PS: I just easily accessed every song in my library on my mp3 player, smart phone, tablet and computer seamlessly all by logging into Google Music without purchasing or downloading a single song or program and have been doing so for quite a few months.
The difference is that Google is evil while Steve was a saint.
I think people ignore the contract because the contract would be the same no matter what. Perhaps things are different in Canada where monthly rates differ by OEM, but in my market the contract price for all phones is equally high.
What puzzles me are the folks who pay the same data plan prices but dodge the higher upfront cost by going with a lower spec but "free" phone.
I don't know how it is in the US. But here's what happens in our Canadian oligopoly. They have flanker "discount" brands. When you go there, most phone are on 2 year contracts. iPhones carry three year contracts. On 2 year contracts, you can get a hardware upgrade after one year. On 3 year contracts, it's 2 years till a HUP. And when it comes to hardware upgrades, carriers are far more willing to negotiate discounts on Android devices (which generally reduce in price as time goes by) than on Apple gear.
Then there's the plans. Everybody knows that you never pay the advertised price for a plan. That only applies when you sign up. After a few months you start calling and bugging customer service to give you retentions plans. And here's where the difference happens. iPhone users never seem to get as many concessions as other devices. Moreover, iPhones are usually the first device being pushed on you (because of the automatic 3 year contract).
And the ultimate kicker, is the fact that Apple devices simply aren't sold on the recent entrants into the telecom market. These are the carriers with the most phenomenal prices. My plan for example includes unlimited (you read that right) data, unlimited calling in North America (24/7 no time of day restrictions), unlimited global SMS, unlimited North American MMS, Caller ID and voicemail for $40 per month flat with a new carrier (Wind Mobile). A similar plan with our most popular iPhone carrier (Rogers) would literally run into several hundred dollars per month. In the context of Canada's telecom oligopoly, to me choosing an iPhone with a 3 year contract with very limited service buckets, is about the worst financial decision one can make. Nice phone with limited service is essentially an expensive paperweight.
There's no light of hand - the chart showed breakdown by manufacturer. You've produced a chart showing different data. That's the slight of hand.
Really?
Look at the original chart posted. The numbers at the bottom indicate the total Android % as 44.2, but what area of the chart is given over to the Android block? Significantly less than 44.2%
Visually the difference in area between Apples 28.6% and Androids 44.2% has been disguised by misrepresenting their proportions. All I have done is create a chart where the area actually matches the numbers.
Look at the original chart posted. The numbers at the bottom indicate the total Android % as 44.2, but what area of the chart is given over to the Android block? Significantly less than 44.2%
Visually the difference in area between Apples 28.6% and Androids 44.2% has been disguised by misrepresenting their proportions. All I have done is create a chart where the area actually matches the numbers.
No you haven't. You made Android's share larger while keeping Apple's the same size without increasing its share despite changing the original value from "Apple iPhone OS" to "iOS".
No you haven't. You made Android's share larger while keeping Apple's the same size without increasing its share despite changing the original value from "Apple iPhone OS" to "iOS".
True, but if the chart were labeled smartphone OS, rather than just OS, which was probably the implied intent, would that not be correct?
It doesnt because Apple fixes its prices. Carriers CAN NOT sell the iPhone for anything different then what Apple allows it. Android on the other hand does not make these demands therefore the carriers are free to sell for whatever they can get. And right now they are getting paid. Android must be doing something right if people are willing to pay these obviouly high prices??
No, they're really really not. Of all the misstatements you've made this is the most blatant falsehood. Apple absolutely owns profitability in the smartphone market. You say "market share is all people care about." Oh? You can't take spend marketshare. You spend profit. And Apple has it. All of it. The reason you're here posting on AI instead of running your own company is because you don't have the basic business sense to realize this.
No you haven't. You made Android's share larger while keeping Apple's the same size without increasing its share despite changing the original value from "Apple iPhone OS" to "iOS".
Do you have Aspergers? Seriously, and not meant negatively.
I couldn't be arsed getting the labeling so that it would fit in, so I shortened it. I thought anyone would get it. Obviously I was wrong for people who read it as being blindly literal. Of course I made the Android area bigger, I made it a true 44.2% of the area with the "Apple iPhone OS" area a true 28.6% of the area. The original chart was visually misleading in terms of the area given over to each section.
Oh, and I used the drawing component of Appleworks, numerically inputting each object size.
True, but if the chart were labeled smartphone OS, rather than just OS, which was probably the implied intent, would that not be correct?
If he did that then he wouldn't be perpetuating the inaccuracy he seems so offended by. I see two simple avenues to make the chart accurate instead of just making it inaccurate in a less useful way.
Personally, I read the data. I have never copied an image brought up an app with rulers and then figured out if the sections of a graph are exactly where they should be to represent the image I know the article states Android OS has 44.2% on smartphones and iOS for iPhone has 28.6%. Those are figures I care about being correct, not some blocks with primary colours of if some forgot to colour in the lines.
I couldn't be arsed getting the labeling so that it would fit in, so I shortened it.
Oh yeah. No way to note it was for smartphone marketshare or to write iPhone above or below iOS in it's 28.6% space. Completely impossible with AppleWorks. Gotcha!
. . .While some simply look at the pretty picture and make a judgement, which is the hope of some of these chart creators. You already knew that was a fairly common tactic used to confuse and obfuscate.
I don't know how it is in the US. But here's what happens in our Canadian oligopoly. They have flanker "discount" brands. When you go there, most phone are on 2 year contracts. iPhones carry three year contracts. On 2 year contracts, you can get a hardware upgrade after one year. On 3 year contracts, it's 2 years till a HUP. And when it comes to hardware upgrades, carriers are far more willing to negotiate discounts on Android devices (which generally reduce in price as time goes by) than on Apple gear.
Then there's the plans. Everybody knows that you never pay the advertised price for a plan. That only applies when you sign up. After a few months you start calling and bugging customer service to give you retentions plans. And here's where the difference happens. iPhone users never seem to get as many concessions as other devices. Moreover, iPhones are usually the first device being pushed on you (because of the automatic 3 year contract).
And the ultimate kicker, is the fact that Apple devices simply aren't sold on the recent entrants into the telecom market. These are the carriers with the most phenomenal prices. My plan for example includes unlimited (you read that right) data, unlimited calling in North America (24/7 no time of day restrictions), unlimited global SMS, unlimited North American MMS, Caller ID and voicemail for $40 per month flat with a new carrier (Wind Mobile). A similar plan with our most popular iPhone carrier (Rogers) would literally run into several hundred dollars per month. In the context of Canada's telecom oligopoly, to me choosing an iPhone with a 3 year contract with very limited service buckets, is about the worst financial decision one can make. Nice phone with limited service is essentially an expensive paperweight.
Wow and I thought our process sucked. Is a 3 year contract cheaper per month? I just don't see how they can sell that given what else you've described. People must REALLY want the iPhone to put up with that.
I finally swapped out my 3GS for a 4S when they appeared even though it means my handset won't have 4G until the next generation. I was pretty happy with my 3GS for the last 2 1/2 years but at three years I would definitely want to upgrade.
If he did that then he wouldn't be perpetuating the inaccuracy he seems so offended by. I see two simple avenues to make the chart accurate instead of just making it inaccurate in a less useful way.
Personally, I read the data. I have never copied an image brought up an app with rulers and then figured out if the sections of a graph are exactly where they should be to represent the image I know the article states Android OS has 44.2% on smartphones and iOS for iPhone has 28.6%. Those are figures I care about being correct, not some blocks with primary colours of if some forgot to colour in the lines.
Agreed - it was poorly done. But more to the point, it reopens the question of whether "Android" is a legitimate market segment, when the hardware is split between many different manufacturers. It is certainly an ecosystem (is that the accepted word?), but that is not necessarily the same thing. The functional entities making, selling and profiting (or losing) are the individual manufacturers. You could argue that the producer of Android is really playing in a different market altogether.
Oh yeah. No way to note it was for smartphone marketshare or to write iPhone above or below iOS in it's 28.6% space. Completely impossible with AppleWorks. Gotcha!
You really want everyone to believe you didn't see the bold blue 20 point type that said:
Manufacturer operating system share - Smartphone
above the first chart? The OP was really clear that all he was doing is representing that same data in a different method different chart. At least it was clear to me and I've been accused over and over of being obtuse.
Yet you thought he had changed to discussing OS's on all devices rather than smartphones-specific?
Agreed - it was poorly done. But more to the point, it reopens the question of whether "Android" is a legitimate market segment, when the hardware is split between many different manufacturers. It is certainly an ecosystem (is that the accepted word?), but that is not necessarily the same thing. The functional entities making, selling and profiting (or losing) are the individual manufacturers. You could argue that the producer of Android is really playing in a different market altogether.
I would argue that Android for Google is strictly a defensive advertising play that has some opportunity dominance rather than just a plurality of smart phones. Of course it will come at the expense of their OEMs.
It is also exceptionally vulnerable to leveraging (embrace and extend) as Amazon has demonstrated by sucking up low-margin content profits in the small tablet space.
I wish I got paid for pointing out the obvious. If you can dispute what I wrote do so, but the facts are the facts, the iPhone has not fundmentally changed since its debut. Screen size, demensions, nothing.
It's the software, stupid.
The hardware is only there to perfectly support the resource demands of the software and provide the phone functionality.
I am saying in 5 years, Android will have the majority of the market and Apple will not. A simple prediction based on how fast Android is expanding its gap. Android has doubled in less than a year. It will be Mac/Windows all over again when it comes to phones. Even now though, 28% is not allot.
Why should Apple care? The goal at iPhone launch was 1% of the global phone market. Apple has dramatically surpassed that.
Go ahead and work up your ego, but dollars be dollars, and Apple is only collecting them way faster than anyone else. The mentality of marketshare wins all was proven to fail in the bursting of the internet bubble. None of those arguments work despite being trotted out over and over. But I'm sure you'll use your astroturfing abilities to come up with a suitably weak and pithy response.
I would argue that Android for Google is strictly a defensive advertising play that has some opportunity dominance rather than just a plurality of smart phones. Of course it will come at the expense of their OEMs.
It is also exceptionally vulnerable to leveraging (embrace and extend) as Amazon has demonstrated by sucking up low-margin content profits in the small tablet space.
Agreed, although I'm not sure if it was entirely defensive - advertising is Google's core business, so it would have been a smart move under any circumstances.
Wow and I thought our process sucked. Is a 3 year contract cheaper per month?
Nope. Same price. Canada should be a cautionary tale to anybody who thinks more mergers in the US will result in any semblance of a competitive market. The way it works in Canada, is if one of the major telcos introduces a policy, the rest acutally follow, even if said policy was bad for the consumer. About a decade ago, the telcos started with 3 year contracts arguing that they let consumers get better devices for cheaper prices. Eventually they became the norm. Now a current gen iPhone costs the same on a 3 year contract in Canada as it does on a 2 year contract in the US. The plans are significantly more expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me
I just don't see how they can sell that given what else you've described. People must REALLY want the iPhone to put up with that.
The thing is 3 year contracts are normal up here. And what most folks do is HUP 2 years in. So you sign a 3 year contract, but you get a new phone every 2 years. The third year is only relevant if you want to leave your career. This is now a situation a ton of users are facing. Many would love to switch to newer carriers which may charge as little as half of what the big guys do, but they would have to run out a 3 year contract.
It also show how captive an audience, iOS users are. They almost never change carriers because the penalty to break a contract is usually $20 per month. So even breaking with a year left for a new iPhone elsewhere would amount to $240 +$199 = $439.
Like I said, they trick you with the shiny object. And then you're essentially locked in for life on a significantly more expensive contract. This might change if Apple starts supporting the AWS band (T-Mobile's 3G frequency) that most of the new carriers run on. But I'm not holding my breath for that. Till then, an iPhone in Canada is for those who can afford to throw away an extra $1000 or more over three years on mobile service (iPhone only oligopoly carriers at rates that are usually $25-$30 higher per month). I won't even mention what they are charging for LTE up here.
Kinda sucks for folks like me. My only non-Apple device is my smartphone. But I'd much rather have an awesome plan that lets me use my phone all the time, than be like a lot of my iPhone toting friends, who are constantly stressed out about busting their 1GB data cap if they watch a few too many youtube videos. I find it odd that so many folks argue on and on about the OS in the interwebs. But nobody seems to debate the most important of the smartphone experience: the plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me
I finally swapped out my 3GS for a 4S when they appeared even though it means my handset won't have 4G until the next generation. I was pretty happy with my 3GS for the last 2 1/2 years but at three years I would definitely want to upgrade.
That's entirely normal. Most folks are dying to upgrade after 18-24 months, regardless of which OS camp you're in. The carriers here take advantage of that by locking you in for another 3 years at the 2 year mark.
Why should Apple care? The goal at iPhone launch was 1% of the global phone market. Apple has dramatically surpassed that.
. . . but dollars be dollars, and Apple is only collecting them way faster than anyone else. The mentality of marketshare wins all was proven to fail in the bursting of the internet bubble. None of those arguments work despite being trotted out over and over.
Quite true. Maximizing profits is the name of the game. Bose is another company that would rather concentrate on the high end of their market, perhaps build less product but make a higher profit percentage on those sales.
Comments
PS: I just easily accessed every song in my library on my mp3 player, smart phone, tablet and computer seamlessly all by logging into Google Music without purchasing or downloading a single song or program and have been doing so for quite a few months.
The difference is that Google is evil while Steve was a saint.
I think people ignore the contract because the contract would be the same no matter what. Perhaps things are different in Canada where monthly rates differ by OEM, but in my market the contract price for all phones is equally high.
What puzzles me are the folks who pay the same data plan prices but dodge the higher upfront cost by going with a lower spec but "free" phone.
I don't know how it is in the US. But here's what happens in our Canadian oligopoly. They have flanker "discount" brands. When you go there, most phone are on 2 year contracts. iPhones carry three year contracts. On 2 year contracts, you can get a hardware upgrade after one year. On 3 year contracts, it's 2 years till a HUP. And when it comes to hardware upgrades, carriers are far more willing to negotiate discounts on Android devices (which generally reduce in price as time goes by) than on Apple gear.
Then there's the plans. Everybody knows that you never pay the advertised price for a plan. That only applies when you sign up. After a few months you start calling and bugging customer service to give you retentions plans. And here's where the difference happens. iPhone users never seem to get as many concessions as other devices. Moreover, iPhones are usually the first device being pushed on you (because of the automatic 3 year contract).
And the ultimate kicker, is the fact that Apple devices simply aren't sold on the recent entrants into the telecom market. These are the carriers with the most phenomenal prices. My plan for example includes unlimited (you read that right) data, unlimited calling in North America (24/7 no time of day restrictions), unlimited global SMS, unlimited North American MMS, Caller ID and voicemail for $40 per month flat with a new carrier (Wind Mobile). A similar plan with our most popular iPhone carrier (Rogers) would literally run into several hundred dollars per month. In the context of Canada's telecom oligopoly, to me choosing an iPhone with a 3 year contract with very limited service buckets, is about the worst financial decision one can make. Nice phone with limited service is essentially an expensive paperweight.
Without profits, there will be advancement. Thanks for proving you don't know much about tech or business.
I know this is a fashionable idea. But how do you explain the fact that computers have continued to advance despite Wintel commoditizing the PC?
There's no light of hand - the chart showed breakdown by manufacturer. You've produced a chart showing different data. That's the slight of hand.
Really?
Look at the original chart posted. The numbers at the bottom indicate the total Android % as 44.2, but what area of the chart is given over to the Android block? Significantly less than 44.2%
Visually the difference in area between Apples 28.6% and Androids 44.2% has been disguised by misrepresenting their proportions. All I have done is create a chart where the area actually matches the numbers.
Really?
Look at the original chart posted. The numbers at the bottom indicate the total Android % as 44.2, but what area of the chart is given over to the Android block? Significantly less than 44.2%
Visually the difference in area between Apples 28.6% and Androids 44.2% has been disguised by misrepresenting their proportions. All I have done is create a chart where the area actually matches the numbers.
No you haven't. You made Android's share larger while keeping Apple's the same size without increasing its share despite changing the original value from "Apple iPhone OS" to "iOS".
No you haven't. You made Android's share larger while keeping Apple's the same size without increasing its share despite changing the original value from "Apple iPhone OS" to "iOS".
True, but if the chart were labeled smartphone OS, rather than just OS, which was probably the implied intent, would that not be correct?
It doesnt because Apple fixes its prices. Carriers CAN NOT sell the iPhone for anything different then what Apple allows it. Android on the other hand does not make these demands therefore the carriers are free to sell for whatever they can get. And right now they are getting paid. Android must be doing something right if people are willing to pay these obviouly high prices??
No, they're really really not. Of all the misstatements you've made this is the most blatant falsehood. Apple absolutely owns profitability in the smartphone market. You say "market share is all people care about." Oh? You can't take spend marketshare. You spend profit. And Apple has it. All of it. The reason you're here posting on AI instead of running your own company is because you don't have the basic business sense to realize this.
No you haven't. You made Android's share larger while keeping Apple's the same size without increasing its share despite changing the original value from "Apple iPhone OS" to "iOS".
Do you have Aspergers? Seriously, and not meant negatively.
I couldn't be arsed getting the labeling so that it would fit in, so I shortened it. I thought anyone would get it. Obviously I was wrong for people who read it as being blindly literal. Of course I made the Android area bigger, I made it a true 44.2% of the area with the "Apple iPhone OS" area a true 28.6% of the area. The original chart was visually misleading in terms of the area given over to each section.
Oh, and I used the drawing component of Appleworks, numerically inputting each object size.
True, but if the chart were labeled smartphone OS, rather than just OS, which was probably the implied intent, would that not be correct?
If he did that then he wouldn't be perpetuating the inaccuracy he seems so offended by. I see two simple avenues to make the chart accurate instead of just making it inaccurate in a less useful way.
Personally, I read the data. I have never copied an image brought up an app with rulers and then figured out if the sections of a graph are exactly where they should be to represent the image I know the article states Android OS has 44.2% on smartphones and iOS for iPhone has 28.6%. Those are figures I care about being correct, not some blocks with primary colours of if some forgot to colour in the lines.
I couldn't be arsed getting the labeling so that it would fit in, so I shortened it.
Oh yeah. No way to note it was for smartphone marketshare or to write iPhone above or below iOS in it's 28.6% space. Completely impossible with AppleWorks. Gotcha!
Personally, I read the data.
. . .While some simply look at the pretty picture and make a judgement, which is the hope of some of these chart creators. You already knew that was a fairly common tactic used to confuse and obfuscate.
I don't know how it is in the US. But here's what happens in our Canadian oligopoly. They have flanker "discount" brands. When you go there, most phone are on 2 year contracts. iPhones carry three year contracts. On 2 year contracts, you can get a hardware upgrade after one year. On 3 year contracts, it's 2 years till a HUP. And when it comes to hardware upgrades, carriers are far more willing to negotiate discounts on Android devices (which generally reduce in price as time goes by) than on Apple gear.
Then there's the plans. Everybody knows that you never pay the advertised price for a plan. That only applies when you sign up. After a few months you start calling and bugging customer service to give you retentions plans. And here's where the difference happens. iPhone users never seem to get as many concessions as other devices. Moreover, iPhones are usually the first device being pushed on you (because of the automatic 3 year contract).
And the ultimate kicker, is the fact that Apple devices simply aren't sold on the recent entrants into the telecom market. These are the carriers with the most phenomenal prices. My plan for example includes unlimited (you read that right) data, unlimited calling in North America (24/7 no time of day restrictions), unlimited global SMS, unlimited North American MMS, Caller ID and voicemail for $40 per month flat with a new carrier (Wind Mobile). A similar plan with our most popular iPhone carrier (Rogers) would literally run into several hundred dollars per month. In the context of Canada's telecom oligopoly, to me choosing an iPhone with a 3 year contract with very limited service buckets, is about the worst financial decision one can make. Nice phone with limited service is essentially an expensive paperweight.
Wow and I thought our process sucked. Is a 3 year contract cheaper per month? I just don't see how they can sell that given what else you've described. People must REALLY want the iPhone to put up with that.
I finally swapped out my 3GS for a 4S when they appeared even though it means my handset won't have 4G until the next generation. I was pretty happy with my 3GS for the last 2 1/2 years but at three years I would definitely want to upgrade.
If he did that then he wouldn't be perpetuating the inaccuracy he seems so offended by. I see two simple avenues to make the chart accurate instead of just making it inaccurate in a less useful way.
Personally, I read the data. I have never copied an image brought up an app with rulers and then figured out if the sections of a graph are exactly where they should be to represent the image I know the article states Android OS has 44.2% on smartphones and iOS for iPhone has 28.6%. Those are figures I care about being correct, not some blocks with primary colours of if some forgot to colour in the lines.
Agreed - it was poorly done. But more to the point, it reopens the question of whether "Android" is a legitimate market segment, when the hardware is split between many different manufacturers. It is certainly an ecosystem (is that the accepted word?), but that is not necessarily the same thing. The functional entities making, selling and profiting (or losing) are the individual manufacturers. You could argue that the producer of Android is really playing in a different market altogether.
Oh yeah. No way to note it was for smartphone marketshare or to write iPhone above or below iOS in it's 28.6% space. Completely impossible with AppleWorks. Gotcha!
You really want everyone to believe you didn't see the bold blue 20 point type that said:
Manufacturer operating system share - Smartphone
above the first chart? The OP was really clear that all he was doing is representing that same data in a different method different chart. At least it was clear to me and I've been accused over and over of being obtuse.
Yet you thought he had changed to discussing OS's on all devices rather than smartphones-specific?
Agreed - it was poorly done. But more to the point, it reopens the question of whether "Android" is a legitimate market segment, when the hardware is split between many different manufacturers. It is certainly an ecosystem (is that the accepted word?), but that is not necessarily the same thing. The functional entities making, selling and profiting (or losing) are the individual manufacturers. You could argue that the producer of Android is really playing in a different market altogether.
I would argue that Android for Google is strictly a defensive advertising play that has some opportunity dominance rather than just a plurality of smart phones. Of course it will come at the expense of their OEMs.
It is also exceptionally vulnerable to leveraging (embrace and extend) as Amazon has demonstrated by sucking up low-margin content profits in the small tablet space.
I wish I got paid for pointing out the obvious. If you can dispute what I wrote do so, but the facts are the facts, the iPhone has not fundmentally changed since its debut. Screen size, demensions, nothing.
It's the software, stupid.
The hardware is only there to perfectly support the resource demands of the software and provide the phone functionality.
I am saying in 5 years, Android will have the majority of the market and Apple will not. A simple prediction based on how fast Android is expanding its gap. Android has doubled in less than a year. It will be Mac/Windows all over again when it comes to phones. Even now though, 28% is not allot.
Why should Apple care? The goal at iPhone launch was 1% of the global phone market. Apple has dramatically surpassed that.
Go ahead and work up your ego, but dollars be dollars, and Apple is only collecting them way faster than anyone else. The mentality of marketshare wins all was proven to fail in the bursting of the internet bubble. None of those arguments work despite being trotted out over and over. But I'm sure you'll use your astroturfing abilities to come up with a suitably weak and pithy response.
I would argue that Android for Google is strictly a defensive advertising play that has some opportunity dominance rather than just a plurality of smart phones. Of course it will come at the expense of their OEMs.
It is also exceptionally vulnerable to leveraging (embrace and extend) as Amazon has demonstrated by sucking up low-margin content profits in the small tablet space.
Agreed, although I'm not sure if it was entirely defensive - advertising is Google's core business, so it would have been a smart move under any circumstances.
Wow and I thought our process sucked. Is a 3 year contract cheaper per month?
Nope. Same price. Canada should be a cautionary tale to anybody who thinks more mergers in the US will result in any semblance of a competitive market. The way it works in Canada, is if one of the major telcos introduces a policy, the rest acutally follow, even if said policy was bad for the consumer. About a decade ago, the telcos started with 3 year contracts arguing that they let consumers get better devices for cheaper prices. Eventually they became the norm. Now a current gen iPhone costs the same on a 3 year contract in Canada as it does on a 2 year contract in the US. The plans are significantly more expensive.
I just don't see how they can sell that given what else you've described. People must REALLY want the iPhone to put up with that.
The thing is 3 year contracts are normal up here. And what most folks do is HUP 2 years in. So you sign a 3 year contract, but you get a new phone every 2 years. The third year is only relevant if you want to leave your career. This is now a situation a ton of users are facing. Many would love to switch to newer carriers which may charge as little as half of what the big guys do, but they would have to run out a 3 year contract.
It also show how captive an audience, iOS users are. They almost never change carriers because the penalty to break a contract is usually $20 per month. So even breaking with a year left for a new iPhone elsewhere would amount to $240 +$199 = $439.
Like I said, they trick you with the shiny object. And then you're essentially locked in for life on a significantly more expensive contract. This might change if Apple starts supporting the AWS band (T-Mobile's 3G frequency) that most of the new carriers run on. But I'm not holding my breath for that. Till then, an iPhone in Canada is for those who can afford to throw away an extra $1000 or more over three years on mobile service (iPhone only oligopoly carriers at rates that are usually $25-$30 higher per month). I won't even mention what they are charging for LTE up here.
Kinda sucks for folks like me. My only non-Apple device is my smartphone. But I'd much rather have an awesome plan that lets me use my phone all the time, than be like a lot of my iPhone toting friends, who are constantly stressed out about busting their 1GB data cap if they watch a few too many youtube videos. I find it odd that so many folks argue on and on about the OS in the interwebs. But nobody seems to debate the most important of the smartphone experience: the plan.
I finally swapped out my 3GS for a 4S when they appeared even though it means my handset won't have 4G until the next generation. I was pretty happy with my 3GS for the last 2 1/2 years but at three years I would definitely want to upgrade.
That's entirely normal. Most folks are dying to upgrade after 18-24 months, regardless of which OS camp you're in. The carriers here take advantage of that by locking you in for another 3 years at the 2 year mark.
Why should Apple care? The goal at iPhone launch was 1% of the global phone market. Apple has dramatically surpassed that.
. . . but dollars be dollars, and Apple is only collecting them way faster than anyone else. The mentality of marketshare wins all was proven to fail in the bursting of the internet bubble. None of those arguments work despite being trotted out over and over.
Quite true. Maximizing profits is the name of the game. Bose is another company that would rather concentrate on the high end of their market, perhaps build less product but make a higher profit percentage on those sales.