PS. Or an MP3 player from Dell (Uggh!), a brown Zune from MS, an iTunes equivalent from MS, Media player (Uggh!), Palm's smart phones, Dell's PDA's, Sony's abominations...HP's crap, Gateway's crap, Compaq's crap...the list goes on and on.
I often cite statistics that support the assertions I make. I will try to be more discerning and qualify those citations when necessary.
FWIW, I question everything that the author of this article publishes or posts. DED, frequently cites himself, arranges events and facts to suit his agenda, and ignores or minimizes those that do not meet his requirements.
,
1) No you don't and the assertions you usually make are laughable.
2) I would trust this author far more than I would ever trust anything you write given how biased and irrational you are.
You have to forgive both IDC and Gartner. When two groups are making up numbers out of thin air, there is bound to be some discrepancy. Can Gartner even tell us who they think these mythical other Android manufacturers are?
In my numbers I assume all the "Others" are pirating iOS, and I must say it is really kicking ass.
Thin Air? What are the number mean? smart only or including all handsets? If it is all inclusive, the others could be big number. SanZai ji are all over china. Not using any of the OS mentioned before. Anyone read the real reports? what is the criteria of the accounting for those numbers?
The moral of the story - who the heck really knows what is going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
One more problem with creating an OS in house, then opening up hardware to all comers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
A lot of what we think we know about this stuff from data-broking consultants like Gartner is of highly questionable value (not unlike the Neilsen ratings for TV)... I have never trusted the Android numbers from Day 1, and don't plan to start anytime soon. Unless they start to show up the segment reports in their SEC filings, caveat investor.
I think, the take away point from this whole shebang is Android is still going to be huge because it's free and apparently easy to implement. I think Apple's focus should be not what it is doing vs. Android, but what unit sales it is doing compared to Android by select top 10 manufacturers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti
Don't forget the HP Android printers.
Surely they count too!
I hear those super-advanced Japanese restrooms will run Android.
If it was left up to corporations, there wouldn't be a tree left standing in the Northwest, you could walk across Lake Erie and you could cut the air in LA with a knife!
The name given by the Chumash tribe of Native Americans for the area now known as Los Angeles translates to "the valley of smoke" because of the smog from native campfires.
The area is a bowl, surrounded by high mountains on 3 sides and open to the Pacific Ocean on the west.
Under certain weather conditions: gentle breezes from the west pack the air up against the mountains, where it stalls. When the Sun beats down on this air mass for several days or weeks, a lid of warmer air covers the cooler air closer to the ground. This is called an inversion layer and is very stable.
Any smoke, dust, chemicals, etc. released into the air is trapped by the inversion layer and is known as smog.
It was terrible in the 1950s and early 1960s. There were 7,000 foot high mountains about 8 miles from our back yard -- sometimes you couldn't see them for weeks on end.
The Governments outlawed incinerator burning, outdoor fires, and regulated automobile emissions, air polluters, etc. -- and it helped some. I moved back to Pasadena in 2001-2003. It was better, but there was still smog.
I guess the point is that there has long been smog in the LA Basin, and likely, will be for a long time in the future-- until the unique geography changes.
We humans can make it a lot worse, or a little better -- but nature rules.
On the brighter side -- watch the Pasadena Rose Bowl parade and game on New Years Day. That time of year the weather conditions do not contribute to an inversion layer. The sky is usually bright blue and clear, and the mountains are breathtaking!
Look at the figures for manufacturers. Gartner's "Others" section says about 1,377,970 phones were shipped by others. IDC's "Others" section - which includes Sony Ericsson, Motorola, HTC etc. that were given their own section in Gartner's figures - shows only about 1,038,000 shipments.
Gartner is assuming that the majority of these extra 77 million phones - that no-one else seems to know about - are running Android and thus, seem to be randomly increasing their estimated Android market share.
The author of this piece has no clue how to read the data and it appears you accept what he said at face value. Gartner said 20.5 million Android phones, not 77 million difference between Garner and IDC, not the 137.8 million "others". If you look at the number of phones sold by HTC Motorola and Samasung, it is possible that all 20.5 million Android phone came from them, canabalizing sales from the older models running different OS's that they offered last year. That the vast majority of Android phones came from the branded manufacturers is not just possible, it is probable.
The notion that "others all assumed to use Android" put forth in the artical is simply moronic. If the Others are selling 137.8 million phones, and a total of 20.5 million phones had Android, even if NO ONE ELSE BUT OTHER sold Android, the OS would still have less than 15% of the Other category. It is more likely that HTC, Motorola, Samsung and the other known brands accounted for most or all of the 20.5 million Android phones and the Other category is made up of budget phones that are not smart phones and are not running any of the major OS's. DUH!
PLEASE people read what Gartner said, read what the data REALLY says. Don't trust the idiots writing for AI these days.
BTW, AI, you should be ashamed to publish trash like this. Use your freakin' brains before you go off on crazy conspiracy theories.
2) I would trust this author far more than I would ever trust anything you write given how biased and irrational you are.
You are making a horrible error of judgement here. This author's analysis would get a solid "F" in a third grade writing assignment. He sees the world with such a strong bias, he reads things in Garner's report that they simply did not write. I would not trust his ability to perform simple addition, or even tell me if the sky is blue or cloudy today. Don't take my word for it, read the artical above and look at the numbers yourself.
We were recently romanced by Gartner: totally 'pay to play'. Probably IDC too. Welcome to America!
I know one thing - I'll never trust numbers from Gartner.
I documented a little scam of theirs that went on for years. When I showed them the data, they just ignored it and made no changes to their policies.
The situation was this. It was back in the days when everyone was claiming that Apple was dying - and Gartner was the head cheerleader for that refrain. They did everything they could to make it look like Apple was dying.
Every quarter, Gartner release 'estimated' sales figures. And every quarter, their estimate of Apple's sales figures showed a decline. They issued a huge press release about how Apple's sales were declining - including all the buzzwords like 'beleaguered' and 'troubled'. Then, a month or so later, they would find the actual figures - but never published them. In each quarter, Apple's ACTUAL figures showed a gain from the previous year, yet Gartner was telling everyone that their sales declined.
Since there was never any press release on Apple's actual sales figures, the only way I was able to track it down was to use the NEXT year's press release which showed the estimated sales declining from the previous year's actuals (and, of course, the previous year's actuals were always far higher than the estimate published at the time). The difference was sometimes significant - 25% or more.
I don't know whether it was gross incompetence or outright lies, but this went on for 4 years. EVERY SINGLE QUARTER, they played the same game. 'Estimated' sales were down - and got a big press release. Actual sales figures actually showed growth over the previous year, but were not mentioned - until the following year when they wanted a larger base so that they could show another quarter of 'dropping sales'.
Oh, and just to clarify any possible confusion - the same effect was not seen for Windows software sales. As expected, each year the actual sales figures were similar to the estimated figures and varied by a small percentage - in both directions.
It's entirely possible that it was an unintentional bias in their procedure, but the fact that I notified them of the discrepancy several times without response suggests otherwise.
Nokia added a few thousand units but still slipped in market share; second place Samsung boosted sales by more than 10,000 units but still slipped in market share; RIM grew sales by three thousand
Gartner is hardly a trustworthy source of data, but good lord, how stupid do you have to be to think sales for these manufacturers only changed in the thousands. Gartner's data certainly does not imply this. Try MILLIONS, Dilger MILLIONS, you are off by 3 orders of magnitude.
AI, PLEASE GET RID OF THIS IDIOT, HE HAS NO PLACE PUBLISHING ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, AI, you should be ashamed to publish trash like this. Use your freakin' brains before you go off on crazy conspiracy theories.
Usually AI just paraphrases articles written in other publications. Rarely do they add original insight, and even more rarely do they uncover new facts.
It is a different sort of writing. Maybe they need to stick to it exclusively.
I know one thing - I'll never trust numbers from Gartner.
I documented a little scam of theirs that went on for years.
Why did you keep all that under your hat? Who did you contact besides Gartner? Did you tell the guy in your organization responsible for renewing their contract? Did you tell the press? Did you tell the PR department at Apple?
Do you have the documentation currently? ISTM that there are thousands of reporters looking for a story that has an "Apple angle". The allegations made in the current situation fit perfectly with your documentation and story about another past incident - and they BOTH involve Apple and Gartner.
If there is any validity to your allegations, please contact Pouge and Mossberg. Their people will get back to you. They got lots o' kids hanging out and Jonesing for a Pulitzer.
Gartner is hardly a trustworthy source of data, but good lord, how stupid do you have to be to think sales for these manufacturers only changed in the thousands. Gartner's data certainly does not imply this. Try MILLIONS, Dilger MILLIONS, you are off by 3 orders of magnitude.
AI, PLEASE GET RID OF THIS IDIOT, HE HAS NO PLACE PUBLISHING ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The piece is shoddy in many respects. A total POS. It is the fault of the editors. It should not have been published in its current form.
Why did you keep all that under your hat? Who did you contact besides Gartner? Did you tell the guy in your organization responsible for renewing their contract? Did you tell the press? Did you tell the PR department at Apple?
Do you have the documentation currently? ISTM that there are thousands of reporters looking for a story that has an "Apple angle". The allegations made in the current situation fit perfectly with your documentation and story about another past incident - and they BOTH involve Apple and Gartner.
If there is any validity to your allegations, please contact Pouge and Mossberg. Their people will get back to you. They got lots o' kids hanging out and Jonesing for a Pulitzer.
I had a web site up back then that had all the data with nice graphs. I contacted MacUser and MacWorld and it was well known on comp.sys.mac.advocacy.
At the time, no one cared. I don't have the data any more, but it wouldn't be hard to recreate it if you look up all of Gartner's estimated and actual software sales numbers from the 90's.
Comments
PS. Or an MP3 player from Dell (Uggh!), a brown Zune from MS, an iTunes equivalent from MS, Media player (Uggh!), Palm's smart phones, Dell's PDA's, Sony's abominations...HP's crap, Gateway's crap, Compaq's crap...the list goes on and on.
Comments? 2 cents, Akac, alexkhan2000, chad.price, Dick Applebaum, mdriftmeyer, msantti, NasserAE, palter, Peleas, piot, radster360
Years ago, I was reviewing my mom's portfolio when HP announced the consumerger with Compaq. She had fairly significant holdings in both.
Both went down before the merger, and stayed down. She lost money on both.
bad ++ bad == really bad
.
The stats from both companies also show Apple with a larger market share than Android.
I guess that can only mean Apple is part of the conspiracy too!
Consider the conspicuous absence of Steve Jobs from all pictures of the grassy knoll....
LOL
.
.
I often cite statistics that support the assertions I make. I will try to be more discerning and qualify those citations when necessary.
FWIW, I question everything that the author of this article publishes or posts. DED, frequently cites himself, arranges events and facts to suit his agenda, and ignores or minimizes those that do not meet his requirements.
,
1) No you don't and the assertions you usually make are laughable.
2) I would trust this author far more than I would ever trust anything you write given how biased and irrational you are.
1) No you don't and the assertions you usually make are laughable.
2) I would trust this author far more than I would ever trust anything you write given how biased and irrational you are.
Kind of "jaw-dropping" isn't it?
.
You have to forgive both IDC and Gartner. When two groups are making up numbers out of thin air, there is bound to be some discrepancy. Can Gartner even tell us who they think these mythical other Android manufacturers are?
In my numbers I assume all the "Others" are pirating iOS, and I must say it is really kicking ass.
Thin Air? What are the number mean? smart only or including all handsets? If it is all inclusive, the others could be big number. SanZai ji are all over china. Not using any of the OS mentioned before. Anyone read the real reports? what is the criteria of the accounting for those numbers?
The moral of the story - who the heck really knows what is going on.
One more problem with creating an OS in house, then opening up hardware to all comers.
A lot of what we think we know about this stuff from data-broking consultants like Gartner is of highly questionable value (not unlike the Neilsen ratings for TV)... I have never trusted the Android numbers from Day 1, and don't plan to start anytime soon. Unless they start to show up the segment reports in their SEC filings, caveat investor.
I think, the take away point from this whole shebang is Android is still going to be huge because it's free and apparently easy to implement. I think Apple's focus should be not what it is doing vs. Android, but what unit sales it is doing compared to Android by select top 10 manufacturers.
Don't forget the HP Android printers.
Surely they count too!
I hear those super-advanced Japanese restrooms will run Android.
If it was left up to corporations, there wouldn't be a tree left standing in the Northwest, you could walk across Lake Erie and you could cut the air in LA with a knife!
What? You can't cut the air in LA with a knife??
What? You can't cut the air in LA with a knife??
I grew up in the area (Pasadena) in the 1950s.
The smog predates western civilazation:
The name given by the Chumash tribe of Native Americans for the area now known as Los Angeles translates to "the valley of smoke" because of the smog from native campfires.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles
We were taught in school:
The area is a bowl, surrounded by high mountains on 3 sides and open to the Pacific Ocean on the west.
Under certain weather conditions: gentle breezes from the west pack the air up against the mountains, where it stalls. When the Sun beats down on this air mass for several days or weeks, a lid of warmer air covers the cooler air closer to the ground. This is called an inversion layer and is very stable.
Any smoke, dust, chemicals, etc. released into the air is trapped by the inversion layer and is known as smog.
http://daphne.palomar.edu/calenvironment/smog.htm
It was terrible in the 1950s and early 1960s. There were 7,000 foot high mountains about 8 miles from our back yard -- sometimes you couldn't see them for weeks on end.
The Governments outlawed incinerator burning, outdoor fires, and regulated automobile emissions, air polluters, etc. -- and it helped some. I moved back to Pasadena in 2001-2003. It was better, but there was still smog.
I guess the point is that there has long been smog in the LA Basin, and likely, will be for a long time in the future-- until the unique geography changes.
We humans can make it a lot worse, or a little better -- but nature rules.
On the brighter side -- watch the Pasadena Rose Bowl parade and game on New Years Day. That time of year the weather conditions do not contribute to an inversion layer. The sky is usually bright blue and clear, and the mountains are breathtaking!
.
Look at the figures for manufacturers. Gartner's "Others" section says about 1,377,970 phones were shipped by others. IDC's "Others" section - which includes Sony Ericsson, Motorola, HTC etc. that were given their own section in Gartner's figures - shows only about 1,038,000 shipments.
Gartner is assuming that the majority of these extra 77 million phones - that no-one else seems to know about - are running Android and thus, seem to be randomly increasing their estimated Android market share.
The author of this piece has no clue how to read the data and it appears you accept what he said at face value. Gartner said 20.5 million Android phones, not 77 million difference between Garner and IDC, not the 137.8 million "others". If you look at the number of phones sold by HTC Motorola and Samasung, it is possible that all 20.5 million Android phone came from them, canabalizing sales from the older models running different OS's that they offered last year. That the vast majority of Android phones came from the branded manufacturers is not just possible, it is probable.
The notion that "others all assumed to use Android" put forth in the artical is simply moronic. If the Others are selling 137.8 million phones, and a total of 20.5 million phones had Android, even if NO ONE ELSE BUT OTHER sold Android, the OS would still have less than 15% of the Other category. It is more likely that HTC, Motorola, Samsung and the other known brands accounted for most or all of the 20.5 million Android phones and the Other category is made up of budget phones that are not smart phones and are not running any of the major OS's. DUH!
PLEASE people read what Gartner said, read what the data REALLY says. Don't trust the idiots writing for AI these days.
BTW, AI, you should be ashamed to publish trash like this. Use your freakin' brains before you go off on crazy conspiracy theories.
2) I would trust this author far more than I would ever trust anything you write given how biased and irrational you are.
You are making a horrible error of judgement here. This author's analysis would get a solid "F" in a third grade writing assignment. He sees the world with such a strong bias, he reads things in Garner's report that they simply did not write. I would not trust his ability to perform simple addition, or even tell me if the sky is blue or cloudy today. Don't take my word for it, read the artical above and look at the numbers yourself.
So true!
We were recently romanced by Gartner: totally 'pay to play'. Probably IDC too. Welcome to America!
I know one thing - I'll never trust numbers from Gartner.
I documented a little scam of theirs that went on for years. When I showed them the data, they just ignored it and made no changes to their policies.
The situation was this. It was back in the days when everyone was claiming that Apple was dying - and Gartner was the head cheerleader for that refrain. They did everything they could to make it look like Apple was dying.
Every quarter, Gartner release 'estimated' sales figures. And every quarter, their estimate of Apple's sales figures showed a decline. They issued a huge press release about how Apple's sales were declining - including all the buzzwords like 'beleaguered' and 'troubled'. Then, a month or so later, they would find the actual figures - but never published them. In each quarter, Apple's ACTUAL figures showed a gain from the previous year, yet Gartner was telling everyone that their sales declined.
Since there was never any press release on Apple's actual sales figures, the only way I was able to track it down was to use the NEXT year's press release which showed the estimated sales declining from the previous year's actuals (and, of course, the previous year's actuals were always far higher than the estimate published at the time). The difference was sometimes significant - 25% or more.
I don't know whether it was gross incompetence or outright lies, but this went on for 4 years. EVERY SINGLE QUARTER, they played the same game. 'Estimated' sales were down - and got a big press release. Actual sales figures actually showed growth over the previous year, but were not mentioned - until the following year when they wanted a larger base so that they could show another quarter of 'dropping sales'.
Oh, and just to clarify any possible confusion - the same effect was not seen for Windows software sales. As expected, each year the actual sales figures were similar to the estimated figures and varied by a small percentage - in both directions.
It's entirely possible that it was an unintentional bias in their procedure, but the fact that I notified them of the discrepancy several times without response suggests otherwise.
Nokia added a few thousand units but still slipped in market share; second place Samsung boosted sales by more than 10,000 units but still slipped in market share; RIM grew sales by three thousand
Gartner is hardly a trustworthy source of data, but good lord, how stupid do you have to be to think sales for these manufacturers only changed in the thousands. Gartner's data certainly does not imply this. Try MILLIONS, Dilger MILLIONS, you are off by 3 orders of magnitude.
AI, PLEASE GET RID OF THIS IDIOT, HE HAS NO PLACE PUBLISHING ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't trust the idiots writing for AI these days.
BTW, AI, you should be ashamed to publish trash like this. Use your freakin' brains before you go off on crazy conspiracy theories.
Usually AI just paraphrases articles written in other publications. Rarely do they add original insight, and even more rarely do they uncover new facts.
It is a different sort of writing. Maybe they need to stick to it exclusively.
I know one thing - I'll never trust numbers from Gartner.
I documented a little scam of theirs that went on for years.
Why did you keep all that under your hat? Who did you contact besides Gartner? Did you tell the guy in your organization responsible for renewing their contract? Did you tell the press? Did you tell the PR department at Apple?
Do you have the documentation currently? ISTM that there are thousands of reporters looking for a story that has an "Apple angle". The allegations made in the current situation fit perfectly with your documentation and story about another past incident - and they BOTH involve Apple and Gartner.
If there is any validity to your allegations, please contact Pouge and Mossberg. Their people will get back to you. They got lots o' kids hanging out and Jonesing for a Pulitzer.
Gartner is hardly a trustworthy source of data, but good lord, how stupid do you have to be to think sales for these manufacturers only changed in the thousands. Gartner's data certainly does not imply this. Try MILLIONS, Dilger MILLIONS, you are off by 3 orders of magnitude.
AI, PLEASE GET RID OF THIS IDIOT, HE HAS NO PLACE PUBLISHING ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The piece is shoddy in many respects. A total POS. It is the fault of the editors. It should not have been published in its current form.
But if you're looking for real Mac news, try MacRumors.com
What is your opinion of Cult of Mac? Leander seems like a good guy, and John Brownlee is very funny.
They also publish pics like this:
It is "art", BTW, not sacriledge (or is it)? Anyways, interested in other opinions.
Why did you keep all that under your hat? Who did you contact besides Gartner? Did you tell the guy in your organization responsible for renewing their contract? Did you tell the press? Did you tell the PR department at Apple?
Do you have the documentation currently? ISTM that there are thousands of reporters looking for a story that has an "Apple angle". The allegations made in the current situation fit perfectly with your documentation and story about another past incident - and they BOTH involve Apple and Gartner.
If there is any validity to your allegations, please contact Pouge and Mossberg. Their people will get back to you. They got lots o' kids hanging out and Jonesing for a Pulitzer.
I had a web site up back then that had all the data with nice graphs. I contacted MacUser and MacWorld and it was well known on comp.sys.mac.advocacy.
At the time, no one cared. I don't have the data any more, but it wouldn't be hard to recreate it if you look up all of Gartner's estimated and actual software sales numbers from the 90's.