When you look at installed base, the numbers you're objecting to are actually correct.
Based on what? ...your opinion?
You could say the same about any traffic based study including this one. Logic would dictate developers care about what's actually getting used not collecting dust in a drawer or a landfill. All of these are things are recent moving targets/best guesses. I figured that was a given.
Ah, but the article failed to answer the question that's on my mind. Will the new iOS run on my aging but still serviceable 3GS? My budget doesn't allow it to be replaced, but I'd like to keep up with the upgrades.
I suppose you feel that today is the day to make the leap and go into work and not get a paycheck for your time, then, right? Fair's fair.
Lay off the hash pipe. iOS is a free update. OS X should be, too. It's a good will gesture to their user base. They can easily afford to do it and it'd be a great feature of buying a Mac: the updates are FREE, unlike Windows.
That depends. If he can get paid for simply showing up then he'll likely then work for free. Do you think those developing for iOS or iCloud aren't getting paid simply because Apple offers these free of charge? I doubt he's saying Apple shouldn't get paid for their work on Mac OS X, but rather that offering Mac OS X for free with Macs will increase the number of people that update which could lower Apple's costs in supporting older HW at the Genius Bar and over the phone, and add value to those looking to buy a new Mac if the updates are free and offered at the same time across the line. This seems to have worked out very well for all their products.
Precisely. And it leaves no excuses not to update, so it makes the developers job easier, and more interesting when they can give all their customers cool new features.
Ah, but the article failed to answer the question that's on my mind. Will the new iOS run on my aging but still serviceable 3GS? My budget doesn't allow it to be replaced, but I'd like to keep up with the upgrades.
Hard to know. 50/50. But assuming you are on a contract, you can soon update to the 4S for free. Or the 4 right now for free.
Ah, but the article failed to answer the question that's on my mind. Will the new iOS run on my aging but still serviceable 3GS? My budget doesn't allow it to be replaced, but I'd like to keep up with the upgrades.
You'll need to speak to your accountant about that, because your budgeting sucks!
I don't want YOUR unwillingness to spend money on such a useful device affecting MY experience on the one I update regularly every year because I recognise the incredible value that it brings me.
Ah, but the article failed to answer the question that's on my mind. Will the new iOS run on my aging but still serviceable 3GS? My budget doesn't allow it to be replaced, but I'd like to keep up with the upgrades.
1) I see no reason to expect the 2009 iPhone to support the 2013 OS.
2) Assuming your budget allows you to use your 3GS as a smartphone then you can afford to get the iPhone 4S for free from a carrier.
* Or whatever off-contract $450 phone they offer. I have a feeling Apple is looking to eschew the 3.5" sizes from their line.
That depends. If he can get paid for simply showing up then he'll likely then work for free. Do you think those developing for iOS or iCloud aren't getting paid simply because Apple offers these free of charge? I doubt he's saying Apple shouldn't get paid for their work on Mac OS X, but rather that offering Mac OS X for free with Macs will increase the number of people that update which could lower Apple's costs in supporting older HW at the Genius Bar and over the phone, and add value to those looking to buy a new Mac if the updates are free and offered at the same time across the line. This seems to have worked out very well for all their products.
Actually, it would likely drive up the cost of Macs. Apple uses an interesting accounting tactic to circumvent laws regarding electronic devices and a certain percentage of each iOS device's profit is diverted into a special fund that pays for iOS. Otherwise, you'd be required by law to pay for each new iOS version (the core versions, not the point updates) because it's actually illegal to do what you're suggesting. In order to do the same with Mac OS, they'd need to implement the same process for Mac users, it would ONLY apply to devices bought after that point, and the amount diverted (and therefore the price jump we'd probably see) would be significantly higher because Apple can sell more iPhones in a weekend on occasions than they sell Macs in a quarter. That takes the development costs and spreads them over a MUCH larger number of units, making the per-unit cost they hit people with fairly low.
Well it's more accurate than Google's new numbers. They recently started only using data from devices that access the Google Play. They're trying to report lower Froyo and Gingerbread install bases...and it seems to be working. No one called them on it last month or this month really.
Huh? No one called them on it? Where you anywhere near this site? Apple fans were calling them on it left and right and any other way you could think of.
The people that the change actually affects- developers- weren't calling them on it because they were too busy thanking Google. There are a TON of low end devices out there running Gingerbread. There will continue to be a ton of them probably as long as there are poor people in the world. That's what Gingerbread is for and its a great thing for them that there exists an operating system that allows manufacturers to build phones with minimal hardware requirements and sell them cheaply. They are still people and if they enjoy a phone that lets them make calls and browse the web without the rest of the snazzy features I say more power to them (instead of many on this site that seem to deride them because they are poor and can't be as superior as people that can afford an iPhone).
Developers don't want to focus on those users. They want to focus on users that might buy their products. For an accurate representation of that, there really isn't a better method than going by people who are visiting the Play store.
Google could focus on the marketing aspect a little more instead of the engineering. They could just send out an update that just tells any ICS or Gingerbread phone that it is now the latest version of Jelly Bean and then they too would be approaching 93% on Jellybean! Developers and users would then have to deal with figuring out if their or their users' phones can actually use some of the features in Jelly Bean...
100% of phones running Jelly Bean can run Google Now.
What percentage of iOS6 users can run Siri? What about flyover view or whatever Apple calls it? What about turn by turn navigation?
Apple can make users feel good by telling them they're on iOS6 and therefore by definition 'not fragmented', but if they can't use half the features of it....
Lay off the hash pipe. iOS is a free update. OS X should be, too. It's a good will gesture to their user base. They can easily afford to do it and it'd be a great feature of buying a Mac: the updates are FREE, unlike Windows.
Dude, it costs $20 for a new OS and you can install it on I think up to 5 Macs in your household. Don't be petty.
Apple can make users feel good by telling them they're on iOS6 and therefore by definition 'not fragmented', but if they can't use half the features of it....
Apples and oranges, pun intended. While some ADVANCED first-party OS features are restricted to newer users who have the hardware to support it, the APIs used by third-party developers to create - and now advance - their programs are available to all iOS 6 users. You can't say the same thing about people running Gingerbread and the API improvements of Jellybean, now can you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers
Dude, it costs $20 for a new OS and you can install it on I think up to 5 Macs in your household. Don't be petty.
Not to mention - as I pointed out - it's not a "free" update unless you consider "I pay for something a year and two years in advance respectively" to be "free".
Apples and oranges, pun intended. While some ADVANCED first-party OS features are restricted to newer users who have the hardware to support it, the APIs used by third-party developers to create - and now advance - their programs are available to all iOS 6 users. You can't say the same thing about people running Gingerbread and the API improvements of Jellybean, now can you?
Not to mention - as I pointed out - it's not a "free" update unless you consider "I pay for something a year and two years in advance respectively" to be "free".
Yes, I acknowledge there is a distinction, and no doubt about it- Apple is easier to developers to develop for...
But ultimately which is a higher priority to most users:
1) Making life easy for developers
2) Having cool features on my phone
Yes, Apple is not fragmented for developers because they can develop stuff for all phones..... the stuff they develop just won't work on a lot of them. I have a 3GS that 'suffers' from this. I put suffers in quotes because I don't expect it to run the latest stuff, its not my primary phone and I use it as a metronome and to let my nieces play on instead of giving them my real phone. But once iOS 7 comes out it (might) be upgraded and unfragmented, I just can't actually do squat with it.
By that measure you could say Android is equally unfragmented. If developers develop in Gingerbread, their Apps will run on something similar to 93% of Android phones!*
*users just won't get to use the cool new features, but its all about making development easier for developers
Dude, it costs $20 for a new OS and you can install it on I think up to 5 Macs in your household. Don't be petty.
Dude, it's about everyone getting it. Not me. Everyone gets it, everyone benefits, and the only way to make that happen, which iOS has proved, is to make it free.
Actually, it would likely drive up the cost of Macs. Apple uses an interesting accounting tactic to circumvent laws regarding electronic devices and a certain percentage of each iOS device's profit is diverted into a special fund that pays for iOS. Otherwise, you'd be required by law to pay for each new iOS version (the core versions, not the point updates) because it's actually illegal to do what you're suggesting. In order to do the same with Mac OS, they'd need to implement the same process for Mac users, it would ONLY apply to devices bought after that point, and the amount diverted (and therefore the price jump we'd probably see) would be significantly higher because Apple can sell more iPhones in a weekend on occasions than they sell Macs in a quarter. That takes the development costs and spreads them over a MUCH larger number of units, making the per-unit cost they hit people with fairly low.
1) Sure, the accounting would have to change to match that of the iPods, iPhones, Apple TV, iPads, and their paid software and services. Seems to me the Mac is the only thing not using this accounting.
2) If it's such a horrible practice then why do so many other of their products utilize it.
3) It's possible that the pros don't outweigh the cons, which seems evident by the fact they don't currently use it, but as implied by myself and Ireland it's not out of the question to see how this could 1) increase sales of Macs, 2) make the average Mac experience better, and 3) reduce Mac OS costs for Apple which could then be passed to users.
Love the way the title of the article is slyly misleading.
And speaking of having most of its userbase on the latest OS, my one feature request for OS X 10.9 is that it's FREE! It's time for Apple to make the leap; it feels like the time is right.
I think something like $19.95 is almost free. I'll be happy if it stays around there.
Somehow, we quickly forget the large amount of cheap and crippled "smart"phones running older versions of Android and that will probably never get any update. Yeah... these phones don't really exist. Except when it's time to compare marketshare of course!
Dude, it costs $20 for a new OS and you can install it on I think up to 5 Macs in your household. Don't be petty.
He's not being petty. He's considering a potential road Apple could go down which could potentially make them more money even whilst potentially saving us money, and all with a potentially to increase the UX of Macs. Rememebr that the price was $129 for many, many years and only with Lion and ML has dropped to insanely low levels for an OS. Why not stick with $129? WHy not $99 or $49. Why $20. Apparently the cost has significantly dropped per user but why lower the price at all unless they want people to update their OS? Mine and Ireland's simple solution is merely to go down a well traveled route as "PCs" become just another device on the network.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
When you look at installed base, the numbers you're objecting to are actually correct.
Based on what? ...your opinion?
You could say the same about any traffic based study including this one. Logic would dictate developers care about what's actually getting used not collecting dust in a drawer or a landfill. All of these are things are recent moving targets/best guesses. I figured that was a given.
Lay off the hash pipe. iOS is a free update. OS X should be, too. It's a good will gesture to their user base. They can easily afford to do it and it'd be a great feature of buying a Mac: the updates are FREE, unlike Windows.
Precisely. And it leaves no excuses not to update, so it makes the developers job easier, and more interesting when they can give all their customers cool new features.
A single point of sale,
A single company creating the device,
They create the hardware and software, designed in congruence,
You use someone else's iPhone, and you know how it works, exactly like your own,
You upgrade the OS software right from the build-in app,
...
93%, or whatever high number it actually is...
I like their strategy, I like it a lot.
you're exactly right....for those reasons is why IOS devices get updated more often. Apple is the single controlling point of the updates....Hard to know. 50/50. But assuming you are on a contract, you can soon update to the 4S for free. Or the 4 right now for free.
You'll need to speak to your accountant about that, because your budgeting sucks!
I don't want YOUR unwillingness to spend money on such a useful device affecting MY experience on the one I update regularly every year because I recognise the incredible value that it brings me.
1) I see no reason to expect the 2009 iPhone to support the 2013 OS.
2) Assuming your budget allows you to use your 3GS as a smartphone then you can afford to get the iPhone 4S for free from a carrier.
* Or whatever off-contract $450 phone they offer. I have a feeling Apple is looking to eschew the 3.5" sizes from their line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That depends. If he can get paid for simply showing up then he'll likely then work for free. Do you think those developing for iOS or iCloud aren't getting paid simply because Apple offers these free of charge? I doubt he's saying Apple shouldn't get paid for their work on Mac OS X, but rather that offering Mac OS X for free with Macs will increase the number of people that update which could lower Apple's costs in supporting older HW at the Genius Bar and over the phone, and add value to those looking to buy a new Mac if the updates are free and offered at the same time across the line. This seems to have worked out very well for all their products.
Actually, it would likely drive up the cost of Macs. Apple uses an interesting accounting tactic to circumvent laws regarding electronic devices and a certain percentage of each iOS device's profit is diverted into a special fund that pays for iOS. Otherwise, you'd be required by law to pay for each new iOS version (the core versions, not the point updates) because it's actually illegal to do what you're suggesting. In order to do the same with Mac OS, they'd need to implement the same process for Mac users, it would ONLY apply to devices bought after that point, and the amount diverted (and therefore the price jump we'd probably see) would be significantly higher because Apple can sell more iPhones in a weekend on occasions than they sell Macs in a quarter. That takes the development costs and spreads them over a MUCH larger number of units, making the per-unit cost they hit people with fairly low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
Well it's more accurate than Google's new numbers. They recently started only using data from devices that access the Google Play. They're trying to report lower Froyo and Gingerbread install bases...and it seems to be working. No one called them on it last month or this month really.
Huh? No one called them on it? Where you anywhere near this site? Apple fans were calling them on it left and right and any other way you could think of.
The people that the change actually affects- developers- weren't calling them on it because they were too busy thanking Google. There are a TON of low end devices out there running Gingerbread. There will continue to be a ton of them probably as long as there are poor people in the world. That's what Gingerbread is for and its a great thing for them that there exists an operating system that allows manufacturers to build phones with minimal hardware requirements and sell them cheaply. They are still people and if they enjoy a phone that lets them make calls and browse the web without the rest of the snazzy features I say more power to them (instead of many on this site that seem to deride them because they are poor and can't be as superior as people that can afford an iPhone).
Developers don't want to focus on those users. They want to focus on users that might buy their products. For an accurate representation of that, there really isn't a better method than going by people who are visiting the Play store.
Google could focus on the marketing aspect a little more instead of the engineering. They could just send out an update that just tells any ICS or Gingerbread phone that it is now the latest version of Jelly Bean and then they too would be approaching 93% on Jellybean! Developers and users would then have to deal with figuring out if their or their users' phones can actually use some of the features in Jelly Bean...
100% of phones running Jelly Bean can run Google Now.
What percentage of iOS6 users can run Siri? What about flyover view or whatever Apple calls it? What about turn by turn navigation?
Apple can make users feel good by telling them they're on iOS6 and therefore by definition 'not fragmented', but if they can't use half the features of it....
Dude, it costs $20 for a new OS and you can install it on I think up to 5 Macs in your household. Don't be petty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
Apple can make users feel good by telling them they're on iOS6 and therefore by definition 'not fragmented', but if they can't use half the features of it....
Apples and oranges, pun intended. While some ADVANCED first-party OS features are restricted to newer users who have the hardware to support it, the APIs used by third-party developers to create - and now advance - their programs are available to all iOS 6 users. You can't say the same thing about people running Gingerbread and the API improvements of Jellybean, now can you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers
Dude, it costs $20 for a new OS and you can install it on I think up to 5 Macs in your household. Don't be petty.
Not to mention - as I pointed out - it's not a "free" update unless you consider "I pay for something a year and two years in advance respectively" to be "free".
Quote:
Originally Posted by skottichan
Apples and oranges, pun intended. While some ADVANCED first-party OS features are restricted to newer users who have the hardware to support it, the APIs used by third-party developers to create - and now advance - their programs are available to all iOS 6 users. You can't say the same thing about people running Gingerbread and the API improvements of Jellybean, now can you?
Not to mention - as I pointed out - it's not a "free" update unless you consider "I pay for something a year and two years in advance respectively" to be "free".
Yes, I acknowledge there is a distinction, and no doubt about it- Apple is easier to developers to develop for...
But ultimately which is a higher priority to most users:
1) Making life easy for developers
2) Having cool features on my phone
Yes, Apple is not fragmented for developers because they can develop stuff for all phones..... the stuff they develop just won't work on a lot of them. I have a 3GS that 'suffers' from this. I put suffers in quotes because I don't expect it to run the latest stuff, its not my primary phone and I use it as a metronome and to let my nieces play on instead of giving them my real phone. But once iOS 7 comes out it (might) be upgraded and unfragmented, I just can't actually do squat with it.
By that measure you could say Android is equally unfragmented. If developers develop in Gingerbread, their Apps will run on something similar to 93% of Android phones!*
*users just won't get to use the cool new features, but its all about making development easier for developers
Dude, it's about everyone getting it. Not me. Everyone gets it, everyone benefits, and the only way to make that happen, which iOS has proved, is to make it free.
Dude.
1) Sure, the accounting would have to change to match that of the iPods, iPhones, Apple TV, iPads, and their paid software and services. Seems to me the Mac is the only thing not using this accounting.
2) If it's such a horrible practice then why do so many other of their products utilize it.
3) It's possible that the pros don't outweigh the cons, which seems evident by the fact they don't currently use it, but as implied by myself and Ireland it's not out of the question to see how this could 1) increase sales of Macs, 2) make the average Mac experience better, and 3) reduce Mac OS costs for Apple which could then be passed to users.
I think something like $19.95 is almost free. I'll be happy if it stays around there.
Somehow, we quickly forget the large amount of cheap and crippled "smart"phones running older versions of Android and that will probably never get any update. Yeah... these phones don't really exist. Except when it's time to compare marketshare of course!
He's not being petty. He's considering a potential road Apple could go down which could potentially make them more money even whilst potentially saving us money, and all with a potentially to increase the UX of Macs. Rememebr that the price was $129 for many, many years and only with Lion and ML has dropped to insanely low levels for an OS. Why not stick with $129? WHy not $99 or $49. Why $20. Apparently the cost has significantly dropped per user but why lower the price at all unless they want people to update their OS? Mine and Ireland's simple solution is merely to go down a well traveled route as "PCs" become just another device on the network.