren't even aware when a new OS upgrade comes out!
Funny...Google refusing to cave to China's totalitarian rules yet Apple and MS not minding said rules and you still wanna say Google sucks? lol
Google is all flash. I don't believe a thing they say anymore. They weren't doing well in China before, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just gave it up to cut their losses, and to market that decision in other countries. After all, that's what they are, a marketing and advertising company.
Because the code is ALREADY gifted as open source, which is why BAIDU can fork it. If the code wasn't available forking it would be IMPOSSIBLE.
2.x is gifted.
3.x is not.
4.x is most likely to be open.
5.x ?????
The point isn't whether or not that Baidu or Amazon could fork...they did. The question is whether Android stays open past the promised ICS release or if Google forks an open version of android driven by "the community" and one, more fully featured version, for Google Market handsets.
Will Google fund the development of competing ecosystems?
Yes, Android fragmentation can be an issue for some minor number of applications. My son has run into some games he'd like to run that aren't compatible with his inexpensive prepaid phone. Not at all common, but there are a few. So I'd have to agree that hardware choices by the handset manufacturer's can cause some app compatibility problems, an issue that will need to be addressed. Google has indicated they agree with that assessment and are attempting to get the Handset Alliance members to standardize pertinent hardware. No idea if they'll be successful.
But IMHO it's no more of an issue for the developers and users than the inability to even find good apps in Apple's Appstore. Not offering categories, or even an easy way to find highly rated applications, makes finding and purchasing newly released but quality apps a big problem. If you don't know the name you're looking for, how do you find them? Stumbling around? If I'm interested in subscribing to a tech magazine, how do I search? Or looking for a time manager, same question. The Android Market doesn't have the same problems in identifying quality apps in the area you're interested in. Search by name, keyword, categories or rating.
Both platforms have issues with the application markets. One is poorly designed (IMO), failing to anticipate that the huge number of apps if offers would create it's own problems, a issue that goes on uncorrected. The other has different hardware combos limiting some app compatibility, along with some apps reportedly not being the same quality as their iOS counterpart. There's very few active devices on old OS versions creating an incompatibility problem.
So which app store is worse? Which creates more roadblocks for a new developer?
It's not that hard. And until recently, it was almost impossible to find anything in the Android Market. Then Google redesigned it to look more like Apple's App Store.
Apple has plenty of categories, and you can always type a word and selections will come up. Not as hard as you think.
Is it perfect? Of course not. It will never be perfect when there are so many apps. But it's not bad, and Apple improves it as time goes on.
Google is all flash. I don't believe a thing they say anymore. They weren't doing well in China before, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just gave it up to cut their losses, and to market that decision in other countries. After all, that's what they are, a marketing and advertising company.
I consider that an insult... to the marketing and advertising professions.
Google is all flash. I don't believe a thing they say anymore. They weren't doing well in China before, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just gave it up to cut their losses, and to market that decision in other countries. After all, that's what they are, a marketing and advertising company.
Are you proposing that Google made up the whole Chinese Gov't hacking of dissident email accounts simply to giove them cover for giving up on a failed China strategy? The hacking of US Government and Fortune 500 companies another fairy-tale that Google made up about the Chinese government? Surely your head isn't buried that far in the sand Mel.
You may want to believe everything about Google is evil, but at least give them props when they do the right thing.
And I'm telling you, that problem is bullshit. If that DRM was required by studios, it would be BUILT IN to the .apk (which it used to be). But with the newest version of the application, for several versions now infact, all you have to do is side-load it onto your device and it works flawlessly. You'll also notice that the list of "approved" devices has no pattern to it. All chipsets, all OS "skins" and multiple OS versions are represented. The block is purely a political move, or at least something done for non-DRM reasons. If it was a DRM issue, then ALL tegra2 devices would be certified, not just one or two of them.
Note, this is NOT hacking the software itself. I don't believe you should do this if there are DRM issues involved (no matter what I think about said issues) because doing that will just give the studios fuel for the fire. This is why I haven't downloaded the "modified" Google Video file that will let me play rentals on my Rooted phone. All you have to do with the netflix is pull the file from a phone it can be installed on, and then side-load it, unaltered, into your new device.
When you install the app, it checks to make sure it can install, and then when you sign in it registers it with the service. At both points, DRM would be checked. And guess what? It passes. Netflix will work on basically ANY smartphone/tablet, but for whatever reason Netflix is only allowing certain devices to download it directly from the market.
So why would they self limit their customer base? No company does that intentionally. Other than compatibility problems with DRM, licenses and possibly some other problems large and small, what possible reason would they have to do this? You haven't given a reason for that. You must have some explanation.
If my collective memory is short, then so is yours. We don't live in the world of 5 years ago.
The reason only geeks installed apps 5 years ago was because the only other people using smartphones needed them for work, usually just for email and to them it was just a WORK TOOL.
One of the things that's happened since then is the iPhone, maybe you heard of it? See, the thing about the iPhone WASN'T that it just redefined the smartphone, which it did. The thing about it is it redefined the MARKET for the smartphone. Suddenly people who weren't "Geeks" wanted to put stuff on their devices, or use their phone to get their email. This new market will NOT go away just because a few companies decide to Fork android, specifically because these companies DO NOT market these forks AS android.
The other thing that happened in the past 5 years is that being a "geek" started becoming cool again. People are on computers more than they ever were, and they're using apps like Twitter, Foursquare, Facebook, Google+, etc. to keep in contact with eachother, and meet strangers, more than they ever have. The internet isn't some "big scary" place anymore, it's a community for a lot of people, and embracing that community and the "geekiness" of it is being celebrated.
Being a Geek is mainstream, or close enough to it that it no longer is a fringe.
We won't revert to 5 years ago because we can't. Yes, there are android markets springing up all over the place. But do you want to know the NUMBER ONE reason devs are putting apps in different markets? It's to reach countries that don't have paid access in the Android market yet (and that number is quickly shinking). Amazon has it's own app store, yes. but devs hate it. Maybe they won't when they get the Kindle tablet running, but even then it's not that big of a deal.
And Baidu? Baidu will have a chinese government curated market. That's the only way it will get approved. Most app developers have no interest in that anyway. And the ones that do have a huge potential market to access, so the fork WILL BE WORTH IT.
And let me ask you what's worse: Coding a new app FROM SCRATCH because Baidu decided to write their own OS instead, or modifying existing code from your android app so it works with their fork?
If android Couldn't fork we'd have a greater number of incompatible operating systems, not just "fragmented" ones. Or are you blind enough to assume that all of these companies "forking" android would just be content not making their own ecosystems and paying to be part of iOS instead?
I agree with everything you've said here, except the part about geeks. People haven't turned into geeks, and it's not really cool, except to other geeks. What's happened is what always happens to technology. It became simpler. Just as when cars first came out. You had to crank them, oil them, check pressure, grease the chain - every 6 miles! So few people owned one. Those who did were like the geeks of today.
But today, almost everyone owns, or at least drives a car. No geeks there, except for the few who still fuss around. For them, the fussing is more important than the using. Same thing with computer tech. Most people are users, simple. But the geeks like to fuss around more than use the device. The pride is in the fussing, not the use.
The issue keeping AAA apps from Android is monitization more than fragmentation. I'm not in denial about Android fragmentation. I've admitted COUNTLESS times that it existed. What I'm saying is that it is not the deal-breaker you're trying to make it out to be. I've even provided links where DEVELOPERS say as much. There are many others. And there are others on top of THAT from developers who've made money with Android.
There are TWO. Let's me say that again, TWO major app stores for android. If you want to hit most users you just need to develop for ONE. (amazon doesn't currently hit ANY devices the android market does not). The other app stores exist to offer paid app content to countries where the Android market can't offer it yet, and that list of countries is shrinking dramatically. Most app developers, if they even bother with those markets, will choose one or two markets to host content on, and that's it. There's not "20 different markets" they have to worry about hitting. That's a fallacy made up by people who don't use android, and parroted by people here who don't know any better.
and Rovio's angry birds port ran like shit because of the ADS. If you downloaded the (ad free) demo, it worked flawlessly on low end devices, or if these devices were rooted and ran an ad-blocker (which I don't support) it also ran well. The problem wasn't their app, it was their shitty implementation of ads. Apps with ads can run great on low end devices with ads enabled, so it wasn't ads causing the problem, just their implementation.
Fragmentation is a minor issue for all but an extreme minority of app-types. The problem is, developers want to port over their hard coded app from iOS and have it run flawlessly. These developers are stupid. the Android team has dozens of tutorials up on how to code around the screen size and OS issues, most of the developers you hear complaining are talking about points already dealt with in these tutorials.
The problem is the money. Android doesn't have an ecosystem like iTunes behind it. They don't have giftcards available everywhere, or a CHEAP non-smartphone device that can access the content (ipod touch) to expand the market past smartphone users. Heck, look at the amazon app store as an example. Developers pretty much universally agree it's SHIT to develop for because updates take weeks to push through, Amazon changes the terms all the time, and it's US only. And yet because of the ECOSYSTEM Amazon has, it's attracted new apps to the Android platform, some of which still have their apps exclusively on the limited market.
Ah! Ok, interesting point about the Ads. You can't separate the Ads from the app. You can't separate out the Ads from the platform. So if Angry Birds works well on only a few Android devices because of the Ads, guess what? That's fragmentation. Why, because for Android, Ads are a required part of the platform, because so few Android users will pay for apps. Remember that they said they went with Ads because they sold so few.
So, if it's the Ads that are causing the problem for some apps, that's because of fragmentation. And that's important because most developers want to make money from their work, and if they can't sell something, then they NEED Ads. And if the apps won't run on most devices because of fragmentation that won't handle the Ad mechanism properly, that's a problem, for all of Android, and for all of the users, because they won't be able to get all the apps they want, as the platform is built around Ads.
It's an OPEN source system, how can they sue, it's not like say Java or something that you pay royalties on.
They are claiming, in the lawsuit with Microsoft, that Microsoft showed "highly confidential" Android code to someone Microsoft has working for them on the case. Google claims that this code is proprietary to them. This is the code that's been characterized as being stolen from Linux, and derived from same, which apparently, it was. That code must also be under the GNU 2 license, but Google doesn't care.
Complicated situation.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...ous-linux.html
Ya gotta love Google. Not only do they steal from big profit making companies, but they also steal from profit free open software organizations. They are a truly equal opportunity employer. Employer of other's code, that is.
Ah! Ok, interesting point about the Ads. You can't separate the Ads from the app. You can't separate out the Ads from the platform. So if Angry Birds works well on only a few Android devices because of the Ads, guess what? That's fragmentation. Why, because for Android, Ads are a required part of the platform, because so few Android users will pay for apps. Remember that they said they went with Ads because they sold so few.
So, if it's the Ads that are causing the problem for some apps, that's because of fragmentation. And that's important because most developers want to make money from their work, and if they can't sell something, then they NEED Ads. And if the apps won't run on most devices because of fragmentation that won't handle the Ad mechanism properly, that's a problem, for all of Android, and for all of the users, because they won't be able to get all the apps they want, as the platform is built around Ads.
@melgross
I am not trying to engage you in a dialog -- but you keep raising interesting points! Yer' on a roll tonight!
Are you saying Google has difficulty selling ads on Android -- because Android doesn't properly deliver the ads to many devices?
Doesn't Google need the ads even more than the developers?
Shouldn't they fix that?
I don't buy that.
These days, anything complex? Yeah, it's pretty much impossible. Most patents are not findable by those wanting to use the code. So they use the code without knowing it's been invented before, and wait to see if someone comes out of the woodwork. Most of the time, there's no problem, and a license is negotiated. But sometimes, the owner wants too much, or the user doesn't believe the patent is viable, etc.
But most large companies have a way of working this out by listing all of their licensable patents. That way, a company can look through defined groups of patents to see if some are needed.
But there are enough patents that aren't listed, because the company doesn't normally license them. It's very difficult to find patents that are relevant, because many are so technical, that the name the patent is listed under doesn't adequately describe it to someone looking for what it does.
It's becoming more difficult all the time.
@melgross
I am not trying to engage you in a dialog -- but you keep raising interesting points! Yer' on a roll tonight!
Are you saying Google has difficulty selling ads on Android -- because Android doesn't properly deliver the ads to many devices?
Doesn't Google need the ads even more than the developers?
Shouldn't they fix that?
With all of this rumored forking, I'm still at a loss for how Google plans to actually make money off of this. If you look at the purchase of Android, Motorola, cost of development AND legal fees thus far, that's gonna take nearly a decade of mobile advertising just to recoup Google's costs.
The fragmentation problem for Google is the obvious one...Baidu's fork will essentially kill Android growth in China while doing nothing to iOS and moderate to wp7. It doesn't MATTER to Google if the apps run on Baidu phones if Google is shut out of its Android monetization plans in China. Heaven help Google if this fork gains traction outside of China and into asia proper (unlikely in the extreme).
However, Korean Android or whatever also potentially locks out Google although less likely to. Unless, of course, MS writes someone an appropriately big check.
Amazon's fork, while still using the Google search engine as default, kills a lot of the tie in for other Google services and eyeball count.
So here you are as Google, out millions/billions for Android development and then another $12B for Moto and you STILL don't have your second revenue stream locked down. When is Android going in the black? And if it can't why dump more money down this particular pit as opposed to pulling another Google Wave and "gifting" the code to open source?
What I believe will happen is that companies, and even governments, will look at these extreme forks to see if they work out. I believe the S. Korean government recently said they were looking into making an OS themselves. This could be a problem for interoperability.
Google depends on advertising for 97% of their revenue and profits, according to their financial reports. If Ads don't go back to them, they are in trouble. If this happens in China, what happens in India next? They are also indifferent to other countries companies. Then what? Brazil? Iran? This could get nasty.
I know some people want to shrug this off, but it's not so simple. Android was bought because Google wanted a way to monetize mobile. First the BB. When they saw the iPhone jump up, they decided to copy that instead. Mobile terrifies Google. It has them shivering down their spine. They know it could kill them, or at least shunt them into a backwater of the Internet.
Their big problem is with apps. Their biggest problem is with Apple's apps. I use Google search on my iPhone and iPad far less often than I do on my Mac. I'm willing to bet everyone else does the same. It's all apps. If I need info, I go to the apps that do it best. I don't need Google most of the time. That's a killer! Over 80% of Google's revenue and profit comes from Ads in the sidebars and at the top of the search results in Google search.
If we don't use Google search, then that's 80% of their sales gone down the tube. So it's bad enough that iPhone and other non Android users are abandoning them to a large extent, but this fragmentation, if it cuts out Google's Ads, will be murder. Baidu is likely to put their own Ads agency in charge, and cut Google out of most, if not all of it. That could happen everywhere.
What if it's possible for Samsung and others to figure out a way to remove the Ads seen in Angry Birds, for example, and substitute the ones they sell? If Google can't prevent that, and we don't have the contracts, so we don't know if they could, they are again screwed. And from the small amount of profit these companies are making from selling their phones, you can bet they're looking for ways to make money from them elsewhere. They can have my idea for free if they haven't already thought of it.
It's possible they can even get out of their contracts with Google if they decide not to use "Android" in the name.
These days, anything complex? Yeah, it's pretty much impossible. Most patents are not findable by those wanting to use the code. So they use the code without knowing it's been invented before, and wait to see if someone comes out of the woodwork. Most of the time, there's no problem, and a license is negotiated. But sometimes, the owner wants too much, or the user doesn't believe the patent is viable, etc.
But most large companies have a way of working this out by listing all of their licensable patents. That way, a company can look through defined groups of patents to see if some are needed.
But there are enough patents that aren't listed, because the company doesn't normally license them. It's very difficult to find patents that are relevant, because many are so technical, that the name the patent is listed under doesn't adequately describe it to someone looking for what it does.
It's becoming more difficult all the time.
Aren't all US patents listed by the USPTO?
Aren't these searchable with some kind of LexisNexis technology?
If not, this looks/smells like a business opportunity!
I know of two companies, currently engaged in patent litigation, who are also expert in large data store and search technology!
Edit: Hmmm... I just realized something:
Larry Ellison doesn't want to take over Android -- he wants to take over Google!
Mel, on what do you base the claim that Android users don't download apps? No doubt that iOS users have downloaded the most apps per user, particularly since they've been doing so longer than those with android devices, and had the larger market share until sometime last year. But "not as many" isn't the same as not being big app users.
Go to the business sites. Computerworld, eWeek, Infoworld, InformationWeek. These are all sites that deal mostly with the business end of the computing and telecommunications industries. They had plenty of articles that used surveys of large numbers of people that show that Android users, in general, use many less apps than do iOS users, and they tend to center around a much smaller group of what they do use, mostly social networking apps.
It's also why more than 60% of the apps in Apple's store are paid, while, I think the number is closer to 25% in the Android Market. It's also harder to find apps in the Android Market than in the App Store, though it's been getting better.
I meant to post this earlier in a post about fragmentation, but it works here to as it's a reason.
http://www.androidauthority.com/htc-...-phones-23623/
Go to the business sites. Computerworld, eWeek, Infoworld, InformationWeek. These are all sites that deal mostly with the business end of the computing and telecommunications industries. They had plenty of articles that used surveys of large numbers of people that show that Android users, in general, use many less apps than do iOS users, and they tend to center around a much smaller group of what they do use, mostly social networking apps.
It's also why more than 60% of the apps in Apple's store are paid, while, I think the number is closer to 25% in the Android Market. It's also harder to find apps in the Android Market than in the App Store, though it's been getting better.
I meant to post this earlier in a post about fragmentation, but it works here to as it's a reason.
http://www.androidauthority.com/htc-...-phones-23623/
The most recent survey I find indicated that Android owners actually have quite a number of apps, an average of 35 per user several months ago, likely higher now. Not so different from iOS, and in line with my earlier guess that iOS leads the way but Android isn't far behind. Android owners also use their apps just about as much as iOS owners.
http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...pp-downloaders
I imagine you've actually used the Android Market to see how the process of locating apps works, but for those that haven't:
https://market.android.com
I don't know what it is that your find harder than to use than Apple's Appstore. Any details on how the Apple store is easier to navigate than Google's Android Market in your view?
EDIT: BTW, thanks for the AndroidAuthority link to Android smartphone versions. Hadn't seen that one yet.
This is an excellent point. Even though the iPad had the advantages of being first to market and a year lead time without meaningful competition, Apple did not court or sell to the enterprise/IT community.
Yet, enterprise has adopted iPads almost exclusively. Every week or so you read a story where this or that organization is deploying large multiples of iPads to implement a specific solution. I can't recall any such deployments of competitive tablets.
Certainly, you would think that Android would have appeal to IT and organizational developers (install base, several hardware alternatives, [relatively] open source, etc.) But, it appears that just the opposite has happened -- they have been turned off by lack of standardization, lack of a complete [implementation of a] hardware/softare package, ease of hacking, susceptibility to viruses, lack of security, etc.
The very things about android, that appeal to the techie consumers -- are a turnoff for enterprise/IT.
It becomes a very easy business decision: The iPad gives us [most] everything we need [with very little downside] at an excellent price -- Why waste time [and opportunity] looking at anything else?
Indeed!
So far, and it could change, Android is considered to be the mobile platform most affected by malware, a direct consequence of Google's intentions for Android and how they want to handle it, and the least secure.
Until those problems are taken care of, it's doubtful that Android will move into most major businesses in a big way.
And companies like to write once, use everywhere, despite some who say that writing five or more versions is easy to do. It may be easy, but it costs money to do so, and that's a major disadvantage. The more complex the app, the more it costs for different versions, and the longer it takes.
So far, and it could change, Android is considered to be the mobile platform most affected by malware, a direct consequence of Google's intentions for Android and how they want to handle it, and the least secure.
Until those problems are taken care of, it's doubtful that Android will move into most major businesses in a big way.
And companies like to write once, use everywhere, despite some who say that writing five or more versions is easy to do. It may be easy, but it costs money to do so, and that's a major disadvantage. The more complex the app, the more it costs for different versions, and the longer it takes.
I would think that sideloading of non-approved apps would be a drawback as well.
Realistically IMO the Android Market didn't open shop until March of '09 when the first paid apps became available. Prior to that the few apps that the Market offered were simple and/or direct from Google themselves. On the market share side, until the original Droid was released in October/2009, Android phones were just an afterthought with no real market presence at all. That puts the Android push just two years old, tho technically there were Android phones and a limited Android Market before then.
But really that's doesn't affect Mels' claim that as a rule Android users use their smartphones as a phone and browser while Apple users would actually use apps, downloading many times more than their typical Android counterparts. I disagree with his assessment.
You just have to look at the number of phones sold over some period, and look at the number of downloads. Apple has claimed over 15 billion several months ago. It's possibly close to 20 billion by now. Then get the number from the Android Market, and if it makes you feel better, add another 30% to account for the other stores around. Divide the number of apps downloaded by the number of phones sold, and you've got your answer.I just don't remember the number of Android apps downloaded, though the numbers are out there. Be careful to not use some guys estimates, but an official number.
It's like the number of apps out there. We know exactly how many iOs apps there are, because the store has some mechanism sites use to get the latest apps as soon as they get to the store. I use one site called appshopper. I'm not endorsing that site, and there are others, but it was the first I'd seen, and it's pretty good so I stick with it. It's also a great way of discovering new and updated apps.
We were reading, at the beginning of the summer, that there were 275,000 apps in the Android Marketplace vs. 300,000 in the AppStore and that by august, there would be more than in the App Store. Heh! Not so. In fact, there were far less in the AM and more in the AS.
Estimates for the AM vary considerably. Here's one from an Android centric site recently:
http://www.androidauthority.com/andr...st-have-23691/
So, is this true? If so, it's a lot less than some others are reporting.
Ok, I found the number of Android apps downloaded in total. The number keeps updating, but it's not a realtime update, just an estimate of how many apps are downloaded per second. It's also not official.
http://www.androlib.com/appstats.aspx
Still, it's about 6 billion. Now you can find the number of Android phones out there in total. But I'm not sure exactly what this is counting, it could be more than just the AM.
Are you proposing that Google made up the whole Chinese Gov't hacking of dissident email accounts simply to giove them cover for giving up on a failed China strategy? The hacking of US Government and Fortune 500 companies another fairy-tale that Google made up about the Chinese government? Surely your head isn't buried that far in the sand Mel.
You may want to believe everything about Google is evil, but at least give them props when they do the right thing.
No, I'm saying that it's very possible they used it as an excuse to leave. Baidu was kicking their asses in China. It would be embarrassing to leave because they were losing money. But to leave for reasons of freedom, well, what could be better publicity elsewhere? As they say, priceless!