Google activating 300,000 Android devices per day, for free - Page 4

In the mobile phone space Google had zero presence of its own (aside from search). That's what I meant by "from nowhere". We all knew Google only as the search/e-mail company prior to that point. Would you have expected a search company to create a mobile OS that has such an impact?


And what's wrong with that? Google helped make Android enticing enough for those companies to decide to run with it. Like you said, these companies could have picked any OS at all. But they chose Android on its merits.

If Android's merits didn't fit, wouldn't those companies have continued to use their current OSs?


I'll give you that one. What I probably should have said was accelerated its death.


Nothing worth getting bent out of shape to disagree with here. I will agree with your statement on WP7. At the moment, it doesn't seem to have gathered traction yet. Then again, Android was the exact same way when it first started out, so anything's possible.

Oops. My fault. That should be 2cent I'm referring to.

Though my thoughts still stand.

Here are the actual results from each company over the past year compared to each other

Revenue (Billions): Google , Apple , Difference
Sept Quarter 09: 5.94 , 12.25 , 206%
Sept Quarter 10: 7.29 , 20.34 , 279%
\t\t\t
Net Profit (Billions): Google , Apple , Difference
Sept Quarter 09: 1.88 , 2.85 , 152%
Sept Quarter 10: 2.46 , 4.31 , 175%

Revenue: Google Total\t , iPhone (only) , Difference
Sept Quarter 10: 7.29 , 8.82 , 121%

Things to note from the above data
The iPhone alone generates more revenue then all of Google's activities put together, and is increasing.
Apple Revenue and Net Porfit figures are increasing at a much faster rate than Google as a whole

Aside from bragging rights I don't see how this justifies that Android is a "flop".


So if I write a program for Windows 7 it should run on Windows 3.1?

See cmf2 - there you go being all logical and stuff. Android cannot "beat" iOS without using the comparison of Android to the iPhone, so naturally that is what is being reported, and this point has been made both consistently and successfully - but it is also uniformly denied by the Android proponents - whose world view demands that their precious "open" OS be the champion of the world. This little stub from Linux is going to rectify all the languishing potential of Linux for the myriads of Open Source fans - hence the bends, twisting and concatenating of simple statistics into a lovely framework for this particular ideology.

Any OS or framework is only as good as it's uptake into the industry. By championing Android, Google was able to buy time to build out Chrome OS, which in no way was ready for prime-time on any platform. Gogle was very canny about switching form-factor from the previous Blackberry form to the iPhone form. Eric wasn't stupid he recognized the potential in what Apple was doing. It also forced Microsoft to revamp it's entire approach to WinMo, delaying entry into the fray by WinMo7, and allowing Google time to build out a marketshare before Microsoft came back to market with it's solution. It also meant that Google would, like any good illusionist, keep pointing at Apple while eroding Microsoft's mobile base.

Except that Microsoft wasn't watching where Google was pointing, and stepped in and offered HTC the choice of lawsuit or licensing touch interface from Microsoft. Cha-ching, now for HTC Android is costing them money. Motorola too. And for the Fandroids who keep insisting that Apple is the giant to kill, stop watching where Google is pointing and watch the other hand instead: Nokia/Symbian and RIM are the marketshares that lead for now, not Apple. You have been fooled and misdirected. Likewise Apploids, stop saying that Apple isn't concerned with marketshare - of course they are. Without marketshare you don't have sales and you lose. It may not be first priority and an absolute necessity like it is for Google/Android, but it is still important.

I'm sorry if this is too much commonsense for some of you but there you are. Google HAS to deeply penetrate the mobile ad space and Android is the trogan horse to do it - their business plan was plateauing with the installed desktop ad space and they needed to catch the next profit stream. It's all business folks. Fandroids, Goggle isn't the white knight championing open source out of the kindness of it's heart. It is prostituting the platform for it's own ends - and as long as the fans don't mind the metaphorical streetcorners and the "work" Android will bring in the revenue for Google. But if something else comes along
prettier and more profitable - Android will be put to rest.

If Android was up against iOS on its own [on edit - = one manufacturer] on one carrier it would be a flop. It takes almost every manufacturer and every carrier to make a dent in Apple's armour.

Knowing that I have to ask why iOS is so compelling. Is Android really worth its salt or is it only popular because it's being thrown onto the market in the millions by any and every manufacturer in town?

I'm not sure how this could be answered (reason for popularity).

One area where I'd like to see stats is how many "paid" apps are being bought on each os.

That command is the UserInterface of the device

Are you sure, because they were asking money for all the phones in the flyer I got yesterday.

Google might be giving it away, but the phone manufactures aren't

If you write a program on windows 7 then there is likelihood that it won't run on windows 7 itself

You picked a wrong example.

I used to read the articles on this site for apple related info. Unfortunately, many of the articles are now simply unadulterated one-sided and poorly written opinion pieces. sad.

Google makes quite a bit of money out of mobility. Why would they try to kill the iPhone?

Google didn't create the OS, they bought it and refined it. I'd expect a company with the financial clout of Google to be able to break into new markets from time to time (they've done quite well in the email and web browser markets too). Breaking into the mobile market was impressive, don't get me wrong, I just don't agree with the disadvantaged connotations the term "from nowhere" brings with it.


On its merits vs WinMo, basically the only other option they had, which was my point. You said they were up against the giants of iOS, Symbian and BB. I was suggesting that wasn't true from a hardware manufacturers perspective since their only other "viable" option was WinMo (or to create their own OS).


Again that current OS was WinMo, which you agree was on its way out. Androids been a great success for Google, I just like to keep things in perspective. Google doesn't make their own phones, it needs the continual support of phone manufacturers to stay in the game. Once upon a time WinMo was the mobile OS of choice for these manufacturers, but it didn't last forever. Android being open source and receiving frequent updates should help it avoid a similar fate, but I think it's important to properly identify why Android is successful and what it's really up against.

Wrong. When Android releases a new version, there are new APIs that developers can leverage to add newly exposed features of the OS to their app. New applications can utilize these new APIs or existing applications can be updated to take advantage of the new features of the release. This is no different than software development on any other platform, including iOS.

In the case of Android, if an application requires *new* API's introduced in the latest platform release, then that app will only appear in the Market to users with the latest version. The key is that new platform releases do not modify existing APIs such that they break compatibility with existing apps that use those APIs. Android does not.

Also, multiple Angry Birds versions was an effort by Rovio to target older, slower, legacy hardware. There was no "platform problems" or "fragmentation", it was an effort by the developer to provided optimized experiences for different classes of hardware. Exactly like Id Software did for Rage on iOS.

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 1:17pm

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 1:17pm

Theres none of this business day nonsense in retail, it's seven days a week, phone companies are open to support activations seven days a week.

UNDERSTAND FUDGE


Google didn't "create" an OS, they bought a company that did.

I haven't read all this thread but was lolling a bit at the Fandroids popping in at page 1. There must be Fandroids who have an RSS feed to a site devoted to a different and competitive OS. And how sad is that. Meanwhile here am I in post 139. And me, a fan of Apple.

Lets clear something up: The report says that

while just days ago, the company reported a weekly activation number of 1.5 million, or just over 214,000 activations per day.

which means what it says. A few days ago the number of activations was 1.5 million a week. These figures are not plucked out of anyones arse, they are measured. As they made the announcement they didnt just pick up last August's figures, nor could something so rudimental a mistake ( were it a mistake) be made by the smallest marketing department in the smallest company. If they were selling 300K a day then a simple multiplication by 7 would have the marketing department announcing more than 2M a week. They didnt, because they weren't.

So is Rubin lying. No he is not. Rubin is telling us when Android passed the 300K a day mark; he is announcing this either a day or two later ( so he can say each), or maybe a week later. He was always going to tweet the 300K level, and rather than give the game away by saying " just passed 300K" he puts the tweet in a way it seems they always where . But they weren;t, or they would have said it.

So Android has been selling above their long term ( but clearly stalled) average since Black Friday and early Dec, which is what we would expect as shopping peaks now. That they weren't before then, that we can be surprised at. That includes the Samsung tablets ( and since the Samsung tablet is definitely included as an Android device we should include all iOS devices: tablet, phone and music players - anything with the full capabilities of iOS).

As for Apple, their iPod sales double each holiday - thats 20M, about 60% iPod touches, or more this year ( the new iPod touch is a steal). Thats assuming no Y-O-Y growth.
So 12-14 M iOS small form factor devices there,.

About 14-20m iPhones ( assuming the previous years Y-o-Y growth)

iPads at 4-8M. 4M would be sequentially the same, and I think is a massive underestimate for the holiday season.

Thats up to 42M devices: I am seeing that at up to 450K activations a day ( over 92 days - not 66 "working days") . 42M is more likely than not.

Android dominates in 2 markets, America ( a problem with the carriers) and China, a problem of price and the HTC brand, and carriers. Next year Apple will get past our Android fans again: in the US with more carrier coverage, in China with a greater brand awareness and new carriers, and with whatever new iPad, iDevice and whatever it does to the TV - which has to be better than anything google are doing.

The limitations of Androids platform will be become apparent as it tries to compete as an iDevice. It cant even run Angry Birds. Its not so loyal BOGO market will divert back to iOS, leaving the shut-ins to root their system and get angry on forums dedicated to iOS and Apple.

God love em.

Great post, thanks!

After perusing 4 pages of Apple versus Android oneupisms I am simply reminded of that "can't we all just get along" mantra. As for me, I like the smartphone competition. And as long as there's a Verizon iPhone to choose next year, I don't care how many thousands of Android activations there are each day. I only want one iPhone activation.

First: Retail is not necessarily "seven days a week" -- often it is 5 or 6 days a week. I owned retail computer stores for 11 + years -- maybe 10 weeks in 11 years were we open 7 days in a row.

Second: Budgeting, Forecasting and Reporting in businesses is normally done on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis. Very seldom is it broken down smaller -- as it would be meaningless.

There are special exceptions, usually around holiday or special events: Easter Week; XMAS; Back To School; Super Bowl; Guy Fawkes Day; etc.

For these exceptions it is of little value to compare to the previous or following period -- rather comparison to the same period in prior and following years.

Third: Google is not a retail company. I suspect most of their employees and executives work 5 days per week, Mon-Fri. Those are the business days that comprise their week.

People who work a 5-day week tend to think in 5-day, 40 hour (US), weeks -- you make x amount of wages per week or month. You report progress or accomplishments in week or month increments.

Per day statistics are usually meaningless -- If 300,000 iPhones and 300,000 Android phones are activated on December 25, is it likely that that the same number will be activated December 26? December 31? February 17?


So where does Google get its numbers:

Is it the total activations per month / days in the month?

Is it the total activations per month / weeks in the month * days in a week?

What's a day?


My point is that a daily statistic, such as phone activations, is useful as a target or threshold accomplishment, but for little else.

You mean other tech blogs aren't like cults too? The group-think at places like digg, engadget, and BGR is quite overwhelming.

Why?
I can't search paper.
At least not search it fast enough to be competitive at anything.

This is a completely irrelevant scenario. Android is about CHOICE and openness and being able to build a phone however you want it.

iOS is 'so' compelling through branding and marketing to the mainstream market not because of the feature set of the phone itself which lacks compared to some of its competitors.

Should probably have said suicide cult. Seeing as I wouldn't be surprised if half of you committed suicide if you woke up tomorrow and apple didn't exist.

If you are speaking about hardware alone, you are correct...but if you were talking about software, the IOS version is a very good version of the Android's 1.6.

I'd say "horseshit" to that argument. I can almost guarantee you that the amount of people buying an Android phone who give a rat's ass about openness and and being able to build a phone however you want would amount to 10% or less of the market... 60% or more of the people who bought an Android phone were convinced by the seller that it was better to buy an Android phone because it supports flash...

Well... for myself it would be a sad day but not worth committing suicide... on the other hand it would be a great day if I woke up tomorrow and you didn't exist.

Fair comparison:
Android 1.6 ~ iOS 1.0
Android 2.3 ~ iOS 2.2.1
Android 3.0 ~ iOS 3.1.3

I hope not. Otherwise, it would turn out Apple is loosing against crappy products, which doesn't put Apple product in good light either.

It is OK to loose against someone better than you, but loosing to (perceived) inferior... what does that make you..?

It is true. Google double counts things:

"Steve Jobs said Apple's 230,000 iOS activations are new activations and that "friends" are counting upgrades when they count their activations.

In other words, Jobs suggested that Eric Schmidt is full of it when he says there's 200,000 Android activations daily."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/steve...#ixzz17fc6dTOi

Some people are confused by choices.

Sears uses the "Good, Better Best" strategy, as does Apple. They sell to the heartland of America.

So where are all these free android phones people keep talking about?

You have some flawed logic. So Android was only competing against the only other open OS (WinMo) so their accomplishment does not count?

Really?

So when a customer goes to a store to buy a phone, they first sort themselves out by open or closed and then by which OS they want? Or do Open operating systems not compete with closed operating systems at all? I'd love to hear you explain this.

I'd say that basically tripling your activation rate and catching up to the other hot OS on the market in 1 year and getting set to topple the top seats in another year is not some piddling accomplishment.

Or do you also believe that Microsoft didn't achieve much because they were only competing against other open operating systems like Linux?

Seriously, is your bias that bad that you can't even acknowledge accomplishments like this one. Even if the comparison wasn't to iOS, the phenomenal growth achieved in 2010 alone is an accomplishment that should stand on its own. Give credit where it's due.

Good points. Reality is seldom what it seems. Android is not a platform.

Even looser?

No. Windows 3.1 is obsolete.

Angry Birds doesn't run on the SE Xperia x10 Mini, an Android handset launched in Feb this year. That's because manufactures can slap Android on any old hardware and pitch it into the marketplace. It makes the Android world a mess, and clearly a nightmare to develop any software that relies on hardware with a minimum amount of grunt.

iOS on the other hand is not a mess. There are only a few hardware configurations to support and devs can choose how to do that.

The uncomfortable reality for Google is that if they want to solve these problems they need to become much more Apple-like. But, projecting more control over Android (tighter hardware definitions, consistent UIs, for example) kills a central part of their brand myth; that they're "open" and that they exist in part to defend to good guys from evil Apple and their "closed" systems (ignoring Apple's dependence on open web standards and their contributions to keeping the web open, like Webkit).

My guess is that senior people at Google value this myth so highly that they'll cling to it so tightly that Google will never try and make Android a proper platform. And without it being a proper platform, it doesn't matter how many handsets are out there. It only matters on how many devices a particular piece of software can run. The Rovio experience suggests that, for a sophisticated piece of software, this number is a relatively small portion of the total number of Android devices. So, each app defines it's own special Android "platform". That's a degree

No. Windows 3.1 is obsolete.

Angry Birds doesn't run on the SE Xperia x10 Mini, an Android handset launched in Feb this year. That's because manufactures can slap Android on any old hardware and pitch it into the marketplace. It makes the Android world a mess, and clearly a nightmare to develop any software that relies on hardware with a minimum amount of grunt.

iOS on the other hand is not a mess. There are only a few hardware configurations to support and devs can choose how to do that.

The uncomfortable reality for Google is that if they want to solve these problems they need to become much more Apple-like. But, projecting more control over Android (tighter hardware definitions, consistent UIs, for example) kills a central part of their brand myth; that they're "open" and that they exist in part to defend to good guys from evil Apple and their "closed" systems (ignoring Apple's dependence on open web standards and their contributions to keeping the web open, like Webkit).

My guess is that senior people at Google value this myth so highly that they'll cling to it so tightly that Google will never try and make Android a proper platform. And without it being a proper platform, it doesn't matter how many handsets are out there. It only matters on how many devices a particular piece of software can run. The Rovio experience suggests that, for a sophisticated piece of software, this number is a relatively small portion of the total number of Android devices. So, each app defines it's own special Android "platform". That's a very high degree of fragmentation.

Exactly, CHOICE. They chose to buy a phone that can run flash if you CHOOSE to.

When the iphone got out in january 2007, Android was still vaporware and when Google show the alpha version to the world later in 2007 it was a blackberry clone. Then Android slowly became an iOS clone over the years.

I am seriously getting annoy by people saying Android was there before the iphone. The company was there in 2003, but the software was no were near like the 2007 iphone OS. The only reason Android is so popular is because its an "iphone like" alternative.

It all depends on how you define it. Those saying Android was before iPhone OS are surely only referring to the name tied to some initial OS software. I say let them have that as it does show how Android and others had to completely rethink what they were doing and use the iPhone as a template if they wanted to complete in the future of smartphones.

Its funny how so many experts said Apple couldnt compete in such a saturated market and overnight Apples model became the only one worth using if you want to survive.

Thats not to say that other innovations outside of Apple have not arisen, including ones that Apple has adopted and will adopt in future, just that the nearly buttonless, capacitance, multitouch smartphone with a rich web-browser is now the de facto standard because of Apples emergence into this industry. I have no doubt others would have figured it out, but when? Would Android be the most open Blackberry like device on the market had the iPhone not existed? I think so.