There are far more iOS devices. More sales, more in use, and their numbers are increasing at a faster rate as well.
I was trying to avoid making a long long post by pointing out the inexactness of the terms being used. The poster used the term "market" without specifying if it was addressable market or current market share or even if they were talking about smartphone market share or mobile device market share. Like most Android supporters, they were probably talking only about "US sales to the channel of handests that could be referred to as smartphones," but instead they said "market."
So instead of rephrasing everything they said, pointing out the grammatical and logical errors in the sentences and then constructing the huge counter argument, I just took the statement literally and pointed out that the statement was wrong.
The shorthand is:
market leading smartphone = iPhone (by a vast, vast, vast margin)
market leading platform = iOS (by only a huge margin, not a vast one)
Those are the basic facts of the Apple vs. Google war we've all been following these last few years.
Actually, I think you've got it exactly backwards. There are more activated Android handsets than iPhones. But if you add in all the iPads and iPod touch's, then iOS probably leads over Android.
Trash. If I wanted the hassle of laundering, turning right-side out, and matching socks it would limit the benefit. The other benefits are always having soft socks. New socks feel sooo good. It's only about $30 a month when you buy in bulk. I save at least twice that by no longer getting a soft drink when I eat out.
Now we are getting way off track and probably more info than we actually need to know. Of course if you buy socks in bulk, all of them are the same, so matching shouldn't be too challenging. So what about the the hand washable delicates? Inquiring minds want to know.
Actually, I think you've got it exactly backwards. There are more activated Android handsets than iPhones. But if you add in all the iPads and iPod touch's, then iOS probably leads over Android.
I think Android would still knave more activations and should increasing it's lead each month. Going by memory we have about 18M iPhones, 6M iPod Touches, 8M iPads and 1M AppleTVs for about 330,000 per day. (Not going to do the math again so if someone wants to get more accurate figures go for it).
But Android fans need to keep in mind this all from one vendor, not dozens; from only half the US MNOs, and zero MVNOs; and with tech that was released up to a year ago and with very narrow price points and options compared to all the options with Android. I'll say it again: What is Android and their vendors doing wrong to not be much, much farther ahead when comparing mobile OS activations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Now we are getting way off track and probably more info than we actually need to know. Of course if you buy socks in bulk, all of them are the same, so matching shouldn't be too challenging. So what about the the hand washable delicates? Inquiring minds want to know.
Not really. I have the typical tall sock for everyday use and the short socks for active wear. Also, one usually doesn't wait until all their socks are used before washing so you get uneven wear of the softness of the cotton and fading of the color. As for my other clothing, I don't where them in pairs so it's not an issue but I will admit that I mostly wear the same exact clothes like Einstein did. They are usually designer or bespoke, but pretty much the same so I don't waste time figuring out what to wear. I also use a laundry service, which negates my initial reason for discarding my socks, but not the second. (is that enough atypical data on me for the day?)
Me, I'm atypical because I like to buy to most products to play with, retired at 30yo and never wear the same pair of socks twice. We're all fringe people in some way.
Mmmm... I retired at 50 and like to buy E-Toys.... but I never wear the same pair of socks once!
I think the bigger problem for the Honeycomb tablets is that the manufacturers have to actually make money on these things and, unlike the droid phones, they can't just give them away.
Here's the system that's at work right now: iPhone users paid for the phone and will pay for the iPad and buy software. Droid users (especially the "i got it for free" adopters) didn't pay for the phone and won't pay for anything that isn't free, be that a tablet or software.
Which is also why all around the droid market is less profitable than the iPhone/iPad market.
Heck, if Ferari gave away cars I'd take one, but I'd never buy one.
So I suspect the Honeycomb people have a problem in that their 'large pool' of android users (potential adopters) may be a mile wide, but it's only an inch deep. They have a bunch of customers who won't spend money.
Until the day these things are given away the numbers will stay low.
Again, my posts had nothing to do with market share. I only used market share as an example. My original post was in response to this:
People laughed at the original Android. It does now sell like hot cakes. 400,000 activations a day - every day. Not all of that is 2 for 1's. It was stupid to laugh at Android handsets in the past and it's stupid to laugh at Android tablets today. Just choose the option like the best and live with it. Not everybody has to agree with you.
They *don't* sell like hotcakes. Look, if you look at AT&T, at verizon, heck, at Amazon, you see prices starting as low as one cent. And there are free ones, and BOGO.
Those are *huge* amounts of giveaways. Apple only has one unit, the 8g 3GS that is reduced price and it outsells ALL Android units.
Sorry, but while I don't literally laugh, it is laughable. The carriers are giving the phone away to get your to buy a 2 year plan and few people are making money.
So why wouldn't someone with an interest at least smile. "The largest mover of units causes the vendors to lose money." What is Motorola going to do? Make it up in volume?
Apple is "closed" and "expensive" and yet they have moved more product.
What is Android and their vendors doing wrong to not be much, much farther ahead when comparing mobile OS activations?
i don't know that anything is "wrong". They've only been selling Android phones for about 30 months compared to about 47 months for the iPhone. About a 1.5 year lead. And daily Android activations have doubled in the past 7 months, from 200K in Sept/09 to 400K the beginning of this month. Android has done much better than almost anyone here would have expected IMHO.
Trash. If I wanted the hassle of laundering, turning right-side out, and matching socks it would limit the benefit. The other benefits are always having soft socks. New socks feel sooo good. It's only about $30 a month when you buy in bulk. I save at least twice that by no longer getting a soft drink when I eat out.
They *don't* sell like hotcakes. Look, if you look at AT&T, at verizon, heck, at Amazon, you see prices starting as low as one cent. And there are free ones, and BOGO.
Those are *huge* amounts of giveaways. Apple only has one unit, the 8g 3GS that is reduced price and it outsells ALL Android units.
Sorry, but while I don't literally laugh, it is laughable. The carriers are giving the phone away to get your to buy a 2 year plan and few people are making money.
So why wouldn't someone with an interest at least smile. "The largest mover of units causes the vendors to lose money." What is Motorola going to do? Make it up in volume?
Apple is "closed" and "expensive" and yet they have moved more product.
Neither Motorola or Samsung or HTC nor any other phone manufacturer is giving their phones away free of charge.
If the service providers see value in bundling a free or subsidized phone (the iPhone is also subsidized) in with a $3000 contract, you would have to assume they've found it worthwhile.
Neither Motorola or Samsung or HTC nor any other phone manufacturer is giving their phones away free of charge.
If the service providers see value in bundling a free or subsidized phone (the iPhone is also subsidized) in with a $3000 contract, you would have to assume they've found it worthwhile.
I didn't say vendor. I said "carriers" and they are giving the phones away. Of course the iPhone is subsidized, but they aren't and have never been available(at least in the US) for free, BOGO or reduced priced in a few months. When Apple does allow, ALLOW a price drop, it is for the previous generation phone, usually with far less storage.
All of the above happen, constantly for Android phones. Usually that $299 is reduced within 45-60 days. The question to ask is why? Well, we know why for the carriers. Long, fat contracts. You think that the carriers is eating that price cut?
Please. Unlikely.
It is far more likely that they've negotiated difference price points for the Android vendors because there are so many. "Don't want to give me a cheaper price HTC? Fine, I'll bet Samsung will play ball."
Regardless, my point is that the units are not *selling* like hotcakes unless we want to expand the definition of sell to include give away. The phones are certainly decent enough to take for free.
I didn't say vendor. I said "carriers" and they are giving the phones away. Of course the iPhone is subsidized, but they aren't and have never been available(at least in the US) for free, BOGO or reduced priced in a few months. When Apple does allow, ALLOW a price drop, it is for the previous generation phone, usually with far less storage.
All of the above happen, constantly for Android phones. Usually that $299 is reduced within 45-60 days. The question to ask is why? Well, we know why for the carriers. Long, fat contracts. You think that the carriers is eating that price cut?
Please. Unlikely.
It is far more likely that they've negotiated difference price points for the Android vendors because there are so many. "Don't want to give me a cheaper price HTC? Fine, I'll bet Samsung will play ball."
Regardless, my point is that the units are not *selling* like hotcakes unless we want to expand the definition of sell to include give away. The phones are certainly decent enough to take for free.
Certainly it's possible that the manufacturer's are cutting the price to the telcoms after some period of time. But I've never seen any mention that all or even any of the BOGO deals, which I rarely see now, are in fact made possible by manufacturers cutting prices.
Neither Motorola or Samsung or HTC nor any other phone manufacturer is giving their phones away free of charge.
If the service providers see value in bundling a free or subsidized phone (the iPhone is also subsidized) in with a $3000 contract, you would have to assume they've found it worthwhile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Certainly it's possible that the manufacturer's are cutting the price to the telcoms after some period of time. But I've never seen any mention that all or even any of the BOGO deals, which I rarely see now, are in fact made possible by manufacturers cutting prices.
Again, the question to ask yourself is would the carriers eat this? Why would they? What would I do if I were Verizon? Would I eat the cost, or would I tell the vendor to lower their price and threaten to make a competitor my featured phone getting all the commercial time if they don't?
I guess you would eat it. Verizon probably has a bit more negotiating experience.
Verizon's web site says it all. iPhone. Smartphones. Feature phones. The iPhone is its own category!
Great post, fandroid user r cheap, they know nothing about luxury. Apple = Louis Vuitton or Hermes. Google = a cheap brand that copy Apple, it is just a cheap alternative for poor college nerd that want everything free wit ads lol. So what happen when a cheap brand cost more than a luxury brand? It is a fail formula. Beta OS + copycat brand + cost more than Apple = D.O.A
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73
...compare this to the iPhone/Android phones market, but what everyone fails to mention is this.
A cell phone is, for all intents and purposes, a necessity, these days. Data Plans? No, but data plans are not so prohibitively expensive.
Google and their OEMs were smart in targeting Verizon in the US as the main carrier. Take the biggest carrier, that also happens to not have the iPhone, and introduce a viable alternative. This is the key to the early success of the Android platform.
It was an alternative platform, in an existing market, that, like iOS, was able to push the market forward.
Turn your attention to tablets. Apple introduced the iPad not as a replacement to anything. As a "tweener" product. It's not a smartphone, but it's not a laptop. It doesn't do everything, but what it does do? It does better than the alternatives.
However, what the tablet market is not? It is not a need. As I mentioned, people basically need a cell phone these days, and they need a computer. They do not need the in between product. It is an accessory. A luxury. Most people, when looking at a luxury item, don't settle. They go for the best/what they want, or the "popular" or status symbol item.
In other words, as of today, they will go with the iPad.
Until everyone "needs" a tablet, the iPad, in my opinion, will dominate. It is wrong to compare it to the smartphone market. It is more closely associated with the MP3 player market, where, just like coke and kleenex before it, iPod has become the "genericized" name referring to a product category.
Again, the question to ask yourself is would the carriers eat this? Why would they? What would I do if I were Verizon? Would I eat the cost, or would I tell the vendor to lower their price and threaten to make a competitor my featured phone getting all the commercial time if they don't?
I guess you would eat it. Verizon probably has a bit more negotiating experience.
Verizon's web site says it all. iPhone. Smartphones. Feature phones. The iPhone is its own category!
1) Free with contract is not free. Those phones do cost money and yield the vendors revenue. Even if that revenue is less than what Apple talks and their profit is negative, tt still counts as a sale.
2) Verizon separating out the iPhone is all marketing and speaks directly to how the iPhone is perceived by the consumer and its mindshare. I don?t think he?s saying that the iPhone isn?t the most desirable or exulted device on the market, just that the other Android phones should be counted as sales even if the carrier gives them away under contact.
3) Note there are plenty of carriers outside the US that sell the iPhone for free under contract.
1) Free with contract is not free. Those phones do cost money and yield the vendors revenue. Even if that revenue is less than what Apple talks and their profit is negative, tt still counts as a sale.
2) Verizon separating out the iPhone is all marketing and speaks directly to how the iPhone is perceived by the consumer and its mindshare. I don’t think he’s saying that the iPhone isn’t the most desirable or exulted device on the market, just that the other Android phones should be counted as sales even if the carrier gives them away under contact.
3) Note there are plenty of carriers outside the US that sell the iPhone for free under contract.
1) A free phone with a contract is free phone. With a contract. A $200 phone with a contract is a $200 phone. With a contract. I never said that anyone gives you free service. I suspect that given a choice, the vendors would rather have $200 phones than free ones. A business that posts negative profit from giving away product won't be around long. As for being counted as sales, well, that's what we are talking about. "Look, I had sales of 10k units. What's your profit? Negative profit. Gave 'em away. But I gave them away like hotcakes!"
2) It was a observation and a comment. I didn't say that he said anything about the iPhone being desired. I also didn't imply such.
3) I'm sure. I heard Orange did, but I'm just talking about the US to prove what is my point which is: Giving away like hotcakes is not selling like hotcakes.
As I mentioned, people basically need a cell phone these days, and they need a computer. They do not need the in between product. It is an accessory. A luxury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj.yuan
Agree very much with your analysis. It's very insightful. Thanks!
I might reanalysis your thought...
Surveys are saying not a few but many are using their computers, particularly laptops, less and less since they bought an iPad2. And as for phones, many like the ability to have their iPod, pics etc., all in one device; the iPhone4. It won't be long before your idea of luxury is completely turned around.
I love my iPad 2 but I have to admit that the Xoom had an awesome UI (thanks to the guy who created the Sidekick Helio and Palm OS) but at the end of the day I want to play with tablet apps in addition to browsing the web. I saw the Playbook the other day and it surprisingly looks pretty good minus the tiny power button, and lack of apps. I use the Torch for work and it's a pain in the butt to use it for anything but getting email notifications. The only positive thing I can say about RIM is that they had lots of potential to reach the mainstream market with the first Pearl. But then they dropped the ball and didn't innovate fast enough when Apple came to the market a year later.
Comments
No. Android devices vs. iOS devices.
There are far more iOS devices. More sales, more in use, and their numbers are increasing at a faster rate as well.
I was trying to avoid making a long long post by pointing out the inexactness of the terms being used. The poster used the term "market" without specifying if it was addressable market or current market share or even if they were talking about smartphone market share or mobile device market share. Like most Android supporters, they were probably talking only about "US sales to the channel of handests that could be referred to as smartphones," but instead they said "market."
So instead of rephrasing everything they said, pointing out the grammatical and logical errors in the sentences and then constructing the huge counter argument, I just took the statement literally and pointed out that the statement was wrong.
The shorthand is:
market leading smartphone = iPhone (by a vast, vast, vast margin)
market leading platform = iOS (by only a huge margin, not a vast one)
Those are the basic facts of the Apple vs. Google war we've all been following these last few years.
Actually, I think you've got it exactly backwards. There are more activated Android handsets than iPhones. But if you add in all the iPads and iPod touch's, then iOS probably leads over Android.
Trash. If I wanted the hassle of laundering, turning right-side out, and matching socks it would limit the benefit. The other benefits are always having soft socks. New socks feel sooo good. It's only about $30 a month when you buy in bulk. I save at least twice that by no longer getting a soft drink when I eat out.
Now we are getting way off track and probably more info than we actually need to know. Of course if you buy socks in bulk, all of them are the same, so matching shouldn't be too challenging. So what about the the hand washable delicates? Inquiring minds want to know.
Actually, I think you've got it exactly backwards. There are more activated Android handsets than iPhones. But if you add in all the iPads and iPod touch's, then iOS probably leads over Android.
I think Android would still knave more activations and should increasing it's lead each month. Going by memory we have about 18M iPhones, 6M iPod Touches, 8M iPads and 1M AppleTVs for about 330,000 per day. (Not going to do the math again so if someone wants to get more accurate figures go for it).
But Android fans need to keep in mind this all from one vendor, not dozens; from only half the US MNOs, and zero MVNOs; and with tech that was released up to a year ago and with very narrow price points and options compared to all the options with Android. I'll say it again: What is Android and their vendors doing wrong to not be much, much farther ahead when comparing mobile OS activations?
Now we are getting way off track and probably more info than we actually need to know. Of course if you buy socks in bulk, all of them are the same, so matching shouldn't be too challenging. So what about the the hand washable delicates? Inquiring minds want to know.
Not really. I have the typical tall sock for everyday use and the short socks for active wear. Also, one usually doesn't wait until all their socks are used before washing so you get uneven wear of the softness of the cotton and fading of the color. As for my other clothing, I don't where them in pairs so it's not an issue but I will admit that I mostly wear the same exact clothes like Einstein did. They are usually designer or bespoke, but pretty much the same so I don't waste time figuring out what to wear. I also use a laundry service, which negates my initial reason for discarding my socks, but not the second. (is that enough atypical data on me for the day?)
Me, I'm atypical because I like to buy to most products to play with, retired at 30yo and never wear the same pair of socks twice. We're all fringe people in some way.
Mmmm... I retired at 50 and like to buy E-Toys.... but I never wear the same pair of socks once!
With apologies to David Bromberg:
I like to sleep late in the mornin'
I don't like to wear no shoes.
Make love to the wimmin' while I'm livin'...
Get drunk on a bottle o' booze!
I Like To Sleep Late In The Morning
Here's the system that's at work right now: iPhone users paid for the phone and will pay for the iPad and buy software. Droid users (especially the "i got it for free" adopters) didn't pay for the phone and won't pay for anything that isn't free, be that a tablet or software.
Which is also why all around the droid market is less profitable than the iPhone/iPad market.
Heck, if Ferari gave away cars I'd take one, but I'd never buy one.
So I suspect the Honeycomb people have a problem in that their 'large pool' of android users (potential adopters) may be a mile wide, but it's only an inch deep. They have a bunch of customers who won't spend money.
Until the day these things are given away the numbers will stay low.
Again, my posts had nothing to do with market share. I only used market share as an example. My original post was in response to this:
People laughed at the original Android. It does now sell like hot cakes. 400,000 activations a day - every day. Not all of that is 2 for 1's. It was stupid to laugh at Android handsets in the past and it's stupid to laugh at Android tablets today. Just choose the option like the best and live with it. Not everybody has to agree with you.
They *don't* sell like hotcakes. Look, if you look at AT&T, at verizon, heck, at Amazon, you see prices starting as low as one cent. And there are free ones, and BOGO.
Those are *huge* amounts of giveaways. Apple only has one unit, the 8g 3GS that is reduced price and it outsells ALL Android units.
Sorry, but while I don't literally laugh, it is laughable. The carriers are giving the phone away to get your to buy a 2 year plan and few people are making money.
So why wouldn't someone with an interest at least smile. "The largest mover of units causes the vendors to lose money." What is Motorola going to do? Make it up in volume?
Apple is "closed" and "expensive" and yet they have moved more product.
What is Android and their vendors doing wrong to not be much, much farther ahead when comparing mobile OS activations?
i don't know that anything is "wrong". They've only been selling Android phones for about 30 months compared to about 47 months for the iPhone. About a 1.5 year lead. And daily Android activations have doubled in the past 7 months, from 200K in Sept/09 to 400K the beginning of this month. Android has done much better than almost anyone here would have expected IMHO.
Trash. If I wanted the hassle of laundering, turning right-side out, and matching socks it would limit the benefit. The other benefits are always having soft socks. New socks feel sooo good. It's only about $30 a month when you buy in bulk. I save at least twice that by no longer getting a soft drink when I eat out.
Sorry, I can't resist...
Socks
They *don't* sell like hotcakes. Look, if you look at AT&T, at verizon, heck, at Amazon, you see prices starting as low as one cent. And there are free ones, and BOGO.
Those are *huge* amounts of giveaways. Apple only has one unit, the 8g 3GS that is reduced price and it outsells ALL Android units.
Sorry, but while I don't literally laugh, it is laughable. The carriers are giving the phone away to get your to buy a 2 year plan and few people are making money.
So why wouldn't someone with an interest at least smile. "The largest mover of units causes the vendors to lose money." What is Motorola going to do? Make it up in volume?
Apple is "closed" and "expensive" and yet they have moved more product.
Neither Motorola or Samsung or HTC nor any other phone manufacturer is giving their phones away free of charge.
If the service providers see value in bundling a free or subsidized phone (the iPhone is also subsidized) in with a $3000 contract, you would have to assume they've found it worthwhile.
...The Good News is that the majority of the 1.000 units are Still In The Channel and have Not Been Sold To End Users!
LOL. To hear RIM call that good news!
If 1000 iPad 2's were similarly affected, Apple would have sold them all in the first hour.
Neither Motorola or Samsung or HTC nor any other phone manufacturer is giving their phones away free of charge.
If the service providers see value in bundling a free or subsidized phone (the iPhone is also subsidized) in with a $3000 contract, you would have to assume they've found it worthwhile.
I didn't say vendor. I said "carriers" and they are giving the phones away. Of course the iPhone is subsidized, but they aren't and have never been available(at least in the US) for free, BOGO or reduced priced in a few months. When Apple does allow, ALLOW a price drop, it is for the previous generation phone, usually with far less storage.
All of the above happen, constantly for Android phones. Usually that $299 is reduced within 45-60 days. The question to ask is why? Well, we know why for the carriers. Long, fat contracts. You think that the carriers is eating that price cut?
Please. Unlikely.
It is far more likely that they've negotiated difference price points for the Android vendors because there are so many. "Don't want to give me a cheaper price HTC? Fine, I'll bet Samsung will play ball."
Regardless, my point is that the units are not *selling* like hotcakes unless we want to expand the definition of sell to include give away. The phones are certainly decent enough to take for free.
I didn't say vendor. I said "carriers" and they are giving the phones away. Of course the iPhone is subsidized, but they aren't and have never been available(at least in the US) for free, BOGO or reduced priced in a few months. When Apple does allow, ALLOW a price drop, it is for the previous generation phone, usually with far less storage.
All of the above happen, constantly for Android phones. Usually that $299 is reduced within 45-60 days. The question to ask is why? Well, we know why for the carriers. Long, fat contracts. You think that the carriers is eating that price cut?
Please. Unlikely.
It is far more likely that they've negotiated difference price points for the Android vendors because there are so many. "Don't want to give me a cheaper price HTC? Fine, I'll bet Samsung will play ball."
Regardless, my point is that the units are not *selling* like hotcakes unless we want to expand the definition of sell to include give away. The phones are certainly decent enough to take for free.
Certainly it's possible that the manufacturer's are cutting the price to the telcoms after some period of time. But I've never seen any mention that all or even any of the BOGO deals, which I rarely see now, are in fact made possible by manufacturers cutting prices.
Neither Motorola or Samsung or HTC nor any other phone manufacturer is giving their phones away free of charge.
If the service providers see value in bundling a free or subsidized phone (the iPhone is also subsidized) in with a $3000 contract, you would have to assume they've found it worthwhile.
Certainly it's possible that the manufacturer's are cutting the price to the telcoms after some period of time. But I've never seen any mention that all or even any of the BOGO deals, which I rarely see now, are in fact made possible by manufacturers cutting prices.
If you don't see that, you aren't looking very hard. http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/p...cialoffers.jsp is a link to Verizon, BOGO for Droid Pro. At a reduced price, by the way.
AT&T, Motorola Bravo -one cent.
Amazon: Motorola Atrix 99.99
Droid incredible one cent
Sprint - LG Optimus - free
And that is stuff at a quick glance.
Again, the question to ask yourself is would the carriers eat this? Why would they? What would I do if I were Verizon? Would I eat the cost, or would I tell the vendor to lower their price and threaten to make a competitor my featured phone getting all the commercial time if they don't?
I guess you would eat it. Verizon probably has a bit more negotiating experience.
Verizon's web site says it all. iPhone. Smartphones. Feature phones. The iPhone is its own category!
Sorry, I can't resist...
Socks
I love Steven Wright.
...compare this to the iPhone/Android phones market, but what everyone fails to mention is this.
A cell phone is, for all intents and purposes, a necessity, these days. Data Plans? No, but data plans are not so prohibitively expensive.
Google and their OEMs were smart in targeting Verizon in the US as the main carrier. Take the biggest carrier, that also happens to not have the iPhone, and introduce a viable alternative. This is the key to the early success of the Android platform.
It was an alternative platform, in an existing market, that, like iOS, was able to push the market forward.
Turn your attention to tablets. Apple introduced the iPad not as a replacement to anything. As a "tweener" product. It's not a smartphone, but it's not a laptop. It doesn't do everything, but what it does do? It does better than the alternatives.
However, what the tablet market is not? It is not a need. As I mentioned, people basically need a cell phone these days, and they need a computer. They do not need the in between product. It is an accessory. A luxury. Most people, when looking at a luxury item, don't settle. They go for the best/what they want, or the "popular" or status symbol item.
In other words, as of today, they will go with the iPad.
Until everyone "needs" a tablet, the iPad, in my opinion, will dominate. It is wrong to compare it to the smartphone market. It is more closely associated with the MP3 player market, where, just like coke and kleenex before it, iPod has become the "genericized" name referring to a product category.
If you don't see that, you aren't looking very hard. http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/p...cialoffers.jsp is a link to Verizon, BOGO for Droid Pro. At a reduced price, by the way.
AT&T, Motorola Bravo -one cent.
Amazon: Motorola Atrix 99.99
Droid incredible one cent
Sprint - LG Optimus - free
And that is stuff at a quick glance.
Again, the question to ask yourself is would the carriers eat this? Why would they? What would I do if I were Verizon? Would I eat the cost, or would I tell the vendor to lower their price and threaten to make a competitor my featured phone getting all the commercial time if they don't?
I guess you would eat it. Verizon probably has a bit more negotiating experience.
Verizon's web site says it all. iPhone. Smartphones. Feature phones. The iPhone is its own category!
1) Free with contract is not free. Those phones do cost money and yield the vendors revenue. Even if that revenue is less than what Apple talks and their profit is negative, tt still counts as a sale.
2) Verizon separating out the iPhone is all marketing and speaks directly to how the iPhone is perceived by the consumer and its mindshare. I don?t think he?s saying that the iPhone isn?t the most desirable or exulted device on the market, just that the other Android phones should be counted as sales even if the carrier gives them away under contact.
3) Note there are plenty of carriers outside the US that sell the iPhone for free under contract.
1) Free with contract is not free. Those phones do cost money and yield the vendors revenue. Even if that revenue is less than what Apple talks and their profit is negative, tt still counts as a sale.
2) Verizon separating out the iPhone is all marketing and speaks directly to how the iPhone is perceived by the consumer and its mindshare. I don’t think he’s saying that the iPhone isn’t the most desirable or exulted device on the market, just that the other Android phones should be counted as sales even if the carrier gives them away under contact.
3) Note there are plenty of carriers outside the US that sell the iPhone for free under contract.
1) A free phone with a contract is free phone. With a contract. A $200 phone with a contract is a $200 phone. With a contract. I never said that anyone gives you free service. I suspect that given a choice, the vendors would rather have $200 phones than free ones. A business that posts negative profit from giving away product won't be around long. As for being counted as sales, well, that's what we are talking about. "Look, I had sales of 10k units. What's your profit? Negative profit. Gave 'em away. But I gave them away like hotcakes!"
2) It was a observation and a comment. I didn't say that he said anything about the iPhone being desired. I also didn't imply such.
3) I'm sure. I heard Orange did, but I'm just talking about the US to prove what is my point which is: Giving away like hotcakes is not selling like hotcakes.
Originally Posted by starbird73
As I mentioned, people basically need a cell phone these days, and they need a computer. They do not need the in between product. It is an accessory. A luxury.
Agree very much with your analysis. It's very insightful. Thanks!
I might reanalysis your thought...
Surveys are saying not a few but many are using their computers, particularly laptops, less and less since they bought an iPad2. And as for phones, many like the ability to have their iPod, pics etc., all in one device; the iPhone4. It won't be long before your idea of luxury is completely turned around.
Giving away like hotcakes is not selling like hotcakes.
Where is pancakes house?