Gartner's iPhone, Android predictions radically revised in a year and a half

13468911

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 208
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Android is not, as you say, incompatible because different companies make it. The only time this is the case is if it's a forked version of Android. Then it's incompatible because they've made the code their own.



    But I don't expect you'd get that. To you, everyone who dares to question apple is most likely the same person anyway, right?



    You yourself admitted a while back that there were seven different versions of Android out there in the wild, and when you cross that with dozens of different manufacturers adding their proprietary crap on top of that, it's a madhouse. You can deny it all you want, but that's the situation.



    I question Apple all the time. For example, their pushing of download-only media and software access is decades premature.
  • Reply 102 of 208
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post




    Here's something that came up after 10 seconds: (Granted, this is just a survey done by Admob, and it's US companies.



    http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/...rules-android/




    Hard data please. Sale number like we know how many iPhone sold on financial report, not survey. Why is it so hard to find I just don't understand??? It'll be benefit us all and prove your point greatly.
  • Reply 103 of 208
    macinthe408macinthe408 Posts: 1,050member
    Per the six-degrees of separation theory, everyone on this thread is connected to a combined total of 3 people who own WP7 devices.
  • Reply 104 of 208
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post


    I question Apple all the time. For example, their pushing of download-only media and software access is decades premature.



    What? Apple shouldn?t sell or rent media on iTunes Store until at least 2031 or Apple should also issue physical media under its name? How does that apply to apps?
  • Reply 105 of 208
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    What? Apple shouldn?t sell or rent media on iTunes Store until at least 2031 or Apple should also issue physical media under its name? How does that apply to apps?



    I mean it will be decades?many decades?before a large enough majority of people have the kind of super-high-speed internet service to make their vision of a wireless world a reality. We don't all live on the Cupertino campus, you know. In the meantime, many, many people will be left out of this utopia.
  • Reply 106 of 208
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post


    I mean it will be decades—many decades—before a large enough majority of people have the kind of super-high-speed internet service to make their vision of a wireless world a reality. We don't all live on the Cupertino campus, you know. In the meantime, many, many people will be left out of this utopia.



    That’s what I don’t get your comment, it’s a reality right now and has been for a long time. It’s not an all or nothing shift to the internet. Years after DVDs became the most common you could still buy VHS tapes. Sony just stopped producing 3.5” floppy disks last year. Who is being left out that makes it premature for Apple to have started the iTunes Music Store in 2003, which is the single largest supplier of music in the world. Who is being left out that makes it premature for Netflix to streaming media, which has seen phenomenal growth with a decline in shipped DVDs.



    Paradigm shifts can happen quickly that it seems like there is some toggle switch being moved but usually it’s a gradual slider from one model to the other. Just like B/W TV adoption, then color TV adoption, then cable TV adoption, then home computer adoption, followed by internet adoption, et al. there is a trend from none to ubiquity. Each one of the examples above surely had people saying that the technology was premature, but without these premature users the tech would have never become ubiquitous (I.e.: mature).
  • Reply 107 of 208
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Yup. It's being said that Android is the new Windows.

    I'm curious. How exactly is that a compliment?



    Shhh... All they care about it that they are "winning".

    And that Apple has "lost" again.
  • Reply 108 of 208
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    Shhh... All they care about it that they are "winning".

    And that Apple has "lost" again.



    Funny how definitions of winning and losing can vary so dramatically.
  • Reply 109 of 208
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Dang, that's some serious case of denial. So what OS are all those not-iOS phones using? Feeling that Apple's system is superior, or that the ecosystem serves users better is one thing. Claiming Android doesn't exist?



    The issue is not what the OS is called, it is that there are massive incompatibilities. There were phones shipped in 2010 with Android 1.6 and will never be upgraded. Hardware capabilities are all over the map. The features of 2.2 are interesting, but no one who wants to reach an audience can develop to them.



    The only Denial are the people pretending that market share in it's current form means anything at all for android. No manufacturers combined Android sales exceed the sales of the iPhone. Despite the Android market share advantage they still have nearly 0 market for Apps. For a platform that you believe is equal or larger than iOS for all of 2010, it generated 1/17th the App revenue (100 million versus 1.7 billion) and less then 1/6th the year-over-year growth. If we are comparing platform size, the only reason at all is because of what this offers developers. Any reasonable person can see android is still a failure as a mobile app platform.
  • Reply 110 of 208
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,385member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by steftheref View Post


    That's a basic error right there. Android isn't OUTSELLING anything. It's given away free to anybody who will use it, including Mama San's Homebrew Smartphone (with fried rice). Sure, if you give something away, you'll get lots of users, but that doesn't mean their products compete with a professional, secure, reliable and highly functional ecosystem like Apple's iOS.



    Where do you get the free Android phones from? All the ones I have seen are tied to expensive contracts, that's not free.
  • Reply 111 of 208
    galaxytabgalaxytab Posts: 122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by steftheref View Post


    That's a basic error right there. Android isn't OUTSELLING anything. It's given away free to anybody who will use it, including Mama San's Homebrew Smartphone (with fried rice). Sure, if you give something away, you'll get lots of users, but that doesn't mean their products compete with a professional, secure, reliable and highly functional ecosystem like Apple's iOS.



    Are people here really that uneducated when it comes to the monetisation of Android?



    Lesson:

    Android at the source is free. It costs nothing to compile and distribute Gningerbread to every manufacturer, this is true.



    Now we come into the realm of monetization of Android with the closed source components (Google apps). This is what caused Google to isue a C&D on the team at CyanogenMod who were distributing ROMS with the non-open Google apps without a licence to do so:



    http://android-developers.blogspot.c...r-android.html

    Quote:

    With a high-quality open platform in hand, we then returned to our goal of making our services available on users' phones. That's why we developed Android apps for many of our services like YouTube, Gmail, Google Voice, and so on. These apps are Google's way of benefiting from Android in the same way that any other developer can, but the apps are not part of the Android platform itself. We make some of these apps available to users of any Android-powered device via Android Market, and others are pre-installed on some phones through business deals. Either way, these apps aren't open source, and that's why they aren't included in the Android source code repository. Unauthorized distribution of this software harms us just like it would any other business, even if it's done with the best of intentions.



    This means that EVERY licensed Android phone sold with the Google Apps have been distributed thanks to these "business deals" which undoubtedly cost OEM's to include with the "free" OS.



    Hopefully this will educate some but I guess it will be ignored by most.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


    The issue is not what the OS is called, it is that there are massive incompatibilities. There were phones shipped in 2010 with Android 1.6 and will never be upgraded. Hardware capabilities are all over the map. The features of 2.2 are interesting, but no one who wants to reach an audience can develop to them.



    You are concerned for the 3.5% of current Android market share that are on 1.6? How noble of you. Source
  • Reply 112 of 208
    maccherrymaccherry Posts: 924member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Dang, that's some serious case of denial. So what OS are all those not-iOS phones using? Feeling that Apple's system is superior, or that the ecosystem serves users better is one thing. Claiming Android doesn't exist?





    Grouping the market share of Moto, LG, HTC and Samsung and calling it Android is bull****!

    Google is getting all the props but the balance sheets of the aforementioned celly makers aren't on Google's CFO's desk!

    Android is a free mobile OS piggybacking on ubiquitous 3rd party hardware.

    And there are two business models at play here.

    One is Google making money on ads from Android and two is the selling of hardware by the celly makers.

    I'm going to write the chairmen of the SEC because this is some seriously misleading bull****!

    Investors looking at this sh** will think Google is winning when they are not, per se.Google's stock could rise because of this if it hasn't already and that is sad because Google doesn't take action at all covering anything that happens to your Android powered phone.

    You have to break each 3rd party player using Android down and then asses them.

    Apple is winning. They design their hardware, they wrote their own mobile OS, they use their own custom silicon and they advertise their cell phone. All of this is done in house entirely by one company. And that is risky but the markets reward risk. Apple is clearly the winner hands down.



    Oh and to add a little bit of pepper jack to the mix, I have heard rumors that facebook was working on their own mobile OS. So just allow your imagination to run wild a bit on that one.

    Can you imagine...
  • Reply 113 of 208
    nkhmnkhm Posts: 928member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Android is currently outselling iOS.



    Giving large units of multiple products away that contain variants (most unrecognisable) of the 'same' OS in order to increase market share is not "outselling" - it's giving something away and is a route to insolvency.



    You can't compare actual sales of a single current model phone to dozens of cheap handsets/models that are simply given away. That these dozens of phones have between managed to about match actual SALES of iPhones, (not to mention iPads and iPod touches which aren't included in these figures) renders the "outselling iOS" statement utter nonsense.



    Where are the SALES figures, the PROFIT announcements - this is business, and money matters. Not getting your product into the hands of many people as possible while bringing in zero revenue.
  • Reply 114 of 208
    galaxytabgalaxytab Posts: 122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nkhm View Post


    Where are the SALES figures, the PROFIT announcements - this is business, and money matters. Not getting your product into the hands of many people as possible while bringing in zero revenue.



    Heres is one profit announcement: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7371GE20110408



    EDIT:

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nkhm View Post


    You can't compare actual sales of a single current model phone to dozens of cheap handsets/models that are simply given away.



    Out of interest, can you (or one of the above) please point me in the direction where this hardware is given away scot free? (Not free hardware that is subsidised by a service plan, just the 100% free phones). I want in on the action.



    Thanks.
  • Reply 115 of 208
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post


    Heres is one profit announcement: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7371GE20110408



    You proved his point. HTC made a profit on the devices they sold.



    Apple and HTC are certainly competing with other for sales, but iOS and Android are not competing for HW installations because 1) Apple doesn?t license or give away iOS and 2) they certainly won?t use Android on their HW.
  • Reply 116 of 208
    galaxytabgalaxytab Posts: 122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    You proved his point. HTC made a profit on the devices they sold.



    Apple and HTC are certainly competing with other for sales, but iOS and Android are not competing for HW installations because 1) Apple doesn?t license or give away iOS and 2) they certainly won?t use Android on their HW.



    How have I proven his point? To me it seems he/she was working on the basis that Android handsets are given away for absolutely nothing and are unprofitable. HTC is one such company that has had massive success, fueled by sales of its Android based hardware.



    What are you after, the profitability of Google and Android OS or OEMS and Android OS?



    The problems with statistics/metrics is that they can all be skewed to show different things. One Analyst went so far as to wanting to categorize the iPad as a "PC". There are so many ways to look at this and depending on what the result is, people will push their agenda..



    Smartphone OS sales, iOS Vs Android as a whole, Individual handset sales by model, profitability of Android OEMS Vs Apple... All the numbers can be spun to show something different and I'll happily take them as they are instead of crying about what way of looking at it is right or wrong.
  • Reply 117 of 208
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post


    How have I proven his point? To me it seems he/she was working on the basis that Android handsets are given away for absolutely nothing and are unprofitable. HTC is one such company that has had massive success, fueled by sales of its Android based hardware.



    What are you after, the profitability of Google and Android OS or OEMS and Android OS?



    The problems with statistics/metrics is that they can all be skewed to show different things. One Analyst went so far as to wanting to categorize the iPad as a "PC". There are so many ways to look at this and depending on what the result is, people will push their agenda..



    Smartphone OS sales, iOS Vs Android as a whole, Individual handset sales by model, profitability of Android OEMS Vs Apple... All the numbers can be spun to show something different and I'll happily take them as they are instead of crying about what way of looking at it is right or wrong.



    1) He responded to MacRulez silly comment, "Android is currently outselling iOS.? Emphasis mine.



    2) HTC has no less than 3 OSes in use but your comment seems to suggest that HTC only uses Android OS. I?m sure they make most of their profit from devices running Android but that disqualifies any assumption that HTC and Android are synonymous.



    3) HTC is successful because they are designing and building quality devices. Again, this shows that it?s HTC that is showing a marked increase in success from making good HW not simply the inclusion of Android on some of their handsets.
  • Reply 118 of 208
    reliasonreliason Posts: 135member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post


    They're using dozens of partially or completely incompatible OSs with enough of a family resemblance that people like to lump them together with a one-word descriptor?but thinking "Android" is a single, monolithic OS is just delusional.



    Suppose the 90% of the market that Windows PCs represent had dozens or hundreds of somewhat incompatible versions so that you couldn't be sure that any given software would run on your machine? (Kind of like the early DOS days, which I'm old enough to remember.) Would you crow about "Windows" having 90% of the market? Maybe you would, but who would benefit? Not the end-user, just Microsoft.



    Similarly today, The only ones benefiting from "Android's" marketshare are Google and the spammers they're pimping your eyeballs to.



    I am also old enough to remember the days of DR. DOS, PC DOS and MS DOS...



    But the 90% penetration on the desktop is still fragmented, MS Win. Lots of Apps won't run in Vista/Win7. Or Won't run on XP [50+ % of enterprises desktops]. Or stop running after MS drops a patch... or a new version of Internet explorer .. or a new version of .Net...



    So, yeah, Android is the OS. Android is a single platform with multiple UI's. And that is the major reason for it's fragmentation.



    Apples 'fascist' policies on limiting developer use to only approved OS libraries prevents similar fragmentation in iOS -- for now. Soon, the performance increases in new devices, will make more taxing applications viable, which will make the 3 and 3gs incompatible, and then we have fragmentation. Or planned obsolescence - your call ;-)



    For the record - I agree with Apples policies. Gartner's predictions on WinPho7 are asinine. Android is the low cost bottom feeder.
  • Reply 119 of 208
    reliasonreliason Posts: 135member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post


    The problems with statistics/metrics is that they can all be skewed to show different things.



    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."



    I think we all need to agree on a basic set of definitions. Android = Operating system. The article is not about the hardware, it's about the OS market share.



    Android will continue to dominate, unless Nokia/HP/RIM can deliver a compelling product [hardware] that is price competitive with HTC/LG/Samsung products.



    Apples piece of the pie will likely shrink, as a percentage, over the next decade. The whole smart phone category is expanding hugely. Unless Apple can figure out a way to make an iPhone that maintains the product experience and profitability, but can sell at a price point competitive in China and India, it's market share will decrease.



    I would submit, that Apple will be the 'premium' brand, as they have always been. Apple has never built a model T. Nor do they build Mercedes. They build something akin to a Camry. Moderate luxury, attainable price. High profit margin.
  • Reply 120 of 208
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by reliason View Post


    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."



    I think we all need to agree on a basic set of definitions. Android = Operating system. The article is not about the hardware, it's about the OS market share.



    Android will continue to dominate, unless Nokia/HP/RIM can deliver a compelling product [hardware] that is price competitive with HTC/LG/Samsung products.



    Apples piece of the pie will likely shrink, as a percentage, over the next decade. The whole smart phone category is expanding hugely. Unless Apple can figure out a way to make an iPhone that maintains the product experience and profitability, but can sell at a price point competitive in China and India, it's market share will decrease.



    I would submit, that Apple will be the 'premium' brand, as they have always been. Apple has never built a model T. Nor do they build Mercedes. They build something akin to a Camry. Moderate luxury, attainable price. High profit margin.



    There isn't any doubt that Apple will produce a cheaper iPhone which will be cheaper than all but the bottom 20% of Android phones. They do that with iPods while still keeping their margins on higher models. Meanwhile the sell em cheap manufacturers only have tiny

    margins which can be wiped out by component shortages. As one of the biggest electronics manufacturers in the world and the biggest in revenue in this space it has the upper hand.



    The category error people like you make is to assume that cheap Chinese manufacturers have less costs, but all mobile phone manufacturers are mere integrators of parts built elsewhere. Apple can undercut ZTE if it wants.
Sign In or Register to comment.