5 ms·

IPhone User? 90% Chance You’re On The Latest OS. Android User? 0.4% Chance

23 points by obilgic 16y ago

zacharycohn 16y ago
I don't think that headline is even remotely fair. When Apple releases a new version of iOS, it often comes with a new phone and a $200-$400 price tag. When the new Android version is released by Google, there are hundreds of different devices that already exist that have to be updated, and it gets updated for free.
- sudont 16y ago
  Fair or not, this is one of the biggest benefits of an integrated platform. The report is evidence that the model works.
- lotusleaf1987 16y ago
  How is it not fair? Carriers/manufacturers could easily update their phones if they were motivated to but they aren't at all, instead it's just planned obsolescence as usual. They want to force you to buy a new phone.
- nhangen 16y ago
  That's not a fair assessment at all. Many iPhone users are still on 3G and 3GS...not everyone bought an iPhone 4.
- aristidb 16y ago
  But still. Delayed updates (or getting none at all) is a huge problem affecting most Android users. I'm writing this from a phone with Android 2.1... And HTC already declared there will be no more updates. Even the update to 2.1 came with 6 months delay, here in Germany! (HTC Hero.)
- davidedicillo 16y ago
  iOS updates come for free as well and they offer all the features to at least the last 2 versions of the phone, covering basically two years of product releases. > there are hundreds of different devices that already exist that have to be updated That's exactly the problem. Also the problem is that those manufactures don't really care of those hundreds of devices, maybe they care of the latest 2 (two months product releases the most), because most likely they will have to push a brand new device the week after.
- beej71 16y ago
  Even the author of the piece said he doesn't think it was fair, so you're in good company.
- credo 16y ago
  6 points in 7 minutes is great, but I'm not sure why anyone would say that they "don't think that headline is even remotely fair" It looks like you're not denying the facts, just concerned that the facts don't favor Android (and you seem to acknowledge that hundreds of existing devices cannot be updated to the latest Android version) In general, do you not want your headlines to reflect the facts ? [edit: the parent comment was at 6 points when I wrote my response. Now, more than an hour later, it seems to have been downvoted down to 3 points.]
- mbrubeck 16y ago
  And how is this different from Android? "When Apple releases a new version of iOS, it often comes with a new phone and a $200-$400 price tag." - When Android 2.0 was announced, it was available on only one device, the new Verizon Droid ($199 w/ contract). Even the Verizon Droid Eris released the same day did not have the latest OS. (It missed out on 1.6 and 2.0, was upgraded to 2.1 six months later, and will never see supported upgrades to 2.2 or higher.) - When Android 2.1 was announced, it was available on only one device, the new Nexus One ($529). When 2.2 was released, buying a Nexus One was still the only way to run it at first, although some other devices did get updates a short while later. - When Android 2.3 was announced, it was available on only one device, the new Nexus S ($529 or $199 w/contract). Many Android devices never get updated to the latest major release. New devices are released every month or so that ship with year-old versions of the OS. Meanwhile, Apple provides upgrades for every one of its older devices, for at least the next few releases. Among other things, this means developers must decide whether to cut off half their users by taking advantage of new OS features now, or wait a couple years for enough old devices to be updated or thrown away. I work on Firefox for Android, and a bunch of features in the Gingerbread NDK would be perfect for us... if we could actually use them any time soon.
dusing 16y ago
This really is the key difference between the two platforms for developers. Apple just makes a developers job so much easier, an iOS dev is safe to get excited about new features, because they can count on them being supported by customers devices almost immediately. One of the big advantages android has is the lack of app approval. However if curated stores like amazon take off and users prefer it android will loose that advantage too. From a users perspective it is great to know you can get 3 years of new features out of an iPhone vs ??? From an android device.
- garyrichardson 16y ago
  I think your last point is key. Remember back in the day.. if you wanted a Nokia phone that played MP3's, you got the special model the played MP3s. That model didn't really surf the net or have games. If you wanted to play games, you had to buy an NGage, and if you wanted to surf the net (poorly) you needed to get the net surfing phone (can't think of the model). Then there were the E series black berry knock offs. And once your phone's model year was up, that was it. You were stuck with what you had. I like my iPhone. It does 97% of what I want it to do. I could get the other 3% of features by getting an Android, but the Android doesn't match the 97% the iPhone has -- it's more like 80%. Plus, in Canada, my phone has to last 3 years -- that's the contract term up here. 3G's are 3 years old and can run iOS4. Let's see an Android that you buy from Telus or Rogers today run the latest Android in 3 years (even if it doesn't have 100% of the features).
edderly 16y ago
Step 1. Click link Step 2. See the article is written by MG Siegler Step 3. Find something else to read
- ugh 16y ago
  Flag, don’t comment.
raganwald 16y ago
Look, fellas, I keep seeing these kinds of blog posts and while I am waiting patiently for some fresh insights, I keep seeing the same discussion recycled. So to spare everyone the angst, here's the bottom line: Apple takes the attitude that if you give users what they just discovered they wanted, they will give Apple money. Apple considers this more important than its relationships with the carriers, which is why AT&T got an exclusive: None of the other carriers would play ball with a phone that the carriers can't control to the point of making their users miserable. I am not making a value judgment that this is good or great or a revolution, just stating what I believe to be Apple's business strategy. Google works the other way, it makes an OS that in theory is just as good as iOS or even better, but in practice Google's business strategy is about getting as many copies of Android out on as many handsets as possible. Take your pick, this is to get as many search clicks and/or other data aggregations into Google's hands or to suck the oxygen out of the market from their arch-rival Microsoft, or possibly both. To that end, they give the carriers what the carriers want, and the carriers want to make their captive market miserable. This plays itself out in a myriad of different ways, and it always seems to come down to the same thing: Android is more open in theory, but the gap between theory and practice is smaller in theory than it is in practice, and the cause of the gap is the carriers and Googles perfectly sane business strategy of appeasing them. I am not saying Apple's strategy is better or worse than Google's. It is possible that each strategy is a local optimum, and the poor companies between Apple and Google--like Microsoft, RIM, and so on--are between a rock and a hard place. But I do think each strategy is valid given its company's goals, and therefore I do not expect to see anything change unless there is a seismic shift in the industry. Until then, Apple will make a lot of money off a smaller number of handsets, and Android will dominate the numbers but its users will be hostage to the carriers.
- aristidb 16y ago
  That logic does not apply to unlocked GSM phones (like mine), where no carrier is involved in the purchase. These don't get updates either, despite (or because) the device manufacturer is in control, not the carrier. Maybe in the USA, it is not common to buy phones unlocked and unsubsidised, but here (Germany) many carriers offer rebates if you don't buy a subsidised phone and bring your own.
Niten 16y ago
Chance this arbitrary statistic matters to real world Android users? 0.4% Chance
- CountSessine 16y ago
  Certainly mattered to a friend of mine who was suckered into buying an Experia X10.
andrewjshults 16y ago
If you use the same binning strategy that is used for the iOS versions then the numbers aren't so far off. 87.4% of Android users are on 2.x which compares favorably to the 90% of iOS users on 4.x. Granted there are bigger differences between each Android point version than the iOS, but the iOS data is too lacking to make this a fair comparison. It wouldn't surprise me if iOS suffered from users not being on the latest latest (4.2) version because of the lack of OTA updates. That being said, my roommate has a Nexus S and I have an HTC Evo and would trade HTC Sense for quicker updates to the latest releases (without having to load custom ROMs).
- dannyr 16y ago
  Yes but this is MG Siegler's article. He cherrypicks certain data to show that Android is inferior to iOS. Majority of Android phones are on 2.1 and up. For him that's not enough so he had to break it down to specific releases (2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) so he can prove his point. There may be significant difference between 2.1 and 2.2. However, after playing with 2.3 for a month, there's not a big difference from 2.2.
blinkingled 16y ago
Doesn't matter much from either a regular developer or regular user standpoint as long as people are using 2.1 and above (90% of users are) - most of the apps just work. If you are keen on OS upgrades - you just need to have bought the right phone - Nexus line or some of the HTC ones or even the original Droid. I am running Cyanogenmod 7 which is Gingerbread on my N1 happily. I happen to know many iPhone users at my office - they don't use iTunes and don't even know there is an upgrade - they are running the version of the OS their device shipped with. Only the Mac/iTunes users (which there are few) tend to upgrade to the latest. So yeah - big numbers but not much practical significance in comparison.
- wmf 16y ago
  as long as people are using 2.1 and above (90% of users are) - most of the apps just work. A bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy if developers are targeting old Android OSes because the newer releases don't have critical mass. I'm reminded of the Vista debacle.
  - blinkingled 16y ago
    Well the developers don't lose anything by targeting a lower API version - if they target 2.1 the app is more or less guaranteed to work on 2.3 due to forward compatibility.
    - wmf 16y ago
      Developers who target old OSes lose the features that are available in the newer OSes (unless they do feature detection and a lot of extra testing). This is so obvious that I must not be understanding your comment.
      - blinkingled 16y ago
        It would be a problem if Android 2.x APIs were deficient in basic features like iOS 3.x were when it came to multitasking. That isn't the case. Android API additions are mostly tied to new hardware - NFC/Multiple Cameras/Tablets etc as opposed to pure software improvements like added multitasking. Not many developers need to target latest AOSP release - that's my point. Almost all apps can target 2.1 and benefit from under the hood improvements in 2.3 like faster VM. Few apps that rely on 2.3 specific features like NFC/SIP/Multiple cameras also rely on hardware features being available - so software features are a moot point there and then the problem is not unique to Android. iPhone 5 comes with new NFC and iOS 5 - developers have the same problem - they have to wait for enough people to upgrade to iPhone 5 and iOS5 and if they target iOS4 they lose the iOS 5 features. How many apps will be impacted - not many. Same thing.
trotsky 16y ago
iPhone OS 4.0 first available: June 24, 2010 (seven months ago) Android 2.3 first available: December 16, 2010 (one month ago) So, really, a release seven times older than another one has more adoption? Stop the presses! Android revision takeup on disparate hardware is a real issue, but as usual this is just cheap fanboyism in its presentation.
- wmf 16y ago
  Read on to the part where Android 2.2 has much less share than iOS 4.x, despite them being of similar age.
  - trotsky 16y ago
    Right, like I said, Android revision takeup is a real issue. It doesn't change the fact that headlining "90% vs. 0.4% LOLOL" is just yet another episode of sports team like boosterism. Or did MG write an article titled "apple tablet crippled by lack of OS upgrade strategy" 30 days after 4.0 shipped that I missed?
ja27 16y ago
I know he considers Android's .X releases major, but in case you don't: iOS 4.X: 89.73 % Android 2.X: 87.4% Of course, it's hardly the fault of the Android users. If it wasn't for cyanogen and a couple hours of work I wouldn't even be on 2.2.
aristidb 16y ago
An alternative explanation not involving carriers: Device manufacturers fiercely compete to get people to buy THEIR phones. They get customers by adding custom extensions, and by always having fresh phones in the pipeline. Customers do not seem to prioritise promises of timely updates. Porting customizations costs money that the device manufacturers prefer spending on new models. Apple customers on the other hand are loyal enough to (now) buy phones from mod 2010 or even 2009 - of course only with the latest iOS. Of course these phones get updates.
rmc 16y ago
For years the majority of the web uses were using an archaic browser (ie6) and the web flourished.
mcritz 16y ago
Even if the carriers wanted to update users to the latest Android OS many devices come with a preinstalled custom UI and existing apps. You don’t want to mess with the users’ experience by changing their UI or what apps they expect to see. It would actually require a great deal of work to get new OS updates into the many varieties of Android phones in the way users are accustomed to their phones’ experience.

23 points by obilgic 16y ago

I don't think that headline is even remotely fair. When Apple releases a new version of iOS, it often comes with a new phone and a $200-$400 price tag. When the new Android version is released by Google, there are hundreds of different devices that already exist that have to be updated, and it gets updated for free.

sudont 16y ago
Fair or not, this is one of the biggest benefits of an integrated platform. The report is evidence that the model works.
lotusleaf1987 16y ago
How is it not fair? Carriers/manufacturers could easily update their phones if they were motivated to but they aren't at all, instead it's just planned obsolescence as usual. They want to force you to buy a new phone.
nhangen 16y ago
That's not a fair assessment at all. Many iPhone users are still on 3G and 3GS...not everyone bought an iPhone 4.
aristidb 16y ago
But still. Delayed updates (or getting none at all) is a huge problem affecting most Android users. I'm writing this from a phone with Android 2.1... And HTC already declared there will be no more updates. Even the update to 2.1 came with 6 months delay, here in Germany! (HTC Hero.)
davidedicillo 16y ago
iOS updates come for free as well and they offer all the features to at least the last 2 versions of the phone, covering basically two years of product releases. > there are hundreds of different devices that already exist that have to be updated That's exactly the problem. Also the problem is that those manufactures don't really care of those hundreds of devices, maybe they care of the latest 2 (two months product releases the most), because most likely they will have to push a brand new device the week after.
beej71 16y ago
Even the author of the piece said he doesn't think it was fair, so you're in good company.
credo 16y ago
6 points in 7 minutes is great, but I'm not sure why anyone would say that they "don't think that headline is even remotely fair" It looks like you're not denying the facts, just concerned that the facts don't favor Android (and you seem to acknowledge that hundreds of existing devices cannot be updated to the latest Android version) In general, do you not want your headlines to reflect the facts ? [edit: the parent comment was at 6 points when I wrote my response. Now, more than an hour later, it seems to have been downvoted down to 3 points.]
mbrubeck 16y ago
And how is this different from Android? "When Apple releases a new version of iOS, it often comes with a new phone and a $200-$400 price tag." - When Android 2.0 was announced, it was available on only one device, the new Verizon Droid ($199 w/ contract). Even the Verizon Droid Eris released the same day did not have the latest OS. (It missed out on 1.6 and 2.0, was upgraded to 2.1 six months later, and will never see supported upgrades to 2.2 or higher.) - When Android 2.1 was announced, it was available on only one device, the new Nexus One ($529). When 2.2 was released, buying a Nexus One was still the only way to run it at first, although some other devices did get updates a short while later. - When Android 2.3 was announced, it was available on only one device, the new Nexus S ($529 or $199 w/contract). Many Android devices never get updated to the latest major release. New devices are released every month or so that ship with year-old versions of the OS. Meanwhile, Apple provides upgrades for every one of its older devices, for at least the next few releases. Among other things, this means developers must decide whether to cut off half their users by taking advantage of new OS features now, or wait a couple years for enough old devices to be updated or thrown away. I work on Firefox for Android, and a bunch of features in the Gingerbread NDK would be perfect for us... if we could actually use them any time soon.

dusing 16y ago

This really is the key difference between the two platforms for developers. Apple just makes a developers job so much easier, an iOS dev is safe to get excited about new features, because they can count on them being supported by customers devices almost immediately. One of the big advantages android has is the lack of app approval. However if curated stores like amazon take off and users prefer it android will loose that advantage too. From a users perspective it is great to know you can get 3 years of new features out of an iPhone vs ??? From an android device.

garyrichardson 16y ago
I think your last point is key. Remember back in the day.. if you wanted a Nokia phone that played MP3's, you got the special model the played MP3s. That model didn't really surf the net or have games. If you wanted to play games, you had to buy an NGage, and if you wanted to surf the net (poorly) you needed to get the net surfing phone (can't think of the model). Then there were the E series black berry knock offs. And once your phone's model year was up, that was it. You were stuck with what you had. I like my iPhone. It does 97% of what I want it to do. I could get the other 3% of features by getting an Android, but the Android doesn't match the 97% the iPhone has -- it's more like 80%. Plus, in Canada, my phone has to last 3 years -- that's the contract term up here. 3G's are 3 years old and can run iOS4. Let's see an Android that you buy from Telus or Rogers today run the latest Android in 3 years (even if it doesn't have 100% of the features).

edderly 16y ago

Step 1. Click link Step 2. See the article is written by MG Siegler Step 3. Find something else to read

ugh 16y ago
Flag, don’t comment.

raganwald 16y ago

Look, fellas, I keep seeing these kinds of blog posts and while I am waiting patiently for some fresh insights, I keep seeing the same discussion recycled. So to spare everyone the angst, here's the bottom line: Apple takes the attitude that if you give users what they just discovered they wanted, they will give Apple money. Apple considers this more important than its relationships with the carriers, which is why AT&T got an exclusive: None of the other carriers would play ball with a phone that the carriers can't control to the point of making their users miserable. I am not making a value judgment that this is good or great or a revolution, just stating what I believe to be Apple's business strategy. Google works the other way, it makes an OS that in theory is just as good as iOS or even better, but in practice Google's business strategy is about getting as many copies of Android out on as many handsets as possible. Take your pick, this is to get as many search clicks and/or other data aggregations into Google's hands or to suck the oxygen out of the market from their arch-rival Microsoft, or possibly both. To that end, they give the carriers what the carriers want, and the carriers want to make their captive market miserable. This plays itself out in a myriad of different ways, and it always seems to come down to the same thing: Android is more open in theory, but the gap between theory and practice is smaller in theory than it is in practice, and the cause of the gap is the carriers and Googles perfectly sane business strategy of appeasing them. I am not saying Apple's strategy is better or worse than Google's. It is possible that each strategy is a local optimum, and the poor companies between Apple and Google--like Microsoft, RIM, and so on--are between a rock and a hard place. But I do think each strategy is valid given its company's goals, and therefore I do not expect to see anything change unless there is a seismic shift in the industry. Until then, Apple will make a lot of money off a smaller number of handsets, and Android will dominate the numbers but its users will be hostage to the carriers.

aristidb 16y ago
That logic does not apply to unlocked GSM phones (like mine), where no carrier is involved in the purchase. These don't get updates either, despite (or because) the device manufacturer is in control, not the carrier. Maybe in the USA, it is not common to buy phones unlocked and unsubsidised, but here (Germany) many carriers offer rebates if you don't buy a subsidised phone and bring your own.

Niten 16y ago

Chance this arbitrary statistic matters to real world Android users? 0.4% Chance

CountSessine 16y ago
Certainly mattered to a friend of mine who was suckered into buying an Experia X10.

andrewjshults 16y ago

If you use the same binning strategy that is used for the iOS versions then the numbers aren't so far off. 87.4% of Android users are on 2.x which compares favorably to the 90% of iOS users on 4.x. Granted there are bigger differences between each Android point version than the iOS, but the iOS data is too lacking to make this a fair comparison. It wouldn't surprise me if iOS suffered from users not being on the latest latest (4.2) version because of the lack of OTA updates. That being said, my roommate has a Nexus S and I have an HTC Evo and would trade HTC Sense for quicker updates to the latest releases (without having to load custom ROMs).

dannyr 16y ago
Yes but this is MG Siegler's article. He cherrypicks certain data to show that Android is inferior to iOS. Majority of Android phones are on 2.1 and up. For him that's not enough so he had to break it down to specific releases (2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) so he can prove his point. There may be significant difference between 2.1 and 2.2. However, after playing with 2.3 for a month, there's not a big difference from 2.2.

blinkingled 16y ago

Doesn't matter much from either a regular developer or regular user standpoint as long as people are using 2.1 and above (90% of users are) - most of the apps just work. If you are keen on OS upgrades - you just need to have bought the right phone - Nexus line or some of the HTC ones or even the original Droid. I am running Cyanogenmod 7 which is Gingerbread on my N1 happily. I happen to know many iPhone users at my office - they don't use iTunes and don't even know there is an upgrade - they are running the version of the OS their device shipped with. Only the Mac/iTunes users (which there are few) tend to upgrade to the latest. So yeah - big numbers but not much practical significance in comparison.

wmf 16y ago
as long as people are using 2.1 and above (90% of users are) - most of the apps just work. A bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy if developers are targeting old Android OSes because the newer releases don't have critical mass. I'm reminded of the Vista debacle.
- blinkingled 16y ago
  Well the developers don't lose anything by targeting a lower API version - if they target 2.1 the app is more or less guaranteed to work on 2.3 due to forward compatibility.
  - wmf 16y ago
    Developers who target old OSes lose the features that are available in the newer OSes (unless they do feature detection and a lot of extra testing). This is so obvious that I must not be understanding your comment.
    - blinkingled 16y ago
      It would be a problem if Android 2.x APIs were deficient in basic features like iOS 3.x were when it came to multitasking. That isn't the case. Android API additions are mostly tied to new hardware - NFC/Multiple Cameras/Tablets etc as opposed to pure software improvements like added multitasking. Not many developers need to target latest AOSP release - that's my point. Almost all apps can target 2.1 and benefit from under the hood improvements in 2.3 like faster VM. Few apps that rely on 2.3 specific features like NFC/SIP/Multiple cameras also rely on hardware features being available - so software features are a moot point there and then the problem is not unique to Android. iPhone 5 comes with new NFC and iOS 5 - developers have the same problem - they have to wait for enough people to upgrade to iPhone 5 and iOS5 and if they target iOS4 they lose the iOS 5 features. How many apps will be impacted - not many. Same thing.

trotsky 16y ago

iPhone OS 4.0 first available: June 24, 2010 (seven months ago) Android 2.3 first available: December 16, 2010 (one month ago) So, really, a release seven times older than another one has more adoption? Stop the presses! Android revision takeup on disparate hardware is a real issue, but as usual this is just cheap fanboyism in its presentation.

wmf 16y ago
Read on to the part where Android 2.2 has much less share than iOS 4.x, despite them being of similar age.
- trotsky 16y ago
  Right, like I said, Android revision takeup is a real issue. It doesn't change the fact that headlining "90% vs. 0.4% LOLOL" is just yet another episode of sports team like boosterism. Or did MG write an article titled "apple tablet crippled by lack of OS upgrade strategy" 30 days after 4.0 shipped that I missed?

ja27 16y ago

I know he considers Android's .X releases major, but in case you don't: iOS 4.X: 89.73 % Android 2.X: 87.4% Of course, it's hardly the fault of the Android users. If it wasn't for cyanogen and a couple hours of work I wouldn't even be on 2.2.

aristidb 16y ago

An alternative explanation not involving carriers: Device manufacturers fiercely compete to get people to buy THEIR phones. They get customers by adding custom extensions, and by always having fresh phones in the pipeline. Customers do not seem to prioritise promises of timely updates. Porting customizations costs money that the device manufacturers prefer spending on new models. Apple customers on the other hand are loyal enough to (now) buy phones from mod 2010 or even 2009 - of course only with the latest iOS. Of course these phones get updates.

rmc 16y ago

For years the majority of the web uses were using an archaic browser (ie6) and the web flourished.

mcritz 16y ago

Even if the carriers wanted to update users to the latest Android OS many devices come with a preinstalled custom UI and existing apps. You don’t want to mess with the users’ experience by changing their UI or what apps they expect to see. It would actually require a great deal of work to get new OS updates into the many varieties of Android phones in the way users are accustomed to their phones’ experience.