Android device activations now exceed 500,000 per day - Page 3

Android has already won market share. If not today, then very soon. It would be silly for Apple to compete with that. iPhone will sell less and less and in a few years, its out of the game. Better concentrate on iPads while they can. Eventually Google/Android will win that also and goodbye iPads.

A poor consumer and shopper is the person who is totally biased against a product based on one criteria...

Any "android" in my fridge will not be capable of much. I've heard these stories about linux before. Didnt happen. All a fridge needs is to close properly, dammit.

Cars, I can see. I am of the opinion, heretical here, that Apple should licence to markets they cant possibly enter themselves.

Well that was a convincing argument, all the same, with incredibly worked out stats and links to sources, and a clear mathematical brilliance in working out industry trends in the next few years.

You have certainly changed my mind, sir, kudos.

Since there is no real third party agency that would be interested in proving this claim, Rubin can randomly speculate upward numbers.

But who really cares about these numbers even if they were 2M activations per day? All these are lame until Rubin announces a single Android device that outsells any iOS device.

Rubin is just trying to fool Google to keep his job after the Honeycomb 3.0 fiasco on tablets, most notably Xoom.

Rubin seems to be presenting only part of the picture in this Tweet.

What he fails to mention is that a great number of these Android activations are being accumulated through unhappy users selling a particular model to somebody else (eBay, Cragslist, etc.) and that Android phone then makes it's way into somebody else's hands to be activated yet again under a different number.

This makes for an inflated projection of the number of Android phones. This 500,000 a day number certainly doesn't add up to the number of NEW Android phones being sold.

My city has had consistently experienced 500,000 toilet flushes every day and it's growing by 4.4% w/w.

deleted

deleted

Yet that may not be a sign of "bad experience" in so much as it may be a sing of lock in...how many iPhone owners won't want to move because of all their music on iTunes and all the apps they bought, even if they don't necessarily think the iPhone is the optimal solution for them?




I fully agree. Personally, I have never agreed with the thesis that Android's growth has anything to do with the iPhone...other than perhaps the iPhone popularizing touchscreen smartphones. Then again, coming from Symbian I don't buy the whole Android copied the iPhone thing either. Android is far, far more similar to Symbian (to me) than it is to an ianything. And a large part of why I went Android actually was because it was a rather easier transition. iOS can seem utterly foreign if you're coming from another smartphone OS.

I believe I read recently that the income from the iPhone alone exceeds Google's entire gross income.
If that's true, then the analogy is more 'Porsche vs Schwinn'.

Agreed. And that's why I never rule out anything and never swear by any single brand for anything I buy....

ps. Just in case you think so...I'm not biased against Apple products...I own some of them. I just dont' share blatant dislike for all things Android like some here....funnily enough I get called an Apple fanboy on other sites. LOL.

I want to quote from Steve Jobs on Market Share vs Profit.

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."

Eyes on the prize. The prize is always to make money. It's not to have the largest marketshare, though that has a strong correlation.

Google's business model with Android is to give away the software, enabling large marketshare w/Google service use, and make money from search, web advertising. This business model commoditizes hardware and software. It is the antithesis of Apple's business model.

Apple will not sacrifice profits for marketshare, and they will try to maintain their premium vendor status and lower marketshare numbers. They've already moved to the next big thing with the iPad. In another few years, they will try to find another or define another emerging profit center.

And the "fanboy" talk is stupid. You don't sell 10m to 20m handsets a quarter to fanboys. They sell a premium product that masses of people want to have. I wish people would stop the troll-language.

Lastly, Google has not given an accounting on how much money they are making with Android.


Good for you.


Yes, the iPhone 5 will be just as good if not better than the Galaxy S2. There's nothing magical about this. The SGS2 is an early cycle phone using 2011 hardware (dual-core Cortex-A9, 2011 display, RAM, storage, etc). The iPhone 4 is now a late cycle phone using 2010 hardware. When Apple ships the iPhone 5, it will be using 2011 hardware, and be at parity or better than the SGS2.

iPhone 5 with iOS 5 and iCloud will be just as good or better than the SGS2 with ICS, and they'll be in direct competition for about 9 months if the iPhone 5 is shipped in September.


Nothing to get upset about. It's the eventuality of the business models. Apple is looking for profits through hardware sales and fat margins on them. Google is looking for profits through advertising space and fat margins on them. It's hard to beat "free", and Apple wasn't going to have dominant marketshare at all with their premium market strategy.

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."


I honestly reckon if Steve Jobs came on here, was verified as Steve Jobs, and said that exact statement we would still get the "Apple dont care about Market Share" response. People would probably tell him to p*ss off. What does he know?

So... does this mean that sooner or later Apple will go for market share over profits with the iPhone?

Interesting quote.

deleted

It's not quite the same thing. Market share is one of the factors a developer would use to determine which platform to develop for, and in which order.

If Porches needed a specific type of fuel then it would be hard to justify owning one as you might only be able to use it in a few places that sold that type of fuel.

No one (here) wants to see Android as the primary development platform, and iOS supported as an afterthought.

Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post
TI bet many people who buy an Android phone are just buying a phone, and don't really know or care that it has Android installed.


i actually switched to android after iPhone 1 - 3, and in my experience the op system is buggy, and i hate how moto gets their grimy hands on the software after Google. I also prefer the screen size of the iPhone to the huge android screens on the premium devices. However, for me i won't go back to iPhone until 2 things happen: 1) Flash (i use it to watch too many videos), 2) custom alerts for text, email, talk, etc.

I don't think this matters much to Apple except for the perception it creates.

As I see it...

1. More people are buying smart phones today than feature phones. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere recently that smart phones are now the majority of phones sold, but I can't recall the actual reference (so I could be in error about "majority"). So the base of available smart phone buyers is expanding. Apple's share of those smart phones is also growing. As long as they continue to grow their installed base at a rate that maintains their profit margin, I don't think they give a hoot how many Android phones are sold. There will always be people who choose to buy something other than Apple. In the future, many of those will switch...and not switch back.

2. I don't have any hard, factual data to support my next assertion, just anecdotal evidence, but how many folks do you know that purchased any flavor of iPhone and now use another brand as their primary phone. Personally, I can not think of a single one. Many iPhone users (myself included) are on their second or third generation of iPhone. You probably have some Crackberry users that demonstrate similar loyalty, but I don't suspect that is true of any model/brand of Android phone. My experience has been that many of those users change phones like they change clothes. To me, this is similar to the desktop computer model where folks jump from Asus to HP to Dell to...in many cases, Apple. I know of few (none?) who willingly switch back.

A corollary to item two is that, as we've seen from other data, iOS users are far more likely to buy into (literally as well as figuratively) the entire ecosystem. They have invested in apps, music, movies, accessories, etc. Switching to another system can be expensive and/or painful. That investment in the ecosystem, the quality of the products, the general integration and ease of use, and investment in learning the iOS system, engenders great loyalty (can you say "fanboy"?). As long as Apple continues to support those multiple investments through future generations of the product line, I think they can only continue to grow their installed base. I believe the equation will continue to be: new iOS users coming in > any iOs users going out. I don't see that equation changing any time soon.

If, indeed, that continues to be the case, then it really doesn't matter how many alternative operating system activations there are.

And that's true Professor. The comparison was inane even when it favored the iPhone. That's why instead of moving the goalposts, iOS users and fans should just enjoy the overall experience and useability of Apple products. It's not about numbers even if they favor Apple today. Tomorrow they can change and then you have to explain why that number doesn't matter anymore.

The article says "android devices" so I'm assuming this includes tablets. If my assumption is true then this is actually a little underwhelming. If you remove that new class of devices it's possible android phone sales are flat or flattening out. Impressive numbers overall but I still question how sticky the android platform is with users as many people I know with the phones have few, if any, paid apps or services they depend on. I know far more people with iOS devices that have significant investments of time and money and swear by the devices - just some anecdotal thoughts for the discussion.

They can have profit share and market share...with lower margins.

What people don't get is that the "cheap" Android phones these days are better than a Nexus One and cheaper than a new iPhone 3GS. The Motorola Cliq days are over. And that's good enough for most people.

deleted

And not because it's better, because it's free...like Android.

It's like saying that Porsche is failing because it's selling fewer cars than Ford. Not everybody likes Porsches, and a Porsche isn't the right car for a large number of people - who might prefer something cheaper and more practical. Nevertheless, all Porsches are aimed at a relatively affluent market segment and turn a much higher profit margin than a Ford Focus does.[/QUOTE]


I prefer the analogy where Apple is Gucci and Android is Urban Outfitters. Apple serves one market, the ones who have money and Urban Outfitters serve those both who do and don't have a whole lot of money but still walk away looking good!

Well... actually... it doesn't matter what people get or don't get... it does matter what Apple gets, though, and I'm sure they are highly aware of the situation. Knowing Jobs, and especially after seeing his quote concerning market share, I would place big bets that the market share question will be answered soon.

... and, I also believe that the market share question isn't actually a pressing concern right now... no matter what a bunch of armchair quarterbacks believe.

Actually no, in Linux's case it generally IS better. Thanks in part to investments from firms like Intel, Linux generally plays nice with MUCH more hardware and hardware configurations than most others, who are optimized for a certain range of hardware. It is inexpensive to maintain, thanks to it's small resource use(and partitioning) and requires little downtime compared to most.

I wonder how much recycling of the same users is going on with these new activations? My Android-using friends spend a shocking amount of money playing Simon says: instead of keeping their phone for the contract length, they take a penalty and try ANOTHER Android phone. Because the good Android phone is always just out of reach into the future for them.... and the current devices become abandonware devices rapidly. Theyre still hoping for one where the battery lasts the day. Silly rabbit: just dont install all those apps! They cant believe I have hundreds of apps on my iPhone and the battery doesnt die. They fight constantly with their phone. And ultimately, give up and get a different one! But still Android, because they know Apple is evil in some sense they cant put into words.

I think one big reason (some) people dont switch from Android to iPhone is that Android has such problems. Theyve never used an iPhone (not day-in day-out) so they think every phone has the level of problems they experience with Android. Therefore, the LAST thing they want is to have problems on an UNFAMILIAR platform. They want the devil they know! (Same thing with Macs: Windows has long been such a pain for some people that it made them scared of all computersespecially unknown ones.)

In reality, while Android IS awesome compared to their old dumphone, theyd be far better served by an iPhone. You know... the device the Android platform is an imitation of... An imitation that is always just about to get it right, with the NEXT device or release. Simon says!

deleted

...that Google Android is part of the drive that is pulling more and more people off feature phones and onto "smartphones". By reducing pricing and data plans for the less expensive Android phones, more and more people are part of the smartphone category.

Quite a few commenters assume that Google is gaining marketshare at the cost of someone else (which was true when they first moved into the market, and allowed the handset makers to drop Microsoft). Most of the marketshare is coming at the expense of feature phones - and that's OK. Because once a consumer starts using a smartphone (as opposed to just owning one and using just the basic features) their expectations move from feature to smartphone and then up the smartphone ladder from basic to more expensive (as budget allows).

This is why Rubin, while touting the number of activations, is also in the background trying to shore up the user experience on Android, exerting controls where he must to improve Android's basic consumer delivery quality. There's also pressure from ChromeOS, which could effectively limit the expansion of Android to just the smartphone market - something that is not a limiting factor for the Apple iOS.

Anyone who continues to compare this to the old Mac vs. PC competition is clearly not seeing the obvious and should be disregarded, opinion-wise. That comparison is faulty as best and is used primarily to support the underlying thesis that subsequently Google/Android will be the de facto victor in the marketplace. Not a foregone conclusion in any respect. There is still a huge feature phone amrket internationally for the competitors to pillage and pwn before the dust settles.

I have a hard time buying his report via a Tweet. Would like to see a third party verify this. My Bullshit detector is going off for some reason.

I should also add. Friend of mine just showed me her new Android phone last week. Uh...... it really SUCKS IMO. Would liken it to being forced to work in Windows 7 after using Mac OS X for a decade. Painful and stupid. It's no iPhone. Sorry Google. You guys are creepy commies and your OS bites.

Thus, Google is making an extra $50 per day.

No, that quote is out of context... Steve was actually talking about how companies lose focus on what's important, which was to stay innovative and not concentrate on either profits or market share, which is all the "sales guys" do; they end up milking a product for all its worth and running the company into the ground after they fail to produce new products.

It was about becoming complacent when in a monopolistic position.

Great viewpoint. +1!

deleted

Rubin's tweet is about device activations of any and all android devices. Not only are the android smartphones fragmented, the android devices fill a vast variety of definitions. For example some are multiple-touch, many are not. A comparison of this activations number to the iOS activations that draws inferences regarding the potential size of the app market for android vs. iOS is not really meaningful. Non-multitouch devices would generally be unable to use multitouch app effectively. Perhaps some smart analyst will study the android market and understand it for what it is and is not.

We do. It's guys like you that don't.

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

You read it your way and I'll read it mine.

Innovation is not the only way (or even the best way) to go after market share and looking back at Apple in the late 80s, early 90s, I'd say that Steve was indeed talking directly about market share and not innovation... although innovation should have also been on the table.