That's my other rant. Why is it "Android to iPhone" instead of "Android to iOS". iOS devices sold were over 17 million for the last quarter (counting iPod Touches and iPads) which puts them way over Android. Don't compare a whole OS to another OS's single variant.
In fact all iOSes put together (Touch, iPads and iPhones) are slightly under 18 million per quarter which is less than just the Android phone sales in the last quarter. At the rate at which the Android phones are being sold per day is increasing, and adding Android Tablets to the mix in the last quarter of this year or the first quarter of next year and all the Android non phone, non tablet devices (Sony's new gaming platform, in-car devices etc.) that number is going to only explode.
Funny juxtaposition with the earlier story that tells how half the Apple stores are Out Of Stock iPhonewise.
There's a difference between shipments and sales, perhaps?
The second quarter ended in June. iPhone 4 launched on June 24th. In other words, the iPhone 4 was only on sale for 7 out of the 91 days covered in the second quarter. Apple was selling the year old iPhone 3GS for most of the quarter. There will be a massive spike in iPhone sales in the third quarter.
Android will become the "budget" phone for those who can't get or afford an iPhone.
Is that why high-end Androids which are selling well cost as much or more than the iPhone?
The iPhone will be a premium device but not in the way you envision it. The main price differentiator for the iPhone will come not through the phone but through the apps. Free navigation on Android. Nice, but expensive TomTom app on the iPhone. Free wifi hotspot functionality on Android. Some better implemented app with the same functionality on the App store.
But "budget" phone in the sense you imagine it? Hardly.
The funny thing about this is that I'm sure that Motorola, HTC, and the other manufacturers of phones don't care one bit about this. Motorola, for example, is more interested in the number of phones Motorola sells! In fact, they might even prefer not to be lumped together under one banner, as that makes them look more like a faceless commodity brand.
The only company that this is a victory for is Google. It's like how Microsoft dominating the PC market was a victory for Microsoft but not so much the companies who made the PCs (how are the victorious PC manufacturers such as Dell, Acer, Compaq, etc. doing compared to poor little underdog Apple in the computer business these days?).
I beg to differ. The PC makers were doing quite well in the late 90s. It's just that we are now reaching the end of the PC era and transitioning to the mobile era. And the ones who can't make the transition will suffer for it.
Apple in a sense is the first PC maker to make that transition. Dell and Acer are now starting down that path. HP bought Palm. So you can see where this is going.
And KDE isn't a knockoff of Windows because of a few different details (for one, the start button is a giant K and not a Windows flag!). Deny it all you want. It's not like the whole design of Android phones changed after the iPhone came along.
So did the whole concept of desktop and widgets come along before or after the iPhone?
Read the back and fourth I have with you Apple folk....
I just wanted to say
I told you so!
Glad to see that modesty isn't one of your faults ..... but your ability to predict an almost certain to happen event .... well, to quote Shania Twain .... That don't impress me much.
Read the back and fourth I have with you Apple folk....
I just wanted to say
I told you so!
Except what you said hasn't happened yet. Android besting the sales of a year old iPhone 3GS is nothing to write home about, and it certainly doesn't mean the iPhone has failed.
A three year old could have come up with your argument, it's nothing to write home about. Who would have thought that devices built by multpile manufacturers, and available through more carriers, but using the same OS could have more total sales volume than a device built by one manufacturer???
In fact all iOSes put together (Touch, iPads and iPhones) are slightly under 18 million per quarter which is less than just the Android phone sales in the last quarter. At the rate at which the Android phones are being sold per day is increasing, and adding Android Tablets to the mix in the last quarter of this year or the first quarter of next year and all the Android non phone, non tablet devices (Sony's new gaming platform, in-car devices etc.) that number is going to only explode.
Correct me if I am wrong but I had read somewhere that all combined Apple had something like 300-400 000 activations per day. I don't think Android has surpassed all of iOS yet. Just the iPhone.
That Sony PSP Android is going to be interesting. I am curious to see how well that does. Kind of an oddball to have a closed proprietary platform (Sony PSP) running on a wider open platform. It'll be interesting to see if that puts a dent in iPod Touch sales at all.
Hardware isn't everything. First, most of their phones aren't that spectacular in the hardware department. They use the age old method of "X.X Gigahertz Processor!" and push other things that distract the buyer from the facts like cheap touchscreen that's not very responsive. not a iPod device, app store sucks, skinned interfaces lack consistency and slow the phone down...
Go to a T-Mobile store and take the Samsung Vibrant for a ride. That's with 2.1 and some flaws that will get fixed with a firmware update next month. One of the reasons why Android didn't seem to take off for the first year was because the hardware was so woefully behind the OS. It was only since the original Droid on Verizon since November of last year that the hardware has caught up with the software. The Samsung Galaxy S (on all 6 carriers in the US) and 100 carriers worldwide is possibly the first Android device that is ahead of the OS. There will be features added in Gingerbread (Android ver 3 later this year) that will make this impressive device truly rock. As it stands now, it's already significantly better than iPhone 4 in almost every respect.
Extreme, you make some good points but you are overlooking one big item ..... carriers. You cannot make a valid comparison of one company, one carrier against the total sum of all the other companies on all of the other carriers .... it just doesn't mean anything. Even the most impassioned "fanbois" (and that might well be me) can't deny that, at some point, the sum of everyone else is going to be larger than any number Apple can achieve on it's own. So what .... it just isn't a meaningful stat.
But there is something else that no one can deny either. Apple has never set out to "dominate" the marketplace. Their philosophy has always been to make "insanely great" products that change the marketplace for the better and no one, I repeat, no one has done a better job at that than Apple.
Just ask yourself what the cellphone industry would be putting out today if not for the iPhone .... what the music player industry would be putting out today if not for the iPod ..... what the music industry retail marketplace would be like if not for iTunes .... what the small form factor consumption device would look like without the iPad. Would anyone else have created the App marketplace that exists today? ... I think not.
Apple may not ever be the "leader" in sales ..... but it will always be the leader in creating the most "insanely great" products out there. The proof of that is the fact that Apple is the most copied company in the tech industry ... and that tells me everything I need to know to validate my choice to back Apple.
Some clear, level headed points, but fail to mention that Apple didn't necessarily start the change to the marketplace, just made people more aware of it. Android and a capacitive touch based phones existed before the iPhones conception. LG was the first to dip their toe in this area; developing their touch based phone at the end of 2004. Apple wasn't the first App Market as GetJar existed well before Apple came into the game. I remember using GetJar for my flip phones to find free and paid apps. Apple wasn't the first to integrate an app store into their phones either. Almost all the carriers beat them to the punch, Verizon being one of the few carriers forcing you to use their app store or no apps at all. Apple was the first to merge GetJar's openness to developers and Verizon's death grip approval process into one, so kudos there because that worked out greater than anyone expected (not sarcasm).
The music industry is now heading from rampant piracy to rampant low margin digital downloads. While Apple has been instrumental into getting people to pay for music, they've accidentally killed the "big" music industry. The upside is they've allowed for the "small" music industry to have a fighting chance against the big marketing budgets the bigger distributors take advantage of. So this one is tough call. Apple didn't create a single download application for all your music, they created the single download application for all your legal music.
The iPod wasn't a first either, nor was it a first player widely accepted into the mass market. Rio takes that claim. But there is no doubt that Apple became king when they paired the iPod with iTunes. That was a match made in heaven. The next innovative thing Apple accomplished was turning their iPods into fashion accessories. People were/are buying iPods in various colors not because they can get their favorite color, but because they can use the iPod to complement what they were wearing. Ingenious on Apple's part.
I wouldn't call the current Apple an "inventor" of anything except for the ability to market their products so well, that they suddenly become the inventors of pre-existing technology. In marketing, we wouldn't say Apple was an inventor, we would say Apple is an early adopter; leveraging little known technology for a strategic edge. Nothing wrong with that, because NO ONE does it as beautifully as Apple, and NO ONE can deny that.
When Apple was an inventor (Apple ][, Lisa, Newton, Mac) they didn't make money and no one really cared about them. Hell, even Jobs will admit Apple was desperate when they hired him back. When Apple became an innovator, the world bowed before their might.
The funny thing about this is that I'm sure that Motorola, HTC, and the other manufacturers of phones don't care one bit about this. Motorola, for example, is more interested in the number of phones Motorola sells! In fact, they might even prefer not to be lumped together under one banner, as that makes them look more like a faceless commodity brand.
Moto went from a loss making entity to profit. Ditto for Sony Ericson. HTC had bumper profits. Samsung has a huge hit on their hands with the Galaxy S. The Android hardware manufacturers seem to be doing just fine.
Extreme, you make some good points but you are overlooking one big item ..... carriers. You cannot make a valid comparison of one company, one carrier against the total sum of all the other companies on all of the other carriers .... it just doesn't mean anything. Even the most impassioned "fanbois" (and that might well be me) can't deny that, at some point, the sum of everyone else is going to be larger than any number Apple can achieve on it's own. So what .... it just isn't a meaningful stat.
But there is something else that no one can deny either. Apple has never set out to "dominate" the marketplace. Their philosophy has always been to make "insanely great" products that change the marketplace for the better and no one, I repeat, no one has done a better job at that than Apple.
Just ask yourself what the cellphone industry would be putting out today if not for the iPhone .... what the music player industry would be putting out today if not for the iPod ..... what the music industry retail marketplace would be like if not for iTunes .... what the small form factor consumption device would look like without the iPad. Would anyone else have created the App marketplace that exists today? ... I think not.
Apple may not ever be the "leader" in sales ..... but it will always be the leader in creating the most "insanely great" products out there. The proof of that is the fact that Apple is the most copied company in the tech industry ... and that tells me everything I need to know to validate my choice to back Apple.
I didn't overlook that point in fact the post after I confirmed this is always going to be the case if the articles continue to compare an operating system against a hardware device.
So if they wanted to be fair they should compare iOS and Android.
Also at least here in the US there are many phones that are only available thru one carrier. Spint has the Evo and Verizon has the Droid and Incredible.
In any case you can't knock a company like Google or even Microsoft for that matter if they decide not to get into the hardware business like Apple. Apple at anytime can decide to allow their iOS or OSX on any device but they choose not too.
I am also a person that could care less about marketshare I just like good competition because it makes for better devices.
For some their choice is always going to be Apple but clearly more people are like me. I use Windows, OSX, iOS and Android. Most won't use that many operating systems but many people do use Windows and have an iPhone or any number of combinations.
Yes it is relevant. What do you think is more relevant to Motorola? The number of units the Droid X sells or the number of total units all Android phones combined sells?
Would Motorola prefer the Droid X outsell the iPhone, or would Motorola prefer all Android sales combined outsell the iPhone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
Is that really relevant in the grand scheme of things?
And personally I only consider OS vs. OS figures relevant. Saying Android is beating the iPhone is useless information for most people except the handful that own stock in one of these OEMs.
Extreme, please remember .... one doesn't stop playing with toys because they grow old ..... they grow old because they stop playing with toys. (I only wish I was 43 again ... hell, I've got socks older than you ..hehe)
You're right sometimes we just want different toys.
Is that why high-end Androids which are selling well cost as much or more than the iPhone?
Okay, you have a point.
But, I still think comparing Android (an OS) to the iPhone (hardware + OS) isn't a fair or good comparison. What I meant by "budget" is that Android can be installed on phones by different makers, some of which will be high-end like the iPhone, some of which will no doubt be more cheaply made to appeal to the masses. This is comparable to Windows which runs on any compatible computer, and Macs/OSX, which is a closed, proprietary system. Some people like the open messiness of Windows and all the configuration required to get exactly what you want. Others prefer elegant simplicity of Apple computers and OS.
Comments
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!
That's my other rant. Why is it "Android to iPhone" instead of "Android to iOS". iOS devices sold were over 17 million for the last quarter (counting iPod Touches and iPads) which puts them way over Android. Don't compare a whole OS to another OS's single variant.
In fact all iOSes put together (Touch, iPads and iPhones) are slightly under 18 million per quarter which is less than just the Android phone sales in the last quarter. At the rate at which the Android phones are being sold per day is increasing, and adding Android Tablets to the mix in the last quarter of this year or the first quarter of next year and all the Android non phone, non tablet devices (Sony's new gaming platform, in-car devices etc.) that number is going to only explode.
Funny juxtaposition with the earlier story that tells how half the Apple stores are Out Of Stock iPhonewise.
There's a difference between shipments and sales, perhaps?
The second quarter ended in June. iPhone 4 launched on June 24th. In other words, the iPhone 4 was only on sale for 7 out of the 91 days covered in the second quarter. Apple was selling the year old iPhone 3GS for most of the quarter. There will be a massive spike in iPhone sales in the third quarter.
Android will become the "budget" phone for those who can't get or afford an iPhone.
Is that why high-end Androids which are selling well cost as much or more than the iPhone?
The iPhone will be a premium device but not in the way you envision it. The main price differentiator for the iPhone will come not through the phone but through the apps. Free navigation on Android. Nice, but expensive TomTom app on the iPhone. Free wifi hotspot functionality on Android. Some better implemented app with the same functionality on the App store.
But "budget" phone in the sense you imagine it? Hardly.
The funny thing about this is that I'm sure that Motorola, HTC, and the other manufacturers of phones don't care one bit about this. Motorola, for example, is more interested in the number of phones Motorola sells! In fact, they might even prefer not to be lumped together under one banner, as that makes them look more like a faceless commodity brand.
The only company that this is a victory for is Google. It's like how Microsoft dominating the PC market was a victory for Microsoft but not so much the companies who made the PCs (how are the victorious PC manufacturers such as Dell, Acer, Compaq, etc. doing compared to poor little underdog Apple in the computer business these days?).
I beg to differ. The PC makers were doing quite well in the late 90s. It's just that we are now reaching the end of the PC era and transitioning to the mobile era. And the ones who can't make the transition will suffer for it.
Apple in a sense is the first PC maker to make that transition. Dell and Acer are now starting down that path. HP bought Palm. So you can see where this is going.
These numbers are pretty pathetic, if you think about it?
And KDE isn't a knockoff of Windows because of a few different details (for one, the start button is a giant K and not a Windows flag!). Deny it all you want. It's not like the whole design of Android phones changed after the iPhone came along.
So did the whole concept of desktop and widgets come along before or after the iPhone?
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!
Glad to see that modesty isn't one of your faults ..... but your ability to predict an almost certain to happen event .... well, to quote Shania Twain .... That don't impress me much.
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!
Except what you said hasn't happened yet. Android besting the sales of a year old iPhone 3GS is nothing to write home about, and it certainly doesn't mean the iPhone has failed.
A three year old could have come up with your argument, it's nothing to write home about. Who would have thought that devices built by multpile manufacturers, and available through more carriers, but using the same OS could have more total sales volume than a device built by one manufacturer???
In fact all iOSes put together (Touch, iPads and iPhones) are slightly under 18 million per quarter which is less than just the Android phone sales in the last quarter. At the rate at which the Android phones are being sold per day is increasing, and adding Android Tablets to the mix in the last quarter of this year or the first quarter of next year and all the Android non phone, non tablet devices (Sony's new gaming platform, in-car devices etc.) that number is going to only explode.
Correct me if I am wrong but I had read somewhere that all combined Apple had something like 300-400 000 activations per day. I don't think Android has surpassed all of iOS yet. Just the iPhone.
That Sony PSP Android is going to be interesting. I am curious to see how well that does. Kind of an oddball to have a closed proprietary platform (Sony PSP) running on a wider open platform. It'll be interesting to see if that puts a dent in iPod Touch sales at all.
Hardware isn't everything. First, most of their phones aren't that spectacular in the hardware department. They use the age old method of "X.X Gigahertz Processor!" and push other things that distract the buyer from the facts like cheap touchscreen that's not very responsive. not a iPod device, app store sucks, skinned interfaces lack consistency and slow the phone down...
Go to a T-Mobile store and take the Samsung Vibrant for a ride. That's with 2.1 and some flaws that will get fixed with a firmware update next month. One of the reasons why Android didn't seem to take off for the first year was because the hardware was so woefully behind the OS. It was only since the original Droid on Verizon since November of last year that the hardware has caught up with the software. The Samsung Galaxy S (on all 6 carriers in the US) and 100 carriers worldwide is possibly the first Android device that is ahead of the OS. There will be features added in Gingerbread (Android ver 3 later this year) that will make this impressive device truly rock. As it stands now, it's already significantly better than iPhone 4 in almost every respect.
Extreme, you make some good points but you are overlooking one big item ..... carriers. You cannot make a valid comparison of one company, one carrier against the total sum of all the other companies on all of the other carriers .... it just doesn't mean anything. Even the most impassioned "fanbois" (and that might well be me) can't deny that, at some point, the sum of everyone else is going to be larger than any number Apple can achieve on it's own. So what .... it just isn't a meaningful stat.
But there is something else that no one can deny either. Apple has never set out to "dominate" the marketplace. Their philosophy has always been to make "insanely great" products that change the marketplace for the better and no one, I repeat, no one has done a better job at that than Apple.
Just ask yourself what the cellphone industry would be putting out today if not for the iPhone .... what the music player industry would be putting out today if not for the iPod ..... what the music industry retail marketplace would be like if not for iTunes .... what the small form factor consumption device would look like without the iPad. Would anyone else have created the App marketplace that exists today? ... I think not.
Apple may not ever be the "leader" in sales ..... but it will always be the leader in creating the most "insanely great" products out there. The proof of that is the fact that Apple is the most copied company in the tech industry ... and that tells me everything I need to know to validate my choice to back Apple.
Some clear, level headed points, but fail to mention that Apple didn't necessarily start the change to the marketplace, just made people more aware of it. Android and a capacitive touch based phones existed before the iPhones conception. LG was the first to dip their toe in this area; developing their touch based phone at the end of 2004. Apple wasn't the first App Market as GetJar existed well before Apple came into the game. I remember using GetJar for my flip phones to find free and paid apps. Apple wasn't the first to integrate an app store into their phones either. Almost all the carriers beat them to the punch, Verizon being one of the few carriers forcing you to use their app store or no apps at all. Apple was the first to merge GetJar's openness to developers and Verizon's death grip approval process into one, so kudos there because that worked out greater than anyone expected (not sarcasm).
The music industry is now heading from rampant piracy to rampant low margin digital downloads. While Apple has been instrumental into getting people to pay for music, they've accidentally killed the "big" music industry. The upside is they've allowed for the "small" music industry to have a fighting chance against the big marketing budgets the bigger distributors take advantage of. So this one is tough call. Apple didn't create a single download application for all your music, they created the single download application for all your legal music.
The iPod wasn't a first either, nor was it a first player widely accepted into the mass market. Rio takes that claim. But there is no doubt that Apple became king when they paired the iPod with iTunes. That was a match made in heaven. The next innovative thing Apple accomplished was turning their iPods into fashion accessories. People were/are buying iPods in various colors not because they can get their favorite color, but because they can use the iPod to complement what they were wearing. Ingenious on Apple's part.
I wouldn't call the current Apple an "inventor" of anything except for the ability to market their products so well, that they suddenly become the inventors of pre-existing technology. In marketing, we wouldn't say Apple was an inventor, we would say Apple is an early adopter; leveraging little known technology for a strategic edge. Nothing wrong with that, because NO ONE does it as beautifully as Apple, and NO ONE can deny that.
When Apple was an inventor (Apple ][, Lisa, Newton, Mac) they didn't make money and no one really cared about them. Hell, even Jobs will admit Apple was desperate when they hired him back. When Apple became an innovator, the world bowed before their might.
The funny thing about this is that I'm sure that Motorola, HTC, and the other manufacturers of phones don't care one bit about this. Motorola, for example, is more interested in the number of phones Motorola sells! In fact, they might even prefer not to be lumped together under one banner, as that makes them look more like a faceless commodity brand.
Moto went from a loss making entity to profit. Ditto for Sony Ericson. HTC had bumper profits. Samsung has a huge hit on their hands with the Galaxy S. The Android hardware manufacturers seem to be doing just fine.
Extreme, you make some good points but you are overlooking one big item ..... carriers. You cannot make a valid comparison of one company, one carrier against the total sum of all the other companies on all of the other carriers .... it just doesn't mean anything. Even the most impassioned "fanbois" (and that might well be me) can't deny that, at some point, the sum of everyone else is going to be larger than any number Apple can achieve on it's own. So what .... it just isn't a meaningful stat.
But there is something else that no one can deny either. Apple has never set out to "dominate" the marketplace. Their philosophy has always been to make "insanely great" products that change the marketplace for the better and no one, I repeat, no one has done a better job at that than Apple.
Just ask yourself what the cellphone industry would be putting out today if not for the iPhone .... what the music player industry would be putting out today if not for the iPod ..... what the music industry retail marketplace would be like if not for iTunes .... what the small form factor consumption device would look like without the iPad. Would anyone else have created the App marketplace that exists today? ... I think not.
Apple may not ever be the "leader" in sales ..... but it will always be the leader in creating the most "insanely great" products out there. The proof of that is the fact that Apple is the most copied company in the tech industry ... and that tells me everything I need to know to validate my choice to back Apple.
I didn't overlook that point in fact the post after I confirmed this is always going to be the case if the articles continue to compare an operating system against a hardware device.
So if they wanted to be fair they should compare iOS and Android.
Also at least here in the US there are many phones that are only available thru one carrier. Spint has the Evo and Verizon has the Droid and Incredible.
In any case you can't knock a company like Google or even Microsoft for that matter if they decide not to get into the hardware business like Apple. Apple at anytime can decide to allow their iOS or OSX on any device but they choose not too.
I am also a person that could care less about marketshare I just like good competition because it makes for better devices.
For some their choice is always going to be Apple but clearly more people are like me. I use Windows, OSX, iOS and Android. Most won't use that many operating systems but many people do use Windows and have an iPhone or any number of combinations.
Would Motorola prefer the Droid X outsell the iPhone, or would Motorola prefer all Android sales combined outsell the iPhone?
Is that really relevant in the grand scheme of things?
And personally I only consider OS vs. OS figures relevant. Saying Android is beating the iPhone is useless information for most people except the handful that own stock in one of these OEMs.
Extreme, please remember .... one doesn't stop playing with toys because they grow old ..... they grow old because they stop playing with toys. (I only wish I was 43 again ... hell, I've got socks older than you ..hehe)
You're right sometimes we just want different toys.
Profitability for whom? Google? Manufacturers? Developers?
Is that why high-end Androids which are selling well cost as much or more than the iPhone?
Okay, you have a point.
But, I still think comparing Android (an OS) to the iPhone (hardware + OS) isn't a fair or good comparison. What I meant by "budget" is that Android can be installed on phones by different makers, some of which will be high-end like the iPhone, some of which will no doubt be more cheaply made to appeal to the masses. This is comparable to Windows which runs on any compatible computer, and Macs/OSX, which is a closed, proprietary system. Some people like the open messiness of Windows and all the configuration required to get exactly what you want. Others prefer elegant simplicity of Apple computers and OS.
To each his own.
Macintosh Desk Accessories, 1984
So did the whole concept of desktop and widgets come along before or after the iPhone?