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.
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
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?)
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.
----------
None of it helps me, lowering prices helps me. They are just mega companies that care nothing about us.
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?
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.
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.
I didn't mention that because it has nothing to do with the current conversation.
Last edited:
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.
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
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.
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.
----------
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.
So, none of the Darwin releases have any improvements? I don't believe that.
Sounds like something else that you made up.
----------
No contradiction. Google isn't the only source of information.
Two thirds of Android users don't pay for apps
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.
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.
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 dont submit their apps into any app stores, they simply let users directly download them from their own website.
----------
This special period of market share increase happened after Macs 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 its also partially a WinTel computer now).
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.
So you were just answering a different question. No wonder I was confused!
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".
----------
Yep. Exactly my point.
LOL...Do you own shares of Samsung? If not, there is something seriously wrong with you.
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
You're preaching to the choir. My post was a tongue in cheek response to Laguna's almost achingly ignorant and overly hysterical spiel.
----------
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.
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".
No it's not
When you can walk into a gas station and see an iPhone speaker dock for sale... that says something
Yes, it says that all the fans who claim that Apple is a "luxury brand" are loonies!
It kind of is, based off of Gnasher's post...
...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.
And "kind of" implies that it really isn't, just kind of, if you squint.
Again, no it really isn't.
Which is exactly what I said.
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).
----------
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.