I'm surprised that no one has commented on the statistic that 70% of current Android OS users would remain loyal to that OS. No surprising but it does imply that the longer Apple leaves the Verizon market open to the Android OS, the harder it will be to penetrate. Do you guys think they will stay out of it for another 2-3 years as the 5 year contract would imply?
The report simply said Android out sold the iPhone for a quarter. It was the spin placed on that information that really meant nothing.
One ad network was the provider of the previous data. Nielsen surveyed 11k people for this one. This is not data from the phone companies breaking down the numbers of sales by OS. Who is to say a bunch of Android users didn't tell Nielsen to fuck off when contacted? The AdMob report requires that people saw their ads specifically. Maybe their ads weren't on a lot of the iPhone user's page views. Neither of these reports means jack as far as OS sales.
The bit about income would be of interest to developers yes, but this only considers smartphones. The iPod and iPad make another giant chunk of the OS and developers know this, so if they are going purely on potential numbers, it will be a long ass time (if ever) before they go to Android only.
I think the salient point is that application of statistics is not an exact science. It takes knowledge of the problem domain and an understanding of the data, as well as the mathematics of statistics to know what tests to apply. It's possible to "show" significant results by applying statistical tests incorrectly -- i.e., not only are the results not significant, but the entire misapplied analysis is in fact meaningless. You should consider the possibility that the statistical methods and tests you learned in bio-statistics and epidemiology classes may be wholly inappropriate to economic and market issues. It sounds like you are more hubris than thoughtful analysis, and I can't say you've demonstrated any deep knowledge of either the problem domain or statistics.
Actually, many of the the things learned there are applicable in these areas (critical thinking). The most salient point is that statistics can be skewed to further any agenda through manipulation of data, subject selection, question selection, etc. I only jumped on the guy because he was a dbag. I was only pointing out that there are multiple angles to examine a question, basically what you are doing, so what is the problem. If you've never taken the coursework then don't assume the logic isn't transferable. You don't even need to go to college to think critically.
Apple's App Store policies are still not really analogous to the problems of Microsoft. Apple is building two concurrent development platforms. The native app store which they do control and HTML5 web apps where you are free to do anything you want.
Even more HTML5 can be used to the benefit of any of Apple's competitors. MS has not historically participated in building anything that freed the user from the Windows ecosystem.
The Google model is not a panacea it does come with its own set problems and challenges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphyjazz
It's the overall idea of creating an environment and basically saying that if you want to play, you'll play by my (Stevie's) rules.
I prefer the open source and open community that Google provides with its platform.
Having said all that, I still think Apple makes some of the best stuff out there.
Likely it is because your 12 year old is not capable of more sophisticated analysis.
It would be unremarkable, for example, if a product went from 76 to 78 percent of a market. But if a new product goes from, say 8, percent to 10 percent, it shows something much more significant.
If you stop your analysis at "they are both 2%", without thinking any further, then you miss much.
Not necessarily. Having the same growth for both platforms means that Android isn't making gains at the iPhone's expense. Their starting values isn't relevant, unless you have a more robust data set than presented in the article. The article doesn't tell us how fast the total market is growing, how long people keep their phones (e.g., what percentage is legacy and what is new sales), what non-permanent inducements [2-for-1 sales and the like) might have impacted demand, etc.
The only thing we can glean from the data presented is that both Android and Apple are making gains relative to the (mutual) competition. Even that might not be significant going forward if somebody introduces a disruptor. The same chart on the even of the iPhone's introduction was irrelevant the moment the iPhone was unveiled.
I don't know why anybody surprised by these numbers. The iPhone has been out longer. It should have a much larger installed base. I'd say these are decent numbers for Android given that it's been out for 18 months (of which decent phones have been out for less than a year) and given the competition it faces. The iPhone had a much easier ride in 2007 in comparison. It had the Palm Treo and Windows Mobile for competition. Android has had to compete with the iPhone. So I consider the growth pretty decent. It'll be interesting to see where Android is in another 18 months.
Apple deserves a ton of credit for shaking up the smartphone game and grabbing as much marketshare as they have in 3 years.
Competition isn't breeding innovation here. What's breeding it is one company producing a vastly superior product and then a bunch of companies copying it trying to catch up and cash in on its success....... to call it innovation is to trivialize what innovation really is.
Not necessarily. Having the same growth for both platforms means that Android isn't making gains at the iPhone's expense. Their starting values isn't relevant, unless you have a more robust data set than presented in the article. The article doesn't tell us how fast the total market is growing, how long people keep their phones (e.g., what percentage is legacy and what is new sales), what non-permanent inducements [2-for-1 sales and the like) might have impacted demand, etc.
The only thing we can glean from the data presented is that both Android and Apple are making gains relative to the (mutual) competition. Even that might not be significant going forward if somebody introduces a disruptor. The same chart on the even of the iPhone's introduction was irrelevant the moment the iPhone was unveiled.
While some of the points you make are correct, they do not have the same growth. A 2% increase in market share for Apple does not equal the same growth as android. If if your phone is at 4% market share and goes to 6% thats a lot more growth than going from 76 to 78%. Obviously there are many caveats to the analysis. For example, for years OS X fanboys have said oh look at this tremendous growth in market share year over year it must mean something. It sounds tremendous but only because they were at 4 or 5%
And actually you can't assume that androids not gaining at apple's expense because there are additional phones looked at.
It's the overall idea of creating an environment and basically saying that if you want to play, you'll play by my (Stevie's) rules.
I prefer the open source and open community that Google provides with its platform.
Having said all that, I still think Apple makes some of the best stuff out there.
No problem with that, to each his own.
But I still scratch my head at how upset people get about the way Apple chooses to do its business. Some have used the analogy that a computer is like a piece of furniture that once you buy you are free to paint, reupholster, whatever. If Thomasville told you you couldn't you'd be justifiably pissed. Another way to look at it (my way) is that Apple is more of a service, like a great architect or interior designer. Some people hire one, then proceed to second guess their every choice. My feeling is, if you want to do it yourself, then do it yourself. Why waste the guy's time and talent--and your money. The best ones won't even LET you interfere because they have clients beating down their door. You pay for my experience, you get my experience. Steve is more like that to me. If you love his "art" then let him do it. If you don't, then don't buy it. There are plenty of do-it-yourself shows on TV to guide you. Or lesser artists who don't care with what you do with their stuff as long as they get paid.
Sorry about this long and rather labored (perhaps tortured) analogy, but I had to get it off my chest. Where better than here where I'm sure it'll draw some colorful responses.
One thing I'd like to see is a clearer definition of 'smartphone'. I have a hard time seeing S60 as a smartphone OS in 2010 and the iPhone reportedly has a 72% marketshare in Japan though their numbers pale in comparison to the feature phones most common to that country.
Can you please provide a full list of all features you think are missing from Symbian (s60 is the ui) that means it shouldn't be classed as a smartphone OS?
Just realized I left out a word there, that should have been:
Quote:
Competition isn't breeding innovation here. What's breeding it is one company producing a vastly superior product and then a bunch of companies are copying it trying to catch up and cash in on its success.......
Didn't want to imply that the copying was part of the innovation. Original edited.
... If if your phone is at 4% market share and goes to 6% thats a lot more growth than going from 76 to 78%. ...
You seem to be very hung up on this particular analysis. I really don't see what's so hard to understand about the concept that the increase in market share relative to itself isn't an important number when comparing to the industry as a whole. Because of a lower starting value, a 2% increase which equates to "50% growth" in your analysis is in fact just an artificial number in the context of the entire market.
?Yet not surprisingly the steeply L-shaped curve of overall App Stores sales apparently applies across the board:
(links in original post edited out for space)
All discussion on this I can find shows that the top 100 apps are indeed doing very well, but below that the chasm drops precipitously, and the other 299,900 apps are pulling in revenues that range from less than the average Mac desktop developer to below minimum wage.
If you can find stats showing the 50th percentile making above minimum wage I'd love to see 'em.
So? That's the way most markets are. It's not like the guy with app #170,000 would have made more money selling it on the Android store. Android sells less apps, so a poor selling iPhone app is likely to be an even worse selling Droid app. Worse, the Droid version will cost more to support because of platform segmentation. Android offers developers freedom only by shackling them to a lot of support problems. That's not to say that for some developers, the trade-off isn't worth it. But don't be fooled into thinking that developers are going to migrate en masse to the "greener" pastures of Android any time soon.
Wasn't Android supposed to leave iPhone in the dust?
That's what I'm thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Is there a secret to keeping interesting and informative discussions from descending into pissing contests? Just asking.\
No idea. Plus, hello, there just freakin' phones!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphyjazz
While I enjoy some of Apple's products, I'm leaving the iPhone behind. As an original iPhone owner, I've enjoyed the phone for the last 3 years and will be the first to say that it revolutionized the mobile industry. However, I'm not to happy with Apple's business strategies
Glad I'm not the only one on this forum who's getting fed up with Apple's behaviors. Been messing with Android's SDK and emulator lately. With emulator, I can say that I do like Android. Best feature is being able to download more then just photos, like music or apps, and use it right away. Coding for the OS is okay too.
One thing I'd like to see is a clearer definition of 'smartphone'. . . . and the iPhone reportedly has a 72% marketshare in Japan though their numbers pale in comparison to the feature phones most common to that country.
That thought provoked me to look at wikipedia. It seems a smartphone is the freakish spawn of a PDA and a mobile phone. Did you know the first one, IBM's "Simon" (ca.1994) had a touch screen and no buttons? Everything old is new again.
The stated specs are impressive, but as previously stated I wasn't able to see how well the images stacked up on a proper display. We all know that megapixels are great for marketing but they are from the only aspect of a camera that makes it a good camera.
For an Android phone, it's the best I've played with, but Android is still lacking in the key aspects that make iPhone and Blackberry owners love their devices. I'm not sure this can change unless a vendor follows suit by making a streamlined ecosystem for their HW that just happens to be based on Android.
One of the criteria for making the most out of the megapixels is having the correctly sized sensor for that level of megapixel (from a former Kodak engineer):
Quote:
"Too many megapixels can actually impair a camera's performance. For example, the typical sensor in a consumer camera is 0.5-0.7 inches. The more millions of pixels, the smaller each pixel must be?and the smaller the pixel, the less light-gathering efficiency it has, and the worse the camera performs in low-light or stop-action shots."
So you want to be careful where you take the megapixel race, because while cramming more megapixels onto a sensor (even smaller than above on cellphones and smartphones!) gives you a higher megapixel count, it can actually degrade your picture. The law of diminishing returns also takes place as you increase the megapixel - even assuming you size the sensor accordingly, if you double the megapixels for a given picture, the result is only roughly a 20% increase in size of the photo itself. other factors come into play but that is the answer for those who would insist that an 8 megapixel camera on a smartphone is guaranteed better than anything smaller.
You seem to be very hung up on this particular analysis. I really don't see what's so hard to understand about the concept that the increase in market share relative to itself isn't an important number when comparing to the industry as a whole. Because of a lower starting value, a 2% increase which equates to "50% growth" in your analysis is in fact just an artificial number in the context of the entire market.
No kidding, that was my point with the OS x example. That's why I think this whole article is stupid. Surveys like this are near meaningless because there are so many variables you can't draw any meaningful conclusions. However, people take pieces like market share is x or growth is y and then draw a grand conclusion from it, out of context.
But by the end of summer there will be plenty of option available, and all devices but Apple's will be able to run many of the types of specialized apps those markets need
specialised apps produced on cross-platform frameworks? Given the choice I'll take an app produced in XCode specifically for an iPhone/iPad/iPodTouch any day thanks.
Quote:
because Apple is the only company in history to prohibit the proven cost-effectiveness of using cross-platform frameworks.
Have you ever heard of Sony's Playstation or Nintendo's Wii?
I have never used the Nokia N95 or for that matter even seen one. So unlike alot of members here I can't speak about products I haven't used. However Solip also used the EVO for a bit and I would believe he would agree the 8 megapixel camera on the EVO is fairly impressive. As is the 1.3 webcam.
If you ever have a chance to use the Evo you would be hard pressed to find alot wrong with it.
The reviews I've read of the EVO have either loved it or would-have-loved-it-except-the-size (and maybe Sense UI). But all of them have recommended against buying it because the battery life is unacceptable for real use. That's one of those things that an in-store demo can't tell you, alas.
Comments
The report simply said Android out sold the iPhone for a quarter. It was the spin placed on that information that really meant nothing.
One ad network was the provider of the previous data. Nielsen surveyed 11k people for this one. This is not data from the phone companies breaking down the numbers of sales by OS. Who is to say a bunch of Android users didn't tell Nielsen to fuck off when contacted? The AdMob report requires that people saw their ads specifically. Maybe their ads weren't on a lot of the iPhone user's page views. Neither of these reports means jack as far as OS sales.
The bit about income would be of interest to developers yes, but this only considers smartphones. The iPod and iPad make another giant chunk of the OS and developers know this, so if they are going purely on potential numbers, it will be a long ass time (if ever) before they go to Android only.
I think the salient point is that application of statistics is not an exact science. It takes knowledge of the problem domain and an understanding of the data, as well as the mathematics of statistics to know what tests to apply. It's possible to "show" significant results by applying statistical tests incorrectly -- i.e., not only are the results not significant, but the entire misapplied analysis is in fact meaningless. You should consider the possibility that the statistical methods and tests you learned in bio-statistics and epidemiology classes may be wholly inappropriate to economic and market issues. It sounds like you are more hubris than thoughtful analysis, and I can't say you've demonstrated any deep knowledge of either the problem domain or statistics.
Actually, many of the the things learned there are applicable in these areas (critical thinking). The most salient point is that statistics can be skewed to further any agenda through manipulation of data, subject selection, question selection, etc. I only jumped on the guy because he was a dbag. I was only pointing out that there are multiple angles to examine a question, basically what you are doing, so what is the problem. If you've never taken the coursework then don't assume the logic isn't transferable. You don't even need to go to college to think critically.
Even more HTML5 can be used to the benefit of any of Apple's competitors. MS has not historically participated in building anything that freed the user from the Windows ecosystem.
The Google model is not a panacea it does come with its own set problems and challenges.
It's the overall idea of creating an environment and basically saying that if you want to play, you'll play by my (Stevie's) rules.
I prefer the open source and open community that Google provides with its platform.
Having said all that, I still think Apple makes some of the best stuff out there.
Likely it is because your 12 year old is not capable of more sophisticated analysis.
It would be unremarkable, for example, if a product went from 76 to 78 percent of a market. But if a new product goes from, say 8, percent to 10 percent, it shows something much more significant.
If you stop your analysis at "they are both 2%", without thinking any further, then you miss much.
Not necessarily. Having the same growth for both platforms means that Android isn't making gains at the iPhone's expense. Their starting values isn't relevant, unless you have a more robust data set than presented in the article. The article doesn't tell us how fast the total market is growing, how long people keep their phones (e.g., what percentage is legacy and what is new sales), what non-permanent inducements [2-for-1 sales and the like) might have impacted demand, etc.
The only thing we can glean from the data presented is that both Android and Apple are making gains relative to the (mutual) competition. Even that might not be significant going forward if somebody introduces a disruptor. The same chart on the even of the iPhone's introduction was irrelevant the moment the iPhone was unveiled.
Apple deserves a ton of credit for shaking up the smartphone game and grabbing as much marketshare as they have in 3 years.
Competition isn't breeding innovation here. What's breeding it is one company producing a vastly superior product and then a bunch of companies copying it trying to catch up and cash in on its success....... to call it innovation is to trivialize what innovation really is.
Exactly (+1)!
Not necessarily. Having the same growth for both platforms means that Android isn't making gains at the iPhone's expense. Their starting values isn't relevant, unless you have a more robust data set than presented in the article. The article doesn't tell us how fast the total market is growing, how long people keep their phones (e.g., what percentage is legacy and what is new sales), what non-permanent inducements [2-for-1 sales and the like) might have impacted demand, etc.
The only thing we can glean from the data presented is that both Android and Apple are making gains relative to the (mutual) competition. Even that might not be significant going forward if somebody introduces a disruptor. The same chart on the even of the iPhone's introduction was irrelevant the moment the iPhone was unveiled.
While some of the points you make are correct, they do not have the same growth. A 2% increase in market share for Apple does not equal the same growth as android. If if your phone is at 4% market share and goes to 6% thats a lot more growth than going from 76 to 78%. Obviously there are many caveats to the analysis. For example, for years OS X fanboys have said oh look at this tremendous growth in market share year over year it must mean something. It sounds tremendous but only because they were at 4 or 5%
And actually you can't assume that androids not gaining at apple's expense because there are additional phones looked at.
It's the overall idea of creating an environment and basically saying that if you want to play, you'll play by my (Stevie's) rules.
I prefer the open source and open community that Google provides with its platform.
Having said all that, I still think Apple makes some of the best stuff out there.
No problem with that, to each his own.
But I still scratch my head at how upset people get about the way Apple chooses to do its business. Some have used the analogy that a computer is like a piece of furniture that once you buy you are free to paint, reupholster, whatever. If Thomasville told you you couldn't you'd be justifiably pissed. Another way to look at it (my way) is that Apple is more of a service, like a great architect or interior designer. Some people hire one, then proceed to second guess their every choice. My feeling is, if you want to do it yourself, then do it yourself. Why waste the guy's time and talent--and your money. The best ones won't even LET you interfere because they have clients beating down their door. You pay for my experience, you get my experience. Steve is more like that to me. If you love his "art" then let him do it. If you don't, then don't buy it. There are plenty of do-it-yourself shows on TV to guide you. Or lesser artists who don't care with what you do with their stuff as long as they get paid.
Sorry about this long and rather labored (perhaps tortured) analogy, but I had to get it off my chest. Where better than here where I'm sure it'll draw some colorful responses.
One thing I'd like to see is a clearer definition of 'smartphone'. I have a hard time seeing S60 as a smartphone OS in 2010 and the iPhone reportedly has a 72% marketshare in Japan though their numbers pale in comparison to the feature phones most common to that country.
Can you please provide a full list of all features you think are missing from Symbian (s60 is the ui) that means it shouldn't be classed as a smartphone OS?
Exactly (+1)!
Just realized I left out a word there, that should have been:
Competition isn't breeding innovation here. What's breeding it is one company producing a vastly superior product and then a bunch of companies are copying it trying to catch up and cash in on its success.......
Didn't want to imply that the copying was part of the innovation. Original edited.
... If if your phone is at 4% market share and goes to 6% thats a lot more growth than going from 76 to 78%. ...
You seem to be very hung up on this particular analysis. I really don't see what's so hard to understand about the concept that the increase in market share relative to itself isn't an important number when comparing to the industry as a whole. Because of a lower starting value, a 2% increase which equates to "50% growth" in your analysis is in fact just an artificial number in the context of the entire market.
?Yet not surprisingly the steeply L-shaped curve of overall App Stores sales apparently applies across the board:
(links in original post edited out for space)
All discussion on this I can find shows that the top 100 apps are indeed doing very well, but below that the chasm drops precipitously, and the other 299,900 apps are pulling in revenues that range from less than the average Mac desktop developer to below minimum wage.
If you can find stats showing the 50th percentile making above minimum wage I'd love to see 'em.
So? That's the way most markets are. It's not like the guy with app #170,000 would have made more money selling it on the Android store. Android sells less apps, so a poor selling iPhone app is likely to be an even worse selling Droid app. Worse, the Droid version will cost more to support because of platform segmentation. Android offers developers freedom only by shackling them to a lot of support problems. That's not to say that for some developers, the trade-off isn't worth it. But don't be fooled into thinking that developers are going to migrate en masse to the "greener" pastures of Android any time soon.
Wasn't Android supposed to leave iPhone in the dust?
That's what I'm thinking.
Is there a secret to keeping interesting and informative discussions from descending into pissing contests? Just asking.
No idea. Plus, hello, there just freakin' phones!
While I enjoy some of Apple's products, I'm leaving the iPhone behind. As an original iPhone owner, I've enjoyed the phone for the last 3 years and will be the first to say that it revolutionized the mobile industry. However, I'm not to happy with Apple's business strategies
Glad I'm not the only one on this forum who's getting fed up with Apple's behaviors. Been messing with Android's SDK and emulator lately. With emulator, I can say that I do like Android. Best feature is being able to download more then just photos, like music or apps, and use it right away. Coding for the OS is okay too.
Welcome to the forum.
One thing I'd like to see is a clearer definition of 'smartphone'. . . . and the iPhone reportedly has a 72% marketshare in Japan though their numbers pale in comparison to the feature phones most common to that country.
That thought provoked me to look at wikipedia. It seems a smartphone is the freakish spawn of a PDA and a mobile phone. Did you know the first one, IBM's "Simon" (ca.1994) had a touch screen and no buttons? Everything old is new again.
The stated specs are impressive, but as previously stated I wasn't able to see how well the images stacked up on a proper display. We all know that megapixels are great for marketing but they are from the only aspect of a camera that makes it a good camera.
For an Android phone, it's the best I've played with, but Android is still lacking in the key aspects that make iPhone and Blackberry owners love their devices. I'm not sure this can change unless a vendor follows suit by making a streamlined ecosystem for their HW that just happens to be based on Android.
One of the criteria for making the most out of the megapixels is having the correctly sized sensor for that level of megapixel (from a former Kodak engineer):
"Too many megapixels can actually impair a camera's performance. For example, the typical sensor in a consumer camera is 0.5-0.7 inches. The more millions of pixels, the smaller each pixel must be?and the smaller the pixel, the less light-gathering efficiency it has, and the worse the camera performs in low-light or stop-action shots."
So you want to be careful where you take the megapixel race, because while cramming more megapixels onto a sensor (even smaller than above on cellphones and smartphones!) gives you a higher megapixel count, it can actually degrade your picture. The law of diminishing returns also takes place as you increase the megapixel - even assuming you size the sensor accordingly, if you double the megapixels for a given picture, the result is only roughly a 20% increase in size of the photo itself. other factors come into play but that is the answer for those who would insist that an 8 megapixel camera on a smartphone is guaranteed better than anything smaller.
You seem to be very hung up on this particular analysis. I really don't see what's so hard to understand about the concept that the increase in market share relative to itself isn't an important number when comparing to the industry as a whole. Because of a lower starting value, a 2% increase which equates to "50% growth" in your analysis is in fact just an artificial number in the context of the entire market.
No kidding, that was my point with the OS x example. That's why I think this whole article is stupid. Surveys like this are near meaningless because there are so many variables you can't draw any meaningful conclusions. However, people take pieces like market share is x or growth is y and then draw a grand conclusion from it, out of context.
But by the end of summer there will be plenty of option available, and all devices but Apple's will be able to run many of the types of specialized apps those markets need
specialised apps produced on cross-platform frameworks? Given the choice I'll take an app produced in XCode specifically for an iPhone/iPad/iPodTouch any day thanks.
because Apple is the only company in history to prohibit the proven cost-effectiveness of using cross-platform frameworks.
Have you ever heard of Sony's Playstation or Nintendo's Wii?
I have never used the Nokia N95 or for that matter even seen one. So unlike alot of members here I can't speak about products I haven't used. However Solip also used the EVO for a bit and I would believe he would agree the 8 megapixel camera on the EVO is fairly impressive. As is the 1.3 webcam.
If you ever have a chance to use the Evo you would be hard pressed to find alot wrong with it.
The reviews I've read of the EVO have either loved it or would-have-loved-it-except-the-size (and maybe Sense UI). But all of them have recommended against buying it because the battery life is unacceptable for real use. That's one of those things that an in-store demo can't tell you, alas.