This has been the story all along. Android was the late comer to the party. Now the reverse is true, to the surprise of many. I think Apple might consider "one size fits all" may not carry them through or that depriving one carrier to earn a bigger kick back from another may not be viable long term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
Precisely. It WOULD be news if all Android-based phones put together, didn't beat sales of iPhone.
All it means is that the ios platform is not the most popular amongst smartphone owners. Apple's client base has always been a niche market until the iphone came along and then they made billions. Now they can go back to making a high end niche product and earn record profits from loyalists. I think it's a winning formula.
On Galaxy S, Samsung also has a winning formula and it's a win-win in a growing market.
Actually what this means - if you read the numbers in context is that Android is actually growing the smart phone market segment out of the feature phone market segment - which is a good thing for everyone. The more people who start using smart phones opens up the market for all device makers - including Apple, RIM, Nokia, and Microsoft, along with the 'Droid makers and Google.
Let's be very clear here Apple own 27% of the consumer market for PCs in the US. That is hardly a niche. And Apple is growing their market share at a much higher rate year over year against a continuingly flat PC sales sales slope. Apple wasn't a niche player for very long in the MP3 player market, and well before the iPhone was introduced it was the most popular player in the market - and still is. The whole "high-end niche product" meme is woefully over-played and highly inaccurate by any comparison. You may want to find another strawman to flog with that.
Yes, the numbers are certainly there for Android, but if you were to really have all the data that showed how many of those phones were buy 1, get 1 it would sure make some interesting information when you consider that there are no such deals for the iPhone. I think that much of the data is inflated by bargain hunters.
For those that go for the more expensive models, there is still a lot of disappointment. I have a Droid X on Verizon - only because I have no ATT coverage in my area. It sucks like a nun with braces. As soon as the iPhone is available, my Droid is going to the recycling depot.
Bottom line though... Apple doesn't have to be the biggest at what it does, it just has to be the best. Those that want quality will line up for it, not just buy it because it was on sale.
MS still holding onto about 10%. I think WP7 will be more successful than many think. I?d certainly choose it today over Android.
Isn?t that 6.4% rise a dramatic slowdown over what it was doing? I?d have thought they?d be rising faster with so many devices coming to market for the holidays.
There is still an effective Windows phone presence there - and we have not yet seen how M/soft is going to deal with Android eroding their share. They already have two handset makers under their guns between the Motorola lawsuit and the licensing under threat of lawsuit of the other (can't remember which one offhand). They haven't begun to claw back their marketshare, and with the considerable clout they can still pack - I definitely wouldn't count Redmond out yet.
Lets remind the early days of MAC OS vs Windows, the Mac almost dissapeared in '97. Why could it again lead to this??? Well, just like in the 80's, Android is freely available for other manufacturers to implement it in their devices, while iOS is not.
But the mac in the 80's never had an installed base of millions of devices as it has now. It was at the time a very very small company, that could not compete against the monopoly of IBM as rammed in by MS (lead by Gates). The situation is very very different now. I don't understand why people fail to see the differences, and just keep parroting the "similarities" without any thought. The field is level, a multibillion company vs a multibillion company, each one with its own strengths and weaknesses. I don't see how this is the 80's "all over again"!
But the mac in the 80's never had an installed base of millions of devices as it has now. It was at the time a very very small company, that could not compete against the monopoly of IBM as rammed in by MS (lead by Gates). The situation is very very different now. I don't understand why people fail to see the differences, and just keep parroting the "similarities" without any thought. The field is level, a multibillion company vs a multibillion company, each one with its own strengths and weaknesses. I don't see how this is the 80's "all over again"!
seriously? now its google + samsung + LG + philips + sony ericsson + every other android device maker vs Apple when it comes to platforms
All the free contract phones combined have finally managed to surpass the more expensive iPhone. Multiple manufacturers with multiple configurations and buy one get one free and free upgrade handsets have finally managed to catch up to a company who has only been in the Market for four years. Apple must be shaking in their boots.
In other news sales of Aston martin have been surpassed by fiat. Funny thing is that Aston martin's profit margin appears to be higher...
Ps. If we are talking os, do these figures include all iOS installs including iPad iPod touch and iPhone?
Irrespective, Market share does not equal success, quality or profitability. Popular is not defined by the number of products given away or cheaply available, massive Market share normally means an affordable or compromise product. The popular choice is what you aspire to own.
Sine when have apple equated success with Market share, and since when does larger Market share reflect succes, quality or user experience?
But the mac in the 80's never had an installed base of millions of devices as it has now. It was at the time a very very small company, that could not compete against the monopoly of IBM as rammed in by MS (lead by Gates). The situation is very very different now. I don't understand why people fail to see the differences, and just keep parroting the "similarities" without any thought. The field is level, a multibillion company vs a multibillion company, each one with its own strengths and weaknesses. I don't see how this is the 80's "all over again"!
Right, and MS didn't take off with a monopoly until 1995. Apple had the advantage with its OS the whole time and due to their incompetence and mistakes let MS take over.
All the free contract phones combined have finally managed to surpass iPhone. Multiple manufacturers with multiple configurations and buy one get one free and free upgrade handsets have finally managed to catch up to a company who has only been in he Market for four years. Apple must be shaking in their boots.
In other news sales of Aston martin have been surpassed by fiat. Funny thing is that Aston martin's profits appear to be higher...
Aston martin does not rely on an ecosystem specifically around it...
An AM tanks premium petrol like most other cars and drives the same roads
Right, and MS didn't take off with a monopoly until 1995. Apple had the advantage with its OS the whole time and due to their incompetence and mistakes let MS take over.
Yep, you are absolutely right. Incompetence and bad management screwed apple then.
That does not change my point. The game is very different now.
This question would be valid except that when Android became available on ATT, the target smartphone demographic had already left ATT or bought an iphone, most becoming happy owners. Many iphone owners will move to Verizon and many upgraders on Verizon will choose an iPhone. My point, however, is that we will not see a reversal in the trend over the next six months.
My prediction is that Android will maintain faster quarterly growth... not for reasons of user interface, but due to lower cost (Sprint, Tmobile) and choices in form factor and unique features.
Both platforms will grow as the market grows and also with the demise of Blackberry and Symbian. However, in a year or two, I see Apple settling in with its minority market share earning high margins, as it does so well, making high quality products. Nothing wrong with this. I've owned macs for many years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Is Android selling as well on AT&T as on the other US carriers? If it is then I think we can assume your statement is correct. If not, I think it?s likely you?re wrong.
My verizon friend just bought a Droid X due to her old phone finally burning out. They practically gave away the DroidX phone. She didn't have to pay anything for it except just an extra $10/mo for the plan. That kind of gives me an idea about what they're doing.
She was actually waiting for an iPhone and knows about the impending arrival. She just could not wait any more. What a pity as the first thing she mentioned about her DroidX is how complicated it is to use. She has an iPod touch and loved its simplicity.
How can one compete when shops are practically giving the phones away?
iPhone is actually 4 different phones. iOS is actually 9 different devices.
Oh snap! Aren't you cleverer. Actually, it is two iPhone form factors (supported - 1st gen iPhone while still viable compared to many of the venerable 1.5 and 1.6 android phones, is not supported anymore), but hey while we're being arrantly silly let's dive into that marvelous and majical place called Android heaven for a similarly idiotic comparison:
There are currently 8 OS versions of Android of which 6 are currently supported
There are 28 handset makers making smartphones with the Android OS installed
There are currently in production 119 different handsets (including carrier-branded versions due to carrier differentiation of the install)
There are currently slated an additional 21 handsets to be produced with the Android OS installed
but hey let's take this out to the boundaries of credulity: Android owns more than just smartphones!
There are 6 different e-readers with Android installed
There are 3 netbook models with Android installed
There are at least 2 media/mp3 player devices with Android installed
And of course the Google TV
Slated for future release are at least 2 "smart" TVs running Android
And look for Android to become part of your automobile operating systems (ala Sync)
Android OWNS devices, regardless of class, manufacturer, or intended use - like sugar and salt in processed foods and like Windows wishes to be: Android is Everywhere.
Now I hope this makes you feel better about yourself, and let's you relax that white-knuckled grip you have on your Android fandom.
Who cares about the figures, I have loved each and every one of my iPhones, and have no intention of swapping to another handset. Same reason why we only have Macs in our home, very reliable, they do exactly what you need and very stylish to boot
This is a direct result of Apple’s love affair with AT&T. I understand AT&T took a risk when no one else did, but by the time the iPhone 3Gs came around, Apple should have offered it to any and all carriers that wanted it.
By that time, the iPhone was an established hit, and I am sure carriers would be willing to work with Apple to get the phone on their networks. Oh and one cannot say the “quality” of AT&T network is what kept them on it. Because around this time there were floods of complaints on the internet about dropped calls, slow data, etc… Steve was even asked about this on occasion.
Apple should have even made a CDMA version. Steve should have come on stage and said, here is the iPhone 3Gs, available on ALL networks! Why limit your customer base to just ONE carrier?
Sure this would not have stopped Android, but it would have slowed it down significantly. Even now, with all the Verizon rumors going around, why are they just limiting themselves to Verizon?!?!? In EVERY other country in the world, the iPhone is available to more than one carrier. So why does Apple continue to have this love affair with AT&T?!?!?!?
They don’t have to license iOS to others. They first have to make sure that everyone that wants an iPhone can get one. I for one flat out refuse to pay AT&T inflated prices. T-Mobile is much more economical for me, and the coverage is just as good at ATT in my area. Some people love Verizon, others Sprint, still others some other carrier, why should they be denied the phone?
Comments
Precisely. It WOULD be news if all Android-based phones put together, didn't beat sales of iPhone.
All it means is that the ios platform is not the most popular amongst smartphone owners. Apple's client base has always been a niche market until the iphone came along and then they made billions. Now they can go back to making a high end niche product and earn record profits from loyalists. I think it's a winning formula.
On Galaxy S, Samsung also has a winning formula and it's a win-win in a growing market.
Actually what this means - if you read the numbers in context is that Android is actually growing the smart phone market segment out of the feature phone market segment - which is a good thing for everyone. The more people who start using smart phones opens up the market for all device makers - including Apple, RIM, Nokia, and Microsoft, along with the 'Droid makers and Google.
Let's be very clear here Apple own 27% of the consumer market for PCs in the US. That is hardly a niche. And Apple is growing their market share at a much higher rate year over year against a continuingly flat PC sales sales slope. Apple wasn't a niche player for very long in the MP3 player market, and well before the iPhone was introduced it was the most popular player in the market - and still is. The whole "high-end niche product" meme is woefully over-played and highly inaccurate by any comparison. You may want to find another strawman to flog with that.
For those that go for the more expensive models, there is still a lot of disappointment. I have a Droid X on Verizon - only because I have no ATT coverage in my area. It sucks like a nun with braces. As soon as the iPhone is available, my Droid is going to the recycling depot.
Bottom line though... Apple doesn't have to be the biggest at what it does, it just has to be the best. Those that want quality will line up for it, not just buy it because it was on sale.
MS still holding onto about 10%. I think WP7 will be more successful than many think. I?d certainly choose it today over Android.
Isn?t that 6.4% rise a dramatic slowdown over what it was doing? I?d have thought they?d be rising faster with so many devices coming to market for the holidays.
There is still an effective Windows phone presence there - and we have not yet seen how M/soft is going to deal with Android eroding their share. They already have two handset makers under their guns between the Motorola lawsuit and the licensing under threat of lawsuit of the other (can't remember which one offhand). They haven't begun to claw back their marketshare, and with the considerable clout they can still pack - I definitely wouldn't count Redmond out yet.
Lets remind the early days of MAC OS vs Windows, the Mac almost dissapeared in '97. Why could it again lead to this??? Well, just like in the 80's, Android is freely available for other manufacturers to implement it in their devices, while iOS is not.
But the mac in the 80's never had an installed base of millions of devices as it has now. It was at the time a very very small company, that could not compete against the monopoly of IBM as rammed in by MS (lead by Gates). The situation is very very different now. I don't understand why people fail to see the differences, and just keep parroting the "similarities" without any thought. The field is level, a multibillion company vs a multibillion company, each one with its own strengths and weaknesses. I don't see how this is the 80's "all over again"!
when would AI get it .. Android is not a phone ! ... Iphone is a phone . let me know when M Droid outsells Iphone 4
Well let's have apple sell iOS to third party makers and see what happens.
Oh wait, we can't do that. So stop bringing up this BS talking point.
I think you will be surprised at how little the Verizon iphone affects the trend.
And even DED agrees on that point.
But the mac in the 80's never had an installed base of millions of devices as it has now. It was at the time a very very small company, that could not compete against the monopoly of IBM as rammed in by MS (lead by Gates). The situation is very very different now. I don't understand why people fail to see the differences, and just keep parroting the "similarities" without any thought. The field is level, a multibillion company vs a multibillion company, each one with its own strengths and weaknesses. I don't see how this is the 80's "all over again"!
seriously? now its google + samsung + LG + philips + sony ericsson + every other android device maker vs Apple when it comes to platforms
the levels are not equal
In other news sales of Aston martin have been surpassed by fiat. Funny thing is that Aston martin's profit margin appears to be higher...
Ps. If we are talking os, do these figures include all iOS installs including iPad iPod touch and iPhone?
Irrespective, Market share does not equal success, quality or profitability. Popular is not defined by the number of products given away or cheaply available, massive Market share normally means an affordable or compromise product. The popular choice is what you aspire to own.
Sine when have apple equated success with Market share, and since when does larger Market share reflect succes, quality or user experience?
But the mac in the 80's never had an installed base of millions of devices as it has now. It was at the time a very very small company, that could not compete against the monopoly of IBM as rammed in by MS (lead by Gates). The situation is very very different now. I don't understand why people fail to see the differences, and just keep parroting the "similarities" without any thought. The field is level, a multibillion company vs a multibillion company, each one with its own strengths and weaknesses. I don't see how this is the 80's "all over again"!
Right, and MS didn't take off with a monopoly until 1995. Apple had the advantage with its OS the whole time and due to their incompetence and mistakes let MS take over.
seriously? now its google + samsung + LG + philips + sony ericsson + every other android device maker vs Apple when it comes to platforms
the levels are not equal
All of them are using Google. If Google drops the ball they are all screwed. The battle is Apple vs Google, the rest are pawns.
All the free contract phones combined have finally managed to surpass iPhone. Multiple manufacturers with multiple configurations and buy one get one free and free upgrade handsets have finally managed to catch up to a company who has only been in he Market for four years. Apple must be shaking in their boots.
In other news sales of Aston martin have been surpassed by fiat. Funny thing is that Aston martin's profits appear to be higher...
Aston martin does not rely on an ecosystem specifically around it...
An AM tanks premium petrol like most other cars and drives the same roads
so not a perfect analogy
Right, and MS didn't take off with a monopoly until 1995. Apple had the advantage with its OS the whole time and due to their incompetence and mistakes let MS take over.
Yep, you are absolutely right. Incompetence and bad management screwed apple then.
That does not change my point. The game is very different now.
My prediction is that Android will maintain faster quarterly growth... not for reasons of user interface, but due to lower cost (Sprint, Tmobile) and choices in form factor and unique features.
Both platforms will grow as the market grows and also with the demise of Blackberry and Symbian. However, in a year or two, I see Apple settling in with its minority market share earning high margins, as it does so well, making high quality products. Nothing wrong with this. I've owned macs for many years.
Is Android selling as well on AT&T as on the other US carriers? If it is then I think we can assume your statement is correct. If not, I think it?s likely you?re wrong.
She was actually waiting for an iPhone and knows about the impending arrival. She just could not wait any more. What a pity as the first thing she mentioned about her DroidX is how complicated it is to use. She has an iPod touch and loved its simplicity.
How can one compete when shops are practically giving the phones away?
iPhone is actually 4 different phones. iOS is actually 9 different devices.
Oh snap! Aren't you cleverer. Actually, it is two iPhone form factors (supported - 1st gen iPhone while still viable compared to many of the venerable 1.5 and 1.6 android phones, is not supported anymore), but hey while we're being arrantly silly let's dive into that marvelous and majical place called Android heaven for a similarly idiotic comparison:
There are currently 8 OS versions of Android of which 6 are currently supported
There are 28 handset makers making smartphones with the Android OS installed
There are currently in production 119 different handsets (including carrier-branded versions due to carrier differentiation of the install)
There are currently slated an additional 21 handsets to be produced with the Android OS installed
but hey let's take this out to the boundaries of credulity: Android owns more than just smartphones!
There are 6 different e-readers with Android installed
There are 3 netbook models with Android installed
There are at least 2 media/mp3 player devices with Android installed
And of course the Google TV
Slated for future release are at least 2 "smart" TVs running Android
And look for Android to become part of your automobile operating systems (ala Sync)
Android OWNS devices, regardless of class, manufacturer, or intended use - like sugar and salt in processed foods and like Windows wishes to be: Android is Everywhere.
Now I hope this makes you feel better about yourself, and let's you relax that white-knuckled grip you have on your Android fandom.
By that time, the iPhone was an established hit, and I am sure carriers would be willing to work with Apple to get the phone on their networks. Oh and one cannot say the “quality” of AT&T network is what kept them on it. Because around this time there were floods of complaints on the internet about dropped calls, slow data, etc… Steve was even asked about this on occasion.
Apple should have even made a CDMA version. Steve should have come on stage and said, here is the iPhone 3Gs, available on ALL networks! Why limit your customer base to just ONE carrier?
Sure this would not have stopped Android, but it would have slowed it down significantly. Even now, with all the Verizon rumors going around, why are they just limiting themselves to Verizon?!?!? In EVERY other country in the world, the iPhone is available to more than one carrier. So why does Apple continue to have this love affair with AT&T?!?!?!?
They don’t have to license iOS to others. They first have to make sure that everyone that wants an iPhone can get one. I for one flat out refuse to pay AT&T inflated prices. T-Mobile is much more economical for me, and the coverage is just as good at ATT in my area. Some people love Verizon, others Sprint, still others some other carrier, why should they be denied the phone?