Incorrect. The data gathered is for each phone platform AND the iPod touch. Demographic comparisons between the iPhone and Android are completely valid.
Again you have misread the data, AND mischaracterized what I said.
The data from Admob is correct, it's the way that macrumours used to state and to draw conclusions is wrong, the data does not:
comparing two different categories from of devices with different usage patterns is wrong period, nothing can mitigate that this is 100% invalid statistical method.
macrumours, by aggregating all smartphones together and leaving iPod touch is also invalid, these people from macrumors really need to go to statistics 101 sometime.
iPod touch is certainly a wildly successful device, and many are sold to people who don't really want any type of service plan, but want some benefits of a mobile device. But it has a very different usage pattern and set of services than an iphone or any other smartphone (just try to access some web enabled app on the highway).
the correct comparison would be to fix all dimensions that are intended to be independent, and then compare devices between iOS and android, which make only the iPhone vs. android Phone comparison valid.
CNN/fortune doesn't really do much better in that area than macrumour, they completely omitted to say how and when the data were collected (by when, I mean at which point in the lifecycle of the product, while at registration? during normal use? while installing some app?, while switching a network?), and the fact that it's opt-in should tell you that the result is skewed.
The sample size of under 1000 for a single degree of freedom with a binary split is more than enough, but they are trying to draw implications from many dimensions of variability, especially given the numerous age categories. They also did not consider any residuals in the vectors given that they collected information on a number of DVs, the overall homoscedasticity in these models are going to be highly suspect.
This is a problem in general with random internet sites posting articles with authors with no training in any of the area that they are writing in. And quoting articles on internet about complex statistical analysis doesn't usually help your cause.
Quote:
"Those are a few of differences that emerged from a opt-in survey of 963 smartphone and iPod touch owners conducted in February by AdMob, the mobile advertising company that Google snapped up in November for $750 million."
You can claim that opt-in surveys have significant self-selection bias if you like.
It's not about self bias, it's about who filled out those surveys; if it's when these phones are activated, then there is a high probability of statistical bias (not self bias).
Quote:
The point is that you keep asserting that iPhones are for old people while young folks prefer Android phones. A point which you have ZERO data to provide as support.
Here are some other numbers:
"Android users tend to be slightly younger than their iPhone peers- 55% of Android users are under the age of 34 — while just 47% of iPhone users fall within the same demographic."
8% is significant but not a dominant factor. Slight is the word I would have chosen as well.
The time between a younger generation growing up from 17 year olds to earning money demographic is 5-6 years after which they graduate from college. This is not decades.
Whether it is significant depends on the variance and p-value of the analysis, not something you can find by looking at a difference in percentage. Even just looking at difference between the two, the right way would be to say that the difference is 16-17%, not 8%
Quote:
Tapping into both ends of the demographic is superior to just one end. Given the product cycle is 1 year and the average contract is 2 years I'd say you vastly overestimate the timescale.
The iPod Touch is certainly a potent gateway to attract future iPhone users.
That is an opinion with your own conjecture, and as usual, I respect that as a possibility. But to make it an assertion, you would need some emperical data of that process actually happening.
$20 when Android without a shadow of a doubt passes iOS (more like already passed) DED will make an article about it, focus 5% on it, then spend the rest of the article shitting on the app store, security and quality of said store, lack of "immersive" advertising, fragmentation, rehash the Oracle lawsuite, etc.
Google is barely managing, with some 40+ Android iPhone copies, to surpass Apple's one (or at most two) phone(s). And they've had practically forever to do it.
Again you have misread the data, AND mischaracterized what I said.
The data from Admob is correct, it's the way that macrumours used to state and to draw conclusions is wrong, the data does not:
* comparing two different categories from of devices with different usage patterns is wrong period, nothing can mitigate that this is 100% invalid statistical method.
The two "devices" are iPhones and Android phones. Both are in the same category. Why is this hard to understand? Ignore the column that says iPod Touch. It is irrelevant to this comparison.
Quote:
* macrumours, by aggregating all smartphones together and leaving iPod touch is also invalid, these people from macrumors really need to go to statistics 101 sometime.
Incorrect. What they said is that for all three phone platforms measured about 25% of respondents were under 24.
Quote:
* iPod touch is certainly a wildly successful device, and many are sold to people who don't really want any type of service plan, but want some benefits of a mobile device. But it has a very different usage pattern and set of services than an iphone or any other smartphone (just try to access some web enabled app on the highway).
This has absolutely nothing to do with the percentage of iPhone, Android Phone and WebOS phone users under 24 that answered the survey. Zero, nada, zilch.
Quote:
* the correct comparison would be to fix all dimensions that are intended to be independent, and then compare devices between iOS and android, which make only the iPhone vs. android Phone comparison valid.
The dimensions ARE fixed as much as they can be in a survey of this kind. There is no comparison of iOS vs Android except in your mind. The comparison is between iPhone users and Android users that responded to the survey.
Quote:
[*]CNN/fortune doesn't really do much better in that area than macrumour, they completely omitted to say how and when the data were collected (by when, I mean at which point in the lifecycle of the product, while at registration? during normal use? while installing some app?, while switching a network?), and the fact that it's opt-in should tell you that the result is skewed.
Yes, this is selection bias and I noted that. It's also done by AdMob which introduces another set of biases.
If you want to know the methodology simply read the article and follow the links. CNN did not hide that from you.
"All data in the feature section is based on an opt-in survey taken by users on their mobile device. Respondents were sourced by responding to mobile ads throughout AdMob's iPhone OS, Android and webOS networks. There was no incentive offered to participate in the survey.
There were 963 total respondents: 318 Android, 244 iPhone, 356 iPod touch and 45 webOS. The survey was run from February 5th - February 16th.
The geographic representation of the respondents was designed to approximate the distribution of users in the AdMob network. The respondents were sourced from English-speaking countries in the AdMob network. "
Quote:
* The sample size of under 1000 for a single degree of freedom with a binary split is more than enough, but they are trying to draw implications from many dimensions of variability, especially given the numerous age categories. They also did not consider any residuals in the vectors given that they collected information on a number of DVs, the overall homoscedasticity in these models are going to be highly suspect.
You know, after a certain point you're simply trying to bluster your way past the point that you have no data whatsoever to support your assertion that iPhone users are significantly older than Android users.
They are reporting the demographics of the respondents. You can use this data to extrapolate to the wider population as long as you understand the inherent biases of an opt in survey of users of ad driven apps. Unless you have data to show that there is an inherent age bias this information is probably representative of the age demographics of the entire population for that time period.
Quote:
This is a problem in general with random internet sites posting articles with authors with no training in any of the area that they are writing in. And quoting articles on internet about complex statistical analysis doesn't usually help your cause.
Given that AdMob and Nielsen generate these reports for Advertising purchasers do you really believe that
a) There is significant statistical analysis in determining the ages of respondents? (ans: no)
b) They are likely to completely hose up the categorization of age demographics? (ans: unlikely)
Whether the reported demographics matches that of the target population is debatable but not for their uses: the demographics of the eyeballs that view ads.
Quote:
It's not about self bias, it's about who filled out those surveys; if it's when these phones are activated, then there is a high probability of statistical bias (not self bias).
For someone who asserts expertise in statistics you seem not to grasp this fairly basic nature of opt-in surveys...there is always selection bias in opt in surveys.
Quote:
Whether it is significant depends on the variance and p-value of the analysis, not something you can find by looking at a difference in percentage. Even just looking at difference between the two, the right way would be to say that the difference is 16-17%, not 8%
Given that Nielsen did not provide methodology in their blog I'll go along with their analysis...that the age difference is slight. Not having any desire to pay $$$ for their actual report which lists their collection methodology I'll live with that assessment.
Quote:
That is an opinion with your own conjecture, and as usual, I respect that as a possibility. But to make it an assertion, you would need some emperical data of that process actually happening.
How odd that you require empirical data when you steadfastly provide none of your own while rejecting data that has already been provided.
Find me a source that shows that iPhone users are predominantly in the 44+ demographic.
Also, you don't need data to make an assertion. That's what makes it an assertion vs a statement of fact.
I'm not saying I disagree with you or agree with you, but either way what you've said here is just classic wishful thinking. You may be right or wrong, but (unlike Daniel ironically), you simply have no data to back up these assumptions and are pretty much just blowing some kind of stinky gas here.
A lot of the comments on Daniel's articles seem to go like this. A lot of whining and bluster, a lot of denial, but no real counter-argument to back it up and no real analysis of what the author is actually putting forward as a thesis. The few times someone takes the trouble to factually knock down his arguments, it seems like only about 1% of the time do they actually come out on top and prove him wrong.
I've been reading his stuff since he started on pretty much a daily basis, and while he has been wrong before, he isn't wrong that often, which is probably why most of the comments on his stuff always end up sounding like the Sour Grapes arguments they really are.
HUH? The same data that DED quotes is what backs up my argument. If you read the studies he quotes separate from his interpretation, you will walk away with a VERY DIFFERENT conclusion than the bizare ones he comes up with. There is no wishful thinking on my part, I am an iPhone owner, but I do not have any stock in Apple, Google, AT&T or Verizon. I have no skin in the game other than a desire for honesty and factual accuracy in journalism and blogging.
Outpacing is a pretty clear term. Pace means speed. Android phones are selling faster. They have not overtaken the iphone in market share yet, but they have certainly outpaced the iphone based on the metrics from a variety of sources. If you don't think Android has outpaced the iphone, I would love to see your data to back it up and your argument why Gartner, Nielson, wall street and the tech press are all wrong and why DED is right.
As for the Gartner research, go read their study and look at the numbers. The data they published in no way implied that the growth in Android sales came from the mysterious other category. The unit sales they reported for HTC, Motorola, and Samsung were more than enough to cover their estimated number of Android phones sold. DED appears to have made the assumption that any Android sales represented unit GROWTH for these manufacturers and since their year over year numbers were not up that much, the Android phones must be in the other category. That is a phenomonally stupid set of assumptions. Android sales heavily canabalized sales of other HTC, Motorola, and Samasung devices from a year earlier. They all sold more phones in total, but many of their sales of non-Android phones declined sharply once they had decent Android offerings. NO ONE other than DED is claiming that there are tens of millions of no name Android phones flooding the market, certainly Gartner did not and is not making that claim.
There's something I don't quite understand in these statistics, I wonder if anyone can help me out. I haven't followed the numbers for too long, but it occurred to me that the overall consumer market share is a cumulative result of the recent purchases over the past few years. That makes me wonder if at any given point iOS's market share was above 28.6%. If not, then I really don't understand how the overall share can be at 28.6%. Any ideas?
iPhones probably have remained in service longer than some of the other phones. Even when people upgrade to the latest version, they pass their old iPhone on to a friend or family memeber, or sell it to someone else who continiues to use it. Many of the original iPhone 2G's and iPhone 3G's remain in service, while a lower percentage of blackbery and windows mobile phones from that era are still in use. That trend could certainly change once there are 3 year old Android phones, and also as Apple leaves the earlier hardware further and further behind in software updates.
iPhones probably have remained in service longer than some of the other phones. Even when people upgrade to the latest version, they pass their old iPhone on to a friend or family memeber, or sell it to someone else who continiues to use it. Many of the original iPhone 2G's and iPhone 3G's remain in service, while a lower percentage of blackbery and windows mobile phones from that era are still in use. That trend could certainly change once there are 3 year old Android phones, and also as Apple leaves the earlier hardware further and further behind in software updates.
Thanks, tbh I wasn't expecting an answer, and certainly not one that made sense. What you suggest is the only feasible explanation -- second-hand reuse of older handsets, which is NOT identified in the survey as a new purchase (even though it should be, imo). I remain skeptical if the extent of this phenomenon is sufficient to explain the numbers, especially knowing that phones out of warranty have a limited lifespan due to battery and screen accidents. I admit thought that, short of assuming that the numbers reported by Nielsen are complete rubbish, I have no better explanation.
The two "devices" are iPhones and Android phones. Both are in the same category. Why is this hard to understand? Ignore the column that says iPod Touch. It is irrelevant to this comparison.
So you are denying what you said yourself earlier, this is the sentence of yours that I responded to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Incorrect. The data gathered is for each phone platform AND the iPod touch.
I guess it doesn't surprise me that you are denying what you said in plain words in your previous post.
Quote:
Incorrect. What they said is that for all three phone platforms measured about 25% of respondents were under 24.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the percentage of iPhone, Android Phone and WebOS phone users under 24 that answered the survey. Zero, nada, zilch.
You apparently think so, not me. You are the first one to bring statistics of iPod touch purchase and usage into the discussion, I never did. The only thing I ever mentioned before is that I own an iPod (and always have at least one at any time), in an exchange about who is an "apple hater" and such. This is an iPhone forum with discussions on iPhones and other phones in competition.
Quote:
The dimensions ARE fixed as much as they can be in a survey of this kind. There is no comparison of iOS vs Android except in your mind. The comparison is between iPhone users and Android users that responded to the survey.
I never compared iOS carte blanche with Android OS as a whole, the only think I ever compared was devices on cellular network with iOS vs with android. I think I have made this abundantly clear in my previous posts, you might want to read those again before posting.
Quote:
Yes, this is selection bias and I noted that. It's also done by AdMob which introduces another set of biases.
If you want to know the methodology simply read the article and follow the links. CNN did not hide that from you.
The link to admob piece by businesswire contains no reference to selection bias, or bias of any kind within the design of the study. This is the only portion of the article that referred to the study:
Quote:
Originally Posted by businessweek
Highlights from the survey and the January 2010 AdMob Mobile Metrics Report include:
91 percent of iPhone users and 88 percent of iPod touch users would recommend their device, compared to 84 percent of Android users and 69 percent of webOS users.
iPod touch owners download an average of 12 applications a month, 37 percent more than iPhone and Android users who download approximately nine new apps. webOS users downloaded an average of six applications per month.
iPod touch users spent an average of 100 minutes per day using applications. webOS users spent an average of 87 minutes per day, followed by Android users at 80 minutes and iPhone users at 79 minutes per day.
73 percent of Android users are male, compared to only 56 percent of iPhone OS users. The average iPhone user is 14 years older than the average iPod touch user of which 78 percent are below the age of 24.
iPhone represented 47 percent of US smartphone usage in AdMob’s network in January 2010, followed by Android, RIM and webOS devices at 39, seven, and three percent, respectively.
AdMob first ran this survey in August 2009 and again six months later, in February 2010. The survey was conducted with 960 respondents over a two week period, spanning consumers on Android, iPhone, iPod touch and webOS devices on the more than 15,000 mobile Web sites and applications in AdMob’s network in February 2010. The survey did not include the RIM platform as AdMob does not currently serve ads into Blackberry applications.
Methodology, no it's not in the article, except for some vague references such as "opt-in" and "in Februrary", which do not stand up in the standards of any academic work.
Quote:
"All data in the feature section is based on an opt-in survey taken by users on their mobile device. Respondents were sourced by responding to mobile ads throughout AdMob's iPhone OS, Android and webOS networks. There was no incentive offered to participate in the survey.
There were 963 total respondents: 318 Android, 244 iPhone, 356 iPod touch and 45 webOS. The survey was run from February 5th - February 16th.
Of course it was conducted by mobile ads, what do you think admob as a company does? Of course, it also doesn't answer the questions that I posed at all, whether it was conducted when the device was purchases, registered, during installation of an app, visiting certain site, etc, etc.
Quote:
The geographic representation of the respondents was designed to approximate the distribution of users in the AdMob network. The respondents were sourced from English-speaking countries in the AdMob network. "
Not relevant to our discussion, almost everyone in the industry knows what markets admob serves anyways, so mostly redundant information.
Quote:
You know, after a certain point you're simply trying to bluster your way past the point that you have no data whatsoever to support your assertion that iPhone users are significantly older than Android users.
My quarrel is not with your iphone vs android phone stats, it's always been with your dragging in another entire category of devices into an irrational comparison, let me refresh your mind on another place where you mentioned (among numerous instances):
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
The iPod stuff was highlighted to show that Apple is positioning well for future iPhone users.
I have never said that their iPhone stats were wrong, and in fact, this is what I said about it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardBall
the correct comparison would be to fix all dimensions that are intended to be independent, and then compare devices between iOS and android, which make only the iPhone vs. android Phone comparison valid.
You can't run away from what you said earlier so easily.
Quote:
They are reporting the demographics of the respondents. You can use this data to extrapolate to the wider population as long as you understand the inherent biases of an opt in survey of users of ad driven apps. Unless you have data to show that there is an inherent age bias this information is probably representative of the age demographics of the entire population for that time period.
You apparently have never done any first hand study involving rigorous statistical methods, or statistical inference, and don't know how terms like "extrapolate", "representative" and "inherent" are normally used in such domains. I rest my case.
Quote:
Given that AdMob and Nielsen generate these reports for Advertising purchasers do you really believe that
a) There is significant statistical analysis in determining the ages of respondents? (ans: no)
b) They are likely to completely hose up the categorization of age demographics? (ans: unlikely)
Whether the reported demographics matches that of the target population is debatable but not for their uses: the demographics of the eyeballs that view ads.
You are right, it is "debatable", so are the conclusions that you think admob and nielsens have drawn, so what's the quarrel here?
Quote:
For someone who asserts expertise in statistics you seem not to grasp this fairly basic nature of opt-in surveys...there is always selection bias in opt in surveys.
Why, because the links you have provided does not define the methodology, period. Calling something opt-in survey does nothing to define the methodology. A large portion of all statistical data in the IT industry come from opt-in surveys, it means nearly nothing to state that something is an "opt-in survey".
Quote:
Given that Nielsen did not provide methodology in their blog I'll go along with their analysis...that the age difference is slight. Not having any desire to pay $$$ for their actual report which lists their collection methodology I'll live with that assessment.
How odd that you require empirical data when you steadfastly provide none of your own while rejecting data that has already been provided.
If you are willing to draw that kind of that kind of conclusion, then you better be willing to pay for that. That and a statistical package such as SAS or SPSS.
Quote:
Find me a source that shows that iPhone users are predominantly in the 44+ demographic.
Also, you don't need data to make an assertion. That's what makes it an assertion vs a statement of fact.
You are right, my saying that iPhone users are typically older is a conjecture (and is a much simpler conclusion to draw than yours, mine simply involves analysis of two bimodal distributions in the same DF), and based on some small sample of data I see around my own life. Of course it is not a statistically valid conclusion to draw given the small sample that I have, and I never claimed it to be. If I ever have the resources to conduct a large scale data collection, I would, but I'm just an average student. You on the other hand, try to draw some conclusions from ambiguous and imprecise data that does not in any way warrant the type of conclusions that you want, so you simply push aside all guidelines of sound scientific research to forge toward the conclusion that you want.
There's something I don't quite understand in these statistics, I wonder if anyone can help me out. I haven't followed the numbers for too long, but it occurred to me that the overall consumer market share is a cumulative result of the recent purchases over the past few years. That makes me wonder if at any given point iOS's market share was above 28.6%. If not, then I really don't understand how the overall share can be at 28.6%. Any ideas?
the iphone was at 35% for one quarter.
Everybody stop getting their knickers in a twist. All of Android's growth is US and China based. I think the situation will reverse with more carriers, that is 40-30% iPhone - Anroid split. Of course the iOS Android split will be larger.
All ad mob surveys have a bias, as iOS apps will more commonly use iAds.
That is a reasonable conjecture. The survey likely overestimates the number of android users over that time period (Feb 2010 was before the big push of Droid Eris, Evo, Droid X, etc in the spring and summer). So in fact, Android probably still have a longer way to go in catching up to iOS in terms of cellular devices in users' hands than the survey suggests. Of course, we won't know unless we get some more precise data and more detailed description of the methodology.
Edit:
wait, then again, was iAd first implemented only during the summer? Or was there some type of limited release earlier in the year? I don't remember precisely.
He also lists some additional stat that is interesting...
In its study, Net Applications finds that iOS usage surged across the board between November and December as new customers came on board in the holiday season, with iOS usage share growing 24.3% month-to-month to claim 1.69% of total Internet browser usage. The iPad led Apple's charge with 33.3% share growth, with the iPod claiming 25% growth and the iPhone 20% growth. While Android experienced a slightly higher rate of share growth of 29%, its overall share of 0.40% remained far behind that of iOS, illustrating the impact of Apple's broader iOS ecosystem that extends well beyond smartphones.
That is a reasonable conjecture. The survey likely overestimates the number of android users over that time period (Feb 2010 was before the big push of Droid Eris, Evo, Droid X, etc in the spring and summer). So in fact, Android probably still have a longer way to go in catching up to iOS in terms of cellular devices in users' hands than the survey suggests. Of course, we won't know unless we get some more precise data and more detailed description of the methodology.
Edit:
wait, then again, was iAd first implemented only during the summer? Or was there some type of limited release earlier in the year? I don't remember precisely.
Everybody stop getting their knickers in a twist. All of Android's growth is US and China based. I think the situation will reverse with more carriers, that is 40-30% iPhone - Anroid split. Of course the iOS Android split will be larger.
I don't wear knickers
To me, the numbers don't mean much, since I am not a shareholder of any company that has a stake in the game. I'm a user, and I'm glad Apple did what they did, and I like the user experience & service that I get from Apple. I hope they keep enough market share & profit to continue doing what they do. Beyond that, there will always be a non-Apple market (duh) and how that's divided up among other companies has only marginal fascination for me. All other handset makers out there are unlikely to do what Nokia, Palm, and RIM have done in becoming vertically integrated. It's cheaper for them to license an OS and integrate COTS parts from suppliers than to do any real engineering. For them, the obvious choices are: Android, WP7, Symbian. And only one of those choices has any real traction in the market right now.
No, he did not make the claim that Android sales were not outpacing iPhone sales. He put the focus on the market share numbers, which is acceptable bias, but he did not make any false statements.
Quote:
He also lists some additional stat that is interesting...
A surge in iOS usage in November and December tied to iPad and iPOD growth exceeding the growth of Android phones and iPhones is both to be expected, and completely irrelevant to smart phone market share. It may be relavant to an app developer, but we were talking about smart phones which the iPad and iPod clearly are not.
Google's multi vendor and multi carrier strategy is going to win the market share battle as long as they have a relatively competitive product. When it comes to market share, their strategy is superior so the product does not need to be superior to "win" the volume battle. If you have the slightest clue about business you would know market share is not the most important metric in many industries, so it is not like Apple is the loser here. Google is an ad based company whose profits are driven by marketshare. Apple makes the majority of their money from sales to consumers and their profits are driven by profit margins. If Apple wanted to win the market share battle, iphones would be free with a contract or maybe $49 with a buy one get one offer every 2 weeks on all major carriers. The Apple fanboys on this forum would be pleased, and so would iOS developers, but Apple shareholders, not so much. Most Apple shareholders like the current premium product margins better than the 3%-5% they would get in a high volume approach.
You can argue strategy until you are blue in the face, but both Apple and Google are more profitable than the traditional phone providers and I am pretty confident that they are both run by people who understand what they are doing better than you do. Sure Jobs could focus on getting iOS revenue from ads rather than from consumers, and Google could switch to charging for Android, but I am not holding my breath for either. They both have strategies that work and there is obviously room in the market place for them to both make a boatload of money at the same time with their different approaches. Why idiot customers need to be so concerned about their team winning or losing is beyond me. Why an idiot blogger like DED needs to lie about the data to pump up his team and why people actually defend him is even more puzzling. Grow up and learn to use your brain.
You might want to adjust your attitude in future postings.
I don't think this remark was addressing anyone in particular. Attitudes aside, AIaddict is making a lot of sense. I for one am willing to heed the advice.
You can argue strategy until you are blue in the face, but both Apple and Google are more profitable than the traditional phone providers and I am pretty confident that they are both run by people who understand what they are doing better than you do. Sure Jobs could focus on getting iOS revenue from ads rather than from consumers, and Google could switch to charging for Android, but I am not holding my breath for either. They both have strategies that work and there is obviously room in the market place for them to both make a boatload of money at the same time with their different approaches. Why idiot customers need to be so concerned about their team winning or losing is beyond me. Why an idiot blogger like DED needs to lie about the data to pump up his team and why people actually defend him is even more puzzling. Grow up and learn to use your brain.
I think, however, that Jobs wants to win this war and will take a hit in margins for volume. The way to do that is to have more than two models of phones. Until this year that wasnt possible as the 3G was a much worse device than the 3GS - it was not worth continuing. Now, as with the iPod nano and the entry level iPod touch, Apple can maintain it's brand and reduce the price on the 3GS - the cheapest model - come June whilst continuing to sell it.
So three models.
1) iPhone 5 - dual core maybe, retina display. NFC chip and integrated wallet software. New Form factor. Premium price.
2) iPhone 4. As now. Retina display. Reduced price from Summer.
3) iPhone 3GS. As now. Very reduced price.
The iPhone 3GS can play infinity blade, and despite it's age holds up with Android phones released this year. In terms of processor power its not that different from the iPhone 4 so it will handle iOS 5.
It is a viable machine for a year, or two.
And even now you can get it on ( slightly expensive) contracts in the UK for £100, or less. With a price reduction it could be the "free" one on a normal contract.
As they go forward they can change the cheaper model every year. ( That said I prefer the form factor of the 3GS).
That will reduce margins somewhat, but maintain the brand, and any reductions in margins will come at the "cost" of a large increase in volume. In other words the reduction in margins for the iPhone ( which have to reduce sometime as with all commoditized items) will depend on how many 3GS's (or the cheapest model) are sold, which in itself would be a factor in the success of this model. That is: if the 3GS is 25-30% of the iPhone market, it is probably selling to people who would not have bought iPhones otherwise thus increasing the overall market. If it is 50% of all iPhones sold then it reduces overall margins more but doubles the iPhone market ( not a major worry to investors ).
I think therefore the stock price will hold up because of Apple's increase in the market as it even as it reduces it's overall iPhone ASP. That reduction has to happen over time anyway.
( Not that the stock price matters to Apple's day to day operations, unless they intend to sell some preferred stock sometime).
They do something like this for the iPod. The cheapest iPod touch, with a retina type display, is a mere $229. Yet the ASP of the iPod touch line is assumed to be much higher. Nevertheless, Apple have produced an iPhone without the Phone for retail $229, much cheaper than any off-contract iPhone. They can clearly afford to reduce prices on their line, particularly if they are using old components and have their manufacturing down pat - as with the 3GS.
i totally expect this to happen, and I see it taking back share from Android ( along with the Chinese and Verizon phones).
Comments
No, you just don't like data that doesn't agree with you.
Here's a another source of the same data.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/02/...-users-differ/
Incorrect. The data gathered is for each phone platform AND the iPod touch. Demographic comparisons between the iPhone and Android are completely valid.
Again you have misread the data, AND mischaracterized what I said.
The data from Admob is correct, it's the way that macrumours used to state and to draw conclusions is wrong, the data does not:
- comparing two different categories from of devices with different usage patterns is wrong period, nothing can mitigate that this is 100% invalid statistical method.
- macrumours, by aggregating all smartphones together and leaving iPod touch is also invalid, these people from macrumors really need to go to statistics 101 sometime.
- iPod touch is certainly a wildly successful device, and many are sold to people who don't really want any type of service plan, but want some benefits of a mobile device. But it has a very different usage pattern and set of services than an iphone or any other smartphone (just try to access some web enabled app on the highway).
- the correct comparison would be to fix all dimensions that are intended to be independent, and then compare devices between iOS and android, which make only the iPhone vs. android Phone comparison valid.
- CNN/fortune doesn't really do much better in that area than macrumour, they completely omitted to say how and when the data were collected (by when, I mean at which point in the lifecycle of the product, while at registration? during normal use? while installing some app?, while switching a network?), and the fact that it's opt-in should tell you that the result is skewed.
- The sample size of under 1000 for a single degree of freedom with a binary split is more than enough, but they are trying to draw implications from many dimensions of variability, especially given the numerous age categories. They also did not consider any residuals in the vectors given that they collected information on a number of DVs, the overall homoscedasticity in these models are going to be highly suspect.
This is a problem in general with random internet sites posting articles with authors with no training in any of the area that they are writing in. And quoting articles on internet about complex statistical analysis doesn't usually help your cause."Those are a few of differences that emerged from a opt-in survey of 963 smartphone and iPod touch owners conducted in February by AdMob, the mobile advertising company that Google snapped up in November for $750 million."
You can claim that opt-in surveys have significant self-selection bias if you like.
It's not about self bias, it's about who filled out those surveys; if it's when these phones are activated, then there is a high probability of statistical bias (not self bias).
The point is that you keep asserting that iPhones are for old people while young folks prefer Android phones. A point which you have ZERO data to provide as support.
Here are some other numbers:
"Android users tend to be slightly younger than their iPhone peers- 55% of Android users are under the age of 34 — while just 47% of iPhone users fall within the same demographic."
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/...ne-vs-android/
8% is significant but not a dominant factor. Slight is the word I would have chosen as well.
The time between a younger generation growing up from 17 year olds to earning money demographic is 5-6 years after which they graduate from college. This is not decades.
Whether it is significant depends on the variance and p-value of the analysis, not something you can find by looking at a difference in percentage. Even just looking at difference between the two, the right way would be to say that the difference is 16-17%, not 8%
Tapping into both ends of the demographic is superior to just one end. Given the product cycle is 1 year and the average contract is 2 years I'd say you vastly overestimate the timescale.
The iPod Touch is certainly a potent gateway to attract future iPhone users.
That is an opinion with your own conjecture, and as usual, I respect that as a possibility. But to make it an assertion, you would need some emperical data of that process actually happening.
$20 when Android without a shadow of a doubt passes iOS (more like already passed) DED will make an article about it, focus 5% on it, then spend the rest of the article shitting on the app store, security and quality of said store, lack of "immersive" advertising, fragmentation, rehash the Oracle lawsuite, etc.
That is a sure bet.
THAT is the real story here.
Again you have misread the data, AND mischaracterized what I said.
The data from Admob is correct, it's the way that macrumours used to state and to draw conclusions is wrong, the data does not:
* comparing two different categories from of devices with different usage patterns is wrong period, nothing can mitigate that this is 100% invalid statistical method.
The two "devices" are iPhones and Android phones. Both are in the same category. Why is this hard to understand? Ignore the column that says iPod Touch. It is irrelevant to this comparison.
* macrumours, by aggregating all smartphones together and leaving iPod touch is also invalid, these people from macrumors really need to go to statistics 101 sometime.
Incorrect. What they said is that for all three phone platforms measured about 25% of respondents were under 24.
* iPod touch is certainly a wildly successful device, and many are sold to people who don't really want any type of service plan, but want some benefits of a mobile device. But it has a very different usage pattern and set of services than an iphone or any other smartphone (just try to access some web enabled app on the highway).
This has absolutely nothing to do with the percentage of iPhone, Android Phone and WebOS phone users under 24 that answered the survey. Zero, nada, zilch.
* the correct comparison would be to fix all dimensions that are intended to be independent, and then compare devices between iOS and android, which make only the iPhone vs. android Phone comparison valid.
The dimensions ARE fixed as much as they can be in a survey of this kind. There is no comparison of iOS vs Android except in your mind. The comparison is between iPhone users and Android users that responded to the survey.
[*]CNN/fortune doesn't really do much better in that area than macrumour, they completely omitted to say how and when the data were collected (by when, I mean at which point in the lifecycle of the product, while at registration? during normal use? while installing some app?, while switching a network?), and the fact that it's opt-in should tell you that the result is skewed.
Yes, this is selection bias and I noted that. It's also done by AdMob which introduces another set of biases.
If you want to know the methodology simply read the article and follow the links. CNN did not hide that from you.
"All data in the feature section is based on an opt-in survey taken by users on their mobile device. Respondents were sourced by responding to mobile ads throughout AdMob's iPhone OS, Android and webOS networks. There was no incentive offered to participate in the survey.
There were 963 total respondents: 318 Android, 244 iPhone, 356 iPod touch and 45 webOS. The survey was run from February 5th - February 16th.
The geographic representation of the respondents was designed to approximate the distribution of users in the AdMob network. The respondents were sourced from English-speaking countries in the AdMob network. "
* The sample size of under 1000 for a single degree of freedom with a binary split is more than enough, but they are trying to draw implications from many dimensions of variability, especially given the numerous age categories. They also did not consider any residuals in the vectors given that they collected information on a number of DVs, the overall homoscedasticity in these models are going to be highly suspect.
You know, after a certain point you're simply trying to bluster your way past the point that you have no data whatsoever to support your assertion that iPhone users are significantly older than Android users.
They are reporting the demographics of the respondents. You can use this data to extrapolate to the wider population as long as you understand the inherent biases of an opt in survey of users of ad driven apps. Unless you have data to show that there is an inherent age bias this information is probably representative of the age demographics of the entire population for that time period.
This is a problem in general with random internet sites posting articles with authors with no training in any of the area that they are writing in. And quoting articles on internet about complex statistical analysis doesn't usually help your cause.
Given that AdMob and Nielsen generate these reports for Advertising purchasers do you really believe that
a) There is significant statistical analysis in determining the ages of respondents? (ans: no)
b) They are likely to completely hose up the categorization of age demographics? (ans: unlikely)
Whether the reported demographics matches that of the target population is debatable but not for their uses: the demographics of the eyeballs that view ads.
It's not about self bias, it's about who filled out those surveys; if it's when these phones are activated, then there is a high probability of statistical bias (not self bias).
For someone who asserts expertise in statistics you seem not to grasp this fairly basic nature of opt-in surveys...there is always selection bias in opt in surveys.
Whether it is significant depends on the variance and p-value of the analysis, not something you can find by looking at a difference in percentage. Even just looking at difference between the two, the right way would be to say that the difference is 16-17%, not 8%
Given that Nielsen did not provide methodology in their blog I'll go along with their analysis...that the age difference is slight. Not having any desire to pay $$$ for their actual report which lists their collection methodology I'll live with that assessment.
That is an opinion with your own conjecture, and as usual, I respect that as a possibility. But to make it an assertion, you would need some emperical data of that process actually happening.
How odd that you require empirical data when you steadfastly provide none of your own while rejecting data that has already been provided.
Find me a source that shows that iPhone users are predominantly in the 44+ demographic.
Also, you don't need data to make an assertion. That's what makes it an assertion vs a statement of fact.
I'm not saying I disagree with you or agree with you, but either way what you've said here is just classic wishful thinking. You may be right or wrong, but (unlike Daniel ironically), you simply have no data to back up these assumptions and are pretty much just blowing some kind of stinky gas here.
A lot of the comments on Daniel's articles seem to go like this. A lot of whining and bluster, a lot of denial, but no real counter-argument to back it up and no real analysis of what the author is actually putting forward as a thesis. The few times someone takes the trouble to factually knock down his arguments, it seems like only about 1% of the time do they actually come out on top and prove him wrong.
I've been reading his stuff since he started on pretty much a daily basis, and while he has been wrong before, he isn't wrong that often, which is probably why most of the comments on his stuff always end up sounding like the Sour Grapes arguments they really are.
HUH? The same data that DED quotes is what backs up my argument. If you read the studies he quotes separate from his interpretation, you will walk away with a VERY DIFFERENT conclusion than the bizare ones he comes up with. There is no wishful thinking on my part, I am an iPhone owner, but I do not have any stock in Apple, Google, AT&T or Verizon. I have no skin in the game other than a desire for honesty and factual accuracy in journalism and blogging.
Outpacing is a pretty clear term. Pace means speed. Android phones are selling faster. They have not overtaken the iphone in market share yet, but they have certainly outpaced the iphone based on the metrics from a variety of sources. If you don't think Android has outpaced the iphone, I would love to see your data to back it up and your argument why Gartner, Nielson, wall street and the tech press are all wrong and why DED is right.
As for the Gartner research, go read their study and look at the numbers. The data they published in no way implied that the growth in Android sales came from the mysterious other category. The unit sales they reported for HTC, Motorola, and Samsung were more than enough to cover their estimated number of Android phones sold. DED appears to have made the assumption that any Android sales represented unit GROWTH for these manufacturers and since their year over year numbers were not up that much, the Android phones must be in the other category. That is a phenomonally stupid set of assumptions. Android sales heavily canabalized sales of other HTC, Motorola, and Samasung devices from a year earlier. They all sold more phones in total, but many of their sales of non-Android phones declined sharply once they had decent Android offerings. NO ONE other than DED is claiming that there are tens of millions of no name Android phones flooding the market, certainly Gartner did not and is not making that claim.
There's something I don't quite understand in these statistics, I wonder if anyone can help me out. I haven't followed the numbers for too long, but it occurred to me that the overall consumer market share is a cumulative result of the recent purchases over the past few years. That makes me wonder if at any given point iOS's market share was above 28.6%. If not, then I really don't understand how the overall share can be at 28.6%. Any ideas?
iPhones probably have remained in service longer than some of the other phones. Even when people upgrade to the latest version, they pass their old iPhone on to a friend or family memeber, or sell it to someone else who continiues to use it. Many of the original iPhone 2G's and iPhone 3G's remain in service, while a lower percentage of blackbery and windows mobile phones from that era are still in use. That trend could certainly change once there are 3 year old Android phones, and also as Apple leaves the earlier hardware further and further behind in software updates.
iPhones probably have remained in service longer than some of the other phones. Even when people upgrade to the latest version, they pass their old iPhone on to a friend or family memeber, or sell it to someone else who continiues to use it. Many of the original iPhone 2G's and iPhone 3G's remain in service, while a lower percentage of blackbery and windows mobile phones from that era are still in use. That trend could certainly change once there are 3 year old Android phones, and also as Apple leaves the earlier hardware further and further behind in software updates.
Thanks, tbh I wasn't expecting an answer, and certainly not one that made sense. What you suggest is the only feasible explanation -- second-hand reuse of older handsets, which is NOT identified in the survey as a new purchase (even though it should be, imo). I remain skeptical if the extent of this phenomenon is sufficient to explain the numbers, especially knowing that phones out of warranty have a limited lifespan due to battery and screen accidents. I admit thought that, short of assuming that the numbers reported by Nielsen are complete rubbish, I have no better explanation.
The two "devices" are iPhones and Android phones. Both are in the same category. Why is this hard to understand? Ignore the column that says iPod Touch. It is irrelevant to this comparison.
So you are denying what you said yourself earlier, this is the sentence of yours that I responded to:
Incorrect. The data gathered is for each phone platform AND the iPod touch.
I guess it doesn't surprise me that you are denying what you said in plain words in your previous post.
Incorrect. What they said is that for all three phone platforms measured about 25% of respondents were under 24.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the percentage of iPhone, Android Phone and WebOS phone users under 24 that answered the survey. Zero, nada, zilch.
You apparently think so, not me. You are the first one to bring statistics of iPod touch purchase and usage into the discussion, I never did. The only thing I ever mentioned before is that I own an iPod (and always have at least one at any time), in an exchange about who is an "apple hater" and such. This is an iPhone forum with discussions on iPhones and other phones in competition.
The dimensions ARE fixed as much as they can be in a survey of this kind. There is no comparison of iOS vs Android except in your mind. The comparison is between iPhone users and Android users that responded to the survey.
I never compared iOS carte blanche with Android OS as a whole, the only think I ever compared was devices on cellular network with iOS vs with android. I think I have made this abundantly clear in my previous posts, you might want to read those again before posting.
Yes, this is selection bias and I noted that. It's also done by AdMob which introduces another set of biases.
If you want to know the methodology simply read the article and follow the links. CNN did not hide that from you.
The link to admob piece by businesswire contains no reference to selection bias, or bias of any kind within the design of the study. This is the only portion of the article that referred to the study:
Highlights from the survey and the January 2010 AdMob Mobile Metrics Report include:
91 percent of iPhone users and 88 percent of iPod touch users would recommend their device, compared to 84 percent of Android users and 69 percent of webOS users.
iPod touch owners download an average of 12 applications a month, 37 percent more than iPhone and Android users who download approximately nine new apps. webOS users downloaded an average of six applications per month.
iPod touch users spent an average of 100 minutes per day using applications. webOS users spent an average of 87 minutes per day, followed by Android users at 80 minutes and iPhone users at 79 minutes per day.
73 percent of Android users are male, compared to only 56 percent of iPhone OS users. The average iPhone user is 14 years older than the average iPod touch user of which 78 percent are below the age of 24.
iPhone represented 47 percent of US smartphone usage in AdMob’s network in January 2010, followed by Android, RIM and webOS devices at 39, seven, and three percent, respectively.
AdMob first ran this survey in August 2009 and again six months later, in February 2010. The survey was conducted with 960 respondents over a two week period, spanning consumers on Android, iPhone, iPod touch and webOS devices on the more than 15,000 mobile Web sites and applications in AdMob’s network in February 2010. The survey did not include the RIM platform as AdMob does not currently serve ads into Blackberry applications.
Methodology, no it's not in the article, except for some vague references such as "opt-in" and "in Februrary", which do not stand up in the standards of any academic work.
"All data in the feature section is based on an opt-in survey taken by users on their mobile device. Respondents were sourced by responding to mobile ads throughout AdMob's iPhone OS, Android and webOS networks. There was no incentive offered to participate in the survey.
There were 963 total respondents: 318 Android, 244 iPhone, 356 iPod touch and 45 webOS. The survey was run from February 5th - February 16th.
Of course it was conducted by mobile ads, what do you think admob as a company does? Of course, it also doesn't answer the questions that I posed at all, whether it was conducted when the device was purchases, registered, during installation of an app, visiting certain site, etc, etc.
The geographic representation of the respondents was designed to approximate the distribution of users in the AdMob network. The respondents were sourced from English-speaking countries in the AdMob network. "
Not relevant to our discussion, almost everyone in the industry knows what markets admob serves anyways, so mostly redundant information.
You know, after a certain point you're simply trying to bluster your way past the point that you have no data whatsoever to support your assertion that iPhone users are significantly older than Android users.
My quarrel is not with your iphone vs android phone stats, it's always been with your dragging in another entire category of devices into an irrational comparison, let me refresh your mind on another place where you mentioned (among numerous instances):
The iPod stuff was highlighted to show that Apple is positioning well for future iPhone users.
I have never said that their iPhone stats were wrong, and in fact, this is what I said about it:
the correct comparison would be to fix all dimensions that are intended to be independent, and then compare devices between iOS and android, which make only the iPhone vs. android Phone comparison valid.
You can't run away from what you said earlier so easily.
They are reporting the demographics of the respondents. You can use this data to extrapolate to the wider population as long as you understand the inherent biases of an opt in survey of users of ad driven apps. Unless you have data to show that there is an inherent age bias this information is probably representative of the age demographics of the entire population for that time period.
You apparently have never done any first hand study involving rigorous statistical methods, or statistical inference, and don't know how terms like "extrapolate", "representative" and "inherent" are normally used in such domains. I rest my case.
Given that AdMob and Nielsen generate these reports for Advertising purchasers do you really believe that
a) There is significant statistical analysis in determining the ages of respondents? (ans: no)
b) They are likely to completely hose up the categorization of age demographics? (ans: unlikely)
Whether the reported demographics matches that of the target population is debatable but not for their uses: the demographics of the eyeballs that view ads.
You are right, it is "debatable", so are the conclusions that you think admob and nielsens have drawn, so what's the quarrel here?
For someone who asserts expertise in statistics you seem not to grasp this fairly basic nature of opt-in surveys...there is always selection bias in opt in surveys.
Why, because the links you have provided does not define the methodology, period. Calling something opt-in survey does nothing to define the methodology. A large portion of all statistical data in the IT industry come from opt-in surveys, it means nearly nothing to state that something is an "opt-in survey".
Given that Nielsen did not provide methodology in their blog I'll go along with their analysis...that the age difference is slight. Not having any desire to pay $$$ for their actual report which lists their collection methodology I'll live with that assessment.
How odd that you require empirical data when you steadfastly provide none of your own while rejecting data that has already been provided.
If you are willing to draw that kind of that kind of conclusion, then you better be willing to pay for that. That and a statistical package such as SAS or SPSS.
Find me a source that shows that iPhone users are predominantly in the 44+ demographic.
Also, you don't need data to make an assertion. That's what makes it an assertion vs a statement of fact.
You are right, my saying that iPhone users are typically older is a conjecture (and is a much simpler conclusion to draw than yours, mine simply involves analysis of two bimodal distributions in the same DF), and based on some small sample of data I see around my own life. Of course it is not a statistically valid conclusion to draw given the small sample that I have, and I never claimed it to be. If I ever have the resources to conduct a large scale data collection, I would, but I'm just an average student. You on the other hand, try to draw some conclusions from ambiguous and imprecise data that does not in any way warrant the type of conclusions that you want, so you simply push aside all guidelines of sound scientific research to forge toward the conclusion that you want.
There's something I don't quite understand in these statistics, I wonder if anyone can help me out. I haven't followed the numbers for too long, but it occurred to me that the overall consumer market share is a cumulative result of the recent purchases over the past few years. That makes me wonder if at any given point iOS's market share was above 28.6%. If not, then I really don't understand how the overall share can be at 28.6%. Any ideas?
the iphone was at 35% for one quarter.
Everybody stop getting their knickers in a twist. All of Android's growth is US and China based. I think the situation will reverse with more carriers, that is 40-30% iPhone - Anroid split. Of course the iOS Android split will be larger.
All ad mob surveys have a bias, as iOS apps will more commonly use iAds.
That is a reasonable conjecture. The survey likely overestimates the number of android users over that time period (Feb 2010 was before the big push of Droid Eris, Evo, Droid X, etc in the spring and summer). So in fact, Android probably still have a longer way to go in catching up to iOS in terms of cellular devices in users' hands than the survey suggests. Of course, we won't know unless we get some more precise data and more detailed description of the methodology.
Edit:
wait, then again, was iAd first implemented only during the summer? Or was there some type of limited release earlier in the year? I don't remember precisely.
He also lists some additional stat that is interesting...
That is a reasonable conjecture. The survey likely overestimates the number of android users over that time period (Feb 2010 was before the big push of Droid Eris, Evo, Droid X, etc in the spring and summer). So in fact, Android probably still have a longer way to go in catching up to iOS in terms of cellular devices in users' hands than the survey suggests. Of course, we won't know unless we get some more precise data and more detailed description of the methodology.
Edit:
wait, then again, was iAd first implemented only during the summer? Or was there some type of limited release earlier in the year? I don't remember precisely.
Summer in the US, worldwide by the Fall.
new features:
1) white
LOL. Nice.
the iphone was at 35% for one quarter.
Everybody stop getting their knickers in a twist. All of Android's growth is US and China based. I think the situation will reverse with more carriers, that is 40-30% iPhone - Anroid split. Of course the iOS Android split will be larger.
I don't wear knickers
To me, the numbers don't mean much, since I am not a shareholder of any company that has a stake in the game. I'm a user, and I'm glad Apple did what they did, and I like the user experience & service that I get from Apple. I hope they keep enough market share & profit to continue doing what they do. Beyond that, there will always be a non-Apple market (duh) and how that's divided up among other companies has only marginal fascination for me. All other handset makers out there are unlikely to do what Nokia, Palm, and RIM have done in becoming vertically integrated. It's cheaper for them to license an OS and integrate COTS parts from suppliers than to do any real engineering. For them, the obvious choices are: Android, WP7, Symbian. And only one of those choices has any real traction in the market right now.
I guess Eric Silvka is also misreprented the data over on MR.
No, he did not make the claim that Android sales were not outpacing iPhone sales. He put the focus on the market share numbers, which is acceptable bias, but he did not make any false statements.
He also lists some additional stat that is interesting...
A surge in iOS usage in November and December tied to iPad and iPOD growth exceeding the growth of Android phones and iPhones is both to be expected, and completely irrelevant to smart phone market share. It may be relavant to an app developer, but we were talking about smart phones which the iPad and iPod clearly are not.
Google's multi vendor and multi carrier strategy is going to win the market share battle as long as they have a relatively competitive product. When it comes to market share, their strategy is superior so the product does not need to be superior to "win" the volume battle. If you have the slightest clue about business you would know market share is not the most important metric in many industries, so it is not like Apple is the loser here. Google is an ad based company whose profits are driven by marketshare. Apple makes the majority of their money from sales to consumers and their profits are driven by profit margins. If Apple wanted to win the market share battle, iphones would be free with a contract or maybe $49 with a buy one get one offer every 2 weeks on all major carriers. The Apple fanboys on this forum would be pleased, and so would iOS developers, but Apple shareholders, not so much. Most Apple shareholders like the current premium product margins better than the 3%-5% they would get in a high volume approach.
You can argue strategy until you are blue in the face, but both Apple and Google are more profitable than the traditional phone providers and I am pretty confident that they are both run by people who understand what they are doing better than you do. Sure Jobs could focus on getting iOS revenue from ads rather than from consumers, and Google could switch to charging for Android, but I am not holding my breath for either. They both have strategies that work and there is obviously room in the market place for them to both make a boatload of money at the same time with their different approaches. Why idiot customers need to be so concerned about their team winning or losing is beyond me. Why an idiot blogger like DED needs to lie about the data to pump up his team and why people actually defend him is even more puzzling. Grow up and learn to use your brain.
Grow up and learn to use your brain.
You might want to adjust your attitude in future postings.
...Grow up and learn to use your brain.
You might want to adjust your attitude in future postings.
I don't think this remark was addressing anyone in particular. Attitudes aside, AIaddict is making a lot of sense. I for one am willing to heed the advice.
You can argue strategy until you are blue in the face, but both Apple and Google are more profitable than the traditional phone providers and I am pretty confident that they are both run by people who understand what they are doing better than you do. Sure Jobs could focus on getting iOS revenue from ads rather than from consumers, and Google could switch to charging for Android, but I am not holding my breath for either. They both have strategies that work and there is obviously room in the market place for them to both make a boatload of money at the same time with their different approaches. Why idiot customers need to be so concerned about their team winning or losing is beyond me. Why an idiot blogger like DED needs to lie about the data to pump up his team and why people actually defend him is even more puzzling. Grow up and learn to use your brain.
I think, however, that Jobs wants to win this war and will take a hit in margins for volume. The way to do that is to have more than two models of phones. Until this year that wasnt possible as the 3G was a much worse device than the 3GS - it was not worth continuing. Now, as with the iPod nano and the entry level iPod touch, Apple can maintain it's brand and reduce the price on the 3GS - the cheapest model - come June whilst continuing to sell it.
So three models.
1) iPhone 5 - dual core maybe, retina display. NFC chip and integrated wallet software. New Form factor. Premium price.
2) iPhone 4. As now. Retina display. Reduced price from Summer.
3) iPhone 3GS. As now. Very reduced price.
The iPhone 3GS can play infinity blade, and despite it's age holds up with Android phones released this year. In terms of processor power its not that different from the iPhone 4 so it will handle iOS 5.
It is a viable machine for a year, or two.
And even now you can get it on ( slightly expensive) contracts in the UK for £100, or less. With a price reduction it could be the "free" one on a normal contract.
As they go forward they can change the cheaper model every year. ( That said I prefer the form factor of the 3GS).
That will reduce margins somewhat, but maintain the brand, and any reductions in margins will come at the "cost" of a large increase in volume. In other words the reduction in margins for the iPhone ( which have to reduce sometime as with all commoditized items) will depend on how many 3GS's (or the cheapest model) are sold, which in itself would be a factor in the success of this model. That is: if the 3GS is 25-30% of the iPhone market, it is probably selling to people who would not have bought iPhones otherwise thus increasing the overall market. If it is 50% of all iPhones sold then it reduces overall margins more but doubles the iPhone market ( not a major worry to investors ).
I think therefore the stock price will hold up because of Apple's increase in the market as it even as it reduces it's overall iPhone ASP. That reduction has to happen over time anyway.
( Not that the stock price matters to Apple's day to day operations, unless they intend to sell some preferred stock sometime).
They do something like this for the iPod. The cheapest iPod touch, with a retina type display, is a mere $229. Yet the ASP of the iPod touch line is assumed to be much higher. Nevertheless, Apple have produced an iPhone without the Phone for retail $229, much cheaper than any off-contract iPhone. They can clearly afford to reduce prices on their line, particularly if they are using old components and have their manufacturing down pat - as with the 3GS.
i totally expect this to happen, and I see it taking back share from Android ( along with the Chinese and Verizon phones).