Is Android catching up fast??

Oafley Jones · 23-05-2010 05:09PM

It's simply a numbers game, apple will never manage to hold a significant market share in the mobile arena with 2-3 SKUs. I'd be surprised if they manage to hold 5% market share in 2 years time, which is a decent showing and one I'd imagine Apple would be happy with. I'm finding this Android/iPhone OS battle reminiscent of what happened with Mac/Windows.

jeromeof · 23-05-2010 11:18PM

Oafley Jones wrote: »

It's simply a numbers game, apple will never manage to hold a significant market share in the mobile arena with 2-3 SKUs. I'd be surprised if they manage to hold 5% market share in 2 years time, which is a decent showing and one I'd imagine Apple would be happy with. I'm finding this Android/iPhone OS battle reminiscent of what happened with Mac/Windows.

If you read back at bit I do agree that Android will eventually have greater numbers than the iPhone but it will more likely be something like 35%/30%. If you want to play out the Mac/Windows scenario it will be the iPhone that will dominate. Windows "won" the battle of the desktops for a few reasons, Jobs left/Apple lost focus was one, but the main reason Windows "won" was the applications it had available. It wasn't the OS itself, Windows 3.0/3.1 were horrible OS's in their own right, but they ran multiple DOS boxes and ultimately Microsoft persuaded developers to develop native Windows applications and it had the consumers "mindshare", basically they thought if they got a Windows PC they could run their applications. For lots of people it is the same today with PC/Mac. So playing that scenario, which Mobile OS has the Applications and the consumers Mindshare? It is the iPhone not Android.

Google have done a very nice job getting the majority of standard smartphone applications working well on Android, which has made Android a viable alternative to the iPhone, but that is just what it is "a viable alternative to the iPhone", so for people who:

Don't like Apple
Can't afford an iPhone
Want/need to get an upgrade and just compare the current hardware specification and don't have patience to wait - its been 11 months since an iPhone hardware update

And it is only a viable alternative if you don't include the iTunes factor and AppStore.

partyatmygaff · 23-05-2010 11:29PM

jeromeof wrote: »

Google have done a very nice job getting the majority of standard smartphone applications working well on Android, which has made Android a viable alternative to the iPhone, but that is just what it is "a viable alternative to the iPhone", so for people who:
Don't like Apple

Can't afford an iPhone

Want/need to get an upgrade and just compare the current hardware specification and don't have patience to wait - its been 11 months since an iPhone hardware update

Don't want to feel restricted at every possible avenue

Don't want to be forced to use iTunes for every single thing they do

Want the "full web" as it is on a Desktop, not the version that Jobs thinks is appropriate. I am of course talking about flash.

Want to have full control over how their phone works

Want to have a choice between important apps like browser or messaging.

Want a removable battery

Want a removable memory card

Want a non properiatry connector that costs far more than regular cables

Want tethering (WiFi, USB or bluetooth)

Expect the basic features like to be present in a €600+

And it is only a viable alternative if you don't include the iTunes factor and AppStore.

It's not only a viable alternative, it's a far better alternative functionality wise. Some people just love iTunes and the iPhone experience, each to their own I say.

Inquitus · 23-05-2010 11:47PM

jeromeof wrote: »

If you read back at bit I do agree that Android will eventually have greater numbers than the iPhone but it will more likely be something like 35%/30%. If you want to play out the Mac/Windows scenario it will be the iPhone that will dominate. Windows "won" the battle of the desktops for a few reasons, Jobs left/Apple lost focus was one, but the main reason Windows "won" was the applications it had available. It wasn't the OS itself, Windows 3.0/3.1 were horrible OS's in their own right, but they ran multiple DOS boxes and ultimately Microsoft persuaded developers to develop native Windows applications and it had the consumers "mindshare", basically they thought if they got a Windows PC they could run their applications. For lots of people it is the same today with PC/Mac. So playing that scenario, which Mobile OS has the Applications and the consumers Mindshare? It is the iPhone not Android.

Google have done a very nice job getting the majority of standard smartphone applications working well on Android, which has made Android a viable alternative to the iPhone, but that is just what it is "a viable alternative to the iPhone", so for people who:
Don't like Apple

Can't afford an iPhone

Want/need to get an upgrade and just compare the current hardware specification and don't have patience to wait - its been 11 months since an iPhone hardware update

And it is only a viable alternative if you don't include the iTunes factor and AppStore.

iTunes is the only thing I hate about using my ipod touch, I don't see how its a selling point.

PeakOutput · 24-05-2010 12:24AM

people seem to be assuming that these two os's are going to be the dominant os's going forward when i beleive nokia and or blackberry are still the majority right now

i believe technically / computer minded people will go for android

fahion minded people will go for the iphone and if blackberry jsut bucks up a little the business people will stick with blackberry

the people on this board and boards in general are not an accurante representation of the general public computers interest us and are more than just their appearance and surface functionality which is why we like things like android and iphone, these are different reasons to the general publics and so i think our opinions are quite clouded as a result

Tom Dunne · 24-05-2010 06:28AM

PeakOutput wrote: »

people seem to be assuming that these two os's are going to be the dominant os's going forward when i beleive nokia and or blackberry are still the majority right now

They are the majority for their respective markets, not necessarily the same market as Androind/iPhone.

Nokia is simply mass-market, "regular" phones. Blackberry for e-mail devices that can also make phonecalls.

I personally don't think they are in the same market as Android/iPhone. The N900 isn't a patch on the iPhone or Android. It's simply too much of a hacker's phone. I know of about 5 or six co-workers here who bought a Blackberry when one of the providers was doing a deal and who ditched the device 3 months later (to dances of "Told you so, told you so" by me

). So its really only a niche market for people who want their e-mail on the move.

Apple has a lot of momentum behind it. But Android may drown it out in sheer numbers. I was playing around with an Android phone again last night and I still don't think it is as slick as the iPhone. Buying apps, music, videos is pretty straight-forward on an iPhone (as much as we all despise iTunes). Android doesn't seem to be there just yet, but give it time.

whiterebel · 24-05-2010 08:55AM

The sooner people bugger off to Android or WM the better, TBH. It might make it easier to get an iPhone when you want, and pull the sting out of the mobile operators.

Fat_Fingers · 24-05-2010 10:19AM

I had them all, Nokia, Blackberry , Android and Iphone. Each phone has its good things and bad things.

Right now, IMHO, Nokia and Blackberry are business phones. Nokia also has cornered market for (senior) people who just want phone, no gimmicks.
Iphone is more of a desired toy , media all rounder , I know that sounds strange as it can only play one video format but it does it well. And Apple is selling it that way. Its not like Apple is making a case it’s a good phone, they know it’s not but it excels at playing A/V and games . Apps are hit and miss , lots of junk there. But any teenager + will want Iphone, and they are marketing it to that group. They could really take it big if they reduced price a bit but that’s Apple all over it.
Android is something I’m not sure about. Yes, great device and in many ways better than Iphone. Mind you this should be compared again once new updated Iphone is out. But I don’t get it who are they targeting? Is it potential Iphone users or business people… It must be as mentioned before “Iphone alternative”

Oafley Jones · 24-05-2010 10:37AM

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I personally don't think they are in the same market as Android/iPhone. The N900 isn't a patch on the iPhone or Android. It's simply too much of a hacker's phone.

To be fair to Nokia they never claimed that the n900 was anything more than a large scale beta - "stage 4 in a 5 stage process" they called it. I've very little confidence in the n8 either, but I'm sure that it'll still sell a good few units. It would be madness to dismiss Nokia though and they'll still be a significant player because of their ability to sell to every price point.

Win phone 7 has the potential to be very successful, this marks MS first real assault on the phone market outside of the corporate world - and even at that you'd get the impression that they weren't that bothered by it - and they'll leverage the likes of Xbox to meet those goals. They've also the ability to simply buy success.

PeakOutput · 24-05-2010 12:51PM

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

But I don’t get it who are they targeting? Is it potential Iphone users or business people… It must be as mentioned before “Iphone alternative”

well the next update for android makes it work with ms exchange and allows it departments to set permissions i believe so that brings it up to par for the business people apparently

i can see there being different versions of the os or at least different packages of apps that you can choose depending on if you want it to be an iphone type device or a business type device or whatever else they can think of

Gryzor · 24-05-2010 03:49PM

Some very interesting replies and experiences posted here....up until last week, i'd pretty much ignored Android. Now it seems the upgrade decision in the summer will have another dimension...its all good

Interesting history of Androids evolution..from here

July 2005 - Google buys the startup Android, Inc., which was developing a mobile OS

November 2007 - Plans for the Android OS are unveiled as part of the announcement of the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium of 65 companies dedicated to building a mobile platform on open standards; Android is revealed as an open source OS and the first SDK is made available

October 2008 - The first Android phone, the G1 (a.k.a. the HTC Dream), hits the market; the hardware is awkward and unpolished but the OS has potential

October 2009 - The Motorola Droid–the first Android 2.0 phone–arrived with a big marketing push from Verizon; it brings Android out of beta and it’s a serious competitor to the iPhone, in terms of the three features mentioned above, and it’s also a competitor with business-specific devices such as the BlackBerry since the Droid features a slide-down keyboard

January 2010 - In partnership with HTC, Google releases its own Android phone, the Nexus One, which features a thin touchscreen form factor and outflanks the iPhone with a higher resolution screen and a faster processor; it is only sold online through Google (with T-Mobile for service) and sales figures are anemic, but it raises the bar for Android with the first device that easily stands toe-to-toe with the iPhone

April 2010 - The HTC Incredible debuts on Verizon; it offers most of the same features of the Nexus One but is paired with Verizon’s market-leading data network

May 2010 - NPD reports that in Q1 2010, Android passed iPhone in unit sales in the U.S.; it’s the first big market share victory for Android; In the report, BlackBerry was first with 36% share, then Android (28%), then iPhone (21%)

thirtythirty · 24-05-2010 03:56PM

http://gizmodo.com/5543794/google-is-leapfrogging-apple

Oafley Jones · 24-05-2010 04:38PM

jeromeof wrote: »

If you read back at bit I do agree that Android will eventually have greater numbers than the iPhone but it will more likely be something like 35%/30%. If you want to play out the Mac/Windows scenario it will be the iPhone that will dominate. Windows "won" the battle of the desktops for a few reasons, Jobs left/Apple lost focus was one, but the main reason Windows "won" was the applications it had available. It wasn't the OS itself, Windows 3.0/3.1 were horrible OS's in their own right, but they ran multiple DOS boxes and ultimately Microsoft persuaded developers to develop native Windows applications and it had the consumers "mindshare", basically they thought if they got a Windows PC they could run their applications. For lots of people it is the same today with PC/Mac. So playing that scenario, which Mobile OS has the Applications and the consumers Mindshare? It is the iPhone not Android.

The primary reason MS dominated because they aggressively licensed their software, apple of course didn't. The software advantage followed from developers coding for the most ubiquitous platform as well as MS excellent relationship with developers.

Pittens · 24-05-2010 07:03PM

The primary reason MS dominated because they aggressively licensed their software, apple of course didn't. The software advantage followed from developers coding for the most ubiquitous platform as well as MS excellent relationship with developers.

Licencing doesnt matter in the phone business - Nokia doesnt licence out it's software - what matters is the number of carriers you are on.

The whole Mac/Windows thing redux needs a rest. The phone market is not going to be a monopoly unlike the PC Os market, and that was a close run thing - if Apple had licenced, or OS/2 had been timely and better, we would have three platforms of equal strength ( and Linux would be stronger too as there would be more and better cross platform solutions) which would be better for all involved. Most markets dont head towards monopoly.

Apple is in, as someone pointed out, the MS position. Android is in the Mac position. The apps are available, there are fewer of them, they tend to be clones of the iPhone version, and so on.

With respect to something I wrote earlier 17.5% of Verizon customers express extreme interest getting an iPhone, and there are rumours of the iPhone hooking up with Sprint. Since the iPhone is at 25% of the entire smartphone market in the US, it looks like that will take it to 35%. And since the iPhone is not really going to want to compete in the business category, thats about where they will stay and be happy. I would be surprised if Android took an equivalent 35%.

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100524/verizon-stands-to-sell-7-8-million-iphones-a-year/?mod=ATD_rss

Pittens · 24-05-2010 07:08PM

Also the Android market is still fragmented. Only about 35% are on a version of 2.x. And that means that developers have to worry about that, and about any extra or missing API, or the actual form factor of the Android - although I bet most of them are exactly the same as the iPhone.

and let me reiterate again - the iPhone OS includes the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. In terms of apps actually bought, downloaded, etc. I bet that the iPhone is close to 80%.

it aint going nowhere.

jeromeof · 24-05-2010 07:26PM

You should also be aware of Google Whisper Ads features announced the other day. It is well worth watching this report:

http://www.theonion.com/video/new-google-phone-service-whispers-targeted-ads-dir,17470/

I do wonder how much of this will ultimately be part of Google "real" plans.

Oafley Jones · 24-05-2010 08:54PM

Pittens wrote: »

Licencing doesnt matter in the phone business - Nokia doesnt licence out it's software - what matters is the number of carriers you are on.

Of course licensing matters, to ignore it is to have learned nothing from history. Licensing allows you to work with multiple manufacturers and allows for a far greater variety and number of handsets with the competition between to ensure that all segments of the market are met. One phone, no matter how many networks it's on is still just a single phone and simply can't appeal to all no matter how good it is.

jeromeof · 24-05-2010 09:39PM

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Of course licensing matters, to ignore it is to have learned nothing from history. Licensing allows you to work with multiple manufacturers and allows for a far greater variety and number of handsets with the competition between to ensure that all segments of the market are met. One phone, no matter how many networks it's on is still just a single phone and simply can't appeal to all no matter how good it is.

I would agree that Licensing will matter going forward. That is why I do believe Android will have a slightly higher market share than the iPhone. HTC were the only mobile phone manufacturer who only licensed mobile OS's (traditionally from Microsoft) so they have been the quickest to adopt Android to great success. It will be harder for the other manufacturers to completely abandon their existing "end-to-end" approaches. It basically means abandoning 1/2 their R&D teams and concentrating on the hardware, completely relying on Google to provide the Software, Samsung/LG will do this. Nokia/RIM won't and will suffer in the next few years. This is a massive change for these companies and I believe some will fall away while others like Dell/Acer (used to licensing models) will enter the market in a big way.

But whoever said that it was licensing manufacturers that won the desktop battle for Microsoft was wrong. It was solely the applications (as that is how the consumer sees a computer) and the developers behind those applications what won that battle. Microsoft really won the battle when they themselves produced the "core" killer PC application, the Microsoft Office Suite and eventually integrating the other killer Application the browser deep into the OS. The interesting thing in the Mobile space is that both Google and Apple are producing "core" killer applications for their platforms. For Smartphones these are the EMail/Browser/MediaPlayer/AppStore (assuming basic phone/texting capabilities are covered).

This is why I think some of the opinions here about Android being better because you can replace the "core" applications (email/browser) with alternatives is completely bogus. You will never get a better Android email/browser experience than Googles (especially when Google doesn't let developers build ontop of those applications). So when you look at these Mobile OS, they will be similarly capable in "core" capabilities, but Android will win market share because of sheer numbers of device (i.e. licensing), while Apple will win/keep market share because of the weight of Applications already available and how "polished" these Applications (mainly because of the Apple design guidelines keep a consist experience for end-users within third party applications. The other smartphones guys don't really stand a chance, except I do think Microsoft's new OS looks nice/distinctive and could allow it to stand out from the "App-centric" Android/IPhone devices.

As for someone who stated that iTunes turns them off, I can understand this but for the majority of non-techie people pluggin in MP3 player and transferring files to an external USB is a scary concept. Apple realised this and made it simple for people (though frustrating for people to like to "control" their own media outside iTunes). Because > 200 million people have iPod and have their music in iTunes, have subscribed to their Podcasts via iTunes, have audiobooks in iTunes etc. This makes iTunes a completely killer feature for allot of people contemplating buying a new phone. Why carry 2 devices when you can carry one! This is way more important than "replaceable batteries" or some of the other "technical" arguments for Android phones. As for "proprietary interfaces" this is also a killer feature, I have a very nice clock radio (as does my son) for both charging and licensing to music via this interface. My car even has support for this interface. These consumer devices with built in iPod interfaces mean I never actually think about charging my iPhone (while I am always look for the USB cable to charge my Android phone).

partyatmygaff · 24-05-2010 11:18PM

jeromeof wrote: »

As for someone who stated that iTunes turns them off, I can understand this but for the majority of non-techie people pluggin in MP3 player and transferring files to an external USB is a scary concept. Apple realised this and made it simple for people (though frustrating for people to like to "control" their own media outside iTunes). Because > 200 million people have iPod and have their music in iTunes, have subscribed to their Podcasts via iTunes, have audiobooks in iTunes etc. This makes iTunes a completely killer feature for allot of people contemplating buying a new phone. Why carry 2 devices when you can carry one! This is way more important than "replaceable batteries" or some of the other "technical" arguments for Android phones. As for "proprietary interfaces" this is also a killer feature, I have a very nice clock radio (as does my son) for both charging and licensing to music via this interface. My car even has support for this interface. These consumer devices with built in iPod interfaces mean I never actually think about charging my iPhone (while I am always look for the USB cable to charge my Android phone).

To be honest downloading an App from a website and installing it and then figuring out how to navigate iTunes and add music is a nightmare that takes far too much time. I'd rather just plug in my MP3 Player/Phone and just drag and drop. So much easier and so much more time efficient. Oddly enough you have more control as well. That and I can use it with any PC. The only advantage iTunes has that it has a store. That's it really. Nothing else about is what I would call fast and efficient, not even intuitive.

Everyone I know (Well most) have USB cables, only people who've ever owned iPhones/iPods will have the Apple cable.

Having a removable battery in an MP3 player is a disadvantage as that usually means AA batteries and the like. Having a non-removable battery in a communication device like a phone is just plain annoying. What if I run out of battery power and need to make a phone call? I can't just use my spare battery, I have to go find somewhere with a USB port so I can charge my phone.

whiterebel · 25-05-2010 08:20AM

I can't for the life of me figure out how people can't
Add music
Make playlist
Add to iPhone/iPod
Sync.

Buy app
Tick app
Sync.

I can understand how iTunes is frustrating for Windows users, as a lot say that its slow, unresponsive etc. On a Mac its brilliant.

And as for standard USB? Pity Nokia didn't use it instead of their own half-arsed one on the 5800.

axer · 25-05-2010 09:15AM

whiterebel wrote: »

I can't for the life of me figure out how people can't
Add music
Make playlist
Add to iPhone/iPod
Sync.

Because I can just copy to the files to an mp3 player instead. Much easier to do than making playlists etc. Why would I need another piece of software to do that?

whiterebel · 25-05-2010 09:37AM

axer wrote: »

Because I can just copy to the files to an mp3 player instead. Much easier to do than making playlists etc. Why would I need another piece of software to do that?

So one step extra? people may it sound like brain surgery.

thirtythirty · 25-05-2010 09:38AM

Pittens wrote: »

Also the Android market is still fragmented. Only about 35% are on a version of 2.x. And that means that developers have to worry about that, and about any extra or missing API, or the actual form factor of the Android - although I bet most of them are exactly the same as the iPhone.

and let me reiterate again - the iPhone OS includes the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. In terms of apps actually bought, downloaded, etc. I bet that the iPhone is close to 80%.

it aint going nowhere.

Android isn't fragmented - it's advancing so fast it creates legacy quicker

And iPhone is not the same as iPad. Apps have to be re-developed for the iPad.

And even iPhone isn't "just iPhone". After OS4 we'll have legacy iPhone and new iPhone...guess what, new games and apps aren't all gonna work on all versions!

Just sayin'!

I have no doubt iPhone is going nowhere. It still has the best eco-system of apps/music/purchasing in my view. But I also have no doubt that it will fall second rate to android purely due to the rate of not only hardware advancement (allowed through diversity of handsets), but of software advancement. I'd even go so far as to bet Google's legions of programmers will come up with API's or toolkits that allow apps to automatically scale and fit whatever hardware they're on.

axer · 25-05-2010 09:57AM

whiterebel wrote: »

So one step extra? people may it sound like brain surgery.

Firstly I have to install that crappy software that runs so slowly. Then I have to load it up everytime I want to copy music to my music player and also having to create playlists etc. I just find it unnesscessary but im sure its so popular because while there are more steps to copy the music they are controlled steps which Im sure non technical people appreciate. whereas I am technical hence why I hate that software and why I purchased a HTC desire due to arrive today.

mickoneill30 · 25-05-2010 09:58AM

whiterebel wrote: »

So one step extra? people may it sound like brain surgery.

Or one extra install if you're trying to access the device on a different PC.

Why have one extra step at all when it's not necessary? It's not brain surgery. It's just bad design. Well not bad design I suppose. It was designed like that on purpose. From Apples point of view it's great. And for a lot of people on this thread they seem to think it's great too. It really is a crappy app though. I'm talking about on Windows there. I don't know about the Mac. It loads a few extra services and uses memory constantly. Easy to fix if you know what you're doing, not so easy if you're an average user.

mickoneill30 · 25-05-2010 10:02AM

axer wrote: »

I purchased a HTC desire due to arrive today.

Look forward to accessing your music from any computer using a USB cable. Or install EStrongs and access your network shares to copy your music with wifi. Much nicer.

The Desire will work with iTunes too

If you really want to use iTunes.

Oafley Jones · 25-05-2010 10:04AM

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Or one extra install if you're trying to access the device on a different PC.

Why have one extra step at all when it's not necessary? It's not brain surgery. It's just bad design. Well not bad design I suppose. It was designed like that on purpose. From Apples point of view it's great. And for a lot of people on this thread they seem to think it's great too. It really is a crappy app though. I'm talking about on Windows there. I don't know about the Mac. It loads a few extra services and uses memory constantly. Easy to fix if you know what you're doing, not so easy if you're an average user.

In terms of performance iTunes is better on Mac, but it's an absolute dog on windows machines. I didn't think it was possible, but the store's layout is even worse with 9.

Pittens · 25-05-2010 10:26AM

And iPhone is not the same as iPad. Apps have to be re-developed for the iPad.

And even iPhone isn't "just iPhone". After OS4 we'll have legacy iPhone and new iPhone...guess what, new games and apps aren't all gonna work on all versions!

Just sayin'!

Apps dont have to be re-developed if they can scale without pixelation, and you can create a universal application. This would be a weak solution for some applications which use the iPhone paradigm of scrolling for navigation but works fine for games written in OpenGL. I am following a developer forum on that and most games devs are doing very little to get their app running on the iPad.

Android is still fragmented, even if it is fragmented because of innovation. It started off following the model of most Phone OSe's prior to the iPhone and locked the phone to the OS, effectively. So about half are on 1.x. The rest on some variation of 2.x. Most of the 1.x's cannot upgrade.

with Apple's PC type OS strategy developers will know that OS 4.0 is on most 3G, 3Gs, and 4G machines within a few months. Most. It is easy in those cases to abandon development for OS 3.0 if you need a new API ( not everybody will). Androids 1.x series is so limited you need 2.x to do anything. And for games what matters is the version of OpenGL on the OS. The games that work in 3.0 will work in 4.0. The iPhone came with a recent enough version of OpenGL. So not comparable.

I still see Apple stalling at about 35% of the phone OS market. However if you see these things as mobile devices with smart OSes you can keep in your pocket, there will be the same number of iPod touches. Apple will have that, leaving them with 50% of that total market . Which leaves the rest scrambling for developer attention.

One of the myths of the last few years has been developers fleeing Apple. It has an Orwellian feel to it as a commentary because it is the exact opposite of what happened. What happened was that about 200,000 developers moved to Apple platforms and it's API ( which is Desktop OS class) despite some major barriers to entry: $99, learning Obj. C, and buying a Mac - the biggie. I thought that all the developers who would write for OS X on the iPhone would be ex-Mac developers, it has a vibrant shareware scene. Not so.

And then somebody would leave in a huff and that became the news. Devs are following the money. The movement to android is from upper management, but there is no anecdotal evidence of people making any money, and I dont see games devs moving to Android.

Personally I think that "mobile development" companies are going to lose market share to speciality houses - Android only, or iPhone only houses whom you contract out. A Mobile developer can be a generalist knowing little about Bada, Symbian, Android, OpenGL ( effectively another API), or OS X or a specialist in one, or two of those.

Opportunity for OS devs to move in.

Pittens · 25-05-2010 10:31AM

Relevent to this thread.

3G not being supplied to AT&T stores anymore. Rumour is that the 3Gs will sell at the lowest US entry point of $99. Not sure how that translates to Europe.

EDIT:

walmart sells 3GS for $97

Both todays news. The Empire strikes back.

PeakOutput · 25-05-2010 11:24AM

Pittens wrote: »

So about half are on 1.x. The rest on some variation of 2.x. Most of the 1.x's cannot upgrade.

because the hardware on the older phones cant run the new stuff thats the only reason

i think your overly optimistic about the iphone its inevitable that android will take over the bigger market share

Is Android catching up fast??

Comments