Google Android counts include rival Chinese variants

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 105
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LarryV View Post


    You haven't kept up with the news. The "quite small" quote was a complete lie. They never said that. Every major news source has issued a retraction but I don't expect fanboy sites to do so. Anything negative thing for them is news, even when it's an outright lie. Which is sad cause it makes them untrustworthy even for the stories that they may get right.



    It's hard to blame fansites for getting right what the WSJ gets wrong. I don't know about you, but I don't go back to major stories looking for retractions-- I suppose only fans do that. Fancy that.



    So he didn't say "small". He said "smooth". What the heck does that mean? The bottom line still is that Samsung promoted shipped figures, not sales figures, so there's no fair comparison. Have the guy put a number on "smooth" so people can get the idea about whether sales really were "small" or not.
  • Reply 82 of 105
    Quote:

    Gartner similarly counted blockbuster growth for Android in the third quarter of 2011, but relegated most of this growth into a bucket of "other" manufacturers. The top tier of recognizable Android makers, including HTC, Motorola and Samsung, all of which Google has partnered with to release new versions of Android, have all experienced far more moderate growth in sales numbers (or in the case of Motorola, shrinking sales).



    Again with this nonsense LIE. THIS IS COMPLETE AND TOTAL BULL SHIT!!!!! Gartner did not credit a single Android phone to the other category. The growth in Android Gartner reported is completely explained by the named manufacturers producing more Android phones and less phones with legacy OS's. READ THE FREAKING REPORT!!!!!!!!!!



    AI, Why is DED allowed to continually use this site to lie and misquote and plain make up crap? I would strongly encourage you to rein this idiot in before you get sued. It is NOT OK to attribute stats to Gartner that they did not report.
  • Reply 83 of 105
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Well, I knew as soon as I saw that AI had finally picked up on this story that the Android trolls who come here would be howling. An added bonus that they brought a few friends to howl along with them, and the DED haters are frantic too. Raw nerves hit all around.



    The "Google*" numbers are clearly bogus and Canalys has some explaining to do.



    DES's explanation of the Gartner numbers are clearly an outright LIE and he has a TON of explaining to do because he keeps repeating it over and over. Any idiot who continues to trust a DED article in the face of overwhelming evidence of his dishonesty is not the type of fan Apple should be proud to have.



    Go read Gartners report and then read DED's analysis and try to reconcile the two. Show me where Gartner said any Android phones were made by the companies in the other category? They specifically said that category was growing due to a huge interest in non-3g phones. They are not smart phones they are not Android, and Garnet NEVER SAID A WORD about the Other category accounting for Android growth. NOT ONE SINGLE WORD.
  • Reply 84 of 105
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,922member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    DES's explanation of the Gartner numbers are clearly an outright LIE and he has a TON of explaining to do because he keeps repeating it over and over. Any idiot who continues to trust a DED article in the face of overwhelming evidence of his dishonesty is not the type of fan Apple should be proud to have.



    Go read Gartners report and then read DED's analysis and try to reconcile the two. Show me where Gartner said any Android phones were made by the companies in the other category? They specifically said that category was growing due to a huge interest in non-3g phones. They are not smart phones they are not Android, and Garnet NEVER SAID A WORD about the Other category accounting for Android growth. NOT ONE SINGLE WORD.



    You seem confused. Not surprising. It's the Canalys numbers that require explanation and appear to be misrepresenting "Google*" share. Gartner is always wrong, so their numbers aren't even valid for consideration, except for the fact that, unsurprisingly, they don't match up with anyone else's numbers.
  • Reply 85 of 105
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    You seem confused. Not surprising. It's the Canalys numbers that require explanation and appear to be misrepresenting "Google*" share. Gartner is always wrong, so their numbers aren't even valid for consideration, except for the fact that, unsurprisingly, they don't match up with anyone else's numbers.



    No, you are confused. This entire section of DED's article, which is regurtitated trash from the original one he wrote is factually WRONG. Again, go read what Gartner wrote for yourself. If you have an IQ over 30 you can figure it out.



    "Gartner similarly counted blockbuster growth for Android in the third quarter of 2011, but relegated most of this growth into a bucket of "other" manufacturers. The top tier of recognizable Android makers, including HTC, Motorola and Samsung, all of which Google has partnered with to release new versions of Android, have all experienced far more moderate growth in sales numbers (or in the case of Motorola, shrinking sales).











    That suggests most the growth in "Android" numbers is coming from no-name vendors selling devices in countries such as China, using devices that don't support Google's development of the OS (via ads or search services) nor even expand the platform in any meaningful way that could benefit Android users.



    "



    If you read what Gartner wrote, all of the 20.5 million Android phones can be explained by the named manufacturers, with Samsung the biggest, accounting for over 6 million. The big growth in the other category is from non 3G non smart phones and has absolutely NOTHING to do with Apple, Google, Android or anything else we care about. Once again, go read it yourself and come back here and tell me what DED wrote is not completely false. PLEASE.
  • Reply 86 of 105
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    No, you are confused. This entire section of DED's article, which is regurtitated trash from the original one he wrote is factually WRONG. Again, go read what Gartner wrote for yourself. If you have an IQ over 30 you can figure it out. ...



    Nice attack piece. Sharp personal attacks on the writer to distract from the real issue, followed up by the turning of a red herring into a molehill.



    Unfortunately for you (and you certainly seem to have your panties in a knot over this one), none of your criticisms even begin to address the issue of the Canalys numbers misrepresenting Google's Android marketshare with their mysterious "Google*" row. OMS and Tapas aren't Android and have no place in the "Google" numbers, with or without the asterisk. (And please, don't try the, "Google has 32.9M of those sales," defense. The writer clearly got confused with the numbers, just as they mysteriously got confused about what is and isn't Android, and used the percentage, not the totals, in the article.)
  • Reply 87 of 105
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Nice attack piece. Sharp personal attacks on the writer to distract from the real issue, followed up by the turning of a red herring into a molehill.



    Unfortunately for you (and you certainly seem to have your panties in a knot over this one), none of your criticisms even begin to address the issue of the Canalys numbers misrepresenting Google's Android marketshare with their mysterious "Google*" row. OMS and Tapas aren't Android and have no place in the "Google" numbers, with or without the asterisk. (And please, don't try the, "Google has 32.9M of those sales," defense. The writer clearly got confused with the numbers, just as they mysteriously got confused about what is and isn't Android, and used the percentage, not the totals, in the article.)



    WHAT??????? Did you look at DED's article? I pasted from post 1 of this thread, the very article in question! DED is the one who brought this Gartner crap up AGAIN. I am not commenting on or distracting from the Canalys numbers, there was more than Canalys in the article. Clearly you have no reading comprehension and no ability to think for yourself, otherwise you would have figured that out.



    FWIW, as best I can tell, Canalys did not say OMS and Tapas were Android they said they were Google derivatives and they explicity footnoted the number to point out that what they cetegorized as "Google" was not just Android. The inability of DED or yourself to actually read what they said and comprehend it does not mean they were misrepresenting anything. It only means you misread and misunderstood. I am going to go out on a limb and guess you did not read the Canalys report, and I bet DED didn't either. At $2,050 for a copy I did not read it myself, hence my comments are focused on the false reporting about the Gartner piece that I did read myself.
  • Reply 88 of 105
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    WHAT??????? ...



    Again, nice attempt at misdirection. The issue remains that the Canalys numbers are utterly misleading, and one has to wonder why they would introduce such an egregious error into their "statistics".



    The Gartner numbers are neither here nor there. Gartner are simply whores for whoever pays them to produce numbers.



    It seems that you are much more interested in attacking DED than in discussing the real issue. We get a lot of that around here lately, almost as though it were concerted.
  • Reply 89 of 105
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LarryV View Post


    If Samsung can sell 2 million tablets and take a 20% market share from Apple in just 2 months, using Froyo 2.2, an OS that even Google said it was not meant for tablets, then imagine what the flood of Honeycomb Tablets will do to Apple. So I can see why the Apple people are trying to throw as much FUD as they can in this. Cause the fact is that Honeycomb will be introduced tomorrow with a flood of incredibly powerful and capable Android Tablets with an OS that was meant for tablets, start shipping this month. My prediction is that Android Tablets will have more than 50% market share by end of the year. The demand for Honeycomb tablets is just plain massive.



    Wow! What a big steaming bowl of claim chowder this would be if anyone cared what nonsense you spew. Also, you will be nowhere to be found when reality becomes inescapable (i.e. When publicly traded companies are required to report numbers without "inadvertent" spin). Yes, I know how foolish it is to feed the trolls, but this stuff is just too choice.



    The thing about the Samsung tablet is how invisible it is. I've never seen one in public. It reminds me of Zune back when it was touted as the iPod killer. Lots of swagger and claims but after a while you realize that if it was so significant you should see one eventually. Oh well, I'm due back on planet Earth.
  • Reply 90 of 105
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Again, nice attempt at misdirection. The issue remains that the Canalys numbers are utterly misleading, and one has to wonder why they would introduce such an egregious error into their "statistics".



    The Gartner numbers are neither here nor there. Gartner are simply whores for whoever pays them to produce numbers.



    It seems that you are much more interested in attacking DED than in discussing the real issue. We get a lot of that around here lately, almost as though it were concerted.



    The issue remains that you have not read the Canalys report, yet you feel that you are qualified to critisize it and label it as misleading. You also call Gartner whores without having read their report. In short you know absolutely nothing about what you post and are nothing more than a DED parrot, repeating whatevfer your master tells you with no comprehension or thought. Why do you bother?
  • Reply 91 of 105
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sdbryan View Post


    Wow! What a big steaming bowl of claim chowder this would be if anyone cared what nonsense you spew. Also, you will be nowhere to be found when reality becomes inescapable (i.e. When publicly traded companies are required to report numbers without "inadvertent" spin). Yes, I know how foolish it is to feed the trolls, but this stuff is just too choice.



    The thing about the Samsung tablet is how invisible it is. I've never seen one in public. It reminds me of Zune back when it was touted as the iPod killer. Lots of swagger and claims but after a while you realize that if it was so significant you should see one eventually. Oh well, I'm due back on planet Earth.



    I agree that I have yet to see a Galaxy tab, but to dismiss Honeycomb and more likely its followon is rather foolish. No matter how much you want to spin the numbers, Android on smart phones went from near nothing to a major player in about 18 months. Some sources are saying the biggest player, others argue, but clearly more successful than the Zune. I expect much the same from Android on tablets, slow crappy start, but come back in 18 months and lets see who is eating crow. Personally I think Apple will be happy to hold on to the most profitable 15-25% in both markets and Android will dominate the rest of the field. The iOS products will never enjoy the marketshare success of the iPods. They will be more successful than Macs but not market share leaders, they simply are not possitioned and marketed that way.
  • Reply 92 of 105
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    I agree that I have yet to see a Galaxy tab, but to dismiss Honeycomb and more likely its followon is rather foolish. No matter how much you want to spin the numbers, Android on smart phones went from near nothing to a major player in about 18 months. Some sources are saying the biggest player, others argue, but clearly more successful than the Zune. I expect much the same from Android on tablets, slow crappy start, but come back in 18 months and lets see who is eating crow. Personally I think Apple will be happy to hold on to the most profitable 15-25% in both markets and Android will dominate the rest of the field. The iOS products will never enjoy the marketshare success of the iPods. They will be more successful than Macs but not market share leaders, they simply are not possitioned and marketed that way.



    Difference being, of course, that phones are subsidized on contract. A great many of those Android phones were either free, part of a BOGO deal or sold for under $100.



    Tablets can be subsidized, but that means taking on another monthly data plan when (as a tablet purchaser with interest in cell connectivity) you most likely already have a smartphone with a data plan. Much tougher sell.



    So in general I think we will see Android tablets having it out with the iPad at something like price parity. While I expect Honeycomb tablets to sell well, it remains to be seen if they can replicate the performance of Android phones without the heavy subsidization.
  • Reply 93 of 105
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Difference being, of course, that phones are subsidized on contract. A great many of those Android phones were either free, part of a BOGO deal or sold for under $100.



    Tablets can be subsidized, but that means taking on another monthly data plan when (as a tablet purchaser with interest in cell connectivity) you most likely already have a smartphone with a data plan. Much tougher sell.



    So in general I think we will see Android tablets having it out with the iPad at something like price parity. While I expect Honeycomb tablets to sell well, it remains to be seen if they can replicate the performance of Android phones without the heavy subsidization.



    I'm very tempted to get a Nook even though I have an iPad just to load Gingerbread on it. The price/performance ratio of the Nook is very nice.
  • Reply 94 of 105
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    I agree that I have yet to see a Galaxy tab, but to dismiss Honeycomb and more likely its followon is rather foolish. No matter how much you want to spin the numbers, Android on smart phones went from near nothing to a major player in about 18 months. Some sources are saying the biggest player, others argue, but clearly more successful than the Zune. I expect much the same from Android on tablets, slow crappy start, but come back in 18 months and lets see who is eating crow. Personally I think Apple will be happy to hold on to the most profitable 15-25% in both markets and Android will dominate the rest of the field. The iOS products will never enjoy the marketshare success of the iPods. They will be more successful than Macs but not market share leaders, they simply are not possitioned and marketed that way.



    If you said this after you saw Honeycomb preview, that's foolish. Don't you see iPod Touch walking alone freely, no competition? Why don't Android makers release iPod Touch killer? Oh, that Streak Strike Out! Selling as 3G device is easier, because it will be promoted by carriers. Try to sell at general store, they get "quite smooth" result.



    Android will stay crappy and clunky as long they use virtual machine, not native code. Google should thank Oracle and move to native code. Didn't Google releasing Go language long time ago?



    Android can succeed in the market as long they are clinging to carriers' foot.
  • Reply 95 of 105
    os2babaos2baba Posts: 262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Difference being, of course, that phones are subsidized on contract. A great many of those Android phones were either free, part of a BOGO deal or sold for under $100.



    Tablets can be subsidized, but that means taking on another monthly data plan when (as a tablet purchaser with interest in cell connectivity) you most likely already have a smartphone with a data plan. Much tougher sell.



    So in general I think we will see Android tablets having it out with the iPad at something like price parity. While I expect Honeycomb tablets to sell well, it remains to be seen if they can replicate the performance of Android phones without the heavy subsidization.



    Almost every one needs a phone. Many of us think we need a smartphone. My wife disagrees :-). Almost no one needs a tablet. IMO, tablets are too expensive for what they do compared to alternatives (netbooks & laptops). I really don't think that Android tablets are going to sell well if they plan on selling them subsidized through carriers. I can't imagine too many people are going to sign on to another $30 or so two year contract when they probably already have a $75/mo or so phone contract. Unless wifi Android tablets prices are well south of $500, I don't see Android wifi tablets doing well either. They will most likely outsell 3G iPads because like iPhones, it's a numbers game that Apple can't win.



    Having said that, I'm surprised that Samsung managed to ship 2 million Tabs. I didn't think they would get remotely close to that number. Even if they sold much less than what they shipped, it's still a lot to produce if there is no market for it.
  • Reply 96 of 105
    os2babaos2baba Posts: 262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nht View Post


    I'm very tempted to get a Nook even though I have an iPad just to load Gingerbread on it. The price/performance ratio of the Nook is very nice.



    The price is great. The performance is not so great. I'm hoping that NotionInk can start producing Adams in greater quantity and better quality. That's probably my sweet spot in price/performance/features.
  • Reply 97 of 105
    ...I'm quite confident that Apple are pleased with Google's rivalry - fair or not.
  • Reply 98 of 105
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    So why are trolls such as yourself coming here? This apparently bothers you a lot.



    How do trolls like us come here? Hmm..good question.



    We come here because we use google news. Somehow appleinsider manages to be classified as such at times.



    Yeah beats me too.



    If it was not linked to Google, this thing would die.
  • Reply 99 of 105
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post


    I use google search and maps on all my computers. Do they count as Android?



    Ofcourse they do..let's dig up some stats: Google has 1 billion people searching with it's search engine..WEEKLY.





    Guess that gives us (using the convoluted logic of apple fans)...1 billion androids! Thanks Apple fans!
  • Reply 100 of 105
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    What "massive" demand??? Oh.. do you mean from the vocal, small minority of tech-heads, geeks, apple-haters, and the media that feeds on attaching "iOS-killer" to anything to garner web-hits?



    Face it... with all the phantom-figures being admitted, we'll just have to call this "Androidgate"



    Well let's take a look at some more interesting facts..courtesy of Google ofcourse:



    Search term activity for iPhone: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=iphone&cmpt=q



    Notice that the "interest" of users in the iphone is highly erratic. It always peaks around mid year with the new versionand then the interest drops dramatically. Note also that interest was extremely high last year after the debut of iphone 4 but dropped to half it's level soon thereafter. Even the iphone for Verizon was not much but a blip on the radar in terms of user interest on the world stage.people are losing interest even now. The most people have ever been interested in the iphone was around June 2010.



    Now let's check out Andoid: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=android&cmpt=q



    In contrast interest in Android has been rising worldwide since it's debut in 2007. There are few valleys here..we are mostly seeing peaks. Notice also that even now..Android is still the most searched term.





    Check the maps too. Android is a popular search term all over the world. Iphone is popular mainly in the northern hemisphere. That tells me that there is a perception about the iPhone and who it serves and what it represents that makes it inaccessible or seem inaccessible to most people..or they know they can't afford one and don't bother to look it. Either way Android wins in mindshare.



    So whether there is "massive" demand for android products..who knows? It's early days yet. I tell you what though..the interest in android continues to grow and grow and grow. And it isn't based on a product launch that happens once a year. It is inherent, organic and natural and the fascination will continue..no matter what Apple does.
Sign In or Register to comment.