3 ms·

The Google's "80% of the mobile market share" is misleading, when a majority of those phones don't complete with the iPhone and aren't developer targets. Its li

The Google's "80% of the mobile market share" is misleading, when a majority of those phones don't complete with the iPhone and aren't developer targets. Its like saying "8-bit CPUs are 90% of the CPU market, so I don't get why anyone cares about Intel". Android had well over double Apple's marketshare in 2012 when FB bought Instagram for $1B, and they had yet to (or just had) released their Android app. Despite having 80% marketshare, Apple's App store generated more revenue than the Play market last quarter[1]. When the vast majority of mobile revenue is generated by iPhone users, that means if it doesn't work on iOS, it doesn't work at all - 80% marketshare be damned. When Apple holds the most important card - revenue - its not hard to see that they are in the best position for stifling standards. If you are a developer are you going to sacrifice your revenue for standards, or play by Apple's rules? >Google managed to get stuff done via its SPDY2 work to the point that the HTTP/2 standard adopted most of their work, And it was something that could be deployed to the vast majority of users without a single finger being lifted from anyone outside Google. >I totally agree but Apple's not required to work with any standard bodies. Focus on getting your standard out and then call on Apple for failing to support it when the rest of the market supports it. Unfortunately most standards don't work this way. When standard bodies were left to their own devices, we got XHTML. Most standards seem to work like SPDY - one or two companies (Google, FB) use their market position to rollout a huge change to large number of clients and then make that the standard while everyone else cries about binary headers. In the PointerEvents case, the company with market position is Apple. I'd imagine the best thing to do is commented on the article. Create a Polyfill, and if PointerEvents are better than the rest, developers will naturally use them. Eventually given the huge amount of developers on the polyfill Apple may be inclined to make it native. [1]http://www.techspot.com/news/58456-google-play-vs-app-store-downloads.html http://www.techspot.com/news/58456-google-play-vs-app-store-...

smosher_ 12y ago
> When the vast majority of mobile revenue is generated by iPhone users, that means if it doesn't work on iOS, it doesn't work at all - 80% marketshare be damned. How does this matter to Google or the W3C exactly? I don't buy this reasoning. The CPU analogy doesn't work either, since everyone depends on a number of different processors, with Intel approaching 100% representation among individuals—this doesn't hold for iOS in the mobile market, where people typically depend on one phone. That said, iOS might have stronger representation among the people who depend on mobile browsing than the market share numbers suggest (but that needs measuring.) My guess is that even as low as 20% of mobile is sufficiently significant to Google (whose employees all seem to have MBPs) and two major vendors is likewise to the standards committee. > I'd imagine the best thing to do is commented on the article. Create a Polyfill, and if PointerEvents are better than the rest, developers will naturally use them. Eventually given the huge amount of developers on the polyfill Apple may be inclined to make it native. Very yes. I'm not completely sold on pointer events but the tactic encourages real-world exploration.
- nemothekid 12y ago
  >How does this matter to Google or the W3C exactly? I don't buy this reasoning. If you write a standard, and no one uses it, what use is it exactly? If Apple were to come up with a competing standard, in a year, which "standard" would you believe will have more use? Apple has better control of mobile developer mindshare (almost a monopoly) and if Apple isn't onboard with your "standard" it may be very difficult to get it adopted among developers. Even worse if Apple were to decide to do things differently, their marketshare can make that the defacto standard, which Google will happily follow suit in order to appease developers and wasting everyone else's time that bothered to implement pointer events. > The CPU analogy doesn't work either, Its not a perfect analogy, but my point is developers don't target platforms solely based on marketshare. There are a lot more x86 toolchain developers than your all your favorite ubiquitous 8 bit microcontrollers.
  - smosher_ 12y ago
    > If you write a standard, and no one uses it, what use is it exactly? Only non-people don't use Apple, got it.
    - nemothekid 12y ago
      How many mobile developers/shops do you know that don't target iOS? How many do you know that are iOS only? The latter number likely dwarfs the former. This isn't about end users. Its about the fact that if a standard doesn't roll out on iOS at this point, it won't see a ton of adoption.
mikhailt 12y ago
I am probably extremely naive here but I just don't understand why technical companies are willing to allow one single company to slow things down just because they seem to have the most "revenue" that shouldn't matter for technical standards. > The Google's "80% of the mobile market share" is misleading, when a majority of those phones don't complete with the iPhone and aren't developer targets. Are majority of these phones capable of running a browser that'd adopt support for Pointer Events or Touch Events? Yes, then they're counted, no? > Android had well over double Apple's marketshare in 2012 when FB bought Instagram for $1B, and they had yet to (or just had) released their Android app. Despite having 80% marketshare, Apple's App store generated more revenue than the Play market last quarter[1]. I still don't understand what it has to do with web standards that everyone will be using in the browsers? Are you telling me that because Apple users bought more apps, they should have more influence on technical standards for mobile browsers that has nothing to do with the apps they bought? > When Apple holds the most important card - revenue - its not hard to see that they are in the best position for stifling standards. Seems like a bad idea to allow them to keep doing this. We didn't get the best outcome letting MS pull this crap back in 90s. But then again, history tend to repeat itself.
- nemothekid 12y ago
  >I am probably extremely naive here but I just don't understand why technical companies are willing to allow one single company to slow things down just because they seem to have the most "revenue" that shouldn't matter for technical standards. They aren't. Microsoft submitted PointerEvents forever ago. But I'm assuming naivety is leading you to believe that standards mean much. Everyone could today agree make PointerEvents a standard. Now Android, WinMo, Opera and Firefox support PointerEvents. Now what? You still have a large number of developers targeting iOS not using the standard. You can shame Apple, but Apple always gets a free pass. Worse still, lets say Apple comes out with "iEvents". Now every developer is now using "iEvents" in web, despite PointerEvents exists. Of course Google wants Android browsers to be performant with whatever is popular, so they adopt "iEvents" as well. Now everyone is using "iEvents" even though PointerEvents is the standard. All because Apple controls a lot of developer mindshare. Remember, everyone doing "bleeding edge" mobile work is pretty much targeting iOS first - so "hyped" technologies are usually supported by Apple's platform. This is less about tech companies "willing to allow a single company to slow things down" and more about the fact a single company, because of its dominance, can and will slow things down. >Seems like a bad idea to allow them to keep doing this. We didn't get the best outcome letting MS pull this crap back in 90s. But then again, history tend to repeat itself. It IS a bad idea. Its the same position MS had in the 90s. Thats what we should be saying here and not deluding ourself into thinking that Apple's position matters less because Google has more market share.
vacri 12y ago
When the vast majority of mobile revenue is generated by iPhone users, that means if it doesn't work on iOS, it doesn't work at all Have you not heard of free software? Free software, by definition, can't contribute to mobile [software] revenue. Its like saying "8-bit CPUs are 90% of the CPU market, so I don't get why anyone cares about Intel". This is hugely disingenuous, because general desktop computing isn't serviced by 8-bit CPUs. They're very different use-cases. Unlike [smart]phones. Basically what you're saying is that Bugatti matters more than Toyota in the automobile market, but only if you count the niche that Bugatti sells to. When standard bodies were left to their own devices, we got XHTML. We also got SI units. Or, if you want something more computery, we got JPEG.

smosher_ 12y ago

> When the vast majority of mobile revenue is generated by iPhone users, that means if it doesn't work on iOS, it doesn't work at all - 80% marketshare be damned. How does this matter to Google or the W3C exactly? I don't buy this reasoning. The CPU analogy doesn't work either, since everyone depends on a number of different processors, with Intel approaching 100% representation among individuals—this doesn't hold for iOS in the mobile market, where people typically depend on one phone. That said, iOS might have stronger representation among the people who depend on mobile browsing than the market share numbers suggest (but that needs measuring.) My guess is that even as low as 20% of mobile is sufficiently significant to Google (whose employees all seem to have MBPs) and two major vendors is likewise to the standards committee. > I'd imagine the best thing to do is commented on the article. Create a Polyfill, and if PointerEvents are better than the rest, developers will naturally use them. Eventually given the huge amount of developers on the polyfill Apple may be inclined to make it native. Very yes. I'm not completely sold on pointer events but the tactic encourages real-world exploration.

nemothekid 12y ago
>How does this matter to Google or the W3C exactly? I don't buy this reasoning. If you write a standard, and no one uses it, what use is it exactly? If Apple were to come up with a competing standard, in a year, which "standard" would you believe will have more use? Apple has better control of mobile developer mindshare (almost a monopoly) and if Apple isn't onboard with your "standard" it may be very difficult to get it adopted among developers. Even worse if Apple were to decide to do things differently, their marketshare can make that the defacto standard, which Google will happily follow suit in order to appease developers and wasting everyone else's time that bothered to implement pointer events. > The CPU analogy doesn't work either, Its not a perfect analogy, but my point is developers don't target platforms solely based on marketshare. There are a lot more x86 toolchain developers than your all your favorite ubiquitous 8 bit microcontrollers.
- smosher_ 12y ago
  > If you write a standard, and no one uses it, what use is it exactly? Only non-people don't use Apple, got it.
  - nemothekid 12y ago
    How many mobile developers/shops do you know that don't target iOS? How many do you know that are iOS only? The latter number likely dwarfs the former. This isn't about end users. Its about the fact that if a standard doesn't roll out on iOS at this point, it won't see a ton of adoption.

mikhailt 12y ago

I am probably extremely naive here but I just don't understand why technical companies are willing to allow one single company to slow things down just because they seem to have the most "revenue" that shouldn't matter for technical standards. > The Google's "80% of the mobile market share" is misleading, when a majority of those phones don't complete with the iPhone and aren't developer targets. Are majority of these phones capable of running a browser that'd adopt support for Pointer Events or Touch Events? Yes, then they're counted, no? > Android had well over double Apple's marketshare in 2012 when FB bought Instagram for $1B, and they had yet to (or just had) released their Android app. Despite having 80% marketshare, Apple's App store generated more revenue than the Play market last quarter[1]. I still don't understand what it has to do with web standards that everyone will be using in the browsers? Are you telling me that because Apple users bought more apps, they should have more influence on technical standards for mobile browsers that has nothing to do with the apps they bought? > When Apple holds the most important card - revenue - its not hard to see that they are in the best position for stifling standards. Seems like a bad idea to allow them to keep doing this. We didn't get the best outcome letting MS pull this crap back in 90s. But then again, history tend to repeat itself.

nemothekid 12y ago
>I am probably extremely naive here but I just don't understand why technical companies are willing to allow one single company to slow things down just because they seem to have the most "revenue" that shouldn't matter for technical standards. They aren't. Microsoft submitted PointerEvents forever ago. But I'm assuming naivety is leading you to believe that standards mean much. Everyone could today agree make PointerEvents a standard. Now Android, WinMo, Opera and Firefox support PointerEvents. Now what? You still have a large number of developers targeting iOS not using the standard. You can shame Apple, but Apple always gets a free pass. Worse still, lets say Apple comes out with "iEvents". Now every developer is now using "iEvents" in web, despite PointerEvents exists. Of course Google wants Android browsers to be performant with whatever is popular, so they adopt "iEvents" as well. Now everyone is using "iEvents" even though PointerEvents is the standard. All because Apple controls a lot of developer mindshare. Remember, everyone doing "bleeding edge" mobile work is pretty much targeting iOS first - so "hyped" technologies are usually supported by Apple's platform. This is less about tech companies "willing to allow a single company to slow things down" and more about the fact a single company, because of its dominance, can and will slow things down. >Seems like a bad idea to allow them to keep doing this. We didn't get the best outcome letting MS pull this crap back in 90s. But then again, history tend to repeat itself. It IS a bad idea. Its the same position MS had in the 90s. Thats what we should be saying here and not deluding ourself into thinking that Apple's position matters less because Google has more market share.

vacri 12y ago

When the vast majority of mobile revenue is generated by iPhone users, that means if it doesn't work on iOS, it doesn't work at all Have you not heard of free software? Free software, by definition, can't contribute to mobile [software] revenue. Its like saying "8-bit CPUs are 90% of the CPU market, so I don't get why anyone cares about Intel". This is hugely disingenuous, because general desktop computing isn't serviced by 8-bit CPUs. They're very different use-cases. Unlike [smart]phones. Basically what you're saying is that Bugatti matters more than Toyota in the automobile market, but only if you count the niche that Bugatti sells to. When standard bodies were left to their own devices, we got XHTML. We also got SI units. Or, if you want something more computery, we got JPEG.