Huawei Boosts Goal of Outselling iPhone as AT&T Agrees to Carry Its Upcoming Flagship

[I7guy]

Sure... they "win" in raw numbers.

There are 2 billion Android devices out in the world versus only 1 billion iOS devices.

But that shouldn't be a knock against iOS... it just proves that Android excels in deployment.

Android is a multi-manufacturer platform covering a WIDE variety of price ranges... mostly low-end and mid-range.

It would be news if Android wasn't the king of deployment!

Free is much easier than spending millions and millions of dollars on your own mobile operating system.

 

[symphara]

Free is much easier than spending millions and millions of dollars on your own mobile operating system.

This doesn’t quite make sense. Google spends millions and millions of dollars making Android.

Not that spending alone is the metric. After all Linux overtook Windows in the server market by a huge amount, simply by being better.

Every time I think of iOS I think of how much more convoluted it is to do something as simple as connecting to a WiFi network, or changing the resolution of the camera photos. I don’t think there’s anything iOS offers to make me put up with “press home button, go to Settings, click on the page etc”.

Huawei has the right OS for the job. They just have to be on the curve with phone design, and have reasonable pricing. That’s a winner, if they see it.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Free is much easier than spending millions and millions of dollars on your own mobile operating system.

Of course.

But my point was... even if Android "wins" in whatever contest you were referring to... that doesn't mean iOS "loses"

Android obviously has a different strategy than what Apple is doing. It's very difficult to compare them adequately.

I really hate the "winners and losers" argument anyway.

One person could say Android is the "winning" platform simply because of the deployment of billions of cheap smartphones... someone else could say iOS is the "winning" platform because of a very active developer community, accessory makers, OS updates, etc.

You gotta look at all the metrics.

Choosing the "winner" is a fool's errand.

 

[kdarling]

Free is much easier than spending millions and millions of dollars on your own mobile operating system.

Not really. Major Android phone makers still spend millions on customization and optimization.

Probably why Samsung developed Tizen. Sometimes it's easier to maintain your own.

 

[adnbek]

How exactly did they make it popular when noone's using it?

I'm done with you

 

[I7guy]

Not really. Major Android phone makers still spend millions on customization and optimization.

Probably why Samsung developed Tizen. Sometimes it's easier to maintain your own.

Tizen isn't a (major if at all afaik) player in the mobile phone market and it's still easier to work with an already existing o/s than develop a new one from scratch.
[doublepost=1502144315][/doublepost]

This doesn’t quite make sense. Google spends millions and millions of dollars making Android.

Not that spending alone is the metric. After all Linux overtook Windows in the server market by a huge amount, simply by being better.

Every time I think of iOS I think of how much more convoluted it is to do something as simple as connecting to a WiFi network, or changing the resolution of the camera photos. I don’t think there’s anything iOS offers to make me put up with “press home button, go to Settings, click on the page etc”.

Huawei has the right OS for the job. They just have to be on the curve with phone design, and have reasonable pricing. That’s a winner, if they see it.

But Huawei to use an example, used android, what google developed is my point even if they customized it. And as far as convulted, to me that's subjective. I don't have any issues connecting with wifi and iOS 11 makes it even easier with "share a password".

 

[jeremiah256]

Clearly Android has won the OS competition by a huge margin.

I look at this 'competition' differently.

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but unfortunately here in America, the major carriers are not fond of allowing their Android customers to upgrade their OS. Same for the Android manufacturers - both have incentives to push their customers to buy new phones. These forces combine to exacerbate the fragmentation problems which plagues Android.

So, Google comes out with a fantastic feature in their new OS and what? A year later only 10% of their users can access it unless they buy a new phone?

If you compare the number of devices running the latest version of iOS vs the number of devices running the latest version of Android, I believe a case could be made that iOS users are the clear winners.

The numbers I could find were that of the 1.4B current Android devices active, 12%, or 168M are using Nougat. Of the 0.7B iOS devices, 86%, or 602M are using iOS 10.

 

[symphara]

I look at this 'competition' differently.

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but unfortunately here in America, the major carriers are not fond of allowing their Android customers to upgrade their OS. Same for the Android manufacturers - both have incentives to push their customers to buy new phones. These forces combine to exacerbate the fragmentation problems which plagues Android.

So, Google comes out with a fantastic feature in their new OS and what? A year later only 10% of their users can access it unless they buy a new phone?

If you compare the number of devices running the latest version of iOS vs the number of devices running the latest version of Android, I believe a case could be made that iOS users are the clear winners.

The numbers I could find were that of the 1.4B current Android devices active, 12%, or 168M are using Nougat. Of the 0.7B iOS devices, 86%, or 602M are using iOS 10.

Hardcore users, which are very few, care about the OS updates. The rest are oblivious to it. I know plenty of people who have the OS update notification (on iOS as well as Android) and don’t bother to do it, because they don’t understand the benefits (and sometimes it just results in their device becoming slower, especially on iOS). In some cases there are no benefits. For example I’d be wary of updating my mother’s tablet - she’s not technically minded and any big change would bring confusion, since it might disrupt some way of doing things.

Also, Android deals with updates in a very different manner to iOS. Where in iOS you need a full update for every little thing - including the music player, or the web browser - on Android that is not the case. I got Google Assistant on my phone simply overnight, without any OS update. Imagine that with Siri. That’s because Android is far more modular, a big part of the API is in the Google Play Services, which gets updated like a normal app, and there’s no need for a full update. Ditto for Chrome, the Play Store etc.

You’re not missing that much when staying with an older version of Android, provided it’s not ancient. My old Samsung, which I use as a travel phone, is on 5.0.2 and it’s got the latest versions of apps, it runs without any problems, it lacks some things especially from Android 7 but nothing major apart from launcher integration of Google Assistant (which is still available in Allo).

So the whole iOS vs Android update thing leaves me completely unimpressed. I’d certainly never choose iOS because of its update policy. I’d choose it if it were a better OS, as in I’d do stuff faster in it, and here it fails miserably for virtually any use-case I have.

I do agree however that US carriers seem crap at pushing OS updates, that much is clear by all accounts. Fortunately I live in Europe, I personally get my updates directly from Huawei and they’ve been pretty good about it.

 

[jeremiah256]

Hardcore users, which are very few, care about the OS updates.

But, the percentages show the vast majority on iOS do update. This is not a new phenomenon, it’s been like this for years.

Where in iOS you need a full update for every little thing - including the music player, or the web browser - on Android that is not the case.

True. No denying Android’s model is much more true to Linux/Unix. Luckily, all my major apps for music, mail, web browsing, etc. are from Google and are updated as apps.

You’re not missing that much when staying with an older version of Android, provided it’s not ancient

I’d say security would be a main issue with using older versions once they are no longer supported.

I’d choose it if it were a better OS, as in I’d do stuff faster in it, and here it fails miserably for virtually any use-case I have.

Different requirements and experiences for different folks. I like Android. I used an Android tablet as a companion device for a degree. All my primary day-to-day apps are from Google. But, as someone who loves the tablet form factor, in my opinion, there is nothing Google offers that matches an iPad. And the way all my Apple devices integrate create (for me) an unbeatable experience.

 

[symphara]

I’d say security would be a main issue with using older versions once they are no longer supported.


Different requirements and experiences for different folks. I like Android. I used an Android tablet as a companion device for a degree. All my primary day-to-day apps are from Google. But, as someone who loves the tablet form factor, in my opinion, there is nothing Google offers that matches an iPad. And the way all my Apple devices integrate create (for me) an unbeatable experience.

I think the security part of it is overstated, but indeed, it is useful for protecting users from their own harmful actions. I personally never had a problem and I never encountered a person who had a security problem with their Android phone. Funny thing is, my very own sister received some type of message on her iPhone (she’s fashionable) and this somehow disabled her phone to the extent that the needed to go to the Apple Store to make it work again.

As for the tablet, I fully agree, with the caveat of iOS 11. On one side, Google just doesn’t seem to be that interested in developing a better tablet-specific version of Android, while Apple is. I am typing this on a new 10.5” iPad Pro which I specifically bought because as of iOS 11 I think Apple has a better tablet OS. Had Apple stayed with their pre-11 approach, I would had saved a lot of money and went with an Android tablet (probably a Huawei MediaPad M3, which is a very good tablet).

However I don’t think the phone version of iOS is anywhere as good as Android.

 

[kazmac]

I wish them well too; tried Android, it was not for me (putting it kindly.) I intend to go cheaper with subsequent iPhones anyway and will put my Apple $ into iPad Pro(s) and the Mac.

 

[Abazigal]

Of course.

But my point was... even if Android "wins" in whatever contest you were referring to... that doesn't mean iOS "loses"

Android obviously has a different strategy than what Apple is doing. It's very difficult to compare them adequately.

I really hate the "winners and losers" argument anyway.

One person could say Android is the "winning" platform simply because of the deployment of billions of cheap smartphones... someone else could say iOS is the "winning" platform because of a very active developer community, accessory makers, OS updates, etc.

You gotta look at all the metrics.

Choosing the "winner" is a fool's errand.

Is there any metric other than market share that can be used to show that Android is winning the smartphone race? When you look at everything else, from profits to developer support, Apple seems to be ahead.

It seems to me that critics cling desperately on to the "market share" argument because that's the only argument they can use to show that Android is anything but falling behind.

 

[Lerxt]

They could be giving an Huawei anything away and I won't take it.

 

[cgsnipinva]

Hardcore users, which are very few, care about the OS updates. The rest are oblivious to it. I know plenty of people who have the OS update notification (on iOS as well as Android) and don’t bother to do it, because they don’t understand the benefits (and sometimes it just results in their device becoming slower, especially on iOS). In some cases there are no benefits. For example I’d be wary of updating my mother’s tablet - she’s not technically minded and any big change would bring confusion, since it might disrupt some way of doing things.

Also, Android deals with updates in a very different manner to iOS. Where in iOS you need a full update for every little thing - including the music player, or the web browser - on Android that is not the case. I got Google Assistant on my phone simply overnight, without any OS update. Imagine that with Siri. That’s because Android is far more modular, a big part of the API is in the Google Play Services, which gets updated like a normal app, and there’s no need for a full update. Ditto for Chrome, the Play Store etc.

You’re not missing that much when staying with an older version of Android, provided it’s not ancient. My old Samsung, which I use as a travel phone, is on 5.0.2 and it’s got the latest versions of apps, it runs without any problems, it lacks some things especially from Android 7 but nothing major apart from launcher integration of Google Assistant (which is still available in Allo).

So the whole iOS vs Android update thing leaves me completely unimpressed. I’d certainly never choose iOS because of its update policy. I’d choose it if it were a better OS, as in I’d do stuff faster in it, and here it fails miserably for virtually any use-case I have.

I do agree however that US carriers seem crap at pushing OS updates, that much is clear by all accounts. Fortunately I live in Europe, I personally get my updates directly from Huawei and they’ve been pretty good about it.

So much wrong in this post:

"Also, Android deals with updates in a very different manner to iOS. Where in iOS you need a full update for every little thing - including the music player, or the web browser - on Android that is not the case. I got Google Assistant on my phone simply overnight, without any OS update. Imagine that with Siri. That’s because Android is far more modular, a big part of the API is in the Google Play Services, which gets updated like a normal app, and there’s no need for a full update. Ditto for Chrome, the Play Store etc"

Wrong - Applications to include iTunes, Apple Music, iWork, iPhoto, and Notification center, and the Apple Store have received updates independent of iOS updates. This statement is incorrect. Android is not modular in its current form - hence writing applications for the fragmented user base is so difficult because its not that modular. Google is trying to fit that with some current efforts to make updates easier across carriers. However it is still a challenge versus iOS.


"You’re not missing that much when staying with an older version of Android, provided it’s not ancient. My old Samsung, which I use as a travel phone, is on 5.0.2 and it’s got the latest versions of apps, it runs without any problems, it lacks some things especially from Android 7 but nothing major apart from launcher integration of Google Assistant (which is still available in Allo)."

Wrong - Older versions of android will not run all user applications. In scenarios where it does is because the Apps are written to address the lowest common denominator in functionality because of the fragmented base. Articles talk about applications having lower functionality than iOS counterparts because they cannot leverage new capabilities in Android because the newest Android is in the fewest number of handsets. It also creates security nightmares for the platform.

Link ==> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/20/fragmented_android_security_risk_report/

Link ==> http://www.androidauthority.com/top-10-frustrations-android-developers-698520/

Link ==>http://searchcloudapplications.tech...agmentation-An-app-developers-worst-nightmare
[doublepost=1502278145][/doublepost]↑
"True. No denying Android’s model is much more true to Linux/Unix. Luckily, all my major apps for music, mail, web browsing, etc. are from Google and are updated as apps."

While I was a Linux fan and user - the development model is what killed it in the desktop space and will eventually kill Android in the consumer space on phones.

Case in point:

Link ==> http://searchcloudapplications.tech...agmentation-An-app-developers-worst-nightmare

"
Android Development - How bad is it? It’s bad enough for Salesforce to declare that it will support only Samsung Galaxy and Google Nexus devices. That’s pretty drastic and should send a clear and frightening message to all that play in the Android space to get their acts in sync. Indeed, Android fragmentation is hurting its case for widespread enterprise adoption, a problem that iOS does not face.

The problem is years in the making. With each maker of devices that run Android able to tweak the user interface as they see fit, and their power as to when — or even if — to launch any new version, the permutations in terms of the operating system, its many versions, and the cornucopia of devices on which it runs are likely in the thousands. It’s not something app developers should have to put up with."


"
The Sorry State of Fragmentation

One OEM in particular receives a large portion of hate for the headaches they cause when developing an app — Samsung. Developers have been ranting about Samsung for years now, some even writing such scathing pieces as “There is a Special Place for Samsung in Android Hell” which describes a particularly frustrating bug stemming from Samsung devices and the support appcompat library. I would like to draw attention to one paragraph in particular from Mr. Ambri’s rant, which excellently outlines why developers still care about fragmentation:

If you are an Android developer, your hatred for Samsung devices is probably boundless. More than an average user, for whom Samsung is synonymous with silly Touchwiz and excessive bloatware, you despise Samsung because you don’t have a choice. Because of Samsung’s massive market share, you simply cannot choose not to support Samsung devices. And that’s what hurts the most; the fact that this choice is taken away from you!

This is not a rant from the olden years of Android’s existence either – this post was published in the middle of December last year. I will be upfront and state that I’m not sure if this issue has been officially fixed yet, however, Mr. Ambri has provided a fix in his post for anyone who stumbles across his rant via a Google search for the bug. All you have to do is use ProGuard with the following single line of code:"

 

[symphara]

While I was a Linux fan and user - the development model is what killed it in the desktop space and will eventually kill Android in the consumer space on phones.

Your rant was pretty funny but this statement really takes the prize. Linux wasn’t killed in the desktop space - it’s alive and well in the desktop space, except it’s always been used primarily for professional use (software development) instead of regular consumer use-cases. It has never been the case that Linux reigned for regular consumer desktops and it somehow fell from grace. It simply couldn’t crack that market, with Microsoft’s long term established near-monopoly of desktop applications and games. It’s even hard to argue that it really tried, since there’s no single driving force behind Linux, and the various distributions don’t really cater to the general public.

Where Linux did exceptionally well was in the embedded and particularly the server market, where it ended Solaris, Digital UNIX, it left AIX in the high-end space only and Microsoft Server in a minority deployment.

As for the development model killing Android, I can only laugh. Wishful thinking from rabid Apple fans. Tell you what though: if Android disappears next year from the smartphone market, I still won’t buy an iOS phone. They suck.

 

[I7guy]

They suck.

There is a lot of of that going around.

 

[cgsnipinva]

Your rant was pretty funny but this statement really takes the prize. Linux wasn’t killed in the desktop space - it’s alive and well in the desktop space, except it’s always been used primarily for professional use (software development) instead of regular consumer use-cases. It has never been the case that Linux reigned for regular consumer desktops and it somehow fell from grace. It simply couldn’t crack that market, with Microsoft’s long term established near-monopoly of desktop applications and games. It’s even hard to argue that it really tried, since there’s no single driving force behind Linux, and the various distributions don’t really cater to the general public.

Where Linux did exceptionally well was in the embedded and particularly the server market, where it ended Solaris, Digital UNIX, it left AIX in the high-end space only and Microsoft Server in a minority deployment.

As for the development model killing Android, I can only laugh. Wishful thinking from rabid Apple fans. Tell you what though: if Android disappears next year from the smartphone market, I still won’t buy an iOS phone. They suck.

I didn't provide a rant. I used facts. I agree Linux works well in the server and embedded space. Worked with Linux alot on enterprise deployments for key applications and ERPs. However, the fact still stands Linux on the desktop never took off in the consumer space or even in the enterprise space because of fragmentation. Each flavor of Linux (the big ones) had varied architectures for sound and graphics in addition to different APIs for key system services that producing high grade applications that could have meaningful market penetration. Fact is ---- Linux footprint in desktop is small very small from a consumer perspective.

Which brings us back to the phone conversation - which is a consumer space hardware item - not developer or back office workstation. Fragmentation has a even more severe impact on consumer products. This is a problem and has been documented in development articles and blogs and user communities.

 

[falainber]

I look at this 'competition' differently.

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but unfortunately here in America, the major carriers are not fond of allowing their Android customers to upgrade their OS. Same for the Android manufacturers - both have incentives to push their customers to buy new phones. These forces combine to exacerbate the fragmentation problems which plagues Android.

So, Google comes out with a fantastic feature in their new OS and what? A year later only 10% of their users can access it unless they buy a new phone?

If you compare the number of devices running the latest version of iOS vs the number of devices running the latest version of Android, I believe a case could be made that iOS users are the clear winners.

The numbers I could find were that of the 1.4B current Android devices active, 12%, or 168M are using Nougat. Of the 0.7B iOS devices, 86%, or 602M are using iOS 10.

The older version of Android is still Android. So, Android is clearly a market winner here any way you look at it.

 

[cgsnipinva]

Your rant was pretty funny but this statement really takes the prize. Linux wasn’t killed in the desktop space - it’s alive and well in the desktop space, except it’s always been used primarily for professional use (software development) instead of regular consumer use-cases. It has never been the case that Linux reigned for regular consumer desktops and it somehow fell from grace. It simply couldn’t crack that market, with Microsoft’s long term established near-monopoly of desktop applications and games. It’s even hard to argue that it really tried, since there’s no single driving force behind Linux, and the various distributions don’t really cater to the general public.

Where Linux did exceptionally well was in the embedded and particularly the server market, where it ended Solaris, Digital UNIX, it left AIX in the high-end space only and Microsoft Server in a minority deployment.

As for the development model killing Android, I can only laugh. Wishful thinking from rabid Apple fans. Tell you what though: if Android disappears next year from the smartphone market, I still won’t buy an iOS phone. They suck.

Talk about rants. This was funny.
[doublepost=1502286429][/doublepost]

The older version of Android is still Android. So, Android is clearly a market winner here any way you look at it.

Yeah if you like old versions of operating systems and less functionality than the current version which can only make it to a minority of the market.

 

[symphara]

However, the fact still stands Linux on the desktop never took off in the consumer space or even in the enterprise space

Nonsense. Major software development companies (Google, Intel, Cadence, Oracle etc) use Linux for software development (that's enterprise desktop) and there is a lot of enterprise tooling for Linux out there.

because of fragmentation.

An unsubstantiated opinion. Having been in the Linux world since kernels <1.0, I could well see that on one side there was never a particular push in the Linux world to make it successful in the consumer desktop space, and the incumbent (MS Windows) was incredibly strong, with a huge amount of high-quality, very popular legacy applications. There was little incentive for people to move.

Actually if you bother to think about it, Apple, who had the incentive to push their desktop OS and the means to control the fragmentation, didn't manage to do anything but remain a niche.

Unlike in the smartphone market, which appeared late and developed very quickly - and Android immediately became the major player - desktop Linux appeared in relatively crude forms when Windows was already well established.

Fact is ---- Linux footprint in desktop is small very small from a consumer perspective.

It doesn't matter and it is wholly irrelevant for the topic. Android ain't desktop Linux. Android in a short amount of time became the dominant smartphone OS, because it's good and it runs on nearly anything. It will stay that way. The rest of what you write is just hot air or wishful thinking at odds with reality.

 

[cgsnipinva]

Nonsense. Major software development companies (Google, Intel, Cadence, Oracle etc) use Linux for software development (that's enterprise desktop) and there is a lot of enterprise tooling for Linux out there.


It doesn't matter and it is wholly irrelevant for the topic. Android ain't desktop Linux. Android in a short amount of time became the dominant smartphone OS, because it's good and it runs on nearly anything. It will stay that way. The rest of what you write is just hot air or wishful thinking at odds with reality.

Yes development environments running on Linux are used to develop applications --- for other platforms -- not Linux. Few companies are making high quality versions of their software specifically for Linux - because developing for Linux has the same issue as Android - fragmentation and heterogeneous environments. Which makes it a legitimate corollary. Here is a link written by an Android developer highlighting this specific fact:

https://www.cnet.com/news/app-developers-challenged-by-number-of-different-devices/

"Developers who want to write for 90 percent of all active devices would need to support 331 different models, according to a report out today from mobile-app analytics firm Flurry. Those who would settle for 80 percent would still have to support 156 different devices. Even reaching just 50 percent of all active devices means building apps for 18 different models.

Sounds simple enough. But developers who pick the most-popular phones and tablets still have to worry about specific operating system versions, device screen sizes, and other factors. And if an app doesn't work properly on a less popular device, a developer can suffer negative reviews from unhappy users.

The other option is to focus on the operating systems that offer that bang for the buck. Developers still tend to gravitate toward Apple's iOS first because that's where they feel they pick up the most users. Flurry's data also points to iOS as the most profitable area.

The iPhone and iPad grab around 14 times the number of active users than do devices running other operating systems. Even Apple's major mobile rival doesn't fare that well. Apple devices have more than seven times as many active users as do Samsung devices.

iOS users also tend to spend more time on their devices, according to Flurry, another draw for developers."

Also iOS versions of apps that are on both platforms are considered by most consumers to be superior or more polished. Not my view --- but by developers and consumers -- see link below so you don't get confused that I created this notion.

Link ==> https://www.wired.com/2012/04/easier-design-apps-ios/

YOU MIGHT THINK app design is app design, whether the software is being developed for iOS or Android. But, in fact, creating highly polished, elegant-looking apps is simply easier to do when developing for iOS. That's the prevailing conventional wisdom among developers who code for both platforms.

Hipmunk UI/UX designer and iOS developer Danilo Campos explains it succinctly: "The very simple short answer is it's easier to make a good-looking, attractive iOS app compared to making an Android app."

Design is built into Apple's DNA. Google's legacy, on the other hand, is search. So it's not too difficult to guess which platform places a higher premium on app U.I. and aesthetics – and which platform makes it easier to create beautiful software.

First, there's fragmentation: When coding for iOS, developers deal with a very limited number of screen resolutions and hardware profiles. But when coding for Android, developers have to resolve a virtually limitless set of device parameters.


"Android devices come in different shapes and sizes, different screen resolutions, different device speeds – and that's actually a huge hurdle," Karma app co-founder Lee Linden told Wired. "You need to be testing out something like 20 different phones with different resolutions and different processors, and that definitely makes development slower."

Campos said an accent like a simple one-pixel stroke may look terrific on Android devices with a high resolution, "then we pull out a handful of older devices and it just looks bad." In these situations, the developer has to rethink the design element and account for different cases in the app's code.

Another example: For images, Hipmunk generates its Android assets at three resolutions: 1x for older devices, 2x for high-resolution devices, and an awkward 1.5x resolution for other devices – a necessity to avoid "weird artifacting," as Campos puts it. But some developers may skip this high level of support for outlier devices, leading to blurry, jaggy visuals for an unlucky few.

Developer tools and documentation are also less robust in the Android space. While Apple has had 20 years to perfect the art of developer support – refining its approach to SDKs and building well-defined human interface guidelines – Google is essentially starting from scratch with Android.

The upshot is that iOS developers simply have more tools to implement intriguing, unique design. "It feels like you've got more documentation, both officially sanctioned and third-party, so that makes things smoother," Campos said of iOS development. And this isn't the case with Android.

"One of the hangups [with Android] is so much of the stuff doesn't feel fully documented," Campos said. "Ryan, our Android guy, has to go digging around in the source code to figure out some XML formatting piece that isn't made clear. That's been painful for him."

And some detailed design features are easier to implement in iOS because of the wide variety of APIs and libraries available. "It’s harder on Android to do nice design touches such as transitions or rounded corners," Steven Yarger, mobile product manager at Trulia said.

Android grew quick because it was free and open to all manufacturers because when the modern smart phone market was created - by Apple - they needed an OS that could offer similar capabilities (Symbian and Blackberry wasn't going to cut it). BY default it should have been the best selling in numbers.

However, that was not the argument as I never challenged the fact that Android is on most handsets. The argument is that it is not the better mobile OS platform. It is the default OS for all manufacturers that are not Apple.

However, it is well documented and fact that the best versions of mobile apps show up on iOS first because it is easier to develop on iOS and developers make more money on iOS applications. Additionally - the major feature of the Android ecosystem is fragmentation caused by uneven upgrade across devices and carriers further complicated by phone manufacturers -- like Samsung -- that tweek Android to customize it resulting in an Android app behaving differently across different handsets. That has also been a documented fact and not hot air.

I am glad you like Android. Vive la difference -- but don't mistake its marketshare to reflect the fact its a better OS --- it just the only one available to all other manufacturers for free. That is the core reason its on most smartphones. Not because it is qualitatively better than iOS.

 

[LordVic]

So, Google comes out with a fantastic feature in their new OS and what? A year later only 10% of their users can access it unless they buy a new phone?

I think a lot of your post is reasonable, But I think you've got a bit of a mis-understanding when regards to feature parity on Android and OS updates.

It's easy if you're a regular iOS user to think and believe that major functionality is tied to an OS version, therefore, to have the latest functionality, you must have the latest (or near latest) iOS. So while in iOS to get the latest maps, you need the latest iOS. to get the latest iMessage, you need the latest iOS and so on and so forth, this is not true in Android


Android has taken a completely different approach to this, by disconnecting a lot of functionality from the OS directly, and following an App model for their featuresets. Most of google's own functionalities aren't tied to the OS, but to the Google Play services, which are updated independently of the OS. Thus allowing google to continue to roll out new features and functionality to even older Android platforms. Most, if not all Apps are compatible back to 4.0 and same with many of the functionality.

you're not wrong though, that the carriers control over the updates and roll-outs is a bad thing for consumers as it is used to "scare" users into updating phones that they stop rolling out patches and updates for.

 

[I7guy]

I think a lot of your post is reasonable, But I think you've got a bit of a mis-understanding when regards to feature parity on Android and OS updates.

It's easy if you're a regular iOS user to think and believe that major functionality is tied to an OS version, therefore, to have the latest functionality, you must have the latest (or near latest) iOS. So while in iOS to get the latest maps, you need the latest iOS. to get the latest iMessage, you need the latest iOS and so on and so forth, this is not true in Android


Android has taken a completely different approach to this, by disconnecting a lot of functionality from the OS directly, and following an App model for their featuresets. Most of google's own functionalities aren't tied to the OS, but to the Google Play services, which are updated independently of the OS. Thus allowing google to continue to roll out new features and functionality to even older Android platforms. Most, if not all Apps are compatible back to 4.0 and same with many of the functionality.

you're not wrong though, that the carriers control over the updates and roll-outs is a bad thing for consumers as it is used to "scare" users into updating phones that they stop rolling out patches and updates for.

Google vs iOS updates Are the same 14" pie cut into 8 slices or 12 slices. The only difference is it's pretty well known Apple will support their devices for 5 years. My 5s is now in iOS 11 and I expect that is the last o/s update for it.

As far as where major functionality resides it depends on what you mean by that. The o/s provides common services where apps build on, that is where major functionality is.

 

[jeremiah256]

[doublepost=1502326071][/doublepost]

Google vs iOS updates Are the same 14" pie cut into 8 slices or 12 slices. The only difference is it's pretty well known Apple will support their devices for 5 years. My 5s is now in iOS 11 and I expect that is the last o/s update for it.

As far as where major functionality resides it depends on what you mean by that. The o/s provides common services where apps build on, that is where major functionality is.

Oops. I replied to @I7guy before reading your post, where you basically said the same thing.

 

[mib1800]

Google vs iOS updates Are the same 14" pie cut into 8 slices or 12 slices. The only difference is it's pretty well known Apple will support their devices for 5 years. My 5s is now in iOS 11 and I expect that is the last o/s update for it.

As far as where major functionality resides it depends on what you mean by that. The o/s provides common services where apps build on, that is where major functionality is.

Another major flaw in your argument is that individual manufacturer added their own extensions to android before google incorporate them. e.g Samsung phones already have multi-window years before stock android. If multi-window is a major function you are dying for, then in effect a samsung with android v5 is equal to one with stock v7.