this is totally off topic, but i wonder if apple will change the way of naming iphones in the future. in twenty years, discussing the rumors around 'iphone 25' just doesn't sound right lol
Imagine what the cellphone technology was like 20 years ago…
Now imagine that difference between today’s iPhone and try to apply that to 20 years in the future. I don’t think we can possibly have a clue of what to expect then except for some basic generalities.
According to Wikipedia the first GSM (2G) network, Radiolinja now Elisa, launched in Finland in 1991. We’ve come a long way.
Now imagine that difference between today?s iPhone and try to apply that to 20 years in the future. I don?t think we can possibly have a clue of what to expect then except for some basic generalities.
didn't mean the features, but just the name. now we have an iphone 4 and an iphone 5 maybe comming out soon, but as the years progress iphone 10, iphone 20 etc just sounds weird... other than that, the features of it in 25 years, no one can guess what they will be...
didn't mean the features, but just the name. now we have an iphone 4 and an iphone 5 maybe comming out soon, but as the years progress iphone 10, iphone 20 etc just sounds weird... other than that, the features of it in 25 years, no one can guess what they will be...
I think iPod sounded weird and iPad still sounds lame but you get used to a name so it really doesn’t matter in the end. My point about technology changing was a subtle way of stating that we don’t even know how the tech and market or consumer will evolve, yet at least with technology there are certain trends that are tangible. If we can’t predict that for 2.5 decades we certainly can’t predict a marketing name.
Steve Jobs will have passed way for a long time, very few current Apple employees will still be at the company, the CEO at that time is probably still in college. There might not even be a product called the iPhone, any cellphone from Apple, or even a company called Apple by then. It’s eons away in CE time.
Note that only one iPhone has been giving a non-lettered numerical value in accordance to its generation: iPhone 4. The G1 model was simply called iPhone, the G2 model was called iPhone 3G in association with the network in connected to; the G3 model was given in an S to mean speed due to the ARM v7 Cortex-A8 improvement over the ARM v6 ARM11 CPU. If they don’t release another iPhone until they include access to some carrier’s 4G network, like LTE or HSPA+ then I’d think the G5 model would be called iPhone 4G.
edit: Here is perhaps something to think about. Consider those 1950s videos of the homes of the future. What they did was take some bleeding edge concepts and technology and predict the future of that tech, but what they always failed to do was include how society would evolve because of this new technology or how technology would be accepted or rejected due to changes in the society. They always had the housewife at home doing the dishes and cooking, but now she had more time for some other “womanly” activity because of the extra free time offered by the tech.
Just curious: Android growth will flat out what? Flat out triple its share? Flat out die? Flat out prove Jobs right|wrong?
I think perhaps that he meant - flatten-out - as in hit a period where growth rate is not such as it is today.
And to the post that mentioned Android growing at a faster rate than iOS - that is a basic error regarding statistics that is often made. (making up numbers here) If Apple has already sold 30 million devices and this year only sell 3 million more that is 10% which sounds very low compared to the Android sales this year of 90% compared to total sales so far - that sounds impressive but if total sales up to now is only 100,000 then 90% of that number is only 90,000 - a far cry from 3 million.
Or in other words - if I am traveling at 100 miles per hour and I increase my speed by 10%, how fast am I going? 110 miles per hour. And if you start at the same point I did and are traveling at 20 miles per hour - and you increase your speed by 200%, how fast will you be going? 60 miles per hour. And how long do you think it will take you to catch up to me? and of course your next speed increase from 60 to 120 will not be another 200% increase but only 100%, what happened, why has your rate of growth fallen off? and in the mean time I have increased another 10% so now I am going 121 mph - have you caught up to me yet?
I think perhaps that he meant - flatten-out - as in hit a period where growth rate is not such as it is today.
And to the post that mentioned Android growing at a faster rate than iOS - that is a basic error regarding statistics that is often made. (making up numbers here) If Apple has already sold 30 million devices and this year only sell 3 million more that is 10% which sounds very low compared to the Android sales this year of 90% compared to total sales so far - that sounds impressive but if total sales up to now is only 100,000 then 90% of that number is only 90,000 - a far cry from 3 million.
Or in other words - if I am traveling at 100 miles per hour and I increase my speed by 10%, how fast am I going? 110 miles per hour. And if you start at the same point I did and are traveling at 20 miles per hour - and you increase your speed by 200%, how fast will you be going? 60 miles per hour. And how long do you think it will take you to catch up to me? and of course your next speed increase from 60 to 120 will not be another 200% increase but only 100%, what happened, why has your rate of growth fallen off? and in the mean time I have increased another 10% so now I am going 121 mph - have you caught up to me yet?
Very good analysis. Another mistake people make is seeing this sudden takeoff and thinking it's the beginning of an exponential expansion, when it's just the bottom of a sigmoid curve, and then are surprised when it approaches saturation and levels out.
Has Android reached saturation? Who knows? I'm willing to bet they've taken a big bite out of the steep part of the curve this last year, though. Yes, there will always be some high-end Android phones in competition with the iPhone, but the big surge of first-time upgraders from dumb phones is, if not used up, at least approaching it. Will they be trapped for life into the "Android" ecosystem? Again, who knows? I think a lot of them will stay there because they use their "smart" phones the same way they use their dumb phones and see no reason to change. Those who make any use of smart phone features will see how limited and fragmented the "Android" marketplace is and move on.
And to the post that mentioned Android growing at a faster rate than iOS - that is a basic error regarding statistics that is often made.
While your basic premise is absolutely true, the fact remains that Android has grown at a much faster pace than iOS over the past 16 months. If not, how would you explain Android now having a higher smartphone market share than iOS?
While your basic premise is absolutely true, the fact remains that Android has grown at a much faster pace than iOS over the past 16 months. If not, how would you explain Android now having a higher smartphone market share than iOS?
You agree with his premise and then go on to show you don't understand it. Besides, is it really necessary to explain something that probably isn't true to begin with? You're conflating "market share" with "installed base" for one thing. Android hasn't approached iOS's installed base yet. Secondly, you're lumping dozens of incompatible OSs together as "Android" (Yes, I know you can't see that, but, oh well....) while simultaneously failing to add all the non-iPhone iOS devices to their total. Typical "lying with statistics".
While your basic premise is absolutely true, the fact remains that Android has grown at a much faster pace than iOS over the past 16 months. If not, how would you explain Android now having a higher smartphone market share than iOS?
By your logic of "having a higher smartphone market share [by number of units]? as the determinator of growth then you have to assume that RiM?s BB OS is growing the fastest. Yet the reality is the opposite.
Why is Android at such a weak 26%? Why are they barely besting Apple?s unit marketshare and well behind RiM when neither on RiM nor Apple sell or give away their OS? Why doesn?t Android have a monopoly when I keep hearing how superior in every way it is while being free and having a plethora of options to choose from?
And you keep using the term ?grown? and ?faster pace? without any qualifiers, just as you failed to use any when stating the marketshare. You also aren?t qualifying the time frame for these activations. Sure, Eric Schmidt said they were activating 300k per day, but you haven?t accounted for a great many factors. For instance, is that an average of the entire 2010 year, for a fiscal quarter, that or the previous month?s average, or simply some single, record breaking day?
The Zune also had record breaking sales for some wonky timeframe that made it look impressive for some cheap marketing but look where that is now.
We see an increase in iPhone sales during the Summer when a new model comes out but is it right to say the iPhone is activations are 600k per day and ignore that it was only for a weekend? Some might jump on that stat but I don?t think it?s valid as stated.
Q: If you take all iPhones and all Android-based smart phones which one was activated on more units in the calendar year 2010?
In the example I posted a page back I did in fact include iPnones, iPods and iPads in the total sales figures. Read it again if in doubt.
Here's the reason the OP's figures don't demonstrate anything. He's referring to a statistical process, which is correct. (Picked that up in business school myself) Unless he then takes the time to follow thru with plugging figures into his statistical model, there's no result, thus no claim he can make that Android is NOT growing faster than iOS.
Rather than post several links to sources showing that Android currently has a larger market than iOS in smartphones, it might be easier if you could find one that shows the opposite. I have never claimed that there's a larger installed base of Android devices than iOS, tho there is a remote possibility that that may happen in 2011. So your attempt to change the terms of the discussion doesn't make me wrong.
But why does that matter anyway? iOS still has the bulk of the profits, which is all that really matters in business.
Rather than post several links to sources showing that Android currently has a larger market than iOS in smartphones, it might be easier if you could find one that shows the opposite.
[?]
iOS still has the bulk of the profits, which is all that really matters in business.
You?re still ignoring the facts yet at the same time you do realize that the iPhone takes the "bulk of the profits? from the handset market.
Market share isn?t just a comment about number of units. It can also be expressed in terms of revenue. Again, what time frame are you using here? What happens when you use a full year or move it to the first full quarter in which the iPhone is released.
How much revenue does Android take? Being a free OS it takes zero profit directly from Android OS.
If you want to slide to Android-based handset then tell me why you think it?s fair in business to put every handset maker that is using Android against one handset maker? Why would anyone think that dozens of handset makers wouldn?t be able to sell more units than a single handset maker when grouped in such a way?
Rather than post several links to sources showing that Android currently has a larger market than iOS in smartphones, it might be easier if you could find one that shows the opposite. I have never claimed that there's a larger installed base of Android devices than iOS, tho there is a remote possibility that that may happen in 2011. So your attempt to change the terms of the discussion doesn't make me wrong.
But why does that matter anyway? iOS still has the bulk of the profits, which is all that really matters in business.
Sorry to keep harping on the same old theme but I try to put these stats in perspective and align them with my own personal experiences, otherwise I have this nagging feeling that something is not right.
Where are all these Androids? I live in OC SoCal and I'm out and about all the time. I have never actually seen an Android in the wild. My co-worker has one and so does my neighbor but everywhere I go in public all I see is iPhones and Blackberrys. Plus, from my earlier thread that my server logs don't show any Androids, I'm continuing to doubt all these Android out selling iPhone reports as bogus. There are 20 or so people in my office, one Android the rest are iPhones and Blackberrys, in about equal in number.
Sorry to keep harping on the same old theme but I try to put these stats in perspective and align them with my own personal experiences, otherwise I have this nagging feeling that something is not right.
Where are all these Androids? I live in OC SoCal and I'm out and about all the time. I have never actually seen an Android in the wild. My co-worker has one and so does my neighbor but everywhere I go in public all I see is iPhones and Blackberrys. Plus, from my earlier thread that my server logs don't show any Androids, I'm continuing to doubt all these Android out selling iPhone reports as bogus. There are 20 or so people in my office, one Android the rest are iPhones and Blackberrys, in about equal in number.
Yeah but if you walk into a coffee shop in SoCal you?d think that Mac is only computer on the market and FaceBook was the only thing you could do with it.
Seriously though, wasn?t there some report after Schmidt?s 300k activations per day comment that said that also included updates and restores and the like, which would make completely bogus compared to actual iPhone sales activations as reported by AT&T and Apple?
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.
Actually no I didn't, because there are not seven "different versions" There are a max of 6, with a majority being 2.1 and later.
And yes, there are dozens of manufacturers. Here's the thing: That doesn't matter in over 90% of cases. Because no matter WHO makes the device, or what version of android it's running it can still run the same apps.
That's what I've been saying since the start. You just don't get it yet.
Here are the publically released versions of android:
1.5
1.6 (1.5 and 1.6 combined make up less than 6% of the android distribution)
2.0/2.1 (The only 2.0 device was the OG droid)
2.2
2.3
3.0 (Which just came out, so it wouldn't have been in any "statements" you remember me saying)
Yes, there might be hundreds of third party builds (roms, etc) but they're not shipping to customers. And China's fork doesn't have market access, or connection to most google services.
Yeah but if you walk into a coffee shop in SoCal you’d think that Mac is only computer on the market and FaceBook was the only thing you could do with it.
Seriously though, wasn’t there some report after Schmidt’s 300k activations per day comment that said that also included updates and restores and the like, which would make completely bogus compared to actual iPhone sales activations as reported by AT&T and Apple?
Google's Methodology is to check devices that ping the market for the first time. It doesn't include updates or restores (and Google released a press release for this). Steve Jobs implied that they were counting Restores in one of his many Android rants, but there was never any report, and Google quickly released a statement that clarified their position.
I guess ?running? shouldn?t be confused with ?useable.? Hell, I can get Photoshop ?running? on a netbook but that doesn?t mean it?s an experience anyone would consider decent.
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.
No. First of all, every major company who produces android also produces devices with different operating systems.
HTC: Windows, Android, Brew
Motorola: Android, Brew, Feature
Samsung: Android, Brew, Feature, Windows, Bada
When they report their numbers, they report total numbers. Sure, they may highlight that Android was their big seller but they'll rarely report android numbers separately.
That's why the article I linked is a pretty valid look at "hard numbers" They looked at over TWELVE MILLION devices. Is that every single one? no, but it's a heck of a lot of them, and furthermore, the company collecting the data has a large presence on mobile sites.
Secondly, I'm not going to take my time to find data, because you don't care about data. You're the first to demand that other's furnish proof, and I have yet to see you EVER provide any evidence to back up your claim on your own. Even in this thread, when I merely asked you the NAME of the cheap device you saw, you said you "couldn't be bothered" to remember it.
Yes, because our conversation was about phones, so let's throw in a non-phone device, shall we?
Same SoC/PoP for that year?s iPhone model.
Same size display.
Same resolution display.
Same OS and UI.
Same apps without any changes.
Yet for some reason it?s now excluded from any talk of OS marketshare despite you having just stated "no matter [?] what version of android it's running it can still run the same apps.?
Comments
this is totally off topic, but i wonder if apple will change the way of naming iphones in the future. in twenty years, discussing the rumors around 'iphone 25' just doesn't sound right lol
Imagine what the cellphone technology was like 20 years ago… Now imagine that difference between today’s iPhone and try to apply that to 20 years in the future. I don’t think we can possibly have a clue of what to expect then except for some basic generalities.
According to Wikipedia the first GSM (2G) network, Radiolinja now Elisa, launched in Finland in 1991. We’ve come a long way.
Now imagine that difference between today?s iPhone and try to apply that to 20 years in the future. I don?t think we can possibly have a clue of what to expect then except for some basic generalities.
didn't mean the features, but just the name. now we have an iphone 4 and an iphone 5 maybe comming out soon, but as the years progress iphone 10, iphone 20 etc just sounds weird... other than that, the features of it in 25 years, no one can guess what they will be...
didn't mean the features, but just the name. now we have an iphone 4 and an iphone 5 maybe comming out soon, but as the years progress iphone 10, iphone 20 etc just sounds weird... other than that, the features of it in 25 years, no one can guess what they will be...
I think iPod sounded weird and iPad still sounds lame but you get used to a name so it really doesn’t matter in the end. My point about technology changing was a subtle way of stating that we don’t even know how the tech and market or consumer will evolve, yet at least with technology there are certain trends that are tangible. If we can’t predict that for 2.5 decades we certainly can’t predict a marketing name.
Steve Jobs will have passed way for a long time, very few current Apple employees will still be at the company, the CEO at that time is probably still in college. There might not even be a product called the iPhone, any cellphone from Apple, or even a company called Apple by then. It’s eons away in CE time.
Note that only one iPhone has been giving a non-lettered numerical value in accordance to its generation: iPhone 4. The G1 model was simply called iPhone, the G2 model was called iPhone 3G in association with the network in connected to; the G3 model was given in an S to mean speed due to the ARM v7 Cortex-A8 improvement over the ARM v6 ARM11 CPU. If they don’t release another iPhone until they include access to some carrier’s 4G network, like LTE or HSPA+ then I’d think the G5 model would be called iPhone 4G.
edit: Here is perhaps something to think about. Consider those 1950s videos of the homes of the future. What they did was take some bleeding edge concepts and technology and predict the future of that tech, but what they always failed to do was include how society would evolve because of this new technology or how technology would be accepted or rejected due to changes in the society. They always had the housewife at home doing the dishes and cooking, but now she had more time for some other “womanly” activity because of the extra free time offered by the tech.
Just curious: Android growth will flat out what? Flat out triple its share? Flat out die? Flat out prove Jobs right|wrong?
I think perhaps that he meant - flatten-out - as in hit a period where growth rate is not such as it is today.
And to the post that mentioned Android growing at a faster rate than iOS - that is a basic error regarding statistics that is often made. (making up numbers here) If Apple has already sold 30 million devices and this year only sell 3 million more that is 10% which sounds very low compared to the Android sales this year of 90% compared to total sales so far - that sounds impressive but if total sales up to now is only 100,000 then 90% of that number is only 90,000 - a far cry from 3 million.
Or in other words - if I am traveling at 100 miles per hour and I increase my speed by 10%, how fast am I going? 110 miles per hour. And if you start at the same point I did and are traveling at 20 miles per hour - and you increase your speed by 200%, how fast will you be going? 60 miles per hour. And how long do you think it will take you to catch up to me? and of course your next speed increase from 60 to 120 will not be another 200% increase but only 100%, what happened, why has your rate of growth fallen off? and in the mean time I have increased another 10% so now I am going 121 mph - have you caught up to me yet?
Steve Jobs will have passed way for a long time
Steve Jobs will live forever. Ask anyone.
I think perhaps that he meant - flatten-out - as in hit a period where growth rate is not such as it is today.
And to the post that mentioned Android growing at a faster rate than iOS - that is a basic error regarding statistics that is often made. (making up numbers here) If Apple has already sold 30 million devices and this year only sell 3 million more that is 10% which sounds very low compared to the Android sales this year of 90% compared to total sales so far - that sounds impressive but if total sales up to now is only 100,000 then 90% of that number is only 90,000 - a far cry from 3 million.
Or in other words - if I am traveling at 100 miles per hour and I increase my speed by 10%, how fast am I going? 110 miles per hour. And if you start at the same point I did and are traveling at 20 miles per hour - and you increase your speed by 200%, how fast will you be going? 60 miles per hour. And how long do you think it will take you to catch up to me? and of course your next speed increase from 60 to 120 will not be another 200% increase but only 100%, what happened, why has your rate of growth fallen off? and in the mean time I have increased another 10% so now I am going 121 mph - have you caught up to me yet?
Very good analysis. Another mistake people make is seeing this sudden takeoff and thinking it's the beginning of an exponential expansion, when it's just the bottom of a sigmoid curve, and then are surprised when it approaches saturation and levels out.
Has Android reached saturation? Who knows? I'm willing to bet they've taken a big bite out of the steep part of the curve this last year, though. Yes, there will always be some high-end Android phones in competition with the iPhone, but the big surge of first-time upgraders from dumb phones is, if not used up, at least approaching it. Will they be trapped for life into the "Android" ecosystem? Again, who knows? I think a lot of them will stay there because they use their "smart" phones the same way they use their dumb phones and see no reason to change. Those who make any use of smart phone features will see how limited and fragmented the "Android" marketplace is and move on.
And to the post that mentioned Android growing at a faster rate than iOS - that is a basic error regarding statistics that is often made.
While your basic premise is absolutely true, the fact remains that Android has grown at a much faster pace than iOS over the past 16 months. If not, how would you explain Android now having a higher smartphone market share than iOS?
While your basic premise is absolutely true, the fact remains that Android has grown at a much faster pace than iOS over the past 16 months. If not, how would you explain Android now having a higher smartphone market share than iOS?
You agree with his premise and then go on to show you don't understand it. Besides, is it really necessary to explain something that probably isn't true to begin with? You're conflating "market share" with "installed base" for one thing. Android hasn't approached iOS's installed base yet. Secondly, you're lumping dozens of incompatible OSs together as "Android" (Yes, I know you can't see that, but, oh well....) while simultaneously failing to add all the non-iPhone iOS devices to their total. Typical "lying with statistics".
While your basic premise is absolutely true, the fact remains that Android has grown at a much faster pace than iOS over the past 16 months. If not, how would you explain Android now having a higher smartphone market share than iOS?
By your logic of "having a higher smartphone market share [by number of units]? as the determinator of growth then you have to assume that RiM?s BB OS is growing the fastest. Yet the reality is the opposite.Why is Android at such a weak 26%? Why are they barely besting Apple?s unit marketshare and well behind RiM when neither on RiM nor Apple sell or give away their OS? Why doesn?t Android have a monopoly when I keep hearing how superior in every way it is while being free and having a plethora of options to choose from?
And you keep using the term ?grown? and ?faster pace? without any qualifiers, just as you failed to use any when stating the marketshare. You also aren?t qualifying the time frame for these activations. Sure, Eric Schmidt said they were activating 300k per day, but you haven?t accounted for a great many factors. For instance, is that an average of the entire 2010 year, for a fiscal quarter, that or the previous month?s average, or simply some single, record breaking day?
The Zune also had record breaking sales for some wonky timeframe that made it look impressive for some cheap marketing but look where that is now.
We see an increase in iPhone sales during the Summer when a new model comes out but is it right to say the iPhone is activations are 600k per day and ignore that it was only for a weekend? Some might jump on that stat but I don?t think it?s valid as stated.
Q: If you take all iPhones and all Android-based smart phones which one was activated on more units in the calendar year 2010?
Here's the reason the OP's figures don't demonstrate anything. He's referring to a statistical process, which is correct. (Picked that up in business school myself
Rather than post several links to sources showing that Android currently has a larger market than iOS in smartphones, it might be easier if you could find one that shows the opposite. I have never claimed that there's a larger installed base of Android devices than iOS, tho there is a remote possibility that that may happen in 2011. So your attempt to change the terms of the discussion doesn't make me wrong.
But why does that matter anyway? iOS still has the bulk of the profits, which is all that really matters in business.
Rather than post several links to sources showing that Android currently has a larger market than iOS in smartphones, it might be easier if you could find one that shows the opposite.
[?]
iOS still has the bulk of the profits, which is all that really matters in business.
You?re still ignoring the facts yet at the same time you do realize that the iPhone takes the "bulk of the profits? from the handset market.
Market share isn?t just a comment about number of units. It can also be expressed in terms of revenue. Again, what time frame are you using here? What happens when you use a full year or move it to the first full quarter in which the iPhone is released.
How much revenue does Android take? Being a free OS it takes zero profit directly from Android OS.
If you want to slide to Android-based handset then tell me why you think it?s fair in business to put every handset maker that is using Android against one handset maker? Why would anyone think that dozens of handset makers wouldn?t be able to sell more units than a single handset maker when grouped in such a way?
Rather than post several links to sources showing that Android currently has a larger market than iOS in smartphones, it might be easier if you could find one that shows the opposite. I have never claimed that there's a larger installed base of Android devices than iOS, tho there is a remote possibility that that may happen in 2011. So your attempt to change the terms of the discussion doesn't make me wrong.
But why does that matter anyway? iOS still has the bulk of the profits, which is all that really matters in business.
Sorry to keep harping on the same old theme but I try to put these stats in perspective and align them with my own personal experiences, otherwise I have this nagging feeling that something is not right.
Where are all these Androids? I live in OC SoCal and I'm out and about all the time. I have never actually seen an Android in the wild. My co-worker has one and so does my neighbor but everywhere I go in public all I see is iPhones and Blackberrys. Plus, from my earlier thread that my server logs don't show any Androids, I'm continuing to doubt all these Android out selling iPhone reports as bogus. There are 20 or so people in my office, one Android the rest are iPhones and Blackberrys, in about equal in number.
Sorry to keep harping on the same old theme but I try to put these stats in perspective and align them with my own personal experiences, otherwise I have this nagging feeling that something is not right.
Where are all these Androids? I live in OC SoCal and I'm out and about all the time. I have never actually seen an Android in the wild. My co-worker has one and so does my neighbor but everywhere I go in public all I see is iPhones and Blackberrys. Plus, from my earlier thread that my server logs don't show any Androids, I'm continuing to doubt all these Android out selling iPhone reports as bogus. There are 20 or so people in my office, one Android the rest are iPhones and Blackberrys, in about equal in number.
Yeah but if you walk into a coffee shop in SoCal you?d think that Mac is only computer on the market and FaceBook was the only thing you could do with it.
Seriously though, wasn?t there some report after Schmidt?s 300k activations per day comment that said that also included updates and restores and the like, which would make completely bogus compared to actual iPhone sales activations as reported by AT&T and Apple?
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.
Actually no I didn't, because there are not seven "different versions" There are a max of 6, with a majority being 2.1 and later.
And yes, there are dozens of manufacturers. Here's the thing: That doesn't matter in over 90% of cases. Because no matter WHO makes the device, or what version of android it's running it can still run the same apps.
That's what I've been saying since the start. You just don't get it yet.
Here are the publically released versions of android:
1.5
1.6 (1.5 and 1.6 combined make up less than 6% of the android distribution)
2.0/2.1 (The only 2.0 device was the OG droid)
2.2
2.3
3.0 (Which just came out, so it wouldn't have been in any "statements" you remember me saying)
Yes, there might be hundreds of third party builds (roms, etc) but they're not shipping to customers. And China's fork doesn't have market access, or connection to most google services.
Yeah but if you walk into a coffee shop in SoCal you’d think that Mac is only computer on the market and FaceBook was the only thing you could do with it.
Seriously though, wasn’t there some report after Schmidt’s 300k activations per day comment that said that also included updates and restores and the like, which would make completely bogus compared to actual iPhone sales activations as reported by AT&T and Apple?
Google's Methodology is to check devices that ping the market for the first time. It doesn't include updates or restores (and Google released a press release for this). Steve Jobs implied that they were counting Restores in one of his many Android rants, but there was never any report, and Google quickly released a statement that clarified their position.
iPod Touch
Yes, because our conversation was about phones, so let's throw in a non-phone device, shall we?
Because no matter WHO makes the device, or what version of android it's running it can still run the same apps.
Exhibit A: http://www.rovio.com/index.php?mact=...t01returnid=58
I guess ?running? shouldn?t be confused with ?useable.? Hell, I can get Photoshop ?running? on a netbook but that doesn?t mean it?s an experience anyone would consider decent.
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.
No. First of all, every major company who produces android also produces devices with different operating systems.
HTC: Windows, Android, Brew
Motorola: Android, Brew, Feature
Samsung: Android, Brew, Feature, Windows, Bada
When they report their numbers, they report total numbers. Sure, they may highlight that Android was their big seller but they'll rarely report android numbers separately.
That's why the article I linked is a pretty valid look at "hard numbers" They looked at over TWELVE MILLION devices. Is that every single one? no, but it's a heck of a lot of them, and furthermore, the company collecting the data has a large presence on mobile sites.
Secondly, I'm not going to take my time to find data, because you don't care about data. You're the first to demand that other's furnish proof, and I have yet to see you EVER provide any evidence to back up your claim on your own. Even in this thread, when I merely asked you the NAME of the cheap device you saw, you said you "couldn't be bothered" to remember it.
I don't do lazy people's homework.
Yes, because our conversation was about phones, so let's throw in a non-phone device, shall we?
Same SoC/PoP for that year?s iPhone model.
Same size display.
Same resolution display.
Same OS and UI.
Same apps without any changes.
Yet for some reason it?s now excluded from any talk of OS marketshare despite you having just stated "no matter [?] what version of android it's running it can still run the same apps.?