Now it doesn?t matter yet your entire argument is that AT&T issued a profit margin warning over the update of device that 3 sold millions of units in 21 days to only 5 countries? No, the excessive number of sales in a short time would have absolutely no barring on the total payout to Apple. Gee, what was I thinking?¡
No, my argument has always been that the iphone subsidy was larger than normal and that affect its sales figures. The how much larger than normal is the part of the profit margin warning --- but that's just for illustrative purposes, not central to my argument at all.
Some of the other 5 countries are even worst --- they have zero dollar iphones with contracts. That's a $600 iphone subsidy, of course they are selling it by the truckload.
No, my argument has always been that the iphone subsidy was larger than normal and that affect its sales figures. The how much larger than normal is the part of the profit margin warning --- but that's just for illustrative purposes, not central to my argument at all.
So you?re going on record again that the number of units sold within a given time frame have absolutely no barring on this profit margin warning.
PS: Has AT&T issued a profit margin warning for EVERY quarter since dropping profit sharing or only when there has been a release of a new iPhone?
So you?re going on record again that the number of units sold within a given time frame have absolutely no barring on this profit margin warning.
PS: Has AT&T issued a profit margin warning for EVERY quarter since dropping profit sharing or only when there has been a release of a new iPhone?
I didn't say that either. You lower the profit margin, the price of the iphone is lower and more units are sold. The profit margin warning has to do with "how big" the sales figure is --- it doesn't affect the direction of the sales figure.
You lower the price of the iphone, of course the sales figure will be higher --- doesn't matter how high it is. You do a BOGO deal, of course the sales figure will be higher --- doesn't matter how high it is. They both juice the sales figure.
Once AT&T issued the initial profit margin warning, there is no need to re-issue it every quarter after that --- because Wall Street analysts already put that into their estimates. AT&T's profit margin went drastically lower in that particular quarter, and then it stayed low in subsequent quarters. AT&T doesn't need to re-issue the warning.
I didn't say that either. You lower the profit margin, the price of the iphone is lower and more units are sold. The profit margin warning has to do with "how big" the sales figure is --- it doesn't affect the direction of the sales figure.
You lower the price of the iphone, of course the sales figure will be higher --- doesn't matter how high it is. You do a BOGO deal, of course the sales figure will be higher --- doesn't matter how high it is. They both juice the sales figure.
Once AT&T issued the initial profit margin warning, there is no need to re-issue it every quarter after that --- because Wall Street analysts already put that into their estimates. AT&T's profit margin went drastically lower in that particular quarter, and then it stayed low in subsequent quarters. AT&T doesn't need to re-issue the warning.
Besides jumping to the conclusion that sales will ?of course? be higher if you drop a price as opposed to the only real conclusion that you open up your product to a larger demographic because of the lower price, you?ve again ignored the fact that AT&T went from a profit sharing model to a model in which they paid Apple a lump sum for each iPhone sold, just like every other US MNO was doing before the iPhone came along. Your argument is post hoc, ergo prompter hoc but you refuse to see the truth, just this spin you were told or have created yourself because you dislike any carrier that uses a GSM/3GSM-based network. It?s fraking silly!
Besides jumping to the conclusion that sales will ?of course? be higher if you drop a price as opposed to the only real conclusion that you open up your product to a larger demographic because of the lower price, you?ve again ignored the fact that AT&T went from a profit sharing model to a model in which they paid Apple a lump sum for each iPhone sold, just like every other US MNO was doing before the iPhone came along. Your argument is post hoc, ergo prompter hoc but you refuse to see the truth, just this spin you were told or have created yourself because you dislike any carrier that uses a GSM/3GSM-based network. It?s fraking silly!
So you don't believe in basic economic theory of price, supply and demand.
You said it --- just like every other US MNO was doing before the iPhone came along. So just like sales were increased because of BOGO deals on Androids and Blackberries --- iphone sales were increased because of lowered pricing.
isuppli says by 2012 android will surpass ios and we'll be back to MS vs apple in the 90's
MS got business, and developers to hurt apple
apple climbs back on MS lack of vision ipod etc
but how does android do with developers support if up to 85% are pirated, no money in pirated software
i think isuppli is wrong, because of the apple universe and that it has a uniform hardware and software rather than many different devices trying to separate themselves buy features and diluting its UI
but to be honest i don't know how google android makes money how do they monitize this
?search, or does google pay the telcos et al to put out there stuff to do to RIM , moto, nokia what MS did to netscape in the early days, its hard to fight "free" are telcos paying google to block apple sort of what the record labels have tried and failed to do
so the future-----??????
rim tried as you said by using BOGO, but that is for protecting market share, android is trying to become dominant also in business with exchange allowing enterprise to move from RIM
i wish i could get into SJ's mind about this, considering schmidt being on the apple board probably got the lead it has now. to be honest android has grown faster than iPhone os
i'd use this as a separate thread but wanted members thoughts here
is apple falling behind, is this MS deja vu all over again or is there a different business model we are not thinking about
The key here is that Google is only responsible for the costs of developing the Android OS itself. OEMs are the ones that take up the costs for manufacturing and distribution the devices themselves, which is the largest part of the whole process.
I believe a top Google staff member said that all revenue Google makes is more than enough to cover the expense of continuing to develop Android.
As long as the OEMs continue putting out devices and the consumers keep eating them up, I see no reason why Google would stop developing Android in the near-term.
We are talking about OS Android tops, not handsets, right? It is like talking about how many window system sold in the world compare to the Mac. That is not just Dell, compare to Mac, but including all of the window "7" for example, what ever the computer name brand is: HP, Fujishu, Taiwan made, anything... PC, a clone...
We are not talking about handsets, we are talking about OS (hardwares that can utilize OS, just like PCs), some of them works well, (like HP PC), some of them not so well (nameless), Compare to market share using OS, with extended to "handsets" are not even valid... Am I missing something? I must be really stupid....
So you don't believe in basic economic theory of price, supply and demand.
You said it --- just like every other US MNO was doing before the iPhone came along. So just like sales were increased because of BOGO deals on Androids and Blackberries --- iphone sales were increased because of lowered pricing.
You?re either trying to be obtuse or you have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Sales were increased when Apple released the iPhone on AT&T yet AT&T didn?t release a profit margin warning. Sales were again increased when Apple dropped the price by $200. No profit margin warning. Both times AT&T is paying Apple per month per phone for the profit sharing program. The only reason for this warning was because of the end of the profit sharing when AT&T was paying Apple for each iPhone 3G sale for that month. They sold 1 million units in 3 days yet would recap what they paid to Apple until at least the 2nd year of use. If you don?t understand this concept by now then you are playing dumb or simply are, and in either case I can?t fix that.
The only thing that is apparent is your delusional thought process when it comes to anythnig regarding Apple. What is really pissing you off is Apple can't rule the world and it just gets under your skin that as soon as you think they are going to take over the entire tech industry someone else come around and steals their thunder.
You know Adobe is evil, Microsoft is evil, Google is evil, RIM is evil but Apple they are as pure as newly fallen snow.
You're a joke. Yeah like Steve Jobs never knew anything about the securities fraud. I am sure he was totally innocent in that case.
Adobe, not evil, just incompetent. Microsoft, previously evil, now hobbled by DoJ, RIM, I don't have any reason to believe them evil, Apple, has a bad moment now and then. But, in the history of evil companies in the latter 20th and early 21st, centuries, Google stands alone in their complete lack of moral principles, their lack of respect for the law, their lack of respect for personal freedom and privacy, their ability to negatively affect our lives, and their eagerness to do so if it profits them.
So, no, what pisses me off isn't that Apple can't rule the world, and I don't think anyone ever expected them to "take over the entire tech industry. It's the idea that people are so stupid that they would want Google to rule the world, or even any small part of it. I don't like you personally because you are full of yourself, intellectually dishonest, and, in my opinion, lacking a proper moral sense that governs your life.
Oh, right, after the backlash, Verizon is going to come out and honestly admit what they're up to? I can't believe you are posting a link to Verizon PR spin to try and discredit the NYTimes article.
Adobe, not evil, just incompetent. Microsoft, previously evil, now hobbled by DoJ, RIM, I don't have any reason to believe them evil, Apple, has a bad moment now and then. But, in the history of evil companies in the latter 20th and early 21st, centuries, Google stands alone in their complete lack of moral principles, their lack of respect for the law, their lack of respect for personal freedom and privacy, their ability to negatively affect our lives, and their eagerness to do so if it profits them.
So, no, what pisses me off isn't that Apple can't rule the world, and I don't think anyone ever expected them to "take over the entire tech industry. It's the idea that people are so stupid that they would want Google to rule the world, or even any small part of it. I don't like you personally because you are full of yourself, intellectually dishonest, and, in my opinion, lacking a proper moral sense that governs your life.
Well I am not one of those people that wants Google or anyone to rule the world. If Google offers a product that I find useful then I use it same as Apple products.
"I don't like you personally because you are full of yourself, intellectually dishonest, and, in my opinion, lacking a proper moral sense that governs your life"
To even make a comment like that on an internet forum about anyone is beyond words. You don't know anything about me or anyone else here to even make a comment like that. You are the worst of the worst because you hate someone based on their opinion or if they don't agree with you, which makes you nothing but pathetic.
With that kind of thought process I don't dislike you, I simply feel sorry for you.
We are talking about OS Android tops, not handsets, right? It is like talking about how many window system sold in the world compare to the Mac. That is not just Dell, compare to Mac, but including all of the window "7" for example, what ever the computer name brand is: HP, Fujishu, Taiwan made, anything... PC, a clone...
We are not talking about handsets, we are talking about OS (hardwares that can utilize OS, just like PCs), some of them works well, (like HP PC), some of them not so well (nameless), Compare to market share using OS, with extended to "handsets" are not even valid... Am I missing something? I must be really stupid....
Your post is a bit confusing because it seems like you're talking about the NPD study itself and not my post that's been quoted. If that's not it, feel free to correct me. I just want to make sure I know what I'm responding to.
isuppli says by 2012 android will surpass ios and we'll be back to MS vs apple in the 90's
MS got business, and developers to hurt apple
apple climbs back on MS lack of vision ipod etc
but how does android do with developers support if up to 85% are pirated, no money in pirated software
i think isuppli is wrong, because of the apple universe and that it has a uniform hardware and software rather than many different devices trying to separate themselves buy features and diluting its UI
but to be honest i don't know how google android makes money how do they monitize this
?search, or does google pay the telcos et al to put out there stuff to do to RIM , moto, nokia what MS did to netscape in the early days, its hard to fight "free" are telcos paying google to block apple sort of what the record labels have tried and failed to do
so the future-----??????
rim tried as you said by using BOGO, but that is for protecting market share, android is trying to become dominant also in business with exchange allowing enterprise to move from RIM
i wish i could get into SJ's mind about this, considering schmidt being on the apple board probably got the lead it has now. to be honest android has grown faster than iPhone os
i'd use this as a separate thread but wanted members thoughts here
is apple falling behind, is this MS deja vu all over again or is there a different business model we are not thinking about
your thoughts
These are good thoughts... well worth discussion!
I don't think we'll have any single company dominate the computer industry as it evolves into the mobile industry.
MIcrosoft will, likely, continue to dominate the desktop space-- though with an ever diminishing share of a diminishing market.
Android could become temporarily dominant in the mobile space. They are giving away a free OS in exchange for a path to advertising and search. But these are based on the desktop model, not the mobile model.
Ads and Search are changing for the mobile market. If nothing else, the mobile user has several attractive alternatives to unsolicited browser-based ads and search engine directed advertising.
For example, why should a mobile user go to a browser (ads) issue a google search (ads) to find a nearby restaurant, theater, (whatever). He has one of several agents {mobile apps) that know his location, preferences, schedule, etc. He can get better results within the app! He does not need to compose searches, drill-down through ad-infested choices to obtain questionable results-- results that may be in the best interest of others than himself. The mobile user stays within his apps & doesn't need to give a penny to Google/Yahoo/Bing or any of their advertisers-- nor look at any unwanted ads.
The real ad potential of the mobile apps is that they can deliver ads I want to see, when I want to see them.
Sure there will be a need for browsers and search engines, but this need is changing. I personally have noticed, and am very critical of Google (in particular) redirecting my searches to show me what they (and their advertisers) want me to see rather than what I asked to see.
So, Google is presently monetizing Android (so they claim) via traditional non-mobile search and ads. But if search and ads are increasingly bypassed by mobile apps, just what benefit does Android deliver to Google?
The reason I don't believe that we will see Microsoft Deja Vu is that today's dynamics are different.
In circa 1976-1980 the primary microcomputer markets were: home personal; and hobbyists. Hobbyists were/are like todays geeks they tend to roll their own and not spend any money. User Experience is a non-issue as they get off bit-twiddling!
With the advent of VisiCalc, the Apple ][ began to penetrate business-- small business and divisions of larger enterprises.
Microsoft sold Basic and some peripheral devices (80-column cards for the Apple ][, etc.)
The IBM/PC changed the market. Suddenly, there were microcomputers with the respected name of IBM-- they were not toys (with fruity names) but serious business machines.
Microsoft, through luck, smart business-sense, and some double-dealing, latched onto the IBM name and became the dominant OS provider... Word, Excel and Office were not far behind. Later, they use their market dominance to gain control of the web browser segment, and eliminated other competitors with the fatal embrace.
Today's environment is totally different-- a highly-competitive multi-vendor mobile marketplace already exists.
Any one of today's mobile OS vendors could easily compete with Android on price (free) and offer a better product and user experience.
Or, in the case of Apple, they could offer iOS and the iTunes infrastructure as an alternative to Android and its search/ad baggage.
Crazy? Maybe... Maybe not! It all depends on long term objectives and how to attain them!
Google wants to give away free razors-- but they may not have razorblades that anyone wants to buy!
Oh, right, after the backlash, Verizon is going to come out and honestly admit what they're up to? I can't believe you are posting a link to Verizon PR spin to try and discredit the NYTimes article.
Or could it possibly be that the NY Times jumped the gun to report and speculate on the outcome of something that hasn't been fully fleshed out yet and that we don't have all the information on?
Yes, we should be a bit concerned when it comes to something like net neutrality, but jumping the gun to condemn Google without fully knowing the situation behind the issue is stupid.
Or could it possibly be that the NY Times jumped the gun to report and speculate on the outcome of something that hasn't been fully fleshed out yet and that we don't have all the information on?
Yes, we should be a bit concerned when it comes to something like net neutrality, but jumping the gun to condemn Google without fully knowing the situation behind the issue is stupid.
Yes, but this from the original article:
Quote:
It is not clear that the Google-Verizon talks will result in a deal, or that any agreement would extend beyond those companies. David M. Fish, a spokesman for Verizon, acknowledged the talks, saying, ?We?ve been working with Google for 10 months to reach an agreement on broadband policy.?
It might be innocent, but one wonders why they are discussing "broadband policy" with each other and just what "agreement" they are working on!
AFAICT, Google and Verizon do not do business with each other on broadband services. What policy deal could they possibly make? Any attempt to tie Google search/ads with Verizon broadband would certainly raise the interest oft DOJ as a potentially illegal tie-in or restraint of trade, no?
For example, why should a mobile user go to a browser (ads) issue a google search (ads) to find a nearby restaurant, theater, (whatever). He has one of several agents {mobile apps) that know his location, preferences, schedule, etc. He can get better results within the app! He does not need to compose searches, drill-down through ad-infested choices to obtain questionable results-- results that may be in the best interest of others than himself. The mobile user stays within his apps & doesn't need to give a penny to Google/Yahoo/Bing or any of their advertisers-- nor look at any unwanted ads.
People still do Google/Bing/Yahoo searches because they are used to it and that even with the ever-increasing amount of apps, not all of them can contain the information they're looking for. Either there isn't an app for what they're looking for yet, or the apps out there don't have the same vast amounts of data a search engine has stored.
In regards to apps bypassing ads, this is actually not true at all. If you haven't noticed, a lot of apps also include ads inside of them. This is one way that developers can keep their app free for the users. Sure there are apps that remove the ads once you pay for them, but there are still a huge portion of free, quality apps that displays a small ad banner.
If the app is of great quality, I'm sure a lot of users are willing to deal with the small banner as a trade-off for being able to use it for free. Hell, most of the time I'm sure they don't even notice it.
Quote:
The real ad potential of the mobile apps is that they can deliver ads I want to see, when I want to see them.
And who do you think is behind those ads? Let me make it easy for you. Google. And Apple if it's on an iDevice.
Quote:
Sure there will be a need for browsers and search engines, but this need is changing. I personally have noticed, and am very critical of Google (in particular) redirecting my searches to show me what they (and their advertisers) want me to see rather than what I asked to see.
So, Google is presently monetizing Android (so they claim) via traditional non-mobile search and ads. But if search and ads are increasingly bypassed by mobile apps, just what benefit does Android deliver to Google?
Like I said above, the ads are still part of the apps and are still delivered by Google on Android and Apple on iDevices. So regardless if you use an app to find your information or the search function, you're still viewing ads.
Android is Google's way of bringing these small ad sliver to people on the go. The more Android devices that sell, the more ads that will be seen by the people. And the more reason Google has with continuing to develop Android so that it works better for the consumer as an OS so Google can deliver those ads.
Google has also stated that search in general has gone up 300% Q1 alone with Android. I believe this goes back to my statement above that, all the apps still won't be able to cover every single aspect of information like a Google search can.
Quote:
Today's environment is totally different-- a highly-competitive multi-vendor mobile marketplace already exists.
Any one of today's mobile OS vendors could easily compete with Android on price (free) and offer a better product and user experience.
Or, in the case of Apple, they could offer iOS and the iTunes infrastructure as an alternative to Android and its search/ad baggage.
It seems like you haven't heard that Apple is getting into the ads thing too with iAds. Free apps on iDevices have ads just like in Android. So it doesn't matter what OS is pushed. If the app is free, chances are high that there's a small ad banner somewhere in it.
Even Apple knows of how crucial ads will be for revenue (in-app and search) in the future. That's why they are trying to or have already locked out Google-served ads from iDevices because all it does is increase the amount of revenue for Google for every ad they sponsor that shows up on an iDevice.
It might be innocent, but one wonders why they are discussing "broadband policy" with each other and just what "agreement" they are working on!
AFAICT, Google and Verizon do not do business with each other on broadband services. What policy deal could they possibly make? Any attempt to tie Google search/ads with Verizon broadband would certainly raise the interest oft DOJ as a potentially illegal tie-in or restraint of trade, no?
,
Which is why I said we should be cautious about it, but not jump to condemn them outright. All the questions you propose right now are nothing more than speculation because you don't have the information to pass judgement either way.
They could be discussing the Google search/ads with Verizon broadband as you speculate. But at the moment, it has an exactly equal chance of not being part of the talks at all. We just don't know all the facts. All we know is that Verizon, AT&T, Google, and other companies are in closed-door meetings with the FCC over issues that pertain to the issue of net neutrality. Nothing more, nothing less.
And because the sensitive issue of net neutrality is involved, naturally the media will jump on it and try to fill in the holes with whatever information they can get their hands on.
Maybe they're working on an "agreement" (I use the term loosely) on how to lay down restrictions on the carriers to prevent them from upsetting net neutrality.
Comments
Now it doesn?t matter yet your entire argument is that AT&T issued a profit margin warning over the update of device that 3 sold millions of units in 21 days to only 5 countries? No, the excessive number of sales in a short time would have absolutely no barring on the total payout to Apple. Gee, what was I thinking?¡
No, my argument has always been that the iphone subsidy was larger than normal and that affect its sales figures. The how much larger than normal is the part of the profit margin warning --- but that's just for illustrative purposes, not central to my argument at all.
Some of the other 5 countries are even worst --- they have zero dollar iphones with contracts. That's a $600 iphone subsidy, of course they are selling it by the truckload.
No, my argument has always been that the iphone subsidy was larger than normal and that affect its sales figures. The how much larger than normal is the part of the profit margin warning --- but that's just for illustrative purposes, not central to my argument at all.
So you?re going on record again that the number of units sold within a given time frame have absolutely no barring on this profit margin warning.
PS: Has AT&T issued a profit margin warning for EVERY quarter since dropping profit sharing or only when there has been a release of a new iPhone?
...wait for it...
.
This is kind of like waiting for the 2012 of Android. Does the Mayan calendar predict its downfall too?
So you?re going on record again that the number of units sold within a given time frame have absolutely no barring on this profit margin warning.
PS: Has AT&T issued a profit margin warning for EVERY quarter since dropping profit sharing or only when there has been a release of a new iPhone?
I didn't say that either. You lower the profit margin, the price of the iphone is lower and more units are sold. The profit margin warning has to do with "how big" the sales figure is --- it doesn't affect the direction of the sales figure.
You lower the price of the iphone, of course the sales figure will be higher --- doesn't matter how high it is. You do a BOGO deal, of course the sales figure will be higher --- doesn't matter how high it is. They both juice the sales figure.
Once AT&T issued the initial profit margin warning, there is no need to re-issue it every quarter after that --- because Wall Street analysts already put that into their estimates. AT&T's profit margin went drastically lower in that particular quarter, and then it stayed low in subsequent quarters. AT&T doesn't need to re-issue the warning.
I didn't say that either. You lower the profit margin, the price of the iphone is lower and more units are sold. The profit margin warning has to do with "how big" the sales figure is --- it doesn't affect the direction of the sales figure.
You lower the price of the iphone, of course the sales figure will be higher --- doesn't matter how high it is. You do a BOGO deal, of course the sales figure will be higher --- doesn't matter how high it is. They both juice the sales figure.
Once AT&T issued the initial profit margin warning, there is no need to re-issue it every quarter after that --- because Wall Street analysts already put that into their estimates. AT&T's profit margin went drastically lower in that particular quarter, and then it stayed low in subsequent quarters. AT&T doesn't need to re-issue the warning.
Besides jumping to the conclusion that sales will ?of course? be higher if you drop a price as opposed to the only real conclusion that you open up your product to a larger demographic because of the lower price, you?ve again ignored the fact that AT&T went from a profit sharing model to a model in which they paid Apple a lump sum for each iPhone sold, just like every other US MNO was doing before the iPhone came along. Your argument is post hoc, ergo prompter hoc but you refuse to see the truth, just this spin you were told or have created yourself because you dislike any carrier that uses a GSM/3GSM-based network. It?s fraking silly!
Besides jumping to the conclusion that sales will ?of course? be higher if you drop a price as opposed to the only real conclusion that you open up your product to a larger demographic because of the lower price, you?ve again ignored the fact that AT&T went from a profit sharing model to a model in which they paid Apple a lump sum for each iPhone sold, just like every other US MNO was doing before the iPhone came along. Your argument is post hoc, ergo prompter hoc but you refuse to see the truth, just this spin you were told or have created yourself because you dislike any carrier that uses a GSM/3GSM-based network. It?s fraking silly!
So you don't believe in basic economic theory of price, supply and demand.
You said it --- just like every other US MNO was doing before the iPhone came along. So just like sales were increased because of BOGO deals on Androids and Blackberries --- iphone sales were increased because of lowered pricing.
Its not the market share that is important to consumers. Which company makes the most profits?
profits may stop growing if android can get to be the most dominant
http://www.electronista.com/articles...ne.in.2.years/
isuppli says by 2012 android will surpass ios and we'll be back to MS vs apple in the 90's
MS got business, and developers to hurt apple
apple climbs back on MS lack of vision ipod etc
but how does android do with developers support if up to 85% are pirated, no money in pirated software
i think isuppli is wrong, because of the apple universe and that it has a uniform hardware and software rather than many different devices trying to separate themselves buy features and diluting its UI
but to be honest i don't know how google android makes money how do they monitize this
?search, or does google pay the telcos et al to put out there stuff to do to RIM , moto, nokia what MS did to netscape in the early days, its hard to fight "free" are telcos paying google to block apple sort of what the record labels have tried and failed to do
so the future-----??????
rim tried as you said by using BOGO, but that is for protecting market share, android is trying to become dominant also in business with exchange allowing enterprise to move from RIM
i wish i could get into SJ's mind about this, considering schmidt being on the apple board probably got the lead it has now. to be honest android has grown faster than iPhone os
i'd use this as a separate thread but wanted members thoughts here
is apple falling behind, is this MS deja vu all over again or is there a different business model we are not thinking about
your thoughts
The key here is that Google is only responsible for the costs of developing the Android OS itself. OEMs are the ones that take up the costs for manufacturing and distribution the devices themselves, which is the largest part of the whole process.
I believe a top Google staff member said that all revenue Google makes is more than enough to cover the expense of continuing to develop Android.
As long as the OEMs continue putting out devices and the consumers keep eating them up, I see no reason why Google would stop developing Android in the near-term.
We are talking about OS Android tops, not handsets, right? It is like talking about how many window system sold in the world compare to the Mac. That is not just Dell, compare to Mac, but including all of the window "7" for example, what ever the computer name brand is: HP, Fujishu, Taiwan made, anything... PC, a clone...
We are not talking about handsets, we are talking about OS (hardwares that can utilize OS, just like PCs), some of them works well, (like HP PC), some of them not so well (nameless), Compare to market share using OS, with extended to "handsets" are not even valid... Am I missing something? I must be really stupid....
So you don't believe in basic economic theory of price, supply and demand.
You said it --- just like every other US MNO was doing before the iPhone came along. So just like sales were increased because of BOGO deals on Androids and Blackberries --- iphone sales were increased because of lowered pricing.
You?re either trying to be obtuse or you have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Sales were increased when Apple released the iPhone on AT&T yet AT&T didn?t release a profit margin warning. Sales were again increased when Apple dropped the price by $200. No profit margin warning. Both times AT&T is paying Apple per month per phone for the profit sharing program. The only reason for this warning was because of the end of the profit sharing when AT&T was paying Apple for each iPhone 3G sale for that month. They sold 1 million units in 3 days yet would recap what they paid to Apple until at least the 2nd year of use. If you don?t understand this concept by now then you are playing dumb or simply are, and in either case I can?t fix that.
The only thing that is apparent is your delusional thought process when it comes to anythnig regarding Apple. What is really pissing you off is Apple can't rule the world and it just gets under your skin that as soon as you think they are going to take over the entire tech industry someone else come around and steals their thunder.
You know Adobe is evil, Microsoft is evil, Google is evil, RIM is evil but Apple they are as pure as newly fallen snow.
You're a joke. Yeah like Steve Jobs never knew anything about the securities fraud. I am sure he was totally innocent in that case.
Adobe, not evil, just incompetent. Microsoft, previously evil, now hobbled by DoJ, RIM, I don't have any reason to believe them evil, Apple, has a bad moment now and then. But, in the history of evil companies in the latter 20th and early 21st, centuries, Google stands alone in their complete lack of moral principles, their lack of respect for the law, their lack of respect for personal freedom and privacy, their ability to negatively affect our lives, and their eagerness to do so if it profits them.
So, no, what pisses me off isn't that Apple can't rule the world, and I don't think anyone ever expected them to "take over the entire tech industry. It's the idea that people are so stupid that they would want Google to rule the world, or even any small part of it. I don't like you personally because you are full of yourself, intellectually dishonest, and, in my opinion, lacking a proper moral sense that governs your life.
Perhaps anyone who passes such broad, damning judgement based solely on rumors and speculation is a fool as well?
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...100048489.html
Oh, right, after the backlash, Verizon is going to come out and honestly admit what they're up to? I can't believe you are posting a link to Verizon PR spin to try and discredit the NYTimes article.
[samab is] either trying to be obtuse or [has] absolutely no knowledge of economics. ...
I think in this case the correct answer is b.
Adobe, not evil, just incompetent. Microsoft, previously evil, now hobbled by DoJ, RIM, I don't have any reason to believe them evil, Apple, has a bad moment now and then. But, in the history of evil companies in the latter 20th and early 21st, centuries, Google stands alone in their complete lack of moral principles, their lack of respect for the law, their lack of respect for personal freedom and privacy, their ability to negatively affect our lives, and their eagerness to do so if it profits them.
So, no, what pisses me off isn't that Apple can't rule the world, and I don't think anyone ever expected them to "take over the entire tech industry. It's the idea that people are so stupid that they would want Google to rule the world, or even any small part of it. I don't like you personally because you are full of yourself, intellectually dishonest, and, in my opinion, lacking a proper moral sense that governs your life.
Well I am not one of those people that wants Google or anyone to rule the world. If Google offers a product that I find useful then I use it same as Apple products.
"I don't like you personally because you are full of yourself, intellectually dishonest, and, in my opinion, lacking a proper moral sense that governs your life"
To even make a comment like that on an internet forum about anyone is beyond words. You don't know anything about me or anyone else here to even make a comment like that. You are the worst of the worst because you hate someone based on their opinion or if they don't agree with you, which makes you nothing but pathetic.
With that kind of thought process I don't dislike you, I simply feel sorry for you.
We are talking about OS Android tops, not handsets, right? It is like talking about how many window system sold in the world compare to the Mac. That is not just Dell, compare to Mac, but including all of the window "7" for example, what ever the computer name brand is: HP, Fujishu, Taiwan made, anything... PC, a clone...
We are not talking about handsets, we are talking about OS (hardwares that can utilize OS, just like PCs), some of them works well, (like HP PC), some of them not so well (nameless), Compare to market share using OS, with extended to "handsets" are not even valid... Am I missing something? I must be really stupid....
Your post is a bit confusing because it seems like you're talking about the NPD study itself and not my post that's been quoted. If that's not it, feel free to correct me. I just want to make sure I know what I'm responding to.
profits may stop growing if android can get to be the most dominant
http://www.electronista.com/articles...ne.in.2.years/
isuppli says by 2012 android will surpass ios and we'll be back to MS vs apple in the 90's
MS got business, and developers to hurt apple
apple climbs back on MS lack of vision ipod etc
but how does android do with developers support if up to 85% are pirated, no money in pirated software
i think isuppli is wrong, because of the apple universe and that it has a uniform hardware and software rather than many different devices trying to separate themselves buy features and diluting its UI
but to be honest i don't know how google android makes money how do they monitize this
?search, or does google pay the telcos et al to put out there stuff to do to RIM , moto, nokia what MS did to netscape in the early days, its hard to fight "free" are telcos paying google to block apple sort of what the record labels have tried and failed to do
so the future-----??????
rim tried as you said by using BOGO, but that is for protecting market share, android is trying to become dominant also in business with exchange allowing enterprise to move from RIM
i wish i could get into SJ's mind about this, considering schmidt being on the apple board probably got the lead it has now. to be honest android has grown faster than iPhone os
i'd use this as a separate thread but wanted members thoughts here
is apple falling behind, is this MS deja vu all over again or is there a different business model we are not thinking about
your thoughts
These are good thoughts... well worth discussion!
I don't think we'll have any single company dominate the computer industry as it evolves into the mobile industry.
MIcrosoft will, likely, continue to dominate the desktop space-- though with an ever diminishing share of a diminishing market.
Android could become temporarily dominant in the mobile space. They are giving away a free OS in exchange for a path to advertising and search. But these are based on the desktop model, not the mobile model.
Ads and Search are changing for the mobile market. If nothing else, the mobile user has several attractive alternatives to unsolicited browser-based ads and search engine directed advertising.
For example, why should a mobile user go to a browser (ads) issue a google search (ads) to find a nearby restaurant, theater, (whatever). He has one of several agents {mobile apps) that know his location, preferences, schedule, etc. He can get better results within the app! He does not need to compose searches, drill-down through ad-infested choices to obtain questionable results-- results that may be in the best interest of others than himself. The mobile user stays within his apps & doesn't need to give a penny to Google/Yahoo/Bing or any of their advertisers-- nor look at any unwanted ads.
The real ad potential of the mobile apps is that they can deliver ads I want to see, when I want to see them.
Sure there will be a need for browsers and search engines, but this need is changing. I personally have noticed, and am very critical of Google (in particular) redirecting my searches to show me what they (and their advertisers) want me to see rather than what I asked to see.
So, Google is presently monetizing Android (so they claim) via traditional non-mobile search and ads. But if search and ads are increasingly bypassed by mobile apps, just what benefit does Android deliver to Google?
The reason I don't believe that we will see Microsoft Deja Vu is that today's dynamics are different.
In circa 1976-1980 the primary microcomputer markets were: home personal; and hobbyists. Hobbyists were/are like todays geeks they tend to roll their own and not spend any money. User Experience is a non-issue as they get off bit-twiddling!
With the advent of VisiCalc, the Apple ][ began to penetrate business-- small business and divisions of larger enterprises.
Microsoft sold Basic and some peripheral devices (80-column cards for the Apple ][, etc.)
The IBM/PC changed the market. Suddenly, there were microcomputers with the respected name of IBM-- they were not toys (with fruity names) but serious business machines.
Microsoft, through luck, smart business-sense, and some double-dealing, latched onto the IBM name and became the dominant OS provider... Word, Excel and Office were not far behind. Later, they use their market dominance to gain control of the web browser segment, and eliminated other competitors with the fatal embrace.
Today's environment is totally different-- a highly-competitive multi-vendor mobile marketplace already exists.
Any one of today's mobile OS vendors could easily compete with Android on price (free) and offer a better product and user experience.
Or, in the case of Apple, they could offer iOS and the iTunes infrastructure as an alternative to Android and its search/ad baggage.
Crazy? Maybe... Maybe not! It all depends on long term objectives and how to attain them!
Google wants to give away free razors-- but they may not have razorblades that anyone wants to buy!
.
Oh, right, after the backlash, Verizon is going to come out and honestly admit what they're up to? I can't believe you are posting a link to Verizon PR spin to try and discredit the NYTimes article.
Or could it possibly be that the NY Times jumped the gun to report and speculate on the outcome of something that hasn't been fully fleshed out yet and that we don't have all the information on?
Yes, we should be a bit concerned when it comes to something like net neutrality, but jumping the gun to condemn Google without fully knowing the situation behind the issue is stupid.
Or could it possibly be that the NY Times jumped the gun to report and speculate on the outcome of something that hasn't been fully fleshed out yet and that we don't have all the information on?
Yes, we should be a bit concerned when it comes to something like net neutrality, but jumping the gun to condemn Google without fully knowing the situation behind the issue is stupid.
Yes, but this from the original article:
It is not clear that the Google-Verizon talks will result in a deal, or that any agreement would extend beyond those companies. David M. Fish, a spokesman for Verizon, acknowledged the talks, saying, ?We?ve been working with Google for 10 months to reach an agreement on broadband policy.?
It might be innocent, but one wonders why they are discussing "broadband policy" with each other and just what "agreement" they are working on!
AFAICT, Google and Verizon do not do business with each other on broadband services. What policy deal could they possibly make? Any attempt to tie Google search/ads with Verizon broadband would certainly raise the interest oft DOJ as a potentially illegal tie-in or restraint of trade, no?
,
These are good thoughts... well worth discussion!
For example, why should a mobile user go to a browser (ads) issue a google search (ads) to find a nearby restaurant, theater, (whatever). He has one of several agents {mobile apps) that know his location, preferences, schedule, etc. He can get better results within the app! He does not need to compose searches, drill-down through ad-infested choices to obtain questionable results-- results that may be in the best interest of others than himself. The mobile user stays within his apps & doesn't need to give a penny to Google/Yahoo/Bing or any of their advertisers-- nor look at any unwanted ads.
People still do Google/Bing/Yahoo searches because they are used to it and that even with the ever-increasing amount of apps, not all of them can contain the information they're looking for. Either there isn't an app for what they're looking for yet, or the apps out there don't have the same vast amounts of data a search engine has stored.
In regards to apps bypassing ads, this is actually not true at all. If you haven't noticed, a lot of apps also include ads inside of them. This is one way that developers can keep their app free for the users. Sure there are apps that remove the ads once you pay for them, but there are still a huge portion of free, quality apps that displays a small ad banner.
If the app is of great quality, I'm sure a lot of users are willing to deal with the small banner as a trade-off for being able to use it for free. Hell, most of the time I'm sure they don't even notice it.
The real ad potential of the mobile apps is that they can deliver ads I want to see, when I want to see them.
And who do you think is behind those ads? Let me make it easy for you. Google. And Apple if it's on an iDevice.
Sure there will be a need for browsers and search engines, but this need is changing. I personally have noticed, and am very critical of Google (in particular) redirecting my searches to show me what they (and their advertisers) want me to see rather than what I asked to see.
So, Google is presently monetizing Android (so they claim) via traditional non-mobile search and ads. But if search and ads are increasingly bypassed by mobile apps, just what benefit does Android deliver to Google?
Like I said above, the ads are still part of the apps and are still delivered by Google on Android and Apple on iDevices. So regardless if you use an app to find your information or the search function, you're still viewing ads.
Android is Google's way of bringing these small ad sliver to people on the go. The more Android devices that sell, the more ads that will be seen by the people. And the more reason Google has with continuing to develop Android so that it works better for the consumer as an OS so Google can deliver those ads.
Google has also stated that search in general has gone up 300% Q1 alone with Android. I believe this goes back to my statement above that, all the apps still won't be able to cover every single aspect of information like a Google search can.
Today's environment is totally different-- a highly-competitive multi-vendor mobile marketplace already exists.
Any one of today's mobile OS vendors could easily compete with Android on price (free) and offer a better product and user experience.
Or, in the case of Apple, they could offer iOS and the iTunes infrastructure as an alternative to Android and its search/ad baggage.
It seems like you haven't heard that Apple is getting into the ads thing too with iAds. Free apps on iDevices have ads just like in Android. So it doesn't matter what OS is pushed. If the app is free, chances are high that there's a small ad banner somewhere in it.
Even Apple knows of how crucial ads will be for revenue (in-app and search) in the future. That's why they are trying to or have already locked out Google-served ads from iDevices because all it does is increase the amount of revenue for Google for every ad they sponsor that shows up on an iDevice.
Yes, but this from the original article:
It might be innocent, but one wonders why they are discussing "broadband policy" with each other and just what "agreement" they are working on!
AFAICT, Google and Verizon do not do business with each other on broadband services. What policy deal could they possibly make? Any attempt to tie Google search/ads with Verizon broadband would certainly raise the interest oft DOJ as a potentially illegal tie-in or restraint of trade, no?
,
Which is why I said we should be cautious about it, but not jump to condemn them outright. All the questions you propose right now are nothing more than speculation because you don't have the information to pass judgement either way.
They could be discussing the Google search/ads with Verizon broadband as you speculate. But at the moment, it has an exactly equal chance of not being part of the talks at all. We just don't know all the facts. All we know is that Verizon, AT&T, Google, and other companies are in closed-door meetings with the FCC over issues that pertain to the issue of net neutrality. Nothing more, nothing less.
And because the sensitive issue of net neutrality is involved, naturally the media will jump on it and try to fill in the holes with whatever information they can get their hands on.
Maybe they're working on an "agreement" (I use the term loosely) on how to lay down restrictions on the carriers to prevent them from upsetting net neutrality.