Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How do you count owners of phones willing to pay for apps? It's impossible to quantify that. As a business owner I need facts to base my decisions upon, not conjecture.

There was a report only a few days ago that said the average iPhone user only spends $40 a year on iTunes content for their iPhone. That includes music, films, tv, apps, books, etc. $40 a year that's all.

Where is Google's statement "we paid out xxx billion dollars to developers"?

And what do you mean by "only"? Most Android phones are $100 phones used as feature phones with not a single penny _ever_ paid on software or whatever.
 
Linux Phone?

Can you port the Android GUI to a linux phone? Seems like it should be possible since all Android phones are linux phones already.
 
Where is Google's statement "we paid out xxx billion dollars to developers"?

And what do you mean by "only"? Most Android phones are $100 phones used as feature phones with not a single penny _ever_ paid on software or whatever.

I hope Google won't, because it's quite a dishonest line.

1. The billions paid out are very unevenly distributed.
2. And those getting the most of the money I wouldn't call developers, I'd call them companies. (And what percentage of the app money that Zynga gets do you actually think the developers in the company get?)
 
You're right... Apple will never "catch up" to Android in sales, market share, or anything.

But do they have to?

Right now Apple is selling 400,000 iPhones every day.

If a day ever comes when Apple sells ZERO iPhones... then I'd be worried.

But by that time... every other company would have already gone out of business.

It's not going to put them out of business at all, at the most it would motivate them to compete in the other markets. It would be ridiculous to think they would go under or aything like that.

----------

How does the marketshare of hundreds of phones combined help YOU?

None of it helps me, lowering prices helps me. They are just mega companies that care nothing about us.
 
Did you just use appleinsider for your source lmfao.

I was just using it as an example of non-compatible OS's derived from the AOSP. Are you claiming that non-compatible Android OS's don't exist?

Even you biased source suggests its China no name phones

Exactly. You'll notice that almost half of Android phones in IDC's table fall under "Other". Using Google and IDC's numbers, about 20% of Android phones are not activated by Google.

lol ohh and for your claim that Linux % in the op is exactly for those phones you seem to think make up the numbers for android.

Source? Or did you just make that up without any source at all?

"Linux, a category largely comprised of Samsung's Bada shipments"
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23638712

Bada, Tizen, Ubuntu, Firefox OS, etc.

You also don't mention how those fake android phones use apple web code and get flagged as apple devices on web sites.like how when I post on fb with my cheap tablet that doesn't support android market it says posted from iOS device

I didn't mention that because it has nothing to do with the current conversation.
 
Last edited:
I hope Google won't, because it's quite a dishonest line.

1. The billions paid out are very unevenly distributed.
2. And those getting the most of the money I wouldn't call developers, I'd call them companies. (And what percentage of the app money that Zynga gets do you actually think the developers in the company get?)

Isn't it more that you hope Google doesn't tell developers where the money is (at iOS) ?

Interesting that you call openness "dishonesty" and hope that Google doesn't give developers actual information to compare iOS and Android development.
 
While we're playing the blame game, we might as well call out Canonical for giving Linux away to the Chinese...for free. Hell, that's server software, man. Pretty soon the reds will use our hard earned American-Finnish software innovations to control the internet, and the West will loose TRILLIONS. In 3 years, we'll all be speaking Mandarin. Just you watch.

Android, Ubuntu both are based on Linux which was created by a Finnish guy and gets contributions from Americans, Brits, Chinese, Indians, Koreans and lots more. So Google _is_ a good guy for giving something back to everyone :) In fact that's how Open Source is supposed to work. (Sometimes it doesn't - Apple takes the BSD code and gives nothing of greater value back for example.)
 
Android, Ubuntu both are based on Linux which was created by a Finnish guy and gets contributions from Americans, Brits, Chinese, Indians, Koreans and lots more. So Google _is_ a good guy for giving something back to everyone :) In fact that's how Open Source is supposed to work. (Sometimes it doesn't - Apple takes the BSD code and gives nothing of greater value back for example.)

If Apple didn't give back, Google would have no browser. All Webkit based.
 
If Apple didn't give back, Google would have no browser. All Webkit based.

KHTML on which WebKit is based is LGPL not BSD. License mandates that they do so. See this. Besides last I checked Google contributed lot more than Apple has recently to WebKit. Apple's WebKit changes happen to be specific and only benefiting their closed source stuff.
 
Sorry to sound so rough about the language thing. My bad.

You do raise another good point though.

If the people who buy iPhones in China and India are wealthy middle-class people... would you guess that most of the Android phones sold in China and India are cheaper models?

That was kinda my point. There are TONS of cheap Android phones sold in just those two countries... which increases Android's market share around the globe.

But what are all those phones doing for the platform?

You've got a bunch of cheap Android phones that probably aren't being used for apps or data... or that are sold to people with poor coverage in their area. Yet those phones get added in with all the other Android phones that makes up 75% of the smartphone market.

That's why I was saying don't get lured in by Android's huge market share number.

Android has a crazy amount of market share... but it's the #2 platform that gets all the attention.

You'd think it would be a no-brainer to develop for the largest platform... but that's clearly not the case.

I do take your point. The only issue I would have is that most smartphone apps cost less than $10 dollars. Most probably only $1. So anyone can afford them. Even if you have a cheap Android phone most people can afford $1. So a billion people all spending a few dollars per app soon ads up to a lot of money.

That's my point. Just because you have a cheap Android doesn't mean you are necessarily going to spend that much less on apps than someone who has a much more expensive iPhone. You see where I'm going with this?

Apple are happy with the status quo because they make their money on the hardware. But if you're a developer you want to go after the biggest market because that usually has the most potential revenue.

If Apple don't address this issue and stem the tidal wave towards Android then yes Apple will probably continue to sell a lot of iPhones and make a lot of money in the process but developers will eventually start to drift away to where the money is for them. This is exactly what happened in the 1980s and 1990s when one by one developers started moving from Mac to Windows.

----------

Where is Google's statement "we paid out xxx billion dollars to developers"?

And what do you mean by "only"? Most Android phones are $100 phones used as feature phones with not a single penny _ever_ paid on software or whatever.

I think you contradicted your own point. If we don't know how much Google has paid to app developers then how do you know that Android users don't spend a single penny on Android apps?

I think it's a case of believe what you want to believe rather than whatever the truth is.
 
Apple takes the BSD code and gives nothing of greater value back for example.

So, none of the Darwin releases have any improvements? I don't believe that.

Apple's WebKit changes happen to be specific and only benefiting their closed source stuff.

Sounds like something else that you made up.

----------

I think you contradicted your own point. If we don't know how much Google has paid to app developers then how do you know that Android users don't spend a single penny on Android apps?

I think it's a case of believe what you want to believe rather than whatever the truth is.

No contradiction. Google isn't the only source of information.
Two thirds of Android users don't pay for apps
 
:confused: Either you are talking about something else, or there are some massive leaps in logic here.

I wasn't asking about any particular market. The point was to distance the question from Apple bias.

I was asking would you, personally, rather build:
a) 100 widgets and get paid $20
b) 20 widgets and get paid $100

Assume it requires approximately the same amount of time and effort to make each widget.

Yes, I did get your question. What I am saying is that I like a world that forces everyone to choose a) for survival, anyone choosing b) will be regarded as being greedy and lose all customers.
 
Just because you have a cheap Android doesn't mean you are necessarily going to spend that much less on apps than someone who has a much more expensive iPhone.

Apple are happy with the status quo because they make their money on the hardware. But if you're a developer you want to go after the biggest market because that usually has the most potential revenue.

How's that working out?

Android has 4 times the market share of iOS... yet all the cool new apps seem to come out for iOS first. And there are some apps that are iOS exclusive.

That's the complete opposite of your "biggest market" advice.

And then there are some developers who only make software for the Mac. Are they crazy? Don't they know that Windows is dominating with 95% market share?!?! Holy balls!

There's clearly something going on here... and I'm guessing market share isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be.

Yes... Google's operating system is on a huge amount of phones... but it must be a slap in the face when the distant 2nd place platform is actually more enticing.
 
The explanation is that cheap android phones are used as feature phones. Android is dominating when it comes to marketshare. That domination translates into nothing tangible.

Your explanation is only partially right. The more important factor is that the majority of the Android world is still very young and those customers still need time to find out what their smartphones can do. In addition, a lot of the tiny “developers" in the emerging world don’t submit their apps into any app stores, they simply let users directly download them from their own website.

----------

Kinda like how Windows eventually squeezed out the Mac? Oh, wait, that didn't happen. The Mac is more profitable than ever and has increased it's market share every year for 6 years.

This special period of “market share increase” happened after Mac’s market share dropped below 2%, with the help of the halo effect of iPod and iPhone, plus the important “jump start” factor of introducing dual-boot capability (means that it’s also partially a WinTel computer now).
 
Where is Google's statement "we paid out xxx billion dollars to developers"?

And what do you mean by "only"? Most Android phones are $100 phones used as feature phones with not a single penny _ever_ paid on software or whatever.

I bought a Nexus 4 in February and actually paid for TomTom to use on my Nexus 4 and Nexus 7. I never paid for it on my iPhone simply because I never had to.

I also paid for the apps that allowed an upgrade to be ad free simply to be ad free.

Never say people have cheap Android phones and have never paid for apps because it can go that way for Apple as well.

Remember, there are still sites that give away every single cracked app that is ever released on the Apple app store. They exist because many Apple users would rather steal then pay.

Most people that own an Android would not even know they can side load apps let alone what to even search for to even get a free app to side load.
 
Yes, I did get your question. What I am saying is that I like a world that forces everyone to choose a) for survival, anyone choosing b) will be regarded as being greedy and lose all customers.

So you were just answering a different question. No wonder I was confused! :D

I prefer a world where I am able to offer the product of my work at a price of my choosing with the understanding that other people have the choice to pay that price if they find it reasonable.

Not one where some random person determines what's "fair".

----------

This special period of “market share increase” happened after Mac’s market share dropped below 2%, with the help of the halo effect of iPod and iPhone, plus the important “jump start” factor of introducing dual-boot capability.

Yep. Exactly my point.
 
It doesn't matter how many manufacturers there are. This is talking about mobile operating systems and it's a fact that Android is dominating iOS right now. Stop making excuses we all know that iOS needs a MAJOR update. Android is currently winning. Numbers are showing it

----------



68% or 32.7% either way both numbers are greater than 17% by iOS

LOL...Do you own shares of Samsung? If not, there is something seriously wrong with you.
 
KHTML on which WebKit is based is LGPL not BSD. License mandates that they do so.

That's just dumb, Apple was not mandated to build WebKit upon KHTML to begin with, they did it fully aware of the implications of the license. Besides that, Apple are involved in many other opensource projects, you are just displaying your ignorance here.

Also, do you really believe that there is no business incentives behind Google's contributions, or do you believe they do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
 
Android, Ubuntu both are based on Linux which was created by a Finnish guy and gets contributions from Americans, Brits, Chinese, Indians, Koreans and lots more. So Google _is_ a good guy for giving something back to everyone :) In fact that's how Open Source is supposed to work. (Sometimes it doesn't - Apple takes the BSD code and gives nothing of greater value back for example.)

You're preaching to the choir. My post was a tongue in cheek response to Laguna's almost achingly ignorant and overly hysterical spiel.

----------

That's just dumb, Apple was not mandated to build WebKit upon KHTML to begin with, they did it fully aware of the implications of the license. Besides that, Apple are involved in many other opensource projects, you are just displaying your ignorance here.

The ignorance here are people saying Google wouldn't have a browser to use if Apple didn't give them one to build on. Which is stupid, because Apple wouldn't have a such a good base for Google to use if they didn't build upon another open source project to begin with.

It's another version of the long since tired and incredibly one-sided "Apple innovates, everyone else steals" argument.
 
The ignorance here are people saying Google wouldn't have a browser to use if Apple didn't give them one to build on. Which is stupid, because Apple wouldn't have a such a good base for Google to use if they didn't build upon another open source project to begin with.

That wasn't what was said, it was a response to Apples supposedly non-contribution, undeniably Google built on what Apple created, who built on what the KHTML guys created. That's they way opensource supposed to work, remember?

Let's use the argument the other way around as well.

His own argument: "Google accuired Android Inc. the GPL license of the Linux kernel mandate that they keep it opensource, they contribute almost nothing of value back".

It's another version of the long since tired and incredibly one-sided "Apple innovates, everyone else steals" argument.

No it's not
 
No it's not

It kind of is, based off of Gnasher's post...

If Apple didn't give back, Google would have no browser. All Webkit based.

...which in turn is based off his usual Apple-centric arguments, and others I've seen on the board where people talk about Google leeching off Apple's hard work. This usually ends up turning into yet another Apple innovates, blah blah blah series of responses.

Everyone involved with Webkit benefited from Google picking up the project. Everything Google adds to the source, Apple can incorporate into Safari, and everything Apple adds to the source, can be ported back into Chrome. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement, with no one side being the "good guy" or the "bad guy".

Arguing otherwise is ignorant, and assuming Google would've been left out in the cold without Apple's hard work is stupid. They could've easily made a browser without Webkit. They didn't desperately need Apple to give them the code. Google could've leaned on any number of open source web renderers to do their thing. They chose Webkit because it was a solid base to build from, and thus wouldn't require nearly as much work to bang into shape.

Apple being directly involved with it is more academic than anything.
 
It kind of is, based off of Gnasher's post...

And "kind of" implies that it really isn't, just kind of, if you squint.


...which in turn is based off his usual Apple-centric arguments, and others I've seen on the board where people talk about Google leeching off Apple's hard work. This usually ends up turning into yet another Apple innovates, blah blah blah series of responses.

Again, no it really isn't.

Everyone involved with Webkit benefited from Google picking up the project. Everything Google adds to the source, Apple can incorporate into Safari, and everything Apple adds to the source, can be ported back into Chrome. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement, with no one side being the "good guy" or the "bad guy".

Which is exactly what I said.

Arguing otherwise is ignorant, and assuming Google would've been left out in the cold without Apple's hard work is stupid. They could've easily made a browser without Webkit. They didn't desperately need Apple to give them the code.

Google could've leaned on any number of open source web renderers to do their thing. They chose Webkit because it was a solid base to build from, and thus wouldn't require nearly as much work to bang into shape.


The same applies to Apple and KHTML then I assume, or is this argument reserved for Google. If not we are in agreement and I don't see what the fuzz is about.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it says that all the fans who claim that Apple is a "luxury brand" are loonies! ;)

Quit being such a hater. It's not us rich people's fault we can buy high end iPhones with our massive disposable incomes, while you're slumming it with your cheap food stamp bought Android feature phone you'll never buy apps for (cuz you're poor). :mad:

----------

The same applies to Apple and KHTML then I assume, or is this argument reserved for Google. If not we are in agreement and I don't see what the fuzz is about.

I think at some undetermined point in my post, my argument went from a specific response to more generalized bitchery based on the usual attitudes some people have around here.

This usually happens when I'm watching a show and posting on here at the same time. Not my fault. I can't multitask for crap.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.