Why Apple iOS is open and Android is closed

By now, even the most ardent Apple haters have essentially abandoned the false "open" marketing slogan that Google has long used as a battering ram to get Android into the hands of developers, handset makers, carriers and users.

Android is not open. 

And if you have version 3, say, of Android and want to get version 4, say, of Android, you probably will have to throw away your old Android device and buy a completely new one.

Are the proponents of "open" so quick to pervert the very spirit and intent of the term just because Google throws them the occasional bone?

Only, here's the thing: open is not open.

"Open" is a term used by geeks for geeks for the benefit of geeks. Nothing more.

I have watched old people who cannot use Windows and can't figure out how to synch a remote control with a television take to iPad, instantly.

I have watched toddlers -- children under the age of 5 -- pick up my iPhone and use it. Correctly.

Why isn't this the definition we use for "open"? 

How many people, of different backgrounds, economic status, nationalities, gender and age can access the product, use it instantly, use it always?

I'm convinced that the primary reason that Android has sold so many more devices than other platforms, yet Apple continues to dominate on web pages, app usage, app downloads, click throughs, searches, etc., is because the devices Apple offers are so much more accessible.

Which is really just another word for open.

The "open" Android platform, despite all Google's billions spent on building it and buying market share, remains far too difficult to use and far too difficult to use regularly.

When I bing the word 'open', the very first thing that pops up is:

not closed or locked: allowing people or things to pass through freely

Is that Apple?

You may quickly say no. You may point to a "locked" app market, for example, of the cost (not free) of many apps. Fair enough. 

Although, I certainly can't claim my device is Android without the proper paperwork from your Google overlord.

But what of "allowing people or things to pass through freely"? 

Shouldn't that include our time? In a world where we are always on, always busy, time is money, time is paramount. I'm thinking of the toll roads, such as those that run throughout Illinois. Anyone can use the 'CASH' lanes but only those with the special sanctioned device can use the special access lanes.

Only the stupid people use the CASH lanes. 

That's what I think of Android, to be perfectly honest. Yes, it works. Yes, it's a solution that can probably reach more people, since everyone has cash. But if there's any way I can avoid it, I will. And it's not about some silly notions that the Apple haters want to foist upon us, suggesting that we want to view ourselves as special.

I just don't want to sit in fucking traffic with everyone else. 

That's what using Android is like. Yes, it's cheaper. Yes, if you want to insist, it's more 'accessible' to others. But for me, the price is simply too high. There's too much I want to do, too many places I want to get to. Apple makes that a reality. Far more so than Android.

If you want to insist that Apple is closed and Android is open, go ahead. Feel free to give me the finger as I drive right past you.

Apple does not get social. Or maybe this is simply wrong.

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

At no time, at no place, has any human being thought: I love this song! Let me Ping it!

Apple's Ping is a failure. When pundits say that "Apple doesn't get social", and all the pundits say this, Ping is always singled out.

Though Ping is just the shiniest symbol of Apple's failure to get social. Despite innovations in social media, including with respect to music and tv shows, which Apple offers, iTunes remain its sturdy Ward Cleaver self.

Likewise, for all Apple has achieved, they completely missed the boat on social media platforms. You think no one does platforms as well as Apple but there is no "Apple+" and Apple failed to recognize the potential of Facebook, which Microsoft invested in, and failed to buy Twitter when it was dirt cheap.

Seems like the entire company doesn't get social. It's not in their DNA. Except for well-placed, well-timed statements they make to AllThingsD or select BigInvestor, Apple almost never speaks to the press or the public.

Leading us all to say, as always: Apple does not get social.

Except, now I'm re-thinking my position here. 

When we think of social media, we think of Facebook, naturally, which is the 800lb Silicon Valley nerd of social media, or of Twitter, which is the future of all social media, or, if you're a hater, you think of Google+ as social media. Unless you're a Hispanic rapper, at which case you think of MySpace as social media. Best if we use Wikipedia to guide us:

The term Social Media refers to the use of web-based and mobile technologies to turn communication into an interactive dialogue. Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein define social media as "a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content." 

Social media is media for social interaction as a superset beyond social communication. Enabled by ubiquitously accessible and scalable communication techniques, social media substantially changed the way of communication between organizations and communities, as well as individuals.

Using that as our definition, perhaps we are wrong about Apple. Perhaps Apple is awesome at social media. 

Yes, Ping sucks. Yes, iTunes deliberately limits interactive dialogue and user generated content. And Apple does not speak to us unwashed masses. But think of what does flourish thanks to Apple.

Ignore the dated Web 2.0 term, the future of the web is mobile. The future of social media is mobile. Apple makes the best mobile experience out there.

Plus, it's FaceTime, while limited to the hundreds of millions of iOS and Mac OS devices, is possibly the best, simplest video chat service.

What of Facebook? Facebook thrives on the mobile device. It is at its best on iPhone. Period. It's similar with Twitter. Twitter is now baked into iOS and the many Twitter apps function best on iPhone.

Is Flipboard a form of social media? After all, it effectively presents tweets and RSS feeds to its users. Flipboard exists thanks to iPhone and iPad.

Path? Everyone seems to love the new Path app. Only, it's more than an app. Read how Path describes themselves:

Launched in November of 2010, Path has grown to include close to 1 million people sharing life with close friends and family all over the world. The company is headquartered in downtown San Francisco.

Our Values

Path should provide you with the simple way to keep a journal, or "Path", of your life on the go.

Path should help you authentically express yourself and share your personal life with loved ones.

Path should provide you with a quality network, superior experience, and fastest performance.

Path should delight you through design, information, and communication.

Path is social media. It is a social media platform that already has about 1 million users. And lives thanks to iPhone.

Earlier today, Apple named Instagram the iPhone app of the year. Don't use Instagram? Maybe you should. It's definitely social media:

It’s a fast, beautiful and fun way to share your life with friends through a series of pictures.

Snap a photo with your iPhone, choose a filter to transform the look and feel, send to Facebook, Twitter or Flickr – it’s all as easy as pie. It’s photo sharing, reinvented.

Oh yeah, did we mention it’s free?

Without iPhone -- without Apple -- there is no Instagram. And no 10 million Instagram users.

Maybe Apple does not get social. But at the very least, and this is a big deal, they get how to make social media thrive.

Peak Google? Do iPhone and iPad sales keep Larry Page up at night edition.

Larry Page is a 40-something multi-billionaire. 

And maybe we should feel sorry for him.

Google, back when Bill Clinton was President, crafted a superior (stationary) web search algorithm with a serendipitous manna-from-heaven business model (for PC-based searched) and quickly became one of the richest, most profitable, most fearsome companies in the history of the world.

And they rule the Internet. And they have spent tens of billions after tens of billions in data farms, operating systems, browser platforms, content and more to ensure that, flesh-eating plant-like, they lure each and everyone of us in, and make sure we (can) never leave.  Server farms, Android, Chrome, free books, free videos, free apps, free email, mobile ecosystem, stationary web ecosystem, turn-by-turn GPS, maps, spreadsheet, word processing, phone number, voice mail, analytics, payments services, travel services, restaurant services, coupons, blogging platforms, social media, video chat and much much more.

Google makes so much money on wired search and by inserting themselves between you and other's content that have probably *given away* more in the last ten years than *all companies combined in the history of the planet*.

All to draw us in and make sure we never leave.

But news of the past few days, while America has been on holiday, suggests that despite giving away tens of billions, it simply may not be enough to stop the onslaught of Apple.

Which charges each and every customer a princely fee for its products and services.

Google has already told you, when trying to deflect their monopoly status, that the majority of mobile web searches happen over Apple's iOS platform, and not from the much larger Android platform. That's merely one datapoint:

The Apple Shopper: Mobile shopping was led by Apple, with the iPhone and iPad ranking one and two for consumers shopping on mobile devices (5.4% and 4.8% respectively). Android came in third at 4.1%. Collectively iPhone and iPad accounted for 10.2% of all online retail traffic on Black Friday.

The iPad Factor: Shoppers using the iPad led to more retail purchases more often per visit than other mobile devices with conversion rates reaching 4.6% compared to 2.8% for overall mobile devices.

Surgical Shopping Goes Mobile: Mobile shoppers demonstrated a laser focus that surpassed that of other online shoppers with a 41.3% bounce rate on mobile devices versus online shopping rates of 33.1%.

Google makes *all* its money form advertising. Nearly all of it from PC-based advertising. The web is rapidly going mobile. Despite all that they give away, including Android, search, Wallet, daily deals and more, Apple is trouncing Android. 

What of the future? That, too, is not certain:

For 22 years, Piper Jaffray researchers have been asking American teenagers what they want for Christmas, and for the past four years Apple (AAPL) products have been moving steadily up the wish lists.

All told, according to a note to clients issued Monday by senior research analyst Gene Munster, 11.2% of the 5,700 teenagers surveyed this fall named one Apple product or another. Except for iPods, the trend was up across the board. 

It's a survey. We can't know the future. But we do know that odds are high that mobile is the future of the web and teenagers are the future of, well, us. And right now, Apple is preferred. Despite all that Google gives away.

Larry Page must sit up late and night and wonder what in God's name it will take for Google to give away to keep us all locked inside the Google web

The problem, of course, is that despite being the global experts on "the web", Google, since all their money comes from advertising, allowed their focus to fixate on advertising, not on the evolution of the web. And the web is evolving very fast. 

And Apple can *thrive* with only a 15% mobile device market share. 

Google will grow increasingly desperate. A rich, desperate company will, dear reader, give away far more than it has to date.

Free music? Free movies? How about free WiFi -- everywhere? Or, free data plans, free broadband? 

Cash?

Do not enter Google's web for cheap. Choose Apple. Make Google still more desperate. And demand your own princely sum from them. 

One of those driverless cars, perhaps.

Should Apple buy Groupon? Or build its own?

I look at the numbers and new specs and features Apple announced today, along with what we already know, including:

  • 200 million plus iOS users
  • 200 million plus iTunes accounts/with identity and payments
  • auto-payments
  • subscriptions
  • iAd advertising
  • FaceTime -- between iOS users
  • Find My Friend -- between iOS users
  • Siri technology -- get me the best price on X

Okay. just writing out loud here, and obviously I was going to say, should Apple buy Groupon for daily group deals, or buy its own? Except, now I'm thinking, shit, maybe Apple should just buy, say, the Alibaba platform and create a giant global store that offers the best products, the best prices *exclusively* to iOS users.

Poll: will Steve Jobs appear at the iPhone 5 launch?

RIM cant get no...satisfaction

Reviewing PED's analysis of a $1500 research report on smartphone "satisfaction" and preferences.

smartphone satisfaction ratingssmartphone satisfaction

The iPhone continues to get the highest satisfaction marks (70% "very satisfied") compared with Google's (GOOG) Android (50%), Microsoft's (MSFT) Windows OS (27%) and Research in Motion's (RIMM) BlackBerry (26%).

iCloud seems to have made owners of Apple products more likely (29%) to buy Apple. Even non-Apple owners say they are more likely (13%) to swing Cupertino's way now that iCloud has been announced.

 Despite the lack of a new iPhone, iOS got bumps in March and June in the mobile operating system preference chart. ChangeWave Research head Paul Carton attributes this to the launch in March of the iPhone for Verizon. And although the increases are not as large as the ones that accompanied the 2008 launch of the iPhone 3G or the 2010 launch of the iPhone 4, they bode well for Apple.

A few thoughts:

  1. How could iCloud have made such an impact on satisfaction and preference results? It's barely in place. Is this hype? Or are ChangeWave's results not to be reliant? Sort of like an "Obama approval poll" the day after bin Laden was killed. That iCloud could bring so many non iPhone/Apple users at this very early stage makes me suspicious of the entire research report.
  2. I've long said I do not think we will have iPhone 5 this year. Every pundit says I'm wrong. Fair enough. Still, given how much money Apple is making from iPhone 4, how iPhone 4 is the most preferred device on the planet, wherever available, it sure seems awfully risky of Apple to launch a new device when things are going so well. I won't be convinced of iPhone 5 til I see it.
  3. I can't afford the report so don't have more details. I sure would like more re "satisfaction". A full 30% of iPhone users are not "very satisfied" with their iPhone. That seems awfully high. And for Android it's an astounding 50%. Isn't that shocking to anyone else? For Android, lets say the typical US based Android customer is dropping $100 on the device, signing up for two years of a criminally expensive carrier contract, meaning they are locked in for two years without an egregious penalty. To have only a 50% very satisfied rating seems abysmal. Too bad the summary report doesn't break out satisfaction rankings by specific Android maker (e.g. Samsung vs SE).
  4. And it's only 26% of Blackberry customers that are "very satisfied"! Are they envious? These are huge numbers of customers that ought to be very satisfied but are not. That is a huge weakness.
If the report is valid, it's Apple's race to lose.

App Store vs Android Market

Via @counternotions,

A successful independent app developer examines the differences between the App Store and the Android Market.

Quick take: if you are a savvy developer and have a reasonably popular app, like his Battleheart, there is definitely money to be made from the Android Market -- beyond advertising -- even if the total amount is less and the headaches are more.

Quotes from his post:

  • The best part about releasing on Android is that there's no approval process.  This means if I get reports of a bug or incompatibility, I can often fix it right away and push out an immediate update, rather than having to wait a week for a trivial bug fix to be approved.
  • I've also been fairly surprised by the revenue potential of the Android platform.  While it's still a much smaller market than iOS, there's money to be made through paid apps. Daily revenue from Battleheart on Android is fairly close, within 80%, of it's iOS counterpart at the moment.  This statement needs a couple qualifications though...
    • Battleheart on Android is currently very high in the android charts (top 50 apps), whereas Battleheart for iOS is not even in the top 200 games anymore, and yet still outselling it.  It's clear the overall size of the iOS app market is still significantly larger.
    • Battleheart on iOS had a MUCH stronger first couple of months due to prominent featuring by Apple, and since that initial rush has had a steady decline in sales.  Battleheart on Android will likely see a similar decline as it spends more time on the market.  If you compare launch months, then the iOS version outpaced the android version by a factor of 20.
  • I'd go as far as to say that a polished, high quality product is more likely to be embraced on Android than on iOS because the quality bar on the android market is so pathetically low.  
  • I think the lack of competition makes quality apps really stand out, and generates a lot of enthusiasm from app-starved android users. 
  • The technical side of supporting android isn't so bad, but it is a bit of a nuisance.  The main thing I had to concern myself with was simply making the game work properly at various screen sizes and aspect ratios.
  • The most frustrating part about developing for android is actually just dealing with the deluge of support e-mail, most of which is related to download and installation problems which have nothing to do with the app itself, and everything to do with the android OS and market having innate technical problems.  
  • Do some googling for "can't download apps from android market" or similar wording, and you'll see that this is a widespread chronic issue for all devices and all OS versions.  There are numerous possible causes, and there's nothing I can really do about it as a developer, since its essentially just a problem with the market itself. 
  • This brings me to another major complaint I have - google checkout.  As an android app developer, you have to sign up as a vendor with google checkout, where all transactions take place.  This means that you alone are responsible for resolving any billing concerns.  We actually have a tiny handful of people getting refunds on our iOS games every day, but since all billing and possible refunds are handled by Apple, I don't have to deal with it.  On Android, I do, and I really wish I didn't.  I just want to make games, not listen to people whine about how their app won't install (due to user error 9 times out of 10) and they missed the 15 minute window to give themselves a refund, or didn't even know there was such a policy.

Kindle vs iBooks and will iCloud synch with Android devices?

I am not certain what spurred me to finally give Apple's iBooks a chance. The Kindle device, I think, is a near-perfect gadget. Plus, I have been buying books (physical) from Amazon since before there was an iBooks. Before even an iPhone or iPod. Plus, I typically refrain from using Apple apps as a sort of mini protest against the fact that the apps Apple embeds into every iOS device, such as Stocks, isn't that good. And so, like many of you, I place all the Apple app icons in a single folder and banish it to the last screen of my iPhone and iPad

Nonetheless, probably after all the big numbers Apple listed at last month's WWDC, where they touted over 130 million iBooks sales, that I decided to give the app -- and its mini 'book store'  -- a try.

Quick verdict: surprisingly, it's just as good, possibly better than the Kindle app.

That said, there are some quirks when using iBooks. First and foremost, unlike MUSIC (currently iPod) or VIDEO, both of which come pre-installed in your iOS device, you have to go to the App Store, search for the iBooks app, then download it all before you can make your first purchase. I expect that with iOS 5, iBooks will get the same content love from Apple and come pre-installed.

Next, comes fail. A minor fail, to be sure, but considering this is Apple, a minor fail is noteable. I like the Kindle iconography, honestly. The boy under the tree reading a book. Plus, I think it deceptive, in a good way, that the color scheme for the Kindle icon highly suggests that said boy is reading said book on his said Kindle in the dark. Or at least at twilight. Which, as a Kindle owner, I can assure you, does not happen. Unless you are Superman. Apple, which has been on a path to create obvious icons to represent the obvious content said icons 'hold', such as the musical notes in the "iTunes" icon offers a drawing of a book. With no letters on it.

No big deal, I understand. And they are seeking universaility and a sense of permanance with its content iconography. Still, it's not even great, let alone insanely great. The real problem I have is that when you finally download iBooks and open it up, your books are laid out in what appears to be a poor man's Ikea knock off bookshelf. Kindle presents a list of your books, by cover; one down on small screens, such as iPhone, or several across, such as on iPad. Again, minor, but it would be nice if Apple did something more than offer up what appears to be a smallish shopping mall bookstore analog. To be fair, however, the one great feature in iBooks that makes use of the bookshelf metaphor is that it is very easy to select books from your collection to make a distinct bookshelf. Children's books, for example, can all go on their own bookshelf. Sci-Fi. Fiction or non-fiction. This is very easy to create on iBooks and does not exist on the Kindle app (on the Kindle device you can create various 'collections').

Next, buying a book. The Kindle app provides a link to the Kindle Store, where you can search books by title, author; browse by category, review bestseller lists. Nearly every book you could want is available. Except, of course, for those that are not. And if they are not available on Kindle, odds are good they are not available on iBooks. In my very limited tests, there was no book I would even consider purchasing that was available on one platform but not the other. Likewise, if it was not available on Kindle say, it was not available in iBooks. Similarly, in my limited personal tests, prices were equivalent. You may wish to verify this, per your tastes and consumption habits.

Personally, I found the iBooks store easier to navigate. The emphasis from the start is on more popular books and authors, which is typically not the content I am seeking, but searching or scanning, say across iBooks bestseller lists or New York Times bestsellers was, in my experience, easier than with the Kindle store. Likewise, data on the book, reviews and other information was ever-so-slightly better presented in iBooks. Again, these are minor personal preferences. In either store, buying and downloading is near-magical. Because Kindle (must) take you 'outside' the app, on iOS devices, there is a bit of a lag and a slight disconnect from a truly seamless buying process. For example, when you press "Store" on iBooks, the cheap bookshelf spins, James Bond villain like, and you are at the store. With Kindle, you get the sense you are being transported, and not for your own good.

I am a long-time Amazon customer, use Amazon prime, and have had 1-click purchase settings established for years. Both Apple and Amazon have millions and millions of customers with credit cards on file and instant purchasing already established. 

For me, the real test comes in the reading of the book. 

I have a Kindle 3 and an iPad. This is not a device review but a app/store review. Both Kindle (the device) and iPad (2) are amongst the greatest personal gadgets ever constructed and made available to the common man. Rich people on private jets could have no better. Here, I am concentrating on the app/store and reading experience.

As stated above, to my surprise, iBooks won. Barely.

The small menu of icons running across the top of every page in your iBooks book takes up little room, and lets you very quickly, intuitively, adjust screen lighting, font size, font. You can search, access the table of contents, create a bookmark. Hold or double click on a word and you can highlight a passage, access a dictionary, make a note or search on that word.

You do not have page numbers, obviously. Since you can synch across iOS devices, of varying screen sizes, and adjust font and font size, page numbers would be a false value. Instead, iBooks has a row of dots along the bottom of every page. These are to convey how far you are into the book. 

Presentation on Kindle is similar, albeit with more emphasis on the actual written word. Which is good. But, in thise case, the device is the medium, and though Kindle presentation is more book-like, on a personal computing device, I can't honestly say that makes for a better experience. Unlike iBooks, there is no menu of icons on every 'page'. Rather, to create a bookmark, change font size, search, you must first tap the screen. Then a menu appears. It is much like iBooks in function. For me, though at first I thought the Kindle presentation was superior, since I frequently accidentally tapped the screen with my left thumb, which calls up the Kindle menu, which stops the reading process, I decided that the permanent menu on iBooks, even if that meant slightly less space for text, was preferable.

I did like the fact that Kindle offers page numbers. This changes according to the device and settings. For example, you are told if you are on page 33 of 333, for example. 

Overall, use one, use both, it should not matter. Suddenly, we are in a world where there are tens of thousands of books available to us, for free, that can be instantly placed on our personal devices, available to us for reading at any moment, any location. And, for popular books, these are typically cheaper -- even if they ought to be significantly cheaper -- then the physical editions that you must go to a physical store to purchase.

For readers, particularly for readers of books, we are on the cusp of a new golden age.

That said, if you choose just one, forget what I've written above, and choose Kindle. 

There are two reasons for this. First, I don't like the idea of having all my content purchased from one store, one provider. 

Second, and most importantly, Kindle provides a superior level of ownership. Yes, these are books you have purchased. You own them. It's just that with iBooks, none of your books can go outside the iOS ecosystem. Not so with Kindle. You can have a Kindle app on your laptop, on your iPhone, on your Kindle the Device. Not only do books synch across these devices, but, more importantly, they are *available* across these devices. 

Kindle is platform agnostic. True, all 'your' purchases are within the Kindle walled garden. It's just that that garden has much lower walls.

Which makes me wonder: for all the decades-long talk from fanboys and haters alike, asking if Apple should license its OS, will iCloud render this question obsolete? If the (native) app becomes the visual-interactive replacement for the desktop, and we access our data, content, books, music, Word docs, numbers, etc. from within a dedicated app, and said content/data is 'stored' in the cloud, and Apple offers synching via iCloud, then why not offer synching of apps and their respective content across all devices? Even those that are not Apple devices?

But, that is for another day.

For today, we can read, whatever we like, at much lower cost, wherever and whenever. Using iBooks or Kindle is a blessing, whichever you choose.

Clicky Web Analytics