Android device activations reach 700,000 per day - Page 5

yeah, I said that. I don't think it will be as low as 550K but he does get away with picking the week before Christmas ( similar last year), and ignoring the week after Christmas, when sales would be lower. Apple is then measured on its sales per day actually measured.

The iPad stats are way off.

These numbers don't mean squat. The Android business is a race to the bottom and it is fairly obvious that a huge number of these activations are from Asia, more specifically China, where the average income is 4-5k a year and people get 7 grains of rice to eat for dinner every night, and that's for a family of 8.

Android is indeed the smart choice for the poorest people in the world. It is the poverty phone that anybody can use.

You're not seeing faster than 2Mbps on any Wifi including your home with 5.01 and your 4S? I know a guy running 5.1 who just ran the speedtest.net app from a home wifi and is seeing 19.6Mbps down and 3.1Mpbs up.

So when you get 5.1 if you're not seeing better numbers, find a Genius Bar.

Me. I've neevr owned an iPod. We have an Apple //e when I was a kid, but until I bought my wife an iPad last year, I had never given APple a dime before. We're getting iPhones next month.




http://tightwind.net/2011/12/googles...droid-venture/

Google makes less than a billion from Android. The $5B number has no basis on reality that I've ever read about. Also something that needs to be considered, the current quarter had both the release of the ridiculously popular 4S, as well as the beginning of the 3GS being free. I'll be very curious to see how many of those they have been getting out there.

Android has not suddenly spiked to 40% of the smartphone profits. Most of the phones out there with Android on it are things like the LG Phoenix. I got something in the mail from AT&T, trying to give me 2 free Phoenix phones. When you give away the phone, you end up paying the phone manufacturer a subsidy and then rely on their monthly contract money. Android phones don't have as high a subsidy as iPhones http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...subsidies.html and none of that money goes to Google anyway. What money is there for Google to make directly from the OS? They don't have fees for the OS, they do have some fees for people to be able to say it is an Android phone and to have access to the Google market and services. That is basically it, plus ad revenues.

I agree but to make my point I had to use some analyst's "reasonable" estimates.

It would be a mistake to compare Apple with those companies, and to thereby predict disaster. Apple is not even a "high-flyer" in the same sense that the examples were.

I do not doubt that Apple's books are immaculate, and that they disclose every relevant detail as required by each and every law and regulation and convention and accounting principle.

I also do not doubt that Apple's core strategy is sustainable. My guess is that they have a sound business plan, unlike some of your examples. They ain't gonna crash anytime soon. 5 years minimum. Next year promises to be profitable, in the extreme. Maybe not as good as 2011, but more likely, better.

I just tested my iPad 2, and I have an average connection, 18.03 Mpbs down.

If you want a Porsche, get a Samsung Galaxy Nexus.

The iPhone is a Camry tarted up with the interior package.

Bullshit.

Apple does everything it can to make as much money as it can. They are growing profits as fast as they can.

They do not pursue some sort of nebulous ideal and allow that to limit the bottom line. Bullshit to that.

Apple makes a fortune designing and selling (but not manufacturing) high quality gadgets. The high quality does not interfere with profits or growth. It causes it, in Apple's chosen segment of the market.

Again: Apple's growth rate is NOT constrained by any refusal to compromise on ANYTHING, except profitability. They are growing profits as fast as they are able to do it, consistent with maximizing future profits too. That dictates their rate of sales growth, and not some refusal as you suggest.

Oh, don't worry, there is plenty to go around still, and a long ways to go yet...

"Smartphone" share of all mobile phone use is very small:

Horace Dediu of Asymco writes, "Global smartphone penetration nearing 10%"

As smartphones replace and grow into the overall current market of existing mobile phones and subs, the smart phone market is going to grow and grow for a good while yet -- probably faster than any apparent acceleration in Android activations.

Android is flavor of the year. What a lot of people don't seem to recognize is that it is merely holding the status quo, it is a placeholder. OEM's will drop it in a minute if something else comes along.

Google started it simply to hedge against Windows Mobile. That worked. But it is just something free that OEMs use to sell phones. It replaces java or symbian or whatever else they might have used in the past.

So all these millions of phones have to run something... and of course OEMs are going to go for what is a "modern", "smart", robust mobile OS that you can install apps on. They have to go with something like that, because Apple revealed the future in 2007 and that's what many people want. Google steps in and fills a void with Android, quickly adding Touch UI, etc. This is the status quo, nothing more, nothing less.

If Amazon licenses out some clone (why not, Google stole a lot from Sun/Oracle), or if WebOS gets OpenSource or becomes viable in some way... OEMs will use them and there goes a load of Android activations. Many OEMs are already hedging their bets with 2 or 3 OS choices.

So, where can Apple go? Nowhere but up: billions of "non-consumers" (feature phones users out there); and certainly, Apple gets switchers from Android, etc. Do iPhones users switch to Android? NOt hardly.

We don't even know the words he used in his statement do we?

What was reported here was a translation from the original Italian article, which itself was likely an Italian translation from Schmidt's statement in English. Two translations later we probably didn't get the actual words he used. That makes it really hard to comment on with any surety.

Excellent point. When you don't have hard evidence arguments should not be taken as canon.

Good for Google and good for us Apple fans. This will only make Apple more competitive and make better products and lower costs.

You bet - I was seeing 19-21 myself before 5.0.1...

Not really. Google some info on 2011 worldwide smartphone sales. The estimates include numbers up to 500,000,000 or so. If that were true, then 250 million for Android would seem roughly correct, given the reports of a market share of roughly 50%.

It is all dynamic, and we get various little bits and piece of stats, rather than a big picture. But given the rapid growth of the smartphone market, and given the rapid growth of Android, the numbers presented look to me like they might well be correct.

Yeah, I'd be blowing a gasket. . . Good luck mate.

With that said, he probably was referencing a rumored move to the Intel Medford chipsets IMO.
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/39378/page1/

Supposedly much less power-hungry, capable of playing Blue-ray quality video, direct streaming to TV's, much faster camera performance than current devices, etc.

As mentioned a couple of other places, ignore the very iPhone-like appearance. The image is a reference device and not anything slated for production and sale. . .
Unless Samsung is taken with it.

The only thing that really matters is how much Apple profits from the sale of each iOS device, and how much developers make from their apps. Android can have a 500% lead and it won't matter if Apple is making money and if developers earn more by developing for iOS than Android. Until Android finds a way to stop pirating of apps, iOS will have better apps and better apps are a big part of a better user experience.

If I am not wrong the numbers you are quoting are mobile ads number and I am not sure whether you are aware that those numbers you quoted are from iOS devices and not android devices.

Well that 4.4% growth rate didn't last very long!

Rubin stated 500k activations on June 28th, 2011. That's week 26, this is week 51 for a difference of 25 weeks.

So we have A = P (1 + r) ^n, right?

500,000 ( 1 + 4.4/100) ^ 26 = 1,531,733 activations per day if they were maintaining a 4.4% growth rate per week.

How about per month?

A tweet doesn't allow much detail on 4.4% growth note. I don't see where anyone followed up to ask him whether that was week over week (highly unlikely IMO) month over month (reasonable and likely IMO) or something else.

EDIT: I see some blogs reported at the time that he was claiming 4.4% per week. I'd personally guess that was a mistaken or misstated timeframe, as figuring it compounded month over month, five months since the 550K was announced would bring us to 682k/day as of Nov 28th or thereabouts.

What else do you think "4.4% w/w" means?


PS: I can't figure out how to calculate the w/w average it has grown in the 26 past weeks but I think that would mean a 1.30% w/w growth rate.

And Google won't benefit at all from Kindle Fire. Amazon has cut out the "profit layer" of Android 2.3 and replaced it with their own. Google gets absolutely nothing from the deal, other than a generic "activations per day" number for use in their marketing copy.

Come to think of it, there was no deal between Amazon and Google, was there? Google dumped Android onto the market. Free. Open. Amazon took the ball and ran with it, and now they have the only successful Android-based pad computer. And Google hates it.

Google hates the Kindle Fire and its fork of Android for many reasons. Amazon sends zero revenue to Google from direct e-book, media, and other sales. They send zero customer contact information, zero purchase history and product affinity data, and zero browsing history back to Google. Amazon even has a separate and incompatible App Store, so apps previously purchased from Android Market on other Android devices aren't allowed to run on Kindle Fire. And Amazon sells the Fire at a loss to achieve a low price point. They can do this because revenue earned from the device from content sales more than makes up for the initial loss. And it puts the hurt on any and all other Android-based pad makers because they're also going to be forced to sell their pads at a loss. Without Amazon's ecosystem to recoup the losses. Kindle Fire has locked up the low end (aka "The Android End") of the market. Apple locked up the high end in 2010. There's no niche left to sell into.

But worst of all, Amazon controls all ads on Kindle Fire. 96% of Google's revenue comes from ads. Do the math, Sergey.

Proprietary. Closed. The inevitable fate of Android in the pad space.

Steve said that our friends are cooking their books. That is good enough for some.

His calculated FUD had far-reaching effects, and still forms the basis for many a shibboleth.

w/w possibly meant World-wide rather than week over week.

For fuck's sake!

Well, other than the fact that Android growth seems to be slowing...

To quote, "Analytics firm Millennial Media, the second-largest mobile advertising platform behind Google, on Tuesday, released its monthly Mobile Mix report for November. Similar to their October survey that saw Androids growth slowing (and iOS gaining). Compared to the summer period for November, both Apples and Research in Motions respective platform grew at the expense of Google. Specifically, Android went from 56 percent ad requests in October to 50 percent in November.

Meanwhile, iOS went from 28 percent ad requests in October to 30 percent in November. The BlackBerry platform recorded the biggest gain of all mobile platforms, increasing its share of ad requests from 13 percent in October to 17 percent in November. Because both iOS and BlackBerry grew their combined ad impressions by six percentage points, the same amount Android lost in the period, it is safe to assume that Apple and Research In Motion gained traction at the expense of Googles mobile platform.

The findings are in stark contrast to the seemingly unstoppable Android growth that appears to have slowed down during the crucial holiday sales period. Android in November doubled iOS in ad impressions, but last month its respective share changed to 50 percent for Android versus 30 percent for iOS. "

http://9to5mac.com/2011/12/20/millen...adoption-rate/

Obviously nothing about 4.4% compounded would be even remotely possible week over week. Yet 4.4% month over month makes eminent sense and actually occurred. In the absence of other evidence the most simple explanation is often the right one.

How about choosing between a Best-selling midsized car, such as a Camry, and the comparable Hyundai?

That would be the comparison between the iPhone and maybe a Kyocera phone.

If you compare a Camry with an exotic sports car, that is like comparing the iPhone with the newer Samsung, HTC and Motorola phones.

Just saying.

Lot of factors. I suspect lots of new Android users are switching to a smartphone for the first time. The big losers are the Windows phone makers and Blackberry. Lots of manufacturers make Android phones (there are probably more):

Sony Ericsson
HTC
Samsung
Casio
Google
Kyocera
LG
Motorola

All the many Android based models are competing individually with the iPhone. An Android phone sale is a plus for Google, no doubt, but a Casio Android phone is just as much a loss for HTC as it is for Apple. Google does not make anywhere near the money on a sale of a Android based phone that Apple does on an iPhone.

Cost and new consumers also play a part. A salesperson might prefer or be familiar with a certain phone...there are dozens and just a few iPhone models... and recommend that to a new customer.

The Android phones are sometimes free, too. One might reasonably decide the iPhone and an Android phone have about the same functionality, and choose the free Android phone.

There seems to be plenty of market out there for both. This is good for both Apple and Google. Not all of the Android handset makers will see great success, though.

But thats not what he said. He said, w/w - which meant, in that context week over week. He said growing w/w at 4% , which makes no sense if it meant worldwide.

So Android growth is slowing, and Rubin tends to always signal the high sales just before Christmas - just last year before Christmas he said 300K p/w.

Apple have pretty much locked down the tablet in the Enterprise, and the mid-level to high level tablet market. As that grows, and iPhones become cheaper, the game is still on. i can see Apple coming back, this isn't really bad news.

May 10th, 2011 (Week 19) — 400,000 (source)
June 28th, 2011 (Week 26) —500,000 (source)

Difference is 5 weeks.

400,000 ( 1 + 4.4/100) ^ 5 = 496,092 activations per day with a 4.4% growth rate week over week.


So what we've seen since the iPhone 4S announcement and release is a drop from 4.4% to 1.3% week over week. I expect it to go back up as the current iPhone model moves toward the end of its cycle, but that is still a significant drop off and why Rubin didn't mention it this time around.


PS: I think I deserve a gold star for showing all my work. Too bad Google's executives can't do the same.

That is an interesting review -- although lacking any details!

I wonder if this chip is what MS is counting on for Windows 8 Everywhere -- especially tablets..

MS has admitted that Windows 8 ARM will not run Windows 8 Desktop apps unless they are recompiled for the ARM architecture.

Even then, to go from a multi-window, kb/mouse UI to a single-window touch UI you must re-think and re-implement most apps...

So, even if MS can run legacy desktop apps on a Windows 8 x86 Tablet -- this doesn't doesn't necessarily guarantee success. Likely we're back to the same MS Tablet/Stylus implementations that have failed for the last 10 years.

To use the car/truck analogy -- A tablet running Windows [8] desktop is like using a sports car to tow a truck.

That is true with $630 profit on each computer they sell.

Now, the apple corpo PR team should somehow make you feel even more special if you leave them $1000 profit on every apple-pc machine. In that case they would easily destroy Exxon.

Yes you do. Based on your figures the 4.4% growth rate may have been accurate at the time, and my supposition may well be incorrect.
Circle the calendar for this date. . .

You're probably right, an I'm probably wrong.

Sorry guys...

It is not W / W

It is W | W

It represents the large "W" that Rubin had tattooed on each butt cheek...

And, when Andy bends over...

W O W

Apple's issue in the 1990s was mismanagement, not a lack of market share. Pepsi and Avis do just fine as the #2 players in large markets. Ford (#2 in the US) was the only US automaker that didn't go bankrupt in 2009.

Apple's biggest operational issue was that they used proprietary parts and had supply issues. By switching to Intel, they have easy supply access, and can promote compatibility, to boot. Their biggest strategic issue was not having CEOs who could develop new products. Instead, they got complacent. That can happen to a company in the top spot (e.g. GM) just as easily as a company in the #2 spot.

I thought that your job here was to put an end to misinformation?