Indeed, Amazon has the ecosystem (music, books, apps, videos) to rival Apple. The interesting thing is that their ecosystem overlaps with iOS (and Mac OS). I don't see Apple developing iTunes apps for Android. So, effectively, Amazon remains a contents-centric company, while Apple is a hardware-centric company. Amazon is now selling hardware to ensure control over distribution of its contents. Apple distributes contents to ensure interesting and relevant contents for its hardware.
Price point is the key! If the Amazon tablet is cheap they will fly off the shelves! Not sure the OS will make a difference to the average consumer, I still think if they cost the same as the iPad then they will still purchase an iPad!
See Maylong tablet.
And yeah, OS makes a difference. Unless of course the "average consumer" sees tablets as a bag of hardware specs to be touted to their friends to prop up their self esteem
I certainly like and use my iPad. However, I am also hopeful for the success of the upcoming Amazon tablets.
I believe competition is good for the marketplace - and will keep Apple moving at a faster rate for all of us. Furthermore, I believe Amazon's focus will be somewhat similar to Apple's - a focus on the overall experience - and not just on the raw technology. Unlike the tech only Android providers, Amazon also has a tremendous amount of content to offer. As for actual pricing, it might chose to follow the razor/razor blade model - giving it a leg up on price.
Of course, the tablet would have to be up to its part of the experience. We shall soon see.
There may be other reasons why the stats collected at NetMarketShare and StatCounter demonstrate such a broad disparity with sales and activation rates.
This Nielsen study shows a very different picture of usage rates, contrasting with NMS and SC but more consistent with most other metrics we can find:
What do you think is the reason for the differences between Nielsen's data and NMS's? How do their methodologies differ?
One suggestion has been that perhaps Android users are running apps more than the browser. I don't know if that's the case and I haven't seen any studies on that (though it would be interesting to learn of any if you know of them), but it would account for the numbers from those companies that count only browser user-agents. Looking at my own usage patterns, I see that most of my HTTP traffic is from apps, using the browser only when there's no app available.
Another factor may be that perhaps Android users visit the same domains more frequently than iOS users, who might be visiting a wider variety of sites. I'm not asserting this is the case, I simply don't know, but at the NMS site they explain that they only count a given visitor once per day, and I tend to visit a relatively small number of sites frequently throughout the day, often revisiting sites more often than I go to a new one.
Anything else that might account for these differences?
Actually with regard to app usage, I would have assumed that the average iPhone user consumes data via an app at a higher percentage than Android users. One has to consider though whether or not we're talking raw bits or web traffic. One streamed video from a viewer (e.g. iPhones Youtube app) can easily outweigh weeks of casual surfing from a data usage POV. As well, if Android users are more likely to utilize streaming music services since iPhone users will tend to have more music loaded on their phones, then that would show up as more data usage. Now in the end, the bigger question is "what does it mean", and in reality the answer is nothing from a broader perspective, though the numbers do have meanings when you're looking at very specific trends.
I really don't know for certain how they present it to a customer. A few customers who contracted with them would have to answer how it's marketed. In reality all the "free phone" offers are actually defrayed cost over the contract term. None are really free.
Yes - but the point here is that they still charge for the handset up front, and then if you spend enough they give you some kind of discount that is supposed to add up to some fraction of the cost of the phone over time. This promotion appears to be a way to hook customers on more expensive plans. That's different to giving you a free handset and then hiding the cost of it in the monthly charges.
Yes - but the point here is that they still charge for the handset up front, and then if you spend enough they give you some kind of discount that is supposed to add up to some fraction of the cost of the phone over time. This promotion appears to be a way to hook customers on more expensive plans. That's different to giving you a free handset and then hiding the cost of it in the monthly charges.
That could be how they're actually doing the transaction. I dunno. The provider apparently marketed the iPhone as free, thus the news articles.
But in any case, it's plainly obvious the iPhones are great devices and have had phenomenal sales. My initial post was pointing out that the iPhone is also offered free in other markets, something a poster wasn't aware of, and purchase decisions are based on more than just the price as evidenced by Japan's consumer's. No dissing of Apple's product intended.
When comparing phone sales divvied up by OS, it makes little sense to add in other product categories.
For example, if one were to compare computer OS sales, one would not include the zillions of devices running Windows Embedded.
It all depends on what you're doing.
If you're a developer selling an app, then adding in ALL iOS devices compared to ALL Android devices might make sense.
If you're a phone manufacturer, then the number of phones sold by platform probably makes the most sense (but this would be meaningless since a phone manufacturer would not have the ability to choose iOS, anyway).
If you're a handset case manufacturer, then the number of phones from each vendor is what matters - with no regard to the OS.
If you're a developer of software that is only meaningful on phones, then the number of phones by OS matters.
If you're an investor, you might look at PROFITS from handset sales - where the iPhone wins handily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quash
Fact: No single Android phone outsells the iPhone
Fact: All android phones are the market outsell the iPhone
Fact: Android OS is more widespread than the iPhone OS
Fact: Once again, no single android phone outsells the iPhone
You're 3 for 4. The bolded portion is wrong. Since the iPad and iPod touch use the iPhone OS, the number of devices running iPhone OS is greater than the number of devices running Android OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
Android Is Destroying Everyone, Especially RIM -- iPhone Dead In Water
Clickbait headline (not surprising that your comprehension never got past the large letters at the top of the page. If you actually read the article, iPhone market share is flat or increasing, depending on how it's measured. There's certainly nothing that suggests that the iPhone is dead in the water.
What everyone seems to be ignoring is that Amazon is very intentionally not trying to compete with the iPad.
It's blindingly obvious that the NookColor -- the tablet/reader marketed by what is, after all, Amazon's actual chief competitor, and which is the second best-selling tablet after the iPad -- is the target of the Amazon tablet.
The AmaTab has little memory. No cameras. A 7" screen and a $249 pricetag. These are exactly the same specs as a NC.
The NC comes from a bookstore, and is marketed as "the reader's tablet." Its UI is designed to be a front end for B&N's online retail operation, and (without rooting) it is limited to apps available from B&N.
Similarly, the Amazon product simply leverages its own digital offerings -- which are of course much richer and more varied than B&N's -- into a device. Prime streaming video. Cloud-based music and storage. A custom storefront. The Kindle Store. The Amazon App Store.
All of the hype surrounding the AmaTab lately has been generated by Internet tech writers who have managed to completely misunderstand the marketing thrust of the device, its capabilities, and who it's for. It's for people who would have bought a NookColor, and for Amazon fanpeeps.
The rumored 10" Amazon tablet might target the iPad, but there's no evidence that's actually going forward.
I don't think it's wise to liken the smartphone and tablet markets.
I agree, with the exception of the iPad and iPhone. By that, I mean that I think consumers view all tablets as copies of iPads. To a lesser extent they feel like that about iPhones, too.
Comments
Very interesting competition.
Let's see, AT&T, Verizon, and unlocked, two capacities, and two colors.
Comes out to 12 models. Oh, and if you want to include the iPhone 3GS, go right ahead.
How many different 3GS models does Apple currently manufacture?
Does Apple make additional SKUs for non-USA carriers too?
Price point is the key! If the Amazon tablet is cheap they will fly off the shelves! Not sure the OS will make a difference to the average consumer, I still think if they cost the same as the iPad then they will still purchase an iPad!
See Maylong tablet.
And yeah, OS makes a difference. Unless of course the "average consumer" sees tablets as a bag of hardware specs to be touted to their friends to prop up their self esteem
I believe competition is good for the marketplace - and will keep Apple moving at a faster rate for all of us. Furthermore, I believe Amazon's focus will be somewhat similar to Apple's - a focus on the overall experience - and not just on the raw technology. Unlike the tech only Android providers, Amazon also has a tremendous amount of content to offer. As for actual pricing, it might chose to follow the razor/razor blade model - giving it a leg up on price.
Of course, the tablet would have to be up to its part of the experience. We shall soon see.
There may be other reasons why the stats collected at NetMarketShare and StatCounter demonstrate such a broad disparity with sales and activation rates.
This Nielsen study shows a very different picture of usage rates, contrasting with NMS and SC but more consistent with most other metrics we can find:
http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/06...ns-make-sense/
What do you think is the reason for the differences between Nielsen's data and NMS's? How do their methodologies differ?
One suggestion has been that perhaps Android users are running apps more than the browser. I don't know if that's the case and I haven't seen any studies on that (though it would be interesting to learn of any if you know of them), but it would account for the numbers from those companies that count only browser user-agents. Looking at my own usage patterns, I see that most of my HTTP traffic is from apps, using the browser only when there's no app available.
Another factor may be that perhaps Android users visit the same domains more frequently than iOS users, who might be visiting a wider variety of sites. I'm not asserting this is the case, I simply don't know, but at the NMS site they explain that they only count a given visitor once per day, and I tend to visit a relatively small number of sites frequently throughout the day, often revisiting sites more often than I go to a new one.
Anything else that might account for these differences?
Actually with regard to app usage, I would have assumed that the average iPhone user consumes data via an app at a higher percentage than Android users. One has to consider though whether or not we're talking raw bits or web traffic. One streamed video from a viewer (e.g. iPhones Youtube app) can easily outweigh weeks of casual surfing from a data usage POV. As well, if Android users are more likely to utilize streaming music services since iPhone users will tend to have more music loaded on their phones, then that would show up as more data usage. Now in the end, the bigger question is "what does it mean", and in reality the answer is nothing from a broader perspective, though the numbers do have meanings when you're looking at very specific trends.
Facts are facts.
Fact: Many here predicted that Android phones would never do well. Fact: Android phones now outsell iOS phones.
Fact: Many here predict that Android tablets will never do well.
Conjecture: Maybe yes, maybe no.
Fact: Nobody knows the future.
Which Android phone regularly outsells the iPhone 4?
And don't say "all of them added together". That's like saying "all minivans outsell black Corvettes."
If you get 15-20 mfg making Android tablets eventually all of them combined will eventually outsell iPad.
You may be right, and the smartphone market, if it is of any use as a predictor, bolsters your viewpoint.
Which Android phone regularly outsells the iPhone 4?
I've only heard of one, the Samsung Galaxy S II, and only in one market.
But that's only because it's free. Everyone knows iPhone users are cheap and don't want to pay for anything.
How low can you go? Your reputation is so poor that now you can only be considered a poor excuse for a troll.
I really don't know for certain how they present it to a customer. A few customers who contracted with them would have to answer how it's marketed. In reality all the "free phone" offers are actually defrayed cost over the contract term. None are really free.
Yes - but the point here is that they still charge for the handset up front, and then if you spend enough they give you some kind of discount that is supposed to add up to some fraction of the cost of the phone over time. This promotion appears to be a way to hook customers on more expensive plans. That's different to giving you a free handset and then hiding the cost of it in the monthly charges.
How low can you go? Your reputation is so poor that now you can only be considered a poor excuse for a troll.
It's hard to keep up with all of Parttimer's iterations, isn't it? We know of four (all banned now), but it's entirely possible there are/were more.
How low can you go? Your reputation is so poor that now you can only be considered a poor excuse for a troll.
I think his comment was meant as a joke - a rephrasing of a previous poster's comment about Android users.
How low can you go? Your reputation is so poor that now you can only be considered a poor excuse for a troll.
Dude, that was sarcasm, note the wink at the end. Chill a bit. . .
Yes - but the point here is that they still charge for the handset up front, and then if you spend enough they give you some kind of discount that is supposed to add up to some fraction of the cost of the phone over time. This promotion appears to be a way to hook customers on more expensive plans. That's different to giving you a free handset and then hiding the cost of it in the monthly charges.
That could be how they're actually doing the transaction. I dunno. The provider apparently marketed the iPhone as free, thus the news articles.
But in any case, it's plainly obvious the iPhones are great devices and have had phenomenal sales. My initial post was pointing out that the iPhone is also offered free in other markets, something a poster wasn't aware of, and purchase decisions are based on more than just the price as evidenced by Japan's consumer's. No dissing of Apple's product intended.
Dude, that was sarcasm, note the wink at the end. Chill a bit. . .
Gatorguy and I like to wink at each other. After all... it is the end of DADT.
When comparing phone sales divvied up by OS, it makes little sense to add in other product categories.
For example, if one were to compare computer OS sales, one would not include the zillions of devices running Windows Embedded.
It all depends on what you're doing.
If you're a developer selling an app, then adding in ALL iOS devices compared to ALL Android devices might make sense.
If you're a phone manufacturer, then the number of phones sold by platform probably makes the most sense (but this would be meaningless since a phone manufacturer would not have the ability to choose iOS, anyway).
If you're a handset case manufacturer, then the number of phones from each vendor is what matters - with no regard to the OS.
If you're a developer of software that is only meaningful on phones, then the number of phones by OS matters.
If you're an investor, you might look at PROFITS from handset sales - where the iPhone wins handily.
Fact: No single Android phone outsells the iPhone
Fact: All android phones are the market outsell the iPhone
Fact: Android OS is more widespread than the iPhone OS
Fact: Once again, no single android phone outsells the iPhone
You're 3 for 4. The bolded portion is wrong. Since the iPad and iPod touch use the iPhone OS, the number of devices running iPhone OS is greater than the number of devices running Android OS.
Android Is Destroying Everyone, Especially RIM -- iPhone Dead In Water
http://www.businessinsider.com/andro...t-share-2011-4
Clickbait headline (not surprising that your comprehension never got past the large letters at the top of the page. If you actually read the article, iPhone market share is flat or increasing, depending on how it's measured. There's certainly nothing that suggests that the iPhone is dead in the water.
Similar things were said about Android phones. Now they outsell iOS phones.
So what does that mean? Is Android better than iOS because it sells more?
By that metric... the iPod was the best MP3 player ever... because it sold more than any other MP3 player.
It's blindingly obvious that the NookColor -- the tablet/reader marketed by what is, after all, Amazon's actual chief competitor, and which is the second best-selling tablet after the iPad -- is the target of the Amazon tablet.
The AmaTab has little memory. No cameras. A 7" screen and a $249 pricetag. These are exactly the same specs as a NC.
The NC comes from a bookstore, and is marketed as "the reader's tablet." Its UI is designed to be a front end for B&N's online retail operation, and (without rooting) it is limited to apps available from B&N.
Similarly, the Amazon product simply leverages its own digital offerings -- which are of course much richer and more varied than B&N's -- into a device. Prime streaming video. Cloud-based music and storage. A custom storefront. The Kindle Store. The Amazon App Store.
All of the hype surrounding the AmaTab lately has been generated by Internet tech writers who have managed to completely misunderstand the marketing thrust of the device, its capabilities, and who it's for. It's for people who would have bought a NookColor, and for Amazon fanpeeps.
The rumored 10" Amazon tablet might target the iPad, but there's no evidence that's actually going forward.
The AmaTab has little memory. No cameras. A 7" screen and a $249 pricetag. These are exactly the same specs as a NC.
You know this for sure? We've seen one?
I don't think it's wise to liken the smartphone and tablet markets.
I agree, with the exception of the iPad and iPhone. By that, I mean that I think consumers view all tablets as copies of iPads. To a lesser extent they feel like that about iPhones, too.