So, you don't have any stats. Crittercism is a start up that develops (and sells) SDK for crash reporting. That's how they got their data. You can buy their solution and see if your own observations were factually correct.
-from the link providedThe second note that was discussed was the reasoning behind these crash rates, that seem to get higher as you get to a higher OS build. The obvious reaction is to assume that because the majority of people run the newest OS that the rate would have to be higher. This study doesnt ignore that idea, but they also want to toss out the fact that many of the apps we use on a daily basis are simply not updated to be compatible with new releases. I would tend to agree that that is probably issue #1. How often do you find yourself on your Galaxy Nexus asking, When is <insert favorite app> going to get Ice Cream Sandwich support?
Lastly, the overall numbers that were presented are nothing for anyone to be overly concerned about. Sure, we can brag it up for the next few hours to our iOS counterparts about how their apps are less stable, but the truth is that apps on both platforms are crashing at less than a 1% rate. We arent talking about apps crashing 10-20% of the time or anything here. Both operating systems are stable, Android just happens to be slightly more stable.
I cannot remember an app ever quitting by itself, freezing or malfunctioning in any way.
Ive seen quite a few games on the app store that clearly say in the description to "close" other open apps before launch to prevent crashing and even recommend a reboot after install.
An app can't crash if it won't run at all.
Have they, or will they do a similar study on users thwarted when an app won't run on their device at all, due to the inconsistencies from one device model to the next, and fragmentation of the platform? That's still a significant failure mode, and I'd be willing to bet that a higher percentage of Android users run into that problem more often than iOS users.
But that's a problem that won't show up at all in a "crash" study, when the app won't go on your device to run, let alone crash.
Thats what im saying , im a big ios user but i dont defend it like its my mother , reboot or not its bs specially the need to close backgrounded wich CLEARLY shows how behind the device spec are[/QUOTE]
I am almost certain Apple does this, at this point, to keep some sort of congruity and to make people feel like their last iOS device isn't outdated. IMO we clearly should have seen 1GB of RAM in the thing. But then devs start making apps that utilize the extra power... and the older phones get outdated faster. This is why I am so bummed Apple is still selling the 3GS.
I wouldn't say the fact that you can't run an resource intensive app on a $5 android phone is a problem.
It is when you can take a 99 cent iPhone 3GS and run an app that will also run on a $599 iPhone 4S.
Again, Apple has done a fantastic job taking the specs out of the picture. There are people that cannot work with specs,
I would argue that an app not running at all should count as a similar user experience issue.
Having used both my experience is the reverse of these findings.
I was never able to use my EVO as trouble free as my iPhone. I'm definitely not a fanboy but this just doesn't sound right.