One last post on this, from me, for now. Android is taking over the Nokia type feature phone set. As we see elsewhere these figures are having no effect on the market for apps and developers are staying with Apple. Or moving back.
Unlike a computer, which is a device driven by software use, sometimes - as Freud might say - a phone is just a phone. It might be that as devs move back to iOS that customers follow, or it might be that they don't, but it wouldn't matter much wither way.
When iOS started it had 90% of the app downloads with tiny overall market share. There are 3 phone markets - dumb, feature and smart - and Android is across the last two but growing into the second, Apple remains dominant in the smart..
Google explained how the activations work already, only new devices running google's android count, that means devices like archos media tabs or millions of Chinese devices sold. The I also think it does not count phones running miui.
Also for the love of all that is right in the world stop claiming that the iphone will start to out pace android when it is released on sprint. Look at Europe to see where the iphone is released on every carrier android still has the majority of the market share the iphone is released on sprint it will sale great but alot of the phones will be returned. Alot of people are use to android switching to iOS will be to use to android and will be switch back in a week. It happened on verizon and it will happen on every new carrier the iphone lands on.
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?
I think you are doing some mis-remembering. Of the products you mention, most except for the Commodore were marginal, and the Commodore played nowhere outside of the living room, along with the game machine computers from Atari, et. al., which is why it fell off a cliff along with the others. I'm uncertain precisely when the sales of clones exceed PCs built by IBM, but I would guess 1984-5 based on IBM's panic reaction to the clone competition represented by the PC jr.
I don't get why you are fast-forwarding to 1990 for Mac IIfx. The IIcx in the same timeframe was half that price. In any case the PC clone industry and Microsoft were clearly dominating the market by then, so I'm not sure where this fits into your argument.
I'll get a graph on this. It certainly wasn't a monolithic environment. However you may be right that the late 80's ( not the 90's) was when Apple should have reduced prices. I used the IIfx as an example of clear rip off prices.
I'll get a graph on this. It certainly wasn't a monolithic environment. However you may be right that the late 80's ( not the 90's) was when Apple should have reduced prices. I used the IIfx as an example of clear rip off prices.
I don't recall why the IIfx was so expensive, but it was hardly the least-expensive Mac available at that time. I can't say whether Apple was in a real position to reduce prices substantially at that time in any case. They were competing with generic PC hardware from big Asian manufacturers and every corner screwdriver shop working at minuscule margins. The real argument being leveled against Apple in those years was that they refused to adopt Microsoft's model of licensing the OS to all comers. They were finally bullied into trying this on a limited scale, and it was a disaster. So I think we should beware of Monday morning quarterbacking, unless we're prepared to examine the entire context.
I cant see a graph but here is what wiki has to say about prices in the 80's and 90's
At their introduction in 1981, the US $1,795 price of the Osborne 1 and its competitor Kaypro was considered an attractive price point; these systems had text-only displays and only floppy disks for storage. By 1982, Michael Dell observed that an IBM-compatible personal computer system selling at retail for about $3,000 US was made of components that cost the dealer about $600; typical gross margin on a computer unit was around $1,000.[19] The total value of personal computer purchases in the US in 1983 was about $4 billion, comparable to total sales of pet food. By late 1998, the average selling price of personal computer systems in the United States had dropped below $1000.[20]
All that makes a $12,000 model incredibly expensive. Margins must have been 80%.
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.
Is that a phone may be Activated multiple times. Show me one place that Google has even implied that "Activations = Sales". They have never even close to implying that. Likewise, Google has never discussed Activation counts surrounding reseting the device. You just made that part up.
There is enough evidence to support that, in fact, "Activations != Sales".
Apple - and particularly the Mac - had nowhere near the market share that people remember - but it increased towards the end of the decade. The "others" including the commodore 64 were ahead until about mid 1985, when IBM clones sell about 50% for the first time. The C64 was the largest player in 1984. C64 remains at 20% by late 1987 more than all Apple products.
The Mac is way less than 5% until 1986 where it seems to absorb some Apple II share and gets to 5% - the Apple II does better than the Mac until the end of 1987. Amiga and Atari are also in the game at not much less than Apple.
So where and how would APple have won in these early years by reducing prices? Past 1987 as the market consolidates around two OSe's, was when Apple need to sweep up the non-MS competition.
Later:
1987 -1990 sees all the players still around but the PC market goes to 80%. The market levels off.
Everybody but Apple collapse by 1994 ( that is success in itself) but I think it is past 1992 where Apple really lost it. The PC market accelerates again - driven by price - and APple dont compete for share, but maintain their share and keep profits. Eventually the share collapses - ( to 2000)
Google has said that OS upgrades doesn't count as activations.
Which one?
Reseting/upgrading. Show me where Google has said if you reset you phone and change phones, it does not count as an Activation. I have been told by a Google Engineer working at the Plex that, in fact, it does. This also implies that used phones going to new owners would count as "activations."
Reseting/upgrading. Show me where Google has said if you reset you phone and change phones, it does not count as an Activation. I have been told by a Google Engineer working at the Plex that, in fact, it does. This also implies that used phones going to new owners would count as "activations."
Reseting/upgrading. Show me where Google has said if you reset you phone and change phones, it does not count as an Activation. I have been told by a Google Engineer working at the Plex that, in fact, it does. This also implies that used phones going to new owners would count as "activations."
My God, upgrading the os RESETS the phone and Google, as I have linked before, has said that OS upgrades doesn't count as activations.
It is part of a larger conglomorate, of course, but the company which sells 11% of the Android market ( in value?) is loss making!!
Yes it is, or microscopic profits in good quarters, and so is Motorola mobility, but to be fair to Android, they were both basket cases before they switched to it - it actually gave them a last lease on life.
This is a really common phenomenon in the phone industry. A handset maker hits hard times and the channel will still take the phones off them but demands increasingly aggressive prices till eventually you're left with a zombie firm, which finally merges with another zombie and they try again. Market share tends to get lost slowly, due to the nature of the channel, but margins degrade fast, and once gone they do not return.
If I understand some of the brilliant minds here, there is exactly one Android phone sold (or made?). But, as Android is so crappy, customer Page has had to reset the activation half a million times a day? Did I get that right?
If I understand some of the brilliant minds here, there is exactly one Android phone sold (or made?). But, as Android is so crappy, customer Page has had to reset the activation half a million times a day? Did I get that right?
I dont think anybody suggested that only one Android phone was sold. To customer Page, or anybody else.
Comments
Unlike a computer, which is a device driven by software use, sometimes - as Freud might say - a phone is just a phone. It might be that as devs move back to iOS that customers follow, or it might be that they don't, but it wouldn't matter much wither way.
When iOS started it had 90% of the app downloads with tiny overall market share. There are 3 phone markets - dumb, feature and smart - and Android is across the last two but growing into the second, Apple remains dominant in the smart..
Also for the love of all that is right in the world stop claiming that the iphone will start to out pace android when it is released on sprint. Look at Europe to see where the iphone is released on every carrier android still has the majority of the market share the iphone is released on sprint it will sale great but alot of the phones will be returned. Alot of people are use to android switching to iOS will be to use to android and will be switch back in a week. It happened on verizon and it will happen on every new carrier the iphone lands on.
http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2011...rms-in-europe/
EDIT: actually Symbian is in the lead. Notice how I naturally discount Symbian.
There are all kind of confusing reports on Europe. I still see Apple in the lead:
http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2011...rms-in-europe/
EDIT: actually Symbian is in the lead. Notice how I naturally discount Symbian.
And, strangely, here in Spain, I see more BB than iPhones or Androids. It seems that every teenager has one
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?
I think you are doing some mis-remembering. Of the products you mention, most except for the Commodore were marginal, and the Commodore played nowhere outside of the living room, along with the game machine computers from Atari, et. al., which is why it fell off a cliff along with the others. I'm uncertain precisely when the sales of clones exceed PCs built by IBM, but I would guess 1984-5 based on IBM's panic reaction to the clone competition represented by the PC jr.
I don't get why you are fast-forwarding to 1990 for Mac IIfx. The IIcx in the same timeframe was half that price. In any case the PC clone industry and Microsoft were clearly dominating the market by then, so I'm not sure where this fits into your argument.
I'll get a graph on this. It certainly wasn't a monolithic environment. However you may be right that the late 80's ( not the 90's) was when Apple should have reduced prices. I used the IIfx as an example of clear rip off prices.
I don't recall why the IIfx was so expensive, but it was hardly the least-expensive Mac available at that time. I can't say whether Apple was in a real position to reduce prices substantially at that time in any case. They were competing with generic PC hardware from big Asian manufacturers and every corner screwdriver shop working at minuscule margins. The real argument being leveled against Apple in those years was that they refused to adopt Microsoft's model of licensing the OS to all comers. They were finally bullied into trying this on a limited scale, and it was a disaster. So I think we should beware of Monday morning quarterbacking, unless we're prepared to examine the entire context.
At their introduction in 1981, the US $1,795 price of the Osborne 1 and its competitor Kaypro was considered an attractive price point; these systems had text-only displays and only floppy disks for storage. By 1982, Michael Dell observed that an IBM-compatible personal computer system selling at retail for about $3,000 US was made of components that cost the dealer about $600; typical gross margin on a computer unit was around $1,000.[19] The total value of personal computer purchases in the US in 1983 was about $4 billion, comparable to total sales of pet food. By late 1998, the average selling price of personal computer systems in the United States had dropped below $1000.[20]
All that makes a $12,000 model incredibly expensive. Margins must have been 80%.
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.
Is that a phone may be Activated multiple times. Show me one place that Google has even implied that "Activations = Sales". They have never even close to implying that. Likewise, Google has never discussed Activation counts surrounding reseting the device. You just made that part up.
There is enough evidence to support that, in fact, "Activations != Sales".
Google has never discussed Activation counts surrounding reseting the device. You just made that part up.
Google has said that OS upgrades doesn't count as activations.
There is enough evidence to support that, in fact, "Activations != Sales".
Which one?
Computer market share
pre-1980
1980-1984
1984-1987
Apple - and particularly the Mac - had nowhere near the market share that people remember - but it increased towards the end of the decade. The "others" including the commodore 64 were ahead until about mid 1985, when IBM clones sell about 50% for the first time. The C64 was the largest player in 1984. C64 remains at 20% by late 1987 more than all Apple products.
The Mac is way less than 5% until 1986 where it seems to absorb some Apple II share and gets to 5% - the Apple II does better than the Mac until the end of 1987. Amiga and Atari are also in the game at not much less than Apple.
So where and how would APple have won in these early years by reducing prices? Past 1987 as the market consolidates around two OSe's, was when Apple need to sweep up the non-MS competition.
Later:
1987 -1990 sees all the players still around but the PC market goes to 80%. The market levels off.
Everybody but Apple collapse by 1994 ( that is success in itself) but I think it is past 1992 where Apple really lost it. The PC market accelerates again - driven by price - and APple dont compete for share, but maintain their share and keep profits. Eventually the share collapses - ( to 2000)
( All images from Ars Technica - here http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2...tal-share.ars/)
Google has said that OS upgrades doesn't count as activations.
Which one?
Reseting/upgrading. Show me where Google has said if you reset you phone and change phones, it does not count as an Activation. I have been told by a Google Engineer working at the Plex that, in fact, it does. This also implies that used phones going to new owners would count as "activations."
Apple is happy to keep making most the money in the mobile market and iOS devs are happy to keep making most the money from app sales.
Reseting/upgrading. Show me where Google has said if you reset you phone and change phones, it does not count as an Activation. I have been told by a Google Engineer working at the Plex that, in fact, it does. This also implies that used phones going to new owners would count as "activations."
He's right. They have said that.
http://mashable.com/2010/09/02/googl...id-activation/
Reseting/upgrading. Show me where Google has said if you reset you phone and change phones, it does not count as an Activation. I have been told by a Google Engineer working at the Plex that, in fact, it does. This also implies that used phones going to new owners would count as "activations."
My God, upgrading the os RESETS the phone and Google, as I have linked before, has said that OS upgrades doesn't count as activations.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/...g-accusations/
Heres a good article from Ars.
Computer market share
And this is only hardware, how could changed things if Kildall would priced CP/M as MS/DOS
It is part of a larger conglomorate, of course, but the company which sells 11% of the Android market ( in value?) is loss making!!
Yes it is, or microscopic profits in good quarters, and so is Motorola mobility, but to be fair to Android, they were both basket cases before they switched to it - it actually gave them a last lease on life.
This is a really common phenomenon in the phone industry. A handset maker hits hard times and the channel will still take the phones off them but demands increasingly aggressive prices till eventually you're left with a zombie firm, which finally merges with another zombie and they try again. Market share tends to get lost slowly, due to the nature of the channel, but margins degrade fast, and once gone they do not return.
If I understand some of the brilliant minds here, there is exactly one Android phone sold (or made?). But, as Android is so crappy, customer Page has had to reset the activation half a million times a day? Did I get that right?
I dont think anybody suggested that only one Android phone was sold. To customer Page, or anybody else.