No it's not. He was talking about 3G and you pulled up a voice map. Check the end of the url you provided. Here is a comparison of AT&T and Verizon's coverage that I found with a simple google search:
Here is trumptman's original statement.
"Third, traveling between major metro areas, AT&T has mostly 2G coverage anyway. I mean I can't even believe you are making this point with a straight face. AT&T basically has islands of 3G coverage and all the roads connecting them are blanketed in crappy 2G."
From the map, that is completely, 100% accurate. If anyone is spreading "total, flat out lies" it is you - slyly substituting a voice map when the discussion was about data. Nice try.
And he was lying - as are you.
"roads between cities are blanketed in crappy 2G?" Look at that map. Now look at the roads between Washington and Boston. Or Orlando and Miami. Or Houston and New Orleans. Or Chicago and Milwaukee. Or Sacramento and LA. LOTS of major highways have 3G.
Not to mention, of course, that 'crappy 2G' doesn't describe the situation at all. I get better performance on Edge than a lot of Verizon 3G users.
"While a poll of 100 people will be more accurate than a poll of 10, studies have shown that accuracy begins to improve less at about 500 people and increases only a minor amount beyond 1,000 people."
That's how polling is done. So when the article says that a significant number of people will jump ship from AT&T for Verizon and Android may be hurt, they're using actual scientifically proven data collection techniques.
Acting like their numbers are off when they're actually following a proven method makes you look bad, not them.
The thing that bothers me about this is the freedom to switch-- what about ETFs? A recent Droid or iP4 buyer would need to Pay $395 for the privilege to switch carriers (or even phones within a carrier).
How many of the people surveyed are in a practical position to switch anything?
people like to believe that but it doesn't address biases in the people taking the polls, the questions or other factors that aren't always controlled well.
The poll is not proven until after the device is realized in the market. At best polls are informed speculation.
No it is always wise to question polls passed off as the truth or extremely accurate. For one thing polls are oftened tailored to the needs of the group contracting for the poll. Frankly you would be considered gullible if you accepted these results without more detailed info.
Yes psychologically for a consumer "free" is very different from a $99 dollars.
Seeing as AT&T keeps activating more iPhone's every quarter. You really want to make the argument that most of those iPhone's are from current iPhone users? Do you have any sales data to support that argument?
I don't think you really understand how business works. What you've said above is not at all in alignment with reality or any way resembles what companies do to be successful.
On most of this we'll have to agree to disagree. If consumer's can't tell the difference between last year's model Droid for "free" and an iPhone for a hundred bucks, then Apple can probably write those sales off. They're not going to compete with a free phone anytime soon. That's not what I'm arguing. What I am saying is that there is a significant chunk of the market willing to pay $100-$200 for a phone but are not willing to switch to AT&T. Those are the customers Apple needs to target.
77% of iPhone 4 buyers were upgrading from a previous model. AT&T is saturated with people willing to switch. The network seems to be strained to the breaking point.
Not sure what to say to your last part. Do you think Apple doesn't take their competitors into account when making decisions? If you're a shareholder, I would voice concern about that. Do you think all the people on this thread who have already said they are either getting a Droid or will come January if there is no CDMA iPhone aren't lost sales or Apple? Apple clearly takes Android seriously, and should. If you can't recognize that you haven't been paying attention.
Do you think the smartphone market has been redefined, like it was for PCs with netbooks? I don't.
Like? Of course not, because netbooks came to be from Intel introducing small, low-cost, low-power x86-compatible chips known as Atom, but the smartphone market has been redefined and Apple redefined it.
Take a look at Android phone prototypes. In the HW and SW it resembled a Blakberry. The iPhone changed everything an regardless of how you feel about Apple or the iPhone if you are a smartphone user you have/will benefit/ed from Apple's foray into this market.
The difference is netbooks, as a brand-less subclass of PC, merely added to the PC fold while the iPhone is one brand that changed the way everyone else did business if they wanted to survive. This is from the HW to the OS to the UI to the apps (especially web browser) to the way apps are distributed to the integration with your other "computers" to the focus on the consumer market.
Maybe most are smart enough to know the TCO of a smartphone but I've hearing and reading about the cost of the iPhone since the day it was introduced. Let me put it this way, Apple is trying to monopolize a price point. Once that price point is saturated then they will increase the opportunity to acquire buyers by a) lowering the price (like with consumer Macs), b) offering new models (like with iPods), c) expand to new markets (typically new countries, but in the case of the iPhone it can also be another device for a disparate carrier).
Quote:
Every Incredible and Droid X that HTC and Motorola sell is a lost iPhone sale, which translates into lost profits and lost market share.
That is only true in a theoretical sense. Right now they are selling 100% of all iPhones they can make.
BTW, every "Incredible and Droid X that HTC and Motorola" don't sell is a net loss of profit. Same goes for Apple, which is why you don't see Apple building 30 factories that can push out a 200k iPhones a day, each. They do tend to underestimate the interestbin their phone, but that is better than overestimating it. So if anything, Apple is losing profits from inaccurately gauging demand.
However, it's not that simple because it may not be prudent to double your production costs with a second factory if you a) can't get components, and b) if the "frenzy" will die down in a relatively short time, either of which will result in loses an unused factory.
There is word that Foxconn is building a new factory just for the iPhone and thatnit will produce 200k a day once it's [Emperor voice] fully operational [/Emperor voice]. This might be for a CDMA iPhone but I don't think it will be finished by January and I think a 6 monymth offset release cycle between iPhone types makes sense for the reasons I stated earlier.
(Forgive any errors, this was all typed on my iPhone between parking and sitting down to a watch "The Other Guys"... Previews starting. Night!)
"roads between cities are blanketed in crappy 2G?" Look at that map. Now look at the roads between Washington and Boston. Or Orlando and Miami. Or Houston and New Orleans. Or Chicago and Milwaukee. Or Sacramento and LA. LOTS of major highways have 3G.
Not to mention, of course, that 'crappy 2G' doesn't describe the situation at all. I get better performance on Edge than a lot of Verizon 3G users.
Are you serious. Your position is indefensible. You picked a few cities out that might have 3G coverage the whole way. What if you want to drive to Montana? Looks like you're SOL because the entire state doesn't have 3G coverage. What if you want to drive from Boise to Phoenix, or LA to Salt Lake, or Houston to Atlanta? Those roads are blanketed in crappy 2G. And I'm calling BS on the Edge being better than Verizon 3G. I've used both. In most cases I get better performance with Verizon 3G than I did with AT&T 3G.
BTW - noticed you ignored the fact that the map you pulled up was totally inapplicable to the argument at hand.
Like? Of course not, because netbooks came to be from Intel introducing small, low-cost, low-power x86-compatible chips known as Atom, but the smartphone market has been redefined and Apple redefined it.
Take a look at Android phone prototypes. In the HW and SW it resembled a Blakberry. The iPhone changed everything an regardless of how you feel about Apple or the iPhone if you are a smartphone user you have/will benefit/ed from Apple's foray into this market.
The difference is netbooks, as a brand-less subclass of PC, merely added to the PC fold while the iPhone is one brand that changed the way everyone else did business if they wanted to survive. This is from the HW to the OS to the UI to the apps (especially web browser) to the way apps are distributed to the integration with your other "computers" to the focus on the consumer market.
Maybe most are smart enough to know the TCO of a smartphone but I've hearing and reading about the cost of the iPhone since the day it was introduced. Let me put it this way, Apple is trying to monopolize a price point. Once that price point is saturated then they will increase the opportunity to acquire buyers by a) lowering the price (like with consumer Macs), b) offering new models (like with iPods), c) expand to new markets (typically new countries, but in the case of the iPhone it can also be another device for a disparate carrier).
That is only true in a theoretical sense. Right now they are selling 100% of all iPhones they can make.
BTW, every "Incredible and Droid X that HTC and Motorola" don't sell is a net loss of profit. Same goes for Apple, which is why you don't see Apple building 30 factories that can push out a 200k iPhones a day, each. They do tend to underestimate the interestbin their phone, but that is better than overestimating it. So if anything, Apple is losing profits from inaccurately gauging demand.
However, it's not that simple because it may not be prudent to double your production costs with a second factory if you a) can't get components, and b) if the "frenzy" will die down in a relatively short time, either of which will result in loses an unused factory.
There is word that Foxconn is building a new factory just for the iPhone and thatnit will produce 200k a day once it's [Emperor voice] fully operational [/Emperor voice]. This might be for a CDMA iPhone but I don't think it will be finished by January and I think a 6 monymth offset release cycle between iPhone types makes sense for the reasons I stated earlier.
(Forgive any errors, this was all typed on my iPhone between parking and sitting down to a watch "The Other Guys"... Previews starting. Night!)
I see you've ignored what I've already posted on this, so I'll say it again. It is not clear that Apple is the most profitable computer company on the planet. They are more profitable than Dell and HP, but they are nowhere near Microsoft. Factor in MS's profits on Dell or HP computers and you get a very different story.
It is not valid to mix Dell, HP, and Microsoft's profits together to compare against Apple. They are entirely different companies, they do not share their earnings.
Quote:
If you think Jobs and the Macintosh team were busing their asses working 20 hour days in 1983 for 5% of the global computer market you're dreaming. I'll leave you to figure out the "lesson" from Steve's quote, because obviously he thinks Apple fucked up in the 80s. If you can't apply that to other situations, that's your problem.
Jobs and the Macintosh team are busy working their asses for 5% of the global market share in 2010. That 5% translates roughly into $16 billion in annual sales for computers.
Steve Jobs was fired from Apple in 1985 he did not return until 1998. His criticisms of Apple have more to do with the people who ran it after he left.
On most of this we'll have to agree to disagree. If consumer's can't tell the difference between last year's model Droid for "free" and an iPhone for a hundred bucks, then Apple can probably write those sales off. They're not going to compete with a free phone anytime soon.
No most people are not paying that much attention to what is the new Droid and what is last years Droid. Most people don't care. For most people "free" is more desirable than "$99".
Quote:
77% of iPhone 4 buyers were upgrading from a previous model.
That was over a small period of time and does not at all account for every quarter of iPhone sales.
Quote:
Not sure what to say to your last part. Do you think Apple doesn't take their competitors into account when making decisions? If you're a shareholder, I would voice concern about that. Do you think all the people on this thread who have already said they are either getting a Droid or will come January if there is no CDMA iPhone aren't lost sales or Apple? Apple clearly takes Android seriously, and should. If you can't recognize that you haven't been paying attention.
Apple (nor any company) has the ability to provide products and services to literally every person out there that wants them. Apple cannot build enough of the iPhone 4 to satisfy its current demand. So no the sale of an Android phone is not a lost sale for an iPhone. Things don't work that way.
No most people are not paying that much attention to what is the new Droid and what is last years Droid. Most people don't care. For most people "free" is more desirable than "$99".
Again - Apple can write those sales off. They are not going to compete there. Why do you ignore what I say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Apple (nor any company) has the ability to provide products and services to literally every person out there that wants them. Apple cannot build enough of the iPhone 4 to satisfy its current demand. So no the sale of an Android phone is not a lost sale for an iPhone. Things don't work that way.
There is a difference between not being able to build enough and just not competing on Verizon with Android.
I have an iPhone. Love it. Hate at&t. Can't wait. at&t is penny wise and pound foolish with their service. They deserve to go under. Isn't going to happen but it would be justice.
If the users that are keen on staying with Verizon, wait long enough, it is Verizon that will upgrade (and join basically all other carriers world wide) to GSM-based LTE in their upcoming G4 network, leaving CDMA behind. Then everything will fall into place and Apple won't have to deal with a standard that is mostly useless abroad.
In the mean time, Verizon should strike a deal with the other carriers (and so should AT&T, in fact) to allow roaming in those areas where there own network has blank spots or poor reception. Then everyone would benefit and they wouldn't be blowing their future business, iPhone-wise).
I suppose next you will tell me my pants are on fire and that I hang them on the telephone wire.
Quote:
"roads between cities are blanketed in crappy 2G?" Look at that map. Now look at the roads between Washington and Boston. Or Orlando and Miami. Or Houston and New Orleans. Or Chicago and Milwaukee. Or Sacramento and LA. LOTS of major highways have 3G.
Exceptions never proves the rule. The rule is light blue. The rule is 2G.
Quote:
Not to mention, of course, that 'crappy 2G' doesn't describe the situation at all. I get better performance on Edge than a lot of Verizon 3G users.
My unicorn can beat up your leprechaun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash
Are you serious. Your position is indefensible. You picked a few cities out that might have 3G coverage the whole way. What if you want to drive to Montana? Looks like you're SOL because the entire state doesn't have 3G coverage. What if you want to drive from Boise to Phoenix, or LA to Salt Lake, or Houston to Atlanta? Those roads are blanketed in crappy 2G. And I'm calling BS on the Edge being better than Verizon 3G. I've used both. In most cases I get better performance with Verizon 3G than I did with AT&T 3G.
BTW - noticed you ignored the fact that the map you pulled up was totally inapplicable to the argument at hand.
The report also noted that a sharp increase in iPhone subscribers on Verizon may result in "concerns over how the Verizon network will handle the bandwidth demands of iPhone users."
I hope that Steve gives his iPhone to Verizon and it crashes their whole network!
Come on Extreme ... you know very well how polls are done.... by a small sample. Is it 100% accurate, 100% of the time, probably not .... but it's success rate is quite high. The following info is from Gallup (1997) but still relevant today.
The Number of Interviews or Sample Size Required:
"One key question faced by Gallup statisticians: how many interviews does it take to provide an
adequate cross-section of Americans? The answer is, not many -- that is, if the respondents to
be interviewed are selected entirely at random, giving every adult American an equal
probability of falling into the sample. The current U.S. adult population in the continental
United States is 187 million. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll, which is designed to
represent this general population, is 1,000 national adults."
note: the bold markings are mine.
All this shows is that we know more about statistics then Gallup. Big deal. We knew that already.
This isn't my area of expertise. I assume any new Verizon iPhone service has to be new as the ability to both surf and call at the same time is essential and their 'old' network can't do that can it? Has Verizon truly got such a true 4G network nation wide yet?
Nope. On Verizon, you can't multitask.
The iPhone has the best multitasking of any phone, and Steve won't allow the User Experieice to suffer like it would if he let Verizon have his phone.
The single greatest thing about the iPhone is the ability to multitask while making a call. You can order flowers for your wife, for example, and pretend that you hadn't forgotten her birthday. Try THAT with Verizon!!!
Seriously, what's this focus on marketshare over profits? .
Seriously. All we care about, as consumers, is profits. Marketshare is totally irrelevant to us.
As long as the iPhone has a "good enough" ecosystem, and as long as Steve makes lots of money, consumers don't care one bit whether it is the most popular phone or whether all the newest coolest apps are on Android or anything else.
We like Steve's Phone. Anything else is just plain irrelevant.
Comments
No it's not. He was talking about 3G and you pulled up a voice map. Check the end of the url you provided. Here is a comparison of AT&T and Verizon's coverage that I found with a simple google search:
Here is trumptman's original statement.
"Third, traveling between major metro areas, AT&T has mostly 2G coverage anyway. I mean I can't even believe you are making this point with a straight face. AT&T basically has islands of 3G coverage and all the roads connecting them are blanketed in crappy 2G."
From the map, that is completely, 100% accurate. If anyone is spreading "total, flat out lies" it is you - slyly substituting a voice map when the discussion was about data. Nice try.
And he was lying - as are you.
"roads between cities are blanketed in crappy 2G?" Look at that map. Now look at the roads between Washington and Boston. Or Orlando and Miami. Or Houston and New Orleans. Or Chicago and Milwaukee. Or Sacramento and LA. LOTS of major highways have 3G.
Not to mention, of course, that 'crappy 2G' doesn't describe the situation at all. I get better performance on Edge than a lot of Verizon 3G users.
Read this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3704453/
Here's the most important part:
"While a poll of 100 people will be more accurate than a poll of 10, studies have shown that accuracy begins to improve less at about 500 people and increases only a minor amount beyond 1,000 people."
That's how polling is done. So when the article says that a significant number of people will jump ship from AT&T for Verizon and Android may be hurt, they're using actual scientifically proven data collection techniques.
Acting like their numbers are off when they're actually following a proven method makes you look bad, not them.
The thing that bothers me about this is the freedom to switch-- what about ETFs? A recent Droid or iP4 buyer would need to Pay $395 for the privilege to switch carriers (or even phones within a carrier).
How many of the people surveyed are in a practical position to switch anything?
.
people like to believe that but it doesn't address biases in the people taking the polls, the questions or other factors that aren't always controlled well.
The poll is not proven until after the device is realized in the market. At best polls are informed speculation.
No it is always wise to question polls passed off as the truth or extremely accurate. For one thing polls are oftened tailored to the needs of the group contracting for the poll. Frankly you would be considered gullible if you accepted these results without more detailed info.
Dave
+++qft
Yes psychologically for a consumer "free" is very different from a $99 dollars.
Seeing as AT&T keeps activating more iPhone's every quarter. You really want to make the argument that most of those iPhone's are from current iPhone users? Do you have any sales data to support that argument?
I don't think you really understand how business works. What you've said above is not at all in alignment with reality or any way resembles what companies do to be successful.
On most of this we'll have to agree to disagree. If consumer's can't tell the difference between last year's model Droid for "free" and an iPhone for a hundred bucks, then Apple can probably write those sales off. They're not going to compete with a free phone anytime soon. That's not what I'm arguing. What I am saying is that there is a significant chunk of the market willing to pay $100-$200 for a phone but are not willing to switch to AT&T. Those are the customers Apple needs to target.
77% of iPhone 4 buyers were upgrading from a previous model. AT&T is saturated with people willing to switch. The network seems to be strained to the breaking point.
Not sure what to say to your last part. Do you think Apple doesn't take their competitors into account when making decisions? If you're a shareholder, I would voice concern about that. Do you think all the people on this thread who have already said they are either getting a Droid or will come January if there is no CDMA iPhone aren't lost sales or Apple? Apple clearly takes Android seriously, and should. If you can't recognize that you haven't been paying attention.
Do you think the smartphone market has been redefined, like it was for PCs with netbooks? I don't.
Like? Of course not, because netbooks came to be from Intel introducing small, low-cost, low-power x86-compatible chips known as Atom, but the smartphone market has been redefined and Apple redefined it.
Take a look at Android phone prototypes. In the HW and SW it resembled a Blakberry. The iPhone changed everything an regardless of how you feel about Apple or the iPhone if you are a smartphone user you have/will benefit/ed from Apple's foray into this market.
The difference is netbooks, as a brand-less subclass of PC, merely added to the PC fold while the iPhone is one brand that changed the way everyone else did business if they wanted to survive. This is from the HW to the OS to the UI to the apps (especially web browser) to the way apps are distributed to the integration with your other "computers" to the focus on the consumer market.
Maybe most are smart enough to know the TCO of a smartphone but I've hearing and reading about the cost of the iPhone since the day it was introduced. Let me put it this way, Apple is trying to monopolize a price point. Once that price point is saturated then they will increase the opportunity to acquire buyers by a) lowering the price (like with consumer Macs), b) offering new models (like with iPods), c) expand to new markets (typically new countries, but in the case of the iPhone it can also be another device for a disparate carrier).
Every Incredible and Droid X that HTC and Motorola sell is a lost iPhone sale, which translates into lost profits and lost market share.
That is only true in a theoretical sense. Right now they are selling 100% of all iPhones they can make.
BTW, every "Incredible and Droid X that HTC and Motorola" don't sell is a net loss of profit. Same goes for Apple, which is why you don't see Apple building 30 factories that can push out a 200k iPhones a day, each. They do tend to underestimate the interestbin their phone, but that is better than overestimating it. So if anything, Apple is losing profits from inaccurately gauging demand.
However, it's not that simple because it may not be prudent to double your production costs with a second factory if you a) can't get components, and b) if the "frenzy" will die down in a relatively short time, either of which will result in loses an unused factory.
There is word that Foxconn is building a new factory just for the iPhone and thatnit will produce 200k a day once it's [Emperor voice] fully operational [/Emperor voice]. This might be for a CDMA iPhone but I don't think it will be finished by January and I think a 6 monymth offset release cycle between iPhone types makes sense for the reasons I stated earlier.
(Forgive any errors, this was all typed on my iPhone between parking and sitting down to a watch "The Other Guys"... Previews starting. Night!)
And he was lying - as are you.
"roads between cities are blanketed in crappy 2G?" Look at that map. Now look at the roads between Washington and Boston. Or Orlando and Miami. Or Houston and New Orleans. Or Chicago and Milwaukee. Or Sacramento and LA. LOTS of major highways have 3G.
Not to mention, of course, that 'crappy 2G' doesn't describe the situation at all. I get better performance on Edge than a lot of Verizon 3G users.
Are you serious. Your position is indefensible. You picked a few cities out that might have 3G coverage the whole way. What if you want to drive to Montana? Looks like you're SOL because the entire state doesn't have 3G coverage. What if you want to drive from Boise to Phoenix, or LA to Salt Lake, or Houston to Atlanta? Those roads are blanketed in crappy 2G. And I'm calling BS on the Edge being better than Verizon 3G. I've used both. In most cases I get better performance with Verizon 3G than I did with AT&T 3G.
BTW - noticed you ignored the fact that the map you pulled up was totally inapplicable to the argument at hand.
Like? Of course not, because netbooks came to be from Intel introducing small, low-cost, low-power x86-compatible chips known as Atom, but the smartphone market has been redefined and Apple redefined it.
Take a look at Android phone prototypes. In the HW and SW it resembled a Blakberry. The iPhone changed everything an regardless of how you feel about Apple or the iPhone if you are a smartphone user you have/will benefit/ed from Apple's foray into this market.
The difference is netbooks, as a brand-less subclass of PC, merely added to the PC fold while the iPhone is one brand that changed the way everyone else did business if they wanted to survive. This is from the HW to the OS to the UI to the apps (especially web browser) to the way apps are distributed to the integration with your other "computers" to the focus on the consumer market.
Maybe most are smart enough to know the TCO of a smartphone but I've hearing and reading about the cost of the iPhone since the day it was introduced. Let me put it this way, Apple is trying to monopolize a price point. Once that price point is saturated then they will increase the opportunity to acquire buyers by a) lowering the price (like with consumer Macs), b) offering new models (like with iPods), c) expand to new markets (typically new countries, but in the case of the iPhone it can also be another device for a disparate carrier).
That is only true in a theoretical sense. Right now they are selling 100% of all iPhones they can make.
BTW, every "Incredible and Droid X that HTC and Motorola" don't sell is a net loss of profit. Same goes for Apple, which is why you don't see Apple building 30 factories that can push out a 200k iPhones a day, each. They do tend to underestimate the interestbin their phone, but that is better than overestimating it. So if anything, Apple is losing profits from inaccurately gauging demand.
However, it's not that simple because it may not be prudent to double your production costs with a second factory if you a) can't get components, and b) if the "frenzy" will die down in a relatively short time, either of which will result in loses an unused factory.
There is word that Foxconn is building a new factory just for the iPhone and thatnit will produce 200k a day once it's [Emperor voice] fully operational [/Emperor voice]. This might be for a CDMA iPhone but I don't think it will be finished by January and I think a 6 monymth offset release cycle between iPhone types makes sense for the reasons I stated earlier.
(Forgive any errors, this was all typed on my iPhone between parking and sitting down to a watch "The Other Guys"... Previews starting. Night!)
Good points. Enjoy the movie. It is hilarious.
I see you've ignored what I've already posted on this, so I'll say it again. It is not clear that Apple is the most profitable computer company on the planet. They are more profitable than Dell and HP, but they are nowhere near Microsoft. Factor in MS's profits on Dell or HP computers and you get a very different story.
It is not valid to mix Dell, HP, and Microsoft's profits together to compare against Apple. They are entirely different companies, they do not share their earnings.
If you think Jobs and the Macintosh team were busing their asses working 20 hour days in 1983 for 5% of the global computer market you're dreaming. I'll leave you to figure out the "lesson" from Steve's quote, because obviously he thinks Apple fucked up in the 80s. If you can't apply that to other situations, that's your problem.
Jobs and the Macintosh team are busy working their asses for 5% of the global market share in 2010. That 5% translates roughly into $16 billion in annual sales for computers.
Steve Jobs was fired from Apple in 1985 he did not return until 1998. His criticisms of Apple have more to do with the people who ran it after he left.
On most of this we'll have to agree to disagree. If consumer's can't tell the difference between last year's model Droid for "free" and an iPhone for a hundred bucks, then Apple can probably write those sales off. They're not going to compete with a free phone anytime soon.
No most people are not paying that much attention to what is the new Droid and what is last years Droid. Most people don't care. For most people "free" is more desirable than "$99".
77% of iPhone 4 buyers were upgrading from a previous model.
That was over a small period of time and does not at all account for every quarter of iPhone sales.
Not sure what to say to your last part. Do you think Apple doesn't take their competitors into account when making decisions? If you're a shareholder, I would voice concern about that. Do you think all the people on this thread who have already said they are either getting a Droid or will come January if there is no CDMA iPhone aren't lost sales or Apple? Apple clearly takes Android seriously, and should. If you can't recognize that you haven't been paying attention.
Apple (nor any company) has the ability to provide products and services to literally every person out there that wants them. Apple cannot build enough of the iPhone 4 to satisfy its current demand. So no the sale of an Android phone is not a lost sale for an iPhone. Things don't work that way.
No most people are not paying that much attention to what is the new Droid and what is last years Droid. Most people don't care. For most people "free" is more desirable than "$99".
Again - Apple can write those sales off. They are not going to compete there. Why do you ignore what I say?
Apple (nor any company) has the ability to provide products and services to literally every person out there that wants them. Apple cannot build enough of the iPhone 4 to satisfy its current demand. So no the sale of an Android phone is not a lost sale for an iPhone. Things don't work that way.
There is a difference between not being able to build enough and just not competing on Verizon with Android.
The wait for G4 won't be long as Verizon will be deploying it in 2011, starting with 20-30 major markets before the end of 2010 (cf. http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-12261_7-10209933-51.html).
In the mean time, Verizon should strike a deal with the other carriers (and so should AT&T, in fact) to allow roaming in those areas where there own network has blank spots or poor reception. Then everyone would benefit and they wouldn't be blowing their future business, iPhone-wise).
And he was lying - as are you.
I suppose next you will tell me my pants are on fire and that I hang them on the telephone wire.
"roads between cities are blanketed in crappy 2G?" Look at that map. Now look at the roads between Washington and Boston. Or Orlando and Miami. Or Houston and New Orleans. Or Chicago and Milwaukee. Or Sacramento and LA. LOTS of major highways have 3G.
Exceptions never proves the rule. The rule is light blue. The rule is 2G.
Not to mention, of course, that 'crappy 2G' doesn't describe the situation at all. I get better performance on Edge than a lot of Verizon 3G users.
My unicorn can beat up your leprechaun.
Are you serious. Your position is indefensible. You picked a few cities out that might have 3G coverage the whole way. What if you want to drive to Montana? Looks like you're SOL because the entire state doesn't have 3G coverage. What if you want to drive from Boise to Phoenix, or LA to Salt Lake, or Houston to Atlanta? Those roads are blanketed in crappy 2G. And I'm calling BS on the Edge being better than Verizon 3G. I've used both. In most cases I get better performance with Verizon 3G than I did with AT&T 3G.
BTW - noticed you ignored the fact that the map you pulled up was totally inapplicable to the argument at hand.
He clearly isn't serious. He clearly is a troll.
The report also noted that a sharp increase in iPhone subscribers on Verizon may result in "concerns over how the Verizon network will handle the bandwidth demands of iPhone users."
I hope that Steve gives his iPhone to Verizon and it crashes their whole network!
No kidding, a 1,000 people? What a joke, a 'sample' is being generous.
They think they can fool us but we know everything about ststistics.
A Verizon iPhone would satisfy one of those complaints, but it has a lot of catch up to play to the Droid X for my purposes, frankly ^_^.
So you are one of the tiny, tiny number of people who prefer Android. Then please stop posting here.
Come on Extreme ... you know very well how polls are done.... by a small sample. Is it 100% accurate, 100% of the time, probably not .... but it's success rate is quite high. The following info is from Gallup (1997) but still relevant today.
The Number of Interviews or Sample Size Required:
"One key question faced by Gallup statisticians: how many interviews does it take to provide an
adequate cross-section of Americans? The answer is, not many -- that is, if the respondents to
be interviewed are selected entirely at random, giving every adult American an equal
probability of falling into the sample. The current U.S. adult population in the continental
United States is 187 million. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll, which is designed to
represent this general population, is 1,000 national adults."
note: the bold markings are mine.
All this shows is that we know more about statistics then Gallup. Big deal. We knew that already.
This isn't my area of expertise. I assume any new Verizon iPhone service has to be new as the ability to both surf and call at the same time is essential and their 'old' network can't do that can it? Has Verizon truly got such a true 4G network nation wide yet?
Nope. On Verizon, you can't multitask.
The iPhone has the best multitasking of any phone, and Steve won't allow the User Experieice to suffer like it would if he let Verizon have his phone.
The single greatest thing about the iPhone is the ability to multitask while making a call. You can order flowers for your wife, for example, and pretend that you hadn't forgotten her birthday. Try THAT with Verizon!!!
Seriously, what's this focus on marketshare over profits? .
Seriously. All we care about, as consumers, is profits. Marketshare is totally irrelevant to us.
As long as the iPhone has a "good enough" ecosystem, and as long as Steve makes lots of money, consumers don't care one bit whether it is the most popular phone or whether all the newest coolest apps are on Android or anything else.
We like Steve's Phone. Anything else is just plain irrelevant.