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.
Apple Executives Speak on the 'Low-Cost Phone', Android's Fragmentation Issues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"we figured out a way to do it at a lower cost"
At a lower manufacturing cost to Apple, but they certainly didn't pass that savings on to the customer. Really, he's claiming the 5c is "lower cost" when it sells for the same price as previous year old models?
At a lower manufacturing cost to Apple, but they certainly didn't pass that savings on to the customer. Really, he's claiming the 5c is "lower cost" when it sells for the same price as previous year old models?
I don't own a Windows Phone, but I would point out that Microsoft could very well surprise people in this space. Unlike iOS, Windows Phone market share is increasing (albeit very small overall market share currently).
I remember similar short-sighted comments about Xbox when it was losing money years ago. Now it's very close to being the biggest revenue producing product for Microsoft and the most popular gaming console in the world. Microsoft is patient, but they'll continue nibbling away at Apples smartphone market share until all of the sudden they're a legit threat.
Are you serious? If so, this is the first time I've heard THAT claim, and I thought I had heard them all.
Why this conversation is shortlived but no doubt will still be "argued"
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013...oems-step-aside-google-is-defragging-android/
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013...oems-step-aside-google-is-defragging-android/
I remember when Internet Explorer was laughed at. The folks at Netscape are no longer laughing. I would not bet against Microsoft.
Not 'no' fragmentation, but 'less'.
I'm sure it's not as important as big hardware changes in the initial buying decision. But it can be a very big plus, and is never a negative. The improved functionality I got from my original iPhone from pure OS updates (app store!) was impressive, as it was for my 3GS (multitasking, folders, iMessages, etc.). If I were to be assured that I would never get software feature updates from Apple, while other manufacturers would give me much more, it would definitely help sway me toward other manufacturers.
But when I said 'upgrade', I meant their OS, not their hardware. The massive amount of iOS update downloading is testament to how much people value that support. It seems like a lot of average Joes and Janes give it a greater than zero value.
Last edited:
No argument. And updates are never a negative (unless you don't like the "improvements"). Updates are what keep the customer "happy" with their investment until a company is ready to "force" an upgrade. And by force - I don't mean they force anyone. I just mean that they create a new version of the OS or hardware that is "irresistible." All subjective of course.
I've said it before and I'll say it again though (and I don't think I am alone). I buy a phone or tablet based on what it can do for me now. Now what it might be able to do in the future. I welcome any and all updates. However I don't count on them. If the device I am buying lacks something - either hardware or software - I go under the assumption that nothing will change and I need to be "OK' with that. I love improvements - but again - don't count on them.
But, being an iPhone owner, you are already in a minority position. And being an iPhone owner who heavily values OS updates makes you into a niche customer in the smartphone world.
Compatibility with legacy devices has always been a huge challenge for Microsoft. Some would claim that it is a huge reason why Windows has been hobbled in certain respects.
If Apple were to seriously cater to your type of buyer, it would similarly hobble iOS. Maybe that is the path they will choose to follow, but I think that it is the road to oblivion. Things are changing too fast to hobble an OS with misguided loyalty to older devices, and given that Apple is a hardware company, it would seriously cut into their profits over the long run.
It's due to the Android Support Library.
http://developer.android.com/tools/support-library/index.html
From what I can tell, since Google can't do much about getting new versions of Android onto old phones, they've come up with a way for developers to include the APIs introduced with new OS versions in the apps themselves. So for example an app that uses the ActionBar API introduced in Android 3.0 (API level 11) can still do so even when running on Android 2.1 (API level 7) and above by, essentially, compiling a bit of the newer OS into it by including the Support Library when compiling.
http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/ui/actionbar.html
Skimming through it, I can see lots of UI features and some IO stuff. I'm not sure if the Support Library allows for the use of any new kernel features that newer versions of Android might have.
I dunno how much of it is in effect yet, but Google is setting things up so that Android is more modular in design, allowing them to bypass the carriers and individual manufacturers entirely by delivering important updates entirely through the Play store.
It's a shame they had to do things this way, but it is one potentially good answer to the fragmentation question.
edit: what elistan said. He seems to know far more about it than I do.
MacRumors. Where 500 million customers is dismissed as a "niche" because it makes your argument easier.
I understand that Google Play Services has it's own APIs delivered independently of the OS, but surely there are OS specific APIs as well. No? If not, what's the purpose of incrementing the API version with each new release?
About the only thing missing in this cover with them laughing is holding huge bags of money and flipping off a Wall Street sign. Many love to insult a winner cause they know they'll never have that level of success.
But yes, fragmentation is hurting the Android market to where state-of-the-art apps and accessories are not first on that platform if ever. Too many apps are breaking on Android with this cascade of events:
1) Some manufacturing accountant gets cheap on the final Bill of Materials for an Android phone build.
2) Users complain to app authors when the real bug is cheaply built hardware.
3) Then app author says you have a cheap phone. Don't expect everything to run on it.
4) User gets upset being called cheap and trashes the app author on-line with the maturity of a hot high school girl not allowed a Saturday at the local mall.
5) App author sees diminishing returns supporting Android and withdraws from market.
6) Students / hobbyist / anarchists move in place with a "for the people" mindset of free apps with mondo security back doors inside these "free" apps.
7) Cheap Android user gets even more upset in this downward spiral.
Unless you can work with wafer thin margins or connect a subscription service to your Android apps, don't bother.
But yes, fragmentation is hurting the Android market to where state-of-the-art apps and accessories are not first on that platform if ever. Too many apps are breaking on Android with this cascade of events:
1) Some manufacturing accountant gets cheap on the final Bill of Materials for an Android phone build.
2) Users complain to app authors when the real bug is cheaply built hardware.
3) Then app author says you have a cheap phone. Don't expect everything to run on it.
4) User gets upset being called cheap and trashes the app author on-line with the maturity of a hot high school girl not allowed a Saturday at the local mall.
5) App author sees diminishing returns supporting Android and withdraws from market.
6) Students / hobbyist / anarchists move in place with a "for the people" mindset of free apps with mondo security back doors inside these "free" apps.
7) Cheap Android user gets even more upset in this downward spiral.
Unless you can work with wafer thin margins or connect a subscription service to your Android apps, don't bother.
Perhaps Android has other qualities (like, say, being compatible with many different types of devices) that outweigh the benefits of updates. Which is not to say that more numerous updates would not be significantly valued by Android customers if they were more broadly available.
And not even just legacy devices, but a vast array of even modern devices whose hardware they don't control, unlike Apple.
There's probably some sort of curve you could draw that would pinpoint the optimal length of time for supporting older devices, taking into account how much it costs in terms of development and all kinds of sales considerations, with a peak that's obviously somewhere between zero and infinity. I have no idea how much an extra year's support cuts into -- or adds to -- their profits, so I can't claim to know where that peak lies.
All I can say is that I like Apple's current support level, since it corresponds pretty well with how I like to use my devices and about the timespan I'm willing to hold the hardware before upgrading, and there appears to be some large number of people like me. YMMV.
no this is my 2nd technically i have the infuse from work I decided to jump to S4 when my contract was up. I was using an iphone 4 at that time. One of my main reason I went with the s4 it was built i with the rf so I can use it as a remote control.
I hope your post was meant to be satirical. It's very very funny!
Not accurate - but funny!
But out of curiosity - which "state-of-the-art apps" are you referring to?
Quoting myself after having read the very interesting article at ars:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013...oems-step-aside-google-is-defragging-android/
So basically, Android is becoming a bit of open-source software that interacts with the hardware, handles some phonecall, graphics, user interface and a few other tasks, and provides a socket for an app called Google Play Services to plug in to. Google Play Services, in turn, is closed source and force-updated by Google without needing the permission of telecom carriers or handset manufacturers. It's basically its own OS unto itself.
It's a setup that has at least one advantage, from what I can tell - updates are quicker and less potentially traumatic than iOS updates. Still, it doesn't address kernel security vulnerabilities...
So now, it seems that developers who want to get their apps onto Android don't actually need to write apps for Android - they write apps for Google Play Services.
They've got the kernel to contend with, which can break everything from drivers to higher level APIs if they're not careful with the updates.
I think that's Google's biggest problem. In theory, they could update the entire OS through Play no problem. Thing is, they have to worry about all the 3rd party UI mods all the various manufacturers have in play. If they make too many changes too quickly, they can break those, and brick tons of phones in the process.
What Google is doing is trying to find that happy medium. Keep everyone up to date on security and performance enhancements without having to rewrite much lower level code.
Uh, yeah. Really good point. And also sometimes the boogiemonster jumps out of the Play store.