Slashdot Mirror
Woz Says Android Will Dominate
cloudcreator writes "Woz [said] that Android smartphones, not the iPhone, would become dominant, noting that the Google OS is likely to win the race similarly to the way that Windows ultimately dominated the PC world." Update: 11/19 04:54 GMT by T : Apparently, Woz's words were taken slightly out of context.
Just so long as SCOracle doesn't kill it.
Isn't it obvious?
Open technology will always win over closed
Just like Linux....
er, hmm, never mind.
Use what you want and leave the "I win"/"you win" dogma aside.
Gone!
Part of the reason Windows was successful was that it supported a lot of hardware, with only one API. Android needs to insure that it's not difficult to write a single application that will run on every decently modern ( 2 year old) android phone, or else it would give up what is probably its biggest advantage.
This might not be the case if Apple would break the deal with AT&T. It would seem obvious that android phones would take the market, since multiple carriers are supplying android phones, while only 1 is supplying iPhones.
Did they honestly think that they would hold the market forever with only 1 carrier option?
Will *continue* to dominate for as long as data plans are mandatory. There's wifi everywhere in my life, so if data plan is mandatory I'll use something other than a phone for the 'smart'.
Everything we've always said here about avoiding monocultures and the need for competition remains true. The phone market is actually much bigger in volume than the PC market, so a number of cultures could flourish and still have good economies of scale. So long as standards are enforced on security and the actual radio and phone parts, it shouldn't matter.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Gaming will play a measurable role in this. As things stand now, iOS is trouncing Android, as far as gaming is concerned. Pretty much the only leg up that Android has is the fact that there are multiple emulators available directly from the market, with no need to mod your phone in any way to use (don't even have to click the "non-marketplace applications" option.)
Besides that though, iOS is handily beating Android when it comes to gaming. Some developers are finally starting to wake up, and are either porting things over or making things specifically for it. I maintain that until there are more quality games out there for Android, iOS will continue to have a substantial lead.
Note: I'm not implying that gaming alone is the reason for the divide, but it certainly plays a role.
Living With a Nerd
I thought Woz and Jobs got along pretty well even now, but I can't imagine this sort of thing making their relationship any better.
And I hope Woz is wrong, and no company "wins" the phone OS wars, because if somebody wins, then eventually they'll become a monopoly and all the consumers will lose.
I am officially gone from
Android needs to insure that it's not difficult to write a single application that will run on every decently modern ( 2 year old) android phone, or else it would give up what is probably its biggest advantage.
No it doesn't. That would certainly help but it's not necessary. If you read the very short article:
However, he then conceded that, "Android phones have more features," and offer more choice for more people. Eventually, he thinks that Android quality, consistency, and user satisfaction will match iOS.
Emphasis mine. You're mostly right about Windows (I think marketing should be mentioned) but Android could fail on 5% of the phones that ship with it and I think it will still be okay if it can match iOS in the above categories. I think everyone knows that two or three years from now Android will be the clear winner. There would have to be earth shattering changes made on either Android or Apple's part in order to shake off course what has been set in motion. Even the market analysts have been saying this.
Let's face it, there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet. And they won't work on the vast majority of smartphones that don't offer that kind of thing. That's not a bad thing, it's just the reality of targeting all the devices made by the Open Handset Alliance. That's a lot of devices. That's a lot of choices. They're doing the best they can but at some point you just can't magically give hardware support to a device that doesn't have the hardware. And I think that problem is inseparable from the choices Android wants to give consumers.
My work here is dung.
Woz is arguing that it's the featureset that will lead Android to victory. I don't agree. Features don't sell the phones. So long as it covers all the most common bases the extra stuff is just nice to have, it's not a key decision point. Any smartphone could become dominant at the moment so long as it has a good interface, looks ok, gives the user access to the software they want and, crucially, is marketed well enough. Even if iOS lags behind on features Apple won't be lagging behind on marketing. It's what they're good at, and ultimately it's what will keep them on top.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
but that doesn't mean that Google will dominate, too.
Thank you for that startling revelation, Captain Wozvious!
Consider the source ... thats all Im sayin' ......
I think it's been said before but it seems like apple phones are taking the same route that their computers do. I don't think anyone could say that Apple isn't doing well in their business so this isn't criticism of their business practices but if their goal is total domination of the phone market why are they going the same route?
check out the Mp3 Garbler I built!
Almost every PC peripheral, PC app, and PC game that you find in Best Buy will have some indication on the packaging that it works with Windows. Indication that a peripheral works with Linux is far less common except for less familiar brand peripherals that use a common class driver and desperately need bullet points to sway people away from the major brands, such as "off-brand" USB flash drives.
Windows didn't dominate because of random events. It piggy-backed on the popularity of the hardware, specifically the IBM PC. When the PC won, so too did MS-DOS and its overlay called windows. If the PC had died, so too would have DOS and windows.
Android doesn't have the advantage of sitting on the #1 piece of hardware like windows had.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I have owned an iphone 3g, 3gs and an iphone 4.
Recently the attitude from apple, in my opinion has been worse than Microsoft, some may claim otherwise but the 'our way or the highway' and general attitude specifically from Jobs himself in emails to people (on the occassions they leak out) is just awful.
The overall lock in bugged me a little but overall I was generally quite happy with my iphone, the itunes aspect I detested mind you. /selectively/ restore what I want to their BlackBerries - the iphone however is an utter nightmare for anyone with any real technical knowledge and wantign to do something even slightly out of the box. The lack of SMS tone changing (finally here, christ!) was ridiculous.
Every now and then something would bug me, for example - at work when supporting my clients, I can backup and
I also feel the lack buttons is holding the iphone back, despite what 'focus groups' claim about the buttons, you simply end up wasting screen real estate with onscreen buttons. I don't think the iphone needs 12 buttons mind you but even just THREE might be nice on the device - people are dumb but not that dumb.
So anyhow, I decide I might try Android out, I copied a guy at work and purchased a HTC HD2 (Leo) - which is a Windows Mobile 6.5 phone which can have Android hacked on to it if you fiddle about.
I have done so and been most impressed, there's a few small niggly issues some of which may be from using a non native Android phone, some are just design issues but overall I'm substantially more impressed than I expected to be.
There's an app called Appbrain http://www.appbrain.com/ which is kind of like an all in one sync tool, once installed it catalogues all you have installs and ties it to an account (in my case my google sign in) - I can add and remove applications from that website, anywhere in the world and sync entirely over 3g. It handles the updating of apps, it provides a better search interfact than the stock market and feedback too. It's really nice.
Someone showed me http://www.appbrain.com/wallpaper that today and I thought 'oh how cute, it's going to queue up a new background to download next time I open the application and run a sync' - only not, I clicked a button on the website, picked up my phone about 2 seconds later and it had pushed the picture down and set it as my background already. - incredible
I can take a photo of a Qcode (qrcode?) image and it too can queue up the installation of an application just like that.
I can add widgets to the desktop and while many are a complete waste of memory and cpu time, there are some genuinely useful weather / data usage / stock information I can drop on the home screen or a few screens off it.
I can set the tones I like, I can share my device as a wifi access point - the list goes on.
It's not without it's flaws, sadly I don't know if the small niggles I've had have been due to being non native or not but I hope to learn over the coming days. Also the way they handle podcasts boggles my mind, I do really just wish the music app searched in /podcast/ for podcasts /music/ for music and so on - nothing comes close to apples music player unfortunately. Fortunately for me I don't listen to much anyhow.
Email client searching actually works for gmail and the vast majority of my apps are on the device - tweetdeck, email, facebook, rdp clients, shazam, ebay, skype - it's all there and in 4.3" on this model, not 3.5" - honestly at 32, with my eyes - that's a bloody godsend.
We use these things more and more, I think 3.5 is really holding back the iphone, resolution or not (as I said, I own a 4, I know how pretty it is, it's just too small)
I could go on for ages, I'm really pretty happy overall though and the hippy open source fanboy in me says it's only going to get better with time, let's hope I'm right.
Could be more players in the near future to take into account. Even if don't win, having a visible 3rd choice, maybe even more open than Android, could be good for all.
I know the Android phones are gaining popularity because they allow third party development, but Apple still has a hugely loyal fan base. Does Woz have any major evidence to support his claim?
If someone makes a phone with the hardware quality and features the iphone has - not plasticy feeling junk - and gets Android on there, you're cooking with gas.
For the record, MS dominated because there was ONE common platform. This included sound and video standards. Remember IRQ conflicts? EMM?
DirectX ended that and opened the door to dominance for Windows on the desktop for entertainment.
Right now the iphone continues to make the competition feel like junk.. and it has a solid, consistent API feature set.
My money is still on Apple for the time being. They're busy working on iphone 5. Everyone else is playing catchup to make the knockoff, cheapie version of 4.
..don't panic
As long as both platforms keep making their customers happy I don't see why they won't both continue to do well. If neither knocks the other to irrelevance it's not "dominant".
Apple does great holding the line on the "premium" phone, making lots of money for their shareholders. Android does great at providing a vast array of choices at varying levels of cost.
The concern with domination is that a dominant player will crush all opposition and bring progress to a halt to protect its monopoly. I don't see that happening with either of these players. The player in the field that plays that way is having a hard time getting his game on.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It's hard for me to look at Apple as a loser in this battle. They may not win the marketshare battle, but they are very profitable and influential. People generally love their products.
Not bad for coming in second place.
cool !!! cool!!! cool!!!
The title says it all.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
bool IsGoogleEvil(){
if ( facebook.com has mysterious bugs and compatibility issues in some future upgrade of Android) {
return true;
}
return false;
}
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I think hardware architecture has a lot to do with this, too. Any good embedded engineering focus company can design their hardware and work with it with Android. Why? Because everyone knows the OS capabilities of the Linux kernel and how portable it is, that makes it easy. Woz has a point, but just a small one, Windows was dominant because it worked across the multitude of PC platforms and wasn't tied to specific hardware (al la RISC and Apple) Although Apple did have it's selling points, anything that's more encompassing that doesn't lock a consumer down is going to get tried and, more times than none, chosen over the competitor that doesn't.
Today, however, Apple makes some pretty bad-ass and inferior products that 'wow' you on functionality and usability from a UI perspective. I myself own a few device with iOS on them and their UI experience alone is worth the product. Android OS is just too portable not to use and it's using the Linux kernel; that alone gets you over the barrier and into competition because anyone can slap it on whatever hardware they want with for less reason and stand up a working product.
Nokia sells umpteen as many phones as all Android and iOS phones combined, yet they are pretty irrelevant on the cell phone scene nowdays and can hardly be described as dominant. Android might very well dominate the scene in the future but market share is not the way to measure dominance. Hell, Apple dominated the smart phone market since before they even shipped any, and have pretty much dominated it ever since.
Cheap shit sells better. Why is this a surprise?
because there's no finish line. One can only hope to dominate for as long as possible. I agree that Android will probably become the most dominant mobile OS in the next few years, but that hardly means iOS is going to become insignificant. Windows dominates still, but as everyone can see Apple's hardly hurting financially with OS X. There's plenty of room in the market for two mobile OS's.
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
I was under the impression that mandatory data plans function as a way for the carrier to make back the share of the phone they paid for.
Then why don't more U.S. carriers copy T-Mobile's "Even More Plus" plan and give a discount on plans designed for phones purchased up-front?
Except Nintendo is not meeting the demand. Micro-ISVs have had a hard time getting their games published on a Nintendo device. See, for example, Bob's Game.
Does apple really care when they are printing money with the iphone and other ios devices? So android devices may become dominant, but that would be spread throughout a variety of hardware manufacturers and cell providers... The Google wouldn't be seeing as much pure profit as Apple does by controlling the hardware as well as the software, and I don't think too many iphone users will jump ship to Android just because it provides an open environment.
Given that Android devices are already outselling iOS devices
Are Android phones outselling only iPhone, or are Android phones outselling iPhone and iPod touch together? You have to take into account that Android-based MP3 players such as Archos 43 aren't widely available in U.S. stores.
He is a techie. Jobs is the business genius. Apple does not need to dominate to make a tidy profit. It's like that saying, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Microsoft does all of the people some of the time. Apple does some of the people all of the time.
Microsoft dominates the desktop. Does Apple care? Not as long as some folks are still willing to pay a premium for their desktop products. Nokia dominates cell phones. Apple says, "So, what?", as long as some folks make them a profit. If Android dominates smart phones, Apple will not care for the same reason. Why do some folks pay exorbitant prices for a Harley Davidson when compared to a rice burner?
And no, I'm not an Apple FanBoy, but I live with an Apple FanGrrrl. I only bought her an iPhone when I could get it re-imported, unlocked. And the UK uses some crazy-ass plugs on their electrical devices.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Features don't sell the phones. [...] Any smartphone could become dominant at the moment so long as it [...] gives the user access to the software they want
I don't see much of a difference between "software sells phones" and "features sell phones". People use software because they want features provided by the software. Therefore, the features provided by the software sell the phones, and the feature to run such software sells the phones. That's one reason why gaming PCs sell: they have a feature to run video games developed by individuals and smaller companies, be they mods or completely original productions.
there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet. And they won't work on the vast majority of smartphones that don't offer that kind of thing.
And as far as I know, none of them work on Android-based media players (as opposed to smartphones) because the Android Market app doesn't come on devices without a 3G radio.
I think it's important to be clear that you mean they simply can't be gotten from the Android Market. Not that all of them don't work.
There's a pretty simple method called sideloading that allows you to put non-market apps on your phone. Of course, this usually requires you to get Astro or Dropbox or some such app on your device first. Commonly you can do that from the Market App which you note is not on media players (PMPs).
But I think it's important to note that it's not the Android API's fault that this sort of app transfer doesn't work. It's not like there were bad decisions made in the programmer's interface with Android that prevents this. It's got more to do with the resources that the hardware offers you and less to do with the software's limitations. It also has to do with what the manufacturer of that device wants and does not want done with the hardware they sell you. It's unfortunate but the reality is that if they didn't allow the handset/media player manufacturer the ability to lock you out of doing certain things on your device then they would never have had those big names on board. You will see a lot of different members of the Open Handset Alliance launching a lot of different kinds of devices with Android. That's a good thing and hopefully in the future this manufacturer mentality of "I don't want cell phone apps on my users' home media player box" goes away. Because that's what's blocking this from occurring, not Android or Google.
My work here is dung.
Android will win by marketshare, which is percentage of phones running the OS. Of course, Apple doesn't feel threatened - and it makes sense when you think about it. Apple has 2 models of iPhones out there now - iPhone 4, and iPhone 3GS. Android devices - well, Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola, HTC, they seem to easily have a dozen different models each. Plus all the other no-name brands out there releasing Android phones without Google (or pirating it). So you probably have over 50+ models of Android phones out there, compared to 2 from Apple. Of course Android phones will outsell the iPHone.
Now, should Apple worry? Probably not, because they're raking in the money. Profit wise, Apple commands a huge chunk (nearly half) of total mobile phone industry profits (including dumbphones), while RIM, Nokia, Samsung and LG dominate the remaining chunk. By handsets sold, Nokia, RIM, Samsung and LG dominate the charts, while Apple just has a tiny sliver. It doesn't matter that Apple is in #3 or #4 (after Symbian, RIM and Android) - as long as they're raking in the cash.
And I'm talking phones only - ignoring Android running tablets and multimedia players, and iPod Touches and iPads. The numbers that way are too vague.
Also, carriers LOVE Android. Face it - Sprint loves putting its NASCAR apps preloaded, Verizon loves its V-cast stuff, etc - all the "value-added" software to make carriers more money. Carriers hate the iPhone - what sane control-hungry corporation wants to give up complete control of the handset (hardware AND software) to Apple, and not only that, pay Apple for the priviledge of carrying the iPhone? When instead they can carry Android phones, and tell HTC, Samsung, and Motorola to shove it until they cripple certain features, preload crapware, and all the other stuff?
P.S. - I use an iPhone because it's free of carrier control. I want an Android phone, but giving up 3G isn't an option, and I want straight-from-Google updates. Hoping the Nexus Two will satisfy.
Apple will always appeal to people the same way that tea party appeals to people. They overwhelm the lesser knowledgeable with nifty phrases and false promises so that they overlook the significant flaws and inherent weaknesses. The problem, of course, is that Americans are even more tech illiterate than they are politically illiterate.
It's one of the reasons I try to talk all of my friends off the Apple ledge.
I remember how Microsoft took over the market from other GUIs, by leveraging their DOS monopoly and giving Windows away with DOS. They did the same thing to take over the office productivity market, leveraged their Windows monopoly to practically give away Office with each new copy of Windows.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
People not deciding what they want, is one of the biggest factor in who wins. x86 boxes came with Windows preloaded. Windows wins. Go into a store that sells cellphones and look at 'em: half of 'em run Android and none of them run IOS (those phones are in different department). That means if you buy a phone without thinking about it, you're going to have Android (well, ok, or maybe still Symbian).
At first I thought you were misusing the word "dogma" but it's perversely apt. The "I win"/"You win" truth is actually handed down to people from a higher authority, but the act of doing this, causes it to become truth. It's not dogma, but works like dogma.
...who Woz phone?
...Wozniak has an old, old debate about openness vs closed with Steve Jobs, but I don't think they're talking about open source when they argue about "open vs closed" systems. Perhaps someone more familiar with this debate can enlighten us further.
I also feel the lack buttons is holding the iphone back, despite what 'focus groups' claim about the buttons, you simply end up wasting screen real estate with onscreen buttons.
What would those extra buttons do? I don't think the use of the extra buttons on Android and WP7 are that much of an advantage.
- it's all there and in 4.3" on this model, not 3.5" - honestly at 32, with my eyes - that's a bloody godsend.
A bigger screen, in itself, is always good. But the thing I like about the size of the iPhone is that I can easily use it with one hand. If something is a bit too small, I just hold it closer.
Eric Raymond (esr) has been saying this for a long time now.
I don't see Android winning here, just as I don't see Linux 'winning' against OSX or Windows. Apple offers a business model with apps and iTunes that provides a way for independent developers to sell stuff, whilst offering punters a 'safe' platform with easy access to everything developers/musicians etc. can think to offer them... This is a pretty potent marketing combination.
In terms of it being a closed environment - I think the loss of Flash support is a real pain in the arse, but this doesn't appear to be a deal breaker for a lot of people. Even on Slashdot (where you might expect folk to be more pro open environments then the general population). There aren't too many 'alternatives' to HTML5 about guys...
I love how many people argue that the Apple lock-in is what makes them prefer Android over iOS. Ever try to use an Android phone without a GMail account? A Droid from Verizon will not even activate without one. I would much prefer to be locked to my own Mac (Mobile Me is not mandatory) in my own home, than forced to use Google services. Unless I want to use third-party email, calendar, and contact list applications, which likely don't integrate with the OS, vary in quality, and often are a general pain in the port to use.
Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?
It's not like the "phone" aspect of the iPhone is all that important to Apple. The iOS aspect is what counts, and they are clearly way ahead of Google in adapting their OS to different market segments. This will remain true as long as Google continues to wait for Apple to come up with something, then copy it, which, let's be honest, is what they've done so far in this space.
I also feel the lack buttons is holding the iphone back, despite what 'focus groups' claim about the buttons, you simply end up wasting screen real estate with onscreen buttons.
What would those extra buttons do? I don't think the use of the extra buttons on Android and WP7 are that much of an advantage.
I disagree. Having the "Home", "Menu", and "Back" buttons in the same place for every app is a godsend. Many iPhone/iPod apps are fairly consistent, but not all, and as the GP said, they all take valuable screen real estate.
Would you consider HTML5 a stable api? With device access and local storage it's effectively an app platform. Mobile devices are ahead of the desktop in html5 support so already developers car get quite a lot done with a cross-device web app before writing native apps becomes necessary.
It's not a case that it will dominate, it already does. Twice as many android handsets are sold vs its nearest competitor and the gulf is only likely to widen over the long term. The same will probably happen for tablets too.
Linux has pretty much won over closed source. Appliances run Linux, supercomputers run Linux, servers run Linux. About the only place Linux as an OS doesn't dominate is on the desktop.
Now, with Android, Linux is dominating in phones.
And Steve Jobs doesn't care. Jobs isn't after market share. Apple sells a lot fewer units than Motorola or any other vendor, and yet is making much more money.
His goal is to make money by selling things people want to buy. Whether he sells 5M or 50M doesn't matter because each unit is profitable. It's the difference between $1B profit and $10B, but at the end of the day it's still profit. None of this loss-leader bullshit.
If more people like it, great; if not, oh well.
Android can "dominate" and "win" all Google wants as longs as Apple gets a slice of the pie.
"What would those extra buttons do? I don't think the use of the extra buttons on Android and WP7 are that much of an advantage"
Generally the same thing as the Android buttons do, because they _are_ incredibly useful? Unless an app designer has totally screwed something up i can always get to settings easily by using the menu button. I can always jump back to the desktop using the homescreen, or switch apps by holding it down. A back button is certainly useful as well (wasn't there recently an article on slashdot about how back was the most used button in browsers?) The search button is probably the least necessary since most apps where you need to search already have a text box available for that, but i still use the button as a shortcut a lot.
I wonder if the buttons are the kind of thing you don't realize how useful they are until you've had them and then try to go without them? I've tried to use my girlfriend's iPod Touch from time to time and found navigating about incredibly frustrating, but she had no problem migrating from the iPod Touch to Android.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Bad, really bad "API stability" is the main reason Linux failed so badly in the "industry".
What an utterly idiotic statement: Linux "failed because of $X".
Firstly, there are many possible reasons why Linux may be better or worse than Windows in a given situation, of which API stability is just one of them. Maybe it was important for you, or for a particular project you were involved with, but that doesn't make it THE REASON. Assuming that a complex issue like OS competition can be boiled down to a single "reason for failure" is stupid, particularly when your bald assertion is not backed up with a single piece of evidence.
Secondly, Linux hasn't "failed" just because it hasn't satisfied an arbitrary requirement to displace Windows within some timeline that exists only in your own head. If Linux (not UNIX) used to run on 90% of desktops and was knocked out of the game by Windows, you would have a point. If Linus Torvalds personally committed to take over from Windows within ten years, you would have a point. Neither of these is true. Linux still exists, it is still being developed, and it is still being used by millions of people and companies all over the world. I would be quite happy to achieve this level of "failure" in any of my own projects.
But meh, why I am I wasting time arguing with this crap? Another day, another "Linux will never succeed on the desktop because $MY_PARTICULAR_ISSUE" post. At least it didn't involve complaining about manually configuring monitor sync rates or include a demand to magically eradicate all distros except for the One True Choice, so I guess that's progress.
Thanks for the praise, Woz!
Cheap, available suckage. Windows and Android.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
All that matters is that there is competition among hardware and software vendors to drive down the price of systems
Competition drives down price only to the extent that you can sell something at the same price or slightly better than another competitor.
But Android is not its own market; it includes Apple too because you have to say that all phones are competing against each other - and here's where having a number of different hardware makers works against the lowest possible price floor. Because a company that sells quite a few devices alone can get better pricing on components than several other hardware makers that split the remainder of the market. It's why Apple has been able to price things like the iPad cheaper than anyone else can make them.
to drive down the price of systems and increase compatibility....This obviously will never happen with Apple's OS since there is no hardware compatibility or competition.
Which totally ignores the Apple devices are sold in a larger market, as I said. It's quite obvious it HAS happened already with Apple pricing all the device lineup pretty aggressively AND maintaing above average margins. And as for the compatibility angle, iOS apps are more compatible amongst the many iOS devices sold than Android apps are with all the Android systems around.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Microsoft's monopoly got started with DOS and IBM's market strength, but it was maintained due to anti-competitive practices like per-processor licensing agreements. This is well documented in the conclusions of law and other filings from the case. If DOS and IBM were major factors, then OS/2 would surely hold the market dominant position today.
Android will be more popular among users but it will not be able to beat the Apple iOS because iOS is specifically designed to run on iPhone. iPhone drivers are dedicated to certain components of its OS where as in the case of Android, features differer from handset to handset and cause compatibility issues of some drivers with the Android OS.
Isn't it obvious? Open technology will always win over closed Just like Linux.... er, hmm, never mind.
He was probably thinking of FreeBSD not Linux. The UNIX(TM) certified Mac OS X does trace its ancestry to FreeBSD and NetBSD. ;-)
The FOSS nature of Android is probably irrelevant. Android may achieve a greater number of users merely because iOS is *unavailable* to all traditional handset manufacturers. We have never had the test case where manufactures had a choice between the closed iOS and the FOSS Android; the only choice was Android for free of write your own OS. Android could have been just as closed as iOS and handset manufacturers would probably still have chosen it.
There's been a lot of back and forth over how well iPhone would do if it was available on Verizon. Some surveys say it would kick ass, other say not so much. We'll never know until it exists.
Just my idle speculation, but one thing that iPhone still dominates in it's space is usage. The average iPhone user still downloads and uses more content than the average Android user. Sure there are high content Android users, but there have to be plenty of people in the middle and on the low side pulling the average down. I think a huge chunk of them want a smartphone, but they won't get one without Verizon. They aren't really attached to the phone as much as they are the carrier. But many of them will want the status symbol that is the iPhone.
There's also evidence that Apple currently has some supplier and manufacturer issues. They messed up the white iPhone, which there is a subset of people who really had their heart set on it, and the iPad sales are slowing simply because they can't make enough of the blasted things. Can't sell what you don't have.
My concern is that people keep saying "Android is winning because it's the best!" I contend Android is winning because Apple has to put their own house in order and give the customers what they want and execute on it better. But that's just an opinion.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Does Android becoming a giant, cold turd, like Windows has become?
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/18/exclusive-woz-misquoted-almost-every-app-that-i-have-is-bette/
Woz says he gave the De Telegraaf reporter a lengthy demonstration of voice commands on iOS and Android, pointed out that Android offered the ability to say "Navigate to Joe's Diner," and suggested that Apple would catch up through its purchases of Siri and Poly9. According to Steve, that's about it -- he says he'd "never" say that Android was better than iOS, and that "Almost every app I have is better on the iPhone." Woz did say he lightly prognosticated that Android would become more popular "based on what I've read," but that he expects Android "to be a lot like Windows... I'm not trying to put Android down, but I'm not suggesting it's better than iOS by any stretch of the imagination. But it can get greater marketshare and still be crappy."
I have an android in a native android phone. There are a lot of things that the iPhone does better than the Android. Most are just little things. I like being able to hold down and find where i want to edit instead of using the slide out keyboard and then using the arrow keys. I also prefer the on-screen iPhone keyboard to anything i have seen on android. These are the reasons I will get rid of Android, I think most people who use a phone would prefer it to work well from the start. The fact that the native appstore has to be changed to appbrain might make some people not like the system. I do see how it can appeal to a greater audience since it's more versatile but most people just want an easy to use phone. They don't care about openness, hackability, or any of the other stuff. And they are stupid and want just one button.
Blackberries suck monkey balls!! i hate setting them up and i hate dealing with them. Of all the phones out there that i can support blackberry is the one i would prefer never to support. may they die a cruel cruel death!
Engadget got ahold of Woz himself:
Given that the source is a Dutch publication, I bet they lost something in translation for whatever reason (poor command of English or an attempt to troll for hits).
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Is a day someone commits to an Android phone for the next two years. If Apple waits too long to make iPhone available on Verizon, it may find itself struggling to compete for awhile after the initial launch on Verizon.
I fully believe that the main reason Verizon got so much behind Android-based phones, was that A) Blackberries are liked by some people, but not everyone, and B) Android seemed to be the only other platform which could potentially drive the kind of sales the iPhone was seeing. Basically, Apple forced Verizon to push their competitors (and still is today), so Verizon did.
Again, tick-tock, every day which passes, lots of people on Verizon are buying Droids and other android-powered phones, and will likely continue to use those for at least two years. Once they're using them, they might find that even if they like the iPhone a little more, they're already 'settled' with data on their Android phone, apps they're used to using on their Android phone, etc.
Uhm, its always been listed under 'Sounds' in the Settings.app, not sure why you think thats a new feature.
I kept reading your post but then just realized you just don't like apple and want to be an android fanboy as you rant about apple doing one thing than rave about an android app that basically emulates the same features available on the iPhone.
Perhaps the hippie fanboy needs to lay off the smoke long enough for reality to step back in the door before he rants on about bullshit.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Sorry Woz,
The iOS API is far more stable than Android at this point, so if thats one of the reasons Windows did so good (which I agree with) the fact that android doesnt have consistency, its quality so far in the real world has been substandard due to the carriers, and lets face it, when most people who buy an android device have no urge to buy another one, yet most iOS users do ... well you aren't winning in user satisfaction either ...
Making geeks spew in their shorts, sure, android is kicking ass there, but realistically, it has none of the advantages you're claiming it does, and you found nothing really wrong with iOS and said everyone likes it, and it actually does what you claim gave Windows the distinct advantage in regards to the API (not the openness to random hardware).
So are Stallman and Woz getting married or something? That almost sounded like a Linux based marriage proposal.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I think it's important to be clear that you mean they simply can't be gotten from the Android Market.
Yes, I'm assuming that most apps on Android Market are available only on Android Market, not AppsLib or whatever the Android-based media player makers are using nowadays instead of Android Market, and not by downloading a .apk file. (I'd love to be proven wrong.) Compare iPod touch and iPhone, which have one App Store between them.
But the whole idea of a console is that it stays the same so you are guaranteed the games will run and not require any additional hardware you might not have, or won't run in a low detail mode
Compare the Nintendo 64 Expansion Pak, which added an additional 4 MB of RAM to the system's 4 MB. Some games (Majora's Mask, DK64, half of Perfect Dark) wouldn't run without it; others (Quake II, Turok, the other half of Perfect Dark) would run in low detail. Some Game Boy Color games wouldn't run on a Game Boy or Game Boy Pocket; others could run in low-detail mode.
It's what you can do with it that counts. Everyone here should thank Apple for the iPhone, not simply because of the device itself, but that it forced phone companies and handset makers to get off their asses and build something that is not a piece of crap. Remember what things were like before iPhone, folks. I do.
Woz didn't say that.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/18/exclusive-woz-misquoted-almost-every-app-that-i-have-is-bette/
"Almost every app that I have is better on the iPhone"
It seems obvious that Android will be the more dominant smartphone. IOS is on one phone, the iPhone, whereas Android is on a variety of phones, not to mention there are new ones coming out practically every few weeks. And due to the variety of Android phones available, there is most likely something available on an Android that any consumer will like. So someone predicting that Android will become the dominant smartphone isn’t surprising um well unless it is the prediction of the co-founded of Apple. Even though he was misquoted his point is still the same- due to numbers Androids may eventually dominate the smartphone platform.
If you look at the raw numbers of android phones sold in a quarter, versus the iPhone then Android is the clear winner of those two even worldwide.
But if you look at the total addressable market for apps on iPhones running iOS 4.x and compare that with those running and/or upgradable to Android 2.x, you see a different picture. Even now, there are android phones being sold with 2.1 on them instead of 2.2. Every iPhone except for the original iPhone will be able to run 4.2 when it arrives and even the original iPhone can still run iPhone OS 3.1 so it can run a lot of current apps which still support 3.0 or above.
Now if you look at just the marketshare of iOS devices which includes iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad versus Android devices with the android market place on them, iOS wins by a landslide.
Looking at install base of iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad versus Android is even more one sided.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The Android operating system has the backing of Google who controls huge technology markets search, OS, Tv, browsing, maps, etc. It has the same things going for it now that Microsoft had going for it in the past being freedom to customize. Google with the money and market capability to corporate their preexisting technologies into future ones hits home with customization as the icing on the cake.
Seems to me that the largest force driving iPhone/iPad/iPod success is the Apple Store. It's huge, draws developers, and provides good product at dirt cheap prices. OS considerations have become secondary.
Wait. Stop scrolling for a sec. O.K. Thanks. - P
I thought it was geek-politically correct to admit that IE for Mac was actually pretty decent, especially compared to the pre-Safari, pre-Firefox competition (in 1997)? Or has that changed?
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
If something is a bit too small, I just hold it closer.
Apparently I'm getting older, as if something is too small I have to hold it farther away...
Ocean is land, covered with water.
I wouldn't put too much faith in this. Woz is notoriously wrong about things.
Or you can keep your old computer running and play PSX games for years
Good luck figuring out how to hook up your PS1 to your PC to dump the console's BIOS. Or have the major PlayStation emulators managed to high-level-emulate the PlayStation BIOS the way VisualBoyAdvance and NO$GBA do for the GBA?
So all in all I would argue that PC gaming is cheaper in the long run.
Unless you have friends over at your place, and they didn't bring PCs with them. The chance that a random multiplayer console game will support 2-4 controllers is far greater than chance that a random multiplayer PC game will support anything but LAN or Internet play. Most PC games are closer to handheld games, needing a separate PC for each player, neglecting home theater PC users.
The games are cheaper
Many DS games support "DS Download Play", allowing the player acting as the "server" to send files to play a portion of the game using only one Game Card. Three out of four DS games that I own have this. The PC counterpart to this is "Spawn Installation", as seen in the original StarCraft, but very few PC games have this. So a $40 game ends up costing $80 to $160 for the whole household to play.
Whereas nobody wants that old Gamecube or Xbox gathering dust in my closet right now.
Almost nobody wants the GameCube because the only thing that doesn't run on a Wii is Game Boy Player. As for the original Xbox, a modded one will work with old versions of XBMC, tying us back in to open vs. closed: if the Xbox were open, it'd be far easier to use XBMC.
Hell I've seen an Android iPad knockoff for $159 with a plug in keyboard case for just $40 more, making it a true convertible netbook for just $190.
It's too bad that only phones can run apps from Android Market, unlike Android-based media players (e.g. Archos) and Wi-Fi-only tablets. Apple, on the other hand, allows iPod touch, iPhone, iPad Wi-Fi, and iPad 3G to access the same App Store.
$100 Android phone
You mean $580 Android phone after you include the subsidy. T-Mobile offers "Even More Plus" plans that allow customers to buy the phone up front and save $480 off two years of voice and data.
Exactly this, the buttons in the same place, always is handy - plus obviously they perform consistent functions.
I think infact I'd even like a quick camera (or assignable) side button to boot if I could.
I find it hilarious how many butthurt Apple fans have moderated my post as overrated just because I've been enthusiastic about a competing product, can't have anyone say anything negative at all, it must be a troll! Your idiotic attitude is yet another reason to leave, I don't need groupthink thanks.
You're completely wrong, SMS tones have not been adjustable until very recently (4.1 or 4.2 I think) how you can not know this is beyond me.
Not all apps need a back button. I know in WP7, at least, that the back button isn't even consistent in what it does. An on-screen back button can always be more clear about its context and what it will do.
I think the menu button is a bit of a cop-out. It seems like it's easier to add a menu than it is to really think about your GUI. It's like a dumping ground for things that you can't figure out where they should go.
What is this WOZ of which you speak?