It looks like soon there will be little to choose between high end Android devices and the latest iPhones, not just in terms of the devices but also the ecosystems that support them. That's a good thing. It's hardly a death knell for Apple though. While Google has been catching up, my entire family has invested heavily in the Apple ecosystem because for the last 6 years it's been the best game in town and has served us well. I think a lot of people are in our position. The opportunity to steal Apple's market from under them has been lost, and Apple's famous customer satisfaction and retention statistics will work in their favour.

For me and I suspect for a lot of people in the iOS user base, parity for Android isn't enough. To switch, it has to be significantly better than what we already have. Yet there are still plenty of people coming into the smartphone and mobile computing world for whom Android will suite them fine. It looks like we're headed for a rare thing in computing - a market in which two platforms with distinct and complementary advantages and disadvantages, become roughly equally viable and pervasive. Imagine a 1990s where Apple had say 40% market share versus Windows, instead of 5%. What a great outcome for customers!

Except the distribution will be more like 20% for Apple and 80% for Android. The world does not revolve around the US.

Apple is very likely to bring a less expensive iPhone to market to address some overseas markets where Android is dominant due to price.

And, while Apple may lose the advantage of having the most remunerative app market, there is still the fact that Apple takes home most of the profit in the industry as a whole, and will probably be able to increase both margins and profits while bringing a cheaper phone to market.

On top of all that, a rising tide is still lifting both Google and Apple, and there might even be buoyancy left over for some dinghy from Finland and a couple other OSs.

Any fundamental risk to Apple is years away, possibly so far away that it's past where some other major shift in the industry will happen.

And now that the Android SDK works with a IDEA-derived IDE, it's less painful to get up to speed coding for Android. Try it. You might like it.

ding! ding! ding! wake up america.

But the Android experience is quite a bit better, IMHO. Have you tried a 720p resolution Galaxy S III or a 1080p resolution S IV? Spectacular display and Android allows for much more customization. BTW, I use an iPad so I am comparing the experience with that since I don't use an iPhone.

That said, the iOS and Android ecosystems are both so very good that I think the decision should be personal preferences - that is my advice to non-tech friends.

This is a related story from Gamasutra about a polling of developers and how they feel about Android now as far issues with Fragmentation and how much money they are making with the platform. The overlying consensus seems to be that Fragmentation isn't much of an issue anymore and iTunes makes more money but Play is catching up fast.

edit: broken link

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/192935/revisiting_andr...

Your link is broken. Here is the one that works and is print-friendly:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/192935/revisiting_andr...

wow I don't know how that happened. Thanks for the correction.

I don't really understand how this is news?

It's basically just spitting out official figures that have been both shared by Google and Apple and making some observations without any narrative behind them?

Of course a more popular platform is going to have more application installs, but that's not important to anyone. What everyone (reporters, analysts, developers) should care about is the percentage of dollars spent, which is the market where consumers are willing to spend to most on mobile apps?

The BBC and BSkyB aren't credible sources for proof that Android is important to developers, they make free apps that rely on an existing business. What we should be talking about is platforms that will create healthy businesses.

>It's basically just spitting out official figures that have been both shared by Google and Apple and making some observations without any narrative behind them?

These days, that's the definition of news (with some sprinkled in opinion).

I'm not sure it's fair to bundle in the BBC for a lack of impartiality. I mean, they're not perfect, but they still rely on subscriber fees, so free app or not, they have less incentive to be biased in that regard.

Developers and financial analysts should care where the money is spent and profits are made, but I'm not sure anyone else should care.

Consumers should care. Because the platform that makes developers the most money is the one they are going to spend the most time on.

Hence more features, better quality experience etc.

These numbers are amazing, both platforms have done much to improve access to information

We had the same access to information with the web years ago.

Very much agree.

Now if someone could convince Google to turn it into a desktop solution. Just add keyboard, mouse and 30" monitor. Would asking for all of them to be wireless be asking too much? :-)

In the end we only need one device that's a little more flexible.

There are tons of Android boxes with HDMI out, built in WIFI and support for bluetooth or USB keyboard and mice. Got one attached to my TV.

In terms of wireless display, there are options but there are multiple competing variations of "HDMI over wireless".

Well, the software can already handle all of those, so it doesn't have to be Google that turns it into a desktop solution.

Lots of chinese 3rd party no-names are making "mini-PCs" running android. There are problems - the android ecosystem has spotty keyboard/mouse support (drag scrolling sucks with a mouse and pinch operations are missing). Also the usual quality concerns with cheap stuff -bad WiFi and heat problems. Finally, remote wake support is poor, so a lot of the devices have no real way to turn them on/off besides unpluggging them.

But they exist and have a sizeable community around hacking with them, primarily as TV boxes. The Ouya should bring this usage into the foreground, plus Dell's plans to make the first brand-named device in this market.

Actually, WinRT is a better OS for this space since it's designed front-to-back with keyboard/mouse and touchscreen support (incl app market requirements) but MS is being their own worst enemy with that platform.

It's being developed, at least if you consider a 'notebook' to be a laptop/desktop. ETA is 3 to 4 months:

http://9to5google.com/2013/05/10/android-notebooks-from-sams...

http://9to5google.com/2013/04/26/200-android-notebooks-on-th...

I think Google is trying to push ChromeOS as their desktop solution in the long term. If anything, I think Google will try to make ChromePhones.

Google would need to significantly improve the platform to make it competetive with Win / Linux / OS X:

* Window managment.

* Compatibility with Linux applications? But that's very hard to do correctly.

* Extend the API, add support for more languages.

Out of curiosity, is anyone developing wireless display technology? We have wireless keyboards/mice and sound - seems the only blocker to what you suggest is wireless monitors.

Yes, there are a number of products on the market. Search for "wireless HDMI". These products are not actually wireless HDMI, though (there's no wireless standard licensed to use the HDMI name).

From a user perspective, I appreciate the choice that two distinct platforms with different goals offer.

Apple is clearly the "high end" platform: the devices are often considerably more expensive, and thus likely to be purchased by users with more disposable income, which implies they might be more willing/able to spend money on apps.

I personally prefer Android systems because phones/tablets are not worth much to me and I'm not willing to pay much. I bought my smartphone (no contract) for $50 (about the max I'd be willing to spend), and my tablet for $200 (also about the max I'd be willing to spend). If an app has a price-tag, I'm usually not interested. (Ads are ok, though).

So in that sense, I'm an ideal/average Android user. I didn't buy my devices to use apps, I bought them for cheap network connectivity on the go.

Apple users have a more app-centered model which leads to higher revenues. It's no surprise to me that app developers focus on Apple, and that's fine with me. My co-workers are always showing me the latest app they bought on their latest iPhone or iPad. When their equipment breaks, they expect (and indeed do) have it serviced. (If my equipment breaks, I'll throw it away and buy something similar; I have no expectation of service). They're the ideal Apple consumer.

"the devices are often considerably more expensive"

iOS devices cost $0-$199 on contract, the same as the most popular Android devices.

the plethora of cheaper Android devices becomes important in countries where the weird American contract-term business model isn't allowed.

True. For this situation, I am referring only to non-contract "retail" price.

How could the installed base for ios be 83 apps per device? Out of 8 or 10 mobile devices I doubt I've ever installed that many apps on any one of them. Would that be doing something like counting the same app multiple times if you wipe and reinstall? Seems like a hard metric to believe otherwise, that's what, ~165 apps per device for each one acting as an offset for the devices that don't get any 3rd party apps installed on them?

Simple: people that aren't you install a lot of apps. I have about fifty after some heavy duty pruning, and I'm a lot less likely to just go buy apps than many of my friends.

It wasn't very long ago at all that there was an upper bound of (16x5) = 90 - ~10 pre installed = maximum upper bound of 80 or so apps on ios? And yet now the average number of installed apps for ios's lifetime is higher than that?

Or maybe it's because it's asymco's numbers.

The fact that the BBC's new strategy is to deliver apps for both platforms at the same time really says something in my opinion. Developers are just now starting to decide that Android is worth it. Not a huge endorsement if you ask me. Android will probably see more installs in the long run but I don't know if they will really be quality.

I'd say the phone industry is starting to approximate the fashion industry, with Apple targeting the high-end designer market and Android the cheaper but much larger mass-market segment.

It really doesn't fit though, if you'll pardon the pun. I see a lot of people investing in ipads that never touch fashion. So while it fits for a certain definition, I don't think it accurately portrays the industry mainly because in fashion you don't really have a singular Apple.

I think this is a bad way to look at business.

What is the platform where your business makes money? That's the one to care about.

Take a look at the Gamasutra feature linked above. You might be surprised.

Is this the new "next year will be the year of the Linux desktop"?

And there is still no official Android PC dist.