Illustrating the Socioeconomic Divide With iOS and Android
An anonymous reader writes: "Android has a huge market share advantage over iOS these days, but it hasn't had as much success at following the money. iOS continues to win over many app developers and businesses who want to maximize their earnings. Now, an article at Slate goes over some of the statistics demonstrating this trend. A map of geo-located Tweets show that in Manhattan, a generally affluent area, most of the Tweets come from iPhones. Meanwhile, in nearby Newark, which is a poorer area, most Tweets come from Android devices. In other tests, traffic data shows 87% of visits to e-commerce websites from tablets come from iPads, and the average value of an order from an iPad is $155, compared to $110 from Android tablets. (Android fairs a bit better on phones). Android shows a huge market share advantage in poorer countries, as well. Not all devs and business are just chasing the money, though. Twitter developer Cennydd Bowles said, 'I do hope, given tech's rhetoric about changing the world and disrupting outdated hierarchies, that we don't really think only those with revenue potential are worth our attention. A designer has a duty to be empathetic; to understand and embrace people not like him/herself. A group owning different devices to the design elite is not a valid reason to neglect their needs.'"
can afford to be apple fanboys, for a while at least.
This is a false dilemma.
... "Manhattan, a generally affluent area."
"the average value of an order from an iPad is $155, compared to $110 from Android tablets."
The funny thing is, that often it's for the exact same thing both of them bought.
Sites check the user-agent and rich guys (IOS) are shown a higher price for the same objects, as it has been noticed quite a few times.
So if you want a bargain, you need a user-agent-changer for your iPad to mimic a poor people's OS.
People with lower incomes buy less expensive devices and spend less money? Who could have ever guessed? Brilliant work by Slate.
is full of half-assed quality adware, this is based on personal experience with an android tablet i bought recently, for example there was no app for taking screenshots, so i search the Play Store for screenshot apps, instead of finding a couple to choose from i find dozens of them and most require i root/unlock my tablet in order to function, i think i will wait until i can get a more open build of arm tablet so i can install Debian on it or just throw in the towel on electronic gadets and live like an Amish farmer
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Many of the commenters on the Slate article point out that the map is drawn in such a way that the red (iPhone) tweets are drawn on top of the green (Android) ones. That creates a misleading picture.
There's no "app" for screenshots because it's built into Android itself, and has been since 4.0 (which was released many years ago). It's volume down + power button. Just Google for "Android screenshot".
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
I was just about to respond to that myself, though differently.
I believe in being empathetic, but I don't believe anybody has any kind of duty or moral obligation to be.
I think the worst form of greed is expecting somebody else to be more generous than you yourself are willing or able to be. Asking is one thing, but expecting or demanding is another.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...
So what does that say about me?
I would say everyone has a duty to be. I'll agree with your second statement.
Android. ANDROid. Why not Gyndroid? This is problematic. Every time you use\develop for that evil platform the Patriarchy's War on Women and non-white males wins another battle. If you care about social justice, then you will not use anything tainted by Google.
The only conclusions that I can draw has to do with the people who use Twitter. While twitter's user base may be sufficiently representative of the overall mobile user space, I don't see how it can correlate to wealth of platform adoption until other factors are also ruled out.
A group spending less money on your app is a valid reason to prioritize other groups first, or exclusively (depending on the cost of development and potential money on the table).
Many people would love a Ferrari, but they are expensive, so they drive Toyotas instead.
I know of VERY few people who lust after an Android device. They lust after Apple, and buy Android because that's what they can afford. The low end of ANY market is always a lot bigger than the high end. Cars, houses, phones, whatever. Toyota outsells Ferrari by quite a lot too.
oh that's a load of horseS#$T, I know a LOT of people who lust after flagship android devices, The Samsung Galaxy line and HTC models are amazing. iPhones are fine devices to be sure, but they aren't the "Ferrari's" of the world no matter how much your ego would like to believe that.
Not to mention the obvious phallic symbolism of the Android logo, standing erect and solid like the triumphant penis of a rapist after his midnight prowl, green with womb envy and intent to destroy in the name of masculinity. Contrast that with the Feminine flows and curves of the artistic iOS which Google has tried in the past to appropriate as their own.
If you look at the heatmap of downtown San Francisco and you click off Apple you'll see that there are plenty of android users in wealthy areas. The apple red just blocks you from seeing the android blue underneath. So IMHO, Android has a lot of wealthy users but Apple only has wealthy users.
I mean yes, there are expensive Android devices. You can have a nice, premium, phone or tablet if you wish. I loves me my Galaxy Note 3 but it certainly costs a lot, more than an iPhone even. However there are also cheap Android devices. You can get a smart phone for $100 or less (talking full price here, not subsidized). So Android phones are an option on most budgets.
Until recently, all you could get with Apple was the standard iPhone which is like $600-700 full price. Even the new "c" model is $550 full price. That puts them out of range of most people who want prepaid phone plans, which is often what people with lower incomes go for.
Well those people are also likely to spend less on apps. After all, if your finances are such that you wish to buy an economical phone, you probably don't want to ruin it with spending a ton of money on software.
So ya, that will push the average down on Android phones. Personally, I see that as a big positive to Android. There's something to be said for a thing that can be available to a wide segment of the population. Exclusivity to the affluent isn't something I consider to be positive.
Most people in this world have to trade their time for money in order to pay their bills. This includes people who spend their time writing programs for phones and computers. Why is it so surprising that people that can afford Apple products are also able to spend more money?
It does not cost significantly less to make the hardware of phones and tablets from one company to the next. What costs a lot of money is making good software to run on this hardware. It is mostly because the software on Android is "free" that makes these devices cheaper than Apple products. This is also the reason why Android customers expect their apps to be free also. Android however is not really free for the same reason that over the air broadcast television is not free. For Google and broadcasters the users are the product and the advertisers are the customers. Both are selling the user's time. In the case of Google, the users private information as well as their time is sold to the advertisers. Besides huge profits, Google is using a large fraction of their substantial pile of money to provide "free" software to deliver more of their product (eyeballs and information) to their customers the advertisers.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
You pick a platform based on market size.
PC's historically have had a lot more software available for them than Macs because you have a larger target market. If you target one platform, you target PC's, unless the market for your application is graphic artists, musicians, etc., then you target Macs. If you target two markets, you target PC's and Macs, and you don't target Linux.
If I target iOS because I have a product that will work on a tablet/mobile platform, then I have the largest possible market. I'm guaranteed a practically forced upgrade to the most recent version of the OS the platform can run, and I'm guaranteed that the device is going to have the same set of sensors and input methods as every other device.
I'm guaranteed that, even though it's not in AT&T's best interests, given their contract model, to not have the carrot of me not being able to run the latest OS unless I re-up my contract, I'm going to get the latest OS anyway, and screw what AT&T wants, and screw their business model, because that's what Apple wants.
For Android, I have to target a lot of versions of the OS; I practically have to target whatever the version was at the time they did the repo code freeze on the android sources, and started the platform port. I have to target different screen resolutions. I have to target different input methods. I have to target different camera capabilities, resolutions, directionality, and so on.
Practically speaking, each android device is an island. Some have a lager market share. If I wanted to target 6 platforms, 2 of them would be iOS, 1 of them would be iOS on iPhone 5 (different aspect ratio), and the other 3 would probably be Samsung Galaxy products (2 phones and a tablet, based on market share).
If you could resolve the android version difference problem, that'd go a hell of a long way toward making android competitive. It would require changing the android development model, and some of the partnership agreements.
Instead, Google is concentrating on forcing branding onto the boot screen, and forcing apps onto the device by default. The apps are a good thing, in general, since they tend to rationalize the user experience, but not the same way the VGA standard rationalized the user experience on PC's: minimally, there should be resolution and aspect ratio requirements for android - they matter a hell of a lot more to establishing an applications base than putting up a logo at boot time.
The walls on Google's walled garden are also rather porous. They are more "We won't let you play with the toys we have" rather than "we will keep the bad guys out". And it shows. It shows that other people can run android app stores, that they do, and that there's a huge amount of malware out there in those place. They show in the balkanization of the market by OEM vendor stores, and by carrier stores.
It's crap that I can buy an iOS device, and get "The Apple Experience" - a uniform thing across all the devices - but that I can't buy an android device and get "The Android Experience" - unless you call a balkanized chaos "The Experience".
So yeah, as a developer, I don't target android unless I'm Roxio and have more money than God to spend on programmers for platforms where I'm going to end up selling 50 copies of the game that everyone has, and then sell follow-on modules on a monthly basis until the cows come home, in order to monetize that investment over a long (I don't care how long; I'm not living hand to mouth, I'm Roxio!) period of time.
So yeah, android has shit apps. Make it a uniform platform, instead of me trying to develop for the Mac and the Apple IIe and the Ohio Scientific, and the Orange Micro, and the TI-99/4A, and the Timex Sinclair Z-8000, and the Tandy CoCo, and the Wang word processing station, and the ... or keep your balkanized mosaic of "Choice, man! Yeah! Choice!" and write your own damn software.
There are nice android phones. What the iOS world lacks is cheap ass junk phones. The android world is full of them, shitty little cheap smart phones. Yeah the S4 Samsung is really nice and the HTC one is cool but for every one of those there are 5 or 6 of the cheapo throwaway ones.
You think Apple doesn't sell advertising metrics and other stats? I guarantee Apple does the exact same thing Google does but they don't tell you.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
You make it up in volume. This is a false dilemma.
Actually you do not get enough volume to make it up, at least as of August 2013. According to http://www.forbes.com/sites/tr...
Number of downloads per app, Android 60,000 and iOS 40,000.
Average revenue per download, Android $0.01875 and iOS $0.10.
Average revenue per app, Android $1,125 and iOS $4,000.
I could easily afford an iDevice, but chose an Android phone because it offered the features and applications I wanted without all the drama. I have lost count of the number of co-workers who started off with a simple device like an iPod, then found themselves buying more and more Apple branded hardware assembled by Foxconn. An iPhone here, an iPad there, a Macbook over there. Why? Because "I like the design" or "I want all my hardware to match" or "I miss Steve Jobs" (RIP). Meanwhile, Apple's stock price soars higher and higher while your co-workers do the same thing.
No, Slate, household income has little bearing on iPhone vs. Android and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Choosing to not fall into what seems like a cult or drug addiction to us outsiders probably weighs more heavily on the minds of your technical readers. Now, to be fair, there are people in the category of "too much money, not enough brain" who view the latest iDevice as a status symbol. Those people probably have bigger problems in the grand scheme of life than which phone they use to tweet their latest fashionable selfies at Starbucks to their tweeps.
I promise you, one day I'll take you to Elysium where nobody gets sick and everyone has an unlimited iTunes account.
Interesting that the map shows Spain to be so solidly in the Android camp.
I wonder if iOS is doing something funny there to skew the data, Apple has abandoned the market, or if it is local preference.
https://www.mapbox.com/labs/tw...
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
if you're going to sell an app, IMO, you should look at platform marketshare by country, among other things.
Apple is a marketing company. They're great at convincing people to pay more for older tech that Apple claims is new--they're customers don't know, don't care.
With Android, it's more about what you can do, and do well, without paying too much.
Still, I think some limitations should only be defaults able to be turned off by the power user
They are - millions of people jailbreak iOS devices. Then they have full control and can adjust anything.
Anything less and it's way too easy to social engineer people to do things like enable side-loading and download content from a shady website...
The thing I really don't like about Android is that it's trying to continue the PC era which was an utter disaster for the non-technical population of the world. They deserve to benefit from technology without fear, not be reliant on a technically ept subset of the population.
The technically inclined people will always be able to do what they want with a device they physically control. They need to give up said control for devices that other people own and use.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Perhaps that's so. Maemo, Meego and Symbian are better than both. I like Android devices because I can use standard cables and standard peripherals, mount it on my desktop and view/hack contents, instead of having to decrypt/jailbreak, etc. to get into an iPhone. Best thing about Android: No iTunes!!!!
Is there a stupid tax for Windows 8 phones? Nokia Lumia 521 far exceeds expectations, more so with Lumia 1520. How many apps do you need anyway?
Toyota makes Scions and Lexus. Ferrari only makes Ferraris, GM makes Chevys. If you're going to do a car analogy at least get it right.
Most of human beings with access to Internet are using Android. They may not be spending most of the money right at this moment, but that is going to change very fast. Or, if your platform gets superseded by competition on iOS, alternative platforms may let you live to fight another day. Remember, Facebook didn't pay 19 billion for $1/year revenues of WhatsApp.
You're right about android. Where you are wrong is thinking iOS is any better.
It's not. It's the same crap at a higher price. With a little extra spit-shine.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
As usual the Forbes article is full of speculation and bullshit.
While the company does not break out revenue numbers on their apps, recent data in their financial filings seemed to indicate somewhere around $900 million in pay-outs to developers âoeover the last 12 monthsâ
So they are just making a vague guess about Android revenues, not based on any actual figures. Also that only includes payments that go through Google, not other in-app purchases or non-Play purchases. Yeah, you can buy Android apps from anywhere, including the Amazon app store or individual company's web sites, and I have done so in the past. Sat nav apps are a good example, with high value maps and voices being sold without any interaction from Google.
You also have to consider that in some countries the iPhone has very, very little market. If you want to write apps for people living outside America then Android may be not just a better choice but your only choice.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's pretty hypocritical to use iOS usage to illustrate "the economic divide", since "economic divide" and "inequality" is the rallying cry of the modern American left. Those wealthy iPhone users are also much more likely to be "liberals".
http://blog.chron.com/techblog...
What that illustrates again is that many so-called "liberals" are using the supposed plight of the less well off as a smokescreen to advance their own agendas.
While the number of apps downloaded is coming from 3rd parties we are still left with Google's financial reports indicating $900M paid to developers compared to Apple's claim of $5,000M paid to developers.
Plus its not just Forbes indicating a huge disparity.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://techland.time.com/2013/...
http://venturebeat.com/2013/07...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ay...
Our student at work has a plan that is like $30-40/month or something that is unlimited data (I don't remember how much high speed, they throttle at some point), 400 talk minutes and unlimited text. It's a prepaid deal.
the Feminine flows and curves of the artistic iOS
I thought they were metrosexual.
No kidding. Anyone who has used Android for any length of time and then has to help their mom with their iPhone know just how crappy the UI on the iPhone is. Everytime I use an iPhone I feel like the developers are playing some kind of cruel joke on me.
Does anyone else have that feeling? I just don't get why people think iPhones are better on any metric at all.
Duty's not the word you want. You're referring to a built-in tendency to be social, because it's worked so well, in general, as a gene-protector.
But nowadays, when we know about the tendency to be social, we can always carefully evaluate its worth, and if we're willing to be a sociopathic asshole, with all its demerits, we can do so.
No, duty *IS* the word I want. From a moral/ethical point of view, we have a duty to at least act with empathy towards others.
I currently have five moderator points ("Use 'em or lose 'em."). I think I'll use 'em to down-mod the very article/submission.
-5 Flamebait.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Actually Fiat owns Ferrari, also Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Lancia, Maserati, Ram and SRT
I agree. The iPhone UI has been behind Android since the second version of Android. As for why people would think iPhones are better, there are 2 1/2 reasons that I can think of on why some people think they are better.
1) Appeal to authority. Steve Jobs successfully convince people that he was great a UI design, and if he says something is the right way to do it, it is the right way to do it. It is the fabled Jobs RDF.
2) Apple products are good products. I think there are better products out there, but they are good. I did a couple of month experiment where replaced my PC and phone with Apple products. There were most definitly some things that were brain dead in the Apple products, and I was happy when I switched back to Windows 7/Android, but I can say that if Windows/Android disappeared tomorrow, we would all be just fine. And, other than the amazement that an OS somehow just up and dissappered, we wouldn't be thinking too hard about having to use OSX/iOS after relatively short breaking period. This is the 1/2 reason. Because OSX/iOS are just fine, it makes it reinforces #1.
3) Third party support. iPhone third party support simply crushes Android third party support. I'm not talking about apps. I am talking about hardware accessories. If someone sells cases, they sell iPhone cases. Then maybe they will sell cases for a limited selection of Android devices. There are toys for iPhone. There are alarm clocks that plug into iPhones. There are speakers that plug into iPhones. For the kinds of people that like to buy accessories, the iPhone has something that is just not available to Android. The fact that places like Toys R Us and Target have large sections dedicated to the iPhone accessories also helps with #1.
I do think that the accessory market is starting to change. By going with bluetooth, device makers can support iPhone, and all of the Android devices in one fell swoop. They also don't have to license the iphone propietary connector and get greater freedom in the shape of their device. The consistant form factor for iPhone will keep it as a favorite for those who want to sell cases for a long time though.
Apples's marketing must be indeed be far better, since it gets them a better result than Samsung with one tenth the marketing budget.
http://static.knowyourmobile.c...
"People with more money, on average buy things that are more expensive. News at 11."