Nielsen: Android overtakes Apple's iOS in latest US smartphone sales - Page 4

Originally Posted by mrochester

Here's an interesting article about marketshare.

http://www.techztalk.com/techwebsite...p-rising-in-us

"Rubin says... Android now has leapt past Apple to become the biggest smart-phone platform in the United States, the third-biggest worldwide, and by far the fastest growing."

The struggle between Google and Apple today looks a lot like the battle between Apple and Microsoft in the PC era. Back then, Apple leapt out to an early lead with the Macintosh, whose revolutionary operating system ran only on Apple machines. But Microsoft came up with a version of Windows that could compete with the Mac. Because Microsoft licensed its software to all of the world’s computer makers, it eventually controlled 90 percent of the market.

Originally Posted by stuffe

I long for Android OS 3.0 and a suitably well selling Android Tablet, just to force stupid "analysts" like this to stop using such flawed data by excluding the iPod Touches/iPads from this sort of commentary. The real story is the battle for the mobile OS on all mobile devices, and not the most popular phone OS.
The fact that the graphs don't use "iOS" and still use "iPhone OS" just makes these stand out as being either produced by someone without a clue, or by someone with an agenda to cook the figures.

Right now Rubins engineers are putting the finishing touches on the next version of Android, code-named Gingerbread, which is scheduled to ship before the end of this year. Theyre also developing a version of Android called Honeycomb, which is designed to run on tablet computers and will follow on the heels of Gingerbread.

Originally Posted by asdasd

Apple give real results and claimed to be outpacing the Market.


.

Originally Posted by asdasd

What you said was that no iPad app could run on the iPhone.

Originally Posted by Davewrite

how many times do I have to explain this?

DID YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS? Did you follow the thread?

1) "This whole post assumes that consumers give a rats ass about profits, which I can assure they don't."
DUDE: my first post was to those that were saying that Android was making all this money and that it was way better than Apple's model of revenue. It's the Droid fans who brought up the revenue issue.

but since you brought up the topic of users and profits...
Perhaps some users don't give a rat's ass about profits but they certainly should. WHY? Perhaps you should ask the no profit Palm users (in limbo as Palm is being slowly digested by HP). go ask the msft KIN phone users, the Win Mo 6 users...
also go ask the AMIGA users, the people who bought BETAMAX players, the OS2 users...
No profits can mean END of LINE for your product or at best it means nothing for R&D, bad customer service, sucky hardware as OEMs cut costs, go ask the no profit NETBOOK users about that...

2)"Incidently, each extra Android device on the market is an additional revenue stream for Google through the sale of products, services and advertising."

Shoot, are you DENSE or what? THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID does NOT happen EVERY TIME. I explained it sideways and backwards with examples that even small brained reptiles could understand.

here AGAIN (for like the third time):
"in the situations WHEN CARRIERS LOAD BING, YAHOO OR BAIDU ON THEIR PHONE, WHEN PEOPLE OPEN THEIR OWN APP STORES AND LOCK GOOGLE OUT, WHEN PHONES ARE BUILT SO THAT THEY LOCKED DOWN TO THIER OWN NON GOOGLE APPS AND CAN'T ACCESS GOOGLE ANDROID MARKET GOOGLE MAKES LESS OR NOTHING".

get it? If a phone runs Bing Google gets zilch from search. If they run non google maps, services etc same thing.
If users buy apps from a NON google store and they are sprouting: Google gets zilch.
Some phones in Asia come with Baidu not Google and are locked down. You can't even download apps from Google android market. Google profit from them Zero.
If advertisers use other ad agencies and not Google's Admob, google loses revenue
etc (all I explained in DETAIL in my first posts)

I even gave an EXAMPLE in my first post:
"Engadget on Moto Backflip:
"Yahoo has replaced Google as the default search provider throughout the phone. It's crazy: the home screen widget, the browser, everything's been programmed to use Yahoo.
It's filled to the brim with pre-loaded AT&T stuff: AllSport GPS, AT&T Maps, AT&T Music (which takes the place of the standard Music app), AT&T Navigator, AT&T Wi-Fi Hotspots, Mobile Banking, MobiTV, MusicID, Where, and YPmobile. We strongly prefer the approach of offering a special branded Android Market portal where you can download your carrier's recommended apps."

Another:
Electronista:
"Verizon's decision to force the use of Bing as the core search engine on the Samsung Fascinate may be part of a larger change that could undermine Android itself, .... Verizon's approach also prevents owners from choosing an alternative short of installing unofficial firmware, an investigation found."

I also explained that if people are looking at Google ads on their phones they are NOT (probably) looking AT THE SAME TIME at ads on their laptops or desktops: page view GAIN for Google ZERO.


Man you DON"T READ and you SPOUT!

Originally Posted by Carniphage

While the Mac vs. PC story is always cited as an "Apple fail" - it has an interesting coda.
Apple is now the most profitable personal computer manufacturer too. It makes more money sellng Macs than any Windows box maker.

When any manufacturer, be they cellphone or computer, gives up on software development and outsources it to Microsoft or Google. They lose the ability to differentiate their products.
They become a commodity, sold only on a simple price/features axis. And the exact same process is happening to Android phones. They become interchangeable and generic. Very cheap, with lots of features.

This isn't bad news for consumers, but it is bad news for those manufacturers, who have to settle for 5% profit margins.


C.

Originally Posted by mrochester

That's fine, because we are consumers.

Originally Posted by Carniphage

It not entirely fine.

If you look at the PC, you see a product that has stagnated because its progress is tied to a single vendor.

The hardware manufacturers are so impoverished there is now no possibility of them innovating new software technologies. Competition and innovation have effectively ceased. All efforts are invested in shaving down production costs, or shoehorning in an extra widget.

I would argue that this is not an entirely good thing. Markets perform best when there are multiple vendors with independent solutions to offer.

C.

Originally Posted by mrochester

Most people don't need to pay extra for a Mac when the cheaper option already does everything they need, and more.

Originally Posted by island hermit

Obviously this statement can't be true... or the Mac would be dead.

Originally Posted by mrochester

That's fine, because the product already does what I need it to do, so I'm looking to get hold of it for the cheapest price, as do the vast majority of consumers. Most people don't need to pay extra for a Mac when the cheaper option already does everything they need, and more.

Originally Posted by Carniphage

Perhaps Wall Mart's fine clothing lines meet all your apparel requirements too?


C.

Originally Posted by mrochester

Exactly, now we're on the same wave length. For most people, there simply isn't any reason to pay the extra.

Originally Posted by mrochester

Because some people need things the Mac does that a PC doesn't, but most don't.

Originally Posted by Carniphage

But fortunately, in clothing, in automobiles, and in technology there is a high end. And that high end is where all the innovation and development happens.

New ideas trickle down to the low end.

The problem with single vendor solutions is that there is no high end. No alternatives and only limited choices. The product range turns into a Soviet-style car-dealership featuring just one model.

And that model causes products to stagnate and it hurts consumers and vendors.

C.

Originally Posted by Carniphage

When any manufacturer, be they cellphone or computer, gives up on software development and outsources it to Microsoft or Google. They lose the ability to differentiate their products.
They become a commodity, sold only on a simple price/features axis. And the exact same process is happening to Android phones. They become interchangeable and generic. Very cheap, with lots of features.

This isn't bad news for consumers,

C.

Originally Posted by island hermit

I think you're wrong.

Think of it this way... if the Mac share is increasing yet it is more expensive then what does that tell you. To me it says that people really do see a difference, for the better, in the Mac operating system.

For instance... if Apple moved their profit margin down 10% to the low 20's I would assume, by your thinking, that Mac sales would skyrocket.

Why would that be?

This doesn't sound like a scenario where PCs are the same as Macs but are cheaper to buy.

Originally Posted by mrochester

I'd also add that a lot of Apple sales are probably driven by their current 'in fashion' status. Just look at how some of the biggest segments of the market that are purchasing Apple products are students or young adults where being in fashion and trendy is a fairly high priority. Time will tell if Apple's current success is built on actual credability, or whether it's just as a result of their being 'in vogue'.

Originally Posted by appl

I disagree. This isn't a race to the bottom with white goods, like the early PC was. Phones are personal.

In the PC race, they all looked alike, and all had a bewildering array of weird specs that made them read "C\> " or "]".

Today, with cellphones, the manufacturers are differentiating their products. They can add a cool overlay to make it theirs and appeal to specific market segments. They can make a cheap pink one with a smaller screen for middle school girls. They can make a balls to the wall model for techies, and they can make a full-featured one with all the latest apps for the iPhone switchers.

I don't think the current (and especially, the future) cellphone market is at all like the commodity market of the pre-Windows 95 beige box computer market.

Cellphones are not beige computers. They are everything from a lifeline for the elderly to a status symbol for the insecure, and everything in between.

And Android is absolutely ripe for product differentiation, rather than generic sameness. Indeed, it is specifically contemplated that it will be overlaid and modified and pared down and used for lots of different stuff.

Including cellphones that are absolutely perfect for specifically selected consumer segments.

Originally Posted by Carniphage

Apple are within a few months of becoming, in-terms of market-cap, the largest company in the world being traded. Larger than Exxon.

You think that is because of a fad?

C.

Originally Posted by mrochester

I'd also add that a lot of Apple sales are probably driven by their current 'in fashion' status. Just look at how some of the biggest segments of the market that are purchasing Apple products are students or young adults where being in fashion and trendy is a fairly high priority. Time will tell if Apple's current success is built on actual credability, or whether it's just as a result of their being 'in vogue'.

Originally Posted by island hermit

This sounds like fantasy.

I can't give you real market data but I have plenty of anecdotal evidence (ie. switchers) that tells me people are not buying Apple products just because they are trendy.

Originally Posted by mrochester

Some people will, some people won't. When I walk into my local Apple shop it's overwhelmingly filled with teens and young adults. I'll repeat this only once more, but this is why it'll be interesting to see if Apple can retain this level of success when they have fallen out of fashion and someone else becomes the industry darling.

Originally Posted by extremeskater

The siutation with Android and 2.2 is the same situation with the iPhone and v4 of its software. You need the hardware that can support and handle the software. The latest handsets have either been updated to 2.2 or are soon to be updated to 2.2 because they have the power to run it.

Originally Posted by island hermit

How long will we have to wait?

Are the results in yet on power consumption using flash on a phone... and, please, anecdotal evidence won't cut it... "a friend of my cousin's brother-in-law's wife's aunt..."

Originally Posted by extremeskater

See this is the main problem on this forum and with people like you and the Hermit. You don't have to be a flaming fanboy to own AAPL or enjoy your Apple products.

Originally Posted by mrochester

Partly, yeah. You can't argue that Apple haven't created themselves an image of being cool, and for some people, that is enough of a reason to purchase their products. That's why I said the biggest test will be when Apple falls out of fashion; will they still be the largest company in the world by market-cap?

Originally Posted by Archipellago

Not the issue.

Over here in UK, the picture is pretty similar and iPhone is on all networks.


problem for Apple is their greed and the total cost of ownership compared to a similar Android phone is far higher.

Same Carrier, same tariff, same data allowance.

Galaxy S = 24mths x £20 & free phone = TCO £480

iPhone 4 = 24mths x £30 plus £99 for phone = TCO £819

the S is arguably a better piece of hardware, certainly a better phone so why would people pay 70 or 80% for the inferior product?

this isn't a big mystery.

Originally Posted by Onhka

Could you supply a reference?

Could you supply a reference?

The only one I have says that the Free Galaxy S lists at £30 a month.

Originally Posted by Carniphage

It's that fad for oil which has kept Exxon up there for all those years.
All the kids are using it (daddio)

C.

Originally Posted by Carniphage

Perhaps Wall Mart's fine clothing lines meet all your apparel requirements too?

Originally Posted by appl

I remember about a zillion years ago when I sold stereos for a failing company. It was a Washington's Birthday Sale, which was, at the time, a big deal in the CE world. Our store was nearly empty. The competitor down the street was packed.

I listened as one of the salesmen, who used to hold a mid-level position at the competitor, tell us all about how the competitor was losing money and that their strategy could never work. He had complex reasons why they could never make any money doing what they were doing.

The guys I worked for went belly up. The competitor became a national chain.

You remind me of the bitter former mid-level guy with his complex theories about how those guys could not possibly be making any money.

Originally Posted by JeffDM

In general, I haven't seen where more expensive clothing is necessarily any better.

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Apple on path to surpass Exxon as worlds most valuable company

Originally Posted by island hermit

Think of it this way... if the Mac share is increasing yet it is more expensive then what does that tell you. To me it says that people really do see a difference, for the better, in the Mac operating system.

Originally Posted by extremeskater

Let see so we have iPad and iOS record sales and we have Android record sales which promotes Flash as a benefit over iOS. So it appears to me that Apple has done nothing to slow down Flash or help move to HTML5 or any other alternative.

Originally Posted by Carniphage

But consumers are not stupid. They know that what can be done on one Android phone can be done on another with the same sort of spec. If the HTC is a few dollars cheaper than the Samsung, people will switch.
C.