Rumor: iPhone made up 66% of sales at AT&T corporate stores, Android 9% - Page 3

Just like Chrysler and Ford aren't competitors.


One's business model is making money, the other's is making ads; you're right about that.

I still have to disagree. The world "could" end tomorrow but I'd be silly to blow through my savings partying like it's a certainty. The fact of the matter is Google now has legal headaches and a HUGE acquisition (Motorola) which hasn't translated into any real value to its bottom line. Google had the option to avoid all of that and simply partnered with companies (not only Apple but BB and Nokia) and saved (ooops, i mean MADE) a lot of money.

We are both dealing with ifs. Fact is Google went the Android route (and had decided to do so even before anyone heard of the iPhone) and shit is happening.

Who knows what this alternative timeline would be like. That'd be an interesting power to have. To peruse the "ifs"

Hello, Pedro. Like you, I too live in Portugal.
I don't intend to go into polemics with you, but your post needs some minor corrections.

1. The average salary of portuguese citizens was, in 2009, 1043.20 before taxes (source, Pordata);
2. The cost of an iPhone 3GS is today, as per TMN website:
- non subsidized -340
- subsidized in a 60/month data plan: 0
3. An iPhone 4S costs, in the same data plan: 149.90
4. Curiosly, a samsung Galaxy S II costs, in the same data plan, 325.

Certainly there are cheaper Android phones for sale. You can buy a shitty android phone unsubsidized for 99 or even less. My brother has got one LG for that price some months ago. It's a piece of non-descriptive plastic and he uses it just like he used his previous non-"smart" phone: he doesn't use its 3G possibilities because that would imply going into some sort of a data plan, and then he might as well have bought an iPhone.

So, yes, in Portugal it is hard to pay for a smartphone and use it to the limit of its possibilities: 3G navigation, using some decent third party apps, etc... So people buy a shitty android and use their fingers to convince themselves they too are part of the game. But it is not more expensive to have an iPhone than a Galaxy S.

Have a nice year, too.

True, however I was responding to your post regarding Google getting locked out of the mobile game with the "stroke of a pen" so logically one can look at how and why that would occur. What would Apple gain from doing that? Crippled phones and since Apple's bread and butter is selling hardware, I highly doubt Apple would go that route. Also, Google wasn't (and isn't) tied solely to Apple so nothing would have kept Google from forming other partnerships. So again, Google would not have been blocked from the mobile game "with the stroke of a pen."

My guess is that Android phones are very popular at outlets (like Criket) that cater to the poor and those with bad credit. Apple doesn't go for that demographic at all.

Apple didn't just make an arbitrary decision. A lot went into it. For one thing, AT&T was the only carrier that was going to accept Apple's terms, which were considered severe at the time, but everybody accepts them now. And I'm not just talking about the profit margin they get (although it is sweet). I'm talking about control of the customer experience and the hardware, right down to the rejection of having a carrier logo slapped onto the hardware, etc.

Now, if your point is that by leaving out some of these demands, Apple could have gained more market share, then I disagree. Almost since the beginning, and definitely since iPhone 4, Apple has been constrained by manufacturing capability, so they would not have sold any more iPhones regardless by caving in to new carrier demands. The same number of iPhone customers would just have been spread more thinly over more carriers, but the brand would have been tarnished and the customer satisfaction in the dumper, because carriers such as Verizon were initially reluctant to cede customer support. Eventually they were forced to agree to Apple's terms, because AT&T was making a comeback on the strength of iPhone, especially the "4" until the Verizon deal was consummated. Then, recently, you saw Sprint "bet the company" to get a place at the table.

The bottom line is that Apple has worked the rollout to carriers masterfully: they kept control of the ecosystem and customer experience; they kept super high margins that are the envy of the industry; they maintained their brand image, also worthy of envy; and they are still selling every iPhone they can manage to make. Hard to argue with those results.

Thompson

If you are speaking of the Q4 37 billions guidance yes.

Apple annual sales : 108 billions, 43 billions profits, 26 billions net income
Google annual sales: 29 billions, but 19 billions profits (high margins), 8.5 billions net income
Amazon annual sales: 34 billions, 7.6 billions profit. But Amazon net income is a tiny 1 billion.

Look at the R&D numbers:
Apple : 2.5 billions
Google : 3.7 billions. What are they doing with that, making Android? its not like its designing new hardware, or are they?

Let's not forget about software updates. Apple would most likely look like Android's current update conundrum if it hadn't gotten the kinds of terms from the AT&T deal.

It proves that any objective statistic showing that Android outsells iOS MUST be wrong.

Not just 'curious,' but I'll bet patently false, when the dust settles.

The reason I say that? Not one Android maker -- not even the supposedly largest one, Samsung -- reports audited sales numbers for their Android phone sales.

It will turn out to be the most missed tech story of 2011.

Even worse is the fact that 100% of phone sales at Apple corporate stores were iPhones.

It always fascinates me to see Apple users react to hearsay as facts. LOL This is a rumor. Worse Apple provides no backup information or comment. This is more cheerleading from Apple friendly sites.

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

Second: "The publication was unable to confirm with Apple's PR department the numbers provided by its source, as the company declined to comment."

Nope. The FreeGS has that market sewn up now.

Android is for stupid and gullible people who believe the lies told to them by salespeople. Oh, and geeks too.

Android sells to the most informed customers, and to the the most ignorant customers. Or something like that.

Who is QMD? Just curious.

I would suggest that Google has completely failed to find a method to monetize Android. We already know that 2/3 of their mobile search revenue comes not from Android but from iOS. Let that sink in. Android, WP7, BBO and Symbian make up the rest.

I think Google (specifically Larry Page) started down the Android path because he thought it would be cool and he did not think too much on just how to make money on it. I think Google had some nice pie in the sky vissions on how to make it work (like you are driving down the street and get a message

"Wouldn't you like to get a pizza from Jonnie's Pizza for dinner tonight?
There is one coming up on your path in 1/2 mile."

The creep factor is out the roof with that but I doubt Google sees it that way.

At this point, Google is in the hole for billions and billions of dollars with little to indicate there is a financial future in Android from a revenue sense. Take in the money pit called MMI and any potential Oracle liability (I think they will end up with getting $1-$3/handset with a 3X willful infringement for the first 300,000,000) and Android just looks like a financial looser to me.

The only reason why Apple has been able to come out with such innovative products is because Steve made a deal with space aliens to get their technology.

Prove.
Me.
Wrong.

If you lose, piss off.
















/s

So in your mind, no one on the face of the planet had heard of the iPhone until Jan 2007? Steve Jobs just woke up that day and decided to tell his crew to come up with a BSD based phone just so big and have it ready by 10:00am so he could show the world?

I know many Android fans that actually believe the above. They compare the first concept dates of Android to the actual shipping dates of the iPhone to "prove" Android predates the iPhone by years.

Oh, no

I just had a horrible, horrible realization.

Google WILL be releasing their self-driving car technology. They'll get it working 99.9999999% perfectly, and then they'll release it.

And then cars will be able to drive themselves and humanity will be safer because idiots who don't deserve to be able to drive will be able to be legally barred from driving manually but still get from place to place.

And that'll be great.

But it will come at the price of our ears. Sure, we all have self-driving cars, but they'll all be Google tech. They'll know exactly where we are, and the cars' speakers will bombard us with ads (like the one you outlined above) as it drives (and even if we're driving manually). And there will be no way to turn it off. You either have the ads or you don't get a self-driving car.

What a horrid, horrid, future.

I'm being entirely serious about the above, but the following is (only partially) a joke.

"How about stopping to get a pizza? There's a pizza joint about a mile from here."

"No, car, I don't want one. I don't eat pizza."

"You sure? How about we go there and you can check it out."

"NO, car, I don't want one."

"I'll just take you there and you can be sure."

"NO. CAR, GIVE ME BACK MY STEERING."

"I can assure you, [name], that pizza's pretty good. Just hop out and buy a delicious three-topping large for $9.99 and then I'll take you home and you can eat it."

*banging on the now-locked doors*

And if Apple released such a car, I'm sure you'd would it to be the most brilliant thing ever. Do you people have to examine everything with a single frequency band-pass filter? Why can't see some good and some bad in what every organization does?

Actually, we don't know that. It's one of the most misunderstood and most extrapolated factoid this year. But we all hear what we want to hear, and it's not, on the surface, an unreasonable stretch.

Hmm, what is it you have personally accomplished to be so sure you can see how Google has gone wrong, to be so sure you can see things that the likes of Rubin, Page, Brin and Schmidt cannot? Go build and sustain a billion dollar company based on algorithms that few can truly understand, then perhaps you won't sound like a bleacher bum yelling at Albert Pujols to bunt.

Other than the fact that you're completely wrong, you're absolutely right.


If you read my post again, you'll notice that's exactly what I did.

It is really too bad that so many here cannot bring themselves to admit that both Google and Apple are brilliant companies with brilliant people. Both have moved the mobile industry forward, albeit in different ways. We should all be grateful for the existence of both companies and for the choice presented. Anyone who thinks iOS is superior on all counts is an idiot. So too is anyone who thinks iOS has *lost* (or won). In fact, as mentioned above, continuing to compare the two is an outdated, increasingly outmoded way of thinking. Time to change your tunes, or at least your lenses.

Yes and no. Your conclusion is that it would be a horrid future, which is, in the net, a slam on Google. Is there no scenario in your world where Google could come out smelling rosy?

Many people wouldn't care about the ads and would love having a self-driving car. Self-driving cars are absolutely what we need for the sake of security from other drivers and as a means to actually regulate vehicle energy use and maintenance (and no more of those idiots peeling out because the car would drive comfortably, for example).

Google's not going to be the only one to do it, but they'd be the only one to force ads if it IS ever released. That's neither rosy nor thorny.

So long as there are people coming onto an "Apple" fan site and spouting horseshit about the competition then you will see people defending Apple, even if they too at times have to spout horseshit to do it.

Android was purchased in 2005

Given I have OSes I have written orbiting the Earth, I can comment.

Better question is, respond to the question at hand. You claim Google is making money hand over fist (clever way of monetization) on Android. I claim it is a financial disaster.

It is well established that Larry Page bought Android with out discussing it with the CEO of the company (then Eric S.) or his co-founder (S. Brin).

It is well established that Google makes more mobile revenue off of iOS than Android.

It is well established Google has put between 12-15 billion into Android.

Given Android's current market penetration and the minimal amount of return to date, it will take decades for the investment to break even. This does not count the potential liability of IP issues that threaten to make Android a never break even proposition. We already know Rubin's stance on how to handle IP. Copy now and deal with the fall out later. For $100,000,000 Google could have removed this issue. It could now cost billions as well as continuing revenue forever.

So show me, how is Android this amazing fountain on money for Google? I claim that Google has an amazing search algorithm but an extraordinaire amount of engineering waste within their organization and Android is one of them. When I talk to Google engineers and their primary frustration is they feel 95% of the engineering staff could be eliminated and not impact Google's current or future earning potential this concerns me as a share holder.

Google has a money fountain that makes MS's Office and Windows franchise look anemic. They are a one trick pony and worse they view every thing through that single pony. From Android to ChromeOS everything they do, Google ties into the one trick pony. Given DuckDuckGo (a 1 man band for the most part) kicks Google's a$$ on search, what happens when more people learn there are much better options for search.

And looked like the BlackBerry OS until January 9, 2007, I believe is what he's saying. He's not being very clear about it.

The fact that NO Google service bombarded anyone with ads ever leads me to believe that this future you imagine is highly unlikely.

You proved his point.



It took years of development just for Google to get the Android they bought to become the BB OS ripoff they intended. Judging by the time it took them to even get anything that resembled a BB clone in to some pictures it was a long a grueling effort mostly bought for the people not any underlying tech advantage in the way NeXT had a great foundation for Apple to work with.

Nope, no bombardment of ads... unless you count the entire top half of the page results and the entire right side.

• http://www.google.com/search?q=google+ads

Are you one of those that believe that the entire iPhone was put together in a matter of days? I would guess several years from initial concept to demonstration meaning the iPhone/iPad projects had their genesis in 2003 to 2004.

If Apple did the iPhone in just a few days, your statement of Google going down Android path before anyone had even heard of the iPhone has merit.

If Apple actually spent several years developing the software, hardware, getting contracts in line, certification from FCC and UL and CE, documentation then your beliefe that Google started down the Android path before the iPhone was envisioned is just all wet.

Given the polish of the first iPhone and given I have worked on engineering projects for 25+ years, I am guessing your thought process is all wet.

NOTE: In 2005 Apple had to decide on going down a Linux based phone path or a shrunk OS X path. Senior VP Tony Fadell had this to say on Linux/iOS:

I inherited the competitive iPhone OS project from Jon Rubenstein and Steve Sakoman when they left Apple. I quickly shuttered the project after assessing that a modified Mac OS was the right platform to build the iPhone upon. It was clear that to create the best smartphone product possible, we needed to leverage the decades of technology, tools and resources invested in Mac OS while avoiding the unnecessary competition of dueling projects.

Have you used Google's search recently. Bombarded is a good term. Cluttered is another.

So you've never used a Google service, then? Their search has ads. Their e-mail has ads. Their video service has ads. Their maps have ads. I think their documents thing even has ads. They exist primarily to BE an ad.

The awesome stuff that comes off of their main business (the translation, self-driving cars, etc.) are the GOOD parts of Google.

I believe you're off topic.

No one is denying that android post iPhone was inspired by the iPhone. Also Android looked like a BBOS well into the end of 2007 but nice try.

My point was Google had plans to enter the phone business independent of Apple's plans

just for those arguing whether schmidt used info for android phones the reason he was asked to leave apples board was because of conflict of interest and just because he recused himself from meetings on ipad does not mean that he did not see or hear things from people about the iphone design. I believe a lot of the ideas that android now uses were borrowed from the iphone.
here is the press release from apple where schmidt was asked to leave.

Dr. Eric Schmidt Resigns from Apple’s Board of Directors
CUPERTINO, California—August 3, 2009—Apple® today announced that Dr. Eric Schmidt, chief executive officer of Google, is resigning from Apple’s Board of Directors, a position he has held since August 2006.

“Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.”

Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also spearheading the digital media revolution with its iPod portable music and video players and iTunes online store, and has entered the mobile phone market with its revolutionary iPhone.

Press Contacts:
Steve Dowling
Apple
dowling@apple.com
(408) 974-1896


I see this as the fact that android was taking off in a few months from this resignation and that schmidt was asked to leave because he was seeing too much. Im sure android fans will say he left honorabley but I dont believe that for one second. I think he was asked to leave. But people who dont like apple will believe what they want. So will apple fans. Just to add I believe he was "asked to leave" if you can believe that I think it was more he was pushed out the door.

Does context have no meaning? We are speaking of Google should've stayed out of the phone business and worked with Apple. I'm stating they had plans to join the phone industry independent of Apple. Nothing to do with what you and Skil are speaking about.

Independent of Apple or not, I think it was a mistake to use so many resources (money, talent and time) for eyeballs (which is how Google makes its money) that would most likely been there regardless with much less effort.