Where this is wrong is that you are basing this statement on the flawed assumption that most of the Android "activations" are high end, "flagship" phones, when sales and usage data suggest this is not the case.
There are bucketloads of cheap PAYG Android phones being sold which are included in Schmidt's "activations", many of them still on Gingerbread.
This is not a terribly attractive market for developers as they are restricted to the lowest common denominator for many features.
Well that is currently the case but I doubt it will continue.
I am not too concerned with the entry level Android phones but I would not disregard them either.
Do you believe that moving forward there will be less high end android phones and more low end android phones? I am thinking the opposite: we will see an increase in the volume of high end android smartphones. Just look at the sales numbers from Samsung.
Or just look at the current Android line up at your local carrier. In Canada, they are pretty much all running a current version of the OS and they look less and less crappy every year.
Working in enterprise mobility, I can say that I do see more and more partners jumping on Android. They are not targeting the lowest common denominator but the most popular device in the Android lineup which is the Samsung Galaxy S2/3.
Anyways, this is my last post in this thread as I need to get back to work:)
Where this is wrong is that you are basing this statement on the flawed assumption that most of the Android "activations" are high end, "flagship" phones, when sales and usage data suggest this is not the case.
There are bucketloads of cheap PAYG Android phones being sold which are included in Schmidt's "activations", many of them still on Gingerbread.
This is not a terribly attractive market for developers as they are restricted to the lowest common denominator for many features.
Yep. There's not a lot to attract developers to Android when the majority of this vast pie of Android users don't spend money on applications or use their devices for making online purchases.
Larry Page says in the interview something that really says it all... The Google founder himself does not see google providing service for the internet community. They see their customers as their customers and they dont want them ever to leave the google search. They want everybody to be just directed to google services...
I dont consider myself a customer of google. I try to search information to be the customer of someone else. Google is just the transport. This is the way I use google and now I will even try to distance myself from their search engine with a little more effort.
This is just proof that Page wants to dominate the whole internet and nothing but the internet, at the expence of everybody else.
One big G-island (or is that cage?)
Its about time searchproviders are regulated in what markets they can monopolize/overtake with their leverage from another market == money from search
Internet gatekeepers which not even google founder Page does se google to be anymore. Google is the one-stop internet service, never leave that walled garden.
Many of your competitors have talked about how you showcase your services in search at their expense. Obviously it's gotten regulators' attention. Should Google have done things differently in any of those areas?
The way we think about it is that our customer is our end-user. People are really trying to get some information and get honest, accurate, well-ranked information from us. That's our job one. I think that there are companies that do various kinds of specialized things, that they're doing a part of what we do. We see the opportunity to build amazing products that are more than any of those parts. So one of my favorite examples I like to give is if you're vacation planning. It would be really nice to have a system that could basically vacation plan for you. It would know your preferences, it would know the weather, it would know the prices of airline tickets, the hotel prices, understand logistics, combine all those things into one experience. And that's kind of how we think about search.
Where this is wrong is that you are basing this statement on the flawed assumption that most of the Android "activations" are high end, "flagship" phones, when sales and usage data suggest this is not the case.
Correct, however even the low end Android phones which dominate world sales are usually at least the equivalent of an iPhone 3GS. Not too shabby for $125 without contract.
Once you get into name brands like Samsung, we find that 30-40% of their sales are very high end (Galaxy S and Note) phones. (Just divide quarterly smartphone sales by the announced sales of those devices.)
Quote:
This is not a terribly attractive market for developers as they are restricted to the lowest common denominator for many features.
Most apps don't need the latest feaures. Developers want to target the widest audience possible. Moreover, Android started with more functionality, so there's still a lot of apps that can use 1.6, although 2.2 is a better target. The same goes for iOS. If you want to sell to the most people, target the least you need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
I know of someone who ran up $600 in excess data usage from playing "free" Angry Birds on an Android handset because they did not understand that connecting to download ads was using data.
The hidden use of data is a topic that needs more publicity. I'm on unlimited, but if I weren't, I'd sure check my usage and/or have a widget that alarmed me.
That said, didn't this "someone" get a note from her carrier that she was going over her data limit? Did she ignore that?
Quote:
I wonder how much of the glaring disparity of Android vs iOS in web usage stats could be attributed to similar anecdotes?
I think that more people surf the web on iOS, whereas Android users tend to use apps that connect without the web (and thus don't show up in the web usage stats).
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant
Do you believe that moving forward there will be less high end android phones and more low end android phones? I am thinking the opposite: we will see an increase in the volume of high end android smartphones. Just look at the sales numbers from Samsung.
Or just look at the current Android line up at your local carrier. In Canada, they are pretty much all running a current version of the OS and they look less and less crappy every year.
Exactly. See top of this post. Also, the buying habits in countries with subsidies is the opposite of the rest of the world. In poorer countries without subsidies, people tend to buy the phones that cost under $200 with contract. In places with subsidies like North America, high end smartphones (where iOS or Android) dominate sales because people are willing to spend $100-$200 to uprade. Same upfront costs, but far better devices.
Quote:
Working in enterprise mobility, I can say that I do see more and more partners jumping on Android. They are not targeting the lowest common denominator but the most popular device in the Android lineup which is the Samsung Galaxy S2/3.
I agree. I also work in enterprise mobility (just finishing up a year long project - converting a very complex Blackberry app to an HTML5 app). The field chose a high end Android tablet for first deployment due to cost and better natural ruggedization. Still, we made sure the app works on iPads as well, just in case.
Correct, however even the low end Android phones which dominate world sales are usually at least the equivalent of an iPhone 3GS. Not too shabby for $125 without contract.
Once you get into name brands like Samsung, we find that 30-40% of their sales are very high end (Galaxy S and Note) phones. (Just divide quarterly smartphone sales by the announced sales of those devices.)
Most apps don't need the latest feaures. Developers want to target the widest audience possible. Moreover, Android started with more functionality, so there's still a lot of apps that can use 1.6, although 2.2 is a better target. The same goes for iOS. If you want to sell to the most people, target the least you need.
The hidden use of data is a topic that needs more publicity. I'm on unlimited, but if I weren't, I'd sure check my usage and/or have a widget that alarmed me.
That said, didn't this "someone" get a note from her carrier that she was going over her data limit? Did she ignore that?
I think that more people surf the web on iOS, whereas Android users tend to use apps that connect without the web (and thus don't show up in the web usage stats).
Exactly. See top of this post. Also, the buying habits in countries with subsidies is the opposite of the rest of the world. In poorer countries without subsidies, people tend to buy the phones that cost under $200 with contract. In places with subsidies like North America, high end smartphones (where iOS or Android) dominate sales because people are willing to spend $100-$200 to uprade. Same upfront costs, but far better devices.
I agree. I also work in enterprise mobility (just finishing up a year long project - converting a very complex Blackberry app to an HTML5 app). The field chose a high end Android tablet for first deployment due to cost and better natural ruggedization. Still, we made sure the app works on iPads as well, just in case.
Great post. Glad to see others are noticing some changes in the trend, however small they are...
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Where this is wrong is that you are basing this statement on the flawed assumption that most of the Android "activations" are high end, "flagship" phones, when sales and usage data suggest this is not the case.
There are bucketloads of cheap PAYG Android phones being sold which are included in Schmidt's "activations", many of them still on Gingerbread.
This is not a terribly attractive market for developers as they are restricted to the lowest common denominator for many features.
Well that is currently the case but I doubt it will continue.
I am not too concerned with the entry level Android phones but I would not disregard them either.
Do you believe that moving forward there will be less high end android phones and more low end android phones? I am thinking the opposite: we will see an increase in the volume of high end android smartphones. Just look at the sales numbers from Samsung.
Or just look at the current Android line up at your local carrier. In Canada, they are pretty much all running a current version of the OS and they look less and less crappy every year.
Working in enterprise mobility, I can say that I do see more and more partners jumping on Android. They are not targeting the lowest common denominator but the most popular device in the Android lineup which is the Samsung Galaxy S2/3.
Anyways, this is my last post in this thread as I need to get back to work:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Where this is wrong is that you are basing this statement on the flawed assumption that most of the Android "activations" are high end, "flagship" phones, when sales and usage data suggest this is not the case.
There are bucketloads of cheap PAYG Android phones being sold which are included in Schmidt's "activations", many of them still on Gingerbread.
This is not a terribly attractive market for developers as they are restricted to the lowest common denominator for many features.
Yep. There's not a lot to attract developers to Android when the majority of this vast pie of Android users don't spend money on applications or use their devices for making online purchases.
Larry Page says in the interview something that really says it all... The Google founder himself does not see google providing service for the internet community. They see their customers as their customers and they dont want them ever to leave the google search. They want everybody to be just directed to google services...
I dont consider myself a customer of google. I try to search information to be the customer of someone else. Google is just the transport. This is the way I use google and now I will even try to distance myself from their search engine with a little more effort.
This is just proof that Page wants to dominate the whole internet and nothing but the internet, at the expence of everybody else.
One big G-island (or is that cage?)
Its about time searchproviders are regulated in what markets they can monopolize/overtake with their leverage from another market == money from search
Internet gatekeepers which not even google founder Page does se google to be anymore. Google is the one-stop internet service, never leave that walled garden.
quote----------------------
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/11/larry-page/
Many of your competitors have talked about how you showcase your services in search at their expense. Obviously it's gotten regulators' attention. Should Google have done things differently in any of those areas?
The way we think about it is that our customer is our end-user. People are really trying to get some information and get honest, accurate, well-ranked information from us. That's our job one. I think that there are companies that do various kinds of specialized things, that they're doing a part of what we do. We see the opportunity to build amazing products that are more than any of those parts. So one of my favorite examples I like to give is if you're vacation planning. It would be really nice to have a system that could basically vacation plan for you. It would know your preferences, it would know the weather, it would know the prices of airline tickets, the hotel prices, understand logistics, combine all those things into one experience. And that's kind of how we think about search.
quote----------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Where this is wrong is that you are basing this statement on the flawed assumption that most of the Android "activations" are high end, "flagship" phones, when sales and usage data suggest this is not the case.
Correct, however even the low end Android phones which dominate world sales are usually at least the equivalent of an iPhone 3GS. Not too shabby for $125 without contract.
Once you get into name brands like Samsung, we find that 30-40% of their sales are very high end (Galaxy S and Note) phones. (Just divide quarterly smartphone sales by the announced sales of those devices.)
Quote:
This is not a terribly attractive market for developers as they are restricted to the lowest common denominator for many features.
Most apps don't need the latest feaures. Developers want to target the widest audience possible. Moreover, Android started with more functionality, so there's still a lot of apps that can use 1.6, although 2.2 is a better target. The same goes for iOS. If you want to sell to the most people, target the least you need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
I know of someone who ran up $600 in excess data usage from playing "free" Angry Birds on an Android handset because they did not understand that connecting to download ads was using data.
The hidden use of data is a topic that needs more publicity. I'm on unlimited, but if I weren't, I'd sure check my usage and/or have a widget that alarmed me.
That said, didn't this "someone" get a note from her carrier that she was going over her data limit? Did she ignore that?
Quote:
I wonder how much of the glaring disparity of Android vs iOS in web usage stats could be attributed to similar anecdotes?
I think that more people surf the web on iOS, whereas Android users tend to use apps that connect without the web (and thus don't show up in the web usage stats).
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant
Do you believe that moving forward there will be less high end android phones and more low end android phones? I am thinking the opposite: we will see an increase in the volume of high end android smartphones. Just look at the sales numbers from Samsung.
Or just look at the current Android line up at your local carrier. In Canada, they are pretty much all running a current version of the OS and they look less and less crappy every year.
Exactly. See top of this post. Also, the buying habits in countries with subsidies is the opposite of the rest of the world. In poorer countries without subsidies, people tend to buy the phones that cost under $200 with contract. In places with subsidies like North America, high end smartphones (where iOS or Android) dominate sales because people are willing to spend $100-$200 to uprade. Same upfront costs, but far better devices.
Quote:
Working in enterprise mobility, I can say that I do see more and more partners jumping on Android. They are not targeting the lowest common denominator but the most popular device in the Android lineup which is the Samsung Galaxy S2/3.
I agree. I also work in enterprise mobility (just finishing up a year long project - converting a very complex Blackberry app to an HTML5 app). The field chose a high end Android tablet for first deployment due to cost and better natural ruggedization. Still, we made sure the app works on iPads as well, just in case.
Still, for such a guy to knife Steve Jobs in the back like he did and still strut around, well, karma's a bitch. What goes around...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Correct, however even the low end Android phones which dominate world sales are usually at least the equivalent of an iPhone 3GS. Not too shabby for $125 without contract.
Once you get into name brands like Samsung, we find that 30-40% of their sales are very high end (Galaxy S and Note) phones. (Just divide quarterly smartphone sales by the announced sales of those devices.)
Most apps don't need the latest feaures. Developers want to target the widest audience possible. Moreover, Android started with more functionality, so there's still a lot of apps that can use 1.6, although 2.2 is a better target. The same goes for iOS. If you want to sell to the most people, target the least you need.
The hidden use of data is a topic that needs more publicity. I'm on unlimited, but if I weren't, I'd sure check my usage and/or have a widget that alarmed me.
That said, didn't this "someone" get a note from her carrier that she was going over her data limit? Did she ignore that?
I think that more people surf the web on iOS, whereas Android users tend to use apps that connect without the web (and thus don't show up in the web usage stats).
Exactly. See top of this post. Also, the buying habits in countries with subsidies is the opposite of the rest of the world. In poorer countries without subsidies, people tend to buy the phones that cost under $200 with contract. In places with subsidies like North America, high end smartphones (where iOS or Android) dominate sales because people are willing to spend $100-$200 to uprade. Same upfront costs, but far better devices.
I agree. I also work in enterprise mobility (just finishing up a year long project - converting a very complex Blackberry app to an HTML5 app). The field chose a high end Android tablet for first deployment due to cost and better natural ruggedization. Still, we made sure the app works on iPads as well, just in case.
Great post. Glad to see others are noticing some changes in the trend, however small they are...
It's happening.