To do a proper OS to OS comparison, iPod Touch numbers should also be included since they run the same OS as the iPhone. You could even argue that both iOS and Android tablet sales should be included in such a comparison.
Agreed. A fair OS-to-OS comparison should include every device of every model from every manufacturer that runs each of the various OSes. iOS includes iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. (But Windows Phone 7 is not the same OS as Windows 7.)
No one gives away an iPhone for free. Every single iPhone you see was paid for by a consumer at some point. You can get Android in a BOGO deal any day of the week. Like others have said, the only reason they have a lead is because it's essentially 4 iPhones versus hundreds of Android phones. It's really remarkable for Apple to have the numbers that they do.
Every single Android phone is paid for by a consumer at some point, you cannot walk into a shop and get given an Android phone without some financial commitment , they are all paid for, nothing is free.
Yeah only this time APPLE is the bad guy. I use Macs because I don't want to be forced to use certain things (like IE or other MS crap). Gee, that sounds like Apple now.
The more people that get Android phones, the less growth to be had. That's not wishful thinking. That's just the normal business cycle. Companies aren't going to grow at 600% forever. We would naturally expect Android to outpace iOS as it is the closest competitor in terms of mindshare and features and it's available for use for free. Developers haven't embraced it as much because the Android crowd wants something for nothing. Developers don't want to spend time on apps that won't help them pay their bills or compensate them better than an iOS app will. Giving Android phones away is like MSFT giving away IE and we saw how terribly that turned out for the end user and the developer.
You may well be right about the inevitable slowdown of Android OS sales. My point was that it's irresponsible for Apple industry reporters to act as though that's already happening, when the current data shows only continued gains -- and substantial ones -- by Android OS, not the "leveling off" that we all hope (and may be right in expecting) will start happening soon. It's called sticking to the facts, not making optimistic predictions.
You say that verizon will help you? Let me tell you something my friends. iPhone is sold ALL OVER THE WORLD on MULTIPLE CARRIERS. They are STILL getting their butts handed to them by Android...WORLDWIDE!.
Just wanted to make sure we were clear. So why do you have this silly idea tha somehow you will be helped when iphone is on multiple carriers..let me tell you something..aint gonna hppen.
***
I'm not clear at all.
Just curious, but how can an operating system (in this case Android) be classified as hardware, and more importantly, how can a free operating system be classified as sold? Or is this just in your world?
I think he probably meant "<iOS phone devices> are sold ALL OVER THE WORLD on MULTIPLE CARRIERS. They are STILL getting their butts handed to them by Android<-based phone devices>...WORLDWIDE!." Nitpicking on the words being used is not necessarily a sign of putting any effort into understanding.. For most purposes when talking specifically about the smartphone market iPhone = iOS.
you guys constantly point to iphone sales number as proof its the best phone you can buy, but when it's shown that some other option is doing well, you make one excuse after another for why it sucks
That confuses me too.. So Apple fans are saying that iOS is the best in the tablet market since the iPad sold so many but yet Android is not better than iOS in the smartphone segment since it is not a single device (or 2) like the iPhone.
That confuses me too.. So Apple fans are saying that iOS is the best in the tablet market since the iPad sold so many but yet Android is not better than iOS in the smartphone segment since it is not a single device (or 2) like the iPhone.
You guys are confused what a consumer product is? Hint: The iPad, iPhone, Xoom, and Motorola Droid are consumer products, iOS and Android are not. If you stop trying to incorrectly compare an mobile OS to a tangible and complete product you might start understanding why a comparison to the iPhone to Android is erroneous.
Google doesn't offer anything to anyone except a free OS to OEMs. OEMs have all the carrier relationships. Moto/Sammy/SE/RIM etc. make phones available. I'm sure Apple cut Verizon a deal for 6-12 months of exclusivity vs. Sprint (not that it would matter much) in exchange for Verizon's marketing push. T-Mob needs a different radio to work on 3G which may come with iP5 (super-Gobi chip) but it is the carrier deal that matters. Let's face it, if VZ demand is so high after 3.5yrs, Sprint/T-Mob can wait a bit longer and not lose too many converts. The other issue is that those carriers are the "cheapo" carriers. Not sure the cut-rate plans can stand the massive subsidy Apple asks for the iPhone.
I don't get it.. Does Apple pay itself for use of the iOS? If not then what is the difference between Apple using iOS for iPhone and other OEMs using Android on their devices? Both are using the respective OSes for 'free'.
You guys are confused what a consumer product is? Hint: The iPad, iPhone, Xoom, and Motorola Droid are consumer products, iOS and Android are not. If you stop trying to incorrectly compare an mobile OS to a tangible and complete product you might start understanding why a comparison to the iPhone to Android is erroneous.
No, not confused about what a consumer product is, just Apple fans claiming the iOS is the best due to number sold when they have major marketshare in a segment (e.g. iPad) and then turning around and saying Android is NOT the best when they have the major marketshare in a different segment (e.g. smartphones). If you read the post I was commenting on that would have been evident.
If you read an earlier comment I made, you would have also noted that I clarified that for all intents and purposes, when discussing "smartphones" specifically, iPhone = iOS. If there is another smartphone that uses iOS then, yes, the comparison between iPhone and Android in the area of smartphones would be incompatible.
I don't get it.. Does Apple pay itself for use of the iOS? If not then what is the difference between Apple using iOS for iPhone and other OEMs using Android on their devices? Both are using the respective OSes for 'free'.
Apple is not using iOS for free since they spend money to develop it. The Android handset manufacturers have an advantage in this respect.
It was a focus on the qtr that the iphone4 launched, not now. No matter how you look at it, the iphone is doing great.
Agree.. iPhone would have to be doing great to keep its marketshare constant at about 25% in light of how fast the smartphone market is growing. It's just smartphones using Android are doing better collectively. Since the comparison is between OSes on smartphones you end up comparing iOS and Android to Symbian, Blackberry OS, WinPhone 7 and WebOS.
Apple is not using iOS for free since they spend money to develop it. The Android handset manufacturers have an advantage in this respect.
Ah, development.. Then you will have to also say that OEMs are not getting Android on their devices for 'free' since they do quite a bit of tweaking to create their own distinctive 'versions' for their handsets, and carriers also do a bit to create apps exclusive to themselves. It would be proper then to say that Android handset manufacturers face a 'reduced cost' to have Android on their devices compared to Apple. As a result there is 'fragmentation'.
Because it was only available on AT&T. Th Android phones have the entire US market. So the comparison is not fair.
True, but that was by Apple's choice, they wanted to have only one carrier to start, otherwise they could not get any share of subscriber fees for being exclusive (about 10% according to a leak from a South American carrier that agreed to the exclusivity deal). Smart move on Jobs part in terms of profitability.. I wonder how much of Apple's profit from the iPhone owes to that subscriber fee income. That decision made Apple very rich and enabled its current marketcap. Just for fun, think about it, approx $100 monthly plan, $240 per phone over the life of the 2yr contract multiply by the number of iPhones sold and in use. Voila, LOTS of profit.
Ah, development.. Then you will have to also say that OEMs are not getting Android on their devices for 'free' since they do quite a bit of tweaking to create their own distinctive 'versions' for their handsets, and carriers also do a bit to create apps exclusive to themselves. It would be proper then to say that Android handset manufacturers face a 'reduced cost' to have Android on their devices compared to Apple. As a result there is 'fragmentation'.
Sounds about right although I thought I read something in the past couple of days about some handset maker using an unmodified Android OS on their phone (or tablet). At any rate, you are right that it is probably not free but is still much less expensive than developing your own OS from scratch.
So, you are corroborating that Android has to deal with fragmentation?
True, but that was by Apple's choice, they wanted to have only one carrier to start, otherwise they could not get any share of subscriber fees for being exclusive (about 10% according to a leak from a South American carrier that agreed to the exclusivity deal). Smart move on Jobs part in terms of profitability.. I wonder how much of Apple's profit from the iPhone owes to that subscriber fee income. That decision made Apple very rich and enabled its current marketcap. Just for fun, think about it, approx $100 monthly plan, $240 per phone over the life of the 2yr contract multiply by the number of iPhones sold and in use. Voila, LOTS of profit.
I thought it was reported that the subscriber fee revenue share went away when Apple switched to the subsidized model.
Sounds about right although I thought I read something in the past couple of days about some handset maker using an unmodified Android OS on their phone (or tablet). At any rate, you are right that it is probably not free but is still much less expensive than developing your own OS from scratch.
So, you are corroborating that Android has to deal with fragmentation?
Yes, at the same level as Windows is on PCs. Depending on your hardware configuration and version of windows there will be applications that will not work.. e.g. hard to get a GPS dependent app working on hardware that does not have that capability. Or applications written for WinXP to run on Win95.. At a smaller scale even the iOS has similar fragmentation if you think of trying to run apps built for iPad on your iPhone or Touch.
It is my view that comparing Apple products to the PC or Android devices (as the case may be) is like comparing an game console (like the Wii) to game pc with similar specs. The Wii is easily used out of the box, the pc may take a bit of setting up. The Wii uses discrete pieces of software that don't interfere or interact with each other (e.g. games), whereas the PC can have software that interacts with other software. You can see similarities in the age groups that can easily use the Wii/iOS devices compared to the pc/Android. But when it comes to being able to tweak the device itself or the OS, you will have to agree that the PC/Android has a lot more leeway for those inclined to do so.
I thought it was reported that the subscriber fee revenue share went away when Apple switched to the subsidized model.
After a bit of searching I can confirm that you are correct about the revenue sharing between AT&T and Apple ending.. According to a few articles it seems it was about June 2008.. In the process though I did discover that as of September 2009 revenue sharing was still occurring in other countries. There is no mention after that as far as I have searched so outside the U.S. it could have ended also or could still be in force..
In the process came across this article by the Guardian mentioning a report done in Europe claiming iPhone was a loss-leader rather than a profit maker for some operators due to having to pay subsidies and share revenue. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...elecoms-iphone)
Comments
To do a proper OS to OS comparison, iPod Touch numbers should also be included since they run the same OS as the iPhone. You could even argue that both iOS and Android tablet sales should be included in such a comparison.
Agreed. A fair OS-to-OS comparison should include every device of every model from every manufacturer that runs each of the various OSes. iOS includes iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. (But Windows Phone 7 is not the same OS as Windows 7.)
No one gives away an iPhone for free. Every single iPhone you see was paid for by a consumer at some point. You can get Android in a BOGO deal any day of the week. Like others have said, the only reason they have a lead is because it's essentially 4 iPhones versus hundreds of Android phones. It's really remarkable for Apple to have the numbers that they do.
Every single Android phone is paid for by a consumer at some point, you cannot walk into a shop and get given an Android phone without some financial commitment , they are all paid for, nothing is free.
Closed vs Open/Mac vs Windows- here we go again.
Yeah only this time APPLE is the bad guy. I use Macs because I don't want to be forced to use certain things (like IE or other MS crap). Gee, that sounds like Apple now.
The more people that get Android phones, the less growth to be had. That's not wishful thinking. That's just the normal business cycle. Companies aren't going to grow at 600% forever. We would naturally expect Android to outpace iOS as it is the closest competitor in terms of mindshare and features and it's available for use for free. Developers haven't embraced it as much because the Android crowd wants something for nothing. Developers don't want to spend time on apps that won't help them pay their bills or compensate them better than an iOS app will. Giving Android phones away is like MSFT giving away IE and we saw how terribly that turned out for the end user and the developer.
You may well be right about the inevitable slowdown of Android OS sales. My point was that it's irresponsible for Apple industry reporters to act as though that's already happening, when the current data shows only continued gains -- and substantial ones -- by Android OS, not the "leveling off" that we all hope (and may be right in expecting) will start happening soon. It's called sticking to the facts, not making optimistic predictions.
By the way, Android sucks and Apple rules.
Jus' sayin'
Originally Posted by Android4ever
***
Ok..just one argument.
You say that verizon will help you? Let me tell you something my friends. iPhone is sold ALL OVER THE WORLD on MULTIPLE CARRIERS. They are STILL getting their butts handed to them by Android...WORLDWIDE!.
Just wanted to make sure we were clear. So why do you have this silly idea tha somehow you will be helped when iphone is on multiple carriers..let me tell you something..aint gonna hppen.
***
I'm not clear at all.
Just curious, but how can an operating system (in this case Android) be classified as hardware, and more importantly, how can a free operating system be classified as sold? Or is this just in your world?
I think he probably meant "<iOS phone devices> are sold ALL OVER THE WORLD on MULTIPLE CARRIERS. They are STILL getting their butts handed to them by Android<-based phone devices>...WORLDWIDE!." Nitpicking on the words being used is not necessarily a sign of putting any effort into understanding.. For most purposes when talking specifically about the smartphone market iPhone = iOS.
you guys constantly point to iphone sales number as proof its the best phone you can buy, but when it's shown that some other option is doing well, you make one excuse after another for why it sucks
That confuses me too.. So Apple fans are saying that iOS is the best in the tablet market since the iPad sold so many but yet Android is not better than iOS in the smartphone segment since it is not a single device (or 2) like the iPhone.
That confuses me too.. So Apple fans are saying that iOS is the best in the tablet market since the iPad sold so many but yet Android is not better than iOS in the smartphone segment since it is not a single device (or 2) like the iPhone.
You guys are confused what a consumer product is? Hint: The iPad, iPhone, Xoom, and Motorola Droid are consumer products, iOS and Android are not. If you stop trying to incorrectly compare an mobile OS to a tangible and complete product you might start understanding why a comparison to the iPhone to Android is erroneous.
Google doesn't offer anything to anyone except a free OS to OEMs. OEMs have all the carrier relationships. Moto/Sammy/SE/RIM etc. make phones available. I'm sure Apple cut Verizon a deal for 6-12 months of exclusivity vs. Sprint (not that it would matter much) in exchange for Verizon's marketing push. T-Mob needs a different radio to work on 3G which may come with iP5 (super-Gobi chip) but it is the carrier deal that matters. Let's face it, if VZ demand is so high after 3.5yrs, Sprint/T-Mob can wait a bit longer and not lose too many converts. The other issue is that those carriers are the "cheapo" carriers. Not sure the cut-rate plans can stand the massive subsidy Apple asks for the iPhone.
I don't get it.. Does Apple pay itself for use of the iOS? If not then what is the difference between Apple using iOS for iPhone and other OEMs using Android on their devices? Both are using the respective OSes for 'free'.
You guys are confused what a consumer product is? Hint: The iPad, iPhone, Xoom, and Motorola Droid are consumer products, iOS and Android are not. If you stop trying to incorrectly compare an mobile OS to a tangible and complete product you might start understanding why a comparison to the iPhone to Android is erroneous.
No, not confused about what a consumer product is, just Apple fans claiming the iOS is the best due to number sold when they have major marketshare in a segment (e.g. iPad) and then turning around and saying Android is NOT the best when they have the major marketshare in a different segment (e.g. smartphones). If you read the post I was commenting on that would have been evident.
If you read an earlier comment I made, you would have also noted that I clarified that for all intents and purposes, when discussing "smartphones" specifically, iPhone = iOS. If there is another smartphone that uses iOS then, yes, the comparison between iPhone and Android in the area of smartphones would be incompatible.
I don't get it.. Does Apple pay itself for use of the iOS? If not then what is the difference between Apple using iOS for iPhone and other OEMs using Android on their devices? Both are using the respective OSes for 'free'.
Apple is not using iOS for free since they spend money to develop it. The Android handset manufacturers have an advantage in this respect.
It was a focus on the qtr that the iphone4 launched, not now. No matter how you look at it, the iphone is doing great.
Agree.. iPhone would have to be doing great to keep its marketshare constant at about 25% in light of how fast the smartphone market is growing. It's just smartphones using Android are doing better collectively. Since the comparison is between OSes on smartphones you end up comparing iOS and Android to Symbian, Blackberry OS, WinPhone 7 and WebOS.
Apple is not using iOS for free since they spend money to develop it. The Android handset manufacturers have an advantage in this respect.
Ah, development.. Then you will have to also say that OEMs are not getting Android on their devices for 'free' since they do quite a bit of tweaking to create their own distinctive 'versions' for their handsets, and carriers also do a bit to create apps exclusive to themselves. It would be proper then to say that Android handset manufacturers face a 'reduced cost' to have Android on their devices compared to Apple. As a result there is 'fragmentation'.
Because it was only available on AT&T. Th Android phones have the entire US market. So the comparison is not fair.
True, but that was by Apple's choice, they wanted to have only one carrier to start, otherwise they could not get any share of subscriber fees for being exclusive (about 10% according to a leak from a South American carrier that agreed to the exclusivity deal). Smart move on Jobs part in terms of profitability.. I wonder how much of Apple's profit from the iPhone owes to that subscriber fee income. That decision made Apple very rich and enabled its current marketcap. Just for fun, think about it, approx $100 monthly plan, $240 per phone over the life of the 2yr contract multiply by the number of iPhones sold and in use. Voila, LOTS of profit.
Ah, development.. Then you will have to also say that OEMs are not getting Android on their devices for 'free' since they do quite a bit of tweaking to create their own distinctive 'versions' for their handsets, and carriers also do a bit to create apps exclusive to themselves. It would be proper then to say that Android handset manufacturers face a 'reduced cost' to have Android on their devices compared to Apple. As a result there is 'fragmentation'.
Sounds about right although I thought I read something in the past couple of days about some handset maker using an unmodified Android OS on their phone (or tablet). At any rate, you are right that it is probably not free but is still much less expensive than developing your own OS from scratch.
So, you are corroborating that Android has to deal with fragmentation?
True, but that was by Apple's choice, they wanted to have only one carrier to start, otherwise they could not get any share of subscriber fees for being exclusive (about 10% according to a leak from a South American carrier that agreed to the exclusivity deal). Smart move on Jobs part in terms of profitability.. I wonder how much of Apple's profit from the iPhone owes to that subscriber fee income. That decision made Apple very rich and enabled its current marketcap. Just for fun, think about it, approx $100 monthly plan, $240 per phone over the life of the 2yr contract multiply by the number of iPhones sold and in use. Voila, LOTS of profit.
I thought it was reported that the subscriber fee revenue share went away when Apple switched to the subsidized model.
Sounds about right although I thought I read something in the past couple of days about some handset maker using an unmodified Android OS on their phone (or tablet). At any rate, you are right that it is probably not free but is still much less expensive than developing your own OS from scratch.
So, you are corroborating that Android has to deal with fragmentation?
Yes, at the same level as Windows is on PCs. Depending on your hardware configuration and version of windows there will be applications that will not work.. e.g. hard to get a GPS dependent app working on hardware that does not have that capability. Or applications written for WinXP to run on Win95.. At a smaller scale even the iOS has similar fragmentation if you think of trying to run apps built for iPad on your iPhone or Touch.
It is my view that comparing Apple products to the PC or Android devices (as the case may be) is like comparing an game console (like the Wii) to game pc with similar specs. The Wii is easily used out of the box, the pc may take a bit of setting up. The Wii uses discrete pieces of software that don't interfere or interact with each other (e.g. games), whereas the PC can have software that interacts with other software. You can see similarities in the age groups that can easily use the Wii/iOS devices compared to the pc/Android. But when it comes to being able to tweak the device itself or the OS, you will have to agree that the PC/Android has a lot more leeway for those inclined to do so.
I thought it was reported that the subscriber fee revenue share went away when Apple switched to the subsidized model.
After a bit of searching I can confirm that you are correct about the revenue sharing between AT&T and Apple ending.. According to a few articles it seems it was about June 2008.. In the process though I did discover that as of September 2009 revenue sharing was still occurring in other countries. There is no mention after that as far as I have searched so outside the U.S. it could have ended also or could still be in force..
In the process came across this article by the Guardian mentioning a report done in Europe claiming iPhone was a loss-leader rather than a profit maker for some operators due to having to pay subsidies and share revenue. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...elecoms-iphone)
Report: http://www.strandconsult.dk/sw3896.asp
Also found that China never went into the revenue sharing plan.