

Android vs. iOS Growth - raganesh
http://www.asymco.com/2011/04/18/the-android-step-function/

======
harshpotatoes
This seems like a bad way to compare the two devices. In particular, love it
or hate it, the original iPhone had to fight a big uphill battle towards
adoptions. When android was later released, smartphones had already been quite
well accepted amongst the masses, and did not have to fight many of the same
battles that the iphone did.

I'm not really sure what conclusion he is trying to go for...

~~~
adovenmuehle
I think Apple generally goes for the first mover advantage. I think that's
great.

I don't think there is any problem with Android using the way paved by Apple
and taking it a different direction.

Competition begets better products at cheaper prices, what more could a
consumer ask for?

~~~
alecco
Apple is rarely a first mover. It wasn't with ipods and wasn't with
touchscreen smartphones. They blatantly ripped off Ericsson and LG. It's not
nice how apple rewrites recent tech history.

------
roc
The tricky part with Android adoption, is that it's so tightly coupled with
manufacturer adoption. Can we intelligently say that someone buying the
Motorola Droid X is choosing Android? or are they choosing Motorola? (or are
they choosing Verizon?)

Geeks seem to ignore this point; likely because we'd been making fun of
feature-phones for years before the smartphones hit. But those phones were
well-liked by a great many people and had non-trivial brand loyalty.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Does that matter as far as future growth is concerned? Motorola isn't going to
stop producing Android phones, nor is Verizon.

~~~
roc
It absolutely matters.

Remember when Vista was "the fastest selling operating system ever" [1]?

Would it have been wise to read those first months of sales as indicative of
interest-in and preference-for _Vista_ and thus safe to extrapolate? Or was it
due to other, stronger factors (bundling, brand-recognition) that have very
clear analogues in the phone market?

[1] [http://technet.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/cc749132%28WS.10%...](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/cc749132%28WS.10%29.aspx)

~~~
MatthewPhillips
The article doesn't extrapolate Android sales based on the current growth
trajectory; in fact it specifically warns against doing that. The iOS growth
shows a discernible pattern, whereas the Android chart doesn't _yet_ do that.

However the analogy to Vista doesn't strike me as valid, for a number of
reasons. Vista is a version of Windows much like Froyo is a version of
Android. Vista's growth was diffused by people not buying new computers; not
because they chose computers other than those running Windows. Additionally
computer manufacturers were more willing to continue to release computers
still running XP; this is not analogous to the phone world (there is no demand
for older versions of Android).

I guess what you are possibly suggesting is that Android adoption has been
based on reasons apart from a desire to own an Android device; this may or may
not be true. We won't be able to judge that until the wave of adopting users
have come off their current contracts and are able to upgrade to a new phone.
However this article specifically warns against extrapolating the Android data
points as they currently are shown.

~~~
roc
_The_ point to my original post was to call attention to the strong impact of
manufacturer and carrier adoption on android adoption. I didn't think it was
something left to interpretation.

 _You_ questioned whether that state of affairs was relevant to future growth.
My reply to that, was an example of a platform whose very-fast adoption was
manufacturer-driven, specifically to point out that _you can't reasonably
extrapolate from short-run data in these situations_.

As for the analogy, like any analogy, isn't worth arguing. You clearly saw
what I was aiming at and that was its only purpose.

Again, the only time _I_ brought up extrapolation was to point out that you
can't. So I'm not sure why you've twice decided to point out that I'm agreeing
with the article.

------
muhfuhkuh
Perhaps _this_ is finally the moment where Linux (to steal a quote from Wayne
Gretzky as to why he was so dominant in hockey) skated to where the puck is
going rather than where it is. It was always playing catchup to Windows with
its entrenched cash cow and monopolistic control over PC manufacturers; though
it did find footing where MS wasn't: The server room.

As someone in a 50/50 mix household of iOS and Android products, this is the
kind of competition I relish in an industry. No one trying to box another out,
neither one with any monopolistic tactics to crush the other; all on equal
footing both financially and culturally. iOS attacks the high end with
simplicity and seamless usability; Android with open configurability (in most
instances) and endless options to make it yours.

------
pkaler
The original blog post is called "The Android Step Function". Taking the name
of the graph, "Android vs. iOS Growth", and applying it as the title of the
new story is disingenuous.

The entire point of the article is that there is seasonality to the growth of
Android. The point of the article is the shapes of the graphs not the absolute
values.

------
martythemaniak
It's not a step function, it's just very very rapid growth. It helps if you
think of the G1 and Android 1.0 (first 5-6 quarters) as "Android Beta", since
it could not even play to its intended strengths (different devices and
carriers).

Also, these kinds of observations don't make much sense - neither company
discloses anything more than carefully worded tidbits. End-of-quarter sales
numbers are the way to go.

------
joejohnson
"A dictum of classical physics states that in nature everything is continuous.
However, in quantum physics everything is discontinuous. Both models of the
physical universe have their uses."

This is some good science here.

~~~
martythemaniak
Nevermind the bullshit, It makes the writer (and thus, the reader) seem very
smart.

------
protomyth
At this point, I thought we would have actual sales numbers of Android devices
(not activations). I am a little curious why this isn't happening.

~~~
adolph
Given the number of suppliers and retail options, and the various metrics they
use to measure themselves, I bet it is very difficult to tell.

~~~
protomyth
True, but I get the feeling someone at Google knows how many copies of their
software (the official Google apps) are out there. I just don't trust
activations as any real metric.

------
grandalf
I really think this is going to end up hurting Google in the long run. Quality
control for Android phones is horrible and handset manufacturers add their own
garbageware to the phones.

Google is banking on consumers being too naive to realize they are getting a
substantially inferior experience. Not a good bet in my opinion.

Apple is being stupid here by not calling Google's bluff and lowering prices
even more aggressively. Nobody who used both phones side by side for a few
days would prefer Android.

~~~
mcantelon
>Not a good bet in my opinion.

McDonalds in one of the most popular restaurants in the world. Is it because
it has better food?

~~~
grandalf
Two points in response:

1) Many people love/crave McDonalds. The menu is optimized to appeal to human
cravings for fats, carbs, and sweets.

2) McDonalds is also very inexpensive. Android phones sell for nearly the same
price as iPhones.

~~~
mcantelon
>2) McDonalds is also very inexpensive. Android phones sell for nearly the
same price as iPhones.

Although I'd love to see an $87 handset from Apple, I don't see it happening
when Apple is committed to going it alone.
[http://armdevices.net/2011/04/11/best-of-
shenzhen-87-android...](http://armdevices.net/2011/04/11/best-of-
shenzhen-87-android-3-5-capacitive-phone-mtk6516-fg8/)

Android's many partners strategy means it gets to capitalize on unexpected
resources and niches that Apple's central planning mentality won't be able to
access.

~~~
grandalf
Isn't an iPhone4 $99 with a contract?

~~~
mcantelon
A contract subsidizes the hardware cost. Subsidized $87 hardware likely
approaches or is $0.

~~~
grandalf
Over the life of a typical contract, this amounts to less than 10% cheaper
than an iPhone. Not a substantive price difference... and significantly
inferior quality. It's actually Apple's supply chain integration that has
allowed it to come so close.

If you don't believe me, buy an Evo 4G and try to use it all day for a few
calls and occasional surfing or app use. The battery will be dead by 4:30pm...
and that is a phone that costs >= the iPhone 4G.

The low end Android phones are so far behind state of the art Android that
they are simply a way of tricking unsuspecting consumers (drawn to the touch
screen and shiny icons) into buying a low end phone that is locked into an
already out of date OS version.

I realize consumers are naive now, but not for long. Google is trying to cash
in on its brand image and help handset manufacturers hawk garbage phones at
naive consumers. B/c of the contracts typically sold with the phones, human
psychology often prevents these consumers from admitting they've been had.
Worse, it may permanently sour many older users to smart phones.

I love Google and am actually rooting for Google to win or at least come out
with a phone that I want to own, but let's at least be honest about its
strategy to date. Getting an Android phone in 2011 is like buying a Gateway
2000 PC in 2000 -- loaded full of garbageware to the point of hampered
performance, and full of bold claims about performance that don't hold
water... coasting on the brand's previous accomplishments.

~~~
mcantelon
>Over the life of a typical contract, this amounts to less than 10% cheaper
than an iPhone. Not a substantive price difference... and significantly
inferior quality.

There are many people to whom $99 vs $0 up front would constitute a
substantive price difference. And again... quality isn't a big factor for
many, i.e. Mcdonalds (and the "quality" argument depends on use-case... voice
search and turn-by-turn nav quality on Android, for example, are considerably
superior).

>If you don't believe me, buy an Evo 4G and try to use it all day for a few
calls and occasional surfing or app use. It will be dead by 4:30pm.

Yes, EVO is a battery hog unless tuned. Luckily there are other models of
Android phone.

~~~
grandalf
I don't think we disagree about the $99 upfront -- my interpretation of it is
just that Apple has chosen to be a bit less aggressive than would be
competitively optimal.

As for quality, I'd argue that at least 9 out of 10 people would judge the
iPhone 4 to be superior in quality (build quality, app quality, usability)
compared to any Android phone if given each phone for a few months.

You are correct about turn by turn, though the Mapquest 5 app for iPhone gives
spoken turn by turn is 98% as good as Google's nav. Apple has really dropped
the ball on nav and mail apps and that may account for 1 in 10 people
preferring Android.

A friend got the latest/greatest Android phone a few weeks ago and returned it
due to abysmal battery life. I really don't think the issue has been
resolved... Is anyone using these phones before they are released? Why don't
they ship with a battery that will last a full day? Another friend using an
Evo 4G is getting 2 hours per battery and carries around 3 batteries just to
get through the day. I didn't test this, but I think based on his usage that
an iPhone 4 would last a full day with his usage pattern.

~~~
mcantelon
>I don't think we disagree about the $99 upfront -- my interpretation of it is
just that Apple has chosen to be a bit less aggressive than would be
competitively optimal.

Well, looking at the graph featured in the article I'd say it's high time they
get optimal. ;)

~~~
grandalf
I think it's a case of not wanting to risk messing with such a cash cow (it is
resulting in strong profitability).

I admit it is very perplexing... both why Apple hasn't responded with a $0
(with contract) iPhone, and why Google has allowed the Android experience to
be so mediocre.

------
yhlasx
No matter what, Unlike Google, Apple is making lots of money from its ios
devices.

Android feels geeky thus limits its audience. Ios is very well polished and
fancy. Maybe some people might not like it, but still ios has a lot larger
audience than Android.

This article sounds like saying "Both are great but android is catching up and
will beat ios someday soon".

I highly doubt that. Until Google learns doing marketing as well as Apple,
apple will be leading the market and eating largest piece of pie.

~~~
sudont
"thus limits its audience"

I must disagree on this. Android's adoption is both in high-end smartphones
like the Nexus, as well as a lot of low-end, with-the-plan phones. What limits
it's _use_ is the geeky feeling you talk about.

I know a large segment of users who use Android, and only the technical ones
are those who use features: everybody else basically has a dumb phone with a
big screen and extra 20/month plan. The monopoly preventing the same gold rush
on app development in Android that iOS has is that: paying users. They may be
coming soon, though. I know plenty of iOS users about to jump ship to Android.

My mom will buy an app (iOS), my friends who develop software for a living
won't (Gingerbread).

~~~
slouch
i disagree with both of you. my non-nerd friends have taught me how to use my
android device way better than i was able to teach myself.

i never thought to look for a text pop-up app, i just figured that
functionality was on my old phone and not my new one.

i didn't consider the advanced task killer widget would put a button on one of
my home screens and take care of the work i put into the manage applications
menu force killing things i don't want anymore.

i have two girlfriends that use android way smarter than me, the one who is
reading an android development book.

~~~
theBobMcCormick
If your friends are teaching you to use advanced task killer, they're teaching
you wrong. That shit is snake oil. See these links for more info:

[http://geekfor.me/faq/you-shouldnt-be-using-a-task-killer-
wi...](http://geekfor.me/faq/you-shouldnt-be-using-a-task-killer-with-
android/)

[http://android-
developers.blogspot.com/2010/04/multitasking-...](http://android-
developers.blogspot.com/2010/04/multitasking-android-way.html)

~~~
slouch
i'm reading the second link now, and it almost seems to contradict the first:

"Once Android determines that it needs to remove a process, it does this
brutally, simply force-killing it. The kernel can then immediately reclaim all
resources needed by the process, without relying on that application being
well written and responsive to a polite request to exit. Allowing the kernel
to immediately reclaim application resources makes it a lot easier to avoid
serious out of memory situations."

~~~
theBobMcCormick
The first link quotes the Android documentation. The second link is written
_by_ a core Android OS developer. They do not contradict.

