Even if the iPhone were to appear on Verizon, Apple would still lose the market share race. Apple doesn't license iOS, you can only get iOS on an iPhone. Android on the other hand is available on many different handsets. There's no way Apple could compete - no way.
As for blaming themselves, Apple is apparently content with their market share, as their business model is the same with OS X. They haven't screwed up, they do very well for themselves.
Still can't figure out why this doesn't/didn't apply to "Plays for Sure" and the iPod. For a hint - see below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masteric
Apple can blame themselves for Android's explosion. Had they come out with an iPhone for other networks two years ago, they would have prevented a lot of the sales of Android phones. I am not saying that Android would not have been a viable and profitable platform, I just don't think it would be as big today as it is if the iPhone was available on other carriers.
Apple screwed up on this one. They have a large portion of the smartphone market, but they could of had a lot more.
Couldn't agree more. CDMA should have been on the 3GS at the latest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant
Even if the iPhone were to appear on Verizon, Apple would still lose the market share race. Apple doesn't license iOS, you can only get iOS on an iPhone. Android on the other hand is available on many different handsets. There's no way Apple could compete - no way.
As for blaming themselves, Apple is apparently content with their market share, as their business model is the same with OS X. They haven't screwed up, they do very well for themselves.
This is NOT how Steve Jobs sees it. Here's the whole quote from 2004. BTW - Gruber has a great piece on this.
"If that?s so, then why is the Mac market share, even after Apple?s recent revival, sputtering at a measly 5 percent? Jobs has a theory about that, too. Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. ?The Mac user interface was a 10-year monopoly,? says Jobs. ?Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late ?80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore
Let's review the expectations that Steve Jobs stated when the iPhone was first announced - he said they would be happy with just 1% of the cellphone market. Just 1%. Against all the Nokias, RIMs, Samsungs, Sanyos, Sony Erikssons, HTCs, Motorolas and [insert company name here].
That 1% of all phones was ONLY for the first year. Not for the entire life of the product.
No one agreed with you because your reasoning was severely flawed. This is what you wrote:
While it was pretty easy to imagine a world where Android sales topped iPhone sales back then since you only had to look at how mac vs pc sales progressed (hence my 3 year old could do that comment), the reasons you stated were incorrect, and your definition of failure is even further off the mark. Considering that Apple is one of the most profitable computer manufacturers and the most profitable handset manufacturer, I think they are quite content with what you consider failure... It's no wonder people disagreed with you.
Wholy crap...
You are making the same argument that was made in the thread i posted 2 years ago.
If you did as i told you to... and read all the back and fourth posts you would see that topic was already covered.
Remaining profitable is always a good thing, but having a huge market share like Microsoft did made them transcend the normal profit/loss business model. They became a monopoly and could do almost anything they wanted.
Apple iPhone will remain profitable, but again they had an opportunity to truly dominate a market... but squandered the chance because of "control".
Android will be ubiquitous in the handheld OS. Apple will have there nice little corner with there nice little profits.
Again. Tell me what makes the iPhone highend compared to the Evo, Incredible and Droid X. The plans are pretty much the same and all the above phones cost exactly the same as the iPhone.
Also the iPhone has been out for more then 2 years so why would anyone have to wait for their provider to carry the iPhone. Should I call ATT and see if they are turning down new customers?
When the iPhone first came out the premium could at least hold water that isn't true anymore. Consumers are deciding to go with the high end Android phones and it has nothing to do with cost because the cost of ownership is exactly the same as the iPhone.
Of course AT&T isn't turning down new customers, but customers are turning down AT&T. To argue otherwise is disingenuous at best. How many surveys have been done that show U.S. iPhone owners' biggest complaint is the network it's on? Hell, my wife and I paid $600 to terminate our AT&T contracts early because we were so sick of dealing with them, and we were loving our iPhones.
The day iPhones become available on another carrier, my wife and I plan to go with that carrier (if they choose not to go with Sprint, which is who we're with now). I can guarantee you we're not the only people who feel the same way.
That's what I thought! Except I was going to say that Diesel-engined cars outsold the Mercedes AMG SL65.
What is that supposed to prove? That Diesel is better than gasoline engines? Or that the Mercedes AMG SL65 sucks?
Seriously, if people want to compare apples to apples (pun kinda intended...sorry), they need to compare smartphones where the software and hardware were made by the same company. Since we're comparing Google and Apple, let's compare the iPhone (choose any model you want) and compare it to the Nexus One. That's a truly level playing field where Google attempted to sell their own phone with their own mobile operating system, and it failed miserably.
Down to the individual companies, I'm sure they would love to have one of their products sell on par with the iPhone. But like we've been saying, in the grand scheme (i.e. big picture), a single phone not outselling the iPhone isn't a deathblow to the company nor the Android platform. Performance like that would really be icing on the cake.
You over state the "big picture". Android could be the top selling mobile OS in the world. Companies selling the phone can still go out of business. Motorola, Samsung, HTC don't all pat each other on the back about Android. They are fighting against each other for customers.
Quote:
Lets run with the Motorola example you picked. After the RAZR phenomenon, Motorola almost all but disappeared on the consumer phone area. After releasing the Droid on Verizon, they've exploded back on the scene. They followed the Droid with the X and now the Droid 2, both of which are wildly popular and sold out pretty much everywhere. And there's rumors of a tablet in the future.
Motorola has been saved from deaths door. But they are not doing great. They just aren't spiraling out of control anymore. They need to continue to sell a lot more phones.
Yes you should care. Few people would choose to invest in a product from a company that may not stay in business. For developers if Motorola goes out of business that is less phones to sell your apps to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
That's not the grand scheme of things. That's just relevant to Motorola. Should you or I as a consumer (or say developers) care whether Motorola singularly outsells the iPhone?
You cannot compare today to 30 years ago. Those widgets are black and white, the graphics are very rudimentary compared to what is expected today. The software is nothing the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Also notice: multiple, resizable, overlapping windows-- all with 128 K of RAM and an 8 MHz 68000 CPU.
Apple will likely accelerate to 1st or 2nd in the world within 3 years. When Mom, Dad and kids can get an iPhone for the same price and on the same carrier as a "Droid" or dumbphone,.
Do you really think it will take 2 or 3 years for Apple to take first place? Aren't they poised to take it sooner than that?
Read the back and fourth I have with you Apple folk....
I just wanted to say
I told you so!
Let?s analyze what you wrote and this truthiness you think you?ve predicted.
But first, a ProTip: Notice that for each thread there is a consecutive numeric value attributed with each post. This number is a hyperlink to that post so there is no reason to write in the post number when posting the link. Makes things easier.
So let?s begin? You wrote that "The iPhone will fail the same way the original Macs did because of the tight hardware/software control.?
Where has it failed? The iPhone sold about 9M units in a quarter people mostly waited for a new iPhone. It?s also the MOST PROFITABLE handset on the market, almost besting all other vendors combined.
Now, I know from rereading that thread that you don?t understand the concept of business and how companies try to make money or that Apple has chosen not to license iOS because it?s entire desire to create iOS is to sell its hardware, the same way Motorola?s desire to use the free Android OS to make money on HW sales. But it?s a reality that you need to accept and realize that Apple is not only far from ?failing? but also the MOST PROFITABLE handset vendor on the planet, and that won?t be ending anytime soon.
Quote:
People will stop looking at their cell phones as "phones" and see them for what they are... mini computers. Once people get a feel for a 'mini computer cell phone' that they can customize any way they like only having to pay for the data/voice plan. This market will be flipped on its head.
YOu start off posting the obvious, but I mention it because you fail to see it was Apple that flipped the market on its head with the iPhone. It was lackadaisical, at best, before the iPhone and every smartphone user should thank Apple for revitalizing that market segment.
There is nothing there at no one didn?t already know before you. Most seem to know it prior to 2007 with the idea and concept of a phone by Apple.
Quote:
Apple is once again starting this tech revolution, but there game plan looks to be the same to me. They did lose the PC war you know.
They lost the PC war yet they are they are the most profitable PC maker in the world, and by a wide margin. Again, you are focusing on unit sales of an OS, which makes absolutely no sense until you reach the ?event horizon? of such low sales that you don?t have apps to support your platform. Apple does and the open standard they and others pushed from ports to protocols to browser engines have pushed those goal posts further back so that an OS can have even less marketshare than Apple had in the 90s and still have a viable platform.
You seem to think Apple needs to ?win? some marketshare of their OS to be successful, but consider following unrealistic scenario. Apple gets the worldwide marketshare of HP with about 22%. That means 22% of the world?s PCs ship with Mac OS X. That also means about 77% of the world?s PC ship with Windows. You still call that a fail for Apple, yet they are now making about 80% of all PC profits worldwide yet they have ¼ of the OS marketshare of Windows. Do you not see how your foolish focus on comparing a freely licensed OS to a vendor owned OS makes you look like and idiot and why no one agreed with you then or now?
As far as Android is concerned, anyone with two braincells to rub together expected it to eventually be top dog in the number of units shipped on smartphones compared to any of the vendor owned OSes because it?s free and can be used by a much larger pool of vendors. One vendor v. potentially infinite number of vendors. It?s pretty fraking simple.
To conclude, you?ve prognosticated nothing. All you?ve done is bring up a thread that shows not only the long time members, but also the newer ones, that your ability to think critically is severely hindered.
I'm looking at my Droid's 3.7" screen and you could have fooled me. I can see everything from Facebook updates to the weather, to what's on my calendar, to all the texts that have been sent to me (just a tiny sampling of what I have). If I need to add information, I can do it right from the that screen.
All without having to find the icon to launch that particular app.
Do you have an example of these widgets?
The term can be used in multiple ways, but without clarification people might think you mean little windowed apps you can move around on your tiny screen.
That makes no sense to me, however, having a screen with different information that can be set up to be shown altogether, like LockInfo, could be considered widgets. For Apple to do this for the lock screen or a drop down from the Menu Bar or with a Home Button click or whatever would need an API. They would have to be sold via the App Store.
I simply can?t see windowed widgets made with HTML, CSS, and JS. If you disagree, please make an argument for them. I simply can?t see it.
This is just nutty, almost everything you say here is inaccurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
While I'm sure all the Android OEMs would love to have that kind of attention, I don't think it's any reason to religate Android to the back burner. Every device that has come out has sold incredibly well so far.
The point is though, that they haven't relative to iPhone. There isn't a single Android device that has sold anything near to even the worst selling iOS device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
However, when Google holds an event, they get the same reaction as an Apple event. ....
This is just pure fantasy. I've been following the tech media since before Google existed and *never* has a Google event got anything like the attention Apple events get.
That's what I thought! Except I was going to say that Diesel-engined cars outsold the Mercedes AMG SL65.
What is that supposed to prove? That Diesel is better than gasoline engines? Or that the Mercedes AMG SL65 sucks?
This is the best analogy.
Everyone except the Android promoters notices right away that the comparison is faulty because it compares multiple handsets to a single model, but most don't see that there is another level of inaccuracy in that what this study really does is compare an OS to a device, which is total nonsense.
The Android side of the equation covers every device in the world that runs Android, whereas the for other side of the equation they just place the iPhone and leave out the millions of other devices running iOS.
It's the emergence of a new mobile platform, the only proper comparison is devices running iOS vs devices running Android. If that's the metric used, iOS squashes Android like a bug in every single market and will likely continue to do so.
Which is only fitting because Android is a copy of iOS and owes it's very existence to iOS.
Exactly. With all the BOGO deals Verizon has, they had better beat the iPhone in terms of most phones sold. Just look at Motorola, they've had 3 iterations of the Droid smartphone. Droid 1, Droid X and now Droid 2. HTC, I can't even count how many phones they've released.
iPhone on one carrier with one release per year vs Android on multiple carriers with 100s of phones released each year. Just wait until this CDMA iPhone makes its way to other carriers.
The Article said Android Leap-Frogged Apple in 2nd Qtr Numbers . Well in May iPhone supplies were drying up in anticipation of iP4 in June and here it is almost September and supplies of iP4 are still constrained and waits are 2 wks. So just hold onto your spreadsheets come Apple Financials in late October we will see that flip-flop occur again and not by some slim margin. Apple hasn't even started shipping to all it's iPhone countries and won't before end of Qtr so look for another smashing CY4 Qtr (Apple FY 1 Qtr). As someone posted earlier in this thread we are comparing 1 Model from 1 Manufacturer to a Dozen Droid Models and a half Dozen Manufacturers let's compare Apples to Apples
Comments
Even if the iPhone were to appear on Verizon, Apple would still lose the market share race. Apple doesn't license iOS, you can only get iOS on an iPhone. Android on the other hand is available on many different handsets. There's no way Apple could compete - no way.
As for blaming themselves, Apple is apparently content with their market share, as their business model is the same with OS X. They haven't screwed up, they do very well for themselves.
Still can't figure out why this doesn't/didn't apply to "Plays for Sure" and the iPod. For a hint - see below.
Apple can blame themselves for Android's explosion. Had they come out with an iPhone for other networks two years ago, they would have prevented a lot of the sales of Android phones. I am not saying that Android would not have been a viable and profitable platform, I just don't think it would be as big today as it is if the iPhone was available on other carriers.
Apple screwed up on this one. They have a large portion of the smartphone market, but they could of had a lot more.
Couldn't agree more. CDMA should have been on the 3GS at the latest.
Even if the iPhone were to appear on Verizon, Apple would still lose the market share race. Apple doesn't license iOS, you can only get iOS on an iPhone. Android on the other hand is available on many different handsets. There's no way Apple could compete - no way.
As for blaming themselves, Apple is apparently content with their market share, as their business model is the same with OS X. They haven't screwed up, they do very well for themselves.
This is NOT how Steve Jobs sees it. Here's the whole quote from 2004. BTW - Gruber has a great piece on this.
"If that?s so, then why is the Mac market share, even after Apple?s recent revival, sputtering at a measly 5 percent? Jobs has a theory about that, too. Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. ?The Mac user interface was a 10-year monopoly,? says Jobs. ?Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late ?80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens.?
Let's review the expectations that Steve Jobs stated when the iPhone was first announced - he said they would be happy with just 1% of the cellphone market. Just 1%. Against all the Nokias, RIMs, Samsungs, Sanyos, Sony Erikssons, HTCs, Motorolas and [insert company name here].
That 1% of all phones was ONLY for the first year. Not for the entire life of the product.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-X_n...eature=channel
Macintosh Desk Accessories, 1984
Also notice: multiple, resizable, overlapping windows-- all with 128 K of RAM and an 8 MHz 68000 CPU.
.
No one agreed with you because your reasoning was severely flawed. This is what you wrote:
While it was pretty easy to imagine a world where Android sales topped iPhone sales back then since you only had to look at how mac vs pc sales progressed (hence my 3 year old could do that comment), the reasons you stated were incorrect, and your definition of failure is even further off the mark. Considering that Apple is one of the most profitable computer manufacturers and the most profitable handset manufacturer, I think they are quite content with what you consider failure... It's no wonder people disagreed with you.
Wholy crap...
You are making the same argument that was made in the thread i posted 2 years ago.
If you did as i told you to... and read all the back and fourth posts you would see that topic was already covered.
Remaining profitable is always a good thing, but having a huge market share like Microsoft did made them transcend the normal profit/loss business model. They became a monopoly and could do almost anything they wanted.
Apple iPhone will remain profitable, but again they had an opportunity to truly dominate a market... but squandered the chance because of "control".
Android will be ubiquitous in the handheld OS. Apple will have there nice little corner with there nice little profits.
I will be back in a few years to gloat. (Again)
Yeah, they run as well as you'd expect.
There are LOTS of $30-$60 "Android" phones out there...
Yeah, they run as well as you'd expect.
Yup, still running Android 1.6, too.
In related news, all American cars combined outsold the Toyota Camry.
Story at 11.
That's what I thought! Except I was going to say that Diesel-engined cars outsold the Mercedes AMG SL65.
What is that supposed to prove? That Diesel is better than gasoline engines? Or that the Mercedes AMG SL65 sucks?
Again. Tell me what makes the iPhone highend compared to the Evo, Incredible and Droid X. The plans are pretty much the same and all the above phones cost exactly the same as the iPhone.
Also the iPhone has been out for more then 2 years so why would anyone have to wait for their provider to carry the iPhone. Should I call ATT and see if they are turning down new customers?
When the iPhone first came out the premium could at least hold water that isn't true anymore. Consumers are deciding to go with the high end Android phones and it has nothing to do with cost because the cost of ownership is exactly the same as the iPhone.
Of course AT&T isn't turning down new customers, but customers are turning down AT&T. To argue otherwise is disingenuous at best. How many surveys have been done that show U.S. iPhone owners' biggest complaint is the network it's on? Hell, my wife and I paid $600 to terminate our AT&T contracts early because we were so sick of dealing with them, and we were loving our iPhones.
The day iPhones become available on another carrier, my wife and I plan to go with that carrier (if they choose not to go with Sprint, which is who we're with now). I can guarantee you we're not the only people who feel the same way.
That's what I thought! Except I was going to say that Diesel-engined cars outsold the Mercedes AMG SL65.
What is that supposed to prove? That Diesel is better than gasoline engines? Or that the Mercedes AMG SL65 sucks?
Seriously, if people want to compare apples to apples (pun kinda intended...sorry), they need to compare smartphones where the software and hardware were made by the same company. Since we're comparing Google and Apple, let's compare the iPhone (choose any model you want) and compare it to the Nexus One. That's a truly level playing field where Google attempted to sell their own phone with their own mobile operating system, and it failed miserably.
Down to the individual companies, I'm sure they would love to have one of their products sell on par with the iPhone. But like we've been saying, in the grand scheme (i.e. big picture), a single phone not outselling the iPhone isn't a deathblow to the company nor the Android platform. Performance like that would really be icing on the cake.
You over state the "big picture". Android could be the top selling mobile OS in the world. Companies selling the phone can still go out of business. Motorola, Samsung, HTC don't all pat each other on the back about Android. They are fighting against each other for customers.
Lets run with the Motorola example you picked. After the RAZR phenomenon, Motorola almost all but disappeared on the consumer phone area. After releasing the Droid on Verizon, they've exploded back on the scene. They followed the Droid with the X and now the Droid 2, both of which are wildly popular and sold out pretty much everywhere. And there's rumors of a tablet in the future.
Motorola has been saved from deaths door. But they are not doing great. They just aren't spiraling out of control anymore. They need to continue to sell a lot more phones.
Which begs the question from me.
Why hasn't iOS gotten widget support?
That's not the grand scheme of things. That's just relevant to Motorola. Should you or I as a consumer (or say developers) care whether Motorola singularly outsells the iPhone?
Yep. And that's not the iPhone. If the assertion is that Android copy the iPhone, then where's the widgets on iOS.
My prediction: You'll see it in iOS5.
Also notice: multiple, resizable, overlapping windows-- all with 128 K of RAM and an 8 MHz 68000 CPU.
.
Apple will likely accelerate to 1st or 2nd in the world within 3 years. When Mom, Dad and kids can get an iPhone for the same price and on the same carrier as a "Droid" or dumbphone,.
Do you really think it will take 2 or 3 years for Apple to take first place? Aren't they poised to take it sooner than that?
Go back and read this thread from aug 2008
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=90104
go down to post #14
Read the back and fourth I have with you Apple folk....
I just wanted to say
I told you so!
Let?s analyze what you wrote and this truthiness you think you?ve predicted.
But first, a ProTip: Notice that for each thread there is a consecutive numeric value attributed with each post. This number is a hyperlink to that post so there is no reason to write in the post number when posting the link. Makes things easier.
So let?s begin? You wrote that "The iPhone will fail the same way the original Macs did because of the tight hardware/software control.?
Where has it failed? The iPhone sold about 9M units in a quarter people mostly waited for a new iPhone. It?s also the MOST PROFITABLE handset on the market, almost besting all other vendors combined.
Now, I know from rereading that thread that you don?t understand the concept of business and how companies try to make money or that Apple has chosen not to license iOS because it?s entire desire to create iOS is to sell its hardware, the same way Motorola?s desire to use the free Android OS to make money on HW sales. But it?s a reality that you need to accept and realize that Apple is not only far from ?failing? but also the MOST PROFITABLE handset vendor on the planet, and that won?t be ending anytime soon.
People will stop looking at their cell phones as "phones" and see them for what they are... mini computers. Once people get a feel for a 'mini computer cell phone' that they can customize any way they like only having to pay for the data/voice plan. This market will be flipped on its head.
YOu start off posting the obvious, but I mention it because you fail to see it was Apple that flipped the market on its head with the iPhone. It was lackadaisical, at best, before the iPhone and every smartphone user should thank Apple for revitalizing that market segment.
There is nothing there at no one didn?t already know before you. Most seem to know it prior to 2007 with the idea and concept of a phone by Apple.
Apple is once again starting this tech revolution, but there game plan looks to be the same to me. They did lose the PC war you know.
They lost the PC war yet they are they are the most profitable PC maker in the world, and by a wide margin. Again, you are focusing on unit sales of an OS, which makes absolutely no sense until you reach the ?event horizon? of such low sales that you don?t have apps to support your platform. Apple does and the open standard they and others pushed from ports to protocols to browser engines have pushed those goal posts further back so that an OS can have even less marketshare than Apple had in the 90s and still have a viable platform.
You seem to think Apple needs to ?win? some marketshare of their OS to be successful, but consider following unrealistic scenario. Apple gets the worldwide marketshare of HP with about 22%. That means 22% of the world?s PCs ship with Mac OS X. That also means about 77% of the world?s PC ship with Windows. You still call that a fail for Apple, yet they are now making about 80% of all PC profits worldwide yet they have ¼ of the OS marketshare of Windows. Do you not see how your foolish focus on comparing a freely licensed OS to a vendor owned OS makes you look like and idiot and why no one agreed with you then or now?
As far as Android is concerned, anyone with two braincells to rub together expected it to eventually be top dog in the number of units shipped on smartphones compared to any of the vendor owned OSes because it?s free and can be used by a much larger pool of vendors. One vendor v. potentially infinite number of vendors. It?s pretty fraking simple.
To conclude, you?ve prognosticated nothing. All you?ve done is bring up a thread that shows not only the long time members, but also the newer ones, that your ability to think critically is severely hindered.
I'm looking at my Droid's 3.7" screen and you could have fooled me. I can see everything from Facebook updates to the weather, to what's on my calendar, to all the texts that have been sent to me (just a tiny sampling of what I have). If I need to add information, I can do it right from the that screen.
All without having to find the icon to launch that particular app.
Do you have an example of these widgets?
The term can be used in multiple ways, but without clarification people might think you mean little windowed apps you can move around on your tiny screen.
That makes no sense to me, however, having a screen with different information that can be set up to be shown altogether, like LockInfo, could be considered widgets. For Apple to do this for the lock screen or a drop down from the Menu Bar or with a Home Button click or whatever would need an API. They would have to be sold via the App Store.
I simply can?t see windowed widgets made with HTML, CSS, and JS. If you disagree, please make an argument for them. I simply can?t see it.
I will be back in a few years to gloat. (Again)
As long as you promise that we don't have to hear from you for a few years .... hell, I'm all over that!
While I'm sure all the Android OEMs would love to have that kind of attention, I don't think it's any reason to religate Android to the back burner. Every device that has come out has sold incredibly well so far.
The point is though, that they haven't relative to iPhone. There isn't a single Android device that has sold anything near to even the worst selling iOS device.
However, when Google holds an event, they get the same reaction as an Apple event. ....
This is just pure fantasy. I've been following the tech media since before Google existed and *never* has a Google event got anything like the attention Apple events get.
That's what I thought! Except I was going to say that Diesel-engined cars outsold the Mercedes AMG SL65.
What is that supposed to prove? That Diesel is better than gasoline engines? Or that the Mercedes AMG SL65 sucks?
This is the best analogy.
Everyone except the Android promoters notices right away that the comparison is faulty because it compares multiple handsets to a single model, but most don't see that there is another level of inaccuracy in that what this study really does is compare an OS to a device, which is total nonsense.
The Android side of the equation covers every device in the world that runs Android, whereas the for other side of the equation they just place the iPhone and leave out the millions of other devices running iOS.
It's the emergence of a new mobile platform, the only proper comparison is devices running iOS vs devices running Android. If that's the metric used, iOS squashes Android like a bug in every single market and will likely continue to do so.
Which is only fitting because Android is a copy of iOS and owes it's very existence to iOS.
Exactly. With all the BOGO deals Verizon has, they had better beat the iPhone in terms of most phones sold. Just look at Motorola, they've had 3 iterations of the Droid smartphone. Droid 1, Droid X and now Droid 2. HTC, I can't even count how many phones they've released.
iPhone on one carrier with one release per year vs Android on multiple carriers with 100s of phones released each year. Just wait until this CDMA iPhone makes its way to other carriers.
The Article said Android Leap-Frogged Apple in 2nd Qtr Numbers . Well in May iPhone supplies were drying up in anticipation of iP4 in June and here it is almost September and supplies of iP4 are still constrained and waits are 2 wks. So just hold onto your spreadsheets come Apple Financials in late October we will see that flip-flop occur again and not by some slim margin. Apple hasn't even started shipping to all it's iPhone countries and won't before end of Qtr so look for another smashing CY4 Qtr (Apple FY 1 Qtr). As someone posted earlier in this thread we are comparing 1 Model from 1 Manufacturer to a Dozen Droid Models and a half Dozen Manufacturers let's compare Apples to Apples