or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: iPhone made up 66% of sales at AT&T corporate stores, Android 9%
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: iPhone made up 66% of sales at AT&T corporate stores, Android 9%

post #1 of 222
Thread Starter 
A new report claims Apple's iPhone comprised 66 percent of all device sales at AT&T's corporate retail stores in December, while Android is said to have taken an 8.5 percent share.

The Mac Observer cited a source inside AT&T on Friday as indicating that the company's stores sold 981,000 iPhones between Dec. 1 and Dec. 27. By comparison, 126,000 Android devices were reportedly sold during the same period.

Basic feature phones apparently performed better than Android at the stores, as 128,000 units were sold during December. Research in Motion's BlackBerry devices continued to languish, with just 74,000 sold this month. Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 fared even worse.

According to the report, the numbers only include AT&T's corporate retail stores, not authorized resellers, online sales, telephone sales or other retail outlets.

Of course, the iPhone's performance at AT&T corporate stores doesn't on its own reflect the device's overall market share. Given that AT&T was the original partner for the iPhone, Apple's handset has long been the best-selling phone on the network.

Recent third-quarter figures from comScore reveal that Android has reached a 46.9 percent share of the smartphone market, compared to Apple's 28.7 percent.

Credit: The Mac Observer.

The publication was unable to confirm with Apple's PR department the numbers provided by its source, as the company declined to comment. AT&T did, however, reveal earlier this month that it expected to have its best quarter ever for smartphone sales because of "strong" performance of the iPhone 4S. The wireless operator sold six million smartphones in the first two months of the fourth quarter and is expected to handily beat its previous quarterly sales record of 6.1 million smartphones.

The iPhone accounted for 56 percent of AT&T's smartphone activations in the third quarter of calendar 2011, even as some customers held out for the iPhone 4S.

Apple CEO TIm Cook said last quarter that he is confident the company will "set an all-time record for iPhones" during the December quarter. The iPhone maker has guided for $37 billion in revenue during the period and is expected by some analysts to surpass the $40 billion mark.
post #2 of 222
Jesus, that is 4 times the revenue of Google, and slightly more than 1/4 all of Samsung, not just Samsungs mobile division! Or is my math nerfed?
post #3 of 222
AT&T now have decent Android-based phones so the excuse regarding only crappy Android phones are on AT&T can't be used. And we obviously can't use the mass exodus from AT&T once other US carriers get the iPhone excuse.

So what gives, Android fans? Are you finally willing to admit the iPhone is the most popular phone or are still holding out to find so quasi-statisitic that pegs iPhone iOS against all Android OS activations for a very specific timeframe?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #4 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

AT&T now have decent Android-based phones so the excuse regarding only crappy Android phones are on AT&T can't be used. And we obviously can't use the mass exodus from AT&T once other US carriers get the iPhone excuse.

So what gives, Android fans? Are you finally willing to admit the iPhone is the most popular phone or are still holding out to find so quasi-statisitic that pegs iPhone iOS against all Android OS activations for a very specific timeframe?

Who has denied that the iPhone was the most popular single phone?

Are you inventing arguments?
post #5 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Who has denied that the iPhone was the most popular single phone?

Slapppy. He'll say that the numbers in the title are actually reversed. Or, at least, will be shocked if they're not by 2012.
post #6 of 222
Stunning if true! The other shoe is that Apple's customer satisfaction and retention is far higher than Android's (which therefore must be getting its sales from the non-iOs sector). So, in theory, Android will soon or later be squeezed out at AT&T.
post #7 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So what gives, Android fans? Are you finally willing to admit the iPhone is the most popular phone or are still holding out to find so quasi-statisitic that pegs iPhone iOS against all Android OS activations for a very specific timeframe?


A strawman fallacy?! Who saw that one coming?
post #8 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Jesus, that is 4 times the revenue of Google, and slightly more than 1/4 all of Samsung, not just Samsungs mobile division! Or is my math nerfed?

Well, your math is bad for two reasons. First, sales do not equate to revenue. Apple gets roughly a $400 subsidy per phone, while other makers get smaller ones, $200-300 generally. So while both may sell for $200 subsidized, the amount going to the maker is higher for Apple generally.

Secondly though, in the other direction, there's no reason to drool over the revenue implications of this report since it is such a small sliver of total sales, not to mention the fact that it's from "unnamed sources" and thus there's no reason to actually believe it. Plus the fact that the giggle test tells you it's not a correct story.
post #9 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by enzos View Post

Stunning if true! The other shoe is that Apple's customer satisfaction and retention is far higher than Android's (which therefore must be getting its sales from the non-iOs sector). So, in theory, Android will soon or later be squeezed out at AT&T.

I would expect Android-based device sales to grow at AT&T. They simply offer too many options to customers and are quickly becoming tomorrow's "dumb phone" OS as they get gutted, lucked down and made to work on any device a vendor think will turn them a buck.

I'm more interested to see how the iPhone will affect Verizon and Sprint after this quarter with the 4S running strong, not just an iPhone 4 with CMDA innards.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #10 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Slapppy. He'll say that the numbers in the title are actually reversed. Or, at least, will be shocked if they're not by 2012.

I'm inclined to believe that slapppy is a Poe.
post #11 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Well, your math is bad for two reasons. First, sales do not equate to revenue. Apple gets roughly a $400 subsidy per phone, while other makers get smaller ones, $200-300 generally. So while both may sell for $200 subsidized, the amount going to the maker is higher for Apple generally.

The subsidy happens between the carrier and their customer.

Apple get the full retail price for each phone... to the tune of $649-$849 for the iPhone 4S
post #12 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

The subsidy happens between the carrier and their customer.

Apple get the full retail price for each phone... to the tune of $649-$849 for the iPhone 4S

Read my post again - that was my point. The poster I was replying to was talking about revenue to the manufacturer. 4X the sales for Apple equals more than 4X the revenue because Apple's wholesale price is higher. However the 4X number is BS because this is a tiny section of the market.
post #13 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

I'm inclined to believe that slapppy is a Poe.

From the Legend of Zelda? A stuffed doll? Edgar Allen?
post #14 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

From the Legend of Zelda? A stuffed doll? Edgar Allen?

He's referring to "a person who writes a parody of a Fundamentalist that is mistaken for the real thing."

It's another way of referring to people who enjoy Apple products as people who take their religion so literally and to such extremes that they contradict the very basis of their faith.

Surprised?
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
post #15 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

AT&T now have decent Android-based phones so the excuse regarding only crappy Android phones are on AT&T can't be used. And we obviously can't use the mass exodus from AT&T once other US carriers get the iPhone excuse.

So what gives, Android fans? Are you finally willing to admit the iPhone is the most popular phone or are still holding out to find so quasi-statisitic that pegs iPhone iOS against all Android OS activations for a very specific timeframe?

1. The quasi-statistic in this article does peg "iPhone iOS against all Android OS activations for a very specific timeframe." Why do you find it worth defending?
2. The real question is if Apple wouldn't have dicked around with AT&T for so long, would Verizon and the other networks in the US show similar statistics. Apple foolishly gave Android a strong foothold at Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. That's where the Android activations are occurring - and that is what Apple should have stopped in 2008, before the platform took off.
post #16 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

... there's no reason to drool over the revenue implications of this report since it is such a small sliver of total sales, not to mention the fact that it's from "unnamed sources" and thus there's no reason to actually believe it. Plus the fact that the giggle test tells you it's not a correct story.

I was stuck in an AT&T store for about an hour earlier this week. I saw several interesting things. Yes, it was only an hour, but I saw about 8 phones purchased and all but one were iPhones.
The most interesting thing, though, was when someone brought in a Samsung phone. She was unhappy with it for some reason, but it turns out that she bought it (when out of town visiting grandparents) at an AT&T authorized reseller--not a corporate AT&T store. They couldn't do the return for her and she was pissed--not understanding the difference between a corporate store and an authorized reseller. Anyway, the interesting part was when the woman behind the counter came out and told her, point blank [in quotes for clarity, but this is paraphrased]: "I would have sold you an iPhone--they do not have the issue you describe and people never bring them back unhappy. But the resellers work on commission and so they push other phones."

I do not know if this is true, but the implication is that the corporate stores mostly want activations and customers who will be happy and loyal to AT&T so they push iPhones. Resellers, OTOH, don't care about the long term and only want the sale and whatever commission they can get so they push other phones.
This would seem to fit with this story. But you are right, AT&T corporate sales are only a tiny sliver of phone sales in the US, and reseller sales tending to non iPhones would counterbalance them.
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #17 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

He's referring to "a person who writes a parody of a Fundamentalist that is mistaken for the real thing."

It's another way of referring to people who enjoy Apple products as people who take their religion so literally and to such extremes that they contradict the very basis of their faith.

Surprised?

It's a parody. Pretty much. Like at times I feel Apple ][ must be a Poe because he's TOO pro-Apple to the point if Apple was a political party he'd be the fundamentalist right or loony left.
post #18 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

2. The real question is if Apple wouldn't have dicked around with AT&T for so long, would Verizon and the other networks in the US show similar statistics. Apple foolishly gave Android a strong foothold at Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. That's where the Android activations are occurring - and that is what Apple should have stopped in 2008, before the platform took off.

It is my understanding that Apple had a contract with AT&T that guaranteed them exclusivity for a time period. I'm sure they would have loved to jumped to other carriers earlier, but it may not have been an option.
Sure, in hindsight, Apple left a door wide open for Android. Of course, Apple thought they would be dealing with Palm, Nokia, Windows Phones and Blackberry as their main competition in the smartphone arena--how were they to expect a full blown competitor to rise up from Android so quickly? It is almost as if Google had inside information on Apple's phone plans...
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #19 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

I was stuck in an AT&T store for about an hour earlier this week. I saw several interesting things. Yes, it was only an hour, but I saw about 8 phones purchased and all but one were iPhones.
The most interesting thing, though, was when someone brought in a Samsung phone. She was unhappy with it for some reason, but it turns out that she bought it (when out of town visiting grandparents) at an AT&T authorized reseller--not a corporate AT&T store. They couldn't do the return for her and she was pissed--not understanding the difference between a corporate store and an authorized reseller. Anyway, the interesting part was when the woman behind the counter came out and told her, point blank [in quotes for clarity, but this is paraphrased]: "I would have sold you an iPhone--they do not have the issue you describe and people never bring them back unhappy. But the resellers work on commission and so they push other phones."

I do not know if this is true, but the implication is that the corporate stores mostly want activations and customers who will be happy and loyal to AT&T so they push iPhones. Resellers, OTOH, don't care about the long term and only want the sale and whatever commission they can get so they push other phones.
This would seem to fit with this story. But you are right, AT&T corporate sales are only a tiny sliver of phone sales in the US, and reseller sales tending to non iPhones would counterbalance them.

This brings up a very good point that has been mentioned on this forum before.

When you see a person on the street using a smartphone, it's generally an iPhone.

Where are the 700,000 Android devices per day that are being sold?

It makes you curious.
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
post #20 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

/snip... it turns out that she bought it (when out of town visiting grandparents) at an AT&T authorized reseller--not a corporate AT&T store. They couldn't do the return for her and she was pissed--not understanding the difference between a corporate store and an authorized reseller. Anyway, the interesting part was when the woman behind the counter came out and told her, point blank [in quotes for clarity, but this is paraphrased]: "I would have sold you an iPhone--they do not have the issue you describe and people never bring them back unhappy. But the resellers work on commission and so they push other phones...

The probable reason is that they were out of stock, at the time.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #21 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

It's a parody. Pretty much. Like at times I feel Apple ][ must be a Poe because he's TOO pro-Apple to the point if Apple was a political party he'd be the fundamentalist right or loony left.

Cool. I always thought there should be a term for this. I'm glad to know there is one.
FWIW, I have had the same suspicions about Apple][...

Quote:
Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the fact that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #22 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

It is my understanding that Apple had a contract with AT&T that guaranteed them exclusivity for a time period. I'm sure they would have loved to jumped to other carriers earlier, but it may not have been an option.
Sure, in hindsight, Apple left a door wide open for Android. Of course, Apple thought they would be dealing with Palm, Nokia, Windows Phones and Blackberry as their main competition in the smartphone arena--how were they to expect a full blown competitor to rise up from Android so quickly? It is almost as if Google had inside information on Apple's phone plans...

Plus, it isn't as if Apple didn't ask Verizon back in 2006 whether they wanted to carry the iPhone.

Remember that back in those days, the carriers wielded the power, and didn't like being told by Apple that they couldn't install their own applications or branding on the phone. No one knew whether it would even sell. AT&T took a chance on the phone, agreed to Apple's terms regarding pricing, branding, and marketing, and in return got an exclusive contract.
post #23 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post

Plus, it isn't as if Apple didn't ask Verizon back in 2006 whether they wanted to carry the iPhone.

Remember that back in those days, the carriers wielded the power, and didn't like being told by Apple that they couldn't install their own applications or branding on the phone. No one knew whether it would even sell. AT&T took a chance on the phone, agreed to Apple's terms regarding pricing, branding, and marketing, and in return got an exclusive contract.

Exactly. And again, Apple would have looked even more like geniuses if Android had not sprung up--they were destroying the other competition and would have had plenty of time to finish the exclusive contract and spread to other carriers...
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #24 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Well, your math is bad for two reasons. First, sales do not equate to revenue. Apple gets roughly a $400 subsidy per phone, while other makers get smaller ones, $200-300 generally. So while both may sell for $200 subsidized, the amount going to the maker is higher for Apple generally.

Secondly though, in the other direction, there's no reason to drool over the revenue implications of this report since it is such a small sliver of total sales, not to mention the fact that it's from "unnamed sources" and thus there's no reason to actually believe it. Plus the fact that the giggle test tells you it's not a correct story.

I know people who giggle at anything. Doesn't mean this isn't correct.
post #25 of 222
We should be expecting iPhone sales at AT&T to dwarf those anywhere else. Several reasons. They have been selling them the longest. So they have the most iPhone users. That means they have the most iPhone users needing and wanting to upgrade their iPhone.

In fact, here in the US, they are the only company that has iPhone customers qualified to upgrade at the full discounted price.

Then, they are also, because of that long time customer base, the only company to carry all three current iPhones.

Verizon has the 4S and the 4. Sprint only has the 4S.

So AT&T has more iPhones at more prices than any other US phone company.

And, of course, T-Mobile doesn't sell them at all, though that day seems to be coming closer.
post #26 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Verizon has the 4S and the 4. Sprint only has the 4S.

I believe Sprint also had the iPhone 4 8GB as of the iPhone 4S release. Can't verfiy that now as I have two dates pissed in using my phone right now. Double booked.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #27 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I believe Sprint also had the iPhone 4 8GB as of the iPhone 4S release. Can't verfiy that now as I have two dates pissed in using my phone right now. Double booked.

I don't think so, but I'll check.

Yup, you're right. Last time I checked, shortly after the 4S came out, it wasn't there.
post #28 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

It is my understanding that Apple had a contract with AT&T that guaranteed them exclusivity for a time period. I'm sure they would have loved to jumped to other carriers earlier, but it may not have been an option.
Sure, in hindsight, Apple left a door wide open for Android. Of course, Apple thought they would be dealing with Palm, Nokia, Windows Phones and Blackberry as their main competition in the smartphone arena--how were they to expect a full blown competitor to rise up from Android so quickly? It is almost as if Google had inside information on Apple's phone plans...

I don't believe they did ... More than likely Apple wanted the simplicity of being able to produce one device they could sell worldwide at first, to scale up and keep costs down. Then once they hit a certain point they could move to multiple devices, as they did.

And I disagree that Apple left the door open for Android... Microsoft and Nokia did. Remember, Android didn't take off until it was deemed that WinMo 6.5 was complete crap - that was summer of 2009, almost a year after Android was released. And it absolutely exploded internationally after Nokia's efforts to release a modern OS began stalling.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #29 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

It is almost as if Google had inside information on Apple's phone plans...

It does seem like someone, maybe on Apple's board of directors or something could have studied Apple's road map and design strategy for the iPhone, and then took that information to Google all while pretending to be friends with a guy who's dying of cancer... Na, no one could be that big of a scumbag.
post #30 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slow Cheetah View Post

It does seem like someone, maybe on Apple's board of directors or something could have studied Apple's road map and design strategy for the iPhone, and then took that information to Google all while pretending to be friends with a guy who's dying of cancer... Na, no one could be that big of a scumbag.

Don't you mean a Schmidt-head?
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
post #31 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slow Cheetah View Post

It does seem like someone, maybe on Apple's board of directors or something could have studied Apple's road map and design strategy for the iPhone, and then took that information to Google all while pretending to be friends with a guy who's dying of cancer... Na, no one could be that big of a scumbag.

You can convince yourself of all that...but then you make Apple, Steve, everyone else on the board...etc...look like complete idiots...

Why do you hate Apple so much?


OR...you know...Google having bought Android in 2005...Schmidt being invited to the board in 2006...noted as not being allowed in meetings when the iPhone was being discussed due to conflict of interest...leaving the board on good terms...etc. It is more likely that any and all similarities between iOS and Android came from the iPhone actually being on the market over a year BEFORE the first Android device hit the market.

You can say that Android was inspired by the iPhone...which is obvious as the entire industry was inspired by it...but to suggest that Apple is a bunch of blithering idiots is just appalling.
post #32 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

I don't believe they did ... More than likely Apple wanted the simplicity of being able to produce one device they could sell worldwide at first, to scale up and keep costs down. Then once they hit a certain point they could move to multiple devices, as they did.

And I disagree that Apple left the door open for Android... Microsoft and Nokia did. Remember, Android didn't take off until it was deemed that WinMo 6.5 was complete crap - that was summer of 2009, almost a year after Android was released. And it absolutely exploded internationally after Nokia's efforts to release a modern OS began stalling.

Android didn't take off until November of 2009 with the Droid...before that it was practically a dud.

Reality suggests that Android doesn't even really compete with iOS...sure it may try and some phones do but it seems to be replacing aging platforms and dumbphones with more regularity than anything Apple.

The battle of the platforms is pretty much manufactured as both platforms are seeing unprecedented growth with Android obviously in the lead with marketshare because, well, it fits more niches
post #33 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

You can convince yourself of all that...but then you make Apple, Steve, everyone else on the board...etc...look like complete idiots...

Why do you hate Apple so much?


OR...you know...Google having bought Android in 2005...Schmidt being invited to the board in 2006...noted as not being allowed in meetings when the iPhone was being discussed due to conflict of interest...leaving the board on good terms...etc. It is more likely that any and all similarities between iOS and Android came from the iPhone actually being on the market over a year BEFORE the first Android device hit the market.

You can say that Android was inspired by the iPhone...which is obvious as the entire industry was inspired by it...but to suggest that Apple is a bunch of blithering idiots is just appalling.

I fail to see how a number of people being deceived by a person placed in a position of trust is defined as being 'a bunch of blithering idiots'.

It would be interesting to get the opinion of Larry, Sergey, and Bill Gates on this subject.

Buying Android in 2005 doesn't prevent them from copying anything after that date. Unless some evidence could be given proving it was advanced to the point of being 'iOS-like' before the iPhone came out.

Eric Schmidt was actually fully aware of the iPhone's development. It was the iPad's development he was kept out of.

And we all know how Google got caught flat-footed in THAT department, don't we?
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
post #34 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I fail to see how a number of people being deceived by a person placed in a position of trust is defined as being 'a bunch of blithering idiots'.

It would be interesting to get the opinion of Larry, Sergey, and Bill Gates on this subject.

Buying Android in 2005 doesn't prevent them from copying anything after that date. Unless some evidence could be given proving it was advanced to the point of being 'iOS-like' before the iPhone came out.

Eric Schmidt was actually fully aware of the iPhone's development. It was the iPad's development he was kept out of.

And we all know how Google got caught flat-footed in THAT department, don't we?

So tell me...why is all of this only fanboy speculation and nothing official has ever been stated, in all of the lawsuits, and even Mr. Holds-his-tongue-for-no-one Jobs has never said anything about Schmidt himself leaking internal secrets to Google?

Jobs may have felt post iPhone, Android was a "Stolen product" but he never ever ever ever once declared anyone a thief...why?

So why is it that only iPhanbois come out with this ridiculous theory?

Why nothing official?

Why did it take Google 2+ years after Schmidt being on the board to "copy" the iPhone if Schmidt had insider knowledge for a year pre-iPhone?

Why was Android post iPhone initially mapped to fit a more BB style form factor (it was always hardware agnostic btw, so touch, was always possible)?

You are asking for incredible leaps of logic and an almost young-earth-creationist level of reality denial in order for this stupid as hell theory to actually be taken seriously.

The fact that SOOOO many of you think this is true with ZERO evidence and even evidence that mostly counteracts this ridiculously retarded theory is pathetic at best.

Why has NO ONE in the know ever implicated Schmidt? Ever? Not once?

Why didn't Apple put a full stop to Android immediately if they could with such damning info that has ZERO evidence and zero support from those in the know?

Again, if Jobs was willing to go thermonuclear for 3 years now...why did he not see this through before he died if he was so passionate about it?

Moral of the story, the super mole Schmidt theory makes those who believe it look like short-bus riding half brain dead morons...and makes Apple look SUPER incompetent.

So which is it? Is Apple retarded (As long as all the iPhatbois who believe it)? or maybe, just maybe...as evidence seems to point, Schmidt was not a mole.
post #35 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

So tell me...why is all of this only fanboy speculation and nothing official has ever been stated, in all of the lawsuits, and even Mr. Holds-his-tongue-for-no-one Jobs has never said anything about Schmidt himself leaking internal secrets to Google?

Jobs may have felt post iPhone, Android was a "Stolen product" but he never ever ever ever once declared anyone a thief...why?

So why is it that only iPhanbois come out with this ridiculous theory?

Why nothing official?

Why did it take Google 2+ years after Schmidt being on the board to "copy" the iPhone if Schmidt had insider knowledge for a year pre-iPhone?

Why was Android post iPhone initially mapped to fit a more BB style form factor (it was always hardware agnostic btw, so touch, was always possible)?

You are asking for incredible leaps of logic and an almost young-earth-creationist level of reality denial in order for this stupid as hell theory to actually be taken seriously.

The fact that SOOOO many of you think this is true with ZERO evidence and even evidence that mostly counteracts this ridiculously retarded theory is pathetic at best.

Why has NO ONE in the know ever implicated Schmidt? Ever? Not once?

Why didn't Apple put a full stop to Android immediately if they could with such damning info that has ZERO evidence and zero support from those in the know?

Again, if Jobs was willing to go thermonuclear for 3 years now...why did he not see this through before he died if he was so passionate about it?

Moral of the story, the super mole Schmidt theory makes those who believe it look like short-bus riding half brain dead morons...and makes Apple look SUPER incompetent.

So which is it? Is Apple retarded (As long as all the iPhatbois who believe it)? or maybe, just maybe...as evidence seems to point, Schmidt was not a mole.

Why is anybody who counters a point that you provide on this forum a 'fanboy/phanboi/phatboi'?
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
post #36 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Why did it take Google 2+ years after Schmidt being on the board to "copy" the iPhone if Schmidt had insider knowledge for a year pre-iPhone?

Probably because they didn't work on it with their heart, without wanting to create a wonderful product. They had to reverse engineer the iPhone, and that will take longer than creating a product from scratch, I believe.

And the technology Apple used in making the iPhone comes from so many years of experience something that Google totally lacks. They make very simple products but implement it in a massive way. Hats off for that, but they don't focus. Even Steve told them to get rid of all the crap products they have and focus on a few one that are worthwhile, they still haven't taken that advise. Ok, that advise was from this year, so who knows how long it takes for them to truly understand what Steve meant.

At any rate, I think their products totally suck. And totally lack taste, similar to Microsoft. Even their search engine; if I tell it to give me results with publications from last month, it comes back with 2 year old articles, for whatever reason. Perhaps jragosta can give me lessons on how to search properly.

I only like street view, although you will need a house number for your criteria as trying to walk down a street takes forever. Oops, off topic, again. Sorry.

Wow, 66%! I truly understand Apples' believe in simplicity. Just goes to show with this returning Samsung customer, but to the wrong AT&T store. Why are they split between consumer and corporate? Phew, on topic again.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #37 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Probably because they didn't work on it with their heart, without wanting to create a wonderful product. They had to reverse engineer the iPhone, and that will take longer than creating a product from scratch, I believe.

And the technology Apple used in making the iPhone comes from so many years of experience something that Google totally lacks. They make very simple products but implement it in a massive way. Hats off for that, but they don't focus. Even Steve told them to get rid of all the crap products they have and focus on a few one that are worthwhile, they still haven't taken that advise. Ok, that advise was from this year, so who knows how long it takes for them to truly understand what Steve meant.

At any rate, I think their products totally suck. And totally lack taste, similar to Microsoft. Even their search engine; if I tell it to give me results with publications from last month, it comes back with 2 year old articles, for whatever reason. Perhaps jragosta can give me lessons on how to search properly.

I only like street view, although you will need a house number for your criteria as trying to walk down a street takes forever. Oops, off topic, again. Sorry.

Wow, 66%! I truly understand Apples' believe in simplicity. Just goes to show with this returning Samsung customer, but to the wrong AT&T store. Why are they split between consumer and corporate? Phew, on topic again.

I agree with that.

Google products are functional but they are, unfortunately, designed by engineers, and this is very, very obvious when you use them. They are usable, but not intuitive.

As Jobs would say, they do not 'get it'.
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
The iPad is just a consumption device. Which consumes it’s competitors.
Reply
post #38 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

I do not know if this is true, but the implication is that the corporate stores mostly want activations and customers who will be happy and loyal to AT&T so they push iPhones. Resellers, OTOH, don't care about the long term and only want the sale and whatever commission they can get so they push other phones.

My wife worked for an AT&T 'authorized retailer' for a time, and what you theorized is exactly what she said happens. Their sales staff gets nothing for iPhone sales on their commission, so they were told to push anything but an iPhone.

She no longer works there because she wouldn't participate in other shady activities her manager encouraged to raise their store's commissions. Suffice it to say, if you buy/upgrade a phone from an 'authorized retailer', watch your bill for features you didn't ask to be added.
post #39 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Probably because they didn't work on it with their heart, without wanting to create a wonderful product. They had to reverse engineer the iPhone, and that will take longer than creating a product from scratch, I believe.

You believe wrong. It doesn't even make sense to make a general comparison. But you're clearly not an engineer and so, I forgive you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


And the technology Apple used in making the iPhone comes from so many years of experience something that Google totally lacks. They make very simple products but implement it in a massive way.

What, pray tell, does that mean - making simple products but implementing it in a massive way?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Hats off for that, but they don't focus. Even Steve told them to get rid of all the crap products they have and focus on a few one that are worthwhile, they still haven't taken that advise. Ok, that advise was from this year, so who knows how long it takes for them to truly understand what Steve meant.

You're regurgitating standard anti-Android, anti-Google rhetoric and anecdotes without understanding or applying context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Even their search engine; if I tell it to give me results with publications from last month, it comes back with 2 year old articles, for whatever reason.

This means you suck at searching, and implies nothing about the Google search algorithm.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I agree with that.

Google products are functional but they are, unfortunately, designed by engineers, and this is very, very obvious when you use them. They are usable, but not intuitive.

As Jobs would say, they do not 'get it'.

I'm afraid you don't get it. These direct iOS/Android comparisons are outdated. First of all, Google does not make most of the Android phones. Second, Android has evolved into something that can no longer be regarded as a single OS, or even a single smartphone platform. Gruber put it best: "Android is not a single platform. It’s a common foundation upon which platforms can be built."

The iOS/Android landscape has changed. A direct comparison is outdated. So it's time you people evolve in your debate too. Otherwise, you just sound like old folks debating Bird v. Magic, or just people who do not get what the *fork* you're talking about.
post #40 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

My wife worked for an AT&T 'authorized retailer' for a time, and what you theorized is exactly what she said happens. Their sales staff gets nothing for iPhone sales on their commission, so they were told to push anything but an iPhone.

She no longer works there because she wouldn't participate in other shady activities her manager encouraged to raise their store's commissions. Suffice it to say, if you buy/upgrade a phone from an 'authorized retailer', watch your bill for features you didn't ask to be added.

This is an inaccurate, unfounded and uninformed accusation. "Authorized reseller" is a general term that includes many disparate companies and stores. You simply cannot lump them all together and fire a single accusation to castigate them all. Shame on you.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Rumor: iPhone made up 66% of sales at AT&T corporate stores, Android 9%
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: iPhone made up 66% of sales at AT&T corporate stores, Android 9%