The sample hardware builds are followed fairly closely AFAIK, especially early in the cycle. New OS features need compatible supporting hardware in many cases. This year it looks like new low-power sensors and fingerprint readers are being pushed with the OS.
Even if not a single OEM followed the general Nexus hardware configurations Google would still need a handset built to their specifications with hardware that showed the latest Android version in it's best light. It's tough to create/revise an OS without a concept device to run it on for testing. Therefor a Nexus model will probably always be introduced alongside a new Google Android version. It's really a necessity. That Google then makes those special builds available to the public is smart business, getting back some of the investment they had to make in them anyway.
Gotcha.
So it's true that Nexus devices don't sell in a lot of volume... but you're saying that's not the point of them anyway.
I have heard the tale of how Nexus devices are supposed to show manufacturers what to do... I just have always questioned its effect. It sounds good in theory... but I'm sure there are many of the 1,000 manufacturers who don't follow it too closely.
All those $50 phones sold in China and India probably aren't getting ideas from the Nexus program.
So it's true that Nexus devices don't sell in a lot of volume... but you're saying that's not the point of them anyway.
I have heard the tale of how Nexus devices are supposed to show manufacturers what to do... I just have always questioned its effect. It sounds good in theory... but I'm sure there are many of the 1,000 manufacturers who don't follow it too closely.
All those $50 phones sold in China and India probably aren't getting ideas from the Nexus program.
Look up Android One. It's a bit late to the party but Google is clearly trying to do something about the cheaper end of the spectrum:
Wrt Nexus, I can never see Google going outright with pushing Nexus phones. Imagine what that would do to partner support for Android. Instead, the Nexus phones seem to have started out as a way of providing a sort of baseline or benchmark for easy OS version release and a sort of reference design to build on, pushing forward whatever concern/trend is foremost that year (looks like cameras and fingerprint readers this year, phablets last year, wireless charging in the Nexus 5, etc.). It's also a way of pushing their vision of how technology is supposed to work. From the Nexus One being sold independent of carriers, to belatedly offering Nexus Protect (something that finally approaches Apple Care). If you look at the whole Android ecosystem, it's very clear that the Nexus program was sorely needed. Their only mistake was not starting the program sooner. I also wonder if they would have been better off, maybe building their own hardware, like the Pixel program.....
Wrt Nexus, I can never see Google going outright with pushing Nexus phones. Imagine what that would do to partner support for Android. Instead, the Nexus phones seem to have started out as a way of providing a sort of baseline or benchmark for easy OS version release and a sort of reference design to build on, pushing forward whatever concern/trend is foremost that year (looks like cameras and fingerprint readers this year, phablets last year, wireless charging in the Nexus 5, etc.). It's also a way of pushing their vision of how technology is supposed to work. From the Nexus One being sold independent of carriers, to belatedly offering Nexus Protect (something that finally approaches Apple Care). If you look at the whole Android ecosystem, it's very clear that the Nexus program was sorely needed. Their only mistake was not starting the program sooner. I also wonder if they would have been better off, maybe building their own hardware, like the Pixel program.....
Like I said... I know what the Nexus program was supposed to do.
It's unclear, however, whether 1 or 2 Nexus phones released each year can really affect the hundreds of Android phones released each year.
But yeah... Google is smart to tell their own story with their own carefully designed hardware.
It wasn't too long ago that Microsoft left it up to others to implement their operating system software. Now Microsoft has jumped into the hardware game.
Lol... there are so many fan boys on either side. Time to troll both...
Year 2018 - Apple releases iphone X with no homebutton - authentication via singing. fanboys everywhere jizz in pants, droidboys screams "our phones never had any buttons on the front to begin with"
Year 2019 - Nexus X released introducing quad speakers on the back, moving finger print to the front screen. droidboys furiously rubbing all ten digits getting ready to test the button. fanboys shouts "who the f put so many holes on the back of a phone"
jokester out!
actually not really, i'm still here
i can think of at least half a dozen uses cases EACH to support the finger print reader's placement for iphone 6 or nexus 5x/6p, to Each his own, iPhone alrady had a button there, so why introduce another "hole" just to put the reader? Android 4.4 and above is capable of relying solely on software buttons to navigate, why put a button on the front? So why not use that space to make a bigger screen in the same body or put a stereo front facing speaker? design decisions is what drive each company to innovate! i certainly dont' want all phones to have finger print readers on the front... lawsuit aside, it's just boring....
oh and to peopel who said iphone 6s is ugly??? that's a strong word. its' f****ng beautiful!! yes yes the lines... but if they dont' do the antenna (wifi, cell, bluetooth, nfc) lines, then they ahve to introduce a visor like nexus 6p. personally i'd take the lines on a slim metal body then a visor on an otherwrise-almost-all-metal-body. that being said, the leaked photo of nexus 6p did seem to exaggerate the camera visor's thickness/height.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/188578/google-unveils-new-nexus-phones-chromecasts-pixel-c-tablet-more/120#post_2784699" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>fallenjt</strong> <a href="/t/188578/google-unveils-new-nexus-phones-chromecasts-pixel-c-tablet-more/120#post_2784699"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/><p>1) No one cares about 5X, I meant 6P, the flagship phone. </p></div></div><p> </p>
My entire response applies equally if not more so to the 6P which has even higher screen-to-area ratio: 71% and an extra front-facing speaker (the 5X has single, 6P has double).
The screen would have been noticeably smaller if they had to build in a "home button" and they might have had to give up a front-facing speaker. All for what? A fingerprint reader largely used for unlocking the phone, but no function beyond that for most people.... Even with payments, how many times a day do you really do that?
And again, there's Smart Lock. Used properly, you can go a whole day unlocking your phone a handful of times.
The sample hardware builds are followed fairly closely AFAIK, especially early in the cycle. New OS features need compatible supporting hardware in many cases. This year it looks like new low-power sensors and fingerprint readers are being pushed with the OS.
Even if not a single OEM followed the general Nexus hardware configurations Google would still need a handset built to their specifications with hardware that showed the latest Android version in it's best light. It's tough to create/revise an OS without a concept device to run it on for testing. Therefor a Nexus model will probably always be introduced alongside a new Google Android version. It's really a necessity. That Google then makes those special builds available to the public is smart business, getting back some of the investment they had to make in them anyway.
Not disputing any of that. My point is just that there is a ton of digital ink being spilled (on this blog and across the web-o-sphere) about how this is Google challenging Apple, when in reality it is no such thing. The only HW product of Google's (so far) that might have an impact on Apple sales is the Chromebook in education, though I haven't seen any concrete data on it.
Yeah, that's not going to happen. Apple wants everyone who is using Apple products to only use Apple products.
My youngest son is finally old enough for his own AppleID. So we made one for him on his hand-me-down iPod Touch 5thG. The device told us that we had reached our limit of AppleIDs used on the device. A quick Google search revealed that this could be overcome by logging into iCloud with the AppleID in question. So I installed iCloud on my laptop, and tried to log in with his AppleID. I got a message saying that I couldn't log in with that AppleID until it had been logged into iCloud on an IOS or OSX device.
Biggest bunch of pissy BS I've seen out of a big tech company. So I fired up my oldest son's MBAir, installed iCloud, and logged in. Finally, the iPod touch worked with the AppleID.
You know, Apple stuff "just works."
We might see Apple allowing their music to stream through another service directly, but not this decade.
Those restrictions come from the labels, not Apple. How would Apple possibly benefit from preventing the use of their products?
Those restrictions come from the labels, not Apple. How would Apple possibly benefit from preventing the use of their products?
That's a great question.
My niece is pissed because her friends all use iPhones and don't understand how iMessage works, so she's missing out on conversations because she's on Android. She's actually looking for a 4S now (college student finances) just so she can run iMessage. It's ridiculous. There should be an iMessage app on Android and Windows, just like whatsapp, hangouts, and fbmessenger.
My niece is pissed because her friends all use iPhones and don't understand how iMessage works, so she's missing out on conversations because she's on Android. She's actually looking for a 4S now (college student finances) just so she can run iMessage. It's ridiculous. There should be an iMessage app on Android and Windows, just like whatsapp, hangouts, and fbmessenger.
This really demonstrates why Apple shouldn't put iMessage on Android and Windows because it encouraged your niece to buy an iPhone. If it were available on Android, she wouldn't have done this and Apple would make no money from her at all. Apple makes money primarily on hardware sales, Google makes money primarily from advertising:
This really demonstrates why Apple shouldn't put iMessage on Android and Windows because it encouraged your niece to buy an iPhone. If it were available on Android, she wouldn't have done this and Apple would make no money from her at all. Apple makes money primarily on hardware sales, Google makes money primarily from advertising:
Android's default apps don't all exist on iOS either.
Yeah, I agree, that it's good for business. They're forcing hardware decisions because of artificial software limitations. They could also charge $5 for Android iMessage, or even a subscription, and it would sell.
The alternative is to get friends who are smart enough to send text messages.
This really demonstrates why Apple shouldn't put iMessage on Android and Windows because it encouraged your niece to buy an iPhone. If it were available on Android, she wouldn't have done this and Apple would make no money from her at all. Apple makes money primarily on hardware sales, Google makes money primarily from advertising:
It makes sense why Apple wouldn't do the same on Google Play tho as you mentioned. Curious why they chose to make an exception with Apple Music? Perhaps Apple is moving to monetize services more aggressively than in the past, hedge the heavy reliance on iPhone revenue? That "other" category appears to be getting more attention in the past few quarters. It's plain that Google is on that path, increasing the importance and focus of other business segments as an ad services hedge.
EDIT: Gotta love the articles that pop up around the web similar to the one you linked. "It doesn't, but it might". They do make good attractants.
Yeah, I agree, that it's good for business. They're forcing hardware decisions because of artificial software limitations. They could also charge $5 for Android iMessage, or even a subscription, and it would sell.
30% would go to Google though and $5 is far less than they get for a phone sale. It's not forced either as iOS can send texts to Android but some configurations aren't going to be 100% compatible, it's more persuasion. If someone is paying a contract with Android a contract iPhone shouldn't be much more expensive. Used iPhones go pretty cheap on eBay too, just get a case for scuffed ones:
Which Google default app relevant to iOS isn't there?
They have 3 default messaging options I think so the two besides Hangouts - Messages and Messenger. Can those apps send wifi messages to iOS? Apple always gets blamed when there's compatibility problems but there's no reason to expect they should be the only ones to put in the effort to be compatible with what everyone else is doing. Android users aren't even compatible with each other sometimes.
Curious why they chose to make an exception with Apple Music? Perhaps Apple is moving to monetize services more aggressively than in the past
Apple Music on Android is the same deal as iTunes on Windows in 2003 and they don't go out of their way to make it as good an experience as on their own products:
It makes sense for them to capitalize on the software/service side as much as their platforms allow but the vast majority of profits from from hardware. That ratio might shift over time but it would never make sense for them to promote hardware sales of competitors because they'd just lose both hardware and software/services.
Perhaps Apple is moving to monetize services more aggressively than in the past, hedge the heavy reliance on iPhone revenue?
Sounds like a path to an antitrust investigation, based on how other tech leaders are pursued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It's not forced either as iOS can send texts to Android
It seems that there are enough iPhone users who are too stupid to understand this, and they aren't able to communicate with their Android-owning friends.
Hangouts has a similar non-obvious separation between a Hangout and SMS/MMS, but they do provide the app on other hardware, allowing iPhones and Androids to text, video chat, and conference with slides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They have 3 default messaging options I think so the two besides Hangouts - Messages and Messenger. Can those apps send wifi messages to iOS?
Messages and Messenger are moot, because Hangouts works on iOS and Android over wifi, and it's a common solution. There is no Apple equivalent, as they are avoiding compatibility with other ecosystems whenever possible.
Same thing with music. There's no technical reason to prevent other mobile OSs from listening to music, but Apple is using music libraries as leverage to force hardware decisions, in spite of a profitable model for iTunes and Apple Music on their own.
Messages and Messenger are moot, because Hangouts works on iOS and Android over wifi, and it's a common solution. There is no Apple equivalent, as they are avoiding compatibility with other ecosystems whenever possible.
If people weren't using Hangouts (which isn't the default messaging app) then having Hangouts on iOS wouldn't matter. Hangouts didn't even support group messaging before version 4. It simply isn't the case that Android is compatible with others and Apple isn't. If people want reliable cross-platform communication then there are solutions people can use. Apple has no obligation to make the experience better for users who spend all day hating on them and never paying them and the same goes for any company. Google has an obligation to iOS users because they make most of their mobile revenue from them. Apple owes Android users nothing.
Google apparently makes Hangouts better on iOS too:
"chris_johns
Only thing i like about imessage is THEY CAN SEND HIGH QUALITY VIDEOS EASILY!!….android has NO menthod of doing this and I HATE GETTING CRAP QUALITY VIDS FROM ALLL THESE DAMN IPHONE PEOPLE
Chris
What boggles my mind is the fact that you can use an iPhone to send a video through Hangouts but not Android… WAT?
Casey N
Yep everytime one of my friends tells me how inferior my iPhone is next to his 3gb of ram,4k display machine of a Android phone I record a 20 second video and text it to him. I ask him to do the same “simple” task and they can’t:)
chris_johns
I mean that’s not entirely true we can but its not nearly as seamless or easy
Casey N
Yes I realize you can upload your video to a service such as dropbox or google drive and then share the link but like you said no where near as easy or seamless as doing it on iMessage
dcdttu
You gotta point."
Is that Apple's fault too? It's a lot of effort supporting the multitude of Android devices and Apple would only lose out by offering iMessage to Android. Some of those people say they are messaging with iPhone users ok with that app so it might be worth trying out. Older phones had a different app so try setting the following as the default instead:
Same thing with music. There's no technical reason to prevent other mobile OSs from listening to music, but Apple is using music libraries as leverage to force hardware decisions, in spite of a profitable model for iTunes and Apple Music on their own.
How else would they manage music? They use libraries for everything, including movies with their movie apps and photos for photo apps. It's to make it simple for the users. If they have to make it more complex just to be compatible then it's not the right way to go. Their highest priority is to people who support them.
People with different devices are free to use other music software to sync to them.
It makes sense why Apple wouldn't do the same on Google Play tho as you mentioned. Curious why they chose to make an exception with Apple Music? Perhaps Apple is moving to monetize services more aggressively than in the past, hedge the heavy reliance on iPhone revenue? That "other" category appears to be getting more attention in the past few quarters. It's plain that Google is on that path, increasing the importance and focus of other business segments as an ad services hedge.
EDIT: Gotta love the articles that pop up around the web similar to the one you linked. "It doesn't, but it might". They do make good attractants.
The exception for Apple Music is that Apple bought Beats and Beats music was available for Android; i.e., Apple purchased a built in audience.
It's also true that Apple wants to control the user experience, and cross platform applications on varying devices makes that extremely difficult. This would be the reason that Apple will allow tvOS apps from other streaming services and not vice versa; Apple still has a modicum of control over the experience.
For the record, my Amazon Primes experience on various devices has been "primitive" to say the least. I'm guessing that Amazon's devices have had a better experience and that the current FireTv improves on that, hence Amazon leveraging its own devices.
Comments
Gotcha.
So it's true that Nexus devices don't sell in a lot of volume... but you're saying that's not the point of them anyway.
I have heard the tale of how Nexus devices are supposed to show manufacturers what to do... I just have always questioned its effect. It sounds good in theory... but I'm sure there are many of the 1,000 manufacturers who don't follow it too closely.
All those $50 phones sold in China and India probably aren't getting ideas from the Nexus program.
Gotcha.
So it's true that Nexus devices don't sell in a lot of volume... but you're saying that's not the point of them anyway.
I have heard the tale of how Nexus devices are supposed to show manufacturers what to do... I just have always questioned its effect. It sounds good in theory... but I'm sure there are many of the 1,000 manufacturers who don't follow it too closely.
All those $50 phones sold in China and India probably aren't getting ideas from the Nexus program.
Look up Android One. It's a bit late to the party but Google is clearly trying to do something about the cheaper end of the spectrum:
https://www.android.com/one/
Wrt Nexus, I can never see Google going outright with pushing Nexus phones. Imagine what that would do to partner support for Android. Instead, the Nexus phones seem to have started out as a way of providing a sort of baseline or benchmark for easy OS version release and a sort of reference design to build on, pushing forward whatever concern/trend is foremost that year (looks like cameras and fingerprint readers this year, phablets last year, wireless charging in the Nexus 5, etc.). It's also a way of pushing their vision of how technology is supposed to work. From the Nexus One being sold independent of carriers, to belatedly offering Nexus Protect (something that finally approaches Apple Care). If you look at the whole Android ecosystem, it's very clear that the Nexus program was sorely needed. Their only mistake was not starting the program sooner. I also wonder if they would have been better off, maybe building their own hardware, like the Pixel program.....
Like I said... I know what the Nexus program was supposed to do.
It's unclear, however, whether 1 or 2 Nexus phones released each year can really affect the hundreds of Android phones released each year.
But yeah... Google is smart to tell their own story with their own carefully designed hardware.
It wasn't too long ago that Microsoft left it up to others to implement their operating system software. Now Microsoft has jumped into the hardware game.
Lol... there are so many fan boys on either side. Time to troll both...
Year 2018 - Apple releases iphone X with no homebutton - authentication via singing. fanboys everywhere jizz in pants, droidboys screams "our phones never had any buttons on the front to begin with"
Year 2019 - Nexus X released introducing quad speakers on the back, moving finger print to the front screen. droidboys furiously rubbing all ten digits getting ready to test the button. fanboys shouts "who the f put so many holes on the back of a phone"
jokester out!
actually not really, i'm still here
i can think of at least half a dozen uses cases EACH to support the finger print reader's placement for iphone 6 or nexus 5x/6p, to Each his own, iPhone alrady had a button there, so why introduce another "hole" just to put the reader? Android 4.4 and above is capable of relying solely on software buttons to navigate, why put a button on the front? So why not use that space to make a bigger screen in the same body or put a stereo front facing speaker? design decisions is what drive each company to innovate! i certainly dont' want all phones to have finger print readers on the front... lawsuit aside, it's just boring....
oh and to peopel who said iphone 6s is ugly??? that's a strong word. its' f****ng beautiful!! yes yes the lines... but if they dont' do the antenna (wifi, cell, bluetooth, nfc) lines, then they ahve to introduce a visor like nexus 6p. personally i'd take the lines on a slim metal body then a visor on an otherwrise-almost-all-metal-body. that being said, the leaked photo of nexus 6p did seem to exaggerate the camera visor's thickness/height.
save screen real estate huh? Please
Same size phones and one has a larger screen. So yea, it does.
The sample hardware builds are followed fairly closely AFAIK, especially early in the cycle. New OS features need compatible supporting hardware in many cases. This year it looks like new low-power sensors and fingerprint readers are being pushed with the OS.
Even if not a single OEM followed the general Nexus hardware configurations Google would still need a handset built to their specifications with hardware that showed the latest Android version in it's best light. It's tough to create/revise an OS without a concept device to run it on for testing. Therefor a Nexus model will probably always be introduced alongside a new Google Android version. It's really a necessity. That Google then makes those special builds available to the public is smart business, getting back some of the investment they had to make in them anyway.
Not disputing any of that. My point is just that there is a ton of digital ink being spilled (on this blog and across the web-o-sphere) about how this is Google challenging Apple, when in reality it is no such thing. The only HW product of Google's (so far) that might have an impact on Apple sales is the Chromebook in education, though I haven't seen any concrete data on it.
Those restrictions come from the labels, not Apple. How would Apple possibly benefit from preventing the use of their products?
Those restrictions come from the labels, not Apple. How would Apple possibly benefit from preventing the use of their products?
That's a great question.
My niece is pissed because her friends all use iPhones and don't understand how iMessage works, so she's missing out on conversations because she's on Android. She's actually looking for a 4S now (college student finances) just so she can run iMessage. It's ridiculous. There should be an iMessage app on Android and Windows, just like whatsapp, hangouts, and fbmessenger.
This really demonstrates why Apple shouldn't put iMessage on Android and Windows because it encouraged your niece to buy an iPhone. If it were available on Android, she wouldn't have done this and Apple would make no money from her at all. Apple makes money primarily on hardware sales, Google makes money primarily from advertising:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/google-spy-chat
Android's default apps don't all exist on iOS either.
This really demonstrates why Apple shouldn't put iMessage on Android and Windows because it encouraged your niece to buy an iPhone. If it were available on Android, she wouldn't have done this and Apple would make no money from her at all. Apple makes money primarily on hardware sales, Google makes money primarily from advertising:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/google-spy-chat
Android's default apps don't all exist on iOS either.
Yeah, I agree, that it's good for business. They're forcing hardware decisions because of artificial software limitations. They could also charge $5 for Android iMessage, or even a subscription, and it would sell.
The alternative is to get friends who are smart enough to send text messages.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/developer/google-inc./id281956209
It makes sense why Apple wouldn't do the same on Google Play tho as you mentioned. Curious why they chose to make an exception with Apple Music? Perhaps Apple is moving to monetize services more aggressively than in the past, hedge the heavy reliance on iPhone revenue? That "other" category appears to be getting more attention in the past few quarters. It's plain that Google is on that path, increasing the importance and focus of other business segments as an ad services hedge.
EDIT: Gotta love the articles that pop up around the web similar to the one you linked.
30% would go to Google though and $5 is far less than they get for a phone sale. It's not forced either as iOS can send texts to Android but some configurations aren't going to be 100% compatible, it's more persuasion. If someone is paying a contract with Android a contract iPhone shouldn't be much more expensive. Used iPhones go pretty cheap on eBay too, just get a case for scuffed ones:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-iPhone-5c-16GB-White-AT-T-Smartphone-/301757735716
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-iPhone-5s-32GB-Space-Gray-AT-T-Smartphone-/301757855085
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-iPhone-5s-16GB-Gold-AT-T-Smartphone-Bundle-/252111780706
The sim contract should be transferrable over from the Android phone or cancel the Android one and get a service-only contract just for the iPhone.
They have 3 default messaging options I think so the two besides Hangouts - Messages and Messenger. Can those apps send wifi messages to iOS? Apple always gets blamed when there's compatibility problems but there's no reason to expect they should be the only ones to put in the effort to be compatible with what everyone else is doing. Android users aren't even compatible with each other sometimes.
Apple Music on Android is the same deal as iTunes on Windows in 2003 and they don't go out of their way to make it as good an experience as on their own products:
http://phandroid.com/2015/10/01/apple-declines-chromecast-feature/
It makes sense for them to capitalize on the software/service side as much as their platforms allow but the vast majority of profits from from hardware. That ratio might shift over time but it would never make sense for them to promote hardware sales of competitors because they'd just lose both hardware and software/services.
Perhaps Apple is moving to monetize services more aggressively than in the past, hedge the heavy reliance on iPhone revenue?
Sounds like a path to an antitrust investigation, based on how other tech leaders are pursued.
It's not forced either as iOS can send texts to Android
It seems that there are enough iPhone users who are too stupid to understand this, and they aren't able to communicate with their Android-owning friends.
Hangouts has a similar non-obvious separation between a Hangout and SMS/MMS, but they do provide the app on other hardware, allowing iPhones and Androids to text, video chat, and conference with slides.
Quote:
They have 3 default messaging options I think so the two besides Hangouts - Messages and Messenger. Can those apps send wifi messages to iOS?
Messages and Messenger are moot, because Hangouts works on iOS and Android over wifi, and it's a common solution. There is no Apple equivalent, as they are avoiding compatibility with other ecosystems whenever possible.
Same thing with music. There's no technical reason to prevent other mobile OSs from listening to music, but Apple is using music libraries as leverage to force hardware decisions, in spite of a profitable model for iTunes and Apple Music on their own.
If people weren't using Hangouts (which isn't the default messaging app) then having Hangouts on iOS wouldn't matter. Hangouts didn't even support group messaging before version 4. It simply isn't the case that Android is compatible with others and Apple isn't. If people want reliable cross-platform communication then there are solutions people can use. Apple has no obligation to make the experience better for users who spend all day hating on them and never paying them and the same goes for any company. Google has an obligation to iOS users because they make most of their mobile revenue from them. Apple owes Android users nothing.
Google apparently makes Hangouts better on iOS too:
http://www.droid-life.com/2015/05/06/google-actually-recommends-that-you-use-messenger-for-sms-over-hangouts/comment-page-1/#comments
"chris_johns
Only thing i like about imessage is THEY CAN SEND HIGH QUALITY VIDEOS EASILY!!….android has NO menthod of doing this and I HATE GETTING CRAP QUALITY VIDS FROM ALLL THESE DAMN IPHONE PEOPLE
Chris
What boggles my mind is the fact that you can use an iPhone to send a video through Hangouts but not Android… WAT?
Casey N
Yep everytime one of my friends tells me how inferior my iPhone is next to his 3gb of ram,4k display machine of a Android phone I record a 20 second video and text it to him. I ask him to do the same “simple” task and they can’t:)
chris_johns
I mean that’s not entirely true we can but its not nearly as seamless or easy
Casey N
Yes I realize you can upload your video to a service such as dropbox or google drive and then share the link but like you said no where near as easy or seamless as doing it on iMessage
dcdttu
You gotta point."
Is that Apple's fault too? It's a lot of effort supporting the multitude of Android devices and Apple would only lose out by offering iMessage to Android. Some of those people say they are messaging with iPhone users ok with that app so it might be worth trying out. Older phones had a different app so try setting the following as the default instead:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.messaging
How else would they manage music? They use libraries for everything, including movies with their movie apps and photos for photo apps. It's to make it simple for the users. If they have to make it more complex just to be compatible then it's not the right way to go. Their highest priority is to people who support them.
People with different devices are free to use other music software to sync to them.
Which Google default app relevant to iOS isn't there? Can't be much missing with 3 pages of Google apps in the App Store.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/developer/google-inc./id281956209
It makes sense why Apple wouldn't do the same on Google Play tho as you mentioned. Curious why they chose to make an exception with Apple Music? Perhaps Apple is moving to monetize services more aggressively than in the past, hedge the heavy reliance on iPhone revenue? That "other" category appears to be getting more attention in the past few quarters. It's plain that Google is on that path, increasing the importance and focus of other business segments as an ad services hedge.
EDIT: Gotta love the articles that pop up around the web similar to the one you linked.
The exception for Apple Music is that Apple bought Beats and Beats music was available for Android; i.e., Apple purchased a built in audience.
It's also true that Apple wants to control the user experience, and cross platform applications on varying devices makes that extremely difficult. This would be the reason that Apple will allow tvOS apps from other streaming services and not vice versa; Apple still has a modicum of control over the experience.
For the record, my Amazon Primes experience on various devices has been "primitive" to say the least. I'm guessing that Amazon's devices have had a better experience and that the current FireTv improves on that, hence Amazon leveraging its own devices.