or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Massive Android activations not viewed as concern for Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Massive Android activations not viewed as concern for Apple - Page 4

post #121 of 168
I agree. It's very good that so many are migrating to smartphones and ditching their laptops and desktops. Android platform is merely the training wheels for virgins who will mature later and use iOS devices. Good news for Apple.
post #122 of 168
One last post on this, from me, for now. Android is taking over the Nokia type feature phone set. As we see elsewhere these figures are having no effect on the market for apps and developers are staying with Apple. Or moving back.

Unlike a computer, which is a device driven by software use, sometimes - as Freud might say - a phone is just a phone. It might be that as devs move back to iOS that customers follow, or it might be that they don't, but it wouldn't matter much wither way.

When iOS started it had 90% of the app downloads with tiny overall market share. There are 3 phone markets - dumb, feature and smart - and Android is across the last two but growing into the second, Apple remains dominant in the smart..
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #123 of 168
Google explained how the activations work already, only new devices running google's android count, that means devices like archos media tabs or millions of Chinese devices sold. The I also think it does not count phones running miui.


Also for the love of all that is right in the world stop claiming that the iphone will start to out pace android when it is released on sprint. Look at Europe to see where the iphone is released on every carrier android still has the majority of the market share the iphone is released on sprint it will sale great but alot of the phones will be returned. Alot of people are use to android switching to iOS will be to use to android and will be switch back in a week. It happened on verizon and it will happen on every new carrier the iphone lands on.
post #124 of 168
There are all kind of confusing reports on Europe. I still see Apple in the lead:

http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2011...rms-in-europe/

EDIT: actually Symbian is in the lead. Notice how I naturally discount Symbian.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #125 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

There are all kind of confusing reports on Europe. I still see Apple in the lead:

http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2011...rms-in-europe/

EDIT: actually Symbian is in the lead. Notice how I naturally discount Symbian.

And, strangely, here in Spain, I see more BB than iPhones or Androids. It seems that every teenager has one
post #126 of 168
Yes, the demise of blackberry is not as certain as people like to think.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #127 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Thats absolutely not the case. The market had many players. In 1985 the biggest selling OS, and one on a very huge trajectory, was the Commodore OS. It fell off a cliff that year. The Osborne had fallen off a cliff a few years before. Across the pond the BBC micro and the Sinclair were selling like hot cakes. They were to disappear by the end of the 80's.
The two more expensive players, IBM and APPle, survived. I say IBM because most PC's sold were IBM, not "clones".

It was the 90's, as Jobs himself has pointed out, where Apple refused to trade margins for market share. The IIFX cost from $9000 to $12000 when it was released in 1990. It was discontinued in 1992. Someone else can work out the index linked 2011 dollars for that - I would guess the top model sold at the modern equivalent of $18000. At least.

Why do people mis-remember the 80's? Who knows? Any ideas?

I think you are doing some mis-remembering. Of the products you mention, most except for the Commodore were marginal, and the Commodore played nowhere outside of the living room, along with the game machine computers from Atari, et. al., which is why it fell off a cliff along with the others. I'm uncertain precisely when the sales of clones exceed PCs built by IBM, but I would guess 1984-5 based on IBM's panic reaction to the clone competition represented by the PC jr.

I don't get why you are fast-forwarding to 1990 for Mac IIfx. The IIcx in the same timeframe was half that price. In any case the PC clone industry and Microsoft were clearly dominating the market by then, so I'm not sure where this fits into your argument.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #128 of 168
I'll get a graph on this. It certainly wasn't a monolithic environment. However you may be right that the late 80's ( not the 90's) was when Apple should have reduced prices. I used the IIfx as an example of clear rip off prices.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #129 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

I'll get a graph on this. It certainly wasn't a monolithic environment. However you may be right that the late 80's ( not the 90's) was when Apple should have reduced prices. I used the IIfx as an example of clear rip off prices.

I don't recall why the IIfx was so expensive, but it was hardly the least-expensive Mac available at that time. I can't say whether Apple was in a real position to reduce prices substantially at that time in any case. They were competing with generic PC hardware from big Asian manufacturers and every corner screwdriver shop working at minuscule margins. The real argument being leveled against Apple in those years was that they refused to adopt Microsoft's model of licensing the OS to all comers. They were finally bullied into trying this on a limited scale, and it was a disaster. So I think we should beware of Monday morning quarterbacking, unless we're prepared to examine the entire context.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #130 of 168
I cant see a graph but here is what wiki has to say about prices in the 80's and 90's


At their introduction in 1981, the US $1,795 price of the Osborne 1 and its competitor Kaypro was considered an attractive price point; these systems had text-only displays and only floppy disks for storage. By 1982, Michael Dell observed that an IBM-compatible personal computer system selling at retail for about $3,000 US was made of components that cost the dealer about $600; typical gross margin on a computer unit was around $1,000.[19] The total value of personal computer purchases in the US in 1983 was about $4 billion, comparable to total sales of pet food. By late 1998, the average selling price of personal computer systems in the United States had dropped below $1000.[20]

All that makes a $12,000 model incredibly expensive. Margins must have been 80%.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #131 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Thing not proved.

And as Google has said that upgrading the os doesn't count as activation, changing the SIM or "resetting" if resetting is factory reset or flashing doesn't count as activation.

Is that a phone may be Activated multiple times. Show me one place that Google has even implied that "Activations = Sales". They have never even close to implying that. Likewise, Google has never discussed Activation counts surrounding reseting the device. You just made that part up.

There is enough evidence to support that, in fact, "Activations != Sales".
post #132 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Google has never discussed Activation counts surrounding reseting the device. You just made that part up.

Google has said that OS upgrades doesn't count as activations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

There is enough evidence to support that, in fact, "Activations != Sales".

Which one?
post #133 of 168
Heres a good article from Ars.

Computer market share

pre-1980

1980-1984


1984-1987


Apple - and particularly the Mac - had nowhere near the market share that people remember - but it increased towards the end of the decade. The "others" including the commodore 64 were ahead until about mid 1985, when IBM clones sell about 50% for the first time. The C64 was the largest player in 1984. C64 remains at 20% by late 1987 more than all Apple products.

The Mac is way less than 5% until 1986 where it seems to absorb some Apple II share and gets to 5% - the Apple II does better than the Mac until the end of 1987. Amiga and Atari are also in the game at not much less than Apple.

So where and how would APple have won in these early years by reducing prices? Past 1987 as the market consolidates around two OSe's, was when Apple need to sweep up the non-MS competition.


Later:

1987 -1990 sees all the players still around but the PC market goes to 80%. The market levels off.

Everybody but Apple collapse by 1994 ( that is success in itself) but I think it is past 1992 where Apple really lost it. The PC market accelerates again - driven by price - and APple dont compete for share, but maintain their share and keep profits. Eventually the share collapses - ( to 2000)


( All images from Ars Technica - here http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2...tal-share.ars/)
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #134 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Google has said that OS upgrades doesn't count as activations.

Which one?

Reseting/upgrading. Show me where Google has said if you reset you phone and change phones, it does not count as an Activation. I have been told by a Google Engineer working at the Plex that, in fact, it does. This also implies that used phones going to new owners would count as "activations."
post #135 of 168
Android isn't stealing sales from iOS it's converting "feature phone" users and former CrackBerry addicts.

Apple is happy to keep making most the money in the mobile market and iOS devs are happy to keep making most the money from app sales.
post #136 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Reseting/upgrading. Show me where Google has said if you reset you phone and change phones, it does not count as an Activation. I have been told by a Google Engineer working at the Plex that, in fact, it does. This also implies that used phones going to new owners would count as "activations."

He's right. They have said that.

http://mashable.com/2010/09/02/googl...id-activation/
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #137 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Reseting/upgrading. Show me where Google has said if you reset you phone and change phones, it does not count as an Activation. I have been told by a Google Engineer working at the Plex that, in fact, it does. This also implies that used phones going to new owners would count as "activations."

My God, upgrading the os RESETS the phone and Google, as I have linked before, has said that OS upgrades doesn't count as activations.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/...g-accusations/
post #138 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Heres a good article from Ars.

Computer market share

And this is only hardware, how could changed things if Kildall would priced CP/M as MS/DOS
post #139 of 168
With regards to Sony-Ericsson
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

It is part of a larger conglomorate, of course, but the company which sells 11% of the Android market ( in value?) is loss making!!

Yes it is, or microscopic profits in good quarters, and so is Motorola mobility, but to be fair to Android, they were both basket cases before they switched to it - it actually gave them a last lease on life.

This is a really common phenomenon in the phone industry. A handset maker hits hard times and the channel will still take the phones off them but demands increasingly aggressive prices till eventually you're left with a zombie firm, which finally merges with another zombie and they try again. Market share tends to get lost slowly, due to the nature of the channel, but margins degrade fast, and once gone they do not return.
post #140 of 168
If I understand some of the brilliant minds here, there is exactly one Android phone sold (or made?). But, as Android is so crappy, customer Page has had to reset the activation half a million times a day? Did I get that right?
post #141 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

If I understand some of the brilliant minds here, there is exactly one Android phone sold (or made?). But, as Android is so crappy, customer Page has had to reset the activation half a million times a day? Did I get that right?

I dont think anybody suggested that only one Android phone was sold. To customer Page, or anybody else.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #142 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

With regards to Sony-Ericsson


Yes it is, or microscopic profits in good quarters, and so is Motorola mobility, but to be fair to Android, they were both basket cases before they switched to it - it actually gave them a last lease on life.

This is a really common phenomenon in the phone industry. A handset maker hits hard times and the channel will still take the phones off them but demands increasingly aggressive prices till eventually you're left with a zombie firm, which finally merges with another zombie and they try again. Market share tends to get lost slowly, due to the nature of the channel, but margins degrade fast, and once gone they do not return.

That reminds me - didn't the original Motorola Razor sell for as much as $399? Or was it $499?
post #143 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

I dont think anybody suggested that only one Android phone was sold. To customer Page, or anybody else.

Really? it sure sounds like that's what half the people here have to believe in order to feel secure their iPhone was the right choice. Just be happy with your decision and your passion; no need to feel threatened by any good news about the "competition".
post #144 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

My God, upgrading the os RESETS the phone and Google, as I have linked before, has said that OS upgrades doesn't count as activations.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/...g-accusations/

"The Android activation numbers do not include upgrades and are, in fact, only a portion of the Android devices in the market since we only include devices that have Google services."

Nothing I have been told by a Google Engineer contradicts this. Note: Show me the indication that "resets"/phone changes are counted/not counted.

HINT: You can't.
post #145 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

If I understand some of the brilliant minds here, there is exactly one Android phone sold (or made?). But, as Android is so crappy, customer Page has had to reset the activation half a million times a day? Did I get that right?

Luckily, you don't seem too smart because no one has even remotely asserted that only 1 Android device has been sold.
post #146 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Luckily, you don't seem too smart because no one has even remotely asserted that only 1 Android device has been sold.

You're kidding me, right?
post #147 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

You're kidding me, right?

No. You suggested that half the people here say that only one android phone has been sold. That's not true.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #148 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

"The Android activation numbers do not include upgrades and are, in fact, only a portion of the Android devices in the market since we only include devices that have Google services."

Nothing I have been told by a Google Engineer contradicts this. Note: Show me the indication that "resets"/phone changes are counted/not counted.

HINT: You can't.

What do you mean by a "reset"? A reboot? An upgrade?

If the device has a unique id then there is never a reason to count it twice, "reset" or not.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #149 of 168
This is a pretty old article, but it shows what can count as an Android activation.

The Maylong M-150
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/revie...oid-tablet.ars
post #150 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

This is a pretty old article, but it shows what can count as an Android activation.

The Maylong M-150
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/revie...oid-tablet.ars

Actually because it does not include access to the real androidarket or the google Apps it is not counted as an android device. Similar to how the archos tablets do not count as already stated.
post #151 of 168
Apparently all those Android activations aren't worrying AAPL investors either. This is how the AAPL stock ticker on AI reads right now:

Quote:
AAPL: 505,545,728.00 ( +0.01 )

Darn, it was fixed, just when I was starting to get used to the idea of being a billionaire.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #152 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

What do you mean by a "reset"? A reboot? An upgrade?

If the device has a unique id then there is never a reason to count it twice, "reset" or not.

I think he means this:

I buy an Android phone. It is activated. That's one activation.

Within 30 days, I return it because I don't like it or it doesn't work right. I get a new Android phone. It is activated. That's two activations.

The phone I returned is reset and sold to someone else. It is activated. That's three activations.

Three activations. But only two phones sold.

I don't know if this is true. But when companies use terms that aren't clearly defined, I am suspicious. It's like when companies say that "shipped" x amount of devices. It sounds like that's how many they sold, when it's not that clear.

As an advertiser, Google knows that hard, auditable numbers are important and carry more weight. So why do they use a vague term that leaves room for doubt?
post #153 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

This is a pretty old article, but it shows what can count as an Android activation.

The Maylong M-150
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/revie...oid-tablet.ars

No, this device doesn't account for Google
post #154 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The first consumer Android phone wasn't available until months AFTER the iPhone went on sale, TMobile's G1 in late Oct/2008 , not years before. And that was on one carrier only. In addition the first iPhone-comparable Android phone (original Droid) wasn't released until late in 2009.

http://www.htc.com/www/press.aspx?id=66338&lang=1033


But Google was developing Android, the software, years before Apple revealed iOS on an iPhone. But none of the phone makers showed any interest until Apple released their multi touch iPhone. One of the rumored reason why Eric Schmidt was kicked out of the Apple board in 2009 was because of how fast Google Android went from being a QWERTY buttons device interface to a touch screen device interface in only a year after the release of the iPhone. People figured he must have been leaking iPhone and iOS development news to his Android team back at Google.
post #155 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

That reminds me - didn't the original Motorola Razor sell for as much as $399? Or was it $499?

I wasn't paying attention back then, but according to Gizmodo it was $600 with a $100 rebate from cingular. I just remember it basically saved the firm, which had brought out a run of bad models before it.
post #156 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

I think he means this:

I buy an Android phone. It is activated. That's one activation.

Within 30 days, I return it because I don't like it or it doesn't work right. I get a new Android .

As an advertiser, Google knows that hard, auditable numbers are important and carry more weight. So why do they use a vague term that leaves room for doubt?

I see. Yes, that is serious. If the number of phones activated include new activations by new users of old phones then the stats are misleading. Were Apple to do that then sales of 20M phones in a quarter would map to 30M activations assuming 50% of phones were handed to a new person who activated on iTunes. ( And 50% is a low estimate).

Clarity on this would be very important.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #157 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

But Google was developing Android, the software, years before Apple revealed iOS on an iPhone. But none of the phone makers showed any interest until Apple released their multi touch iPhone. One of the rumored reason why Eric Schmidt was kicked out of the Apple board in 2009 was because of how fast Google Android went from being a QWERTY buttons device interface to a touch screen device interface in only a year after the release of the iPhone. People figured he must have been leaking iPhone and iOS development news to his Android team back at Google.

That is highly incorrect. Android was being developed as a blackberry like os before iOS was released on the iphone in 2007. However if you actually use android os other then the fact Apps can be placed on the home screen and both are optimized for touch based screen the similarities stop there. Android stores applications in an app draw not across the home screen. If you are to just open your eyes you can see the difference between these OSs is are mainly features of sambian and BlackBerry OS. Google simply took what they had and addressed it to a change in demand and made it a touch based os. You can say that iOS paved the path for android to become be what it is today. But to say that it copied is just ignorance.
post #158 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

But to say that it copied is just ignorance.

Copied the entire thing perfectly? Obviously not, but stayed very close to the sense of iPhone, definitely. Then the OEMs took that OS and slapped icons all over it that were lifted straight from the iPhone, frequently used a form-factor that aped the iPhone and so we were left with an iOS like UI on an iPhone like slab sporting iPhone like icons. Coincidence? Really?

Let's just consider a tiny picayune feature - the phone icon.

Back in olden times phones had keypads, and keypads had 'call' buttons

Moto RAZR:


Classic Nokia:


About the only thing that you could be sure of about the call button was that it was green or grey, might plausibly resemble a phone and would be on the left. In fact the two keypads look exceedingly different. Moto is using a very stylized font, while Nokia is using a very understated one. Above the main number-pad the navigation buttons are very very different. Moto & Nokia for years competed in feature phones but they very rarely resembled each other's offerings - especially not in the small details.

Apple:
Samsung:

Believe it or not icons can be trademarked, and that one is. Samsung had a huge choice of options for a phone icon that wouldn't copy the iPhone, but they made a conscious decision to stay as close to the iPhone icon as they thought they could. Not a bit for bit copy of course, but enough that the message is there. Funniest of all, Samsung's feature phones and Bada phones didn't even generally have a green call button, their call button was a grey angular elongated horizontal receiver. What was wrong with that?

Android isn't a perfect copy of the iPhone, but Android phones are frequently filled with design elements gratuitously lifted from the iPhone, and you have to work quite hard at it to not notice.
post #159 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

[]

Believe it or not icons can be trademarked, and that one is. Samsung had a huge choice of options for a phone icon that wouldn't copy the iPhone, but they made a conscious decision to stay as close to the iPhone icon as they thought they could. Not a bit for bit copy of course, but enough that the message is there. Funniest of all, Samsung's feature phones and Bada phones didn't even generally have a green call button, their call button was a grey angular elongated horizontal receiver. What was wrong with that?

Android isn't a perfect copy of the iPhone, but Android phones are frequently filled with design elements gratuitously lifted from the iPhone, and you have to work quite hard at it to not notice.

I think Apple has a strong case insofar as there are too many similarities for it to be a coincidence. The question is what, if any, consequences would Samsung suffer. Is there any precedence for this?

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #160 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think Apple has a strong case insofar as there are too many similarities for it to be a coincidence. The question is what, if any, consequences would Samsung suffer. Is there any precedence for this?

Yep - it would be classed as a trademark infringement, Apple would be granted an injunction and Samsung would have to stop shipping till they replaced the icons. Conceivably also damages might be awarded for the infringement. Unlike patents where injunctions are no longer assured, with trademarks they still are. Apple could choose to license the trademarks to Samsung of course, but somehow I can't see them doing so.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Massive Android activations not viewed as concern for Apple