Related
I am not a developer, but I was reading up on experiences that developers have with the Android Market.
Then I also came across a website that showed some statistics about paid apps and they were shocking. I can't remember the source right now, but it said that the Apple AppStore is a $200 million business per month, where the Android Market is only $5 millions per month. This is very discouraging for developers who are in it for money (usually companies who have the resources to create Games and more Complex Apps and have the ability to Partner with Services).
One developers said that he only got 23 downloads, in the first month. He mentioned then that over half of them used the 24 hour refund (could that be that those were leachers who downloaded the app and threw it on a P2P channel?), eventually he ended up with 11 sales. One guy sent him an email and said that $4.99 is too much to ask for, which I think is not unreasonable considering that there are many apps in the Apple AppStore that cost much more than that. Whether or not his app is useful or not to most users is sadly unknown by me. But looking at his perspective I think I would start developing apps for the iOS, who wouldn't that wants to make money?
The problem with these figures is that developers will eventually stop developing paid apps and the quality of the Android Market (from now on referred to Market) apps vs Apple AppStore (from now on referred to AppStore) apps will extremely decline. And there will be either many low rating apps in the Market or there will be an increase in the amount of Apps submitted the the Market.
We all want good Apps, Apple found out Apps are the number 1 reason a Plattform has success. Android has Google behind it which makes up for a good amount of Great apps and there are very good developers here that are not in it for the money, but eventually it all comes down to making money when it comes to professional businesses offering a product. Look at the games that are offered on the iOS platform vs Android, you can't tell me that an iPhone 3G or a 2nd Gen iPod has better graphics performance than some of the higher-end Android devices.
Also, are there too many free alternatives in the Android Market that the AppStore doesn't have? There are also many free apps in the AppStore.
What can be done about this? - Please post your ideas, since I am not a developer I am not the pro here when it comes to this issue I am asking for your opinion.
However, I am a business student so I have some insights of how companies will react to this as mentioned above.
The few ideas I have would be:
1. Google could increase the quality of design of the API and give different APIs to paid vs free Apps.
2. Sadly I have to mention it because of all the Leachers and then P2P distributors, remove the 24 hour refund policy.
3. Google to hire more developers in house who are paid and create free apps that can compete with the AppStore (which would cost Google a fortune). Maybe then charge a small amount for Google Voice to do some financial damage report.
4. Change the Markets way how people pay for apps? I noticed that in the past on my iPhone the decision to actually PAY for an app was much easier and faster for me, I didn't even bother to look for a free alternative.
5. Try to Market Android more towards people who are less geeks (who know where and how to find a free solution to the app they need), as in change the look of Android and make it much more simple for the average Joe day to day user (which I would hate because that means remove or hide many of the great features that make Android what I like so much about it and go back to a more primitive system like the iOS4). And tell hardware manufacturers to create more shiny phones.
--> Since most people who don't know how to get free alternatives, or who don't know and don't have the time to learn how to find free alternatives are people that are buying a product for the lifestyle and to show off (iPhone).
What are YOUR ideas to fix this issue? - Thank you for everyone posting solutions.
I don't think this is something we should worry about.
First, Android is open-source and many enthusiasts give their applications free of charge, which is not the case with Apple's closed OS. That is why about 65% of all apps in Market are free, and only 35% paid. In Appstore, about 70% are paid, only 30% free. Statistics: http://androidheadlines.com/2010/09/app-store-vs-android-market-how-much-is-paid-for.html.
Secondly, you'll find that Market currently supports purchases in only 13 markets while the App Store does so in 90. These numbers will change as time passes by and more markets will be included, but I'm sure that Android will always be a platform with much more free apps than iOS, and that's the beauty of Android.
As far as I'm aware the developers have a say regarding that 24 hour refund policy. An application can be made to be non-refundable if they choose to.
In comparing developers for iOS and Android, you have to also look at who they are individually. Sure, there are many apps developed across the board for all mobile devices, but I think the core of the Android Market are individuals who develop apps just for the sake of developing apps. They enjoy what they do and they would do it regardless of profit.
Of course you have a few that try to make money, but I believe they are the exception rather than the rule.
I mean no offense when I say this, but I believe that the iPhone attracts a very different type of user than Android does. Most people I personally know that use the iPhone do so more out of status and pretentiousness than its own usefulness. Many do not even know the majority of things they could do with the iPhone. Those I know who use Android use it because they root it and do their own modifications, overclocking, etc.
With this in mind, I believe that Android apps are generally created by a different kind of developer for a different kind of user.
shinji257 said:
As far as I'm aware the developers have a say regarding that 24 hour refund policy. An application can be made to be non-refundable if they choose to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We have absolutely no say in whether or not out apps are refunded. If I showed you the numbers of instant refunds you'd puke. And the OP states $200 million to $5 million which is ridiculously off. I believe Google just reported that they passed $1 billion in sales (profit) from the Android Market. Either way, it's way more than $5 million a month.
All that said I personally am happy with what I have been able to do with the Market. I expected a little better on my most recent app but it takes time for people to get word of a new app. That's pretty much the problem I've found. It's hard to get noticed. But I still think it's pretty good. There is a lot I absolutely hate about the Market and a bunch of things I like about it. I'd still rather develop for Android and ironically, none of the apps I have created would even work on iPhone. Two are root apps and one requires a modification of the browser which is not allowed on iPhone (for no apparent good reason, I might add).
I am glad to hear that this isn't as big of an issue as I read online, it would be sad to see a great plattform to be hurten, as you can see with the WebOS.
As for not getting recognized, a few tips I have about that is not to rely too much on people finding your app in the market, but rather advertise it yourself, use your facebook and twitter and even this forum (if the forum policy allow that, I am not sure on that again since I am not a developer). I love the QR codes, I actually see many of them in bathroom stalls and other places, and I always check on them since it's in my curiosity to find out where they get me.
I'm making an extra living off paid apps on the Marketplace.
Oh, and an extra living off free apps with Admob.
So now I'm making 3 livings worth. It's wonderful. I have no complaints.
I mean no offense when I say this, but I believe that the iPhone attracts a very different type of user than Android does. Most people I personally know that use the iPhone do so more out of status and pretentiousness than its own usefulness. Many do not even know the majority of things they could do with the iPhone. Those I know who use Android use it because they root it and do their own modifications, overclocking, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're forgetting about Droid users. You'd be surprised how many people own an Android just for status and pretentiousness. It goes both ways. I even know a few people with Androids that don't even know that they have an Android.
1. Google could increase the quality of design of the API and give different APIs to paid vs free Apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wouldn't that mean closing the source? Or you think people will use opensource platform that only runs free apps over opensource platform that runs both?
I don't think I want closed source OS on my phone, if I did I'd probably use iPhone.
2. Sadly I have to mention it because of all the Leachers and then P2P distributors, remove the 24 hour refund policy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pirates do buy software sometimes, how do you think it gets to P2P networks in the first place? One of them buys it, his friend cracks it and everyone else gets it 4free.
So it wouldn't solve anything, removing the refund would only make legit customers angry if the app doesn't work.
3. Google to hire more developers in house who are paid and create free apps that can compete with the AppStore (which would cost Google a fortune). Maybe then charge a small amount for Google Voice to do some financial damage report.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought google did hire developers and they do create free apps. I don't think competing with appstore is their ultimate goal though, since appstore and iphoneos are completely closed.
Charging for services is something I agree with completely.
They should indeed make certain (not all) services cost money. But they should also keep the software free and open to ensure the quality.
4. Change the Markets way how people pay for apps? I noticed that in the past on my iPhone the decision to actually PAY for an app was much easier and faster for me, I didn't even bother to look for a free alternative.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was much easier and faster because apple paid someone to make it easier and faster.
I'm not so sure google is willing to invest money into closed source software, especially when you consider these 3 facts.
1. Closed source software has a limited amount of developers who are working to make it better, faster and more efficient.
2. More developers on a single project means more features, more bugfixes and faster development.
3. Opensource software in general is more secure because everyone can see the source code.
5. Try to Market Android more towards people who are less geeks (who know where and how to find a free solution to the app they need), as in change the look of Android and make it much more simple for the average Joe day to day user (which I would hate because that means remove or hide many of the great features that make Android what I like so much about it and go back to a more primitive system like the iOS4). And tell hardware manufacturers to create more shiny phones.
--> Since most people who don't know how to get free alternatives, or who don't know and don't have the time to learn how to find free alternatives are people that are buying a product for the lifestyle and to show off (iPhone).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I don't like being labeled, I think marketing should be focused on pushing Android for everyone, not just specific groups of people.
User knows what works best for him so let him decide what to buy. Wide selection of devices that share the base operating system is great, but user should decide what type of software he wants to use, not google nor apple.
User should also decide what type of service he wants to use and whether that service is free or paid.
Changing the look of Android to make it more simple is something I'd personally hate, but we should always have options.
It would be great to flash an extremely simple android OS for my grandmother's phone for example, while keeping my VNC and SSH on my own device.
Also, don't think there's much difference between android users and iphone users, they're just people anyway. And there's an equal amount of pirated iphone apps and android apps.
Only real difference is about the OS, where one offers you a choice and another forces you to pay and develops restrictions instead of new features.
What are YOUR ideas to fix this issue? - Thank you for everyone posting solutions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think there is an issue, devs get paid from pushing ads, users are happy with a wide selection of apps. Some services are free some services cost money. Just my 2c
Microsoft and Nokia have just announced a broad partnership which could possibly mean a big threat to HTC.
What do you guys think about this?
Open Letter from CEO Stephen Elop, Nokia and CEO Steve Ballmer, Microsoft
Microsoft blog editor
10 Feb 2011 8:51 PM
Today in London, our two companies announced plans for a broad strategic partnership that combines the respective strengths of our companies and builds a new global mobile ecosystem. The partnership increases our scale, which will result in significant benefits for consumers, developers, mobile operators and businesses around the world. We both are incredibly excited about the journey we are on together.
While the specific details of the deal are being worked out, here’s a quick summary of what we are working towards:
• Nokia will adopt Windows Phone as its primary smartphone strategy, innovating on top of the platform in areas such as imaging, where Nokia is a market leader.
• Nokia will help drive and define the future of Windows Phone. Nokia will contribute its expertise on hardware design, language support, and help bring Windows Phone to a larger range of price points, market segments and geographies.
• Nokia and Microsoft will closely collaborate on development, joint marketing initiatives and a shared development roadmap to align on the future evolution of mobile products.
• Bing will power Nokia’s search services across Nokia devices and services, giving customers access to Bing’s next generation search capabilities. Microsoft adCenter will provide search advertising services on Nokia’s line of devices and services.
• Nokia Maps will be a core part of Microsoft’s mapping services. For example, Maps would be integrated with Microsoft’s Bing search engine and AdCenter advertising platform to form a unique local search and advertising experience
• Nokia’s extensive operator billing agreements will make it easier for consumers to purchase Nokia Windows Phone services in countries where credit-card use is low.
• Microsoft development tools will be used to create applications to run on Nokia Windows Phones, allowing developers to easily leverage the ecosystem’s global reach.
• Microsoft will continue to invest in the development of Windows Phone and cloud services so customers can do more with their phone, across their work and personal lives.
• Nokia’s content and application store will be integrated with Microsoft Marketplace for a more compelling consumer experience.
We each bring incredible assets to the table. Nokia’s history of innovation in the hardware space, global hardware scale, strong history of intellectual property creation and navigation assets are second to none. Microsoft is a leader in software and services; the company’s incredible expertise in platform creation forms the opportunity for its billions of customers and millions of partners to get more out of their devices.
Together, we have some of the world’s most admired brands, including Windows, Office, Bing, Xbox Live, NAVTEQ and Nokia. We also have a shared understanding of what it takes to build and sustain a mobile ecosystem, which includes the entire experience from the device to the software to the applications, services and the marketplace.
Today, the battle is moving from one of mobile devices to one of mobile ecosystems, and our strengths here are complementary. Ecosystems thrive when they reach scale, when they are fueled by energy and innovation and when they provide benefits and value to each person or company who participates. This is what we are creating; this is our vision; this is the work we are driving from this day forward.
There are other mobile ecosystems. We will disrupt them.
There will be challenges. We will overcome them.
Success requires speed. We will be swift.
Together, we see the opportunity, and we have the will, the resources and the drive to succeed.
Stephen Elop, CEO, NOKIA and Steve Ballmer, CEO, MICROSOFT
I think this will help wp7 become a major competitor of android and iphone. It will bring some competition to HTC, but that's what brings innovation and creativity. HTC will be fine. We might be seeing some nice devices from nokia... and nokia devices have always been pretty hackable. So whether this is good or bad for HTC, I think this will be good for us consumers.
• Nokia will help drive and define the future of Windows Phone. Nokia will contribute its expertise on hardware design, language support, and help bring Windows Phone to a larger range of price points, market segments and geographies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm guessing by "Larger range of price points" they mostly mean cheaper phones. While budget phones have traditionally been one of Nokia's strong points, I think it's not necessarily a good idea for Microsoft to use WP7 for this. Given the hardware requirements for WP7, they simply won't be able to beat Android there. At the same time, they will most likely be eroding WP7's image as a premium experience. This, to me, seems like a huge mistake.
• Nokia and Microsoft will closely collaborate on development, joint marketing initiatives and a shared development roadmap to align on the future evolution of mobile products.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great! I can't wait for Nokia to add the same magical touch to WP7 that made their own flagship phones, like the N97, such a joy to use!
• Nokia’s content and application store will be integrated with Microsoft Marketplace for a more compelling consumer experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're not talking about that OVI stuff, are they? A more compelling consumer experience, really? From what I can see, Microsoft's Marketplace is doing quite well as it is.
Overall, I see this as a desperate move by both players involved. Nokia has failed utterly to bring something worthwhile to the smartphone market in the past years. I'm guessing Microsoft is just desperate to put more WP7 hardware out there - right now, it seems that for every WP7 phone, the same manufacturer will have at least 10 Android phones in its line-up.
I like this. Nokia is still a huge player. And both could benefit from this.
Nokia is known for its great and robust hardware.
Nokia could bring a n95 like device, with a larger screen, slide out nummeric or qwerty keyboard and carl zeiss optics, where HTC has to do it with other camera lenses.
Good move all round.
I think it is a good move allround remember Nokia own NAVTEQ
the leading global provider of maps, traffic and location data.
It’s not like they can put out cheep W7P, due to the minimum speck Microsoft has I am looking forward to a high end W7P in about a year, when my contract runs out.
WP7 may be superior to Apple iOS when used by the novice consumer. Nokia does create marvelous hardware.
Together, they may give Apple and Google a real run for the money.
I think the best thing for us is real competion in the market.
Plus I really hope that the new WP7 will grow strong in time - after all the having choice is the best thing for us - the consumers.
Btw. I found this thing on the net no so long ago - wonder if this will be real
http://www.nokiaphones.net/nokia-concept-windows-phone-7-smartphone/
looks pretty nice and apparently it's designed by a design studio from poland
http://www.mindsailors.com/
I would change the term "threat" from the thread title to "chance".
HTC has been the strongest fighter for the Windows Mobile platform, and they are the strongest competitor with Windows Phone 7, too.
Microsoft won´t be that stupid to endanger that valuable long-term partnership.
In the opposite, I do believe the new partnership between MS and Nokia might bring a certain boost to WP7. But then again, 2 big losers in the same ship doesn´t mean this makes everything a winner. Both of them missed too many opportunities for too much time.
Problem is usually, they are too big, too slow, too far away from us, the users.
In the sum, HTC might be one of the bigger winners on the long run.
Recently, there’s been a lot of misinformation in the press about Android and Google’s role in supporting the ecosystem. I’m writing in the spirit of transparency and in an attempt to set the record straight. The Android community has grown tremendously since the launch of the first Android device in October 2008, but throughout we’ve remained committed to fostering the development of an open platform for the mobile industry and beyond.
We don’t believe in a “one size fits all” solution. The Android platform has already spurred the development of hundreds of different types of devices – many of which were not originally contemplated when the platform was first created. What amazes me is that the even though the quantity and breadth of Android products being built has grown tremendously, it’s clear that quality and consistency continue to be top priorities. Miraculously, we are seeing the platform take on new use cases, features and form factors as it’s being introduced in new categories and regions while still remaining consistent and compatible for third party applications.
As always, device makers are free to modify Android to customize any range of features for Android devices. This enables device makers to support the unique and differentiating functionality of their products. If someone wishes to market a device as Android-compatible or include Google applications on the device, we do require the device to conform with some basic compatibility requirements. (After all, it would not be realistic to expect Google applications – or any applications for that matter – to operate flawlessly across incompatible devices). Our “anti-fragmentation” program has been in place since Android 1.0 and remains a priority for us to provide a great user experience for consumers and a consistent platform for developers. In fact, all of the founding members of the Open Handset Alliance agreed not to fragment Android when we first announced it in 2007. Our approach remains unchanged: there are no lock-downs or restrictions against customizing UIs. There are not, and never have been, any efforts to standardize the platform on any single chipset architecture.
Finally, we continue to be an open source platform and will continue releasing source code when it is ready. As I write this the Android team is still hard at work to bring all the new Honeycomb features to phones. As soon as this work is completed, we’ll publish the code. This temporary delay does not represent a change in strategy. We remain firmly committed to providing Android as an open source platform across many device types.
The volume and variety of Android devices in the market continues to exceed even our most optimistic expectations. We will continue to work toward an open and healthy ecosystem because we truly believe this is best for the industry and best for consumers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source: http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-think-im-having-gene-amdahl-moment.html
I love Mozilla, but from what I've read it doesn't seem like there is really any point to Firefox OS.
Other than flaming me, could you please list some specifics as to why it's beneficial?
I've talked to a lot of people in person about it and they all seem to talk about potential to grow like Android. The main problem I see with this is that whereas Android filled an obvious gap in the market, Firefox OS is trying to carve a niche in now heavily fortified waters. The fact that Windows Mobile both says they'll be happy for 1% of the market, buys off Nokia and pays off devs to port apps, it should be a pretty clear sign this will be a major challenge for Mozilla when a company with a scrooge mcduck tower of cash is piling money on the issue and still getting limited results.
For the record, I'm going to install it on my of my old devices just to play around with it but in the meantime if anyone could pose a good argument for Firefox OS then I'd all ears. It'd be nice to know the time I'll spend setting it up is worth more than just curiosity and Mozilla sympathy.
Or just flame me and call me a noob
in my opinion, we definitely need firefox os. if it will be of any advantage for your user experience, is heavily dependent of its success. but it's the only smartphone os, that uses a really open approach. since most apps are shortcuts for browsing to a certain web page on your smartphone, basing the whole os on a browsing engine makes a lot of sense. and it makes lots of things easier for devs.
It seems promising to have a fully custoimizable and open source OS for low end phones. FOS could extend the lifetime of many phones which is a nice perspective instead of throwing away functional hardware.
FirefoxOS is:
Customisable, free
Hardware UN-requiring
This means that low end phones can use the fos because they don't need powerful hardware, and poorer people in countries like Brazil or Ghana can use modern phones for little price. It's not really meant for our newer phones high-end.
defender of the Open Web
Most important is that Firefox OS seems to be the most tangible defence to keep our Open Web environment from becoming closed. With Firefox OS, the millions of new users from Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Central / South America who are now just starting to buy low cost smart-phones will enjoy using, coding and Creating in Java and HTML 5, and be free to ignore 5.1 with its restrictions such as DRM.
Right now, the Web, Free and Open as we know it seems to be dying! Here's what Danny Obrien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote on October 2 (link to full article after the quote):-
… where you cannot cut and paste text; where your browser can’t “Save As…” an image; where the “allowed” uses of saved files are monitored beyond the browser; where JavaScript is sealed away in opaque tombs; and maybe even where we can no longer effectively “View Source” on some sites, is a very different Web from the one we have today. It’s a Web where user agents—browsers—must navigate a nest of enforced duties every time they visit a page.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standards
I think why people should bother with B2G/Firefox OS is because it's not as complicated as Android - Android has a bunch of stuff that most of the time people won't even bother using so that's one benefit with B2G... Apart from the fact that it's not very hardware dependent, it's also simple and fast and aims at open source which Android seems to be lacking nowadays...
Because no Google there..
Sent from my GT-N5110 using xda app-developers app
Because we like to evolve, have choices and detest monopoly (imagineyou turning into an android ;p)
Becouse is extra
Sent from my GT-S5670 using xda app-developers app
No google, is the point!
I would love to see FireFox as an mobile /tablet platform, because it has given middleware which can run webapps. which i feel is far better than any other achievement unlike any other platform where middleware are heavy sometimes VM's to run app in UI. Firefox gives ability to run apps with PC like standards(HTML5, CSS3) etc.
i personally tested and best thing is there search is quite competing with google search for Android. try one .
Lot of other competeres try making webapps as there UI framework but fais may be because there inexperience, i am hoping Firefox with there vast knowledge can create a ecosystem where mobile ui/ PC ui will became synonyms. in that case nothing except a good webkit will solve all issues. till then we can wait.
~Amit
amorley said:
I love Mozilla, but from what I've read it doesn't seem like there is really any point to Firefox OS.
Other than flaming me, could you please list some specifics as to why it's beneficial?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In 2002 and 2003, the world was saying the same thing about Mozilla's browser. What's the point? IE 6 was pretty amazing (seriously!) when it came out and most Web developers I talked to were happy to have one target client. That sentiment was very different after 2005 when Firefox demonstrated to the world that the Web was stagnating. Most Web developers changed their tunes and started demanding Microsoft release newer versions with modern capabilities and erase IE 6 from the face of the Earth.
Mozilla is a non-profit dedicated to pushing the boundaries of what's possible with Web technology while putting users at the center of their computing experience. We are here with no other agenda. We're not trying to sell ads. We're not trying to sell hardware. We're not trying to grow subscribers. We're trying to put users in more control and to expand the possibilities for the best operating system ever created -- the Web.
That's enough reason for me.
- Asa
(15 year Mozilla veteran)
As a developer I love it because I don't need to code twice (at best) if I want my app to work on multiple devices, screen sizes, OSs, future OSs, etc. The WEB is the platform so my app can easily intercomunicate with other webapps regardless of their underlying technology, because the WEB has standards. This will result in better and rich apps with better and rich services WITHOUT being enslaved by any platform/SDK specifics.
FirefoxOS is the next common-sense step on mobile technology and I'm pretty sure we are going to see Boot2Webkit, Boot2Blink, from the other companies... and if we don't, we will see more companies following the same fate as Nokia, Microsoft...
amorley said:
I love Mozilla, but from what I've read it doesn't seem like there is really any point to Firefox OS.
Other than flaming me, could you please list some specifics as to why it's beneficial?
I've talked to a lot of people in person about it and they all seem to talk about potential to grow like Android. The main problem I see with this is that whereas Android filled an obvious gap in the market, Firefox OS is trying to carve a niche in now heavily fortified waters. The fact that Windows Mobile both says they'll be happy for 1% of the market, buys off Nokia and pays off devs to port apps, it should be a pretty clear sign this will be a major challenge for Mozilla when a company with a scrooge mcduck tower of cash is piling money on the issue and still getting limited results.
For the record, I'm going to install it on my of my old devices just to play around with it but in the meantime if anyone could pose a good argument for Firefox OS then I'd all ears. It'd be nice to know the time I'll spend setting it up is worth more than just curiosity and Mozilla sympathy.
Or just flame me and call me a noob
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because Mozilla is helping build a internet the world needs and has been for years. Mozilla is also the most privacy focused company making software and has won awards backing that.
I've been trying hard to get our teams to develop for it but there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for it in China...
I have the Mozilla Flame phone and currently it's stable version is Firefox OS 2.0 and honestly, the improvements they've made make FFOS more unique and beneficial for the user. It's almost up to scratch, just a one or two releases and the features will be there. The speed already is there.
to be free from the grasps of a company who spys on your every move
As a user since version 1.0 on a ZTE Open, I have to say that I don't see a single compelling reason for an end-user to buy a FFXOS device, other than possibly price (debatable: many Android handsets fall into nearly the same price point, and the Lumia 520 is basically the same price as the ZTE Open C and better in every possible regard).
I get that it is an incredibly important vision that Mozilla have for the future of HTML5 and apps, but that matters most on the back end for developers and those who provide apps and services. I also understand that Mozilla have made great efforts to ensure that Open WebAPI is as painless as possible for developers to use, and that using very few lines of code, you can write powerful solutions. These are all fantastic things, and the web and technology in general stand to benefit massively from this.
However, from a purely end-user point of view, I find the UI/UX to be lagging severely behind every other platform, not to mention the relatively poor functionality of the stock apps. They do nothing other platforms don't do better.
The performance is abysmal, even on the Flame, and the battery life fluctuates wildly and does not impress me at all given my usage pattern.
I've filed endless amounts of suggestions for expansion and improvements to UI/UX and 99% of the time am met with blind reticence.
The feel I get is not that this is a platform for everyone by everyone, but a platform for a very small subset of the population (which if you analyze what the platform ships with stock and how they market it, Mozilla seems to have no idea who this population is) controlled by a team with a death-grip on it, fingers in their ears, blindfolds on, chanting "This is perfect, this is perfect, you don't know what you're talking about!".
People's tepid response to the platform and its slow adoption rate should stand as testimony to the fact that the platform is far from perfect.
****, the keyboard STILL sucks complete ass even on v2.2 nightly. Something as fundamental as the primary ****ing input method still isn't even done half-assed correct, so what do you think the rest of the experience is like?
Such a frustrating platform... I really wanted this to be the Phoenix that takes the principles and ideals of webOS from the ashes and sets the world of technology on fire, but it looks more like a poof of smoke at this point.
I'll continue daily-driving the Flame, I'll continue filing bugs and suggestions, and I'll likely continue to pull my hair out in frustration. Hopefully at some point all of my frustration will amount to something positive and I'll be able to whole-heartedly endorse this platform to other end-users and evangelize for it. Currently, that is not even a remote possibility.
Because we should be more principled and not support companies that pay no tax.
I wonder how many people are actually using FFOS as their only phone.
I have a ZTE Open, I am downloading and compiling FFOS builds once every few weeks, hack around just for fun.
But I have an Android for my daily use.
We are a UK ISP and eCommerce company - with an existing demand for a new breed of mobile device.
This is a hardware and software project - we want to build a twinned Android Phone/Tab (probably in China).
The devices will need to perform very specific tasks - within a very specific environment - something which doesn't exist today (so far as we know) and would sell in huge quantities.
We have hacked a Nx to within a inch of its life - and created something interesting - now we want the skills and experience of a true XDAer!
Consequently, we need a truly competent and creative developer - someone capable of designing/ developing then building/ proving the twinned devices to an even higher level.
This is all about convergence: the disruptive merging of two creaky old industries with this very new seamless one.
The potential for revenue is significant; if you can help us solve our current issues, we're happy to reward you accordingly.
Work from home - or in our London/ Southampton/ Scotland offices.
We are a profitable, well established company (>10 years), have a decent turnover (seven figures), with no debt to speak of.
Get in touch...