If these numbers are to be believed and sustainable, 700,000 per day would be 252,000,000 per year. Thats more than Apple has in total iOS devices as of October. If thats the case then Apple should not be the number one phone on any network, but they are. How ODD!
Well, these claims are made by the same company that says they will be on every tv set within 6 months. Anything that comes out of this company has to be taken with a grain of salt. Let's just say Google likes to fudge numbers a bit, even with activations of millions of free phones.
Here's another question: Does Schmidt mean an average per day or simply that on a day or a couple days they hit 700k? This is typically expressed to mean for each day to express rate but without a time frame qualifier it's still fishy. Here's what Jobs said during a previous conference call.
There is nothing ambiguous about Steve Jobs's comments. He's qualified every aspect to refer to the mean average.
That's actually easy. Apple's activations seem to fluctuate less than 10% from the average, even though new announcements, price changes, etc. would have a major impact. In comparison, Google's activations come from many different companies and from a broad range of devices, making is less likely that they fluctuate as much. So, my guess would be that if 700 000 is a peak rather than an average, then the average should be not far from 650 000, or practically the same.
Those numbers seem a bit high to me. If you add the Android and Apple ones together that means a million people activating a new phone or tablet every damn day. How can that be right? How often do people replace their phones anyway?
Those numbers seem a bit high to me. If you add the Android and Apple ones together that means a million people activating a new phone or tablet every damn day. How can that be right? How often do people replace their phones anyway?
Nokia alone sells 400 million phones a year. Do the math.
Just ask Apple with Macintosh vs Windows when Apple mad huge profits per product. What happened there? They lost. OSX and forced to switch to Intel chips to allow Windows to work on their hardware is what saved them. Yes Windows on a Mac. Pretty sad actually.
The Mac never had a share of the computer market comparable to that of the iPhone in the smart phone market. That's what you're missing. Think carefully about that and you'll realize your viewpoint is deeply flawed.
I've heard this before. Your comment is predicated on the myth that the Mac, at one point, had a massive market share vs. the PC, and that Microsoft took that away. Apple never had that to begin with. Apple's climb has been slow and steady over the decades. They never lost to Microsoft. They just didn't dominate out of the gate which some people interpret as failure.
The long-term story of the Mac is a stellar success, and if you genuinely think it's because Apple switched to Intel chips and everyone is buying Macs to run Windows, you're delusional.
The Mac never had a share of the computer market comparable to that of the iPhone in the smart phone market. That's what you're missing. Think carefully about that and you'll realize your viewpoint is deeply flawed.
I've heard this before. Your comment is predicated on the myth that the Mac, at one point, had a massive market share vs. the PC, and that Microsoft took that away. Apple never had that to begin with. Apple's climb has been slow and steady over the decades. They never lost to Microsoft. They just didn't dominate out of the gate which some people interpret as failure.
The long-term story of the Mac is a stellar success, and if you genuinely think it's because Apple switched to Intel chips and everyone is buying Macs to run Windows, you're delusional.
To back up your comments?
Even before the Mac Apple never had a dominate market share.
What we still don't know about these numbers Google keeps tossing around is whether it includes all the forked versions of Android, including the Kindle Fire and Chinese android versions. If China is included in the numbers, then perhaps they make up more than 50% of these figures from Google. Which to the rest of the world does not matter since it's a forked version.
So am I. This should cut the number of rubbish comments about Android on AI at least in half. ... Why wouldn't Apple announce numbers anymore? A respectable second place is nothing to be shy about, especially as long as it brings most of the profits.
Its rubbish to compare one companies output with that of ten (or more) others.
Google can count the activations but thats all they are doing, Apple counts the activations and produces the devices. Thats something different.
It's not ridiculous. It's exactly as it was with the Mac back in the eighties. More profit doesn't mean success. It means failure in the end. Apple ended up with 1% market share. Niche player. They barely survived. Then again Apple seems to be happy with 1-3% share.
But if Apple is the loser here, I need to reconsider losing. What other company has close to $100 billion in cash with zero debt?
I'm sure market share is great, but I can guarantee HP, Dell, Motorola, Acer, HTC etc would love to trade places with Apple.
Isn't Apple's market cap second only to Exxon?
Call me crazy, but I bet Apple is quite pleased with its place in the market. I would love to fail this bad.
Sometimes market cap figures are flawed. Take Enron, WorldCom and Tyco International for example. They were highfliers in the stock market and had soaring market valuations.
Good one Rubin, hit that ball right into Oracle's court:-
"Android's growth in the mobile device market has been exponential, steadily diminishing Java's share. For instance, Amazon's newly-released Kindle Fire tablet is based on Android, while prior versions of the Kindle were Java-based. Android has been gaining in other areas as well, with Android-based set-top boxes and even televisions appearing this year. These are markets where Java has traditionally been strong but is now losing ground to Android. The longer Android is allowed to continue fragmenting the Java ecosystem, the more serious the harm to Java becomes, and the more difficult it is to try to unwind. Oracle suffers harm in the form of lost licensing opportunities for its existing Java platform products, and the enterprise-wide harm from fragmentation of Java, which reduces the 'write once, run anywhere' capability that has historically provided Java such great value."
... But if Apple is the loser here, I need to reconsider losing. What other company has close to $100 billion in cash with zero debt?
The point is that the smartphone market is growing at an enormous rate and Apple is producing as fast as it can.
So in absolute numbers Apple is producing a huge amount of phones and much more than ever before.
When you compare Apples production growth (number of units) with that of 10 or more companies combined Apples growth is somewhat less ... and thats a shocker?
Well, now it's has come to the point that Apple cannot announce activation numbers anymore. Android is overtaking much faster than anyone anticipated. It seems as though Apple can never get ahead no matter what they produce. Except for iTunes and iPod, everything else flames out or ends up 2nd, 3rd or stuck as a niche player.
The local University gives out free condoms and birth control for students. Yet, people still go to the store and buy condoms and get birth control prescriptions.
In Android's case, they are stuffing each student with an Android phone when they register for class, yet people are buying iPhones and spending hundreds of dollars on apps, then buying Macs and iPads, to iPods for other aspects of their lifestyle and work.
Keep churning out one generic blob and call it Android for every cheap to expensive phone that runs some version of Android on it.
Developers will continue to move to iOS and it's going to reach a point that Google realizes that they have to change their model or they will become Nokia and all their claims for total smartphone sales will produce a loss on their balance sheet.
It's not ridiculous. It's exactly as it was with the Mac back in the eighties. More profit doesn't mean success. It means failure in the end. Apple ended up with 1% market share. Niche player. They barely survived. Then again Apple seems to be happy with 1-3% share.
People will move to a android phone from a regular phone ,but will iphone users move to a android phone....doubt it ...but android users will move to a iphone.
If Apple, Samsung, HTC, Motorola and Sony Erricsson have one factory each, each producing 1m phones, the market share would be:
Apple 20% Android 80%
But of course that would be an absurdly simplistic situation because each vendor could open more factories - right? And they could each do that at the same theoretical maximum speed, right? But in the real world you make the best product by marrying the best components, people and passion. Apple refuse to compromise on quality, so their growth rate is constrained. This is why there are lineups for new iPhones and iPads. So if Apple were to maintain a market share of 50% or greater they would either have to open more factories at a rate 4 times as fast as the 4 combined Android vendors (and I haven't even included amazon, LG or other vendors in my simple example) - which clearly isn't going to happen.
Alternatively, Apple have to hope people will wait for an iPhone rather than leave the store (temporarily) with a "good enough" Android phone. That isn't going to happen either in our consumer culture of immediate gratification.
I'll go out on a limb and say that the "true market share" of iPhone is actually the same as the iPad. About 60%. Because when the telecom companies and phone vendors are less involved in the transaction, as is the case in the tablet market, Apple sells the majority market share. This was also the case in the MP3 market. This is not true in the phone market, and so, even with new factories being planned or opened in Brazil or elsewhere, Apple will have a hard job ever matching Android sales numbers (unless more vendors follow Nokia to Windows Phone).
It's just logistics. And if Apple keeps opening new stores and factories and STILL keeps the Lion (pun intended) share of the profits, why should they care?
Comments
If these numbers are to be believed and sustainable, 700,000 per day would be 252,000,000 per year. Thats more than Apple has in total iOS devices as of October. If thats the case then Apple should not be the number one phone on any network, but they are. How ODD!
Well, these claims are made by the same company that says they will be on every tv set within 6 months. Anything that comes out of this company has to be taken with a grain of salt. Let's just say Google likes to fudge numbers a bit, even with activations of millions of free phones.
That sounds reasonable.
Here's another question: Does Schmidt mean an average per day or simply that on a day or a couple days they hit 700k? This is typically expressed to mean for each day to express rate but without a time frame qualifier it's still fishy. Here's what Jobs said during a previous conference call.
There is nothing ambiguous about Steve Jobs's comments. He's qualified every aspect to refer to the mean average.
That's actually easy. Apple's activations seem to fluctuate less than 10% from the average, even though new announcements, price changes, etc. would have a major impact. In comparison, Google's activations come from many different companies and from a broad range of devices, making is less likely that they fluctuate as much. So, my guess would be that if 700 000 is a peak rather than an average, then the average should be not far from 650 000, or practically the same.
Those numbers seem a bit high to me. If you add the Android and Apple ones together that means a million people activating a new phone or tablet every damn day. How can that be right? How often do people replace their phones anyway?
Nokia alone sells 400 million phones a year. Do the math.
Just ask Apple with Macintosh vs Windows when Apple mad huge profits per product. What happened there? They lost. OSX and forced to switch to Intel chips to allow Windows to work on their hardware is what saved them. Yes Windows on a Mac. Pretty sad actually.
The Mac never had a share of the computer market comparable to that of the iPhone in the smart phone market. That's what you're missing. Think carefully about that and you'll realize your viewpoint is deeply flawed.
I've heard this before. Your comment is predicated on the myth that the Mac, at one point, had a massive market share vs. the PC, and that Microsoft took that away. Apple never had that to begin with. Apple's climb has been slow and steady over the decades. They never lost to Microsoft. They just didn't dominate out of the gate which some people interpret as failure.
The long-term story of the Mac is a stellar success, and if you genuinely think it's because Apple switched to Intel chips and everyone is buying Macs to run Windows, you're delusional.
The Mac never had a share of the computer market comparable to that of the iPhone in the smart phone market. That's what you're missing. Think carefully about that and you'll realize your viewpoint is deeply flawed.
I've heard this before. Your comment is predicated on the myth that the Mac, at one point, had a massive market share vs. the PC, and that Microsoft took that away. Apple never had that to begin with. Apple's climb has been slow and steady over the decades. They never lost to Microsoft. They just didn't dominate out of the gate which some people interpret as failure.
The long-term story of the Mac is a stellar success, and if you genuinely think it's because Apple switched to Intel chips and everyone is buying Macs to run Windows, you're delusional.
To back up your comments?Even before the Mac Apple never had a dominate market share.
But if Apple is the loser here, I need to reconsider losing. What other company has close to $100 billion in cash with zero debt?
I'm sure market share is great, but I can guarantee HP, Dell, Motorola, Acer, HTC etc would love to trade places with Apple.
Isn't Apple's market cap second only to Exxon?
Call me crazy, but I bet Apple is quite pleased with its place in the market. I would love to fail this bad.
So am I. This should cut the number of rubbish comments about Android on AI at least in half. ... Why wouldn't Apple announce numbers anymore? A respectable second place is nothing to be shy about, especially as long as it brings most of the profits.
Its rubbish to compare one companies output with that of ten (or more) others.
Google can count the activations but thats all they are doing, Apple counts the activations and produces the devices. Thats something different.
J.
It's not ridiculous. It's exactly as it was with the Mac back in the eighties. More profit doesn't mean success. It means failure in the end. Apple ended up with 1% market share. Niche player. They barely survived. Then again Apple seems to be happy with 1-3% share.
History can repeat itself. Ask any historian.
Hats off to Android and Google.
But if Apple is the loser here, I need to reconsider losing. What other company has close to $100 billion in cash with zero debt?
I'm sure market share is great, but I can guarantee HP, Dell, Motorola, Acer, HTC etc would love to trade places with Apple.
Isn't Apple's market cap second only to Exxon?
Call me crazy, but I bet Apple is quite pleased with its place in the market. I would love to fail this bad.
Sometimes market cap figures are flawed. Take Enron, WorldCom and Tyco International for example. They were highfliers in the stock market and had soaring market valuations.
"Android's growth in the mobile device market has been exponential, steadily diminishing Java's share. For instance, Amazon's newly-released Kindle Fire tablet is based on Android, while prior versions of the Kindle were Java-based. Android has been gaining in other areas as well, with Android-based set-top boxes and even televisions appearing this year. These are markets where Java has traditionally been strong but is now losing ground to Android. The longer Android is allowed to continue fragmenting the Java ecosystem, the more serious the harm to Java becomes, and the more difficult it is to try to unwind. Oracle suffers harm in the form of lost licensing opportunities for its existing Java platform products, and the enterprise-wide harm from fragmentation of Java, which reduces the 'write once, run anywhere' capability that has historically provided Java such great value."
Hyundai outsells Mercedes. Which would you rather drive?
A Porsche.
On a serious note, Apple should be winning. They're always winning and dominating. I bought an iphone 4s. So why aren't they winning?
... But if Apple is the loser here, I need to reconsider losing. What other company has close to $100 billion in cash with zero debt?
The point is that the smartphone market is growing at an enormous rate and Apple is producing as fast as it can.
So in absolute numbers Apple is producing a huge amount of phones and much more than ever before.
When you compare Apples production growth (number of units) with that of 10 or more companies combined Apples growth is somewhat less ... and thats a shocker?
J.
Well, now it's has come to the point that Apple cannot announce activation numbers anymore. Android is overtaking much faster than anyone anticipated. It seems as though Apple can never get ahead no matter what they produce. Except for iTunes and iPod, everything else flames out or ends up 2nd, 3rd or stuck as a niche player.
The local University gives out free condoms and birth control for students. Yet, people still go to the store and buy condoms and get birth control prescriptions.
In Android's case, they are stuffing each student with an Android phone when they register for class, yet people are buying iPhones and spending hundreds of dollars on apps, then buying Macs and iPads, to iPods for other aspects of their lifestyle and work.
Keep churning out one generic blob and call it Android for every cheap to expensive phone that runs some version of Android on it.
Developers will continue to move to iOS and it's going to reach a point that Google realizes that they have to change their model or they will become Nokia and all their claims for total smartphone sales will produce a loss on their balance sheet.
It's not ridiculous. It's exactly as it was with the Mac back in the eighties. More profit doesn't mean success. It means failure in the end. Apple ended up with 1% market share. Niche player. They barely survived. Then again Apple seems to be happy with 1-3% share.
More profit means failure???
Apple 20% Android 80%
But of course that would be an absurdly simplistic situation because each vendor could open more factories - right? And they could each do that at the same theoretical maximum speed, right? But in the real world you make the best product by marrying the best components, people and passion. Apple refuse to compromise on quality, so their growth rate is constrained. This is why there are lineups for new iPhones and iPads. So if Apple were to maintain a market share of 50% or greater they would either have to open more factories at a rate 4 times as fast as the 4 combined Android vendors (and I haven't even included amazon, LG or other vendors in my simple example) - which clearly isn't going to happen.
Alternatively, Apple have to hope people will wait for an iPhone rather than leave the store (temporarily) with a "good enough" Android phone. That isn't going to happen either in our consumer culture of immediate gratification.
I'll go out on a limb and say that the "true market share" of iPhone is actually the same as the iPad. About 60%. Because when the telecom companies and phone vendors are less involved in the transaction, as is the case in the tablet market, Apple sells the majority market share. This was also the case in the MP3 market. This is not true in the phone market, and so, even with new factories being planned or opened in Brazil or elsewhere, Apple will have a hard job ever matching Android sales numbers (unless more vendors follow Nokia to Windows Phone).
It's just logistics. And if Apple keeps opening new stores and factories and STILL keeps the Lion (pun intended) share of the profits, why should they care?