There is not really any reason for anyone to pull out their Android phone, so you never see them. I am by the way totally serious. Compare features etc, but the user experience on Android simply sucks when compared to iOS. People use their iPhones for more, and buy more apps, because it is better.
That is true for you and most others on this forum. It's certainly not true for me and people like me who have switched from the iPhone to the Android. For me, the Android UX is far superior to the iPhone UX. Although with the multitasking with iOS4, the frustration of using an iPhone has dramatically dropped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
Android has more market share because it is made by lots of manufacturers, on lots of carriers and is quite often given away...
Absolutely right. Android phones have been outselling iPhones for the last 3 quarters by a margin of 2 to 1. While I wasn't reading too much into that in the first two quarters, given that most informed buyers would be waiting for the new iPhone in the third quarter, the recent numbers prove without doubt that it's only a matter of time that iPhone is eclipsed in installed base as well. T-Mobile is introducing sub $50 Android phones this Christmas and sub $200 off contract Android phones. A lot of people buying features phones will be getting Android phones now. Add the tablets coming in next year and Google TV, and what happened with phones this year will happen with iOS devices vs Android devices next year. Apple waited waaaay too long to get over their ego and go with Verizon. It should have happened in 2009 summer before the Android phones actually started living up to the OS. iPhone on Verizon next year isn't going to change the market much. Every poll shows fewer people wanting to switch to iPhone on Verizon compared to the previous poll. Hubris and Greed are the words I'd use to describe Apple's approach Verizon last year. I expect that this will be a Case Study topic in business schools in a couple of years.
Or maybe you dont know what an android phone looks like.
Well that could indicate a problem in actual market penetration then, wouldn't it? New things naturally grab the human brain's attention, that's a unavoidable by-product of the survival instinct in evolution. So if we aren't seeing things we don't recognize in the wild, the opportunities to see them must be somewhat limited. Either they don't exist, or they stay out of sight and aren't used anywhere near as much across the population of smartphone users.
I'll vote for mostly staying out of sight. Being used as BT phones, but not really being used a lot for the smartphone part.
And if they aren't being used primarily as smartphones, just as BT phones, that means the brand loyalty part is going to be totally missing, the user will move on to whatever device next time around. The Android phones have a potential danger of becoming the replacement for low price feature phones with cutthroat thin margins,and leaving all the real profit in the actual smartphone market. That isn't where things are today, but it is an increasing risk.
Well that could indicate a problem in actual market penetration then, wouldn't it? New things naturally grab the human brain's attention, that's a unavoidable by-product of the survival instinct in evolution. So if we aren't seeing things we don't recognize in the wild, the opportunities to see them must be somewhat limited. Either they don't exist, or they stay out of sight and aren't used anywhere near as much across the population of smartphone users.
I'll vote for mostly staying out of sight. Being used as BT phones, but not really being used a lot for the smartphone part.
And if they aren't being used primarily as smartphones, just as BT phones, that means the brand loyalty part is going to be totally missing, the user will move on to whatever device next time around. The Android phones have a potential danger of becoming the replacement for low price feature phones with cutthroat thin margins,and leaving all the real profit in the actual smartphone market. That isn't where things are today, but it is an increasing risk.
Or maybe it's just because the user doesn't feel a need to flash it in everyone's face all the time?
Personally, I think you're wrong about Android being limited to the feature phone market. Deny it all you want with whatever rational (or irrational) justification you come up with, but Android has the potential to take hold on all levels of the mobile phone market because it's that flexible. It's already happening right now.
Apple just chooses not to offer an entry-level device because it's not their philosophy. Lets say Apple decided to venture into the entry-level market with a sub-$50 phone. Would you think any less of them for doing it? I would guess not.
I took the pie chart simply to mean developers who are developing apps that specifically make use of the iPad's size. In that case, those apps are not scalable downwards to the iPhone. In that case, I don't think one can argue that these apps should count as iOS apps across the board.
And this situation will strike Android too, once Google releases their version of Android that's designed for tablets. There will be apps designed solely for tablets that won't work on smaller screen sizes.
All this is to be expected. I really don't get why people get defensive about this stuff. Surprise! Developers are more likely to build apps for Android than the iPad...because Android phones are outselling the iPad. How is this news?
Or maybe it's just because the user doesn't feel a need to flash it in everyone's face all the time?
it's much simpler than that. if you aren't using the smartphone features it's not out. If you think using a phones features, features you paid for, is flashing it in someone's face I don't know how you could ever use it and not be considered an asshat. I don't think you mean everyone who uses a smartphone is an asshat so maybe you made a bit of an overreaching statement that you didn't fully think through.
Quote:
Personally, I think you're wrong about Android being limited to the feature phone market. Deny it all you want with whatever rational (or irrational) justification you come up with, but Android has the potential to take hold on all levels of the mobile phone market because it's that flexible. It's already happening right now.
Apple just chooses not to offer an entry-level device because it's not their philosophy. Lets say Apple decided to venture into the entry-level market with a sub-$50 phone. Would you think any less of them for doing it? I would guess not.
I didn't say Android it there yet, I said there is a danger of it. And the argument has absolutely nothing to do with any level of technical merit. It has everything to do with crappy execution of UIs and the commodity mindset of the producers management teams. If Android doesn't create big profits once iPhone is carrier agnostic, watch the business plans morph to the inexpensive feature phones with iPad Nano sized screens.
And that market segment will be just as profitable as todays feature phones, meaning ~15% of the industry profit distributed over ~75% of the sold devices as things currently sit. What, last year Apple sold ~2% of all phones and made ~45% of the industry wide profit? Why chase after that 15% unless you are exiled there like Nokia and Ericssion?
I took the pie chart simply to mean developers who are developing apps that specifically make use of the iPad's size. In that case, those apps are not scalable downwards to the iPhone. In that case, I don't think one can argue that these apps should count as iOS apps across the board.
And this situation will strike Android too, once Google releases their version of Android that's designed for tablets. There will be apps designed solely for tablets that won't work on smaller screen sizes.
All this is to be expected. I really don't get why people get defensive about this stuff. Surprise! Developers are more likely to build apps for Android than the iPad...because Android phones are outselling the iPad. How is this news?
If that's the case then where are the iOS iPods, and differentiation between iPhone4 display sizes and earlier iPhone display sizes. Those distinctions aren't thee because that isn't how the graphs were made, your attempted explanation of them falls short because of that.
Frankly, I have a hard with the development graphs with them because I don't see the iPod iOS development, while the also not a phone iPad is listed. An oversight like that is just another indication of either unacceptable sloppiness or intentional loose-standard spin to make a point rather then letting the data speak for itself.
Im pretty sure iPhone will never regain the number one spot from Android, but I wonder how long it will take for Android tablets to start taking over as well. And when Google releases there desktop version, will Apple go out of business? Perhaps Google will bail out Apple like Microsoft did in the 80's. Sucks to be you Jobs, didn't expect this did you.
it's much simpler than that. if you aren't using the smartphone features it's not out. If you think using a phones features, features you paid for, is flashing it in someone's face I don't know how you could ever use it and not be considered an asshat. I don't think you mean everyone who uses a smartphone is an asshat so maybe you made a bit of an overreaching statement that you didn't fully think through.
I didn't say Android it there yet, I said there is a danger of it. And the argument has absolutely nothing to do with any level of technical merit. It has everything to do with crappy execution of UIs and the commodity mindset of the producers management teams. If Android doesn't create big profits once iPhone is carrier agnostic, watch the business plans morph to the inexpensive feature phones with iPad Nano sized screens.
And that market segment will be just as profitable as todays feature phones, meaning ~15% of the industry profit distributed over ~75% of the sold devices as things currently sit. What, last year Apple sold ~2% of all phones and made ~45% of the industry wide profit? Why chase after that 15% unless you are exiled there like Nokia and Ericssion?
I've often wondered this when people mock the low end of the phone market for it's razor thin profit margins, but if all phones were high priced, high margin devices, how would the millions of people in the world who live on next to nothing ever be able to afford a mobile phone? There's over a billion people in India, and the vast majority would never be able to afford a phone if every manufacturer adopted Apple's approach. Or do you think they just shouldn't own a phone?
Hey look, it's the "Nokia is actually a charitable foundation committed to making no money so shut up about profits" argument! Didn't expect to ever see it again!
I'm not really seeing where anyone is demanding that the industry adopt Apple's strategy so all phones are too expensive for poor Indians. Just the opposite-- it's Apple that is generally mocked for low market share numbers, and pointing out the profit distribution situation is a just a way of establishing the viability of Apple's approach, not a moral case for keeping goods and services out of the hands of the indigent.
Hey look, it's the "Nokia is actually a charitable foundation committed to making no money so shut up about profits" argument! Didn't expect to ever see it again!
I'm not really seeing where anyone is demanding that the industry adopt Apple's strategy so all phones are too expensive for poor Indians. Just the opposite-- it's Apple that is generally mocked for low market share numbers, and pointing out the profit distribution situation is a just a way of establishing the viability of Apple's approach, not a moral case for keeping goods and services out of the hands of the indigent.
The point I'm trying to make is that the constant reminders of Apple's huge profits is also a reminder that Apple's strategy is only any good in markets where people can afford their devices. These 'reminders' also serve to criticise those manufacturers who do make affordable devices for poorer countries, and thus less profit, as if that were a bad thing. It seems that there is a feeling that profits profits profits is the only goal, and that Nokia et al should pack their low to mid-range bags and focus exclusively on the high end. But then that'd cut out millions, nay, billions of potential customers who would then be priced out of the market. I don't know why so many people see that as a good thing.
The point I'm trying to make is that the constant reminders of Apple's huge profits is also a reminder that Apple's strategy is only any good in markets where people can afford their devices. These 'reminders' also serve to criticise those manufacturers who do make affordable devices for poorer countries, and thus less profit, as if that were a bad thing. It seems that there is a feeling that profits profits profits is the only goal, and that Nokia et al should pack their low to mid-range bags and focus exclusively on the high end. But then that'd cut out millions, nay, billions of potential customers who would then be priced out of the market. I don't know why so many people see that as a good thing.
I'm not seeing how pointing out that Apple can have a pretty great business for itself by concentrating on profitable market segments over absolute market share constitutes hostility to the idea of cheap products in general, or some kind of imaginary indifference to the circumstances of the poor.
Nokia would sell more high margin phones if they could, so it's also reasonable to point out that their high market share numbers come at the expense of profits. This is also not a condemnation of the poor or their right to own cell phones.
If Nokia did manage to move their portfolio to higher end smart phones and commenced exiting the cheap phone business, someone else would move in to take up the slack. That's how markets work-- if there's money to be made by selling lots and lots of cheap things that will be addressed, just as selling more higher priced things will be addressed.
I think the confusion lies in the fact that Nokia is a huge corporation with a storied history and some real achievements in cellular technology that is being frog marched into the lower end of the market via changes in the industry as a whole. It's not that selling nothing but super cheap phones is wrong, it's that it doesn't seem like a good fit for Nokia-- something I'm sure their recently replaced management team would agree with.
Lets also not forget the time, money, and effort, put in by Jobs and Apple to the sell there goods. On the flip side Android has gotten very little AD time and has become the number one seller and in market share platform. Can you imagine if they really market/Advertise this thing, well its already a land slide, but you get the idea.
I've often wondered this when people mock the low end of the phone market for it's razor thin profit margins, but if all phones were high priced, high margin devices, how would the millions of people in the world who live on next to nothing ever be able to afford a mobile phone? There's over a billion people in India, and the vast majority would never be able to afford a phone if every manufacturer adopted Apple's approach. Or do you think they just shouldn't own a phone?
You think the notion of a significantly more powerful low priced feature phone is saying the people of India shouldn't have phones? That's some seriously twisted logic. It's about as wacky as accusing Santa Claus of racism next because he doesn't visit Jewish and Muslim kids.
Im pretty sure iPhone will never regain the number one spot from Android, but I wonder how long it will take for Android tablets to start taking over as well. And when Google releases there desktop version, will Apple go out of business? Perhaps Google will bail out Apple like Microsoft did in the 80's. Sucks to be you Jobs, didn't expect this did you.
You think the notion of a significantly more powerful low priced feature phone is saying the people of India shouldn't have phones? That's some seriously twisted logic. It's about as wacky as accusing Santa Claus of racism next because he doesn't visit Jewish and Muslim kids.
No I'm saying that criticising or belittling Nokia for their lower profit margins in comparison to Apple is a pointless endeavour since they compete in markets that are inherently less profitable, and which Apple have no interest or desire to compete in. That's entirely Nokia and Apple's prerogative, but both approaches are equally as valid as the next.
Lets also not forget the time, money, and effort, put in by Jobs and Apple to the sell there goods. On the flip side Android has gotten very little AD time and has become the number one seller and in market share platform. Can you imagine if they really market/Advertise this thing, well its already a land slide, but you get the idea.
I don't generally bother responding to straight up trolls, particularly your sort of dim bulb variety, but the idea that Android isn't being advertised much is pretty funny-- in that you can't watch TV without seeing an Android commercial about every 15 seconds. Is there anyone alive at this point that doesn't have that fucking robo "Droid" noise tattooed on their brain?
I have yet to see any actual sales data on this. Only analysts making projections based on extrapolating Google reports of Android activations. And even with that the math doesn't work. Because Google is reporting fewer activations than Apple is.
Android phones outsell iPhone 2-to-1, says research firm
Google's OS powers 44% of smartphones sold in U.S. last quarter; Apple's iOS far behind
Comments
There is not really any reason for anyone to pull out their Android phone, so you never see them. I am by the way totally serious. Compare features etc, but the user experience on Android simply sucks when compared to iOS. People use their iPhones for more, and buy more apps, because it is better.
That is true for you and most others on this forum. It's certainly not true for me and people like me who have switched from the iPhone to the Android. For me, the Android UX is far superior to the iPhone UX. Although with the multitasking with iOS4, the frustration of using an iPhone has dramatically dropped.
Android has more market share because it is made by lots of manufacturers, on lots of carriers and is quite often given away...
Absolutely right. Android phones have been outselling iPhones for the last 3 quarters by a margin of 2 to 1. While I wasn't reading too much into that in the first two quarters, given that most informed buyers would be waiting for the new iPhone in the third quarter, the recent numbers prove without doubt that it's only a matter of time that iPhone is eclipsed in installed base as well. T-Mobile is introducing sub $50 Android phones this Christmas and sub $200 off contract Android phones. A lot of people buying features phones will be getting Android phones now. Add the tablets coming in next year and Google TV, and what happened with phones this year will happen with iOS devices vs Android devices next year. Apple waited waaaay too long to get over their ego and go with Verizon. It should have happened in 2009 summer before the Android phones actually started living up to the OS. iPhone on Verizon next year isn't going to change the market much. Every poll shows fewer people wanting to switch to iPhone on Verizon compared to the previous poll. Hubris and Greed are the words I'd use to describe Apple's approach Verizon last year. I expect that this will be a Case Study topic in business schools in a couple of years.
Or maybe you dont know what an android phone looks like.
Well that could indicate a problem in actual market penetration then, wouldn't it? New things naturally grab the human brain's attention, that's a unavoidable by-product of the survival instinct in evolution. So if we aren't seeing things we don't recognize in the wild, the opportunities to see them must be somewhat limited. Either they don't exist, or they stay out of sight and aren't used anywhere near as much across the population of smartphone users.
I'll vote for mostly staying out of sight. Being used as BT phones, but not really being used a lot for the smartphone part.
And if they aren't being used primarily as smartphones, just as BT phones, that means the brand loyalty part is going to be totally missing, the user will move on to whatever device next time around. The Android phones have a potential danger of becoming the replacement for low price feature phones with cutthroat thin margins,and leaving all the real profit in the actual smartphone market. That isn't where things are today, but it is an increasing risk.
Well that could indicate a problem in actual market penetration then, wouldn't it? New things naturally grab the human brain's attention, that's a unavoidable by-product of the survival instinct in evolution. So if we aren't seeing things we don't recognize in the wild, the opportunities to see them must be somewhat limited. Either they don't exist, or they stay out of sight and aren't used anywhere near as much across the population of smartphone users.
I'll vote for mostly staying out of sight. Being used as BT phones, but not really being used a lot for the smartphone part.
And if they aren't being used primarily as smartphones, just as BT phones, that means the brand loyalty part is going to be totally missing, the user will move on to whatever device next time around. The Android phones have a potential danger of becoming the replacement for low price feature phones with cutthroat thin margins,and leaving all the real profit in the actual smartphone market. That isn't where things are today, but it is an increasing risk.
Or maybe it's just because the user doesn't feel a need to flash it in everyone's face all the time?
Personally, I think you're wrong about Android being limited to the feature phone market. Deny it all you want with whatever rational (or irrational) justification you come up with, but Android has the potential to take hold on all levels of the mobile phone market because it's that flexible. It's already happening right now.
Apple just chooses not to offer an entry-level device because it's not their philosophy. Lets say Apple decided to venture into the entry-level market with a sub-$50 phone. Would you think any less of them for doing it? I would guess not.
And this situation will strike Android too, once Google releases their version of Android that's designed for tablets. There will be apps designed solely for tablets that won't work on smaller screen sizes.
All this is to be expected. I really don't get why people get defensive about this stuff. Surprise! Developers are more likely to build apps for Android than the iPad...because Android phones are outselling the iPad. How is this news?
Or maybe it's just because the user doesn't feel a need to flash it in everyone's face all the time?
it's much simpler than that. if you aren't using the smartphone features it's not out. If you think using a phones features, features you paid for, is flashing it in someone's face I don't know how you could ever use it and not be considered an asshat. I don't think you mean everyone who uses a smartphone is an asshat so maybe you made a bit of an overreaching statement that you didn't fully think through.
Personally, I think you're wrong about Android being limited to the feature phone market. Deny it all you want with whatever rational (or irrational) justification you come up with, but Android has the potential to take hold on all levels of the mobile phone market because it's that flexible. It's already happening right now.
Apple just chooses not to offer an entry-level device because it's not their philosophy. Lets say Apple decided to venture into the entry-level market with a sub-$50 phone. Would you think any less of them for doing it? I would guess not.
I didn't say Android it there yet, I said there is a danger of it. And the argument has absolutely nothing to do with any level of technical merit. It has everything to do with crappy execution of UIs and the commodity mindset of the producers management teams. If Android doesn't create big profits once iPhone is carrier agnostic, watch the business plans morph to the inexpensive feature phones with iPad Nano sized screens.
And that market segment will be just as profitable as todays feature phones, meaning ~15% of the industry profit distributed over ~75% of the sold devices as things currently sit. What, last year Apple sold ~2% of all phones and made ~45% of the industry wide profit? Why chase after that 15% unless you are exiled there like Nokia and Ericssion?
I took the pie chart simply to mean developers who are developing apps that specifically make use of the iPad's size. In that case, those apps are not scalable downwards to the iPhone. In that case, I don't think one can argue that these apps should count as iOS apps across the board.
And this situation will strike Android too, once Google releases their version of Android that's designed for tablets. There will be apps designed solely for tablets that won't work on smaller screen sizes.
All this is to be expected. I really don't get why people get defensive about this stuff. Surprise! Developers are more likely to build apps for Android than the iPad...because Android phones are outselling the iPad. How is this news?
If that's the case then where are the iOS iPods, and differentiation between iPhone4 display sizes and earlier iPhone display sizes. Those distinctions aren't thee because that isn't how the graphs were made, your attempted explanation of them falls short because of that.
Frankly, I have a hard with the development graphs with them because I don't see the iPod iOS development, while the also not a phone iPad is listed. An oversight like that is just another indication of either unacceptable sloppiness or intentional loose-standard spin to make a point rather then letting the data speak for itself.
it's much simpler than that. if you aren't using the smartphone features it's not out. If you think using a phones features, features you paid for, is flashing it in someone's face I don't know how you could ever use it and not be considered an asshat. I don't think you mean everyone who uses a smartphone is an asshat so maybe you made a bit of an overreaching statement that you didn't fully think through.
I didn't say Android it there yet, I said there is a danger of it. And the argument has absolutely nothing to do with any level of technical merit. It has everything to do with crappy execution of UIs and the commodity mindset of the producers management teams. If Android doesn't create big profits once iPhone is carrier agnostic, watch the business plans morph to the inexpensive feature phones with iPad Nano sized screens.
And that market segment will be just as profitable as todays feature phones, meaning ~15% of the industry profit distributed over ~75% of the sold devices as things currently sit. What, last year Apple sold ~2% of all phones and made ~45% of the industry wide profit? Why chase after that 15% unless you are exiled there like Nokia and Ericssion?
I've often wondered this when people mock the low end of the phone market for it's razor thin profit margins, but if all phones were high priced, high margin devices, how would the millions of people in the world who live on next to nothing ever be able to afford a mobile phone? There's over a billion people in India, and the vast majority would never be able to afford a phone if every manufacturer adopted Apple's approach. Or do you think they just shouldn't own a phone?
I'm not really seeing where anyone is demanding that the industry adopt Apple's strategy so all phones are too expensive for poor Indians. Just the opposite-- it's Apple that is generally mocked for low market share numbers, and pointing out the profit distribution situation is a just a way of establishing the viability of Apple's approach, not a moral case for keeping goods and services out of the hands of the indigent.
Hey look, it's the "Nokia is actually a charitable foundation committed to making no money so shut up about profits" argument! Didn't expect to ever see it again!
I'm not really seeing where anyone is demanding that the industry adopt Apple's strategy so all phones are too expensive for poor Indians. Just the opposite-- it's Apple that is generally mocked for low market share numbers, and pointing out the profit distribution situation is a just a way of establishing the viability of Apple's approach, not a moral case for keeping goods and services out of the hands of the indigent.
The point I'm trying to make is that the constant reminders of Apple's huge profits is also a reminder that Apple's strategy is only any good in markets where people can afford their devices. These 'reminders' also serve to criticise those manufacturers who do make affordable devices for poorer countries, and thus less profit, as if that were a bad thing. It seems that there is a feeling that profits profits profits is the only goal, and that Nokia et al should pack their low to mid-range bags and focus exclusively on the high end. But then that'd cut out millions, nay, billions of potential customers who would then be priced out of the market. I don't know why so many people see that as a good thing.
The point I'm trying to make is that the constant reminders of Apple's huge profits is also a reminder that Apple's strategy is only any good in markets where people can afford their devices. These 'reminders' also serve to criticise those manufacturers who do make affordable devices for poorer countries, and thus less profit, as if that were a bad thing. It seems that there is a feeling that profits profits profits is the only goal, and that Nokia et al should pack their low to mid-range bags and focus exclusively on the high end. But then that'd cut out millions, nay, billions of potential customers who would then be priced out of the market. I don't know why so many people see that as a good thing.
I'm not seeing how pointing out that Apple can have a pretty great business for itself by concentrating on profitable market segments over absolute market share constitutes hostility to the idea of cheap products in general, or some kind of imaginary indifference to the circumstances of the poor.
Nokia would sell more high margin phones if they could, so it's also reasonable to point out that their high market share numbers come at the expense of profits. This is also not a condemnation of the poor or their right to own cell phones.
If Nokia did manage to move their portfolio to higher end smart phones and commenced exiting the cheap phone business, someone else would move in to take up the slack. That's how markets work-- if there's money to be made by selling lots and lots of cheap things that will be addressed, just as selling more higher priced things will be addressed.
I think the confusion lies in the fact that Nokia is a huge corporation with a storied history and some real achievements in cellular technology that is being frog marched into the lower end of the market via changes in the industry as a whole. It's not that selling nothing but super cheap phones is wrong, it's that it doesn't seem like a good fit for Nokia-- something I'm sure their recently replaced management team would agree with.
I've often wondered this when people mock the low end of the phone market for it's razor thin profit margins, but if all phones were high priced, high margin devices, how would the millions of people in the world who live on next to nothing ever be able to afford a mobile phone? There's over a billion people in India, and the vast majority would never be able to afford a phone if every manufacturer adopted Apple's approach. Or do you think they just shouldn't own a phone?
You think the notion of a significantly more powerful low priced feature phone is saying the people of India shouldn't have phones? That's some seriously twisted logic. It's about as wacky as accusing Santa Claus of racism next because he doesn't visit Jewish and Muslim kids.
Im pretty sure iPhone will never regain the number one spot from Android, but I wonder how long it will take for Android tablets to start taking over as well. And when Google releases there desktop version, will Apple go out of business? Perhaps Google will bail out Apple like Microsoft did in the 80's. Sucks to be you Jobs, didn't expect this did you.
You think the notion of a significantly more powerful low priced feature phone is saying the people of India shouldn't have phones? That's some seriously twisted logic. It's about as wacky as accusing Santa Claus of racism next because he doesn't visit Jewish and Muslim kids.
No I'm saying that criticising or belittling Nokia for their lower profit margins in comparison to Apple is a pointless endeavour since they compete in markets that are inherently less profitable, and which Apple have no interest or desire to compete in. That's entirely Nokia and Apple's prerogative, but both approaches are equally as valid as the next.
Dell wont be around too much longer.
Lets also not forget the time, money, and effort, put in by Jobs and Apple to the sell there goods. On the flip side Android has gotten very little AD time and has become the number one seller and in market share platform. Can you imagine if they really market/Advertise this thing, well its already a land slide, but you get the idea.
I don't generally bother responding to straight up trolls, particularly your sort of dim bulb variety, but the idea that Android isn't being advertised much is pretty funny-- in that you can't watch TV without seeing an Android commercial about every 15 seconds. Is there anyone alive at this point that doesn't have that fucking robo "Droid" noise tattooed on their brain?
I have yet to see any actual sales data on this. Only analysts making projections based on extrapolating Google reports of Android activations. And even with that the math doesn't work. Because Google is reporting fewer activations than Apple is.
Android phones outsell iPhone 2-to-1, says research firm
Google's OS powers 44% of smartphones sold in U.S. last quarter; Apple's iOS far behind
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic..._research_firm
Well that could indicate a problem in actual market penetration then, wouldn't it? .
It could. But it is totally and completely unreliable.
Instead, use hard numbers. Facts. Stats.
They are 100% reliable, if interpreted correctly. Trying to suss out a cause for your perception is not reliable.