I feel like this article is just trying to push the "Android sucks, iPhone rules" view. But all I see from this is Verizon is greedy... screwing everyone it can, in any way it can.
FWIW, Verizon wants $300 for the Galaxy Nexus, available tomorrow. Go to Amazon today and get the same Nexus phone with Verizon contract and it's just $150.
"While Android is consistently being positioned as a threat to Apple in comparison to Microsoft's Windows from the 1990s..."
I disagree with these comparisons. While Microsoft may have participated in some dubious practices their business model wasn't blatantly illegal, immoral or unethical.
LOL - the justice department and the EU both disagreed with you! That's why MSFt was fined heavily and put on probation for years.
Once the contract is paid off, the price difference between the phones is nearly inconsequential. Or so I'm reminded around here whenever someone suggests getting a "free" 3GS rather than the most expensive iPhone 4S.
Maybe I missed it in the thread, but why hasn't anyone brought this up.
Verizon "soaking" people happens at the monthly bill level, not at the up-front cost level.
Granted, charging $100 for an Android phone means they don't lose as much money up-front, but in the end they're still making out like bandits.
Of course, if the high-end Android user does decide to upgrade every 6-12 months as some would suggest, charing $100 more for the initial phone (subsidized) does make sense.
Who ushered in multitouch smart phones? Gyroscopes? Artificial intelligence? Video chat? App stores as we know them today? iTunes on a phone? AirPlay? Retina displays? Antenna deisigns never before tried? iTunes match? iCloud? Photo streaming to my computer? Visual voicemail? 1 click purchasing?
If you think all of these questions have the same answer, you're very wrong. I'll let the objective and more knowledgeable members of this forum correct your delusions, lest I be labeled a troll... The first one to point out five blatant discrepancies wins.
Right, marketshare, the only market business's care about.
Incorrect. Money is all businesses care about... and pleasing shareholders with that money. (You can't buy things with market share)
Android is the market share leader... which is great for Google and their advertising business.
However... for the companies who actually sell these phones... I wouldn't celebrate just yet.
Samsung is the leader in Android phones... but the rest of the manufacturers are struggling to break even. HTC will make money this quarter, despite slashing their Q4 earnings outlook. But Motorola and LG actually lost money for the past few quarters.
So yes... Android (Google) can claim a victory in market share. And that looks great on a Powerpoint slide.
But if you're trying to sell phones... just because they're running Android doesn't mean it's a profitable business.
Incorrect. Money is all businesses care about... and pleasing shareholders with that money. (You can't buy things with market share)
Android is the market share leader... which is great for Google and their advertising business.
However... for the companies who actually sell these phones... I wouldn't celebrate just yet.
Samsung is the leader in Android phones... but the rest of the manufacturers are struggling to break even. HTC will make money this quarter, despite slashing their Q4 earnings outlook. But Motorola and LG actually lost money for the past few quarters.
So yes... Android (Google) can claim a victory in market share. And that looks great on a Powerpoint slide.
But if you're trying to sell phones... just because they're running Android doesn't mean it's a profitable business.
Absolutely correct. There's a segment of the Android device makers that seem to be in a race to the bottom. That can reflect badly on the OS when the devices are poorly designed. By the same token there's some of them who really are concentrating on good design and better build. IMO companies like Asus, HTC and Samsung are making a sincere effort at quality devices, and Sammy in particular is seeing some success and profits with them (at least in smartphones). I don't see much hope for Android tablet sales tho. I expect MS to eventually be the one to challenge Apple there if anyone does.
Just because Verizon charges $100 more for their high-end Android phones doesn't necessarily mean Android users are WILLING to pay more than iPhone users. It just means Verizon charges more for their Android phones because they can. If carriers were allowed to charge whatever they wanted for the iPhone you don't think people would pay $299 or $399 for the entry model? You better believe the majority of iPhone users would, as would I, to avoid anything Android, BlackBerry or Windows.
At this point in time most people have already made up their mind which ecosystem they want to be a part of (Apple or Google). These people will pay whatever the cost, within reason, to stay with their choice.
I think the real question is how long will carriers keep subsidizing the iPhone to the current level? They must be saying to Apple "The iPhone is costing us $100 more than high end Android phones; we want to reduce your subsidy."
That is all Apple seems to talk about. The number one reason Apple hates Android so much. No matter what Apple does, Android keeps pulling away. I give it 5 years and the iPhone will be the Mac, very niche very little market share. Android will be everywhere and Google will be laughing.
In 5 years Android will be a distant memory of a failed attempt...
I don't understand what this article is trying to convey. It costs Verizon more to sell an iPhone and an Android? The 32GB iPhone and Galaxy Nexus are the same price. And, if Verizon has to subsidize the iPhone more than others, isn't that a bad thing for consumers? Verizon has to make up that money somehow which means higher monthly service prices. Wouldn't you rather pay a little more up front to save on your month service for the next 2 years (if that was an option, obviously)? Not everyone wants an iPhone?let them choose what they want. Some people like the clean cut iPhone, others like the hard edge Android. It's a matter of choice?present the options and let consumers choose. It's as if convincing people to buy iPhone's is for the greater good of society. Seems that websites like this keep the Android vs. iPhone saga going?reminds me of Nintendo vs. Sega. Ah, the good ol' days. When we didn't have to worry about smartphones.
(Sent from my Mac so don't chew me out for being some Android hugger).
Your argument would be much better if you divided your thoughts into paragraphs... Pregnant pauses drive the day!
The iPhone once was the phone for the BETTER people. Now it certainly is the phone for the BEST people. iPhoners are certainly more intelligent and better looking than Androiders
I have never believed that there were any covert ops that had people pose as fans in order to make fans look bad.
Am I the only one that says "no crap" when I read this? Apple forces the carrier's to sell at the price points that they do. Apple is very smart in how they want their phones marketed and maintain total control of it. Do you not believe that if AT$T could sell the iPhone for $299 - $399 it would? The iPhone sells itself and people would pay it whatever is asked, except Apple will not let them and maintains the price right where they want it. They will sell the Android phones for what they can get for them. As long as people are paying they will sell them, then when sales drop off, the price will drop with them. This has nothing to do about "making up" the differnce. This is about selling an item for what they can get for it. I love sensationalism.
The point is that the iPhone has the leverage to accomplish this while "Android" does not.
Also that Android fans pay a premium to get anything that's not Apple.
Right, marketshare, the only market business's care about.
Profit - Yep, Apple is raking it in, they have the robots to thank for that.
Reliability - Can not argue there, iPhones are pretty robust.
Customer Service - Personally have better customer service outside of Apple but that is my experience, unless you pay extra of course.
Marketshare is only useful if you can parlay it into something profitability.
For example, with greater marketshare, you should be able to attract more developers and more quality apps which contribute to a better user experience.
This is an absurd logical fallacy. There is no direct connection or "subsidy" relationship between the prices of Android and iOS phones.
It is like saying the price of a can of soup at the market directly subsidizes the discount on a loaf of bread, ignoring the thousands of other products being sold a various price and profit points. Let's not forget that the big cash flows for Verizon have nothing to do with a measly $100 discount on a bi-yearly purchase.
actually, that's kind of how businesses work. low margin items are subsidized by higher margin items and used to attract customers.
also, that's not a logical fallacy; it's based on business concepts, not logical ones
I wish I got paid for pointing out the obvious. If you can dispute what I wrote do so, but the facts are the facts, the iPhone has not fundmentally changed since its debut. Screen size, demensions, nothing.
Apple's massive innovation:
Don't critics say Apple is nothing more than a fashion symbol?
So why are you criticizing Apple not significantly changing the aesthetics while ignoring the internals?
I don't understand what this article is trying to convey. It costs Verizon more to sell an iPhone and an Android? The 32GB iPhone and Galaxy Nexus are the same price. And, if Verizon has to subsidize the iPhone more than others, isn't that a bad thing for consumers? Verizon has to make up that money somehow which means higher monthly service prices. Wouldn't you rather pay a little more up front to save on your month service for the next 2 years (if that was an option, obviously)? Not everyone wants an iPhone?let them choose what they want. Some people like the clean cut iPhone, others like the hard edge Android. It's a matter of choice?present the options and let consumers choose. It's as if convincing people to buy iPhone's is for the greater good of society. Seems that websites like this keep the Android vs. iPhone saga going?reminds me of Nintendo vs. Sega. Ah, the good ol' days. When we didn't have to worry about smartphones.
(Sent from my Mac so don't chew me out for being some Android hugger).
If you read carefully, you''ll note that a) there isn't a Verizon Galaxy Nexus of any capacity for less than $299, and b) the full price of the Galaxy Nexus is the same as the 16GB iPhone 4S. So no, the subsidies aren't the same. They are $100 different.
The service plans aren't different. The only difference is that when Verizon sells an iPhone, that $100 goes to Apple. When it sells an Android phone, it keeps the $100. In part, that's because its more hassle to support Android phones. Verizon has to roll out its own updates and so on.
Comments
In other words, what's new?
"While Android is consistently being positioned as a threat to Apple in comparison to Microsoft's Windows from the 1990s..."
I disagree with these comparisons. While Microsoft may have participated in some dubious practices their business model wasn't blatantly illegal, immoral or unethical.
LOL - the justice department and the EU both disagreed with you! That's why MSFt was fined heavily and put on probation for years.
Maybe I missed it in the thread, but why hasn't anyone brought this up.
Verizon "soaking" people happens at the monthly bill level, not at the up-front cost level.
Granted, charging $100 for an Android phone means they don't lose as much money up-front, but in the end they're still making out like bandits.
Of course, if the high-end Android user does decide to upgrade every 6-12 months as some would suggest, charing $100 more for the initial phone (subsidized) does make sense.
Who ushered in multitouch smart phones? Gyroscopes? Artificial intelligence? Video chat? App stores as we know them today? iTunes on a phone? AirPlay? Retina displays? Antenna deisigns never before tried? iTunes match? iCloud? Photo streaming to my computer? Visual voicemail? 1 click purchasing?
If you think all of these questions have the same answer, you're very wrong. I'll let the objective and more knowledgeable members of this forum correct your delusions, lest I be labeled a troll... The first one to point out five blatant discrepancies wins.
Right, marketshare, the only market business's care about.
Incorrect. Money is all businesses care about... and pleasing shareholders with that money. (You can't buy things with market share)
Android is the market share leader... which is great for Google and their advertising business.
However... for the companies who actually sell these phones... I wouldn't celebrate just yet.
Samsung is the leader in Android phones... but the rest of the manufacturers are struggling to break even. HTC will make money this quarter, despite slashing their Q4 earnings outlook. But Motorola and LG actually lost money for the past few quarters.
So yes... Android (Google) can claim a victory in market share. And that looks great on a Powerpoint slide.
But if you're trying to sell phones... just because they're running Android doesn't mean it's a profitable business.
Incorrect. Money is all businesses care about... and pleasing shareholders with that money. (You can't buy things with market share)
Android is the market share leader... which is great for Google and their advertising business.
However... for the companies who actually sell these phones... I wouldn't celebrate just yet.
Samsung is the leader in Android phones... but the rest of the manufacturers are struggling to break even. HTC will make money this quarter, despite slashing their Q4 earnings outlook. But Motorola and LG actually lost money for the past few quarters.
So yes... Android (Google) can claim a victory in market share. And that looks great on a Powerpoint slide.
But if you're trying to sell phones... just because they're running Android doesn't mean it's a profitable business.
Absolutely correct. There's a segment of the Android device makers that seem to be in a race to the bottom. That can reflect badly on the OS when the devices are poorly designed. By the same token there's some of them who really are concentrating on good design and better build. IMO companies like Asus, HTC and Samsung are making a sincere effort at quality devices, and Sammy in particular is seeing some success and profits with them (at least in smartphones). I don't see much hope for Android tablet sales tho. I expect MS to eventually be the one to challenge Apple there if anyone does.
But my contract for my 4S is 50$ per month for 1g/month, 200 mins voice.
Of course, when all else fails break out the emoticons, kind of like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying lalalalalalala, good job.
Show me that in 5 years then we can talk. Re-read my statement.
Always in the future - fingers in ears - lalalalalalala
By the way, this site was never better than when Apple was utterly in the minority. The difference with today, market share and trolls.
I give it 5 years and the iPhone will be the Mac, very niche very little market share. Android will be everywhere and Google will be laughing.
Instead of making predictions... let's look at what is actually happening right now.
You're right... the Mac is a "niche" in terms of market share. No argument there.
So let's look at the company who has the most market share in desktops... HP
HP was actually considering getting out of the PC business because there's no money in it.
Repeat... the world's largest PC manufacturer doesn't think it's a good business to be in.
Further proof that market share is just a number... and nowhere near the top of any company's list of priorities.
So is market share still the greatest thing ever?
Now back to phones. In case you haven't noticed, Android already has more market share than Apple.
And what happened? Did that prompt Apple to scrap their phone division?
Haha... no...
Just because Verizon charges $100 more for their high-end Android phones doesn't necessarily mean Android users are WILLING to pay more than iPhone users. It just means Verizon charges more for their Android phones because they can. If carriers were allowed to charge whatever they wanted for the iPhone you don't think people would pay $299 or $399 for the entry model? You better believe the majority of iPhone users would, as would I, to avoid anything Android, BlackBerry or Windows.
At this point in time most people have already made up their mind which ecosystem they want to be a part of (Apple or Google). These people will pay whatever the cost, within reason, to stay with their choice.
I think the real question is how long will carriers keep subsidizing the iPhone to the current level? They must be saying to Apple "The iPhone is costing us $100 more than high end Android phones; we want to reduce your subsidy."
That is all Apple seems to talk about. The number one reason Apple hates Android so much. No matter what Apple does, Android keeps pulling away. I give it 5 years and the iPhone will be the Mac, very niche very little market share. Android will be everywhere and Google will be laughing.
In 5 years Android will be a distant memory of a failed attempt...
I don't understand what this article is trying to convey. It costs Verizon more to sell an iPhone and an Android? The 32GB iPhone and Galaxy Nexus are the same price. And, if Verizon has to subsidize the iPhone more than others, isn't that a bad thing for consumers? Verizon has to make up that money somehow which means higher monthly service prices. Wouldn't you rather pay a little more up front to save on your month service for the next 2 years (if that was an option, obviously)? Not everyone wants an iPhone?let them choose what they want. Some people like the clean cut iPhone, others like the hard edge Android. It's a matter of choice?present the options and let consumers choose. It's as if convincing people to buy iPhone's is for the greater good of society. Seems that websites like this keep the Android vs. iPhone saga going?reminds me of Nintendo vs. Sega. Ah, the good ol' days. When we didn't have to worry about smartphones.
(Sent from my Mac so don't chew me out for being some Android hugger).
Your argument would be much better if you divided your thoughts into paragraphs... Pregnant pauses drive the day!
The iPhone once was the phone for the BETTER people. Now it certainly is the phone for the BEST people. iPhoners are certainly more intelligent and better looking than Androiders
I have never believed that there were any covert ops that had people pose as fans in order to make fans look bad.
Now, I'm not so sure.
Am I the only one that says "no crap" when I read this? Apple forces the carrier's to sell at the price points that they do. Apple is very smart in how they want their phones marketed and maintain total control of it. Do you not believe that if AT$T could sell the iPhone for $299 - $399 it would? The iPhone sells itself and people would pay it whatever is asked, except Apple will not let them and maintains the price right where they want it. They will sell the Android phones for what they can get for them. As long as people are paying they will sell them, then when sales drop off, the price will drop with them. This has nothing to do about "making up" the differnce. This is about selling an item for what they can get for it. I love sensationalism.
The point is that the iPhone has the leverage to accomplish this while "Android" does not.
Also that Android fans pay a premium to get anything that's not Apple.
Right, marketshare, the only market business's care about.
Profit - Yep, Apple is raking it in, they have the robots to thank for that.
Reliability - Can not argue there, iPhones are pretty robust.
Customer Service - Personally have better customer service outside of Apple but that is my experience, unless you pay extra of course.
Marketshare is only useful if you can parlay it into something profitability.
For example, with greater marketshare, you should be able to attract more developers and more quality apps which contribute to a better user experience.
This is an absurd logical fallacy. There is no direct connection or "subsidy" relationship between the prices of Android and iOS phones.
It is like saying the price of a can of soup at the market directly subsidizes the discount on a loaf of bread, ignoring the thousands of other products being sold a various price and profit points. Let's not forget that the big cash flows for Verizon have nothing to do with a measly $100 discount on a bi-yearly purchase.
actually, that's kind of how businesses work. low margin items are subsidized by higher margin items and used to attract customers.
also, that's not a logical fallacy; it's based on business concepts, not logical ones
Then, from your flawed logic, the iPhone's sales are flat YoY?
The unit sales are up, but as of the end of last quarter, market share was flat.
The i4S introduction, along with the FreeGS may well change things.
I wish I got paid for pointing out the obvious. If you can dispute what I wrote do so, but the facts are the facts, the iPhone has not fundmentally changed since its debut. Screen size, demensions, nothing.
Apple's massive innovation:
Don't critics say Apple is nothing more than a fashion symbol?
So why are you criticizing Apple not significantly changing the aesthetics while ignoring the internals?
I don't understand what this article is trying to convey. It costs Verizon more to sell an iPhone and an Android? The 32GB iPhone and Galaxy Nexus are the same price. And, if Verizon has to subsidize the iPhone more than others, isn't that a bad thing for consumers? Verizon has to make up that money somehow which means higher monthly service prices. Wouldn't you rather pay a little more up front to save on your month service for the next 2 years (if that was an option, obviously)? Not everyone wants an iPhone?let them choose what they want. Some people like the clean cut iPhone, others like the hard edge Android. It's a matter of choice?present the options and let consumers choose. It's as if convincing people to buy iPhone's is for the greater good of society. Seems that websites like this keep the Android vs. iPhone saga going?reminds me of Nintendo vs. Sega. Ah, the good ol' days. When we didn't have to worry about smartphones.
(Sent from my Mac so don't chew me out for being some Android hugger).
If you read carefully, you''ll note that a) there isn't a Verizon Galaxy Nexus of any capacity for less than $299, and b) the full price of the Galaxy Nexus is the same as the 16GB iPhone 4S. So no, the subsidies aren't the same. They are $100 different.
The service plans aren't different. The only difference is that when Verizon sells an iPhone, that $100 goes to Apple. When it sells an Android phone, it keeps the $100. In part, that's because its more hassle to support Android phones. Verizon has to roll out its own updates and so on.