Some people don't like the icon/app model that Apple uses. I don't know what constitutes "many" in your mind. But Android is basically the same thing, so moving there doesn't change that much...
No, it isn't. There are multiple different ways to interact with Android apart from starting apps via a launcher. We'd better keep the local discussion to iOS/OSX lest we want to amplify confusion.
"Again, looking at the volume numbers, a lot of people bought at the high. Those people have lost money, whether or not they have realized their losses is a separate point. Let's not argue over whether a loss is a a loss before one has realized it. Lots of people lost their shirts in 2001, but many of them still own the same shares. Their net worth has gone down. They have lost money. That is a legit manner of speaking."
Sheer defense of a poorly used phrase. As you admit, they haven't realized those losses if they haven't sold. Ergo, they haven't lost. They STAND to lose. That's not the same thing.
"Again, looking at the volume numbers, a lot of people bought at the high. Those people have lost money, whether or not they have realized their losses is a separate point. Let's not argue over whether a loss is a a loss before one has realized it. Lots of people lost their shirts in 2001, but many of them still own the same shares. Their net worth has gone down. They have lost money. That is a legit manner of speaking."
Sheer defense of a poorly used phrase. As you admit, they haven't realized those losses if they haven't sold. Ergo, they haven't lost. They STAND to lose. That's not the same thing.
You cant buy if no one is selling, therefore people sold, it may not be the people who bought high, but there are more sellers than buyers currently.
Whats remarkable is that the big story here is being manipulated. Apple probably sells more iPhones in the US than Android devices ( or all other devices) and this can't be put down to the holiday quarter. According to this article:
Apple had 30% of the last quarters sales, compared to 48% for Android. Where Android's share came from nobody seems to know, because Apple leads on Verizon and AT&T, and is at 40% on Sprint. That leaves T-Mobile, and other small carriers where Apple is available for the first time. WE should expect them to do much better than 30% ( in fact its hard to see where the 30% comes from).
Absolutely no investors are looking at the Q1 to Q2 movement, they're all going to be looking at Q2 2012 to Q2 2011. The only people looking at the Q1 to Q2 numbers are bloggers trying to make a story out of nothing.
On a side note, not sure what you guys did to your forum, but it's a mess.
"Again, looking at the volume numbers, a lot of people bought at the high. Those people have lost money, whether or not they have realized their losses is a separate point. Let's not argue over whether a loss is a a loss before one has realized it. Lots of people lost their shirts in 2001, but many of them still own the same shares. Their net worth has gone down. They have lost money. That is a legit manner of speaking."
Sheer defense of a poorly used phrase. As you admit, they haven't realized those losses if they haven't sold. Ergo, they haven't lost. They STAND to lose. That's not the same thing.
Going by your manner of speaking those who put their life savings into high-flying stocks in 2000 but still hold the shares today have not lost their shirts.
But to be precise, while they have lost their life savings, but have not yet lost the "money". What they lost is an asset, and they have most certainly lost net worth. Maybe not "money", as in cash. Are we square now?
Absolutely no investors are looking at the Q1 to Q2 movement, they're all going to be looking at Q2 2012 to Q2 2011. The only people looking at the Q1 to Q2 numbers are bloggers trying to make a story out of nothing.
On a side note, not sure what you guys did to your forum, but it's a mess.
Obviously someone is as the stock is down $10-12 today. Pre-market it wasn't trending that low until AT&T released their numbers.
Again, looking at the volume numbers, a lot of people bought at the high. Those people have lost money, whether or not they have realized their losses is a separate point.
Let's not argue over whether a loss is a a loss before one has realized it. Lots of people lost their shirts in 2001, but many of them still own the same shares.
Their net worth has gone down. They have lost money. That is a legit manner of speaking.
You have -- and are welcome to -- a "legit manner of speaking" with yourself!
Obviously someone is as the stock is down $10-12 today. Pre-market it wasn't trending that low until AT&T released their numbers.
Then they're idiots.
Oh look... the opening statement of the earnings: "Apple on Tuesday announced its best-ever second fiscal quarter, as the company saw its earnings rise 94 percent to $11.6 billion, or $12.30 per diluted share, on quarterly revenue of $39.19 billion. "
The world. Died. Of. Shock.
"The results compare to revenue of $24.7 billion and net profit of $6.0 billion, or $6.40 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter."
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>melgross</strong> <a href="/t/149569/concerns-over-iphone-activation-totals-at-at-t-verizon-seen-as-overblown#post_2100142"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <br /> You may remember that a lot of people were saying the same thing about the 4S before it came out. I doubt the next model will be little changed over the present one though. But as with Apple's products overall, it's both a software and hardware ecosystem that people buy into. If Apple changed the hardware little with the next model, it would still sell well, but not as well as a completely new model would.<br /> If Apple comes out with a completely new model, with a slightly larger screen, and a different case, they could double their sales. Otherwise, sales could go up by maybe 25-50%.</div></div><p> </p><p> There are hardware changes. NEW HOME BUTTON</p>
Apparently, those changes are just to the portion under the glass. We won't see it.
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>melgross</strong> <a href="/t/149569/concerns-over-iphone-activation-totals-at-at-t-verizon-seen-as-overblown#post_2100139"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <br /> Some people don't like the icon/app model that Apple uses. I don't know what constitutes "many" in your mind. But Android is basically the same thing, so moving there doesn't change that much...</div></div><p> </p><p> No, it isn't. There are multiple different ways to interact with Android apart from starting apps via a launcher. We'd better keep the local discussion to iOS/OSX lest we want to amplify confusion.</p><br />
It is. There are other ways, but there are other ways with iOS as well. You can swipe to the right and type a letter or three in to access anything, as an example. But both OS's present themselves the same way, and both are app centric. They are more alike than different.
I know that Android users hate to be told that, and they will find minor ways of attempting to disprove it, but tough.
The only really different phone OS out there right now that may survive the next few years is WPx. That's assuming Microsoft continues to think they need it. The others are gone, or nearly so. The two that are successful are both oriented around the app.
<p> </p><p> Hmm, most of this analysis seems nonsensical as Apple have increased their share of the carriers sales relative to Android. If the carriers are complaining about the iPhone subsidy then, it would seem Apple should call their bluff (probably AT&T's bluff) and drop from that network. The iPhone would still be on far more carriers than a year or so ago, in the US.</p><p> </p><p> Whats the complaint again? People don't have unlimited data plans. iPhone plans last a few years. Ergo per month take is $100 per iPhone user, and the subsidy is removed in a fee months. If they had capital costs to make the networks better that's sunk by now. And iPhone users browse more than Android users, I wonder are they even doing the maths right.</p><p> </p><p> As for the number of worldwide iPhones sold it should increase because the 4S was released in many more countries this Q. </p><p> </p><p> </p>
That's what I said earlier. It's true. All smartphone sales were poorer last quarter than the one before. It's the relative sales of the iPhone to the others that matter. We've been hearing chortling from the Android fan club about how they're burying iOS. But that was when AT&T was the only carrier, and the iPhone had 28% smartphone marketshare with no real competition in the other carriers either.
So sure we all expected Android to do well, after the disaster of the crummy Hero One on T-Mobile. And it did. Very well indeed!
But now that the iPhone is on Sprint and Verizon, though not the 3GS, surprises are happening. It seems that for the past six months, iPhone sales are surpassing Android sales. That's an important metric.
What would we have seen this quarter if it were also officially on T-Mobile, MetroPCS, etc?
So winter sales are off all around. What else is new?
It is. There are other ways, but there are other ways with iOS as well. You can swipe to the right and type a letter or three in to access anything, as an example. But both OS's present themselves the same way, and both are app centric. They are more alike than different.
I know that Android users hate to be told that, and they will find minor ways of attempting to disprove it, but tough.
The only really different phone OS out there right now that may survive the next few years is WPx. That's assuming Microsoft continues to think they need it. The others are gone, or nearly so. The two that are successful are both oriented around the app.
There's the concept of "intents" in Android, which allows the appropriate action to be performed on an object without the user knowing anything about which apps are active. There are widgets, which neither require the app drawer to be used, nor are started as normal apps. There are file managers, which would allow many alternative actions to be performed on any file inside a folder. So not everytning requires the user to explicitly interact with any form of an app launcher.
If by "app centric" you mean that specific tasks are performed by distinct programs, I don't see how that is different in WP or any other computer system.
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>melgross</strong> <a href="/t/149569/concerns-over-iphone-activation-totals-at-at-t-verizon-seen-as-overblown/40#post_2100489"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <br /> It is. There are other ways, but there are other ways with iOS as well. You can swipe to the right and type a letter or three in to access anything, as an example. But both OS's present themselves the same way, and both are app centric. They are more alike than different.<br /> I know that Android users hate to be told that, and they will find minor ways of attempting to disprove it, but tough.<br /> The only really different phone OS out there right now that may survive the next few years is WPx. That's assuming Microsoft continues to think they need it. The others are gone, or nearly so. The two that are successful are both oriented around the app.</div></div><p> </p><p> There's the concept of "intents" in Android, which allows the appropriate action to be performed on an object without the user knowing anything about which apps are active. There are widgets, which neither require the app drawer to be used, nor are started as normal apps. There are file managers, which would allow many alternative actions to be performed on any file inside a folder. So not everytning requires the user to explicitly interact with any form of an app launcher.</p><p> </p><p> If by "app centric" you mean that specific tasks are performed by distinct programs, I don't see how that is different in WP or any other computer system.</p><br />
What I mean is that the vast majority of Android users aren't going to use most, or any, of the alternatives you mentioned. Those are more for the techie crowd. Android users I've seen, at most, use widgets. As far as the rest are concerned; they haven't a clue. They use the phone almost exactly as an iPhone is used by tapping on an app.
WP7 is different. Live tiles aren't exactly apps. A number of services are conglomerates together, and there are widgets which play a much greater part than they do in Android. The entire UI is different, and organized differently as well.
What I mean is that the vast majority of Android users aren't going to use most, or any, of the alternatives you mentioned. Those are more for the techie crowd. Android users I've seen, at most, use widgets. As far as the rest are concerned; they haven't a clue. They use the phone almost exactly as an iPhone is used by tapping on an app.
WP7 is different. Live tiles aren't exactly apps. A number of services are conglomerates together, and there are widgets which play a much greater part than they do in Android. The entire UI is different, and organized differently as well.
You're moving the goal posts -- first you say that Android is the same as iOS, then you say that non-tech users use Android as if it was iOS; yet you're wrong again. Every Android user takes advantage of the features of the OS without the need to know the mechanism behind it. One example is the seamless integration of 3-rd party applications with the OS which allows for many default actions to be done in more than one way. Another is the customization to the OS done by hardware vendors, which clearly plays a role in consumer choices; similar customization is as easy to achieve by a non-techy user simply by installing a new launcher app. And finally, I see little difference between WP7 live tiles and Android widgets; the original launcher of my two-year old Android phone came preloaded with custom widgets for all common functions, and those widgets were guiding the entire user experience much as we see with WP tiles now.
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>melgross</strong> <a href="/t/149569/concerns-over-iphone-activation-totals-at-at-t-verizon-seen-as-overblown/40#post_2100991"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <br /> What I mean is that the vast majority of Android users aren't going to use most, or any, of the alternatives you mentioned. Those are more for the techie crowd. Android users I've seen, at most, use widgets. As far as the rest are concerned; they haven't a clue. They use the phone almost exactly as an iPhone is used by tapping on an app.<br /> WP7 is different. Live tiles aren't exactly apps. A number of services are conglomerates together, and there are widgets which play a much greater part than they do in Android. The entire UI is different, and organized differently as well.</div></div><p> You're moving the goal posts -- first you say that Android is the same as iOS, then you say that non-tech users use Android as if it was iOS; yet you're wrong again. Every Android user takes advantage of the features of the OS without the need to know the mechanism behind it. One example is the seamless integration of 3-rd party applications with the OS which allows for many default actions to be done in more than one way. Another is the customization to the OS done by hardware vendors, which clearly plays a role in consumer choices; similar customization is as easy to achieve by a non-techy user simply by installing a new launcher app. And finally, I see little difference between WP7 live tiles and Android widgets; the original launcher of my two-year old Android phone came preloaded with custom widgets for all common functions, and those widgets were guiding the entire user experience much as we see with WP tiles now.</p><p> </p><br />
I didn't say that it was "the same". I said that it was "basically the same". If it were the same, it would be iOS. Obviously, there are differences. But at what point are two things different enough so that it can be said that they are different? We know from the Google Oracle trial that the original intent of Android was radically different from what they ended up with. They ended up with what they did because of the iPhone. Schmitt has said that years ago. There's no disagreement there. The only question is whether they are more alike than different, or more different than alike.
More writers on this subject agree that they are more alike than different, though over the years they have been diverging more in some areas, while in others, they have been converging.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Some people don't like the icon/app model that Apple uses. I don't know what constitutes "many" in your mind. But Android is basically the same thing, so moving there doesn't change that much...
No, it isn't. There are multiple different ways to interact with Android apart from starting apps via a launcher. We'd better keep the local discussion to iOS/OSX lest we want to amplify confusion.
"Again, looking at the volume numbers, a lot of people bought at the high. Those people have lost money, whether or not they have realized their losses is a separate point. Let's not argue over whether a loss is a a loss before one has realized it. Lots of people lost their shirts in 2001, but many of them still own the same shares. Their net worth has gone down. They have lost money. That is a legit manner of speaking."
Sheer defense of a poorly used phrase. As you admit, they haven't realized those losses if they haven't sold. Ergo, they haven't lost. They STAND to lose. That's not the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
There are hardware changes. NEW HOME BUTTON
I see design changes happening, but that's not one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe
"Again, looking at the volume numbers, a lot of people bought at the high. Those people have lost money, whether or not they have realized their losses is a separate point. Let's not argue over whether a loss is a a loss before one has realized it. Lots of people lost their shirts in 2001, but many of them still own the same shares. Their net worth has gone down. They have lost money. That is a legit manner of speaking."
Sheer defense of a poorly used phrase. As you admit, they haven't realized those losses if they haven't sold. Ergo, they haven't lost. They STAND to lose. That's not the same thing.
You cant buy if no one is selling, therefore people sold, it may not be the people who bought high, but there are more sellers than buyers currently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I see design changes happening, but that's not one of them.
You made the first comment on it.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/149547/purported-next-gen-iphone-home-button-has-modified-design
It is a rumor site also so nothing at this site may be true
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
You made the first comment on it.
Where I expressed my disbelief thereof.
Quote:
It is a rumor site also so nothing at this site may be true
Ain't that the truth…
Whats remarkable is that the big story here is being manipulated. Apple probably sells more iPhones in the US than Android devices ( or all other devices) and this can't be put down to the holiday quarter. According to this article:
http://************/2012/02/02/comscore-iphone-now-at-30-us-smartphone-marketshare-12-ios-marketshare/
Apple had 30% of the last quarters sales, compared to 48% for Android. Where Android's share came from nobody seems to know, because Apple leads on Verizon and AT&T, and is at 40% on Sprint. That leaves T-Mobile, and other small carriers where Apple is available for the first time. WE should expect them to do much better than 30% ( in fact its hard to see where the 30% comes from).
Absolutely no investors are looking at the Q1 to Q2 movement, they're all going to be looking at Q2 2012 to Q2 2011. The only people looking at the Q1 to Q2 numbers are bloggers trying to make a story out of nothing.
On a side note, not sure what you guys did to your forum, but it's a mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe
"Again, looking at the volume numbers, a lot of people bought at the high. Those people have lost money, whether or not they have realized their losses is a separate point. Let's not argue over whether a loss is a a loss before one has realized it. Lots of people lost their shirts in 2001, but many of them still own the same shares. Their net worth has gone down. They have lost money. That is a legit manner of speaking."
Sheer defense of a poorly used phrase. As you admit, they haven't realized those losses if they haven't sold. Ergo, they haven't lost. They STAND to lose. That's not the same thing.
Going by your manner of speaking those who put their life savings into high-flying stocks in 2000 but still hold the shares today have not lost their shirts.
But to be precise, while they have lost their life savings, but have not yet lost the "money". What they lost is an asset, and they have most certainly lost net worth. Maybe not "money", as in cash. Are we square now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook
Absolutely no investors are looking at the Q1 to Q2 movement, they're all going to be looking at Q2 2012 to Q2 2011. The only people looking at the Q1 to Q2 numbers are bloggers trying to make a story out of nothing.
On a side note, not sure what you guys did to your forum, but it's a mess.
Obviously someone is as the stock is down $10-12 today. Pre-market it wasn't trending that low until AT&T released their numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Again, looking at the volume numbers, a lot of people bought at the high. Those people have lost money, whether or not they have realized their losses is a separate point.
Let's not argue over whether a loss is a a loss before one has realized it. Lots of people lost their shirts in 2001, but many of them still own the same shares.
Their net worth has gone down. They have lost money. That is a legit manner of speaking.
You have -- and are welcome to -- a "legit manner of speaking" with yourself!
I am very glad for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Obviously someone is as the stock is down $10-12 today. Pre-market it wasn't trending that low until AT&T released their numbers.
Then they're idiots.
Oh look... the opening statement of the earnings: "Apple on Tuesday announced its best-ever second fiscal quarter, as the company saw its earnings rise 94 percent to $11.6 billion, or $12.30 per diluted share, on quarterly revenue of $39.19 billion. "
The world. Died. Of. Shock.
"The results compare to revenue of $24.7 billion and net profit of $6.0 billion, or $6.40 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter."
No... surely not!
Apparently, those changes are just to the portion under the glass. We won't see it.
It is. There are other ways, but there are other ways with iOS as well. You can swipe to the right and type a letter or three in to access anything, as an example. But both OS's present themselves the same way, and both are app centric. They are more alike than different.
I know that Android users hate to be told that, and they will find minor ways of attempting to disprove it, but tough.
The only really different phone OS out there right now that may survive the next few years is WPx. That's assuming Microsoft continues to think they need it. The others are gone, or nearly so. The two that are successful are both oriented around the app.
That's what I said earlier. It's true. All smartphone sales were poorer last quarter than the one before. It's the relative sales of the iPhone to the others that matter. We've been hearing chortling from the Android fan club about how they're burying iOS. But that was when AT&T was the only carrier, and the iPhone had 28% smartphone marketshare with no real competition in the other carriers either.
So sure we all expected Android to do well, after the disaster of the crummy Hero One on T-Mobile. And it did. Very well indeed!
But now that the iPhone is on Sprint and Verizon, though not the 3GS, surprises are happening. It seems that for the past six months, iPhone sales are surpassing Android sales. That's an important metric.
What would we have seen this quarter if it were also officially on T-Mobile, MetroPCS, etc?
So winter sales are off all around. What else is new?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/04/25/apple-q1-u-s-smartphone-mkt-shr-59-vs-36-year-earlier/?partner=yahoofeed
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It is. There are other ways, but there are other ways with iOS as well. You can swipe to the right and type a letter or three in to access anything, as an example. But both OS's present themselves the same way, and both are app centric. They are more alike than different.
I know that Android users hate to be told that, and they will find minor ways of attempting to disprove it, but tough.
The only really different phone OS out there right now that may survive the next few years is WPx. That's assuming Microsoft continues to think they need it. The others are gone, or nearly so. The two that are successful are both oriented around the app.
There's the concept of "intents" in Android, which allows the appropriate action to be performed on an object without the user knowing anything about which apps are active. There are widgets, which neither require the app drawer to be used, nor are started as normal apps. There are file managers, which would allow many alternative actions to be performed on any file inside a folder. So not everytning requires the user to explicitly interact with any form of an app launcher.
If by "app centric" you mean that specific tasks are performed by distinct programs, I don't see how that is different in WP or any other computer system.
What I mean is that the vast majority of Android users aren't going to use most, or any, of the alternatives you mentioned. Those are more for the techie crowd. Android users I've seen, at most, use widgets. As far as the rest are concerned; they haven't a clue. They use the phone almost exactly as an iPhone is used by tapping on an app.
WP7 is different. Live tiles aren't exactly apps. A number of services are conglomerates together, and there are widgets which play a much greater part than they do in Android. The entire UI is different, and organized differently as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
What I mean is that the vast majority of Android users aren't going to use most, or any, of the alternatives you mentioned. Those are more for the techie crowd. Android users I've seen, at most, use widgets. As far as the rest are concerned; they haven't a clue. They use the phone almost exactly as an iPhone is used by tapping on an app.
WP7 is different. Live tiles aren't exactly apps. A number of services are conglomerates together, and there are widgets which play a much greater part than they do in Android. The entire UI is different, and organized differently as well.
You're moving the goal posts -- first you say that Android is the same as iOS, then you say that non-tech users use Android as if it was iOS; yet you're wrong again. Every Android user takes advantage of the features of the OS without the need to know the mechanism behind it. One example is the seamless integration of 3-rd party applications with the OS which allows for many default actions to be done in more than one way. Another is the customization to the OS done by hardware vendors, which clearly plays a role in consumer choices; similar customization is as easy to achieve by a non-techy user simply by installing a new launcher app. And finally, I see little difference between WP7 live tiles and Android widgets; the original launcher of my two-year old Android phone came preloaded with custom widgets for all common functions, and those widgets were guiding the entire user experience much as we see with WP tiles now.
I didn't say that it was "the same". I said that it was "basically the same". If it were the same, it would be iOS. Obviously, there are differences. But at what point are two things different enough so that it can be said that they are different? We know from the Google Oracle trial that the original intent of Android was radically different from what they ended up with. They ended up with what they did because of the iPhone. Schmitt has said that years ago. There's no disagreement there. The only question is whether they are more alike than different, or more different than alike.
More writers on this subject agree that they are more alike than different, though over the years they have been diverging more in some areas, while in others, they have been converging.