[thibaulthalpern]

I have yet to see any tech pundit or analyst make the argument that claims the comparison between iPhone and Android market is a false comparison. Why is it false? Here is my explanation. And please take the numbers and dates as simply hypothetical. They are not the actual numbers but they actually do make the case that I am trying to make. With further research, I can actually find the accurate numbers. What's important is the framework, and I argue the framework is accurate.

1. Pre-2008, Many mobile phone makers formerly using Windows or some other OS for their operating system is switching over to Android OS. Let's say hypothetically that this group of phone makes previously using disparate OS's claimed 85% of the market but because they were using different OS's, the division of the market looked more something like this:

a. Mobile OS A claimed 15%
b. Mobile OS B claimed 35%
c. Mobile OS C claimed 25%
d. Mobile OS D claimed 5%

2. Post-2008, Mobile OS A, B, C, D have been gradually replaced by Android OS. Because previously disaggregate (since they were different OS) now they are aggregated together. TOTAL of Mobile OS A to D now is 80% since actually Mobile OS A to D is actually Android OS.

3. iOS, Apple's mobile OS is not used by any companies besides Apple. Apple iOS share in post-2008 claimed 25%.

4. The claims that Android OS is catching up to iPhone OS is actually NOT AN INDICATION THAT APPLE IS FALLING. What is it an indication of? It is an indication that Mobile phone makers are now switching over to Android OS, dumping Mobile OS A, B, C, and D. And since PRIOR to their switching to Android OS, they claimed a combined 80% of the market, it is not surprise now that Android OS is about to claim 80% of the market since all that is happening is NOT iOS FALLING but rather mobile phone makers other than Apple switching over to Android OS.

Does that make sense? Mobile phone makers cannot switch over to iOS even if they wanted because iOS is not for sale. The only option they have to compete with iOS is to switch over the Android OS because Microsoft mobile OS strategy does not work for them.

So, the claim that Android OS is getting a bigger share means iOS is falling behind is actually a WRONG CLAIM AND WRONG INFORMATION. Instead what the analysts should be saying is that mobile phone makers are dumping Mobile OS A, B, C, D and SWITCHING OVER TO Android OS.

Framing the statistics in this way is accurate because it gives the sense that the market for Android OS had actually always been there because in the pre-2008 era, mobile phone makers were using disaggregate OS but only now switching to a common OS makes them combined in the same boat.

======================

I have tried to make my framework as clear as possible, but because of some difficulty with the English language, I might not have communicated my thoughts in the best possible way.

I'm surprised that I have not heard this framework among other Mac pundits.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern 

So, the claim that Android OS is getting a bigger share means iOS is falling behind is actually a WRONG CLAIM AND WRONG INFORMATION.

I have never heard anyone claim this.

Apple's market share IS falling, but the smartphone market is growing so fast, all that means is that Android shipments are growing faster than iPhone shipments.

[iMOTOR]

This thread is not lounge worthy.

[imitchellg5]

Way too much common sense going on for MacNN. And truth.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I have never heard anyone claim this.

Apple's market share IS falling, but the smartphone market is growing so fast, all that means is that Android shipments are growing faster than iPhone shipments.

You haven't heard fanboys scream that Android has a larger marketshare than the iPhone?

It's important to remember that Android's also on more devices than just phones. Tablets, "smartbooks," etc. Also, keep in mind that people are going to iOS in crazy high levels like never seen before. So it's not that iOS isn't selling, it's just that Android is flooding the marketplace now from everything from featurephones to the highest end tablets.

[ort888]

This thread is now about how unbelievably annoying online Android fanboys are.

[Spheric Harlot]

I'll take it back.

The MacNN home page currently mentions Apple LOSING market share.

[besson3c]

I wonder how many iPhone fans were thinking that the iPhone would be the dominant smartphone for eternity based on its superiority? History has shown us time and time again that marketshare is about offering a product at an attractive price that is "good enough" for most people. Apple has never fussed over the low end of the market with the only real interesting exception been some of their iPod models. Therefore, it should come at absolutely no surprise to fans of all things Apple that in a few years the iPhone will be second fiddle to a platform like Android that is designed for wider range consumption.

[The Godfather]

The iPhone is the Mac of yesteryear.

[subego]

I've heard plenty of pundits note the disparity, but they've all been quick to point out how the iPod Touch isn't included, and they're selling them by the boatload.

Of course the iPod has soul-crushing market share.

[ort888]

Apple needs a strong competitor to push them and keep them honest. It's really for the best.

Who cares if Apple is number one. The iPhone isn't going anywhere any time soon. Apple will keep making a ton of money with it and Apple fans will keep getting quality phones.

I agree that watching this big smartphone war is fun, but it's best not to really take it so seriously.

I still think this smartphone war is just getting interesting. I personally think a lot of what makes Android appealing is also what is going to end up coming back and biting them in the butt. Most of the people I know with Android phones really don't like them at all. Well, everyone besides a few super geeks who find anything having to do with Apple loathsome. All of the non-geeks I know with Android phones just complain that they couldn't get iPhones on their favorite carrier. But again, most of these android phones are a year or two old, and those early Android phones were pretty terrible. They seem to be much much better these days.

Now obviously this isn't a super scientific sample size or anything... just an observation from my limited perspective.

[thibaulthalpern]

Yeah, I don't think it really matters whether Apple is numerically number one or not. Macs were never numerically number one but we have seen them rise in terms of sustainability and profitability.

My point in make the argument that there is a disparity in comparing Android OS and iOS is simply to point out that it's not as if new mobile phone manufacturers are popping up and deciding to adopt Android OS. Rather, these are EXISTING mobile phone manufacturers who have all along had shares of the smartphone market. And because in the past these mobile phone manufacturers used different OS's, no analyst aggregated their market shares together. But because now they have dropped whatever old OS they were using and choosing to use Android OS, analysts can not aggregate those previously disparate market share. So, numerically, it LOOKS as if the story is about Android climbing to the top because new manufacturers are using the mobile phones. But the story is actually more about SWITCHING from Windows and other OS to Android. That's my only point.

And furthermore, because manufacturers CANNOT choose to use iOS, they have nowhere to go BUT Android. In a way, going the Android route IS the default route simply because there was no other mobile OS that could do touch. Those previously disaggregate manufacturers want to go with touch and so the ONLY POSSIBILITY is to use Android.

Painting the picture in this light makes the Android rise much less brilliant and much less rising.

My contention is that that is the true picture of how Android rise, and not the way other analysts have been painting that picture.

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Most of the people I know with Android phones really don't like them at all. Well, everyone besides a few super geeks who find anything having to do with Apple loathsome. .

I agree with you that a lot of super geeks like the Android phone. The number one reason, it seems to me, is that one can tinker more with Android phone. That is not true with the iPhone unless you jailbreak it.

Frankly though, most people (myself included) don't want to tinker with the phone.

[subego]

I don't feel like working out the joke, but the punchline is "Symbian".

[Railroader]

I can't believe Apple has failed again so quickly. Are they declaring bankruptcy yet? I love my MAC, it is so good at graphix.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern 

Yeah, I don't think it really matters whether Apple is numerically number one or not. Macs were never numerically number one but we have seen them rise in terms of sustainability and profitability.

My point in make the argument that there is a disparity in comparing Android OS and iOS is simply to point out that it's not as if new mobile phone manufacturers are popping up and deciding to adopt Android OS. Rather, these are EXISTING mobile phone manufacturers who have all along had shares of the smartphone market. And because in the past these mobile phone manufacturers used different OS's, no analyst aggregated their market shares together. But because now they have dropped whatever old OS they were using and choosing to use Android OS, analysts can not aggregate those previously disparate market share. So, numerically, it LOOKS as if the story is about Android climbing to the top because new manufacturers are using the mobile phones. But the story is actually more about SWITCHING from Windows and other OS to Android. That's my only point.

And furthermore, because manufacturers CANNOT choose to use iOS, they have nowhere to go BUT Android. In a way, going the Android route IS the default route simply because there was no other mobile OS that could do touch. Those previously disaggregate manufacturers want to go with touch and so the ONLY POSSIBILITY is to use Android.

Painting the picture in this light makes the Android rise much less brilliant and much less rising.

My contention is that that is the true picture of how Android rise, and not the way other analysts have been painting that picture.

I would say that you are probably putting too much thought into the present and not looking ahead. Looking ahead, it will not be Apple's devices that dominate the cheap, widely available phone space - at least, I don't think there is any rationalization for this being the case, at least right now. Whether it is Android or not that accommodates this market is anybody's guess right now, but I would definitely not put all of my eggs into the iPhone basket.

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would say that you are probably putting too much thought into the present and not looking ahead. Looking ahead, it will not be Apple's devices that dominate the cheap, widely available phone space - at least, I don't think there is any rationalization for this being the case, at least right now. Whether it is Android or not that accommodates this market is anybody's guess right now, but I would definitely not put all of my eggs into the iPhone basket.

WHAT? I think you misread what I wrote.

I'm not talking about whether Android will dominate the cheap mobile phone market.

I'm talking about how to understand why Android "rose". Instead of painting the picture of how Android "rose", I'm suggesting analysts temper the fervor because in reality, it's because existing mobile phone manufacturers DROPPED other OS's and SWITCHED TO Android because they had no other choice.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern 

WHAT? I think you misread what I wrote.

I'm not talking about whether Android will dominate the cheap mobile phone market.

I'm talking about how to understand why Android "rose". Instead of painting the picture of how Android "rose", I'm suggesting analysts temper the fervor because in reality, it's because existing mobile phone manufacturers DROPPED other OS's and SWITCHED TO Android because they had no other choice.

Sorry, I should have set the stage a little better...

Your assertion makes sense, at least to me, this is a well constructed argument.

My point was that regardless of how Android got to where it is today, it (and devices like it) is just getting started.

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sorry, I should have set the stage a little better...

Your assertion makes sense, at least to me, this is a well constructed argument.

My point was that regardless of how Android got to where it is today, it (and devices like it) is just getting started.

True. Indeed, it's not to say that Android OS should be brushed off easily. That's for sure.

I do chuckle at how the Android OS strategy and the way it's panning out looks so much like how Microsoft Windows strategy worked. I find it very unfortunate that there are very few tech companies out there that work on their own hardware and software. Apple is one that comes to mind. Blackberry and Nokia are the other two, I guess.

[mduell]

Wow, that's some pretty hard Apple fanboy spin.

Every time a customer chooses a new device with Android instead of iOS, Apple is losing smartphone marketshare. iOS is falling behind since more people are choosing for their new device to be Android.

[imitchellg5]

I don't think that's a fair assessment.

Android is available from devices such as the free LG Ally featurephone, to satnav systems, to home entertainment systems, to tablets, and smartbooks.

iOS is available on the iPad, iPod touch, and iPhone. Those devices sell like crazy of course, but still.

Apple's not necessarily losing sales when somebody buys an Android device. Apple's only losing sales when somebody buys a high-end Android phone like the Incredible or Desire, etc. And of course the Galaxy Tab, when that comes out.

In the same way, statistics in this category are gonna be hard to interpret because if you consider all Android devices vs. iPhone sales, obviously there is gonna be a huge bias against the iPhone. But if you consider Android phones in the $199-299 range vs. the iPhone, I think you'll have a much more accurate picture of what's going on.

[thibaulthalpern]

To user mduell:

Not an Apple fanboy, actually.

I don't think you carefully considered my post because what you say ("Every time a customer chooses a new device with Android instead of iOS, Apple is losing smartphone marketshare") is the kind of logic that my post PRECISELY seeks to untangle.

Put it this way:
1. Before Android OS, say there were mobile OS 1, mobile OS 2, mobile OS 3.

2. Those three mobile OS comprised of 85% of the smartphone market.

3. Because they were not using the same OS, the were considered in disaggregate form. Mobile OS 1 had 50%, Mobile OS 2 had 20%, and Mobile OS 3 had 15% of the marketshare.

4. Because of that, analysts (and people like yourself included) were comparing iOS to each of these mobile OS singly, rather than as an aggregate.

5. Now, as Mobile OS 1, 2, 3 are adopting Android OS, suddenly the picture SEEMS to look different.

6. Mobile OS 1, 2, 3, are now aggregated and considered simply as Android OS

7. Because of that aggregation, suddenly it seems like iOS is "losing" share.

8. But consider this: if PRIOR to the adoption of Android OS being adopted by Mobile OS 1, 2, and 3, what if you ADDED all the percentage of marketshare by these different OS's, does the picture look like Apple is "losing" share? YES, I bet you it will.


In other words, it really all depends on how your group the different data together.
a) If you disaggregate the different mobile phone companies, then Apple STILL has a large share. b) If you aggregate the different mobile phone companies that use Android OS, then it looks like Apple is losing shares.
c) If you compare ONLY by phone model (e.g., Droid X) with iPhone, then Apple has a large share
d) if you aggregate all mobile phones by different manufacturers and compare it with iPhone, then it looks like Apple is losing share

Finally, consider this:
Android OS is offered free to mobile phone makers. iOS is NOT for sale to anyone.
Therefore, obviously Android OS is going to be adopted by all the other manufacturers because Windows 7 OS and other mobile phone OS never were never able to compete.

My question is, why are the different mobile manufacturers aggregated together simply because they are all using variations of Android OS? Why not compare simply mobile phone model to one of Apple's iPhone model and see how that compares.

I say this because you're aggregating all different manufacturers together which even before Android OS was available, they ALL WHEN COMBINED TOGETHER, took a LARGER SHARE of the market than Apple ever did. So, it makes no sense to now aggregate them simply because they are using Android OS!

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I don't think that's a fair assessment.
In the same way, statistics in this category are gonna be hard to interpret because if you consider all Android devices vs. iPhone sales, obviously there is gonna be a huge bias against the iPhone. But if you consider Android phones in the $199-299 range vs. the iPhone, I think you'll have a much more accurate picture of what's going on.

GOOD POINT. This would be a better way to compare how iPhone is doing versus simply aggregating ALL mobile manufacturers together who use Android OS. That would be as stupid as aggregating the entire world's production of non-Apple phone production together and say "See look! Apple claims a tiny piece of the pie because 85% of the market is not owned by them."

Well duh!

It would do analysts good to read up on books like "Damn Lies and Statistics" by Joel Best or the book "How to Lie with Statistics". People see numbers and they immediately associate that with truth and fact when it all comes down to a) HOW you collect the numbers (data), and b) what analysis you make of the numbers.

Numbers themselves DO NOT tell the story alone.

[mduell]

Did you just repeat your entire first post?

Other mobile OSs are not "adopting" Android. They're continuing to ship their latest and greatest iteration. WinMo is still out there, palm/webOS is out there, BB OS is out there, etc.

Android is taking market share from them all. iOS is failing to pick up people switching from winmo, webos, bb os, palmos, etc as fast as Android is. I don't think there's much movement between Android and iOS and it's probably leaning toward iOS based on the customer satisfaction surveys.

I don't put much weight on the "oh you can't compare the $0 after MIR or $49 phone" argument. The $100 difference between that and an iPhone is small compared to the cost of the 2 year contract that comes with the device. "Oh I'll spend $2100 over 2 years on phone+service, but $2200 is just too much"? No.

[thibaulthalpern]

Actually, they're not putting WinMo and others on their phone. They're replacing those with Android OS, though not in their entire products line.

iPhone mobile contracts are not in place in every country. This includes Canada, Hong Kong, and Australia among many other.

I hear reports that Android is not doing so hot outside of the U.S., though I don't know how accurate this is but I would not doubt it entirely because a lot of American tech pundits only know the U.S. market and not anything outside of it.
See report here:
Android struggling outside the U.S.
or here:
Android not catching on outside USA

[Salty]

My frustration is that Apple isn't doing what they did with the iPod to hit a dominant position. Apple put out the iPod nano, and the iPod shuffle to make sure that they hit every market segment. They made it so that they were so bloody dominant that it didn't make sense for companies to try and make money in the MP3 player market.

What are they doing with phones? They've assumed that everyone is going to go for the high end, which they aren't. A LOT of people are still going for the low end. Fact is my parents are on a fixed income, they love their Macs but adding an extra 60 dollars to their combined phone bill isn't an option. If Apple essentially took the old iPod touch and threw in an edge radio, or a very slow 3G radio that I'm sure they could get insanely cheap (not like the one in the iPhone is all that pricey) and charged the carriers 300 or so for them, and pitched them as a very low end iPhone that could still use apps and what not, even if it didn't get free iOS updates or anything like that, they'd still sell a boat load of phones, and they'd eat Samsung, LG, and Nokia's lunch!

Thing is right now you can get a ton of Quick Messaging devices, on Rogers up here in Canada you can get a few that look a lot like smart phones and give you a decent keyboard for txting and in some cases a capacitive screen.

Heck you could even market the thing the same way the new Nano is, a touch screen that isn't for running apps. Other companies are making these phones, and yes Apple is making tons of money from iOS products, but if they were really thinking they'd be at least making sure that they were taking a lot of the mind share out of the low end, where again you're still charging a lot more for the phones than you are for an iPod nano and I don't think the parts would cost much more.

[besson3c]

Salty: well said, I agree!

[thibaulthalpern]

I think it's okay that Apple has only basically on model of the iPhone. What I find more problematic is that in some countries (like the USA) is that the iPhone is tethered to a particular company with a particular contract. No can do. I want a totally unlocked phone that is not tethered to any company and not tethered to any plan. Basically, I would be willing to shell out several hundred bucks to get a legally unlocked phone which I can then use with a prepaid phone plan, for example, one by T-Mobile USA.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern 

Actually, they're not putting WinMo and others on their phone. They're replacing those with Android OS, though not in their entire products line.

No, the mobile OS company for WinMo (Microsoft) is still pushing WinMo. Ditto palm/webos, RIM/BB OS, etc. They haven't adopted Android as you claim.

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern 

iPhone mobile contracts are not in place in every country. This includes Canada, Hong Kong, and Australia among many other.

Even without the mandatory contract the price of the phone is a small part of the total cost of cell phone service over the expected life of the phone.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

You haven't heard fanboys scream that Android has a larger marketshare than the iPhone?

It's important to remember that Android's also on more devices than just phones. Tablets, "smartbooks," etc. Also, keep in mind that people are going to iOS in crazy high levels like never seen before. So it's not that iOS isn't selling, it's just that Android is flooding the marketplace now from everything from featurephones to the highest end tablets.

ummm ... iOS is *also* on more devices than just phones. iPhone, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, AppleTV

[Wiskedjak]

Personally, I welcome tight competition in the smartphone market.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

ummm ... iOS is *also* on more devices than just phones. iPhone, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, AppleTV

The nano doesn't run iOS.

iPad, however, does.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

ummm ... iOS is *also* on more devices than just phones. iPhone, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, AppleTV

ummm ... Did you read the part where I said, " iOS is available on the iPad, iPod touch, and iPhone?"

[jamesa]

there's also an assumption that android winning would be a good thing for google. post over at harvard business review suggesting that android winning might actually be bad for google, and they should have remained partnered with apple:

Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? - Harvard Business Review

[Eug]

Well, on first glance, the Samsung Galaxy S is actually a half decent phone. My colleague with it really likes Swype, so much so, that it was the main reason she bought it over the iPhone. Up until she checked out Swype, it was neck and neck between the two.

For me, one big advantage of the Samsung Galaxy S would be the better non-Apple video file support. Apple is locked to iTunes and Quicktime and I find that rather annoying. I do think the iPhone is still superior, and esp. so for a Mac user, but Samsung has got a winner on its hands.

So, why is Android gaining market share so quickly? Because it's actually become half decent in 2010, and there is actually also a good range of Android products from which one can choose.

Competition is good.

Originally Posted by jamesa 

there's also an assumption that android winning would be a good thing for google. post over at harvard business review suggesting that android winning might actually be bad for google, and they should have remained partnered with apple:

Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? - Harvard Business Review

Well, not really. Just because Android being dominant may not necessarily be the best thing for Google, I don't see how having the iPhone being the monolithic dominant smartphone entity can be any better.

[jamesa]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, not really. Just because Android being dominant may not necessarily be the best thing for Google, I don't see how having the iPhone being the monolithic dominant smartphone entity can be any better.

because google makes money off advertising. it's easy to negotiate with one party (apple) to determine the default services that ship; it's a lot harder to negotiated with an immensely fragmented base of hardware manufacturers and networks, which is exactly what they are having to do with android.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by jamesa 

because google makes money off advertising. it's easy to negotiate with one party (apple) to determine the default services that ship; it's a lot harder to negotiated with an immensely fragmented base of hardware manufacturers and networks, which is exactly what they are having to do with android.

Like I said, not really. It's often a lot harder to negotiate with one monolithic organization that controls everything... like Apple.

The reason Google has to pay Apple so damn much (I'm guessing) is that Apple controls so damn much.

[jamesa]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Like I said, not really. It's often a lot harder to negotiate with one monolithic organization that controls everything... like Apple.

The reason Google has to pay Apple so damn much (I'm guessing) is that Apple controls so damn much.

they didn't have to pay before google released android. now, they have to pay apple, and all the other manufacturers using android are seeing this and thinking "well, why don't they pay me too?"

[chabig]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Apple needs a strong competitor to push them and keep them honest.

When has that ever been the case? Apple pushes themselves to make the best products, whether they have competitors or not.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by jamesa 

they didn't have to pay before google released android. now, they have to pay apple, and all the other manufacturers using android are seeing this and thinking "well, why don't they pay me too?"

They didn't have to pay Apple before because Google was the best, and the competitors weren't really in the running and weren't paying people much to use their search engines.

Then we got companies like Microsoft who were willing to pay people for Bing and Google responded.

Originally Posted by chabig 

When has that ever been the case? Apple pushes themselves to make the best products, whether they have competitors or not.

Yes and no. Apple has a habit of not including features it doesn't want to promote... until everyone else has it and Apple is forced to include it. One example of this is USB 2. USB 2 competed directly against Firewire and Firewire was Apple's baby, so Apple decided that USB 2 wasn't going into any of its products, even though it was a big pusher of USB 1. It was ludicrous that while the whole world was revolving around USB 2, Apple refused to include it, even on its pro products. Another example is eSATA. Even the Mac Pro doesn't include it, yet you can get it on $200 PCs, because it is the standard for external drives. It's actually often cheaper to buy an eSATA card and get an eSATA hard drive than it is to buy a FW 800 HD... but that's only possible on the Mac Pro. You can't do that for a $2000 iMac. And even excluding cost and convenience arguments, FW800 isn't even that great of a solution, since FW 800 is slower than eSATA.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by chabig 

When has that ever been the case? Apple pushes themselves to make the best products, whether they have competitors or not.

Then why do the products that don't really have any competition always sit the longest between cycles? Mac mini, Mac Pro, tv, etc.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So, why is Android gaining market share so quickly? Because it's actually become half decent in 2010, and there is actually also a good range of Android products from which one can choose.

And now it's on devices ranging all the way from free to $599. Take the LG Optimus T for example. Pretty much the specs of a Nexus One but just a smaller screen and $29 on contract. No reason to stick with a featurephone now.

[Eug]

Any decent Android flip phones out there? I know flip phones are going the way of the dinosaur, but try as might to get my GF to get a decent phone, she won't do it unless it's a flip phone.

Why do I care? Cuz she's often hassling me to pull out my iPhone Contacts or iCal or whatever because it's too much of a headache to do this sort of stuff on her crappy phone.

[The Godfather]

Get her a dumb flip phone that has a good contacts feature. I am sure it won't break the Xmas present budget, but don't enter into a new contract.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Any decent Android flip phones out there?

There are no Android flip phones on the market.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

Get her a dumb flip phone that has a good contacts feature. I am sure it won't break the Xmas present budget, but don't enter into a new contract.

Any suggestions of one that will sync well with a Mac?

[mduell]

A few Android flip phones have appeared from Motorola, but only for the China market.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Apple definitely has a better handle on the iOS vs. Google and Android. It's stupid for Google to allow devices to ship with older versions of Android. The result makes the Market a mess- you've got people whining that apps don't run on their Whatever- not realizing that it's because their device is running some old ass version of Android. Or worse, developers trying to make things compatible back across multiple Android versions, but the bloated code bogging down on the latest. Netflix as of now refuses to release their player for Android because of all the version confusion and DRM concerns, and even when they do, they'll have to target it for specific phones.

Google needs to go back to the drawing boards and make the platform consistent- even if it means cutting off most of the older/crappier phones. Otherwise, the problem will just grow worse with each new release of Android.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Google needs to go back to the drawing boards and make the platform consistent- even if it means cutting off most of the older/crappier phones. Otherwise, the problem will just grow worse with each new release of Android.

You are speaking as if Google is responsible for hardware running Android; they aren't. Remember, Android is completely free, anyone can download it and use it.

[Eug]

If I could get a cheaper phone with more limited features in a flip phone factor but which could only run iOS 3, I'd buy it (for the GF).

Hell, Apple already does that sort of. My 3G runs iOS 4.2, but with a very reduced feature set, such that it isn't really 4.2 anymore.

Apple's method of controlling it is potentially more user friendly though.