God I hope they do pass Exxon. With the amount of stock I own. See you forget I am the true shareholder you are just the fanboy. I actually have well over a million vested in Apple doing well unlike you.
I see this type of horseshit on the bullboards every day. If I had a nickel for every post that I've seen like this in the last 20 years I really would have that million.
I see this type of horseshit on the bullboards every day. If I had a nickel for every post that I've seen like this in the last 20 years I really would have that million.
I work for IBM and have for over 20 years. Its doesn't take much to figure out many of us own a ton of Apple stock. Most of us are pre iPod stock owners.
God I hope they do pass Exxon. With the amount of stock I own. See you forget I am the true shareholder you are just the fanboy. I actually have well over a million vested in Apple doing well unlike you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
I see this type of horseshit on the bullboards every day. If I had a nickel for every post that I've seen like this in the last 20 years I really would have that million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
I work for IBM and have for over 20 years. Its doesn't take much to figure out many of us own a ton of Apple stock. Most of us are pre iPod stock owners... I could give a shit less if you believe me.
LOL requirements for the antiHero antiFanboy antiApple [troll]:
1. Must own Apple stock
2. Must own tons of Apple stock
3. Must say "Actually, I have a Mac, but..."
4. Must say "Actually, I have an iPhone, but..."
5. Must say "Actually, I do own an iPad, but..."
6. Must have been a Mac user pre-iPod days
7. Must have been a Mac user pre-iPhone days
8. Must say "I like Apple, but..."
9. Must have worked in X famous tech company for over X years
10. Bonus points if "ran *own company* for over X years"
11. Bonus points if considered "Creative Pro back when the days when Apple cared about us"
Let see so we have iPad and iOS record sales and we have Android record sales which promotes Flash as a benefit over iOS. So it appears to me that Apple has done nothing to slow down Flash or help move to HTML5 or any other alternative.
The fly in the ointment is what percentage of these Android devices are actually running Flash? What percentage are running Froyo 2.2? Android != Flash
I long for Android OS 3.0 and a suitably well selling Android Tablet, just to force stupid "analysts" like this to stop using such flawed data by excluding the iPod Touches/iPads from this sort of commentary. The real story is the battle for the mobile OS on all mobile devices, and not the most popular phone OS.
The fact that the graphs don't use "iOS" and still use "iPhone OS" just makes these stand out as being either produced by someone without a clue, or by someone with an agenda to cook the figures.
As of species, the flies are outnumbering humans by a vast percentage. (But they have lower income). Statistics can be fun.
The numbers are about mindshare. Android got a big boost this spring (esp. second quarter) when it passed the iPhone (not the iOS) in new sales in the US - and the commenters are making the most of it for weeks and weeks. Even with outright misinformation, like in the Newsweek article from Oct 3:
Quote:
"Rubin says... Android now has leapt past Apple to become the biggest smart-phone platform in the United States, the third-biggest worldwide, and by far the fastest growing."
See?
1) Confusing rate of growth with installed user base
2) Confusing full "platform" of Android with the iPhone section of the iOS platform
3) Lying about the world wide installed user base.
Fastest-growing being the only true statement here, and only during the second quarter of US sales. I think Android deserves credit for that growth, but not at the cost of reality.
And Newsweeks's Daniel Lyons goes on with the traditional lie about history:
Quote:
The struggle between Google and Apple today looks a lot like the battle between Apple and Microsoft in the PC era. Back then, Apple leapt out to an early lead with the Macintosh, whose revolutionary operating system ran only on Apple machines. But Microsoft came up with a version of Windows that could compete with the Mac. Because Microsoft licensed its software to all of the world’s computer makers, it eventually controlled 90 percent of the market.
Apple never had more than 12-14% market share compared to DOS PCs. That cannot be called a "lead" in anybody's book. Not anywhere near the lead Apple has had with the iPod and iPhone.
This kind of mindshare propaganda will certainly go on, at least until the autumn sales have been published. If I were a tech jornalist I'd halt the fortune telling and long-time prospect forecasts until the end of November or new year. But my page views would go down and I'd lose the job, probably.
I long for Android OS 3.0 and a suitably well selling Android Tablet, just to force stupid "analysts" like this to stop using such flawed data by excluding the iPod Touches/iPads from this sort of commentary. The real story is the battle for the mobile OS on all mobile devices, and not the most popular phone OS.
The fact that the graphs don't use "iOS" and still use "iPhone OS" just makes these stand out as being either produced by someone without a clue, or by someone with an agenda to cook the figures.
Agreed - but according to Andy Rubin, the creator of Android (as cited in the Newsweek article), it's the version after 3.0 gingerbread that's optimized for tablets:
Quote:
Right now Rubin?s engineers are putting the finishing touches on the next version of Android, code-named Gingerbread, which is scheduled to ship before the end of this year. They?re also developing a version of Android called Honeycomb, which is designed to run on tablet computers and will follow on the heels of Gingerbread.
So I guess LG (who recently postponed their tablet saying Android 2.2 wasn't good enough) will have to wait a bit longer.
What you said was that no iPad app could run on the iPhone.
That is not what he said. Here is what he said:
"Yeah, that's why I can't run an application specifically written for the iPad on an iPhone. As a matter of fact, they can't currently even run the same version of iOS, can they???? "
DID YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS? Did you follow the thread?
1) "This whole post assumes that consumers give a rats ass about profits, which I can assure they don't."
DUDE: my first post was to those that were saying that Android was making all this money and that it was way better than Apple's model of revenue. It's the Droid fans who brought up the revenue issue.
but since you brought up the topic of users and profits...
Perhaps some users don't give a rat's ass about profits but they certainly should. WHY? Perhaps you should ask the no profit Palm users (in limbo as Palm is being slowly digested by HP). go ask the msft KIN phone users, the Win Mo 6 users...
also go ask the AMIGA users, the people who bought BETAMAX players, the OS2 users...
No profits can mean END of LINE for your product or at best it means nothing for R&D, bad customer service, sucky hardware as OEMs cut costs, go ask the no profit NETBOOK users about that...
2)"Incidently, each extra Android device on the market is an additional revenue stream for Google through the sale of products, services and advertising."
Shoot, are you DENSE or what? THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID does NOT happen EVERY TIME. I explained it sideways and backwards with examples that even small brained reptiles could understand.
here AGAIN (for like the third time):
"in the situations WHEN CARRIERS LOAD BING, YAHOO OR BAIDU ON THEIR PHONE, WHEN PEOPLE OPEN THEIR OWN APP STORES AND LOCK GOOGLE OUT, WHEN PHONES ARE BUILT SO THAT THEY LOCKED DOWN TO THIER OWN NON GOOGLE APPS AND CAN'T ACCESS GOOGLE ANDROID MARKET GOOGLE MAKES LESS OR NOTHING".
get it? If a phone runs Bing Google gets zilch from search. If they run non google maps, services etc same thing.
If users buy apps from a NON google store and they are sprouting: Google gets zilch.
Some phones in Asia come with Baidu not Google and are locked down. You can't even download apps from Google android market. Google profit from them Zero.
If advertisers use other ad agencies and not Google's Admob, google loses revenue
etc (all I explained in DETAIL in my first posts)
I even gave an EXAMPLE in my first post:
"Engadget on Moto Backflip:
"Yahoo has replaced Google as the default search provider throughout the phone. It's crazy: the home screen widget, the browser, everything's been programmed to use Yahoo.
It's filled to the brim with pre-loaded AT&T stuff: AllSport GPS, AT&T Maps, AT&T Music (which takes the place of the standard Music app), AT&T Navigator, AT&T Wi-Fi Hotspots, Mobile Banking, MobiTV, MusicID, Where, and YPmobile. We strongly prefer the approach of offering a special branded Android Market portal where you can download your carrier's recommended apps."
Another:
Electronista:
"Verizon's decision to force the use of Bing as the core search engine on the Samsung Fascinate may be part of a larger change that could undermine Android itself, .... Verizon's approach also prevents owners from choosing an alternative short of installing unofficial firmware, an investigation found."
I also explained that if people are looking at Google ads on their phones they are NOT (probably) looking AT THE SAME TIME at ads on their laptops or desktops: page view GAIN for Google ZERO.
Man you DON"T READ and you SPOUT!
I remember about a zillion years ago when I sold stereos for a failing company. It was a Washington's Birthday Sale, which was, at the time, a big deal in the CE world. Our store was nearly empty. The competitor down the street was packed.
I listened as one of the salesmen, who used to hold a mid-level position at the competitor, tell us all about how the competitor was losing money and that their strategy could never work. He had complex reasons why they could never make any money doing what they were doing.
The guys I worked for went belly up. The competitor became a national chain.
You remind me of the bitter former mid-level guy with his complex theories about how those guys could not possibly be making any money.
The iOS vs Android is nothing at all like Mac vs PC. Mac vs PC could have been labeled "easy to use but expensive" vs "the business culture"... try to neatly package iOS or Android. Totally different dynamics.
While the Mac vs. PC story is always cited as an "Apple fail" - it has an interesting coda.
Apple is now the most profitable personal computer manufacturer too. It makes more money sellng Macs than any Windows box maker.
When any manufacturer, be they cellphone or computer, gives up on software development and outsources it to Microsoft or Google. They lose the ability to differentiate their products.
They become a commodity, sold only on a simple price/features axis. And the exact same process is happening to Android phones. They become interchangeable and generic. Very cheap, with lots of features.
This isn't bad news for consumers, but it is bad news for those manufacturers, who have to settle for 5% profit margins.
While the Mac vs. PC story is always cited as an "Apple fail" - it has an interesting coda.
Apple is now the most profitable personal computer manufacturer too. It makes more money sellng Macs than any Windows box maker.
When any manufacturer, be they cellphone or computer, gives up on software development and outsources it to Microsoft or Google. They lose the ability to differentiate their products.
They become a commodity, sold only on a simple price/features axis. And the exact same process is happening to Android phones. They become interchangeable and generic. Very cheap, with lots of features.
This isn't bad news for consumers, but it is bad news for those manufacturers, who have to settle for 5% profit margins.
If you look at the PC, you see a product that has stagnated because its progress is tied to a single vendor.
The hardware manufacturers are so impoverished there is now no possibility of them innovating new software technologies. Competition and innovation have effectively ceased. All efforts are invested in shaving down production costs, or shoehorning in an extra widget.
I would argue that this is not an entirely good thing. Markets perform best when there are multiple vendors with independent solutions to offer.
If you look at the PC, you see a product that has stagnated because its progress is tied to a single vendor.
The hardware manufacturers are so impoverished there is now no possibility of them innovating new software technologies. Competition and innovation have effectively ceased. All efforts are invested in shaving down production costs, or shoehorning in an extra widget.
I would argue that this is not an entirely good thing. Markets perform best when there are multiple vendors with independent solutions to offer.
C.
That's fine, because the product already does what I need it to do, so I'm looking to get hold of it for the cheapest price, as do the vast majority of consumers. Most people don't need to pay extra for a Mac when the cheaper option already does everything they need, and more.
Comments
God I hope they do pass Exxon. With the amount of stock I own. See you forget I am the true shareholder you are just the fanboy. I actually have well over a million vested in Apple doing well unlike you.
I see this type of horseshit on the bullboards every day. If I had a nickel for every post that I've seen like this in the last 20 years I really would have that million.
I see this type of horseshit on the bullboards every day. If I had a nickel for every post that I've seen like this in the last 20 years I really would have that million.
I work for IBM and have for over 20 years. Its doesn't take much to figure out many of us own a ton of Apple stock. Most of us are pre iPod stock owners.
I could give a shit less if you believe me.
They should be comparing Apple to other manufacturers NOT the total Android market.
Of course Android is going to be bigger than iOS it is sold by many more manufacturers who get it for FREE!
Not a fair marketplace really.
In other news: every clone PC running MS Windows outsells the MacBook. They must be better.
God I hope they do pass Exxon. With the amount of stock I own. See you forget I am the true shareholder you are just the fanboy. I actually have well over a million vested in Apple doing well unlike you.
I see this type of horseshit on the bullboards every day. If I had a nickel for every post that I've seen like this in the last 20 years I really would have that million.
I work for IBM and have for over 20 years. Its doesn't take much to figure out many of us own a ton of Apple stock. Most of us are pre iPod stock owners... I could give a shit less if you believe me.
LOL requirements for the antiHero antiFanboy antiApple [troll]:
1. Must own Apple stock
2. Must own tons of Apple stock
3. Must say "Actually, I have a Mac, but..."
4. Must say "Actually, I have an iPhone, but..."
5. Must say "Actually, I do own an iPad, but..."
6. Must have been a Mac user pre-iPod days
7. Must have been a Mac user pre-iPhone days
8. Must say "I like Apple, but..."
9. Must have worked in X famous tech company for over X years
10. Bonus points if "ran *own company* for over X years"
11. Bonus points if considered "Creative Pro back when the days when Apple cared about us"
12. Bonus points if "worked at Apple"
13. Super bonus points if "met Steve Jobs before"
Let see so we have iPad and iOS record sales and we have Android record sales which promotes Flash as a benefit over iOS. So it appears to me that Apple has done nothing to slow down Flash or help move to HTML5 or any other alternative.
The fly in the ointment is what percentage of these Android devices are actually running Flash?
http://www.techztalk.com/techwebsite...p-rising-in-us
Here's an interesting article about marketshare.
http://www.techztalk.com/techwebsite...p-rising-in-us
This one is good too.
These visualisations are great.
http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/05/the...mobile-phones/
C.
The fact that the graphs don't use "iOS" and still use "iPhone OS" just makes these stand out as being either produced by someone without a clue, or by someone with an agenda to cook the figures.
The numbers are about mindshare. Android got a big boost this spring (esp. second quarter) when it passed the iPhone (not the iOS) in new sales in the US - and the commenters are making the most of it for weeks and weeks. Even with outright misinformation, like in the Newsweek article from Oct 3:
"Rubin says... Android now has leapt past Apple to become the biggest smart-phone platform in the United States, the third-biggest worldwide, and by far the fastest growing."
See?
1) Confusing rate of growth with installed user base
2) Confusing full "platform" of Android with the iPhone section of the iOS platform
3) Lying about the world wide installed user base.
Fastest-growing being the only true statement here, and only during the second quarter of US sales. I think Android deserves credit for that growth, but not at the cost of reality.
And Newsweeks's Daniel Lyons goes on with the traditional lie about history:
The struggle between Google and Apple today looks a lot like the battle between Apple and Microsoft in the PC era. Back then, Apple leapt out to an early lead with the Macintosh, whose revolutionary operating system ran only on Apple machines. But Microsoft came up with a version of Windows that could compete with the Mac. Because Microsoft licensed its software to all of the world’s computer makers, it eventually controlled 90 percent of the market.
Apple never had more than 12-14% market share compared to DOS PCs. That cannot be called a "lead" in anybody's book. Not anywhere near the lead Apple has had with the iPod and iPhone.
This kind of mindshare propaganda will certainly go on, at least until the autumn sales have been published. If I were a tech jornalist I'd halt the fortune telling and long-time prospect forecasts until the end of November or new year. But my page views would go down and I'd lose the job, probably.
I long for Android OS 3.0 and a suitably well selling Android Tablet, just to force stupid "analysts" like this to stop using such flawed data by excluding the iPod Touches/iPads from this sort of commentary. The real story is the battle for the mobile OS on all mobile devices, and not the most popular phone OS.
The fact that the graphs don't use "iOS" and still use "iPhone OS" just makes these stand out as being either produced by someone without a clue, or by someone with an agenda to cook the figures.
Agreed - but according to Andy Rubin, the creator of Android (as cited in the Newsweek article), it's the version after 3.0 gingerbread that's optimized for tablets:
Right now Rubin?s engineers are putting the finishing touches on the next version of Android, code-named Gingerbread, which is scheduled to ship before the end of this year. They?re also developing a version of Android called Honeycomb, which is designed to run on tablet computers and will follow on the heels of Gingerbread.
So I guess LG (who recently postponed their tablet saying Android 2.2 wasn't good enough) will have to wait a bit longer.
Apple give real results and claimed to be outpacing the Market.
.
Let's see those real results! Let's see those claims!
I think you must made that stuff up from ill-formed memories. I don't think Apple made any such claims.
Got some cites?
What you said was that no iPad app could run on the iPhone.
That is not what he said. Here is what he said:
"Yeah, that's why I can't run an application specifically written for the iPad on an iPhone. As a matter of fact, they can't currently even run the same version of iOS, can they???? "
how many times do I have to explain this?
DID YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS? Did you follow the thread?
1) "This whole post assumes that consumers give a rats ass about profits, which I can assure they don't."
DUDE: my first post was to those that were saying that Android was making all this money and that it was way better than Apple's model of revenue. It's the Droid fans who brought up the revenue issue.
but since you brought up the topic of users and profits...
Perhaps some users don't give a rat's ass about profits but they certainly should. WHY? Perhaps you should ask the no profit Palm users (in limbo as Palm is being slowly digested by HP). go ask the msft KIN phone users, the Win Mo 6 users...
also go ask the AMIGA users, the people who bought BETAMAX players, the OS2 users...
No profits can mean END of LINE for your product or at best it means nothing for R&D, bad customer service, sucky hardware as OEMs cut costs, go ask the no profit NETBOOK users about that...
2)"Incidently, each extra Android device on the market is an additional revenue stream for Google through the sale of products, services and advertising."
Shoot, are you DENSE or what? THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID does NOT happen EVERY TIME. I explained it sideways and backwards with examples that even small brained reptiles could understand.
here AGAIN (for like the third time):
"in the situations WHEN CARRIERS LOAD BING, YAHOO OR BAIDU ON THEIR PHONE, WHEN PEOPLE OPEN THEIR OWN APP STORES AND LOCK GOOGLE OUT, WHEN PHONES ARE BUILT SO THAT THEY LOCKED DOWN TO THIER OWN NON GOOGLE APPS AND CAN'T ACCESS GOOGLE ANDROID MARKET GOOGLE MAKES LESS OR NOTHING".
get it? If a phone runs Bing Google gets zilch from search. If they run non google maps, services etc same thing.
If users buy apps from a NON google store and they are sprouting: Google gets zilch.
Some phones in Asia come with Baidu not Google and are locked down. You can't even download apps from Google android market. Google profit from them Zero.
If advertisers use other ad agencies and not Google's Admob, google loses revenue
etc (all I explained in DETAIL in my first posts)
I even gave an EXAMPLE in my first post:
"Engadget on Moto Backflip:
"Yahoo has replaced Google as the default search provider throughout the phone. It's crazy: the home screen widget, the browser, everything's been programmed to use Yahoo.
It's filled to the brim with pre-loaded AT&T stuff: AllSport GPS, AT&T Maps, AT&T Music (which takes the place of the standard Music app), AT&T Navigator, AT&T Wi-Fi Hotspots, Mobile Banking, MobiTV, MusicID, Where, and YPmobile. We strongly prefer the approach of offering a special branded Android Market portal where you can download your carrier's recommended apps."
Another:
Electronista:
"Verizon's decision to force the use of Bing as the core search engine on the Samsung Fascinate may be part of a larger change that could undermine Android itself, .... Verizon's approach also prevents owners from choosing an alternative short of installing unofficial firmware, an investigation found."
I also explained that if people are looking at Google ads on their phones they are NOT (probably) looking AT THE SAME TIME at ads on their laptops or desktops: page view GAIN for Google ZERO.
Man you DON"T READ and you SPOUT!
I remember about a zillion years ago when I sold stereos for a failing company. It was a Washington's Birthday Sale, which was, at the time, a big deal in the CE world. Our store was nearly empty. The competitor down the street was packed.
I listened as one of the salesmen, who used to hold a mid-level position at the competitor, tell us all about how the competitor was losing money and that their strategy could never work. He had complex reasons why they could never make any money doing what they were doing.
The guys I worked for went belly up. The competitor became a national chain.
You remind me of the bitter former mid-level guy with his complex theories about how those guys could not possibly be making any money.
Apple is now the most profitable personal computer manufacturer too. It makes more money sellng Macs than any Windows box maker.
When any manufacturer, be they cellphone or computer, gives up on software development and outsources it to Microsoft or Google. They lose the ability to differentiate their products.
They become a commodity, sold only on a simple price/features axis. And the exact same process is happening to Android phones. They become interchangeable and generic. Very cheap, with lots of features.
This isn't bad news for consumers, but it is bad news for those manufacturers, who have to settle for 5% profit margins.
C.
While the Mac vs. PC story is always cited as an "Apple fail" - it has an interesting coda.
Apple is now the most profitable personal computer manufacturer too. It makes more money sellng Macs than any Windows box maker.
When any manufacturer, be they cellphone or computer, gives up on software development and outsources it to Microsoft or Google. They lose the ability to differentiate their products.
They become a commodity, sold only on a simple price/features axis. And the exact same process is happening to Android phones. They become interchangeable and generic. Very cheap, with lots of features.
This isn't bad news for consumers, but it is bad news for those manufacturers, who have to settle for 5% profit margins.
C.
That's fine, because we are consumers.
That's fine, because we are consumers.
It not entirely fine.
If you look at the PC, you see a product that has stagnated because its progress is tied to a single vendor.
The hardware manufacturers are so impoverished there is now no possibility of them innovating new software technologies. Competition and innovation have effectively ceased. All efforts are invested in shaving down production costs, or shoehorning in an extra widget.
I would argue that this is not an entirely good thing. Markets perform best when there are multiple vendors with independent solutions to offer.
C.
It not entirely fine.
If you look at the PC, you see a product that has stagnated because its progress is tied to a single vendor.
The hardware manufacturers are so impoverished there is now no possibility of them innovating new software technologies. Competition and innovation have effectively ceased. All efforts are invested in shaving down production costs, or shoehorning in an extra widget.
I would argue that this is not an entirely good thing. Markets perform best when there are multiple vendors with independent solutions to offer.
C.
That's fine, because the product already does what I need it to do, so I'm looking to get hold of it for the cheapest price, as do the vast majority of consumers. Most people don't need to pay extra for a Mac when the cheaper option already does everything they need, and more.
Most people don't need to pay extra for a Mac when the cheaper option already does everything they need, and more.
Obviously this statement can't be true... or the Mac would be dead... instead, it's growing.