Originally Posted by addabox
You might not recall it, but my original point was your putting analysis in scare quotes. You said it was because of sales figures, I pointed out that the analysis went beyond that to structural analysis of Verizon's sales mix. So yes, you were dismissing that out of hand as well.
Quotes were used because they presented as sales figures derived from "proprietary research." It isn't as accurate as actual sales from VZW vs. Att, but notice how I said on my very first post, "So far, so good."
Nope, they're doing a good Android business. As is Verizon. Who doesn't have the iPhone to balance things out. Point of the article. Again.
But you said:
...for instance it includes observations about the danger to Verizon of becoming a single platform vendor,...
They said it was a danger for them. Well, why? Putting all the eggs in one basket?
Verizon is facing the prospect of a single OS supplier who may or may not maintain alignment with Verizons core profit algorithm. If they diverge, Verizons bargaining power will be strictly limited.
Perhaps, but that goes for Att too. As mentioned, if the iphone goes to Verizon, sales could drop from Att to Verizon, and Android may or may not stay the same.
Now, I won't assume that this is your belief as well, but you brought it up.
"Logical fallacy" isn't a slur that you can just level because you feel like it, like "dumb fuck." It means something. You failed to demonstrate any logical inconsistency, and instead just changed the subject.
Premise made by the original article:
Strike three, the site states, is that Android is simply not competitive with Apple's iPhone.
Supportive evidence? From the original article
In an apples-to-apples comparison, in Q3 the iPhone at AT&T outsold Android at Verizon (remember, same addressable market) by a factor of 2.5. This is with a variety of devices and vendors thrown in the market. We hardly ever get to see this finely grained a comparison when looking at platforms.
But they only addressed the iphone on Att in that graph when they sell more than iOS devices.
What was Att's split of Smartphone OSes? 95% Apple? Who knows.IF
VZW was the only
source of Android, just as Att is the only source
of iphones, it would be a fair comparison. But, that isn't the case, as already explained.
If the premise was "Sales of Android phones at Verizon have not matched sales at Att", that can be supported. But to support the oringinal claim, one needs to show a sales of all iphones vs. all android phones.
Fair enough, Daniel may have changed the emphasis from the original article. But the context even there still makes it clear that we're talking about Verizon vs. AT&T, not some failure of Android in the market at large.
True. But as of late DED has been on a role of taking as many pot shots as he can, even if it makes no sense.
If that's the only point you wanted to make, it's a) trivial, and b) irrelevant to the point being discussed. Nothing in the original article or Daniel's gloss suggest that Android is doomed, or that it is failing in the market place, or that somehow excellent AT&T sales eclipse excellent Android sales on vendors other than Verizon. Not sure why you're so dead set on turning this into "Android is so kicking ass, liars!"
Sure, and that Att sells more than 2.5x phones than Verizon does Android isn't trying to say something without saying it?
Unlike popular comparisons of global device activation numbers, mobile web "market share" and mobile advertising analytics, all of which can gerrymander markets that either include or exclude iPods and iPads and other devices, or group third world cheap devices into the same pool as high end smartphones, the report's comparison of AT&T and Verizon is one of the clearest looks yet at how iPhone sales compare to Android-based smartphones in similar circumstances.
Funny how comparing global activations of numbers on iOS vs. Android would be better than "let's see how many smartphones were found to be sold by a third party analyst from VZW and Att. Include Sprint and T-Mobile, oh why would I need to include them?"
And, again, talking about people you know doesn't add anything to the discussion. I can say "Everyone I know is waiting on an iPhone from Verizon" and it doesn't mean a thing.
I clarified this for you on my second reply. You proceded to jump on me about me committing the fallacy of relying on anecdotes on your subsequent reply.
Except that, outside of a minor point of emphasis, you haven't actually cited any "bullshit" in the article at hand. Instead, you've mounted a spirited defense of the idea of Android's competitiveness in general, without addressing any of the points regarding Android sales on Verizon vs. iOS sales on AT&T specifically, which, yet again, was the topic of the article.
I'm not the one who asserted that "Android is simply not competitive with Apple's iPhone," then quoted it, thus agreeing with it, without proof. Had DED said "while this isn't entirely conclusive, it does show how much Att is leading with the iphone..." I'd be just fine with that.
All of DED's articles about him recalling the past are fun to read. And, as being around for those days, I independently can verify what he posted is true.