iOS 6 Adoption Stats One Month In
stuartkhall.com
stuartkhall.com
I heard somethings about Safari being buggy.. I didn't really want this either as I only really use my iPad to surf the web.
I was concerned about the memory footprint. As I understand it app's now download retina resources whether you have a retina iPad or not. I have limited space on my iPad. It runs fine at the moment. I didn't see any reason to update.
I'm also waiting for 6.1 at least to see how Apple Maps will evolve, I have no sense of direction whatsoever so I need maps to show me where I am, and Apple Maps still seems a bit too risky for now. It's possible to use the Google Maps site directly, but in my tests it's less responsive and the geolocation doesn't work as well as in the application itself.
> I heard somethings about Safari being buggy.. I didn't really want this either as I only really use my iPad to surf the web.
I've seen developer reports, but no reports of user issues. Quite the opposite, webkit's been updated in iOS6 so Safari is apparently significantly faster.
> I was concerned about the memory footprint. As I understand it app's now download retina resources whether you have a retina iPad or not.
It's always done that (ever since the release of the original iPad and the creation of "hybrid" iPhone/iPad applications), the version of iOS you're running is completely irrelevant to that issue: if you're running an application compatible with all iOS devices (3GS to iPad 3 at native resolutions) it may very well bundle 4 different copies of bitmapped assets (or even 5 for e.g. startup screens, since the iPhone 5 has a different resolution than the 4/4S). I don't believe iOS AppStore bundles have every been stripped. I'm not even sure they could be since they're signed (unless you jailbreak).
Make of that what you will, but my personal experience has been that Maps is actually pretty reasonable. In major cities it maybe isn't quite as detailed as Google maps, but then, you can always use Google Maps as a web app for that...
I've little reason so switch yet anyway.
There are now entire countries with completely useless maps. Is that fair to iPhone users in those countries? Even in Canada and the USA, thousands of small cities that formerly had detailed maps were "wiped off the map" with this update. So while millions of people think things have gotten better, millions of people can also legitimately claim Maps is not just "worse" but completely broken.
For the people who live in cities with turn-by-turn navigation and 3D flyovers, hey the new Maps is great. Apple has sacrificed a product that was good enough for most people with one that is great for some and terrible for others. It's a tough decision for them to make, and they should have still used Google Maps app for those who are affected negatively since theres still so much time left on the contract with Google.
If they had given themselves a year where they made Maps available incrementally "by region" then they could have given themselves more time to test and refine the data and enticed users waiting in expectation instead of disappointing a whole bunch of them en-masse. Everyone outside the SF Bay Area could have looked on in expectation while us poor saps would look forward to the day.
I can see where you're coming from but I don't know if isolating map availability by region would work. Hyper-local travel is used in the majority of cases, but there are cases of regional travel too. What happens if someone wants turn-by-turn navigation from California to, say, Oregon, to attend a conference, weekend getaway, job interview, or just simply meet at a coffee shop in the new region? I live in Seattle, and often drive to Vancouver BC or Portland for weekends, just as an example.
IMHO, the real mistake here was setting expectations so that it would be lower and not affixing the "Beta" label to it (as was done to Siri.) Apple should also have, side from collecting data logs, ensured there's a more prominent feedback loop. As to your suggestion, I think a broader approach would work better, and perhaps work in layers of information, drilling down more deeply with richer details in regional pockets, one broad layer at a time.
No duh. It wouldn't "work" in the sense of excluding absolutely 100% of people. So what? From Apple's perspective, it would be fine if it worked just 85 to 90% of the time. The point is to avoid a massive amount of customer dissatisfaction.
> IMHO, the real mistake here was setting expectations so that it would be lower and not affixing the "Beta" label to it (as was done to Siri.)
No disagreement there. Doing both things would have been even better.
Huh? What kind of village in Alsace is not referenced on your Garmin Nuvi (or any kind of maps)? For example, all villages have a wikipedia page!
My understanding is that when you submit your app to the App Store, Apple actually re-sign it with their identity instead, so I guess that theoretically they could remove resources from your bundle and then sign it again, before sending it to your device. But they don't do this.
That is correct.
> so I guess that theoretically they could remove resources from your bundle and then sign it again, before sending it to your device. But they don't do this.
But then they'd have to split the application into a dozen different bundles, and if the user uses iTunes to manage his device this dozen different bundles would then need to be downloaded as there's no way for Apple to know for certain which devices will be synchronized using that iTunes installation in the future.
Good point - I'd forgotten that some people still manage their applications using iTunes!
I havent noticed any bugs in safari, I did have to disable the iCloud tab sync since my son is the main iPad user and all of his mine craft tabs were showing up on my phone and computer.
You should try the maps for yourself though, all seems fine to me.
Apple Maps does just fine for me with driving directions. If you don't like them, you can also use Mapquest. On a 4G connection, Google Maps also works very well as a web app. HopStop takes care of my commuting needs just fine.
> I heard somethings about Safari being buggy.. I didn't really want this either as I only really use my iPad to surf the web.
Safari on my New iPad on iOS 6 works significantly better than Safari on my original iPad on iOS 5.1.1. For one thing, it never crashes.
> I was concerned about the memory footprint. As I understand it app's now download retina resources whether you have a retina iPad or not. I have limited space on my iPad. It runs fine at the moment. I didn't see any reason to update.
As an iOS developer, let me assure you that in most instances, Retina resources amount to a rounding error in most cases. (~35kB in the case of a full screen PNG image for an iPhone.) Also, they only take up a part of the permanent flash store, not RAM.
That's because the new iPad has 4 times the RAM of the original iPad. Lack of RAM was the cause of almost all Safari crashes on the original iPad. Safari under iOS 5.1.1 on the new iPad was as stable, or even a little bit more stable, than under iOS 6.
As far as maps goes, I don't use maps much (either Google or Apple). When I really need a map for long distance trips I use my Garmin. My experience with the mobile map apps so far is they're junk compared to the Garmin. I do need to do some traveling this Monday so I'll have the opportunity to do a side-by-side comparison test.
In the case of this article, additional new users on an older version of iOS would cause a drop in the percentage of users on iOS 6. For example, I have not yet upgraded my iPhone 4 to iOS 6. If I start using this app today, I'd increase the number of users, but cause a decrease in the precent of users on iOS 6.
It starts at September 1st 2012 on left and ends at October 16th on the right, with a bar for each day that indicates what percentage of their users were running iOS6 on that day. The days are labeled terribly so none of the dates I'm about to give are exact.
From September 1st to around September 18th very few of their users ran iOS6. It's hard to tell because the graph is incredibly coarse but at most, 2% of their users were using iOS6. The graph points out that these were the beta testers.
The official launch is labeled, and on that day iOS6 adoption soars. On around September 21st, just a few days after the iOS6 launch, already 35% of their users were running iOS6. By September 25th, a little less than 50% were.
On October 2 the adoption rate jumps to the highest shown on the graph, a little under 70%. The next day it sinks down to 60%, and the next day it sinks back down to 52.5%.
For the last few weeks of data starting on October 6th, the adoption rate stays steady at around 55 or 57%.
Edit: The difference in the numbers me and the fellow who posted just at the same time shows how coarse the percentage-axis was ;)
There is however a bug with long-polling connections: If you fire off the XHR for the long-polling endpoint (or Server Site Events endpoint for that matter) before window.onload has fired, then Safari will not fire onload (nor load any other external resource) until the long-polling connection closes or returns something.
What you are seeing is people not updating their scripts yet to take this bug into account.
Why? Shouldn't the expectation be that the bug gets fixed?
I am a bit surprised from those numbers that there weren't more people left on 5.0, since 5.1 was an OTA update like 6. But maybe this is more of an "I don't want the update" thing than a "I don't know about the update" thing.
49 days = 45%