iOS 11, Android O: What Apple can learn from Google's IO17

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 96
    The problem is I no longer use wifi at all.  With unlimited data there is no need.  The security update I'm referring to is 150MB.  And it is obviously not the first time I've run into this arbitrary limit.
    Battery life can be improved by using Wi-Fi where possible. Users who game and stream heavily may not notice much of a difference.
  • Reply 62 of 96
    "VPS seems stupendously dumb--and displays an ignorance of technological and societal trends" I don't think big box stores are going away any time soon and obviously this was just one example. The same tech could be used in malls, supermarkets, (not to mention parks, zoos, concerts, sports events) and it's precisely this type of innovation that can keep people in bricks and mortar stores. If I can be looking at a product and get reviews and price comparisons, the way I can in an e-shop at home, I'm more likely to shop in the physical world. Google isn't presenting this as some final product, that's not how they operate. They roll things out for early adopters to try and to improve and eventually, the tech is ready for the masses. Some day we'll be wearing Glass or body cams with Hint and the tech will seem old hat rather than laughable
  • Reply 63 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    gatorguy said:
    cali said:
    gatorguy said:
    Here's a different take from DED's on what Google IO17 was about. 
    http://www.androidcentral.com/when-it-stops-being-about-hardware-googles-way-forward-and-all-new-kind-cloud

    Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware. 
    Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"

    ..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll). 

    The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false. 

    The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista), then to destroy IPhone and replace it with Google's own open version of Windows on mobile devices.

    If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware. 

    G1, Honeycomb tablets, Nexus, Chrome, Pixel ...

    Google just failed to do that in any area other than the low-end market that Apple doesn't care about, the province of Symbian, Linux and Java ME. 

    If that's what Google really intended to do, it could have simply annnounced that it wanted to be the OS for <$300 phones and remained partnered with Apple on iPhones. 

    If it had had done that, it would still have its Maps, voice and search on iPhones as the default. Instead it lost out on all of that, and helped turn Apple into a major rival in data services. 

    Google not only failed in hardware, but also sparked a major non-hardware competitor in Apple. 

    Meanwhile, despite all of its research and good ideas, google is incapable of successfully delivering real products. Even David Pierce of Wired (who crowed praise of Glass, Motorola, etc) has come around on this. 

    https://www.wired.com/2017/05/googles-perfect-future-will-always-just-around-corner/
    It just warms my heard watching Google trying so hard to get BACK into the walled garden. I had to laugh watching them try to integrate themselves back into Apple.


    Don't kid yourself. There is absolutely no reason to "stylize" it after the iconic Apple lower case "i". I/O actually looks cooler. 

    Though it MAY have been a brilliant hint at Google trying to get into the walled garden again.
    Google never left the Walled Garden.  Apple just kicked their Maps app out for their own. But Maps is still available and in fact one the the most popular iPhone apps in the App Store. Other Google services are among the most popular too. 

    Sure. Let's forget that Google never allowed Apple to have access to turn-by-turn navigation or vector based graphics, and kept these advantages for their own Android version of Google Maps. And funny enough, shortly after iOS 6 with Apple Maps came out Google suddenly brought those missing features to the iOS version of Google Maps.

    Of course Google wants to be on iOS. It's the most valuable mobile platform/user base in the world.

    Forget a guess as to the reasons eh? I had read another article guessing that Google offered both TBT and vector graphics but in return wanted Google branding on it along with pass-thru search as a couple of the conditions. (What, you thought it was free? LOL) That branded Google Maps would quickly appear with those features on iOS supports the latter opinion rather than the former. But rather than both of us guessing why not look at what Apple themselves gave as the reasons and let us know what they are.
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 64 of 96
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,834member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    Here's a different take from DED's on what Google IO17 was about. 
    http://www.androidcentral.com/when-it-stops-being-about-hardware-googles-way-forward-and-all-new-kind-cloud

    Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware. 
    Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"

    ..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
    The actual quote was "Google, though, like Microsoft, is 
    not a hardware manufacturer. It has never been, despite the existence of Chromecasts, Google Homes and Microsoft's Surface tablets. It provides internet and cloud based services, and make them do things we love so we all keep using them."


    If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
    Ummmm, isn't it Apple that decides whether to partner with Google and not the other way around?

    DanielEran said:
     
    Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"

    ..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll). 

    The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false. 

    The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista),
    100% false?? You yourself said it was about services in your own response...



     then to destroy IPhone...
    Where in heck did you pull THAT from? Google said that? Now it appears you're completely making stuff up just to suit your argument. I'm sure you wouldn't actually stoop to that so I'm guessing you've confused this with something else. 

    DanielEran said: 
    ....rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware. 

    Wow, missed that announcement altogether. When was that? A link would be wonderful so I don't assume you've become confused again. 
    Are you serious?

    - the site clearest rewrites history by pretending google never *tried* to be a hardware maker (to the tune of billions of dollars). 

    - yes Apple decides who it partners with based on what terms they offer. Googles terms were unreasonable to the point where apple had to rightly cease the partnership. But that's on google. I don't know if you've ever run a business or released a product, but I have -- and I've had suppliers who didn't want to supply us anymore just toss out an absurd number. It happens and isn't rare. 

    - DED is correct that it is 100% false that google only wanted to do services. That's so factually true we don't even need to discuss it. 

    - If you think companies who want to destroy other companies products put out memos admitting "We want to destroy X", and that if they don't release such a public statement it means they don't, then you're very naive about business. 

    ....i'm short it's so painfully obvious you're a Google super-fan (Googleguy?) who is happy to rewrite history in order to promote your narrative. Or perhaps it's just cognitive dissonance. 
    edited May 2017 patchythepirate
  • Reply 65 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    Here's a different take from DED's on what Google IO17 was about. 
    http://www.androidcentral.com/when-it-stops-being-about-hardware-googles-way-forward-and-all-new-kind-cloud

    Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware. 
    Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"

    ..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
    The actual quote was "Google, though, like Microsoft, is 
    not a hardware manufacturer. It has never been, despite the existence of Chromecasts, Google Homes and Microsoft's Surface tablets. It provides internet and cloud based services, and make them do things we love so we all keep using them."


    If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
    Ummmm, isn't it Apple that decides whether to partner with Google and not the other way around?

    DanielEran said:
     
    Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"

    ..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll). 

    The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false. 

    The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista),
    100% false?? You yourself said it was about services in your own response...



     then to destroy IPhone...
    Where in heck did you pull THAT from? Google said that? Now it appears you're completely making stuff up just to suit your argument. I'm sure you wouldn't actually stoop to that so I'm guessing you've confused this with something else. 

    DanielEran said: 
    ....rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware. 

    Wow, missed that announcement altogether. When was that? A link would be wonderful so I don't assume you've become confused again. 
    Are you serious?

    - the site clearest rewrites history by pretending google never *tried* to be a hardware maker (to the tune of billions of dollars). 

    - yes Apple decides who it partners with based on what terms they offer. Googles terms were unreasonable to the point where apple had to rightly cease the partnership. But that's on google. I don't know if you've ever run a business or released a product, but I have -- and I've had suppliers who didn't want to supply us anymore just toss out an absurd number. It happens and isn't rare. 

    - DED is correct that it is 100% false that google only wanted to do services.
    IMHO You really have zero knowledge of what Google's terms were (but feel free to prove me wrong on that), much less enough insight to state how reasonable they were. All you factually know (me too) is that Apple chose to do their own maps. Period.

    Apple chose to remove Google Maps from pre-installed software.


    You pretending to "know the truth" doesn't make it so. You don't know anything more about it than I do, and perhaps even less based on your response.
    So you're guessing but framing it as fact while I plainly let readers know I'm posting opinion when that's what it is. It's painfully obvious what drives your IMO narrow viewpoints whenever a not-Apple company is mentioned. 

    Posted by a successful owner and /or manager of several corporations for over 3 decades.
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 66 of 96
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Basically DED is correct in his original article that Android adoption rate is going down for the newest release.
    Yes, as my research found. But I'm confused since your comment seems to suggest I was saying the opposite.
    Your post stated: "Vendors and/or Google have been getting better. Version 7.x, which was officially released in late-August 2016, is running on 7.1% of handsets, according to Google."

    That sounds to me like you're saying Google is getting better at newer handsets running the latest version.
    In the comment you quoted, where did you get that impression? I thought I was very clear in my research that compared both the same day of the calendar year and a comparison of the same number of days the primary OS versions have been available. In fact, I thought I went above and beyond by including both sets of values in my reply.



    First off, Longpath posted this: "Let's see if we actually start to see more than a tiny sliver of Android handsets using the current version of Android. It's not enough to propose an alleged way of defragmenting the platform. It has to work in actual practice, otherwise, I'd say you just dreamed it or it was just more vaporware from Google."

    Your reply to this comment (which you quoted) was: "Vendors and/or Google have been getting better. Version 7.x, which was officially released in late-August 2016, is running on 7.1% of handsets, according to Google."

    Longpath was making an observation that a tiny fraction of handsets run the latest version of Android. The first thing you said was "Vendors and/or Google have been getting better." To me this sure sounds like you're saying that Google and Vendors have been getting better at......"getting the newest version of Android on their handsets."

    Now if you meant something else, I'm curious why you made this particular statement. Especially since your subsequent posts clearly agree with what Longpath (and DED) originally said.
    In my reply to Longpath I didn't mean something else. Then DED replied to me saying that my recollection was incorrect so I looked it up. My reply to DED—which is the post you initially quoted—shows me backing up his statement and showing why my recollection was both correct and incorrect, depending on where you measure. You even used my own methodology to look up other Android OSes!
    edited May 2017 gatorguy
  • Reply 67 of 96
    This is why math literacy is vital to our education system.

    Marshmallow and Nougat Android device account for approximately 40% of Android devices.

    Source: https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html

    According to Google, there are now 2 billion active Android users.

    What is 40% of 2 billion? The answer is 800 million.

    That's right, the Google Assistant will run on at least 800 million devices before the year is over.

    That's practically all of Apple's user base.

    Tim Cook claimed Apple had 1 billion active devices in use. Here's the thing, though. Active devices do not equate to active users. An Apple user could have an iPhone, an iPad, an Apple Watch, and a Mac. That would equate to 4 active devices but 1 user.

    This is what the author conveniently omits as he farts weird numbers, skewed stats, and senseless formulas out of his ass.

    Google has 2 Billion active Android users. Not devices. Users! Let that sink in a moment.

    Put that in perspective in light of the author crowing about how the Google Assistant on the iPhone means anything for Google at the scale they are batting.

    But here's what has this Apple fanboy of an author devasted and shook.

    Google I/O 2017 made Apple look bad. It made Apple products look irrelevant and dated.

    It doesn't matter how much the author tries to spin it, Google is at least a decade ahead of Apple when it comes to AI, Machine Learning, and Ambient computing. And this keynote, more than any, drives home that points to the pain and anguish of Apple fanboys like the author.

    And it shows in their respective products. Google Assistant vs Siri. Google Maps vs Apple Maps. Google Photos vs Apple Photos. And on and on.

    Make no mistake about it. Google brought Google Assistant to the iPhone to taunt Apple. And it's working. Every article I've read summarized that even though Apple deliberately crippled Google Assistant on the iPhone, it's still way better than Siri. And everyone I know, in-person, on YouTube, in blogs, on publications, has echoed the same sentiments.

    In the world where the sleekness of your iPhone, iPad, and Macs don't matter. In a world where AI, Machine Learning, and Ambient computing is the clear horizon that's fast approaching, Apple begins to look like a relic of yesteryear.

    Today, Apple can't compete. Period.

    So what can, and will, it do?

    Marketing, PR, and mud slinging.

    Expect to see more of their BS about privacy and security. When in reality, Apple collects and mines just as much data as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. And will happily give the government access to your iCloud and iMessage data. Look it up.

    And expect them to utilize their PR tools to spew wildly unsubstantiated articles like this one. Articles that distort reality, embrace delusion, invoke FUD, to the point where stakeholders actually believe Apple competes favorably with Google in AI, ML, Cloud, and Ambient computing.

    Google at I/O successfully changed the conversation of the landscape. If you can't show off your AI, ML and Cloud chops, you're going to begin to look like a dinosaur. And the audience is going to look at you weird.

    Google has introduced the dawn of AI, and Apple had better buy every single AI company and data centers they can because if Siri is anything to go by, they're going to need more than articles like this to hide just how far behind they are to Google.
  • Reply 68 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    IMO coming here and phrasing your comments in the way you did is begging for negative responses. There might be nuggets of truth in there but the way you went about it, inserting completely unnecessary and unhelpful insults, nearly guarantees you'll either be ignored, not taken seriously, or tagged as a troll. You should be smarter about stuff.

    Don't complain about finding "Fanboys" on a fan site and then act like one yourself. Pot, kettle and all that. 
    edited May 2017 Solimuthuk_vanalingamroundaboutnow
  • Reply 69 of 96
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    According to Google, there are now 2 billion active Android users.

    What is 40% of 2 billion? The answer is 800 million. 

    That's right, the Google Assistant will run on at least 800 million devices before the year is over.

    That's practically all of Apple's user base. 

    Tim Cook claimed Apple had 1 billion active devices in use. Here's the thing, though. Active devices do not equate to active users. An Apple user could have an iPhone, an iPad, an Apple Watch, and a Mac. That would equate to 4 active devices but 1 user.
    1) Google only said there are 2 billion active devices, which only refers to being in use during a calendar month, and does not mean that there's a unique user. This is no different than Apple.


    2) Google gives an OS away for free and Apple sells complete devices and yet they have half the installed based as Google despite Android's insane activation rate, yet you think it's a bad thing that Apple has 1/2 the number of active devices? What that shows is that Apple's devices are used for twice as long, on average, than Android-based devices.
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 70 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    Soli said:
    According to Google, there are now 2 billion active Android users.

    What is 40% of 2 billion? The answer is 800 million. 

    That's right, the Google Assistant will run on at least 800 million devices before the year is over.

    That's practically all of Apple's user base. 

    Tim Cook claimed Apple had 1 billion active devices in use. Here's the thing, though. Active devices do not equate to active users. An Apple user could have an iPhone, an iPad, an Apple Watch, and a Mac. That would equate to 4 active devices but 1 user.
    1) Google only said there are 2 billion active devices, which only refers to being in use during a calendar month, and does not mean that there's a unique user. This is no different than Apple.


    2) Google gives an OS away for free and Apple sells complete devices and yet they have half the installed based as Google despite Android's insane activation rate, yet you think it's a bad thing that Apple has 1/2 the number of active devices? What that shows is that Apple's devices are used for twice as long, on average, than Android-based devices.
    Absolutely correct. While Pinchai talked unique users when discussing Google Drive (800M+), Google Photos (500M+) and other services, when it came time to bring up Android numbers it was active devices. So easy to get confused with what's actually said in presentations, so that was a great link. 
    Solimike eggleston
  • Reply 71 of 96
    Herbivore2Herbivore2 Posts: 367member
    This is another nice analysis by DED. 

    Google is in a bad spot. Their total incompetence with respect to hardware will be their undoing. It is actually kind of fun watching Samsung put the screws to Google. In a few short years, Samsung will have displaced Google on the only non iOS premium mobile platform that matters. 

    If Samsung gets Bixby done right, then Google is in real trouble over the long term. Samsung will eventually acquire a maps developer and Google will find it myself off of the two hardware platforms of any importance. NO ONE ELSE will stay competitive with Samsung and Apple in hardware over the next several years. Anyone else who says otherwise is in major denial. 

    I could care less if Google has the smartest assistant. Having the assistant recognize my voice and play a certain music library is somewhat convenient. But I do not feel like paying for such a trivial and the key word is trivial convenience by giving up the type of privacy that the assistant demands.

    Hardware matters. Even MSFT figured that one out. Google has its TPU but it matters little with Samsung moving its customer over to Tizen and Apple removes the last vestiges of Google from iOS. 

    Google should give up on Android and focus on YouTube before it's too late. YouTube is the ONLY service they have that isn't easily duplicated. But Facebook is headed there. And when Facebook produces a video app that is included on iOS by default, even YouTube will be seriously vulnerable. 





  • Reply 72 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member



    LOL! Yeah we know....

    GOOGLE IS DOOMED! ;)
    singularity
  • Reply 73 of 96
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Google is in a bad spot. Their total incompetence with respect to hardware will be their undoing. 
    Can you explain how not being great as consumer HW means the entire company and all their SW and services are going crumble?
  • Reply 74 of 96
    This is why math literacy is vital to our education system.

    Marshmallow and Nougat Android device account for approximately 40% of Android devices.

    Source: https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html

    According to Google, there are now 2 billion active Android users.

    What is 40% of 2 billion? The answer is 800 million.

    That's right, the Google Assistant will run on at least 800 million devices before the year is over.
    My understanding is that Assistant will only run on unforked Android, which might limit some devices but more importantly are the language restrictions. It is probably more broadly available now but I had to change to US English to get the upgrade. I don't think it's available in Chinese, Russian or any other more minor languages. That's just a matter of time though
  • Reply 75 of 96
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,485member
    This is why math literacy is vital to our education system.

    Marshmallow and Nougat Android device account for approximately 40% of Android devices.

    Source: https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html

    According to Google, there are now 2 billion active Android users.

    What is 40% of 2 billion? The answer is 800 million.

    That's right, the Google Assistant will run on at least 800 million devices before the year is over.

    That's practically all of Apple's user base.


    Yeah, except that 2 billion devices includes ALL Android devices, not just phones (the only obvious platform for an Assistant). Further, you forgot that only 1 out of 10 or so Android devices is a flagship. Flagship devices are what generate revenues and actually get used as a true "smartphone".
    jbdragon
  • Reply 76 of 96
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,485member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    Here's a different take from DED's on what Google IO17 was about. 
    http://www.androidcentral.com/when-it-stops-being-about-hardware-googles-way-forward-and-all-new-kind-cloud

    Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware. 
    Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"

    ..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
    The actual quote was "Google, though, like Microsoft, is 
    not a hardware manufacturer. It has never been, despite the existence of Chromecasts, Google Homes and Microsoft's Surface tablets. It provides internet and cloud based services, and make them do things we love so we all keep using them."


    If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
    Ummmm, isn't it Apple that decides whether to partner with Google and not the other way around?

    DanielEran said:
     
    Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"

    ..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll). 

    The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false. 

    The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista),
    100% false?? You yourself said it was about services in your own response...



     then to destroy IPhone...
    Where in heck did you pull THAT from? Google said that? Now it appears you're completely making stuff up just to suit your argument. I'm sure you wouldn't actually stoop to that so I'm guessing you've confused this with something else. 

    DanielEran said: 
    ....rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware. 

    Wow, missed that announcement altogether. When was that? A link would be wonderful so I don't assume you've become confused again. 
    Are you serious?

    - the site clearest rewrites history by pretending google never *tried* to be a hardware maker (to the tune of billions of dollars). 

    - yes Apple decides who it partners with based on what terms they offer. Googles terms were unreasonable to the point where apple had to rightly cease the partnership. But that's on google. I don't know if you've ever run a business or released a product, but I have -- and I've had suppliers who didn't want to supply us anymore just toss out an absurd number. It happens and isn't rare. 

    - DED is correct that it is 100% false that google only wanted to do services.
    IMHO You really have zero knowledge of what Google's terms were (but feel free to prove me wrong on that), much less enough insight to state how reasonable they were. All you factually know (me too) is that Apple chose to do their own maps. Period.

    Apple chose to remove Google Maps from pre-installed software.


    You pretending to "know the truth" doesn't make it so. You don't know anything more about it than I do, and perhaps even less based on your response.
    So you're guessing but framing it as fact while I plainly let readers know I'm posting opinion when that's what it is. It's painfully obvious what drives your IMO narrow viewpoints whenever a not-Apple company is mentioned. 

    Posted by a successful owner and /or manager of several corporations for over 3 decades.

    What does you being the successful owner/manager of several corporations have to do with anything? Do you feel it adds weight to your arguments? FYI, It doesn't. It's usually used in an effort to bolster a weak argument - a logical fallacy also known as "argument from authority".
  • Reply 77 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    This is why math literacy is vital to our education system.

    Marshmallow and Nougat Android device account for approximately 40% of Android devices.

    Source: https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html

    According to Google, there are now 2 billion active Android users.

    What is 40% of 2 billion? The answer is 800 million.

    That's right, the Google Assistant will run on at least 800 million devices before the year is over.

    That's practically all of Apple's user base.


    Yeah, except that 2 billion devices includes ALL Android devices, not just phones (the only obvious platform for an Assistant). Further, you forgot that only 1 out of 10 or so Android devices is a flagship. Flagship devices are what generate revenues and actually get used as a true "smartphone".
    Are you using price to determine flagships? if not what is your measuring stick? Just curious. 

    On a sidenote I think most smartphone owners whether poor Android or well-to-do highly-educated Apple use their smartphones for the same regular repetitive daily purposes: Email, texting, phone, Facebook/Other social sites, web browser, camera, music with a couple other semi-regular uses like a calendar and maps. Almost ANY current smartphone can handle those basics for Joe Average and the Missus. Zero need for a $700 plus one if these are your only use cases.

    So yeah even relatively inexpensive ones are used as true smartphones aren't they? 
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 78 of 96
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,485member
    Soli said:
    Google is in a bad spot. Their total incompetence with respect to hardware will be their undoing. 
    Can you explain how not being great as consumer HW means the entire company and all their SW and services are going crumble?

    It won't affect Google at all.

    The real risk to Google is that the vast majority of their revenue comes from something people despise (ads).
    Solijbdragon
  • Reply 79 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    Soli said:
    Google is in a bad spot. Their total incompetence with respect to hardware will be their undoing. 
    Can you explain how not being great as consumer HW means the entire company and all their SW and services are going crumble?

    It won't affect Google at all.

    The real risk to Google is that the vast majority of their revenue comes from something people despise (ads).
    Yet Apple runs them and we give'em a big thumb's up. 
    Solisingularity
  • Reply 80 of 96
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,621member
    This is why math literacy is vital to our education system.

    Marshmallow and Nougat Android device account for approximately 40% of Android devices.

    Source: https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html

    According to Google, there are now 2 billion active Android users.

    What is 40% of 2 billion? The answer is 800 million.

    That's right, the Google Assistant will run on at least 800 million devices before the year is over.

    That's practically all of Apple's user base.


    Yeah, except that 2 billion devices includes ALL Android devices, not just phones (the only obvious platform for an Assistant). Further, you forgot that only 1 out of 10 or so Android devices is a flagship. Flagship devices are what generate revenues and actually get used as a true "smartphone".

    "Generate revenues" is very vague.

    If you are talking per device and global sales, then Apple takes the biscuit. If you are talking per device but not including sales then I'd say there are other manufacturers that generate very high revenues on devices. Today I was holding an Android phone that retails for 1,395€ after discounts.

    In a broader sense Flagships have less to do with revenues (again, depending on what kind of revenues you mean).

    If you study where smartphone users spend most of their phone time you will see a fairly uniform pattern. Camera, social networking, web, mail, maps, shopping etc.

    Usage doesn't depend on if you own a flagship phone or not. They will have a better screen, faster processor, etc but will be used for the same things as those users with lower end phones.

    Google doesn't really need you to spend much on purchasing your phone to begin making money. Neither does WeChat or any of the various stores.
Sign In or Register to comment.