I run a Facebook group that connects expats and wanna-be expats (like myself) with Filipinas living in the Philippines and some who are working overseas, typically as housekeepers in the middle-east. This latter group are referred to in the local parlance as OFWs (Overseas Foreign Workers) who send money back home to their families.
So I just posted a survey question asking the Filipinas only (don't care about the expats) which phones they are using, as it's been my experience that many don't yet even have smartphones, they are using feature phones with a crude Facebook interface and relying upon Facebook's generosity in providing free data for all FB access. Very typical in that part of the world.
It's 3:30AM in the Philippines, so I didn't expect any immediate responses to my survey question, but I did get two responses so far, both from Filipina's working overseas, in the middle-east where it's evening. Here are those two responses (perhaps FB needs to have some of it's workforce switch to feature phones and, as another poster above pointed out, older Android phones):
Jogeny Ess - First honor to comment . I'm OFW ,just NOKIA ASHA . LOL poor one!
Carlota - Nokia asha when im in phils and now samsung galaxy Ace 3 cant afford iphone its too expensive need to save bit of money.
What does one expect from a socialist company with a socialist leader.
Just because the mass majority prefer crap does not mean you should go in that direction.
Every time I see a billionaire accused of being a socialist I do a quick internet search to see if they believe the government should own the "commanding heights of the economy" and I never do find that.
I pity those that have to use it. However, it does make sense.
The fallacy is what flavor of Android? Do they target the most hobbled version?
Not sure where FB. make its money, but thought I recall reading the ad $$ were more significant form iPhone users. Don't use FB much, so doesn't matter to me, but think it's a mistake to design to the lowest common denominator.
You know, Facebook is already running on Android and it has been for years. It's not like they're suddenly going to start developing for it. So they obviously have some type of lowest-common-denominator running on it. They just want their devs to spend more time using it and "try" giving it the same experience as an iPhone... laughable to say the least, but Facebook needs to keep their billion+ people happy.
If their goal is truly to understand users in developing countries then they should further require that their team carry and use the low-spec, low-cost models commonly sold in those countries, and live without toilets or air conditioning. And no "flagship" Android phones that rival the iPhone in cost. Lest they be hypocrites. No sir, you will use generic Android 2.4, you will side load your apps from a questionable Chinese server from the only Internet cafe server in a small village, and you must have an Android Trojan or root kit installed, unknowingly.
Once again. There is no need to do this with people's corporate (and possibly only) phone. Everything you have said about testing and dog food is trivially true but it doesn't mean that you penalise some employees (but not all) with a non-functional or barely functional work device if that is in fact their main work or work/home device. Or overburden the IT dept with unserviceable and non-upgradable devices, a clear security risk.
Give the product team a second crap android phone for FB, tell them to login to Facebook on that device as much as possible. Keep it off the corporate network.
Sure. That works, and may be what he means.
I doubt Facebook said they had to use non-functional Android phones...
My first sentence was a fact.
The other ones not so much, they could be, you should think about it.
I was talking about examples - why not to buy - you know.
And I agree the cost of long term ownership is important, but that's hardly relevant for an iPhone.
Something that could positively offset the high initial cost of the iPhone is its price on the second hand market; another positive is the quality of service when something is wrong.
Based on my experience with a cheap Vodacom Android phone I used for 2 months in South Africa, it's not worth Facebooks effort to build an app targeted to such devices because the phone was practically unusable. The touchscreen was so inaccurate and unresponsive it was impossible to type on. Luckily, it could also be used as a wifi hotspot to get internet service on my iPhone, which is how I used it 95% of the time.
What this article also fails to mention is that 5 randomly selected employees will be forced to use Windows phone to really simulate how the market is.
We've had previous discussions here that finally determined what devices Google counts in its Android numbers. Pretty sure it was only Google Android devices, or put differently those that include Google services and thus get activated via a Google user ID when first set up by the new buyer. That rules out most Android phones sold in China for instance. They even noted that that used but resold/reset Google Android phones don't get counted.
I didn't realize you still thought it was a mystery how the numbers they announce are arrived at.
Google provides two numbers - one for Play Store use and one for Android use so they are tracking more than just ones that use their services. They still make revenue from China so they aren't blocked entirely (Schmidt says they've always maintained a presence in China here http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34698642 ). There's no reason for them to underestimate the users, they want the numbers to look as good as possible. If Apple even had as little as a 500 million userbase representing say 15%, Android devices would have to be 2.7 billion units, meaning Google is only tracking about half of them. No way. These stats are constantly used to justify why people should be targeting Android first and yet developers don't and repeatedly say they make more money from iOS than Android, Google themselves make more money from advertising on iOS than Android, web stats always show internet usage higher on iOS, all this while there are supposedly over 5x the number of Android devices out there. That just doesn't add up.
Google provides two numbers - one for Play Store use and one for Android use so they are tracking more than just ones that use their services.
Marvin, when Google said they already had over 1B users back in mid-2014 (much higher now) they specified it was ACTIVE users. You do know how Google counts active users as you already stated it: Unique Google Android devices that actually use the official Google Play Store are counted, and only once for each device ID. No Google services , no count. http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-io-android-stands-at-one-billion-active-users-and-counting/
You're trying too hard to make it confusing IMO. It's really pretty simple and straightforward. To be counted in the 1.4B unique active users Google mentions you had to have visited Google Play.
I doubt Facebook said they had to use non-functional Android phones...
Barely functional then. If they are trying to replicate the third world experience it can't be high or mid level phones but the very low end, and for day to day corporate use those phones are worthless.
Low cost of Android development? Another article said android development was more expensive. It's not the software that costs less it's the crappy hardware most android devices use. Get your facts straight.
I own a software company that develops apps for both Andrioid and iOS. In terms of development costs, Andtoid development is definitely less expensive. Test devices costs less, development machines cost less, development tools are better and more efficient (Android Studio just blows away Xcode) and licensing and validation costs less. Only Swift has the potential to become better than Java.
But this does not means that the business case is better. This largely depends on the app and the market you are in. The biggest share of my revenue is from developing apps for 3rd parties. In this context the TCO of developing Android apps is clearly better for me. Of course for the owner of the app the business case for iOS might be better if you live in a country with a high iOS marketshare.
Then why, if many of their staff are currently using iPhones, does the iOS Facebook app suck so much??? Shouldn't it be amazing? They would want the best experience for themselves no?
I wonder which group would their advertisers want to insure get the best experience. Considering that if they can't afford an iPhone the prospect of having lots of disposable cash is remote.
Better have a billion of small disposable dollars than a millions dozen dollars. It really depends on the advertiser. Also, lots of high-pay people are not on Facebook anymore.
Not at all, I stated only facts.
The component and production price is known of the iPhone and the AWatch.
what? no, the component price is *not* known, and is only speculated. Cook has stated that tear-down guesstimations are not accurate.we simply dont know.
But aren't you saying the price of iPhone is too high for you? If you are thinking about spending money on other things, that's fine but that also means you cannot afford it which is the perception you are arguing against.
Being able to afford something and being willing to pay for it are not always the same thing. Plenty of people pay for things they can't afford. And plenty of people can afford things that they don't think are worth the price.
Unless of course you are Donald Trump and a million dollars is No Big Deal (TM), in which case $50 vs $500 vs $5000 is indistinguishable dollar amounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Any professional developer has a variety of devices and computers to test with. You don't have to switch to any specific platform, you use them all.
True, but until you use it for extended periods of time you may not have a full appreciation of that slight lag in response time you saw during your limited testing. Or you may not realize that a control layout that made perfect sense for your test cases perhaps doesn't work as well in the real world when you are jumping in and out of the app, etc.
Comments
I run a Facebook group that connects expats and wanna-be expats (like myself) with Filipinas living in the Philippines and some who are working overseas, typically as housekeepers in the middle-east. This latter group are referred to in the local parlance as OFWs (Overseas Foreign Workers) who send money back home to their families.
So I just posted a survey question asking the Filipinas only (don't care about the expats) which phones they are using, as it's been my experience that many don't yet even have smartphones, they are using feature phones with a crude Facebook interface and relying upon Facebook's generosity in providing free data for all FB access. Very typical in that part of the world.
It's 3:30AM in the Philippines, so I didn't expect any immediate responses to my survey question, but I did get two responses so far, both from Filipina's working overseas, in the middle-east where it's evening. Here are those two responses (perhaps FB needs to have some of it's workforce switch to feature phones and, as another poster above pointed out, older Android phones):
Jogeny Ess - First honor to comment . I'm OFW ,just NOKIA ASHA . LOL poor one!
Carlota - Nokia asha when im in phils and now samsung galaxy Ace 3 cant afford iphone its too expensive need to save bit of money.
Every time I see a billionaire accused of being a socialist I do a quick internet search to see if they believe the government should own the "commanding heights of the economy" and I never do find that.
Not sure where FB. make its money, but thought I recall reading the ad $$ were more significant form iPhone users. Don't use FB much, so doesn't matter to me, but think it's a mistake to design to the lowest common denominator.
If their goal is truly to understand users in developing countries then they should further require that their team carry and use the low-spec, low-cost models commonly sold in those countries, and live without toilets or air conditioning. And no "flagship" Android phones that rival the iPhone in cost. Lest they be hypocrites. No sir, you will use generic Android 2.4, you will side load your apps from a questionable Chinese server from the only Internet cafe server in a small village, and you must have an Android Trojan or root kit installed, unknowingly.
My first sentence was a fact.
The other ones not so much, they could be, you should think about it.
I was talking about examples - why not to buy - you know.
And I agree the cost of long term ownership is important, but that's hardly relevant for an iPhone.
Something that could positively offset the high initial cost of the iPhone is its price on the second hand market; another positive is the quality of service when something is wrong.
Based on my experience with a cheap Vodacom Android phone I used for 2 months in South Africa, it's not worth Facebooks effort to build an app targeted to such devices because the phone was practically unusable. The touchscreen was so inaccurate and unresponsive it was impossible to type on. Luckily, it could also be used as a wifi hotspot to get internet service on my iPhone, which is how I used it 95% of the time.
Google provides two numbers - one for Play Store use and one for Android use so they are tracking more than just ones that use their services. They still make revenue from China so they aren't blocked entirely (Schmidt says they've always maintained a presence in China here http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34698642 ). There's no reason for them to underestimate the users, they want the numbers to look as good as possible. If Apple even had as little as a 500 million userbase representing say 15%, Android devices would have to be 2.7 billion units, meaning Google is only tracking about half of them. No way. These stats are constantly used to justify why people should be targeting Android first and yet developers don't and repeatedly say they make more money from iOS than Android, Google themselves make more money from advertising on iOS than Android, web stats always show internet usage higher on iOS, all this while there are supposedly over 5x the number of Android devices out there. That just doesn't add up.
Marvin, when Google said they already had over 1B users back in mid-2014 (much higher now) they specified it was ACTIVE users. You do know how Google counts active users as you already stated it: Unique Google Android devices that actually use the official Google Play Store are counted, and only once for each device ID. No Google services , no count.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-io-android-stands-at-one-billion-active-users-and-counting/
They repeated the count was based on active users checking in via Google Play when this year's 1.4B was announced.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/29/android-now-has-1-4bn-30-day-active-devices-globally/
The numbers Google reports as active users has been determined from Google Play visits since back in 2013.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/03/android-activations-tweak/
You're trying too hard to make it confusing IMO. It's really pretty simple and straightforward. To be counted in the 1.4B unique active users Google mentions you had to have visited Google Play.
Barely functional then. If they are trying to replicate the third world experience it can't be high or mid level phones but the very low end, and for day to day corporate use those phones are worthless.
Which is why I think it will be second phones.
Low cost of Android development? Another article said android development was more expensive. It's not the software that costs less it's the crappy hardware most android devices use. Get your facts straight.
I own a software company that develops apps for both Andrioid and iOS. In terms of development costs, Andtoid development is definitely less expensive. Test devices costs less, development machines cost less, development tools are better and more efficient (Android Studio just blows away Xcode) and licensing and validation costs less. Only Swift has the potential to become better than Java.
But this does not means that the business case is better. This largely depends on the app and the market you are in. The biggest share of my revenue is from developing apps for 3rd parties. In this context the TCO of developing Android apps is clearly better for me. Of course for the owner of the app the business case for iOS might be better if you live in a country with a high iOS marketshare.
Good, we don't want FB employees spying on our Apple sites.
So BE GONE.
what? no, the component price is *not* known, and is only speculated. Cook has stated that tear-down guesstimations are not accurate.we simply dont know.
But aren't you saying the price of iPhone is too high for you? If you are thinking about spending money on other things, that's fine but that also means you cannot afford it which is the perception you are arguing against.
Being able to afford something and being willing to pay for it are not always the same thing. Plenty of people pay for things they can't afford. And plenty of people can afford things that they don't think are worth the price.
Unless of course you are Donald Trump and a million dollars is No Big Deal (TM), in which case $50 vs $500 vs $5000 is indistinguishable dollar amounts.
Any professional developer has a variety of devices and computers to test with. You don't have to switch to any specific platform, you use them all.
True, but until you use it for extended periods of time you may not have a full appreciation of that slight lag in response time you saw during your limited testing. Or you may not realize that a control layout that made perfect sense for your test cases perhaps doesn't work as well in the real world when you are jumping in and out of the app, etc.