$600. I know they were always expensive. But for me, I just don't see paying that for something I might forget, drop, sit on, lose, have it stolen.
I got a Moto G for $170. Paid cash, and then got on a T-Mobile month by month plan. If I break it. I'll just go and get another one.
My relatives and friends have iPhones and looking and comparing them, I just don't see the extra "niceness" worth the other $430. Same goes for expensive Android phones.
I strongly agree with this. With the new iOS, Apple have caught up on some of the Android features I've wanted to see in that platform. My current phone is aging, and I was ready to cut over.
However -- at an eye-watering $1000NZD minimum for a 16GB iPhone 6, there's just no way I can justify the purchase. The 5S is still going for a minimum of $900NZD. Retina assets mean that 16GB is vaguely pointless, so you're really looking at $1150 or $1300 (6/6+) for the step up.
Google's Nexus line, the Moto X/G and others have proved that premium-ish devices can be had for a third of that price, and as much as I'd like to be on iOS, I simply can't afford it.
> However -- at an eye-watering $1000NZD minimum for a 16GB iPhone 6, there's just no way I can justify the purchase.
Even if I was tempted by the iOS environment, I'd fall into the same boat. I got a Z1 Compact this year for NZ$500 and I've got a great camera, waterproof, 64 GB of storage, snappy smartphone. People keep playing with it and wanting to know where to buy them.
And even if you can, why would you? I currently have a Moto X. If something bad happens with it (stolen, damaged), I will get a 180 Euro Moto G. It's still not pocket change, but far less to worry about than a 699 Euro iPhone 6. I want to use a phone carelessly and not put it on a silk pillow or use it with a case or screen protector.
Some of my friends have Gs, and they are very happy with it. I played with one, and I really liked it (especially the first gen, which has a nice size).
Google's strategy of driving down handset costs continues. They don't make money on the hardware or software but rather on the data collection and advertising from android devices. Apple, on the other hand, makes their money from the devices. As people continue to undervalue their data and put up with advertising we'll increasingly see this logic. Why pay $600 to Apple when I can pay $170 to X. This puts pricing pressure on Apple and will eventually reduce their competitiveness.
It's google's ad supported model that is winning - not a superior product. That's not to say their product is bad - its quite good. But they can essentially give it away and make money on the users…
As people continue to undervalue their data and put up with advertising we'll increasingly see this logic.
I agree in general with your point, but I wanted to add that Android is so open that you can easily make different choices. E.g., you can install CalDAV and CardDAV plugins and you can use Fastmail, iCloud, or whatever your favorite e-mail/calendaring provider is. Google could make people's lives more difficult there, but in a sense Cyanogenmod and the fact that handset manufacturers can fork Android will probably keep it sane.
Also, I think that the focus on advertising is too one-dimensional and doesn't see the bigger picture. The use of free Google products makes people want to use them for work as well (like illegal private Office copies drove enterprise Office adoption). Companies that use Google Apps for Work pay $5 or $10 per month per user for Google's services and get the guarantee that data in Apps will not be used for advertising. Then there's Google Play Music, a percentage of every app store purchase, the future Youtube subscription service, Google Voice and Hangouts calling.
Over the last years, Google has steadily added venues for getting revenue besides advertising.
> Google's strategy of driving down handset costs continues. They don't make money on the hardware or software but rather on the data collection and advertising from android devices. Apple, on the other hand, makes their money from the devices.
But Google isn't making the devices.
> Why pay $600 to Apple when I can pay $170 to X.
How much does X make on that $170 device, compared to how much Apple makes on their $600 device?
> But they can essentially give it away and make money on the users…
Google can, yes. But their device manufacturers can't. And that's where a lot of Windows PC developers ended up—they raced to lots of low margin sales, and made less and less on each sale. It hasn't gone well for them.
Agree with your points. What I was trying to say was that Google has created a competitive ecosystem like PC manufactures that will drive the price of handsets close to their cost thus depriving them of profit.
In other words there is less and less differentiation between a samsung and htc and lg handset as the pace of innovation slows in hardware. They cannot differentiate on software this they are left primarily with price. This will only exacerbate in the future.
> In other words there is less and less differentiation between a samsung and htc and lg handset as the pace of innovation slows in hardware. They cannot differentiate on software this they are left primarily with price. This will only exacerbate in the future.
Definitely, and that's a rough place to be in for hardware manufacturers. Dell and HP and Compaq and Acer have shown what lies down that road. Hopefully they'll find some other area to differentiate their products.
> moto g is made by motorola, which is no longer owned by google.
Well, except in the real world, where Motorola Mobility is still a division of Google, though a deal for a sale has been reached with Lenovo that's expect to close by next year.
You get the same amount of ads whichever platform you use. The only difference is by using Google services on either platform, the ads served by Google will be more targeted. How is the user worse off in this arrangement? They use superior apps, pay less for the phone, and get less annoyed by non-relevant ads.
If you install the google apps on an iPhone it gets closer but certainly not out of the box. I don't have stats on maps app usage but apple maps is at least used by some folks rather than google maps which means google is not able to collect valuable location data for some users. And on ios google maps is not able to collect location data when it is not running so the collection of data is much more limited for google.
To your point, however, they still collect quite a bit.
Google Maps isn't able to collect location data while it isn't running on Android either, but I'm being facetious to take it so literary. All background location data collection by Google on Android is opt-in. Similarly, Apple collects background location data on iOS if you opt-in.
Let's analyze how things appear from the user's perspective in both cases. If the user doesn't opt-in, the only difference is that the user saves a lot of money in one case. If the user opts in, one provides superior services with that data (e.g., location-based Google Now notifications) and results in more relevant location-based ads in addition to the money savings from the previous case. In both cases, the user is better off with the Moto phone.
You may have a better understanding on this than I do as it's been awhile since I researched it. With apple much of the location info is actually kept on the device where it can actually make use of it locally rather than sent up to a cloud dossier on you. Google works very differently.
Opt in is a little disingenuous in both cases. If you choose not to opt in you basically have an expensive brick. The challenge really in both cases is that you have no idea what is actually being done with your data as the privacy policies of both companies are weak.
Primary point being is that if you look at the business models of these companies one is dependent on data collection and ads while the other device sales. Based on that I can infer what may be done with my data.
Your understanding is incorrect. Apple also allows opting in to their AGPS service, Find my Friends service, etc.; each of which implies sending location data to Apple.
If you don't opt in on Android, everything that doesn't require background location reporting continues to work. You lose no functionality compared to not opting in on iOS.
You can look at the privacy policies and learn that neither company divulges the data to other companies. In both cases, opting in provides exactly the same loss in privacy (to the company the device talks to). The only difference is that one provides better services with that data.
High specced and premium are two different things - my Nexus5 is a great phone, but my 2 year old iPhone5 is still more usable, looks better and has more apps (that I actually use).
Nexus 5 is a great deal - I just would not consider it premium (even when I bought it last Nov).
I use a Nexus 5 as well. Best phone I've ever owned (and I've had an iPhone before). What exactly makes the iPhone "more usable"?
I have an iPad Mini Retina and Nexus 7 too. The iPad wasn't worth twice the price of the N7 but I had to buy it for development.
Agreed. I have a Nexus 5 so that's more than the Moto G, but the fact that it was and continues to be a great smartphone that I bought for $350 (unsubsidized) basically capped the amount I'd ever be willing to spend on a phone that didn't have some radical new must-have technology at $350 2014 dollars. I suspect when I replace it in the next year or two the cap will drop even further to $180-250.
Bought the Moto G for my Dad for his birthday. He's reasonably tech-savvy, and he's owned a Samsung Galaxy S2, but he loves it. He knows how much it costs and is constantly amazed at how well it performs.
I was recently torn between a Republic Wireless Moto G and a Freedompop Galaxy S4.
I went with the later, because while it was twice as expensive, I liked the screen size, LTE, camera, etc a lot more. And I think it was worth it, especially considering my phone bill is $0 rather than $6 / month. I can always buy more on demand if I need any beyond the flat 200 minutes a month, but so far that has not been the case. It probably will be around Christmas, though.
I'm of a similar mind, but everyone is different. Personally, I do see the extra value in the $430 difference, so I bought an iPhone. I won't get into it here, but it's worth it to me. However, I also own a Nexus 4 as a backup, and it has come in handy. My wife broke her iPhone and I gave her mine and switched to the Nexus 4 until I could get a replacement iPhone. Same thing when my old Windows Phone stopped working before I got my first iPhone, I moved to the Nexus until I could get a new phone.
It's great that for $200 you can get a phone that is nice with few compromises and not really be bummed if it breaks. The camera was god-awful on the Nexus 4, but for $200 I didn't mind much.
For me no Android I've owned was a suitable camcorder.
A 128GB iPhone 6 Plus is an awesome camcorder, that's always with you, and you can painlessly share your HD videos with your iphone equipped family over iMessage. (Google Plus Photos are awesome, but it's not really comparable in ease of use/sharing for me). As a parent of a 5yo and a 2yo, that's reason enough for me.
Wether it'll be awesome remains to be seen: I'm quite disappointed about the iPhone 5s camera's low light performance when comparing it to recent Android phones.
And regarding storage, I'd say it's an advantage to have MicroSD cards you can change quickly, wouldn't you? Perhaps even a swappable battery?
tl;dr: The only competition (IMO) is the LG G3, and IOS makes the difference (IMO).
I've owned a Nexus One, Samsung Galaxy S2, Moto X and LG G2.
Only the G2's camera was decent, but it seems a fairly broad opinion that the iPhone 5's camera is the better of the two.
Aside from the original iPhone's lack of video recording, I've found iPhone cameras to consistently be best of breed.
As far as MicroSD: I rarely felt a pinch at 64GB. With higher resolution video (and bigger apps/games over time) I think 128GB will probably serve pretty well.
It used to be that the MicroSD expansion on Androids was pretty limited. I've been told that's changed, but I wouldn't know since my last Android didn't have it.
As far as battery goes: I much prefer an all-day battery over swapping. I found the iPhone 5's battery to last quite a bit longer than the Moto X or G2 with similar usage patterns. It's also smaller and much quicker to charge. Sort of like trickle-charging a Tesla vs a Leaf I guess. Bigger isn't necessarily always better. If your battery is twice the size, but your phone consumes twice the power under active use, then all things being equal you're going to double your charge time.
All things aren't equal though as the 12w charger will take an iPhone from empty to 80% in what... 30 minutes? The G2 might recover 30% of it's charge in that time if I'm lucky.
And no swappable battery.
So what does have a swappable battery, a really good camera, has 128GB of storage (or can be expanded to it), and runs Android? That's a very short list I think.
The Moto X had a terrible camera at launch. After patching it was much improved, but still feel far short of the iPhone. The X+1 only has 32GB of storage (that I can figure out) and no MicroSD.
No Nexus device qualifies. Terrible cameras, no SD, no battery replacement.
Off the top of my head that leaves the G3, HTC One M8 and Samsung Galaxy S5 (might as well throw in the Note 3/4 as well?).
Personal tastes and all, and I'm definitely in the vast majority of opinion on this, but I think the HTC is one of the uglier phones I've seen. Just don't care for it at all.
The S5's shots in the camera reviews I could find seem pretty consistently over saturated and blow out detail, especially in faces. It's admittedly one of the best Android cameras I've seen. The 5S camera OTOH does seem less exposed in shaded shots. Maybe it's just personal preference, but I feel like I'd rather preserve the detail and let Google Plus Photos Automagic Enhancement, or iPhoto Enhancement make a photo more punchy if necessary, than losing detail.
Plus I don't take my kids to a lot of bars. So it's important that under sunlight at the zoo the shots aren't blown out. Under normal interior lighting conditions the iPhone seems to take the best pictures of people by far from the reviews I could find.
The G3 comes closest to meeting the requirements and earning the bonus of "best out-of-box experience/least crapware". Maybe that's moving the goal-post a bit, but it's still important to me in the same way it's important to Nexus users. The Samsung... meh.
My biggest frustration with the G2 was slow charging and that STUPID FCKING MENU BUTTON*. I think the G3 is a definite improvement on both counts.
That's my trouble with Android phones I guess. Lots of them have compelling features. But very few offer the whole package. It's not so much Android vs iPhone at this point. It's an LG G3 vs iPhone 6.
In that case, I think an iPhone 6 Plus with IOS8 wins on everything but price (it's easily $300+ more expensive). For me. Simpler interface. Similar storage. Faster. Longer battery life. Quicker charging.
Don't get me wrong, the G3 seems like a great value, and a legit alternative IMO. But I think the iPhone is the better package overall. I definitely prefer IOS's navigation over the app-drawer/menu in Android, I can count on 1 hand the number of times I found Google Now relevant or compelling over just using a Weather widget (I use Yelp, not Google, Passbook is better for Airlines IMO, but Google Now had the occasional suggestion for parks/museums for the kids on the weekend, which was a nice surprise a few times).
This is just me. I'm a flip-flopper. ;-) But I figure others like myself might find talkin' it out useful. Or at least consider the LG G3. Which seems like the most Nexus-like device with the most complete package that I've seen on the Android side of the fence.
I also like the Day-1 software updates for iPhones though. They age much better IMO, and they're supported much better. If you're an off-contract user like myself, it might also be nice to know that the $300 price differential probably goes away when it's time to trade it in. I just sold a G2 for $160 last night. That's a 12 month old phone. I can sell my temporary backup iPhone 4S for the same price. A phone three times it's age! Crazy.
Also, I've owned a Jeep Grand Cherokee, Nissan Leaf, and now Mazda 3. The iPhone Bluetooth or USB always works flawlessly with them. I'm lucky to get any Android phone I've used to connect 50% of the time. It feels like I have to reboot the phone more often than not.
Apparently this isn't a problem for some people. But across different vehicles and different Androids I've found Bluetooth connections to be very flaky. So much that I don't bother half the time unless I know I want to make a call on the drive home when I get in the car. Once a connection is established I've never had it disconnect that I can recall. It's just that it won't make the initial connection without a reboot. Turning on/off Bluetooth or Airplane mode seems to have no effect. This is with a Moto X and LG G2.
Oh, but one thing I mentioned previously: iMessage. It's hard to overstate how superior an experience it is forwarding the video you just recorded to another iPhone user. Hangouts is clunkier than iMessage and while I have a couple Android users in my family, getting them to figure out Hangouts so I can initiate a conversation with the right protocol so I can actually forward a video is something I haven't been successful at yet. So I have to upload to Youtube instead and forward them a link. Which takes a minute or two instead of a few seconds. The difference in user-experience is night and day for a parent on the run...
I think the article's author is right and that there could easily be high-end market shift from Android at the margin. On the other hand, Android Wear watches are already shipping, Google voice search is better than Siri, Google Now is kinda magic, Material Design is a very nice unified design language that is arguably better than iOS, and Android Auto could take off.
(By way of background, I'm working on developing http://recent.io for both iOS and Android. Currently I switch between an iPhone 5 and a Nexus 5 and expect to buy both the iPhone 6 and the Nexus 6/X rumored to be coming out this fall.)
>with the iPhone 6 Plus (a very Microsofty name, it must be said)...
Except for the Apple II Plus, the Mac Plus, the LaserWriter Plus, the Apple IIc Plus, the Apple III Plus[1]... In reality I'd say it's a very Appley name! :)
+1; The value isn't in the device, it's in the ecosystem.
Siri isn't going to integrate with my Nest, Apple Maps isn't going to have a fleet of vehicles driving around to confirm mapping data, and Google Now has the ability to digest information from both existing Google users and the web.
Can Apple create a better platform backend faster than Google can meet them at design/UX?
Google has traditionally been too attention-starved to stick with a product long enough to get the design/UX perfect.
That's not to say Google has never created a truly beautiful product. Rather, the problem seems to be that Google isn't hooked directly to the hardware sales, so hardware design is left to third parties. Except for the handsets Google sells directly.
In the end, I think this strategy will win for Google, because there is so much more effort being invested into the creation of Android devices. I'm not saying quantity = quality, but rather that "good enough" trumps "perfect."
In the meantime, Xiaomi is a good example of trying to get Android to "perfect" -- and it's very telling that they mod it extensively (in MIUI).
I think a bigger deal than "good enough" trumps "perfect" is that "good" (whether "good enough" or "perfect") isn't objective, its subjective, and more options means you are more likely to find something that meets your preferences.
What makes you think Apple won't release a SiriKit in the future ?
> Apple Maps isn't going to have a fleet of vehicles driving around to confirm mapping data.
Neither does Google in most places. And Apple, Google, Microsoft etc all rely on third party data providers for most of their map data. Surely they would be confirming the data.
> Can Apple create a better platform backend faster than Google can meet them at design/UX?
The issue is not what Google itself does. It's the ability of Google to influence the ecosystem to come along with it. That has always been the problem.
> Neither does Google in most places. And Apple, Google, Microsoft etc all rely on third party data providers for most of their map data. Surely they would be confirming the data.
Apple Maps has been out for two full years now, and it hasn't improved at all where I live, and the benchmark for demonstrating improvement is quite literally "find almost anything at all".
Admittedly, I'm in Iceland, but Reykjavik is a world capital, and a city with a bit over 200,000 people, so it's not like we're trading pelts over here either. And I don't think anyone understands how shockingly bad their maps are here. I've done quite a bit of testing with them, and if you search for a city in Iceland, you have pretty good odds of finding something (maybe 80% accuracy). If you search for a point of interest, it drops to maybe 40%. Everything else is 0%. Literally 0%. There's one fucking highway in the country, and if you look for directions between the two largest cities, it says "No results found". Way more than half of the searches I've tested just pop up that message in a UIAlertView, and it's exactly 100% of the searches for directions. I work at a university with 4000 students, and we're not on the map at all. It points you to a dozen high schools in the city instead.
Open street maps supposedly provides their data, but OSM is quite good here. Somehow Apple turns correct data into "No results found", and that's been true since launch day.
Apple doesn't have any recent OSM data. All of their input dates from 2010 or earlier, before they adopted a newer copyleft license. Apple is now relying on a scattered bunch of different providers for map data.[0]
Google supports iOS pretty well. They don't support Windows Phone at all, but I've heard a lot of Android users complaining at various points that iOS gets the app updates quicker than Android does for some Google apps.
And there's probably a lot of overlap between Apple's customer base and Nest's. I'm not saying they won't do it, I really just mean I don't know how likely it is :-)
> The issue is not what Google itself does. It's the ability of Google to influence the ecosystem to come along with it.
For the high-end Moto X and Nexus devices relevant to the author's thesis, this will happen soup-to-nuts shortly after the L release is launched. For the other devices, the downloadable apps will get the new UX through the support libraries, but the system apps will still have the old UX.
The thing is, most of Google's services are available on iOS as well. And IMO Google's apps are as good on iOS or even better than they are on Android. You can get the best of both worlds by using iOS with Google's apps and services.
You can't make every address link open in the superior maps app or every tweet open in the superior twitter app or every link open in the superior browser app. While iOS may have closed the gap in finally having these apps, actually using them is a frustrating experience.
True, but Google needs to keep their own platform as large as possible. What do we say around HN about building your business on someone else's platform?
The conventional wisdom around HN nowadays, as I understand it, is to be wary of building your business on someone else's platform. Lots of companies in the Twitter (and to some extent FB and Craigslist) ecosystem have found this out the hard way. The Apple ecosystem too, if you include app store shenanigans, as some wallet makers learned during the bitcoin interregnum.
I don't recall a lot of people here demanding a Federal Bureau of App Store and API Software Licensing and Regulation. Besides, if it existed, the FBASASLR would ban bitcoin wallets even more aggressively than Apple did. :)
I'm guessing it was a reference to "net neutrality" which is a legislative attempt to prevent near-monopoly internet providers from capturing excess profits from web services.
Ah, that makes a bit more sense. But I've never heard of anyone calling AT&T or Verizon or Comcast a "platform" that a developer might choose to build a business on.
BTW even if you like the ideas of Net neutrality, it makes sense to look very carefully at the methods of bringing it about that are being proposed at the FCC.
Daniel Berninger at VCXC.org earlier this week put it better than I could:
"The communicating public needs a 'voice' in the future of communication, but expanding FCC authority over IP networks via Title II does not achieve this goal.
"First - Internet access is not 'slow' - we near a one million fold expansion of bandwidth from the days of 300 baud modems.
"Second - The advocacy for FCC regulation reflects a theory of regulatory virtue not achieved in practice.
"Third - New regulation of IP networks threatens the Moore Law driven forces responsible for progress to date."
Until iOS's market share starts shrinking to a small percentage of the population, and Google will give them the Windows Phone treatment. And then a subpar Google experience on iOS might push iOS users to Android. It's just a matter of getting the timing right.
It's just as likely to push people away from Google services.
The majority of people using iOS are not financially invested in the google ecosystem - they're more likely to be using the free services like search, email, maps, etc.
If a google service doesn't work well on the $700 phone you've just bought that runs 5 years worth of purchased apps, are you really going to abandon all of that because of a free service?
No, you're going to find a service that works better on the device. There are very few if any things where google is the only provider or even the only good provider of a service.
Personal preference I guess. I switched from a Galaxy Nexus to an iPhone 5S, and I'm sorely disappointed with app functionality on iOS. Looking forward to jumping back to Android in short order.
How so specifically? While i like many of the features of android, the UI guidelines google gave to devs for a long time sucked pretty bad. L looks to fix that, but it's taken a long time to get here
eBay on Android is feeble compared to the iOS one, particularly layout-wise. They are making very very very slow attempts to improve the Android version though, from what I can tell.
Google is integrating Nest with Google Now this fall ("Google, set the temperature to X degrees") although after thinking about it I realized that Google Now is available on iOS (just not constantly available as it is on Android devices enabled to listen constantly for the cue.
But thanks. I didn't know about the Nest integration. I'm not sure I personally find it real compelling... but I know plenty of people that seem to really like Google Now. Different strokes I suppose.
No problem! I'm hoping for Google to roll out Google Now support into the Nest devices directly, so it can pickup my voice throughout my house (thermostat, nest protects) and respond accordingly (a la Startrek).
Apple will be royally screwed if smartwatches catch on. I feel that way for two reasons:
1) Watches are a fashion accessory and one does not fit all. There's no way they'll be able to compete with the variety of devices that will be running android wear.
2) A proper smartwatch will need to be smart and Apple doesn't have the data nor the personnel to compete with Google on the machine learning side.
(1) Counterpoint: Apple has much better taste than other OEMs. They've hired designers from Burberry and Nike to assist with wearable design. Design is a core competency for Apple. Others can't claim the same thing.
(2) More data gets you a couple of percentage points on accuracy. It doesn't make Google Now infinitely better in perpetuity than Apple's offering (Siri + whatever is next). Apple is also investing heavily in building out Siri/Maps/NLP.
More data gets you way more than that, but it's not just the data anyway. Google has the personnel who are able to make use of that data. This isn't the kind of stuff you can easily outsource, you need a superb research team. (Source: I'm a professor in machine learning). As far as anyone knows, Apple doesn't have one. They do fantastic product research, and it shows, but they're at least a decade behind the knowledge contained inside of Google, and increasingly, Facebook, Baidu, and a few others. And worse than that, the gap is widening, not shrinking.
What does more data get you beyond accuracy? I think it opens up certain model classes -- like online regression -- which have proveably low error rates with lots of data, but my argument is that you don't need "the entire web," as another commenter suggests, to be good enough at, say, speech recognition. I could definitely be mistaken though...
I agree that quantitative research must be a core competency -- I'm a ML engineer at a company that's heavily invested in its research team -- and it is most certainly not one of Apple's focii. What's stopping Apple from building that competency by acquihiring the talent, though? This is no different from what Google has done over the years...
At some level, it all boils down to increasing accuracy, but the point I was making was just that doing that seems right not to be best accomplished with loads of data. If you look at the deep learning work that's been big lately, you have models with millions of free parameters. By necessity, you need a lot of data in order to constrain a model that big.
Even speech recognition has gotten a big boost recently from taking a "simple model with massive data" approach.
I'm not convinced that these approaches are sufficient to give you some sort of human-level AI. I'm pessimistic on the timeframes for that in general. And I'm sure there are areas where they fail, and maybe someone else comes along with a better idea, but Apple's not working on that either.
Certainly, they could acquire their way to competency, and I'm certainly not going to chime in with the proverbial "Apple is doomed...DOOOOOOOOMED". The only thing really stopping them is interest. But it takes a while to ramp up from getting results from a research team into making those results into a product.
(1) Right now they do but it's only a matter of time before Samsung or HTC partner up with Prada, Rolex, Omega or any other major brand and come out with a line of watches that appeal. The point is that we might get one or two apple watches a year if we're lucky and in the same time frame we'll be getting around 30-50 different android wear devices. Android wear will be available in a ton of different shapes and sizes, and there's no way that the top watch brands won't want to get in on the action.
(2) Data is everything in machine learning and google has the whole web. Google knows me better than my mother, girlfriend and brother combined. Android, youtube, search, gmail, drive, maps, calendar, hangouts and shopping express are enough to tell them who I talk to, where I live, what I eat, where I'm going and what I read.
A couple of percentage points is huge when your accuracy is above 90%. Apple doesn't have anyone as good as Geoff Hinton, Peter Norvig, nor Jeff Dean. There's no way they'll be able compete on AI with google.
(1) Google has partnered with Diane Von Furstenberg on Glass and...there isn't a whole lot to show for it. Glass has ~zero mindshare among fashion-forward people. I cannot stress the importance of design as a core competency.
(2) You're the second person to respond with "data is everything" in machine learning, but it's more complicated than that. While Google has Hinton working on deep nets and Kevin Murphy on knowledge representations, this cutting-edge work represents something closer to MS Research or Bell Labs. These models take years to affect production.
My experience is that "a couple of percentage points" above 90% actually matters little--the marginal cost of obtaining those points is enormous (many many hidden layers in your convolutional net really slows it down) with little real-world benefit (a user can't tell the difference between 90 and 95%--they'll just think of the product as "really really good").
I believe Apple can approach the point where their NLP/speech tech is "good enough" relative to Google.
We've heard exactly the same thing about the iPod, iPhone, iPad. If you measure being "royally screwed" on market share then sure Apple will never do as well as Android.
But if you measure it on actually making money than Apple will be just fine.
The companies that are royally screwed are the LG, Samsungs of the world who are having their margins eaten by the Chinese.
Is Google Voice Search really better than Siri? It seems much less able to handle things like followup or anything that requires context. "OK Google" is much more likely to just give me a web search, while my wife's iPhone seems to more often give helpful spoken results.
Currently, on my MotoX, I can do all common tasks like calendar entries, reminders, calling people. emails, text messaging, searching for information etc. etc. The kickers here are:
I can do all this WITHOUT TOUCHING the device.
I do all this in my Indian accented English (Siri is useless to me and my entire extended family for this reason alone).
This device came out more than a year ago.
I bought this device for half the price of an iPhone 5s unlocked.
The real question is, can Apple come up with a real Google Now competitor, deeply integrated with their devices, before this window of opportunity in the wearable devices blows by them.
Out of interest, is it quicker to do these things by voice than just using the phone with your hands? I always try texting by voice and when it gets it wrong (often!) I find myself just using the phone normally and am reluctant to use the voice features again.
I've been using Siri for years. Texting is occasionally hit or miss (although simple things like "On my way" or "Be there in 15" are reliable), but there are a ton of things that are way quicker than typing (and completely reliable). "Directions home", "Movies playing near me","Open app X","What was the last Tigers score","Call Amy",most Google searches...
Maybe it's my flat midwestern accent, but I find that Siri gets it right almost all the time with these things, and I find it way more natural and fast than hunting for an app icon, especially while driving/walking/biking.
Texts and emails are not 100% accurate of course, especially given my accent and given that proper nouns can be problematic. But it's still faster for me to start these activities by voice and just fill in the corrections. Searching for trivia (to settle random arguments etc.) is always, always faster with the OK Google interface.
For almost any activity on the phone, hunting for an app icon and finding the appropriate context in the app (e.g. searching for the correct contact to send the message to) etc. are usually the most time consuming and frustrating activities. Those are nicely bypassed (with a very high level of accuracy) by the no-touch interface of the MotoX.
Creating calendar entries and setting alarms etc. are two other activities where natural language queries are pretty much the best UX compared to any screen based UI on any device. Google Now has extremely high accuracy in recognizing these tasks.
I use voice to set alarms ("set an alarm for 5:30") and to open up Pandora when I'm driving. Both work great. Texting is a little more hit-or-miss but it's normally pretty accurate. I try not to text and drive anyway, even if it's done by voice.
Google's Voice Search seems like a Siri competitor to me - I can set alarms, request directions, call someone, etc. etc.
The thing is, I never do. Neither Siri nor Google Voice Search have ever seemed that useful to me because I'm usually in a public setting (an open office included) where I don't much feel like chatting away to my phone. Google Now is a much, much better implementation of this 'smart information provider' concept.
Google Now's "just give me appropriate information without me even asking for it" is probably the most badly marketed "magic" technology in the consumer technology space. It's hard to even describe it to people who have never experienced it. But suffice it to say, more than once, I've warned other people (usually non Android users) about their pending flight delays or cancellations before they knew about them simply because I had an email with their itinerary in my mailbox.
I've been using Siri for years and I get the trepidation, but it's really not awkward to do voice commands around people. In social situations, I look at it as simultaneously letting people around me know what I'm doing with the phone while I do it. Instead of saying "OK, let's see a movie. Here, I'll open Fandango and see what's playing around here." (or just pulling up the phone without telling them, which I'd regard as weirder, personally), I say "Yeah a movie sounds fun 'What movies are playing nearby?'" and we're immediately looking at movie times together. YMMV, but I find breaking eye contact for 15 seconds a lot more socially intrusive than a 2 second voice command.
I also find Siri works find with a low voice that nobody notices if I'm around people but not socializing (eg the open office). It just sounds like I'm taking a quick, quiet call at most.
The situation you're describing is one where the other people around you care what you're doing. In the vast majority of situations that isn't the case. The guy sitting next to me at work does not want to hear about me planning to see a movie later on tonight.
What about the 7th category, the consumer that is tired of having his wallet savaged by the four major carriers. Android offers users the opportunity to buy a high-end device, off-contract, for $350. You can then use this phone with a pre-paid service that costs 1/2 of what the major carriers sell.
Maybe its a small demographic, but it seems like its growing.
Maybe even less if you can time it right. When the Nexus 4 went on sale last year for $200 (8GB) / $250 (16GB) USD last year, I debated it for all of about 10 minutes before buying one. If the N5 goes on sale this year to clear out the inventory, I'd consider that a very good value as well.
I'd like to point out the writer for dismissing customisability. This is my opinion, but the popularity of some apps used to customise my phone leads me to believe I do not stand alone.
Let's not forget that the android can offer advanced functionality that Apple seems to refuse to offer on its devices: access to a local file system, ability to work as an USB stick(it's even possible to have your phone work as a boot stick), being able to turn its wireless card into monitor mode for mobile sniffing.
Last, but not least: Waterproofness and mechanical resistance. Apple seems to have forgotten these two points on the iPhone, even though they already have a good starting point(phone with no removable battery).
So, yeah, I don't think apple will win over the premium market that easily.
EDIT: Adjusting newlines, forgot that newfags can't triforce.
I laughed when he wrote that Android customization is basically alternate keyboards and widgets. Clearly he's never even held one in his hand. I switched to Android after four iPhones and I'm amazed at how much easier and quicker it is to do things on Android when I have total control over the UI.
That's not what I wrote. I said that iOS8 addresses some of these points, with keyboards as just one example, and that the key difference is now personal taste rather than screen size or availability.
Clearly some people prefer iOS and others Android. But that's not the issue, is it?
>You can get a bigger screen, you can change the keyboard, you can put widgets on the notification panel (if you insist) and so on. Pretty much all the external reasons to choose Android are addressed
It wouldn't be hard to come up with a list of dozens of features that you can customize on Android that you can't on iOS. If you really think you're covered "pretty much all the reasons" to choose Android, you haven't researched the platform very thoroughly.
It is that exact line which broke me out of the "this is an objective analysis" trance. It is clear to me the author tried to impartial For that I have to credit him. Yet afterwards the faux-impartiality became grating. I can only conclude he did his best but just does not fully understand Android.
Leaving out stuff like water proof-ness, wireless charging, and multi-windows. These are features which in five years we'll all take for granted. These are real innovations.
I was honestly expecting more from Apple. Apple has the engineers and the component budget to reach the forefront and push it forward. Yet I'm left wondering what their component budget actually went into and where their engineering time went.
There's a lot of stuff that I wouldn't personally call "customisation" that matters in various markets too, SD cards, TV reception or dual-sim and the like.
Android will almost certainly always be more customisable than iOS, the question for many users though isn't "which is more customisable?", it's "is it customisable enough for what I need/want to do?".
In this regard iOS8 begins to close off some of the more significant constraints iPhones and iPads have. For any given individual it may not go far enough but what's being introduced will almost certainly make it a better option for some people and some of those people may now buy iPhones instead of high end Android.
The point isn't that this brings the two platforms level, it's that iOS now competes for a small piece of the market where it previously didn't.
He's saying that it's not just down to taste. iOS remains fundamentally less capable for many power users who buy high-end phones, and your article didn't touch on that point. Everything from using a decent browser or maps application to using SIP, Google Voice, or a calling card is painfully broken on iOS. Expecting users who rely on those features (a lot for default apps and some of the features the other posters mentioned like waterproofing, admittedly fewer for my other example) to switch to iOS before it has those features would be like expecting music production power users to switch to Android before low latency audio processing is fully baked. Neither of those are matters of taste.
It's interesting how Apple talked about ApplePay as if it's something revolutionary, that "only Apple could do". Maybe Apple did motivate retailers to put in NFC payment hardware, but I've been using Google Wallet at Whole Foods (with a N5 released 9 months ago) for weeks, since they put in NFC at the payment kiosks (probably in advance of the Apple Pay launch, but that makes no difference to my ability to use them). So I had to laugh at the attempt to promote Apple Pay and NFC as a selling point of iPhone 6 and iOS 8. A little late to that party, Apple... if you're going to show up late, don't pretend you're first, instead focus on how you implemented it better (which may very well be true, although I haven't seen android 5 yet).
I think it must be conceded that Apple was much more aggressive in on-boarding POS systems and credit card companies than Google, and for that they deserve credit. Google moved first with the tech, said "here, go forth and code for it", and didn't get a ton of traction.
Apple went so far as to even get a cut of the credit card transaction fees if Bloomberg was right.
Even Paypal hasn't had a ton of success trying to be THE mobile payment platform, and what was poking fun at Apple actually turns around, IMHO, to be a stab at themselves for not delivering on a system themselves.
"Nobody can dispute Apple's strong track record, but payments is a difficult area," PayPal's Rob Skinner told TechRadar. "It's much more difficult to do payments than to keep a live stream working."
Here's one thing the author is missing: all high-end phones are essentially being "disrupted" by lower cost models that are getting increasingly better - or in other words just as good as the high-end ones were 2-3 years ago, when many people were very happy with their high-end phones at the time.
Why do you think Apple's market share is steadily declining at the global levels? It's because of the lower-cost phones. So Apple may "win" the 600+ dollar/euro high-end, just like they won in the $1,000+ PC market, and while that will no doubt continue to remain profitable for Apple, it will ultimately mean Apple has a small market share, and therefore a smaller ecosystem.
The BIG HUGE problem with the article is in using app store revenue to measure "value to the ecosystem." Google does not show signs of caring about app store revenue and would certainly continue to develop Android without that revenue. Google has a completely different ecosystem than Apple.
That said, The value of the new iPhones is considerable. They will make a dent in Android market share, but not as big a dent as had they been "indestructable" sapphire clad.
App store revenue is not really relevant to Apple or Google - it's small as a proportion of either company. It is, though, relevant to developers - partly for its own value, but as importantly for what it tells you about the users. That is, it's a proxy for overall willingness to spend on anything. Pretty much all ecommerce companies will tell you they see the same proportions, even if they're not using iTunes or Google payments directly.
I primarily program for Android. One of my personal apps has bounced between $1000 and $2300 a month in revenue since May 2013. Over 99% of that was ad revenue (the other <1% were experiments in alternative revenue). Not spectacular, but I've been happy with it, and I have other Android apps making money on ads as well.
Many websites make money on ads, why not apps? In mobile ads versus web ads, mobile has drawbacks and advantages. Some of the advantages have not been fully employed yet. If John Doe is walking through a mall, a Macy's ad can spring up for a sale within that mall. Mobile is still in its nascent stage, and ad networks to support it are still in early days.
Insight into what Android consumers are willing to spend money on is next to nothing. Ecommerce companies have cruddy Android apps, and their web sites look horrible in a phone.
One billion Android phones will be sold this year. Lack of Android consumer willingness to spend has little to do with them, and a lot to do with how little businesses have been giving users. Making money with Android is like shooting fish in a barrel since, for whatever reason, companies and programmers aren't stepping up to do add-ons for the billion Android phones that will sell this year. That may be changing though - three years ago the New York Android meetings fit around a table at a bar, now they're sponsored by companies and overflowing the 200 person registration limit. So that infrastructure is getting built out. Until then, we know next to nothing about the overall willingness of Android consumers to spend.
If you follow Benedict Evans on Twitter then you know that he is something of an Apple fan boy, so it's hard to read such a piece without noting that there is already considerable bias in it.
I'd like to address the first list though, "There are a bunch of reasons why someone would buy a high-end Android rather than an iPhone".
That list does not include the two reasons that myself and people I know use Android:
1. We wish to have control over our devices
2. We have not invested heavily in either Apple or Google and we avoid making choices that will force us to be invested in one over the other
On the first point, control may be about privacy (using something like XPrivacy), personalisation (perhaps CyanogenMod), adblock (AdAway), or simply having more control over what runs to be able to extend the battery of a Nexus 5 to a few days of heavy use rather than a single day (kill all the background services but still have the apps available for us to use).
On the second point, myself and my friends do not use Google as an ecosystem or as a range of permanent services and virtual assistants. We invariably are using different launchers (Nova is most common), perhaps Duck Duck Go... and our Google footprint is really just to use some Google apps as standalone apps (Gmail, calendar, drive). We tend to get media from Kindle, or Spotify... so we're not even hooked on Google Play.
What this means is that we've avoided deep lock-in with Google, and we make choices that avoid being locked in to Microsoft or Apple too.
When I think of what most of my friends use, it's a mix of technologies. Apple and Lenovo laptops, the latter running Windows or Linux. iPods and Cowon music players. Mostly Android phones.
The biggest reasons not to go for an iPhone are the same reasons we haven't gone for an iPhone to date: It feels like an all or nothing decision that would be hard to change in the future.
The value of an iPhone seems to be of the entire Apple ecosystem, it makes sense if you've bought into it already, or are choosing to buy into it, but not if you do not choose to be locked in.
The value, to us, of an Android device is that you can get the benefits of this technology without having to be part of any ecosystem, Google's or Samsung's or that of anyone else (Amazon?).
I'm not sure it's possible for Benedict to see this any more... he's personally so deep into the Apple world that his perspective is skewed by that reality. The question of why anyone would choose not to be a part of an ecosystem isn't even asked. He's made it an Apple vs Google question, when the people I know using Android are not even considering that question.
PS: If I think of what entices people to consider an Apple iPhone more than anything else, it's the camera (usually noted as the software ecosystem around the camera). Photography on an iPhone bests every Android device there is. This is the single reason that some of my friends have an iPhone.
One of my main reason for using Android is I hate being forced to use iTunes to update and sync.
One, it has one of the worst UI for device managers (was designed manage music), and it's a very unpleasant experience for me every time I am forced to use it to manage my idevices.
Two, it had wiped out everything in my iphone one time I try to sync it to a new computer. To me, the word "sync" means to update devices so that the data missing from the other device gets synced. No way would I have second guessed it would wipe out data from the device. So every time I use iTunes to sync, I get super nervous.
With Android, I can just navigate my device as if it's just an external drive when I plug it into my computer(a Mac).
iTunes is just the opposite of Apple's "it just works" motto.
I copy a lot of music to my phone - but it just kind of automatically appears playable there when I buy it - and I can "download" it onto the iPhone by clicking on the cloud icon. Presumably some combination of iCloud / iTunes match takes care of that for me in the background.
I just realized the one thing that I am missing, that I've heard can be done with iTunes, is the ability to delete an album. iPhone only lets you delete one song at a time - which is painful if you have a lower capacity iPhone.
Good reason to buy a 128 GB iPhone and just never worry about it again.
I have hard time seeing iPhone last more than 3 years. That is 36 months, or $360 of spotify subscription. Now price difference between 16GB and 128GB for iPhone 6 is $200 before tax. This comes roughly just under two years and is about average interval tech savvy people update their phones at.
This is just putting things in perspective, unless you have very specific needs of your phone I do not think 16GB is enough anymore, 64GB is definitely way to go.
I use my iPhone a lot - blowing through 64 GB is pretty trivial. It's not even clear to me that 128 GB will get me through the full two years, but, at least I won't have to spend all my time deleting / re-downloading music. And, might be able to keep a few videos (I've had to delete them all off my iPhone to make space).
I spend a lot of time traveling overseas, and have been hit by more than a few >$500 phone bills, even with the international data plan and lots of use of WiFi Dongles+Local SIMs. The more data, maps, podcasts, music I can store locally, the less use of data required.
I probably won't be happy until we get a 256 GB iPhone, which, on current trends, probably won't be for another 3-4 years unfortunately.
To put it another way - 128 GB isn't enough for me to stop worrying about saving space on my iPhone, but it is enough that there is little value in me shuffling music on/off it.
If you pay for iTunes Match, import all of your non-iTunes music into iTunes, Apple will store a DRM-free AAC file (256 kbit/s) in the "cloud" which you can play/import directly onto your mobile devices (without sync/tether).
You only have to pay for iTunes Match when you have new music to import. Once imported it is available "forever."
PS - I ironically used this to escape the Apple ecosystem. You can use it to strip DRM from old Apple DRM-ed music. You import it using match, and it converts it from an AAC-DRM track to an AAC DRM-free one and ups the quality from 128 to 256 Kbit/s.
It gives you the highest quality Apple has for the song, if it's matched. I had a ton of terribly transcoded files that got replaced with 256kbps AAC files. In my reading and own personal testing the difference between 256kbps AAC and 320MP3 is negligible. The only issue I ran into was some stuff didn't full match an album. I would get 10 out of 12 tracks matched, or 5 out of 12. Still for 18K songs I think I only had 100-200 that didn't end up being matched.
Amazon does offer this too but I have no idea how well it works in comparison.
A lot has changed in the last few years. Spotify gives me all the music I could ever want, and if something is missing you can sync music from Spotify on your computer to your phone, and everything is wireless. For video it's almost the same thing, YouTube and Netflix provides we with all the content I need to have on my phone.
"Cache" implies they're only temporarily on your device. This is false: the files are downloaded and encrypted on your device, and do not go away unless you explicitly tell Spotify/Rdio to remove them.
Spotify/Rdio will remove those files at any time if they lose the license to play them. This is not the case with media files you own, and have complete control over (lacking DRM).
Caching it on the device is enough for me. I'm fine with knowing that I don't really own my music, as long as I can still listen to it while I'm on the subway without cell signal.
iTunes Match + iCloud syncs your music automatically. Kind of like Photostream for music.
Photostream, after a rocky few initial months, has been awesome for the last year+ I hope it works as well with the new Photos apps as it has with Aperture.
Not a fan of iTunes myself and its all-or-nothing sync behavior does ask for more. Fortunately, it has been possible to update the device or download purchased content directly on the device for a couple of years now.
But not pictures on the device, which was really what I care most. Maybe iCloud is better now, but it's an extra layer of blackbox I will need to worry about.
One of my main reason for using Android is I hate being forced to use iTunes to update and sync.
I was always amazed when a friend that had an iPhone said all his (music|photos) were wiped by iTunes when he plugged in his phone, again. It seems like such an easy thing to get right, but if you can't get it right, toss up a dialog "do you want to reset this device's (photo|music) store?"
I fire up iTunes about once a year or so to make a backup. If you're syncing your mail/addresses/calendar/music (eg Spotify)/photos/etc via other services, there's really not much to sync otherwise. Not to mention that iOS updates over the air now, and does not require a computer to activate.
In which way superior? The file transfer to/from Android uses the native OS interface ( Linux, Windows, etc ) and users are accustomed to this, no need to learn a second interface a la iTunes.
While a Chrome extension is not such a bad idea, is rather unnecessary.
I find iTunes to be very useful. One place to manage all of the content on my device, back it up, and restore it (if necessary). Android file transfer is buggy and exposes too much to the user. While it is cool to look inside of DCIM or wdh_update, it isn't helpful or even understood.
android leverages MTP standards and in a lot of cases emulates USB media storage. On Windows, Linux and OSX - this has resulted in a drag and drop interface for Android.
Samsung devices don't have the proper drivers on Mac for transferring files with Finder. I'm stuck using the Android File Transfer or the Samsung proprietary app, both of which suck.
You can get Servers Ultimate and just set your phone up as an FTP server or some other file transfer server.
Droid NAS also works brilliantly on Android devices and Macs. On Macs they'll just show up on your local network as a network drive you can drag and drop files to in finder. You just need to have your phone on the same wifi as your computer.
> To me, the word "sync" means to update devices so that the data missing from the other device gets synced.
But that's not what sync means. True sync has a source and a target, and the target's file collection is always made to match the source. If you confuse the source and the target and the "source" is empty, you get the outcome you describe -- the empty device's file collection is "duplicated" (i.e. erased) on the other device that's been mistakenly chosen as the target.
This is a surprisingly common outcome among people who don't fully understand the meaning of sync. If your interpretation were the default meaning, it would be impossible to delete any tracks from your music collection. If you deleted some tracks from the source device, the source would have those tracks restored from the target instead of being deleted from it -- but that's not what sync means.
EDIT: People, don't downvote posts just because you don't understand the topic under discussion. The above description is absolutely, incontrovertibly correct in every detail. Therefore, in a depressing trend, it's been downvoted because it's annoyingly, infuriatingly right.
Sync has always meant merging semantic changes in state between two or more devices. If I buy an app on my desktop and take 4 photos on my phone, when I sync the two devices, I expect the new app on my phone and 4 new photos in my iPhoto.
As version control has taught us, merging changesets can lead to a menagerie of pathological cases and there's no universally correct automatic merging tool. iTunes in the grandfather's case, chose to merge incorrectly and lose data.
You either need to read more carefully, or you do not understand what "sync" means. Please do not add to public confusion about this.
1. Synchronization means making two directory trees identical -- same files, same count, no more, no less.
2. If tree B (destination) has more files than tree A (source), sync deletes files from B so it agrees with A.
3. If tree B has fewer files than A, files are added to B so it agrees with A.
4. If tree B has the same number of files, but different contents or dates, the sync program replaces them with files from tree A.
5. THEREFORE, ERGO, the operator MUST say which is the source, and which is the destination.
For the life of me I can't understand why people find this so confusing.
> Sync has always meant merging semantic changes in state between two or more devices.
YES, as clearly explained above. And that means if the user chooses the wrong source, for example a device with no music tracks, then the program will dutifully erase all the music tracks from the destination device.
> iTunes in the grandfather's case, chose to merge incorrectly and lose data.
Yes, but that outcome resulted, not from an error in iTunes, but from the user misidentifying the source device, and that, in turn, resulted from his not understanding sync, a misunderstanding that he revealed in his post by attempting to rely on an incorrect dictionary definition of the word.
EDIT: consider this hypothetical example.
1. Directory tree A has 9 files.
2. Directory tree B has 10 files.
3. In your description, the user doesn't have to say which is the source -- no user intervention is required.
4. If so, without user intervention, how does the sync program know what to do? Does it add a file to tree A, or delete a file from tree B?
Think before answering.
EDIT: Readers, do not downvote posts simply because you're confused. Ignorance is not a justification to cast a downvote.
> Sync has always meant merging semantic changes in state between two or more devices.
That is a definition of file synchronization [1]. Usually the aim of "syncing" is to input two directories and the outcome is that the contents of both directories are the same.
What you are describing below point 1. is an algorithm to achieve this goal.
The algorithm you describe needs a source and destination folder and this may be Apple's algorithm and implementation (I have no idea) but this is by no means the only way to do so (see two-way file synchronization [1]).
In that case, there are two strategies for synchronizing file systems -- either:
1. The operator tells the program what to do.
-- or --
2. The program gets it wrong at least some of the time.
In the case of contact list synchronization, like Google Contacts, the system assumes that the device the operator is editing at the moment is the source, and acts accordingly. Notice that a positive determination is made as to what the source and destination are, based on the operator's activity and its timing.
In all other cases where two directory trees are synchronized, are made to have the same content, and in which files may be deleted as well as added, the operator has to tell the program which is the source and which is the destination. End, full stop.
I agree that you need some user input or the program will get it wrong in some cases.
But the distinction between source and destination is relevant with some algorithms (one-way sync) and irrelevant in others.
Let say you have two directories A and B to sync and both contain a file f but the one in B is more recent than the one i A. A consistent strategy would be to always favor the most recent file and end up with A and B containing the same f file that was the one being in B at the beginning of the syncing. At no point I asked the user to define a source nor a destination but still the two directories are synced.
Note that it is your choice to continue or not the discussion as much as it was mine (not yours, shockingly) to answer your post.
So please keep your "End, full stop" and "Think before answering" to yourself, they are quiet annoying.
> But the distinction between source and destination is relevant with some algorithms (one-way sync) and irrelevant in others.
True, but the decisions made by the operator are critical to any desirable outcome, in all cases, without exception. Your example proves the point:
> Let say you have two directories A and B to sync and both contain a file f but the one in B is more recent than the one i A. A consistent strategy would be to always favor the most recent file and end up with A and B containing the same f file that was the one being in B at the beginning of the syncing.
Yes, unless that's not what the operator wants. Suppose the operator has edited a file as part of a programming project, but introduces a bug and simply wants to restore the system's original state with a minimum number of file operations. In that case, the operator wants older dated files to be copied over newer ones.
How shall the algorithm proceed? The operator tells it what to do.
> So please keep your "End, full stop" and "Think before answering" to yourself, they are quiet annoying.
If people understood the meaning of file synchronization, I wouldn't have to. All the replies suffer from naive assumptions contradicted by real-life experience, such as the OP losing his music collection as just one example, or the example I just gave -- things that happen to real people in the real world.
You're right, synchronization means making two directory trees identical. Nothing about that definition refers to or relies on the concept of a canonical source and a target to be wiped. That's cloning, which is a special case of synchronization.
Where does this meaning for "sync" come from? Rsync does work this way, but sync is abbreviated from synchronization and that doesn't - to my knowledge - imply any directionality in it, and dictionary definition [1] seems to agree.
Indeed it does, and that is the true meaning of sync. Consider this example:
$ rsync -a --delete (A) (B)
If (A) is empty, watch (B) become empty too. The point I'm making is that the use of the "--delete" option causes rsync to agree with the true technical meaning of "sync". Without it, the two directory trees (A) and (B) cannot be guaranteed identical at the end of the process (the real meaning of sync).
> ... and that doesn't - to my knowledge - imply any directionality in it ...
Of course it does. How else can you make two directory trees identical if your intention is to delete some files from both trees?
> and dictionary definition [1] seems to agree.
Never rely on a dictionary in a technical discussion. Contrary to popular belief, dictionaries do not list word definitions, they list what people think words mean. This is why "literally" and "figuratively" are listed as synonyms.
> Contrary to popular belief, dictionaries do not list word definitions, they list what people think words mean.
I have no idea what you think the definition of a word is, besides what people think it means. Are you imagining a platonic Word floating in the ether somewhere that we see in a mirror, dimly? Is there some official "This Is What Words Mean" tome somewhere that all true definitions flow from? Was there some secret international treaty wherein all word definitions were all agreed upon?
1 : in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
2 : in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>
This is what people think "literally" means. But it is not what "literally" actually means. The common perception is false.
> Is there some official "This Is What Words Mean" tome somewhere that all true definitions flow from?
1. Only for certain terms. There are plenty of examples.
2. On the topic of words, you need to learn the meaning of deconstructive postmodernism, the fascinating idea that there are no shared ideas, that everything is a matter of opinion.
> Was there some secret international treaty wherein all word definitions were all agreed upon?
You missed my point, which is that, no matter which definition one chooses, a word cannot simultaneously mean what people think it means, and the opposite of what people think it means, at the same time. Even given the fluid nature of word definitions, that's not rational. That's why I choose this example over and over again, not because of what "literally" means, but because it cannot possibly mean A and not-A at the same time.
And some words have technical meanings that are contradicted by popular usage, like "theory" in science. Many people think "theory" means "hunch" -- "but it's just a theory, you know?" In science, theory has a specific meaning contradicted by the everyday understanding.
In the present case, file synchronization has a specific meaning that many people don't know. This misunderstanding causes them to lose their music collections.
> it cannot possibly mean A and not-A at the same time.
Here's an old joke:
A linguistics professor was lecturing to his English class one day. 'In English,'
he said, 'A double negative forms a positive. In some languages, though, such as
Russian, a double negative is still a negative. However, there is no language
wherein a double positive can form a negative.'
A voice from the back of the room piped up, 'Yeah, right.'
> no matter which definition one chooses, a word cannot simultaneously mean what people think it means, and the opposite of what people think it means, at the same time.
A word can have multiple meanings, and those meanings can be related, or unrelated, or contradictory, or anything in between. When a person uses a word, usually they intend one of those meanings, but you can also intend multiple meanings at the same time—thus double entendres. You can also say something, but mean something different, or even the opposite—thus irony and sarcasm.
> And some words have technical meanings that are contradicted by popular usage, like "theory" in science. Many people think "theory" means "hunch" -- "but it's just a theory, you know?" In science, theory has a specific meaning contradicted by the everyday understanding.
"Theory" has multiple meanings, some of which people are unfamiliar with. But their understanding isn't wrong, they just don't know the meaning that the speaker intends.
> synchronization has a specific meaning that many people don't know.
Synchronization has multiple meanings—thus why we have post after post arguing about which is correct.
> This misunderstanding causes them to lose their music collections.
If you think about the parent's case, unidirectional syncing ended up causing empty dataset to be synced from the computer to the iPhone. That doesn't seem right. Compare this to Dropbox's model of syncing: intentional changes (yes, deletes as well) are synchronized and this is done multidirectionally between all the participating devices. This is what seems to me like a better definition of sync.
Or consider your mobile device calendar. You add an appointment on your phone, it doesn't disappear when you sync with your PC (or with cloud, as is common today).
I didn't mean to imply that dictionary defines the meaning, but it does seem to agree with what I mean with "sync". Where does this "true technical meaning of sync" come from?
> If you think about the parent's case, unidirectional syncing ended up causing empty dataset to be synced from the computer to the iPhone.
Not if the user selected the new iPhone as the source. In fact, that's the only way the described outcome could happen -- assuming the desktop machine originally had a full collection of music and the iPhone was empty.
> That doesn't seem right.
True, it doesn't seem right. But the customer is always right.
> Or consider your mobile device calendar. You add an appointment on your phone, it doesn't disappear when you sync with your PC (or with cloud, as is common today).
A perfect example. What if your phone is the source of most of your appointments and contacts? Wouldn't it seem logical to make the phone the source for a sync transaction?
Let's take the next step -- what if your phone is the source of your music collection? What if you add music to your phone while on the road and want to add those tracks to your desktop machine's archive? To do this, the sync program must accept your instructions about which device is the source and which the destination. So you must not get it wrong. In other words, in order to get the expected outcome, you must know how sync works.
To repeat your earlier point:
> Or consider your mobile device calendar. You add an appointment on your phone, it doesn't disappear when you sync with your PC (or with cloud, as is common today).
Yes, that's right, but you're not taking that example to its logical conclusion -- the smaller, more peripheral device, the phone, is the source for the sync. If that device has no music on it, the desktop machine will have its music collection erased.
> I didn't mean to imply that dictionary defines the meaning, but it does seem to agree with what I mean with "sync".
Yes, true, which explains why I've been hearing so many accounts like yours -- people rely on dictionaries to define technical terms and end up erasing their music collections.
> Where does this "true technical meaning of sync" come from?
Logical thinking:
1. "Sync" means that two directory trees end up with the same content -- exactly the same number of files, same names, same everything.
2. For (1) to be true, the program performing the sync must sometimes delete files as well as add files.
3. For (2) to be true, the program must know which directory tree is the source. Therefore the user must know this too. But users, reliant on dictionaries, may not understand what sync actually means.
Suppose I create appointment A on my phone's calendar, and appointment B on my laptop's calendar. After syncing, B shows up on my phone, and A shows up on my laptop (as I would expect). Who is the source and who is the target in this case?
According to your definition, this is not 'syncing'. But for most people, it is.
All synchronization depends on either the user, or a program, deciding which is the source and which is the destination. Such a choice is always made.
Consider this example:
1. Device A has a list of 9 contacts.
2. Device B has a list of 10 contacts.
3. According to your thesis, the sync program doesn't need to be told which is the source and which the target.
4. If so, and if the user intentionally deleted a contact from device A, shall the sync program:
x. Restore the contact missing from device A from device B, or
y. Delete the contact missing from device A from device B?
The answer is that the sync program cannot know what to do without being told which is the source and which is the destination.
This is how iTunes decides what to do -- the user tells it which is the source and which is the destination.
> According to your definition, this is not 'syncing'. But for most people, it is.
Yes, and to prove this point, and of the ascendancy of human instinct over logic, the OP lost his music collection.
This is a classic example of people's inability to think logically. How on earth could a computer program know what to do in the above example without being told what to do by the operator?
There's one exception, which ironically proves the point. In the example of real-time contact list synchronization, a sophisticated system would automatically assume that the device the operator is using at the moment, that he is editing, is the de facto source, and make other synchronized devices have the same content (this is how Google Contacts works). But in this example, as in all examples, the sync process cannot proceed until a decision is made about the meaning of "source" and "destination". In this example, the decision is automatic, but it has to be made.
In the case of syncing two music collections, the operator has to specifically identify which is the source and which the destination. I cannot tell you how often I've heard stories of people buying a new iPhone, then running iTunes, then erasing their music collection by misidentifying the source for the transaction.
4. If so, and if the user intentionally deleted a contact from device A, shall the sync program:
x. Restore the contact missing from device A from device B, or
y. Delete the contact missing from device A from device B?
Stop thinking in files and start thinking in actions, and the answer is obvious. The delete action is being synced, therefore the contact should be deleted from B. If the file is merely missing (e.g. due to filesystem corruption), it should be created from B, since you are syncing the create action.
There's no directionality needed or implied, it's a merge of two trees.
> The delete action is being synced, therefore the contact should be deleted from B.
Yes, and that is exactly what I said in my post, the one that got downvoted -- there are special cases where the context can be used to decide which is the source and which the destination. But a source and a destination must always be selected.
> There's no directionality needed or implied, it's a merge of two trees.
Not in the general case, because there is no general case. How do you merge two directory trees having different file sets without knowing the operator's wishes? Does he want files missing from one tree to be deleted from the other, or does he want files missing from one tree to be restored from the other? The answer is that you ask him -- the operation cannot proceed automatically.
And for this obvious, technically correct insight, my posts get downvoted with perfect reliability.
Yes, and that is exactly what I said in my post, the one that got downvoted -- there are special cases where the context can be used to decide which is the source and which the destination. But a source and a destination must always be selected.
There is no source nor destination, it's a merge of two equivalent trees. When I do "git merge <remote>", I'm not saying I want to replace the local branch with contents of the remote, nor vice versa. There's no source nor destination, they're both equal.
How do you merge two directory trees having different file sets without knowing the operator's wishes? Does he want files missing from one tree to be deleted from the other, or does he want files missing from one tree to be restored from the other?
You're still thinking in files. There are no files, just actions. The files are a byproduct, not the things being synced.
> There is no source nor destination, it's a merge of two equivalent trees.
Let's say I have two systems in a programming project. On one of the systems, I have edited some files, but now realize I have created a bug I can't locate and I don't want to try to undo what I have done -- I just want system B to be returned to its original state, a state represented by system A, but with a minimum of file operations.
So I run a synchronization operation, and I tell the algorithm how to proceed. If I follow your philosophy --
"You're still thinking in files. There are no files, just actions. The files are a byproduct, not the things being synced."
-- then (using the default rules of two-way file synchronization), the edited files, the files I have ruined, files having newer dates than the originals, will be copied onto the original source tree, tree A, and I will lose the only remaining copies of the files' original states. If instead I delete the edited copies to avoid this, the originals will be deleted too.
So much for automatic file synchronization without the operator understanding and overseeing the process.
Your reply doesn't analyze file synchronization operations with enough depth to avoid such disasters.
You've moved your argument from "synchronization always must have a source and destination" to "certain synchronization models are not well suited to some use cases".
I certainly agree with the latter, even if it has no bearing on the former.
> You've moved your argument from "synchronization always must have a source and destination" to "certain synchronization models are not well suited to some use cases".
No, I have moved from specific examples to general examples, and general rules. The most general rule is that synchronization cannot be automatic and have a desirable outcome.
If it happens that often then iTunes isn't communicating clearly enough to the user what is about to happen. I'm reminded of this advice:
> The principle is simple: it's not your fault. (Side note: if you don't understand this reference, then do yourself a favor and watch this video[1].)
It's not your fault. It's not the user's fault. It's not the designer's fault. In fact, it's nobody's fault. What's crystal clear to you might be confusing to me, and no one is to blame for that. It's just something we have to work with. — Source: http://moz.com/blog/5-lessons-learned-from-100000-usability-...
> If it happens that often then iTunes isn't communicating clearly enough to the user what is about to happen.
Yes, I agree completely. But given that, I have to say I hear regularly from people who (a) buy a new iPhone, and then (b) wipe their music collections later on the same day.
Many people assume that an apparently sophisticated, polished program like ITunes will "do the right thing." But no.
3. For (2) to be true, the program must know which directory tree is the source.
Nope. Both are the source of their own actions, and both are the destination of each other's. You're inventing restrictions that haven't applied since at least the first DVCSs.
Please do not contribute to public ignorance. You clearly haven't tried to use rsync, which has its name for a reason -- it's a synchronization utility. All synchronization operations must know which is the source and which the destination. Something this is arrived at automatically, but in the case of rsync and iTunes, you must tell it.
Quote: "rsync is a file synchronization and file transfer program"
SO which word is confusing?
> Both are the source of their own actions, and both are the destination of each other's.
Of course. But let's return to planet Earth. Consider this example. Two systems have directories with independent collections of files. System A has 9 files. System B has 10 files. The operator tries to sync the two systems. But to do so, the operator has to tell his synchronization program, which is the source and which is the destination.
The outcome depends on the operator's decision, it cannot depend on the contents of the directory trees.
Read the original post, the one I replied to -- the OP lost his music collection by choosing the wrong source for a file synchronization operation using iTunes. I replied to explain what "synchronization" means in that context.
You clearly haven't tried to use rsync, which has its name for a reason -- it's a synchronization utility.
Like many others, e.g. Dropbox, Unison, Git-annex. Just because "rsync" has sync in it's name doesn't mean it's the only syncing model possible.
All synchronization operations must know which is the source and which the destination.
In rsync, yes. In others, no.
SO which word is confusing?
No confusing word. The only confusion is in the assumption that sync == rsync. It's like saying that all cars work like the Model T.
Two systems have directories with independent collections of files. System A has 9 files. System B has 10 files. The operator tries to sync the two systems. But to do so, the operator has to tell his synchronization program, which is the source and which is the destination.
Nope. You never have to tell Dropbox, Unison or git-annex which is the source and destination. In the latter, I just do "git-annex sync", and both are synced with each other.
>> All synchronization operations must know which is the source and which the destination.
> In rsync, yes. In others, no.
False. In a two-way synchronization, if the operator wants to restore an older version of a file because of a bad edit, he must tell the algorithm what to do. In no case can the operator use such an algorithm without understanding what rules it intends to apply.
> In the latter, I just do "git-annex sync", and both are synced with each other.
Read the above example. These programs must be told what to do by the operator, and there is no safe, automatic algorithm that always gets it right.
In a two-way synchronization, if the operator wants to restore an older version of a file because of a bad edit, he must tell the algorithm what to do.
I have no idea why are you bringing versioning into this conversation.
These programs must be told what to do by the operator, and there is no safe, automatic algorithm that always gets it right.
I don't know what do you mean by "get it right". That's a subjective concept.
All I'm saying it, syncing does not have to involve a "source" and a "destination", nothing else.
> I have no idea why are you bringing versioning into this conversation.
I can see that. Okay, let's say that someone has a corrupted music track on his iPhone, the track won't play, and even though it has a newer date than the original on his desktop archive, he needs to overwrite the new-date bad track with the old-date original.
> All I'm saying it, syncing does not have to involve a "source" and a "destination", nothing else.
All I am saying is you're not thinking about this with enough depth. In the above example, a modern, sophisticated two-way synchronization algorithm will overwrite the old-date good track with the new-date defective track unless the operator understands how synchronization works and prevents this default outcome.
> I don't know what do you mean by "get it right". That's a subjective concept.
No, it is not -- unless you think everything is a matter of opinion and there are no shared objective truths. And if you believe that, why do you even bother to post in public forums, forums that exist on the premise of the reality and utility of objective, shared truths?
By this definition, "unison" isn't sync. It's also possible to handle not reinstantiating deleted items, although it takes more bookkeeping (usually "tombstone" records).
> So, if I start with two devices holding lists, and I place the union of those lists on each device, what is that called?
Not enough information. Naive set theory isn't adequate to cover file operations. Files have sizes and dates, but members of sets don't normally have these properties.
File synchronization isn't necessarily a simple and blind union of two sets. Some synchronization operations require that files be deleted, others require that files be restored or provided if absent. Which is true is left to the operator -- he must decide.
Consider this example. Two directory trees, A and B, contain the same number of files, but some of the files have sizes different than the other. Does the synchronization operation copy files from B to A, or A to B? The answer is that the operator must decide.
Rsync, a popular file synchronization utility, can delete files, or not, depending on what options the operator selects. It also much be told which is the source and which the destination.
> Do you have a reference for the technical definition of sync that this fails to meet?
A quote: "File synchronization (or syncing) in computing is the process of ensuring that computer files in two or more locations are updated via certain rules.
In one-way file synchronization, also called mirroring, updated files are copied from a 'source' location to one or more 'target' locations, but no files are copied back to the source location. In two-way file synchronization, updated files are copied in both directions, usually with the purpose of keeping the two locations identical to each other."
In the first case, algorithm must be told which is the source and which the destination. The operator must decide. In the second, the algorithm must know how to proceed -- are newer files overwritten, or are older files overwritten? The operator must decide.
Most people don't understand this -- in all synchronization operations, the role of the operator is key to getting any desirable result.
In answer to your question above, the online definition I quoted above doesn't allow for a simple union of two file trees, because there is no such thing -- the algorithm requires additional information, information provided by the operator.
In a two-way synchronization, if the algorithm encounters a file that is (a) not present on both systems, or (b) one copy is larger, or (c) one copy has a newer date, the algorithm cannot proceed unless and until the operator expresses a preference -- establishes the rules.
In short, there is no automatic file synchronization -- all examples require the conscious participation of a decision-maker.
Let's say I have edited some files in a large, complex programming project. The outcome is successful. I want to synchronize two file trees to reflect the successful outcome, but with a minimum of file operations. Therefore I tell the synchronization program to copy newer and/or newly created files from B to A.
Next example. I have edited and changed a complex software project, but the changes are a disaster and I want to recover the original state, but with a minimum of file operations. So I tell the sync program to restore older files from A to B, and delete new files from B not present on A.
Neither of the above operations can proceed to a desirable outcome unless I give the sync program explicit rules.
Conclusion: There is no such thing as a union of file systems that doesn't need to be told how to accomplish that end.
Any platform you buy into includes lock-in. Buying an Android phone locks you into the world of Android apps just as much as an iOS device locks you into iOS apps. Music on iTunes is DRM free. eBooks are an issue, but there's a Kindle app for iOS and plenty of other options just as on Android.
Even when it comes to browsers and search engines, now that iOS 8 has robust XPC, the optimised browser engine is available to third party browser apps. These will let you set whatever default search provider you like, without any performance compromises.
Sure there are some areas where Android devices retain more customisability, but iOS 8 closes the gap considerably, and without fundamentally compromising security and privacy in the way many of these features do on Android.
> Any platform you buy into includes lock-in. Buying an Android phone locks you into the world of Android apps just as much as an iOS device locks you into iOS apps.
Yet I can build an android app,deploy it, share it with my friends and co-workers without having to put it on google play,owning a specific computer with a specific os, or paying a fee.
There is a common theme amongst my friends that whilst they are not technical (I am the only programmer or person working in tech), they are all geeks for one thing or another; be it cameras, watches, coffee, cycling gear and so on.
They like to tinker and play with things, have some control over them. Adults with toys.
It's probably a selection bias, but it reaches out to so many people that ignoring it entirely is also a bias.
I think you're largely correct, but I'd add another point, which is that even if Evans was on the money about why people bought a Galaxy Note a year or two ago, it far from follows that the decision process is exactly the same today.
Someone might have chosen a Macbook in 2006 because they really liked the white plastic, but that doesn't mean that eight years later, they'd be at all likely to buy a new white plastic Lenovo running Windows. In the meantime, they will have acclimated themselves to the platform, gotten used to how it works, come to rely on features that aren't on another platform, or simply not want to deal with the hassle of starting over from scratch with a blank slate device.
Personally, I see Apple's product integration as a liability. It's fantastic for many users, it simplifies things and makes devices work well together. But, mostly for business reasons I'd guess, they define that integration to be best or only on Apple made devices.
But for me I feel like I'm putting all my eggs in one basket.
I know the app ecosystem is improving a bit and mediating lots of that, but there's still a long legacy there and I'm concerned about hard corners that will lock me in.
I used to feel that way. However, now that I am mostly retired, owning both iOS and Android devices does not seem necessary, and giving up some freedoms and jumping with both feet into Apple's little walled garden seems like a reasonable decision. I am almost certain to trade in my beautiful Samsung phone for an iPhone 6+. I have been running the beta of Yosemite for a long while and the new iOS 8 integrations with OS X, look good. I feel like making my life simpler.
I almost went in the opposite direction. I have been a Linux fan since 1992, and I still have several Linux servers I use for hosting my web apps. I thought of getting a FSF 'free' style phone, etc. and have fun with that.
But, I feel like a simpler life style now and I am willing to give up flexibility and, I hate admitting, some FSF style freedoms. #sellout
That 'simpler lifestyle' only works until they force something that you can't abide by, and by that point it's too late. Personally I can't even tolerate that there's only one hardware manufacturer and one source of software. That never ends well for consumers.
I feel like I am not really trapping myself in the Apple ecosystem because the things that I use (web browser, emacs, IDEs for Java, Clojure, Ruby) are available on Linux. I just don't use my Linux laptop very much since the Apple experience is more polished.
I do agree with your comment in general. That is, for non-tech computer users, moving off Apple's platforms would be difficult after years of use.
Thanks for the comment. I think what you've missed is that the attitude you describe is shared by a very, very small proportion of the user base - perhaps a few tens of millions out of the 1bn+ Android users. I had a go at estimating this last year: http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2013/6/5/counting-geeks-w... I tried to capture it in the 'people who don't like Apple' bucket, but as you say its a little more nuanced than that.
Fundamentally, the question is not 'why does a HN reader buy Android?' but 'what motivated the multiple hundreds of millions of people who bought a $600+ Android?' and as I'm sure you know, they're not using Cyanogen (though as investors in it we hope that changes;) Screen size is a huge factor.
Even for non-technical people iPhone has worse "lock in" because Apple tries as hard as they can to enforce lock in. For example, if you buy content within an app on the iPhone, the developer cannot let you access that content on a non-apple device or Apple will remove their app from the app store. The same is not true of Android.
I am the only HN/technical person on another large forum (not this), and the common thing amongst those members and the many real-world friends I have via that is that they are geeks for other things: cars, bicycles, watches, cameras, coffee, etc. This geek tendency carries to other areas, including smart phones.
I've definitely got a selection bias by having friends who are geeks (in the non-technical meaning), but there is still a bias in selecting arguments that excludes the existence of people who are geeks.
I agree with much of what you've said (and have said) and what motivates one way or the other... but I do think that your arguments don't acknowledge people who buy top-end Android, and do so without intending to buy into Google, or Samsung. With Apple and Amazon it's somewhat harder, buying their devices is to buy into their ecosystem.
The decisions I see them make is very much based on their desire to control their own things... the definition of control varies on a person to person basis, but it is the common factor.
On Cyanogen I personally do not run it, most of the benefits people seek can be obtained by rooting but keeping the stock ROM. This hasn't stopped friends from blundering through online guides though. That is the thing that surprises me, they're not technical, most work in offices doing admin/marketing/sales stuff, and they want top-end devices with the status that comes with it, but they really want to assert control over their devices.
Whomever allows those people to have control (officially or not) wins them, for that is one of their biggest triggers when choosing new devices and accessories.
I say this as an Android user who prefers Android over iOS for various reasons (Firefox and its Addons, mainly), but when you say that you wish to have control over your device, you're forgetting that one can jailbreak an iOS device if they so desire which gives one vastly more "control" over it, so to speak.
Granted, a reason (aside from vastly cheaper hardware prices) I choose Android over iOS is the fact that I don't even have to root my device to get more customizations and options (I use SwiftKey, for example) than an iOS device that's non-jailbroken, but I do pay a price for that in regards to less functionality, security and performance compared to iOS devices (in certain circumstances) because of Android fragmentation, etc. - Just ask most musicians why they prefer iOS over Android, if you want just one case scenario.
But, all in all, I wouldn't paint all iOS users with one brush that says they don't want "control" over their devices. "Control" comes in many forms and methodologies and is often in the eye of the beholder anyway.
>On the second point, myself and my friends do not use Google as an ecosystem
But, you must admit that takes time and time is money. Finding third party alternatives (you can trust and work well) isn't free once you consider the time it takes to do so.
>The value of an iPhone seems to be of the entire Apple ecosystem, it makes sense if you've bought into it already, or are choosing to buy into it, but not if you do not choose to be locked in.
Agreed, but there's workarounds. Also, I feel that way about Android considering its fragmentation limitations. I'm locked into some apps on Android I really don't prefer and iOS has better, more competitive choices of related apps that vastly suit me better.
It's all give and take, really. In the end, I choose Android (overall) but since I also have iOS devices I use for testing purposes, etc. I have no allusions that there's sacrifices I make by choosing Android over iOS.
>he's personally so deep into the Apple world that his perspective is skewed by that reality.
I'd focus less on ad hominem and more on the facts.
Your reasons are those of someone deeply involved in technology, which is not the case for the mass market. For them, just looking and feeling good is far more important.
From an Indian perspective Iphone prices in India are really well out of budget of most people. Only people who can afford Iphone go for them. But even then lot of people like to try other options. Android is really dominant here and most people are rather familiar with the Android ecosystems.
That's this article's point. If someone can't afford $600 phone, Apple has no interest in them. Because Apple wants big margins. On other hand, Google is even willing to pay you to use Android to collect your data. They do it with their Android One program in India now.
Apple was giving heavy discounts to attract buyers. High end Samsung costs around same and they have good sales.
"Google is even willing to pay you to use Android to collect your data" - where did you get that? Most of the people here buy at full price, we don't have subsidies.
On the other, we've seen this movie before. Remember Verizon? The iPhone 5 (LTE and a screen-size bump)? NTT DoCoMo and China Mobile?
These were all supposed to be game-changers. And while they all helped Apple sell plenty of phones, the Android/iPhone game didn't really change.
I'm sure the iPhone 6 and 6+ will be very successful. But I'm going to need to see something more before I believe that this time the game really will change.
I bought my first smartphone about 4.5 years ago. It was an Android because at the time an iPhone meant AT&T, and I didn't want to deal with their network.
Two years ago I bought my second smartphone. It was an Android because inertia and also because at the time iOS was really a bit behind Android in terms of things like notifications and useful o/s features.
I also bought my first tablet a little more than two years ago. It was an android because Apple didn't have a small tablet then (and because my phone was an android).
I'm going to get a new smartphone soon. And you know what? It'll be an Android. Yes, Apple has at this point addressed all the things that pushed me to Android. I could get an iPhone on any network. The o/s has caught back up. They have a small tablet now. But at this point, why would I change? Every time I use an iOS device, in bothered by a ton of small details -- they aren't really flaws, just things that don't work the way I expect. What's the upside? I like Android now. If they had had all those features from the start, it would have been a different story.
The flaw in this article is that it presumes that there is a large population of people who are just waiting for that one important feature to come to iOS so they can finally ditch Android. I don't think there are many people like that.
The Apple's sales market share of non-phablets <5" is known, around 20% for 14Q2 where sub-5" make up 60% of the total market ( Tomi Ahonen).
The upcoming hidden truth is that Apple is on its way for a single digit global smartphone market share. It's main strength appears to be the operator lock in in US mainly and elsewhere. Moto360 and others are even competing against this point with a price lower than just the contract prepayment.
Another problem is the looming lower overall smartphone growth next year, which will drive prices further down. Fred Wilson ended up being right, in that, the smartphone market turned out to be similar to PC market where a dominant ~90% Android will be next to a single digit Apple.
> Fred Wilson ended up being right, in that, the smartphone market turned out to be similar to PC market where a dominant ~90% Android will be next to a single digit Apple.
How are the major Windows PC manufacturers doing these days?
Actually, I quoted utterly uncontroversial, industry standard stats. I'd response to your other points, but I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Apple sold around 20% of all smartphones in Q4 2013 (it's pretty cyclical) and is at or around 10% of all phone sales - this number is rising steadily.
ok, tried to make it better. Apple iPhone Plus may dent into >5", phablet category where in Q2 it has 0%, which makes 40% of overall. For the Larger sub 5" Apple has 20% share of sales in Q2.
I don't understand why so many people in the Apple vs Android debate are completely oblivious to the fact that Apple is just a lot smoother transitioning from task to task and handling lag so that the user doesn't notice it. I've been a majority android user (Droid 1 '09-'11, Galaxy Nexus up to today) but I did purchase a 5s last year, which is currently waterlogged due to lending it to my mother.
I borrowed my mom's 3GS and even though it is quite slow, it has a magical ability to accurately detect and respond to my inputs as I would expect it to. Even on my Galaxy Nexus I have trouble with video lag switching between tasks, very long delays between my input and a response, and sometimes complete ignorance of my inputs. One of the most frustrating things for me when using the device is opening a web browser and trying to type a query into the search bar without having to wait for it to do who knows what in the background and attempt to load the last page I was looking at that I have no desire to see, while ignoring my spam clicking of the "X" to try to get it to stop.
Not to mention the app support for the 3GS is amazing compared to my Droid 1. I certainly can't get all the latest apps, but older apps still function extremely well, it really lives up to the UX hype. My Droid 1 can't even run YouTube anymore.
It's obvious that the advantage Apple has is that it has it's walled garden, closed hardware/software ecosystem. But it really shines in making the devices usable.
Apple needs to publish SunSpider Javascript and other real world browser benchmarks. The new A8 is going to be much faster than a 2.7 805 in the Note 4. The iPhone is actually a great deal when you consider performance.
I'm switching to iOS from a high end Android phone. My main reasons are better privacy and better user experience. My main reason I switched to Android was screen size.
Do you see Apple as being better for privacy? Sure, Google has my Gmail, but only because I choose to give it to them. I could use anything else on my Android phone.
Do you use Firefox, duckduckgo, XPrivacy etc.? Because Apple, in reality, only gives you one choice (even when I was using Opera, Safari would butt in all of the time - I haven't read a word about iOS8 so correct me if I'm wrong), and you're screwed if it doesn't work.
Android's permission model is inexcusably malicious. For instance, the "phone status" permission, that also gives apps the ability to see who you call, read your device ID, etc. There's zero reason that checking to see if the phone is active requires a permission. But by including those very intrusive permissions along with a benign one, Google encourages people to get used to revealing tons of personal information.
Google now allows apps to silently add even more permissions, if they are in the "same group". They try to downplay and confuse things as much as possible.
It seems highly unlikely this was accidental. This is the main reason I'm disgusted with Google/Android and am doing all I can to stop using their products and services.
I agree that that is terrible, but I use XPrivacy to combat it.
If you don't mind educating me further - what is the state of permissions on iOS? I haven't been using it for a year, but I don't recall any user involvement in allowing or forbidding any permissions at all. Is it better in any way?
This article is a bit like postulating "Why you might not eat steak for dinner", and then positing reasons that all orbits the assumption that steak is your default choice, and alternatives must therefore have extenuating circumstances. It is an absurd foundation.
Did the grocer get more commission selling you chicken? (sidenote: That commission bit appears in every conspiracy laden story about Android's rise, despite having zero empirical evidence. Indeed, many carriers do more to market and pitch the iPhone than any other brand, implying something very different).
For most people now, smartphones are largely interchangeable. They really are. You have a browser, can make calls, can access Netflix and your fantasy football app and Facebook and Twitter, etc. An iPhone 6x versus a GS 5, for instance, to many users it is simply a wash. Apple has tried hard to lock people into an ecosystem (Facetime me? No, Skype or Hangouts me please), but those efforts have fallen by the wayside and are becoming more of a hindrance than a benefit.
So it comes down to marketing (you know, like having U2 and giving out albums to gain more attention for your keynote) and differentiating features. Apple tried with the "true tone" flash or whatever. HTC is trying the dual-lens camera. Others make their devices waterproof. And so on. It isn't so clear.
Further, Ben Evans isn't just a bit of an Apple fan boy -- he is a huge Apple fan boy, with compromised credibility outside of that circle. He got a taste of the Apple aficionado love so now he panders to it fullstop. And given that Evans loves pointing out the payout to developers (then, absurdly calculating per capita metrics because it sells his point), note that the Play Store payout is growing more quickly than the App Store is -- YoY growth in the most recent yearly period was 150%. At current rates the Play Store will payout more than Apple within a year. But of course they're both very lucrative targets, and it would be folly to ignore either, and it's bizarre that this metric even appears in a piece contemplating consumer choices.
>> For most people now, smartphones are largely interchangeable.
This. I could be called an Apple Fanboy, and I myself stopped using iPhones in favor of an Android phone (I really wanted a Windows phone, but my carrier didn't have any available when I upgraded).
After a little bit of self-analysis, I realized that from iOS' gigantic app ecosystem, most of the stuff I was buying and installing was throwaway stuff. Most of my activities revolve around the core apps of the phone - e-mail, calendar, browser. My main non-core apps are basically RSS and Read Later apps.
Given that most of my stuff is in the cloud (but not the iCloud), it really doesn't matter what OS I have on my phone. And I'm not very interested in buying the latest and greatest when nothing I do really needs the horsepower. So I basically bought the cheapest phone that could do what I need it to (1st gen moto G). I don't worry about it getting stolen or broken, because my investment is so small.
In the end, the thing that really drove me away from iOS was how each software upgrade gradually crippled the usability of the device. I didn't mind paying the Apple premium for my 3G and 4, but that was because Android and WP didn't have parity (my opinion, not necessarily fact). Today, however, it's a completely different story. I'm sure I could be quite happy with any of the top 4 mobile OSes.
Idle observation - Windows Phone year-on-year growth is way higher than Android or iOS. Are you going to write your next app for that?
We don't, actually, have enough data to see quite how Play revenue is growing. But the really relevant point is that on roughly double the users, the payout is half. I'm not sure why that should be an absurd observation - you could try addressing that, but perhaps insults are easier.
Having portability to Windows Phone is a concern, and it is something that I am increasingly considering because it looks like an emerging, important platform. I prefer techniques and tools that allow me to cater to a multitude of platforms, because users are my customers, not platforms. I am not beholden to Apple or Google, and I don't serve in their name.
However your point is comically specious in the context -- Android Play Store sales went from $0.9B, to $2.0B, to $5.0B over successive years (these numbers are in Google's yearlies, despite your repeated claims that they're mysteriously shrouded. They're as transparent as Apple's numbers). Android Play Store sales right now are where App Store sales were last year. Where were the people talking about the dire results of the App Store last year? In fact, quite contrary it was held as an incredible, unparamounted success, by people like you. And not only is the Play Store already there, it is seeing extraordinary growth.
I'm not sure why that should be an absurd observation
Your own points are contradictory, holding the dichotomy of the rich Android users (who all apparently were just waiting for a larger iPhone) versus the poor Android user, but then mashing them together into one universally "poorer" Android user.
Android is the platform of all demographics. We know that from the famous city analysis of Android/iOS usage of twitter, where Android was dominant in the poorer areas of town, and similar to iOS in the rich areas of town. That is a great thing about the platform -- it is inclusive and lifts all boats -- and it is utterly reprehensible when some people hold this as a bizarre negative, as if platform association with the less wealthy brings it down.
It seems probable that the people in the richer areas are spending in the store. The people in the poorer areas aren't. That's life of consumable items and varying spending money. There is no great mystery to it. And your contention is that since all of those Android users with money are going to race to iPhone (the same story we've heard with every iOS release for years), there goes the store.
So how does a per capita basis make any sense? Oh because all facts need to be contrived into the message of Ben Evans?
I apologize for resorting to "insults", but it seems that reality has an insult-based bias in the case of analyzing your various creations. You are selling to the converted.
the true value of the iphone is the Apple ecosystem.
i give an rat's ass about android phones, they could be miles ahead - doesn't matter anymore. just a phone.
i have an iphone, ipad, apple tv, macbook air and a compatible printer. and everything just works, like magic.
i've spent years in the windows ecosystem tinkering. wrote my own sync for my iriver mp3 player, fiddled with regedit and battled drivers. so much lost time. IT bullshit galore. so tired of it.
i know that if i want an apple watch i can buy it and it will perfectly into the rest of my devices and just work with them.
no other vendor can claim such a value.
iOS8 and Yosemite make this crystal clear, the new handover between apps will even work from Apple Watch. Just like that.
You must have never used Google's cloud services. Docs, Drive, Hangouts, etc... Everything works device to device. Even a non-Google device that belongs to someone else. All you really need is Chrome and your credentials.
How about Google Cloud print? All you need is to have Chrome on the computer that hooks up to your printer, and you can print to that printer from any device, even remotely. I can be at school/work and print to my printer at home... And if you buy a printer with the feature enabled, it doesn't even need to be hooked up to anything (except some sort of internet connection).
And of course, Google Now. Tells me how far to work on the days I work. What the weather's like, even when I go out of town. Where my car is parked if I'm somewhere new. Where the restaurant I just called is located. Even the application on my phone that I use to call people (the one with a phone icon that used to just be for calling people) - I can search for their name and call them or, if it's a business or place I've never heard of, I can search for them in the same box, and it will find them and just call them. Super cool.
I'm sure your Apple ecosystem is just fine, and I'm sure it feels like magic compared to Microsoft's sludgery... Heck, Linux feels like magic compared to MS. But on the other side, Google's ecosystem is absolutely fantastic.
Oh yeah, and then there's Chromecast. But even without it most Smart TVs have some measure of compatibility with Google's ecosystem...
> i have an iphone, ipad, apple tv, macbook air and a compatible printer. and everything just works, like magic.
Um, YMMV. I (and people I know) had lots of problems with in-place upgrades to iOS7 on the iPhone 4. My proximity sensor stopped working and I'd end up face dialing while talking to people on the phone. Another friend of mine - the audio would cut out. The recommended fixes to the problem were inconvenient to say the least.
I've had my share of issues with Apple products - Time Capsule, Airport Express, iTunes and a variety of Macs. So while they can have fewer issues than Windows, "magic" is not a word I would use myself.
After Apple dropped the unibody form factor for the Macbook Pro in 2013 (my favorite form factor for a laptop - ever), I recently switched to Windows 8 for most of my hardware after being mostly Mac since 2005 -- and the transition was surprisingly easy (this software list helped a lot: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ScottHanselmans2014UltimateDev...).
I'm not very happy with Window's font rendering on LCDs and some of stupid settings, but overall, I don't find that I miss the Apple ecosystem that much, if at all. I used to be what some people would call an Apple Fanboy, and while I still respect the products they come out with, they don't really have much that appeals to me any more.
Its funny because my iPhone still doesn't support the same level of interconnectedness as sailing clicker did back in the feature phone days. I remember thinking it was so cool that my music would just pause on my mac if someone called me on my phone, or come back on when I walked back into my room.
Apple's ecosystem seems to be increasingly based on obsolete ideas. Spotify offers me more magic than any weird hard-to-explain more expensive iTunes Matchery. My music is available everywhere. Actually everywhere. Not everywhere asterisk if its an apple product. If I'm at a friends house and I want him to listen to a cool song I heard, but my phone is out of battery, I can go to his computer and still play it, even if he doesn't have spotify because they have a web player. That's actual magic.
Imagine if you could only watch youtube clips if you had a Google device or software. Its madness and far from an argument for "interconnectedness", and yet this is the situation the Apple music ecosystem is in.
The handover technology is another recent disappointment in this regard. We are still stuck in app-land. Handover is app-to-app. So when I'm listening to a podcast in Safari, I won't be able to handover to Overcast on my phone. I actually have to wait for marco arment to write a desktop podcast player, and worse, I have to use it, to get this basic functionality. Again, an aggressive misunderstanding of what it means to have true continuity: reading the same data on two devices, not using the same app on both.
Anyways, all this to say: I would have agreed with you ~4 years ago. But due to Apple's business interests (wanting to continue the own-music model much longer than people did, wanting to push app sales, etc), their ecosystem no longer represents what I want anymore, which is really unfortunate because I know that if they put their effort behind implementing real continuity, they'd do it best.
There really isn't that much fighting if there's fighting at all. The people buying Android in droves don't care. They see wide range of devices with more options. You might see an ecosystem, and they see lack of diversity.
I got a Moto G for $170. Paid cash, and then got on a T-Mobile month by month plan. If I break it. I'll just go and get another one.
My relatives and friends have iPhones and looking and comparing them, I just don't see the extra "niceness" worth the other $430. Same goes for expensive Android phones.