or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Nielson: Android flourished before iPhone 4, but Apple 'most desired'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nielson: Android flourished before iPhone 4, but Apple 'most desired' - Page 3

post #81 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

That was more responsible, so I'll reply.

In early days the iPhone had a poor reputation for voice quality. Voice quality on the iPhone 4 is phenomenal, however, and it has also gradually improved as the device has grown. Unfortunately right now, in the United States, voice quality is held back by AT&T's network, which does not offer voice quality on par with Verizon. Dropped calls and reception are not top notch as is often the case with media smartphones. If you're referring to the 'Antennagate' nonsense, though, I don't buy it. The iPhone 4 has been one of the very most reliable phones I have ever owned, outside a high-end phone-feature-based phone I used to have on Verizon, which also offers a superior network in areas I have spent most my time in terms of call reliability. Despite conducting business regularly on the iPhone 4 I have dropped few calls, and this includes Manhattan and San Francisco. Speculation beyond this is speculation by definition as AT&T has chosen not to release the real numbers.

In any case, I was content to use the original iPhone as well, despite knowing clear well that, compared to say, a good BlackBerry, its phone feature was immature. The other features were great and the phone feature performed well enough. If someone wants phone first they should be looking to BlackBerry on Verizon (in the US).

And as for your final sentence, weaseling a blanket statement stating that Apple releases low-quality products into a phone quality argument, when the iPhone 4 also happens to be an excellent phone, is horribly disingenuous.


And you are completely wrong here. Unless Apple releases the iPhone to Verizon (and possibly other carriers) the Android platform will continue to grow at a pace faster than the iPhone. Note that you're comparing an OS to a device here, which is a little silly. Android is out-growing iPhone because it is the only high-quality multimedia smartphone OS available to OEM manufacturers (RIM and Microsoft may change this). It is available in phones ranging from high quality to bottom-feeding trash. It is also a fairly good product. Of course it is going to sell like hotcakes. It isn't so different from the Windows OS vs. Mac OS X circumstance.

Incidentally, "Finally! The combined effort of every big phone producer in the phone market, making a range of low-end to high-end devices, has finally managed to activate more Android-based smartphones than a specific manufacturer's single device!" is, well, a little sad as a celebration. This is a naturally progression of the market under the current circumstances and reflects that Google has done a good job. Apple has as well. If Apple made the iOS platform available to OEM you would see a horribly different story, but that wouldn't be a good move for Apple, and its developers, at all.

You may also compare OS activations if you like which would include ipad, itouch and iphone for ois, and for android; well mostly phones. Android activations per day are significantly higher than ois activations. Apple is flat; android is in a steep growth curve. The end result is pretty obvious to me (and most analysis) unless apple makes a significant change to the "plan". Apples products are no longer better enough (or imho better at all) than the competition.
post #82 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by davestall View Post

You may also compare OS activations if you like which would include ipad, itouch and iphone for ois, and for android; well mostly phones. Android activations per day are significantly higher than ois activations. Apple is flat; android is in a steep growth curve. The end result is pretty obvious to me (and most analysis) unless apple makes a significant change to the "plan". Apples products are no longer better enough (or imho better at all) than the competition.

Source for the first assertion above, please?

In any case, as I mentioned initially, marketshare is second-bat to developers (who care how many users are buying), second-bat to a company (who cares about profitability and platform strength when the dust settles, and neither has to have any dominant tie to marketshare; especially not Apple), and utterly meaningless users (who care about the capability of their product to improve their lives in any number of ways). So to begin with you're basing all of your opinion here on a statistic that isn't relevant to end-user experience, company profitability, developer profitability, the proliferation of quality apps, product quality, or anything else of value. That is to say, a user who buys a cheap Android phone and never uses it to do anything other than work with its vanilla features (and there's a lot of them) contributes nothing of value to the platform—only to the company collecting their cellular service fees. And I could use your argument to suggest that Lexus makes utter trash because GM sells more cars.

And finally, your jump taking this number to discuss product quality (as I initially mentioned above) is absurd. You're not really interested in understanding facts here, and probably don't even know much about the platform you're bashing anyway. I'd hazard a guess that, instead, you're supporting an argument simply because it is what you want to believe yourself.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #83 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

Source for the first assertion above, please?

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...0&postcount=62
post #84 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

Source for the first assertion above, please?

In any case, as I mentioned initially, marketshare is second-bat to developers (who care how many users are buying), second-bat to a company (who cares about profitability and platform strength when the dust settles, and neither has to have any dominant tie to marketshare; especially not Apple), and utterly meaningless users (who care about the capability of their product to improve their lives in any number of ways). So to begin with you're basing all of your opinion here on a statistic that isn't relevant to end-user experience, company profitability, developer profitability, the proliferation of quality apps, product quality, or anything else of value. That is to say, a user who buys a cheap Android phone and never uses it to do anything other than work with its vanilla features (and there's a lot of them) contributes nothing of value to the platformonly to the company collecting their cellular service fees. And I could use your argument to suggest that Lexus makes utter trash because GM sells more cars.

And finally, your jump taking this number to discuss product quality (as I initially mentioned above) is absurd. You're not really interested in understanding facts here, and probably don't even know much about the platform you're bashing anyway. I'd hazard a guess that, instead, you're supporting an argument simply because it is what you want to believe yourself.

The activation data I quoted is available on any non apple technical blog.

I had an iphone and though impressed with its packaging, loathed its limiting nature. You cant change anything. It is feature poor and clearly the worst cell phone of all smartphones. A great phone for those who want limited features. For the rest of us there are much better alternatives; which is what the market is showing.
post #85 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by davestall View Post

The activation data I quoted is available on any non apple technical blog.

The Android piece linked above does not discuss Apple's non-phone numbers, which, to the best of my knowledge, are not available. So before you decide to draw dramatic blanket conclusions you should probably wait for all the facts. And regardless, I could repeat most everything I said above, which you ignored, again. I'll always be curious why someone like you wastes their time on a site like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davestall View Post

I had an iphone and though impressed with its packaging, loathed its limiting nature. You cant change anything. It is feature poor and clearly the worst cell phone of all smartphones. A great phone for those who want limited features. For the rest of us there are much better alternatives; which is what the market is showing.

Wow. Just, wow. I don't think you did.

In any case, I think we're back to your responses speaking well enough for you.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #86 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by davestall View Post

The activation data I quoted is available on any non apple technical blog.

No, it wasn't. YOU claimed that Android activations were greater than all iDevices put together. The URL that was cited by another of the Android trolls (and which repeats the data that has been all over the web) compares only phones, not the rest of the iDevices (iPod Touch or iPad).

So where's the evidence to back up your claim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by davestall View Post

I had an iphone and though impressed with its packaging, loathed its limiting nature. You cant change anything. It is feature poor and clearly the worst cell phone of all smartphones. A great phone for those who want limited features. For the rest of us there are much better alternatives; which is what the market is showing.

ROTFLMAO. So much for your ability to evaluate the product honestly:

"You can't change anything"???? Are we supposed to believe that you are being objective when you start with such a blatant lie?

"Feature poor"?? Yet it's the standard in the industry for being full-featured. It's what every other phone has tried to emulate. And if it's missing a given feature, there are 225,000 apps to give you what you need.

Worst cell phone? Not according to Consumer Reports. Not according to ANY review I've seen. In fact, other than minor reception issues for a small number of users almost entirely using AT&T, it is widely reported as having the best cell phone reception of any modern phone.

Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you have no desire to let honesty and integrity be any part of your posting.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #87 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

The Android piece linked above does not discuss Apple's non-phone numbers, which, to the best of my knowledge, are not available.

Since we're talking about activations and computers don't need to be activated, "non-phone" in this context means iPad. And we know that iPad numbers are far below iPhone numbers.

So I'm willing to go out on a limb here: what will you bet me that when iPad numbers become available you can add those to the iPhone numbers cited above and it will exceed the number of Android activations over the same period?

$50?
$100?
$1000?
How certain are you?
post #88 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No, it wasn't. YOU claimed that Android activations were greater than all iDevices put together. The URL that was cited by another of the Android trolls (and which repeats the data that has been all over the web) compares only phones, not the rest of the iDevices (iPod Touch or iPad).

So where's the evidence to back up your claim?



ROTFLMAO. So much for your ability to evaluate the product honestly:

"You can't change anything"???? Are we supposed to believe that you are being objective when you start with such a blatant lie?

"Feature poor"?? Yet it's the standard in the industry for being full-featured. It's what every other phone has tried to emulate. And if it's missing a given feature, there are 225,000 apps to give you what you need.

Worst cell phone? Not according to Consumer Reports. Not according to ANY review I've seen. In fact, other than minor reception issues for a small number of users almost entirely using AT&T, it is widely reported as having the best cell phone reception of any modern phone.

Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you have no desire to let honesty and integrity be any part of your posting.

Please google Activations, not Sales. IOS vs android activations has been in the news for quite some time. Not discussed here of course since it shows apple slipping further behind.

Or; ignore the facts and instead believe what Steve Jobs tells you. The rest of the world will move on to superior products. (as the market indicates) Maybe Bill Gates will bail apple out AGAIN once iphone goes the way of the MAC.
post #89 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

This is not how Apple operated in establishing dominance with the iPod. Otherwise we would not have the Shuffle, for example. Is the Mac the model for the iPhone or is the iPod?

You are absolutely right... Apple needs to introduce the iPhone Mini/Nano/Micro/Pocket/Whatever already.
post #90 of 127
Check out this and you'll see that Android is just about unstoppable.

866% growth year over year compared to Apple's 61%.

Iphone is "most desired"? Well, the real numbers aren't reflecting that at all.

http://www.canalys.com/pr/2010/r2010081.html
post #91 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

...it is widely reported as having the best cell phone reception of any modern phone.

What is your evidence for this assertion?
post #92 of 127
Whew ... this is great news. Now the DOJ and the rest of the U.S. government can pursue RIM or Google for having a monopoly in the smartphone biz instead of Apple.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
post #93 of 127
Quote:
they are so fugly I wouldnt use them if they gave them to me free.

Maybe that's the reason iphone OS not doing so well. Snobs think that bumper solution is fugly. How Bizarre.
post #94 of 127
Let's put a little more flesh on these bones. Android sales represent over sixty (60) handsets. Android is just now gaining more sales? Really? 60+ handsets can ban together and claim victory? Really? Pick any Android based handset. Hell, pick any 10 handsets. Anyone trying to spin this as a win for Android ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #95 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

Let's put a little more flesh on these bones. Android sales represent over sixty (60) handsets. Android is just now gaining more sales? Really? 60+ handsets can ban together and claim victory? Really? Pick any Android based handset. Hell, pick any 10 handsets. Anyone trying to spin this as a win for Android ought to be ashamed of themselves.

But if those 60 handsets weren't good, then the public wouldn't be buying them at all and it wouldn't matter how many handsets were running Android. This also applies to the OEMs. If they didn't see any future in Android, then there wouldn't be 60 handsets on the market. Considering where Android came from with the G1 (RIP), I'd say that's a definite win. To be able to create an device and make it successful yourself (as Apple has done) is good. To create an OS and have other companies jumping onboard with their own support is just as good.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I've read a single article that says that Android's numbers are slipping. Maybe when/if ever the iPhone shows up on more carriers than AT&T (remember, the NPD numbers are US only). But until that day happens, Android will continue to rise.

There is no "spin". People are buying Android phones and the OEMs are seeing this and releasing designs to try and fit everyone's tastes.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #96 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

But if those 60 handsets weren't good, then the public wouldn't be buying them at all and it wouldn't matter how many handsets were running Android. This also applies to the OEMs. If they didn't see any future in Android, then there wouldn't be 60 handsets on the market. Considering where Android came from with the G1 (RIP), I'd say that's a definite win.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I've read a single article that says that Android's numbers are slipping. Maybe when/if ever the iPhone shows up on more carriers than AT&T (remember, the NPD numbers are US only). But until that day happens, Android will continue to rise.

There is no "spin". People are buying Android phones and the OEMs are seeing this and releasing designs to try and fit everyone's tastes.

I beg to differ. You are assuming that people are "buying" Android phones. That is only half true, as many Android phones are given away for free. People are "buying" iPhones. You have over sixty handsets, probably half of which are obtained for free, against the iPhone, and they are just now getting ahead. That is an embarrassment any way you look at it.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #97 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

I beg to differ. You are assuming that people are "buying" Android phones. That is only half true, as many Android phones are given away for free. People are "buying" iPhones. You have over sixty handsets, probably half of which are obtained for free, against the iPhone, and they are just now getting ahead. That is an embarrassment any way you look at it.

My assumption comes from the fact that many of the latest Android phones have sold out of stock within days of being released. If no one's "buying" them as you claim, then were are they disappearing to? Is there a secret organization somewhere buying them all to lock in a vault to keep the public from getting exposed to Android?

Even though they're given away for "free", it's not really free. You still have to activate the phone and pay for the line. If it was truly free (no cost to the phone and line), then you would have a point. This also in a way supports my point. People are still choosing to go with these offers. Again, if Android really was a POS OS, then the people wouldn't choose to spend the extra money for the second line. They like it enough to agree to be locked in for 2 years for two lines and spend an many times the amount of the $199.99 they saved on the second phone in service fees. Successful marketing is successful marketing.

Let me ask you this. If Apple allowed AT&T to do a BOGO offer on the iPhone 4 and that gave the iPhone numbers a booster shot in the arm, would you continue to discount those numbers like you do for Android phones?
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #98 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

Even though they're given away for "free", it's not really free. You still have to activate the phone and pay for the line. ...

That argument makes no sense as you have to activate and pay for any line. Those costs cancel out. Therefore, the only difference in what the end user pays is the up front cost of the phone. Free is no where near the same as $200-$300. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

Let me ask you this. If Apple allowed AT&T to do a BOGO offer on the iPhone 4 and that gave the iPhone numbers a booster shot in the arm, would you continue to discount those numbers like you do for Android phones?

No. But Apple will never need to give their phones away for free. You see, they make a product so compelling, people are willing to pay for it. Android is quickly becoming the choice of the lowest common denominator.

By your standard, Nokia probably moves more phones than anyone in the world. You can practically get Nokia phones in cereal boxes. Once a phone is heavily discounted, or given away for free, it is no longer competing in the premium phone market.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #99 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

That argument makes no sense as you have to activate and pay for any line. Those costs cancel out. Therefore, the only difference in what the end user pays is the up front cost of the phone. Free is no where near the same as $200-$300. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Ok, that makes sense. But you're still crying fowl because the carriers decide to embrace capitalism. They picked the business model that best competed against the iPhone and found success in it. We can argue what makes up the numbers until we're both blue in the face, but at the end of the day, the numbers are what they are. If it means that in your opinion that makes Android a lesser success, then I guess that something I'll have to live with...

Again, my original point was that going from the G1 days of Android being an "experiment" on T-Mobile to now being an international hit with the backing of multiple big-name OEMs makes Android a success no matter how you want to view the numbers.

Quote:
No. But Apple will never need to give their phones away for free. You see, they make a product so compelling, people are willing to pay for it. Android is quickly becoming the choice of the lowest common denominator.

By your standard, Nokia probably moves more phones than anyone in the world. You can practically get Nokia phones in cereal boxes. Once a phone is heavily discounted, or given away for free, it is no longer competing in the premium phone market.

And can you not say the same for Android devices? Sold out within days of release with no BOGO. People are still compelled to purchase Android devices. I will agree that Apple has gained a bit of a religious cult status, which leads to more people already wanting the iPhone. Android has the uphill fight here and it's doing quite well for itself against the odds.

I personally don't use the price alone to determine how well a phone performs. If I get a device that I feel is in every way as good or better than the iPhone for 1/2 the cost, then who am I to say no to the savings?

It may be your opinion that Android is for the lowest common denominator, but that lowest common denominator happens to be the majority of the people in the US, it seems. If the Android/iPhone market goes the way of the PC/Mac (which it seems to be), I'm happy to give you that slice of the "premium" market if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #100 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

That is only half true, as many Android phones are given away for free.

What percentage of Android phone do you imagine were given away for "free"?

And of those, how many were also activated without any charges at all?
post #101 of 127
[QUOTE=RationalTroll;1690062]What percentage of Android phone do you imagine were given away for "free"?/QUOTE]

At least half of the phones that were on a BOGOF deal, plus all of the ones that were free on contract. How many is that? Don't know, but it is considerably more than what Apple has given away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

What percentage of Android phone do you imagine were given away for "free"?

And of those, how many were also activated without any charges at all?

That question is just as stupid now as it was earlier. All phones are subject to activation fees and monthly service. Therefore, those fees do not enter into the price discussion as it is ubiquitous.

No matter how you try to massage it, heavily discounting and giving away for free is not the same as selling a similar item. If carriers could sell all of the Android based phones they purchase at the full starting subsidy price, they would. They can't, so they discount and/or give them away. Yes, the carriers still make up the difference in contract fees, but they would rather SELL the phones.

What a strange definition of "compete" the smartphone industry has invented. Since when does the cheap/free item compete with the premium item? I'm sure more people get their clothes from Wal Mart, and other discount stores rather than Sax Fifth Avenue. The number is even more lopsided when you include charities that give away clothes for free. But to my knowledge, that is not considered competition. They are not in the same category.

Google tried to position Android devices in a competitive category with the iPhone. They failed miserably. Now, they are really competing with Nokia, and the rest of the bottom feeder industry. With a push into enterprise, workers may get free Android devices from their corporations. In that event, Android will provide stiff competition for RIM and WinMO. But Apple is still in the business of making and selling premium, high-end devices to end users.

The top Android phone today will quickly race to the bottom as it has no staying power as a high-end, premium smartphone experience like the iPhone. One new model a year, and it holds its value and drawing power the whole time. Nothing competes with that.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #102 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

What percentage of Android phone do you imagine were given away for "free"?

At least half of the phones that were on a BOGOF deal, plus all of the ones that were free on contract. How many is that? Don't know, but it is considerably more than what Apple has given away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

And of those, how many were also activated without any charges at all?

That question is just as stupid now as it was earlier. All phones are subject to activation fees and monthly service. Therefore, those fees do not enter into the price discussion as it is ubiquitous.

No matter how you try to massage it, heavily discounting and giving away for free is not the same as selling a similar item. If carriers could sell all of the Android based phones they purchase at the full starting subsidy price, they would. They can't, so they discount and/or give them away. Yes, the carriers still make up the difference in contract fees, but they would rather SELL the phones.

What a strange definition of "compete" the smartphone industry has invented. Since when does the cheap/free item compete with the premium item? I'm sure more people get their clothes from Wal Mart, and other discount stores rather than Sax Fifth Avenue. The number is even more lopsided when you include charities that give away clothes for free. But to my knowledge, that is not considered competition. They are not in the same category.

Google tried to position Android devices in a competitive category with the iPhone. They failed miserably. Now, they are really competing with Nokia, and the rest of the bottom feeder industry. With a push into enterprise, workers may get free Android devices from their corporations. In that event, Android will provide stiff competition for RIM and WinMO. But Apple is still in the business of making and selling premium, high-end devices to end users.

The top Android phone today will quickly race to the bottom as it has no staying power as a high-end, premium smartphone experience like the iPhone. One new model a year, and it holds its value and drawing power the whole time. Nothing competes with that.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #103 of 127
Wow, oh my...

I am not a Apple Hater, Google Hater, or Microsoft Hater. Heck, the only one I truly hate is Blackberry. But the majority of these rants are well crap.

I own an iPad w/Wifi. It is a great little device. Love to read emails, surf "basic" webpages, and a few games.

I also own a Nexus One. My nifty little Nexus One provides the internet access to my iPad on the go. Its a neat trick, and don't bother checking. None of your iPhones (even the ones with iOS4) can do it unless you "break the rules".

My Nexus One also provides voice navigation, doubles as a memory stick, works with Adobe Flash, offers true multitasking, is expandable in both memory/battery, has a nifty car and desktop dock w/seperate home screens. All cool stuff... oh and I can replace my desktop UI if I decide to do so. Of course, I can also use the stock one with widgets, animated wallpapers, shortcuts to tasks (e.g. disable Wifi), among other things.

In a nutshell. It is not a POS, nor are the far superior Android devices that have been released since January. You all can live in your own little bubble all you want, but this is 100% exactly what happen with Windows/Mac about 20 years ago. The only difference? Andriod is free, whereas OEMs had to pay for Windows.

Sure you guys have a few better games. I play them on my iPad . That is about it though. And deny it all you want, but ultimately the developers are going to go with the winning team (hint: it ain't going to be Apple).

And for the morons who don't think Android devices sell unless given away? Well you guys are just crazy. All the hot devices sell out at full retail price. Interesting fact, there is a new "hot" device about once a month.

And yes, the comments about activations are right. In fact, if you quote Mr. Tim from his Shareholders call you could sum up all Mac Purchases and iOS Platform Purchases and still not hit the number of activations that Android have on an average day (according to their own press releases).

No worries... you guys were happy in 1994-95, right?
post #104 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

Google tried to position Android devices in a competitive category with the iPhone. They failed miserably.

no they didn't, they're kicking ass. Just like the iphone, and rim. Now you may (and I) may think the iphone is the best one, and feel proud we -paid- more for our phone than say a hapless android user did, but that doesn't mean android isn't competing effectively with the iphone at all.

that's nonsense.

Sure, you can compare android to walmart all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that android, regardless of wether it has an upfront cost of 2 or 300 bucks upfront or not, is competing quite well.

I'm glad to see apple, and competition doing well. I'm not interested in either one of them becoming dominant enough to control content.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #105 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

Sure, you can compare android to walmart all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that android, regardless of wether it has an upfront cost of 2 or 300 bucks upfront or not, is competing quite well.

There you go again with that strange definition of "competing." I keep hearing about Mac v. Windows redux. Hmmm... Which PC competes with the 27" i5 iMac? Is it the Dell XPS 24Z Turbo whatever the hell they're calling them these days? Perhaps it is the HP KIRF of the week special. No. When people make those bogus comparisons, they are talking about all of the Windows PC desktop machines versus the iMac line. Absurd!

The same thing is happening in the smartphone arena. Companies quickly discovered they could never compete with Apple on a head to head basis. So instead, people talk about ALL Android phones versus the iPhone. Competition at its finest.

Tell me again, which Android phone did you want to hold up as sales competition to the iPhone? Which ten? No? Then we're not actually talking about competition, are we?
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #106 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

There you go again with that strange definition of "competing." I keep hearing about Mac v. Windows redux. Hmmm... Which PC competes with the 27" i5 iMac? Is it the Dell XPS 24Z Turbo whatever the hell they're calling them these days? Perhaps it is the HP KIRF of the week special. No. When people make those bogus comparisons, they are talking about all of the Windows PC desktop machines versus the iMac line. Absurd!

The same thing is happening in the smartphone arena. Companies quickly discovered they could never compete with Apple on a head to head basis. So instead, people talk about ALL Android phones versus the iPhone. Competition at its finest.

Tell me again, which Android phone did you want to hold up as sales competition to the iPhone? Which ten? No? Then we're not actually talking about competition, are we?

I'm not asianBob. And don't go in circles.

I'm not talking about the 27" iMac, that's another conversation altogether. I'm not aware of anything that comes close that machine in the PC world.

I don't care what you think, of the competition, it is competition, and it's doing very well. I may think iPhones are as superior as much as I like, but Android is competing very well, despite being different in that it's on many different handsets.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #107 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

Yes, the carriers still make up the difference in contract fees, but they would rather SELL the phones.

Apple is still in the business of making and selling premium, high-end devices to end users.

One new model a year, and it holds its value and drawing power the whole time. Nothing competes with that.

My carrier was happy to give me my 3Gs for "free" in return for me agreeing to 2 years with them. They might rather have sold me my phone for NZ$200, but since they couldn't they settled for what probably seemed a better deal than losing me to the opposition.

A funny thing about that "premium" thing - if the consumer's perception is that there's little or no difference between the products, the perception of premium disappears. So Apple will retain its premium perception so long as it can provide a credible justification in the consumer's mind. If it cannot do so, as in its features and benefits become indistinguishable in the consumer's perception with less expensive yet competitive products, then Apple will inevitably lose its premium status to a segment of its audience and potential audience.

When virtually monthly there are new competitors' smartphones appearing with the latest and greatest in features and benefits, the iPhone is in danger of looking "old hat" between refreshes, so your assumed benefit of being 'current' for longer may well be an achilles's heel.

Speculation perhaps, but we'll be seeing that soon enough. There are many examples historically where a premium brand became a mainstream or even budget brand over time. I'm happy with the deal I did for my 3Gs now, but I don't know if I'll still feel that way when my contract runs out.

The smartphone sector has become a very exciting place lately, and long may that continue.
post #108 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

I'm not asianBob.

I based my reply on the argument, not the username. No offense intended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

I'm not talking about the 27" iMac, that's another conversation altogether. I'm not aware of anything that comes close that machine in the PC world.

I think it is an appropriate example and stand by it. What's happening in the two product categories is very similar, so much so that some in this thread have referred to the PC market to make their point. I am just pointing out that the argument actually works in favor of Apple, just like the iPhone v. Android arguments being tossed about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

I don't care what you think, of the competition, it is competition, and it's doing very well.

Please tell me how you define competition. Would a game of amateur basketball be fair competition if one side had ten professional athletes on the floor?

Two kids go into a neighborhood to sell newspapers. One kid sells to half the people in the neighborhood, a subscription that costs $3 per week. The other kid, with the help of several friends, moves twice as many subscriptions by giving away free papers for a local rag. The first kid is selling the New York Times, (what a deal), the second kid is dropping off a free, weekly circular. Competition? Not by my way of reckoning.

I will say it again: There is no "competitor" within shouting distance of the iPhone. Go ahead, pick your champion... Hell, pick any ten champions. Currently, it takes over sixty to get to what you think of as competition.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #109 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

I based my reply on the argument, not the username. No offense intended.



I think it is an appropriate example and stand by it. What's happening in the two product categories is very similar, so much so that some in this thread have referred to the PC market to make their point. I am just pointing out that the argument actually works in favor of Apple, just like the iPhone v. Android arguments being tossed about.

And I don't think it is at all. Apple has the imac, the mini, the mac pro, 3 different macbook pros, a macbook air, etc etc (did I mis any?)

We're talking the smartphone. Period. Yes Android is on several, of varying quality. SOme not bad, a couple, very good. Depending on your opinions.


Quote:
Please tell me how you define competition. Would a game of amateur basketball be fair competition if one side had ten professional athletes on the floor?

Why the definition is very simple. Both Android, and Apple offer smartphones. You can split hairs, and go around in circles all you like, apple makes theirs, google doesn't, apple makes one android is on 10, Apple is better, around around around you go. They're both smartphones, very similar in what they do, and offer, and consumers buy each product to do pretty much the same thing. So I don't know what you're really arguing about here.

Quote:
Two kids go into a neighborhood to sell newspapers. One kid sells to half the people in the neighborhood, a subscription that costs $3 per week. The other kid, with the help of several friends, moves twice as many subscriptions by giving away free papers for a local rag. The first kid is selling the New York Times, (what a deal), the second kid is dropping off a free, weekly circular. Competition? Not by my way of reckoning.

It isn't free. There is a difference as far as the upfront cost is, but once you pay that 200 bucks or whatever, you're paying through the nose for a voice data plan for likely 3 years. I've had my iphone for over 2 years now, I'm paying 105/month for mine. I've forgotten all about whether I paid 200 bucks at the start or not. Red herring. You analogy is silly.

Quote:
I will say it again: There is no "competitor" within shouting distance of the iPhone. Go ahead, pick your champion... Hell, pick any ten champions. Currently, it takes over sixty to get to what you think of as competition.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But it doesn't erase the fact that Android, whether it's shit, or not, is capturing a huge percentage, very quickly. So yes, it -is-, competition.

I think all of them, the iphones, droids, and balckberrys, need stiff competition, the keep it rolling for consumers. We win.


I've weathered over a decade of dominance from one company as far as a computing platform goes, and I'm not interested in another, even, Apple, despite the fact they are my choice, of platforms.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #110 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

That's your opinion

No, it's not. I am talking about sales, not about a subjective measure of which is better. There is no Android phone that competes with the iPhone. The last report I read said the Android numbers include 60 handsets. That was before the Galaxy release.

You keep wanting to compare sales numbers even though the business models are completely different. Go ahead. What Android phone compares to iPhone in the market? Please tell me what you are comparing to what. Otherwise, you are just trying to spin this into an Android victory when it should be an Android embarrassment.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #111 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

No, it's not. I am talking about sales, not about a subjective measure of which is better. There is no Android phone that competes with the iPhone. The last report I read said the Android numbers include 60 handsets. That was before the Galaxy release.

You keep wanting to compare sales numbers even though the business models are completely different. Go ahead. What Android phone compares to iPhone in the market? Please tell me what you are comparing to what. Otherwise, you are just trying to spin this into an Android victory when it should be an Android embarrassment.

That's all you're arguing about? Apple is one phone, and Android on several?

Gee this sound familiar. Perhaps you'll argue microsoft didn't compete with apple or, doesn't. Brainless.

But it sounds to me, you're just looking for a reason why your choice is superior. There's no need to argue this here. But you need to I guess.

As I said. They're both smartphones, they do very similar things, and are for sale in the same country.

Done. Enjoy your merry go round.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #112 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

That's all you're arguing about? Apple is one phone, and Android on several?

Isn't that enough? You keep saying that they are "both" smartphones. What is the "both" you keep referring to? The iPhone vs. what? To compare the sales numbers of one phone to the sales numbers of sixty + phones running several versions of a free OS is not a comparison worth anything. There is no "both."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

Gee this sound familiar. Perhaps you'll argue microsoft didn't compete with apple or, doesn't.

I do argue just that. Apple makes computers; MS doesn't. A better comparison would be Apple's MBP vs. HP's Envy KIRF. Now, that is competition. But that type of comparison makes the PC industry look stupid, so the MBP is "compared" to ALL Windows based notebooks.

All I am calling for is that we compare "like" things. That is the sort of thing we learn in preschool. We say, "My dad is bigger than your dad!" not, "My family is bigger than your dad!" The latter would be absurd, even for a kindergartner. This whole thread, indeed, this whole meme of comparing the iPhone (phone) sales to Android (system of phones) sales is completely absurd. It is about time people with sense quit letting Android spinners get away with shaping the conversation by letting these ridiculous arguments pass.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #113 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

Isn't that enough? You keep saying that they are "both" smartphones. What is the "both" you keep referring to? The iPhone vs. what? To compare the sales numbers of one phone to the sales numbers of sixty + phones running several versions of a free OS is not a comparison worth anything. There is no "both."



I do argue just that. Apple makes computers; MS doesn't. A better comparison would be Apple's MBP vs. HP's Envy KIRF. Now, that is competition. But that type of comparison makes the PC industry look stupid, so the MBP is "compared" to ALL Windows based notebooks.

All I am calling for is that we compare "like" things. That is the sort of thing we learn in preschool. We say, "My dad is bigger than your dad!" not, "My family is bigger than your dad!" The latter would be absurd, even for a kindergartner. This whole thread, indeed, this whole meme of comparing the iPhone (phone) sales to Android (system of phones) sales is completely absurd. It is about time people with sense quit letting Android spinners get away with shaping the conversation by letting these ridiculous arguments pass.

it's absurd because you don't like it. But the real truth is, despite the platform differences, it's an entry on the smartphone list that is grabbing significant marketshare, just as is the iphone.

I suppose apple was whacked when it did it's mac vs pc ads eh?

LOL.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #114 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

it's absurd because you don't like it. But the real truth is, despite the platform differences, it's an entry on the smartphone list that is grabbing significant marketshare, just as is the iphone.

I suppose apple was whacked when it did it's mac vs pc ads eh?

LOL.

I thought you were done.

What's an entry on the smartphone list? You say "it," but you mean "they.'

As for the Mac v. PC ads... You do realize those were qualitative comparisons, not quantitative, right. I think it is perfectly fair to talk about the competitive "qualitative" aspects of iOS v. Android. That is not what we are discussing. We are talking about numbers of units sold. That only makes sense when comparing one item to another like item. MBP to ENVY. iPhone to Droid X. See how that works.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #115 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

I thought you were done.

What's an entry on the smartphone list? You say "it," but you mean "they.'

As for the Mac v. PC ads... You do realize those were qualitative comparisons, not quantitative, right. I think it is perfectly fair to talk about the competitive "qualitative" aspects of iOS v. Android. That is not what we are discussing. We are talking about numbers of units sold. That only makes sense when comparing one item to another like item. MBP to ENVY. iPhone to Droid X. See how that works.

holy anal retentive batman.

Who CARES. Android, whether 'quaility', or 'quantity', is presenting itself good competition.

I addressed your silly notion that Android has failed to be real competition to the iPhone. I never spoke of sales, and now you are going around merry go rounds. Seems many do that.

And it seems Steve Jobs very much disagrees with you too.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #116 of 127
now, I know you like merry go rounds, and you'll go in circles for whatever reason. It's a mystery as to what you're really arguing here really, because, you asserted that Android, FAILED to give the iphone any real competition.

This, is brainless. Any halfwit can see, that android -is- provideing good competition, as is RIM. I dn't care if you yell that android is on many devices and iphone is one. Irrelevant. The very existence and significance of the mac vs. pc ads, laugh in your face.

You simply love the iPhone, and that's fine! But to say Android is not competition to the iphone, or to rim, or nokia, is the most brainless thing I've read in this thread.

(well, almost.)
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #117 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Echoing earlier NPD figures, newly released research from Nielsen shows that all of the vendors of Android-based phones put together outsold Apple's iPhone within the US in the quarter prior to the launch of iPhone 4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

holy anal retentive batman.

Who CARES.

I take it you read the opening post in this thread. The first paragraph sets the stage. This is about comparing sales numbers. What are you on about? Apparently, you don't care to engage in a discussion about competitive sales numbers. I don't blame you. They don't look good for any one, ten, thirty, or fifty Android devices. Let's just stick with the whole Android as a platform is outselling the iPhone as a device theme. As long as we don't look at the details and avoid any meaningful sales comparisons, then you're absolutely right; Android is kicking butt.

Fell better, Robin?
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #118 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

I take it you read the opening post in this thread. The first paragraph sets the stage. This is about comparing sales numbers. What are you on about? Apparently, you don't care to engage in a discussion about competitive sales numbers. I don't blame you. They don't look good for any one, ten, thirty, or fifty Android devices. Let's just stick with the whole Android as a platform is outselling the iPhone as a device theme. As long as we don't look at the details and avoid any meaningful sales comparisons, then you're absolutely right; Android is kicking butt.

Fell better, Robin?

I addressed your stupid notion that Android failed to provide competition. Period.

Not the original post. Try to not go in circles k?
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #119 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube View Post

I addressed your stupid notion that Android failed to provide competition. Period.

Not the original post. Try to not go in circles k?

No Android phone provides any significant competition to the iPhone. Please indicate my error. Has the market proven me wrong? Name the phone. Well, I think any readers of this thread have enough information to see both our points.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #120 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

No Android phone provides any significant competition to the iPhone. Please indicate my error. Has the market proven me wrong? Name the phone. Well, I think any readers of this thread have enough information to see both our points.

you don't get it do you?

I guess the mac vs pc ads go right over your head. But you'll come up with some bullshit excuse over that.

It's about the platform. If Android ceased to exist, so would that platform, and consumers would choose another, possibly iphones or RIM.

Apple users talk about how it's all about the platform, not just the machine. PC heads always yammer on about their processor, the upgradabilty of the video card, blah blah, the hardware. You're making the same mistake.

It's about the platform. Period. Surly this is easy to see.

Iphones, are just nice pieces of hardware, but the platform, the iOS etc., is really what makes the platform rock. It doesn't mater if there is one iphone, or 5.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Nielson: Android flourished before iPhone 4, but Apple 'most desired'