[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Not sure about the rest, but Samsung was (and maybe still is) offering bonuses for Tizen development....that from what I understood, very few took the offer on. And to a degree, it makes sense. Why spend a fair amount of time developing an app/program for less than 10% of a given population? To add to that, not everyone in that percentile will install the app.

Back when they were trying to promote their platform... yes the did. Much like Microsoft did. Both companies realized that developers needed incentives. BlackBerry "said" that they did....

All three had to because they waited too long..... in five years iOS and Android were established and owned the market. Anyone trying to start over with zero marketshare, couldn't expect investment by big developers for free.

[Golfdriver97]

Back when they were trying to promote their platform... yes the did. Much like Microsoft did. Both companies realized that developers needed incentives. BlackBerry "said" that they did....

All three had to because they waited too long..... in five years iOS and Android were established and owned the market. Anyone trying to start over with zero marketshare, couldn't expect investment by big developers for free.

I left my post a little too long and lost my thoughts.

I agree with what Samsung did. That totally makes sense. You are right that they needed to do something, and cash can be a large motivator.

The questions were more possibilities from the developer's point of view and why they didn't take incentives.

But more for the OP....For each of them, it was the idea of far too little, done too late. None could become widespread as consumers made their choices with their purchases.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

I left my post a little too long and lost my thoughts.

I agree with what Samsung did. That totally makes sense. You are right that they needed to do something, and cash can be a large motivator.

The questions were more possibilities from the developer's point of view and why they didn't take incentives.

But more for the OP....For each of them, it was the idea of far too little, done too late. None could become widespread as consumers made their choices with their purchases.

Some did that Microsoft and Samsung up on their incentives... just not enough to make the platform complete enough for what everyday consumers wanted. And in MSFT case they did the bare minimum... those apps for Windows didn't come close to their iOS and Android counterparts. But with Windows 10 they were even later than BB was with BB10.... it simple was too little too late.

[cckgz4]

Windows Phone has influenced a LOT of design elements in Android and iOS currently. During it's launch, Microsoft was the most aggressive with advertisement. Google also pulled a power move and kept it's apps from running on their devices (iOS barely shared their services then so that wasn't really an option). In the end, Google and Apple will never allow it to happen. They control the market and they will just hold their services over the competition's head if anyone gains popularity.

But I miss Windows Phone

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Windows Phone has influenced a LOT of design elements in Android and iOS currently. During it's launch, Microsoft was the most aggressive with advertisement. Google also pulled a power move and kept it's apps from running on their devices (iOS barely shared their services then so that wasn't really an option). In the end, Google and Apple will never allow it to happen. They control the market and they will just hold their services over the competition's head if anyone gains popularity.

But I miss Windows Phone

How were Google or Apple different from any other Developer?

It wasn't about holding back the competition, it was about not wasting resources on a platform with hardly any users.

In my mind MSFT was incompetent, they more than anyone should have understood the importance of having an early ecosystem lead. That what made Windows dominate with DOS and Windows.

They certainly had more than enough software engineers. Had plenty of money to throw at the problem. Yet they never really seemed to "get it", what the whole mobile platform thing was about. They focused way too much on merging the Windows experience - which wasn't possible with early hardware. By the time everything came together... it was way too late.

The Mobile Smartphone War was won based on decisions made way back in 2005 - 2008. Everyone that waited until after Apple and Google had defined the "new" smartphone age (more than just email and basic browser) to react... waited too long.

Wasn't a matter of Apple and Google being bullies, it was simply a matter of the early bird gets the worm.

[cckgz4]

How were Google or Apple different from any other Developer?

It wasn't about holding back the competition, it was about not wasting resources on a platform with hardly any users.

In my mind MSFT was incompetent, they more than anyone should have understood the importance of having an early ecosystem lead. That what made Windows dominate with DOS and Windows.

They certainly had more than enough software engineers. Had plenty of money to throw at the problem. Yet they never really seemed to "get it", what the whole mobile platform thing was about. They focused way too much on merging the Windows experience - which wasn't possible with early hardware. By the time everything came together... it was way too late.

The Mobile Smartphone War was won based on decisions made way back in 2005 - 2008. Everyone that waited until after Apple and Google had defined the "new" smartphone age (more than just email and basic browser) to react... waited too long.

Wasn't a matter of Apple and Google being bullies, it was simply a matter of the early bird gets the worm.

It was all about holding back the competition. To answer your question, yes other companies have done the same. And yes, everyone that was comfortable being on top let Google and Android rise by slowly reacting.

But they very much indeed pull power moves to hold back everyone else. Google was going back and forth with access to their apps. They'd give it, then take it back, then give it, take it back (Youtube comes to mind).

And while this is the fault of the companies, all of these events have led to a duopoly in the phone tech where as before, even though WinMo and Blackberry were holding the cards, cheaper phones with their own OS and even newbies in the smartphone world were able to share a good amount of profit. Now it's next to impossible, and since nobody checked Google and Apple, we will be confined to just these two.

[Chuck Finley69]

It was all about holding back the competition. To answer your question, yes other companies have done the same. And yes, everyone that was comfortable being on top let Google and Android rise by slowly reacting.

But they very much indeed pull power moves to hold back everyone else. Google was going back and forth with access to their apps. They'd give it, then take it back, then give it, take it back (Youtube comes to mind).

And while this is the fault of the companies, all of these events have led to a duopoly in the phone tech where as before, even though WinMo and Blackberry were holding the cards, cheaper phones with their own OS and even newbies in the smartphone world were able to share a good amount of profit. Now it's next to impossible, and since nobody checked Google and Apple, we will be confined to just these two.

That’s a flawed conclusion. Much like we have a desktop OS duopoly, we have a mobile OS duopoly. It costs enormous resources to support more than two of anything, especially things like technology OS platforms.

The biggest flaw to your conclusion is that developers want other platforms. Most developers struggle to support two platforms well. The Android/IOS platforms have made this obvious with Snapchat for instance. Snapchat begrudgingly supports Android but there are others that are similar.

It’s no different than hardware. Vendors, like case manufacturers, are happy with current duopoly/triopoly to standardize products. Retailers and Carriers are happy too. Consumers are happy because the vast majority support the system economically. Capitalism is a wonderful thing for innovation and making technology available to masses.

[cckgz4]

That’s a flawed conclusion. Much like we have a desktop OS duopoly, we have a mobile OS duopoly. It costs enormous resources to support more than two of anything, especially things like technology OS platforms.

The biggest flaw to your conclusion is that developers want other platforms. Most developers struggle to support two platforms well. The Android/IOS platforms have made this obvious with Snapchat for instance. Snapchat begrudgingly supports Android but there are others that are similar.

It’s no different than hardware. Vendors, like case manufacturers, are happy with current duopoly/triopoly to standardize products. Retailers and Carriers are happy too. Consumers are happy because the vast majority support the system economically. Capitalism is a wonderful thing for innovation and making technology available to masses.

Developers can gripe and moan all they want. In the end, even if it's a small percentage, consumers want variety. I think the only reason why no one is making a stink over everything is because Android provides phones of all shapes and sizes. But tech consumers like me know it's the same across the board.

And the computer desktop OS is slowly dying due to A) Phones becoming more the go to device and B) Tablets fulfilling the gap between computer and phone. To add, Chrome OS has picked up steam as far as recognition. Sales, maybe not anything to be worried about. But people are slowly recognizing the brand and what it's for: The consumer that doesn't need a full desktop and needs to fulfill the basics and not be bogged with updates.

[cckgz4]

If there wasn't a demand for variety, TCL wouldn't make portrait keyboard phones in a sea of slabs, the company that bought the Nokia brand wouldn't have spent the money to make phones that are Android AND remake their old classics, etc. The call for nostalgia is there, and just like Android, iOS, and any other newcomer, it's going to build. And people will scoff. And someone is going to swoop in with the right product and everyone will react

[thurask]

Developers can gripe and moan all they want. In the end, even if it's a small percentage, consumers want variety.

They have variety, they can pick from the duopoly and from the also-ran platforms that had not enough developer support to maintain a functional ecosystem.

[cckgz4]

They have variety, they can pick from the duopoly and from the also-ran platforms that had not enough developer support to maintain a functional ecosystem.

I feel like if blackberry hadn't made the move to Android, this would be a different discussion.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

I feel like if blackberry hadn't made the move to Android, this would be a different discussion.

You right... we wouldn't be having it, as most things BlackBerry (consumer facing anyway) would have ended in 2016 and CrackBerry would be the ghost town at this point.

Would not have changed the fact that iOS and Android had won the Mobile OS Wars...

[Elephant_Canyon]

I feel like if blackberry hadn't made the move to Android, this would be a different discussion.

Yes. We wouldn’t be talking about BlackBerry phones at all.

Edit: ninja’d

[katxeus]

A day or two back the apple app store made tens years, with the editorial where I sourced it quoting Jobs as calling it "the most important launch of his carrier". What did this guy see in an app store of 50 apps that others didn't?

Posted via CB10

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

A day or two back the apple app store made tens years, with the editorial where I sourced it quoting Jobs as calling it "the most important launch of his carrier". What did this guy see that others didn't with an app eco system of 50 apps?

Posted via CB10

Say something like that enough, and your bound to be right every now and then....

I think JOBS understood the potential of the smartphone... computers had reach only a fraction of the worlds population, but phones with wireless connectivity might far exceed that coverage. Programs / Apps were a big part of the MAC OS ecosystem, made sense that small applications would be key to the mobile experience as devices got more powerful.

Sad thing is RIM sorta knew this... back in 2003 they made it so 3rd Party enterprise application could be pushed out to corporate devices. Yet it wasn't until 2009 that they got around to an actual app store.

[abwan11]

I don't believe jobs came up with idea as much as it was presented to him in various forms and he glued it together. His previous mistake with Lisa and macintosh lack of app support cost him dearly, and he had 15 years to think about what went wrong there.
Apples early days are reminiscent of rims. Great product, lots of hype....but after the intial buzz ...what else can you do?

Postced via CB10

[Chuck Finley69]

Developers can gripe and moan all they want. In the end, even if it's a small percentage, consumers want variety. I think the only reason why no one is making a stink over everything is because Android provides phones of all shapes and sizes. But tech consumers like me know it's the same across the board.

And the computer desktop OS is slowly dying due to A) Phones becoming more the go to device and B) Tablets fulfilling the gap between computer and phone. To add, Chrome OS has picked up steam as far as recognition. Sales, maybe not anything to be worried about. But people are slowly recognizing the brand and what it's for: The consumer that doesn't need a full desktop and needs to fulfill the basics and not be bogged with updates.

Developers really don’t care to gripe. They just don’t make software unless it pays. Consumers want variety and if pays well enough, they’ll get it. Look at BB10, it wasn’t feasible to support and it got EOL’d.

[early2bed]

Another one of THESE threads. Here we go again.

Did I miss any?

Dual boot superphone

[Chuck Finley69]

Lithuanian support and dark hub

[kvndoom]

That’s a flawed conclusion. Much like we have a desktop OS duopoly, we have a mobile OS duopoly. It costs enormous resources to support more than two of anything, especially things like technology OS platforms.

The biggest flaw to your conclusion is that developers want other platforms. Most developers struggle to support two platforms well. The Android/IOS platforms have made this obvious with Snapchat for instance. Snapchat begrudgingly supports Android but there are others that are similar.

It’s no different than hardware. Vendors, like case manufacturers, are happy with current duopoly/triopoly to standardize products. Retailers and Carriers are happy too. Consumers are happy because the vast majority support the system economically. Capitalism is a wonderful thing for innovation and making technology available to masses.

That's a great post. Unfortunately on these forums it's easier to believe that the New World Order conspired to pick the winners, than the fact that the losers made poor decisions.

[cckgz4]

No one disagreed that the competition didn't make bad decisions.

[Chuck Finley69]

No one disagreed that the competition didn't make bad decisions.

But the competition did make the only smart decision through not supporting BB10.

[Troy Tiscareno]

Developers can gripe and moan all they want. In the end, even if it's a small percentage, consumers want variety. I think the only reason why no one is making a stink over everything is because Android provides phones of all shapes and sizes. But tech consumers like me know it's the same across the board.

Variety exists (and existed). Before iOS there was Palm, BB, WinMobile, and Symbian. Since iOS we've had WebOS, WinPhone, BB10, Tizen, Ubuntu Phone, FirePhone, FireFox OS, Jolla Sailfish, and LuneOS - and I'm sure I'm missing some. And as you mentioned, there's a huge variety of Android devices.

But you don't really want VARIETY - you want WELL-SUPPORTED variety - and that's never going to happen because it isn't financially feasible. In the real world, things make money or they are abandoned for something else that does. You can see that in a thousand places. CRT displays were a massive business for 60 years, but how many are made each year today? How many Bakelite desk telephones? Hell, how many phonebooths? How many places can you buy film, or get film developed?

All of those things once made a lot of money, but when the money stopped, so did the support. BB10 *never* made any money - in fact it was a massive loss for BB - and it is now over.

I get that you like BB10, and perhaps PKB phones, and maybe tiny-screened one-handed devices, etc. That's perfectly okay - but it also makes you an outlier - outside of mainstream tastes - and outliers routinely see things they like killed, because there's often no money in supporting the desires of an outlier.

That's absolutely the case with something that requires tens of billions of investment from tens or hundreds of thousands of different companies (like a well-supported smartphone ecosystem) - only the most mainstream choices are going to be supported because supporting the small niches is a money-losing proposition.

I don't expect you, or other outliers, to LIKE that, but you aren't going to change it either. Profits - and very little else - ultimately dictates success and continued support, or failure and the withdrawal of support.

[cckgz4]

You didn't read any of my original post LOL

[Chuck Finley69]

You didn't read any of my original post LOL

Sure we have. You’re attributing causea whereas it’s more effects. Like access to apps. Consumers pushed the demand and OS developers met the demand. There was no guarantee anything would be successful unless it’s what people wanted and could afford. BB and MSFT told people what they wanted or assumed what they wanted since their interests conflicted with the new mobile OS. Android/IOS had nothing to lose in the mobile OS since they were the underdogs.