When the iphone got out in january 2007, Android was still vaporware and when Google show the alpha version to the world later in 2007 it was a blackberry clone. Then Android slowly became an iOS clone over the years.
I am seriously getting annoy by people saying Android was there before the iphone. The company was there in 2003, but the software was no were near like the 2007 iphone OS.
It all depends on how you define it. Those saying Android was before iPhone OS are surely only referring to the name tied to some initial OS software. I say let them have that as it does show how Android and others had to completely rethink what they were doing and use the iPhone as a template if they wanted to complete in the future of smartphones.
It?s funny how so many ?experts? said Apple couldn?t compete in such a saturated market and overnight Apple?s model became the only one worth using if you want to survive.
That?s not to say that other innovations outside of Apple have not arisen, including ones that Apple has adopted and will adopt in future, just that the nearly buttonless, capacitance, multitouch smartphone with a rich web-browser is now the de facto standard because of Apple?s emergence into this industry. I have no doubt others would have figured it out, but when? Would Android be the most ?open? Blackberry like device on the market had the iPhone not existed? I think so.
I have no doubt others would have figured it out, but when? Would Android be the most “open” Blackberry like device on the market had the iPhone not existed? I think so.
I will go a bit further and say Apple pretty much invented the entire personnal computer age by itself.
They came up with a GUI/mouse back in 1985, when the alternative was text based MS-DOS PC XT. (Xerox actually invented GUI/mouse but they CANNED it. I wonder how the R&D manager at Xerox is feeling today...). Then Microsoft clone the crap out of the Mac OS with windows and only came up with something decent 10 YEARS later, in 1995.
Apple came with an phone OS that people are cloning now
And then Apple started up a succesfull tablet market by putting a EASY to used OS instead of a full PC OS on it. (I know Apple didnt invented tablets, but they made it a mainstream product)
They came up with a GUI/mouse back in 1985, when the alternative was text based MS-DOS PC XT. (yes xerox actually invented it before but they CANNED it, how dumb of them. I wonder how the R&D manager at Xerox is feeling today?).
I doubt this will work, but I?ll also try a preemptive strike to those that misread your comments.
He?s referring to making the GUI a consumer product, not the initial concept, not some skunkworks endeavor, or some ?me first? patent submission, but a viable and useful product.
Is Rubin's 300,000-Androids-a-Day Tweet on Target?
By Mike Martin
LinuxInsider
12/10/10 5:00 AM PT
There's no doubt that Androids are swarming, but 300,000 activations a day, as Google VP of Engineering Andy Rubin tweeted? "Seems like a stretch," said Frost & Sullivan analyst Michael Jude, who added the figure "may represent the number of phones being shipped from manufacturers, many of which end up in warehouses rather than in people's pockets."
Google had been saying that their activation to be in the 200K since August, but this guy suddenly 4 months later said that their tracking from all the way back to June had only 100K.
If their number from June was so solid, then they should have contested Google's claim of 200K back in August.
Google had been saying that their activation to be in the 200K since August, but this guy suddenly 4 months later said that their tracking from all the way back to June had only 100K.
If their number from June was so solid, then they should have contested Google's claim of 200K back in August.
All the numbers you question in come from Google:
1) In June, after Google released the source code for Android 2.2, code-named "Froyo," Rubin said the company was activating roughly 160,000 phones daily.
2) In August, Google CEO Eric Schmidt upped the number to 200,000 daily Android activations.
3) engineering vice president and Android development director Andy Rubin tweeted Thursday that more than 300,000 Android phones are activated daily.
So, if you are calling BS, you are saying that Google is giving BS numbers!
What we don't know is:
-- What is an activation?
-- Is an activation for smart phones only or any device (feature phone, tablet, smartphone, other)?
-- When does it occur?
-- Can a unique device be activated multiple times - say, with each OS upgrade?
The article suggests that Activation may take place when the phones are shipped to resellers, rather than sold through to end users:
"Seems like a stretch," said Frost & Sullivan analyst Michael Jude, who added the figure "may represent the number of phones being shipped from manufacturers, many of which end up in warehouses rather than in people's pockets."
If this is true, than Google's "Activation" numbers represent the number manufactured, not the number bought (and put into use) by end users.
I have no personal experience with Google activation, so I don't know what it comprises or how it is tallied.
1) One way to tally would be to capture the unique device ID only the first time it is activated by a Carrier -- sold to an end user and put into operation. Resale of the device and/or reactivation is not tallied.
2) Another way is to tally each time an OS version (initial or upgrade) is installed on a device -- multiple activations per device.
3) A third way would be for the manufacturer to provide a list of unique Device IDs to Google, each time it ships product to the resellers.
The third way is the easiest for the manufacturer and Google. This is the last time the manufacturer has all the device IDs for an order in a single place (the manifest). The manufacturer could simple send a file of Device IDs to Google; Google could "Activate" them in Googles records (database). and tally them as activated.
The article implies that something like the above (activate upon shipment to the reseller) is happening.
Certainly, Apple could do similar things. But since they manufacture the devices, and the numbers influence investors, they have to be much more careful. If Jobs, or another Apple executive, publish numbers that cannot be backed-up, they open Apple, and themselves, to investigation and shareholder lawsuits.
If Schmidt, Rubin, et al, just sum numbers provided by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or carriers -- they have no responsibility for those numbers (other than summing them correctly).
Simply stated (for device sales/activations);
When Apple supplies numbers, they are Apple's numbers -- and Apple is responsible for them.
When Google supplies numbers, they, likely, are the numbers from other sources -- Google has no responsibility for the numbers.
So it all means back in June, Google said that they activated 160K per day and this guy through his "checks" came up with a 100K per day activation --- and he didn't say a thing back in June. Well, if he thought that there was a 50-60% over-statement back in June, then he should have said something back in June.
So it all means back in June, Google said that they activated 160K per day and this guy through his "checks" came up with a 100K per day activation --- and he didn't say a thing back in June. Well, if he thought that there was a 50-60% over-statement back in June, then he should have said something back in June.
I agree... Except he admitted that he did not track International sales and only extrapolated them from US sales -- so he was not sure of his numbers. Apparently, since then, he has seen growth in his numbers but they do not match the growth in Googles numbers. What seemed somewhat out of whack 4 months ago, seems way out of whack today.
Disregarding that, what information does Google provide to support their numbers -- in June, August or today,
And, if they can't support them -- why report them?
I agree... Except he admitted that he did not track International sales and only extrapolated them from US sales -- so he was not sure of his numbers. Apparently, since then, he has seen growth in his numbers but they do not match the growth in Googles numbers. What seemed somewhat out of whack 4 months ago, seems way out of whack today.
Disregarding that, what information does Google provide to support their numbers -- in June, August or today,
And, if they can't support them -- why report them?
.
But this guy did no such thing --- because he has never given any updated informations on his "checks" since last June.
This guy merely said that he did this and that --- back in June. If he has "seen" growth, then he should "post" his growth numbers --- he didn't, he is still relying on his June numbers.
But this guy did no such thing --- because he has never given any updated informations on his "checks" since last June.
This guy merely said that he did this and that --- back in June. If he has "seen" growth, then he should "post" his growth numbers --- he didn't, he is still relying on his June numbers.
OK!
Then Google should support their numbers for June, August and November -- after all they are the ones making the bold, if not outrageous, claims.
How come you think Google, who has a vested interest in supplying favorable numbers (to Google) is more accurate/honest than an independent analyst who has no vested interest towards any manufacturer or OS supplier.
You seem to only give credence to unsupported statements that support what you want believe is true -- shouldn't opposing unsupported statements be given equal consideration?
If your answer is no (as you continue to indicate in your posts), then there is no point to try and continue a reasoned discussion -- as your mind is made up!
Then Google should support their numbers for June, August and November -- after all they are the ones making the bold, if not outrageous, claims.
How come you think Google, who has a vested interest in supplying favorable numbers (to Google) is more accurate/honest than an independent analyst who has no vested interest towards any manufacturer or OS supplier.
You seem to only give credence to unsupported statements that support what you want believe is true -- shouldn't opposing unsupported statements be given equal consideration?
If your answer is no (as you continue to indicate in your posts), then there is no point to try and continue a reasoned discussion -- as your mind is made up!
Sigh!
No, I am skeptical of any statements given by for-profit companies --- which I also include Apple as well. If you question one side, you have to question the other side as well.
If you look at the rate of increase in sales of Android OS phones it is clear that Android is wildly more popular than Iphone. The numbers for activations of IOS devices includes a lot of Ipods and a substantial numger or IPads, while the Android activations are almost entirely phones (a tiny number of tablets, no MP3 players), but even more important is the fact that Android phones sales have increased in the neighborhood or 1600% since this time last year. If anyone had suggested this time last year that there would be more Android phones sold by next Christmas (or even anything remotely close to the same number) most people would have laughed, but that is exactly what happened. This is a huge threat to Apple and a huge failure by Apple to simply maintain their (at the time) clear dominance in the smartphone market.
I find much of the negative commentary by Jobs regarding the Android phone market to be disingenuous at best. When Jobs speaks of fragmentation the Android users sees choices that don't exist with an Iphone. When Jobs speaks of Apple protecting children from pornography on ITunes, Android users see Apple refusing to accept apps for sale on their Apps store simply because someone at Apple doesn't like it. What Apple calls protecting the function of the IPhone, many others consider an attempt to control what a user can do with a device that they own. But in the end it is the market that will decide who's marketing model works best. Based on any reasonable expectation of the growth of the Android vs. the Iphone one would have to assume that Android will quickly overtake Iphone (most would say it already has, and the rate is increasing).
I find it interesting that many on this thread are worrying about whether Google is making as much money per phone as Apple does on their phones. THe simple answer is that Google clearly has a very different business plan then Apple does. If you compare the business plans of Apple vs Microsoft you get an idea of how different business plans can be and what the results are likely to be. If is absolutely true that Microsoft never made as much on each Windows based computer as Apple made on each Mac (obviously because Microsoft only sold some of the software while Apple sold almost everything), but Microsoft now owns so much of the PC market that Apple is essentially irrelevant (93% to less than 5%). Apple wanted to control every aspect of the Mac and some customers liked that idea but obviously the vast majority of computer users did not. Some people would argue that were it not for the huge subsidies that Apple gave to schools over the years, so that children would be exposed to Macs in school, there would probably be no Macs at all anymore. But as I say, it doesn't really matter why, but the market clearly went for choice over a controlled experience.
I am also highly amused by the notion that somehow the present situation with the IOs vs. the Android OS is somehow completely different than the Windows vs. Mac situation a decade or more ago. If there is a difference it is that in the phone OS market there is much less reason for a customer to stick with an OS than there was with computers. Phone customers pretty much have to get a new phone every two years. The phones are outdated very quickly and the phones are all heavily subsidized so that the cost of the phone is almost incidental to the overall cost of ownership of the phone. There is almost zero learning curve when going from IOS to Android (I know because I was an IPhone user since the first Iphone but switched to an EVO 4G this summer and it took about an hour to be able to do everything that I was able to do with my IPhone, by now I can do much more than you can do with an IPhone), so the customer has almost zero investment in their Iphone when upgrade time comes around. We can see in the numbers that when it comes time to upgrade to a new phone that the vast majority of customers are going to Android from what ever their previous phone OS was (the percentage of users of every other phone OS is decreasing, only Android is increasing). One last point is that even when looking at activations of new phones favoring Android, we are missing the fact that the vast majority of Android activations are new users, while approximately 75% of Iphone activations are present Iphone users upgrading or getting a new IPad or IPod. WHen looking at the actual number of new Android or new Iphone users, the numbers are much more in favor of Android than the first glance would indicate.
If you look at the rate of increase in sales of Android OS phones it is clear that Android is wildly more popular than Iphone. The numbers for activations of IOS devices includes a lot of Ipods and a substantial numger or IPads, while the Android activations are almost entirely phones (a tiny number of tablets, no MP3 players), but even more important is the fact that Android phones sales have increased in the neighborhood or 1600% since this time last year. If anyone had suggested this time last year that there would be more Android phones sold by next Christmas (or even anything remotely close to the same number) most people would have laughed, but that is exactly what happened. This is a huge threat to Apple and a huge failure by Apple to simply maintain their (at the time) clear dominance in the smartphone market.
I find much of the negative commentary by Jobs regarding the Android phone market to be disingenuous at best. When Jobs speaks of fragmentation the Android users sees choices that don't exist with an Iphone. When Jobs speaks of Apple protecting children from pornography on ITunes, Android users see Apple refusing to accept apps for sale on their Apps store simply because someone at Apple doesn't like it. What Apple calls protecting the function of the IPhone, many others consider an attempt to control what a user can do with a device that they own. But in the end it is the market that will decide who's marketing model works best. Based on any reasonable expectation of the growth of the Android vs. the Iphone one would have to assume that Android will quickly overtake Iphone (most would say it already has, and the rate is increasing).
I find it interesting that many on this thread are worrying about whether Google is making as much money per phone as Apple does on their phones. THe simple answer is that Google clearly has a very different business plan then Apple does. If you compare the business plans of Apple vs Microsoft you get an idea of how different business plans can be and what the results are likely to be. If is absolutely true that Microsoft never made as much on each Windows based computer as Apple made on each Mac (obviously because Microsoft only sold some of the software while Apple sold almost everything), but Microsoft now owns so much of the PC market that Apple is essentially irrelevant (93% to less than 5%). Apple wanted to control every aspect of the Mac and some customers liked that idea but obviously the vast majority of computer users did not. Some people would argue that were it not for the huge subsidies that Apple gave to schools over the years, so that children would be exposed to Macs in school, there would probably be no Macs at all anymore. But as I say, it doesn't really matter why, but the market clearly went for choice over a controlled experience.
I am also highly amused by the notion that somehow the present situation with the IOs vs. the Android OS is somehow completely different than the Windows vs. Mac situation a decade or more ago. If there is a difference it is that in the phone OS market there is much less reason for a customer to stick with an OS than there was with computers. Phone customers pretty much have to get a new phone every two years. The phones are outdated very quickly and the phones are all heavily subsidized so that the cost of the phone is almost incidental to the overall cost of ownership of the phone. There is almost zero learning curve when going from IOS to Android (I know because I was an IPhone user since the first Iphone but switched to an EVO 4G this summer and it took about an hour to be able to do everything that I was able to do with my IPhone, by now I can do much more than you can do with an IPhone), so the customer has almost zero investment in their Iphone when upgrade time comes around. We can see in the numbers that when it comes time to upgrade to a new phone that the vast majority of customers are going to Android from what ever their previous phone OS was (the percentage of users of every other phone OS is decreasing, only Android is increasing). One last point is that even when looking at activations of new phones favoring Android, we are missing the fact that the vast majority of Android activations are new users, while approximately 75% of Iphone activations are present Iphone users upgrading or getting a new IPad or IPod. WHen looking at the actual number of new Android or new Iphone users, the numbers are much more in favor of Android than the first glance would indicate.
1) Rate of increase is easy at the start. Apple's growth over 2-3 years is also 1000%. Clearly Android's growth is slowing down due to the law of large numbers and Android stalling in the US.
2) People prefer the iPhone and are more loyal. If you look at verizon's market share - it is static and the gain in Android is at the loss of the RIM and others. Statistics show that consumers are more loyal to the iPhone. The US market - 50% of the entire worldwide Android base - is not loyal in smart phones except to the iPhone. So yeah, there will be movement, from Android ( where there is no software bought) to the iPhone. Once the verizon iPhone is released.
3) Activiations are activations. If you get 25% in one year that will lead to an installed base of 25% over time.
4) This market is not going down the PC market because there are too many players, you are basically saying that Android will be 95%, Apple 5% and nokia,RIM, Windows and the rest 0%.
5) All Apple needs is to release a cheaper version for the cheaper markets where Android is growing ( and in the US multiple carriers).
Google are an advertising company. Everything they do is designed to drive advertising revenue.
Very good point. Android is an advertising machine. That is its raison d'être.
While I do not own any cell phone (smart, dumb or in between) I personally do not think that I would want one that was developed for the sole purpose of generating ad revenue.
As for which one is ultimately better? I say look at the customer satisfaction ratings.
Comments
When the iphone got out in january 2007, Android was still vaporware and when Google show the alpha version to the world later in 2007 it was a blackberry clone. Then Android slowly became an iOS clone over the years.
I am seriously getting annoy by people saying Android was there before the iphone. The company was there in 2003, but the software was no were near like the 2007 iphone OS.
It all depends on how you define it. Those saying Android was before iPhone OS are surely only referring to the name tied to some initial OS software. I say let them have that as it does show how Android and others had to completely rethink what they were doing and use the iPhone as a template if they wanted to complete in the future of smartphones.
It?s funny how so many ?experts? said Apple couldn?t compete in such a saturated market and overnight Apple?s model became the only one worth using if you want to survive.
That?s not to say that other innovations outside of Apple have not arisen, including ones that Apple has adopted and will adopt in future, just that the nearly buttonless, capacitance, multitouch smartphone with a rich web-browser is now the de facto standard because of Apple?s emergence into this industry. I have no doubt others would have figured it out, but when? Would Android be the most ?open? Blackberry like device on the market had the iPhone not existed? I think so.
I have no doubt others would have figured it out, but when? Would Android be the most “open” Blackberry like device on the market had the iPhone not existed? I think so.
I will go a bit further and say Apple pretty much invented the entire personnal computer age by itself.
They came up with a GUI/mouse back in 1985, when the alternative was text based MS-DOS PC XT. (Xerox actually invented GUI/mouse but they CANNED it. I wonder how the R&D manager at Xerox is feeling today...). Then Microsoft clone the crap out of the Mac OS with windows and only came up with something decent 10 YEARS later, in 1995.
Apple came with an phone OS that people are cloning now
And then Apple started up a succesfull tablet market by putting a EASY to used OS instead of a full PC OS on it. (I know Apple didnt invented tablets, but they made it a mainstream product)
They came up with a GUI/mouse back in 1985, when the alternative was text based MS-DOS PC XT. (yes xerox actually invented it before but they CANNED it, how dumb of them. I wonder how the R&D manager at Xerox is feeling today?).
I doubt this will work, but I?ll also try a preemptive strike to those that misread your comments.
He?s referring to making the GUI a consumer product, not the initial concept, not some skunkworks endeavor, or some ?me first? patent submission, but a viable and useful product.
"There are over 300,000 Android phones activated each day," Rubin tweeted from his little used Twitter account
I am not a close follower of Android device sales. and could be way off base here, but lets assume that:
1) Verizon accounts for at least 50% of US Android activations.
2) US Android activations equal 25% of total worldwide activations
So, doing the math:
300,000 Android Activations per day x 25% ~= 75,000 US Activations per day
75,000 US Activations per day x 50% ~= 37,500 Verizon Activations per day
Then I see a chart like this:
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...ment-109941684
This chart shows: 37,390 Total Verizon sales for all devices for the 10 months, Jan-Oct 2010.
37,500 Verizon Activations per day != 37,390 Total Verizon sales for all devices for the 10 months, Jan-Oct 2010.
Help me straighten out my math and reconcile these numbers.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/edpick/7...wlc=1292019438
Is Rubin's 300,000-Androids-a-Day Tweet on Target?
By Mike Martin
LinuxInsider
12/10/10 5:00 AM PT
There's no doubt that Androids are swarming, but 300,000 activations a day, as Google VP of Engineering Andy Rubin tweeted? "Seems like a stretch," said Frost & Sullivan analyst Michael Jude, who added the figure "may represent the number of phones being shipped from manufacturers, many of which end up in warehouses rather than in people's pockets."
Here's an interesting article:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/edpick/7...wlc=1292019438
I called that article complete BS.
Google had been saying that their activation to be in the 200K since August, but this guy suddenly 4 months later said that their tracking from all the way back to June had only 100K.
If their number from June was so solid, then they should have contested Google's claim of 200K back in August.
I called that article complete BS.
Google had been saying that their activation to be in the 200K since August, but this guy suddenly 4 months later said that their tracking from all the way back to June had only 100K.
If their number from June was so solid, then they should have contested Google's claim of 200K back in August.
All the numbers you question in come from Google:
1) In June, after Google released the source code for Android 2.2, code-named "Froyo," Rubin said the company was activating roughly 160,000 phones daily.
2) In August, Google CEO Eric Schmidt upped the number to 200,000 daily Android activations.
3) engineering vice president and Android development director Andy Rubin tweeted Thursday that more than 300,000 Android phones are activated daily.
So, if you are calling BS, you are saying that Google is giving BS numbers!
What we don't know is:
-- What is an activation?
-- Is an activation for smart phones only or any device (feature phone, tablet, smartphone, other)?
-- When does it occur?
-- Can a unique device be activated multiple times - say, with each OS upgrade?
The article suggests that Activation may take place when the phones are shipped to resellers, rather than sold through to end users:
"Seems like a stretch," said Frost & Sullivan analyst Michael Jude, who added the figure "may represent the number of phones being shipped from manufacturers, many of which end up in warehouses rather than in people's pockets."
If this is true, than Google's "Activation" numbers represent the number manufactured, not the number bought (and put into use) by end users.
I have no personal experience with Google activation, so I don't know what it comprises or how it is tallied.
1) One way to tally would be to capture the unique device ID only the first time it is activated by a Carrier -- sold to an end user and put into operation. Resale of the device and/or reactivation is not tallied.
2) Another way is to tally each time an OS version (initial or upgrade) is installed on a device -- multiple activations per device.
3) A third way would be for the manufacturer to provide a list of unique Device IDs to Google, each time it ships product to the resellers.
The third way is the easiest for the manufacturer and Google. This is the last time the manufacturer has all the device IDs for an order in a single place (the manifest). The manufacturer could simple send a file of Device IDs to Google; Google could "Activate" them in Googles records (database). and tally them as activated.
The article implies that something like the above (activate upon shipment to the reseller) is happening.
Certainly, Apple could do similar things. But since they manufacture the devices, and the numbers influence investors, they have to be much more careful. If Jobs, or another Apple executive, publish numbers that cannot be backed-up, they open Apple, and themselves, to investigation and shareholder lawsuits.
If Schmidt, Rubin, et al, just sum numbers provided by the manufacturers, resellers, and/or carriers -- they have no responsibility for those numbers (other than summing them correctly).
Simply stated (for device sales/activations);
When Apple supplies numbers, they are Apple's numbers -- and Apple is responsible for them.
When Google supplies numbers, they, likely, are the numbers from other sources -- Google has no responsibility for the numbers.
.
All the numbers you question in come from Google
So it all means back in June, Google said that they activated 160K per day and this guy through his "checks" came up with a 100K per day activation --- and he didn't say a thing back in June. Well, if he thought that there was a 50-60% over-statement back in June, then he should have said something back in June.
So it all means back in June, Google said that they activated 160K per day and this guy through his "checks" came up with a 100K per day activation --- and he didn't say a thing back in June. Well, if he thought that there was a 50-60% over-statement back in June, then he should have said something back in June.
I agree... Except he admitted that he did not track International sales and only extrapolated them from US sales -- so he was not sure of his numbers. Apparently, since then, he has seen growth in his numbers but they do not match the growth in Googles numbers. What seemed somewhat out of whack 4 months ago, seems way out of whack today.
Disregarding that, what information does Google provide to support their numbers -- in June, August or today,
And, if they can't support them -- why report them?
.
I agree... Except he admitted that he did not track International sales and only extrapolated them from US sales -- so he was not sure of his numbers. Apparently, since then, he has seen growth in his numbers but they do not match the growth in Googles numbers. What seemed somewhat out of whack 4 months ago, seems way out of whack today.
Disregarding that, what information does Google provide to support their numbers -- in June, August or today,
And, if they can't support them -- why report them?
.
But this guy did no such thing --- because he has never given any updated informations on his "checks" since last June.
This guy merely said that he did this and that --- back in June. If he has "seen" growth, then he should "post" his growth numbers --- he didn't, he is still relying on his June numbers.
But this guy did no such thing --- because he has never given any updated informations on his "checks" since last June.
This guy merely said that he did this and that --- back in June. If he has "seen" growth, then he should "post" his growth numbers --- he didn't, he is still relying on his June numbers.
OK!
Then Google should support their numbers for June, August and November -- after all they are the ones making the bold, if not outrageous, claims.
How come you think Google, who has a vested interest in supplying favorable numbers (to Google) is more accurate/honest than an independent analyst who has no vested interest towards any manufacturer or OS supplier.
You seem to only give credence to unsupported statements that support what you want believe is true -- shouldn't opposing unsupported statements be given equal consideration?
If your answer is no (as you continue to indicate in your posts), then there is no point to try and continue a reasoned discussion -- as your mind is made up!
Sigh!
OK!
Then Google should support their numbers for June, August and November -- after all they are the ones making the bold, if not outrageous, claims.
How come you think Google, who has a vested interest in supplying favorable numbers (to Google) is more accurate/honest than an independent analyst who has no vested interest towards any manufacturer or OS supplier.
You seem to only give credence to unsupported statements that support what you want believe is true -- shouldn't opposing unsupported statements be given equal consideration?
If your answer is no (as you continue to indicate in your posts), then there is no point to try and continue a reasoned discussion -- as your mind is made up!
Sigh!
No, I am skeptical of any statements given by for-profit companies --- which I also include Apple as well. If you question one side, you have to question the other side as well.
I find much of the negative commentary by Jobs regarding the Android phone market to be disingenuous at best. When Jobs speaks of fragmentation the Android users sees choices that don't exist with an Iphone. When Jobs speaks of Apple protecting children from pornography on ITunes, Android users see Apple refusing to accept apps for sale on their Apps store simply because someone at Apple doesn't like it. What Apple calls protecting the function of the IPhone, many others consider an attempt to control what a user can do with a device that they own. But in the end it is the market that will decide who's marketing model works best. Based on any reasonable expectation of the growth of the Android vs. the Iphone one would have to assume that Android will quickly overtake Iphone (most would say it already has, and the rate is increasing).
I find it interesting that many on this thread are worrying about whether Google is making as much money per phone as Apple does on their phones. THe simple answer is that Google clearly has a very different business plan then Apple does. If you compare the business plans of Apple vs Microsoft you get an idea of how different business plans can be and what the results are likely to be. If is absolutely true that Microsoft never made as much on each Windows based computer as Apple made on each Mac (obviously because Microsoft only sold some of the software while Apple sold almost everything), but Microsoft now owns so much of the PC market that Apple is essentially irrelevant (93% to less than 5%). Apple wanted to control every aspect of the Mac and some customers liked that idea but obviously the vast majority of computer users did not. Some people would argue that were it not for the huge subsidies that Apple gave to schools over the years, so that children would be exposed to Macs in school, there would probably be no Macs at all anymore. But as I say, it doesn't really matter why, but the market clearly went for choice over a controlled experience.
I am also highly amused by the notion that somehow the present situation with the IOs vs. the Android OS is somehow completely different than the Windows vs. Mac situation a decade or more ago. If there is a difference it is that in the phone OS market there is much less reason for a customer to stick with an OS than there was with computers. Phone customers pretty much have to get a new phone every two years. The phones are outdated very quickly and the phones are all heavily subsidized so that the cost of the phone is almost incidental to the overall cost of ownership of the phone. There is almost zero learning curve when going from IOS to Android (I know because I was an IPhone user since the first Iphone but switched to an EVO 4G this summer and it took about an hour to be able to do everything that I was able to do with my IPhone, by now I can do much more than you can do with an IPhone), so the customer has almost zero investment in their Iphone when upgrade time comes around. We can see in the numbers that when it comes time to upgrade to a new phone that the vast majority of customers are going to Android from what ever their previous phone OS was (the percentage of users of every other phone OS is decreasing, only Android is increasing). One last point is that even when looking at activations of new phones favoring Android, we are missing the fact that the vast majority of Android activations are new users, while approximately 75% of Iphone activations are present Iphone users upgrading or getting a new IPad or IPod. WHen looking at the actual number of new Android or new Iphone users, the numbers are much more in favor of Android than the first glance would indicate.
If you look at the rate of increase in sales of Android OS phones it is clear that Android is wildly more popular than Iphone. The numbers for activations of IOS devices includes a lot of Ipods and a substantial numger or IPads, while the Android activations are almost entirely phones (a tiny number of tablets, no MP3 players), but even more important is the fact that Android phones sales have increased in the neighborhood or 1600% since this time last year. If anyone had suggested this time last year that there would be more Android phones sold by next Christmas (or even anything remotely close to the same number) most people would have laughed, but that is exactly what happened. This is a huge threat to Apple and a huge failure by Apple to simply maintain their (at the time) clear dominance in the smartphone market.
I find much of the negative commentary by Jobs regarding the Android phone market to be disingenuous at best. When Jobs speaks of fragmentation the Android users sees choices that don't exist with an Iphone. When Jobs speaks of Apple protecting children from pornography on ITunes, Android users see Apple refusing to accept apps for sale on their Apps store simply because someone at Apple doesn't like it. What Apple calls protecting the function of the IPhone, many others consider an attempt to control what a user can do with a device that they own. But in the end it is the market that will decide who's marketing model works best. Based on any reasonable expectation of the growth of the Android vs. the Iphone one would have to assume that Android will quickly overtake Iphone (most would say it already has, and the rate is increasing).
I find it interesting that many on this thread are worrying about whether Google is making as much money per phone as Apple does on their phones. THe simple answer is that Google clearly has a very different business plan then Apple does. If you compare the business plans of Apple vs Microsoft you get an idea of how different business plans can be and what the results are likely to be. If is absolutely true that Microsoft never made as much on each Windows based computer as Apple made on each Mac (obviously because Microsoft only sold some of the software while Apple sold almost everything), but Microsoft now owns so much of the PC market that Apple is essentially irrelevant (93% to less than 5%). Apple wanted to control every aspect of the Mac and some customers liked that idea but obviously the vast majority of computer users did not. Some people would argue that were it not for the huge subsidies that Apple gave to schools over the years, so that children would be exposed to Macs in school, there would probably be no Macs at all anymore. But as I say, it doesn't really matter why, but the market clearly went for choice over a controlled experience.
I am also highly amused by the notion that somehow the present situation with the IOs vs. the Android OS is somehow completely different than the Windows vs. Mac situation a decade or more ago. If there is a difference it is that in the phone OS market there is much less reason for a customer to stick with an OS than there was with computers. Phone customers pretty much have to get a new phone every two years. The phones are outdated very quickly and the phones are all heavily subsidized so that the cost of the phone is almost incidental to the overall cost of ownership of the phone. There is almost zero learning curve when going from IOS to Android (I know because I was an IPhone user since the first Iphone but switched to an EVO 4G this summer and it took about an hour to be able to do everything that I was able to do with my IPhone, by now I can do much more than you can do with an IPhone), so the customer has almost zero investment in their Iphone when upgrade time comes around. We can see in the numbers that when it comes time to upgrade to a new phone that the vast majority of customers are going to Android from what ever their previous phone OS was (the percentage of users of every other phone OS is decreasing, only Android is increasing). One last point is that even when looking at activations of new phones favoring Android, we are missing the fact that the vast majority of Android activations are new users, while approximately 75% of Iphone activations are present Iphone users upgrading or getting a new IPad or IPod. WHen looking at the actual number of new Android or new Iphone users, the numbers are much more in favor of Android than the first glance would indicate.
1) Rate of increase is easy at the start. Apple's growth over 2-3 years is also 1000%. Clearly Android's growth is slowing down due to the law of large numbers and Android stalling in the US.
2) People prefer the iPhone and are more loyal. If you look at verizon's market share - it is static and the gain in Android is at the loss of the RIM and others. Statistics show that consumers are more loyal to the iPhone. The US market - 50% of the entire worldwide Android base - is not loyal in smart phones except to the iPhone. So yeah, there will be movement, from Android ( where there is no software bought) to the iPhone. Once the verizon iPhone is released.
3) Activiations are activations. If you get 25% in one year that will lead to an installed base of 25% over time.
4) This market is not going down the PC market because there are too many players, you are basically saying that Android will be 95%, Apple 5% and nokia,RIM, Windows and the rest 0%.
5) All Apple needs is to release a cheaper version for the cheaper markets where Android is growing ( and in the US multiple carriers).
Google are an advertising company. Everything they do is designed to drive advertising revenue.
Very good point. Android is an advertising machine. That is its raison d'être.
While I do not own any cell phone (smart, dumb or in between) I personally do not think that I would want one that was developed for the sole purpose of generating ad revenue.
As for which one is ultimately better? I say look at the customer satisfaction ratings.