Could have. Not would have. It wouldn't have been smart to let mobile go.
I still have to disagree. The world "could" end tomorrow but I'd be silly to blow through my savings partying like it's a certainty. The fact of the matter is Google now has legal headaches and a HUGE acquisition (Motorola) which hasn't translated into any real value to its bottom line. Google had the option to avoid all of that and simply partnered with companies (not only Apple but BB and Nokia) and saved (ooops, i mean MADE) a lot of money.
I still have to disagree. The world "could" end tomorrow but I'd be silly to blow through my savings partying like it's a certainty. The fact of the matter is Google now has legal headaches and a HUGE acquisition (Motorola) which hasn't translated into any real value to its bottom line. Google had the option to avoid all of that and simply partnered with companies (not only Apple but BB and Nokia) and saved (ooops, i mean MADE) a lot of money.
We are both dealing with ifs. Fact is Google went the Android route (and had decided to do so even before anyone heard of the iPhone) and shit is happening.
Who knows what this alternative timeline would be like. That'd be an interesting power to have. To peruse the "ifs"
android growth is taking place in poorer countries.
iphone has no chance in these countries..
for those who are saying that apple covers all price points, one word:
-stupids.
sorry, it had to be said.
here the 3GS costs almost 400?.
the average working person earns 450 per month. would you buy it?
there's thousands of smartphones cheaper than that, especially droids.
contracts? in countries like these, only if you are crazy.
happy new year.
Hello, Pedro. Like you, I too live in Portugal.
I don't intend to go into polemics with you, but your post needs some minor corrections.
1. The average salary of portuguese citizens was, in 2009, 1043.20? before taxes (source, Pordata);
2. The cost of an iPhone 3GS is today, as per TMN website:
- non subsidized -340?
- subsidized in a 60?/month data plan: 0?
3. An iPhone 4S costs, in the same data plan: 149.90?
4. Curiosly, a samsung Galaxy S II costs, in the same data plan, 325?.
Certainly there are cheaper Android phones for sale. You can buy a shitty android phone unsubsidized for 99? or even less. My brother has got one LG for that price some months ago. It's a piece of non-descriptive plastic and he uses it just like he used his previous non-"smart" phone: he doesn't use its 3G possibilities because that would imply going into some sort of a data plan, and then he might as well have bought an iPhone.
So, yes, in Portugal it is hard to pay for a smartphone and use it to the limit of its possibilities: 3G navigation, using some decent third party apps, etc... So people buy a shitty android and use their fingers to convince themselves they too are part of the game. But it is not more expensive to have an iPhone than a Galaxy S.
We are both dealing with ifs. Fact is Google went the Android route (and had decided to do so even before anyone heard of the iPhone) and shit is happening.
Who knows what this alternative timeline would be like. That'd be an interesting power to have. To peruse the "ifs"
True, however I was responding to your post regarding Google getting locked out of the mobile game with the "stroke of a pen" so logically one can look at how and why that would occur. What would Apple gain from doing that? Crippled phones and since Apple's bread and butter is selling hardware, I highly doubt Apple would go that route. Also, Google wasn't (and isn't) tied solely to Apple so nothing would have kept Google from forming other partnerships. So again, Google would not have been blocked from the mobile game "with the stroke of a pen."
AT&T now have decent Android-based phones so the excuse regarding only crappy Android phones are on AT&T can't be used. And we obviously can't use the mass exodus from AT&T once other US carriers get the iPhone excuse.
So what gives, Android fans? Are you finally willing to admit the iPhone is the most popular phone or are still holding out to find so quasi-statisitic that pegs iPhone iOS against all Android OS activations for a very specific timeframe?
My guess is that Android phones are very popular at outlets (like Criket) that cater to the poor and those with bad credit. Apple doesn't go for that demographic at all.
Apple foolishly gave Android a strong foothold at Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile.
Apple didn't just make an arbitrary decision. A lot went into it. For one thing, AT&T was the only carrier that was going to accept Apple's terms, which were considered severe at the time, but everybody accepts them now. And I'm not just talking about the profit margin they get (although it is sweet). I'm talking about control of the customer experience and the hardware, right down to the rejection of having a carrier logo slapped onto the hardware, etc.
Now, if your point is that by leaving out some of these demands, Apple could have gained more market share, then I disagree. Almost since the beginning, and definitely since iPhone 4, Apple has been constrained by manufacturing capability, so they would not have sold any more iPhones regardless by caving in to new carrier demands. The same number of iPhone customers would just have been spread more thinly over more carriers, but the brand would have been tarnished and the customer satisfaction in the dumper, because carriers such as Verizon were initially reluctant to cede customer support. Eventually they were forced to agree to Apple's terms, because AT&T was making a comeback on the strength of iPhone, especially the "4" until the Verizon deal was consummated. Then, recently, you saw Sprint "bet the company" to get a place at the table.
The bottom line is that Apple has worked the rollout to carriers masterfully: they kept control of the ecosystem and customer experience; they kept super high margins that are the envy of the industry; they maintained their brand image, also worthy of envy; and they are still selling every iPhone they can manage to make. Hard to argue with those results.
Apple didn't just make an arbitrary decision. A lot went into it. For one thing, AT&T was the only carrier that was going to accept Apple's terms, which were considered severe at the time, but everybody accepts them now. And I'm not just talking about the profit margin they get (although it is sweet). I'm talking about control of the customer experience and the hardware, right down to the rejection of having a carrier logo slapped onto the hardware, etc.
Let's not forget about software updates. Apple would most likely look like Android's current update conundrum if it hadn't gotten the kinds of terms from the AT&T deal.
This brings up a very good point that has been mentioned on this forum before.
When you see a person on the street using a smartphone, it's generally an iPhone.
Where are the 700,000 Android devices per day that are being sold?
It makes you curious.
Not just 'curious,' but I'll bet patently false, when the dust settles.
The reason I say that? Not one Android maker -- not even the supposedly largest one, Samsung -- reports audited sales numbers for their Android phone sales.
It will turn out to be the most missed tech story of 2011.
It always fascinates me to see Apple users react to hearsay as facts. LOL This is a rumor. Worse Apple provides no backup information or comment. This is more cheerleading from Apple friendly sites.
First: "Rumor: iPhone made up 66% of sales at AT&T corporate stores, Android 9%"
Second: "The publication was unable to confirm with Apple's PR department the numbers provided by its source, as the company declined to comment."
A major difference between Android and Linux is that Google has found a clever way to monetize Android. Sure, it's a page off the search playbook. But it's nonetheless the first time any company has successfully monetized an OS this way. At the same time, Android's uncontrolled growth and multiplication is a problem for Google and 3rd party developers; but that's a different discussion.
I would suggest that Google has completely failed to find a method to monetize Android. We already know that 2/3 of their mobile search revenue comes not from Android but from iOS. Let that sink in. Android, WP7, BBO and Symbian make up the rest.
I think Google (specifically Larry Page) started down the Android path because he thought it would be cool and he did not think too much on just how to make money on it. I think Google had some nice pie in the sky vissions on how to make it work (like you are driving down the street and get a message
"Wouldn't you like to get a pizza from Jonnie's Pizza for dinner tonight?
There is one coming up on your path in 1/2 mile."
The creep factor is out the roof with that but I doubt Google sees it that way.
At this point, Google is in the hole for billions and billions of dollars with little to indicate there is a financial future in Android from a revenue sense. Take in the money pit called MMI and any potential Oracle liability (I think they will end up with getting $1-$3/handset with a 3X willful infringement for the first 300,000,000) and Android just looks like a financial looser to me.
If you lose, piss off to a website that discusses products and services that you enjoy.
The only reason why Apple has been able to come out with such innovative products is because Steve made a deal with space aliens to get their technology.
We are both dealing with ifs. Fact is Google went the Android route (and had decided to do so even before anyone heard of the iPhone) and shit is happening.
So in your mind, no one on the face of the planet had heard of the iPhone until Jan 2007? Steve Jobs just woke up that day and decided to tell his crew to come up with a BSD based phone just so big and have it ready by 10:00am so he could show the world?
I know many Android fans that actually believe the above. They compare the first concept dates of Android to the actual shipping dates of the iPhone to "prove" Android predates the iPhone by years.
I think Google had some nice pie in the sky vissions on how to make it work (like you are driving down the street and get a message
"Wouldn't you like to get a pizza from Jonnie's Pizza for dinner tonight?
There is one coming up on your path in 1/2 mile."
The creep factor is out the roof with that but I doubt Google sees it that way.
Oh, no?
I just had a horrible, horrible realization.
Google WILL be releasing their self-driving car technology. They'll get it working 99.9999999% perfectly, and then they'll release it.
And then cars will be able to drive themselves and humanity will be safer because idiots who don't deserve to be able to drive will be able to be legally barred from driving manually but still get from place to place.
And that'll be great.
But it will come at the price of our ears. Sure, we all have self-driving cars, but they'll all be Google tech. They'll know exactly where we are, and the cars' speakers will bombard us with ads (like the one you outlined above) as it drives (and even if we're driving manually). And there will be no way to turn it off. You either have the ads or you don't get a self-driving car.
What a horrid, horrid, future.
I'm being entirely serious about the above, but the following is (only partially) a joke.
"How about stopping to get a pizza? There's a pizza joint about a mile from here."
"No, car, I don't want one. I don't eat pizza."
"You sure? How about we go there and you can check it out."
"NO, car, I don't want one."
"I'll just take you there and you can be sure."
"NO. CAR, GIVE ME BACK MY STEERING."
"I can assure you, [name], that pizza's pretty good. Just hop out and buy a delicious three-topping large for $9.99 and then I'll take you home and you can eat it."
Google WILL be releasing their self-driving car technology. They'll get it working 99.9999999% perfectly, and then they'll release it.
And then cars will be able to drive themselves and humanity will be safer because idiots who don't deserve to be able to drive will be able to be legally barred from driving manually but still get from place to place.
And that'll be great.
But it will come at the price of our ears. Sure, we all have self-driving cars, but they'll all be Google tech. They'll know exactly where we are, and the cars' speakers will bombard us with ads (like the one you outlined above) as it drives (and even if we're driving manually). And there will be no way to turn it off. You either have the ads or you don't get a self-driving car.
What a horrid, horrid, future.
I'm being entirely serious about the above, but the following is (only partially) a joke.
"How about stopping to get a pizza? There's a pizza joint about a mile from here."
"No, car, I don't want one. I don't eat pizza."
"You sure? How about we go there and you can check it out."
"NO, car, I don't want one."
"I'll just take you there and you can be sure."
"NO. CAR, GIVE ME BACK MY STEERING."
"I can assure you, [name], that pizza's pretty good. Just hop out and buy a delicious three-topping large for $9.99 and then I'll take you home and you can eat it."
*banging on the now-locked doors*
And if Apple released such a car, I'm sure you'd would it to be the most brilliant thing ever. Do you people have to examine everything with a single frequency band-pass filter? Why can't see some good and some bad in what every organization does?
Comments
Here's another one:
Prove.
Me.
Wrong.
If you lose, piss off to a website that discusses products and services that you enjoy.
I'd hate for you to spend so much of the rest of your life posting about stuff which you believe is inferior.
Prove you wrong about what? Schmidt? If so I really don't have to.
You molest little boys and girls.
Prove.
Me.
Wrong.
Could have. Not would have. It wouldn't have been smart to let mobile go.
I still have to disagree. The world "could" end tomorrow but I'd be silly to blow through my savings partying like it's a certainty. The fact of the matter is Google now has legal headaches and a HUGE acquisition (Motorola) which hasn't translated into any real value to its bottom line. Google had the option to avoid all of that and simply partnered with companies (not only Apple but BB and Nokia) and saved (ooops, i mean MADE) a lot of money.
I still have to disagree. The world "could" end tomorrow but I'd be silly to blow through my savings partying like it's a certainty. The fact of the matter is Google now has legal headaches and a HUGE acquisition (Motorola) which hasn't translated into any real value to its bottom line. Google had the option to avoid all of that and simply partnered with companies (not only Apple but BB and Nokia) and saved (ooops, i mean MADE) a lot of money.
We are both dealing with ifs. Fact is Google went the Android route (and had decided to do so even before anyone heard of the iPhone) and shit is happening.
Who knows what this alternative timeline would be like. That'd be an interesting power to have. To peruse the "ifs"
Sir,
do you live in the UK or germany?
android growth is taking place in poorer countries.
iphone has no chance in these countries..
for those who are saying that apple covers all price points, one word:
-stupids.
sorry, it had to be said.
here the 3GS costs almost 400?.
the average working person earns 450 per month. would you buy it?
there's thousands of smartphones cheaper than that, especially droids.
contracts? in countries like these, only if you are crazy.
happy new year.
Hello, Pedro. Like you, I too live in Portugal.
I don't intend to go into polemics with you, but your post needs some minor corrections.
1. The average salary of portuguese citizens was, in 2009, 1043.20? before taxes (source, Pordata);
2. The cost of an iPhone 3GS is today, as per TMN website:
- non subsidized -340?
- subsidized in a 60?/month data plan: 0?
3. An iPhone 4S costs, in the same data plan: 149.90?
4. Curiosly, a samsung Galaxy S II costs, in the same data plan, 325?.
Certainly there are cheaper Android phones for sale. You can buy a shitty android phone unsubsidized for 99? or even less. My brother has got one LG for that price some months ago. It's a piece of non-descriptive plastic and he uses it just like he used his previous non-"smart" phone: he doesn't use its 3G possibilities because that would imply going into some sort of a data plan, and then he might as well have bought an iPhone.
So, yes, in Portugal it is hard to pay for a smartphone and use it to the limit of its possibilities: 3G navigation, using some decent third party apps, etc... So people buy a shitty android and use their fingers to convince themselves they too are part of the game. But it is not more expensive to have an iPhone than a Galaxy S.
Have a nice year, too.
We are both dealing with ifs. Fact is Google went the Android route (and had decided to do so even before anyone heard of the iPhone) and shit is happening.
Who knows what this alternative timeline would be like. That'd be an interesting power to have. To peruse the "ifs"
True, however I was responding to your post regarding Google getting locked out of the mobile game with the "stroke of a pen" so logically one can look at how and why that would occur. What would Apple gain from doing that? Crippled phones and since Apple's bread and butter is selling hardware, I highly doubt Apple would go that route. Also, Google wasn't (and isn't) tied solely to Apple so nothing would have kept Google from forming other partnerships. So again, Google would not have been blocked from the mobile game "with the stroke of a pen."
AT&T now have decent Android-based phones so the excuse regarding only crappy Android phones are on AT&T can't be used. And we obviously can't use the mass exodus from AT&T once other US carriers get the iPhone excuse.
So what gives, Android fans? Are you finally willing to admit the iPhone is the most popular phone or are still holding out to find so quasi-statisitic that pegs iPhone iOS against all Android OS activations for a very specific timeframe?
My guess is that Android phones are very popular at outlets (like Criket) that cater to the poor and those with bad credit. Apple doesn't go for that demographic at all.
Apple foolishly gave Android a strong foothold at Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile.
Apple didn't just make an arbitrary decision. A lot went into it. For one thing, AT&T was the only carrier that was going to accept Apple's terms, which were considered severe at the time, but everybody accepts them now. And I'm not just talking about the profit margin they get (although it is sweet). I'm talking about control of the customer experience and the hardware, right down to the rejection of having a carrier logo slapped onto the hardware, etc.
Now, if your point is that by leaving out some of these demands, Apple could have gained more market share, then I disagree. Almost since the beginning, and definitely since iPhone 4, Apple has been constrained by manufacturing capability, so they would not have sold any more iPhones regardless by caving in to new carrier demands. The same number of iPhone customers would just have been spread more thinly over more carriers, but the brand would have been tarnished and the customer satisfaction in the dumper, because carriers such as Verizon were initially reluctant to cede customer support. Eventually they were forced to agree to Apple's terms, because AT&T was making a comeback on the strength of iPhone, especially the "4" until the Verizon deal was consummated. Then, recently, you saw Sprint "bet the company" to get a place at the table.
The bottom line is that Apple has worked the rollout to carriers masterfully: they kept control of the ecosystem and customer experience; they kept super high margins that are the envy of the industry; they maintained their brand image, also worthy of envy; and they are still selling every iPhone they can manage to make. Hard to argue with those results.
Thompson
Jesus, that is 4 times the revenue of Google, and slightly more than 1/4 all of Samsung, not just Samsungs mobile division! Or is my math nerfed?
If you are speaking of the Q4 37 billions guidance yes.
Apple annual sales : 108 billions, 43 billions profits, 26 billions net income
Google annual sales: 29 billions, but 19 billions profits (high margins), 8.5 billions net income
Amazon annual sales: 34 billions, 7.6 billions profit. But Amazon net income is a tiny 1 billion.
Look at the R&D numbers:
Apple : 2.5 billions
Google : 3.7 billions. What are they doing with that, making Android? its not like its designing new hardware, or are they?
Apple didn't just make an arbitrary decision. A lot went into it. For one thing, AT&T was the only carrier that was going to accept Apple's terms, which were considered severe at the time, but everybody accepts them now. And I'm not just talking about the profit margin they get (although it is sweet). I'm talking about control of the customer experience and the hardware, right down to the rejection of having a carrier logo slapped onto the hardware, etc.
Let's not forget about software updates. Apple would most likely look like Android's current update conundrum if it hadn't gotten the kinds of terms from the AT&T deal.
This brings up a very good point that has been mentioned on this forum before.
When you see a person on the street using a smartphone, it's generally an iPhone.
Where are the 700,000 Android devices per day that are being sold?
It makes you curious.
It proves that any objective statistic showing that Android outsells iOS MUST be wrong.
This brings up a very good point that has been mentioned on this forum before.
When you see a person on the street using a smartphone, it's generally an iPhone.
Where are the 700,000 Android devices per day that are being sold?
It makes you curious.
Not just 'curious,' but I'll bet patently false, when the dust settles.
The reason I say that? Not one Android maker -- not even the supposedly largest one, Samsung -- reports audited sales numbers for their Android phone sales.
It will turn out to be the most missed tech story of 2011.
First: "Rumor: iPhone made up 66% of sales at AT&T corporate stores, Android 9%"
Second: "The publication was unable to confirm with Apple's PR department the numbers provided by its source, as the company declined to comment."
So Android is for cheapskates or those with limited financial means, is this correct?
Nope. The FreeGS has that market sewn up now.
Android is for stupid and gullible people who believe the lies told to them by salespeople. Oh, and geeks too.
Android sells to the most informed customers, and to the the most ignorant customers. Or something like that.
A major difference between Android and Linux is that Google has found a clever way to monetize Android. Sure, it's a page off the search playbook. But it's nonetheless the first time any company has successfully monetized an OS this way. At the same time, Android's uncontrolled growth and multiplication is a problem for Google and 3rd party developers; but that's a different discussion.
I would suggest that Google has completely failed to find a method to monetize Android. We already know that 2/3 of their mobile search revenue comes not from Android but from iOS. Let that sink in. Android, WP7, BBO and Symbian make up the rest.
I think Google (specifically Larry Page) started down the Android path because he thought it would be cool and he did not think too much on just how to make money on it. I think Google had some nice pie in the sky vissions on how to make it work (like you are driving down the street and get a message
"Wouldn't you like to get a pizza from Jonnie's Pizza for dinner tonight?
There is one coming up on your path in 1/2 mile."
The creep factor is out the roof with that but I doubt Google sees it that way.
At this point, Google is in the hole for billions and billions of dollars with little to indicate there is a financial future in Android from a revenue sense. Take in the money pit called MMI and any potential Oracle liability (I think they will end up with getting $1-$3/handset with a 3X willful infringement for the first 300,000,000) and Android just looks like a financial looser to me.
Here's another one:
Prove.
Me.
Wrong.
If you lose, piss off to a website that discusses products and services that you enjoy.
The only reason why Apple has been able to come out with such innovative products is because Steve made a deal with space aliens to get their technology.
Prove.
Me.
Wrong.
If you lose, piss off.
/s
We are both dealing with ifs. Fact is Google went the Android route (and had decided to do so even before anyone heard of the iPhone) and shit is happening.
So in your mind, no one on the face of the planet had heard of the iPhone until Jan 2007? Steve Jobs just woke up that day and decided to tell his crew to come up with a BSD based phone just so big and have it ready by 10:00am so he could show the world?
I know many Android fans that actually believe the above. They compare the first concept dates of Android to the actual shipping dates of the iPhone to "prove" Android predates the iPhone by years.
I think Google had some nice pie in the sky vissions on how to make it work (like you are driving down the street and get a message
"Wouldn't you like to get a pizza from Jonnie's Pizza for dinner tonight?
There is one coming up on your path in 1/2 mile."
The creep factor is out the roof with that but I doubt Google sees it that way.
Oh, no?
I just had a horrible, horrible realization.
Google WILL be releasing their self-driving car technology. They'll get it working 99.9999999% perfectly, and then they'll release it.
And then cars will be able to drive themselves and humanity will be safer because idiots who don't deserve to be able to drive will be able to be legally barred from driving manually but still get from place to place.
And that'll be great.
But it will come at the price of our ears. Sure, we all have self-driving cars, but they'll all be Google tech. They'll know exactly where we are, and the cars' speakers will bombard us with ads (like the one you outlined above) as it drives (and even if we're driving manually). And there will be no way to turn it off. You either have the ads or you don't get a self-driving car.
What a horrid, horrid, future.
I'm being entirely serious about the above, but the following is (only partially) a joke.
"How about stopping to get a pizza? There's a pizza joint about a mile from here."
"No, car, I don't want one. I don't eat pizza."
"You sure? How about we go there and you can check it out."
"NO, car, I don't want one."
"I'll just take you there and you can be sure."
"NO. CAR, GIVE ME BACK MY STEERING."
"I can assure you, [name], that pizza's pretty good. Just hop out and buy a delicious three-topping large for $9.99 and then I'll take you home and you can eat it."
*banging on the now-locked doors*
Oh, no…
I just had a horrible, horrible realization.
Google WILL be releasing their self-driving car technology. They'll get it working 99.9999999% perfectly, and then they'll release it.
And then cars will be able to drive themselves and humanity will be safer because idiots who don't deserve to be able to drive will be able to be legally barred from driving manually but still get from place to place.
And that'll be great.
But it will come at the price of our ears. Sure, we all have self-driving cars, but they'll all be Google tech. They'll know exactly where we are, and the cars' speakers will bombard us with ads (like the one you outlined above) as it drives (and even if we're driving manually). And there will be no way to turn it off. You either have the ads or you don't get a self-driving car.
What a horrid, horrid, future.
I'm being entirely serious about the above, but the following is (only partially) a joke.
"How about stopping to get a pizza? There's a pizza joint about a mile from here."
"No, car, I don't want one. I don't eat pizza."
"You sure? How about we go there and you can check it out."
"NO, car, I don't want one."
"I'll just take you there and you can be sure."
"NO. CAR, GIVE ME BACK MY STEERING."
"I can assure you, [name], that pizza's pretty good. Just hop out and buy a delicious three-topping large for $9.99 and then I'll take you home and you can eat it."
*banging on the now-locked doors*
And if Apple released such a car, I'm sure you'd would it to be the most brilliant thing ever. Do you people have to examine everything with a single frequency band-pass filter? Why can't see some good and some bad in what every organization does?