I know myself pretty well so I can say that's not a very good reason to do it.
I value your opinion, and you're one of the few here that one can have a sensible discussion with. I've learned quite a bit from you because you've taken the time to correct me when I'm wrong instead of lashing out with 'shut up and go away'.
According to this two-day-old article, Android accounts for 78% of global smartphone sales: http://bit.ly/1oJq2UF So yeah, I'm pretty sure my numbers are right.
Here’s what’s wrong with your thinking about Android’s "~80% share" of shipments as reported by Gartner & IDC:
The same sources point out that Apple is selling iPhones with a ASP of $650. Those Android shipments average around $210. The fact that there are lots of premium Android phones that cost as much as an iPhone means that the majority of Android shipments are even lower than $200. Two thirds of these "smartphones" are barely functional, which explains why the Android app market is such a wasteland of trash and features very little original, exclusive content that anyone will pay any money for. It’s all placeholder junk, just like Symbian and Mobile Java app stores were not so long ago whey they claimed the same kind of "dominant market share" that Android does today.
It’s a foolish set of statistics created by market research groups to flatter Android, and that fact that you’re falling for it shows how powerful this garbage data is for fooling people who can’t think for themselves.
Everything else you wrote also conveys that you are quite easily fooled by bogus facts, such as your confidence that Apple Maps are some terrible mistake. If that were the case, Google’s chairman wouldn’t be pleading with the public to push Apple to restore Google Maps.
But the bottom line is that Google has failed to translate its arrogant claims about Android into money. And that’s what corporations are supposed to do. Google is failing in mobile hardware in a spectacular way, and the evidence is only becoming clearer. Plummeting ASPs are a bad sign for Android, the same as plummeting ASPs for PCs were a bad sign for Microsoft.
The $0 on contract phone has NOTHING to do with Apple.
Yeah, they sure don’t tell the telecoms what they can sell the phone for! Oh, wait.
Apple still makes 100% of the cost of the phone.
… And that has what to do with the price for which they’re sold to consumers?
Wow, offering up a 4 year old phone at $350 USD, that's taking a real risk.
Not as much a risk as losing money on every unit sold.
"Disproves itself" means nothing.
Do you know what words are?
According to this two-day-old article, Android accounts for 78% of global smartphone sales: http://bit.ly/1oJq2UF So yeah, I'm pretty sure my numbers are right.
There hasn’t been any data loss between your source of numbers and your presentation of numbers. How do you know the number itself is correct? Why do you think the number means anything?
I said they became uninnovative.
Which they haven’t.
The last few iPhones have all be iterative improvements.
So… coma, then?
Samsung has at least tried adding a ton of features, and I admit many of them are gimmicks, but at least they're trying new things.
Here’s what’s wrong with your thinking about Android’s "~80% share" of shipments as reported by Gartner & IDC:
The same sources point out that Apple is selling iPhones with a ASP of $650. Those Android shipments average around $210. The fact that there are lots of premium Android phones that cost as much as an iPhone means that the majority of Android shipments are even lower than $200. Two thirds of these "smartphones" are barely functional, which explains why the Android app market is such a wasteland of trash and features very little original, exclusive content that anyone will pay any money for. It’s all placeholder junk, just like Symbian and Mobile Java app stores were not so long ago whey they claimed the same kind of "dominant market share" that Android does today.
It’s a foolish set of statistics created by market research groups to flatter Android, and that fact that you’re falling for it shows how powerful this garbage data is for fooling people who can’t think for themselves.
Everything else you wrote also conveys that you are quite easily fooled by bogus facts, such as your confidence that Apple Maps are some terrible mistake. If that were the case, Google’s chairman wouldn’t be pleading with the public to push Apple to restore Google Maps.
But the bottom line is that Google has failed to translate its arrogant claims about Android into money. And that’s what corporations are supposed to do. Google is failing in mobile hardware in a spectacular way, and the evidence is only becoming clearer. Plummeting ASPs are a bad sign for Android, the same as plummeting ASPs for PCs were a bad sign for Microsoft.
That sounds more to me like sour grapes than a valid point. ~80% is ~80%, you can justify it to yourself however you want, but it's a fact. Apple can be happy marketing only to the elite class, but Google's operating system is being marketed to the masses and they're buying it. Dunno what else to say about it.
I do not condone theft and I would still like you to point out what exactly is copied. This is the first Android phone as far as I know and I don't see much in the way of similarities:
The similarities were removed at Steve Jobs' insistence. According to author Fred Vogelstein, Jobs demanded that Google remove UI elements that mimicked the UI of the iPhone from the initial version of Android, such as pinch-to-zoom and swipe-to-unlock. This reportedly angered Rubin, who felt Google had caved to Jobs. The story indicates that the Android that Andy Rubin wanted to ship (post iPhone) was very much a recreation of the iPhone, rather than something original that Rubin was trying to come up with himself.
The fact that the early Android versions (like the one that shipped on the G1) didn't look much like iPhone can't be taken as proof that copying didn't occur--we know anecdotally that it did--it just didn't ship that way.
I said they became uninnovative. The last few iPhones have all be iterative improvements. Samsung has at least tried adding a ton of features, and I admit many of them are gimmicks, but at least they're trying new things. Some of them are great, like the S Pen functionality of the Note 3.
So whatever Apple does is iterative but whatever Sammy does is game-changing. Got it. You are so wrong. I'm not going to list all the innovations because that has been done by numerous posters on numerous threads already.
That sounds more to me like sour grapes than a valid point. ~80% is ~80%, you can justify it to yourself however you want, but it's a fact. Apple can be happy marketing only to the elite class, but Google's operating system is being marketed to the masses and they're buying it. Dunno what else to say about it.
Do you think Apple has a negative attitude toward the handset market because they've chosen not to make cheap, dumb handsets? You need to consider that Apple didn't have to make a high quality smartphone or make one so coveted that they hold their value. They could have started with a dumb phone at a fraction of the price to appeal to a lot more buyers so why didn't they? Have you considered that Apple only cares about the share of the market only if profits aren't going to suffer as a result? Furthermore, have you considered why Apple doesn't simply license their OSes for free so they could gain a higher OS marketshare? Of course not or you wouldn't have made the comments you're making.
BTW, Android isn't marketed to the masses unless you mean to nearly every other HW vendor. Remember that you're not Android's customer, you're Android's product. The HW vendors are Google's customers because they only get paid when they purchase their services for Android.
So whatever Apple does is iterative but whatever Sammy does is game-changing. Got it. You are so wrong. I'm not going to list all the innovations because that has been done by numerous posters on numerous threads already.
I am not trying to make an argument I'm trying to have a discussion. I haven't seen much that was innovative from Apple lately barring a few things. And Samsung is far from perfect either, but they're at least trying. Apple has had a few feathers in their cap over the last say 4 iPhones, but that's a long time to have only a couple really unique features considering what they have done in the past with iPods, iPhones and iPads. I guess my problem is I expect more from them because they're historically been the best of the best. There was a time I badly longed for an iPhone because it was so unique and ahead of the curve. I just haven't felt that way in a while. Touch ID, Siri, that's really the best they've offered for a while and neither of them really scream "I need that!" to me.
Do you think Apple has a negative attitude toward the handset market because they've chosen not to make cheap, dumb handsets? You need to consider that Apple didn't have to make a high quality smartphone or make one so coveted that they hold their value. They could have started with a dumb phone at a fraction of the price to appeal to a lot more buyers so why didn't they? Have you considered that Apple only cares about the share of the market only if profits aren't going to suffer as a result? Furthermore, have you considered why Apple doesn't simply license their OSes for free so they could gain a higher OS marketshare? Of course not or you wouldn't have made the comments you're making.
BTW, Android isn't marketed to the masses unless you mean to nearly every other HW vendor. Remember that you're not Android's customer, you're Android's product. The HW vendors are Google's customers because they only get paid when they purchase their services for Android.
In all honesty, your points are entirely valid. Apple wants to market their product as elite, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just wish they came out with some killer feature or product that got me excited again. They've changed the game so many times, I'm anxious to see what they come up with next.
Foundation-up 64-bit processing didn’t do it for you?
Not really. When 64 bit came to desktops there was (and still is) a huge gap in software that really takes advantage of it. The same thing will happen with mobile apps. Not to mention that it really only benefits processor-intensive applications which are not something that are pervasive on mobile platforms yet. 64 bit will mean a lot more 5 years from now, but for now, it's more future-proofing than a killer app. Other manufacturers are making them as well, although they look like copycats (Qualcomm looks like idiots after their comments).
The only thing it adds that can have an immediate effect is addressable memory, but honestly, do we really need 4GB of addressable memory in a phone?
In all honesty, your points are entirely valid. Apple wants to market their product as elite, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just wish they came out with some killer feature or product that got me excited again. They've changed the game so many times, I'm anxious to see what they come up with next.
It's not easy wowing the audience more than once. Just ask Daffy Duck.
Not really. When 64 bit came to desktops there was (and still is) a huge gap in software that really takes advantage of it. The same thing will happen with mobile apps. Not to mention that it really only benefits processor-intensive applications which are not something that are pervasive on mobile platforms yet. 64 bit will mean a lot more 5 years from now, but for now, it's more future-proofing than a killer app. Other manufacturers are making them as well, although they look like copycats (Qualcomm looks like idiots after their comments).
The only thing it adds that can have an immediate effect is addressable memory, but honestly, do we really need 4GB of addressable memory in a phone?
1) 32-bit processors can address more than 4GB of RAM.
2) Apple rewriting iOS, their included apps, and their SDK to support 64-bit apps means they can take advantage of the new ARMv64 ISA right away. This new ISA has plenty of benefits for today's Obj-C*.
PS: I hypothesize that Touch ID wouldn't have been feasible (possible, yes, but not fast enough) without ARMv64.
* I wish DED would do an article on the rise of Objective-C as a dominate high-level programming language.
Not really. When 64 bit came to desktops there was (and still is) a huge gap in software that really takes advantage of it. The same thing will happen with mobile apps. Not to mention that it really only benefits processor-intensive applications which are not something that are pervasive on mobile platforms yet. 64 bit will mean a lot more 5 years from now, but for now, it's more future-proofing than a killer app. Other manufacturers are making them as well, although they look like copycats (Qualcomm looks like idiots after their comments).
The only thing it adds that can have an immediate effect is addressable memory, but honestly, do we really need 4GB of addressable memory in a phone?
If you want to say "WOW" in the near-est future you do.
What you don't get is that people are using more and more mobile devices and less and less PCs.
Not only are people buying less PCs but they are using PCs less.
PC sales are slowing, but do you have data to show that PC usage is declining? Google ad revenue is growing 37%. Your assumptions don't fit the data.
I am pointing out the portion of your post where your conclusion went off-track.
Apple sells a prestige product, that could become a commodity product if Apple marketed it that way. This is why Apple is outselling all but one of the Android-based barely-intelligent phones (at nearly three-times the price) and totally dominating the iPad tablet market where it is also the costliest product. The value of a prestige product is not measurable because it has nothing to do with cost of ownership, but is founded upon other intrinsic features.
We live in a world where there are commodity automobiles and prestige automobiles. There are $10 wrist watches and Rolexes worth $30,000. There will always be room for prestige products even in mature markets such as automobiles and watches.
There's no reason for Apple's revenue growth to slow, especially if then continue innovating and extend themselves into new markets. Apple has such a caché aura they could sell bronzed dog turds and people would line up to buy them. It would damage their brand, but people would buy them.
You are sorely mistaken that Apple is in a prestige market. Apple sells quality, but not prestige. If a McDonald's employee is buying the product (which they are) then it isn't a prestige product.
</div></div>
ok, if google reduced their price for ads in half, and apple did the same, would Google be able to sell twice to quadruple the number of ads?. NO, the ad market iis already saturated... but apple on the other hand could sell twice as many phones ... (hmmm, in china?. can google sell ads in china?...)
BTW, Samsung is selling 4 times the phones (at half the price) , but they are not making the profit that apple is, and google is only making 15 dollars a phone.
Google is in trouble in 2020 when their search patent has expired, when that happens expect their revenue to be one third it is today....
Can anyone give me the patent number of this Google patent that expires in 2020?
Wow this article is super-biased. Google may be able to fool investors but you can't fool your customers. If 80% of phones being shipped are android it's because people like it. Most of these users are people who have used android phones in the past and are happy with it. Some are switching from the iPhone (for good reason) and maybe a handful are completely new to smartphones but have been recommended by friends/family. If anything, I think it's Apple who has been trying to fool customers by selling products for double their android-equivalent prices based purely on the "it's cool" factor. But the shift to android shows that you can only fool people for so long.
Comparing their growth to Sun/Adobe is a silly comparison. In the smartphone-era android figures are unparalleled. That's not to say that android will always be the dominant OS. Sooner or later they too will join Nokia and Apple in the once-was list. But for now, they are inarguably the no.1 player. And personally I feel as a software Android 4.4 is leagues ahead of iOS7.
I would argue that since the lower tier Android phones make up the bulk of Android sales that price is the deciding factor for most of the people buying Android phones. Screen size for some, but price for the vast majority.
Comments
I value your opinion, and you're one of the few here that one can have a sensible discussion with. I've learned quite a bit from you because you've taken the time to correct me when I'm wrong instead of lashing out with 'shut up and go away'.
According to this two-day-old article, Android accounts for 78% of global smartphone sales: http://bit.ly/1oJq2UF So yeah, I'm pretty sure my numbers are right.
Here’s what’s wrong with your thinking about Android’s "~80% share" of shipments as reported by Gartner & IDC:
The same sources point out that Apple is selling iPhones with a ASP of $650. Those Android shipments average around $210. The fact that there are lots of premium Android phones that cost as much as an iPhone means that the majority of Android shipments are even lower than $200. Two thirds of these "smartphones" are barely functional, which explains why the Android app market is such a wasteland of trash and features very little original, exclusive content that anyone will pay any money for. It’s all placeholder junk, just like Symbian and Mobile Java app stores were not so long ago whey they claimed the same kind of "dominant market share" that Android does today.
It’s a foolish set of statistics created by market research groups to flatter Android, and that fact that you’re falling for it shows how powerful this garbage data is for fooling people who can’t think for themselves.
Everything else you wrote also conveys that you are quite easily fooled by bogus facts, such as your confidence that Apple Maps are some terrible mistake. If that were the case, Google’s chairman wouldn’t be pleading with the public to push Apple to restore Google Maps.
But the bottom line is that Google has failed to translate its arrogant claims about Android into money. And that’s what corporations are supposed to do. Google is failing in mobile hardware in a spectacular way, and the evidence is only becoming clearer. Plummeting ASPs are a bad sign for Android, the same as plummeting ASPs for PCs were a bad sign for Microsoft.
I’ll get right on that.
That’s pretty ironic.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
The $0 on contract phone has NOTHING to do with Apple.
Yeah, they sure don’t tell the telecoms what they can sell the phone for! Oh, wait.
… And that has what to do with the price for which they’re sold to consumers?
Wow, offering up a 4 year old phone at $350 USD, that's taking a real risk.
Not as much a risk as losing money on every unit sold.
Do you know what words are?
There hasn’t been any data loss between your source of numbers and your presentation of numbers. How do you know the number itself is correct? Why do you think the number means anything?
Which they haven’t.
So… coma, then?
Yep, coma.
Here’s what’s wrong with your thinking about Android’s "~80% share" of shipments as reported by Gartner & IDC:
The same sources point out that Apple is selling iPhones with a ASP of $650. Those Android shipments average around $210. The fact that there are lots of premium Android phones that cost as much as an iPhone means that the majority of Android shipments are even lower than $200. Two thirds of these "smartphones" are barely functional, which explains why the Android app market is such a wasteland of trash and features very little original, exclusive content that anyone will pay any money for. It’s all placeholder junk, just like Symbian and Mobile Java app stores were not so long ago whey they claimed the same kind of "dominant market share" that Android does today.
It’s a foolish set of statistics created by market research groups to flatter Android, and that fact that you’re falling for it shows how powerful this garbage data is for fooling people who can’t think for themselves.
Everything else you wrote also conveys that you are quite easily fooled by bogus facts, such as your confidence that Apple Maps are some terrible mistake. If that were the case, Google’s chairman wouldn’t be pleading with the public to push Apple to restore Google Maps.
But the bottom line is that Google has failed to translate its arrogant claims about Android into money. And that’s what corporations are supposed to do. Google is failing in mobile hardware in a spectacular way, and the evidence is only becoming clearer. Plummeting ASPs are a bad sign for Android, the same as plummeting ASPs for PCs were a bad sign for Microsoft.
That sounds more to me like sour grapes than a valid point. ~80% is ~80%, you can justify it to yourself however you want, but it's a fact. Apple can be happy marketing only to the elite class, but Google's operating system is being marketed to the masses and they're buying it. Dunno what else to say about it.
I do not condone theft and I would still like you to point out what exactly is copied. This is the first Android phone as far as I know and I don't see much in the way of similarities:
The similarities were removed at Steve Jobs' insistence. According to author Fred Vogelstein, Jobs demanded that Google remove UI elements that mimicked the UI of the iPhone from the initial version of Android, such as pinch-to-zoom and swipe-to-unlock. This reportedly angered Rubin, who felt Google had caved to Jobs. The story indicates that the Android that Andy Rubin wanted to ship (post iPhone) was very much a recreation of the iPhone, rather than something original that Rubin was trying to come up with himself.
The fact that the early Android versions (like the one that shipped on the G1) didn't look much like iPhone can't be taken as proof that copying didn't occur--we know anecdotally that it did--it just didn't ship that way.
Oh good. I'm not the only one.
So whatever Apple does is iterative but whatever Sammy does is game-changing. Got it. You are so wrong. I'm not going to list all the innovations because that has been done by numerous posters on numerous threads already.
Do you think Apple has a negative attitude toward the handset market because they've chosen not to make cheap, dumb handsets? You need to consider that Apple didn't have to make a high quality smartphone or make one so coveted that they hold their value. They could have started with a dumb phone at a fraction of the price to appeal to a lot more buyers so why didn't they? Have you considered that Apple only cares about the share of the market only if profits aren't going to suffer as a result? Furthermore, have you considered why Apple doesn't simply license their OSes for free so they could gain a higher OS marketshare? Of course not or you wouldn't have made the comments you're making.
BTW, Android isn't marketed to the masses unless you mean to nearly every other HW vendor. Remember that you're not Android's customer, you're Android's product. The HW vendors are Google's customers because they only get paid when they purchase their services for Android.
Oh good. I'm not the only one.
So whatever Apple does is iterative but whatever Sammy does is game-changing. Got it. You are so wrong. I'm not going to list all the innovations because that has been done by numerous posters on numerous threads already.
I am not trying to make an argument I'm trying to have a discussion. I haven't seen much that was innovative from Apple lately barring a few things. And Samsung is far from perfect either, but they're at least trying. Apple has had a few feathers in their cap over the last say 4 iPhones, but that's a long time to have only a couple really unique features considering what they have done in the past with iPods, iPhones and iPads. I guess my problem is I expect more from them because they're historically been the best of the best. There was a time I badly longed for an iPhone because it was so unique and ahead of the curve. I just haven't felt that way in a while. Touch ID, Siri, that's really the best they've offered for a while and neither of them really scream "I need that!" to me.
Do you think Apple has a negative attitude toward the handset market because they've chosen not to make cheap, dumb handsets? You need to consider that Apple didn't have to make a high quality smartphone or make one so coveted that they hold their value. They could have started with a dumb phone at a fraction of the price to appeal to a lot more buyers so why didn't they? Have you considered that Apple only cares about the share of the market only if profits aren't going to suffer as a result? Furthermore, have you considered why Apple doesn't simply license their OSes for free so they could gain a higher OS marketshare? Of course not or you wouldn't have made the comments you're making.
BTW, Android isn't marketed to the masses unless you mean to nearly every other HW vendor. Remember that you're not Android's customer, you're Android's product. The HW vendors are Google's customers because they only get paid when they purchase their services for Android.
In all honesty, your points are entirely valid. Apple wants to market their product as elite, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just wish they came out with some killer feature or product that got me excited again. They've changed the game so many times, I'm anxious to see what they come up with next.
Foundation-up 64-bit processing didn’t do it for you?
Foundation-up 64-bit processing didn’t do it for you?
Not really. When 64 bit came to desktops there was (and still is) a huge gap in software that really takes advantage of it. The same thing will happen with mobile apps. Not to mention that it really only benefits processor-intensive applications which are not something that are pervasive on mobile platforms yet. 64 bit will mean a lot more 5 years from now, but for now, it's more future-proofing than a killer app. Other manufacturers are making them as well, although they look like copycats (Qualcomm looks like idiots after their comments).
The only thing it adds that can have an immediate effect is addressable memory, but honestly, do we really need 4GB of addressable memory in a phone?
It's not easy wowing the audience more than once. Just ask Daffy Duck.
[VIDEO]
1) 32-bit processors can address more than 4GB of RAM.
2) Apple rewriting iOS, their included apps, and their SDK to support 64-bit apps means they can take advantage of the new ARMv64 ISA right away. This new ISA has plenty of benefits for today's Obj-C*.
PS: I hypothesize that Touch ID wouldn't have been feasible (possible, yes, but not fast enough) without ARMv64.
* I wish DED would do an article on the rise of Objective-C as a dominate high-level programming language.
The only thing it adds that can have an immediate effect is addressable memory, but honestly, do we really need 4GB of addressable memory in a phone?
Nope. Wrong. Just like every single other person, apparently.
Not really. When 64 bit came to desktops there was (and still is) a huge gap in software that really takes advantage of it. The same thing will happen with mobile apps. Not to mention that it really only benefits processor-intensive applications which are not something that are pervasive on mobile platforms yet. 64 bit will mean a lot more 5 years from now, but for now, it's more future-proofing than a killer app. Other manufacturers are making them as well, although they look like copycats (Qualcomm looks like idiots after their comments).
The only thing it adds that can have an immediate effect is addressable memory, but honestly, do we really need 4GB of addressable memory in a phone?
If you want to say "WOW" in the near-est future you do.
1) 32-bit processors can address more than 4GB of RAM.
Yeah, you're right, I misspoke. It's the OS that causes the limitation.
You are sorely mistaken that Apple is in a prestige market. Apple sells quality, but not prestige. If a McDonald's employee is buying the product (which they are) then it isn't a prestige product.
Can anyone give me the patent number of this Google patent that expires in 2020?
I would argue that since the lower tier Android phones make up the bulk of Android sales that price is the deciding factor for most of the people buying Android phones. Screen size for some, but price for the vast majority.