Agreed, although I'm very suspicious of the 550,000 activations per day figure since it can't be verified by anyone else - and Google refuses to provide any sales figures to back it up.
Apple SOLD 16 million iPhones in the quarter and Google claims 50 million activations. Does anyone really believe that they sold 3 Android phones for every iPhone? Based on what I'm seeing in the real world, that doesn't seem remotely plausible.
If Google were being honest, they're report how many phones were sold (and don't tell me they don't know - they get a record of how many Android licenses are issued each quarter). Or tell us how many activations are counted per phone. I'll bet the number is significantly greater than 1.
Don't compare apples and oranges.
I am SUSPICIOUS too!
THIS FORUM NEEDS ? LIKE + THUMBS UP = RATING ? BUTTONS!!! So that I could LIKE and Push Up the most Liked Comments!!! It'd be nice to have such Buttons, as borrowed from YouTube, cause reading through 3-4 or more Pages of Comments is not always realistic!!!
I LIKE this Comment that I am Replying too, cause I agree with it!!!
Adding Twitter Button per each Comment might be nice too!!! But then one can just Twitt a Page, and indicate a specific Post #.... Or double-click it, and Twitt that Specific Post Page... A work around
I hope Apple Insider is reading this Comment!!! TGIF to all!
What good is a computer without applications? All of us Apple users in the 90s experienced the frustration of having only a small subset of applications available for a long time. Windows wasn't successful because it was a better OS.
And not only in the 90's with applications, OS X has lacked in games until not so long time ago.
So Apple's failure to grab as much as one-third of the smartphone market in 4 years should also be deemed a failure in some ways? I think not, and I'm fairly certain you wouldn't apply the same standard.[/url]
A very important part of his argument was that Android is a free OS and available for any hardware vendor on any service network. Apple doesn't fit that criteria, so there's no way to apply the same standard. But we could discuss other metrics to define success/failure for iOS. One such metric could be the revenue generated by iPhone/iPad sales relative to that of their respective markets. That metric indicates that iOS is anything but a failure, and it seems like a compelling metric to me.
I have a question. Has Google ever announced how much money they have payed out to developers in their marketplace? I know they have more ad supported apps than paid, but the free apps still have to be paid for the advertising revenue they generate. Who cares if they have 20x the set of eyeballs if the developer isn't getting paid as much or as regularly?
I think competition drives Apple to innovate faster and to release functionality faster.
You can think it, I can think it, it may even be true - I'm just saying that there's no overwhelming mountain of evidence indicating it. Whenever 'everybody knows' something for which there is no evidence, it's a good time to be sceptical.
I completely agree. Replace "Android" with "Windows" and "iPhone" with "Mac" and this story could have been lifted from the mid-1980s. As could so many of the fanboy responses - "yeah but Android [Windows] sucks", etc.
I so, so much do not want to see Apple repeat with iOS devices the same mistakes it made with the Mac in the 1980s. I say that as someone who had a 512K Mac in 1985 - Apple was light-years ahead of the competition in both substance and style (sound familiar?), but squandered it.
Yeah, some of you are going to say "but look at them today - Apple's bigger now than ever". Yeah - and my response is that that's pretty much a textbook definition of a miracle. That Apple survived the mid-1990s is amazing - I'm glad they did, but that doesn't make it any less amazing. And but for one breakthrough product - the original iPod - they probably *wouldn't* be here today.
There's a bit of historical revisionism at work here. Apple released the Mac into an existing market already dominated by the IBM-PC, so it's not clear that they squandered anything you could actually put your finger on. The market was a monoculture already, an artificial construct built on IBM's lack of foresight and Microsoft's dumb luck. The smartphone market is far more diverse now than the PC market ever was back in the '80s.
I'm not arguing that Android won't harm Apple's sales of the iPhone (little doubt it has already). What I am saying is, there's no reason to expect a similar monoculture to emerge from this market. Nobody has to win it all, and nobody is likely to do so.
There can be only one. The mobile pie is actually big enough for 3-5 successful and highly profitable platforms.
Ballmer was going on the other day about how 350 millions Windows 7 licenses were sold compared to 20 million for Snow Leopard. But Apple seems to be doing quite well in spite of those figures. Market share seems to be all about bragging rights and Apple's failure to dominate market share in any single area doesn't seem to be hurting the compnay one single bit. In a global economy I don't think market share means what it used to mean anymore.
Ballmer was going on the other day about how 350 millions Windows 7 licenses were sold compared to 20 million for Snow Leopard. But Apple seems to be doing quite well in spite of those figures. Market share seems to be all about bragging rights and Apple's failure to dominate market share in any single area doesn't seem to be hurting the compnay one single bit. In a global economy I don't think market share means what it used to mean anymore.
Assuming it ever meant what it used to mean. In the end, companies and investors really only care about earnings.
Uggh...every time you get an article on Android activations, you get the following arguments:
1) The numbers are false. There's no independent source. And I haven't seen that many Android around.
Of course. Nobody ever questions Apple's numbers and whether they are lieing (I don't think they are.). I'd like someone who thinks the numbers are lies to tell me how Google can get away with lieing to investors. And the idea that iPhone fans keep a look out for Android phones is rather comical.
2) Android are cheap.
An odd claim given that in most places Androids on contract are generally about the same price as an iPhone. Sometimes they are even more expensive. But they are certainly cheaper than iPhones, in markets where users tend to buy phones outright.
3) It's all BOGO.
Another odd claim. To start with, that's largely a US practice. And the US, while a good portion of Android sales, could never have enough subs on BOGO to really impact activations that much.
4) They're all geeks and nerds who want to fiddle with phones.
There really must be a lot of geeks and nerds in the world then. And other stereotypes must be true too. Hence forth, any guy sporting an iPhone is probably gay to me. And anybody sporting a Blackberry must have money. And if he's got an Atrix, he must be a nerd, living in his parents' basement. Would that make any sense?
5) They're all poor.
They might be marginally less wealthier than the average iPhone user. But anybody sporting a smartphone (even if it's a BB) of any kind is probably a lot better off than somebody using an ordinary dumbphone. I doubt people who are truly poor could actually afford smartphones with data plans.
In reality, these kinds of pissing matches are utterly useless. People use what's best for them. Just look at recent stats that show that the iPad is the most popular tablet among Android smartphone users.
And while Apple doesn't seem to have that much of an issue with slipping market share, it's often the fans that seem to turn this thing into a war with near-religious overtones. In reality, with the smartphone market growing so quickly, there's certainly room for several operating systems.
I guess it depends on your circle of friends really...
I work in small cafe in Cleveland, OH, and I've noticed many more iPhones, iPads and Mac laptops than a total of all other makes and brands. I am still amazed at how many Apple products I see on a day to day basis.
I will posit that you are simply noticing iDevices more, rather than actually seeing more devices.
Here's the thing, a Sony Ericsson, a Samsung Galaxy S and an HTC Desire, don't all look the same. Plus, none are as well known as an iPhone. So, of course, you'll notice the iPhone in the bunch and not the rest.
But just because you don't notice them, doesn't mean they're not there.
I think competition drives Apple to innovate faster and to release functionality faster. If Android didn't show a better notification system, Apple might be content with leaving what they have because they are the only game in town and only improve it when they're ready. We know they're capable of delivering a better notification and could have done so earlier but resources are spent elsewhere they consider a priority.
I work in a company where we are easily the market leader in our space. Yet, we are constantly cost cutting and looking for improvements, because that's what market leaders do. Apple is the market leader in many spaces, but it doesn't hurt to have some competition so they don't get complacent.
+1
This has long been my view. Competition is good for the consumer. And if you're a consumer who's not sticky to one brand, all the better for you because you can take the best from any of those pitching their wares to you.
Uggh...every time you get an article on Android activations, you get the following arguments:
1) The numbers are false. There's no independent source. And I haven't seen that many Android around.
Of course. Nobody ever questions Apple's numbers and whether they are lieing (I don't think they are.). I'd like someone who thinks the numbers are lies to tell me how Google can get away with lieing to investors. And the idea that iPhone fans keep a look out for Android phones is rather comical.
Just that (Activations != Sales). The question is "What does 'Activations' mean?"
And as Google has said that upgrading the os doesn't count as activation, changing the SIM or "resetting" if resetting is factory reset or flashing doesn't count as activation.
Just that (Activations != Sales). The question is "What does 'Activations' mean?"
Of course activations =/= sales. Google does not sell phones. Android OEMs do. So the only thing Google can discuss are activations. And despite the conspiracy theories, every time any Google exec has been asked, they've been clear that these are unique devices that use Google services. And they count them through the Android market. I don't get what's so difficult about talking about the number of unique devices logging on to the market for the first time.
There's a bit of historical revisionism at work here. Apple released the Mac into an existing market already dominated by the IBM-PC, so it's not clear that they squandered anything you could actually put your finger on. The market was a monoculture already, an artificial construct built on IBM's lack of foresight and Microsoft's dumb luck. The smartphone market is far more diverse now than the PC market ever was back in the '80s.
I'm not arguing that Android won't harm Apple's sales of the iPhone (little doubt it has already). What I am saying is, there's no reason to expect a similar monoculture to emerge from this market. Nobody has to win it all, and nobody is likely to do so.
Thats absolutely not the case. The market had many players. In 1985 the biggest selling OS, and one on a very huge trajectory, was the Commodore OS. It fell off a cliff that year. The Osborne had fallen off a cliff a few years before. Across the pond the BBC micro and the Sinclair were selling like hot cakes. They were to disappear by the end of the 80's.
The two more expensive players, IBM and APPle, survived. I say IBM because most PC's sold were IBM, not "clones".
It was the 90's, as Jobs himself has pointed out, where Apple refused to trade margins for market share. The IIFX cost from $9000 to $12000 when it was released in 1990. It was discontinued in 1992. Someone else can work out the index linked 2011 dollars for that - I would guess the top model sold at the modern equivalent of $18000. At least.
Why do people mis-remember the 80's? Who knows? Any ideas?
The story of the 80's is relevant to the present in one way though. The cheap manufacturers fell away, as I said. On that note: here is the latest report from Sony Ericcisson
Quote:
The quarter ended in a net loss of €50 million compared to a net income of €12 million in Q2 2010, and €11 million in the last quarter.
Average selling price for the quarter was €156, a three per cent decrease year-on-year but an 11 per cent increase sequentially. Sony Ericsson said the year-on-year decrease was due to product and geographical mix and price erosion with the sequential increase attributed to favorable product and geographical mix, more than offsetting price erosion and unfavourable foreign exchange rates.
The company estimated that its share in the global Android-based smartphone market during the quarter was around 11 per cent in volume and in value. It maintained its forecast for modest industry growth in total units in the global handset market for 2011.
It is part of a larger conglomorate, of course, but the company which sells 11% of the Android market ( in value?) is loss making!!
Jebus! This is the fastest commodificaiton in history, there is nothing to differentiate low to medium-high level Android's machines from each other. The surivors will be the most cut throat. In the long term this will reduce the number of phones available in shops, and Apple willl produce more models, so the swamping of iPhones won't last.
( Also to those of you who wonder why producing your own OS, I mean BADA etc, makes sense. Thats why. To differentiate from the mass and make higher margin).
At the moment Apple is not really competing at medium and low end. A cheap world phone will see where we really are . It may not reverse the trend but it would stall it.
Uggh...every time you get an article on Android activations, you get the following arguments:
1) The numbers are false. There's no independent source. And I haven't seen that many Android around.
Of course. Nobody ever questions Apple's numbers and whether they are lieing (I don't think they are.). I'd like someone who thinks the numbers are lies to tell me how Google can get away with lieing to investors. And the idea that iPhone fans keep a look out for Android phones is rather comical.
I dont believe that Google are lying, however Apple is a manufacturer and they have to give exact figures. It's less certain with Google, since they dont obviously make any money from direct Android "sales".
Quote:
2) Android are cheap.
An odd claim given that in most places Androids on contract are generally about the same price as an iPhone. Sometimes they are even more expensive. But they are certainly cheaper than iPhones, in markets where users tend to buy phones outright.
They are about half as cheap. The 3GS is £400 here in the UK. Modern Androids sell at £200. that is the main reason for Android's commodification of the market.
Quote:
3) It's all BOGO.
Another odd claim. To start with, that's largely a US practice. And the US, while a good portion of Android sales, could never have enough subs on BOGO to really impact activations that much.
That's probably correct. BOGO is an excuse.
Quote:
4) They're all geeks and nerds who want to fiddle with phones.
There really must be a lot of geeks and nerds in the world then. And other stereotypes must be true too. Hence forth, any guy sporting an iPhone is probably gay to me. And anybody sporting a Blackberry must have money. And if he's got an Atrix, he must be a nerd, living in his parents' basement. Would that make any sense?
Correct. There aren't enough nerds in the world.
Quote:
5) They're all poor.
They might be marginally less wealthier than the average iPhone user. But anybody sporting a smartphone (even if it's a BB) of any kind is probably a lot better off than somebody using an ordinary dumbphone. I doubt people who are truly poor could actually afford smartphones with data plans.
Actually, given 2) the difference in income is probably quite large, particularly in non-Western countries. I think that Apple should address this.
Quote:
And while Apple doesn't seem to have that much of an issue with slipping market share, it's often the fans that seem to turn this thing into a war with near-religious overtones. In reality, with the smartphone market growing so quickly, there's certainly room for several operating systems.
I think APple does care - they dont want to repeat the 90's.
Of course activations =/= sales. Google does not sell phones. Android OEMs do. So the only thing Google can discuss are activations. And despite the conspiracy theories, every time any Google exec has been asked, they've been clear that these are unique devices that use Google services. And they count them through the Android market. I don't get what's so difficult about talking about the number of unique devices logging on to the market for the first time.
Yes, if they use the UUID then it's fail safe. They are real activated once only Android phones.
I agree. It's very good that so many are migrating to smartphones and ditching their laptops and desktops. Android platform is merely the training wheels for virgins who will mature later and use iOS devices. Good news for Apple.
Comments
Agreed, although I'm very suspicious of the 550,000 activations per day figure since it can't be verified by anyone else - and Google refuses to provide any sales figures to back it up.
Apple SOLD 16 million iPhones in the quarter and Google claims 50 million activations. Does anyone really believe that they sold 3 Android phones for every iPhone? Based on what I'm seeing in the real world, that doesn't seem remotely plausible.
If Google were being honest, they're report how many phones were sold (and don't tell me they don't know - they get a record of how many Android licenses are issued each quarter). Or tell us how many activations are counted per phone. I'll bet the number is significantly greater than 1.
Don't compare apples and oranges.
I am SUSPICIOUS too!
THIS FORUM NEEDS ? LIKE + THUMBS UP = RATING ? BUTTONS!!! So that I could LIKE and Push Up the most Liked Comments!!! It'd be nice to have such Buttons, as borrowed from YouTube, cause reading through 3-4 or more Pages of Comments is not always realistic!!!
I LIKE this Comment that I am Replying too, cause I agree with it!!!
Adding Twitter Button per each Comment might be nice too!!! But then one can just Twitt a Page, and indicate a specific Post #.... Or double-click it, and Twitt that Specific Post Page... A work around
I hope Apple Insider is reading this Comment!!! TGIF to all
What good is a computer without applications? All of us Apple users in the 90s experienced the frustration of having only a small subset of applications available for a long time. Windows wasn't successful because it was a better OS.
And not only in the 90's with applications, OS X has lacked in games until not so long time ago.
So Apple's failure to grab as much as one-third of the smartphone market in 4 years should also be deemed a failure in some ways? I think not, and I'm fairly certain you wouldn't apply the same standard.[/url]
A very important part of his argument was that Android is a free OS and available for any hardware vendor on any service network. Apple doesn't fit that criteria, so there's no way to apply the same standard. But we could discuss other metrics to define success/failure for iOS. One such metric could be the revenue generated by iPhone/iPad sales relative to that of their respective markets. That metric indicates that iOS is anything but a failure, and it seems like a compelling metric to me.
Thompson
I think competition drives Apple to innovate faster and to release functionality faster.
You can think it, I can think it, it may even be true - I'm just saying that there's no overwhelming mountain of evidence indicating it. Whenever 'everybody knows' something for which there is no evidence, it's a good time to be sceptical.
There's one little flaw in your theory, iPhone 5 (4s) is late.
I did not know iPhone 5 was late. When did Apple say they were releasing it ?
No, Gwydion is just difficult and a contrarian.
English is not my tongue, can you explain me what it means being "difficult and contrarian"?
Whatever you argue, they argue the opposite, often just for the sake of arguing the other side.
Funny, I will say no :P
When I argue something, I can be right or wrong but I really believe what I say
I completely agree. Replace "Android" with "Windows" and "iPhone" with "Mac" and this story could have been lifted from the mid-1980s. As could so many of the fanboy responses - "yeah but Android [Windows] sucks", etc.
I so, so much do not want to see Apple repeat with iOS devices the same mistakes it made with the Mac in the 1980s. I say that as someone who had a 512K Mac in 1985 - Apple was light-years ahead of the competition in both substance and style (sound familiar?), but squandered it.
Yeah, some of you are going to say "but look at them today - Apple's bigger now than ever". Yeah - and my response is that that's pretty much a textbook definition of a miracle. That Apple survived the mid-1990s is amazing - I'm glad they did, but that doesn't make it any less amazing. And but for one breakthrough product - the original iPod - they probably *wouldn't* be here today.
There's a bit of historical revisionism at work here. Apple released the Mac into an existing market already dominated by the IBM-PC, so it's not clear that they squandered anything you could actually put your finger on. The market was a monoculture already, an artificial construct built on IBM's lack of foresight and Microsoft's dumb luck. The smartphone market is far more diverse now than the PC market ever was back in the '80s.
I'm not arguing that Android won't harm Apple's sales of the iPhone (little doubt it has already). What I am saying is, there's no reason to expect a similar monoculture to emerge from this market. Nobody has to win it all, and nobody is likely to do so.
There can be only one. The mobile pie is actually big enough for 3-5 successful and highly profitable platforms.
Ballmer was going on the other day about how 350 millions Windows 7 licenses were sold compared to 20 million for Snow Leopard. But Apple seems to be doing quite well in spite of those figures. Market share seems to be all about bragging rights and Apple's failure to dominate market share in any single area doesn't seem to be hurting the compnay one single bit. In a global economy I don't think market share means what it used to mean anymore.
Ballmer was going on the other day about how 350 millions Windows 7 licenses were sold compared to 20 million for Snow Leopard. But Apple seems to be doing quite well in spite of those figures. Market share seems to be all about bragging rights and Apple's failure to dominate market share in any single area doesn't seem to be hurting the compnay one single bit. In a global economy I don't think market share means what it used to mean anymore.
Assuming it ever meant what it used to mean. In the end, companies and investors really only care about earnings.
1) The numbers are false. There's no independent source. And I haven't seen that many Android around.
Of course. Nobody ever questions Apple's numbers and whether they are lieing (I don't think they are.). I'd like someone who thinks the numbers are lies to tell me how Google can get away with lieing to investors. And the idea that iPhone fans keep a look out for Android phones is rather comical.
2) Android are cheap.
An odd claim given that in most places Androids on contract are generally about the same price as an iPhone. Sometimes they are even more expensive. But they are certainly cheaper than iPhones, in markets where users tend to buy phones outright.
3) It's all BOGO.
Another odd claim. To start with, that's largely a US practice. And the US, while a good portion of Android sales, could never have enough subs on BOGO to really impact activations that much.
4) They're all geeks and nerds who want to fiddle with phones.
There really must be a lot of geeks and nerds in the world then. And other stereotypes must be true too. Hence forth, any guy sporting an iPhone is probably gay to me. And anybody sporting a Blackberry must have money. And if he's got an Atrix, he must be a nerd, living in his parents' basement. Would that make any sense?
5) They're all poor.
They might be marginally less wealthier than the average iPhone user. But anybody sporting a smartphone (even if it's a BB) of any kind is probably a lot better off than somebody using an ordinary dumbphone. I doubt people who are truly poor could actually afford smartphones with data plans.
In reality, these kinds of pissing matches are utterly useless. People use what's best for them. Just look at recent stats that show that the iPad is the most popular tablet among Android smartphone users.
And while Apple doesn't seem to have that much of an issue with slipping market share, it's often the fans that seem to turn this thing into a war with near-religious overtones. In reality, with the smartphone market growing so quickly, there's certainly room for several operating systems.
I guess it depends on your circle of friends really...
I work in small cafe in Cleveland, OH, and I've noticed many more iPhones, iPads and Mac laptops than a total of all other makes and brands. I am still amazed at how many Apple products I see on a day to day basis.
I will posit that you are simply noticing iDevices more, rather than actually seeing more devices.
Here's the thing, a Sony Ericsson, a Samsung Galaxy S and an HTC Desire, don't all look the same. Plus, none are as well known as an iPhone. So, of course, you'll notice the iPhone in the bunch and not the rest.
But just because you don't notice them, doesn't mean they're not there.
I think competition drives Apple to innovate faster and to release functionality faster. If Android didn't show a better notification system, Apple might be content with leaving what they have because they are the only game in town and only improve it when they're ready. We know they're capable of delivering a better notification and could have done so earlier but resources are spent elsewhere they consider a priority.
I work in a company where we are easily the market leader in our space. Yet, we are constantly cost cutting and looking for improvements, because that's what market leaders do. Apple is the market leader in many spaces, but it doesn't hurt to have some competition so they don't get complacent.
+1
This has long been my view. Competition is good for the consumer. And if you're a consumer who's not sticky to one brand, all the better for you because you can take the best from any of those pitching their wares to you.
Uggh...every time you get an article on Android activations, you get the following arguments:
1) The numbers are false. There's no independent source. And I haven't seen that many Android around.
Of course. Nobody ever questions Apple's numbers and whether they are lieing (I don't think they are.). I'd like someone who thinks the numbers are lies to tell me how Google can get away with lieing to investors. And the idea that iPhone fans keep a look out for Android phones is rather comical.
Just that (Activations != Sales). The question is "What does 'Activations' mean?"
Just that (Activations != Sales).
Thing not proved.
And as Google has said that upgrading the os doesn't count as activation, changing the SIM or "resetting" if resetting is factory reset or flashing doesn't count as activation.
Just that (Activations != Sales). The question is "What does 'Activations' mean?"
Of course activations =/= sales. Google does not sell phones. Android OEMs do. So the only thing Google can discuss are activations. And despite the conspiracy theories, every time any Google exec has been asked, they've been clear that these are unique devices that use Google services. And they count them through the Android market. I don't get what's so difficult about talking about the number of unique devices logging on to the market for the first time.
There's a bit of historical revisionism at work here. Apple released the Mac into an existing market already dominated by the IBM-PC, so it's not clear that they squandered anything you could actually put your finger on. The market was a monoculture already, an artificial construct built on IBM's lack of foresight and Microsoft's dumb luck. The smartphone market is far more diverse now than the PC market ever was back in the '80s.
I'm not arguing that Android won't harm Apple's sales of the iPhone (little doubt it has already). What I am saying is, there's no reason to expect a similar monoculture to emerge from this market. Nobody has to win it all, and nobody is likely to do so.
Thats absolutely not the case. The market had many players. In 1985 the biggest selling OS, and one on a very huge trajectory, was the Commodore OS. It fell off a cliff that year. The Osborne had fallen off a cliff a few years before. Across the pond the BBC micro and the Sinclair were selling like hot cakes. They were to disappear by the end of the 80's.
The two more expensive players, IBM and APPle, survived. I say IBM because most PC's sold were IBM, not "clones".
It was the 90's, as Jobs himself has pointed out, where Apple refused to trade margins for market share. The IIFX cost from $9000 to $12000 when it was released in 1990. It was discontinued in 1992. Someone else can work out the index linked 2011 dollars for that - I would guess the top model sold at the modern equivalent of $18000. At least.
Why do people mis-remember the 80's? Who knows? Any ideas?
The story of the 80's is relevant to the present in one way though. The cheap manufacturers fell away, as I said. On that note: here is the latest report from Sony Ericcisson
The quarter ended in a net loss of €50 million compared to a net income of €12 million in Q2 2010, and €11 million in the last quarter.
Average selling price for the quarter was €156, a three per cent decrease year-on-year but an 11 per cent increase sequentially. Sony Ericsson said the year-on-year decrease was due to product and geographical mix and price erosion with the sequential increase attributed to favorable product and geographical mix, more than offsetting price erosion and unfavourable foreign exchange rates.
The company estimated that its share in the global Android-based smartphone market during the quarter was around 11 per cent in volume and in value. It maintained its forecast for modest industry growth in total units in the global handset market for 2011.
It is part of a larger conglomorate, of course, but the company which sells 11% of the Android market ( in value?) is loss making!!
Jebus! This is the fastest commodificaiton in history, there is nothing to differentiate low to medium-high level Android's machines from each other. The surivors will be the most cut throat. In the long term this will reduce the number of phones available in shops, and Apple willl produce more models, so the swamping of iPhones won't last.
( Also to those of you who wonder why producing your own OS, I mean BADA etc, makes sense. Thats why. To differentiate from the mass and make higher margin).
At the moment Apple is not really competing at medium and low end. A cheap world phone will see where we really are . It may not reverse the trend but it would stall it.
Uggh...every time you get an article on Android activations, you get the following arguments:
1) The numbers are false. There's no independent source. And I haven't seen that many Android around.
Of course. Nobody ever questions Apple's numbers and whether they are lieing (I don't think they are.). I'd like someone who thinks the numbers are lies to tell me how Google can get away with lieing to investors. And the idea that iPhone fans keep a look out for Android phones is rather comical.
I dont believe that Google are lying, however Apple is a manufacturer and they have to give exact figures. It's less certain with Google, since they dont obviously make any money from direct Android "sales".
2) Android are cheap.
An odd claim given that in most places Androids on contract are generally about the same price as an iPhone. Sometimes they are even more expensive. But they are certainly cheaper than iPhones, in markets where users tend to buy phones outright.
They are about half as cheap. The 3GS is £400 here in the UK. Modern Androids sell at £200. that is the main reason for Android's commodification of the market.
3) It's all BOGO.
Another odd claim. To start with, that's largely a US practice. And the US, while a good portion of Android sales, could never have enough subs on BOGO to really impact activations that much.
That's probably correct. BOGO is an excuse.
4) They're all geeks and nerds who want to fiddle with phones.
There really must be a lot of geeks and nerds in the world then. And other stereotypes must be true too. Hence forth, any guy sporting an iPhone is probably gay to me. And anybody sporting a Blackberry must have money. And if he's got an Atrix, he must be a nerd, living in his parents' basement. Would that make any sense?
Correct. There aren't enough nerds in the world.
5) They're all poor.
They might be marginally less wealthier than the average iPhone user. But anybody sporting a smartphone (even if it's a BB) of any kind is probably a lot better off than somebody using an ordinary dumbphone. I doubt people who are truly poor could actually afford smartphones with data plans.
Actually, given 2) the difference in income is probably quite large, particularly in non-Western countries. I think that Apple should address this.
And while Apple doesn't seem to have that much of an issue with slipping market share, it's often the fans that seem to turn this thing into a war with near-religious overtones. In reality, with the smartphone market growing so quickly, there's certainly room for several operating systems.
I think APple does care - they dont want to repeat the 90's.
Of course activations =/= sales. Google does not sell phones. Android OEMs do. So the only thing Google can discuss are activations. And despite the conspiracy theories, every time any Google exec has been asked, they've been clear that these are unique devices that use Google services. And they count them through the Android market. I don't get what's so difficult about talking about the number of unique devices logging on to the market for the first time.
Yes, if they use the UUID then it's fail safe. They are real activated once only Android phones.