In August, Google reported activations of 200,000 Android devices per day, while just days ago, the company reported a weekly activation number of 1.5 million, or just over 214,000 activations per day. If the company is actually activating 300,000 devices per day, it should have reported a weekly figure of 2.1 million.
Everyone in the western world is being tracked. It doesn't matter what fuckin phone you have. This is not a valid argument whatsoever.
OK. So they can see us all from the big spy satellites in the sky and from all the survellience cameras at the cross sections and the bodegas and the boys at Google know that I last did a picture search for Miss Teen, USA and shopped for a DSLR camera. Why don't I just give you my Social Security Number and the PIN to my bank account.
All I'm saying is that the form factor and the OS concept is hardly that revolutionary. Candybar touchscreen with a grid of app icons. That's not to say the other stuff (how reliable and solid the touchscreen was, the app store, etc.) wasn't revolutionary. But people act as though the candybar touchscreen is manna from heaven. That's patently untrue. It's just that for most people (particularly in the USA) they went from a RAZR to an iPhone that's why the iPhone seems "magical".
I don?t know of anyone who thought the candy bar design was revolutionary. The iPhone is the most profitable and coveted handset because of it?s focus on key technologies that were overlooked or simply not conceived of prior to its existence. If it?s jut about some simple veneer as proof of accomplishment then there are many iPhone knockoffs running WM6 to choose from. just don?t go more than a screen deep in your usage.
Even if more devices are being sold with Android I still can't get over how many companies and how many different phones it takes to sell the same amount of product as Apple.
OMG this post actually made me literally laugh out loud. You can't be serious. I'll bet the Apple store has tinfoil hats for $29 that you could use to make sure you're never spied on again.
While you're at it, make sure you never use a credit card, a debit card (actually don't use a bank account at all), don't file your taxes (maybe consider ditching your social insurance/social security number), etc. Might even want to ditch your driver's license or the issuing authority will know where you live.
If you're really worried, PM me, I've got some property on Mars I'd like to sell you where you'll be untrackable...but then I'd know where you are so.....
Do you think Bin Laden has an Android or an iPhone?
Hey, I wonder what Obama and the CIA uses? With this Wikileaks thing going on, we can't even trust who we're sleeping with. OK. Free Android for all us robots.
Even if more devices are being sold with Android I still can't get over how many companies and how many different phones it takes to sell the same amount of product as Apple.
Bingo.
Notice that there is still no single iPhone-killer. Simple reason: they don't know how to make one. An iPhone in design, UI, ecosystem, is something special. An HTC name-of-the-month device is just another phone running some hodge-podge version of a generic OS.
Aren't we agreeing then? Android is designed to ensure no one-one removes Google from its dominant position. They don't want competitors, just like MS. Apple wants to define itself against the competiton, not kill it, because they think customers will think the products are better. This is irrespective of App Store approval policies or letting Flash on the iPhone.
Incorrect. The purpose of Android is to ensure that an open platform exists. Carriers are free to integrate Microsoft collateral with android. Apple could modify Android to look and feel like iOS. But the core Android OS would remain open.
This doesn't ensure google remains in a dominant position. It ensures that google and other companies are not locked out of the market.
Notice that there is still no single iPhone-killer. Simple reason: they don't know how to make one. An iPhone in design, UI, ecosystem, is something special. An HTC name-of-the-month device is just another phone running some hodge-podge version of a generic OS.
Help me understand this absolute need for there to be an "iPhone killer". Why does another platform need to absolutely "kill" another to be considered successful?
All "iPhone killers" always have been, and always will be, flops.
Come on people, lets summarize.....
iPhone = amazingly magical
Android = crap
WP7 = revolting crap
Lets summarize indeed...
Look at it this way. Android came pretty much from nowhere against a field full of giants (WinMo, BB, iOS, Symbian) in 2008. The G1 didn't really get that much press and it only gained a niche following on T-Mobile. In two years, its managed to shove aside WinMo and BB and garner just as much of a media following as iOS.
And against all issues that are said that should have killed it ("fragmentation", to sum it all up), it continues to grow all around the world.
This hardly seems like a "flop" to me. Give credit where credit is due. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it was a flop.
Incorrect. The purpose of Android is to ensure that an open platform exists. Carriers are free to integrate Microsoft collateral with android. Apple could modify Android to look and feel like iOS. But the core Android OS would remain open.
This doesn't ensure google remains in a dominant position. It ensures that google and other companies are not locked out of the market.
So Anroid's reason for being is, in part, to make sure that Bing is not locked out of the market?
What's Google's reasoning for helping MS? Which other companies are there in search, and why does Google want to help them too? Is it 'cause they're lovely people?
All I'm saying is that the form factor and the OS concept is hardly that revolutionary. Candybar touchscreen with a grid of app icons. That's not to say the other stuff (how reliable and solid the touchscreen was, the app store, etc.) wasn't revolutionary. But people act as though the candybar touchscreen is manna from heaven. That's patently untrue. It's just that for most people (particularly in the USA) they went from a RAZR to an iPhone that's why the iPhone seems "magical".
The only thing LG Prada is known for is apparently being the source of inspiration for the iPhone even though timelines don't really support it. It wasn't known to be that great of a phone.
Apple isn't successful because they do things first, it's because they are often the first to get it "right". Apple may not have been the first with a candybar touchscreen phone, but they were the ones that demonstrated how good the candybar touchscreen form factor could actually be.
Look at it this way. Android came pretty much from nowhere against a field full of giants (WinMo, BB, iOS, Symbian) in 2008. The G1 didn't really get that much press and it only gained a niche following on T-Mobile. In two years, its managed to shove aside WinMo and BB and garner just as much of a media following as iOS.
And against all issues that are said that should have killed it ("fragmentation", to sum it all up), it continues to grow all around the world.
This hardly seems like a "flop" to me. Give credit where credit is due. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it was a flop.
You're not getting it... start from my earlier post and work your way forward...
There isn't a single Android phone that comes close to the sales numbers that Apple achieves... it takes all the king's horses and all the king's men to get Humpty to even teeter a bit on the wall...
If you want to compare apples to apples, as you say. Compare os to os or phone to phone. Why compare one phone to an os operating on hundreds of phones? That seems to be the ridiculous comparison. And apple has one tablet, android has several. Even with multiple tablets combined, they probably don't sell as many per day as iPads. Youre the one with the flawed logic.
These numbers include 4 iOS devices and literally hundreds of android devices, both phones and non phones. I think apple is holding it's own quite well. Besides, dominating the market is not the only way to succeed in the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayhammy
Let's compare Apples to Apples and Androids to Androids:
the iOS activations include iPod Touches, iPads, AND iPHones. The Android activations include only Android phones and the few tablets (Samsung Galaxy Tab at 1 million since summer). If you just look at phones to phones, Android is outselling iPhone.
You're not getting it... start from my earlier post and work your way forward...
There isn't a single Android phone that comes close to the sales numbers that Apple achieves... it takes all the king's horses and all the king's men to get Humpty to even teeter a bit on the wall...
Ok. This ties into my question to Quadra. Why is it absolutely necessary for a single phone to come close to the iPhone in order for it the platform to be considered a success?
If it's a "flop", then why are there Android phones everywhere? Doesn't a "flop" usually mean that no one's adopting/using it?
And apple has one tablet, android has several. Even with multiple tablets combined, they probably don't sell as many per day as iPads. Youre the one with the flawed logic.
These numbers include 4 iOS devices and literally hundreds of android devices, both phones and non phones. I think apple is holding it's own quite well. Besides, dominating the market is not the only way to succeed in the market.
Meeeeccc, Android has only one tablet with access to Android market and the numbers only count devices (phones and one tablet) with access to market.
Or it could just be that somebody made a mistake with the numbers. Honest mistakes do happen. Sometimes somebody puts in the wrong figure into a press release. Etc. I'd wait for more confirmation. Though I do think Rubin's deliberate tweet is probably far more authoritative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog
Yeah 300,000 per day for 5 days = 1.5 Million a week.
He probably used business days instead of calendar days to inflate the numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
He is probably counting business days only
*I see Dick Applebaum caught it before I did
Yeah! I don't necessarily see anything malicious -- people look at numbers from different perspectives. For example, an accountant or a manager may look at numbers as M-F (budgeting) measurements. While a PR person will look at those same numbers as accomplishment targets/thresholds.
The problem is, as I tried to illustrate, that we don't know (and don't ask) details to back up the numbers -- when, what period, what do they include, what is an "activation", can it only happen once per device, once per OS reset/upgrade, does company X report numbers the same way company y does, etc.?
Without really narrowing down the details, the numbers are interesting -- but meaningless.
For example, if we accept Schmidt's August numbers of 200,000 per day, then doesn't the recent 214,000 per day number seem low?
Could it be that those August numbers were for business days, and therefore 200,000 x 5/7 ~= 143,000 per calendar day..
With that perspective the current number of 214,000 compares well with 143,000 in August.
Ok. This ties into my question to Quadra. Why is it absolutely necessary for a single phone to come close to the iPhone in order for it the platform to be considered a success?
If it's a "flop", then why are there Android phones everywhere? Doesn't a "flop" usually mean that no one's adopting/using it?
Ok,
Many different Androids, many different versions, many different carriers.
1 iPhone, 1 version, 1 carrier (for now)
and iPhone is still ahead of everyone else!
and everyone else has to GIVE AWAY phones to keep up!
Ok. This ties into my question to Quadra. Why is it absolutely necessary for a single phone to come close to the iPhone in order for it the platform to be considered a success?
If it's a "flop", then why are there Android phones everywhere? Doesn't a "flop" usually mean that no one's adopting/using it?
Android doesn't look like a platform to me. If there is one defining feature of a platform, it's that you write an application for the platform, and it works on all the machines that run on that platform. This doesn't happen on Android. See Rovio's Angry Brids experience or evidence.
Android is a portfolio of technology that can be complied to run on commodity hardware and skinned. That's different. And I think the defining difference that does not allow for an accurate comparision between the installed base of Andriod and iOS.
Look at it this way. Android came pretty much from nowhere against a field full of giants (WinMo, BB, iOS, Symbian) in 2008. The G1 didn't really get that much press and it only gained a niche following on T-Mobile. In two years, its managed to shove aside WinMo and BB and garner just as much of a media following as iOS.
And against all issues that are said that should have killed it ("fragmentation", to sum it all up), it continues to grow all around the world.
This hardly seems like a "flop" to me. Give credit where credit is due. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it was a flop.
Google relies on third parties to install Android on their phones. iOS is unavailable to third parties, so is BB and so was Symbian at the time. The only competition Android had was WinMo which was not made for touch screens. If a company like HTC wanted to build a good touch screen phone, the Android OS became the best option. In fact a lot of Androids success stems from HTC building really good Android phones.
"Android came from nowhere" ---- sure, an OS with the backing of Google is "from nowhere"
"Against a field of giants" ---- I think you mean on the backs of giants (HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc.)
"managed to shove aside WinMo" ---- Dude, WinMo was already dead
Androids a great OS and all, but it isn't a little guy against the world success story, and OS marketshare is hardly the defining factor of success for Apple anyway (see OSX). The iPhone doesn't compete against Android, it competes against phones produced by other phone manufacturers, many of which are using Android right now. If a better OS becomes available to them, they will use that instead. Google should worry more about WP7 than iOS, because it's the OS that will try to lure hardware manufacturers away from Android (the open source MeeGo could also present a threat, but that remains to be seen). Apple and RIM aren't going to be licensing out their operating systems, so Google doesn't really need to worry about them too much.
Comments
In August, Google reported activations of 200,000 Android devices per day, while just days ago, the company reported a weekly activation number of 1.5 million, or just over 214,000 activations per day. If the company is actually activating 300,000 devices per day, it should have reported a weekly figure of 2.1 million.
He is probably counting business days only
*I see Dick Applebaum caught it before I did
Everyone in the western world is being tracked. It doesn't matter what fuckin phone you have. This is not a valid argument whatsoever.
OK. So they can see us all from the big spy satellites in the sky and from all the survellience cameras at the cross sections and the bodegas and the boys at Google know that I last did a picture search for Miss Teen, USA and shopped for a DSLR camera. Why don't I just give you my Social Security Number and the PIN to my bank account.
All I'm saying is that the form factor and the OS concept is hardly that revolutionary. Candybar touchscreen with a grid of app icons. That's not to say the other stuff (how reliable and solid the touchscreen was, the app store, etc.) wasn't revolutionary. But people act as though the candybar touchscreen is manna from heaven. That's patently untrue. It's just that for most people (particularly in the USA) they went from a RAZR to an iPhone that's why the iPhone seems "magical".
I don?t know of anyone who thought the candy bar design was revolutionary. The iPhone is the most profitable and coveted handset because of it?s focus on key technologies that were overlooked or simply not conceived of prior to its existence. If it?s jut about some simple veneer as proof of accomplishment then there are many iPhone knockoffs running WM6 to choose from. just don?t go more than a screen deep in your usage.
OMG this post actually made me literally laugh out loud. You can't be serious. I'll bet the Apple store has tinfoil hats for $29 that you could use to make sure you're never spied on again.
While you're at it, make sure you never use a credit card, a debit card (actually don't use a bank account at all), don't file your taxes (maybe consider ditching your social insurance/social security number), etc. Might even want to ditch your driver's license or the issuing authority will know where you live.
If you're really worried, PM me, I've got some property on Mars I'd like to sell you where you'll be untrackable...but then I'd know where you are so.....
Do you think Bin Laden has an Android or an iPhone?
Hey, I wonder what Obama and the CIA uses? With this Wikileaks thing going on, we can't even trust who we're sleeping with. OK. Free Android for all us robots.
Hey, new battlecry! ANDROID IS FOR ROBOTS!
ANDROID IS FOR ROBOTS!
ANDROID IS FOR ROBOTS!
ANDROID IS FOR ROBOTS!
Even if more devices are being sold with Android I still can't get over how many companies and how many different phones it takes to sell the same amount of product as Apple.
Bingo.
Notice that there is still no single iPhone-killer. Simple reason: they don't know how to make one. An iPhone in design, UI, ecosystem, is something special. An HTC name-of-the-month device is just another phone running some hodge-podge version of a generic OS.
Aren't we agreeing then? Android is designed to ensure no one-one removes Google from its dominant position. They don't want competitors, just like MS. Apple wants to define itself against the competiton, not kill it, because they think customers will think the products are better. This is irrespective of App Store approval policies or letting Flash on the iPhone.
Incorrect. The purpose of Android is to ensure that an open platform exists. Carriers are free to integrate Microsoft collateral with android. Apple could modify Android to look and feel like iOS. But the core Android OS would remain open.
This doesn't ensure google remains in a dominant position. It ensures that google and other companies are not locked out of the market.
Come on people, lets summarize.....
iPhone = amazingly magical
Android = crap
WP7 = revolting crap
Bingo.
Notice that there is still no single iPhone-killer. Simple reason: they don't know how to make one. An iPhone in design, UI, ecosystem, is something special. An HTC name-of-the-month device is just another phone running some hodge-podge version of a generic OS.
Help me understand this absolute need for there to be an "iPhone killer". Why does another platform need to absolutely "kill" another to be considered successful?
All "iPhone killers" always have been, and always will be, flops.
Come on people, lets summarize.....
iPhone = amazingly magical
Android = crap
WP7 = revolting crap
Lets summarize indeed...
Look at it this way. Android came pretty much from nowhere against a field full of giants (WinMo, BB, iOS, Symbian) in 2008. The G1 didn't really get that much press and it only gained a niche following on T-Mobile. In two years, its managed to shove aside WinMo and BB and garner just as much of a media following as iOS.
And against all issues that are said that should have killed it ("fragmentation", to sum it all up), it continues to grow all around the world.
This hardly seems like a "flop" to me. Give credit where credit is due. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it was a flop.
Incorrect. The purpose of Android is to ensure that an open platform exists. Carriers are free to integrate Microsoft collateral with android. Apple could modify Android to look and feel like iOS. But the core Android OS would remain open.
This doesn't ensure google remains in a dominant position. It ensures that google and other companies are not locked out of the market.
So Anroid's reason for being is, in part, to make sure that Bing is not locked out of the market?
What's Google's reasoning for helping MS? Which other companies are there in search, and why does Google want to help them too? Is it 'cause they're lovely people?
All I'm saying is that the form factor and the OS concept is hardly that revolutionary. Candybar touchscreen with a grid of app icons. That's not to say the other stuff (how reliable and solid the touchscreen was, the app store, etc.) wasn't revolutionary. But people act as though the candybar touchscreen is manna from heaven. That's patently untrue. It's just that for most people (particularly in the USA) they went from a RAZR to an iPhone that's why the iPhone seems "magical".
The only thing LG Prada is known for is apparently being the source of inspiration for the iPhone even though timelines don't really support it. It wasn't known to be that great of a phone.
Apple isn't successful because they do things first, it's because they are often the first to get it "right". Apple may not have been the first with a candybar touchscreen phone, but they were the ones that demonstrated how good the candybar touchscreen form factor could actually be.
Lets summarize indeed...
Look at it this way. Android came pretty much from nowhere against a field full of giants (WinMo, BB, iOS, Symbian) in 2008. The G1 didn't really get that much press and it only gained a niche following on T-Mobile. In two years, its managed to shove aside WinMo and BB and garner just as much of a media following as iOS.
And against all issues that are said that should have killed it ("fragmentation", to sum it all up), it continues to grow all around the world.
This hardly seems like a "flop" to me. Give credit where credit is due. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it was a flop.
You're not getting it... start from my earlier post and work your way forward...
There isn't a single Android phone that comes close to the sales numbers that Apple achieves... it takes all the king's horses and all the king's men to get Humpty to even teeter a bit on the wall...
These numbers include 4 iOS devices and literally hundreds of android devices, both phones and non phones. I think apple is holding it's own quite well. Besides, dominating the market is not the only way to succeed in the market.
Let's compare Apples to Apples and Androids to Androids:
the iOS activations include iPod Touches, iPads, AND iPHones. The Android activations include only Android phones and the few tablets (Samsung Galaxy Tab at 1 million since summer). If you just look at phones to phones, Android is outselling iPhone.
You're not getting it... start from my earlier post and work your way forward...
There isn't a single Android phone that comes close to the sales numbers that Apple achieves... it takes all the king's horses and all the king's men to get Humpty to even teeter a bit on the wall...
Ok. This ties into my question to Quadra. Why is it absolutely necessary for a single phone to come close to the iPhone in order for it the platform to be considered a success?
If it's a "flop", then why are there Android phones everywhere? Doesn't a "flop" usually mean that no one's adopting/using it?
And apple has one tablet, android has several. Even with multiple tablets combined, they probably don't sell as many per day as iPads. Youre the one with the flawed logic.
These numbers include 4 iOS devices and literally hundreds of android devices, both phones and non phones. I think apple is holding it's own quite well. Besides, dominating the market is not the only way to succeed in the market.
Meeeeccc, Android has only one tablet with access to Android market and the numbers only count devices (phones and one tablet) with access to market.
please, check the facts
Or it could just be that somebody made a mistake with the numbers. Honest mistakes do happen. Sometimes somebody puts in the wrong figure into a press release. Etc. I'd wait for more confirmation. Though I do think Rubin's deliberate tweet is probably far more authoritative.
Yeah 300,000 per day for 5 days = 1.5 Million a week.
He probably used business days instead of calendar days to inflate the numbers.
He is probably counting business days only
*I see Dick Applebaum caught it before I did
Yeah! I don't necessarily see anything malicious -- people look at numbers from different perspectives. For example, an accountant or a manager may look at numbers as M-F (budgeting) measurements. While a PR person will look at those same numbers as accomplishment targets/thresholds.
The problem is, as I tried to illustrate, that we don't know (and don't ask) details to back up the numbers -- when, what period, what do they include, what is an "activation", can it only happen once per device, once per OS reset/upgrade, does company X report numbers the same way company y does, etc.?
Without really narrowing down the details, the numbers are interesting -- but meaningless.
For example, if we accept Schmidt's August numbers of 200,000 per day, then doesn't the recent 214,000 per day number seem low?
Could it be that those August numbers were for business days, and therefore 200,000 x 5/7 ~= 143,000 per calendar day..
With that perspective the current number of 214,000 compares well with 143,000 in August.
Or, it means nothing!
See! I am even confusing myself.
Ok. This ties into my question to Quadra. Why is it absolutely necessary for a single phone to come close to the iPhone in order for it the platform to be considered a success?
If it's a "flop", then why are there Android phones everywhere? Doesn't a "flop" usually mean that no one's adopting/using it?
Ok,
Many different Androids, many different versions, many different carriers.
1 iPhone, 1 version, 1 carrier (for now)
and iPhone is still ahead of everyone else!
and everyone else has to GIVE AWAY phones to keep up!
Ok. This ties into my question to Quadra. Why is it absolutely necessary for a single phone to come close to the iPhone in order for it the platform to be considered a success?
If it's a "flop", then why are there Android phones everywhere? Doesn't a "flop" usually mean that no one's adopting/using it?
Android doesn't look like a platform to me. If there is one defining feature of a platform, it's that you write an application for the platform, and it works on all the machines that run on that platform. This doesn't happen on Android. See Rovio's Angry Brids experience or evidence.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...id-devices.ars
Android is a portfolio of technology that can be complied to run on commodity hardware and skinned. That's different. And I think the defining difference that does not allow for an accurate comparision between the installed base of Andriod and iOS.
Lets summarize indeed...
Look at it this way. Android came pretty much from nowhere against a field full of giants (WinMo, BB, iOS, Symbian) in 2008. The G1 didn't really get that much press and it only gained a niche following on T-Mobile. In two years, its managed to shove aside WinMo and BB and garner just as much of a media following as iOS.
And against all issues that are said that should have killed it ("fragmentation", to sum it all up), it continues to grow all around the world.
This hardly seems like a "flop" to me. Give credit where credit is due. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it was a flop.
Google relies on third parties to install Android on their phones. iOS is unavailable to third parties, so is BB and so was Symbian at the time. The only competition Android had was WinMo which was not made for touch screens. If a company like HTC wanted to build a good touch screen phone, the Android OS became the best option. In fact a lot of Androids success stems from HTC building really good Android phones.
"Android came from nowhere" ---- sure, an OS with the backing of Google is "from nowhere"
"Against a field of giants" ---- I think you mean on the backs of giants (HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc.)
"managed to shove aside WinMo" ---- Dude, WinMo was already dead
Androids a great OS and all, but it isn't a little guy against the world success story, and OS marketshare is hardly the defining factor of success for Apple anyway (see OSX). The iPhone doesn't compete against Android, it competes against phones produced by other phone manufacturers, many of which are using Android right now. If a better OS becomes available to them, they will use that instead. Google should worry more about WP7 than iOS, because it's the OS that will try to lure hardware manufacturers away from Android (the open source MeeGo could also present a threat, but that remains to be seen). Apple and RIM aren't going to be licensing out their operating systems, so Google doesn't really need to worry about them too much.