I don’t understand how Android is the dominant phone platform.

[YoHo]

I realize this is not the response that's normal for battlefront, but I know my habit, I'll respond to anyone's comment and argue it, not to get a rise or to win, but just for the fun of trying to refine my thinking on it. Plus I love learning about all these different industries and how they work.

So what I'm saying is that I'm gonna try to just lay off, because the conversation has run it's course but I'm not good at that.

 

[Shavano]

YoHo, your claim about # of useful apps was obvious hyperbole. I don't know why people got so bent out of shape over it, but this is the battlefront.

How many apps you can have on your phone is subject only to technical limitations. How many you want on your phone is a personal choice. Having hundreds of apps doesn't fit my use case. I have 117 apps. There are 22 I use all the time and those are on my home screens. The rest are in the drawer. I don't want my home screens cluttered up with apps I rarely use.

I think that's typical of Android users, but maybe not. When I install, Android puts icons on the current page of my home screen but unless I'm going to be using it a lot, I remove it.

My main screen is for communications and carefully chosen most commonly used apps. Phone, messaging, browser, and camera are at the bottom of every page. Most of the icons on page one are one touch links for family, and groups for extended family, medical, work, and friends/neighbors. Page two is for other commonly used apps - docs, drive, calendar, files, Connect, notes, my bank, google pay, and Keepass.

Page 3 has work related stuff at the top. I keep it on page 3 for a reason. below that, other less commonly used apps, and fun. Page 4 is reserved for travel. Airline apps, Lyft, Uber, travel expense tracking.

Everything else stays in the drawer.

Not taking criticism based on other people like to do things differently. They can set up their phone however they want, assuming it allows them to do so. Android allows this, has for many releases, and I like it that way.

 

[Deleted member 1068]

See, I can't even fathom why someone wouldn't want their Calendar to be integrated with their email.

I’ll bite: imap / pop / smtp have absolutely no concept of calendaring. I think you are confusing “email” and “corporate groupware”. Disclaimer: I kind of agree with you about the “too many apps” thing though.

 

[Shavano]

Or you just prefer a different calendar tool than whatever is wrapped up with your email. Or you need to manage multiple calendars.

 

[YoHo]

Technically I manage multiple calendars, but my workflow is to push everything to my work calendar. Like, my wife just immediately pushes family stuff to my work calendars.

I refuse to use multiple calendars and my work Calendar I can't get out of so that's what I use.

I have in the past had both google calendar and outlook manage multiple calendars and both were functional, but more work than just making everything go to the work calendar.

My point is that Gmail, Outlook and I assume others that I don't use know how to handle an email with a calendar attachment directly.
I've not had android Auto-add an icon to the home screen, but that may be a function of the skin being used.

 

[ZeroZanzibar]

But this misses my point. At no point did I try to say that a specific type of app banking or music should have only 1 generic version. Nor that niche designs don't add value. Only that such apps are not unique.

That is a very idiosyncratic definition of "unique".

If I have an app for Uber and an app for Lyft, they are unique for an obvious reason you are trying to define away:

They summon a different fleet of cars.

Yes, some drives drive for both, but IME, most do not. So, I get a different fleet with different ground rules and even different availability of each service entirely depending on where I am in the world.

Brands are not just icons on a computer screen. They have real world effects and some of those real world effects are baked into the app. They are not identical because they reflect, sooner or later, brand identity, brand choices, brand differentiation. Especially: Brand terms and conditions that may matter to me or matter in a given situation. So, having both on my phone matters and no, I don't regard them as the same, not on any meaningful level. I mean, maybe there's some highly academic definition that would regard them as "the same". But it is a strange and arguably useless "same" if I can't use them interchangeably.

We've had a billion threads arguing about the difference between Apple products and their competitors. I remember a particularly amusing one about Google Maps versus Apple's product in the early smartphone days. That was back when Google had so much more map data and as a result, people posted various images of where the given maps app put someone in the middle of the Pacific Ocean or something instead of the actual location in New Jersey. I think there were about five Apple examples for every Google one, but it doesn't matter if I remember it correctly. There were clear and obvious differences between the brands and where they were vis a vis the basic "generic" requirement you are trying to argue for. Arguing in the style you argue here, you would still claim they are "the same'. Unless, of course, you wanted to navigate to that unfortunately place in New Jersey. Then, suddenly, they wouldn't be after all.

Your argument thus tacitly implies that we have reached a point where all apps are feature complete and everyone has everyone else's features. I think that's demonstrably untrue.

Like you I prefer (or at least am accustomed to) Microsoft Office. But, I have a bunch of very old documents I need to reference that were never migrated and aren't supported under Excel. Well, as it happens, Libre Office seems to support every damn obscure word processor or spreadsheet format there ever was, especially old stuff. Or, at any rate, the ones I need. So, I can at least open those old documents under Libre (we can argue about how well they render -- capturing anything for this old stuff is a bargain).

Now, by the standard I think you are arguing for, Word Processors are not "unique." And yet, one works and the other may as well not exist on the day I want to open those old documents. In what sense are they not unique at this moment? "Unique" doesn't have to be an everyday thing. In a lot of useful cases, it isn't.

This is but one of hundreds of examples that I could come up with. What's more, so could you.

Until there is 100 per cent agreement on function and features, which surely will never happen, it's kind of strange to argue because "most" of the time I could use either one, that they aren't "unique." The thing that makes them unique is the long tail of obscure use cases we mostly don't need, but really need when the use case comes up.

My wife is very sensitive to "unique". To her, a pretty much computer-phobe, any change to any kind of interface on a program she is familiar with is usually a cry for help to me to come explain it to her. By her lights, the new program is "unique" and "different" even though only a handful of features changed. Like many other literate professionals who either can't or won't "grasp" computers like we do in here, it all looks unique to her.

I even tried to see if running Apple would make her happier. So, I just let her and the Apple salesman interact one fine day and stepped aside. I figured, if it made her life better, we'd get her a Mac. Well, sorry Apple fans, she rejected the main OS. I don't know about now, but at the time, hovering or clicking on icons in the center of the display made them bounce or some such. The whole behavior of the "easier to use" basic Mac display-and-navigation was terra incognita for her. Completely baffled and even upset her. Just too different. She lasted about thirty seconds with the Mac and then gave me "that look" she gives when she is out of patience with strange computer technology. Experiment over and I was surprised at how quickly and at what a basic level it foundered. Even with all the experience I had with her on this.

Not only would she not agree with this definition of unique, she would look at anyone making such an argument as if they had three heads.

I don't think there will ever be real agreement on any sort of partitioning of all programs into "unique" subsets. There is no cladogram for code because there isn't the necessary inheritance relationships.

 

[ZeroZanzibar]

Technically I manage multiple calendars, but my workflow is to push everything to my work calendar. Like, my wife just immediately pushes family stuff to my work calendars.

I refuse to use multiple calendars and my work Calendar I can't get out of so that's what I use.

I detect a force-fit.

If this is how you achieve "uniqueness", it is by feature suppression, sooner or later.

 

[YoHo]

That is a very idiosyncratic definition of "unique".

If I have an app for Uber and an app for Lyft, they are unique for an obvious reason you are trying to define away:

They summon a different fleet of cars.

Yes, some drives drive for both, but IME, most do not. So, I get a different fleet with different ground rules and even different availability of each service entirely depending on where I am in the world.

Brands are not just icons on a computer screen. They have real world effects and some of those real world effects are baked into the app. They are not identical because they reflect, sooner or later, brand identity, brand choices, brand differentiation. Especially: Brand terms and conditions that may matter to me or matter in a given situation. So, having both on my phone matters and no, I don't regard them as the same, not on any meaningful level. I mean, maybe there's some highly academic definition that would regard them as "the same". But it is a strange and arguably useless "same" if I can't use them interchangeably.

We've had a billion threads arguing about the difference between Apple products and their competitors. I remember a particularly amusing one about Google Maps versus Apple's product in the early smartphone days. That was back when Google had so much more map data and as a result, people posted various images of where the given maps app put someone in the middle of the Pacific Ocean or something instead of the actual location in New Jersey. I think there were about five Apple examples for every Google one, but it doesn't matter if I remember it correctly. There were clear and obvious differences between the brands and where they were vis a vis the basic "generic" requirement you are trying to argue for. Arguing in the style you argue here, you would still claim they are "the same'. Unless, of course, you wanted to navigate to that unfortunately place in New Jersey. Then, suddenly, they wouldn't be after all.

Your argument thus tacitly implies that we have reached a point where all apps are feature complete and everyone has everyone else's features. I think that's demonstrably untrue.

Like you I prefer (or at least am accustomed to) Microsoft Office. But, I have a bunch of very old documents I need to reference that were never migrated and aren't supported under Excel. Well, as it happens, Libre Office seems to support every damn obscure word processor or spreadsheet format there ever was, especially old stuff. Or, at any rate, the ones I need. So, I can at least open those old documents under Libre (we can argue about how well they render -- capturing anything for this old stuff is a bargain).

Now, by the standard I think you are arguing for, Word Processors are not "unique." And yet, one works and the other may as well not exist on the day I want to open those old documents. In what sense are they not unique at this moment? "Unique" doesn't have to be an everyday thing. In a lot of useful cases, it isn't.

This is but one of hundreds of examples that I could come up with. What's more, so could you.

Until there is 100 per cent agreement on function and features, which surely will never happen, it's kind of strange to argue because "most" of the time I could use either one, that they aren't "unique." The thing that makes them unique is the long tail of obscure use cases we mostly don't need, but really need when the use case comes up.

My wife is very sensitive to "unique". To her, a pretty much computer-phobe, any change to any kind of interface on a program she is familiar with is usually a cry for help to me to come explain it to her. By her lights, the new program is "unique" and "different" even though only a handful of features changed. Like many other literate professionals who either can't or won't "grasp" computers like we do in here, it all looks unique to her.

I even tried to see if running Apple would make her happier. So, I just let her and the Apple salesman interact one fine day and stepped aside. I figured, if it made her life better, we'd get her a Mac. Well, sorry Apple fans, she rejected the main OS. I don't know about now, but at the time, hovering or clicking on icons in the center of the display made them bounce or some such. The whole behavior of the "easier to use" basic Mac display-and-navigation was terra incognita for her. Completely baffled and even upset her. Just too different. She lasted about thirty seconds with the Mac and then gave me "that look" she gives when she is out of patience with strange computer technology. Experiment over and I was surprised at how quickly and at what a basic level it foundered. Even with all the experience I had with her on this.

Not only would she not agree with this definition of unique, she would look at anyone making such an argument as if they had three heads.

I don't think there will ever be real agreement on any sort of partitioning of all programs into "unique" subsets. There is no cladogram for code because there isn't the necessary inheritance relationships.

You are I think overthinking it and I've spent enough time discussing in that I'm disinclined to relitigate it.

Again, my point was to bucketize things based on how Unique they are and how useful they are. Lyft is useful because it calls a different fleet of cars, it is not unique, because it's just one of multiple ride share apps.

My point might also have been that we, in general retain a large number of apps whose relative uniqueness is profoundly low and where OFTEN, their usefulness is marginal.

 

[YoHo]

I detect a force-fit.

If this is how you achieve "uniqueness", it is by feature suppression, sooner or later.

It's a force-fit, because there is no calendar app that I perceive to be anything other than the worst. Outlook is the least worst, primarily because I am required to use it. It is forced upon me. So I use it rather than subjecting myself to multiple hateful applications.

Also, this Discussion of my workflow was an aside. A comment about how someone else felt about integrated calendars. So your comment kind of falls flat to me.

 

[ant1pathy]

You are I think overthinking it and I've spent enough time discussing in that I'm disinclined to relitigate it.

Again, my point was to bucketize things based on how Unique they are and how useful they are. Lyft is useful because it calls a different fleet of cars, it is not unique, because it's just one of multiple ride share apps.

My point might also have been that we, in general retain a large number of apps whose relative uniqueness is profoundly low and where OFTEN, their usefulness is marginal.

The “usefulness” is a value judgement that you’re making on behalf of an awful lot of people. I mentioned all the music apps I have, and someone was astounded that I have an app primarily for playing music from one band. But mention that to a Deadhead and they’ll nod along with “of course, that makes total sense”. There’s a lot of myopia around “I don’t like this system of lots of apps with overlapping but different features, so therefore bad” which is an intensely personal stance that may not be as widely shared as expected.

 

[CommanderJameson]

The “usefulness” is a value judgement that you’re making on behalf of an awful lot of people. I mentioned all the music apps I have, and someone was astounded that I have an app primarily for playing music from one band. But mention that to a Deadhead and they’ll nod along with “of course, that makes total sense”. There’s a lot of myopia around “I don’t like this system of lots of apps with overlapping but different features, so therefore bad” which is an intensely personal stance that may not be as widely shared as expected.

It seems to be to be a variant on the “bloat” trope - aka “this software has features I don’t use, ergo it’s bloated”.

 

[Mark086]

The “usefulness” is a value judgement that you’re making on behalf of an awful lot of people. I mentioned all the music apps I have, and someone was astounded that I have an app primarily for playing music from one band. But mention that to a Deadhead and they’ll nod along with “of course, that makes total sense”. There’s a lot of myopia around “I don’t like this system of lots of apps with overlapping but different features, so therefore bad” which is an intensely personal stance that may not be as widely shared as expected.

This will get me banned.

He's jerking off to his own greatness; you're arguing with a fantasy version of reality in his head where he can make up any shit he wants like a sci-fi writer for Lost.

The forum moderator thinks that's perfectly fine, but attempts to call him out on his bullshit are not.

 

[YoHo]

The “usefulness” is a value judgement that you’re making on behalf of an awful lot of people. I mentioned all the music apps I have, and someone was astounded that I have an app primarily for playing music from one band. But mention that to a Deadhead and they’ll nod along with “of course, that makes total sense”. There’s a lot of myopia around “I don’t like this system of lots of apps with overlapping but different features, so therefore bad” which is an intensely personal stance that may not be as widely shared as expected.

Well, I mean I'm trying to be broad, Like, if you tell me something is useful, I'll believe you even if I don't find it useful myself.

I may be incredulous and I do question bloat in the sheer number of apps one might have on a phone. Like is the value proposition REALLY there? I don't want to judge people on any specific thing they use.

I mean, I haven't encountered a document that word couldn't open since I think the 1990s. Like that is one of word's features. But I also haven't needed to open an old format in decades so who am I to judge?

I think the difficulty here is that I'm defining uniqueness based on the type of thing an app does and others seem intent on making it about "features." People often talk about unique features. But, from my perspective that isn't interesting. Because sometimes uniqueness at the feature can be a negative. Doing something uniquely bad is just as "unique" as doing something uniquely good.

My interest is more of a what are the different types of things people are doing how many apps does it take or do they tend to use to do it. How much of it is pure bloat where maybe they aren't even happy they need that app.

From that perspective the uniqueness is about the usecase and maybe use model. Not feature level uniqueness.

Like the entire set of apps for music production is fascinating to me, because they, are unique and useful and distinct.

Nobody gets excited that they get to download Uber AND Lyft or Wellsfargo AND Chase. Even though obviously one has to.

Keeping Libreoffice around to open a 40 year old wordstar document that Word doesn't like is useful, but that's not unique. In my mind it's mildly infuriating. Word should do it. You shouldn't NEED 2 apps.

 

[cogwheel]

I think the difficulty here is that I'm defining uniqueness based on the type of thing an app does and others seem intent on making it about "features."

I don't believe that's true. I think the actual difficulty is that you're defining these types and other people are disagreeing with you on those definitions. Your types aren't objective, they're subjective (just like everyone else's), so you can't expect your type list to be universally accepted.

As an example, are word processors and desktop publishing programs the same type? You can certainly write a simple letter in a DTP program, and with enough effort you can do complicated layouts in a word processor.

Hell, with enough effort I can write a letter or do a complicated brochure layout in one of the CAD packages I use for work. Does that make it the same type as a word processor or a DTP program?

 

[ant1pathy]

I may be incredulous and I do question bloat in the sheer number of apps one might have on a phone. Like is the value proposition REALLY there? I don't want to judge people on any specific thing they use.

For me, YES! What I question is the value proposition in either sludging through a sub-par experience, or abandoning a task / feature entirely, just to avoid seeing another colorful round-rect on your 3rd springboard screen. A one-size-fits-all app for a given feature domain by definition will be a series of compromises all the way down. A more focused app will provide either features missing entirely, or an order(s) of magnitude better experience in accomplishing a given task.

I keep going back to music, as that's a passion domain for me. The app that serves the needs of "I want some background noise while I make dinner" is very different from the one for "I'm going to do a deep-dive on how the Grateful Dead adjusted to the return of their second drummer in '74 for the Winterland run and why Garcia might have made the specific selections he did for the movie compiled from 3 of the 5 shows".

 

[YoHo]

D

I don't believe that's true. I think the actual difficulty is that you're defining these types and other people are disagreeing with you on those definitions. Your types aren't objective, they're subjective (just like everyone else's), so you can't expect your type list to be universally accepted.

As an example, are word processors and desktop publishing programs the same type? You can certainly write a simple letter in a DTP program, and with enough effort you can do complicated layouts in a word processor.

Hell, with enough effort I can write a letter or do a complicated brochure layout in one of the CAD packages I use for work. Does that make it the same type as a word processor or a DTP program?

Desktop Publishing to me is actually interesting, because of the evolution of it. AND the impact the internet has had on it. Like, Back in the before times, in the long long ago where you had real pro level desktop publishing mostly on Mac, and then you had stuff like the Print shop which was desktop publishing but very much more for the at home market.
Then office came along and offered a very rich (Pro level?!?!) publisher.
But, if you just needed to make a flyer for your lost cat. you were probably just going to whip that up in Word anyway.
Then the internet came along and did multiple things:
1: moved that basic consumer level Desktop publishing online.
2: reduced the need for traditional desktop publishing at all.

I mean honestly, in 2023 what are most of the use models for the print shop done in? Wordpress, Snapfish(amongst multiple) and signupgenius

At the professional level, you're more often working on finalizing an online presentation.

So Desktop publishing has merged and split off and just almost isn't even comparable.

At least from my perspective.

 

[YoHo]

For me, YES! What I question is the value proposition in either sludging through a sub-par experience, or abandoning a task / feature entirely, just to avoid seeing another colorful round-rect on your 3rd springboard screen. A one-size-fits-all app for a given feature domain by definition will be a series of compromises all the way down. A more focused app will provide either features missing entirely, or an order(s) of magnitude better experience in accomplishing a given task.

I keep going back to music, as that's a passion domain for me. The app that serves the needs of "I want some background noise while I make dinner" is very different from the one for "I'm going to do a deep-dive on how the Grateful Dead adjusted to the return of their second drummer in '74 for the Winterland run and why Garcia might have made the specific selections he did for the movie compiled from 3 of the 5 shows".

Well, I'm going to leave the Dead alone, because I have a very specific opinion about music consumption that, were I to debate it, I'd do so in the Soapbox. And that absolutely is a personal matter. Not appropriate to this discussion at all.

But one thing you did mention above that is worth calling out. You mentioned Value Proposition.

I haven't even brought that up. I talked about usefulness which I guess is inherent in Value prop,

Value prop though isn't JUST about usefulness or uniqueness. It's also about say, storage available on the compute device, cost if there is any. The friction inherent in not having it which is something you called out.

I currently have a Pixel 6. It has plenty of space on it, BUT on my previous Moto G power phone. I had maxed out it's space. BEtween media I wanted to keep on the phone and Apps. I was very very critical of each and every app I had. And my usemodel had changed since I bought the phone where I was now recording a lot more video that often stayed on the phone for extended periods. So to add an app often meant removing another. Or deleting media. That affected the value proposition quite a bit.

 

[analogika]

My point might also have been that we, in general retain a large number of apps whose relative uniqueness is profoundly low and where OFTEN, their usefulness is marginal.

THAT I agree with. But the initial impulse for this tangent was this bit:

I refuse to believe there are 259 useful unique programs in existence...across all platforms over all time. If you exclude games.

Which sounds like an entirely different point — or possibly, you just completely obscured your point by utterly failing at hyperbolic snark.

Eleven separate plugin management applications are obviously very similar in purpose, but still mutually exclusive, and thus "unique" by any definition, while still absolutely indispensable.

 

[YoHo]

Perhaps, but just the phrase "Eleven separate plugin management applications" makes me mad. That sounds terrible...even if it is required, unique and useful.

There's definitely a Marie Kondo aspect to my initial hyperbolic statement.

This also gets into different classes of applications
When you have a "big" application that has plug-ins that customize or increase functionality, that's like a whole "thing" There's inherent complexity and sprawl. The price you pay for the functionality you get.

And the tolerance might even be different based on platform. I'm far more tolerant of additional apps on my PCs than on my phone and tablets.
If your tablet is the unit of computing that's handling all this functionality though, your tolerance may be different.

 

[ant1pathy]

When you have a "big" application that has plug-ins that customize or increase functionality, that's like a whole "thing" There's inherent complexity and sprawl. The price you pay for the functionality you get.

Conceive of the phone itself as the "big" application and the apps as the plug-ins.

And the tolerance might even be different based on platform. I'm far more tolerant of additional apps on my PCs than on my phone and tablets.

Interesting, I'm the exact opposite. The one-touch install/uninstall with no cruft left behind makes me much more likely to test-drive phone apps than committing to a PC install that goes who-knows-where.

 

[analogika]

Perhaps, but just the phrase "Eleven separate plugin management applications" makes me mad. That sounds terrible...even if it is required, unique and useful.

It's the job. A carpenter has dozens of tools to hone and maintain on a regular basis. An audio guy does, too. So does a musician.

 

[Chris FOM]

I also feel like the whole thing is based on a questionable premise, that any given function would ideally be serve by one unique app and that others are superfluous. Maybe they’re useful for different people picking different apps, but each person should be able to find their one app that fills that need and shouldn’t need another.

But I’m not at all convinced that’s the case. Different apps with overlapping use cases allow for specialization. A super easy example here is Apple Music and Apple Music Classical. These are as un-unique as they can get. Both are front-ends for the same database from the same developer that simply serve to find and play music. But a cursory glance shows that Apple Music Classical, while overall very good for finding and playing classical music (with some notable issues that still need to be resolved), would be needlessly complex for most music that’s easily tracked with the Artist-Album-Song format. Yes both Apple Music and Apple Music Classical have their issues and areas that need improvement, but neither would be improved by merging them into one single app and it’s entirely reasonable for one person to use both.

Storage is cheap, search makes finding one app among many easy, so why care about unique apps and overlapping functionality at all?

 

[analogika]

The only reason to care is because somebody made a hyperbolic quip without thinking it through and is now busy retroactively justifying it.

Beyond that, nobody is worrying about it.

 

[hestermofet]

Ars just published a front page article on how Google broke Google pay and I’m struggling to understand why that matters, fundamentally because I don’t understand why anybody would use a Google product. Google is the least reliable tech company. They constantly relaunch products on new codebases which results in an inability to deal with bugs or issues because they break as many working things as they fix with each new release. I no longer own an Apple computer but am still happily ensconced in their ecosystem because it’s stable. I don’t really understand how Microsoft dropped the ball so bad or why Amazon wasn’t able to launch a competing platform, but Android users seem relatively happy with the platform

As much as us tech enthusiasts follow all the ingenious and novel ways that Google kills products, this doesn't affect the average consumer. The products Google kills are products nobody was using anyway, so nobody but us nerds notice its missing. Anyone remember Google Wave? Fucking AWESOME, but nobody used it. Yet it adds another number to the Google Graveyard, so it's yet another thing that tech nerds like us point and laugh at. This is SO disconnected from the average user's view of Google.

From their point of view, Google is stable and reliable. People have had the same Gmail for 20 years with no significant change. They've been using the same search engine the same way for a quarter century. And their 5 year old Android still works fine, and can install all the latest software on it, unlike an iPhone stuck on a 5 year old OS. Public perception of Google is VERY different than the tech enthusiasts view.

Android is the dominant platform for only two reasons: it's openly licensable, so there are hundreds of vendors that make all kinds of Android powered devices, from TV streaming boxes to tablets, and even more esoteric stuff like convention kiosks, time clocks for tracking employee hours, and even cars. My Honda is running Android ICS underneath it's infotainment system, and an older model of my car, you could actually access the standard Android interface.

This leads to reason number two. When multiple vendors offer the same product, prices crater. It doesn't matter how absolutely amazing and superior your OS is if most people can't afford your hardware. You can get a basic Android phone for as cheap as $25. So of course there will be billions of devices in the wild, and a 3:1 ratio compared to a product that costs a minimum of 20x more. Probably an even higher differential because the countries where you can buy a $25 Android usually have high taxes on foreign products.

A standard that multiple vendors use ALWAYS dominates over a proprietary and closed system from a single vendor. Just look at the success of Windows and Linux vs Mac OS. Or going further back in history, ISA vs MCA. Back when Macs used fewer industry standards than they do now, "Is it Apple compatible?" was a very real worry when purchasing accessories and peripherals. I think a lot of people forget that.

 

[cogwheel]

And their 5 year old Android still works fine, and can install all the latest software on it, unlike an iPhone stuck on a 5 year old OS.

I think you're going to need to give examples here, since you're comparing Android 8 to iOS 12, and both are reasonably recent with plenty of app support. Also, all iPhones released in 2016 or more recently, and with one short-lived exception all iPhones buyable new in 2018 or more recently, are capable of running st least the less than 2 year old iOS 15. How many non-flagship 2018 Android phones are updatable to Android 12 without rooting?

This leads to reason number two. When multiple vendors offer the same product, prices crater.

But prices for Android phones haven't cratered. What has actually happened is Android phones have extended into very low end configurations. The less low end configurations that are equivalent to what Apple offers haven't decreased in price significantly, they've stayed equivalent to what Apple charges, and Apple hasn't dropped prices.

 

[hestermofet]

I think you're going to need to give examples here, since you're comparing Android 8 to iOS 12, and both are reasonably recent with plenty of app support. Also, all iPhones released in 2016 or more recently, and with one short-lived exception all iPhones buyable new in 2018 or more recently, are capable of running st least the less than 2 year old iOS 15. How many non-flagship 2018 Android phones are updatable to Android 12 without rooting?

1Password 7 (still current, supported, and actively updated) works on Android 5 Lollipop and 1Password 8 (latest version) works on Android 9 Pie. The same iPhone versions require iOS 12 and iOS 15 respectively.

There might be Android software that requires Android 12, but I personally have not come across any.

But prices for Android phones haven't cratered. What has actually happened is Android phones have extended into very low end configurations. The less low end configurations that are equivalent to what Apple offers haven't decreased in price significantly, they've stayed equivalent to what Apple charges, and Apple hasn't dropped prices.

I meant what you explained, but without being specific enough, I guess. Each individual range of phone hasn't lowered in price, but the bottom has cratered. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if a mid-range Android costs the same as a low-end Apple, if all you can afford is a $25 phone. You can NEVER buy an iPhone if you are the type of consumer who can only afford $25-400 phones, hence, Android is the dominant platform. There is a product at prices that work for everybody. You need to be rich to afford an iPhone. Rich, relatively speaking on a global level. Products that target the rich likely will never be the dominant platform. This is a silly metric that doesn't mean anything, but there are about 50 countries in the world where people don't make enough on average in a year to afford an iPhone Pro 14 Max.

 

[Chris FOM]

1Password 7 (still current, supported, and actively updated) works on Android 5 Lollipop and 1Password 8 (latest version) works on Android 9 Pie. The same iPhone versions require iOS 12 and iOS 15 respectively.

While true, you can’t simply compare straight software requirements without taking into account hardware support. Every device that can run iOS 11 can be upgraded to iOS 12, although there are some limits for devices with only 1 GB of RAM (for the record that’s anything with an A7, which came out in 2013, or an A8, which came out in 2014). iOS 13 dropped anything with less than 2 GB of RAM, but that still means basically any device that came out in 2015 or later are supported. And not only for iOS 13, any device that runs iOS 13 can be upgraded through at least iOS 15 (that’s why there are basically no apps that require at least iOS 13 or 14, any device that runs those can also run iOS 15 so that’s what the apps require). So translating your requirements into actual reality the newest iPhone that can’t run 1Password 7 is the iPhone 5, which came out 11 years ago, while 1Password 8 requires at least an iPhone 6S, which is 8 years old.

There’s not a single Android device on the market that can match that level of support without rooting and custom firmware. Not a one.

What you’re actually seeing here is the difference that occurs when new versions of the OS are actually adopted. Apple supports old iPhones for a long length of time and their upgrade process means that most users are actually on the latest supported version. There’s none of the carrier-manufacturer song and dance you see in Android land where three years is considered exceptionally long support and low end models won’t even get security updates. That means developers can assume even owners of old devices will still have recent OS versions, so that’s what they can require without actually excluding customers.

 

[cogwheel]

1Password 7 (still current, supported, and actively updated) works on Android 5 Lollipop and 1Password 8 (latest version) works on Android 9 Pie. The same iPhone versions require iOS 12 and iOS 15 respectively.

There might be Android software that requires Android 12, but I personally have not come across any.

You have to look at what hardware runs the OS for it to mean anything. The oldest Samsung flagship that will run Android 5 is the Galaxy S4, released in 2013. 2013's iPhone, the 5S, is the oldest one that runs iOS 12. 2017's Galaxy S8 is the oldest that will run Android 9, and the oldest phone that will run iOS 15 is 2015's 6S.

For Android, 3rd party ROMs can be ignored since you're talking about the average user.

 

[Shavano]

But prices for Android phones haven't cratered. What has actually happened is Android phones have extended into very low end configurations. The less low end configurations that are equivalent to what Apple offers haven't decreased in price significantly, they've stayed equivalent to what Apple charges, and Apple hasn't dropped prices.

That's the point. Android phones extend to the very low end, as low as $50 us for locked phone. Apple has chosen not to do that, leaving the whole low end of the market to their competitors.

Nobody expects a mid range phone for low end prices. That's absurd. But there are very much viable low end Android phones, serving a whole market segment Apple has written off as irrelevant to its business strategy. But they're not irrelevant to the carriers and they're not irrelevant to Google.

 

[analogika]

The mid-range Android market is the equivalent of the used iPhone market.

Apple makes up for it by supporting their phones three or four times as long, and through relative longevity of the hardware.

 

[Shavano]

It seems weird to consider any physical item that's 5 years old equivalent to anything new from the factory.

And that still isn't addressing the low end of the market.

 

[Nevarre]

It seems weird to consider any physical item that's 5 years old equivalent to anything new from the factory.

And that still isn't addressing the low end of the market.

I think you mean to say that Apple has ceded almost the entire developing world market (other than possibly the elite classes in those countries.) A buyer of a $400-500 USD phone in the developed world could choose between a used "regular" iPhone, a more limited iPhone SE, or they could get a new "affordable" Android phone that's pretty capable or a used flagshippy Android phone that's a few years old. That's going to cover the vast majority of the market, and in the US, sales of new phones significantly cheaper than that (the $200 and below market) are limited and mostly to people with incredibly bad credit history. Go to a lot of countries and a $100-200 phone is already a huge lift and for many consumers a $500 USD phone is just beyond any possible budget. For example in Kenya if the average monthly salary is about $650 USD, a $500 phone is just beyond reality--paying 75% of a month's wages just for hardware is too high. Americans may whine and moan about phone prices, but to plug in median numbers for US consumers, that would mean an 'average' phone would have to cost over $3,000 to have the same impact relative to wages.

 

[cogwheel]

The mid-range Android market is the equivalent of the used iPhone market.

Apple makes up for it by supporting their phones three or four times as long, and through relative longevity of the hardware.

What do you consider "mid-range"? More Pixel a series, or more Moto G series?

 

[analogika]

What do you consider "mid-range"? More Pixel a series, or more Moto G series?

Cheaper than an $400 iPhone SE. No idea what models on the Android side fit the bill.

Point is that the iOS equivalent of whatever is cheaper than $400 is used/refurbed iPhones.

It seemed from travelling in Egypt last year that the iPhone density, particular in the service sector, is FAR higher than the market share would indicate. Lots of slightly battered second-hand iPhones around.

 

[CommanderJameson]

You can get a brand new Galaxy A53 5G for £282 off Amazon right now, and it’s an absolutely perfectly serviceable phone with a really nice screen.

 

[hestermofet]

It seemed from travelling in Egypt last year that the iPhone density, particular in the service sector, is FAR higher than the market share would indicate. Lots of slightly battered second-hand iPhones around.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. "Despite knowing the actual statistics, I think my anecdotal impression is more valid"?

Apple simply doesn't serve the <$400 market. Used phones don't address that market, as your very own understanding of the marketshare of the iPhone in countries like Egypt would tell us. Using Egypt as an example, only 15% marketshare for iOS. That's tiny.

 

[hestermofet]

So translating your requirements into actual reality the newest iPhone that can’t run 1Password 7 is the iPhone 5, which came out 11 years ago, while 1Password 8 requires at least an iPhone 6S, which is 8 years old.

There’s not a single Android device on the market that can match that level of support without rooting and custom firmware. Not a one.

But that wasn't my point, that they both provide exactly the same software support.

The thread started off with the question "I don't understand how Android can be the market leader when Google keeps canceling projects", and an example was given from the frontpage article about the recently-cancelled Google Pay. I didn't do an extensive search, but phones as early as the Google Nexus 4 can run 1Passowrd 7, and that launched in 2013. Android doesn't need to match iOS support like for like, but software support is long enough that I wouldn't pin that as a reason why Android shouldn't be the dominant platform. A 10 year old Android can still run software updated as recently as today, which is a lot longer software support than many non-Android users seem to think. The point wasn't that Android support is longer than iOS, it's that it's almost as long, despite many people trying to convince you your Android phone has an obsolete OS that is unusable within 2 years or less.

Then I outlined a couple reasons why it is the dominant platform. Namely, it's an open platform offered by multiple vendors, and as a result, can be very, very cheap, whereas the iPhone is not and always has been crazy expensive relative to most people's incomes. So of course fewer people will own one.

 

[hestermofet]

The mid-range Android market is the equivalent of the used iPhone market.

Apple makes up for it by supporting their phones three or four times as long, and through relative longevity of the hardware.

Don't kid yourself, the iPhone is a rich person's phone. "Let them eat half-eaten cake" doesn't adequately describe how Apple has completely failed to even address emerging markets.

 

[analogika]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. "Despite knowing the actual statistics, I think my anecdotal impression is more valid"?

Apple simply doesn't serve the <$400 market. Used phones don't address that market, as your very own understanding of the marketshare of the iPhone in countries like Egypt would tell us. Using Egypt as an example, only 15% marketshare for iOS. That's tiny.

What I’m saying, and this is not anecdotal, is: iPhones have a usable lifespan several times that of any Android phone except a small handful of the higher-end ones.

This is reflected in the fact that about half of refurbished phone sales worldwide are iPhones.

https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/24/refurbished-smartphone-market-apple-iphone-2022/amp/
I assume — but this is indeed mere assumption — that this is even more pronounced in the private used market.

 

[CommanderJameson]

People like being the first owner of things. You can get a Galaxy A14 for under £200.

There isn’t a refurb iPhone at that price point that’s worth it. On eBay UK right now, there’s a bunch of 9- and 10-year old 5 and 6s for under a hundred quid - deader than disco in terms of software support. Battered SEs abound. At about the £200 point it’s all iPhone X and XR (coming up on 6 years old), and only in “good” condition - nothing “exceptional” or (lol) “certified”, so your new-to-you phone will not only be on software life support (and almost certainly dropped by iOS 17) , but it’ll look like it’s been around the block.

Or… you can spend the exact same amount of money on a brand-new in-warranty A14 from Samsung, with a bigger brighter screen, likely better performance, and no issues running all the apps you want.