or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iOS, Google's Android account for record 92% of smartphone shipments
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iOS, Google's Android account for record 92% of smartphone shipments - Page 3

post #81 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Oh geez...

The Galaxy Nexus actually costs $579...

In fact, pretty much all of the top 10 Android phones cost more $400...

Top 10.... where?

Is the Galaxy Nexus the #1 phone in China? India? Those are two HUGE countries that are contributing far more to Android's market share than any other country.

Like I said earlier... the average price of an Android phone in China is $220.

That means there are phones above $220..... but that also means there are many phones below $220

Do you realize how many crappy phones you'd have to sell to bring the average down to $220?

Contrary to popular belief... Android's amazingly high market share is not made up of all Galaxy SIII and Note.
post #82 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX View Post

No, there is not! Since many around here are shareholders I think you've heard of Tradestation? Where is the Mac version for Tradestation? Where is the Mac version for NinjaTrader? eSignal? Multicharts? Sierra Charts? If you are trading you are stuck with programs that run under Java. This is one reason why I never bought a Mac. It doesn't have the software that I need.

 

If proTA is Java they did some heavy skinning.  I code in Java and it doesn't have that look and I do custom UIs.  Java applications can work very well on the mac.

 

It's true that the Mac has fewer options than the PC but often the few that do exist tend to be geared toward a better UX.

 

/shrug

 

You can run Tradestation under Parallels or Fusion.  That you never bought a mac for such a trivial reason if you prefer the os is silly.  Personally I find Win7 just fine but prefer os x.

post #83 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Oh boy...

So the Mac vs. PC thing wasn't working... so let's shift the argument.

Look back at my original argument. We're talking mostly about the Asian market. No matter who is making profit... if you ended up with a 95% Android (devoid of Google's crap) vs. 5% Apple, then, just like old days, there is a damn good chance that developers would feel "compelled" to market Android apps first, regardless if their profit margins were higher for the Mac.

As I said, there has to be an answer for the cheap smartphone or, yes, this could end up being Apple in 1992.

This whole business that market share doesn't matter is bullshit in my opinion. If you lose enough of it then your company gets smaller. You may or not retain profit but that is also up for debate.

The answer doesn't have to be another smartphone. Yes, Steve answered the Mac question first with the iMac, but then he branched out with the iPod, iPhone and then iPad.

Using your theory, Steve would have just stuck with Macs. Profitable. Maybe. ... but how big would Apple be today?

Sorry to "shift" the argument but I was still referring to your comment about developers eventually preferring Android. I'm just not seeing that.

Since you mentioned the Asian markets... how many of those phones can even run all of the latest apps and games?

The problem Android developers are already having is a lot of that Android market share is made up of less-than-capable phones.... or people who don't use apps at all. And that number will increase for sure... which means more phones that won't run all the latest apps.

Android market share is already 3.5 times higher than the iPhone... yet the iPhone is still plucking along.

Don't forget... Apple is still increasing its installed base... even if their "share" of the market is decreasing (because the market itself is increasing at a rapid pace)

Plus... it's not like the bell rings and the game is over at some point. Both platforms will go on.
post #84 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

 

You are not getting it.

 

What I am saying is that Apple today could be at the point that Apple was at in 1988. Apple was doing well. Sculley had improved Apple's position considerably but he had absolutely no answer to Windows and the cheap PC. Without Steve's vision, or any vision whatsoever, Apple started treating Macs like soft drinks. Apple tried hard to come back but only began to flounder badly under 2 successive CEOs.

 

Steve Jobs worked hard to make Apple's DNA what it is today and hand picked the leadership team.

 

The probability that Apple will flounder at all much less flounder badly under Cook's leadership is very slim.  Execution, not the lack of new products, was killing apple in the Sculley era (85-93).

 

What new products?  

 

  • LaserWriter (1985)
  • PowerBooks (1991)
  • Newton (1993)

 

Under Spindler (93-96)

 

  • PowerMac w/PPC CPUs (1994) - In 1995 Apple had $1B in PowerMac backorders and couldn't build them.

 

Ideas are cheap really.  Winnowing down ideas and then brilliantly executing them is key.

 

Given I don't see another Steve Jobs in the industry or for that matter another Bill Gates, who'd going to beat Cook and Ive in the near future?  Larry Page?

post #85 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Given I don't see another Steve Jobs in the industry or for that matter another Bill Gates, who'd going to beat Cook and Ive in the near future?  Larry Page?

He's no Steve Jobs (who is) but since he's taken over the CEO position Google does seem more focused, and design has certainly been pushed to the forefront.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #86 of 119

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:38pm
post #87 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

I imagine he was emphasizing Apple because many posters on this site automatically assume Google is selling out users to either the government or other corporations while assuming that Apple protects its users at all costs.  He was showing you that your beliefs are at least partially incorrect.

Google's posted another blog entry in connection with their Transparency Reports concerning governments requests for user data, this time explaining the why's and what-fors. Intereresting read.

https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/legalprocess/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #88 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Steve Jobs worked hard to make Apple's DNA what it is today and hand picked the leadership team.

 

The probability that Apple will flounder at all much less flounder badly under Cook's leadership is very slim.  Execution, not the lack of new products, was killing apple in the Sculley era (85-93).

 

What new products?  

 

  • LaserWriter (1985)
  • PowerBooks (1991)
  • Newton (1993)

 

Under Spindler (93-96)

 

  • PowerMac w/PPC CPUs (1994) - In 1995 Apple had $1B in PowerMac backorders and couldn't build them.

 

Ideas are cheap really.  Winnowing down ideas and then brilliantly executing them is key.

 

Given I don't see another Steve Jobs in the industry or for that matter another Bill Gates, who'd going to beat Cook and Ive in the near future?  Larry Page?

 

The reasons for Apple's dwindling market share in the 90s is an argument for another day (or not). The fact that single digit market share hurt software development for the Mac in the 90s is fairly clear.

 

By the way... whether it's Page or not, Google has been doing fairly well profit wise... but, no, I don't feel that Page is Steve Jobs... at least yet. When Steve Jobs was Page's age I don't think he was Steve Jobs either. 1smile.gif

 

Maybe Forstall. 1cool.gif

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #89 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Someone is wrong somewhere. Some other company just estimated that Apple's worldwide iPhone marketshare ended the last quarter at 25.1%, an increase of 1.9% over the same quarter YOY. So who is right?

 

That would have been IDC.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155634/apples-iphone-grew-to-25-1-global-market-share-in-2012

 

I pointed out they had made an error.

post #23

 

But most people seem to just prefer headlines to .... facts.

 

IDC have since corrected and updated their full year's figures.

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23916413#.UQbeTo7OYqY

 

iPhone 21.8% for Q4. 19.1% for the full year.

post #90 of 119
Quote:
"Combined together,..."

 

Let us hope Mr. Bicheno is a better analyst than linguist.

post #91 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

The iPhone is a Rolex in a sea of Timex's. The analysts are used to a different business model than Apple. They want Apple to be like GM and be the largest auto manufacture (Toyota since regained this mantle) and sell cheap crap to everyone. Or like Coke, or Walmart, or McDonald's, or Microsoft, or Google, or, HP, or Dell, RIM, Nokia, or Proctor and Gamble and and sell cheap crap to everyone.

 

Nokia's 920 is not crap.  The operating system is what you might people call crap.  

post #92 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Keep in mind that Strategy Analytics is one of those companies that calls almost anything with a keypad a 'smartphone'. They 70/20 split is not even close to representative of Apple's position in smart phones. By most accounts, it's a lot more even when you don't count the phones that are nothing more than glorified feature phones.

 

I appreciate your sentiment but don't get your knickers in a twist!

 

Strategy Analytics is simply doing the same as all the other research companies (Gartner, IDC, Canalys). Although there are minor differences in their methods and results they give us a pretty good idea of what's happening in the market. Where else are you going to get your figures?

 

Loosely, the definition of 'smartphone' ( by the analyst houses) has been a phone that can accept 3rd party applications.

 

There have always been low end smartphones. Nokia used to sell tens of millions of them. Just because some people are buying low end Android phones... but not using them as smartphones... doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted as ... smartphones.

 

 

With all that said.... I agree, that for Apple the more interesting metric is now the percentage of all cell phones sold. Remember Steve Job's 2008 'target' for the iPhone? 10% of the smartphone market, 1% of the whole phone market. Well, according to Strategy Analytics iPhone hit 8.4% of the phone market. And for Q4 the figure was 10.4%. That's the first time that iPhone has crossed 10%. It adds a little perspective to all the doom & gloom merchants out there.

 

PS. The poster you were responding too... doesn't know what he is talking about.

post #93 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewGavin View Post

 

Nokia's 920 is not crap.  The operating system is what you might people call crap.  

Good point. Got it, thx! :)

post #94 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post

I wonder how many of this 70% would rather have an iPhone if they only could?

Seems to me a hughe potential for Apple to grow beyond the wildest expectations.

 

Probably far less then you suspect.....

post #95 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Well, I for one don't want to find out if there is a tipping point where the proliferation of Android devices increases to the point where it compels developers to build for Android first
We are closing on this tipping point, in 2012 iOS was still the lead mobile development platform at around 48% and 44% for Android, but that should change this year, with all the consequences over the software ecosystem and platform attractiveness on the middle and long term, a la mac vs windows redux.
post #96 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

 

The reasons for Apple's dwindling market share in the 90s is an argument for another day (or not). The fact that single digit market share hurt software development for the Mac in the 90s is fairly clear.

 

 

Perhaps.  I still remember some great software on the mac in the 90s.  

 

In any case, the installed base of iOS is measured in the hundreds of millions.  Something not true of the Mac in the 90s.  By the time iOS is at saturation it wont be low hundreds of millions but high hundreds of millions and to the most lucrative demographic segment.

 

Quote:
By the way... whether it's Page or not, Google has been doing fairly well profit wise... but, no, I don't feel that Page is Steve Jobs... at least yet. When Steve Jobs was Page's age I don't think he was Steve Jobs either. 1smile.gif

 

Steve was always a charismatic visionary.  See the 1984 Mac keynote.  Larry is 39.  Steve was 29.  

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/video-steve-jobs-introduces-mac-2011-8

 

Steve was always Steve.  He got better with age and wisdom but he was able to be amazing because at the core his drive for perfection changed little.

post #97 of 119
Quote:

Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Steve was always a charismatic visionary.  See the 1984 Mac keynote.  Larry is 39.  Steve was 29.  

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/video-steve-jobs-introduces-mac-2011-8

 

Steve was always Steve.  He got better with age and wisdom but he was able to be amazing because at the core his drive for perfection changed little.

 

You don't have to have charisma to be an innovator and/or a visionary.

 

Just a reminder... Page was only 25 when he founded Google with Brin. I really wouldn't call him a slouch.

 

Another reminder... Steve's original vision was Lisa... not the Mac.


Edited by island hermit - 1/28/13 at 4:45pm
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #98 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

 

You don't have to have charisma to be an innovator and/or a visionary.

 

Just a reminder... Page was only 25 when he founded Google with Brin. I really wouldn't call him a slouch.

 

Another reminder... Steve's original vision was Lisa... not the Mac.

 

Steve's original vision was a computer that would change the way people used computers and never lead the Lisa team.  He took over the Macintosh team and it was a competing product.

 

I used the Lisa extensively at NASA as an intern developing structure charts for our segment of the science processing pipeline.  While it was nice and the UI and apps were great it was the Mac that ended up being the computer that changed the computing experience.  The Lisa was designed for business use.  Jobs vision was of a computer as an appliance.  There was huge attention to detail on the Mac (fonts, design, color of the plastic, etc) that is a hallmark of Steve and not so much on the Lisa.

 

As far as Page in comparison with Jobs...well...yeah, he's a slouch.  Apple (Mac), NeXT (OSX), Pixar.  Frankly I hope Mayer eats his lunch in the coming years.  Sidelining her was a stupid move and a call made by Page.

post #99 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Steve's original vision was a computer that would change the way people used computers and never lead the Lisa team.  He took over the Macintosh team and it was a competing product.

 

I used the Lisa extensively at NASA as an intern developing structure charts for our segment of the science processing pipeline.  While it was nice and the UI and apps were great it was the Mac that ended up being the computer that changed the computing experience.  The Lisa was designed for business use.  Jobs vision was of a computer as an appliance.  There was huge attention to detail on the Mac (fonts, design, color of the plastic, etc) that is a hallmark of Steve and not so much on the Lisa.

 

As far as Page in comparison with Jobs...well...yeah, he's a slouch.  Apple (Mac), NeXT (OSX), Pixar.  Frankly I hope Mayer eats his lunch in the coming years.  Sidelining her was a stupid move and a call made by Page.


You had best do some research. The Mac was well advanced before Steve came along. Jef Raskin was the lead on the Mac and was the one who first went to Xerox Parc.

 

You might also want to research why Mike Scott didn't want Steve heading the Lisa team.

 

Steve had some vision during that time but nothing in comparison to what you are endowing upon him.

 

... and I wasn't comparing Page to Jobs and anybody that says that Page is a slouch has absolutely no credibility.


Edited by island hermit - 1/28/13 at 10:29pm
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #100 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


Top 10.... where?

Is the Galaxy Nexus the #1 phone in China? India? Those are two HUGE countries that are contributing far more to Android's market share than any other country.

Like I said earlier... the average price of an Android phone in China is $220.

That means there are phones above $220..... but that also means there are many phones below $220

Do you realize how many crappy phones you'd have to sell to bring the average down to $220?

Contrary to popular belief... Android's amazingly high market share is not made up of all Galaxy SIII and Note.

 

 

 

You do know that most of the "Android" phones sold in china are not Google Certified and do not use the Google apps. As a result most of the phones sold in china do not get reported to Google as activations. 

post #101 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

You do know that most of the "Android" phones sold in china are not Google Certified and do not use the Google apps. As a result most of the phones sold in china do not get reported to Google as activations. 

Oh yeah... I forgot about that.

So what does that mean for the rest of the planet? Are all Android phones around the globe expensive flagship phones? Or is there still a healthy amount of "cheap" Android phones out there? Does anyone actually know?

Maybe that's why Samsung never reports their sales numbers. If word got out that their "cheap" phones are the volume sellers... it wouldn't look too impressive.

Instead... they give us milestones like "100 million Galaxy phones since 2010"

Considering the total volume of smartphones Samsung sells... 100 million flagship phones spread out over 30 months isn't really that exciting.

So what about the other phones they sold during that time? Why keep that a secret?
post #102 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


You had best do some research. The Mac was well advanced before Steve came along. Jef Raskin was the lead on the Mac and was the one who first went to Xerox Parc.

 

You might also want to research why Mike Scott didn't want Steve heading the Lisa team.

 

Steve had some vision during that time but nothing in comparison to what you are endowing upon him.

 

... and I wasn't comparing Page to Jobs and anybody that says that Page is a slouch has absolutely no credibility.

 

Yes, Raskin went first to Xerox Parc but his intention was much different than what the Mac ended up being.  Raskin lost the leadership position on the Mac and the machine followed Job's vision and not his.  Meh, as much as I like some of Raskin's concepts (I worked on ZUIs for a while) he was NOT the father of the Macintosh.  He started the project and then it became something else.

 

As far as Mike Scott not wanting Steve for Lisa, well so what?  The Lisa failed under Rosing and the Mac succeeded under Jobs.

 

Steve had "some vision during that time"? Lol.  Talk about having no credibility.  Name anyone more visionary in computing that executed on their vision in the 80s.

 

And I said that Page was a slouch in comparison to Jobs AND Gates, not that he was a slouch.  He's probably not a Jerry Yang but he's also not going to be the one that takes down Apple and Cook.  He's no Bill Gates even if Google has become the same kind of unethical company.

post #103 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Yes, Raskin went first to Xerox Parc but his intention was much different than what the Mac ended up being.  Raskin lost the leadership position on the Mac and the machine followed Job's vision and not his.  Meh, as much as I like some of Raskin's concepts (I worked on ZUIs for a while) he was NOT the father of the Macintosh.  He started the project and then it became something else.

 

As far as Mike Scott not wanting Steve for Lisa, well so what?  The Lisa failed under Rosing and the Mac succeeded under Jobs.

 

Steve had "some vision during that time"? Lol.  Talk about having no credibility.  Name anyone more visionary in computing that executed on their vision in the 80s.

 

And I said that Page was a slouch in comparison to Jobs AND Gates, not that he was a slouch.  He's probably not a Jerry Yang but he's also not going to be the one that takes down Apple and Cook.  He's no Bill Gates even if Google has become the same kind of unethical company.


Complete revisionism.

 

I could give you page after page of information to refute everything you are saying about the history of the Macintosh but I know you would just disregard it. What color is the sky in your world.

 

Nice.


Edited by island hermit - 1/29/13 at 8:29am
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #104 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

You do know that most of the "Android" phones sold in china are not Google Certified and do not use the Google apps. As a result most of the phones sold in china do not get reported to Google as activations. 

 

The numbers used to compute average price includes all android based phones.  Not just Google certified.  There's an assload of 3rd party ROMs like MIUI out there but installed by low end manufactures that aren't Google Certified that makes up the majority of android sales in China.  MIUI alone has 10M users and is smartwiz/ios like.  

 

If I were running with an Android phone on a regular basis I'd probably load up MIUI and let the chicoms snoop my email.  The mascot with the little chinese army cap is cute...

post #105 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


Complete revisionism.

 

Nice.

 

Lol...it's all documented.  Any idiot that claims that Jobs wasn't the driving force on the Mac has...as you say...no credibility.

 

Look at what Jobs created after.  Look at what Raskin has created after.  Raskin was out by summer of 1981.  He was against both the 68000 and the mouse.  If Raskin's vision was of a cheap 6809 based machine with 64K of RAM with meta keys and no mouse.  It would have been the Canon Cat (1987) which is what Raskin eventually built and it would have bombed just like the Cat did.

 

Like I said, I did work on ZUIs so I'm familiar with Raskin and his work (I used Piccolo as the basis of my work and not Archy).  Brilliant guy.  Visionary?  Sorta but nothing came of it.

post #106 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Lol...it's all documented.  Any idiot that claims that Jobs wasn't the driving force on the Mac has...as you say...no credibility.

 

Look at what Jobs created after.  Look at what Raskin has created after.  Raskin was out by summer of 1981.  He was against both the 68000 and the mouse.  If Raskin's vision was of a cheap 6809 based machine with 64K of RAM with meta keys and no mouse.  It would have been the Canon Cat (1987) which is what Raskin eventually built and it would have bombed just like the Cat did.

 

Like I said, I did work on ZUIs so I'm familiar with Raskin and his work (I used Piccolo as the basis of my work and not Archy).  Brilliant guy.  Visionary?  Sorta but nothing came of it.


Okay, okay... you're right. I thought it was only Hertzfeld who was saying that Jobs was the main push and I've found a lot of inaccuracies in Hertzfeld's account of those days. One person that I trust, though, is Bill Atkinson, and you are correct, Bill Atkinson says that Raskin was the Father of the Macintosh "Project' but Jobs turned it into something else and is the Father of the Mac, "as we know it".

 

My apologies.

 

For the record though, it wasn't Steve who envisioned the information appliance. That was Raskin's idea. Steve brought it to fruition. So, in my mind, that is an important point. Raskin was the visionary for the idea, Steve was the visionary for how it should look. This is an important distinction to me because if Raskin had developed his idea it may have worked out better financially for Apple than Steve's Mac. Price alone may have been a factor. We will never know.


Edited by island hermit - 1/29/13 at 10:55am
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #107 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


Okay, okay... you're right. I thought it was only Hertzfeld who was saying that Jobs was the main push and I've found a lot of inaccuracies in Hertzfeld's account of those days. One person that I trust, though, is Bill Atkinson, and you are correct, Bill Atkinson says that Raskin was the Father of the Macintosh "Project' but Jobs turned it into something else and is the Father of the Mac.

 

My apologies.

 

For the record though, it wasn't Steve who envisioned the information appliance. That was Raskin's idea. Steve brought it to fruition. So, in my mind, that is an important point. Raskin was the visionary for the idea, Steve was the visionary for how it should look.

 

No problem, yes, Atkinson "recollects" better than Hertzfeld.  

 

And yes, Raskin's idea was information appliance and well, named his company that.  But what I and probably you think of in terms of information appliance is not what Raskin imagined.  The Canon Cat was an information appliance that did one thing well...office work.  Much like a toaster does one thing well...toast things. Or maybe stove is a better example for the Cat.  You use it to cook...bake, fry, whatever.  You don't use it to do dishes...for that you have a dishwasher appliance.

 

When I think appliance computing I think iPad...something multirole, general purpose but an appliance like user experience.  It works, it's not arcane, it's approachable, etc.

 

In the Raskin ideal you don't have an iPad with office apps, music apps and games.  You have a PDA, an iPod and a DS...each device tailored for the task. There are certainly advantages to this strategy like physical buttons for games.  
 
So a lot to like about Raskin's thinking and I hold him in high regard. I have his book The Humane Interface on my desktop bookshelf within reach.  But I think a lot of his concepts appeal more to the computer science purist than to the real world.
post #108 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

According to a recent article Apple's Appstore is collecting nearly 4 times the daily revenue of Google Play, but Google's store revenue is growing faster than Apple's (as would be expected).

 

As far as country availability is concerned Google made a significant push in the latter part of 2012, adding quite a few countries. They could now actually have broader coverage than Apple's appstore rather than less.

http://support.google.com/googleplay/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=143779

A new report from AppAnnie now says Apple's app store revenue lead has dropped to 3.5 times that of the Google Play app store. Still a big lead for Apple but Google Play does appear to be closing the gap at a faster pace with app revenue doubling over the previous quarter.

http://blog.appannie.com/app-annie-index-january-2013/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #109 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think Apple does provide certain governments back-door access in exchange for selling devices/services in certain markets.

I remember a document from last year (?) that indicated both Apple and RIM provide "OS keys" to Indian authorities for spying on users of their devices. As controlling as the Chinese are I have no doubt it's the same there.

The only one I remember is when RIM was threatened by India and some other country about that. If they didn't give a back door, sales would be stopped. A week or so later, the tussle was ended. In fact, in an interview, Lazarious was asked about that, and he walked off rather than answer it. Where was it stated that Apple was offering back doors?
post #110 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


The only one I remember is when RIM was threatened by India and some other country about that. If they didn't give a back door, sales would be stopped. A week or so later, the tussle was ended. In fact, in an interview, Lazarious was asked about that, and he walked off rather than answer it. Where was it stated that Apple was offering back doors?

I gave a link to a document showing that back in post 53 Mel.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155670/apples-ios-googles-android-account-for-record-92-of-smartphone-shipments/40#post_2266401

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #111 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The only one I remember is when RIM was threatened by India and some other country about that. If they didn't give a back door, sales would be stopped. A week or so later, the tussle was ended. In fact, in an interview, Lazarious was asked about that, and he walked off rather than answer it. Where was it stated that Apple was offering back doors?

Obviously iOS and Android are easily hackable that these governments didn't need a backdoor. Or did you think their need to snoop stopped because people are now using iPhones?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #112 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I gave a link to a document showing that back in post 53 Mel.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155670/apples-ios-googles-android-account-for-record-92-of-smartphone-shipments/40#post_2266401

I hadn't seen that. I suppose they all do from what that says.
post #113 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

A new report from AppAnnie now says Apple's app store revenue lead has dropped to 3.5 times that of the Google Play app store. Still a big lead for Apple but Google Play does appear to be closing the gap at a faster pace with app revenue doubling over the previous quarter.

http://blog.appannie.com/app-annie-index-january-2013/

 

 

This isn't really closing the gap.

post #114 of 119

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:41pm
post #115 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

This isn't really closing the gap.

You really don't think so? There used to be a 10-1 revenue advantage the beginning of last year. At least it doesn't look like all gloom and doom anymore for quality developer's concentrating on Android.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #116 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You really don't think so? There used to be a 10-1 revenue advantage the beginning of last year. At least it doesn't look like all gloom and doom anymore for quality developer's concentrating on Android.

 

This is like my 2 year old daughter claiming she's catching up to my 9 year old son in age because now he's only four times as old when last year he was eight times as old last year...

 

Actually worse because in this case because the absolute gains aren't linear...the app store is gaining dollars at a far faster pace than the Google Play store.  The delta is got larger not smaller in december.

post #117 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

This is like my 2 year old daughter claiming she's catching up to my 9 year old son in age because now he's only four times as old when last year he was eight times as old last year...

 

Actually worse because in this case because the absolute gains aren't linear...the app store is gaining dollars at a far faster pace than the Google Play store.  The delta is got larger not smaller in december.

All in how you want to look at the charts NHT. Based on them how do you project iOS compared to Google Play revenues (not even including Amazon's Appstore for Android) by this time next year? Is it possible Google Play may double again even next quarter?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #118 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

All in how you want to look at the charts NHT. Based on them how do you project iOS compared to Google Play revenues (not even including Amazon's Appstore for Android) by this time next year? Is it possible Google Play may double again even next quarter?

 

Anything is possible.  However looking at the month of december the absolute delta between revenues increased vs decreased in comparison to the absolute delta between revenues in Jan.  

 

For certain the 1Q FY2013 looked good for Google in the chart if you ignore December.

post #119 of 119

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/5/13 at 3:16pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple's iOS, Google's Android account for record 92% of smartphone shipments
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iOS, Google's Android account for record 92% of smartphone shipments