iOS 14 Could Offer Home Screen Widgets, Wallpaper Customizations

[M3gatron]

Response to your first point - On a MACOS -- I don't need to do that

It's a samsung phone so your point is not really relevant.
Also not everybody has a Mac. Most iphone users in Europe own a Windows computer for example. The same way not everybody owns or want to spend money on a smartwatch which was a ridiculous suggestion I got here for replacing some of the software features I mentioned.
Windows works much better with Android than with iOS for example which is something that's generally ignored even if it's important for a lot of people.

Response to Your Point 2

-- I disagree. A large screen phone doesn't replace a tablet with a larger screen that can perform productivity tasks. Google stopped providing support for Android features for tablets.

You can disagree but it doesn't mean you're right. You are looking at the situation from a very limited point of view.
Android tablets are quite fine as media consumption devices(which is most popular usage for a tablet anyway), a lot of people that use android phones just stopped being interested in tablets(the same thing happened with ipads at one point). Larger Android phones can for the most part perform the same productivity tasks available on tablets so of course they made tablets unnecessary for a lot of people.
There isn't a lot of demand for Google to provide new tablet features, Android by itself is quite capable and can provide most of the features people would want on a tablet so there's no much need for special focus towards tablets.
From what I'm seeing Android is getting quite big on Smart TVs and the next logical step is to create a stock Android app similar with Samsung Dex which would extend the functionality of an Android device to larger screens.
[automerge]1586259266[/automerge]

A good article on the state of Android app development.

How Google's Failing the Android App Market

DVD Jon, the reverse engineer who decrypted DVDs for the masses and liberated iTunes with DoubleTwist, is worried about the Android Market. There's too

gizmodo.com

Wow a 2010 article, talk about ancient history.

 

[cgsnipinva]

I use APKPure than Play Store, APKPure devs seem to only get the best apps than Google Play. I rather have choice here

I think everyone wants choice - however I want choice among quality apps. If you read the article the problem is not just matriculation but the fact iOS developers make more money off of their apps and get more support from Apple.

 

[I7guy]

..You can disagree but it doesn't mean you're right. You are looking at the situation from a very limited point of view.
Android tablets are quite fine as media consumption devices(which is most popular usage for a tablet anyway), a lot of people that use android phones just stopped being interested in tablets(the same thing happened with ipads at one point). Larger Android phones can for the most part perform the same productivity tasks available on tablets so of course they made tablets unnecessary for a lot of people...

This convo has made "productivity" into a meme. Productivity is different based on your task at hand:
- artists and photographers have different productivity tasks than IT support and programmers (don't care about the distinctions here from Cobol to stack development) than thesis writers, etc.

There are way too many generalities discussing "productivity" as if anybody really understands it, outside of their own use case.

 

[cgsnipinva]

It's a samsung phone so your point is not really relevant.
Also not everybody has a Mac. Most iphone users in Europe own a Windows computer for example. The same way not everybody owns or want to spend money on a smartwatch which was a ridiculous suggestion I got here for replacing some of the software features I mentioned.
Windows works much better with Android than with iOS for example which is something that's generally ignored even if it's important for a lot of people.

You missed my point on this -- my point works with both MacOS and Windows. For example -- I use an iPhone and have all of MS apps including teams, sharepoint, and OneDrive on there. I can send an email or make comments on a word document sent to me via email on my phone and all that activity syncs with my MS apps on my windows machine AND my MacOS home desktop. having the Android phone desktop environment project onto my Windows or Mac machine is of little to know value. I can achieve the exact same thing without Dex. And your statement that and Android phone works better with Windows than an iPhone is absolutely false as MS made Office apps for iOS first. My iPhone works seamlessly with my Windows work machine. My MacOS desktop works with Office and Office 36 and I can do everything for my work on My Mac through synching with Office 365.

 

[cgsnipinva]

You can disagree but it doesn't mean you're right. You are looking at the situation from a very limited point of view.
Android tablets are quite fine as media consumption devices(which is most popular usage for a tablet anyway), a lot of people that use android phones just stopped being interested in tablets(the same thing happened with ipads at one point). Larger Android phones can for the most part perform the same productivity tasks available on tablets so of course they made tablets unnecessary for a lot of people.

There isn't a lot of demand for Google to provide new tablet features, Android by itself is quite capable and can provide most of the features people would want on a tablet so there's no much need for special focus towards tablets.
From what I'm seeing Android is getting quite big on Smart TVs and the next logical step is to create a stock Android app similar with Samsung Dex which would extend the functionality of an Android device to larger screens.
[automerge]1586259266[/automerge]

Wow a 2010 article, talk about ancient history.

You contradict yourself here. You say most people can do what they would have done on a tablet on an Android phone. Then talk about the need for Android to develop Dex like capabilities on large screen tvs. Which is it? It seems like Android failed on tablets because the software ecosystem did not meet he challenge. Apple never wanted to make a productivity iPad. However, as he market changed - they provided the investment, the software support, and focus to change the iPad into a productivity platform that still can do the other things only a tablet can do. Look at the aerospace and manufacturing applications of the iPad in industry (GE Aircraft engines, Boeing, and Whirlpool/Maytag). The fact remains that Android apps were never really ported to a tablet interface effectively because there is not coordinating force in the Android app sphere.

Which brings me to your second point about your hopes that Google will develop a Dex like capability for large screen tvs. Really? Google couldn't provide enough focus to get quality Android apps to work on an 8 inch tablet but you think they will pull it off on 75 inch TVS? Bold thinking. I doubt it as that would take an investment, patience, and focus that Google has not demonstrated in any of its service and product offering outside of search and google drive.

Samsung was a glimmer of hope - but it lost focus and got distracted from he original Samsung Dex concept and started playing with a tablet like experience and then a Dex "space" on someone' existing desktop which provided little to no value.

 

[chucker23n1]

You can disagree but it doesn't mean you're right. You are looking at the situation from a very limited point of view.
Android tablets are quite fine as media consumption devices(which is most popular usage for a tablet anyway), a lot of people that use android phones just stopped being interested in tablets(the same thing happened with ipads at one point).

So, that's fine.

Larger Android phones can for the most part perform the same productivity tasks available on tablets so of course they made tablets unnecessary for a lot of people.

…wait, which is it.

Either you're saying tablets are mostly useful for consumption anyway, or you're saying Android is fine for productivity.

Unless you're saying a phone is fine for productivity but a tablet isn't?? That… doesn't really make sense to me.

There isn't a lot of demand for Google to provide new tablet features,

Heh.

That's one way of looking at it, sure.

From what I'm seeing Android is getting quite big on Smart TVs and the next logical step is to create a stock Android app similar with Samsung Dex which would extend the functionality of an Android device to larger screens.

Sure, but that's a completely different use case than productivity.

 

[spinedoc77]

I used to wish for Android like widgets on iOS, but after being back on iOS for a few years I actually find I highly prefer Apple's solution. It's just much cleaner to see all the widgets in one place. I did a brief stint with a Pixel 3 last year and I could not find any way to replicate this, and besides how fast Android widgets went downhill I also found them disorganized and really disjointed in theme and application. The way I see iOS is sort of the way I see Windows, the "desktop" is rarely ever used, instead I mainly use the start menu in Windows which is the equivalent of the widget screen on iOS. What iOS can do is broaden the functionality of their widgets so I can not only view but also take action on information. Stuff that Android has (or used to have before the decline of their widgets) such as a live feed of my IP cams, or the ability to interact with email or google voice messages as a few examples.
[automerge]1586306328[/automerge]

Hopefully we can finally get dynamic wallpapers as opposed to just "dim" and "blurred' versions of them.

I'm a big grown up now, but I still miss the Doom dynamic wallpaper that Android had years ago. Not sure if anyone else remembers that one.

 

[M3gatron]

You contradict yourself here. You say most people can do what they would have done on a tablet on an Android phone. Then talk about the need for Android to develop Dex like capabilities on large screen tvs. Which is it?

I'm not contradicting myself.
Dex is essentially just an app that extents the capabilities of a phone. It's the natural progression from the phone experience to the computer experience without needing to buy an additional computer/device, the phone essentially becomes the computer(not a tablet) for those than want to. For those that don't want to use this feature it's like it's not even there so its also a very elegant an unobtrusive solution.

It seems like Android failed on tablets because the software ecosystem did not meet he challenge. Apple never wanted to make a productivity iPad. However, as he market changed - they provided the investment, the software support, and focus to change the iPad into a productivity platform that still can do the other things only a tablet can do. Look at the aerospace and manufacturing applications of the iPad in industry (GE Aircraft engines, Boeing, and Whirlpool/Maytag). The fact remains that Android apps were never really ported to a tablet interface effectively because there is not coordinating force in the Android app sphere.

I don't know why you keep insisting with the idea that there was a huge fight and struggle for Android tablets manufacturers to succeed but they eventually weren't able to.
I mean in your opinion Android and it's software it's terrible in general so why did Android phones succeed? The same recipe applied to tablets in terms of hardware and software would have had the same outcome it had for phones.
Like I said, the bigger Android hardware manufacturers simply shifted all their focus towards smartphones and looking at the market now it's not like they were wrong to do so. The current tablet market it's still much smaller than it used to be in the past.

Which brings me to your second point about your hopes that Google will develop a Dex like capability for large screen tvs. Really? Google couldn't provide enough focus to get quality Android apps to work on an 8 inch tablet but you think they will pull it off on 75 inch TVS? Bold thinking. I doubt it as that would take an investment, patience, and focus that Google has not demonstrated in any of its service and product offering outside of search and google drive.

You really don't understand Google and Android in general.
There are an overwhelming amount of good Android apps including apps that work great on +8 inch tablets.
And they have already pulled it off on TVs. The last Android TV I used made me want to have Android installed on my LG TV instead of WebOS.
Also Google has already been working on a Dex like solution for quite some time, if we don't see it this year it will show up next year for sure.

Samsung was a glimmer of hope - but it lost focus and got distracted from he original Samsung Dex concept and started playing with a tablet like experience and then a Dex "space" on someone' existing desktop which provided little to no value.

I would say Samsung improved the original Samsung Dex concept quite a bit. They are on the right track.

 

[M3gatron]

You missed my point on this -- my point works with both MacOS and Windows. For example -- I use an iPhone and have all of MS apps including teams, sharepoint, and OneDrive on there. I can send an email or make comments on a word document sent to me via email on my phone and all that activity syncs with my MS apps on my windows machine AND my MacOS home desktop. having the Android phone desktop environment project onto my Windows or Mac machine is of little to know value. I can achieve the exact same thing without Dex. And your statement that and Android phone works better with Windows than an iPhone is absolutely false as MS made Office apps for iOS first. My iPhone works seamlessly with my Windows work machine. My MacOS desktop works with Office and Office 36 and I can do everything for my work on My Mac through synching with Office 365.

You mention a few particular cases trying to discredit the accurate general idea I presented. There can be particular cases that make Dex very useful, it's not like these situations are excluded in order for your points to be only ones that matter.
The fact that something is of little value to you doesn't mean its of little value in general especially since you are only looking at Dex from the most negative point of view possible.
Dex on Windows and Mac OS acts like a virtual machine, it's a very neat idea that allows users to very easily exchange files and information between the phone and the computer. I'm glad Samsung made it available.

My statement that Windows works better with Android is absolutely correct. I don't know why you mentioned MS Office apps, those are just Microsoft's software they are not Windows which is the OS. But try to connect your iphone with an Windows computer in order to get notifications, send or receive message, make calls and see how it goes. Aka you can't.

How to Link Microsoft Your Phone App to iPhone on Windows

Unable to connect Microsoft Your Phone app on Windows to iPhone? Know how to link iPhone to Windows via the Your Phone app.

www.guidingtech.com

 

[cgsnipinva]

I'm not contradicting myself.
Dex is essentially just an app that extents the capabilities of a phone. It's the natural progression from the phone experience to the computer experience without needing to buy an additional computer/device, the phone essentially becomes the computer(not a tablet) for those than want to. For those that don't want to use this feature it's like it's not even there so its also a very elegant an unobtrusive solution.

I understand that and my point was it was a non-value add derivation of the opriginal Dex concept of the phone being the computer. What do I get by "bringing the phone experience" to an existing desktop computer? I still have a desktop that delivers a better experience for the same apps that the phone is trying to deliver in a more limited fashion. Why run Word on Dex on my existing desktop when I can just run MS word on my desktop? Whats the advantage?

What Samsung should have done is take what they originally proposed for Dex and improve the applications that run on the phone so I could leverage the phone both as a mobile device and a desktop computer. Which brings me back to the singular point that impacts all the issues we have discussed regarding Android - the quality and investment in the Android app ecosystem. Google is not doing it beyond chrome and google drive.

Samsung looked like they might have taken their own stab at it - but lost focus and Dex is not getting the adoption once hoped. And from my POV its a shame.

 

[cgsnipinva]

I don't know why you keep insisting with the idea that there was a huge fight and struggle for Android tablets manufacturers to succeed but they eventually weren't able to.

I mean in your opinion Android and it's software it's terrible in general so why did Android phones succeed? The same recipe applied to tablets in terms of hardware and software would have had the same outcome it had for phones.

Like I said, the bigger Android hardware manufacturers simply shifted all their focus towards smartphones and looking at the market now it's not like they were wrong to do so. The current tablet market it's still much smaller than it used to be in the past.

You really don't understand Google and Android in general.
There are an overwhelming amount of good Android apps including apps that work great on +8 inch tablets.
And they have already pulled it off on TVs. The last Android TV I used made me want to have Android installed on my LG TV instead of WebOS.

Also Google has already been working on a Dex like solution for quite some time, if we don't see it this year it will show up next year for sure.

I would say Samsung improved the original Samsung Dex concept quite a bit. They are on the right track.

Your arguments have not addressed my fundamental point at all.

Bottom Line up Front (BLUF) -- The Android development model at the App level and the bottom-up federated market strategy from handset makers is the reason Android will only be a phone mobile OS. Hence it failed in tablets, wearas, and in other platforms. Period.

The fact is the Apple approach with iOS while centrally managed an probably slower has taken it from the phone, to ever more functional and popular tablets, and into TV and soon other areas. This penetration beyond the phone has been facilitated by a more coherent, focused, and investment rich application environment standardized across common hardware platforms.

With regards to tablets - Android tablets were abandoned because there was no improvement in app functionality or experience beyond the phone. That is why the manufacturers abandoned Android tablet - the App ecosystem did not provide any additional value that was already realized on an Android phone. In contrast you see iPads used in corporate environments, retail, and in manufacturing because a mobile device supported by a capable OS combined with feature rich apps that can be applied specific use cases has demonstrated value.

Now my specific response to your points above --- below:


First bolded statement -- There was a huge effort to win at tablets -- multiple makers - and they failed. Market share and sales prove that out. Google giving up on tablets prove that out. The biggest issue about Android tablets was not the hardware - a lot of them - particularly Samsung - were great. But most of the Android apps were not ported to the larger tablet landscape and appeared as portrait phone applications centered on a larger tablet screen. In fact most of the android apps on tablets were the exact same as the phone apps and didn't leverage additional features and functionality that the tablet platform would allow. That answers your question on why Android succeeded on phones and not tablets - the application environment was geared entirely to the phone and not the tablet. No one was investing in the apps to demonstrate value on the tablet and there was no vision from Google or Samsung detailing what was possible with Android on the tablet. Again - an issue with app development and investment - again. This was a missed opportunity for Android because I believe Android could have supported a value add platform in the tablet space. I wish Google believed in it as much others did.

Second Bolded Point --- I didn't say Android apps were terrible. What I did say was that the inherent fragmentation in the Android OS base, the differing screen sizes of all devices and the lower remuneration for Android app development and the lack of focus and investment by the big players (Google and Samsung) hampered it. Android apps are not developed to leverage the latest features of the latest Android OS because they have to write apps to the largest common denominator of Android OS in the market which is 1-2 versions back. And there is variation in the consistency of these apps across differing devices. Once again - we are back to app investment and focus or the lack thereof having a negative impact on the Android ecosystem.

Third Bolded Point - No I understand Google and Android quite a bit - my first four smart phones were all Android. There are some good apps - yes I agree. But the bulk don't have the features and consistency to make a real push in getting all the value out of mobile operating systems. OS fragmentation, lack of focus and real sustained investment in apps by Google or Samsung and a bottom up approach towards market strategy lead by numerous handset manufacturers -- well that won't make sustained gains. Look at the iPad- its sales are increasing and now they are getting established in industry in ways you will never find Android tablets. You see iPads and iOS software used as POS systems in retail. Manufacturers like GM, MercedesBenz, GE Aircraft, Honeywell, and Ford using iPads on the factory floor to manage machinery, robots, and systems. That is not a content consumption paradigm, that is a business use case. That is an opportunity lost to Android because of a lack of focus, investment, and the federated approach to strategy. See link of real world business case examples -- https://www.apple.com/business/success-stories/


Fourth Bolded Point - If Google has been working on a Dex like capability for native android and it hasn't come out -- don't hold your breath. It will probably go the way of google glass, the tablet, and other "projects"that lose the interest of Google management.

 

[I7guy]

...You mention a few particular cases trying to discredit the accurate general idea I presented. There can be particular cases that make Dex very useful, it's not like these situations are excluded in order for your points to be only ones that matter.
The fact that something is of little value to you doesn't mean its of little value in general especially since you are only looking at Dex from the most negative point of view possible....

Great products tend to get greater over time. Dex is not a great product, although it may be useful in a limited set of circumstances.

You may find Dex useful (or just arguing that it is useful in a very narrow set of circumstances), that doesn't mean it's useful in general.

 

[M3gatron]

I understand that and my point was it was a non-value add derivation of the opriginal Dex concept of the phone being the computer. What do I get by "bringing the phone experience" to an existing desktop computer?

You seem confused which is funny taking in consideration how determined you was to come with a response.
By "bringing the phone experience" I was talking about Dex on screens, monitors etc. so it wasn't about computers/laptops. About Dex on computers I said being able to access your phone's apps and info in a desktop like interface.
Dex on a computer is like a virtual machine, it can be useful in a variety of ways(from simple to complex tasks by executing different workloads on both devices at the same time using the same keyboard and mouse) and it works even with computers that are not owned by the person that owns the phone so there's are additional cases where Dex proves useful on windows etc.
You only look at it from a narrow perspective: oh I have office installed on my computer, Dex is useless".

What Samsung should have done is take what they originally proposed for Dex and improve the applications that run on the phone so I could leverage the phone both as a mobile device and a desktop computer. Which brings me back to the singular point that impacts all the issues we have discussed regarding Android - the quality and investment in the Android app ecosystem. Google is not doing it beyond chrome and google drive.

I don't see how thy didn't do that maybe you could be more specific.
Dex also improved in the sense that it became more accessible(you only need cable now) and more usable because the phone hardware is much faster than it use to be. I've seen users that installed emulators on Samsung phones and with Dex turned turned them into a Gaming PC basically.
Also Google not investing in Android's app ecosystem beyond chrome and google drive is simply a nonsense claim.

 

[cgsnipinva]

You seem confused which is funny taking in consideration how determined you was to come with a response.
By "bringing the phone experience" I was talking about Dex on screens, monitors etc. so it wasn't about computers/laptops. About Dex on computers I said being able to access your phone's apps and info in a desktop like interface.
Dex on a computer is like a virtual machine, it can be useful in a variety of ways(from simple to complex tasks by executing different workloads on both devices at the same time using the same keyboard and mouse) and it works even with computers that are not owned by the person that owns the phone so there's are additional cases where Dex proves useful on windows etc.
You only look at it from a narrow perspective: oh I have office installed on my computer, Dex is useless".


I don't see how thy didn't do that maybe you could be more specific.
Dex also improved in the sense that it became more accessible(you only need cable now) and more usable because the phone hardware is much faster than it use to be. I've seen users that installed emulators on Samsung phones and with Dex turned turned them into a Gaming PC basically.
Also Google not investing in Android's app ecosystem beyond chrome and google drive is simply a nonsense claim.

Ok one more time. Projecting Dex on an existing PC delivers no value. Or too little value to warrant the cost of adoption. You never answered my question -- "What does linking my phone to my desktop to project my Dex desktop?". Do I get better apps? Do I get an environment I want to work in over my Windows/Linux/Mac machine? I doubt it. You mention working different workloads on different devices - that might be a value - but its one that is very narrow and does not capture attention from the market (as evidenced to date). If the applications on the phone are still limited phone applications - you won't be able to put much workload on it to be of any value.

Now my point on the original Dex vision -- take my phone that I have in my pocket and then I can plug it into a monitor/keyboard/mouse hub and then I can convert my phone to a desktop - leveraging the phone hardware and software that enables me to communicate (mail/text/teams) and work documents and still integrate with my mobile services and cloud storage (OneDrive). THAT has value because I can carry my office in my pocket --- particularly when on business travel -- that was the specific business case cited by Samsung when Dex was rolled out.

 

[cgsnipinva]

Megatron Said - "Also Google not investing in Android's app ecosystem beyond chrome and google drive is simply a nonsense claim. "

Really? Not non-sense at all. Let's take a look at camera software on Android phones that produces results that don't match the hardware capabilities provided on the phone. Google provides APIs but relies on third party developers for camera app and functionality. (See article below) -- https://www.androidcentral.com/google-trying-fix-android-camera-apps-its-not-going-work


Here is an article that discusses Googles lack of focus on app to nurture them to maturity.

Link == https://www.computerworld.com/article/3265051/google-is-often-its-own-worst-enemy.html

"
We talked about Google Now's missed potential with smartwatches, but Google Now itself is a prime example of Google having something exceptional and then failing to follow through with it.

When Google Now first appeared on Android phones in 2012, it was heralded as "the predictive future of search." It brought the countless tidbits Google knows about our lives and our world together in a fantastically useful way — a way no company other than Google could truly pull off.

Now? Google Now has been lazily rebranded as "the feed" (not even important enough to warrant being a proper noun) and is basically just another stream of news stories you can scroll through.

And why did that change happen? By all counts, Google gave up on its unique vision in order to chase competitors like Facebook in the race for cheap attention. In doing so, it once again lost that special spark"


Look at this site -- https://killedbygoogle.com/

Lists of Google apps and services once touted by Google then killed off shortly there after.

 

[M3gatron]

Your arguments have not addressed my fundamental point at all.

Your point retarding Android app ecosystem and fragmentation are hugely exaggerated and by what you wrote you made it even more obvious that you don't understand Google and Android.
The problems with Android fragmentation have decreased significantly since Android 7 up to a point it's not a problem for app quality/functionality/efficiency/performance right now. Not to mention that most well supported/popular apps in Play Store make the transition to the latest Android version quite fast anyway so if you have the latest android version installed on the phone, most decent apps will be compatible with that android version. Also in general most features that work on older android phone work on newer version as well and vice-versa so in most cases app developer don't have to choose between what they implement. I remember installing Nova launcher with Android 8 features on an Android 7 phones, options that could be enabled or disabled so nobody was forcing them.
Anyway taking in consideration that you get you info from 2010 opinion pieces I'm not surprised of what you are writing. I mean you say that the bulk don't have the features and consistency to make a real push in getting all the value out of mobile operating systems. There are over 3 million Android apps in play store and a million or more outside of play store. The bulk of apps can even be extremely terrible, it doesn't matter because you can still find more great quality apps for any category that anybody would ever want.

With regards to tablets - Android tablets were abandoned because there was no improvement in app functionality or experience beyond the phone.

What you ignore is that app functionality on android phones is not constrained in any way by the form factor or hardware. The only thing apps on android tablets needed was more attention for the interface, which was never a big problem. Android tablets were abandoned because of the focus shift towards phones. When I talked about android strategy with phones I meant the competition between manufacturers, witch raised the level of price/performance quite significantly in these last 2 years especially for mid-range phones. There simply hasn't been a big enough demand for tablet form factors to warrant the same efforts.
[automerge]1586359561[/automerge]

Ok one more time. Projecting Dex on an existing PC delivers no value.

That's just your limited opinion.

 

[cgsnipinva]

Android fragmentation is getting worse.

As iOS 13 hits 50% adoption, Android fragmentation keeps getting worse

Apple's iOS 13 and iPadOS 13 releases were plagued with bugs, but at least they're widely available to users, as Android 10 upgrades remain elusive at best.

venturebeat.com

As of today, Android 10 has been publicly available for a month and a half, but once again, Google still hasn’t updated its developer dashboard with any details on actual user adoption of the major release. Google’s latest chart — posted in May 2019 — shows that the prior version Android 9 (Pie) had as of that point reached only 10.4% adoption after nine full months on the market; it was apparently still under 0.1% several months after release. User installations of the latest Android releases are now so poor that Google’s not even attempting to compare them with iOS.

This might be excusable if the biggest and most successful Android devices were all capable of running the latest major release, but they’re not. Android 10 just launched in a limited beta program for Samsung’s popular Galaxy S10 series, and isn’t expected to hit Galaxy Note 10 phones until December; Galaxy phones older than 9-series models aren’t expected to get Android 10 at all. If you want an official release of Android 10 today, you need to own a Google Pixel phone or certain OnePlus 7 models, with Huawei, Motorola, Nokia, and others possibly shipping updates by the end of 2019.

If I was a developer, I’d have no idea how to properly build Android apps at this point. The user base is split across so many Android versions that there’s no realistic way to target apps solely to the latest major release, arguably even the last two or three major releases, without losing the vast majority of users. Meanwhile, iOS developers can move forward with confidence that two-thirds of active devices — and hundreds of millions of people — will be running the latest major release within a couple of months of public rollout.

 

[falainber]

Megatron Said - "Also Google not investing in Android's app ecosystem beyond chrome and google drive is simply a nonsense claim. "

Really? Not non-sense at all. Let's take a look at camera software on Android phones that produces results that don't match the hardware capabilities provided on the phone. Google provides APIs but relies on third party developers for camera app and functionality. (See article below) -- https://www.androidcentral.com/google-trying-fix-android-camera-apps-its-not-going-work


Here is an article that discusses Googles lack of focus on app to nurture them to maturity.

Link == https://www.computerworld.com/article/3265051/google-is-often-its-own-worst-enemy.html

"
We talked about Google Now's missed potential with smartwatches, but Google Now itself is a prime example of Google having something exceptional and then failing to follow through with it.

When Google Now first appeared on Android phones in 2012, it was heralded as "the predictive future of search." It brought the countless tidbits Google knows about our lives and our world together in a fantastically useful way — a way no company other than Google could truly pull off.

Now? Google Now has been lazily rebranded as "the feed" (not even important enough to warrant being a proper noun) and is basically just another stream of news stories you can scroll through.

And why did that change happen? By all counts, Google gave up on its unique vision in order to chase competitors like Facebook in the race for cheap attention. In doing so, it once again lost that special spark"


Look at this site -- https://killedbygoogle.com/

Lists of Google apps and services once touted by Google then killed off shortly there after.

Google is killing a lot of apps but that's because they come up with way more new ideas than anyone else. They probably also have more existing apps than anyone else.

As far as camera app is concerned, I am not sure Google version of it is really that important. Google smartphones are a marginal part of Android ecosystem. Most (if not all) major Android vendors release their phones with their own camera apps - just like Apple does. More people buy smartphones with Samsung camera app than with Apple camera app. And by all accounts, camera hardware and apps on Android phones are as good if not better than what iPhones have. Huawei phones are probably on top of dxomark rating half of the time (with Samsung phones taking up the rest).

 

[M3gatron]

Megatron Said - "Also Google not investing in Android's app ecosystem beyond chrome and google drive is simply a nonsense claim. "

Really? Not non-sense at all.

It is. A few click bait oriented opinion pieces don't change the reality. You are looking at this in a weird philosophical way, I'm looking at it from a practical point of view aka the Google apps and services I use. If Google would only concetrate on Chrome and Drive I would definitely know.

Look at this site -- https://killedbygoogle.com/
Lists of Google apps and services once touted by Google then killed off shortly there after.

So what? Google likes to constantly try new things/projects/ideas is part of their strategy in general. A lot of times they kill the project but the work is integrated in their more established services. I don't see a problem with the fact that they tried something new and it didn't pan out.

 

[cgsnipinva]

Google is killing a lot of apps but that's because they come up with way more new ideas than anyone else. They probably also have more existing apps than anyone else.

As far as camera app is concerned, I am not sure Google version of it is really that important. Google smartphones are a marginal part of Android ecosystem. Most (if not all) major Android vendors release their phones with their own camera apps - just like Apple does. More people buy smartphones with Samsung camera app than with Apple camera app. And by all accounts, camera hardware and apps on Android phones are as good if not better than what iPhones have. Huawei phones are probably on top of dxomark rating half of the time (with Samsung phones taking up the rest).

Lets assume they come up with way more new ideas and accept that statement as true for the sake of argument. If they don't support and nurture those ideas into long standing apps and services - the value is not realized.

They gave up on tablets, they gave up on wearables, they gave up on services that others still pursue. The lack of consistency hampers app development and the value proposition of the ecosystem.

As a result Android is being relegated to just a phone OS. Which is a lost opportunity precisely because Google gives up when it loses interest and the development environment is challenging making it hard for third parties like Samsung to pick up where Google leaves off.

I was a big fan of Samsung taking Android and forking its own ecosystem.

 

[M3gatron]

Android fragmentation is getting worse.

Yeah I know you are only looking at numbers without understanding the actual app situation in terms of quality/functionality/efficiency/performance.

If I was a developer, I’d have no idea how to properly build Android apps at this point. The user base is split across so many Android versions that there’s no realistic way to target apps solely to the latest major release, arguably even the last two or three major releases, without losing the vast majority of users.

You are exaggerating. Google actually makes it easy to target different android versions.
Also I know a few good developers and they often said that people with the latest 2 android versions were like 80-95% of the total users base of their apps. So in reality if the app is compatible with last android version it doesn't mean the total app users with that android version will be at 0.1% of the app's installs.

 

[falainber]

Android fragmentation is getting worse.

As iOS 13 hits 50% adoption, Android fragmentation keeps getting worse

Apple's iOS 13 and iPadOS 13 releases were plagued with bugs, but at least they're widely available to users, as Android 10 upgrades remain elusive at best.

venturebeat.com

As of today, Android 10 has been publicly available for a month and a half, but once again, Google still hasn’t updated its developer dashboard with any details on actual user adoption of the major release. Google’s latest chart — posted in May 2019 — shows that the prior version Android 9 (Pie) had as of that point reached only 10.4% adoption after nine full months on the market; it was apparently still under 0.1% several months after release. User installations of the latest Android releases are now so poor that Google’s not even attempting to compare them with iOS.

This might be excusable if the biggest and most successful Android devices were all capable of running the latest major release, but they’re not. Android 10 just launched in a limited beta program for Samsung’s popular Galaxy S10 series, and isn’t expected to hit Galaxy Note 10 phones until December; Galaxy phones older than 9-series models aren’t expected to get Android 10 at all. If you want an official release of Android 10 today, you need to own a Google Pixel phone or certain OnePlus 7 models, with Huawei, Motorola, Nokia, and others possibly shipping updates by the end of 2019.

If I was a developer, I’d have no idea how to properly build Android apps at this point. The user base is split across so many Android versions that there’s no realistic way to target apps solely to the latest major release, arguably even the last two or three major releases, without losing the vast majority of users. Meanwhile, iOS developers can move forward with confidence that two-thirds of active devices — and hundreds of millions of people — will be running the latest major release within a couple of months of public rollout.

Somehow Android developers are doing just fine and produce more apps than their iOS counterparts. Maybe that's because app development depends mostly on APIs and services which are not part of the OS core (which is what then numbered Android releases are about). They are released independently of OS core releases via Play Store. That's a well understood major difference between the two OSes (even by Apple fans) so there is no need to bring this up again and again. And as far as the core OS functionality is concerned... The recent reports indicate that Apple is still trying to catch up with decade old versions of Android (widgets and such) so the race between Android vendors to release (or not to release) the most recent version of Android has little relevance for Android vs iOS competition.
[automerge]1586361040[/automerge]

Lets assume they come up with way more new ideas and accept that statement as true for the sake of argument. If they don't support and nurture those ideas into long standing apps and services - the value is not realized.

Google Search, Google Maps, Google Voice, GMail, Google Earth, Google Drive, YouTube, Google Docs, Google News, Google Photos are all the best apps in their class and they also have been around for longer than most of their competitors.

 

[M3gatron]

Lets assume they come up with way more new ideas and accept that statement as true for the sake of argument. If they don't support and nurture those ideas into long standing apps and services - the value is not realized.

They often integrate(when it's the case at least) the work they've done and the feature they created in their more established apps and services, they don't just waste all the work they did. For example Protect Tango was integrated in ARCore.

 

[cgsnipinva]

Somehow Android developers are doing just fine and produce more apps than their iOS counterparts. Maybe that's because app development depends mostly on APIs and services which are not part of the OS core (which is what then numbered Android releases are about). They are released independently of OS core releases via Play Store. That's a well understood major difference between the two OSes (even by Apple fans) so there is no need to bring this up again and again. And as far as the core OS functionality is concerned... The recent reports indicate that Apple is still trying to catch up with decade old versions of Android (widgets and such) so the race between Android vendors to release (or not to release) the most recent version of Android has little relevance for Android vs iOS competition.
[automerge]1586361040[/automerge]

Google Search, Google Maps, Google Voice, GMail, Google Earth, Google Drive, YouTube, Google Docs, Google News, Google Photos are all the best apps in their class and they also have been around for longer than most of their competitors.

There are more google apps but there is a lot more ash and trash in the Google app store because there is no real matriculation and moderation of what gets in there. There have been security issues related to this well.

Then there is an issue with app quality.

After 10 years, Android apps are still worse than their iOS counterparts

Even with 80% or so of the smartphone market, Android is still behind iOS when it comes to the apps we use. Why?

www.androidcentral.com

On the other hand, some apps from names everyone knows are, well, total crap when you compare them to their iOS counterparts. Apps like Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and others with millions and millions of Android users don't look as good and more importantly, don't run as well or have the same features as they do for iOS. I'm not just talking about fun or social apps, either. Apps that you would use for work or personal finances, to book a flight, or control the smart devices in your home can be and often are the same way — not as good as they are for iOS.

There are valid reasons for this reality. When it comes to things like using the wireless radios for Bluetooth or Wi-Fi it's easier to develop for iOS because you know exactly what every single device can and will be able to do. For Android, those sorts of apps have to be written to work with the latest models from Samsung and hope they work for everything else. I get it. Android is diverse, and that's great almost all of the time — writing apps that need to interact with hardware isn't one of those times.

This is something I always thought had gotten better recently because I haven't used an iPhone in a while. I was wrong. My wife picked up an iPhone 8 before Christmas and some apps we both use are still much better on iOS. Android has more than 80% of the smartphone market. Why can't these big developers get it right? I fully expect an app installed on a Galaxy S9 (or Pixel, as they are still "reference" devices) to be just as good as it is on her iPhone, but many aren't.

 

[chucker23n1]

Google is killing a lot of apps but that's because they come up with way more new ideas than anyone else. They probably also have more existing apps than anyone else.

Let me know when they "come up" with a messenger that they stick with for more than two years.