6 ms·

So the Apple fans who were telling us how poor the Android tablet experience is and that Android only beats iOS on phones because of carrier bundling appear to

by RyanZAG 13y ago

So the Apple fans who were telling us how poor the Android tablet experience is and that Android only beats iOS on phones because of carrier bundling appear to have been incorrect yet again. Makes for very good proof that an open ecosystem is always going to beat out a closed one in the long run.

soulhacker 13y ago
Depends on how you define 'beat', yes maybe.
supercoder 13y ago
Experience and market share are two very different things.
k-mcgrady 13y ago
From my comment on this thread: "I know a family member who had an iPad and used it all the time. For his next tablet he got an Android tablet and he doesn't use it at all. Why? No good apps." Android tablets are good when cost is a major consideration but if you can afford to spend an extra $100/200 I believe you'll get more value from an iPad still.
- RyanZAG 13y ago
  So the millions of people buying Android tablets just throw their money away and never use them? Seems a bit of a stretch. Generally if a product isn't useful then people don't buy it, regardless of the price. Why doesn't your family member return the tablet if it's useless?
  - k-mcgrady 13y ago
    >> So the millions of people buying Android tablets just throw their money away and never use them? Seems a bit of a stretch. I didn't say that at all. From my personal experience it seems they get less value from them. They are certainly useful devices but I think the extra money an iPad costs provides more value than the added expense. >> Why doesn't your family member return the tablet if it's useless? He's trying to sell it.
    - Touche 13y ago
      I get the opposite impression. Because the iPad doesn't have access to the harddrive it's hard to use it outside of silo-ed app experiences. I have a catalog of cbr/cbz comic books and it's simple too much work to get them on the iPad. On the Nexus 7 I simple copy them over the network using File Explorer.
      - evilduck 13y ago
        iOS apps that have file management needs work fundamentally the same as a regular file explorer: connect to iTunes, select your device, click the 'Apps' tab, scroll down to 'File Sharing', select your destination app, drag and drop files, sync. You can even do this over wifi. I guess the Android advantage is you can initiate this transfer from the device instead of the computer, but that's not really "too much work" IMO. Apps that register for opening certain file types will also be available in 'Open in' dialogs of other apps (if the developers of both apps added the same file extension) so it's easy to move files between apps. Silos for app files only exist if the developer is lazy or ignorant, the platform itself has supported file sharing between apps for years.
        Touche 13y ago
        > iOS apps that have file management needs work fundamentally the same as a regular file explorer: connect to iTunes, Wait, what? Connecting to iTunes is not part of any regular file explorer workflow. > I guess the Android advantage is you can initiate this transfer from the device instead of the computer, but that's not really "too much work" IMO. Wow, can't disagree more. That's an enormous difference. one is a computer and one is a periphery. Peripheries are fine, some people can live with just a periphery, but if you have real file management needs like the one I pointed to above, a periphery won't cut it. It's entirely too inconvenient to have to dig out the computer that has iTunes installed (for me it's 1 of 4 laptops in my house), get the files onto that computer (probably over the network) and then transfer them onto the device.
        evilduck 13y ago
- GFischer 13y ago
  I have an iPad, and my gf has a Google Nexus 7. We live in Uruguay, and at least for us, it makes way more sense to have an Android tablet than an Apple tablet, moastly because a lot more things are paid on the iPad, and most developers target Android first in my country because it has 90% market share. So YMMV. We also have Android phones. I think the user experience is good enough on both OS, and I'll probably buy Android for my next tablet (I got really frustrated by the iPad's limitations). Apple does have the everything-integrated experience if you buy only Apple (iMac, iPhone and iPad), but only affluent people can afford that, and I wouldn't want it even if I could afford it (which I can't).
  - NicoJuicy 13y ago
    I'm from Belgium and we're not willing to buy everything on Apple. Come on, the newest Apple computer costs like 3000 $ . Anyone who wants it, is willing to throw out cash. Even a friend of mine (who is a serieus Apple fan), is going to buy a Windows pc (but he'll keep his iPhone). I suspect that he is going to get frustrated by the frustrating experience that Apple brings on other platforms.
lubos 13y ago
So if open ecosystem is always going to beat a closed one, why didn't Discourse beat Facebook? Why didn't App.net beat Twitter? Why didn't Linux beat Windows on desktops? I'm happy for Android but saying that Android is winning only because it's "more" open is just non-sense.
- quarterto 13y ago
  > why didn't Discourse beat Facebook? a) they're aiming more for phpBB et al b) they launched a year ago
  - veeti 13y ago
    He probably meant Diaspora.
    - josteink 13y ago
      In that case they lost because their conceptual model was so complex that even a reasonably technical user trying to sign up would give up trying to get an account, trying to figure out what a "hub" was and how you would get one. And I mean that on top of network effect. And the fact that it was mismanaged. And that it was mostly vapour-ware. It hardly had a chance.
- nl 13y ago
  why didn't Discourse beat Facebook? Why didn't App.net beat Twitter? Why didn't Linux beat Windows on desktops? I've never heard of Discourse. App.net didn't beat Twitter because of network effects. And it costs more. Windows has a very open ecosystem. It's not open source. Arguably the parent has missed the difference between open source and open ecosystem. The iPad has a moderately open ecosystem too - though less open than Android (which in some ways is less open than Windows since it has a centralised distribution method).
- josteink 13y ago
  > Why didn't App.net beat Twitter? Because App.net cost money ($50 per head/year iirc) and twitter despite being a closed service was free (as in beer). App.net didn't have a chance.
anon1385 13y ago
I wonder how many of those tablets will ever get updates to fix the remote vulnerabilities that have have been out in the wild for nearly 100 weeks now[1]. Do people buying new tablets today realise that they are remotely exploitable because they come with ancient versions of Android and will probably never be patched?[2] This kind of thing just shows how utterly empty and useless marketing buzzwords like 'open' are. [1] http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/02/e-z-2-use-attack-code-exploits-critical-bug-in-majority-of-android-phones/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/02/e-z-2-use-attack-cod... [2] http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=android+tablet http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=andr...
jkaljundi 13y ago
Don't the actual usage stats still paint a different picture, be it web views from iOS vs Android or Android app engagement and usage?
DCKing 13y ago
A platform wins because of bandwagon effect. This is why Windows won on the desktop, Facebook won and now Android has won. Releasing an open system at the right time (as Google did) can cause major bandwagon effect, but is a contributing factor and not a true necessity. I think if Google sold Android like Microsoft does Windows it still would have won (albeit somewhat more slowly). Apple always limits its bandwagon effect by limiting the availability of its platform to a rather small collection of devices. There's simply much more, and much cheaper choice of Android devices than there is with iOS. That defines what platforms wins, not the source code license or the details of their application policy.
- bennyg 13y ago
  It's pretty easy to "win" when you define it so narrowly like that.
Kurtz79 13y ago
Apple fans and Android fans should both grow up and just enjoy their purchases, if they are happy with them.
- nicholassmith 13y ago
  90% of them do, I think. It's just within the tech echo chamber where you have to pick a side, and fight to the bloody death.
  - NicoJuicy 13y ago
    I do not agree! https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/
sigzero 13y ago
Are you kidding? The only reason is "cheap" Android tablets. This was always going to happen.
- NicoJuicy 13y ago
  The only reason is Bang for the $, at least for me.
hrktb 13y ago
Not really caring about what the fans are saying, but the OP is about market share, and you match it with an opinion about user experience. That doesn't make much sense as the two concepts are not directly correlated. Good user experience doesn't guarantee market share nor does market share point at good experience.

by RyanZAG 13y ago

soulhacker 13y ago

Depends on how you define 'beat', yes maybe.

supercoder 13y ago

Experience and market share are two very different things.

k-mcgrady 13y ago

From my comment on this thread: "I know a family member who had an iPad and used it all the time. For his next tablet he got an Android tablet and he doesn't use it at all. Why? No good apps." Android tablets are good when cost is a major consideration but if you can afford to spend an extra $100/200 I believe you'll get more value from an iPad still.

RyanZAG 13y ago
So the millions of people buying Android tablets just throw their money away and never use them? Seems a bit of a stretch. Generally if a product isn't useful then people don't buy it, regardless of the price. Why doesn't your family member return the tablet if it's useless?
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  >> So the millions of people buying Android tablets just throw their money away and never use them? Seems a bit of a stretch. I didn't say that at all. From my personal experience it seems they get less value from them. They are certainly useful devices but I think the extra money an iPad costs provides more value than the added expense. >> Why doesn't your family member return the tablet if it's useless? He's trying to sell it.
  - Touche 13y ago
    I get the opposite impression. Because the iPad doesn't have access to the harddrive it's hard to use it outside of silo-ed app experiences. I have a catalog of cbr/cbz comic books and it's simple too much work to get them on the iPad. On the Nexus 7 I simple copy them over the network using File Explorer.
    - evilduck 13y ago
      iOS apps that have file management needs work fundamentally the same as a regular file explorer: connect to iTunes, select your device, click the 'Apps' tab, scroll down to 'File Sharing', select your destination app, drag and drop files, sync. You can even do this over wifi. I guess the Android advantage is you can initiate this transfer from the device instead of the computer, but that's not really "too much work" IMO. Apps that register for opening certain file types will also be available in 'Open in' dialogs of other apps (if the developers of both apps added the same file extension) so it's easy to move files between apps. Silos for app files only exist if the developer is lazy or ignorant, the platform itself has supported file sharing between apps for years.
      - Touche 13y ago
        > iOS apps that have file management needs work fundamentally the same as a regular file explorer: connect to iTunes, Wait, what? Connecting to iTunes is not part of any regular file explorer workflow. > I guess the Android advantage is you can initiate this transfer from the device instead of the computer, but that's not really "too much work" IMO. Wow, can't disagree more. That's an enormous difference. one is a computer and one is a periphery. Peripheries are fine, some people can live with just a periphery, but if you have real file management needs like the one I pointed to above, a periphery won't cut it. It's entirely too inconvenient to have to dig out the computer that has iTunes installed (for me it's 1 of 4 laptops in my house), get the files onto that computer (probably over the network) and then transfer them onto the device.
        evilduck 13y ago
GFischer 13y ago
I have an iPad, and my gf has a Google Nexus 7. We live in Uruguay, and at least for us, it makes way more sense to have an Android tablet than an Apple tablet, moastly because a lot more things are paid on the iPad, and most developers target Android first in my country because it has 90% market share. So YMMV. We also have Android phones. I think the user experience is good enough on both OS, and I'll probably buy Android for my next tablet (I got really frustrated by the iPad's limitations). Apple does have the everything-integrated experience if you buy only Apple (iMac, iPhone and iPad), but only affluent people can afford that, and I wouldn't want it even if I could afford it (which I can't).
- NicoJuicy 13y ago
  I'm from Belgium and we're not willing to buy everything on Apple. Come on, the newest Apple computer costs like 3000 $ . Anyone who wants it, is willing to throw out cash. Even a friend of mine (who is a serieus Apple fan), is going to buy a Windows pc (but he'll keep his iPhone). I suspect that he is going to get frustrated by the frustrating experience that Apple brings on other platforms.

lubos 13y ago

So if open ecosystem is always going to beat a closed one, why didn't Discourse beat Facebook? Why didn't App.net beat Twitter? Why didn't Linux beat Windows on desktops? I'm happy for Android but saying that Android is winning only because it's "more" open is just non-sense.

quarterto 13y ago
> why didn't Discourse beat Facebook? a) they're aiming more for phpBB et al b) they launched a year ago
- veeti 13y ago
  He probably meant Diaspora.
  - josteink 13y ago
    In that case they lost because their conceptual model was so complex that even a reasonably technical user trying to sign up would give up trying to get an account, trying to figure out what a "hub" was and how you would get one. And I mean that on top of network effect. And the fact that it was mismanaged. And that it was mostly vapour-ware. It hardly had a chance.
nl 13y ago
why didn't Discourse beat Facebook? Why didn't App.net beat Twitter? Why didn't Linux beat Windows on desktops? I've never heard of Discourse. App.net didn't beat Twitter because of network effects. And it costs more. Windows has a very open ecosystem. It's not open source. Arguably the parent has missed the difference between open source and open ecosystem. The iPad has a moderately open ecosystem too - though less open than Android (which in some ways is less open than Windows since it has a centralised distribution method).
josteink 13y ago
> Why didn't App.net beat Twitter? Because App.net cost money ($50 per head/year iirc) and twitter despite being a closed service was free (as in beer). App.net didn't have a chance.

anon1385 13y ago

I wonder how many of those tablets will ever get updates to fix the remote vulnerabilities that have have been out in the wild for nearly 100 weeks now[1]. Do people buying new tablets today realise that they are remotely exploitable because they come with ancient versions of Android and will probably never be patched?[2] This kind of thing just shows how utterly empty and useless marketing buzzwords like 'open' are. [1] http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/02/e-z-2-use-attack-code-exploits-critical-bug-in-majority-of-android-phones/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/02/e-z-2-use-attack-cod... [2] http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=android+tablet http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=andr...

jkaljundi 13y ago

Don't the actual usage stats still paint a different picture, be it web views from iOS vs Android or Android app engagement and usage?

DCKing 13y ago

A platform wins because of bandwagon effect. This is why Windows won on the desktop, Facebook won and now Android has won. Releasing an open system at the right time (as Google did) can cause major bandwagon effect, but is a contributing factor and not a true necessity. I think if Google sold Android like Microsoft does Windows it still would have won (albeit somewhat more slowly). Apple always limits its bandwagon effect by limiting the availability of its platform to a rather small collection of devices. There's simply much more, and much cheaper choice of Android devices than there is with iOS. That defines what platforms wins, not the source code license or the details of their application policy.

bennyg 13y ago
It's pretty easy to "win" when you define it so narrowly like that.

Kurtz79 13y ago

Apple fans and Android fans should both grow up and just enjoy their purchases, if they are happy with them.

nicholassmith 13y ago
90% of them do, I think. It's just within the tech echo chamber where you have to pick a side, and fight to the bloody death.
- NicoJuicy 13y ago
  I do not agree! https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/

sigzero 13y ago

Are you kidding? The only reason is "cheap" Android tablets. This was always going to happen.

NicoJuicy 13y ago
The only reason is Bang for the $, at least for me.

hrktb 13y ago

Not really caring about what the fans are saying, but the OP is about market share, and you match it with an opinion about user experience. That doesn't make much sense as the two concepts are not directly correlated. Good user experience doesn't guarantee market share nor does market share point at good experience.