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.
There's no ambiguity but the phrase used was exact methodology which we will never know unless they actually issue their accounting methods.
We know that Apple registers a sale with, say, Wal-Mart when they make a transaction for 1000 iPads but it will could sit in a warehouse for a few days, then get divided up for different stores, than shipped to the stores, then sold which could be some time. Now this isn't time to collect dust or become obsolete or anything so dramatic as we see with other vendors but it's still a time frame between Apple registering this item as sold and when it's actually in an end user's hand.
All this above board and standard. It would silly for anyone to suggest that Apple can't register a sale until Wal-Mart gets back to Apple with actual sell through numbers. Other vendors don't have the same pull as Apple because they don't have the same mind share so they have to work out different deal with retailers. A company like Wal-Mart can say "We'll sell your product but if we can't move it you have to agree to take it back at cost." This is infamous channel stuffing that quarter-to-quarter execs seem to think is a viable business strategy.
Back to Google. Are there numbers accurate? I don't know but I do know that when I compared stated growth rates from their previous activation statements they were accurate. The question still remains exactly how they are registering an activation. Rubin has clearly stated. "For those wondering, we count each device only once (i.e., we don't count re-sold devices), and "activations" means you go into a store, buy a device [and] put it on the network by subscribing to a wireless service." and while I think that's the truth it's certainly not the whole truth... not by a long shot. When they start to note Android in their quarterly reports and SEC filings we'll get close to it but we'll still not ever get an exact methodology.
BrerTech, Android 3.x wasn't used in any official Google Android handsets, so it's share of those would be zero. ICS only started appearing on some small number of new shipping handsets (other than the Galaxy Nexus) only a couple of months ago so that share would also be fairly small compared to those previously sold (and still shipping) with 2.x versions of Android, the handset OS version that preceded ICS.
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?
The answer is squarely that most Android-based devices are sold with older versions of the OS. Google's own distribution breakdown is very clear about that.
Because Android has so many activations and yet still registers below iOS on analytic sites I think it's safe to say that most are not used as smartphones or at least used often as smartphones.
BrerTech, Android 3.x wasn't used in any official Google Android handsets, so it's share of those would be zero. ICS only started appearing on some small number of new shipping handsets (other than the Galaxy Nexus) only a couple of months ago so that share would also be fairly small compared to those previously sold (and still shipping) with 2.x versions of Android, the handset OS version that preceded ICS.
No Android-based device shipped with Honeycomb? I don't think that's accurate.
Regardless, the whole Honeycomb fiasco is just embarrassing. They had to close source their "open" OS!
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.
Not that I really want to jump in on this childish back and forth, but ...
Rubin has been caught out and out lying a few times, and from the interviews with him that I have seen, anyone can tell he is a bit of a jerk who is not above twisting the truth around on a regular basis even when he isn't outright lying.
One doesn't gain some kind of angelic status merely by being hired by some company. I don't know what the facts are on Google's public statements about the methodology for it's activations number, but people are quite right not to simply take Rubin at his word. He's just not trustworthy.
No Android-based device shipped with Honeycomb? I don't think that's accurate.
Regardless, the whole Honeycomb fiasco is just embarrassing. They had to close source their "open" OS!
I didn't say no device shipped with Honeycomb 3.x, as is was a tablet-specific version. I said no handset did which is completely accurate AFAIK. Considering the number of reported Android tablet sales from last year I wouldn't expect Android 3.x devices to have but the tiniest OS share.
I didn't say no device shipped with Honeycomb 3.x, as is was a tablet-specific version. I said no handset did which is completely accurate. Considering the number of reported Android tablet sales from last year I wouldn't expect Android 3.x devices to have but the tiniest OS share.
Ah, see this is where you should have clarified in your post that is was designed for tablets and perhaps even noted that it was a failure thus removing any ambiguity and doubt about your post.
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.
Android got a good toe-hold in the market during the period that the iPhone was only available via AT&T in the U.S.. Verizon, for example, needed a reasonable knockoff to sell to stem the flow of users to AT&T, and did a credible job of pushing the Android version of an iPhone. While Apple did a great job of exceeding the 5% of the market they were aiming at, I think the acceptance of the iPhone exceeded everyone's wildest dreams. Before Apple could even think of expanding their distribution they had to gear up production to do so (the AT&T contract not-withstanding). Even today, Apple is barely keeping up with demand... the worldwide market is a hungry monster.
The final factor, in my opinion, is that the market for iPhone-like products was under-realized. Early in the history of mainframe computers it was once thought that the world wide need for such computers was "six total." I don't know what Apple was projecting prior to 2007, but the smart phone market has revealed itself to be multiple times what anyone guessed.
Maybe we could leave the activation numbers debate for another thread and talk about Motorola, Google and what it all portends.
I'm struck that this news comes hard on the heels of Google's announcement of a flagship tablet built by Asus. What does that tell you about how well they regard the hardware expertise of the company they just bought? OK, you say, it was never for Moto's manufacturing or hardware design chops, it's all about the software patents (although since this is Google, we have to ritualistically intone that such patents would merely be "defensive", in that Google is run by open Unicorns made of free puppies).
But if the FRAND thing gets ugly (and in the midst of an FTC investigation is there any doubt that if Google/Moto try to push any further shenanigans on that count it would get pretty ugly?) you have to start to wonder what Google is going to get out of the deal. Does Moto have non-FRAND patents in their portfolio such that competitors would hesitate to sue for fear of reprisal? And how does Google deploy those patents, anyway? For all intents and purposes, Apple's Android competitor at this point is Samsung. Does Google give Samsung the patent rights so they can fight Apple more successfully? Clearly, Apple isn't in the least put off by whatever counter-calims Samsung might make, so I can't see where patents via Google is going to slow the pace of Apple's litigation, and it doesn't appear to me that "I'm rubber and you're glue" is a super effective defense against same. That is, I don't see where a given Apple claim against Samsung gets tossed out just because Samsung goes with a counter claim, which they're going to do regardless of whether Google slips them some more ammo.
So can anyone describe what the upside of the Moto acquisition is, exactly? Honest question, since I'm not well versed enough in these matters to feel like I can see every angle. But it looks to me like it was a sort of lunge at grabbing a backstop that really didn't make any sense, and seems to make ever less sense as times goes on.
So can anyone describe what the upside of the Moto acquisition is, exactly? Honest question, since I'm not well versed enough in these matters to feel like I can see every angle. But it looks to me like it was a sort of lunge at grabbing a backstop that really didn't make any sense, and seems to make ever less sense as times goes on.
Motorola was threatening to sue other Android OEM's
If Apple and Microsoft agreed to Motorola's extortionate, unreasonable demands, the income stream is over $8 billion a year, based on 2.25% of final product cost rather than the industry standard based on the cost of the component that actually uses the patent.
Google got taken like rubes at a carnival in the world's greatest shell game.
On the contrary. This has been a great week for Google product launches and announcements. That said, it's also been a great week for Apple's legal teams.
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.
Of course it could have been predicted. Just not by analysts like Gartner.
Most of the OEMs who are building and selling all these Android phones were heavy hitters for years. They have always built and sold loads of phones. They have distribution networks in place. They have deals with carriers. When Android came along, big surprise, they started putting Android on their phones, and still built and sold loads of phones. New guys also came along and put Android on their phones.
Android is merely the default or status quo OS for any OEM to put on their phone. How is any of this a surprise? It's not Android coming from nowhere and competing with Windows or something else... these OEMs building hundreds if not thousands of different phones merely dropped whatever they used before for Android, duh. They had to, because the iPhone redefined smart phones.
However, iOS did in fact come from nowhere, with one phone and limited distribution, both in number of countries and number of carriers. What can be said is that Android wouldn't have done nearly so well if it had continued to look like Blackberry and Windows and hadn't suddenly started to look and act like iOS. When the iPhone redefined the smartphone Android was able to adapt to that. Hence the death of RIM and the question mark over the future of Nokia and MS in the smartphone space.
And how is Apple, at this point, supposed to get more than 30 or so percent of the smart phone market? Think about it. It's a large and growing market and Apple, one company, can't make that many phones! Apple is making as many phones as it can... and selling them ALL. And working to make even more even faster!
So, here we go again, comparing one company with one phone to 20 OEMs with hundreds of phones in every shop all over the world. Plus these hundreds of phones Android comes installed on include feature phones of all kinds, not just smart phones; while iOS is obviously on only 'high-end' smartphones. OF COURSE "Android" has 50% share, it better. No surprise there, whatsoever.
How about this for surprises that we wouldn't have predicted : most mobile web browsing is done on iOS devices; most apps are downloaded for iOS devices; most iOS devices are on latest version of OS; most money made by developers is on iOS platform; most mobile revenue made by Google on is on iOS platform...
Motorola was threatening to sue other Android OEM's
If Apple and Microsoft agreed to Motorola's extortionate, unreasonable demands, the income stream is over $8 billion a year, based on 2.25% of final product cost rather than the industry standard based on the cost of the component that actually uses the patent.
Google got taken like rubes at a carnival in the world's greatest shell game.
Especially since they are about to be slapped down hard for their abuse of FRAND patents, both in the US and Europe.
But, all of this is merely symptomatic of a larger problem, that Google is essentially an outlaw company. I suppose there's a certain glamour in that if your one of the many mindless pro-Google geeks who don't know how to think rationally about real issues, but what it really means is that Google is a company that believes it has a right to ignore the rules, ignore the law, and ignore any promises they've made to users of their services, and that includes people using, say, Google Search, and those buying ads on it.
What that means is that Google's privacy policy, for example, isn't worth the bandwidth required to download it. What it actually says is meaningless, because, since they feel unbound by rules, they'll do whatever they want with the data they collect, whenever they want to. When it suits their purposes, they'll screw people paying per click for ads, because they think they can. Giving your word doesn't mean anything at Google, it's just a tool to be tossed aside when it becomes inconvenient.
Aspect ratios being different doesn't give Samsung a free pass. Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the actual tablets apart when the judge held them up. Why not just post that photo of the Samsung picture frame again, but only from the front?
I don't know why people find 1,000,000 activations a day so unbelievable. Since the 4S came out Apple has been averaging 603,000 iDevices per day for 6 months straight for Q1 and Q2 2012 (up to Mar 2012). Soon we'll have Q3 results which will include the new iPad and we'll see if the pace was sustained.
That's 600,000 a day from one company vs 1,000,000 a day for dozens of companies. Even more impressive when you consider Apple doesn't compete in the low-end market.
Comments
There's no ambiguity but the phrase used was exact methodology which we will never know unless they actually issue their accounting methods.
We know that Apple registers a sale with, say, Wal-Mart when they make a transaction for 1000 iPads but it will could sit in a warehouse for a few days, then get divided up for different stores, than shipped to the stores, then sold which could be some time. Now this isn't time to collect dust or become obsolete or anything so dramatic as we see with other vendors but it's still a time frame between Apple registering this item as sold and when it's actually in an end user's hand.
All this above board and standard. It would silly for anyone to suggest that Apple can't register a sale until Wal-Mart gets back to Apple with actual sell through numbers. Other vendors don't have the same pull as Apple because they don't have the same mind share so they have to work out different deal with retailers. A company like Wal-Mart can say "We'll sell your product but if we can't move it you have to agree to take it back at cost." This is infamous channel stuffing that quarter-to-quarter execs seem to think is a viable business strategy.
Back to Google. Are there numbers accurate? I don't know but I do know that when I compared stated growth rates from their previous activation statements they were accurate. The question still remains exactly how they are registering an activation. Rubin has clearly stated. "For those wondering, we count each device only once (i.e., we don't count re-sold devices), and "activations" means you go into a store, buy a device [and] put it on the network by subscribing to a wireless service." and while I think that's the truth it's certainly not the whole truth... not by a long shot. When they start to note Android in their quarterly reports and SEC filings we'll get close to it but we'll still not ever get an exact methodology.
BrerTech, Android 3.x wasn't used in any official Google Android handsets, so it's share of those would be zero. ICS only started appearing on some small number of new shipping handsets (other than the Galaxy Nexus) only a couple of months ago so that share would also be fairly small compared to those previously sold (and still shipping) with 2.x versions of Android, the handset OS version that preceded ICS.
The answer is squarely that most Android-based devices are sold with older versions of the OS. Google's own distribution breakdown is very clear about that.
Because Android has so many activations and yet still registers below iOS on analytic sites I think it's safe to say that most are not used as smartphones or at least used often as smartphones.
No Android-based device shipped with Honeycomb? I don't think that's accurate.
Regardless, the whole Honeycomb fiasco is just embarrassing. They had to close source their "open" OS!
One of the growing list of reasons I hate Google.
Essential patents must be licensed at fair market prices. They can not be used to extort innovative companies into licensing non-essential patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
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.
Not that I really want to jump in on this childish back and forth, but ...
Rubin has been caught out and out lying a few times, and from the interviews with him that I have seen, anyone can tell he is a bit of a jerk who is not above twisting the truth around on a regular basis even when he isn't outright lying.
One doesn't gain some kind of angelic status merely by being hired by some company. I don't know what the facts are on Google's public statements about the methodology for it's activations number, but people are quite right not to simply take Rubin at his word. He's just not trustworthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
No Android-based device shipped with Honeycomb? I don't think that's accurate.
Regardless, the whole Honeycomb fiasco is just embarrassing. They had to close source their "open" OS!
I didn't say no device shipped with Honeycomb 3.x, as is was a tablet-specific version. I said no handset did which is completely accurate AFAIK. Considering the number of reported Android tablet sales from last year I wouldn't expect Android 3.x devices to have but the tiniest OS share.
Ah, see this is where you should have clarified in your post that is was designed for tablets and perhaps even noted that it was a failure thus removing any ambiguity and doubt about your post.
Sorry about that. I thought I mentioned that 3.x was tablet-specific in the earlier post. My bad. Thanks for bringing it up then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
Android got a good toe-hold in the market during the period that the iPhone was only available via AT&T in the U.S.. Verizon, for example, needed a reasonable knockoff to sell to stem the flow of users to AT&T, and did a credible job of pushing the Android version of an iPhone. While Apple did a great job of exceeding the 5% of the market they were aiming at, I think the acceptance of the iPhone exceeded everyone's wildest dreams. Before Apple could even think of expanding their distribution they had to gear up production to do so (the AT&T contract not-withstanding). Even today, Apple is barely keeping up with demand... the worldwide market is a hungry monster.
The final factor, in my opinion, is that the market for iPhone-like products was under-realized. Early in the history of mainframe computers it was once thought that the world wide need for such computers was "six total." I don't know what Apple was projecting prior to 2007, but the smart phone market has revealed itself to be multiple times what anyone guessed.
Perhaps you did. I tend to "goldfish" my replies to specific posts without regard for previous comments.
Maybe we could leave the activation numbers debate for another thread and talk about Motorola, Google and what it all portends.
I'm struck that this news comes hard on the heels of Google's announcement of a flagship tablet built by Asus. What does that tell you about how well they regard the hardware expertise of the company they just bought? OK, you say, it was never for Moto's manufacturing or hardware design chops, it's all about the software patents (although since this is Google, we have to ritualistically intone that such patents would merely be "defensive", in that Google is run by open Unicorns made of free puppies).
But if the FRAND thing gets ugly (and in the midst of an FTC investigation is there any doubt that if Google/Moto try to push any further shenanigans on that count it would get pretty ugly?) you have to start to wonder what Google is going to get out of the deal. Does Moto have non-FRAND patents in their portfolio such that competitors would hesitate to sue for fear of reprisal? And how does Google deploy those patents, anyway? For all intents and purposes, Apple's Android competitor at this point is Samsung. Does Google give Samsung the patent rights so they can fight Apple more successfully? Clearly, Apple isn't in the least put off by whatever counter-calims Samsung might make, so I can't see where patents via Google is going to slow the pace of Apple's litigation, and it doesn't appear to me that "I'm rubber and you're glue" is a super effective defense against same. That is, I don't see where a given Apple claim against Samsung gets tossed out just because Samsung goes with a counter claim, which they're going to do regardless of whether Google slips them some more ammo.
So can anyone describe what the upside of the Moto acquisition is, exactly? Honest question, since I'm not well versed enough in these matters to feel like I can see every angle. But it looks to me like it was a sort of lunge at grabbing a backstop that really didn't make any sense, and seems to make ever less sense as times goes on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
So can anyone describe what the upside of the Moto acquisition is, exactly? Honest question, since I'm not well versed enough in these matters to feel like I can see every angle. But it looks to me like it was a sort of lunge at grabbing a backstop that really didn't make any sense, and seems to make ever less sense as times goes on.
Motorola was threatening to sue other Android OEM's
If Apple and Microsoft agreed to Motorola's extortionate, unreasonable demands, the income stream is over $8 billion a year, based on 2.25% of final product cost rather than the industry standard based on the cost of the component that actually uses the patent.
Google got taken like rubes at a carnival in the world's greatest shell game.
The lying legal team?
Of course it could have been predicted. Just not by analysts like Gartner.
Most of the OEMs who are building and selling all these Android phones were heavy hitters for years. They have always built and sold loads of phones. They have distribution networks in place. They have deals with carriers. When Android came along, big surprise, they started putting Android on their phones, and still built and sold loads of phones. New guys also came along and put Android on their phones.
Android is merely the default or status quo OS for any OEM to put on their phone. How is any of this a surprise? It's not Android coming from nowhere and competing with Windows or something else... these OEMs building hundreds if not thousands of different phones merely dropped whatever they used before for Android, duh. They had to, because the iPhone redefined smart phones.
However, iOS did in fact come from nowhere, with one phone and limited distribution, both in number of countries and number of carriers. What can be said is that Android wouldn't have done nearly so well if it had continued to look like Blackberry and Windows and hadn't suddenly started to look and act like iOS. When the iPhone redefined the smartphone Android was able to adapt to that. Hence the death of RIM and the question mark over the future of Nokia and MS in the smartphone space.
And how is Apple, at this point, supposed to get more than 30 or so percent of the smart phone market? Think about it. It's a large and growing market and Apple, one company, can't make that many phones! Apple is making as many phones as it can... and selling them ALL. And working to make even more even faster!
So, here we go again, comparing one company with one phone to 20 OEMs with hundreds of phones in every shop all over the world. Plus these hundreds of phones Android comes installed on include feature phones of all kinds, not just smart phones; while iOS is obviously on only 'high-end' smartphones. OF COURSE "Android" has 50% share, it better. No surprise there, whatsoever.
How about this for surprises that we wouldn't have predicted : most mobile web browsing is done on iOS devices; most apps are downloaded for iOS devices; most iOS devices are on latest version of OS; most money made by developers is on iOS platform; most mobile revenue made by Google on is on iOS platform...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The lying legal team?
<insert irrelevant picture with no bearing>
here
That's almost as good as this
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Motorola was threatening to sue other Android OEM's
If Apple and Microsoft agreed to Motorola's extortionate, unreasonable demands, the income stream is over $8 billion a year, based on 2.25% of final product cost rather than the industry standard based on the cost of the component that actually uses the patent.
Google got taken like rubes at a carnival in the world's greatest shell game.
Especially since they are about to be slapped down hard for their abuse of FRAND patents, both in the US and Europe.
But, all of this is merely symptomatic of a larger problem, that Google is essentially an outlaw company. I suppose there's a certain glamour in that if your one of the many mindless pro-Google geeks who don't know how to think rationally about real issues, but what it really means is that Google is a company that believes it has a right to ignore the rules, ignore the law, and ignore any promises they've made to users of their services, and that includes people using, say, Google Search, and those buying ads on it.
What that means is that Google's privacy policy, for example, isn't worth the bandwidth required to download it. What it actually says is meaningless, because, since they feel unbound by rules, they'll do whatever they want with the data they collect, whenever they want to. When it suits their purposes, they'll screw people paying per click for ads, because they think they can. Giving your word doesn't mean anything at Google, it's just a tool to be tossed aside when it becomes inconvenient.
Aspect ratios being different doesn't give Samsung a free pass. Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the actual tablets apart when the judge held them up. Why not just post that photo of the Samsung picture frame again, but only from the front?
I don't know why people find 1,000,000 activations a day so unbelievable. Since the 4S came out Apple has been averaging 603,000 iDevices per day for 6 months straight for Q1 and Q2 2012 (up to Mar 2012). Soon we'll have Q3 results which will include the new iPad and we'll see if the pace was sustained.
That's 600,000 a day from one company vs 1,000,000 a day for dozens of companies. Even more impressive when you consider Apple doesn't compete in the low-end market.