Yes they have. I've actually repeated it for you. You just don't listen to any voice but your own.
According to Andy Rubin an activation is just what it sounds like it is. You buy a handset and the carrier activates it. Simple. Each device is only counted once, using it's unique device identifier number. Flashing new ROM's, selling it to another user, changing SIM cards doesn't result in another "activation". It's still the same unique device number and not counted again.
Assuming he's not lying to the world, and there's absolutely no evidence he is (unless you have the smoking gun) why would the activation numbers not be painting a reasonably accurate picture of actual end-user purchases?
Your idea would depend on a number of assumptions, the biggest being that Google licenses each device individually rather than issuing a blanket license for x-number of builds, and that they somehow are crediting back for un-used licenses.
Why would you be so sure Google credits back a license, or what purpose would that serve? They don't charge for one and there's no monetary cost in either direction so why bother with it. Even if they did, assume Samsung takes a license to build 30M Galaxy 3's. When do you count those licenses as actual devices in the marketplace, and how does that equate to end-user purchases? At what point would Samsung need to say "we don't need the rest of the licenses you gave us so you can have the rest of these back". How would it figure into issued license numbers from several months prior? Terrible idea that I don't believe you put much thought into if you think it would be proof of current handset sales..
Rubin's wording of how activations are counted is nebulous enough that it doesn't say what you claim.
The fact is that they're not being transparent on the number of licenses. He's playing games with numbers. It would be easy for them to provide exact figures, so why don't they?
Why use a nebulous, non-standard, poorly defined figure when it would be trivial to post the exact numbers unless they're obfuscating. And no one has ever explained how they are able to back out all the multiple activations or multiple SIM cards that can be used with one phone.
In every single electronic device there are myriad patents. If FRAND is abused/ignored, there is the potential to bring the whole trade in electronic systems down. FRAND exists for a reason. Very slippery slope to try and manipulate the market using such patents. The FTC is investigating, however, the question is who has the authority to get this sorted out? I kind of hope that it doesn't come down to the courts.
The court system isn't always a failure on these cases. A lot of it comes down to the parties and their record keeping. If, for example, Apple is using a FRAND patent and didn't try to license it, they are in the wrong. If they tried, and have records of it, and Moto or whomever, asked for something excessive or tried to force the licensing of one of Apple's nonFRAND patents for the deal, whomever is in the wrong. The excessive issue isn't always clear from the start because these deals are often sealed from the public so while Apple might feel it was excessive, it could be in fact the same that everyone pays and that will be revealed by court decision during the trial.
Rubin's wording of how activations are counted is nebulous enough that it doesn't say what you claim.
The fact is that they're not being transparent on the number of licenses. He's playing games with numbers. It would be easy for them to provide exact figures, so why don't they?
For example, Google licenses ActiveSync from Microsoft to use in Android. The license fees from Microsoft are per-unit, so in order to pay the MS license fees, they have to have an exact number of units sold.
Why use a nebulous, non-standard, poorly defined figure when it would be trivial to post the exact numbers unless they're obfuscating. And no one has ever explained how they are able to back out all the multiple activations or multiple SIM cards that can be used with one phone.
I can't help it if you choose not to believe anything said. What matter is it how many licenses were handed out? I thought you wanted to know how many Android devices were actually sold to an end-user?? You don't even have the terms that Microsoft gave Google. Their 'standard" license would be for a flat $100K the first year regardless of numbers and per device after that. Since Google doesn't sell any devices the royalty basis could be determined by some other method including a flat per-year fee or anything else they might agree as appropriate..
If you have some evidence that Rubin is lying about how activations are counted please do post them. If you have a more reliable method of counting actual end-user purchases, please explain it. Otherwise I have no idea what it is that you want. I suspect there is nothing that would satisfy you as your mind is already set that they must be wrong. But that's probably just the scientist in you coming out.
Unless they count multiple activations per account. Since they've never given an exact methodology for determining their numbers, there's no way of knowing - since most of the Android vendors refuse to publicize how many units were sold.
Of course you believe that. You believe everything Google pays you to believe.
Reporting the actual number of handsets made would be a very useful figure - especially since most licenses would allow you to deduct any unsold handsets.
It's true that they don't release their exact methodology but that's true for most companies, including Apple. Sometimes the methodology is simple enough that you don't need an exact methodology but usually it's just not given.
For example, we don't know Apple's exact methodology of what a sale is but it's transparent so there is no question about the exact methodology. Google is less clear on, well, everything but we do have Google execs giving clear enough statements (that I've actually verified using previous declarations) that I am inclined to take the number they say a fact.
There are still ways that companies can use clever but technically truthful language but that's true for any good company. If there is anything that shocks me about Android's number is that they aren't higher. MS took over 90% of the PC market with a very expensive OS and yet Android can't seem to push past 50% of the smartphone market (much smaller share of the handset market), and nearly nothing on the PMP, tablet, notebook, or media appliance markets despite it being absolutely free for OEMs. It's not like it's an antiquated OS that little use in today's tech industry.
Apple is taking the profits from PCs, PMPs, smartphones and handsets, tablets, and probably have the more profitable digital media streamer and yet Google is still far in debt with Android and related purchases and still makes the bulk of it's mobile profits from iOS devices. When the only argument one can use to compare to Apple is, "Well, Android [OS{is installed on 3x as many iPhones [devices]" you have to know that you reason is long gone.
I'm just as surprised that Apple's smartphone marketshare isn't higher than it is. They have a first mover advantage, great design, excellent vertical integration with their other products, incredibly effective marketing, smart and experienced management, and total control of their product from OS thru to the product design, thru manufacturing and thru the distribution channels.
That Google has been able to roll out their somewhat fractured OS thru multiple manufacturers and hardware combinations while still maintaining some semblance of an integrated ecosystem and in only about three years take more than half the smartphone market share is the bigger surprise IMO. Three years ago I figured Apple would be the one closer to that position today (tho not half of the market), as probably a lot of others did.
I'm just as surprised that Apple's smartphone marketshare isn't higher than it is. They have a first mover advantage, great design, excellent vertical integration with their other products, incredibly effective marketing, and total control of their product from OS thru to the product design, thru manufacturing and thru the distribution channels. That Google has been able to roll out their somewhat fractured OS thru multiple manufacturers and hardware combinations while still maintaining some semblance of an integrated ecosystem and in only about three years take more than half the smartphone market share is the bigger surprise IMO. Three years ago I figured Apple would be the one closer to that position today (tho not half of the market), as probably a lot of others did.
What?! It's very high for a single OEM even without considering that Apple only sells devices in the premium sector as noted by their profit share.
First mover advantage? Let's remember that Apple sold its first iPhone only 5 years ago yesterday while I don't think any major Android-based OEM has less than 10 years in the handset market. Let's also remember that it was deemed so entrenched that Apple could never think to get just 1% of the market. I have a feeling you would have been in that crowd 5 years ago.
Your position is completely off since you're looking it at from the position of Android, a free OS, and the iPhone, a complete HW and SW product. A lunatic can disperse his manifesto faster than a NYT's best seller can vend a novel.
What?! It's very high for a single OEM even without considering that Apple only sells devices in the premium sector as noted by their profit share.
First mover advantage? Let's remember that Apple sold its first iPhone only 5 years ago yesterday while I don't think any major Android-based OEM has less than 10 years in the handset market. Let's also remember that it was deemed so entrenched that Apple could never think to get just 1% of the market. I have a feeling you would have been in that crowd 5 years ago.
Your position is completely off since you're looking it at from the position of Android, a free OS, and the iPhone, a complete HW and SW product. A lunatic can disperse his manifesto faster than a NYT's best seller can vend a novel.
You have perfectly valid points (except that your quoted 1% was of total mobile phone sales, not the smaller smartphone segment. They already had their 1% of total mobile phone share by 2008 too), but Android's fast rise to 50%+ share couldn't have been predicted even three years ago, and for me personally that's the bigger surprise.
BTW, just for giggles take a look at this smartphone projection based on a Gartner report, published in October 2009 :
What?! It's very high for a single OEM even without considering that Apple only sells devices in the premium sector as noted by their profit share.
First mover advantage? Let's remember that Apple sold its first iPhone only 5 years ago yesterday while I don't think any major Android-based OEM has less than 10 years in the handset market. Let's also remember that it was deemed so entrenched that Apple could never think to get just 1% of the market. I have a feeling you would have been in that crowd 5 years ago.
Yep - it's hilarious that GG is saying that he's underwhelmed with Apple's share when all the Apple haters like him (I don't remember if he was here then or not and don't care to check) were frothing at the mouth and saying that Apple would never sell the phone because it was too expensive and 10,000 other reasons. Apple's stated goal of getting 1% of the market was perceived as being hopelessly optimistic.
Now that they're at many times that figure, it's a sign of failure.
Apple could give away a free iPhone and iPad to every person on the planet ant tuck $100 bills into the package and these people would find something to complain about.
For our newer members, remember this next time you see analyst projections.
I bet DigiTimes has a better track record than these tech analysts.
PS: I wish posters would stop pointing out that anal is contained in the word analysts. If it was ever funny it's long since been played out. I recommend posters at least attempting to be original even if it's not that funny or accurate. Like calling these prognosticators Nostradumbasses.
The court system isn't always a failure on these cases. A lot of it comes down to the parties and their record keeping. If, for example, Apple is using a FRAND patent and didn't try to license it, they are in the wrong. If they tried, and have records of it, and Moto or whomever, asked for something excessive or tried to force the licensing of one of Apple's nonFRAND patents for the deal, whomever is in the wrong. The excessive issue isn't always clear from the start because these deals are often sealed from the public so while Apple might feel it was excessive, it could be in fact the same that everyone pays and that will be revealed by court decision during the trial.
The whole point to FRAND licensing points to an error in your reasoning. I believe (correct me if I am wrong), that one case against Apple involving a FRAND encumbered patent was one that Apple made no attempt to license and were correct in not doing so. This is because Apple was using a commercial product, a (baseband?) chip produced by Qualcomm that was itself the subject of no doubt more than one patent, probably many, of which one at least that they had licensed under FRAND terms from Moto. Motorola simply wanted more money because of Apple's standing in the market, this being nothing short of extortion. The whole point of FRAND terms is that many, many patents can be licensed in just one component or product without making that part insanely expensive to produce. Apple naturally had no need under normal rules of commerce to license the patent in question.
My comment about the courts was not intended as a reflection on the court system but one about the complexity of the problem and one therefore, that the FTC could examinee more thoroughly than the courts probably would have the opportunity to do.
Yep - it's hilarious that GG is saying that he's underwhelmed with Apple's share when all the Apple haters like him (I don't remember if he was here then or not and don't care to check) were frothing at the mouth and saying that Apple would never sell the phone because it was too expensive and 10,000 other reasons. Apple's stated goal of getting 1% of the market was perceived as being hopelessly optimistic.
Now that they're at many times that figure, it's a sign of failure.
Apple could give away a free iPhone and iPad to every person on the planet ant tuck $100 bills into the package and these people would find something to complain about.
I don't agree with Gatorguy's opinion but his previous post does present a valid argument for position.
One thing that Android fans should note is that it's because of the iPhone Android was given an opportunity to be successful. Now the pre-iPhone Android would probably have done very well but the iPhone knocked everyone on their ass so quickly that only Android was able to follow the new path Apple was carving out. That said, iPhone/iOS fans should note that Android was the only mobile OS that was nimble and modern enough to both follow and become viable in the wake of the new market Apple opened up. Both are impressive regardless of how you feel about anything else.
To put it bluntly in a metaphor, the iPhone is the asteroid that caused mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs and Android has capitalized on that fact by climbing up from under the ground.
To put it bluntly in a metaphor, the iPhone is the asteroid that caused mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs and Android has capitalized on that fact by climbing up from under the ground.
So you are saying that the iPhone is a steaming hunk of minerals, while Android is the most evolved life form on the planet?
Rubin's wording of how activations are counted is nebulous enough that it doesn't say what you claim.
Given the choice of believing an officer of a large publicly-traded corporation, and believing a guy who cannot seem to understand clear, declarative sentences, never gives support to his bizarre contentions, and never admits to the slightest little error, I'll choose the former.
I can't wait for all the trolls who will tell us that:
1. Google has never done anything wrong
2. It is Apple who is abusing the legal system
3. Android products don't look anything at all like Apple products
4. Even if they do, it's because that's the only way for a cell phone to look
5. Apple doesn't want to innovate, they only want to sue
6. Google is a great innovator, but Apple won't let them
7. Android is open, so it's automatically better
8. Apple copied everything from Google
9. Google gave away umpty zillion Android licenses (ever notice how Google talks about activations, but never talks about how many licenses were issued? I'd be willing to bet that the contract requires the handset manufacturers to enumerate the licenses, so why doesn't Google give us REAL numbers?)
10. Since Android is free, even a unemployed World of Warcraft player living in his parents' basement can afford it, so it's better
11. This doesn't matter because the FTC will be overturned by the courts
Did I miss any of the regular troll arguments?
12. Android products DO look like Apple products, but Apple copied LG Prada and that Samsung picture frame from one angle, and Windows tablets from 2002, therefore Android is better than Apple.
13. Google had voice command before Siri, and they are exactly the same thing
14. Siri sucks because it's from Apple (even though it was originally spun off from SRI military research project)
15. 1M Activations daily
16. I fear it's because of draconian Apple Store policies
17. Android doesn't have viruses and spyware because Path was uploaded iOS address books to their servers
18. Android doesn't have fragmentation because Apple still sells the 3GS
19. Android doesn't have slow performance because iOS 4 was slow on the iPhone 3GS
20. You mess with the bull, you get the horn (ruling unfavorable to Apple)
21. How long has Apple been paying the judge? (ruling favorable to Apple)
22. Apple is afraid of a little competition
It's true that they don't release their exact methodology but that's true for most companies, including Apple. Sometimes the methodology is simple enough that you don't need an exact methodology but usually it's just not given.
For example, we don't know Apple's exact methodology of what a sale is but it's transparent so there is no question about the exact methodology. Google is less clear on, well, everything but we do have Google execs giving clear enough statements (that I've actually verified using previous declarations) that I am inclined to take the number they say a fact.
...
I don't think there is any ambiguity in Apple's numbers simply because there aren't any iPhones lying around on shelves. That's partly because of the way they run the company and partly due to demand.
Google on the other hand, has a history of making false and misleading statements, and even outright lying (think, street view data collection, where they outright lied to regulators). Their numbers are also suspect to those of us in the US because, on the street, Android phones simply don't outnumber iPhones, and, obviously not to the degree they should, if the numbers are valid. Also, web site acces numbers simply don't support Googles number. So, if they are valid, it means that Google is counting a bunch of probably not-so-smartphones being sold... where? Whatever the reason, Google's numbers seem a little fishy when combined with what should be corroborating evidence, evidence which doesn't corroborate. The fact that they have a history of dishonesty, combined with the lack of corroborating evidence casts a good bit of doubt on a) how real the numbers are and b) whether, if they are real, they are even relevant to anyone.
And, none of that even touches on what we know about GG, which makes everything he says somewhat less than entirely credible.
Assuming he's not lying to the world, and there's absolutely no evidence he is (unless you have the smoking gun) why would the activation numbers not be painting a reasonably accurate picture of actual end-user purchases?
Riddle me this, then:
If they are activating a million new phones a day, why is the marketshare of any device with Android 3.0 or higher so low?
Is it that they are all cheapy phones that aren't actually being used as smartphones?
Comments
Rubin's wording of how activations are counted is nebulous enough that it doesn't say what you claim.
The fact is that they're not being transparent on the number of licenses. He's playing games with numbers. It would be easy for them to provide exact figures, so why don't they?
For example, Google licenses ActiveSync from Microsoft to use in Android. The license fees from Microsoft are per-unit, so in order to pay the MS license fees, they have to have an exact number of units sold.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/in-apples-footsteps-google-licenses-microsoft-activesync/1954
Why use a nebulous, non-standard, poorly defined figure when it would be trivial to post the exact numbers unless they're obfuscating. And no one has ever explained how they are able to back out all the multiple activations or multiple SIM cards that can be used with one phone.
This is what $12.5 billion bought.
And it isn't even good for a tablet, apparently.
The court system isn't always a failure on these cases. A lot of it comes down to the parties and their record keeping. If, for example, Apple is using a FRAND patent and didn't try to license it, they are in the wrong. If they tried, and have records of it, and Moto or whomever, asked for something excessive or tried to force the licensing of one of Apple's nonFRAND patents for the deal, whomever is in the wrong. The excessive issue isn't always clear from the start because these deals are often sealed from the public so while Apple might feel it was excessive, it could be in fact the same that everyone pays and that will be revealed by court decision during the trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Rubin's wording of how activations are counted is nebulous enough that it doesn't say what you claim.
The fact is that they're not being transparent on the number of licenses. He's playing games with numbers. It would be easy for them to provide exact figures, so why don't they?
For example, Google licenses ActiveSync from Microsoft to use in Android. The license fees from Microsoft are per-unit, so in order to pay the MS license fees, they have to have an exact number of units sold.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/in-apples-footsteps-google-licenses-microsoft-activesync/1954
Why use a nebulous, non-standard, poorly defined figure when it would be trivial to post the exact numbers unless they're obfuscating. And no one has ever explained how they are able to back out all the multiple activations or multiple SIM cards that can be used with one phone.
I can't help it if you choose not to believe anything said. What matter is it how many licenses were handed out? I thought you wanted to know how many Android devices were actually sold to an end-user?? You don't even have the terms that Microsoft gave Google. Their 'standard" license would be for a flat $100K the first year regardless of numbers and per device after that. Since Google doesn't sell any devices the royalty basis could be determined by some other method including a flat per-year fee or anything else they might agree as appropriate..
If you have some evidence that Rubin is lying about how activations are counted please do post them. If you have a more reliable method of counting actual end-user purchases, please explain it. Otherwise I have no idea what it is that you want. I suspect there is nothing that would satisfy you as your mind is already set that they must be wrong. But that's probably just the scientist in you coming out.
It's true that they don't release their exact methodology but that's true for most companies, including Apple. Sometimes the methodology is simple enough that you don't need an exact methodology but usually it's just not given.
For example, we don't know Apple's exact methodology of what a sale is but it's transparent so there is no question about the exact methodology. Google is less clear on, well, everything but we do have Google execs giving clear enough statements (that I've actually verified using previous declarations) that I am inclined to take the number they say a fact.
There are still ways that companies can use clever but technically truthful language but that's true for any good company. If there is anything that shocks me about Android's number is that they aren't higher. MS took over 90% of the PC market with a very expensive OS and yet Android can't seem to push past 50% of the smartphone market (much smaller share of the handset market), and nearly nothing on the PMP, tablet, notebook, or media appliance markets despite it being absolutely free for OEMs. It's not like it's an antiquated OS that little use in today's tech industry.
Apple is taking the profits from PCs, PMPs, smartphones and handsets, tablets, and probably have the more profitable digital media streamer and yet Google is still far in debt with Android and related purchases and still makes the bulk of it's mobile profits from iOS devices. When the only argument one can use to compare to Apple is, "Well, Android [OS{is installed on 3x as many iPhones [devices]" you have to know that you reason is long gone.
I'm just as surprised that Apple's smartphone marketshare isn't higher than it is. They have a first mover advantage, great design, excellent vertical integration with their other products, incredibly effective marketing, smart and experienced management, and total control of their product from OS thru to the product design, thru manufacturing and thru the distribution channels.
That Google has been able to roll out their somewhat fractured OS thru multiple manufacturers and hardware combinations while still maintaining some semblance of an integrated ecosystem and in only about three years take more than half the smartphone market share is the bigger surprise IMO. Three years ago I figured Apple would be the one closer to that position today (tho not half of the market), as probably a lot of others did.
What?! It's very high for a single OEM even without considering that Apple only sells devices in the premium sector as noted by their profit share.
First mover advantage? Let's remember that Apple sold its first iPhone only 5 years ago yesterday while I don't think any major Android-based OEM has less than 10 years in the handset market. Let's also remember that it was deemed so entrenched that Apple could never think to get just 1% of the market. I have a feeling you would have been in that crowd 5 years ago.
Your position is completely off since you're looking it at from the position of Android, a free OS, and the iPhone, a complete HW and SW product. A lunatic can disperse his manifesto faster than a NYT's best seller can vend a novel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
What?! It's very high for a single OEM even without considering that Apple only sells devices in the premium sector as noted by their profit share.
First mover advantage? Let's remember that Apple sold its first iPhone only 5 years ago yesterday while I don't think any major Android-based OEM has less than 10 years in the handset market. Let's also remember that it was deemed so entrenched that Apple could never think to get just 1% of the market. I have a feeling you would have been in that crowd 5 years ago.
Your position is completely off since you're looking it at from the position of Android, a free OS, and the iPhone, a complete HW and SW product. A lunatic can disperse his manifesto faster than a NYT's best seller can vend a novel.
You have perfectly valid points (except that your quoted 1% was of total mobile phone sales, not the smaller smartphone segment. They already had their 1% of total mobile phone share by 2008 too), but Android's fast rise to 50%+ share couldn't have been predicted even three years ago, and for me personally that's the bigger surprise.
BTW, just for giggles take a look at this smartphone projection based on a Gartner report, published in October 2009
http://www.webosnation.com/webos-projected-have-just-1-4-market-share-2012
For this year (2012) they said to expect these smartphone sales numbers:
Symbian, 196.5 million sold, 37.4% share
Android, 94.5 million sold, 18% share
BlackBerry, 73 million sold, 13.9%
iPhone, 71.5 million sold; 13.6% share
Windows Mobile, 47.7 million sold, 9% share
Maemo, 23.5 million sold, 4.5% share
Linux (generally), 11 million, 2.1% share
WebOS (from Palm Inc.) 7.6 million sold, 1.4% share.
For our newer members, remember this next time you see analyst projections.
Yep - it's hilarious that GG is saying that he's underwhelmed with Apple's share when all the Apple haters like him (I don't remember if he was here then or not and don't care to check) were frothing at the mouth and saying that Apple would never sell the phone because it was too expensive and 10,000 other reasons. Apple's stated goal of getting 1% of the market was perceived as being hopelessly optimistic.
Now that they're at many times that figure, it's a sign of failure.
Apple could give away a free iPhone and iPad to every person on the planet ant tuck $100 bills into the package and these people would find something to complain about.
I bet DigiTimes has a better track record than these tech analysts.
PS: I wish posters would stop pointing out that anal is contained in the word analysts. If it was ever funny it's long since been played out. I recommend posters at least attempting to be original even if it's not that funny or accurate. Like calling these prognosticators Nostradumbasses.
Halle-frackin-luiah!
Finally, someone at the FTC decides to do their job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
The court system isn't always a failure on these cases. A lot of it comes down to the parties and their record keeping. If, for example, Apple is using a FRAND patent and didn't try to license it, they are in the wrong. If they tried, and have records of it, and Moto or whomever, asked for something excessive or tried to force the licensing of one of Apple's nonFRAND patents for the deal, whomever is in the wrong. The excessive issue isn't always clear from the start because these deals are often sealed from the public so while Apple might feel it was excessive, it could be in fact the same that everyone pays and that will be revealed by court decision during the trial.
The whole point to FRAND licensing points to an error in your reasoning. I believe (correct me if I am wrong), that one case against Apple involving a FRAND encumbered patent was one that Apple made no attempt to license and were correct in not doing so. This is because Apple was using a commercial product, a (baseband?) chip produced by Qualcomm that was itself the subject of no doubt more than one patent, probably many, of which one at least that they had licensed under FRAND terms from Moto. Motorola simply wanted more money because of Apple's standing in the market, this being nothing short of extortion. The whole point of FRAND terms is that many, many patents can be licensed in just one component or product without making that part insanely expensive to produce. Apple naturally had no need under normal rules of commerce to license the patent in question.
My comment about the courts was not intended as a reflection on the court system but one about the complexity of the problem and one therefore, that the FTC could examinee more thoroughly than the courts probably would have the opportunity to do.
All the best.
I don't agree with Gatorguy's opinion but his previous post does present a valid argument for position.
One thing that Android fans should note is that it's because of the iPhone Android was given an opportunity to be successful. Now the pre-iPhone Android would probably have done very well but the iPhone knocked everyone on their ass so quickly that only Android was able to follow the new path Apple was carving out. That said, iPhone/iOS fans should note that Android was the only mobile OS that was nimble and modern enough to both follow and become viable in the wake of the new market Apple opened up. Both are impressive regardless of how you feel about anything else.
To put it bluntly in a metaphor, the iPhone is the asteroid that caused mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs and Android has capitalized on that fact by climbing up from under the ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
To put it bluntly in a metaphor, the iPhone is the asteroid that caused mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs and Android has capitalized on that fact by climbing up from under the ground.
So you are saying that the iPhone is a steaming hunk of minerals, while Android is the most evolved life form on the planet?
/J-Rag
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Rubin's wording of how activations are counted is nebulous enough that it doesn't say what you claim.
Given the choice of believing an officer of a large publicly-traded corporation, and believing a guy who cannot seem to understand clear, declarative sentences, never gives support to his bizarre contentions, and never admits to the slightest little error, I'll choose the former.
12. Android products DO look like Apple products, but Apple copied LG Prada and that Samsung picture frame from one angle, and Windows tablets from 2002, therefore Android is better than Apple.
13. Google had voice command before Siri, and they are exactly the same thing
14. Siri sucks because it's from Apple (even though it was originally spun off from SRI military research project)
15. 1M Activations daily
16. I fear it's because of draconian Apple Store policies
17. Android doesn't have viruses and spyware because Path was uploaded iOS address books to their servers
18. Android doesn't have fragmentation because Apple still sells the 3GS
19. Android doesn't have slow performance because iOS 4 was slow on the iPhone 3GS
20. You mess with the bull, you get the horn (ruling unfavorable to Apple)
21. How long has Apple been paying the judge? (ruling favorable to Apple)
22. Apple is afraid of a little competition
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
But that's probably just the scientist in you coming out.
That's Dr. Scientist to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's true that they don't release their exact methodology but that's true for most companies, including Apple. Sometimes the methodology is simple enough that you don't need an exact methodology but usually it's just not given.
For example, we don't know Apple's exact methodology of what a sale is but it's transparent so there is no question about the exact methodology. Google is less clear on, well, everything but we do have Google execs giving clear enough statements (that I've actually verified using previous declarations) that I am inclined to take the number they say a fact.
...
I don't think there is any ambiguity in Apple's numbers simply because there aren't any iPhones lying around on shelves. That's partly because of the way they run the company and partly due to demand.
Google on the other hand, has a history of making false and misleading statements, and even outright lying (think, street view data collection, where they outright lied to regulators). Their numbers are also suspect to those of us in the US because, on the street, Android phones simply don't outnumber iPhones, and, obviously not to the degree they should, if the numbers are valid. Also, web site acces numbers simply don't support Googles number. So, if they are valid, it means that Google is counting a bunch of probably not-so-smartphones being sold... where? Whatever the reason, Google's numbers seem a little fishy when combined with what should be corroborating evidence, evidence which doesn't corroborate. The fact that they have a history of dishonesty, combined with the lack of corroborating evidence casts a good bit of doubt on a) how real the numbers are and b) whether, if they are real, they are even relevant to anyone.
And, none of that even touches on what we know about GG, which makes everything he says somewhat less than entirely credible.
But, good job GG, of derailing the thread to distract from the real issue:
Google is abusing FRAND patents, and under investigation for these abuses on two continents.
That's the real issue, and shows what a slimy bunch of hypocrites are running Google. At least they open... or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Assuming he's not lying to the world, and there's absolutely no evidence he is (unless you have the smoking gun) why would the activation numbers not be painting a reasonably accurate picture of actual end-user purchases?
Riddle me this, then:
If they are activating a million new phones a day, why is the marketshare of any device with Android 3.0 or higher so low?
Is it that they are all cheapy phones that aren't actually being used as smartphones?
Or is it that their counting methodology is off?