Theres none of this business day nonsense in retail, it's seven days a week, phone companies are open to support activations seven days a week.
UNDERSTAND FUDGE
First: Retail is not necessarily "seven days a week" -- often it is 5 or 6 days a week. I owned retail computer stores for 11 + years -- maybe 10 weeks in 11 years were we open 7 days in a row.
Second: Budgeting, Forecasting and Reporting in businesses is normally done on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis. Very seldom is it broken down smaller -- as it would be meaningless.
There are special exceptions, usually around holiday or special events: Easter Week; XMAS; Back To School; Super Bowl; Guy Fawkes Day; etc.
For these exceptions it is of little value to compare to the previous or following period -- rather comparison to the same period in prior and following years.
Third: Google is not a retail company. I suspect most of their employees and executives work 5 days per week, Mon-Fri. Those are the business days that comprise their week.
People who work a 5-day week tend to think in 5-day, 40 hour (US), weeks -- you make x amount of wages per week or month. You report progress or accomplishments in week or month increments.
Per day statistics are usually meaningless -- If 300,000 iPhones and 300,000 Android phones are activated on December 25, is it likely that that the same number will be activated December 26? December 31? February 17?
So where does Google get its numbers:
Is it the total activations per month / days in the month?
Is it the total activations per month / weeks in the month * days in a week?
What's a day?
My point is that a daily statistic, such as phone activations, is useful as a target or threshold accomplishment, but for little else.
Let me guess. You thought the whole computer and internet thing was a fad that would blow over. As my brother-in-law said, we can just go back to using paper.
Why?
I can't search paper.
At least not search it fast enough to be competitive at anything.
If Android was up against iOS on its own [on edit - = one manufacturer] on one carrier it would be a flop. It takes almost every manufacturer and every carrier to make a dent in Apple's armour.
Knowing that I have to ask why iOS is so compelling. Is Android really worth its salt or is it only popular because it's being thrown onto the market in the millions by any and every manufacturer in town?
I'm not sure how this could be answered (reason for popularity).
One area where I'd like to see stats is how many "paid" apps are being bought on each os.
This is a completely irrelevant scenario. Android is about CHOICE and openness and being able to build a phone however you want it.
iOS is 'so' compelling through branding and marketing to the mainstream market not because of the feature set of the phone itself which lacks compared to some of its competitors.
You mean other tech blogs aren't like cults too? The group-think at places like digg, engadget, and BGR is quite overwhelming.
Should probably have said suicide cult. Seeing as I wouldn't be surprised if half of you committed suicide if you woke up tomorrow and apple didn't exist.
From that 300,000, only 10% is comparable to iPhone 3GS, the rest are craps. Is it fair comparison?
If you are speaking about hardware alone, you are correct...but if you were talking about software, the IOS version is a very good version of the Android's 1.6.
This is a completely irrelevant scenario. Android is about CHOICE and openness and being able to build a phone however you want it.
iOS is 'so' compelling through branding and marketing to the mainstream market not because of the feature set of the phone itself which lacks compared to some of its competitors.
I'd say "horseshit" to that argument. I can almost guarantee you that the amount of people buying an Android phone who give a rat's ass about openness and and being able to build a phone however you want would amount to 10% or less of the market... 60% or more of the people who bought an Android phone were convinced by the seller that it was better to buy an Android phone because it supports flash...
Should probably have said suicide cult. Seeing as I wouldn't be surprised if half of you committed suicide if you woke up tomorrow and apple didn't exist.
Well... for myself it would be a sad day but not worth committing suicide... on the other hand it would be a great day if I woke up tomorrow and you didn't exist.
If you are speaking about hardware alone, you are correct...but if you were talking about software, the IOS version is a very good version of the Android's 1.6.
Why do you think that? Smartphone sales have exploded (96% year-over-year) and the majority of those (with perhaps the exception of AT&T) are Android devices.
It is true. Google double counts things:
"Steve Jobs said Apple's 230,000 iOS activations are new activations and that "friends" are counting upgrades when they count their activations.
In other words, Jobs suggested that Eric Schmidt is full of it when he says there's 200,000 Android activations daily."
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.
You have some flawed logic. So Android was only competing against the only other open OS (WinMo) so their accomplishment does not count?
Really?
So when a customer goes to a store to buy a phone, they first sort themselves out by open or closed and then by which OS they want? Or do Open operating systems not compete with closed operating systems at all? I'd love to hear you explain this.
I'd say that basically tripling your activation rate and catching up to the other hot OS on the market in 1 year and getting set to topple the top seats in another year is not some piddling accomplishment.
Or do you also believe that Microsoft didn't achieve much because they were only competing against other open operating systems like Linux?
Seriously, is your bias that bad that you can't even acknowledge accomplishments like this one. Even if the comparison wasn't to iOS, the phenomenal growth achieved in 2010 alone is an accomplishment that should stand on its own. Give credit where it's due.
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.
Good points. Reality is seldom what it seems. Android is not a platform.
Aside from bragging rights I don't see how this justifies that Android is a "flop".
So if I write a program for Windows 7 it should run on Windows 3.1?
No. Windows 3.1 is obsolete.
Angry Birds doesn't run on the SE Xperia x10 Mini, an Android handset launched in Feb this year. That's because manufactures can slap Android on any old hardware and pitch it into the marketplace. It makes the Android world a mess, and clearly a nightmare to develop any software that relies on hardware with a minimum amount of grunt.
iOS on the other hand is not a mess. There are only a few hardware configurations to support and devs can choose how to do that.
The uncomfortable reality for Google is that if they want to solve these problems they need to become much more Apple-like. But, projecting more control over Android (tighter hardware definitions, consistent UIs, for example) kills a central part of their brand myth; that they're "open" and that they exist in part to defend to good guys from evil Apple and their "closed" systems (ignoring Apple's dependence on open web standards and their contributions to keeping the web open, like Webkit).
My guess is that senior people at Google value this myth so highly that they'll cling to it so tightly that Google will never try and make Android a proper platform. And without it being a proper platform, it doesn't matter how many handsets are out there. It only matters on how many devices a particular piece of software can run. The Rovio experience suggests that, for a sophisticated piece of software, this number is a relatively small portion of the total number of Android devices. So, each app defines it's own special Android "platform". That's a degree
Aside from bragging rights I don't see how this justifies that Android is a "flop".
So if I write a program for Windows 7 it should run on Windows 3.1?
No. Windows 3.1 is obsolete.
Angry Birds doesn't run on the SE Xperia x10 Mini, an Android handset launched in Feb this year. That's because manufactures can slap Android on any old hardware and pitch it into the marketplace. It makes the Android world a mess, and clearly a nightmare to develop any software that relies on hardware with a minimum amount of grunt.
iOS on the other hand is not a mess. There are only a few hardware configurations to support and devs can choose how to do that.
The uncomfortable reality for Google is that if they want to solve these problems they need to become much more Apple-like. But, projecting more control over Android (tighter hardware definitions, consistent UIs, for example) kills a central part of their brand myth; that they're "open" and that they exist in part to defend to good guys from evil Apple and their "closed" systems (ignoring Apple's dependence on open web standards and their contributions to keeping the web open, like Webkit).
My guess is that senior people at Google value this myth so highly that they'll cling to it so tightly that Google will never try and make Android a proper platform. And without it being a proper platform, it doesn't matter how many handsets are out there. It only matters on how many devices a particular piece of software can run. The Rovio experience suggests that, for a sophisticated piece of software, this number is a relatively small portion of the total number of Android devices. So, each app defines it's own special Android "platform". That's a very high degree of fragmentation.
I'd say "horseshit" to that argument. I can almost guarantee you that the amount of people buying an Android phone who give a rat's ass about openness and and being able to build a phone however you want would amount to 10% or less of the market... 60% or more of the people who bought an Android phone were convinced by the seller that it was better to buy an Android phone because it supports flash...
Exactly, CHOICE. They chose to buy a phone that can run flash if you CHOOSE to.
When the iphone got out in january 2007, Android was still vaporware and when Google show the alpha version to the world later in 2007 it was a blackberry clone. Then Android slowly became an iOS clone over the years.
I am seriously getting annoy by people saying Android was there before the iphone. The company was there in 2003, but the software was no were near like the 2007 iphone OS. The only reason Android is so popular is because its an "iphone like" alternative.
Comments
Theres none of this business day nonsense in retail, it's seven days a week, phone companies are open to support activations seven days a week.
UNDERSTAND FUDGE
First: Retail is not necessarily "seven days a week" -- often it is 5 or 6 days a week. I owned retail computer stores for 11 + years -- maybe 10 weeks in 11 years were we open 7 days in a row.
Second: Budgeting, Forecasting and Reporting in businesses is normally done on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis. Very seldom is it broken down smaller -- as it would be meaningless.
There are special exceptions, usually around holiday or special events: Easter Week; XMAS; Back To School; Super Bowl; Guy Fawkes Day; etc.
For these exceptions it is of little value to compare to the previous or following period -- rather comparison to the same period in prior and following years.
Third: Google is not a retail company. I suspect most of their employees and executives work 5 days per week, Mon-Fri. Those are the business days that comprise their week.
People who work a 5-day week tend to think in 5-day, 40 hour (US), weeks -- you make x amount of wages per week or month. You report progress or accomplishments in week or month increments.
Per day statistics are usually meaningless -- If 300,000 iPhones and 300,000 Android phones are activated on December 25, is it likely that that the same number will be activated December 26? December 31? February 17?
So where does Google get its numbers:
Is it the total activations per month / days in the month?
Is it the total activations per month / weeks in the month * days in a week?
What's a day?
My point is that a daily statistic, such as phone activations, is useful as a target or threshold accomplishment, but for little else.
I agree. AppleInsider is more like a cult than a technology blog.
You mean other tech blogs aren't like cults too? The group-think at places like digg, engadget, and BGR is quite overwhelming.
Let me guess. You thought the whole computer and internet thing was a fad that would blow over. As my brother-in-law said, we can just go back to using paper.
Why?
I can't search paper.
At least not search it fast enough to be competitive at anything.
If Android was up against iOS on its own [on edit - = one manufacturer] on one carrier it would be a flop. It takes almost every manufacturer and every carrier to make a dent in Apple's armour.
Knowing that I have to ask why iOS is so compelling. Is Android really worth its salt or is it only popular because it's being thrown onto the market in the millions by any and every manufacturer in town?
I'm not sure how this could be answered (reason for popularity).
One area where I'd like to see stats is how many "paid" apps are being bought on each os.
This is a completely irrelevant scenario. Android is about CHOICE and openness and being able to build a phone however you want it.
iOS is 'so' compelling through branding and marketing to the mainstream market not because of the feature set of the phone itself which lacks compared to some of its competitors.
You mean other tech blogs aren't like cults too? The group-think at places like digg, engadget, and BGR is quite overwhelming.
Should probably have said suicide cult. Seeing as I wouldn't be surprised if half of you committed suicide if you woke up tomorrow and apple didn't exist.
From that 300,000, only 10% is comparable to iPhone 3GS, the rest are craps. Is it fair comparison?
If you are speaking about hardware alone, you are correct...but if you were talking about software, the IOS version is a very good version of the Android's 1.6.
This is a completely irrelevant scenario. Android is about CHOICE and openness and being able to build a phone however you want it.
iOS is 'so' compelling through branding and marketing to the mainstream market not because of the feature set of the phone itself which lacks compared to some of its competitors.
I'd say "horseshit" to that argument. I can almost guarantee you that the amount of people buying an Android phone who give a rat's ass about openness and and being able to build a phone however you want would amount to 10% or less of the market... 60% or more of the people who bought an Android phone were convinced by the seller that it was better to buy an Android phone because it supports flash...
Should probably have said suicide cult. Seeing as I wouldn't be surprised if half of you committed suicide if you woke up tomorrow and apple didn't exist.
Well... for myself it would be a sad day but not worth committing suicide... on the other hand it would be a great day if I woke up tomorrow and you didn't exist.
If you are speaking about hardware alone, you are correct...but if you were talking about software, the IOS version is a very good version of the Android's 1.6.
Fair comparison:
Android 1.6 ~ iOS 1.0
Android 2.3 ~ iOS 2.2.1
Android 3.0 ~ iOS 3.1.3
From that 300,000, only 10% is comparable to iPhone 3GS, the rest are craps. Is it fair comparison?
I hope not. Otherwise, it would turn out Apple is loosing against crappy products, which doesn't put Apple product in good light either.
It is OK to loose against someone better than you, but loosing to (perceived) inferior... what does that make you..?
Why do you think that? Smartphone sales have exploded (96% year-over-year) and the majority of those (with perhaps the exception of AT&T) are Android devices.
It is true. Google double counts things:
"Steve Jobs said Apple's 230,000 iOS activations are new activations and that "friends" are counting upgrades when they count their activations.
In other words, Jobs suggested that Eric Schmidt is full of it when he says there's 200,000 Android activations daily."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/steve...#ixzz17fc6dTOi
Who could be against being spoiled by choices?
Some people are confused by choices.
Sears uses the "Good, Better Best" strategy, as does Apple. They sell to the heartland of America.
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!
So where are all these free android phones people keep talking about?
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.
You have some flawed logic. So Android was only competing against the only other open OS (WinMo) so their accomplishment does not count?
Really?
So when a customer goes to a store to buy a phone, they first sort themselves out by open or closed and then by which OS they want? Or do Open operating systems not compete with closed operating systems at all? I'd love to hear you explain this.
I'd say that basically tripling your activation rate and catching up to the other hot OS on the market in 1 year and getting set to topple the top seats in another year is not some piddling accomplishment.
Or do you also believe that Microsoft didn't achieve much because they were only competing against other open operating systems like Linux?
Seriously, is your bias that bad that you can't even acknowledge accomplishments like this one. Even if the comparison wasn't to iOS, the phenomenal growth achieved in 2010 alone is an accomplishment that should stand on its own. Give credit where it's due.
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.
Good points. Reality is seldom what it seems. Android is not a platform.
I hope not. Otherwise, it would turn out Apple is loosing against crappy products, which doesn't put Apple product in good light either.
It is OK to loose against someone better than you, but loosing to (perceived) inferior... what does that make you..?
Even looser?
Aside from bragging rights I don't see how this justifies that Android is a "flop".
So if I write a program for Windows 7 it should run on Windows 3.1?
No. Windows 3.1 is obsolete.
Angry Birds doesn't run on the SE Xperia x10 Mini, an Android handset launched in Feb this year. That's because manufactures can slap Android on any old hardware and pitch it into the marketplace. It makes the Android world a mess, and clearly a nightmare to develop any software that relies on hardware with a minimum amount of grunt.
iOS on the other hand is not a mess. There are only a few hardware configurations to support and devs can choose how to do that.
The uncomfortable reality for Google is that if they want to solve these problems they need to become much more Apple-like. But, projecting more control over Android (tighter hardware definitions, consistent UIs, for example) kills a central part of their brand myth; that they're "open" and that they exist in part to defend to good guys from evil Apple and their "closed" systems (ignoring Apple's dependence on open web standards and their contributions to keeping the web open, like Webkit).
My guess is that senior people at Google value this myth so highly that they'll cling to it so tightly that Google will never try and make Android a proper platform. And without it being a proper platform, it doesn't matter how many handsets are out there. It only matters on how many devices a particular piece of software can run. The Rovio experience suggests that, for a sophisticated piece of software, this number is a relatively small portion of the total number of Android devices. So, each app defines it's own special Android "platform". That's a degree
Aside from bragging rights I don't see how this justifies that Android is a "flop".
So if I write a program for Windows 7 it should run on Windows 3.1?
No. Windows 3.1 is obsolete.
Angry Birds doesn't run on the SE Xperia x10 Mini, an Android handset launched in Feb this year. That's because manufactures can slap Android on any old hardware and pitch it into the marketplace. It makes the Android world a mess, and clearly a nightmare to develop any software that relies on hardware with a minimum amount of grunt.
iOS on the other hand is not a mess. There are only a few hardware configurations to support and devs can choose how to do that.
The uncomfortable reality for Google is that if they want to solve these problems they need to become much more Apple-like. But, projecting more control over Android (tighter hardware definitions, consistent UIs, for example) kills a central part of their brand myth; that they're "open" and that they exist in part to defend to good guys from evil Apple and their "closed" systems (ignoring Apple's dependence on open web standards and their contributions to keeping the web open, like Webkit).
My guess is that senior people at Google value this myth so highly that they'll cling to it so tightly that Google will never try and make Android a proper platform. And without it being a proper platform, it doesn't matter how many handsets are out there. It only matters on how many devices a particular piece of software can run. The Rovio experience suggests that, for a sophisticated piece of software, this number is a relatively small portion of the total number of Android devices. So, each app defines it's own special Android "platform". That's a very high degree of fragmentation.
I'd say "horseshit" to that argument. I can almost guarantee you that the amount of people buying an Android phone who give a rat's ass about openness and and being able to build a phone however you want would amount to 10% or less of the market... 60% or more of the people who bought an Android phone were convinced by the seller that it was better to buy an Android phone because it supports flash...
Exactly, CHOICE. They chose to buy a phone that can run flash if you CHOOSE to.
Fair comparison:
Android 1.6 ~ iOS 1.0
Android 2.3 ~ iOS 2.2.1
Android 3.0 ~ iOS 3.1.3
When the iphone got out in january 2007, Android was still vaporware and when Google show the alpha version to the world later in 2007 it was a blackberry clone. Then Android slowly became an iOS clone over the years.
I am seriously getting annoy by people saying Android was there before the iphone. The company was there in 2003, but the software was no were near like the 2007 iphone OS. The only reason Android is so popular is because its an "iphone like" alternative.