or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Why did Microsoft port Office to Apple's iOS iPad before Android?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why did Microsoft port Office to Apple's iOS iPad before Android? - Page 2

post #41 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

...even though during the trial here in early 2013, Samsung,s shipment numbers as estimated by these companies was again shown to be far off the mark, when both Apple and Samsung had to show actual sales numbers of the products under dispute. Of the estimated 1 million Samsung tablets supposedly shipped here of models under dispute, Samsung had only sold 38,000 one quarter. Of their smartphones, they on,y sold between one third and one half the number.

Mel, IIRC the numbers submitted as evidence for the trial were US only, but AI and other blogs tried to use worldwide shipment numbers to prove Samsung lied about their shipments and/or companies like Gartner were way off the mark. Are you perhaps making the same mistake now or is there something else I missed?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #42 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

The major reason for Android's lack of success in the Enterprise appears to be what @melgross stated.

Which statement Soli?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #43 of 225

Microsoft OneDrive is needed to store Office files for smartphones and tablets. OneDrive is really pretty good - a lot like Dropbox.

 

If you sign up through this referral link, you will receive an additional 0.5GB of online storage:

 

https://onedrive.live.com?invref=943cc0b11ce9ff04&invsrc=90

post #44 of 225
Because Android is a mess of different versions, interfaces, processors and screen sizes that would make it impossible to give a consistent look and feel that would not make Microsoft look bad. Besides, most of the majority of Android share are probably cheap Chinese or Korean small screen units running version 4.3. They would have to specifically choose one manufacturer to fully support and one specific model (i.e. Samsung) and now the numbers don't look the same anymore. In addition, it's no secret that the iPad is king of the enterprise and education system, the two markets Microsoft is planning to capture. Although I think the per year charge is crazy. Microsoft still thinks they are the only game in town and can charge anything they want.
post #45 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So Angry Birds used to be a paid app for Android but they were forced to make it free? Did not know that. How much does it cost on iOS?

Yes, it was. Rovio made a big point about it back then. Android users are very resistant to paying for apps. I don't remember how much Angry Birds cost me, as it was some time ago. I have several versions of the game. It's just a small amount though. But the ad supported version on Android has done well.

It's possible that now they've gone to the in app purchasing model, as that's proving very successful on both platforms.
post #46 of 225
...do
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eideard View Post

Porting to Android means deciding which Android to port to. Most Android stk's won't scale from device to device the way iOS does. Back up and look at the whole picture.

Watched an interview with a pair of developers who have over $200M/yr from their app - just from iOS. Interviewer asked when Android and why not yet. They said there are 800 individual flavors - and even picking the top ten, that meant developing for ten specific platforms with lots of similarities - and differences. What's the return on time invested?

Just part of the farce of open source. Trying to run in the world of commerce while thinking like a hobbyist is absurd. The first question I ask folks who choose on the basis of open source is "what have you reprogrammed or built to use as your own apps?" For consumers, which is 99.999% of all of us, a solid stk-produced product with ample security is what we need. Not laissez-faire ideology.
do you have that link?
post #47 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yes, it was. Rovio made a big point about it back then. Android users are very resistant to paying for apps. I don't remember how much Angry Birds cost me, as it was some time ago. I have several versions of the game. It's just a small amount though. But the ad supported version on Android has done well.

It's possible that now they've gone to the in app purchasing model, as that's proving very successful on both platforms.

I don't believe it was ever anything BUT free for Android Mel, at least not according to the original press reports when it first became available.
http://mashable.com/2010/10/15/angry-birds-android-2/

Perhaps you've confused it with some other game.

EDIT: iOS now has both free and paid versions of Angry Birds as does Android. Thanks MPantone
Edited by Gatorguy - 3/29/14 at 9:23am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #48 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So Angry Birds used to be a paid app for Android but they were forced to make it free? Did not know that. How much does it cost on iOS?

The paid iPhone version is $0.99, there is an ad-supported free version. The paid iPad version (Angry Birds HD) is $2.99, with its own free ad-supported version.

 

The publisher made both paid versions free for about a week earlier in this month.

 

For current pricing, please consult AppShopper: http://appshopper.com/search/?search=angry+birds

 

As melgross mentioned, Rovio has moved to a freemium distribution model, making the initial app download free, but charging extra via in-app purchases for full functionality and game credits.

 

Many app publishers -- particularly game developers -- have moved to this distribution model since it provides more regular revenue over the life of the app. iOS app store metrics show the number of downloads plus in-app purchase revenue, and each developer can figure out if in-app purchases results in higher average revenue per user than upfront one-time app purchases + ad revenue from ad-supported free versions.


Edited by mpantone - 3/29/14 at 9:29am
post #49 of 225
^ I just looked at getting a subscription of Office 365 and noticed the MS website calls it "Office 365 Home Premium" whereas the in-App purchase on the iPad calls it "Office 365 Home". They both charge $99.99 per year.

I think they're the same, and what intrigued me is that you not only get up to 5 users, but each user gets their own 20GB extra storage included (combined with the free 7GB it means each person gets 27GB). That's a significant amount of storage.

Not really concerened with getting an extra 0.5GB when I'll get 27GB x 5 with my Office subscription.


Edited: reply to DCJ001
post #50 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

The paid iPhone version is $0.99, there is an ad-supported free version. The paid iPad version (Angry Birds HD) is $2.99, with its own free ad-supported version.

The publisher made both paid versions free for about a week earlier in this month.

For current pricing, please consult AppShopper: http://appshopper.com/search/?search=angry+birds

So like it is on Android with both free and "premium" versions then at the same $2.99 pricing
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rovio.angrybirdsstarwarshd.premium.iap
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rovio.angrybirdsspaceHD
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #51 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Mel, IIRC the numbers submitted as evidence for the trial were US only, but AI and other blogs tried to use worldwide shipment numbers to prove Samsung lied about their shipments and/or companies like Gartner were way off the mark. Are you perhaps making the same mistake now or is there something else I missed?
Well, as estimates for the USA were a million tablets shipped for the models under dispute, which the actual number sold were just 38,000, I would think that everyone would pause at any numbers being mentioned when it comes to Samsung. And interested,y, when a top executive at Samsung was asked in early 2013, I think it was, about how Samsung tablet sales were going, he said; very poorly.

Samsung hasn't lied about shipments since the last quarter of 2010, because during the first quarter 2011, financial conference call, they announced that they would no longer give quarterly tablet and smartphone shipment numbers. So the on,y numbers we ever see are odd ones for their top phones, at strange intervals. Such as Galaxy S4 numbers, where in stead of giving out a normal quarterly number, they gave the number for the first 100 days. Who does that? Why? Because the phone sold far better in the first week then it did at any other time. Actually, even with conflated estimates from these companies, the G S4 didn't do all that well. In fact, now we're seeing numbers that show the maligned iPhone 5C sold in significantly better numbers than did the S4. How can that be? We're also reading that the S4 sold in fewer numbers than did the SIII!

And what about those tablets again? What evidence do we have that Samsung is selling more than a fraction we see estimated? And we need to remember that without confirming numbers from a manufacturer, these companies have absolutely no way of verifying their methodology. I remember in 2012, iSupply estimated that Samsung shipped 33 million smartphones one quarter. They were the first to come out with a number. It wasn't widely quoted. Then either Gartner or IDC, I forget which came out with 38 million. That was widely quoted. Then another company said 42 million, and so that number became the one mentioned everywhere. That some very small Canadian company that no one had ever heard of said 49 million, and that became the buss word.

Why such a wide discrepancy? And why weren't those numbers questioned by everyone? Why was the highest number the one quoted? The discrepancy was because there was no way to verify any of those numbers. Why they weren't questioned is a mystery to me. They certainly should have been.
post #52 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, as estimates for the USA were a million tablets shipped for the models under dispute, which the actual number sold were just 38,000, I would think that everyone would pause at any numbers being mentioned when it comes to Samsung

Mel, you could be absolutely right but as I said before I don't recall that. No doubt I miss a lot, one reason AI is one of my favorite sites to find info. Would you mind giving me a link to it?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #53 of 225

People can argue about whether Angry Birds is free or not, but that doesn't change the fact Android users do not spend nearly as much as iOS users do. This is a FACT.

 

As of September 2013 iOS had hit around 700 million devices while Android had hit 1 billion (1 billion that Google can track as activations which means they have Google Play access).

 

Despite Android having a larger share of users, their App revenue is still only now at 1/2 that of the App Store. Adjusted for the number of users, and iOS users are generating 2.85x as much per user compared to Android users.

 

Even worse, Google Play digital content (music, movies, TV...) is still around 1/6th of iTunes. Adjusted per user and that's 8.6x. Truly pathetic. And people still make the false claim that Google is in a better position to bring streaming TV or similar services to the public. With that kind of revenue per user, I don't know how anyone could think Google has an advantage over Apple when it comes to dealing with content providers.

post #54 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So like it is on Android with both free and "premium" versions then at the same $2.99 pricing
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rovio.angrybirdsstarwarshd.premium.iap
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rovio.angrybirdsspaceHD

I specifically pointed out the original Angry Birds apps (Angry Birds and Angry Birds HD). 

 

As both melgross and I have mentioned before, Rovio has subsequently moved to a freemium distribution model in later episodes of the Angry Birds franchise. Both Angry Birds Rio and Angry Birds Rio HD are now free in the iOS App Store with in-app purchases.

 

Remember, the free version of Angry Birds (iPhone edition) was published a year after the paid version has been out. Rovio made lots of money just offering the paid version. Their experience on Android was frustrating because they offered the same app at the same price, yet the download numbers were abysmally low, which is why they went free on Android with ad support since that's the nature of the many Android users.

 

The main lesson here is that iOS users spend more on apps than Android users and iPad users spend way more more on apps than smartphone app buyers or other Android tablet buyers.

post #55 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

People can argue about whether Angry Birds is free or not, but that doesn't change the fact Android users do not spend nearly as much as iOS users do. This is a FACT.

...that no one disputes AFAIK. Have you ever seen a claim otherwise? I haven't. But just because most developers came make more money on iOS doesn't mean there's not good money to be made on GooglePlay too is it? With it being a whole lot easier to develop an app for both at the same time (ie Corona, Xamarin) than it used to be why not do both? I can't think of a serious downside to it.
Edited by Gatorguy - 3/29/14 at 9:42am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #56 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Which statement Soli?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't believe it was ever anything BUT free for Android Mel, at least not according to the original press reports when it first became available.
http://mashable.com/2010/10/15/angry-birds-android-2/

Perhaps you've confused it with some other game.

EDIT: iOS now has both free and paid versions of Angry Birds as does Android. Thanks MPantone

No, that's definitely wrong. Actually, what happened, as I remember it, was that first they had an ad supported version on some Android phones(they said they couldn't support all because of fragmentation), then they came out with a paid version after, I think some large number of free downloads was done. But the paid version did very poorly.
post #57 of 225

Ugh. More of this "Apple versus cheap low end devices" nonsense that has never been true and never will be true. It is a rant about the monoculture that existed when Microsoft was at its peak, but it ignores two things:

1. Corporate managers and workers aren't stupid. If the Wintel "cheap low end devices" were incapable of reliably doing the heavyweight task-intensive work in corporate America (not just word processing but programming, CAD/CAM and lots of other heavy duty stuff) they never would have adopted it wholesale and stuck with it to this day.

2. The reason why Apple never really made a dent into the corporate market was that until recently it wasn't suited for it. Even the companies that were willing and able to pay the premium for Apple products found it unsuitable for most corporate tasks. This isn't the case now, but it was certainly the case in the 1990s and the 2000s. Work was either done on Windows machines, or if Windows machines were unsuitable, on workstations running some flavor of UNIX (Linux wasn't much of a player back then because Fedora and Ubuntu weren't out yet, so it was more likely to be Sun Solaris, HP-UX or something like that). The only people using Apple machines for work were using it for things like desktop publishing, animation, graphic arts, music etc. not business, programming, tech etc. because at the time the Windows machines - and the UNIX workstations - were better at it. It was not due to the Apple hardware, of course, but back then the Apple interface was difficult to work with (the ability to customize Windows and MS-DOS and UNIX was necessary for work back then) and there was a real lack of software tools to do work available because most of the software development was for Windows. 

3. The dichotomy between the "great Apple machines and the $500 Windows machines" NEVER EXISTED. The cheap Wintel machines with the slow CPUs, barely adequate RAM and tiny disk drives were only bought by home users for playing games and word processing (usually with the free Microsoft Works, not Word.) Corporate users always bought good machines with hardware that was at least ballpark with Apple machines. A corporate Windows machine today likely has 4-8 GB of RAM, a 500 GB hard drive, and an I-5 Intel processor running at about 2.8 GHz. In other words, similar to the specs that those MacBooks that the side panel of this site is advertising. The difference is that you can get a $1000 Toshiba or HP machine for that very capable hardware instead of having to pay $1800. If anything, Windows is holding the hardware manufacturers back these days. It was certainly the case with Windows Vista, and is also the case with Windows 8. 

4. Likewise, the $50 tablets that you are showing is nonsense. Samsung's enterprise tablet, 12.2 inches, great specs and capabilities and $750 price, goes unmentioned here. Why? It doesn't fit the "low end Android with bad hardware" agenda. Neither does the many $200-$350 tablets that are much more capable than 600 MHz kids toys. So "The result is a commodity market where all you can buy is junk, and any efforts to compete with better products are undermined by price dumping that effectively destroys innovation" never has been true and never will be true. It is just garbage to make people who make the CHOICE to spend $800 more on a PC or $100-$150 more on a tablet or phone feel better about themselves. You want to feel better about buying a $500 I-Pad instead of a $350 Android device, so you tell yourself that the only Android products are either Samsung copyright infringements (when Apple isn't even challenging the newer Samsung models, just the older ones) or garbage. Look, I don't know why people aren't buying the Google Nexus, the HP Slate or the other quality tablets, but there is no denying that they are capable tablets with hardware comparable to the older I-Pad models. 

5. Proof of this? That Microsoft is making Office for the Android AT ALL. Had Microsoft come out and said that they were only going to do Office for the I-Pad, THEN you would be able to claim that Android is unviable because the hardware on the Android devices that actually sell is incapable, and the Android devices that have capable hardware do not sell. But that is not the case at all. Instead, Microsoft merely released Office for I-Pad FIRST and will come out with it for Android LATER THIS YEAR. Why? Because they know that it will make money. As Microsoft does have these internal sales figures, they know that enough mid-range ($200-$350) and high end (pricing comparable to Microsoft) Android devices sell to justify the not-too-insignificant cost of developing and maintaining Office for the Android platform while undercutting their own.

6. More still: the Android platform is about to go through a major "next phase", of which Microsoft is fully aware. In 2015, Google is ending the Nexus brand, which Google was primarily using as a "demo" for other Android OEMs to follow. In other words, it was used to "introduce" the product. The introductory phase is over. In 2015, Google is going to discontinue their Nexus line in favor of their just-launched Google Play tablets (and phones). They are also going to start taking tighter control over Android itself (making it less "open") including coming up with a superior update process. That is going to make the platform more viable for those who have a bigger interest in it than as a child's toy. It will have to be in order for Google to continue to compete with Microsoft. That's right. Microsoft is wounded but by no means dead. Android tablets aren't competing with Apple tablets or (giggle, giggle) Windows tablets, but with Windows PCs. So people aren't choosing between a Galaxy/Nexus and an I-Pad. They are deciding between an Android tablet (or a Chromebook) and a low end Windows PC.  For that to continue - especially now that Windows is fighting back by practically giving away Windows 8 to low end OEMs to keep the cost competitive with Chromebooks as their "Scroogled" campaign was a total failure (great idea Ballmer!) - Android is going to have to be as good as or better than the low end Windows PCs that still to this very day dominate the consumer PC market (fewer such PCs are selling, but of the ones that do sell, 7 out of 10 of them run Windows 7 or Windows 8). 

 

Again, stuff like this is just propaganda to make Apple consumers feel better about themselves. It is not reality. If it were, Microsoft wouldn't bother with Office for Android at all. They WOULD NOT give anyone a reason to spend $300 on a quality Galaxy or upcoming Google Play tablet instead of a low end second Windows laptop that people are going to carry to meetings and whatnot while their primary device - be it a Windows PC or MacBook - remains tethered to their desk, but that is EXACTLY what they are doing.

post #58 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

I specifically pointed out the original Angry Birds apps (Angry Birds and Angry Birds HD). 

As both melgross and I have mentioned before, Rovio has subsequently moved to a freemium distribution model in later episodes of the Angry Birds franchise. Both Angry Birds Rio and Angry Birds Rio HD are now free in the iOS App Store with in-app purchases.

Remember, the free version of Angry Birds (iPhone edition) was published a year after the paid version has been out. Rovio made lots of money just offering the paid version. Their experience on Android was frustrating because they offered the same app at the same price, yet the download numbers were abysmally low, which is why they went free on Android with ad support since that's the nature of the many Android users.

No. Mel claimed Angry Birds was originally paid on Android but their users weren't buying it so they were forced to change to free. You are erroneously saying the same thing. I believe you and he are confusing it with some other game as that didn't happen unless you have some evidence to the contrary. Angry Birds never started out as a paid app on the Android Market, now Google Play.

Since then Rovio has found the best balance for maximum revenue to be a mix of both paid and premium versions, and they do the same for both Android and iOS users. I have no idea what you're actually disagreeing with.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #59 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


No, that's definitely wrong. Actually, what happened, as I remember it, was that first they had an ad supported version on some Android phones(they said they couldn't support all because of fragmentation), then they came out with a paid version after, I think some large number of free downloads was done. But the paid version did very poorly.

Citations always help when you claim another poster is wrong Mel.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #60 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

^ I just looked at getting a subscription of Office 365 and noticed the MS website calls it "Office 365 Home Premium" whereas the in-App purchase on the iPad calls it "Office 365 Home". They both charge $99.99 per year.

I think they're the same, and what intrigued me is that you not only get up to 5 users, but each user gets their own 20GB extra storage included (combined with the free 7GB it means each person gets 27GB). That's a significant amount of storage.

Not really concerened with getting an extra 0.5GB when I'll get 27GB x 5 with my Office subscription.


Edited: reply to DCJ001

They're going g to offer a Home version for $69 a year that includes, I believe, one computer and possibly one iPad.
post #61 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


No, that's definitely wrong. Actually, what happened, as I remember it, was that first they had an ad supported version on some Android phones(they said they couldn't support all because of fragmentation), then they came out with a paid version after, I think some large number of free downloads was done. But the paid version did very poorly.

That's a whole lot different than your original claim that it started out as a paid Android Market game and they were forced to go with free ad-supported when no one bought it. Now you're saying just the opposite and agreeing with me while trying to appear you don't.

Originally Posted by me:
So Angry Birds used to be a paid app for Android but they were forced to make it free? Did not know that. How much does it cost on iOS?

Your reply?:
Yes, it was. Rovio made a big point about it back then.

It doesn't mean your overall point that iOS users tend to spend more on apps than Android users is wrong. You're absolutely correct and no one rational disagrees. Your use of Angry Birds for Android starting out paid and going to free to support that claim is not. Didn't happen AFAIK.

We've beaten this one long enough. I was right in the first place.
Edited by Gatorguy - 3/29/14 at 10:05am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #62 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


They're going g to offer a Home version for $69 a year that includes, I believe, one computer and possibly one iPad.

 

I posted on the Office forums about this, as the language on the iPad for the in-App purchase isn't quite as clear as I'd like. I just want to confirm it's exactly the same as on the website (5 users, 20GB each).

 

I'll pop for the $99/year version. Having 5 users and 100GB of free storage to boot is a pretty good deal, IMO.

post #63 of 225

There are some good points in the article, but bringing up comparisons to the 1980s Apple vs. Microsoft events never adds anything particularly useful when describing present market conditions. Times have changed because of the Internet and globalization. Those old analogies are as stale as the car analogies some people make when describing iOS verses Android. There are hundreds of car brands none of which have an ecosystem. Simply apples and oranges. As usual, the articles by DED are a collection of random ideas that are loosely strung together whether or not they have any relevance to the central storyline, although generally good reading. 

 

But, to answer the question that the title begs is well... Captain Obvious!

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #64 of 225
Very simply with 200 million units sold its way bigger than any tablets running Android that people currently own
I've read shorter books than this authors story
post #65 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Mel, you could be absolutely right but as I said before I don't recall that. No doubt I miss a lot, one reason AI is one of my favorite sites to find info. Would you mind giving me a link to it?

It was on the sites it certainly wasn't hidden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Mel, you could be absolutely right but as I said before I don't recall that. No doubt I miss a lot, one reason AI is one of my favorite sites to find info. Would you mind giving me a link to it?

I'm looking for links. This was a few years ago so they can be buried. The first on I have gives overall sales numbers, and a few specific Samsung smartphone sales numbers. I'll look for the specific ones I'm talking about.
post #66 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It was on the sites it certainly wasn't hidden.
I'm looking for links. This was a few years ago so they can be buried. The first on I have gives overall sales numbers, and a few specific Samsung smartphone sales numbers. I'll look for the specific ones I'm talking about.

The only reference I find is a post from you on ArsTechnica making the same claim. There may be proof for it somewhere tho. Thanks for trying to find one.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #67 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

We don't need an overly-long article to answer that question. The answer is the iPad is 50X the stronger platform when it comes to tablets.

 

Especially when it comes to enterprise.

Why is there any discussion of OVERALL tablet market share when discussing Office?  Microsoft didn't use that in their analysis beyond the basic knowledge of those numbers.  Microsoft looked at their target market for this... and that's enterprise... and that's dominated by the iPad.

There you go... article complete.  Ireland and I saved you about 6,000 words.

post #68 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The only reference I find is a post from you on ArsTechnica making the same claim. There may be a source for it somewhere tho. Thanks for trying to find one.

Ok, I found a good one. The charts are a bit hard to read, as these sites all too often publish them as a graphic, rather than as characters, but you can read them.

Look at the quarterly numbers for each of the three models. In particular, notice how sales actually went down as time went on, even for the newer models. A number of quarters, sales foe the models were below 40,000, even dropping to 25,000.

http://www.zdnet.com/confidential-apple-samsung-sales-figures-outed-in-court-filing-7000002447/
post #69 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Why did Microsoft port Office to Apple's iOS iPad before Android? The author himself noted the most likely reason:
"More recently, Microsoft's last chief executive Steve Ballmer was rumored to have postponed the deployment of native iPad Office apps that were ostensibly ready to release back in 2012,"

If true, that would make Microsoft manipulative in telling the world the iPad was just a "consumption device." They knew better. Steve Ballmer was just buying time for the Surface RT.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #70 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That's a whole lot different than your original claim that it started out as a paid Android Market game and they were forced to go with free ad-supported when no one bought it. Now you're saying just the opposite and agreeing with me while trying to appear you don't.

Originally Posted by me:
So Angry Birds used to be a paid app for Android but they were forced to make it free? Did not know that. How much does it cost on iOS?

Your reply?:
Yes, it was. Rovio made a big point about it back then.

It doesn't mean your overall point that iOS users tend to spend more on apps than Android users is wrong. You're absolutely correct and no one rational disagrees. Your use of Angry Birds for Android starting out paid and going to free to support that claim is not. Didn't happen AFAIK.

We've beaten this one long enough. I was right in the first place.

Well, it was a number of years ago. I don't always remember things exactly from several years ago. You are still wrong though. You said that there was NO paid version for Android, and as I said, that is clearly wrong.

Quote from your other post:

"I don't believe it was ever anything BUT free for Android Mel,..."

So I thought that logically, they would have first have come out with the paid version that sold very poorly, and then came out with the ad supported version. But apparently, they first came out with the ad supported version which made them very little money, and so then came out with the paid version that sold very poorly. They did talk in a press conference about how poorly the paid version sold when compared to the iOS version. Not much basic difference. But correct.

So, yes, it's now a dead horse.
post #71 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post

Ugh. More of this "Apple versus cheap low end devices" nonsense that has never been true and never will be true. It is a rant about the monoculture that existed when Microsoft was at its peak, but it ignores two things:
(---- rant omitted to prevent forum servers from running out of disk space ----)

What monoculture are you talking about? The little tempest in this forum teapot? Please. It represents the view of a relatively small number of tribal Apple enthusiasts, for which these forum wars are sport.

Most of the world is indifferent to the brand wars, and care more about other things than the logo on the back on their phone.

And as you probably know, there are plenty of people who hate Apple. So, again, what monoculture?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #72 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Ok, I found a good one. The charts are a bit hard to read, as these sites all too often publish them as a graphic, rather than as characters, but you can read them.

Look at the quarterly numbers for each of the three models. In particular, notice how sales actually went down as time went on, even for the newer models. A number of quarters, sales foe the models were below 40,000, even dropping to 25,000.

http://www.zdnet.com/confidential-apple-samsung-sales-figures-outed-in-court-filing-7000002447/

Thanks for the effort Mel. So then Samsung and/or IDC was claiming a much higher figure for US sales of those particular models? Official court documents are certainly more reliable but I still missed where those figures disagreed significantly with Samsung or IDC publicized figures.

But in any event Samsung tablets were far from big successes at least in the US. That much is clear. I think we both agree with that.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #73 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

If true, that would make Microsoft manipulative in telling the world the iPad was just a "consumption device." They knew better. Steve Ballmer was just buying time for the Surface RT.

If course it was manipulative. I wouldn't expect anything else, and I don't even blame them for that. It's marketing. As when Jobs stated, several times, that no one would want to see video on a device as small as an iPod or iPhone, and then, just six months later, upgrade the new iPod and iPhone to do just that.
post #74 of 225
Corporates buy iPads. Microsoft is King in the Enterprise. Ergo, Office to the enterprise tablet, not the "build it yourself at home for free" hobbyist one.
post #75 of 225
using the word obscurity for ipad.. Says only one thing.. " I'm getting paid to bash Apple "
post #76 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Thanks for the effort Mel. So then Samsung and/or IDC was claiming a much higher figure for US sales of those particular models? Official court documents are certainly more reliable but I still missed where those figures disagreed significantly with Samsung or IDC publicized figures.

But in any event Samsung tablets were far from big successes at least in the US. That much is clear. I think we both agree with that.

Yes, the analyst companies had claimed that in that last quarter of 2012, Samsung shipped at least1 million tablets to the USA. Interestingly enough, that compares to the 1.5 million that Samsung had claimed to have shipped here the last calendar quarter of 2010. The last quarter they have made any quarterly claims for their tablets and smartphones after Lenovo's calling them out on that.

So we see that they sold less than 20% of the estimated shipping (often converted to sales) numbers IDC, Gartner and others guess at. And I have to say guess, because when your numbers are five hundred percent over the correct ones, you have no right to claim it an estimate based on anything realistic. And you can bet their current numbers are no more accurate, because they never bothered to change their published numbers after these real ones came out, and you can bet that I checked.
post #77 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

We don't need an overly-long article to answer that question. The answer is the iPad is 50X the stronger platform when it comes to tablets.

I agree that we don't need a long article to answer a simple question.   I think the answer (which may be in part what you're saying by a "strong platform") is simply that iPad users are more likely to be willing to pay for Office on the iPad or even have a need for it in the first place.     It doesn't matter how much share a platform has if it doesn't include customers who will buy your product.   

 

Apple always said that they thought the iPhone and iPad brought new users into the Apple eco-system and many of those first-time Apple customers then went on and bought a Mac.    Microsoft might be thinking along the same lines:   iPad users who go for Office might be more inclined to buy Office for their PC or Mac than an Android user might be.      

 

And there's one more potential factor:  in the long run, which is the bigger threat to Microsoft: Google or Apple?   I would think it's Google.   Therefore it could be in Microsoft's interest to "invest" in Apple's platforms. 

 

No facts here...just speculation.   

post #78 of 225
Ascii has it right:
..."strategically, if Nadella is a cloud guy and wants to take Microsoft in that direction, he may view Google as Microsoft's new biggest enemy, since Google is king of the cloud."

This is also payback for the refusal to put Google apps on Microsoft's phones. Microsofts lack of software on it's platform is what doomed Windows Phone from the start. Tiles are a really good idea and the interface based upon them works. Bill Gates and Monkey Boy are being hoist on their own petard : "Developers, Developers, Developers!!!"

Apple and Microsoft have been forced into a frenemy coalition ever since the birth of Android. Google has continued to force these two closer together each year since then. Apple could really benefit from Microsoft's Cloud expertise. Imagine Microsoft's stable and scaleable cloud solutions married to Apple's hardware and interface design. This is Apple's only weakness and it has been over the life of the company. Remember Steve famously asking does anyone know what MobileMe is supposed to do? Steve was frankly admitting he didn't get the cloud. He couldn't explain what needed to be done and get someone to do it. He needed someone who already knew.

Microsoft's new CEO knows what needs to be done and he is willing to do it for anyone who will pay the piper. Apple is going to be the new Microsoft's biggest customer, and Google is going to regret trying to stab them both in the back at the same time.
post #79 of 225
The bigger competitor to MS is Google Apps, particularly Google Docs what sense does it make to put office on android first, 1) its much harder develop on android because of the know fragmentation and there less of a market to sell to there as well. By covering iOS MS is able to limit users going over to Google docs and iWorks at the same time.. That's why they developed for it first. Then as their cloud strategy develops they will go after google docs.. Finally competition for the first time in what 20 years, yes!

Originally by Rickers - 2014 : Cook & will bury Apple.  They can only ride Steve's ghost so long.



 Originally Posted by  thataveragejoe :  Next week  Korea Times, "I'm gay too"-Samsung



 



Reply

Originally by Rickers - 2014 : Cook & will bury Apple.  They can only ride Steve's ghost so long.



 Originally Posted by  thataveragejoe :  Next week  Korea Times, "I'm gay too"-Samsung



 



Reply
post #80 of 225
The remote app is built into Keynote. Use an iPhone or iPod touch to control Keynote on your iPad.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Why did Microsoft port Office to Apple's iOS iPad before Android?
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Why did Microsoft port Office to Apple's iOS iPad before Android?