Wait for the iPhone to come to Verizon, Sprint and T-mobile.
As reported by CNN this week, a Yankee Group study reveals that an astounding four out of five current Android users have no plans to buy another Android phone. And that?s game over.
Is there a backlog of orders for Droids? Apple still can't produce enough iPhones to meet the demand. Is Motorola somehow able to manufacture phones faster than Apple? How many Droids are they selling internationally?
As long as iPhone is perceived to be the best smartphone, Apple will be successful, regardless if they are #3.
Technically speaking, when comparing these OS numbers we?re not actually comparing sales, we?re comparing the OS install base. To compare sales we?d have to be comparing the devices from each vendor.
It?s expected that Android would be number one since it?s open to all vendors and it?s free, unlike BB OS, iOS, and WM. Frankly, I?m surprised it took Android this long, which is a testament to how well RiM and Apple are managed and possibly just how poorly these other handset vendors are at understanding the market as it wasn?t until they following their better?s lead that they finally learned to turn a profit in this new age of mobile computing.
Interesting comment by asymco, to his own post, here, linked to by Gruber the other day. Basically, he argues that the carriers are spreading their Android orders around to different manufacturers to make sure that no one of them becomes dominant. Google does essentially the same thing by distributing different Android versions constantly to different handset vendors, intentionally fragmenting the Android base and allowing the vendors to leapfrog each other with versions/features, but also ensuring that no one of them becomes dominant. So, the handset makers are getting screwed from both ends.
I'm not sure how the Chinese and other Asian carriers are handling this with their non-Google versions of Android (The market and other proprietary pieces are stripped out and replaced with new proprietary pieces. Hard to see that Google gets any benefit from these "Android" handsets, or that they should even be counted as "Android" sales. But, it does point to even greater fragmentation of Android, and begs the question of what the worldwide share numbers actually mean, if anything.)
Apple has already screwed up by playing hardball with Verizon. If the iPhone had been on Verizon, then you wouldn't see Verizon pouring all this money and marketing into Droids.
If the 2-3 year old Wired story is true then you would not have had an App Store but a Verizon app store. Verizon wanted to continue to have control over the handsets' features as carriers did back then. The only reason Verizon opened up is because of the competition with the iPhone. Even now Verizon still controls when an Android phone gets an OS update. If you don't think they care about that then ask yourself why no other carrier besides T-Mobile chose to carry the Nexus One.
Edit: Verizon has also chosen to reject some of Android's features in future Motorola Droid phones such as the wifi hotspot feature.
I will say that Apple should have had a Verizon iPhone (along with all other carriers) since last year but no one knows why that is. If the 5 year contract is true and can't be opted out of then I think it was a bad move by Apple.
If the point made in Vogelstein's article on Wired that Apple is working on a dual CDMA/3G radio with Qualcomm is true, we may see Verizon next year and possibly T-Mobile as well.
Is there a backlog of orders for Droids? Apple still can't produce enough iPhones to meet the demand. Is Motorola somehow able to manufacture phones faster than Apple? How many Droids are they selling internationally?
As long as iPhone is perceived to be the best smartphone, Apple will be successful, regardless if they are #3.
Yes... At least here in Las Vegas, both the Verizon-exclusive DROID Incredible and DROID X are back-ordered, and again the brand DROID is a US Verizon-exclusive line, so NO they're not selling DROIDs internationally.
Technically speaking, when comparing these OS numbers we?re not actually comparing sales, we?re comparing the OS install base. To compare sales we?d have to be comparing the devices from each vendor.
It?s expected that Android would be number one since it?s open to all vendors and it?s free, unlike BB OS, iOS, and WM. Frankly, I?m surprised it took Android this long, which is a testament to how well RiM and Apple are managed and possibly just how poorly these other handset vendors are at understanding the market as it wasn?t until they following their better?s lead that they finally learned to turn a profit in this new age of mobile computing.
How can you be surprised Android took this long, prior to the original Droid, the only model with any presence was the G1, which was on T-Mobile, which is probably the smallest carrier in the US.
Since then, it's basically been driven by Verizon (the Droid series) and the EVO on Sprint. The original Droid came out alk of last November, and it's helped to bring Android from nothing to 26% of the smartphone market.
I'm not an Android or iOS fan (prefer WebOS), but all this competition is good, means these companies have to adding featues to keep customers, just wish the carriers weren't moving to tiered plans. (AT&T is only the first)
The difference being Android is a mobile OS but DROID is a line of Verizon-exclusive smartphones.
Actually, ...
... "Droid" is a short-form slang term for an "Android" and was coined at least 70 years ago by what were then called "scientifiction" writers.
An "Android" was a humanoid shaped simulation which replicates the functions of the human body and was (originally) depicted as being of organic construction as opposed to a mechanical or elecro-mechanical one. However, within ten years or so the term was co-opted and became synonymous with the concept of a humanoid-shaped mechanical or robotic device.
In other words, Android, Robot, and Automaton all used to have separate distinct meanings, but we basically just call them all "robots" now. This is primarily because "robot" was the more popular term, (even though the original definition of "robot" required that the machine be intelligent), but also because no one could quite conceive of how to build an Android that wasn't basically an automaton anyway.
Thus "automatons" became "robots," and Androids became just another kind of robot. Interestingly, no one has yet figured out how to make Robots and Androids that conform to the original science fiction descriptions in the 30's 40's and 50's. In fact we aren't even close yet.
Are you sure about that? The article reads "Verizon Wireless, the largest carrier in the U.S., had a 33 percent units sold share in the quarter..."
That?s additional info to explain where the OS numbers are coming from, but the title and focus of the article is "Android tops BlackBerry, iPhone grows in US smartphone OS share"
sold at half price or sold half the phones and gave away the other half
.. and ALL are still on contract/data plans with the nation's largest cellular/mobile network, which seems like a pretty darned sound business model to any reasonable individual.
This also means that iPhone is 22 of ATT's 25 % market share. 88 % of ATT's smartphone sales. Which means that when given the choice a large majority will choose the iPhone, since ATT also offers Android and BB devices.
That would make the numbers quite different when, inevitably, iPhone launches on other carriers.
... "Droid" is a short-form slang term for an "Android" and was coined at least 70 years ago by what were then called "scientifiction" writers.
An "Android" was a humanoid shaped simulation which replicates the functions of the human body and was (originally) depicted as being of organic construction as opposed to a mechanical or elecro-mechanical one. However, within ten years or so the term was co-opted and became synonymous with the concept of a humanoid-shaped mechanical or robotic device.
In other words, Android, Robot, and Automaton all used to have separate distinct meanings, but we basically just call them all "robots" now. This is primarily because "robot" was the more popular term, (even though the original definition of "robot" required that the machine be intelligent), but also because no one could quite conceive of how to build an Android that wasn't basically an automaton anyway.
Thus "automatons" became "robots," and Androids became just another kind of robot. Interestingly, no one has yet figured out how to make Robots and Androids that conform to the original science fiction descriptions in the 30's 40's and 50's. In fact we aren't even close yet.
Are you sure about the etymology of Droid. The date I keep finding is from 1977, which I assume references Star Wars and since Lucas owns the right to it I have to assume he probably coined it.
From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
android
"automaton resembling a human being," 1727, from Mod.L. androides, from Gk. andro- "human" + eides "form, shape." Listed as "rare? i
n
OED (1879), popularized from c.1951 by science fiction writers.
And Robot has a well known origin from the Czech playwright Karel Capek in 1920s and an apt meaning of slave or servitude.
.. and ALL are still on contract/data plans with the nation's largest cellular/mobile network, which seems like a pretty darned sound business model to any reasonable individual.
I'm sure Verizon has the numbers worked out on the reoccurring revenue side but I doubt Motorola is making anywhere near the profit that Apple makes. Poor Blackberry though. They get kicked out of Saudi Arabia, now this.
... "Droid" is a short-form slang term for an "Android" and was coined at least 70 years ago by what were then called "scientifiction" writers.
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the licensed name brand DROID is currently a Verizon exclusive line of smartphones.
Note: The actual term "droid" is currently licensed to/trademarked by Lucasfilm LTD, and Motorola/Verizon pays a fee to them to use the trademarked term.
Google Android ousted Research in Motion's BlackBerry platform as the top-selling smartphone operating system in the U.S. for June quarter, while Apple's iPhone -- available in just two models and on one carrier -- took third.
All this time we have heard from the pro-Apple at all costs, love it or leave it crowd that AT&T has not hurt the iPhone. Now this article uses the fact that the iPhone is available on only "one carrier" in the US as an excuse for getting beat by Android and RIM last quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The top-selling Android phone in the second quarter was the Motorola Droid, followed by five phones from HTC: Droid Incredible, EVO 4G, Hero and Droid Eris.
Does anyone here know how constrained the sales of the Incredible have been since it was introduced in April because of component supply issues? We got ours on Amazon and had to wait 3 weeks. If not for Samsung's display screw-up, where would these numbers have been? A Verizon rep said that sales would have been double.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Helping to push Android sales were promotional deals where customers can buy one, get one free. Verizon Wireless, the largest carrier in the U.S., had a 33 percent units sold share in the quarter, based on the strength of its buy one, get one promotional offers on all RIM and Android models.
There is no evidence presented in this article to substantiate the idea that the buy one, get one free offers significantly impacted sales. If there is real evidence out there I will retract this. But all I have seen are vague hints that this is the reason Android and Verizon are doing so well - and that otherwise people would be flocking to the iPhone and AT&T. Barring actual evidence, I doubt that a customer going in for a feature phone is going to be swayed by a "free" phone that will cost him/her several thousand dollars over the life of the contract. I also doubt that most Verizon customers would be willing to switch to AT&T if not for this offer.
I'm sure Verizon has the numbers worked out on the reoccurring revenue side but I doubt Motorola is making anywhere near the profit that Apple makes. Poor Blackberry though. They get kicked out of Saudi Arabia, now this.
I too 'doubt' that Verizon is making the same kind of profits, but what they're doing very successfully at this point is increasing the DROID/Android mindshare among consumers, this insures that when they do introduce a new products (DROID Incredible, DROID X, DROID 2, the upcoming LTE-based Android Tablet - the DROID T) both consumers and the media take notice.
... I doubt that a customer going in for a feature phone is going to be swayed by a "free" phone that will cost him/her several thousand dollars over the life of the contract. ...
People can be "swayed" by offering them much less than that.
I'm sure Verizon has the numbers worked out on the reoccurring revenue side but I doubt Motorola is making anywhere near the profit that Apple makes. Poor Blackberry though. They get kicked out of Saudi Arabia, now this.
If you believe everything happens in threes then here is the third whammy for RiM this week.
And Motorola and others have finally started turning a profit from following Apple’s lead with well focused higher-end product. Not much, but it’s ahuge improvement from the red hole they were in.
In fact, everyone who loves their Android phone should be thanking Apple for entering the market or they’d be stuck using something like this right now.
There is no evidence presented in this article to substantiate the idea that the buy one, get one free offers significantly impacted sales. If there is real evidence out there I will retract this. But all I have seen are vague hints that this is the reason Android and Verizon are doing so well - and that otherwise people would be flocking to the iPhone and AT&T. Barring actual evidence, I doubt that a customer going in for a feature phone is going to be swayed by a "free" phone that will cost him/her several thousand dollars over the life of the contract. I also doubt that most Verizon customers would be willing to switch to AT&T if not for this offer.
Really? You don't think buy one get one free smartphone offers influence customers? Then why do you think Verizon is willing to do it? Duh! To stem the, albeit relatively small, flow of customers to the inferior ATT network to get iPhones. ATT has shaved a tiny percent of Verizon's customers with the iphone. Its a fact. Verizon did a number of things to attempt to slow and/or stop that. Two being advertising the heck out of the Droid and giving them away! They obviously think this influences people or they wouldn't waste money doing it.
Comments
As reported by CNN this week, a Yankee Group study reveals that an astounding four out of five current Android users have no plans to buy another Android phone. And that?s game over.
http://www.beatweek.com/news/6810-ve...droid-debacle/
As long as iPhone is perceived to be the best smartphone, Apple will be successful, regardless if they are #3.
Technically speaking, when comparing these OS numbers we?re not actually comparing sales, we?re comparing the OS install base. To compare sales we?d have to be comparing the devices from each vendor.
It?s expected that Android would be number one since it?s open to all vendors and it?s free, unlike BB OS, iOS, and WM. Frankly, I?m surprised it took Android this long, which is a testament to how well RiM and Apple are managed and possibly just how poorly these other handset vendors are at understanding the market as it wasn?t until they following their better?s lead that they finally learned to turn a profit in this new age of mobile computing.
Interesting comment by asymco, to his own post, here, linked to by Gruber the other day. Basically, he argues that the carriers are spreading their Android orders around to different manufacturers to make sure that no one of them becomes dominant. Google does essentially the same thing by distributing different Android versions constantly to different handset vendors, intentionally fragmenting the Android base and allowing the vendors to leapfrog each other with versions/features, but also ensuring that no one of them becomes dominant. So, the handset makers are getting screwed from both ends.
I'm not sure how the Chinese and other Asian carriers are handling this with their non-Google versions of Android (The market and other proprietary pieces are stripped out and replaced with new proprietary pieces. Hard to see that Google gets any benefit from these "Android" handsets, or that they should even be counted as "Android" sales. But, it does point to even greater fragmentation of Android, and begs the question of what the worldwide share numbers actually mean, if anything.)
Are you sure about that? The article reads "Verizon Wireless, the largest carrier in the U.S., had a 33 percent units sold share in the quarter..."
sold at half price or sold half the phones and gave away the other half
This.
Apple has already screwed up by playing hardball with Verizon. If the iPhone had been on Verizon, then you wouldn't see Verizon pouring all this money and marketing into Droids.
If the 2-3 year old Wired story is true then you would not have had an App Store but a Verizon app store. Verizon wanted to continue to have control over the handsets' features as carriers did back then. The only reason Verizon opened up is because of the competition with the iPhone. Even now Verizon still controls when an Android phone gets an OS update. If you don't think they care about that then ask yourself why no other carrier besides T-Mobile chose to carry the Nexus One.
Edit: Verizon has also chosen to reject some of Android's features in future Motorola Droid phones such as the wifi hotspot feature.
I will say that Apple should have had a Verizon iPhone (along with all other carriers) since last year but no one knows why that is. If the 5 year contract is true and can't be opted out of then I think it was a bad move by Apple.
If the point made in Vogelstein's article on Wired that Apple is working on a dual CDMA/3G radio with Qualcomm is true, we may see Verizon next year and possibly T-Mobile as well.
Is there a backlog of orders for Droids? Apple still can't produce enough iPhones to meet the demand. Is Motorola somehow able to manufacture phones faster than Apple? How many Droids are they selling internationally?
As long as iPhone is perceived to be the best smartphone, Apple will be successful, regardless if they are #3.
Yes... At least here in Las Vegas, both the Verizon-exclusive DROID Incredible and DROID X are back-ordered, and again the brand DROID is a US Verizon-exclusive line, so NO they're not selling DROIDs internationally.
Technically speaking, when comparing these OS numbers we?re not actually comparing sales, we?re comparing the OS install base. To compare sales we?d have to be comparing the devices from each vendor.
It?s expected that Android would be number one since it?s open to all vendors and it?s free, unlike BB OS, iOS, and WM. Frankly, I?m surprised it took Android this long, which is a testament to how well RiM and Apple are managed and possibly just how poorly these other handset vendors are at understanding the market as it wasn?t until they following their better?s lead that they finally learned to turn a profit in this new age of mobile computing.
How can you be surprised Android took this long, prior to the original Droid, the only model with any presence was the G1, which was on T-Mobile, which is probably the smallest carrier in the US.
Since then, it's basically been driven by Verizon (the Droid series) and the EVO on Sprint. The original Droid came out alk of last November, and it's helped to bring Android from nothing to 26% of the smartphone market.
I'm not an Android or iOS fan (prefer WebOS), but all this competition is good, means these companies have to adding featues to keep customers, just wish the carriers weren't moving to tiered plans. (AT&T is only the first)
Its not the market share that is important to consumers. Which company makes the most profits?
News flash: It is customers who determine marketshare.
Android phones or actual DROIDs?
The difference being Android is a mobile OS but DROID is a line of Verizon-exclusive smartphones.
Actually, ...
... "Droid" is a short-form slang term for an "Android" and was coined at least 70 years ago by what were then called "scientifiction" writers.
An "Android" was a humanoid shaped simulation which replicates the functions of the human body and was (originally) depicted as being of organic construction as opposed to a mechanical or elecro-mechanical one. However, within ten years or so the term was co-opted and became synonymous with the concept of a humanoid-shaped mechanical or robotic device.
In other words, Android, Robot, and Automaton all used to have separate distinct meanings, but we basically just call them all "robots" now. This is primarily because "robot" was the more popular term, (even though the original definition of "robot" required that the machine be intelligent), but also because no one could quite conceive of how to build an Android that wasn't basically an automaton anyway.
Thus "automatons" became "robots," and Androids became just another kind of robot. Interestingly, no one has yet figured out how to make Robots and Androids that conform to the original science fiction descriptions in the 30's 40's and 50's. In fact we aren't even close yet.
Are you sure about that? The article reads "Verizon Wireless, the largest carrier in the U.S., had a 33 percent units sold share in the quarter..."
That?s additional info to explain where the OS numbers are coming from, but the title and focus of the article is "Android tops BlackBerry, iPhone grows in US smartphone OS share"
sold at half price or sold half the phones and gave away the other half
.. and ALL are still on contract/data plans with the nation's largest cellular/mobile network, which seems like a pretty darned sound business model to any reasonable individual.
That would make the numbers quite different when, inevitably, iPhone launches on other carriers.
Actually, ...
... "Droid" is a short-form slang term for an "Android" and was coined at least 70 years ago by what were then called "scientifiction" writers.
An "Android" was a humanoid shaped simulation which replicates the functions of the human body and was (originally) depicted as being of organic construction as opposed to a mechanical or elecro-mechanical one. However, within ten years or so the term was co-opted and became synonymous with the concept of a humanoid-shaped mechanical or robotic device.
In other words, Android, Robot, and Automaton all used to have separate distinct meanings, but we basically just call them all "robots" now. This is primarily because "robot" was the more popular term, (even though the original definition of "robot" required that the machine be intelligent), but also because no one could quite conceive of how to build an Android that wasn't basically an automaton anyway.
Thus "automatons" became "robots," and Androids became just another kind of robot. Interestingly, no one has yet figured out how to make Robots and Androids that conform to the original science fiction descriptions in the 30's 40's and 50's. In fact we aren't even close yet.
Are you sure about the etymology of Droid. The date I keep finding is from 1977, which I assume references Star Wars and since Lucas owns the right to it I have to assume he probably coined it.
From the Online Etymology Dictionary:And Robot has a well known origin from the Czech playwright Karel Capek in 1920s and an apt meaning of slave or servitude.
.. and ALL are still on contract/data plans with the nation's largest cellular/mobile network, which seems like a pretty darned sound business model to any reasonable individual.
I'm sure Verizon has the numbers worked out on the reoccurring revenue side but I doubt Motorola is making anywhere near the profit that Apple makes. Poor Blackberry though. They get kicked out of Saudi Arabia, now this.
Actually, ...
... "Droid" is a short-form slang term for an "Android" and was coined at least 70 years ago by what were then called "scientifiction" writers.
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the licensed name brand DROID is currently a Verizon exclusive line of smartphones.
Note: The actual term "droid" is currently licensed to/trademarked by Lucasfilm LTD, and Motorola/Verizon pays a fee to them to use the trademarked term.
The More You Know...
Google Android ousted Research in Motion's BlackBerry platform as the top-selling smartphone operating system in the U.S. for June quarter, while Apple's iPhone -- available in just two models and on one carrier -- took third.
All this time we have heard from the pro-Apple at all costs, love it or leave it crowd that AT&T has not hurt the iPhone. Now this article uses the fact that the iPhone is available on only "one carrier" in the US as an excuse for getting beat by Android and RIM last quarter.
The top-selling Android phone in the second quarter was the Motorola Droid, followed by five phones from HTC: Droid Incredible, EVO 4G, Hero and Droid Eris.
Does anyone here know how constrained the sales of the Incredible have been since it was introduced in April because of component supply issues? We got ours on Amazon and had to wait 3 weeks. If not for Samsung's display screw-up, where would these numbers have been? A Verizon rep said that sales would have been double.
Helping to push Android sales were promotional deals where customers can buy one, get one free. Verizon Wireless, the largest carrier in the U.S., had a 33 percent units sold share in the quarter, based on the strength of its buy one, get one promotional offers on all RIM and Android models.
There is no evidence presented in this article to substantiate the idea that the buy one, get one free offers significantly impacted sales. If there is real evidence out there I will retract this. But all I have seen are vague hints that this is the reason Android and Verizon are doing so well - and that otherwise people would be flocking to the iPhone and AT&T. Barring actual evidence, I doubt that a customer going in for a feature phone is going to be swayed by a "free" phone that will cost him/her several thousand dollars over the life of the contract. I also doubt that most Verizon customers would be willing to switch to AT&T if not for this offer.
I'm sure Verizon has the numbers worked out on the reoccurring revenue side but I doubt Motorola is making anywhere near the profit that Apple makes. Poor Blackberry though. They get kicked out of Saudi Arabia, now this.
I too 'doubt' that Verizon is making the same kind of profits, but what they're doing very successfully at this point is increasing the DROID/Android mindshare among consumers, this insures that when they do introduce a new products (DROID Incredible, DROID X, DROID 2, the upcoming LTE-based Android Tablet - the DROID T) both consumers and the media take notice.
It's been working rather well thus far...
... I doubt that a customer going in for a feature phone is going to be swayed by a "free" phone that will cost him/her several thousand dollars over the life of the contract. ...
People can be "swayed" by offering them much less than that.
I'm sure Verizon has the numbers worked out on the reoccurring revenue side but I doubt Motorola is making anywhere near the profit that Apple makes. Poor Blackberry though. They get kicked out of Saudi Arabia, now this.
If you believe everything happens in threes then here is the third whammy for RiM this week.
- http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20012596-94.html
And Motorola and others have finally started turning a profit from following Apple’s lead with well focused higher-end product. Not much, but it’s ahuge improvement from the red hole they were in.- http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/29/m...-frown-upside/
In fact, everyone who loves their Android phone should be thanking Apple for entering the market or they’d be stuck using something like this right now.LOLThere is no evidence presented in this article to substantiate the idea that the buy one, get one free offers significantly impacted sales. If there is real evidence out there I will retract this. But all I have seen are vague hints that this is the reason Android and Verizon are doing so well - and that otherwise people would be flocking to the iPhone and AT&T. Barring actual evidence, I doubt that a customer going in for a feature phone is going to be swayed by a "free" phone that will cost him/her several thousand dollars over the life of the contract. I also doubt that most Verizon customers would be willing to switch to AT&T if not for this offer.
Really? You don't think buy one get one free smartphone offers influence customers? Then why do you think Verizon is willing to do it? Duh! To stem the, albeit relatively small, flow of customers to the inferior ATT network to get iPhones. ATT has shaved a tiny percent of Verizon's customers with the iphone. Its a fact. Verizon did a number of things to attempt to slow and/or stop that. Two being advertising the heck out of the Droid and giving them away! They obviously think this influences people or they wouldn't waste money doing it.