No, that's definitely wrong. Actually, what happened, as I remember it, was that first they had an ad supported version on some Android phones(they said they couldn't support all because of fragmentation), then they came out with a paid version after, I think some large number of free downloads was done. But the paid version did very poorly.
That's a whole lot different than your original claim that it started out as a paid Android Market game and they were forced to go with free ad-supported when no one bought it. Now you're saying just the opposite and agreeing with me while trying to appear you don't.
Originally Posted by me: So Angry Birds used to be a paid app for Android but they were forced to make it free? Did not know that. How much does it cost on iOS?
Your reply?: Yes, it was. Rovio made a big point about it back then.
It doesn't mean your overall point that iOS users tend to spend more on apps than Android users is wrong. You're absolutely correct and no one rational disagrees. Your use of Angry Birds for Android starting out paid and going to free to support that claim is not. Didn't happen AFAIK.
We've beaten this one long enough. I was right in the first place.
They're going g to offer a Home version for $69 a year that includes, I believe, one computer and possibly one iPad.
I posted on the Office forums about this, as the language on the iPad for the in-App purchase isn't quite as clear as I'd like. I just want to confirm it's exactly the same as on the website (5 users, 20GB each).
I'll pop for the $99/year version. Having 5 users and 100GB of free storage to boot is a pretty good deal, IMO.
There are some good points in the article, but bringing up comparisons to the 1980s Apple vs. Microsoft events never adds anything particularly useful when describing present market conditions. Times have changed because of the Internet and globalization. Those old analogies are as stale as the car analogies some people make when describing iOS verses Android. There are hundreds of car brands none of which have an ecosystem. Simply apples and oranges. As usual, the articles by DED are a collection of random ideas that are loosely strung together whether or not they have any relevance to the central storyline, although generally good reading.
But, to answer the question that the title begs is well... Captain Obvious!
Very simply with 200 million units sold its way bigger than any tablets running Android that people currently own I've read shorter books than this authors story
Mel, you could be absolutely right but as I said before I don't recall that. No doubt I miss a lot, one reason AI is one of my favorite sites to find info. Would you mind giving me a link to it?
Mel, you could be absolutely right but as I said before I don't recall that. No doubt I miss a lot, one reason AI is one of my favorite sites to find info. Would you mind giving me a link to it?
I'm looking for links. This was a few years ago so they can be buried. The first on I have gives overall sales numbers, and a few specific Samsung smartphone sales numbers. I'll look for the specific ones I'm talking about.
It was on the sites it certainly wasn't hidden.
I'm looking for links. This was a few years ago so they can be buried. The first on I have gives overall sales numbers, and a few specific Samsung smartphone sales numbers. I'll look for the specific ones I'm talking about.
The only reference I find is a post from you on ArsTechnica making the same claim. There may be proof for it somewhere tho. Thanks for trying to find one.
We don't need an overly-long article to answer that question. The answer is the iPad is 50X the stronger platform when it comes to tablets.
Especially when it comes to enterprise.
Why is there any discussion of OVERALL tablet market share when discussing Office? Microsoft didn't use that in their analysis beyond the basic knowledge of those numbers. Microsoft looked at their target market for this... and that's enterprise... and that's dominated by the iPad.
There you go... article complete. Ireland and I saved you about 6,000 words.
The only reference I find is a post from you on ArsTechnica making the same claim. There may be a source for it somewhere tho. Thanks for trying to find one.
Ok, I found a good one. The charts are a bit hard to read, as these sites all too often publish them as a graphic, rather than as characters, but you can read them.
Look at the quarterly numbers for each of the three models. In particular, notice how sales actually went down as time went on, even for the newer models. A number of quarters, sales foe the models were below 40,000, even dropping to 25,000.
Why did Microsoft port Office to Apple's iOS iPad before Android? The author himself noted the most likely reason:
"More recently, Microsoft's last chief executive Steve Ballmer was rumored to have postponed the deployment of native iPad Office apps that were ostensibly ready to release back in 2012,"
If true, that would make Microsoft manipulative in telling the world the iPad was just a "consumption device." They knew better. Steve Ballmer was just buying time for the Surface RT.
That's a whole lot different than your original claim that it started out as a paid Android Market game and they were forced to go with free ad-supported when no one bought it. Now you're saying just the opposite and agreeing with me while trying to appear you don't.
Originally Posted by me: So Angry Birds used to be a paid app for Android but they were forced to make it free? Did not know that. How much does it cost on iOS?
Your reply?: Yes, it was. Rovio made a big point about it back then.
It doesn't mean your overall point that iOS users tend to spend more on apps than Android users is wrong. You're absolutely correct and no one rational disagrees. Your use of Angry Birds for Android starting out paid and going to free to support that claim is not. Didn't happen AFAIK.
We've beaten this one long enough. I was right in the first place.
Well, it was a number of years ago. I don't always remember things exactly from several years ago. You are still wrong though. You said that there was NO paid version for Android, and as I said, that is clearly wrong.
Quote from your other post:
"I don't believe it was ever anything BUT free for Android Mel,..."
So I thought that logically, they would have first have come out with the paid version that sold very poorly, and then came out with the ad supported version. But apparently, they first came out with the ad supported version which made them very little money, and so then came out with the paid version that sold very poorly. They did talk in a press conference about how poorly the paid version sold when compared to the iOS version. Not much basic difference. But correct.
If true, that would make Microsoft manipulative in telling the world the iPad was just a "consumption device." They knew better. Steve Ballmer was just buying time for the Surface RT.
Meanwhile, Surface RT was just buying time for Intel.
Ugh. More of this "Apple versus cheap low end devices" nonsense that has never been true and never will be true. It is a rant about the monoculture that existed when Microsoft was at its peak, but it ignores two things:
(---- rant omitted to prevent forum servers from running out of disk space ----)
What monoculture are you talking about? The little tempest in this forum teapot? Please. It represents the view of a relatively small number of tribal Apple enthusiasts, for which these forum wars are sport.
Most of the world is indifferent to the brand wars, and care more about other things than the logo on the back on their phone.
And as you probably know, there are plenty of people who hate Apple. So, again, what monoculture?
Ok, I found a good one. The charts are a bit hard to read, as these sites all too often publish them as a graphic, rather than as characters, but you can read them.
Look at the quarterly numbers for each of the three models. In particular, notice how sales actually went down as time went on, even for the newer models. A number of quarters, sales foe the models were below 40,000, even dropping to 25,000.
Thanks for the effort Mel. So then Samsung and/or IDC was claiming a much higher figure for US sales of those particular models? Official court documents are certainly more reliable but I still missed where those figures disagreed significantly with Samsung or IDC publicized figures.
But in any event Samsung tablets were far from big successes at least in the US. That much is clear. I think we both agree with that.
If true, that would make Microsoft manipulative in telling the world the iPad was just a "consumption device." They knew better. Steve Ballmer was just buying time for the Surface RT.
If course it was manipulative. I wouldn't expect anything else, and I don't even blame them for that. It's marketing. As when Jobs stated, several times, that no one would want to see video on a device as small as an iPod or iPhone, and then, just six months later, upgrade the new iPod and iPhone to do just that.
Corporates buy iPads. Microsoft is King in the Enterprise. Ergo, Office to the enterprise tablet, not the "build it yourself at home for free" hobbyist one.
Thanks for the effort Mel. So then Samsung and/or IDC was claiming a much higher figure for US sales of those particular models? Official court documents are certainly more reliable but I still missed where those figures disagreed significantly with Samsung or IDC publicized figures.
But in any event Samsung tablets were far from big successes at least in the US. That much is clear. I think we both agree with that.
Yes, the analyst companies had claimed that in that last quarter of 2012, Samsung shipped at least1 million tablets to the USA. Interestingly enough, that compares to the 1.5 million that Samsung had claimed to have shipped here the last calendar quarter of 2010. The last quarter they have made any quarterly claims for their tablets and smartphones after Lenovo's calling them out on that.
So we see that they sold less than 20% of the estimated shipping (often converted to sales) numbers IDC, Gartner and others guess at. And I have to say guess, because when your numbers are five hundred percent over the correct ones, you have no right to claim it an estimate based on anything realistic. And you can bet their current numbers are no more accurate, because they never bothered to change their published numbers after these real ones came out, and you can bet that I checked.
We don't need an overly-long article to answer that question. The answer is the iPad is 50X the stronger platform when it comes to tablets.
I agree that we don't need a long article to answer a simple question. I think the answer (which may be in part what you're saying by a "strong platform") is simply that iPad users are more likely to be willing to pay for Office on the iPad or even have a need for it in the first place. It doesn't matter how much share a platform has if it doesn't include customers who will buy your product.
Apple always said that they thought the iPhone and iPad brought new users into the Apple eco-system and many of those first-time Apple customers then went on and bought a Mac. Microsoft might be thinking along the same lines: iPad users who go for Office might be more inclined to buy Office for their PC or Mac than an Android user might be.
And there's one more potential factor: in the long run, which is the bigger threat to Microsoft: Google or Apple? I would think it's Google. Therefore it could be in Microsoft's interest to "invest" in Apple's platforms.
Ascii has it right: ..."strategically, if Nadella is a cloud guy and wants to take Microsoft in that direction, he may view Google as Microsoft's new biggest enemy, since Google is king of the cloud."
This is also payback for the refusal to put Google apps on Microsoft's phones. Microsofts lack of software on it's platform is what doomed Windows Phone from the start. Tiles are a really good idea and the interface based upon them works. Bill Gates and Monkey Boy are being hoist on their own petard : "Developers, Developers, Developers!!!"
Apple and Microsoft have been forced into a frenemy coalition ever since the birth of Android. Google has continued to force these two closer together each year since then. Apple could really benefit from Microsoft's Cloud expertise. Imagine Microsoft's stable and scaleable cloud solutions married to Apple's hardware and interface design. This is Apple's only weakness and it has been over the life of the company. Remember Steve famously asking does anyone know what MobileMe is supposed to do? Steve was frankly admitting he didn't get the cloud. He couldn't explain what needed to be done and get someone to do it. He needed someone who already knew.
Microsoft's new CEO knows what needs to be done and he is willing to do it for anyone who will pay the piper. Apple is going to be the new Microsoft's biggest customer, and Google is going to regret trying to stab them both in the back at the same time.
Samsung's enterprise tablet, 12.2 inches, great specs and capabilities and $750 price, goes unmentioned here.
That's a terrible example of overpriced hardware.
The VAIO Tap 11 (Pentium Haswell + 128GB SSD) is only $800 which includes a wireless keyboard and active stylus. It only weighs 0.01 lbs more than the Samsung tablet.
Comments
That's a whole lot different than your original claim that it started out as a paid Android Market game and they were forced to go with free ad-supported when no one bought it. Now you're saying just the opposite and agreeing with me while trying to appear you don't.
Originally Posted by me:
So Angry Birds used to be a paid app for Android but they were forced to make it free? Did not know that. How much does it cost on iOS?
Your reply?:
Yes, it was. Rovio made a big point about it back then.
It doesn't mean your overall point that iOS users tend to spend more on apps than Android users is wrong. You're absolutely correct and no one rational disagrees. Your use of Angry Birds for Android starting out paid and going to free to support that claim is not. Didn't happen AFAIK.
We've beaten this one long enough. I was right in the first place.
They're going g to offer a Home version for $69 a year that includes, I believe, one computer and possibly one iPad.
I posted on the Office forums about this, as the language on the iPad for the in-App purchase isn't quite as clear as I'd like. I just want to confirm it's exactly the same as on the website (5 users, 20GB each).
I'll pop for the $99/year version. Having 5 users and 100GB of free storage to boot is a pretty good deal, IMO.
There are some good points in the article, but bringing up comparisons to the 1980s Apple vs. Microsoft events never adds anything particularly useful when describing present market conditions. Times have changed because of the Internet and globalization. Those old analogies are as stale as the car analogies some people make when describing iOS verses Android. There are hundreds of car brands none of which have an ecosystem. Simply apples and oranges. As usual, the articles by DED are a collection of random ideas that are loosely strung together whether or not they have any relevance to the central storyline, although generally good reading.
But, to answer the question that the title begs is well... Captain Obvious!
I've read shorter books than this authors story
It was on the sites it certainly wasn't hidden.
I'm looking for links. This was a few years ago so they can be buried. The first on I have gives overall sales numbers, and a few specific Samsung smartphone sales numbers. I'll look for the specific ones I'm talking about.
The only reference I find is a post from you on ArsTechnica making the same claim. There may be proof for it somewhere tho. Thanks for trying to find one.
We don't need an overly-long article to answer that question. The answer is the iPad is 50X the stronger platform when it comes to tablets.
Especially when it comes to enterprise.
Why is there any discussion of OVERALL tablet market share when discussing Office? Microsoft didn't use that in their analysis beyond the basic knowledge of those numbers. Microsoft looked at their target market for this... and that's enterprise... and that's dominated by the iPad.
There you go... article complete. Ireland and I saved you about 6,000 words.
Ok, I found a good one. The charts are a bit hard to read, as these sites all too often publish them as a graphic, rather than as characters, but you can read them.
Look at the quarterly numbers for each of the three models. In particular, notice how sales actually went down as time went on, even for the newer models. A number of quarters, sales foe the models were below 40,000, even dropping to 25,000.
http://www.zdnet.com/confidential-apple-samsung-sales-figures-outed-in-court-filing-7000002447/
If true, that would make Microsoft manipulative in telling the world the iPad was just a "consumption device." They knew better. Steve Ballmer was just buying time for the Surface RT.
Well, it was a number of years ago. I don't always remember things exactly from several years ago. You are still wrong though. You said that there was NO paid version for Android, and as I said, that is clearly wrong.
Quote from your other post:
"I don't believe it was ever anything BUT free for Android Mel,..."
So I thought that logically, they would have first have come out with the paid version that sold very poorly, and then came out with the ad supported version. But apparently, they first came out with the ad supported version which made them very little money, and so then came out with the paid version that sold very poorly. They did talk in a press conference about how poorly the paid version sold when compared to the iOS version. Not much basic difference. But correct.
So, yes, it's now a dead horse.
If true, that would make Microsoft manipulative in telling the world the iPad was just a "consumption device." They knew better. Steve Ballmer was just buying time for the Surface RT.
Meanwhile, Surface RT was just buying time for Intel.
What monoculture are you talking about? The little tempest in this forum teapot? Please. It represents the view of a relatively small number of tribal Apple enthusiasts, for which these forum wars are sport.
Most of the world is indifferent to the brand wars, and care more about other things than the logo on the back on their phone.
And as you probably know, there are plenty of people who hate Apple. So, again, what monoculture?
Thanks for the effort Mel. So then Samsung and/or IDC was claiming a much higher figure for US sales of those particular models? Official court documents are certainly more reliable but I still missed where those figures disagreed significantly with Samsung or IDC publicized figures.
But in any event Samsung tablets were far from big successes at least in the US. That much is clear. I think we both agree with that.
If course it was manipulative. I wouldn't expect anything else, and I don't even blame them for that. It's marketing. As when Jobs stated, several times, that no one would want to see video on a device as small as an iPod or iPhone, and then, just six months later, upgrade the new iPod and iPhone to do just that.
Yes, the analyst companies had claimed that in that last quarter of 2012, Samsung shipped at least1 million tablets to the USA. Interestingly enough, that compares to the 1.5 million that Samsung had claimed to have shipped here the last calendar quarter of 2010. The last quarter they have made any quarterly claims for their tablets and smartphones after Lenovo's calling them out on that.
So we see that they sold less than 20% of the estimated shipping (often converted to sales) numbers IDC, Gartner and others guess at. And I have to say guess, because when your numbers are five hundred percent over the correct ones, you have no right to claim it an estimate based on anything realistic. And you can bet their current numbers are no more accurate, because they never bothered to change their published numbers after these real ones came out, and you can bet that I checked.
We don't need an overly-long article to answer that question. The answer is the iPad is 50X the stronger platform when it comes to tablets.
I agree that we don't need a long article to answer a simple question. I think the answer (which may be in part what you're saying by a "strong platform") is simply that iPad users are more likely to be willing to pay for Office on the iPad or even have a need for it in the first place. It doesn't matter how much share a platform has if it doesn't include customers who will buy your product.
Apple always said that they thought the iPhone and iPad brought new users into the Apple eco-system and many of those first-time Apple customers then went on and bought a Mac. Microsoft might be thinking along the same lines: iPad users who go for Office might be more inclined to buy Office for their PC or Mac than an Android user might be.
And there's one more potential factor: in the long run, which is the bigger threat to Microsoft: Google or Apple? I would think it's Google. Therefore it could be in Microsoft's interest to "invest" in Apple's platforms.
No facts here...just speculation.
..."strategically, if Nadella is a cloud guy and wants to take Microsoft in that direction, he may view Google as Microsoft's new biggest enemy, since Google is king of the cloud."
This is also payback for the refusal to put Google apps on Microsoft's phones. Microsofts lack of software on it's platform is what doomed Windows Phone from the start. Tiles are a really good idea and the interface based upon them works. Bill Gates and Monkey Boy are being hoist on their own petard : "Developers, Developers, Developers!!!"
Apple and Microsoft have been forced into a frenemy coalition ever since the birth of Android. Google has continued to force these two closer together each year since then. Apple could really benefit from Microsoft's Cloud expertise. Imagine Microsoft's stable and scaleable cloud solutions married to Apple's hardware and interface design. This is Apple's only weakness and it has been over the life of the company. Remember Steve famously asking does anyone know what MobileMe is supposed to do? Steve was frankly admitting he didn't get the cloud. He couldn't explain what needed to be done and get someone to do it. He needed someone who already knew.
Microsoft's new CEO knows what needs to be done and he is willing to do it for anyone who will pay the piper. Apple is going to be the new Microsoft's biggest customer, and Google is going to regret trying to stab them both in the back at the same time.
Samsung's enterprise tablet, 12.2 inches, great specs and capabilities and $750 price, goes unmentioned here.
That's a terrible example of overpriced hardware.
The VAIO Tap 11 (Pentium Haswell + 128GB SSD) is only $800 which includes a wireless keyboard and active stylus. It only weighs 0.01 lbs more than the Samsung tablet.