Android-based smartphone shipments leapfrog Apple's iPhone - Page 5

They have:

http://www.cincinnatibell.com/consum...natibell_blaze

"At the critical juncture in the late 80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits."

Who do you think said that?

I agree...

As has been pointed out multiple times, price is not a determinant, particularly when you can get a 3GS for $99 (or free as some have mentioned).

The iPhone is not a premium product based on price.

Ahh... but all those things (Apple ][, Lisa, Newton, Mac) were not inventions (with the possible exception of the Newton).

-- Lots of microcomputers predated the Apple ]{
-- Several graphics computers predated the Lisa and Mac

What Apple did then, as now, is put together a reasonable set of high-quality components (hardware and software) in a clean, attractive, utilitarian and user-friendly package-- then market the hell out of it!


What do I care if you've got a camera with more megapixels-- I can take pictures with mine!

.

Still can't figure out why this doesn't/didn't apply to "Plays for Sure" and the iPod. For a hint - see below.


Couldn't agree more. CDMA should have been on the 3GS at the latest.


This is NOT how Steve Jobs sees it. Here's the whole quote from 2004. BTW - Gruber has a great piece on this.

"If thats so, then why is the Mac market share, even after Apples recent revival, sputtering at a measly 5 percent? Jobs has a theory about that, too. Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. The Mac user interface was a 10-year monopoly, says Jobs. Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late 80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens.


That 1% of all phones was ONLY for the first year. Not for the entire life of the product.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-X_n...eature=channel

Also notice: multiple, resizable, overlapping windows-- all with 128 K of RAM and an 8 MHz 68000 CPU.

.

Wholy crap...
You are making the same argument that was made in the thread i posted 2 years ago.
If you did as i told you to... and read all the back and fourth posts you would see that topic was already covered.

Remaining profitable is always a good thing, but having a huge market share like Microsoft did made them transcend the normal profit/loss business model. They became a monopoly and could do almost anything they wanted.

Apple iPhone will remain profitable, but again they had an opportunity to truly dominate a market... but squandered the chance because of "control".

Android will be ubiquitous in the handheld OS. Apple will have there nice little corner with there nice little profits.

I will be back in a few years to gloat. (Again)

There are LOTS of $30-$60 "Android" phones out there...

Yeah, they run as well as you'd expect. \

Yup, still running Android 1.6, too.

That's what I thought! Except I was going to say that Diesel-engined cars outsold the Mercedes AMG SL65.

What is that supposed to prove? That Diesel is better than gasoline engines? Or that the Mercedes AMG SL65 sucks?

Of course AT&T isn't turning down new customers, but customers are turning down AT&T. To argue otherwise is disingenuous at best. How many surveys have been done that show U.S. iPhone owners' biggest complaint is the network it's on? Hell, my wife and I paid $600 to terminate our AT&T contracts early because we were so sick of dealing with them, and we were loving our iPhones.

The day iPhones become available on another carrier, my wife and I plan to go with that carrier (if they choose not to go with Sprint, which is who we're with now). I can guarantee you we're not the only people who feel the same way.

Seriously, if people want to compare apples to apples (pun kinda intended...sorry), they need to compare smartphones where the software and hardware were made by the same company. Since we're comparing Google and Apple, let's compare the iPhone (choose any model you want) and compare it to the Nexus One. That's a truly level playing field where Google attempted to sell their own phone with their own mobile operating system, and it failed miserably.

You over state the "big picture". Android could be the top selling mobile OS in the world. Companies selling the phone can still go out of business. Motorola, Samsung, HTC don't all pat each other on the back about Android. They are fighting against each other for customers.


Motorola has been saved from deaths door. But they are not doing great. They just aren't spiraling out of control anymore. They need to continue to sell a lot more phones.

Only Apple knows, iOS seems to be doing fine without it.

Yes you should care. Few people would choose to invest in a product from a company that may not stay in business. For developers if Motorola goes out of business that is less phones to sell your apps to.

or maybe iOS 4.3, or maybe never...........

You cannot compare today to 30 years ago. Those widgets are black and white, the graphics are very rudimentary compared to what is expected today. The software is nothing the same.

Do you really think it will take 2 or 3 years for Apple to take first place? Aren't they poised to take it sooner than that?

Lets analyze what you wrote and this truthiness you think youve predicted.

But first, a ProTip: Notice that for each thread there is a consecutive numeric value attributed with each post. This number is a hyperlink to that post so there is no reason to write in the post number when posting the link. Makes things easier.

So lets begin You wrote that "The iPhone will fail the same way the original Macs did because of the tight hardware/software control.
Where has it failed? The iPhone sold about 9M units in a quarter people mostly waited for a new iPhone. Its also the MOST PROFITABLE handset on the market, almost besting all other vendors combined.

Now, I know from rereading that thread that you dont understand the concept of business and how companies try to make money or that Apple has chosen not to license iOS because its entire desire to create iOS is to sell its hardware, the same way Motorolas desire to use the free Android OS to make money on HW sales. But its a reality that you need to accept and realize that Apple is not only far from failing but also the MOST PROFITABLE handset vendor on the planet, and that wont be ending anytime soon.


YOu start off posting the obvious, but I mention it because you fail to see it was Apple that flipped the market on its head with the iPhone. It was lackadaisical, at best, before the iPhone and every smartphone user should thank Apple for revitalizing that market segment.

There is nothing there at no one didnt already know before you. Most seem to know it prior to 2007 with the idea and concept of a phone by Apple.


They lost the PC war yet they are they are the most profitable PC maker in the world, and by a wide margin. Again, you are focusing on unit sales of an OS, which makes absolutely no sense until you reach the event horizon of such low sales that you dont have apps to support your platform. Apple does and the open standard they and others pushed from ports to protocols to browser engines have pushed those goal posts further back so that an OS can have even less marketshare than Apple had in the 90s and still have a viable platform.

You seem to think Apple needs to win some marketshare of their OS to be successful, but consider following unrealistic scenario. Apple gets the worldwide marketshare of HP with about 22%. That means 22% of the worlds PCs ship with Mac OS X. That also means about 77% of the worlds PC ship with Windows. You still call that a fail for Apple, yet they are now making about 80% of all PC profits worldwide yet they have ¼ of the OS marketshare of Windows. Do you not see how your foolish focus on comparing a freely licensed OS to a vendor owned OS makes you look like and idiot and why no one agreed with you then or now?

As far as Android is concerned, anyone with two braincells to rub together expected it to eventually be top dog in the number of units shipped on smartphones compared to any of the vendor owned OSes because its free and can be used by a much larger pool of vendors. One vendor v. potentially infinite number of vendors. Its pretty fraking simple.

To conclude, youve prognosticated nothing. All youve done is bring up a thread that shows not only the long time members, but also the newer ones, that your ability to think critically is severely hindered.

Do you have an example of these widgets?

The term can be used in multiple ways, but without clarification people might think you mean little windowed apps you can move around on your tiny screen.

That makes no sense to me, however, having a screen with different information that can be set up to be shown altogether, like LockInfo, could be considered widgets. For Apple to do this for the lock screen or a drop down from the Menu Bar or with a Home Button click or whatever would need an API. They would have to be sold via the App Store.

I simply cant see windowed widgets made with HTML, CSS, and JS. If you disagree, please make an argument for them. I simply cant see it.

As long as you promise that we don't have to hear from you for a few years .... hell, I'm all over that!

This is just nutty, almost everything you say here is inaccurate.
The point is though, that they haven't relative to iPhone. There isn't a single Android device that has sold anything near to even the worst selling iOS device.


This is just pure fantasy. I've been following the tech media since before Google existed and *never* has a Google event got anything like the attention Apple events get.

This is the best analogy.

Everyone except the Android promoters notices right away that the comparison is faulty because it compares multiple handsets to a single model, but most don't see that there is another level of inaccuracy in that what this study really does is compare an OS to a device, which is total nonsense.

The Android side of the equation covers every device in the world that runs Android, whereas the for other side of the equation they just place the iPhone and leave out the millions of other devices running iOS.

It's the emergence of a new mobile platform, the only proper comparison is devices running iOS vs devices running Android. If that's the metric used, iOS squashes Android like a bug in every single market and will likely continue to do so.

Which is only fitting because Android is a copy of iOS and owes it's very existence to iOS.

The Article said Android Leap-Frogged Apple in 2nd Qtr Numbers . Well in May iPhone supplies were drying up in anticipation of iP4 in June and here it is almost September and supplies of iP4 are still constrained and waits are 2 wks. So just hold onto your spreadsheets come Apple Financials in late October we will see that flip-flop occur again and not by some slim margin. Apple hasn't even started shipping to all it's iPhone countries and won't before end of Qtr so look for another smashing CY4 Qtr (Apple FY 1 Qtr). As someone posted earlier in this thread we are comparing 1 Model from 1 Manufacturer to a Dozen Droid Models and a half Dozen Manufacturers let's compare Apples to Apples

I'm new here, and as I read his post and clicked his link, I honestly thought pretty much what you said: "Why would he give a link to prove he has no idea what he's talking about?"

Some people...

Duh, indeed. I love it when your own data disproves what you're claiming. Your own data states that only 6% of iPhone customers plan to buy Android next time while 21% of Android customers plan to buy iPhone next.

Or, if you look at Blackberry users, 29% want iPhone next vs only 21% wanting Android next.

Your own data shows that Apple is preferred.



Actually, even expensive ones. My daughter's Motorola Backflip is over $100 subsidized - and runs 1.6. They're saying that it will eventually run 2.1, but not for us (I don't know if it's the carrier or whether it's just not available in our area yet, but it's still not out). As for 2.2? I don't expect it any time in the life of the phone.

Are you seriously going to suggest that with sales like this any of the major Android OEMs are at risk of being out of business soon? Android is single handedly saving Motorola and Sony Ericsson. I'd bet on Nokia going under before those two at this juncture. Though Nokia would probably jump on the Android bandwagon before then.

Beware the market-share seeker, they are ultimately rent-seeking (see Microsoft). I value the profit-seeker instead, they strive to earn their dollar.

Case in point: Google just gave Verizon a big bear-hug with their watered down Net Neutrality suggestions... a huge 180-degree shift. Verizon (all telecoms) are notorious rent-seekers, they like oil companies and big banks are so protected from actual competition and plan to (buying congress to) gut the internet to make extra money on each internet transaction that crosses their lines.

Google is now part of the problem, and has allied themselves with Verizon, much more than Apple has with AT&T.

Figures lie and liars figure. What's your point?

Stats are only relevant based on what you are looking at and what your concerns are. For example, if you are a developer you care about which OS has the largest installed base, which OS is growing and ultimately which OS you can better monetize your efforts on, both in the short and long term.

If you're a customer, you may not not even care about stats because as long the phone does what you want and you can get the apps you want, you're set.

Some are saying the only relevant stat is OS to OS. This report was obviously looking at just smartphones (they weren't fixing anything, it's just that they only care about smartphones). And now you are suggesting that we only look at phone sales? What are we supposed to learn from that? That the iPhone sells well? Has anybody ever challenged that point? Is it really relevant?

So what's your point? Apple's holding out? Well, there's several high-end Android models that weren't counted last quarter too. And the EVO was also suffering from shortages. And even if the iPhone does come up on top, isn't that what should happen? One would expect Apple to do well in the iPhone launch quarter. But is a quarterly statistical blip relevant or does the long term trend matter more? Goes back to what I said earlier, how you look at it depends on where you stand.

He claimed the majority of Android owners prefer Android. Show where he's wrong from the Gizmodo article.

An iOS powered iTV/AppleTV could also give a boost to iPhone/iPod/iPad sales.

Speaking of which, it isn't quite fair to compare Android to iPhone, I'd like to see a total comparison to iOS devices as that is a better comparison of market share. I know a lot of people who would opt for a cheap Android phone combined with an iPad instead of an iPhone+iPad.

Indeed. I see a lot of folks on transit every day with an iPod touch for music and games and a phone for text and calls. It's very noticeable because they usually hold them both in one hand which looks kind of funny, but it is rather common.

Mostly the second device is a Blackberry, but there are a few Android phones there too.

I think for the most part, as a developer, you'd be concerned about which platform presents the best opportunity to make money on sales. From every last article I've ever read on the subject, app developers make FAR more money on iOS than on Android.

Installed base is completely meaningless if those customers don't buy what you want to sell.

They aren't smartphones, so why would you count them in the smartphone sales reports?

Android isn't a smartphone either, it's an operating system; just as iOS is an operating system. Seems if we're going to be talking about which operating systems dominates in the "units sold" department, we should compare operating system to operating system.

Otherwise, you're making an unfair comparison between a hardware and software manufacturer with one new model released per year on one carrier in the U.S. against dozens of phone models with constant updates by several manufacturers.

So either compare mobile OS to mobile OS sales by combining iPad, iPod, and iPhone sales against everything running Android, or compare hardware manufacturer product to hardware manufacturer product, which in this case would be Google's Nexus One vs. Apple's iPhone.

Either way, Apple is still in the lead by a comfortable margin.

They are counting the OS of the smartphones sold, so they only count the iPhone (as the other two aren't smartphones), and they only count the Android devices that are smartphones. It isn't that hard a concept to understand.

Notice that I was referring to the bolded text in your post. You claim that Android users will try it out and then move onto something else. I see you failed to mention that 71% of current users are willing to buy another Android device. Which to me means that those 71% like Android.

I believe no one will argue that an iPhone user will want another iPhone the vast majority of the time. It's a given.. Considering how close the Android and iPhone converts are from the BlackBerry line (drawing within 6% of the fabled iPhone), I don't believe it's a bad showing at all for Android, a "clunky" OS.

What the data in the link clearly says is that a majority of the people who have an Android device want another Android device and a significant chunk of of BlackBerry users are moving over to Android. And that the majority of the iPhone users want another iPhone. As time moves forward and Google improves Android to 3.0 and beyond, I'm willing to bet that that 29% going to the iPhone from Android will start to shrink.

Sure, if you really want your ego stroked here, the iPhone is still a wanted device. But as all current data is showing, the trend is that the people are starting to want Android just as much, if not more.

That's for now. Will that stat hold true always? I'm not so sure.

For now, the place to be is iOS if you are a developer. But two years, if and when the predictions come to pass and Android surpasses iOS in installed base completely and there



Like I said earlier, most of the complaints about Android users not buying apps are more of because the apps on Android sucked until very recently.

Android is only now getting games like Angry Birds. Or a much more functional Facebook app. I will bet real money that profits for developers will rise if they start putting quality stuff on Android.

Except that there's really not much in the way of Android development of tablets yet (unless you count that POS that Archos put out), though stuff like the Dell Streak will be out shortly. Not that that's an excuse. But it is the reason why Android is largely looked upon as a phone OS.

I do agree with you that they should be comparing OS to OS. But I don't see why people are so sensitive about these reports. They are meant to slander Apple. These reports are put out routinely to assess the state of the mobile market. So naturally they look only at mobile phones.


I'm sorry but when people make this argument it smacks of a desperate excuse. Even Jobs would not use such a desperate line. It's entirely Apple's choice to have one phone and not license the OS. And until now Jobs has been happy to roll out iSuppli charts showing how much iOS dominates market share and installed base. And now that those same stats show that Android is gaining ground quickly it's unfair to make the comparison? Clearly Jobs didn't get the memo before the iPhone keynote this year.


Android is not all that far behind. If Apple is selling about 22 million (12 million iPhones+8 million iPads+2 million iTouch) iDevices per quarter that's about 245 000 sales/activations per day. Google's already at 200 000 per day (up from 160k per day from a mere two months ago) and they aren't exactly showing signs of slowing down. I wouldn't call it a comfortable margin anymore.

Keep in mind that they beat Blackberry in the US, 18 months earlier than what most analysts predicted. Android is clearly emerging as a solid competitor.