British retailers found recommending Samsung smartphones over Apple's - Page 2

Exactly, there will always be those that can't be swayed to buy anything other than a iPhone. If there's 5 iPhones in stock and 30 SGS llls in stock guess which device will getppushed onto a uneducated first time smartphone buyer.

Or maybe he actually is telling the truth?  As was said before, not everything is a conspiracy.  And Apple is also known to strongly control the marketing of their device, as well as pay some of the lowest commissions.  

 

4 of my wife's family (uncle, cousins) recently went from the iPhone 4 to the Galaxy S3 (and they all prefer the S3), and I went from an iPhone 3G to an HTC (which I also prefer).  

Yeah, this is a problem. It's like this in Canada as other posters have said. I have a friend who works at Future Shop (Best Buy) and he says all the wireless people push ANYTHING but Apple because of the higher commission.

And we have what proof, exactly, that any of these retailers pay commission at all, let alone a higher commission for Samsung over Apple phones? Oh yeah... none. Please, don't let that stop you all though from speaking like you know anything on the matter.

Having worked in the telecom and retail industry, I know all carriers in my state pay nothing for handset sales. What they incentivize, however, are accessory sales. Chargers, cases, screen protectors etc. Brand of the phone means nothing, as long as they can bundle it with a car plug and a shiny new case. Some, but not all, carriers also reward selling features, like higher data plans etc. Again, brand doesn't matter, as most smartphone features are available on all makes now thanks the recent plan restructuring.

That some people prefer other brands than Apple, and recommend them to their customers, should not come as a surprise. Insulting them, their ethics, and their country, are all absolutely uncalled for.

Whether they PAY commissions is irrelevant. If they RECEIVE commissions from Samsung or Google or anyone else, they're going to pressure their employees to sell that product.

Why would Google pay commissions on Android phone sales? 

 

That makes no sense to me at all, and there's zero evidence they've ever done so anymore than Apple has.

 

I asked several days ago in another thread if anyone had any proof that commissions on Android or Windows phones were any higher than those paid for Apple, or even if commissions are typically paid to carrier salespeople at all on phone sales. Jrogosta, perhaps you have something that shows there's merit to the claim, or even your implication that Google might be commissions to carriers to push Android phones.  In all the time I've been here I've not seen anyone provide that, which increasingly points to it simply being an unsupported talking point.

Edited by Gatorguy - 1/28/13 at 6:46am

 

When the surveys include ALL iOS devices (iPads and iPod touch), and access over WiFi, that's true.

 

When the surveys ONLY include phones or celluar data, it turns out that the internet usage is basically the same.   The Chitika ad reports specifically state this about phones (but of course fansites never repeat it).   Akamai charts show the same thing:

 

 

 

Not strange.  Many stores have to get Apple preapproval for advertising and brochures.  Apple likes to control how they're presented. 

 

Heck, Apple even likes controlling the ads that other companies present, which is why advertisers have pulled out of Apple's iAds program.

They know not to put an unnecessary "s" on the end of "anyway".

 

Regardless of whether sales staff are receiving spiffs or higher commissions for selling Android phones, it's very clear that carriers are heavily pushing Android phones on customers because it benefits them. They pay less for the phones themselves, they get more control over the user experience (including the ability to install key loggers), and all of that adds up to more money for the carriers. So, it doesn't really matter whether sales staff are pushing Android down people's throats because they benefit by supplementing their pay (which is very likely the case) or simply by being allowed to keep their jobs. It's clear, from this and other surveys among other evidence, that this is happening, and it's not necessary to identify the precise ultimate cause to establish that it is, and that it's the primary reason for what market success Android has had. Pretend all you want, but average users really don't love Android, and recent numbers confirm that they switch to iPhone in significant numbers when they are free to do so, and iPhone users don't switch in significant numbers.

 

Android and Android phones represent the typical crappy experience that carriers have traditionally provided, and consumers don't like it.

 

On the other hand, there's no reason we should entirely reject the notion that Google is itself incentivizing carriers to push Android phones through financial or other means. That we don't have a smoking gun doesn't mean they aren't. And, in fact we do. Google cut that deal with Verizon to undermine net neutrality, after paying lip service to how important it was for years, which was very likely a deal that involved Verizon agreeing to favor Android, even when they got the iPhone. So, it's not like we don't know that Google is a two-faced liar that will whore out any expressed principle for financial gain.

 

What would be the advantage there? The retailers including carrier stores are likely to sell whatever generates the highest profit. Why do you think there must be some conspiracy behind this when something as simple as better retail margins would be enough to guide their behavior once you're in the store.

 Citations needed on all of those points please.

 

Seriously, all these companies are bothered about is the bottom line, nothing else.  There doesn't have to be anything evil or sneaky about it, its called business.  Do you think a car dealership, or a jewellers, or a travel agent is any different?  As with any non-trivial purchase, depending on the advice of the seller to make your decision is a fool's game.

The faces that the cell phone guys make when I pull out an iPhone hilarious.  Such disappointment.  

 

They even lied to my family about getting prepay service for an old iPhone.  I had to go in there and ask for pre-pay and not bring up the iPhone until the very end.

 

No, they really aren't. Unless you just discovered the Internet or don't usually read any tech coverage, none of this would come as a shock to you.

To be fair I have seen at least one article in support for a single one of those claims, the one about a significant percentage of Android users trying out an iPhone when their contract ran out.  I don't recall the time period for the study so I don't know for sure how current it was, nor even the scope of it. I imagine the OP can clarify that, as well as offer the other citations you requested. 

Oh yeah, sorry, we play by the AI rules here don't we.  Anything you or TS say requires no data to back it up, the rest of us have to provide evidence in triplicate signed in blood.  Silly me.

 

I'd like to see the evidence that says carriers install key loggers, average users don't love Android (which is a bit weird - who loves an OS?) and that iOS users don't migrate to Android in significant numbers (which is actually exactly what I am seeing with users I know).  I won't hold my breath though.

 

I just don't understand why you see something evil and underhand in what is a normal business practice.

Or a third reason - That the S3 is simply a more capable / better value phone?

 

The British retailers who didn't think they'd get caught?

 

On the level, is it legal? 

 

So you'd sell your principles for a tiny bonus check?

 

Oh, and citations needed? 

 

 

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/android-bloatware-results-in-serious-security-flaws/16853

http://www.techhive.com/article/2000055/ban-bloatware-we-want-our-smartphones-back.html

 

 

Doesn't need a citation, as it's a supposition.

 

 

2011. 2012.

 

 

Bloatware: 2010. 2011. 2012.

Blocked updates: 2012.

 

Citations provided. It's not that we "don't need proof" of what we say, it's that we just expect you to be able to find it in the same way we did. It's information; it's all out there. Being able to find it quickly and accurately is a life skill. If we're ever thrown back into pre-Industrial times, I'd be able to survive because I know how a paper card freaking catalog works. 

 

The ones that just make up absolute crap? Those you can tell from a mile away.

 

No, that's not the case in the slightest. 

It is all about the money and incentives paid to move the product. It should be no surprise. Does anyone believe that Peyton Manning and Tiger Woods drive Buicks? No but they are paid to recommend them. Same story here but on a much smaller incentive scale.

TS, the second link (2012) has nothing to do with OS retention rates and the first one (2011) says "It's only a tiny sample (216 people), so large conclusions must not be drawn."

 

I think there's probably one out there that proves your point but neither of those does. 

 

EDIT: Geesh TS, I know you must have better citations that these. Add that  the one you've given to prove Android users don't like their OS says nothing of the sort either. You normally have pretty good links to back up your claims. Several of these don't really cut it. . .

While that is a valid point, the overall sales numbers for each model show differently. Especially given the longer length of time the G3 has been in the market and the BOGO offers and gift cards associated with the G3. I think it comes down to whatever promotion retailers are running and whatever incentives the manufacturer is giving to the retailer to sell the phones.

I don't know about Peyton and Tiger but Derek Jeter does drive a Ford Edge, well at least to Yankee Stadium.

 

If you're being sincere here, you really don't have a clue what's going on in the world, so you should educate yourself before commenting, or asking the rest of us to waste our time to satisfy your ignorance.

'Get caught' doing what exactly? Recommending non-Apple phones is not a crime.

Carrier IQ was also installed on iPhones.

 

:D

 

Your statement is a massive exaggeration and oversimplification. Stock does indeed have some effect on a great many things, even in the short term. Employees included. Some effect. The long term matters more.

 

The whole company's productivity? Your concentration might be affected? I think you're trying too hard to see what you want to find.

 

And people INSIDE Apple know far better than short-term speculators what's really going on. They're in the BEST position to know this kind of incident means little for the company's future. (Not nothing... but very little.)

 

 

 

Not only was Carrier IQ also installed on iPhones (because it helps analyze potential signal problems, to improve service), but the whole logging thing was overblown due to typical "researcher" ignorance.

 

None of that data was sent anywhere.  As that quote carefully put it, yes, the info was "recorded".... but only locally in the global developer debug log that everything logs to.

 

As any developer on the planet knows, all that this meant was that some poor sucker forgot to turn off the debug flag in the software before deploying it.  A goof, yes.  Spying?  NO.

 

It's not much different than the developer mistake that happened at Apple, when someone forgot to write code to limit the location lookahead cache, and all that hullabaloo went on about how Apple was "storing our location movements".

 

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

Isn't this true for all retailers in the entire world? Other than at an Apple Store, I've never heard an iPhone recommended after the 4 came out. The 4 was the last one I ever heard reccoemended. Ever. 3 years ago.

The BBC Micro.

That's a good thing Michael Faraday invented electricity. Where would we all be without that?

 

In cages.

Wasn't he in LOST?

This is definitely true in Australia, where Vodafone, Optus and Telstra heavily promote Samsung devices EVERYWHERE. And yet the iphone5 was still one of the most popular devices :D

 

When I think of Samsung I only think of shame, fanboys, bullies and copycats. 

it's a crime against consumers.