The education space definitely relies on Google (was also big during the pandemic) and the tools are decent.
But I was definitely surprised about the mentions of Chromecast and Youtube TV, particularly YouTube TV. All of the cord cutters I talked to opted for Fubo, Hulu or DirectTV. Good to hear it sees adoption. Is there a marketshare analysis that you're aware of?
Chromecast has somehow become ubiquitous without attracting much attention. I think even among the iPhone and Mac users I know, more of them use Chromecast than Apple TV, since they're so small and cheap. I bought one so I could cast a specific show on a specific trip to visit family, and now my household has one for every TV, for about the same price as a single Apple TV. We always take one with us when we travel.
I also used to bring a chromecast to connect to hotel TVs, but no longer do. When I stay in a hotel and I see that the TV has a chromecast hooked up to it (or baked into it or whatever), I don't bother even trying to connect to it anymore. The DIAL protocol only allows service discovery on the local network, and in my experience local networks are more or less never configured correctly for it.
The several times I've tried connecting, when the phone fails to discover the TV automatically, the TV offers some kind of pairing code that I can type into the google home app (on ios). Before learning more about DIAL, I had thought that this would enable my phone and TV to connect through some google-managed proxy in the cloud, for just such cases where both the phone and TV can make outgoing connections, but can't open connections to each other for whatever reason.
I can't imagine why there isn't a fallback built into DIAL that lets me scan a QR code on the phone (or have the TV play some audio that the device decodes, if the mobile device doesn't have a camera or for a11y purposes, or whatever) and have both devices communicate through a proxy. Such a proxy would be extremely low bandwidth and would be latency-insensitive, so really really cheap to run. DIAL is predicated on both devices being able to access media URLs, so I think this fallback would only fail in a case where the TV/chromecast can't connect to the internet and is being used to display content from the LAN. This latter case is probably very niche compared to people not being able to connect their devices because of routing issues.
That was my impression too, so I was surprised to read that they are kinda' giving it away by allowing it to be subsumed by Matter. The casting support in Matter will be a mandatory part of the related profile.
But, whatever the explanation, I think this is a good thing.
I agree. I see this as heading back towards something like Miracast, which really birthed Chromecast in the first place.
That said - I'd really like for genuine screen sharing to still exist, outside of the confines of merely opening an app on the device in question and directing it at a specific URL, while sending user input. That's fine for a lot of uses - but is not really a comparable feature set. So far at least - I don't see that in the matter protocol (I've also not spent a ton of time looking - so if someone knows it's there, please point me at it!)
Funny, I'm on the other end. I don't know a single person with Fubo or DirectTV and only a few with Hulu for live TV. Pretty much everyone I know has YTTV.
To that extent, I also found that Android is usually treated as a 2nd class citizen. Which is understandable, given the marketshare, but frustrating nonetheless. It often sounds like something is easily do-able (like Accessibility) ... IF you're on iOS. We recently developed an app for a client of ours for Android, replicating their native iOS app in React Native. That was not a good experience.
I think it's more the marketshare of who will pay for apps/subscriptions, which is often quoted as tilted towards iOS users. I'm not sure how true that is, though it make some sense given how many apps cost money on iOS vs Android and that iOS devices are on average more expensive.
I'm not sure if that's true anymore. Last year I switched to Android and paid for some high quality apps, spending more than I have probably ever on Apple. I've noticed that Android free apps are usually more restrictive and pester the user to upgrade more than they do on iOS - I assume Apple ban this, but these dark patterns must work otherwise why would a company tarnish their image with them?
If you look at Android users as a whole, percentage wise of course they will pay less because they are a lot more popular in less well off countries. On the other hand Google's carrier billing support is a lot more extensive than Apple's, so actually being able to pay is less friction.
During the past year I’ve worked with 2 large Fortune 500 companies (they are everywhere globally and everyone knows them) whose main business is in consumer products and services.
Amount of paying mobile users for both companies is clearly dominated by the iOS. About 1:5-1:10 ratio.
is that globally or in the markets like US, i assume
it a lot closer in markets that have more hi end devices and disposable income.
but it is sure that apple customers are more used to pay for applications. that's something that i noticed like 8 years when i switched from windows to osx/macbook. while on windows you could find free basic utility software like rippers converters and so on, on macbook they usually where paid applications.
I don’t think it’s meant to be, there are definite edge cases that are very hard to solve, such as when manufacturers decided to alter android behavior. I also think that the ecosystem has far more iOS engineers than it does android, which leads to an imbalance in support.
Disclaimer: am contributor to react-native & iOS dev.
We've been recommending Contentful and DatoCMS (https://www.datocms.com/) to our customers. Most pick Contentful due to the perception of being enterprise (Replacing AEM, Sitecore etc.). DatoCMS seems to enjoy a lot of warm reception by people who are coming from Squarespace/Wordpress/Drupal and want something headless but still geared towards Web.
Funny enough, I've been using "write a blog based on Gists on Github for a certain user" as a take-home test for the past 3 years when hiring JS developers.
Well, they used two steps. First they identified a sample set of contributors that have self identified, thus validated to some extent, their gender.
Further down they then distinguish between contributors where the gender can be inferred from looking at their name & profile picture. Splitting the group of those 35% which were identified via Google+ into two separate groups - identifiable vs. non-identifiable.
But I was definitely surprised about the mentions of Chromecast and Youtube TV, particularly YouTube TV. All of the cord cutters I talked to opted for Fubo, Hulu or DirectTV. Good to hear it sees adoption. Is there a marketshare analysis that you're aware of?