On Google play Console, at the first page of all apps, it shows Installed audience and User acquisition.
I understand Installed audience is the one having my app on their device. But what's user acquisition? usually, User acquisition has high number than Installed audience. But on some apps, Installed audience has high number than User acquisition. I am so confused about this.
Installed audience as google's definition is The number of users who have your app installed on at least 1 device that has been turned on in the last 30 days.
user acquisition as google's definition is The number of users who installed your app and didn’t have it installed on any other devices at the time.
so basically the user acquisition is the total number of installs , and the installed audience is the number of installs that are still active on the device not uninstalled.
when having the time range to a short period (last 30 days ...) the total number of still active installs can be more than the number of new user acquisition in the last 30 days but when setting the time range to lifetime the active installs can't be more than the total acquisition
Related
I've seen some posts elsewhere about very slow file access after "upgrading" a device to Android 11. I'm not having that, but I AM having unbelievably slow performance in a small app that uses sockets. It's a client app that uses a socket to send a request to a server (mine) that monitors my solar installation, to get data back about how it has been performing etc. So the socket interaction is in a separate thread from the UI, and uses runOnUIThread to call a function that updates the UI with the received data. The request data is only a few bytes, maybe 20 or so maximum: the data coming back varies from a few hundred bytes to maybe 50000 bytes or thereabouts.
If I run this app on my phone (Android 8.1) it is fine - it takes 1.5 to 2 seconds to send the request, get the data back, and update the UI. Perfectly fine. It's the same on an older tablet running Android 7.1.2 too. But I have just recently acquired a flash (read expensive) new Samsung tablet running Android 11, and its performance is woeful - the same app doing the same operation takes anything up to 30 seconds, or even more. And it is exactly the same app, exactly the same code. Both devices are running on the same network, so the only significant difference seems to be the Android version. It is repeatable ad nauseum, so it isn't momentary network load either. The app is built to target API level 26 - it has to be so it can run on all the devices it needs to. It is not a commercial app, just something for my own use, but I am totally bewildered by this behaviour.
The other thing I have noted with this new tablet is that it is unable to provide a video stream from a surveillance IP camera I have at home. I use the TinyCam Pro app from Google Play for this. It can connect, but it has never yet managed to give me a picture, regardless of how good my connection is. Again, my phone and the older tablet can do this more often than not, and the new tablet would have far more horsepower than either of them. There is some sort of serious bottleneck in there!
Has anyone else seen this type of thing on Android 11? If so, is there anything that can be done about it, that is usable on earlier versions too? Or do we just have to wait for Android 11.1?
EDIT: I've done some more investigation on this, and I think I have now pinned it down to a 4G network bandwidth issue. I said that the tablet and the phone were doing exactly the same thing, but I have since remembered that they do NOT use the same carrier for their mobile connections. So it's not EXACTLY the same thing. I would actually expect the network capacity for the tablet's carrier to be superior to that of the phone's carrier, but that appears not to be the case where I am at the moment. So I think I have to take back my evil thoughts about the tablet, and maybe even Android 11. Interesting how easy it is to be misled, and how hard it can be to genuinely compare apples with apples when there are so many variables and so many links in the chain. I'll be doing some more tests and comparisons when back in the city, where network capacity should be much more alike for the two carriers.
yes its true. While compare to Android 11 and Android 8 there is a lot of changes updated because of security issue.
May be, If your managing some file in mobile storage mnt/sdcard/ here in this path its speed of access or managing a file in this path its restricted and its becomes less. So, if your using this path please change it like below because it will cause youe app to process slow.
solution - Try to use this file access path is Android/data/data/packageName/
I mean if your using this logic to access file - Environment.getExternalStorageDirectory()
instead of above try this - Context.getExternalFilesDir(null)
refer this link https://developer.android.com/about/versions/11/privacy/storage
I hopes it will help you...
Evening community.
I'm in the process of developing a windows based application which heavily revolves around mobiles being connected to a machine via USB, Currently. The communication between android using googles ADB drivers works without a problem (currently, that is). The problem is getting said application to integrate well with IOS users.
What the application does I'm bascially reinventing the wheel of stock control for a client, who wants a completely customized application based around their current mobile barcode scanner which scans and saves the scanned items to a file name created with the date & Time in a text format. This application is both on IOS and Android devices.
What i'm looking to do, is have their current machine automatically map the connected device to a drive letter to allow easier browsing of the device through the application & Pull the necessary file and save locally to then make other changes as needed..
So, the overall question. Is, that without having a jailbroken/rooted mobile device to allow Mass Storage, is it possible to have a Windows XP based machine to automatically map connected IOS and Android devices to a drive letter? There will be only one device connected at one time
I have been long interested to develop on the platform. I even got the tools installed already on my desktop but I can't upgrade my WDDM from 1.0 to 1.1. To make things simple: my graphics chips are not up to the task of running the emulator.
If I still buy a Windows Phone (e.g. a Nokia Lumia) for development purposes, can I sideload and test my apps there efficiently instead of going against the emulator?
If I still buy a Windows Phone (e.g. a Nokia Lumia) for development purposes, can I sideload and test my apps there efficiently instead of going against the emulator
Yes, of course. It's very easy and convenient. You have debugger and all the goodies. Advantage of the emulator is the test option for 256MB devices.
That's exactly what I used to do prior to upgrading my devstation. The nominal min spec says 3G but with a real phone it worked fine in 2G and as you say this also sorts out graphics limitations.
Note that the setting for whether the emulator or physical device is used is stored in the project, so if you accept a project from someone else you will have to set it once prior to debugging.
Well there are 2 sides of the coin. With the physical device you can test most of the things, but with a few limitations
You will not be able to test internet related test cases - For example, if you have an app which uses internet connectivity then you will not be able to test it on the device easily because
The device does not use the machine internet connectivity
When connected to the PC the device's internet connectivity(Data connection 3G/ wifi/GPRS) is broken.
You will have to purchase an account right from the first day you want to test your app. If you have the emulator working then you could postpone this for atleast few days.
I'd like to start developing Win Phone 7 apps before it's too late. I'm not sure my motivation is high enough to do so without a physical device to play with, but I don't want to switch to T-Mobile or AT&T (US) to get a device.
I'm quite happy paying full retail price - but get left with a lot of questions.
Will the device be fully functional without an active phone plan?
Is it important to test on a device that has a physical keyboard
Where is the best place to buy a retail price phone
Will I still get system updates through wi-fi without an active phone plan - or can I just borrow a friend's AT&T SIM card when I know an update is available
Are unlocked phones available - or are they still tied to the carrier
etc.
Preferably I'd like to be able to use the phone when in UK (less frequently than once a year)
Yes - subject to not having network connectivity. You can still wifi for data.
Not critical, you can emulate this with PAUSE in the emulator.
Depends on your area.
Updates through Zune when hooked up to your PC.
I'm not aware of any carrier lock ins like iPhone.
We are a small hardware manufacturer. Most of our products use USB for programming the controllers used.
The current situation is that programming the hardware (part of the assembly processor) is rather labour intensive.
Each time a new USB device gets plugged in Windows prompts for a driver install. This means that for each new product we have to go through a process of "no, don't go to internet" --> "yes, search automatically" --> "done". We even have to do this twice for each product.
I have been experimenting with the Windows preinstaller (DPInst), but this seems to only facilitate a succesful "yes, search automatically" part.
Is there a way to have the drivers installed fully automatically after plugging in the USB device?
Kind Regards,
Ronald
I take it your devices have a unique USB serial number, and hence each one is detected as a new device that hasn't been seen before.
If so, then the solution is this, from http://www.lvr.com/usbfaq.htm:
During device testing, we attach many
devices that are identical except for
the serial numbers. How can I prevent
Windows from asking to install a new
driver every time a device is
attached?
The method described below causes
Windows 2000 and XP to ignore a
device's serial number. It's
recommended for test environments
only.
This registry key controls whether
Windows uses or ignores device serial
numbers:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\UsbFlags]
It's possible to ignore all serial
numbers, though this approach is NOT
recommended. To ignore all serial
numbers, in the above key, change this
value to zero:
GlobalDisableSerNumGen = 1
To ignore the serial number for an
individual device, create an entry
under the above ...\UsbFlags key. The
name must start with "IgnoreHWSerNum"
followed by the vendor and product ID
of the device. A value of 1 = "disable
the serial number."
Example (Vendor ID = 0925h, Product ID
= 016Ah):
IgnoreHWSerNum0925016A= 1
An alternative hardware/firmware solution is to disable the device USB serial number during production (e.g. with a link, possibly one made by a test fixture). Without a USB serial number, Windows will assign a pseudo serial-number to the device, based on its position in the connection tree. That wouldn't be likely to change during a production run, so all devices would then be treated as identical and Windows wouldn't bother with the new driver stuff.
I had the same problem 5 years ago.
The main problem is that the installation of USB drivers after Plug&Play of the coresponding device works under the LocalSystem account. To have no security problems Microsoft allows silent installation of drivers only signed by Microsoft. Starting with Windows Server 2003 there are documented way (see http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/install/authenticode.mspx).
If you have a managed corporate environment (you can prepare computers which will use your Plug&Play devices), then there are a workaround which solves the problem on Windows XP. I suggested it 5 years ago for one of my customer. It works perfect since about 5 years in environment with some of 10000 Windows XP computers.
The idea for the solution is very easy: your drivers (for example the CAT file) must be signed with the signature which
has both 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.3 ("Code Signing") and 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.10.3.6 ("Windows System Component Verification") OIDs as Enhanced key usage (EKU) extension
the certificate or it's parent certificate must be installed in the Machine's Root (Trusted Root Certification) or AuthRoot (Third-Party Root Certification Authorities) certificate store
If you do this on a Windows XP computer, the operating system will interpret your driver like Microsoft signed driver.
Morver you shoud insert in the registry the path to the source of the driver.