I've read this site daily for years, and finally I had to register to respond to this thread. My family has owned at least one of every Apple product made in the last decade except for the iPhone (we refuse to use AT&T) and the iPad, and as an Apple enthusiast and stockholder, I hope that the iPhone product line is immensely successful for a long time.
That said, most users of this website have an incredibly skewed view of Android. You all make remarks about the terrible hardware and software of Android phones, and I have to wonder if any of you have ever actually picked one up and used it. The high end Android phones (the ones truly competing with the iPhone) lack nothing with regards to hardware and software quality. My phone, the Droid X, is a truly fantastic piece of technology that deserves nothing but praise from gadget lovers (I have to assume anyone who reads this site falls into that category). The same goes for for the Droid, the Droid 2, the Droid Incredible, the Galaxy S, the Nexus One, the Nexus S, etc. Those devices are wonderful phones that bring a very satisfying user experience across the board. I won't speak for Android devices that are dissimilar from those I just listed since I have never used any.
Now back to some points more relevant to this thread. I'm tired of hearing the argument about the number of Android devices vs. the number of iOS devices. First off, it doesn't matter as long as both operating systems are selling above some critical level. But if to you it does matter, then realize that Android sales are comparable to iPhone sales because they represent all phones running the Android operating system, just as iPhone sales represent all phones running iOS. To say that Android sales numbers are only relevant phone by phone is silly and displays poor logic. Nobody can know that Android wouldn't sell in equal numbers if it were only released on one phone (or iterations thereof), so drop the argument. There's no sound point you can make in contradiction. As far as BOGOs enhancing sales, go to Verizon's website right now, and count the number of Android devices on BOGO; there are two (probably slow sellers at this point). Sales like that are generally used to reduce inventories of older products, so it's unlikely that the phenomenal sales rates of Android devices is due in large part to them.
Finally, solipsism, your graphs are outdated, although they are very nice. Most of the Android devices on them still showed 2.1 as their operating system rather than 2.2, which all of them currently run.
I appreciate what you say -- and I fall into the category of those who have never picked up and used an Android phone (other than a demo in a store)... Guilty as charged. But, as an APPL shareholder, I am quite interested in Apple's competition. I read and watch every bit of content I can find on Android smart phones, the OS itself, the ecosystem, Android tablets, etc.
By the same criteria, you seem to fall into the category of those who have never picked up and used an iPhone -- and, especially, an iPad.
As a user of technology for the last decade, you are really missing a momentous experience -- the iPad -- where not the device, the OS nor the app gets between you and your stuff.
It's not perfect -- but it is orders of magnitude closer to responding to my or your demands on technology.
Someday, every personal technology companion will be like the iPad.
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.
You can get iPhones free in various parts of the world on contract, so how is that any different?
That'll last for about 10 minutes....as soon as Verizon releases the iphone.....BAM! Android will see nuttin but the taillights of the iPhone...oh, and the dust cloud produced.
I think initially some of the sales for a Verizon iPhone will be cannibalized by ship jumpers from AT&T.
You do realize that the vast majority of iPhone users have no idea of Apple's profitability.
Oil companies, cable companies and cell carriers, yes; handset makers and CE companies, not so much.
It's actually quite funny fact on this forum. A lot of iphone users are bragging about apple's profitability while not thinking that they're actually paying for that. Now, excluding those die hards who will say they will willfully pay more, who wouldn't like to pay less for the same product and still have the SAME product?
To put it differently, if all costs of iphone development, hardware,... all costs are summing up to billion dollars let's say.. and income related to iphone is 1.5 billion dollars. Who in right mind, as user, wouldn't like to pay less so that apple would still spend billion dollars on a product, but only earn 1.25 billions. That wouldn't be a cut in quality, just cut in profits which are way above the industry average.
PC profits are razor thin. Hasn't stopped innovation and new form factors (netbooks) from coming out.
By your rationale, Microsoft should have kept on steamrolling everybody else since they've been banking billions for years.
I'd like to see some more conclusive proof that profitability = innovation.
Exactly. Competition is the one that brings innovation because you have to have your head up in a small pool full of competitors trying the same thing. Innovation is the distinction between them.
Exactly. Competition is the one that brings innovation because you have to have your head up in a small pool full of competitors trying the same thing. Innovation is the distinction between them.
Sometimes, innovation isn?t about technology or usability. For instance, if you look at the PC market you?ll see that vendors innovated new ways to squeeze out a profit on cheaper and cheaper machines. From the common cheaper sourcing of components and manufacturing, to more clever methods like selling space to crapware makers and using a secret partition on the HDD for the system restore, and everything else in between.
Sometimes, innovation isn?t about technology or usability. For instance, if you look at the PC market you?ll see that vendors innovated new ways to squeeze out a profit on cheaper and cheaper machines. From the common cheaper sourcing of components and manufacturing, to more clever methods like selling space to crapware makers and using a secret partition on the HDD for the system restore, and everything else in between.
Well.. crapware is not the innovation I'm talking about. Just take a look on android lifecycle. It's so short mostly because of competition. Then compare a phone from 2 years ago and now. There is some real innovation inside that process.
That being said, I don't want to bash apple products. I own couple of them myself. It's the philosophy that i am not comfortable with. Of course, company can do whatever they want to do and if the people want to go with it, why not. Just not me regarding the smartphone products.
One has to be quite blind not to recognize the effect that apple brought to the smartphone market. It has raised the smartphone level plateau for a whole level and it definitely affected the UI of android. But to say that no one would do it if apple didn't is just like to say that we wouldn't have smartphones at all if nokia didn't make the first symbian 6-7 years ago and raised the level itself. (BTW... i recently used a nokia and it's sooo waaaay behind both apple and android.. don't know what they're doing).
I?m curious to know why you think it?s valid to compare a single device to an operating system. I find it hard that anyone on this forum is unable to understand the logistical differences between a free OS licensed to any manufacture and one that only comes with the HW from one manufacture.
I think you'll come around on this one solipsism. When looking at the mobile phone market, of course it is valuable and valid to compare iPhone vs android. Other comparisons are interesting as well, but this one is valid too.
I?m glad you brought up the Samsung Galaxy S as it illustrates my point. Since you seem to think that raw specs are more important than optimized HW and SW I?ll use the Galaxy S to illustrate why that is illogical when using disparate OSes.
Again. You are putting words in my mouth. Please go back and read my posts. Where did I ever say that raw specs are more important than a properly optimized system?
I fully acknowledged that iOS is better than Android. I merely suggested this whole meme about Android being vastly inferior is a little overblown. Put a Galaxy S with 2.2 and iPhone 4 in front of someone (and I've done this comparison with friends who have both phones), and I never had an iPhone 4 owner say his phone is significantly faster. A little bit smoother and a tad easier to use? Sure. But the comparisons on this site that make Android sound like utterly unusuable trash as absolutely overblown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Exhibit A: They both have 802.11n so they should be equally as fast because the 802.11n spec is the same regardless. But that isn?t the case. In fact, 802.11g on the iPhone is faster than 802.11n on Android phones.
Exhibit B: It?s 25% faster yet with page loadings it doesn?t look to be 25% faster. This is something the user can feel. This is where you?d agrue that you mentioned Android 2.2 which does have an even better JS engine and page loading, but that?s optimized code, the point I?m making here.
Not using 2.2 is hardly a fair comparison when going up against iOS4. It improved performance over 400%. That's not a minor quibble. Browsing on 2.2 was noticeably faster on my Nexus One. I can only imagine how much it drastically improved performance and perceptions on a Galaxy S. If we're going to continue this debate, can you get more relevant statistics please?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Exhibit C: Resulting battery life. This is where power management comes into play. This is important to users even though most don?t even realize it. It?s one of those odd features that most don?t think about until their device is without power. Having faster HW just to keep up with slower HW and optimized code is not good for power efficiency. Think of it this way, you can put a 1000HP engine into a car, but it?ll still get beaten by a Vespa if you make the car out of bricks, the wheels from wood, and transmission out of straw. It?s the whole package that makes it work, not just a single aspect.
You might notice that there are phones that exceed that iPhone on ?3G? talk while they are well under on the other battery stats. This has to do with CDMA/EV-DO v. GSM/UMTS. You?ll notice CDMA-based ?2G? and ?3G? talk time are equivalent, but not so with GSM-based ?2G? and ?3G? talk time. ven when ?3G? is activated on a CDMA-based device it still uses ?2G? for the call. CDMA has a pretty good voice algorithm, and much better than GSM, so this is a benefit for it. The downside being that you can?t currently get simultaneous voice and data.
PS: Also note that Galaxy S only has to push 384,000 pixels while the iPhone 4 has to push 614,400 despite the weaker hardware, yet it doesn?t seem to do poorly with rendering graphics.
I thought the discussion was about performance and perception. Now you're bringing up battery life?
In any event, you have a valid point. Battery life is is better on iOS. But that's a rather static view of things. With every iteration of Android, battery life is improving, as the platform gets more efficient. But you know as well as I do that it's not just the OS that drains battery. Even if the iPhone 4 has more pixels, the Galaxy S running SAMOLED on a 4inch screen is going to have a bigger power draw. Allowing capabilities like Flash or more flexible multi-tasking also means more of a power draw.
In the end, battery life issues can simply be overcome by having bigger batteries, or replaceable batteries, etc. Just look at the crop of phones coming out now (Atrix 4G for example), which are all raising battery sizes. For the vast majority of customers, if the phone gets them through the day, they really aren't going to care about anything beyond that. Here's a moment where you're playing the raw spec game.
Again, in your Pavlovian reaction to defend all things Apple, you are missing my point. I have not suggested that Android is somehow better than iOS (overall....though I do think there's a lot of things that Android most certainly does better). I am suggesting that Apple is being compelled to step up its game and compete much more ferociously than if it didn't have Android in its rear-view mirror.
Can I provide absolutely specific examples? Not without access to Apple's internal documents. But looking at the technology leap between the original iPhone, iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS and then comparing all those jumps to the leap made by the iPhone 4, it's hard not to feel that this huge a jump was likely caused because of competition. After all, this is a company that leaves features out on purpose (front facing camera on iPad) just so they can sell you next year's version with the missing features you wanted in the first place. Much harder to pull that off when the competition will offer what the customer wants.
Or are you seriously going to suggest that Apple is some kind of miraculous exception that's not susceptible to competitive pressures at all?
But, even (maybe more so) with unsubsidized phones, how often does the average consumer replace his phone?
Where there's a secondary market (which happens a lot in markets where phones are often sold unlocked or can be easily unlocked), consumers replace their phones quite often.
Again, the USA =/= the world.
I have relatives in India for example, who replace their phones every year or less. The healthy secondary market for handsets often means that the depreciation is not too bad for them to overcome.
It's really only North America where our long contracts and preference for on-contract handsets, that is the exception to the norms. Our practices (and CDMA being so dominant for a long time....not allowing easy resale of handsets) basically prevented the rised of a strong secondary market. Not so elsewhere.
That'll last for about 10 minutes....as soon as Verizon releases the iphone.....BAM! Android will see nuttin but the taillights of the iPhone...oh, and the dust cloud produced.
I think initially some of the sales for a Verizon iPhone will be cannibalized by ship jumpers from AT&T.
So because the iPhone launches on one American carrier, growth of the platform in the rest of the world will stop?
Are all Americans really so arrogant and dense as to think that the US market is the only one that matters?
Verizon will be a speed bump for Android.
Take a look at Europe. The iPhone is competing with Android on several carriers. And it's only 1% ahead in marketshare there. Explain that one.
Well.. crapware is not the innovation I'm talking about. Just take a look on android lifecycle. It's so short mostly because of competition. Then compare a phone from 2 years ago and now. There is some real innovation inside that process.
That being said, I don't want to bash apple products. I own couple of them myself. It's the philosophy that i am not comfortable with. Of course, company can do whatever they want to do and if the people want to go with it, why not. Just not me regarding the smartphone products.
One has to be quite blind not to recognize the effect that apple brought to the smartphone market. It has raised the smartphone level plateau for a whole level and it definitely affected the UI of android. But to say that no one would do it if apple didn't is just like to say that we wouldn't have smartphones at all if nokia didn't make the first symbian 6-7 years ago and raised the level itself. (BTW... i recently used a nokia and it's sooo waaaay behind both apple and android.. don't know what they're doing).
+1
I will fully acknowledge that Apple raised the bar with the original iPhone. I count that device as revolutionary. Subsequent iPhones not so much. Though I do think there were a few other factors they had going for them. For example, the fact that a lot of original iPhone customers went from a RAZR to an iPhone, I think, probably plays a large part in why many iPhone users think the device is magical. Smartphone users who jumped to an iPhone might find it better, but far less magical. Launching in the US also helped. This is a market where customers weren't sporting Nokia smartphones like they were in Europe at the time. They would have had far less traction, launching in Europe. But all that is to Apple's credit, that they were basically able to popularize smartphones and make them less of a niche product. I count that as revolutionary.
But I agree that it's rather bizarre to suggest that nobody is capable of innovating at all. How is this not innovative for example:
This is what I find frustrating about a lot of Apple fanatics. They seem to take the approach that a product is not innovative at all, unless it has an Apple logo on the back. Maybe I just don't get it because I've never been one to be brand loyal on anything I buy. So who knows, maybe I'm the one out of touch?
I appreciate what you say -- and I fall into the category of those who have never picked up and used an Android phone (other than a demo in a store)... Guilty as charged. But, as an APPL shareholder, I am quite interested in Apple's competition. I read and watch every bit of content I can find on Android smart phones, the OS itself, the ecosystem, Android tablets, etc.
Given your admission on lack of experience with Android products and your obvious bias (wouldn't help your portfolio to have Apple cast in a negative light), I'd suggest you be a little more reflective and reserved in your comments about the competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
By the same criteria, you seem to fall into the category of those who have never picked up and used an iPhone -- and, especially, an iPad.
Don't assume that everybody is as ignorant as you are. Just because you haven't played with Android devices (and store demos are really limited....I wouldn't count anything less than an hour on somebody's device) doesn't mean other don't have experience with Apple products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
As a user of technology for the last decade, you are really missing a momentous experience -- the iPad -- where not the device, the OS nor the app gets between you and your stuff.
It's not perfect -- but it is orders of magnitude closer to responding to my or your demands on technology.
Someday, every personal technology companion will be like the iPad.
.
I actually think this concept is far more revolutionary (if it catches on):
Imagine never having to synch photos, documents, media, etc. It's all on your phone. And your phone powers whatever device you need.
And they can build the docks quite cheaply. That laptop dock is probably less than $300. And they could probably make a tablet dock for about the same. Imagine just being able to snap in your iPhone and instantly getting an iPad. And then taking that same phone and snapping it into a desktop dock when you are doing some serious productivity stuff or into your TV when you just want to watch videos. Combine that with Hulu and Netflix and you can replace your cable box, Apple TV, etc.
I think you'll come around on this one solipsism. When looking at the mobile phone market, of course it is valuable and valid to compare iPhone vs android. Other comparisons are interesting as well, but this one is valid too.
I will not. OSes should be compared and HW should be compared. As soon as you mix and match HW and SW any relevance flies out the window.
Now, there is value in knowing an ecosystem is strong. For instance, knowing there are 300 hundred thousand apps for your platform is important, but that relative value doesn?t change knowing that there are only 100 thousand apps. There are still more than enough to cover nearly all needs that any numerical change alters the value of the ecosystem less and less. We could see this on a parabolic curve.
It?s the same thing with trying to measure the validity of free Android OS installation and iPhone HW unit sales. Only if one had very low installations or sales would the ecosystem be affected enough to affect the device?s ability to maintain that ecosystem. Since both are selling well into the 10s of millions and growing that point is mooted.
It's actually quite funny fact on this forum. A lot of iphone users are bragging about apple's profitability while not thinking that they're actually paying for that. Now, excluding those die hards who will say they will willfully pay more, who wouldn't like to pay less for the same product and still have the SAME product?
That's because Apple's profitability is not part of their purchase decision; they might even grouse a bit about the price of an Apple product in other threads. I won't try to speak for everyone, but I think I am a pretty typical consumer and the three things that affect my purchase decisions are price, perceived value and availability.
Quote:
To put it differently, if all costs of iphone development, hardware,... all costs are summing up to billion dollars let's say.. and income related to iphone is 1.5 billion dollars. Who in right mind, as user, wouldn't like to pay less so that apple would still spend billion dollars on a product, but only earn 1.25 billions. That wouldn't be a cut in quality, just cut in profits which are way above the industry average.
Of course people would like to pay less - the ATV2 is an example. But, again, the typical consumer is unaware of the manufacturing cost or the company's profitability. They may react negatively to a product's price (which reflects those high margins) and choose something else. For some people, the most important thing is, understandably, price - this is why Walmart does so well. Others are less price sensitive and make their decision based on perceived value.
Apple's strategy appears to be working for them. As an example, what would be the benefit of lowering the iPad price when current production falls short of demand?
When you run a business, you will be free to choose your strategy. I have run several businesses over the years and my prices were never the lowest but my business still prospered even as I watched my lower-priced competitors close up shop.
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.
AT&T has the worst Android phones out there. Except for the Captivate (Samsung Galaxy S) and even that one is gimped to prevent installing apps from outside the Android Market. It's only the recently announced 4G phones that are finally as good as the other ones.
I think it's a good bet that a Verizon iPhone will help Verizon a bit and Apple a bit, but will not change much in market share. Apple waited far too long. In the rest of the world, Apple is selling iPhones on multiple carriers and Android phones are still outselling them. Most people who were desperate for the iPhone already switched to AT&T and there may be quite a few frustrated with AT&T that may switch to Verizon. That's not going to increase market share. Market share will only increase with sales to Verizon customers who wanted an iPhone but would not switch to AT&T. Two years ago, there were quite a few of those. Today, not so much. The sales of iPhone 4 last year was a revelation. I expected Apple to outsell Android devices in the third quarter. In spite of it being the best sales ever, Android phones still outsold iPhones by a margin of 2 to 1. I expect iPhones to have a small increase and then business as usual.
I'll be wrong if there really is a severe pent up demand. But I don't think so. We'll know soon enough.
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"!
It's true that Apple is not a relatively small company. And that will have some consequences, however I think it's PCs vs Macs again because Apple still has the "My way or the highway" approach and Android is opening up to all comers which by sheer volume will have the same effect. Add to that, that unlike MS, Google actually makes excellent products. While not true for most on this forum, certainly for many including me, Android is far superior to iOS. I know that there are a number of people on this forum who talk about switching to the iPhone when it gets to Verizon. It's anecdotal, but I know no one - not one person, on Verizon who is using Android who will be switching to an iPhone.
1) When we can actually start to see (audited, segment) profit numbers for Google and the handset makers, this type of news will start to make more contextual sense.
2) If I were Android, I'd be deeply worried about the impending arrival of iPhone on Verizon. Growth could start to decelerate fairly dramatically.
I thought Google did not make money directly from Android licensing, but from advertising on search results. So for them, it's all about making sure that the next big trend in web search (mobile web search) goes to Google and keeps them on top. So because both Android and iOS use Google by default, they make money regardless of which OS / device you are using. Why would they worry about iPhone on Verizon, unless the default search engine was switched to Yahoo or Bing?
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.
I seriously have to ask. What is so complicated about DroidX? Yes, the iPhone is simpler to use (and is more consistent), but Android is hardly more complex if used like the iPhone. It's infinitely more customizable and more powerful - but only if you so chose to use it. I honestly can't figure out why any one would think it's complicated.
My sister was not aware of the Market on her Android phone until I showed it to her 3 months after she had bought it. My friend's wife thought Market was some finance app and never started it. But neither of them had any trouble what so ever, using the phone as it came stock. My sister-in-law switched from the 3GS to an Android phone a few months ago. Last month she switched to a Samsung Galaxy S. She loved how all her contacts, calendar mail etc. just seamlessly transferred to her new phone.
The iPhone is different and with the lack of choice, no doubt, simpler to use right out of the box. But Android is hardly complicated.
I seriously have to ask. What is so complicated about DroidX? Yes, the iPhone is simpler to use (and is more consistent), but Android is hardly more complex if used like the iPhone. It's infinitely more customizable and more powerful - but only if you so chose to use it. I honestly can't figure out why any one would think it's complicated.
My sister was not aware of the Market on her Android phone until I showed it to her 3 months after she had bought it. My friend's wife thought Market was some finance app and never started it. But neither of them had any trouble what so ever, using the phone as it came stock. My sister-in-law switched from the 3GS to an Android phone a few months ago. Last month she switched to a Samsung Galaxy S. She loved how all her contacts, calendar mail etc. just seamlessly transferred to her new phone.
The iPhone is different and with the lack of choice, no doubt, simpler to use right out of the box. But Android is hardly complicated.
I think you make his case in your anecdotes. A couple things I didn?t care for was the inconsistency of cut/copy/paste and the way videos are played.
On the iPhone cut/copy/paste works the exact same way regardless of what app you are in. This was an issue with Android 2.1 and I don?t think it was resolved as of 2.3. Then there are playing videos and music. On the iPhone you simply go to the well known iPod app. I couldn?t figure out how to upload and play videos on the first Android phone I used.
Then there are vendors that cause inconsistencies for Android-based devices. Different UIs, different button configurations, etc, even within the same vendor across lateral models. With the iPhone it?s consistent. You have an annual HW and OS stepping, with the new model having a little more than the previous year with iOS support going back 3 years. This 3 years adds a certain level of peace of mind, though it?s probably out-of-sight/out-of-mind for most unless you have a fairly new Android phone and find out that it won?t be getting any future updates from your carrier/vendor. This 3 years of updates also helps with the value of the device which can significantly lower the TCO of that device.
Then there is a confusing system for users who want an app that works on their system. With the iPhone everything is <blank> or later. If you have that phone or a newer one you are fine. You have that version of iOS or a newer you are fine. Can?t do that when there are hundreds of handsets on the market for your OS. This is all apps, probably not even most, but it?s enough that it can be frustrating for the user.
Comments
I've read this site daily for years, and finally I had to register to respond to this thread. My family has owned at least one of every Apple product made in the last decade except for the iPhone (we refuse to use AT&T) and the iPad, and as an Apple enthusiast and stockholder, I hope that the iPhone product line is immensely successful for a long time.
That said, most users of this website have an incredibly skewed view of Android. You all make remarks about the terrible hardware and software of Android phones, and I have to wonder if any of you have ever actually picked one up and used it. The high end Android phones (the ones truly competing with the iPhone) lack nothing with regards to hardware and software quality. My phone, the Droid X, is a truly fantastic piece of technology that deserves nothing but praise from gadget lovers (I have to assume anyone who reads this site falls into that category). The same goes for for the Droid, the Droid 2, the Droid Incredible, the Galaxy S, the Nexus One, the Nexus S, etc. Those devices are wonderful phones that bring a very satisfying user experience across the board. I won't speak for Android devices that are dissimilar from those I just listed since I have never used any.
Now back to some points more relevant to this thread. I'm tired of hearing the argument about the number of Android devices vs. the number of iOS devices. First off, it doesn't matter as long as both operating systems are selling above some critical level. But if to you it does matter, then realize that Android sales are comparable to iPhone sales because they represent all phones running the Android operating system, just as iPhone sales represent all phones running iOS. To say that Android sales numbers are only relevant phone by phone is silly and displays poor logic. Nobody can know that Android wouldn't sell in equal numbers if it were only released on one phone (or iterations thereof), so drop the argument. There's no sound point you can make in contradiction. As far as BOGOs enhancing sales, go to Verizon's website right now, and count the number of Android devices on BOGO; there are two (probably slow sellers at this point). Sales like that are generally used to reduce inventories of older products, so it's unlikely that the phenomenal sales rates of Android devices is due in large part to them.
Finally, solipsism, your graphs are outdated, although they are very nice. Most of the Android devices on them still showed 2.1 as their operating system rather than 2.2, which all of them currently run.
I appreciate what you say -- and I fall into the category of those who have never picked up and used an Android phone (other than a demo in a store)... Guilty as charged. But, as an APPL shareholder, I am quite interested in Apple's competition. I read and watch every bit of content I can find on Android smart phones, the OS itself, the ecosystem, Android tablets, etc.
By the same criteria, you seem to fall into the category of those who have never picked up and used an iPhone -- and, especially, an iPad.
As a user of technology for the last decade, you are really missing a momentous experience -- the iPad -- where not the device, the OS nor the app gets between you and your stuff.
It's not perfect -- but it is orders of magnitude closer to responding to my or your demands on technology.
Someday, every personal technology companion will be like the iPad.
.
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.
You can get iPhones free in various parts of the world on contract, so how is that any different?
I think initially some of the sales for a Verizon iPhone will be cannibalized by ship jumpers from AT&T.
You do realize that the vast majority of iPhone users have no idea of Apple's profitability.
Oil companies, cable companies and cell carriers, yes; handset makers and CE companies, not so much.
It's actually quite funny fact on this forum. A lot of iphone users are bragging about apple's profitability while not thinking that they're actually paying for that. Now, excluding those die hards who will say they will willfully pay more, who wouldn't like to pay less for the same product and still have the SAME product?
To put it differently, if all costs of iphone development, hardware,... all costs are summing up to billion dollars let's say.. and income related to iphone is 1.5 billion dollars. Who in right mind, as user, wouldn't like to pay less so that apple would still spend billion dollars on a product, but only earn 1.25 billions. That wouldn't be a cut in quality, just cut in profits which are way above the industry average.
PC profits are razor thin. Hasn't stopped innovation and new form factors (netbooks) from coming out.
By your rationale, Microsoft should have kept on steamrolling everybody else since they've been banking billions for years.
I'd like to see some more conclusive proof that profitability = innovation.
Exactly. Competition is the one that brings innovation because you have to have your head up in a small pool full of competitors trying the same thing. Innovation is the distinction between them.
Exactly. Competition is the one that brings innovation because you have to have your head up in a small pool full of competitors trying the same thing. Innovation is the distinction between them.
Sometimes, innovation isn?t about technology or usability. For instance, if you look at the PC market you?ll see that vendors innovated new ways to squeeze out a profit on cheaper and cheaper machines. From the common cheaper sourcing of components and manufacturing, to more clever methods like selling space to crapware makers and using a secret partition on the HDD for the system restore, and everything else in between.
Sometimes, innovation isn?t about technology or usability. For instance, if you look at the PC market you?ll see that vendors innovated new ways to squeeze out a profit on cheaper and cheaper machines. From the common cheaper sourcing of components and manufacturing, to more clever methods like selling space to crapware makers and using a secret partition on the HDD for the system restore, and everything else in between.
Well.. crapware is not the innovation I'm talking about. Just take a look on android lifecycle. It's so short mostly because of competition. Then compare a phone from 2 years ago and now. There is some real innovation inside that process.
That being said, I don't want to bash apple products. I own couple of them myself. It's the philosophy that i am not comfortable with. Of course, company can do whatever they want to do and if the people want to go with it, why not. Just not me regarding the smartphone products.
One has to be quite blind not to recognize the effect that apple brought to the smartphone market. It has raised the smartphone level plateau for a whole level and it definitely affected the UI of android. But to say that no one would do it if apple didn't is just like to say that we wouldn't have smartphones at all if nokia didn't make the first symbian 6-7 years ago and raised the level itself. (BTW... i recently used a nokia and it's sooo waaaay behind both apple and android.. don't know what they're doing).
I?m curious to know why you think it?s valid to compare a single device to an operating system. I find it hard that anyone on this forum is unable to understand the logistical differences between a free OS licensed to any manufacture and one that only comes with the HW from one manufacture.
I think you'll come around on this one solipsism. When looking at the mobile phone market, of course it is valuable and valid to compare iPhone vs android. Other comparisons are interesting as well, but this one is valid too.
I?m glad you brought up the Samsung Galaxy S as it illustrates my point. Since you seem to think that raw specs are more important than optimized HW and SW I?ll use the Galaxy S to illustrate why that is illogical when using disparate OSes.
Again. You are putting words in my mouth. Please go back and read my posts. Where did I ever say that raw specs are more important than a properly optimized system?
I fully acknowledged that iOS is better than Android. I merely suggested this whole meme about Android being vastly inferior is a little overblown. Put a Galaxy S with 2.2 and iPhone 4 in front of someone (and I've done this comparison with friends who have both phones), and I never had an iPhone 4 owner say his phone is significantly faster. A little bit smoother and a tad easier to use? Sure. But the comparisons on this site that make Android sound like utterly unusuable trash as absolutely overblown.
Exhibit A: They both have 802.11n so they should be equally as fast because the 802.11n spec is the same regardless. But that isn?t the case. In fact, 802.11g on the iPhone is faster than 802.11n on Android phones.Exhibit B: It?s 25% faster yet with page loadings it doesn?t look to be 25% faster. This is something the user can feel. This is where you?d agrue that you mentioned Android 2.2 which does have an even better JS engine and page loading, but that?s optimized code, the point I?m making here.
Not using 2.2 is hardly a fair comparison when going up against iOS4. It improved performance over 400%. That's not a minor quibble. Browsing on 2.2 was noticeably faster on my Nexus One. I can only imagine how much it drastically improved performance and perceptions on a Galaxy S. If we're going to continue this debate, can you get more relevant statistics please?
Exhibit C: Resulting battery life. This is where power management comes into play. This is important to users even though most don?t even realize it. It?s one of those odd features that most don?t think about until their device is without power. Having faster HW just to keep up with slower HW and optimized code is not good for power efficiency. Think of it this way, you can put a 1000HP engine into a car, but it?ll still get beaten by a Vespa if you make the car out of bricks, the wheels from wood, and transmission out of straw. It?s the whole package that makes it work, not just a single aspect.You might notice that there are phones that exceed that iPhone on ?3G? talk while they are well under on the other battery stats. This has to do with CDMA/EV-DO v. GSM/UMTS. You?ll notice CDMA-based ?2G? and ?3G? talk time are equivalent, but not so with GSM-based ?2G? and ?3G? talk time. ven when ?3G? is activated on a CDMA-based device it still uses ?2G? for the call. CDMA has a pretty good voice algorithm, and much better than GSM, so this is a benefit for it. The downside being that you can?t currently get simultaneous voice and data.
PS: Also note that Galaxy S only has to push 384,000 pixels while the iPhone 4 has to push 614,400 despite the weaker hardware, yet it doesn?t seem to do poorly with rendering graphics.
I thought the discussion was about performance and perception. Now you're bringing up battery life?
In any event, you have a valid point. Battery life is is better on iOS. But that's a rather static view of things. With every iteration of Android, battery life is improving, as the platform gets more efficient. But you know as well as I do that it's not just the OS that drains battery. Even if the iPhone 4 has more pixels, the Galaxy S running SAMOLED on a 4inch screen is going to have a bigger power draw. Allowing capabilities like Flash or more flexible multi-tasking also means more of a power draw.
In the end, battery life issues can simply be overcome by having bigger batteries, or replaceable batteries, etc. Just look at the crop of phones coming out now (Atrix 4G for example), which are all raising battery sizes. For the vast majority of customers, if the phone gets them through the day, they really aren't going to care about anything beyond that. Here's a moment where you're playing the raw spec game.
Again, in your Pavlovian reaction to defend all things Apple, you are missing my point. I have not suggested that Android is somehow better than iOS (overall....though I do think there's a lot of things that Android most certainly does better). I am suggesting that Apple is being compelled to step up its game and compete much more ferociously than if it didn't have Android in its rear-view mirror.
Can I provide absolutely specific examples? Not without access to Apple's internal documents. But looking at the technology leap between the original iPhone, iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS and then comparing all those jumps to the leap made by the iPhone 4, it's hard not to feel that this huge a jump was likely caused because of competition. After all, this is a company that leaves features out on purpose (front facing camera on iPad) just so they can sell you next year's version with the missing features you wanted in the first place. Much harder to pull that off when the competition will offer what the customer wants.
Or are you seriously going to suggest that Apple is some kind of miraculous exception that's not susceptible to competitive pressures at all?
Yeah -- that's the only market I know.
But, even (maybe more so) with unsubsidized phones, how often does the average consumer replace his phone?
Where there's a secondary market (which happens a lot in markets where phones are often sold unlocked or can be easily unlocked), consumers replace their phones quite often.
Again, the USA =/= the world.
I have relatives in India for example, who replace their phones every year or less. The healthy secondary market for handsets often means that the depreciation is not too bad for them to overcome.
It's really only North America where our long contracts and preference for on-contract handsets, that is the exception to the norms. Our practices (and CDMA being so dominant for a long time....not allowing easy resale of handsets) basically prevented the rised of a strong secondary market. Not so elsewhere.
That'll last for about 10 minutes....as soon as Verizon releases the iphone.....BAM! Android will see nuttin but the taillights of the iPhone...oh, and the dust cloud produced.
I think initially some of the sales for a Verizon iPhone will be cannibalized by ship jumpers from AT&T.
So because the iPhone launches on one American carrier, growth of the platform in the rest of the world will stop?
Are all Americans really so arrogant and dense as to think that the US market is the only one that matters?
Verizon will be a speed bump for Android.
Take a look at Europe. The iPhone is competing with Android on several carriers. And it's only 1% ahead in marketshare there. Explain that one.
http://itinsightme.info/more.php?id=3686
Well.. crapware is not the innovation I'm talking about. Just take a look on android lifecycle. It's so short mostly because of competition. Then compare a phone from 2 years ago and now. There is some real innovation inside that process.
That being said, I don't want to bash apple products. I own couple of them myself. It's the philosophy that i am not comfortable with. Of course, company can do whatever they want to do and if the people want to go with it, why not. Just not me regarding the smartphone products.
One has to be quite blind not to recognize the effect that apple brought to the smartphone market. It has raised the smartphone level plateau for a whole level and it definitely affected the UI of android. But to say that no one would do it if apple didn't is just like to say that we wouldn't have smartphones at all if nokia didn't make the first symbian 6-7 years ago and raised the level itself. (BTW... i recently used a nokia and it's sooo waaaay behind both apple and android.. don't know what they're doing).
+1
I will fully acknowledge that Apple raised the bar with the original iPhone. I count that device as revolutionary. Subsequent iPhones not so much. Though I do think there were a few other factors they had going for them. For example, the fact that a lot of original iPhone customers went from a RAZR to an iPhone, I think, probably plays a large part in why many iPhone users think the device is magical. Smartphone users who jumped to an iPhone might find it better, but far less magical. Launching in the US also helped. This is a market where customers weren't sporting Nokia smartphones like they were in Europe at the time. They would have had far less traction, launching in Europe. But all that is to Apple's credit, that they were basically able to popularize smartphones and make them less of a niche product. I count that as revolutionary.
But I agree that it's rather bizarre to suggest that nobody is capable of innovating at all. How is this not innovative for example:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/06/m...dock-hands-on/
This is what I find frustrating about a lot of Apple fanatics. They seem to take the approach that a product is not innovative at all, unless it has an Apple logo on the back. Maybe I just don't get it because I've never been one to be brand loyal on anything I buy. So who knows, maybe I'm the one out of touch?
I appreciate what you say -- and I fall into the category of those who have never picked up and used an Android phone (other than a demo in a store)... Guilty as charged. But, as an APPL shareholder, I am quite interested in Apple's competition. I read and watch every bit of content I can find on Android smart phones, the OS itself, the ecosystem, Android tablets, etc.
Given your admission on lack of experience with Android products and your obvious bias (wouldn't help your portfolio to have Apple cast in a negative light), I'd suggest you be a little more reflective and reserved in your comments about the competition.
By the same criteria, you seem to fall into the category of those who have never picked up and used an iPhone -- and, especially, an iPad.
Don't assume that everybody is as ignorant as you are. Just because you haven't played with Android devices (and store demos are really limited....I wouldn't count anything less than an hour on somebody's device) doesn't mean other don't have experience with Apple products.
As a user of technology for the last decade, you are really missing a momentous experience -- the iPad -- where not the device, the OS nor the app gets between you and your stuff.
It's not perfect -- but it is orders of magnitude closer to responding to my or your demands on technology.
Someday, every personal technology companion will be like the iPad.
.
I actually think this concept is far more revolutionary (if it catches on):
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/06/m...dock-hands-on/
Imagine never having to synch photos, documents, media, etc. It's all on your phone. And your phone powers whatever device you need.
And they can build the docks quite cheaply. That laptop dock is probably less than $300. And they could probably make a tablet dock for about the same. Imagine just being able to snap in your iPhone and instantly getting an iPad. And then taking that same phone and snapping it into a desktop dock when you are doing some serious productivity stuff or into your TV when you just want to watch videos. Combine that with Hulu and Netflix and you can replace your cable box, Apple TV, etc.
I think you'll come around on this one solipsism. When looking at the mobile phone market, of course it is valuable and valid to compare iPhone vs android. Other comparisons are interesting as well, but this one is valid too.
I will not. OSes should be compared and HW should be compared. As soon as you mix and match HW and SW any relevance flies out the window.
Now, there is value in knowing an ecosystem is strong. For instance, knowing there are 300 hundred thousand apps for your platform is important, but that relative value doesn?t change knowing that there are only 100 thousand apps. There are still more than enough to cover nearly all needs that any numerical change alters the value of the ecosystem less and less. We could see this on a parabolic curve.
It?s the same thing with trying to measure the validity of free Android OS installation and iPhone HW unit sales. Only if one had very low installations or sales would the ecosystem be affected enough to affect the device?s ability to maintain that ecosystem. Since both are selling well into the 10s of millions and growing that point is mooted.
It's actually quite funny fact on this forum. A lot of iphone users are bragging about apple's profitability while not thinking that they're actually paying for that. Now, excluding those die hards who will say they will willfully pay more, who wouldn't like to pay less for the same product and still have the SAME product?
That's because Apple's profitability is not part of their purchase decision; they might even grouse a bit about the price of an Apple product in other threads. I won't try to speak for everyone, but I think I am a pretty typical consumer and the three things that affect my purchase decisions are price, perceived value and availability.
To put it differently, if all costs of iphone development, hardware,... all costs are summing up to billion dollars let's say.. and income related to iphone is 1.5 billion dollars. Who in right mind, as user, wouldn't like to pay less so that apple would still spend billion dollars on a product, but only earn 1.25 billions. That wouldn't be a cut in quality, just cut in profits which are way above the industry average.
Of course people would like to pay less - the ATV2 is an example. But, again, the typical consumer is unaware of the manufacturing cost or the company's profitability. They may react negatively to a product's price (which reflects those high margins) and choose something else. For some people, the most important thing is, understandably, price - this is why Walmart does so well. Others are less price sensitive and make their decision based on perceived value.
Apple's strategy appears to be working for them. As an example, what would be the benefit of lowering the iPad price when current production falls short of demand?
When you run a business, you will be free to choose your strategy. I have run several businesses over the years and my prices were never the lowest but my business still prospered even as I watched my lower-priced competitors close up shop.
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.
AT&T has the worst Android phones out there. Except for the Captivate (Samsung Galaxy S) and even that one is gimped to prevent installing apps from outside the Android Market. It's only the recently announced 4G phones that are finally as good as the other ones.
I think it's a good bet that a Verizon iPhone will help Verizon a bit and Apple a bit, but will not change much in market share. Apple waited far too long. In the rest of the world, Apple is selling iPhones on multiple carriers and Android phones are still outselling them. Most people who were desperate for the iPhone already switched to AT&T and there may be quite a few frustrated with AT&T that may switch to Verizon. That's not going to increase market share. Market share will only increase with sales to Verizon customers who wanted an iPhone but would not switch to AT&T. Two years ago, there were quite a few of those. Today, not so much. The sales of iPhone 4 last year was a revelation. I expected Apple to outsell Android devices in the third quarter. In spite of it being the best sales ever, Android phones still outsold iPhones by a margin of 2 to 1. I expect iPhones to have a small increase and then business as usual.
I'll be wrong if there really is a severe pent up demand. But I don't think so. We'll know soon enough.
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"!
It's true that Apple is not a relatively small company. And that will have some consequences, however I think it's PCs vs Macs again because Apple still has the "My way or the highway" approach and Android is opening up to all comers which by sheer volume will have the same effect. Add to that, that unlike MS, Google actually makes excellent products. While not true for most on this forum, certainly for many including me, Android is far superior to iOS. I know that there are a number of people on this forum who talk about switching to the iPhone when it gets to Verizon. It's anecdotal, but I know no one - not one person, on Verizon who is using Android who will be switching to an iPhone.
1) When we can actually start to see (audited, segment) profit numbers for Google and the handset makers, this type of news will start to make more contextual sense.
2) If I were Android, I'd be deeply worried about the impending arrival of iPhone on Verizon. Growth could start to decelerate fairly dramatically.
I thought Google did not make money directly from Android licensing, but from advertising on search results. So for them, it's all about making sure that the next big trend in web search (mobile web search) goes to Google and keeps them on top. So because both Android and iOS use Google by default, they make money regardless of which OS / device you are using. Why would they worry about iPhone on Verizon, unless the default search engine was switched to Yahoo or Bing?
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.
I seriously have to ask. What is so complicated about DroidX? Yes, the iPhone is simpler to use (and is more consistent), but Android is hardly more complex if used like the iPhone. It's infinitely more customizable and more powerful - but only if you so chose to use it. I honestly can't figure out why any one would think it's complicated.
My sister was not aware of the Market on her Android phone until I showed it to her 3 months after she had bought it. My friend's wife thought Market was some finance app and never started it. But neither of them had any trouble what so ever, using the phone as it came stock. My sister-in-law switched from the 3GS to an Android phone a few months ago. Last month she switched to a Samsung Galaxy S. She loved how all her contacts, calendar mail etc. just seamlessly transferred to her new phone.
The iPhone is different and with the lack of choice, no doubt, simpler to use right out of the box. But Android is hardly complicated.
I seriously have to ask. What is so complicated about DroidX? Yes, the iPhone is simpler to use (and is more consistent), but Android is hardly more complex if used like the iPhone. It's infinitely more customizable and more powerful - but only if you so chose to use it. I honestly can't figure out why any one would think it's complicated.
My sister was not aware of the Market on her Android phone until I showed it to her 3 months after she had bought it. My friend's wife thought Market was some finance app and never started it. But neither of them had any trouble what so ever, using the phone as it came stock. My sister-in-law switched from the 3GS to an Android phone a few months ago. Last month she switched to a Samsung Galaxy S. She loved how all her contacts, calendar mail etc. just seamlessly transferred to her new phone.
The iPhone is different and with the lack of choice, no doubt, simpler to use right out of the box. But Android is hardly complicated.
I think you make his case in your anecdotes. A couple things I didn?t care for was the inconsistency of cut/copy/paste and the way videos are played.
On the iPhone cut/copy/paste works the exact same way regardless of what app you are in. This was an issue with Android 2.1 and I don?t think it was resolved as of 2.3. Then there are playing videos and music. On the iPhone you simply go to the well known iPod app. I couldn?t figure out how to upload and play videos on the first Android phone I used.
Then there are vendors that cause inconsistencies for Android-based devices. Different UIs, different button configurations, etc, even within the same vendor across lateral models. With the iPhone it?s consistent. You have an annual HW and OS stepping, with the new model having a little more than the previous year with iOS support going back 3 years. This 3 years adds a certain level of peace of mind, though it?s probably out-of-sight/out-of-mind for most unless you have a fairly new Android phone and find out that it won?t be getting any future updates from your carrier/vendor. This 3 years of updates also helps with the value of the device which can significantly lower the TCO of that device.
Then there is a confusing system for users who want an app that works on their system. With the iPhone everything is <blank> or later. If you have that phone or a newer one you are fine. You have that version of iOS or a newer you are fine. Can?t do that when there are hundreds of handsets on the market for your OS. This is all apps, probably not even most, but it?s enough that it can be frustrating for the user.