Because we are all afraid that what happened between Apple and Microsoft will happen all over again with the iPhone. Apple started off with a good market share, ended up with almost nothing.
Google is the Microsoft of the smartphone world. That's not a good thing. Any business model that is not similar or the same as Apple's vertical model is to be avoided.
Oh, yeah, the tired, "If it's not Apple, it's crap" mantra. Google's profit seems to be doing well without having to copy Apple.
Quote:
When it comes to single handsets, the iPhone is still the best-selling handset. No one can make an iPhone-killer. But it sure is easy to churn out a lot of junk at various price points and two-fer deals and then turn around and claim market share.
And again, the tired, two-for-one argument. The Android phone makers DON'T sell their phones BOGO. That's the cell phone carriers. To Motorola, Verizon selling 2 Droid 2 phones at $199 each or selling just one Droid 2 for $199 and giving the other away for free is exactly the same profit wise. Verizon still pays Motorola for 2 phones in either scenario. To the service providers, phones are essentially loss leaders intended to get people to buy the big ticket item, the service contract. Just like CDs and DVDs have been used by retailers to lure people in hoping to upsell them to other more expensive merchandise. Maybe some day, you and others here will finally understand that concept.
No one gives away an iPhone for free. Every single iPhone you see was paid for by a consumer at some point. You can get Android in a BOGO deal any day of the week. Like others have said, the only reason they have a lead is because it's essentially 4 iPhones versus hundreds of Android phones. It's really remarkable for Apple to have the numbers that they do.
Oh, yeah, the tired, "If it's not Apple, it's crap" mantra. Google's profit seems to be doing well without having to copy Apple.
Yea, because they're just copying everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
And again, the tired, two-for-one argument. The Android phone makers DON'T sell their phones BOGO. That's the cell phone carriers. To Motorola, Verizon selling 2 Droid 2 phones at $199 each or selling just one Droid 2 for $199 and giving the other away for free is exactly the same profit wise. Verizon still pays Motorola for 2 phones in either scenario. To the service providers, phones are essentially loss leaders intended to get people to buy the big ticket item, the service contract. Just like CDs and DVDs have been used by retailers to lure people in hoping to upsell them to other more expensive merchandise. Maybe some day, you and others here will finally understand that concept.
Sounds like you're missing the concept. The point is that the Android OS is leading Apples iOS which has nothing to do with profit for the phone makers. BOGO deals for Android automatically double the number of OS users. Besides, shouldn't it tell you something when companies feel that they have to do BOGO deals for Android phones? They could do the same for the iPhone if they wanted but they never have to.
Because we are all afraid that what happened between Apple and Microsoft will happen all over again with the iPhone. Apple started off with a good market share, ended up with almost nothing.
Why would there be anything to fear?
Apple has been doing beautifully with Macs for years now. Apple leads the computer segment in profit, innovation, design, you name it. Macs are the envy of the industry. I'm not sure why even market share matters. Some share is necessary in order to keep the brand going, but the real indicators of success are profit and consumer satisfaction. Steve Jobs was absolutely right to restrict licensing of OS X. A vertical business model is superior. Nothing compares to the quality and cohesiveness of ecosystem when you control the whole widget. That's exactly why Apple can actually differentiate themselves.
Most Premium products command a small market share.
Large market share indicates one of two things: it's either truly a great product, or it's really just knock-off junk that's there to disrupt and over-saturate the market. And last I checked, Google Advertising Co. ain't no Apple.
Dell commands a hefty share as well. But look at them today. The running joke of the industry.
Can I digress just a little from the "Android sucks! / iOS is being treated unfairly!" discussion?
My problem with this story is that it completely contradicts several reports (including some on Apple Insider) from just a week or so ago, to the effect that Android's gains were slowing significantly and that its sales were "leveling off."
We now know that those reports were just Apple fans' wishful thinking and self-delusion.
I know it's not important, by the way, and that Apple's profit margin is really the final yardstick. But it bothers me when the Apple journalists over-stress positive stories about Apple's performance and re-interpret tentative data as indicative of Apple success just because it makes them (and us) feel better. The problem is that then when glaring evidence to the contrary comes out (like the current story) those journalists' credibility is jeopardized.
The more people that get Android phones, the less growth to be had. That's not wishful thinking. That's just the normal business cycle. Companies aren't going to grow at 600% forever. We would naturally expect Android to outpace iOS as it is the closest competitor in terms of mindshare and features and it's available for use for free. Developers haven't embraced it as much because the Android crowd wants something for nothing. Developers don't want to spend time on apps that won't help them pay their bills or compensate them better than an iOS app will. Giving Android phones away is like MSFT giving away IE and we saw how terribly that turned out for the end user and the developer.
Developers haven't embraced it as much because the Android crowd wants something for nothing. Developers don't want to spend time on apps that won't help them pay their bills or compensate them better than an iOS app will. Giving Android phones away is like MSFT giving away IE and we saw how terribly that turned out for the end user and the developer.
This.
So much for "open" when you get a lousy user experience in return - and one that doesn't make anyone any money to boot.
So what does Google focus on? Not user experience. Not a rich, vibrant ecosystem.
Ads. It's all about ads. Google's entire mobile strategy revolves around ads. It has nothing to do with creating the best possible experience for the user.
But make enough of em, price them cheaply enough, implement a touch-screen and give away the OS away for free to any taker to do with as they wish, and you've got explosive growth.
I'm sure - NOT! Google is not likely to do the right thing for their "clients". It opens them up to a potential HUGE liability. I would (more) expect to see them change their business model - possibly license Java for a small fee (from Oracle) and then pass that fee on - the handroid Phony makers don't have to pay anything now I believe - I suspect they would be willing to pay a small fee to continue their sales. Boy that would cut their profits even thinner though - but not for Google, only the client!
So what does Google focus on? Not user experience. Not a rich, vibrant ecosystem.
Ads. It's all about ads. Google's entire mobile strategy revolves around ads. It has nothing to do with creating the best possible experience for the user.
No one gives away an iPhone for free. Every single iPhone you see was paid for by a consumer at some point. You can get Android in a BOGO deal any day of the week. Like others have said, the only reason they have a lead is because it's essentially 4 iPhones versus hundreds of Android phones. It's really remarkable for Apple to have the numbers that they do.
In the USA, for which these numbers are presented, everybody pays something up front to own an iPhone. So, for the sake of comparison within the US market, which is what this thread is discussing, I guess you're correct. (But the amount of subsidy off the full retail price -- especially nowadays for the 3GS -- is so significant that sometimes they may as well be free...)
But, the same is not true world-wide. For example, you can get a new iPhone (either 3GS or 4) from O2 or Orange in the UK for £0.00 up-front, provided you sign up for a lucrative-enough contract. Exactly the same sort of deal as you'd get for any of those so-called "free" Android phones.
you guys constantly point to iphone sales number as proof its the best phone you can buy, but when it's shown that some other option is doing well, you make one excuse after another for why it sucks
you guys constantly point to iphone sales number as proof its the best phone you can buy, but when it's shown that some other option is doing well, you make one excuse after another for why it sucks
Uh yeah. Because without understanding the *reason* behind the numbers you're only partially informed.
There is a lot of junk out there. Cheap, low-quality netbooks absolutely flooded the market and pumped up the also rans' share numbers.
Case in point: Compare Dell or Acer market share to Mac market share. Which product would YOU rather have?
Comments
They already are giving them away for free.
So is the iPhone, what is your point?
Android is an OS not a phone. Windows has a much larger market share than OSX. Go with Windows and Android if that rocks your boat.
why would you assume windows and android go together? in my family we have 3 macs and two android phones and love them equally.
Why is this 'lead' important?
Because we are all afraid that what happened between Apple and Microsoft will happen all over again with the iPhone. Apple started off with a good market share, ended up with almost nothing.
Why is this 'lead' important?
Because "A" is for Apple, not Android! Oh, and "J" is for Jacks!...
Google is the Microsoft of the smartphone world. That's not a good thing. Any business model that is not similar or the same as Apple's vertical model is to be avoided.
Oh, yeah, the tired, "If it's not Apple, it's crap" mantra. Google's profit seems to be doing well without having to copy Apple.
When it comes to single handsets, the iPhone is still the best-selling handset. No one can make an iPhone-killer. But it sure is easy to churn out a lot of junk at various price points and two-fer deals and then turn around and claim market share.
And again, the tired, two-for-one argument. The Android phone makers DON'T sell their phones BOGO. That's the cell phone carriers. To Motorola, Verizon selling 2 Droid 2 phones at $199 each or selling just one Droid 2 for $199 and giving the other away for free is exactly the same profit wise. Verizon still pays Motorola for 2 phones in either scenario. To the service providers, phones are essentially loss leaders intended to get people to buy the big ticket item, the service contract. Just like CDs and DVDs have been used by retailers to lure people in hoping to upsell them to other more expensive merchandise. Maybe some day, you and others here will finally understand that concept.
So is the iPhone, what is your point?
No one gives away an iPhone for free. Every single iPhone you see was paid for by a consumer at some point. You can get Android in a BOGO deal any day of the week. Like others have said, the only reason they have a lead is because it's essentially 4 iPhones versus hundreds of Android phones. It's really remarkable for Apple to have the numbers that they do.
Oh, yeah, the tired, "If it's not Apple, it's crap" mantra. Google's profit seems to be doing well without having to copy Apple.
Yea, because they're just copying everyone else.
And again, the tired, two-for-one argument. The Android phone makers DON'T sell their phones BOGO. That's the cell phone carriers. To Motorola, Verizon selling 2 Droid 2 phones at $199 each or selling just one Droid 2 for $199 and giving the other away for free is exactly the same profit wise. Verizon still pays Motorola for 2 phones in either scenario. To the service providers, phones are essentially loss leaders intended to get people to buy the big ticket item, the service contract. Just like CDs and DVDs have been used by retailers to lure people in hoping to upsell them to other more expensive merchandise. Maybe some day, you and others here will finally understand that concept.
Sounds like you're missing the concept. The point is that the Android OS is leading Apples iOS which has nothing to do with profit for the phone makers. BOGO deals for Android automatically double the number of OS users. Besides, shouldn't it tell you something when companies feel that they have to do BOGO deals for Android phones? They could do the same for the iPhone if they wanted but they never have to.
Because we are all afraid that what happened between Apple and Microsoft will happen all over again with the iPhone. Apple started off with a good market share, ended up with almost nothing.
Why would there be anything to fear?
Apple has been doing beautifully with Macs for years now. Apple leads the computer segment in profit, innovation, design, you name it. Macs are the envy of the industry. I'm not sure why even market share matters. Some share is necessary in order to keep the brand going, but the real indicators of success are profit and consumer satisfaction. Steve Jobs was absolutely right to restrict licensing of OS X. A vertical business model is superior. Nothing compares to the quality and cohesiveness of ecosystem when you control the whole widget. That's exactly why Apple can actually differentiate themselves.
Most Premium products command a small market share.
Large market share indicates one of two things: it's either truly a great product, or it's really just knock-off junk that's there to disrupt and over-saturate the market. And last I checked, Google Advertising Co. ain't no Apple.
Dell commands a hefty share as well. But look at them today. The running joke of the industry.
Can I digress just a little from the "Android sucks! / iOS is being treated unfairly!" discussion?
My problem with this story is that it completely contradicts several reports (including some on Apple Insider) from just a week or so ago, to the effect that Android's gains were slowing significantly and that its sales were "leveling off."
We now know that those reports were just Apple fans' wishful thinking and self-delusion.
I know it's not important, by the way, and that Apple's profit margin is really the final yardstick. But it bothers me when the Apple journalists over-stress positive stories about Apple's performance and re-interpret tentative data as indicative of Apple success just because it makes them (and us) feel better. The problem is that then when glaring evidence to the contrary comes out (like the current story) those journalists' credibility is jeopardized.
The more people that get Android phones, the less growth to be had. That's not wishful thinking. That's just the normal business cycle. Companies aren't going to grow at 600% forever. We would naturally expect Android to outpace iOS as it is the closest competitor in terms of mindshare and features and it's available for use for free. Developers haven't embraced it as much because the Android crowd wants something for nothing. Developers don't want to spend time on apps that won't help them pay their bills or compensate them better than an iOS app will. Giving Android phones away is like MSFT giving away IE and we saw how terribly that turned out for the end user and the developer.
you should know better! Just try to generate some web traffic so you can get on Google top list? Sham on you.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20...=2547-1_3-0-20
Developers haven't embraced it as much because the Android crowd wants something for nothing. Developers don't want to spend time on apps that won't help them pay their bills or compensate them better than an iOS app will. Giving Android phones away is like MSFT giving away IE and we saw how terribly that turned out for the end user and the developer.
This.
So much for "open" when you get a lousy user experience in return - and one that doesn't make anyone any money to boot.
So what does Google focus on? Not user experience. Not a rich, vibrant ecosystem.
Ads. It's all about ads. Google's entire mobile strategy revolves around ads. It has nothing to do with creating the best possible experience for the user.
But make enough of em, price them cheaply enough, implement a touch-screen and give away the OS away for free to any taker to do with as they wish, and you've got explosive growth.
...unless Google offers to indemnify them.
I'm sure - NOT! Google is not likely to do the right thing for their "clients". It opens them up to a potential HUGE liability. I would (more) expect to see them change their business model - possibly license Java for a small fee (from Oracle) and then pass that fee on - the handroid Phony makers don't have to pay anything now I believe - I suspect they would be willing to pay a small fee to continue their sales. Boy that would cut their profits even thinner though - but not for Google, only the client!
So what does Google focus on? Not user experience. Not a rich, vibrant ecosystem.
Ads. It's all about ads. Google's entire mobile strategy revolves around ads. It has nothing to do with creating the best possible experience for the user.
Agreed! Do no evil - my ass!
No one gives away an iPhone for free. Every single iPhone you see was paid for by a consumer at some point. You can get Android in a BOGO deal any day of the week. Like others have said, the only reason they have a lead is because it's essentially 4 iPhones versus hundreds of Android phones. It's really remarkable for Apple to have the numbers that they do.
In the USA, for which these numbers are presented, everybody pays something up front to own an iPhone. So, for the sake of comparison within the US market, which is what this thread is discussing, I guess you're correct. (But the amount of subsidy off the full retail price -- especially nowadays for the 3GS -- is so significant that sometimes they may as well be free...)
But, the same is not true world-wide. For example, you can get a new iPhone (either 3GS or 4) from O2 or Orange in the UK for £0.00 up-front, provided you sign up for a lucrative-enough contract. Exactly the same sort of deal as you'd get for any of those so-called "free" Android phones.
But what really will be interesting is if Nokia announces an alliance with Microsoft on Friday. That would really shake things up for everyone.
Oh, yes ... I'm sure that will shake things up!
you guys constantly point to iphone sales number as proof its the best phone you can buy, but when it's shown that some other option is doing well, you make one excuse after another for why it sucks
Uh yeah. Because without understanding the *reason* behind the numbers you're only partially informed.
There is a lot of junk out there. Cheap, low-quality netbooks absolutely flooded the market and pumped up the also rans' share numbers.
Case in point: Compare Dell or Acer market share to Mac market share. Which product would YOU rather have?
See what I mean?
Oh, yes ... I'm sure that will shake things up!
Th blind leading the blind.
Fact: Apple is number 2 in handset sales behind Nokia (non-Android).