well, it doesn't matter how many people use the most recent version of mobile OS. android is still used by majority of people. it says 90% in the world. iOS is barely catching 10%.
Well, no. Keep thinking that “sales” are indicative of use and you’ll start getting offers for suspension bridges.
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
But it does mean it's way more adaptable than other mobile OS'es.
Nope. Apple wouldn't let iOS be modified for 3rd party uses at any price. Nor will Microsoft allow their their mobile OS to be "forked" for specialty needs Android is absolutely more adaptable...
Period. (smiling)
Except no, we don’t have any indication whatsoever that the inherent hackability of Android lends itself better to any field. There’s a reason businesses of all sorts forgo it for a real platform. Android “sells” because it’s cheaper in third world countries.
Nope. Apple wouldn't let iOS be modified for 3rd party uses at any price. Nor will Microsoft allow their their mobile OS to be "forked" for specialty needs Android is absolutely more adaptable...
Period. (smiling)
There are over 1 million third party apps for iOS. What are you smoking?
I realize you and others are rooting for Tizen to destroy Android but IMHO it's a dead end wish. Even Sammy can't make Tizen a success.
Now you're putting words into my mouth, I'm not rooting for Tizen or even iOS.
Even if I were rooting for a particular OS it's out of my hands as I'm not involved in OS design, promotion or marketing.
Google is not a charity, it's in the business of making money and it created Android with a view to creating money.
The question is how efficient and intelligent it is in this pursuit.
It's all very well that Android is hackable and widely used in various devices including medical systems, but with Android being given freely away, very few of these things actually generate income for Google.
One key difference between the Windows versus Mac OS and Android versus iOS battle: Microsoft made money from its Windows licensing fee.
In the long run, for the reasons given in my earlier post, fragmentation and the inability to make official updates dooms Android to being used for embedded systems or low-end near disposable handsets, the race to bottom.
Now you're putting words into my mouth, I'm not rooting for Tizen or even iOS.
Even if I were rooting for a particular OS it's out of my hands as I'm not involved in OS design, promotion or marketing.
Google is not a charity, it's in the business of making money and it created Android with a view to creating money.
The question is how efficient and intelligent it is in this pursuit.
It's all very well that Android is hackable and widely used in various devices including medical systems, but with Android being given freely away, very few of these things actually generate income for Google.
One key difference between the Windows versus Mac OS and Android versus iOS battle: Microsoft made money from its Windows licensing fee.
Have you ever read the history of Android, and why Google bought and developed it into a full-fledged mobile OS (Rubin once thought cameras were the best use)? It was not about Apple or iPhones. Heck, the iPhone wasn't even a glimmer in Steve Jobs eye when Google started working on the Android Project. The danger to Google came from Microsoft and their vision of mobile, which did not include a promotion of Google services. The idea was to develop a Microsoft-competing mobile OS to give manufacturers a viable option to WinMo, thus keeping Google in the mobile revenue picture. If MS had their way Google would be sweeping up the leftovers from Microsoft's lunch.
So were they successful? Overwhelmingly so I'd say.
In the long run, for the reasons given in my earlier post, fragmentation and the inability to make official updates dooms Android to being used for embedded systems...
AOSP gets updates. Visit their page to have a look for yourself. If manufacturers want to create a custom piece of machinery with an embedded OS based on Android then it would obviously be that manufacturer taking care of maintenance. Google wouldn't have created it. The end-user may not even be aware their new toy is based on Android code. Fragmentation? Most embedded systems would not be using Google services and so waiting on a Google Android update to pass carrier review. Google along with other individuals and organizations will contribute updates and new functions to the open-source project the manufacturer can use to update/modify their own product if they wish. Pretty straightforward.
Not only does the timeline refute that, Google’s CEO openly admits to throwing out what they were working on once he saw the iPhone.
Try harder.
Feel free to post the iPhone timeline TS. Hint: Look around mid to late 2005 for the start. Several sources point to September as the month Jobs gave the iPhone the green-light, with a company wide commitment by November or so. Credit Apple's Project Purple tablet effort for some of the groundwork, making the iPhone fast-tracking possible. By the way saying it wasn't even a glimmer in his eye was over-reaching I'll admit. Jobs had considered it at different times, even had Moto build 'em a phone in 2004. Just never got past the talking stage about building an iPhone of their own until later half of 2005.
Goog was already invested in Android before the end of 2004, owning them outright by very late 2004/early 2005 according to the ones that were there. With Apple having no mobile phone of their own under development, no mobile-specific OS of their own at the time and no indication either they were even committed to creating a mobile OS it should be kinda obvious who Google was concerned with... and it wasn't Apple.
After the iPhone was revealed? Heck yeah Google took notice. Who didn't? Google rightly recognized they had some work ahead of them if they were going to offer a desirable alternative so that the manufacturers didn't look to Microsoft to keep them in the game.
That it became personal with Mr. Jobs is unfortunate and should have been avoidable IMO. Google was not out to harm Apple. They were looking out for their own interests, with the threat from Microsoft at the top of the list. As it turned out Apple became a bigger enemy. Forging a partnership with them and dumping Android would not have guaranteed it wouldn't have happened anyway. Jobs was lobbing threats at Google even before the iPhone became reality, and it was not about Android either. Jobs made a lot of things personal over the years, both a strength and a weakness for him.
Sidenote for those that were unaware: Sammy coulda had Android in the fall of 2004 but didn't have the vision for it.
These articles point out some good things I agree with - Screen sizes are what they address mostly, it's not that hard, right. However, across densities and and sizes - it's more to think about for someone who isn't familiar requiring more time to learn. - Google is containing their Play Services to update themselves independently of the OS - which is good for Google and to me to some degree.
However, these articles don't really address my problems which is the vast differences of API's available - and in some cases the flat out failure of manufacturers to correctly support their hardware. I'm not trying to claim to be the majority, but it is hard to target those features offered by and across Android versions for an incoming devs who are unfamiliar, myself included after a nice chunk of time dedicated to learning the OS.
It isn't shit, no.
But it's a pain in the ass that is discouraging.
As an Android user, in large part because the phones and service I can afford happen to align with Android phones, I can honestly call the articles BS. In the last year, I've gone from one brand new Gingerbread phone which crapped out to another which I spent morst of my time fighting the urge to smash with a brick (and I could still buy new) to a Kit Kat phone which is decent but has a few flabbergasting behaviors. Despite the fact the first two had the same brand, OS version, processor, and screen resolution, I could only use half the Apps on both Gingerbread phones. Then a bunch of the Apps I would have liked would run on Gingerbread at all because the makers decided despite the face someone could cheaply buy a Gingerbread phone, you needed to have at least Jellybean and not even apps that should have required any features not already available in Froyo or Gingerbread at that. Oh and my current Kit Kat phone, it's stuck at 4.4.0. Why? Because LG (and and practically every network that carries that model) decided that particular model does have the sales to justify an upgrade release and the only phones with upgrades on my particular network are the iPhone (which would cost me at least $400-odd) and any unlocked upgradeable Android phone capable of accepting a sim card which you may own.
Not only does the timeline refute that, Google’s CEO openly admits to throwing out what they were working on once he saw the iPhone.
Try harder.
The idea of making a mobile OS remained static. They only altered the type of device it would run on. Say what you may about Google, but they were at least smart enough to see that Apple was on to something. Those that failed to see it are dead, or dying.
Boy, that sounds like a piss-poor experience. Still on Android? If so, cost-wise?
It does suck. My first Android phone was awesome when it first game out. By the time the contract was up I was very frustrated with the old OS version and the fragmented app support. That's why I switched to t-mobile and a Nexus 4. Now I have the latest OS version the same week that Google announces it, no fragmentation experiences at all, and I'm $30/month with unlimited data and no contract.
My wife's first iPhone experience was much more pleasant than my first Android experience once I'd missed out on a few system updates b/c of carrier/mfgr lameness.
My wife's first iPhone experience was much more pleasant than my first Android experience once I'd missed out on a few system updates b/c of carrier/mfgr lameness.
The fault falls to Google first. It's not as if Google starts building their Nexus updates at the same time they give the builds to the carriers and vendors. Google has a huge lead as well as other advantages. It's only latter when the carrier makes a promise they can't keep or decides not to do it because there weren't enough sales to warrant the cost that some of the blame shifts, but the initial fault will always be Google.
The fault falls to Google first. It's not as if Google starts building their Nexus updates at the same time they give the builds to the carriers and vendors. Google has a huge lead as well as other advantages. It's only latter when the carrier makes a promise they can't keep or decides not to do it because there weren't enough sales to warrant the cost that some of the blame shifts, but the initial fault will always be Google.
I don't buy it. Even a three month delay would be fine (not that it would come to that). The carriers and mfgrs are lame because they're trying to pull revenue out of their ass will their own app stores, pay navigation, ridiculous skinning, etc. If they just stuck to selling data, voice, and text, and would compete in the software environment of the Play Store with their stupid apps, then they would have no reason not to push updates once Google made them available. Instead, they can't do it because it would mean getting all the poorly developed apps and skins up to speed on a platform that they are no longer interested in supporting because it's not in their latest commercials.
I don't buy it. Even a three month delay would be fine (not that it would come to that). The carriers and mfgrs are lame because they're trying to pull revenue out of their ass will their own app stores, pay navigation, ridiculous skinning, etc. If they just stuck to selling data, voice, and text, and would compete in the software environment of the Play Store with their stupid apps, then they would have no reason not to push updates once Google made them available. Instead, they can't do it because it would mean getting all the poorly developed apps and skins up to speed on a platform that they are no longer interested in supporting because it's not in their latest commercials.
There is nothing too buy. That's the truth. Google is to blame for the initial delay and for setting up this shitty system in the first place. The carriers and vendors are to blame for all the other aspects you mentioned. No matter you split the blame, Google started it.
The fault falls to Google first. It's not as if Google starts building their Nexus updates at the same time they give the builds to the carriers and vendors. Google has a huge lead as well as other advantages. It's only latter when the carrier makes a promise they can't keep or decides not to do it because there weren't enough sales to warrant the cost that some of the blame shifts, but the initial fault will always be Google.
Google doesn't give their builds to anyone. Current and previous builds are on their servers for anyone to take. A manufacturer took the build off Google's servers when they initially built a phone, and it's on them to take subsequent builds, and customize it to their devices.
The fault falls to Google first. It's not as if Google starts building their Nexus updates at the same time they give the builds to the carriers and vendors. Google has a huge lead as well as other advantages. It's only latter when the carrier makes a promise they can't keep or decides not to do it because there weren't enough sales to warrant the cost that some of the blame shifts, but the initial fault will always be Google.
Soli, Google Android updates are ready to deliver to stock devices (ie Nexus) within days of their official release, really no different than iOS updates. Even Apple can't release OS updates until the carriers are done testing and sign off on 'em. The difference comes into play with the various manufacturers who don't feel the same urgency. Moto would be one exception, readying some updates within a week or so of Nexus updates.
If Apple licensed iOS they might see some of the same update delays from licensees and higher levels of "fragmentation". . .
Google might have no update delays nor any more fragmentation than Apple if they only sold their own devices instead of licensing.
There is nothing too buy. That's the truth. Google is to blame for the initial delay and for setting up this shitty system in the first place. The carriers and vendors are to blame for all the other aspects you mentioned. No matter you split the blame, Google started it.
You know the whole 'horse' and 'water' thingy, with OS updates being the water, and manufacters being the horse. I will agree that it's Google's fault for setting it up like that. Sometimes a seemingly good idea turns out to be a bad reality.
Comments
http://hitconsultant.net/2014/04/10/how-android-is-transforming-the-medical-devices-market-infographic/
Well, no. Keep thinking that “sales” are indicative of use and you’ll start getting offers for suspension bridges.
No, it means it’s cheaper. Period.
Nope. Apple wouldn't let iOS be modified for 3rd party uses at any price. Nor will Microsoft allow their their mobile OS to be "forked" for specialty needs Android is absolutely more adaptable...
Period. (smiling)
Except no, we don’t have any indication whatsoever that the inherent hackability of Android lends itself better to any field. There’s a reason businesses of all sorts forgo it for a real platform. Android “sells” because it’s cheaper in third world countries.
No, it means it’s cheaper. Period.
Nope. Apple wouldn't let iOS be modified for 3rd party uses at any price. Nor will Microsoft allow their their mobile OS to be "forked" for specialty needs Android is absolutely more adaptable...
Period. (smiling)
There are over 1 million third party apps for iOS. What are you smoking?
You can sometimes say really strange things. How are those 3rd parties changing Apple's iOS code for their own uses? Hint: They aren't. Try again.
I realize you and others are rooting for Tizen to destroy Android but IMHO it's a dead end wish. Even Sammy can't make Tizen a success.
Now you're putting words into my mouth, I'm not rooting for Tizen or even iOS.
Even if I were rooting for a particular OS it's out of my hands as I'm not involved in OS design, promotion or marketing.
Google is not a charity, it's in the business of making money and it created Android with a view to creating money.
The question is how efficient and intelligent it is in this pursuit.
It's all very well that Android is hackable and widely used in various devices including medical systems, but with Android being given freely away, very few of these things actually generate income for Google.
One key difference between the Windows versus Mac OS and Android versus iOS battle: Microsoft made money from its Windows licensing fee.
In the long run, for the reasons given in my earlier post, fragmentation and the inability to make official updates dooms Android to being used for embedded systems or low-end near disposable handsets, the race to bottom.
Have you ever read the history of Android, and why Google bought and developed it into a full-fledged mobile OS (Rubin once thought cameras were the best use)? It was not about Apple or iPhones. Heck, the iPhone wasn't even a glimmer in Steve Jobs eye when Google started working on the Android Project. The danger to Google came from Microsoft and their vision of mobile, which did not include a promotion of Google services. The idea was to develop a Microsoft-competing mobile OS to give manufacturers a viable option to WinMo, thus keeping Google in the mobile revenue picture. If MS had their way Google would be sweeping up the leftovers from Microsoft's lunch.
So were they successful? Overwhelmingly so I'd say.
AOSP gets updates. Visit their page to have a look for yourself. If manufacturers want to create a custom piece of machinery with an embedded OS based on Android then it would obviously be that manufacturer taking care of maintenance. Google wouldn't have created it. The end-user may not even be aware their new toy is based on Android code. Fragmentation? Most embedded systems would not be using Google services and so waiting on a Google Android update to pass carrier review. Google along with other individuals and organizations will contribute updates and new functions to the open-source project the manufacturer can use to update/modify their own product if they wish. Pretty straightforward.
Not only does the timeline refute that, Google’s CEO openly admits to throwing out what they were working on once he saw the iPhone.
Try harder.
Feel free to post the iPhone timeline TS. Hint: Look around mid to late 2005 for the start. Several sources point to September as the month Jobs gave the iPhone the green-light, with a company wide commitment by November or so. Credit Apple's Project Purple tablet effort for some of the groundwork, making the iPhone fast-tracking possible. By the way saying it wasn't even a glimmer in his eye was over-reaching I'll admit. Jobs had considered it at different times, even had Moto build 'em a phone in 2004. Just never got past the talking stage about building an iPhone of their own until later half of 2005.
Goog was already invested in Android before the end of 2004, owning them outright by very late 2004/early 2005 according to the ones that were there. With Apple having no mobile phone of their own under development, no mobile-specific OS of their own at the time and no indication either they were even committed to creating a mobile OS it should be kinda obvious who Google was concerned with... and it wasn't Apple.
After the iPhone was revealed? Heck yeah Google took notice. Who didn't? Google rightly recognized they had some work ahead of them if they were going to offer a desirable alternative so that the manufacturers didn't look to Microsoft to keep them in the game.
That it became personal with Mr. Jobs is unfortunate and should have been avoidable IMO. Google was not out to harm Apple. They were looking out for their own interests, with the threat from Microsoft at the top of the list. As it turned out Apple became a bigger enemy. Forging a partnership with them and dumping Android would not have guaranteed it wouldn't have happened anyway. Jobs was lobbing threats at Google even before the iPhone became reality, and it was not about Android either. Jobs made a lot of things personal over the years, both a strength and a weakness for him.
Sidenote for those that were unaware: Sammy coulda had Android in the fall of 2004 but didn't have the vision for it.
These articles point out some good things I agree with - Screen sizes are what they address mostly, it's not that hard, right. However, across densities and and sizes - it's more to think about for someone who isn't familiar requiring more time to learn. - Google is containing their Play Services to update themselves independently of the OS - which is good for Google and to me to some degree.
However, these articles don't really address my problems which is the vast differences of API's available - and in some cases the flat out failure of manufacturers to correctly support their hardware. I'm not trying to claim to be the majority, but it is hard to target those features offered by and across Android versions for an incoming devs who are unfamiliar, myself included after a nice chunk of time dedicated to learning the OS.
It isn't shit, no.
But it's a pain in the ass that is discouraging.
As an Android user, in large part because the phones and service I can afford happen to align with Android phones, I can honestly call the articles BS. In the last year, I've gone from one brand new Gingerbread phone which crapped out to another which I spent morst of my time fighting the urge to smash with a brick (and I could still buy new) to a Kit Kat phone which is decent but has a few flabbergasting behaviors. Despite the fact the first two had the same brand, OS version, processor, and screen resolution, I could only use half the Apps on both Gingerbread phones. Then a bunch of the Apps I would have liked would run on Gingerbread at all because the makers decided despite the face someone could cheaply buy a Gingerbread phone, you needed to have at least Jellybean and not even apps that should have required any features not already available in Froyo or Gingerbread at that. Oh and my current Kit Kat phone, it's stuck at 4.4.0. Why? Because LG (and and practically every network that carries that model) decided that particular model does have the sales to justify an upgrade release and the only phones with upgrades on my particular network are the iPhone (which would cost me at least $400-odd) and any unlocked upgradeable Android phone capable of accepting a sim card which you may own.Boy, that sounds like a piss-poor experience. Still on Android? If so, cost-wise?
The idea of making a mobile OS remained static. They only altered the type of device it would run on. Say what you may about Google, but they were at least smart enough to see that Apple was on to something. Those that failed to see it are dead, or dying.
Boy, that sounds like a piss-poor experience. Still on Android? If so, cost-wise?
It does suck. My first Android phone was awesome when it first game out. By the time the contract was up I was very frustrated with the old OS version and the fragmented app support. That's why I switched to t-mobile and a Nexus 4. Now I have the latest OS version the same week that Google announces it, no fragmentation experiences at all, and I'm $30/month with unlimited data and no contract.
My wife's first iPhone experience was much more pleasant than my first Android experience once I'd missed out on a few system updates b/c of carrier/mfgr lameness.
The fault falls to Google first. It's not as if Google starts building their Nexus updates at the same time they give the builds to the carriers and vendors. Google has a huge lead as well as other advantages. It's only latter when the carrier makes a promise they can't keep or decides not to do it because there weren't enough sales to warrant the cost that some of the blame shifts, but the initial fault will always be Google.
The fault falls to Google first. It's not as if Google starts building their Nexus updates at the same time they give the builds to the carriers and vendors. Google has a huge lead as well as other advantages. It's only latter when the carrier makes a promise they can't keep or decides not to do it because there weren't enough sales to warrant the cost that some of the blame shifts, but the initial fault will always be Google.
I don't buy it. Even a three month delay would be fine (not that it would come to that). The carriers and mfgrs are lame because they're trying to pull revenue out of their ass will their own app stores, pay navigation, ridiculous skinning, etc. If they just stuck to selling data, voice, and text, and would compete in the software environment of the Play Store with their stupid apps, then they would have no reason not to push updates once Google made them available. Instead, they can't do it because it would mean getting all the poorly developed apps and skins up to speed on a platform that they are no longer interested in supporting because it's not in their latest commercials.
There is nothing too buy. That's the truth. Google is to blame for the initial delay and for setting up this shitty system in the first place. The carriers and vendors are to blame for all the other aspects you mentioned. No matter you split the blame, Google started it.
Google doesn't give their builds to anyone. Current and previous builds are on their servers for anyone to take. A manufacturer took the build off Google's servers when they initially built a phone, and it's on them to take subsequent builds, and customize it to their devices.
Soli, Google Android updates are ready to deliver to stock devices (ie Nexus) within days of their official release, really no different than iOS updates. Even Apple can't release OS updates until the carriers are done testing and sign off on 'em. The difference comes into play with the various manufacturers who don't feel the same urgency. Moto would be one exception, readying some updates within a week or so of Nexus updates.
If Apple licensed iOS they might see some of the same update delays from licensees and higher levels of "fragmentation". . .
Google might have no update delays nor any more fragmentation than Apple if they only sold their own devices instead of licensing.
You know the whole 'horse' and 'water' thingy, with OS updates being the water, and manufacters being the horse. I will agree that it's Google's fault for setting it up like that. Sometimes a seemingly good idea turns out to be a bad reality.