Android and iOS Now Control Over 80% of Smartphone Sales in U.S.

[DeathChill]

It's crazy how Apple and Google have overtaken the smartphone market. Google's results really are nothing short of impressive.

I wonder if things would have shaken out the same for Google had the iPhone not come along. They would have been competing against established players with a product that wouldn't have seemed to offer more to the OEM than the competition, I'd imagine. I wonder if Apple actually indirectly helped Google with the creation of the iPhone?

 

[*LTD*]

I wonder if Apple actually indirectly helped Google with the creation of the iPhone?

"I'll say!"

 

[inkswamp]

Honeycomb is the equivalent of the iPad iOS. The fact it has a different version number than the phone version is moot. It runs the Gingerbread apps just like an iPad does the iPhone apps, heck, it runs them even better (their scaling is much better than iOS's "double size" or "black bars".

You're reading too much into the "version 3.0" and it just shows your lack of understanding of the eco-system. It's fine that you're not interested in it to the point of getting informed, but don't presume to assume you know what you are talking about when throwing out words like "fragmentation" then.

This originally started off as me agreeing with someone else that Android 3.0 not being intended for phones was a sign of Android fragmentation. You claim iOS is just as fragmented. Meanwhile, there are no "tablet-specific" versions of iOS. There's one version and it runs on iPhone and iPad.

You can imply I'm ignorant all you want, but until you can clearly and simply (and non-condescendingly) explain how having hardware-specific versions of Android doesn't make that OS far more fragmented than iOS, I will continue to believe you're simply dancing around the issue.

 

[KnightWRX]

You can imply I'm ignorant all you want, but until you can clearly and simply (and non-condescendingly) explain how having hardware-specific versions of Android doesn't make that OS far more fragmented than iOS, I will continue to believe you're simply dancing around the issue.

I can't make this simpler than I already have. You're too hung up on the version number.

The version number means nothing. Google could have labeled Honeycomb 2.3 and added "Tablet Edition" at the end of the Gingerbread name and it would've been the same.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not dancing around the issue. I'm simply stating you're kind misinformed on the actual state and reasons of fragmentation in Android and of the tools in place in the framework for dealing with it, something the iOS framework is less resilient to.

Basically, fragmention is made into a big issue while in the end, it's not as big as the tech media would let you believe.

 

[Tunster]

This originally started off as me agreeing with someone else that Android 3.0 not being intended for phones was a sign of Android fragmentation. You claim iOS is just as fragmented. Meanwhile, there are no "tablet-specific" versions of iOS. There's one version and it runs on iPhone and iPad.

Wrong.

As KnightWRX already said, there are fragmented versions of iOS. Forget iOS version numbers, look at the page below.

http://theiphonewiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Firmware

There are seperate builds for iPhone/iPad devices. You don't load an iPhone firmware file on an iPad and visa-versa. Build number only highlights the base code in Apple's development. The individual features unique to the iPhone/iPad are added into their seperate builds. This shows the fragmentation of Apple's core dev. However, not as webbed as Android can go with its adaptability to cater the same apps on many devices.

If Apple were ever to license iOS, they'd need to change their framework.

 

[Michael Scrip]

It's crazy how Apple and Google have overtaken the smartphone market. Google's results really are nothing short of impressive.

I wonder if things would have shaken out the same for Google had the iPhone not come along. They would have been competing against established players with a product that wouldn't have seemed to offer more to the OEM than the competition, I'd imagine. I wonder if Apple actually indirectly helped Google with the creation of the iPhone?

We will never know what the smartphone landscape would have looked like if the iPhone had never existed.

However... the image below is an example of what OEMs were offering as smartphones in 2007.

I don't believe any of those manufacturers had any major changes planned for 2008 and beyond.

But... things did change.

The question is... were these OEMs already preparing their next big thing when the iPhone came out?

Or did the iPhone cause the next big thing?

The problem is... what were they gonna do? I doubt any of them were planning on ditching the keyboard to make full touchscreen phones. And... Windows Mobile and PalmOS weren't very agile.

Plus... Android wasn't even formally announced until November 2007. And although we've seen early Android prototypes in both QWERTY and touchscreen configurations... the OEMs of the day were already making QWERTY phones.

I believe Android would have been a QWERTY phone OS if the iPhone didn't exist.

But the iPhone did exist... and it showed everyone how to make a full touchscreen phone and do it well.

I think the iPhone had a huge influence on Android and the the rest of the mobile industry.

 

[SPUY767]

Apple has a 99cent iPhone 3GS, how can you say they are not involved in the cheap end of the market? Mind you, we are talking about the US smartphone market. International (unsubsidized) is a whole different story.

The 3GS is still a quality phone. Its build quality is on par with the most expensive of the Android phones. The thing that makes it cheap is the fact that it is three years old. Being three years old, the parts are cheaper, and Apple has streamlined the supply chain to the point that it can offer it at a price where carriers can give it away with a plan, but Apple can still receive it's profit margin. The profit margins on high end Android phones are thin, by Apple standards, and the profits on the crap-tier android phones are nigh on nonexistent. Apple doesn't play in that arena, and they never will. There will always be someone willing to fight over table scraps, but it won't ever be Apple.

 

[KnightWRX]

There are seperate builds for iPhone/iPad devices. You don't load an iPhone firmware file on an iPad and visa-versa.

Not to mention even if you have the same "version" of software, that doesn't mean the software has the same capabilities. Frankly, I don't think the iPhone 3G ever got iOS 4, even though it got a release with version 4.0.

"Look, the iPhone 3G runs iOS 4!" some people would say... hum... not really.

Heck, people think iOS is magical and that the devs don't need to deal with fragmentation at all. Quite frankly, those people never wrote a single line of code for iOS obviously.

Detecting the retina display :

if ([[UIScreen mainScreen] respondsToSelector:@selector(scale)] == YES && [[UIScreen mainScreen] scale] == 2.00) {
         // RETINA DISPLAY
    }

(required to scale your views appropriately so that your HD application will work on the 3GS and your non-HD version will work on the 4 and 4S).

Detecting multi-tasking :

UIDevice* device = [UIDevice currentDevice];

BOOL backgroundSupported = NO;

if ([device respondsToSelector:@selector(isMultitaskingSupported)])

   backgroundSupported = device.multitaskingSupported;

So, you have to liter your code with these little "detection routines" to find out if the device you're running on is capable of this stuff. Sure, vanilla iOS 2.0 and the original SDK had none of this non-sense, since of course, Apple hadn't released things like the iPad or many devices that were different (the original iPhone and the iPhone 3G were basically the same device after all, aside from the 3G radio).

----------

I believe Android would have been a QWERTY phone OS if the iPhone didn't exist.

You're mistaking Android the software and the hardware it runs on. Android never was a "qwerty phone OS". But it can run on QWERTY phones. Android "touch screen" support traces back to even the earliest SDK releases, not something Andy Rubin just threw together in light of the iPhone.

Android always was meant to be hardware agnostic. It's not a "Touchscreen OS", it's not a "QWERTY phone OS", it's simply an "OS" with input drivers. Just like any proper OS.

 

[DeathChill]

You're mistaking Android the software and the hardware it runs on. Android never was a "qwerty phone OS". But it can run on QWERTY phones. Android "touch screen" support traces back to even the earliest SDK releases, not something Andy Rubin just threw together in light of the iPhone.

Android always was meant to be hardware agnostic. It's not a "Touchscreen OS", it's not a "QWERTY phone OS", it's simply an "OS" with input drivers. Just like any proper OS.

No, it really was originally designed for a BlackBerry like phone.

Here's a quote from In The Plex by Steven Levy about Android's development:

At first the Android team worked on two different systems. One was called the Sooner; it was based on the existing Android prototype. With a keypad sitting underneath the screen, Sooner was designed to get into the market quickly. Sooner absorbed most of the energy in Android’s early days at Google. For the long term, Rubin’s group wanted to develop a more advanced platform with a touch screen. He dubbed that version the Dream. But in January 2007, Apple’s new iPhone redefined the smart phone. Withits touch screen, tightly integrated software, and sharp display, the iPhone had delivered the future ahead of schedule. Sooner became never, and Android went straight to the Dream.

The iPhone clearly changed Android's course of development. I doubt Android would look and work exactly the same had the iPhone not come along.

\/\/\/\/ So your idea is to come to a discussion board and not discuss? Interesting theory.

 

[samcraig]

One has to wonder why the same "argument" repeats itself over and over when stories like this come out. It's amazing how "invested" people are in trying to prove who copied who and what was and was not the timeline for product development, etc.

Ultimately - who cares. Use the phone that works best for you.

 

[*LTD*]

I wonder if things would have shaken out the same for Google had the iPhone not come along. They would have been competing against established players with a product that wouldn't have seemed to offer more to the OEM than the competition, I'd imagine. I wonder if Apple actually indirectly helped Google with the creation of the iPhone?

 

[ChazUK]

Image

Still Android after iPhone.

 

[*LTD*]

Image
Still Android after iPhone.

No one said copying was easy. Nor does it mean that OEMs will necessarily shed keyboard devices. Moreover, nor does it mean that these OEMs are necessarily making money with these disparate devices that really amount to all manner of flotsam and jetsam, whereas the gold standard of smartphones is being set by fully touch-enabled devices with no hardware keyboard whatsoever.

 

[KnightWRX]

No, it really was originally designed for a BlackBerry like phone.

Steven Levy ? A journalist for wired ? That's your source ?

http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_

A good read for you. I've discussed this at lengths with you already. Anyway, you have some kind of irrational need to downplay Android all the time, so nothing can come out of this. Have fun living with your delusions that the iPhone "changed" Android.

 

[samcraig]

No one said copying was easy. Nor does it mean that OEMs will necessarily shed keyboard devices. Moreover, nor does it mean that these OEMs are necessarily making money with these disparate devices that really amount to all manner of flotsam and jetsam, whereas the gold standard of smartphones is being set by fully touch-enabled devices with no hardware keyboard whatsoever.

And yet some people simply prefer to have a physical keyboard. Further - some people require a physical keyboard. So the "gold standard" (your opinion) might be no keyboard - that doesn't make it obsolete or not worthy of having a market. It also doesn't make a phone inferior.

Different use cases. Get used to it.

 

[ChazUK]

No one said copying was easy. Nor does it mean that OEMs will necessarily shed keyboard devices.

All of the UI elements (notification icons, system icons, browser) on that pre-production HTC unit are exactly the same as Android is today.

Holy editing batman. You do like a post edit don't you?

Moreover, nor does it mean that these OEMs are necessarily making money with these disparate devices that really amount to all manner of flotsam and jetsam, whereas the gold standard of smartphones is being set by fully touch-enabled devices with no hardware keyboard whatsoever.

I thought your post was comparing a pre production HTC handset with the HTC Nexus One? Now it's about making money?

 

[*LTD*]

And yet some people simply prefer to have a physical keyboard. Further - some people require a physical keyboard. So the "gold standard" (your opinion) might be no keyboard - that doesn't make it obsolete or not worthy of having a market. It also doesn't make a phone inferior.

Different use cases. Get used to it.

As said before, there has been and will always be a market for low-end, inferior design, with a cheap price-tag to match.

The iPhone pushed us into the next phase of mobile - which is what the competition needed to see, not clickety-clackety hardware keyboards.

----------

Holy editing batman. You do like a post edit don't you?

Apologies, I sometimes find things to add in later.

 

[samcraig]

As said before, there has been and will always be a market for low-end, inferior design, with a cheap price-tag to match.

The iPhone pushed us into the next phase of mobile, not clickety-clackety hardware keyboards.

You are a piece of work, LTD. Just because a phone has a keyboard doesn't make it low-end, inferior or cheap.

I know it's hard for you - but you really need to have a more open mind to use cases and products which serve OTHER people just as well as the iPhone serves you.

 

[christian_k]

No one said copying was easy. Nor does it mean that OEMs will necessarily shed keyboard devices. Moreover, nor does it mean that these OEMs are necessarily making money with these disparate devices that really amount to all manner of flotsam and jetsam, whereas the gold standard of smartphones is being set by fully touch-enabled devices with no hardware keyboard whatsoever.

I don't understand why everyone thinks Apple was the great innovator and everyone else just copies.

Of course, Microsofts concept of bringing over the desktop Windows GUI to mobile devices (aka Windows CE) did not work very well. But the concepts of iOS were not that new. For example old PalmOS versions were quite similar (touch screen only, full screen only Apps with simple GUI elements, grid layout 'home screen', mostly single tasking operation).
Similar interfaces for use by finger also existed long before the I phone. I remember my old TomTom Go, it even featured finger based scrolling on the map.

IPhone was not the first phone to rely on a touchscreen completely. Anyone remember the Alcatel one touch com from the 90s? Or several devices based on Palm OS?

As far as I know no one else had used multitouch gestures before. In General they replaced buttons with gestures (scrolling etc). That was a cool new feature, esp. when shown on TV, but I don't think a smartphone has to have it to be "good" or "user friendly".

In other areas it was iOS that took long to catch up with other platforms. Remember, for about a year it did not even feature applications at all!
So IMHO Apple was an important contributor to mobile GUIs, but they were not that great inventor many people think.

Christian

 

[Cod3rror]

It's crazy how Apple and Google have overtaken the smartphone market. Google's results really are nothing short of impressive.

I wonder if things would have shaken out the same for Google had the iPhone not come along. They would have been competing against established players with a product that wouldn't have seemed to offer more to the OEM than the competition, I'd imagine. I wonder if Apple actually indirectly helped Google with the creation of the iPhone?

It would've been VERY different, there were touch screens before Apple but none of them did it right, and they would've still continued producing those touchscreens, it took Apple to show everyone how it was supposed to be done. iPhone really did revolutionize the industry, the UI and kick started a very fierce competition. The phone industry and technology is the most exciting field nowadays, before that it used to be laptops and before that PCs.

Had Apple not entered the phone market, it would've been growing very slowly, Nokia would've been in charge and dual slider and candybar phone would've ruled the world.

When Apple released the iPhone it literally knocked all the big players down, and worse off, they laughed the iPhone off(Nokia laughed them off, Steve Ballmer laughed at them) and did not take it seriously till the pan got so hot that it was too late.

This is the Nokia N87 a scrapped in order to quickly respond to Apple's iPhone with their N97, which was a disaster. Had there been no iPhone, you'd be using something like this now.

When Steve Jobs said while announcing the iPhone that it was 5 years ahead he was not kidding, no one has caught up to the iPhone in the user experience yet, it's quite staggering how they managed to nail the UI perfectly from the first try, I mean look at Android, at each version they change the UI, and they still can't quite nail it with iOS they focus on adding the functions and modifying little things, but the base UI stays the same, perfect.

 

[samcraig]

This is the Nokia N87 a scrapped in order to quickly respond to Apple's iPhone with their N97, which was a disaster. Had there been no iPhone, you'd be using something like this now.

Image

As someone who worked for a major phone manufacturer in the early 2000s I can tell you, for a fact, that you're 100 percent wrong.

Touch screen phones have been in the works for awhile. Further - even if that phone (the n87) came out several years ago - it most definitely would not be something "like" what you'd be using now.

With or without apple- technology progresses. Apple has done and continues to evolve and create amazing products in the marketplace. But to believe that they are the only ones while other companies just wait to see what Apple does to determine their product line is a fallacy.

 

[DeathChill]

Steven Levy ? A journalist for wired ? That's your source ?

I know, the author of a book about Google who directly spoke with many people there (including Andy Rubin) isn't a good enough source. It's just crazy to think this guy didn't just randomly write down whatever he wanted.

http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_

A good read for you. I've discussed this at lengths with you already. Anyway, you have some kind of irrational need to downplay Android all the time, so nothing can come out of this. Have fun living with your delusions that the iPhone "changed" Android.

You're living in a delusion if you honestly believe that the iPhone changed nothing for Android. I quoted an excerpt from a book about Google that clearly points out that you're completely wrong and you just try and dismiss it. That is insanely delusional.

I am not trying to downplay Android at all, I'm just saying that the iPhone clearly influenced it.

Also, your article only states that a prototype with a full touch screen was shown off almost a year after the iPhone was unveiled. That doesn't prove anything that my quote didn't mention.

 

[*LTD*]

You are a piece of work, LTD. Just because a phone has a keyboard doesn't make it low-end, inferior or cheap.

Well it does. It doesn't mean that it isn't good for anyone or that no one will buy them. But in terms of design, UI and hardware, they're relics. They exist because it's Google's business to spread Android around to as many OEMs as possible, and cover nearly every conceivable form factor, from the slick and pretty, to the downright ugly and superseded. This at the very least, pads market share numbers and serves as a way of introducing a cheap "gateway" device before someone is ready to move up to a better one.

There is still a market for cheap, disposable netbooks, for example.

I know it's hard for you - but you really need to have a more open mind to use cases and products which serve OTHER people just as well as the iPhone serves you.

What interest and gratification others derive from the products they use is separate and irrelevant to what the product actually represents technologically vis-à-vis current standards.

I like my spare Motolora V551, for instance, because it still does the job, and should anything happen to my main smartphone it's there. That doesn't mean, however, that it still isn't a POS by today's standards. Nor was that device responsible for June 2007 and what came after.

Then you get some people that just don't care. Some consumers don't have a mobile phone at all.

----------

I mean look at Android, at each version they change the UI, and they still can't quite nail it with iOS they focus on adding the functions and modifying little things, but the base UI stays the same, perfect.

The first step would be for Google to lock out OEMs and take control of the entire product, from cradle to grave. The only way Google will truly nail the UI/hardware combination is by adopting the only business model suited and geared for that endeavour: vertical integration.

Until then, you get whatever is on the OEM menu. Supersize it for 25 cents. Just don't ask where the meat's from.

 

[samcraig]

Well it does. It doesn't mean that it isn't good for anyone or that no one will buy them. But in terms of design, UI and hardware, they're relics. They exist because it's Google's business to spread Android around to as many OEMs as possible, and cover nearly every conceivable form factor, from the slick and pretty, to the downright ugly and superseded. This at the very least, pads market share numbers and serves as a way of introducing a cheap "gateway" device before someone is ready to move up to a better one.

No where did I mention Android or Google LTD. I simple said that by having a keyboard doesn't automatically make a product inferior, cheap, etc. It also doesn't make it a relic.

But I'm done discussing this with you on this thread because it's fruitless. Always has and always will be.

 

[roadbloc]

No one said copying was easy.

I know. Apple must have had an awful time trying to implement all them Android features into iOS 5.