Oh I see, 1200+ Best Buy locations don't matter. Either does 2000+ Radio Shack locations, Verizon Stores, Sprint Stores, AT&T, Fry's, Wal Mart, Target...Do I really need to go on?
Those pics are anecdotal evidence of the sheer power of the Apple Ecosystem dude. It's a company that doesn't just sell phones. Geez. Their iphone sales are PROVING to be a gateway to their laptop line, desktops etc that continue to post DOUBLE DIGIT gains when compared to brands like DELL and HP. Clearly you don't get the real picture.
Here's another one.
Here in Australia, where the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was banned and then released, we received in our store fifteen of them a couple of weeks before Christmas.
We sold three, there are still twelve left.
In the same timeframe we sold sixty-five iPads.
Fandroids only exist on the Internet, when asked to shell out real cash for these products they seem to disappear.
The biggest sellers apart from iPhones are cheap PAYG android phones from Huawei, ZTE. low end Samsung's and HTC's.
You can see this reflected in the figures, well known handset makers (Samsung, HTC, Motorola, LG) are selling x amount, "Android" is selling y amount, something doesn't quite add up and that is all the sales coming from low end, lesser known brands.
Fandroids only exist on the Internet, when asked to shell out real cash for these products they seem to disappear.
Exactly and it's good to see the reports using subscriber share instead of market share. Market share is generally understood to mean what percentage of the market is occupied by a certain product line.
Apple's last report a few months ago was 250 million iOS devices sold (the majority of which were iPhones). Google's last report noted 200 million Android activations (not sure if that includes tablets but Android tablet sales are very low).
Over Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, there has been a report of 4.2 million iOS devices activated and 3.7 million Android devices.
At this stage, they are probably level-pegging but Android may still be behind in overall devices owned. The numbers noted in these reports are growth rates. Eventually, I'd expect Android to outsell iOS - probably by the end of 2013 but the ownership/marketshare won't change by a significant amount partly due to the fact nobody wants Android tablets.
The Android marketshare is also split between about 5-10 companies and that's what really matters when it comes to profits. This also has implications for software. Warner Brothers made Arkham City Lockdown exclusive to iOS likely because it can run properly on the majority of iOS devices as well as having a secure distribution platform. Android can be installed on loads of devices with poor graphics capabilities or low amounts of memory and their distribution model is not so appealing:
Over time, this may change but I think Apple will do what it has always done - maintain the mindshare that they have the best quality and the competition are cheaper but lower quality. When the competition tries to charge the same amount of money, they lose because people know they can get a better quality item for around the same price.
He's probably referring to the fact that MS licensed out their OS across hardware vendors who then all competed for market share which drove prices down and allowed MS to basically monopolize the PC industry. ...
That's not what happened either. IBM was the 1600 lb gorilla in the room circa 1980. Their PCs were guaranteed to take over in business. Microsoft got lucky in that a) IBM didn't demand exclusive rights to DOS and b) because they made the IBM PC spec public. (Although, they may have done both of these things because of their own antitrust issues.) DOS based computers, once IBM entered the market, were guaranteed monopoly marketshare because the primary market at that time was business and, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."
Microsoft then leveraged that monopoly gift of DOS into a new Windows monopoly, taking advantage of the transition to knock out a few software rivals along the way and develop an Office monopoly on the side.
Microsoft didn't develop a DOS/Windows monopoly because they were clever enough to license widely (a point that even professional "pundits" often seem to not understand), they developed a monopoly because they were lucky enough to ride IBM's coattails back when IBM was computers.
There is no equivalent today of circa 1980 IBM. Not Microsoft, not Google, not Apple*. In part that's because the industry is just so much bigger today. Back around 1980 the computer industry pretty much was IBM, and Apple and Microsoft were fleas in comparison to the 1600 lb gorilla. Analogies of the smartphone market to the early PC market are flawed because they pretend that the same circumstances exist in today's smartphone market as existed in the personal computer market in the early 1980s, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. A couple of coincidental details like someone is licensing an OS and Apple is involved do not a valid analogy make.
* Edit: Not even all 3 of them put together would be the equivalent of ~1980 IBM.
That's not what happened either. IBM was the 1600 lb gorilla in the room circa 1980. Their PCs were guaranteed to take over in business. Microsoft got lucky in that a) IBM didn't demand exclusive rights to DOS and b) because they made the IBM PC spec public. (Although, they may have done both of these things because of their own antitrust issues.)
What universe did that happen in? IBM used off the shelf components but their BIOS was completely proprietary and was required for true compatibility with IBM systems and their version of DOS. Compaq spent a large sum of money doing a clean-room reverse engineering of the BIOS. Without this process there would never have been IBM clones and MS would have had to sell unique and incompatible versions of DOS to each company. Compaq (I think there were a couple others that preceded them but they were tiny and Compaq's process was the most legal) reverse engineering the IBM BIOS, without IBM approval, combined with MS's agreement with IBM is what allowed MS to so broadly license DOS.
This type of propaganda is deceitful. First of all, Apple is one company manufacturing a few products. Those products are mostly sold at the Apple Stores. Compared to the much larger market of their competitors and the vast numbers of channels where one can purchase those product, then of course those stores will not be crowded. One can buy these products practically everywhere. These store traffic comparisons are so silly and does nothing but provide a false sense of success with their retail store. If all Windows or Android products are sold the same way, the lines would dwarf the biggest Apple store lines today.
What are you talking about? How many major stores can't you buy an Apple product in that you can buy an Android product in?
That fact is that people just will not line up for Androids. Even Samsung, the most successful of the bunch has publicly acknowledged that. In fact they have made an entire marketing campaign around that fact.
Slappy still has a point. Clearly the 3gs at 0$ is not enough. Apple need to come up with a low cost phone, not just reduce the price of the old model.
Clearly? Clearly the 3GS is not enough as the entry level model? How do you believe that it is clearly not enough? The fact that it was the #2 selling smartphone in the US (right behind the iPhone 4) in q3 of 2011 shows that it was enough. Clearly.
It competes quite well with other $0 phones. Most other $0 phones are entry level and use older, less capable components, just like the 3GS. The only difference is Apple doesn't wrap those older components in a new package to fool people into thinking they are getting something new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Here in Montreal you can have a Galaxy II s or 4g for 0$. The 3gs is a two year old phone, none of is specs even come close to compete. Apple need to design something to compete at lower price points. If Apple is so good it should be able to produce a 0$ phone and still make a decent margin on it.
That was a promo and in fact it was necessary to stimulate sales. The Galaxy S II LTE is $149 at Rogers today if you sign a 3 year contract. Bell has the 4G (HSPA+) unit on for $99 with 3 year contract.
And Apple is making a $0 phone and making a profit on it. It's called the 3GS. Hell, Rogers has the 8GB iPhone 4 as their $0 phone right now and Bell has it as their $50.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Same goes for the iPad. Apple need to do something about the erosion of is market shares. A repeat of the 90's Mac event could kill Apple in a few years.
Yeah, that erosion of market share is killing them. Not one other company is selling tablets for a profit right now. The market has shown that to sell any numbers in significant volume, they have to sell it at a loss (see the $99 Touchpad, BB Playbook and Amazon Kindle Fire). The Samsung 10.1 has essentially become the give away product of the year ("Sign up for a cell plan and we'll throw in a Galaxy Tab", "Buy this printer and we'll include a Galaxy tab", "Please just come visit our store and we'll give you a Galaxy Tab, maybe 2).
Outside of those units that are given away fro free or sold at a substantial net loss, Apple hasn't lost any real market share.
What universe did that happen in? IBM used off the shelf components but their BIOS was completely proprietary and was required for true compatibility with IBM systems and their version of DOS. ...
You're correct. Allowed it to become cloneable would have been a better choice of words. I didn't mean to imply that they published/public domained the spec, just that they didn't go to any significant lengths to prevent cloning.
You're correct. Allowed it to become cloneable would have been a better choice of words. I didn't mean to imply that they published/public domained the spec, just that they didn't go to any significant lengths to prevent cloning.
I don't think they even 'allowed' it. In fact, IIRC, they sued Compaq to stop it but lost that case since Compaq had been very diligent in their CYA reverse-engineering process. IBM knew they messed up when they realized they had given MS far to broad an agreement with MS and couldn't stop the cloners.
Anyway, the rest of your points are valid and don't rely on the minutia of how the cloners happened. MS got lucky that IBM wasn't more diligent in crafting their agreement and road the IBM/clone gravy train. IBM did the groundwork, Compaq et al spread the word and MS got fat.
Clearly? Clearly the 3GS is not enough as the entry level model? How do you believe that it is clearly not enough? The fact that it was the #2 selling smartphone in the US (right behind the iPhone 4) in q3 of 2011 shows that it was enough. Clearly.
Typical fanboy stats manipulation. It better be selling well since its the only cheap phone Apple has VS all the other android phones. In terms of market share (which is the subject of discussion here) its still getting own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
That was a promo and in fact it was necessary to stimulate sales. The Galaxy S II LTE is $149 at Rogers today if you sign a 3 year contract. Bell has the 4G (HSPA+) unit on for $99 with 3 year contract.
The problem is its always on sale somewhere. This week its at best buy. And the carriers are the ones absorbing the lost, not Samsung. Its call real world shopping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Yeah, that erosion of market share is killing them. Not one other company is selling tablets for a profit right now. ... Outside of those units that are given away fro free or sold at a substantial net loss, Apple hasn't lost any real market share.
again, typical fanboy reaction. We are loosing market share BUT, BUT, Apple is the only one making profits... Apple is loosing market shares and I could not care less about manufacturers profits, Google is still going to get is $$ regardless. It remains to be seen if Amazon bet will work or not.
Typical fanboy stats manipulation. It better be selling well since its the only cheap phone Apple has VS all the other android phones. In terms of market share (which is the subject of discussion here) its still getting own.
Present clear and indisputable facts is fanboy stats manipulation? And yes, it had better be selling well...guess what? It is. You said they 'clearly' needed a $0 phone. They do. And it is outselling any Android $0 phone. Or $100 phone. or $200 phone.
It's getting owned? The most profitable company in the world selling the most profitable handsets and the most profitable platform is getting owned?
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
The problem is its always on sale somewhere. This week its at best buy. And the carriers are the ones absorbing the lost, not Samsung. Its call real world shopping.
It's called loss leaders. The problem is the entire Android ecosystem is build around and sustained by loss leaders. Great business model. And um, yeah, it is Samsung that is absorbing some of the loss. Carriers very carefully negotiate the subsidies with the vendors. Whether that is Samsung, RIM or Apple, when the carriers want to promo with deep discounts, they demand a price break from the vendors..they negotiate with the vendors for their promos. Do you have any knowledge of the cellular market? At all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
again, typical fanboy reaction. We are loosing market share BUT, BUT, Apple is the only one making profits... Apple is loosing market shares and I could not care less about manufacturers profits, Google is still going to get is $$ regardless. It remains to be seen if Amazon bet will work or not.
Are you french? Profits matter in business. Google may be making money, indirectly, and that's great for them. The fact is that the manufacturers are not. That's not fanboy, that's simple facts.
Amazon has probably the best chance of all of the non-iPad vendors. The market has shown that no one will buy other tablets at a price where the vendors make any money. Amazon's model is acknowledging that and trying to use it to their advantage. That is pretty smart. If no one wants to buy an Android tablet, then give it away and try to make money on the blades. Fortunately for Apple, they can sell the razor and the blade.
And if you had a clue about my history around here you would know I am not a "fanboy". I will criticize Apple and Apple fans as much as I will Android fans. I tend to jump if in I see either trying to end-run the facts, much as you have been trying.
Edit:
Also, you are correct that for now google is the only one in the non-iPad space that is making any money. The manufacturers certainly aren't. You say you don't care about that, but if they aren't making money, then google won't make much either. They will all look for ways to try and become profitable in the tablet business and Amazon seems to have found the best bet. Guess what? Their bet cuts google out on most of the money.
Market share matters but not at the expense of profitability. The modern Apple has never been about market share. They chase profitability and they have been wildly successful at it. Money matters in business.
1. Apple (AT&T in the US) just started selling the 3gs for free. It's still only on AT&T & from the anecdotal reports I've read, it is selling very well. It will likely be close to another year before Sprint & Verizon get a 'free' iphone model to sell (when the newest iphone comes out & the 4 becomes the free model). Comaprisons at that point will be a lot more useful, as Apple & Andoird will be competing on equal footing on all three of the largest US networks. As it is now, if you want a free smartphone, but want/have to use Verizon or Sprint, the iphone is out.
2. Microsoft had the advantage versus macs of being the choice of companies. That's not been the case so far with phones. With everything being standards compatible, most IT departments don't care if you use an iphone or a droid, they support both. When the choice is left up to the end user, not the IT department, it's reasonable to expect that the Windows/Mac situation will not play out the same way with iphones/droid
3. Apple computers had the aura (whether true or not) of being a lot more expensive than PC's. At this point, iphones & droids are about even in cost. Even if you compare a $200 iphone to a free doid, you're only talking about a $200 difference. The spread on computers, under certain scenarios, was many times that number.
So it's like the older brother in the backseat of the car his fingers in your face but chanting "I'm not touching you"?
No it is more like... "Mommy, Jimmy said a swear word."
No one is being forced to read his posts. However unpopular his comments are, he does not make any personal attacks as far as I know. Maybe he is a troll, maybe a paid shill, maybe just delusional. It is the people who think they need to offer a rebuttal to his comments who are clueless. Maybe you should put them all on your ignore list.
Comments
What the hell are you talking about? LOL!
Apple stuff is "mostly sold at Apple stores"?
Oh I see, 1200+ Best Buy locations don't matter. Either does 2000+ Radio Shack locations, Verizon Stores, Sprint Stores, AT&T, Fry's, Wal Mart, Target...Do I really need to go on?
Those pics are anecdotal evidence of the sheer power of the Apple Ecosystem dude. It's a company that doesn't just sell phones. Geez. Their iphone sales are PROVING to be a gateway to their laptop line, desktops etc that continue to post DOUBLE DIGIT gains when compared to brands like DELL and HP. Clearly you don't get the real picture.
Here's another one.
Here in Australia, where the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was banned and then released, we received in our store fifteen of them a couple of weeks before Christmas.
We sold three, there are still twelve left.
In the same timeframe we sold sixty-five iPads.
Fandroids only exist on the Internet, when asked to shell out real cash for these products they seem to disappear.
The biggest sellers apart from iPhones are cheap PAYG android phones from Huawei, ZTE. low end Samsung's and HTC's.
You can see this reflected in the figures, well known handset makers (Samsung, HTC, Motorola, LG) are selling x amount, "Android" is selling y amount, something doesn't quite add up and that is all the sales coming from low end, lesser known brands.
Fandroids only exist on the Internet, when asked to shell out real cash for these products they seem to disappear.
Exactly and it's good to see the reports using subscriber share instead of market share. Market share is generally understood to mean what percentage of the market is occupied by a certain product line.
Apple's last report a few months ago was 250 million iOS devices sold (the majority of which were iPhones). Google's last report noted 200 million Android activations (not sure if that includes tablets but Android tablet sales are very low).
Over Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, there has been a report of 4.2 million iOS devices activated and 3.7 million Android devices.
At this stage, they are probably level-pegging but Android may still be behind in overall devices owned. The numbers noted in these reports are growth rates. Eventually, I'd expect Android to outsell iOS - probably by the end of 2013 but the ownership/marketshare won't change by a significant amount partly due to the fact nobody wants Android tablets.
The Android marketshare is also split between about 5-10 companies and that's what really matters when it comes to profits. This also has implications for software. Warner Brothers made Arkham City Lockdown exclusive to iOS likely because it can run properly on the majority of iOS devices as well as having a secure distribution platform. Android can be installed on loads of devices with poor graphics capabilities or low amounts of memory and their distribution model is not so appealing:
http://phandroid.com/2011/11/23/infi...d-development/
Over time, this may change but I think Apple will do what it has always done - maintain the mindshare that they have the best quality and the competition are cheaper but lower quality. When the competition tries to charge the same amount of money, they lose because people know they can get a better quality item for around the same price.
He's probably referring to the fact that MS licensed out their OS across hardware vendors who then all competed for market share which drove prices down and allowed MS to basically monopolize the PC industry. ...
That's not what happened either. IBM was the 1600 lb gorilla in the room circa 1980. Their PCs were guaranteed to take over in business. Microsoft got lucky in that a) IBM didn't demand exclusive rights to DOS and b) because they made the IBM PC spec public. (Although, they may have done both of these things because of their own antitrust issues.) DOS based computers, once IBM entered the market, were guaranteed monopoly marketshare because the primary market at that time was business and, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."
Microsoft then leveraged that monopoly gift of DOS into a new Windows monopoly, taking advantage of the transition to knock out a few software rivals along the way and develop an Office monopoly on the side.
Microsoft didn't develop a DOS/Windows monopoly because they were clever enough to license widely (a point that even professional "pundits" often seem to not understand), they developed a monopoly because they were lucky enough to ride IBM's coattails back when IBM was computers.
There is no equivalent today of circa 1980 IBM. Not Microsoft, not Google, not Apple*. In part that's because the industry is just so much bigger today. Back around 1980 the computer industry pretty much was IBM, and Apple and Microsoft were fleas in comparison to the 1600 lb gorilla. Analogies of the smartphone market to the early PC market are flawed because they pretend that the same circumstances exist in today's smartphone market as existed in the personal computer market in the early 1980s, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. A couple of coincidental details like someone is licensing an OS and Apple is involved do not a valid analogy make.
* Edit: Not even all 3 of them put together would be the equivalent of ~1980 IBM.
That's not what happened either. IBM was the 1600 lb gorilla in the room circa 1980. Their PCs were guaranteed to take over in business. Microsoft got lucky in that a) IBM didn't demand exclusive rights to DOS and b) because they made the IBM PC spec public. (Although, they may have done both of these things because of their own antitrust issues.)
What universe did that happen in? IBM used off the shelf components but their BIOS was completely proprietary and was required for true compatibility with IBM systems and their version of DOS. Compaq spent a large sum of money doing a clean-room reverse engineering of the BIOS. Without this process there would never have been IBM clones and MS would have had to sell unique and incompatible versions of DOS to each company. Compaq (I think there were a couple others that preceded them but they were tiny and Compaq's process was the most legal) reverse engineering the IBM BIOS, without IBM approval, combined with MS's agreement with IBM is what allowed MS to so broadly license DOS.
This type of propaganda is deceitful. First of all, Apple is one company manufacturing a few products. Those products are mostly sold at the Apple Stores. Compared to the much larger market of their competitors and the vast numbers of channels where one can purchase those product, then of course those stores will not be crowded. One can buy these products practically everywhere. These store traffic comparisons are so silly and does nothing but provide a false sense of success with their retail store. If all Windows or Android products are sold the same way, the lines would dwarf the biggest Apple store lines today.
What are you talking about? How many major stores can't you buy an Apple product in that you can buy an Android product in?
That fact is that people just will not line up for Androids. Even Samsung, the most successful of the bunch has publicly acknowledged that. In fact they have made an entire marketing campaign around that fact.
Making shit up doesn't make you right.
Slappy still has a point. Clearly the 3gs at 0$ is not enough. Apple need to come up with a low cost phone, not just reduce the price of the old model.
Clearly? Clearly the 3GS is not enough as the entry level model? How do you believe that it is clearly not enough? The fact that it was the #2 selling smartphone in the US (right behind the iPhone 4) in q3 of 2011 shows that it was enough. Clearly.
http://www.dailytech.com/Quick+Note+...ticle23282.htm
It competes quite well with other $0 phones. Most other $0 phones are entry level and use older, less capable components, just like the 3GS. The only difference is Apple doesn't wrap those older components in a new package to fool people into thinking they are getting something new.
Here in Montreal you can have a Galaxy II s or 4g for 0$. The 3gs is a two year old phone, none of is specs even come close to compete. Apple need to design something to compete at lower price points. If Apple is so good it should be able to produce a 0$ phone and still make a decent margin on it.
That was a promo and in fact it was necessary to stimulate sales. The Galaxy S II LTE is $149 at Rogers today if you sign a 3 year contract. Bell has the 4G (HSPA+) unit on for $99 with 3 year contract.
And Apple is making a $0 phone and making a profit on it. It's called the 3GS. Hell, Rogers has the 8GB iPhone 4 as their $0 phone right now and Bell has it as their $50.
Same goes for the iPad. Apple need to do something about the erosion of is market shares. A repeat of the 90's Mac event could kill Apple in a few years.
Yeah, that erosion of market share is killing them. Not one other company is selling tablets for a profit right now. The market has shown that to sell any numbers in significant volume, they have to sell it at a loss (see the $99 Touchpad, BB Playbook and Amazon Kindle Fire). The Samsung 10.1 has essentially become the give away product of the year ("Sign up for a cell plan and we'll throw in a Galaxy Tab", "Buy this printer and we'll include a Galaxy tab", "Please just come visit our store and we'll give you a Galaxy Tab, maybe 2).
Outside of those units that are given away fro free or sold at a substantial net loss, Apple hasn't lost any real market share.
What universe did that happen in? IBM used off the shelf components but their BIOS was completely proprietary and was required for true compatibility with IBM systems and their version of DOS. ...
You're correct. Allowed it to become cloneable would have been a better choice of words. I didn't mean to imply that they published/public domained the spec, just that they didn't go to any significant lengths to prevent cloning.
You're correct. Allowed it to become cloneable would have been a better choice of words. I didn't mean to imply that they published/public domained the spec, just that they didn't go to any significant lengths to prevent cloning.
I don't think they even 'allowed' it. In fact, IIRC, they sued Compaq to stop it but lost that case since Compaq had been very diligent in their CYA reverse-engineering process. IBM knew they messed up when they realized they had given MS far to broad an agreement with MS and couldn't stop the cloners.
Anyway, the rest of your points are valid and don't rely on the minutia of how the cloners happened. MS got lucky that IBM wasn't more diligent in crafting their agreement and road the IBM/clone gravy train. IBM did the groundwork, Compaq et al spread the word and MS got fat.
http://goo.gl/JxBbS
Erosion of its market share? Apple's market share hasn't been eroding. It's been GROWING.
Mac : growing indeed
ipods : Flat
Phones : Pretty much flat, went down in Q3 but will get back up in Q4.
Iphone getting back market shares in Q4 because of iphone 4s launch.
Tablets : 25% lost between Q1 and Q4. Key players in tablet market, Q4:
Clearly? Clearly the 3GS is not enough as the entry level model? How do you believe that it is clearly not enough? The fact that it was the #2 selling smartphone in the US (right behind the iPhone 4) in q3 of 2011 shows that it was enough. Clearly.
Typical fanboy stats manipulation. It better be selling well since its the only cheap phone Apple has VS all the other android phones. In terms of market share (which is the subject of discussion here) its still getting own.
That was a promo and in fact it was necessary to stimulate sales. The Galaxy S II LTE is $149 at Rogers today if you sign a 3 year contract. Bell has the 4G (HSPA+) unit on for $99 with 3 year contract.
The problem is its always on sale somewhere. This week its at best buy. And the carriers are the ones absorbing the lost, not Samsung. Its call real world shopping.
Yeah, that erosion of market share is killing them. Not one other company is selling tablets for a profit right now. ... Outside of those units that are given away fro free or sold at a substantial net loss, Apple hasn't lost any real market share.
again, typical fanboy reaction. We are loosing market share BUT, BUT, Apple is the only one making profits... Apple is loosing market shares and I could not care less about manufacturers profits, Google is still going to get is $$ regardless. It remains to be seen if Amazon bet will work or not.
Why hasn't Slappy been banned for posting BS comments designed to incite arguments?
Most likely because his comments are too childish to be taken seriously by anybody.
Typical fanboy stats manipulation. It better be selling well since its the only cheap phone Apple has VS all the other android phones. In terms of market share (which is the subject of discussion here) its still getting own.
Present clear and indisputable facts is fanboy stats manipulation? And yes, it had better be selling well...guess what? It is. You said they 'clearly' needed a $0 phone. They do. And it is outselling any Android $0 phone. Or $100 phone. or $200 phone.
It's getting owned? The most profitable company in the world selling the most profitable handsets and the most profitable platform is getting owned?
The problem is its always on sale somewhere. This week its at best buy. And the carriers are the ones absorbing the lost, not Samsung. Its call real world shopping.
It's called loss leaders. The problem is the entire Android ecosystem is build around and sustained by loss leaders. Great business model. And um, yeah, it is Samsung that is absorbing some of the loss. Carriers very carefully negotiate the subsidies with the vendors. Whether that is Samsung, RIM or Apple, when the carriers want to promo with deep discounts, they demand a price break from the vendors..they negotiate with the vendors for their promos. Do you have any knowledge of the cellular market? At all?
again, typical fanboy reaction. We are loosing market share BUT, BUT, Apple is the only one making profits... Apple is loosing market shares and I could not care less about manufacturers profits, Google is still going to get is $$ regardless. It remains to be seen if Amazon bet will work or not.
Are you french? Profits matter in business. Google may be making money, indirectly, and that's great for them. The fact is that the manufacturers are not. That's not fanboy, that's simple facts.
Amazon has probably the best chance of all of the non-iPad vendors. The market has shown that no one will buy other tablets at a price where the vendors make any money. Amazon's model is acknowledging that and trying to use it to their advantage. That is pretty smart. If no one wants to buy an Android tablet, then give it away and try to make money on the blades. Fortunately for Apple, they can sell the razor and the blade.
And if you had a clue about my history around here you would know I am not a "fanboy". I will criticize Apple and Apple fans as much as I will Android fans. I tend to jump if in I see either trying to end-run the facts, much as you have been trying.
Edit:
Also, you are correct that for now google is the only one in the non-iPad space that is making any money. The manufacturers certainly aren't. You say you don't care about that, but if they aren't making money, then google won't make much either. They will all look for ways to try and become profitable in the tablet business and Amazon seems to have found the best bet. Guess what? Their bet cuts google out on most of the money.
Market share matters but not at the expense of profitability. The modern Apple has never been about market share. They chase profitability and they have been wildly successful at it. Money matters in business.
1. Apple (AT&T in the US) just started selling the 3gs for free. It's still only on AT&T & from the anecdotal reports I've read, it is selling very well. It will likely be close to another year before Sprint & Verizon get a 'free' iphone model to sell (when the newest iphone comes out & the 4 becomes the free model). Comaprisons at that point will be a lot more useful, as Apple & Andoird will be competing on equal footing on all three of the largest US networks. As it is now, if you want a free smartphone, but want/have to use Verizon or Sprint, the iphone is out.
2. Microsoft had the advantage versus macs of being the choice of companies. That's not been the case so far with phones. With everything being standards compatible, most IT departments don't care if you use an iphone or a droid, they support both. When the choice is left up to the end user, not the IT department, it's reasonable to expect that the Windows/Mac situation will not play out the same way with iphones/droid
3. Apple computers had the aura (whether true or not) of being a lot more expensive than PC's. At this point, iphones & droids are about even in cost. Even if you compare a $200 iphone to a free doid, you're only talking about a $200 difference. The spread on computers, under certain scenarios, was many times that number.
Most likely because his comments are too childish to be taken seriously by anybody.
Or maybe the reason he has not been banned is because he doesn't violate any of the forum rules.
Or maybe the reason he has not been banned is because he doesn't violate any of the forum rules.
So it's like the older brother in the backseat of the car his fingers in your face but chanting "I'm not touching you"?
So it's like the older brother in the backseat of the car his fingers in your face but chanting "I'm not touching you"?
That's exactly what he is. He's a hit and run con artist.
Notice that he logged off immediately after posting his one post in this thread.
And the next twenty posts were people taking the bait to tell him he's wrong.
I don't like that at all.
So it's like the older brother in the backseat of the car his fingers in your face but chanting "I'm not touching you"?
No it is more like... "Mommy, Jimmy said a swear word."
No one is being forced to read his posts. However unpopular his comments are, he does not make any personal attacks as far as I know. Maybe he is a troll, maybe a paid shill, maybe just delusional. It is the people who think they need to offer a rebuttal to his comments who are clueless. Maybe you should put them all on your ignore list.