iPhone 5

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I know - they just keep making their products more and more attractive - damn them!

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I know - they just keep making their products more and more attractive - damn them!

Er, no, that is rather the opposite.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Er, no, that is rather the opposite.

Their sales figures say otherwise.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130723006564/en/Apple-Reports-Quarter-Results

The Company sold 31.2 million iPhones, a record for the June quarter, compared to 26 million in the year-ago quarter.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yeah, that has no relation to what I was talking about either.

Defaults matter, especially when there is OS integration that can't be changed.

Unless you are saying people bought the iPhone for Apple Maps? But for comparison, why don't you look at iOS vs Android devices . That was Google's goal, after all.

 

[William Parcher]

I've discovered an odd situation with mine. I'm able to attach it to my aftermarket car stereo via USB and listen to Pandora, etc. But it won't let me listen to any streaming app if I have not installed at least one song via iTunes onto the phone. But I don't really want any music uploaded to my phone I just want to stream the music apps.

It seems silly to force me to put a song on my phone before I can listen to Pandora in my car. Is there a way to get around that or am I doing something wrong?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yeah, that has no relation to what I was talking about either.

To put what you said in context:

I know - they just keep making their products more and more attractive - damn them!

Er, no, that is rather the opposite.

Their sales figures say otherwise.

I would say increased sales imply increased attractiveness, no ? You claim the opposite ?

Defaults matter, especially when there is OS integration that can't be changed.

Matter HOW ? They do not appear to be harming sales, so in what way are you claiming they matter ?

Unless you are saying people bought the iPhone for Apple Maps? But for comparison, why don't you look at iOS vs Android devices . That was Google's goal, after all.

Of what benefit would that be ? I thought Googles goal was to make money. Are they making a lot of money on Android ? How many phones does google sell a quarter compared to apple ?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Of what benefit would that be ? I thought Googles goal was to make money. Are they making a lot of money on Android ? How many phones does google sell a quarter compared to apple ?

Sure, Google's goal is to make money. But not from Android, at least not directly. They let manufacturers use and modify Android as they wish, without charge.

What little they do make from Android mostly comes from their share of apps sold on Play Store, which probably isn't a significant chunk of their overall income.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Sure, Google's goal is to make money. But not from Android, at least not directly. They let manufacturers use and modify Android as they wish, without charge.

Modify it as they wish ... except for the closed source google-only parts that actually make the OS useful:

mail, maps, play, google services, voice search, calendar

But yeah, it's open source

What little they do make from Android mostly comes from their share of apps sold on Play Store, which probably isn't a significant chunk of their overall income.

What about the money they make by selling their customers ?

 

[Babbylonian]

Modify it as they wish ... except for the closed source google-only parts that actually make the OS useful:

mail, maps, play, google services, voice search, calendar

But yeah, it's open source

All the items you list (except "google services," and I have no idea what you mean by that) are not integral to the OS and instead are applications that are offered with most Android installations. While they might not be able to be modified by the manufacturer (and I'd have to examine each case to be certain of that), the manufacturer is absolutely free to offer their own alternatives, which some do (particularly mail, contact, and calendar apps). In fact, those selling Android devices can and do leave out Google apps entirely; the Kindle tablets are particularly popular examples that operate using an Amazon fork of Android and notably don't include the Play store, instead using having users buy/download from Amazon only.

End users are also free to modify and distribute their own versions of Android, some of which are very popular! In those cases, Google's apps have to be downloaded separately but doing so is entirely optional since a user can download apps from others to serve the same (or very similar) functions.

How much more "open source" do you expect an operating system to be?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

To put what you said in context:





I would say increased sales imply increased attractiveness, no ? You claim the opposite ?

I like how your "context" leaves out the posts about Maps that started this.

Matter HOW ? They do not appear to be harming sales, so in what way are you claiming they matter ?

In usage, which is what you were talking about. That many people use the default and integrated option does not mean much of anything. The "teeth gnashing" was over quality, and Google wanted to keep an edge for selling their OS devices.

Of what benefit would that be ? I thought Googles goal was to make money. Are they making a lot of money on Android ? How many phones does google sell a quarter compared to apple ?

Really? So tell me, if Google doesn't have an interest in spreading Android (ludicrous, but let's play with it), why is it that they didn't want to give Apple devices turn-by-turn navigation like they did for the Android devices?

 

[funk de fino]

Their sales figures say otherwise.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130723006564/en/Apple-Reports-Quarter-Results

The Company sold 31.2 million iPhones, a record for the June quarter, compared to 26 million in the year-ago quarter.

Doesn't mean the crappy maps app is any good. It has not been a "hit".

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I like how your "context" leaves out the posts about Maps that started this.



In usage, which is what you were talking about. That many people use the default and integrated option does not mean much of anything. The "teeth gnashing" was over quality, and Google wanted to keep an edge for selling their OS devices.



Really? So tell me, if Google doesn't have an interest in spreading Android (ludicrous, but let's play with it), why is it that they didn't want to give Apple devices turn-by-turn navigation like they did for the Android devices?

Typical in so many responses we see here on JREF - a comment is made, and certain people try to dig right down in the weeds to prove a point, ignoring the original comment and it's context.

Let me drag you back up into the light - my original comment which sparked this thread of discussion was "I know - they just keep making their products more and more attractive - damn them!"

Can you explain why I don't find Apple products attractive, a clearly subjective term? I'd love to know, because the last time I checked, I found them VERY attractive. I can check again right now, if you like? Hang on....

Yep. Still finding them attractive.

You then replied to my original comment with, "Er, no, that is rather the opposite."

Actually, no it's not. I'm pretty sure I still find Apple products attractive. I did just check too.

I don't presume to speak for others, but I will stick my neck out and assume the 9 million+ people who bought an iPhone 5S/5C in the first 3 days after launch found them quite attractive also. But I could be wrong; after all, attractiveness is a subjective quality...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ales-break-Apples-records-launch-weekend.html

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I've discovered an odd situation with mine. I'm able to attach it to my aftermarket car stereo via USB and listen to Pandora, etc. But it won't let me listen to any streaming app if I have not installed at least one song via iTunes onto the phone. But I don't really want any music uploaded to my phone I just want to stream the music apps.

It seems silly to force me to put a song on my phone before I can listen to Pandora in my car. Is there a way to get around that or am I doing something wrong?

Wow. That's a new one on me... I'll do some digging and get back to you.

 

[quadraginta]

Modify it as they wish ... except for the closed source google-only parts that actually make the OS useful:

mail, maps, play, google services, voice search, calendar

But yeah, it's open source

Oddly enough, I don't use Google's version of any of those apps (aside from Google Services, depending on what you mean by that). Some of the ones I use are part of Samsung's package for the Note 2. Others are third party apps I have found have features I prefer. (i.e., I use Waze for navigation instead of Google Maps. It is enough better that Google bought the company that made it earlier this year.)

I'm not sure what you mean by Google Services. The meaning I am familiar with would be the entire suite of Google apps, or alternatively Google providing app developers with ways to integrate those same services into third party apps of their own, and paths to distribute those apps on Google Play. In an case Google does not charge for them.

I cannot think of very many apps (if any) that Google supplies which isn't duplicated by other developers. It would be relatively simple to set up an Android phone without using Google supplied apps at all. You can even root your phone with very stable, free third party kernels and not use Google's version of Android at all.

And all of the third party apps you might want to use as replacements for the Google versions can be found on Google Play, so it isn't like they're discouraging the competition in the app market. Quite the contrary, their strategy has always been to encourage them as much as possible.

What about the money they make by selling their customers ?

What about it? You were talking about the money they make off of Android. Selling Google users has always been Google's main source of income. This was true even before Android existed.

Are you putting wheels on the goal posts?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Doesn't mean the crappy maps app is any good. It has not been a "hit".

No, it just means the maps debacle, was, as I claimed, a tempest in a teapot.

While Google maps are still better, I have been using Apple maps in the US for the last year without a problem, and they seem to continually be improving. I can't say for the rest of the world.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

All the items you list (except "google services," and I have no idea what you mean by that) are not integral to the OS and instead are applications that are offered with most Android installations.

Sorry, should have been google play services.

While they might not be able to be modified by the manufacturer (and I'd have to examine each case to be certain of that), the manufacturer is absolutely free to offer their own alternatives, which some do (particularly mail, contact, and calendar apps). In fact, those selling Android devices can and do leave out Google apps entirely; the Kindle tablets are particularly popular examples that operate using an Amazon fork of Android and notably don't include the Play store, instead using having users buy/download from Amazon only.

Right, because google won't allow them to use their apps, because Amazon forked kindle.

End users are also free to modify and distribute their own versions of Android, some of which are very popular! In those cases, Google's apps have to be downloaded separately but doing so is entirely optional since a user can download apps from others to serve the same (or very similar) functions.

They all come with instructions how to install Gapps ... because without it, it's mostly useless.

How much more "open source" do you expect an operating system to be?

From google, not much, as I have pretty low expectations from them lately.

 

[Babbylonian]

They all come with instructions how to install Gapps ... because without it, it's mostly useless.

That's simply false. As Quadraginta (and I) said above, there are multiple sources of multiple alternatives to Google's suite of applications.

There may be good reasons to take shots at Android, but on this one you're not even in the same time zone with a valid target.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oddly enough, I don't use Google's version of any of those apps (aside from Google Services, depending on what you mean by that). Some of the ones I use are part of Samsung's package for the Note 2. Others are third party apps I have found have features I prefer. (i.e., I use Waze for navigation instead of Google Maps. It is enough better that Google bought the company that made it earlier this year.)

I'm not sure what you mean by Google Services. The meaning I am familiar with would be the entire suite of Google apps, or alternatively Google providing app developers with ways to integrate those same services into third party apps of their own, and paths to distribute those apps on Google Play. In an case Google does not charge for them.

As I said to Babbylonian, that should have been google play services.

I cannot think of very many apps (if any) that Google supplies which isn't duplicated by other developers. It would be relatively simple to set up an Android phone without using Google supplied apps at all.

If it was so simple, I would expect some people in the US would be doing it ? Are they ? Any non OHA members selling "android" phones in the US ?

You can even root your phone with very stable, free third party kernels and not use Google's version of Android at all.

And all of the third party apps you might want to use as replacements for the Google versions can be found on Google Play, so it isn't like they're discouraging the competition in the app market. Quite the contrary, their strategy has always been to encourage them as much as possible.

What about it? You were talking about the money they make off of Android. Selling Google users has always been Google's main source of income. This was true even before Android existed.

Are you putting wheels on the goal posts?

No, just putting what selling android actually means in the proper context.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's simply false. As Quadraginta (and I) said above, there are multiple sources of multiple alternatives to Google's suite of applications.

There may be good reasons to take shots at Android, but on this one you're not even in the same time zone with a valid target.

That's fine, we'll simply disagree.

 

[Babbylonian]

That's fine, we'll simply disagree.

No, you'll refuse to accept fact. This isn't a matter of conflicting opinions, it's a matter of you being entirely wrong.