At ATT the 3GS is just $50. Yet they sell millions of Android smartphones, many at much higher prices, instead of the "cheap" iPhone. Verizon has the iPhone 4G (16gb) at $199, yet Verizon sells millions of Android phones for as much or more (some MUCH more) like the Droid Charge, Droid 3, Droid Incredible or the HTC Thunderbolt. And these are just US carriers. In GB you can get an iPhone free with some plans. Yet millions choose to go Android rather than take the "cheap" iPhone. I have no idea why so many here think the only reason Android sells at all is
A. It's cheap
B. It's a geek thing
C. Both of the above
Okay... just hold on a minute. How many Android phones that are higher priced than the iP4 are sold as compared to the iP4? Let's start there.
I would put the reasons for Androids sales in this order:
A. they're cheap (and quite often the only phones on display)
They are? Which member of the Open Handset Alliance is suing another member over Android IP? I don't believe AI's claim is true.
Quote:
This week Motorola?s CEO Sanjay Jha reiterated this message, and made it even more clear ? they do indeed have plans to start collecting IP royalties from other Android makers.
This is what he said about Motorola, Android and patents during a keynote at Oppenhimer Technology & Commmunications conference:
?I would bring up IP as a very important for differentiation (among Android vendors). We have a very large IP portfolio, and I think in the long term, as things settle down, you will see a meaningful difference in positions of many different Android players. Both, in terms of avoidance of royalties, as well as potentially being able to collect royalties. And that will make a big difference to people who have very strong IP positions.?
Okay... just hold on a minute. How many Android phones that are higher priced than the iP4 are sold as compared to the iP4? Let's start there.
I would put the reasons for Androids sales in this order:
A. they're cheap (and quite often the only phones on display)
B. it's a geek thing
C. choice
No doubt millions of people have been willing to pay a premium for Apple's product even tho less expensive smartphones are available. At the same time there's millions of buyers who will apparently choose to buy a more expensive Android product over a cheaper iPhone when given a choice. Android is slowly morphing into a legitimate high end choice for consumers.
Source for what, Hill60? Which Android handset competitor has Motorola sued? In fact has any member of the Open Handset Alliance sued another member over Android? As I stated earlier, AI's claim that Android licensees are suing each other is false.
Source for what, Hill60? Which Android handset competitor has Motorola sued? In fact has any member of the Open Handset Alliance sued another member over Android? As I stated earlier, AI's claim that Android licensees are suing each other is false.
At ATT the 3GS is just $50. Yet they sell millions of Android smartphones, many at much higher prices, instead of the "cheap" iPhone. Verizon has the iPhone 4G (16gb) at $199, yet Verizon sells millions of Android phones for as much or more (some MUCH more) like the Droid Charge, Droid 3, Droid Incredible or the HTC Thunderbolt. And these are just US carriers. In GB you can get an iPhone free with some plans. Yet millions choose to go Android rather than take the "cheap" iPhone. Add the millions of Samsung Galaxy S2's sold for the same general price as Apple's 4G iPhone, even when consumers have the choice of either one.
Source for what, Hill60? Which Android handset competitor has Motorola sued? In fact has any member of the Open Handset Alliance sued another member over Android? As I stated earlier, AI's claim that Android licensees are suing each other is false.
In the same time frame Samsung sold 5 million SG II's, Apple sold 20 million iPhone 4's.
Absolutely correct. Yet 5 million buyers still chose to go with the Galaxy S2 over the iPhone, and Samsung's product isn't yet offered in many markets, including the US. In no way am I claiming that any particular phone will outsell the iPhone on equal terms. but buyers aren't making their smartphone choice simply on price. There's a market for high-priced but full-featured Android handsets even when the buyer could opt for an iPhone at the same price or less.
No doubt millions of people have been willing to pay a premium for Apple's product even tho less expensive smartphones are available. At the same time there's millions of buyers who will apparently choose to buy a more expensive Android product over a cheaper iPhone when given a choice. Android is slowly morphing into a legitimate high end choice for consumers.
Are you talking about the 3gs? If you are then, please, give me a break.
If you're talking about choosing a more expensive A phone over the iP4 then I want to see numbers.
Let's just say 15 million* for arguments sake... we both know it's higher than that but just so you will get on with the your proof for your argument. Remember... over 45 million Android phones have been sold*... in order for your theory to hold any real water there had better be at least 1/3 of them sold at a higher price than the iP4 in the respective market.
... and none of this changes what I said originally:
People choose an Android phone in this order:
a. it's cheap
b. it's a geek thing
c. choice
... and how the hell did this tangent start in the first place... I smell an Android fanboy... they always seem to be changing the direction of their arguments.
you do realize that less competition = worst for the consumer? .
You do not understand competition.
3 major players plus 50 thieves who do nothing but copy the major players is WORSE than just the 3 major players. After all, without the thieves, the people who actually innovate would have a better chance of benefiting from their work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24
Don't patents have a time limit? I thought they used to be 7 years, or something like that.
Patents were never 7 years. Regular (non-design) patents used to be 17 years from date of issue, but this was changed to 20 years from date of filing over a decade ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Ok, consider the eBook format wars we're currently in. Amazon is the only seller of Kindle, Apple is the only seller of iBooks. The competition between them isn't meaningfully benefitting consumers, and if they competed more seriously and had exclusive content (as Blu-ray/HD-DVD did) that would be wretched for consumers.
I agree that within a platform competition is almost always good, but between platforms it's something of a mixed bag.
Competition is only good if it leads to innovation or real competition. Theft doesn't help anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If you read on sites other than AI you'll quickly realize that's there's a significant percentage of buyers that actually want Android, even if they can buy an Apple device cheaper. It's not just a poor man's replacement for iOS.
Hardly. The majority of Android users bought Android because:
1. It was cheaper, possibly because of BOGO deals
2. They simply hate Apple and would ever buy anything from Apple
3. They were happy with their cell phone network, but their provider did not have access to iPhone at the time
4. They're geeks - who think that the only thing that matter is the ability to hack the phone to pieces.
Why doesn't Motorola just fork Android? Isn't it just Linux with some Google libraries? How hard would that be to fork? Projects fork Linux distros all the time (Android being one). They could quickly spin up a working mobile OS without having to start completely from scratch.
Surely Android is "open" enough to allow fragmentation. It's not like fragmentation ever really hurt Linux.
you do realize that less competition = worst for the consumer?
i never understood why folks want to eliminate competition...
its like saying.. gee, i hope Comcast is the one and only ISP left in the country...
There is still WP7, Blackberry, webOS and Samsung's own Bada. We don't want Android dead, but we also don't want it to be like Windows on the desktop with +85%. Anything to slow down Android is good news.
Comments
At ATT the 3GS is just $50. Yet they sell millions of Android smartphones, many at much higher prices, instead of the "cheap" iPhone. Verizon has the iPhone 4G (16gb) at $199, yet Verizon sells millions of Android phones for as much or more (some MUCH more) like the Droid Charge, Droid 3, Droid Incredible or the HTC Thunderbolt. And these are just US carriers. In GB you can get an iPhone free with some plans. Yet millions choose to go Android rather than take the "cheap" iPhone. I have no idea why so many here think the only reason Android sells at all is
A. It's cheap
B. It's a geek thing
C. Both of the above
Okay... just hold on a minute. How many Android phones that are higher priced than the iP4 are sold as compared to the iP4? Let's start there.
I would put the reasons for Androids sales in this order:
A. they're cheap (and quite often the only phones on display)
B. it's a geek thing
C. choice
They are? Which member of the Open Handset Alliance is suing another member over Android IP? I don't believe AI's claim is true.
This week Motorola?s CEO Sanjay Jha reiterated this message, and made it even more clear ? they do indeed have plans to start collecting IP royalties from other Android makers.
This is what he said about Motorola, Android and patents during a keynote at Oppenhimer Technology & Commmunications conference:
?I would bring up IP as a very important for differentiation (among Android vendors). We have a very large IP portfolio, and I think in the long term, as things settle down, you will see a meaningful difference in positions of many different Android players. Both, in terms of avoidance of royalties, as well as potentially being able to collect royalties. And that will make a big difference to people who have very strong IP positions.?
Source
Okay... just hold on a minute. How many Android phones that are higher priced than the iP4 are sold as compared to the iP4? Let's start there.
I would put the reasons for Androids sales in this order:
A. they're cheap (and quite often the only phones on display)
B. it's a geek thing
C. choice
No doubt millions of people have been willing to pay a premium for Apple's product even tho less expensive smartphones are available. At the same time there's millions of buyers who will apparently choose to buy a more expensive Android product over a cheaper iPhone when given a choice. Android is slowly morphing into a legitimate high end choice for consumers.
Source
Source for what, Hill60? Which Android handset competitor has Motorola sued? In fact has any member of the Open Handset Alliance sued another member over Android? As I stated earlier, AI's claim that Android licensees are suing each other is false.
Source for what, Hill60? Which Android handset competitor has Motorola sued? In fact has any member of the Open Handset Alliance sued another member over Android? As I stated earlier, AI's claim that Android licensees are suing each other is false.
Poor you.your world must be crumbling right now.
At ATT the 3GS is just $50. Yet they sell millions of Android smartphones, many at much higher prices, instead of the "cheap" iPhone. Verizon has the iPhone 4G (16gb) at $199, yet Verizon sells millions of Android phones for as much or more (some MUCH more) like the Droid Charge, Droid 3, Droid Incredible or the HTC Thunderbolt. And these are just US carriers. In GB you can get an iPhone free with some plans. Yet millions choose to go Android rather than take the "cheap" iPhone. Add the millions of Samsung Galaxy S2's sold for the same general price as Apple's 4G iPhone, even when consumers have the choice of either one.
http://www.differencebetween.com/dif...pple-iphone-4/
I have no idea why so many here think the only reason Android sells at all is
A. It's cheap
B. It's a geek thing
C. Both of the above
In the same time frame Samsung sold 5 million SG II's, Apple sold 20 million iPhone 4's.
Source for what, Hill60? Which Android handset competitor has Motorola sued? In fact has any member of the Open Handset Alliance sued another member over Android? As I stated earlier, AI's claim that Android licensees are suing each other is false.
None, yet but the threat is quite clear.
In the same time frame Samsung sold 5 million SG II's, Apple sold 20 million iPhone 4's.
Absolutely correct. Yet 5 million buyers still chose to go with the Galaxy S2 over the iPhone, and Samsung's product isn't yet offered in many markets, including the US. In no way am I claiming that any particular phone will outsell the iPhone on equal terms. but buyers aren't making their smartphone choice simply on price. There's a market for high-priced but full-featured Android handsets even when the buyer could opt for an iPhone at the same price or less.
None, yet but the threat is quite clear.
Then we don't really disagree do we? The AI claim isn't true.
No doubt millions of people have been willing to pay a premium for Apple's product even tho less expensive smartphones are available. At the same time there's millions of buyers who will apparently choose to buy a more expensive Android product over a cheaper iPhone when given a choice. Android is slowly morphing into a legitimate high end choice for consumers.
Are you talking about the 3gs? If you are then, please, give me a break.
If you're talking about choosing a more expensive A phone over the iP4 then I want to see numbers.
Then we don't really disagree do we? The AI claim isn't true.
Your world is crumbling and we feel sorry for you.
Are you talking about the 3gs? If you are then, please, give me a break.
If you're talking about choosing a more expensive A phone over the iP4 then I want to see numbers.
What are the iPhone4 sales numbers?
Your world is crumbling and we feel sorry for you.
What are the iPhone4 sales numbers?
20 million - x 3GS's, last quarter.
x is not terribly large*.
*(Relative to a typical Android handset sales figure it probably is, but compared to iPhone 4 sales it isn't).
you do realize that less competition = worst for the consumer?
i never understood why folks want to eliminate competition...
Also from Apple's point of view competition means no risk of a successful antitrust investigation.
What are the iPhone4 sales numbers?
Let's just say 15 million* for arguments sake... we both know it's higher than that but just so you will get on with the your proof for your argument. Remember... over 45 million Android phones have been sold*... in order for your theory to hold any real water there had better be at least 1/3 of them sold at a higher price than the iP4 in the respective market.
... and none of this changes what I said originally:
People choose an Android phone in this order:
a. it's cheap
b. it's a geek thing
c. choice
... and how the hell did this tangent start in the first place... I smell an Android fanboy... they always seem to be changing the direction of their arguments.
(*this last quarter)
you do realize that less competition = worst for the consumer? .
You do not understand competition.
3 major players plus 50 thieves who do nothing but copy the major players is WORSE than just the 3 major players. After all, without the thieves, the people who actually innovate would have a better chance of benefiting from their work.
Don't patents have a time limit? I thought they used to be 7 years, or something like that.
Patents were never 7 years. Regular (non-design) patents used to be 17 years from date of issue, but this was changed to 20 years from date of filing over a decade ago.
Ok, consider the eBook format wars we're currently in. Amazon is the only seller of Kindle, Apple is the only seller of iBooks. The competition between them isn't meaningfully benefitting consumers, and if they competed more seriously and had exclusive content (as Blu-ray/HD-DVD did) that would be wretched for consumers.
I agree that within a platform competition is almost always good, but between platforms it's something of a mixed bag.
Competition is only good if it leads to innovation or real competition. Theft doesn't help anyone.
If you read on sites other than AI you'll quickly realize that's there's a significant percentage of buyers that actually want Android, even if they can buy an Apple device cheaper. It's not just a poor man's replacement for iOS.
Hardly. The majority of Android users bought Android because:
1. It was cheaper, possibly because of BOGO deals
2. They simply hate Apple and would ever buy anything from Apple
3. They were happy with their cell phone network, but their provider did not have access to iPhone at the time
4. They're geeks - who think that the only thing that matter is the ability to hack the phone to pieces.
Surely Android is "open" enough to allow fragmentation. It's not like fragmentation ever really hurt Linux.
you do realize that less competition = worst for the consumer?
i never understood why folks want to eliminate competition...
its like saying.. gee, i hope Comcast is the one and only ISP left in the country...
There is still WP7, Blackberry, webOS and Samsung's own Bada. We don't want Android dead, but we also don't want it to be like Windows on the desktop with +85%. Anything to slow down Android is good news.