Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Android and iOS Continue to Dominate Smartphone Market as Windows Phone Shows Signs of Life
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ummmm....developer interest/loyalty has always been with iOS. In fact it hasn't been close.
The reason more iOS apps are sold than Android apps has nothing to do with the operating system or the hardware. It's all about iTunes Store versus Google Play. iTunes offers a much better app discovery and shopping experience which is why more iOS users buy apps. Google Play is very poor by comparison despite the fact that the vast majority of good apps are available on both iOS and Android now. However, with their huge installed base and market share if Google ever get their act together with Play they will inevitably sell a lot more content, which in turn will attract more developers. Follow the money.
"Apple doesn't give back" means Apple doesn't give back. Which is proven wrong, by Webkit, by LLVM, and many other projects. Whether Apple _had_ to give back with Webkit doesn't matter, what matters is they did.
When you count contributions, you only see how often code was checked in. A one line code change counts as one change, adding a major feature in one huge change counts as one.
And then there are things like Google using an exploit that they found in Webkit to invade the privacy of Safari users, for which they were ordered to pay a twenty two million dollar fine.
----------
Quite simply, if there was lots of money going to Android developers, Google would shout it from the rooftops. As they don't shout, it is quite obvious that Android developers don't make much money.
And common sense that people buying $500 phones spend more money than people buying $100 phones. That applies to expensive Android phones as well, but expensive Android phones are not what the Android market share comes from.
You are talking about ignorance? When you are just putting up a complete strawman argument?
The discussion came from a claim that with open source, "Apple doesn't give anything back". Which implies that Apple started with some open source code, so that is totally out of the discussion here. And Apple gave back their improvements. Which were first taken up by Nokia, and then by Google. If Apple hadn't "given back", then we wouldn't have Webkit as the de-facto standard, because Nokia would have had to create their own browser code, and Google would have had to create their own browser code.
Nobody except you has argued at all that there is anything bad about Google picking up Apple's Webkit code. Nobody except you has said anything about Google stealing. What was argued, and what is an absolute fact, that Google couldn't have built a browser based on Webkit if Apple hadn't released Webkit, so the fact that Google has a Webkit-based browser is proof that Apple was indeed "giving back". How that turned into a pissing contest, I don't understand.
Apple first took from Open Source projects and only "gave back" because the license legally required them to. LLVM was University of Illinois project outside of Apple and was licensed under BSD. KHTML was KDE project under LGPL license. Apple couldn't have as easily gotten their own replacement to GCC compiler after the new license (GPL3) became too uncomfortable for Apple so they hire a bunch of LLVM contributors and let others continue to contribute to it. Same with WebKit.
The greater point I was trying to make was that there is no Open Source culture at Apple like there is at Google. WebM, Golang, NaCL, V8 - There was no legally binding requirement on Google to Open Source these but they did it anyway and they mostly remain the biggest contributor to those unlike LLVM and WebKit which started as Open Source outside of Apple and attract contributions from other companies in greater amount than Apple. Apple has a history of doing the barely minimum required stuff when it comes to Open Source - they benefit a lot from the OSS projects than they give back.
Last edited:
the entire market saw an increase of over 41%. that's very good for everyone. hopefully iOS 7 will help out apple moving forward.
Less strawman, more me assuming too much, and not taking the entire conversation into account. I saw a few posts, and went from there.
All of them are open sourced because it helps adoption of standards, that is the end goal here, not that Google "do no evil". If you look at critical components like search, maps or translation for example, non of them are open sourced, why, because bing, yahoo and others would pick them up and be on the same page from one day to the other if they did.
Apple also have projects that are started by them that is open sourced, libdispatch, launchd, core foundation, clang, bonjour and so on. If you would have made the comparison to a non-profit organization like Mozilla you would have had a point, but Google like Apple are both mega corporations driven by similar motives, if you don't see that you should take off your Google glasses.
So when Apple contribute to those projects it's because they are required by law, but when others do it, it's some other motive. Don't you see that use of double standards as questionable?
Precisely. No double standards involved. Apple's OSS involvement has always been purely tactical. Google for whatever reason (they employ lot more OSS people, business reasons, 20% personal project time for employees) has a lot more OSS in their DNA and end up open sourcing lot more stuff than Apple. That's just the fact.
Of course it is. Everyone that is involved with LLVM or WebKit is required by law to follow the license. Yet, you only use that argument for Apple, that is the double standard.
It's tactical for Google as well, don't believe anything else. They do not open source project that makes no financial sense for Google Inc.
First, about so called rise of Windows phones.
In a perspective: (from asymco)
it seems that while small share of WP devices is up, overall Nokia is in slide. Without MS subsidies, Nokia would probably go bankrupt. It has now lost its feature phone market to next feature phone makers, with Android. Nokia even sold their HQ buildings and lives in rented office.
In a perspective: (from asymco)
it seems that while small share of WP devices is up, overall Nokia is in slide. Without MS subsidies, Nokia would probably go bankrupt. It has now lost its feature phone market to next feature phone makers, with Android. Nokia even sold their HQ buildings and lives in rented office.
Last edited:
Second, about the rise of Android.
Android's royalties paid to MS. So, more Android = more royalties to MS, not Google.
Android was created to divert mobile traffic from iOS and Windows Phone to Google and make sure that customers use Google services (and give Google their information for ad selling in the process).
However, Samsung, a primary Android vendor, has a full number of Samsung services which replicate and duplicate Google services.Therefore, even if one has Android phone, its not guaranteed that Google somehow benefits from it and the vendor pays royalties again to MS.
In the third world, many people buy Android because its cheap and is smartphone; in reality they don't browse, don't make many purchases and don't use it as a smaprthone (except texting SMS). These are China and India with such great world known Android brand names as Aakash in India which sells cheapest tablet for likes of 60 dollars and great Android brands like THL, Onda, Ainol, Sanei and (Apple - take a notice!) allmighty Pipo http://www.chinabuye.com/computer-accessories/netbook. Yes, world is full of such Pipo Android devices. They probably outnumber any iOS device 10:1. So what? Buyers of such disposable Android devices are as likely to become purchasers of Android software as aborigines of Cook islands who live in jungles happily without knowing that there is such wonder of the world as a G glass to wear and peep into your dump when you're done (and submit that information to G maps or Street view). I have doubts that executives of Mercedes Benz or any other normal quality product in the world have sleepless nights over the fact that somewhere there are millions of people who don't use their products but prefer mules or rikshas to get around town. In same way, Apple doesn't have to worry that owners of great Android brand Pipo are not going to buy a season pass of Lost TV series on iTunes (they probably have a pirated videoCD for it or VCD) and they can't afford to buy iOS device (some even sell their organs to buy iOS devices, when they could buys those 60 dollar Android devices). So sales of these Android cheapo devices never existed for iOS anyway.
Now, someone will claim that they have expensive Android handset and buy tonnes of Android software and they talk like that all android devices are 650 dollar Samsungs. They should know these expensive and quality Android devices constitute a very small portion of overall Android sales amid oceans of disposable Android devices. This small minority of relatively wealthier Android buyers is usually also preferring cheaper things (all in all); if anything even in developed countries they would be a smaller market for software and would prefer freebies if available because the truth is that while Android devices have 75% of share, Google stores have less installations (including even hundreds of malware apps) than iTunes store downloads. End of story.
Even within Android, Amazon actually takes more paid downloads, while Google store is mostly freeware. http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnsh...up-on-google-and-apple-in-key-growth-markets/
So even with Android devices outnumbering Apple in 3 to 1 ratio (or even 10:1), it is not as big market for software as iOS.
Android's royalties paid to MS. So, more Android = more royalties to MS, not Google.
Android was created to divert mobile traffic from iOS and Windows Phone to Google and make sure that customers use Google services (and give Google their information for ad selling in the process).
However, Samsung, a primary Android vendor, has a full number of Samsung services which replicate and duplicate Google services.Therefore, even if one has Android phone, its not guaranteed that Google somehow benefits from it and the vendor pays royalties again to MS.
In the third world, many people buy Android because its cheap and is smartphone; in reality they don't browse, don't make many purchases and don't use it as a smaprthone (except texting SMS). These are China and India with such great world known Android brand names as Aakash in India which sells cheapest tablet for likes of 60 dollars and great Android brands like THL, Onda, Ainol, Sanei and (Apple - take a notice!) allmighty Pipo http://www.chinabuye.com/computer-accessories/netbook. Yes, world is full of such Pipo Android devices. They probably outnumber any iOS device 10:1. So what? Buyers of such disposable Android devices are as likely to become purchasers of Android software as aborigines of Cook islands who live in jungles happily without knowing that there is such wonder of the world as a G glass to wear and peep into your dump when you're done (and submit that information to G maps or Street view). I have doubts that executives of Mercedes Benz or any other normal quality product in the world have sleepless nights over the fact that somewhere there are millions of people who don't use their products but prefer mules or rikshas to get around town. In same way, Apple doesn't have to worry that owners of great Android brand Pipo are not going to buy a season pass of Lost TV series on iTunes (they probably have a pirated videoCD for it or VCD) and they can't afford to buy iOS device (some even sell their organs to buy iOS devices, when they could buys those 60 dollar Android devices). So sales of these Android cheapo devices never existed for iOS anyway.
Now, someone will claim that they have expensive Android handset and buy tonnes of Android software and they talk like that all android devices are 650 dollar Samsungs. They should know these expensive and quality Android devices constitute a very small portion of overall Android sales amid oceans of disposable Android devices. This small minority of relatively wealthier Android buyers is usually also preferring cheaper things (all in all); if anything even in developed countries they would be a smaller market for software and would prefer freebies if available because the truth is that while Android devices have 75% of share, Google stores have less installations (including even hundreds of malware apps) than iTunes store downloads. End of story.
Even within Android, Amazon actually takes more paid downloads, while Google store is mostly freeware. http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnsh...up-on-google-and-apple-in-key-growth-markets/
So even with Android devices outnumbering Apple in 3 to 1 ratio (or even 10:1), it is not as big market for software as iOS.
Last edited:
Oh, people realize that. The thing is that you don't realize that that doesn't matter. Devices are with Android OS regardless of who manufactures them are devices with Android OS. Check the article again and the big label on the chart. They are talking about OS not devices! smh
The only way your comment would make sense if Apple couldn't keep up with demand.
Last edited:
You would think that is true, but, again, it's not. IDC counts all devices running an OS derived from the Android Open Source Project in the Android numbers even though they are not all Android.
There's so much garbage and made up "facts" in your post it's ridiculous. But whatever helps you sleep at night. This little tidbit especially is garbage.
Feel free to source your "fact" though...
Source: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2012/04/27/android-fans-pay-for-your-apps-please/
http://www.informationweek.com/secu...id-survey-highlights-piracy-problem/231601064
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/12/ios-vs-android/
A lot of free apps on android but..
The freeware is not really free on Android either:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/01/android_app_privacy_audit/
An 18-month study shows that Android users who download and install free apps end up paying in compromised privacy and security.
An audit of 1.7 million apps in the Android Market, recently renamed Google Play, found that free apps were more than four times as likely to access contact lists as paid apps that had the same functions, British tech blog the Register reported.
The study, conducted by networking company Juniper Networks, also found that 24 percent of free apps tracked location data, compared to 6 percent of paid ones.
Many apps collect location data in order to serve up localized ads. But Juniper found far fewer apps doing business with major ad networks than the overall number of apps collecting location data. To Juniper, that suggested many apps had shadier purposes.
"This leads us to believe there are several apps collecting information for reasons less apparent than advertising, " the company said.
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/free-android-apps-cost-users-security-privacy-1C6848002
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexandru-catalin-cosoi/one-out-of-three-free-and_b_3006729.html One out of Three Free Android Apps Accesses and Uploads Your Private and Sensitive Data
I've never heard that reason before... that the store is the reason developers find more success on iOS.
If that's the case... Google Play must be VERY terrible considering Android has a MUCH larger installed base.
Lots of links that have nothing to do with the statement I questioned you about. None of that supports that "This small minority of relatively wealthier Android buyers is usually also preferring cheaper things (all in all)"
Care to try again?
Care to try again?
Its straightforward!
There are more Android users in Africa and Asia than in Europe or USA and they don't much browse despite outnumbering iOS by 3:1. I think that average European or American earns much much more than average African, indian or Chinese, no? So these many, many users from Asia and Africa don't browse because
probably they can't afford to have broadband, wifi, 3G or LTE. If they don't browse, they can't access Google store.
Now, those who browse and access internet and Google Store - the minority of relatively wealthier Android users - prefer most pirated apps or freeware, as posted in links above.
There are more Android users in Africa and Asia than in Europe or USA and they don't much browse despite outnumbering iOS by 3:1. I think that average European or American earns much much more than average African, indian or Chinese, no? So these many, many users from Asia and Africa don't browse because
probably they can't afford to have broadband, wifi, 3G or LTE. If they don't browse, they can't access Google store.
Now, those who browse and access internet and Google Store - the minority of relatively wealthier Android users - prefer most pirated apps or freeware, as posted in links above.
Last edited:
Again - you're failing to prove that wealthier android users " also preferring cheaper things"
Do you understand what you wrote when you posted that? Because you don't seem to be answering the question. Where is there any proof that those that buy Android (who are "wealthier') also prefer cheaper things. You realize it's a trick question right? You'll never be able to prove it.
Why?
It's your opinion. It's not fact.
Do you understand what you wrote when you posted that? Because you don't seem to be answering the question. Where is there any proof that those that buy Android (who are "wealthier') also prefer cheaper things. You realize it's a trick question right? You'll never be able to prove it.
Why?
It's your opinion. It's not fact.
Its not my opinion. Its an opinion of a well known mobile developer:
Joshua Topolsky of The Verge recently sat down with Instapaper founder Marco Arment. For those unfamiliar, Instapaper is a popular app on the App Store that allows you to save an article or a piece of the Web for later reading. The app has a slick web interface that allows you to manage content, along with a browser extension that enables you to mark content easily.
In the interview above, we learn more about the economics of Instapaper, and how it has fared against the release of Apples Safari Reading List. Arment also shared why he has not released an Android app, calling the economics just not good. He also made a great point that not many Android users are actually buying apps. Instapaper is available on iTunes for $5, and Arment said that is a price most Android users just will not pay.
I answered the question and recommend that you read the links. In the links you can find data that Google store has much more freeware than iTunes store and Android users have a higher piracy rate then iOS users.
Ok - so you don't understand what you wrote and the scope of your opinion (not fact). No point in further discussion.
Your proof about wealthier Android users preferring cheap thing is Marco Arment? A developer that didn't had any Android app and that had a clear bias against that operating system?