Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Feature Phones Make Java ME, Not Android, the #2 Mobile Internet OS

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the feature-creature dept.

Android 286

bonch writes "According to a report from NetApplications, which has measured browser usage data since 2004, Oracle's Java Mobile Edition has surpassed Android as the #2 mobile OS on the internet at 26.80%, with iOS at 46.57% and Android at 13.44%. And the trend appears to be growing. Java ME powers hundreds of millions of low-end 'feature phones' for budget buyers. In 2011, feature phones made up 60% of the install base in the U.S." Looking at the linked chart, it looks Java ME's been ahead of Android for all of 2011, too, except for the month of October.

cancel ×

286 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Holiday impact? (3, Interesting)

DaphneDiane (72889) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572012)

I wonder how much Christmas played into those little bumps. It's almost like people head off buying expensive new phones during that period, possibly in hopes in getting them for gifts. Possibly to afford more gifts. Would have been nice to see back one more year. Because otherwise looks like JavaME is steadily losing share, but had a bump the last two months.

Re:Holiday impact? (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572088)

I wonder how much Christmas played into those little bumps. It's almost like people head off buying expensive new phones during that period, possibly in hopes in getting them for gifts.

Sounds like "gifting" someone a puppy or a kitten. Hey, here's a phone as a gift. Whoops it comes with a $120/year two year contract, so sorry your "gift" actually cost you about three grand over the next two years, hope you don't mind.

Re:Holiday impact? (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572212)

In a family though it makes sense. My spouse got me a Galaxy Nexus for Christmas and her cousin (like 8) got his first cellphone from his parents for Christmas.

Re:Holiday impact? (1)

f()rK()_Bomb (612162) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572994)

What about pay as you go phones? Very few people I know have a contract only the uber geeks who actually use lots of mobile Internet data. Loads of people get pay as you go phones for Xmas.

Re:Holiday impact? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572408)

You are correct. Here is a link to a chart with a slightly longer [netmarketshare.com] time frame.

JavaME has been rapidly losing share to Android. Thanks bonch for bringing this to everyone's attention.

Re:Holiday impact? (5, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573034)

I find it odd that the editors take submissions from people like bonch, or other known partisan trolls here. If you read slashdot with any regularity, you learn to recognize and disregard those names quickly. I'm forced to conclude that the editors either don't read slashdot, or like to post trolling headlines.

Re:Holiday impact? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572652)

Just a little story.
My niece got a pay as you go track phone that has everything java ME running on it for Christmas. You don't need a high end phone with outrageous data plans depending upon who the user is. She's 14 and to help keep her costs down this is the way to go. It teaches how to manage money, time, and teaches how to not only appreciate what you have access to but also teaches that you don't need everything. She can surf the web, post to Facebook, and all the good things that 14 year olds seem to need to do with there friends now a days, and yes texting but apparently that is going to the way side with kids since they can type more and share more faster with their friends on Facebook. People are cost conscience now a days.

Just another... (1, Troll)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572022)

Six months now. [thedailybeast.com]

With these statistics, it's just damn clear that the average Android user isn't using their phones for anything but "dumb phone with nice screen+keyboard" activities.

Re:Just another... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572104)

With these statistics, it's just damn clear that the average Android user isn't using their phones for anything but "dumb phone with nice screen+keyboard" activities

It is?!?? Were you and I reading the same thing? Here's another conclusion: With this comment, it's clear RyuuzakiTetsuya is a stupid person.

Very true (3, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572344)

The upturn for java ME is matched by a drop in iOs, with adroid being rather flat.

Re:Very true (3, Informative)

cybe (92183) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572668)

The "article" like points to a table where the figures mentioned in the blurb are the OLDEST values included, not the LATEST... :) The trend is falling for Java ME, not the other way around.. Duh?

Re:Very true (1)

cybe (92183) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572680)

"The article *link", sorry.

Re:Very true (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572738)

It could also be a case of, "My iPhone or Android phone broke in November, and instead of spending more than it's worth to fix it, I'm just going to limp along with my old phone for a few weeks and get a brand new "best of breed" Android phone for Christmas"

Re:Very true (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572840)

It could also be a case of, "My iPhone or Android phone broke in November, and instead of spending more than it's worth to fix it, I'm just going to limp along with my old phone for a few weeks and get a brand new "best of breed" Android phone for Christmas"

It could also be the case that Apple has secretly developed a faster than light drive and is in contact with the advanced civilization on Arcturus III who will help design the next iPhone which will contain a matter compiler and an ansible.

But I doubt it.

Re:Very true (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572896)

most of those people I suspect thrive on ebay, they pick up a cheep used android phone to limp along, thats what my girlfriend did when her android phone died.

Re:Just another... (-1, Troll)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572398)

Actually the article is complete bullshit because Android is not no. 2, it is the most popular mobile OS. There are more Android devices in the world than there are iOS devices, and their numbers have been increasing faster than any others since 2010.

I can only assume that all the hate towards Android is because it is doing so well, otherwise people would just quietly let it die.

Re:Just another... (3, Informative)

drummerboybac (1003077) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572526)

There are more Android PHONES than iOS PHONES, that is true. When you factor in the iPad and iPod Touch that swings way around in favor of Apple. Hence Mobile Devices

Then Google screwed itself (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572630)

Then Google screwed itself by not initially allowing Android Market on devices with no 3G radio [dailywireless.org] , in effect giving the whole market to Apple.

Re:Then Google screwed itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38573016)

Well, that would depend on whether or not the iTouch actually contributes to a significant share of app revenue, what the sales figures are for non-3g tablets, etc. etc. etc. Google isn't selling the devices, after all; considering that the entire Android endeavor existed to make sure that they wouldn't get locked out of ad revenue as people started using "apps" instead of "websites", it's hard to say whether or not the initial restriction really hurt them. Put another way, if someone buys an Android device and doesn't browse the internet, buy apps, or use apps that have Google ads in them, why would Google give a damn either way?

Serious question: do the companies involved really care about marketshare figures as opposed to profit figures, or is that just a pissing match between fanboys?

Re:Just another... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38573004)

There are more Android PHONES than iOS PHONES, that is true. When you factor in the iPad and iPod Touch that swings way around in favor of Apple. Hence Mobile Devices

Do you have any data to back up this assertion? As far as I know, Apple doesn't even release figures for how many iPod Touches it sold. It lumps them together with iPod sales.

Re:Just another... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572528)

Actually the article is complete bullshit because Android is not no. 2, it is the most popular mobile OS.

This data includes tablets, where iOS holds a near-monopoly. It also includes iPods (the Touch).

Re:Just another... (4, Interesting)

Ixokai (443555) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572594)

Android may have the highest market-share, but what the Article -- and several others done that have rather consistently said the same thing -- is that despite being #1 in number of phones, it has trailed significantly behind iOS in actual web browsing.

For whatever reason, though less people buy an iPhone, a significantly higher margin actually use their iOS device on the web. It is the #1 mobile platform for web browsing. Perhaps because iOS is more then iPhone by a large margin, but Android people tend to hate it when the iPod Touch or iPad are brought up and conflated with the iPhone (even though Apple people tend to view iPhone + iPad + iPod Touch as a single platform). Perhaps its just that iPhone users do use the web more. I have no idea.

But this is not at all an isolated report in that regard. Even Google has stated that about two thirds of their mobile ad revenue comes from the iPhone.

The J2ME thing is weird though and its the first time I've heard of it showing up at all in the top lists, so I dunno what's different about this report then others.

Re:Just another... (0)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573076)

well, the thing that's different is that they deliberately didn't count only "smartphones", of which the definition changes every year. basically this means quite often that they only count devices which cost more than 300 bucks for example as smartphones, regardless of what "smart" functions they have or don't have.

stats makers generally do that, they only count devices which were in sexy it-managment magazine headlines last year.

anyhow, ios web browsing is easier to track too than the gazillion different headers pushed by the various web browsers popular on android.

but what's sad is that androids don't ship with j2me vm's. only symbian of globally big "real" smartphone platforms does that still.

Re:Just another... (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572678)

JavaME 26.80%
iOS at 46.57%

But 60% of phones in the US are feature phones ...so do 6% of feature phones run iOS .... or are these figures made up ...

Android phones vastly outnumber iPhones, but are vastly outnumbered by non-smart phones ...

Re:Just another... (2)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572696)

This is not about installations, this is about web site views. In fact this is the most important data reliably available to use when determining smart phone market share. It's not quite as good as App installs, but those numbers are manipulated by the various manufacturers so can't be trusted. The reason is that what makes a phone a "smartphone" isn't really a device, it's the user's attitude to that device. If the user buys an iPhone and uses it for just phone calls, they may get the boyfriends, but that they aren't making app store purchases and they aren't influencing how people should build web apps.

If you were right, then this is in some sense a disaster for Android because it shows that people who have Android don't actually use it nearly as much as they use iOS. You aren't entirely right however, since the Android installed base is still smaller than iOS; Android is selling more right now but hasn't yet caught up with iOS. I believe Android is just below 200 million and iOS is decisively over 200 million. Furthermore, older Android devices have much worse usability than the newest ones, so it will be a year or so until the installed base of usable Android devices overtakes the installed base of iOS.

Re:Just another... (2, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572776)

This is why I brought up the point that Android's going to catch up to iOS Six Months From Now.

People are buying Android but they're simply just not using Android devices like iOS users are. this is a problem with carriers, phone hardware vendors AND Google. People are buying these phones and just not giving a damn. OTOH, iOS users are actually engaging with their devices. This is poison for Android as an ecosystem.

Re:Just another... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572720)

Not only is article bullshit; the statistics are skewed. They are collected by browser usage.

I use my Android phone for browsing less than 1% of the time I actively use it. With dedicated apps, who needs to use the browser.

Article should have said, #2 browser/environment/OS used for browsing on mobile devices is Java ME.

Re:Just another... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572468)

My anecdote?

My mother had an Android 1.6 phone for a good two years. By the end of that period she'd figured out how to use the camera, but that was it. Now she has an iPhone. She buys apps, emails, messages, loves it. Is she stupid? No, though I'm sure some basement dwellers here will draw that conclusion.

Sure Android has improved a lot since then, and its great for folks like me.

Re:Just another... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572552)

I like Android a lot, but let's be honest here: it was basically terrible until version 2.1 or so.

Re:Just another... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38573060)

They don't tell you that the only site they use for their metrics is apple.com

Re:Just another... (1)

alteran (70039) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573084)

Six months now. [thedailybeast.com]

With these statistics, it's just damn clear that the average Android user isn't using their phones for anything but "dumb phone with nice screen+keyboard" activities.

I'm not sure how you get that conclusion based on this. This metric appears to be saying nothing about how much devices are being used to do specific stuff, but we just don't know.

The metric here is, "Mobile/Tablet Top Operating System Share Trend", which is a pretty nebulous title. Share of what? Market share? How was it determined -- sales? Web access traffic at specific websites? IP traffic through certain ISPs? Which ones?

If they're talking about traffic VOLUME, how can you possibly compare internet access by Android when all those iPads are being lumped in here with the mobile phones? Surely iPad internet use-- streaming, for example, absolutely crushes internet use on smartphones.

I find it disappointing that NetMarketShare doesn't explain what it is they are measuring. If we knew what they were REALLY measuring, these numbers would provide some insight. But without knowing what these numbers are actually based on, it's just an excuse for everybody to just repeat what they always say anyway about iOS / Android / whatever.

Getting apps onto feature phones (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572026)

Is there a standard way to get MIDlets (Java ME applications) onto feature phones without having to get them approved by the phone's manufacturer or the carrier?

Re:Getting apps onto feature phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572144)

Very few J2ME devices impose limits on installing apps, unless the device is sold through a carrier who enabled such restrictions.

So which US carriers impose restrictions? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572218)

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Very few J2ME devices impose limits on installing apps, unless the device is sold through a carrier who enabled such restrictions.

Among Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile USA, which impose and which do not impose such restrictions?

Re:So which US carriers impose restrictions? (1)

wed128 (722152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572420)

It's really hit or miss. AT&T, at least, imposes them on some phones, but not on others.

Re:So which US carriers impose restrictions? (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572686)

The rest of the world where you usually buy a SIM and phone independantly?

Re:So which US carriers impose restrictions? (2)

hitmark (640295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572834)

And this is why i cringe whenever i read a article on mobile tech from a US tech site (and lets face it, most english language tech new is US centric. And the non-english often just translate the english stuff). The US mobile phone market is so ass backwards that it can only really be compared to Japan, if one limits ones view to places that at least try to appear democratic.

Re:Getting apps onto feature phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572756)

Find a .jar file and click on it. That's the way i used to do it.

Re:Getting apps onto feature phones (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572884)

yes. you just have to get the .jar sent to the phone somehow or make the phone to download the .jar
a standard simple way is to make put them on a web server that has the right mime types and then point the phones browser to the .jar there. if you want it to load as signed, to allow for more lax security rules(in actual reality though signing j2me apps is useless, you don't gain much benefits from buying a cert and signing. I know, I tried - what you'd need would be carriers/manufacturers sign. and different for everything. but why does it matter? well, ftp client is no fucking fun at all if you have to press allow 3 times per file saved to filesystem outside of the j2me sandbox! and most phones don't have "allow always" option without carrier or manufacturer signing it into their security domain). anyhow I'm rambling, what I meant to say is that if you want signing, you need to have the .jad there as well(the actual standard I think wants both .jad and .jar always, you know, the application could check where it got the .jad and see if there were updates to it and so on, but almost all phones on the market just want the .jar, it's got all the relevant info anyways and none of them have auto updating anyways and none of the big j2me distribution channels were suited for that anyways..).

here, have a free asteroids clone(parallax scrolling background and shitniz) http://jussin.net/~glass/klash.jar [jussin.net] .

works on anything from s40 2nd edition upwards, motos from razrs etc up. you know what's funny? this is the second mobile phone program I wrote but it still runs on phones you can actually buy! j2me is wonderful in that aspect, a huge back-library of programs available, many for free. too bad android just doesn't ship with a j2me vm..

btw loading from web works usually with even old-ass carrier branded motorolas, even if they're of the variety where local sideloading of j2me apps was disabled.

Re:Getting apps onto feature phones (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572978)

btw loading from web works usually with even old-ass carrier branded motorolas, even if they're of the variety where local sideloading of j2me apps was disabled.

So if local sideloading is disabled on a particular model, and I don't subscribe to a big data plan, how do I test each build?

Mobile OS? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572064)

Duh, since when was Java ME an OS?

More phones run MIDlets than APKs (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572268)

Java ME is an operating environment and a platform, even if it does not necessarily include a kernel (the program that multiplexes access to hardware among multiple processes). Please allow me to rephrase: "More phones are capable of running MIDlets than APKs."

Re:Mobile OS? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572340)

Well first there was Java 3.1,
Then there was Java 3.11, For Workgroups,
Then there was Java 95
Then there was Java 98
Finally there was Java ME

Re:Mobile OS? (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572684)

OS as in the hypervisor everything runs ins. Java ME is to featurephones what Dalvik is to Android phones.

Re:Mobile OS? (1)

wzinc (612701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572564)

They probably mean the unique user agent that a J2ME browser would send.

because (1)

Brian Feldman (350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572098)

Because people routinely use Java applications on their feature-phones, rather than phone-dialing and call-taking features? Really?

Re:because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572210)

Well, according to TFA, more than people use android online.

Re:because (1)

slashgrim (1247284) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572650)

I routinely used a JavaME email app on my "dumb"-phone...kept my net usage to a few MBs per month and was only paying $30/month with T-mobile prepaid (please, please don't let ATT buy them!)...JavaME FTW!

Re:because (1)

closetpsycho (1175221) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572782)

I routinely used a JavaME email app on my "dumb"-phone...kept my net usage to a few MBs per month and was only paying $30/month with T-mobile prepaid (please, please don't let ATT buy them!)...JavaME FTW!

The ATT deal fell through, so no more worrying about a buyout from that direction.

Re:because (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572850)

Opera Mini makes for a much better browser than my phones built in one (much of it helped by the offloading nature of its design), and lately i have found myself using a facebook j2me that the site itself promoted.

What surprises me the most... (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572126)

... is that people are a) paying for data plans for relatively dumb phones or b) surfing that much without a good data plan.

(I've had an iPhone since late 2007, but before that my (%$#@#$&%) kid ran up multi-hundred-dollar phone bills with a basic phone* and data costs of, I think, 20 cents per kilobyte. What does pay-as-you-go data run these days?)

* Nokia 6800, 128x128 color screen.

AOL was 1c per kB (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572308)

20 cents per kilobyte

Even AOL was only 1 cent per kilobyte back in the 2400 bps modem era. Did you really mean 20 cents per kilobyte and not per megabyte?

Re:AOL was 1c per kB (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572458)

my first "data plan" pre-iphone era (way before) was $49.99 for 5 megabytes with something like 20-30 cents per kilobyte after that.

Yeah, it was pretty ridiculous.

Re:AOL was 1c per kB (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572554)

I remember experimentally buying a 500kb (little b) game back in the day over my phone. AT&T charged $5 for the game, and about $5 for the bandwidth to receive the game. It seemed like a bad case of double-dipping to me.

Re:What surprises me the most... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572422)

Outside the US, the cost for a simpler dataplan (say 200mb) is trivial. Cost per megabyte can be somewhat high at times though, or at least they were.
Plus, fact is that for casually reading through very long textblocks, opera mini on a dumbphone offers a more relaxing experience, as you just need to press "8" to 'pagedown'. Swiping requires far more effort, and holding a dumbphone for extended amounts of time is not as straining for the hand.

Re:What surprises me the most... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572558)

My android browser paginates websites for me so i can simply tap to scroll as well, you insensitive clod.

Re:What surprises me the most... (1)

pruss (246395) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572454)

Actually, cheap data plans in some cases can be a reason to stay on a relatively dumb phone, as long as it has a decent browser (and I think there is at least one HTC feature phone that has a good Opera browser). I'm on a no-longer available $30/month 500 minute, unlimited data/text SERO plan with Sprint. I am currently using a Treo 700. According to Sprint, if I were to switch to a more modern "smart phone" (by Sprint's definition), I'd have to switch to a new, much more expensive plan. So if my Treo dies in such a way that it doesn't make economic sense to repair it (I've made minor repairs on its keyboard so far), it could potentially make economic sense to switch to a feature phone with a decent browser so I could stay on the plan, rather than paying the smart phone surcharge.

Re:What surprises me the most... (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572706)

And what business is of theirs what phone you use with what plan? Buy the phone and feel the freedom of being able to just say "screw you!" to your carrier if they try to pull something funny.

Re:What surprises me the most... (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572842)

If it doesn't have a decent browser, Opera Mini is pretty nifty. I use it on my Sony Ericsson C702i. By todays standards, that's a feature phone even though it was sold as a smart phone back in the day. Why, yes, I do indeed have a three year old cellphone. It works, costs me basically nothing. I'm fine.

Re:What surprises me the most... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572898)

Opera Mini offloads much of the traffic and render work to external servers (yep, it breaks the https chain so i would not recommend it for online banking and such). The latest version has a data traffic display that shows that it has reduced the traffic amount by 90% over the usage period since install.

Sorry, but this is bull (4, Insightful)

yelvington (8169) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572164)

I have access to a great deal of actual and current mobile usage data, and this is just completely at odds with reality. "Feature phone" owners in the United States typically do not have data plans and do not use the Internet.

Actual measured usage of mobile Web services by "feature phones" is slightly above that of Windows Mobile, which is to say "irrelevant noise at the bottom of the chart" in the range of 1 to 2 percent.

Grandpa's Jitterbug may in fact run J2ME, but Grandpa doesn't use it.

Re:Sorry, but this is bull (5, Informative)

thebjorn (530874) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572482)

have access to a great deal of actual and current mobile usage data, and this is just completely at odds with reality.

That is my experience too. Statcounter is more representative of what I'm seeing: http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-US-monthly-201012-201112 [statcounter.com]

Re:Sorry, but this is bull (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572496)

I have access to a great deal of actual and current mobile usage data, and this is just completely at odds with reality."Feature phone" owners in the United States typically do not have data plans and do not use the Internet.

Actual measured usage of mobile Web services by "feature phones" is slightly above that of Windows Mobile, which is to say "irrelevant noise at the bottom of the chart" in the range of 1 to 2 percent.

Grandpa's Jitterbug may in fact run J2ME, but Grandpa doesn't use it.

Yes, in the USA, feature phone owners do not use the Internet. However, there are a few poor, sorry souls who do not have the good fortune to live in the Android-buying, iOS-loving, Blackberry-clutching USA.

The summary links to two articles; the first one (Netmarketshare) is global and the second one (Neilsen) is US-specific. Sounds like your data is US-specific as well.

Re:Sorry, but this is bull (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572570)

Yes, in the USA, feature phone owners do not use the Internet.

Not totally accurate. I had internet access with my T-Mobile based Ericsson World Phone. I also had unlimited data on the edge network for only $5 a month.

Re:Sorry, but this is bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572502)

Irrelevant straw-man argument!
As your "argument" does not distinguish Android and JavaME.

Also, those very same retard users you idiots always use as a alibi argument can't tell between a Java app and a "regular" app. They look entirely the same to install and run. Which is the damn point, I guess.

So what exactly is your argument again for why J2ME does not count?

Over here in Germany, EVERY phone, except for the crappy iPhone has JavaME. (And there is a native compiler for iOS too, just in case anyone would care.) And before it came out, there literally was no exception.
Ok, technically, WP also doesn't have real JavaME, I guess. But as you said, that one's irrelevant noise.

Jobs only didn't include JavaME because then it would have been way harder to lock his retarded cattle in their golden cages. That's the only damn reason. Same reason he doesn't even want Flash on it.

P.S.: America, Y U NO ask Doc Brown how to get back to the future?

Re:Sorry, but this is bull (3, Informative)

Jerry Atrick (2461566) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572568)

Yep, if you paid more than $5 for the phone it can run Java (unless Steve Jobs said NO!), but only the really desperate access the net with one and almost none knowingly install or run any Java apps beyond what the device shipped with. I tested net access on my fathers feature phone and it was painfully, unusably slow. On a sad JaveME based 'china phone' it was still far too bad to actually use, even over WiFi.

JavaME is a ubiquitous tech that no-one knowingly chooses to use. That's not a story, that's just a reminder Android did the right thing avoiding this steaming pile of mediocrity.

Re:Sorry, but this is bull (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572592)

Agreed. I have some kind of Java crap on my 'makes phone calls and sends texts' phone and every once in a while I press one of the buttons by accident while it's in my pocket and next time I open it it says 'Starting Java' and the battery is down 90%.

So I presumably have this thing and really, really wish I didn't.

Re:Sorry, but this is bull (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572810)

"Feature phone" owners in the United States ....

I have a surprise for you; the world outside the US is actually bigger than the US its self!! In all of land mass, number of people and even economic activity. Actually Europe alone is larger on each of those counts; as is Asia.

Furthermore, in most countries in Europe and Asia, mobile networks were set up with an expectation that they provide services to customers rather than just finance Qualcomm. That means that the networks actually provided data service to everyone almost automatically as soon as they could and means that the market may look a bit different from the one you are used to.

Re:Sorry, but this is bull (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573046)

Nowhere does the data say that it refers to the US, though. In fact, Netmarketshare specifically weights data by country. I was in Thailand 7 or 8 years ago, and internet stuff (especially e-mail) was pretty common to see everyone doing on all handsets, most of which would be considered dumbphones (or Symbian).

iPhones are disproportionately popular in the US. The rest of the world has been using Java handsets for smartphone tasks forever, including Opera Mobile (which is excellent, by the way).

The second linked article does refer to the US specifically, with dumbphones making up %60 of install. But that doesn't mean the first article, which is worldwide, is incorrect.

Yay! (1, Troll)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572166)

Unashamed Java fanboy here. Yes!

This must really burn up the haters.

OS? (2)

Drathos (1092) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572186)

J2ME is not an OS. It's a runtime environment that runs on top of an OS (like Blackberry OS), just like normal Java.

Re:OS? (0)

NevergoldMel (1210176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572286)

Feature phones normally run a customized variant of Linux. when did clueless n00bs start writing slashdot articles?

Re:OS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572374)

Err, no they don't, they normally run stuff like Symbian. A feature phone is not a smartphone, it's the current term for non-smart phone since noone buys phones that literally can't do anything other than make calls any more.

Re:OS? (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572412)

Feature phones normally run a customized variant of Linux.

This is not true. Nokia feature phones run Symbian OS that uses the Symbian kernel designed for the low power single core microcontrollers that these phones usually have. Java ME is the application layer of Symbian OS.

Re:OS? (2)

Tronil (738827) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572704)

Feature phones normally run a customized variant of Linux.

This is not true. Nokia feature phones run Symbian OS that uses the Symbian kernel designed for the low power single core microcontrollers that these phones usually have. Java ME is the application layer of Symbian OS.

Actually, no... Anything running Symbian would be in the smart phone segment. Feature phones from Nokia run the proprietary S40 operating system, with J2ME running on top of a native UI. If it is a really simple phone (dumb-phone) it will typically be S30 (again, a proprietary Nokia OS).

Anyway, you are correct that Linux-based feature phones are not the norm. It is still a bit heavy OS to run for low-end phones.

Re:OS? (1)

NevergoldMel (1210176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572792)

You guys need to take a good hard look at the file systems on those phones. Not to mention that the apps available for s40 would make the phones more smart than feature. They had an RDP client. Calling Symbian a feature phone OS isn't accurate at all, but might have something to do with Nokia running off to join the windows phone vendor ship.

Re:OS? (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572932)

Yep your correct. Evidently the holidays made my mind a little foggy since I confused Symbian with Series. Good catch. Happy New Year.

Re:OS? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572960)

Only company i know that uses linux for their featurephones is Samsung, in their Bada platform.

Others use something homegrown that they have bolted various features to over the years, likely starting out with something not that different from something found on top of microcontrollers.

Re:OS? (1)

NevergoldMel (1210176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573090)

the vast majority of LG non-smartphones use a linux based OS.

Seriously, Not an Operating System (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572236)

I would have thought slashdotters would know the difference between an OS and a platform.
Honesty might let you get away with calling them custom linux phones but Java is a platform not an OS.

Re:Seriously, Not an Operating System (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572380)

I would have thought slashdotters would know the difference between an OS and a platform. Honesty might let you get away with calling them custom linux phones but Java is a platform not an OS.

True. You might as well say the number of phones supporting html is more than iOs and android combined.

I call BS (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572326)

These stats are completely fictional. Even the quoted summary is contradictory. If 60% of all phones are feature phones and 46.57% of phones are running iOS, that would mean that at least 6.57% of phones are iPhones that aren't smartphones. Considering that I can count on a single hand the number of people that I know that have iPhones, and far more people who have Android, and even more who have feature phones, and that in the US there are only a few carriers who have the iPhone, I find it hard to believe that iOS could be nearly half of the market.

Perhaps, since they are measuring based on browser usage, any webkit-based browser is counting as iOS (which would also include Safari and Chrome).

Re:I call BS (2)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572662)

There are several problems with the article, but this ain't one. You're looking at two different statistics. The first is based on web use, the second on market share. So if iPhones represent 20% of the market, but people who use them spend 75% more time on the web, then the discrepancy is explained. What this really means is that people who own iPhones spend more time on the Internet using their phones. I'm still confused about the numbers though. I can see why feature phones are so high; not many people use them much on the Internet, but there are a huge number of them.

It seems strange that Android usage is so far below iOS usage though. Market shares are close (depending on who's numbers you believe), and I can't imagine that iOS owners use the Internet three times as much as Android owners.

Re:I call BS (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572972)

Could be that Android users use more apps than web for various services.

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572676)

They are courting all iOS devices, including iPads and iPod touches.

Java ME is not an OS (1)

kriston (7886) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572330)

Sorry, but Java ME is not an operating system.

Re:Java ME is not an OS (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572602)

But it is a platform

Re:Java ME is not an OS (1)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572910)

But it is a platform

So is the web. And that platform runs just fine on all smartphones and most feature phones.

Re:Java ME is not an OS (1)

slashgrim (1247284) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572682)

Sorry, but Java ME is not an operating system.

Android includes an OS but is not an OS; uses Linux. Comparing Android (the platform) and Java ME is valid.

How do non-native browsers factor in to this? (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572362)

I would love to see more information about how the statistics were gathered. How would using Firefox, Opera or Skyfire impact this? Does this really only mean that the majority of Android users don't use their built in browser when using the web? I know I frequently use either Firefox or Skyfire, though I've started to use the built in browser with ICS more. Comparatively, my impression at least is that the vast majority of users on iPhone/iPad use Safari.

Re:How do non-native browsers factor in to this? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572962)

well, they screw up the stats, of course.

if you're tired of m. sites, you'd click your opera to report itself as a desktop browser anyways.

it's quite possible they're only gathering stats which include the phone model on the headers - and only those which they happened to buy from some db they chose.

Re:How do non-native browsers factor in to this? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573048)

Not surprising, as for instance the only Opera browser found for iOS is Opera Mini. Apple have specifically denied anyone from making a Safari competitor (closest you get is a bunch of UI wrappers around the Webkit engine provided by iOS).

Also, a good bunch of these alternative browsers allow the user to mask them as iOS Safari. This because various sites push one site to iOS and a much more limited one to just about anything else (or just toss the desktop site at anything non-iOS). It is like a repeat of the IE only era...

What a load of bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38572396)

So now a Java platform counts as an operating system? If that was a valid assertion then we would include other Java interpreters, or any interpreter for what is worth, in comparisons against Windows, Mac OS X and Linux market share.

Is this bullshit paid by Oracle? It appears a desperate propaganda attempt to keep Java ME relevant.

Mobile vs Desktop? (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572410)

These numbers seem odd. Android has the lion's share of the smartphone market but is getting only a fraction of the browser usage. I do wonder though, i've used about:debug on both my phone and my Nook to set the ID flag thing to "Desktop" (because so many sites of mobile views that are absolute crap.) Does that mean that i wouldn't show up in their numbers at all? I wonder how many other geeks, the people who are probably the heaviest users of the web on smartphones, have also done the same thing?

Re:Mobile vs Desktop? (2)

yelvington (8169) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572754)

The graph is crap. Note the lack of any explanation of methodology -- or even a clear explanation what's actually being measured.

Actual measured usage of the Web by mobile devices (i.e., phones and not including tablets) puts Android collectively slightly ahead of the iPhone. Rim has fallen to about 4-5% and everybody else is not worth talking about. The reason Blackberry scores so low is that most Blackberry devices suck at Web browsing. They're still very good email tools and that's what they're used for in corporate settings.

If you include tablets -- which typically are used in lieu of laptops or desktops -- then iOS takes about 60 percent and Android between 30 and 35 on the mainstream, non-geek sites that I measure.

As for the heaviest users of smartphones -- it's not geeks, but rather teenage girls. They're spending most of their time in the Facebook app and not even showing up as Web users.

Re:Mobile vs Desktop? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573056)

That, or they have it masking as iOS to get the more worked on mobile site.

Does it matter? (3, Interesting)

engun (1234934) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572450)

The fact of J2ME being widely available, is quite distinct from the issue of it being widely targeted. I can think of several reasons for why J2ME is irrelevant.
1. Feature phones aren't really suitable for sophisticated apps. Most power users have already migrated to the next gen touch phones (Android, IOS) or at the very least, Symbian. Those who stick on with feature phones probably don't use custom apps in the first place.
2. There is no proper marketplace for apps comparable to Android or Apple. This makes it difficult for the average user to obtain new apps, even if he/she were to actually want to use an app on their feature phone (which they probably don't).
3. Ultimately, the J2ME support may be relevant only to the phone manufacturer, in order to provide some bundled apps, like a calculator or something. Without a market place and given the hurdles (lack of user interest, severe incapability of phones) there's little incentive for developers to program for it.

Therefore, why would J2ME's wide availability be relevant?

NetApplications: Some of our clients (1)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572622)

Apparently, some of their clients are: Microsoft, Apple, Nokia, Opera...

If you monitor Apple.com your sample might overestimate the number of iOS browsers, maybe even count iPods and iPads as phones...

I'd rather trust the Nilsen analysis (Android 40%, Apple 28%, RIM 19%, MS 8% of the smartphone market)

Wi-Fi tablets (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38572734)

I'd rather trust the Nilsen analysis (Android 40%, Apple 28%, RIM 19%, MS 8% of the smartphone market)

If you consider only smartphones, you're leaving out Wi-Fi tablets, at least if MightyYar is right [slashdot.org] . Apple sells a 3.5" tablet (iPod touch) and a 9.7" tablet (iPad), and apparently those far outsell their closest Android-powered substitutes.

This usage will drop (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38573054)

I upgraded from a feature phone to a real smart phone about four months ago. As more users make this migration, this statistic is going to change.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>