iPhone. I see too many comparisons of Android phones compared to the iPhone. That certainly highlights Android's prowess in phones yet hides their weakness in Tablets and iPod Touch like devices.
Note...the comparison is with the Android platform against a single iOS component which can be a bit misleading.
For those that care about app development it's more important to consider Android vs iOS which changes the results considerably when you add in the iPod Touch and iPad numbers.
According to Scott Forstall at the WWDC keynote (quoting comScore data from April), iOS has 44% of the mobile OS market, and Android has 28%.
The computer industry back then was dominated by IBM, Microsoft and a few notable others. IBM made its money by charging customers for MIPS, As business grew IBM made sequential increases in support and hardware revenues as customers increased their MIPS consumption. It was an automatic "feature" of business back then and it really annoyed many of IBM's customers. Then something really interesting happened. Customers started going away from the big blue fee stucture and migrating to a transaction based model to save cost suddenly IBM and many of a similar fee model started to undergo serious revenue shortfalls. The whole industry changed pretty much overnight.
Fast forward to 2011:
I foresee a similar thing about to happen with the model Google uses to generate revenue from its ad business based on clicks. Click thrus also cause fees to automatically increase even though sales may not rise proportionally. Someone is going to figure out a fairer way for customers to be billed on click thru fees (perhaps caused by increased mobile surfing), so that people who don't buy at a site, but still click to the site don't count as revenue. It will be based on actual sales not hits.
I bet that has google up at nights trying to figure out a way around it?
Just watch this one play out as companies realize the massive increase in their click fees don't result in proportionally increasing sales!
All it needs is for a competitor to figure out a way to find the "click to sales" algorythm, implement it in the ad market and google will be in trouble.
thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Isn't step 2 "collect user data and sell it to the highest bidder"?
Oh wait, that's right, Google respects your privacy. Yeah. And everything is "opt-in" (just don't try using their services by not signing your soul away).
Keep reaching... just a little more... just a liiiitle bit more... your almost there...
Meanwhile, back in reality - history begins to repeat for Apple.
This time thou, they have all the monies they could ever want in the bank - however, have lost all goodwill, trust and loyalty from, well, every industry known to man it would seem.
Hope that fickle consumer market stays strong while the economy tanks.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Fingers crossed that Apple starts playing nice again.
Possibly the stupidest post I've read all week, and that's saying something.
Which reality do you live in, the dellusional one you made up in your head, or a reality solely comprised of messageboards on the internet? Back in the real reality, Apple has been posting record breaking quarter after record breaking quarter- in both profits and sales- WITH a tanking economy. Apparently, people are still tripping over themselves to buy their products, which does against all you're asserting. What 'history' is repeating again, pray I ask? Apple's history from the 90s? Really? I fail to see a shred of a shadow of similarity, but then again I don't live in angry faux-outrage delusional lala-land as you do, so I guess I'll never see things your way. Apple is a completely different beast than the company it was even 10 years ago, and any comparisons and suggestions of 'history repeating itself' are insane.
Possibly the stupidest post I've read all week... then again I don't live in angry faux-outrage delusional lala-land as you do, so I guess I'll never see things your way....
I gave up responding to Mode, as I knew others would respond much more succinctly that I.
Keep reaching... just a little more... just a liiiitle bit more... your almost there...
Meanwhile, back in reality - history begins to repeat for Apple.
This time thou, they have all the monies they could ever want in the bank - however, have lost all goodwill, trust and loyalty from, well, every industry known to man it would seem.
Hope that fickle consumer market stays strong while the economy tanks.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Fingers crossed that Apple starts playing nice again.
I still wonder how many people here have actually used Android phones, because judging by the comments here you guys seem to think that the experience on the cheaper phones is bad.
Have you guys tried the Orange San Francisco or HTC Wildfire? Both of these are low end phones (available without contract for £100 or so), but in my experience both provide a very good user experience. Sure they don't have an ultra high res screen or great camera, but they are still good phones that get the job done.
I'm also confused as to why you think that the "free" phone giveaways are limited to Android phones. They aren't. Here's just one page, from one carrier offering iPhone with an up front cost of "FREE":
But it's so much much more in Android world. If you can not accept the fact that most Android phones is selling cheaper than iPhone then you're in a dreamland.
Because Android is free, let's assume that there is indirect revenue from ads. Ads revenue is 28%. From ads revenue, how much is from Android? Say it 1%, tough actually far less. It's only 7.3M. Revenue from iOS may be far greater, but there is a rumor that Google paid 100M to be default search on iOS?
Google's revenue is going up 30% YoY, it seems a little unlikely that 1% of that revenue is from Android. The desktop world is stagnant, and 85%+ of users already use google.
I foresee a similar thing about to happen with the model Google uses to generate revenue from its ad business based on clicks. Click thrus also cause fees to automatically increase even though sales may not rise proportionally. Someone is going to figure out a fairer way for customers to be billed on click thru fees (perhaps caused by increased mobile surfing), so that people who don't buy at a site, but still click to the site don't count as revenue. It will be based on actual sales not hits.
How's that going to work with television? With Radio? With Print? Are we all going to use coupon codes for every purchase we make so that advertisers can track where we learned of them? Consumers won't do it - and so it won't happen. Google's advertising already has more auditing than most media, you know that the user actively clicked. Google's advertising also has really good context.
The only way Google's ad business goes south is if they lose their search monopoly.
So everyone's personal info is worth $9B x whatever the leads market will bear. Not bad cash. Cause that's really what it is. It's not like it's $9B from the sales of good products.
I still wonder how many people here have actually used Android phones, because judging by the comments here you guys seem to think that the experience on the cheaper phones is bad.
Have you guys tried the Orange San Francisco or HTC Wildfire? Both of these are low end phones (available without contract for £100 or so), but in my experience both provide a very good user experience. Sure they don't have an ultra high res screen or great camera, but they are still good phones that get the job done.
I'm also confused as to why you think that the "free" phone giveaways are limited to Android phones. They aren't. Here's just one page, from one carrier offering iPhone with an up front cost of "FREE":
I haven't used those phones, have worked with several of my family members phones setting them up etc. Constantly wonder why my family members buy droids. Unnecessarily complicated, clunky, awkward, inefficient, lacking software, lacking compatibility (even with other androids). What good is there to say about them? Sincerely.
They are crap in so many ways, but the perception is that they are cheaper. ??? Not sure why (when the plan costs the same) how spending $50 or $200 in the beginning makes a difference for them. After owning the "less expensive" droids they've come to realize they aren't less expensive and in fact are crap. All are buying iPhones.
I still wonder how many people here have actually used Android phones, because judging by the comments here you guys seem to think that the experience on the cheaper phones is bad.
I have. My daughter has an Android phone (Motorola Backflip) which is junk. The phone itself is decent build quality, but the OS stinks. The phone was purchased just over a year ago, but is not upgradeable beyond Android 2.1. (Can you say 'fragmentation'?)
It's clumsy and hard to use and even my daughter (who uses it daily) gets frustrated with it. At the same time, she occasionally uses my iPhone and can do everything without delay.
Aside from using her Android phone quite a bit, I've used others for shorter time periods. The phone quality is, of course, variable, but I haven't seen a thing in Android that indicates that the project was managed by anyone who knows what they're doing.
While the number of activations sounds impressive, given the junk build quality of a lot of Android phones, I wonder how many of these activations are from previous Android users versus truly "new" customers. I suspect a big grey area here.
Obviously anecdotal, but the Android users I know have averaged about 4 activations in the last year each and approximately a month of "degraded" service due to their handsets failing in one way or another.
Aside from using her Android phone quite a bit, I've used others for shorter time periods. The phone quality is, of course, variable, but I haven't seen a thing in Android that indicates that the project was managed by anyone who knows what they're doing.
They know what they're doing, in kinda the same way that the guys in MS knew what they were doing when they foisted their various abominations on users. Google knew that letting OEMs modify the OS and letting Carriers modify the OS would fragment the market - and produce a somewhat crappy experience, they also knew it would allow them to build market share immensely fast.
If Google was aiming to compete head-to-head with Apple for a seamless quality experience then it was a bad plan, but if their plan was to dominate the mass market, destroying windows mobile/symbian/bada etc and never giving them any space to get back in - then it's done pretty well.
Comments
A single iOS component? Please explain
iPhone. I see too many comparisons of Android phones compared to the iPhone. That certainly highlights Android's prowess in phones yet hides their weakness in Tablets and iPod Touch like devices.
Note...the comparison is with the Android platform against a single iOS component which can be a bit misleading.
For those that care about app development it's more important to consider Android vs iOS which changes the results considerably when you add in the iPod Touch and iPad numbers.
According to Scott Forstall at the WWDC keynote (quoting comScore data from April), iOS has 44% of the mobile OS market, and Android has 28%.
The computer industry back then was dominated by IBM, Microsoft and a few notable others. IBM made its money by charging customers for MIPS, As business grew IBM made sequential increases in support and hardware revenues as customers increased their MIPS consumption. It was an automatic "feature" of business back then and it really annoyed many of IBM's customers. Then something really interesting happened. Customers started going away from the big blue fee stucture and migrating to a transaction based model to save cost suddenly IBM and many of a similar fee model started to undergo serious revenue shortfalls. The whole industry changed pretty much overnight.
Fast forward to 2011:
I foresee a similar thing about to happen with the model Google uses to generate revenue from its ad business based on clicks. Click thrus also cause fees to automatically increase even though sales may not rise proportionally. Someone is going to figure out a fairer way for customers to be billed on click thru fees (perhaps caused by increased mobile surfing), so that people who don't buy at a site, but still click to the site don't count as revenue. It will be based on actual sales not hits.
I bet that has google up at nights trying to figure out a way around it?
Just watch this one play out as companies realize the massive increase in their click fees don't result in proportionally increasing sales!
All it needs is for a competitor to figure out a way to find the "click to sales" algorythm, implement it in the ad market and google will be in trouble.
thoughts?
Isn't step 2 "collect user data and sell it to the highest bidder"?
Oh wait, that's right, Google respects your privacy. Yeah. And everything is "opt-in" (just don't try using their services by not signing your soul away).
Keep reaching... just a little more... just a liiiitle bit more... your almost there...
Meanwhile, back in reality - history begins to repeat for Apple.
This time thou, they have all the monies they could ever want in the bank - however, have lost all goodwill, trust and loyalty from, well, every industry known to man it would seem.
Hope that fickle consumer market stays strong while the economy tanks.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Fingers crossed that Apple starts playing nice again.
Possibly the stupidest post I've read all week, and that's saying something.
Which reality do you live in, the dellusional one you made up in your head, or a reality solely comprised of messageboards on the internet? Back in the real reality, Apple has been posting record breaking quarter after record breaking quarter- in both profits and sales- WITH a tanking economy. Apparently, people are still tripping over themselves to buy their products, which does against all you're asserting. What 'history' is repeating again, pray I ask? Apple's history from the 90s? Really? I fail to see a shred of a shadow of similarity, but then again I don't live in angry faux-outrage delusional lala-land as you do, so I guess I'll never see things your way. Apple is a completely different beast than the company it was even 10 years ago, and any comparisons and suggestions of 'history repeating itself' are insane.
Mostly advertising revenue. I thought everyone knew that.
Really. How much do they make?
Possibly the stupidest post I've read all week... then again I don't live in angry faux-outrage delusional lala-land as you do, so I guess I'll never see things your way....
I gave up responding to Mode, as I knew others would respond much more succinctly that I.
Keep reaching... just a little more... just a liiiitle bit more... your almost there...
Meanwhile, back in reality - history begins to repeat for Apple.
This time thou, they have all the monies they could ever want in the bank - however, have lost all goodwill, trust and loyalty from, well, every industry known to man it would seem.
Hope that fickle consumer market stays strong while the economy tanks.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Fingers crossed that Apple starts playing nice again.
I think you're already there.
Have you guys tried the Orange San Francisco or HTC Wildfire? Both of these are low end phones (available without contract for £100 or so), but in my experience both provide a very good user experience. Sure they don't have an ultra high res screen or great camera, but they are still good phones that get the job done.
I'm also confused as to why you think that the "free" phone giveaways are limited to Android phones. They aren't. Here's just one page, from one carrier offering iPhone with an up front cost of "FREE":
http://www.vodafone.co.uk/brands/iph...hone/index.htm
There are many, many more.
they are still good phones that get the job done.
You missed the point entriely. That never is a reason. You just don't understand it.
Here's just one page, from one carrier offering iPhone with an up front cost of "FREE":
http://www.vodafone.co.uk/brands/iph...hone/index.htm
There are many, many more.
But it's so much much more in Android world. If you can not accept the fact that most Android phones is selling cheaper than iPhone then you're in a dreamland.
Because Android is free, let's assume that there is indirect revenue from ads. Ads revenue is 28%. From ads revenue, how much is from Android? Say it 1%, tough actually far less. It's only 7.3M. Revenue from iOS may be far greater, but there is a rumor that Google paid 100M to be default search on iOS?
Google's revenue is going up 30% YoY, it seems a little unlikely that 1% of that revenue is from Android. The desktop world is stagnant, and 85%+ of users already use google.
Fast forward to 2011:
I foresee a similar thing about to happen with the model Google uses to generate revenue from its ad business based on clicks. Click thrus also cause fees to automatically increase even though sales may not rise proportionally. Someone is going to figure out a fairer way for customers to be billed on click thru fees (perhaps caused by increased mobile surfing), so that people who don't buy at a site, but still click to the site don't count as revenue. It will be based on actual sales not hits.
How's that going to work with television? With Radio? With Print? Are we all going to use coupon codes for every purchase we make so that advertisers can track where we learned of them? Consumers won't do it - and so it won't happen. Google's advertising already has more auditing than most media, you know that the user actively clicked. Google's advertising also has really good context.
The only way Google's ad business goes south is if they lose their search monopoly.
... Android users are nothing more than the product.
Technically, they are called "the marks"
Why?
It's slightly different - Apple actually does want to sell more phones than Google, though it wants to make fat profits doing it...
Google sells phones? I didn't know that. What models? I'm sure Apple already sells more phones than Google by a very wide margin.
I still wonder how many people here have actually used Android phones, because judging by the comments here you guys seem to think that the experience on the cheaper phones is bad.
Have you guys tried the Orange San Francisco or HTC Wildfire? Both of these are low end phones (available without contract for £100 or so), but in my experience both provide a very good user experience. Sure they don't have an ultra high res screen or great camera, but they are still good phones that get the job done.
I'm also confused as to why you think that the "free" phone giveaways are limited to Android phones. They aren't. Here's just one page, from one carrier offering iPhone with an up front cost of "FREE":
http://www.vodafone.co.uk/brands/iph...hone/index.htm
There are many, many more.
I haven't used those phones, have worked with several of my family members phones setting them up etc. Constantly wonder why my family members buy droids. Unnecessarily complicated, clunky, awkward, inefficient, lacking software, lacking compatibility (even with other androids). What good is there to say about them? Sincerely.
They are crap in so many ways, but the perception is that they are cheaper. ??? Not sure why (when the plan costs the same) how spending $50 or $200 in the beginning makes a difference for them. After owning the "less expensive" droids they've come to realize they aren't less expensive and in fact are crap. All are buying iPhones.
Millions of headlines, thousands of lawsuits, bitter & angry clients, even more bitter and angry peers. But mostly the millions of headlines.
Is this the only site you read?
you mean from your fandroid blogs...
I still wonder how many people here have actually used Android phones, because judging by the comments here you guys seem to think that the experience on the cheaper phones is bad.
I have. My daughter has an Android phone (Motorola Backflip) which is junk. The phone itself is decent build quality, but the OS stinks. The phone was purchased just over a year ago, but is not upgradeable beyond Android 2.1. (Can you say 'fragmentation'?)
It's clumsy and hard to use and even my daughter (who uses it daily) gets frustrated with it. At the same time, she occasionally uses my iPhone and can do everything without delay.
Aside from using her Android phone quite a bit, I've used others for shorter time periods. The phone quality is, of course, variable, but I haven't seen a thing in Android that indicates that the project was managed by anyone who knows what they're doing.
While the number of activations sounds impressive, given the junk build quality of a lot of Android phones, I wonder how many of these activations are from previous Android users versus truly "new" customers. I suspect a big grey area here.
Obviously anecdotal, but the Android users I know have averaged about 4 activations in the last year each and approximately a month of "degraded" service due to their handsets failing in one way or another.
Aside from using her Android phone quite a bit, I've used others for shorter time periods. The phone quality is, of course, variable, but I haven't seen a thing in Android that indicates that the project was managed by anyone who knows what they're doing.
They know what they're doing, in kinda the same way that the guys in MS knew what they were doing when they foisted their various abominations on users. Google knew that letting OEMs modify the OS and letting Carriers modify the OS would fragment the market - and produce a somewhat crappy experience, they also knew it would allow them to build market share immensely fast.
If Google was aiming to compete head-to-head with Apple for a seamless quality experience then it was a bad plan, but if their plan was to dominate the mass market, destroying windows mobile/symbian/bada etc and never giving them any space to get back in - then it's done pretty well.