I don't think anyone would argue that a single licence across mobile platforms would be a bad thing but this is more down to developers greed rather than a specific issue with apple or Google?
Why does every phone other than the iPhone come with android?
- Thread starter mrochester
- Start date
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,846
- Location
- Blaydon on Tyne
I think it’s probably a bit of both. For apps where you have some sort of account with the developer it would be fairly easy for them to see that you had already purchased the app on one platform. The issue would be how to inform google or Apple of that fact and make the app available for download without a charge. That’s where you’d need a transportable purchase history file that would work cross-platform.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 18,162
- Location
- Surrey
If you buy a game on steam you can play it on steam only. You can't then play it on epic games.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 18,162
- Location
- Surrey
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,846
- Location
- Blaydon on Tyne
Of course I know what tizen is, it primarily features on Samsung’s smart watches but is also on some of their phones.
But I can see your attempt to try and discredit me and I can assure you it will not work
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 18,162
- Location
- Surrey
What mobile os was out when android game out?
We had symbian, Web os, blackberry os, ms os.
Choice.
What did people pick?
On top of that we had versions of android like what amazon had.
We had other heavily edited android versions too.
What did people pick?
They pretty picked android. This was at a time when Gmail didn't exist. When maps wasn't a thing. When android didn't even have a market place online. They picked android.
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,846
- Location
- Blaydon on Tyne
As long as steam is available on all of the platforms that the games are available on then it is immaterial. It doesn’t matter what programme you open to launch the game, it matters that you can launch the game.
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,846
- Location
- Blaydon on Tyne
Well the operating systems we had that were capacitive touch based operating systems were iOS (2007), android (2008), webos (2009), windows phone (2010), MeeGo (2010).
windows phone gained the most significant share following iOS and android but google continued to break functionality for windows phone users and didn’t make their apps available for the platform. That pretty much killed windows phone. Other developers much smaller than google seemed to manage to create windows phone apps no problem.
Symbian was a crap capacitive touch OS because they failed to rebuild from the ground up. Blackberry had the same problem due to being dpad and button driven. Windows Mobile was built for a stylus rather than a finger.
The third player that could have been successful (windows phone) was crippled by Google’s anti-competitive behaviour. Windows phone was a direct threat to Google’s ability to collect user data that they engaged in immoral business practices to kill it off (deliberately breaking stuff that Microsoft had built, not making their own first party apps available). A company the size of google, who likes to be perceived as a cross-platform player, would definitely have not had any resource issues building and supporting windows phone apps.
And this apparently from a company that is ‘open’ and cross-platform.
Last edited:
Google are a competitor under no obligation to support their competition. Many of the google apps were for services that microsoft had competing products for such as search and email.
Quite sure you'll have a response for this but how about imessage? Apple haven't provided an app for that cross platform even though it would be perfectly possible as proved by all the other messaging apps that exist... Safari? Nope... etc etc.
How do you explain the fact that there wasn't a native instagram app? That had nothing to do with with google?
Windows phone died because it was worse and had poorer support all on it's own, just like how Apple succeeded with little to no help from Google and Google thrived with little to no support from anyone else.
If you're suggesting that any alleged anti competitive practices were the sole reason for windows phone failing or indeed that microsoft don't have a long and storied history of engaging in exactly the same and had more than enough money to do it again if they'd wanted to then that would be interesting.
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,846
- Location
- Blaydon on Tyne
When did Apple say or indicate that iMessage was cross platform? When did they support one platform but not another?
This is the key difference. YouTube is *supposed* to be cross platform (as had already been demonstrated by the fact that google supported multiple platforms). Yet the single competitor that was the most threatening to google (windows phone), they did not support and actively sabotaged Microsoft’s efforts to allow users access to those services.
That is the behaviour that I think should be outlawed to prevent platform owners with cross-platform services from using them to disadvantage a competitor and hurt competition (i.e, you cannot prevent a competitor access to your cross-platform service if you also own one of those platforms). It’s highly anti-competitive. The easiest way to sort this is to mandate that if you are creating a cross-platform service, you MUST create APIs to allow a competitor to hook into that service.
Last edited:
Oh yeah.. microsoft were definitely the main competitor for google.. 100% for sure. Definitely not apple.. for whom google make apps.
I mean in the mobile first economy where people's primary computing device has been the mobile for some time...
Sure...
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,846
- Location
- Blaydon on Tyne
Your post makes no sense. Microsoft were the only other 'big' company making an OS that could be licensed by anyone who wanted to license it. That made them google's biggest competitor in the smartphone operating system market. That's why google crippled their ability to bring google services to the platform.
Apple's platform is self-limiting by virtue of being on Apple hardware only. That's why google have no problem making their services available on iOS because not everyone can or will afford to be able to get an Apple device (i.e., it's not a true competitor to android).
Only by your warped view of the smartphone operating system market. To everyone else (and importantly, the industry itself) the competition is between iOS and Android. There are levels of competition such as Apple vs Samsung, Samsung vs Huawei etc etc but it's always partially segmented as OS competition.
In that sense Microsoft were never a credible competitor. The people make things for Apple is because you have to because they've got so much market share that if you've got a hope of being successful you have to work with them which is about as anti competitive as you can get, they're also notable sherlockers of successful services.
They also have the benefit of having the most affluent customers so if you're gong to make an app better make it there because they stand the greatest chance of delivering you some revenue. Plenty of people have humongous issues with it but to stop would torpedo their business.
You can keep telling me my views make no sense or whatever but the fact I've been in the industry for over 2 decades would suggest otherwise.
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,846
- Location
- Blaydon on Tyne
I’m sorry but you are just... wrong.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,786
Guessing the OP doesn't realise how much work would be involved to make a competitor mobile system.
You can't have too many platforms, developers don't have the resources to support multiple operating systems, people also don't want to go to an Operating System with an empty app store. Its just the way it is and probably always will be.
You can't have too many platforms, developers don't have the resources to support multiple operating systems, people also don't want to go to an Operating System with an empty app store. Its just the way it is and probably always will be.
Ok you win.
Deleted member 209350
Deleted member 209350
These chinese phone companies like Huawei, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Oppo etc.. They should adopt the same OS, one thats different to android.
That way we'll have a nice split of 3:
Chinese companies: cOS (chinese OS)
Samsung/Google/Razer/Asus: Android
iPhone: iOS
Brands that should quit the smartphone market: Sony, HTC, LG, Motorola, Nokia
That way we'll have a nice split of 3:
Chinese companies: cOS (chinese OS)
Samsung/Google/Razer/Asus: Android
iPhone: iOS
Brands that should quit the smartphone market: Sony, HTC, LG, Motorola, Nokia
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 11,633
- Location
- Crowmarsh
In most industries there's usually two big players, that's just the way it is. It would cost a lot to develop a competing os and it would likely be overlooked for the big two.
Deleted member 209350
Deleted member 209350
I think China would be able to manage, they have plenty of brands that are all doing really well in the smartphone market. I think it would just make sense for them to make a new OS and all the brands to adopt it
