We've seen the results of it. 3G has been near useless in places like New York and San Francisco where they have a high concentration of iPhone users. I've seen no evidence of a straightforward easy fix to this problem. Outside of using different methods to limit and spread data usage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande
There's not a whole lot they can do about it unless they can keep control of their phones. Unfortunately, even though a platform like Android gives them that freedom, they can't do it due to their industry competitors and competing platforms like iOS. What you describe is a potential issue for the future, and a puzzle piece in the struggle today, but right now there is plenty the mobile telecom providers can do, and in the future, there is plenty of room for innovation and government involvement to free up new options for situations such as this.
Side deals like Skype and Bing would to some degree help sell the iPhone on Verizon. Its highly unlikely Apple would allow Verizon's side deals onto the iPhone. I wonder how would Verizon market and sell these very different situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande
deciding to lock down some of their smartphones with Bing only and stripping the ability from all but the most technically adept of their customers to choose a competitor (open works in many ways). But this is no big deal in the long run as long as Google is in many of these phones?and Google will remain in many of these phones as long as products like Google search remain popular. I'd wager Google accounted for this in their business strategy before the first Android phones hit the market.
We've seen the results of it. 3G has been near useless in places like New York and San Francisco where they have a high concentration of iPhone users. I've seen no evidence of a straightforward easy fix to this problem. Outside of using different methods to limit and spread data usage.
Sure, ignore the explanations from every company involved in the problem. AT&T needs to make their network more robust in these densely populated areas to address this problem, and part of that involves the creation of additional towers. This is particularly difficult in these areas due to the complexity of getting authorization and a good area to place the tower itself, a process which can take years (as opposed to months in much more open areas). It is something AT&T can solve, and something which they are working to solve.
That said, reception has improved significantly in both San Francisco and New York City. I spend time in both cities each year and the progress is apparent. They still have a long way to go, though. I wish AT&T compared to T-Mobile in San Francisco, for example.
Gartner is talking down the iPhone [even as it reaches record sales] because a software search company using Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc., to sell it's mobile platform somehow makes this big news?
Even as Apple ramps up their monthly iOS production to reach absurd levels with massive profit margins, Gartner's is going to tout Android with a bigger market share? BFD.
Since when is 60-100 Million iOS devices sold, per year, a problem?
Show me a company where your high in 2007 is $714.87/share and now currently $480.93/share, other than Google, that isn't being questioned massively about it's viability.
Apple has gone from $194.30 on the same day in 2007 to $272.56 presently and people are bragging about Google's platform for smartphones gain as if it's a cash cow.
I'm sure some people want a smaller phone, but most of the Android handsets I've seen are as big or even bigger than the iPhone. That tells me there's a big market for large screen phones.
Many people over 40 simply don't have the eyesight to get much value from a browser packed into 3.5". I personally can't focus on anything closer than 18" and the small text on phones usually requires it be held no more than 12" away. It's not just the web either, many apps insist on using small font sizes. For example the ESPN World Cup app used tiny text for team summaries, player bios, stats and comments. In the end I mostly used it to follow the results. At least those were presented in larger text.
When I turned 45 (many moons ago), it suddenly occurred to me that I either needed to go see an eye doctor or an arm doctor since my arms were suddenly too short. I opted for getting reading glasses rather than getting my arms lengthened,
If what you say is correct then Google is making two very poor business decisions.
1) If it?s on a webpage then the OS itself is irrelevant to Google?s ability to make money.
2) If users are naturally gravitating toward it you don?t waste money building what would happen already.
The fact that there is at least one phone that will not have any Google search, only Bing, says a lot about Google. If they really don?t care about revenue streams from Android then they are A) a foolish company, and/or have hubris in such excess that it could mark their downfall (in retrospect) as so many others before them. In either case I?m glad I am no longer an investor.
Actually it is reelevant to Google's ability to make money. Mobile users using search, voice services and all apparently are incremental revenue streams. It therefore enhances Google's ability to make money. It is the ability to deliver Google services on the platform that is the key here.
Second issue, to the extent that IOS became a defacto standard, Apple could restrict Google's ability to generate revenue from that platform. In that sense, Android becomes "defensive". Apple's decision to block Google Voice, for instance, provides some evidence of that concern. Therefore a good strategy.
The author of that article doesn't know what he's talking about. "Bnet estimates"? He just spouts some number ($10 per user per year) that Schmidt casually mentioned in a WSJ interview, and then (randomly) doubles it.
In any event, it is rounding error vis-a-vis Google's total revenues. As I mentioned before, Google gets 96% of revenue from ads in their own websites and in Google Network websites.
Tell me what makes more sense, this estimate or the bold claim that Google makes zero dollars from Android? Then ask yourself, this question, why attack the BNet estimate, rather than the estimate of zero?
Actually it is reelevant to Google's ability to make money. Mobile users using search, voice services and all apparently are incremental revenue streams. It therefore enhances Google's ability to make money. It is the ability to deliver Google services on the platform that is the key here.
Second issue, to the extent that IOS became a defacto standard, Apple could restrict Google's ability to generate revenue from that platform. In that sense, Android becomes "defensive". Apple's decision to block Google Voice, for instance, provides some evidence of that concern. Therefore a good strategy.
This stuff probably makes more sense when also pointing out that this is likely a long-term strategy on Google's part. They're betting on the future of mobile devices and, if they're right, much of the profits they're aiming for will be realized down the road. And I do think they're right. Do do other industry players like Steve Jobs. Numbers support them. But Google should also be making money in the present as well.
As for Apple, it did look like they were considering the hardliner defense against Google (e.g. throw obstructions up against google services like Google Voice and services like advertisements), but recently it looks like they've changed their strategy.
Didn't Apple implement overlapping window, having thought that Xerox had them? And it turned out that Xerox did no such thing, and it was an Apple innovation.
C.
Hmm... I've seen screenshots of the Xerox Star with overlapping screens.
Tell me what makes more sense, this estimate or the bold claim that Google makes zero dollars from Android? Then ask yourself, this question, why attack the BNet estimate of zero?
AGH, why did I click the un-ignore button?!?! LOL Newtron is now saying iPhone customers aren?t sophisticated. Gotta love those sophisticated Droid commercials targeted at those pimple-faced virgins who regulate their free time between masturbation and online roll-playing games. Also love those sophisticated apps for Android compared to the the iPhone. Only the unrefined would ever use an iPhone which makes me wonder why the expensive cars have docks for iPhones yet I?ve seen none for Android.
C'mon Soli try a better one. Those docks are not solely for iPhones they were made for iPods. Even a old click wheel one fits in there which was genius of Apple. BTW nobody put iPhones in the hands of the self righteous, they bought with their money and if they want to jump up and down thumping their chest about a at best borderline reception issue they have every right to do so. As far as the topic at hand goes I can see why Android is growing so. I'm a VZW subscriber and gave up waiting for the iPhone. I have a Droid 1 and its not perfect nor as refined as an iPhone but it was light years ahead of what phones they had at the time and I personally know of 8 others just like me. But each day we become more and more invested in Android, so much so that many will not be willing to give that up once an iPhone is available. The beauty of android is that a can switch phones and even switch carriers and all my apps come with me.
I really wanted to get an iphone 4 (I know, me of all people) but AT&T's 2GB datacap really turned me off. I've had my android for just under a week now and I've already gotten past 1GB of usage. I mean, imagine how much it would cost me for the iphone 4 which is just as data intensive as Android.
AT&T is what is holding the iPhone back. NONE OF YOU CAN ARGUE WITH THAT.
I do like this Galaxy S though. It takes good pictures and excellent video, it's quick, and it does everything I want. Well, maybe not everything. That video editing on the iphone is nice.
As soon as iphone is back with a company in the US with unlimited data, I think I'm getting one.
Do you really use that much 3G data? Huh? Everyplace I camp mostly my phone will connect to wifi. Nowadays infact i have changed my data plan lower on 3G. Its not even 20% of my total data usage. Wifi rules...
C'mon Soli try a better one. Those docks are not solely for iPhones they were made for iPods. Even a old click wheel one fits in there which was genius of Apple.
So the iPod is for the sophisticated and the iPhone is for the unrefined?
Note there was a definite drop in compatibility when the iPhone was first launched BECAUSE it was using a new version of OS X, not the iPod OS, so you?d be arguing that the compatibility only returned for the iPod Touch, not for the iPhone.
In a September research note, the research firm projected Apple will sell 130 million iOS-based mobile devices per year by 2014. In comparison, Gartner projected Android will sell 259 million devices in 2014.
According to recent public statements, Apple is activating 230,000 iPhones (and iPad 3G's) a day, and selling over twice that number of iOS devices a day (they passed 100M devices about July 21 -- announced on their financial call -- and 120M on Sept 1 -- announced at the iPod event). This means that Apple will sell over 130 million iOS devices in the next year! Gartner is full of it!
AT&T is what is holding the iPhone back. NONE OF YOU CAN ARGUE WITH THAT.
Maybe AT&T is holding the iPhone back, but the effect may not be as big as some think. I read an article recently that Samsung sold 1 million Galaxy S phones in 45 days on AT&T and T-mobile.
I assume that T-mobile did not sell all 1 million phones, so people who bought the Galaxy S on AT&T had the choice between the iPhone and Android, and they chose the Android.
Comments
There's not a whole lot they can do about it unless they can keep control of their phones. Unfortunately, even though a platform like Android gives them that freedom, they can't do it due to their industry competitors and competing platforms like iOS. What you describe is a potential issue for the future, and a puzzle piece in the struggle today, but right now there is plenty the mobile telecom providers can do, and in the future, there is plenty of room for innovation and government involvement to free up new options for situations such as this.
In short, it is definitely a problem.
But it is not the problem.
deciding to lock down some of their smartphones with Bing only and stripping the ability from all but the most technically adept of their customers to choose a competitor (open works in many ways). But this is no big deal in the long run as long as Google is in many of these phones?and Google will remain in many of these phones as long as products like Google search remain popular. I'd wager Google accounted for this in their business strategy before the first Android phones hit the market.
We've seen the results of it. 3G has been near useless in places like New York and San Francisco where they have a high concentration of iPhone users. I've seen no evidence of a straightforward easy fix to this problem. Outside of using different methods to limit and spread data usage.
Sure, ignore the explanations from every company involved in the problem. AT&T needs to make their network more robust in these densely populated areas to address this problem, and part of that involves the creation of additional towers. This is particularly difficult in these areas due to the complexity of getting authorization and a good area to place the tower itself, a process which can take years (as opposed to months in much more open areas). It is something AT&T can solve, and something which they are working to solve.
That said, reception has improved significantly in both San Francisco and New York City. I spend time in both cities each year and the progress is apparent. They still have a long way to go, though. I wish AT&T compared to T-Mobile in San Francisco, for example.
Even as Apple ramps up their monthly iOS production to reach absurd levels with massive profit margins, Gartner's is going to tout Android with a bigger market share? BFD.
Since when is 60-100 Million iOS devices sold, per year, a problem?
Of course if i diagree with you then I am anti Apple and a troll.......very convenient for you.......
You'll notice that I never called you a troll, ... you seem to be missing the point .....
Apple has gone from $194.30 on the same day in 2007 to $272.56 presently and people are bragging about Google's platform for smartphones gain as if it's a cash cow.
It's the exact opposite.
I'm sure some people want a smaller phone, but most of the Android handsets I've seen are as big or even bigger than the iPhone. That tells me there's a big market for large screen phones.
Many people over 40 simply don't have the eyesight to get much value from a browser packed into 3.5". I personally can't focus on anything closer than 18" and the small text on phones usually requires it be held no more than 12" away. It's not just the web either, many apps insist on using small font sizes. For example the ESPN World Cup app used tiny text for team summaries, player bios, stats and comments. In the end I mostly used it to follow the results. At least those were presented in larger text.
When I turned 45 (many moons ago), it suddenly occurred to me that I either needed to go see an eye doctor or an arm doctor since my arms were suddenly too short. I opted for getting reading glasses rather than getting my arms lengthened,
Your point is well taken.
If what you say is correct then Google is making two very poor business decisions.
1) If it?s on a webpage then the OS itself is irrelevant to Google?s ability to make money.
2) If users are naturally gravitating toward it you don?t waste money building what would happen already.
The fact that there is at least one phone that will not have any Google search, only Bing, says a lot about Google. If they really don?t care about revenue streams from Android then they are A) a foolish company, and/or
Actually it is reelevant to Google's ability to make money. Mobile users using search, voice services and all apparently are incremental revenue streams. It therefore enhances Google's ability to make money. It is the ability to deliver Google services on the platform that is the key here.
Second issue, to the extent that IOS became a defacto standard, Apple could restrict Google's ability to generate revenue from that platform. In that sense, Android becomes "defensive". Apple's decision to block Google Voice, for instance, provides some evidence of that concern. Therefore a good strategy.
The author of that article doesn't know what he's talking about. "Bnet estimates"? He just spouts some number ($10 per user per year) that Schmidt casually mentioned in a WSJ interview, and then (randomly) doubles it.
In any event, it is rounding error vis-a-vis Google's total revenues. As I mentioned before, Google gets 96% of revenue from ads in their own websites and in Google Network websites.
Tell me what makes more sense, this estimate or the bold claim that Google makes zero dollars from Android? Then ask yourself, this question, why attack the BNet estimate, rather than the estimate of zero?
Actually it is reelevant to Google's ability to make money. Mobile users using search, voice services and all apparently are incremental revenue streams. It therefore enhances Google's ability to make money. It is the ability to deliver Google services on the platform that is the key here.
Second issue, to the extent that IOS became a defacto standard, Apple could restrict Google's ability to generate revenue from that platform. In that sense, Android becomes "defensive". Apple's decision to block Google Voice, for instance, provides some evidence of that concern. Therefore a good strategy.
This stuff probably makes more sense when also pointing out that this is likely a long-term strategy on Google's part. They're betting on the future of mobile devices and, if they're right, much of the profits they're aiming for will be realized down the road. And I do think they're right. Do do other industry players like Steve Jobs. Numbers support them. But Google should also be making money in the present as well.
As for Apple, it did look like they were considering the hardliner defense against Google (e.g. throw obstructions up against google services like Google Voice and services like advertisements), but recently it looks like they've changed their strategy.
Didn't Apple implement overlapping window, having thought that Xerox had them? And it turned out that Xerox did no such thing, and it was an Apple innovation.
C.
Hmm... I've seen screenshots of the Xerox Star with overlapping screens.
Hmm... I've seen screenshots of the Xerox Star with overlapping screens.
ViewPoint enhancement.
Tell me what makes more sense, this estimate or the bold claim that Google makes zero dollars from Android? Then ask yourself, this question, why attack the BNet estimate of zero?
ZERO = so tiny it doesn't matter.
AGH, why did I click the un-ignore button?!?! LOL Newtron is now saying iPhone customers aren?t sophisticated. Gotta love those sophisticated Droid commercials targeted at those pimple-faced virgins who regulate their free time between masturbation and online roll-playing games. Also love those sophisticated apps for Android compared to the the iPhone. Only the unrefined would ever use an iPhone which makes me wonder why the expensive cars have docks for iPhones yet I?ve seen none for Android.
C'mon Soli try a better one. Those docks are not solely for iPhones they were made for iPods. Even a old click wheel one fits in there which was genius of Apple. BTW nobody put iPhones in the hands of the self righteous, they bought with their money and if they want to jump up and down thumping their chest about a at best borderline reception issue they have every right to do so. As far as the topic at hand goes I can see why Android is growing so. I'm a VZW subscriber and gave up waiting for the iPhone. I have a Droid 1 and its not perfect nor as refined as an iPhone but it was light years ahead of what phones they had at the time and I personally know of 8 others just like me. But each day we become more and more invested in Android, so much so that many will not be willing to give that up once an iPhone is available. The beauty of android is that a can switch phones and even switch carriers and all my apps come with me.
I just got an Android phone
I really wanted to get an iphone 4 (I know, me of all people) but AT&T's 2GB datacap really turned me off. I've had my android for just under a week now and I've already gotten past 1GB of usage. I mean, imagine how much it would cost me for the iphone 4 which is just as data intensive as Android.
AT&T is what is holding the iPhone back. NONE OF YOU CAN ARGUE WITH THAT.
I do like this Galaxy S though. It takes good pictures and excellent video, it's quick, and it does everything I want. Well, maybe not everything. That video editing on the iphone is nice.
As soon as iphone is back with a company in the US with unlimited data, I think I'm getting one.
Do you really use that much 3G data? Huh? Everyplace I camp mostly my phone will connect to wifi. Nowadays infact i have changed my data plan lower on 3G. Its not even 20% of my total data usage. Wifi rules...
C'mon Soli try a better one. Those docks are not solely for iPhones they were made for iPods. Even a old click wheel one fits in there which was genius of Apple.
So the iPod is for the sophisticated and the iPhone is for the unrefined?
Note there was a definite drop in compatibility when the iPhone was first launched BECAUSE it was using a new version of OS X, not the iPod OS, so you?d be arguing that the compatibility only returned for the iPod Touch, not for the iPhone.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/...Top+Stories%29
In a September research note, the research firm projected Apple will sell 130 million iOS-based mobile devices per year by 2014. In comparison, Gartner projected Android will sell 259 million devices in 2014.
According to recent public statements, Apple is activating 230,000 iPhones (and iPad 3G's) a day, and selling over twice that number of iOS devices a day (they passed 100M devices about July 21 -- announced on their financial call -- and 120M on Sept 1 -- announced at the iPod event). This means that Apple will sell over 130 million iOS devices in the next year! Gartner is full of it!
I just got an Android phone
AT&T is what is holding the iPhone back. NONE OF YOU CAN ARGUE WITH THAT.
Maybe AT&T is holding the iPhone back, but the effect may not be as big as some think. I read an article recently that Samsung sold 1 million Galaxy S phones in 45 days on AT&T and T-mobile.
I assume that T-mobile did not sell all 1 million phones, so people who bought the Galaxy S on AT&T had the choice between the iPhone and Android, and they chose the Android.
Apple's up almost 6 points today and is now at 276.11.
Apple's Market Cap: $252 Billion
Google's Market Cap: $152 Billion