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

Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande

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.

Originally Posted by davestall

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.

Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande

Source for the first assertion above, please?

Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande

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.

Originally Posted by davestall

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

Originally Posted by davestall

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.

Originally Posted by davestall

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

Originally Posted by davestall

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.

Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande

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

Originally Posted by jragosta

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.

Originally Posted by shadash

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?

Originally Posted by jragosta

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

they are so fugly I wouldnt use them if they gave them to me free.

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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.

Originally Posted by AsianBob

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.

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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.

Originally Posted by AsianBob

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. ...

Originally Posted by AsianBob

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?

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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

Originally Posted by RationalTroll

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?

Originally Posted by RationalTroll

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

Originally Posted by RationalTroll

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

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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

Originally Posted by AsianBob

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.

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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?

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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.

Originally Posted by Groovetube

I'm not asianBob.

Originally Posted by Groovetube

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.

Originally Posted by Groovetube

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

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Groovetube

That's your opinion

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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.

Originally Posted by Groovetube

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

Originally Posted by Groovetube

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

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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.

Originally Posted by Groovetube

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.

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

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.

Originally Posted by Groovetube

holy anal retentive batman.

Who CARES.

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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?

Originally Posted by Groovetube

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

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

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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.