Let's do some math. Google does 700,000 activations a day now of new devices. That's 63,000,000 a quarter. ....
Blah blah blah. You apologists always throw around these oblique numbers for Androids and their supposed share, but not a single manufacturer ever seems to provide data on actual numbers sold.
Until they do, it's all bogus speculation. No amount of bleating on your part will change that.
Blah blah blah. You apologists always throw around these oblique numbers for Androids and their supposed share, but not a single manufacturer ever seems to provide data on actual numbers sold.
Until they do, it's all bogus speculation. No amount of bleating on your part will change that.
You don't need them to, just add the totals the carriers report since they actually sell the phones. Problem mostly solved.
Verizon said 15 million Android and 10 million iphones in 2011 today. We'll get AT&T on Thursday.
You're stating a lot of your own useless opinion as fact and in someways sound like the inverse of those who dismissed the iPad as a giant iPod touch. Since Windows 8 nor its tablets are finalized you're making statements based on an early dev preview and can't yet prove what the final experience will be. You're forcing a iPad based model/experience on an ecosystem that works very differently. Judging by what I saw at CES it's obvious Windows 8 is being thought of very differently from the iPad / basic touch tablet approach. Nothing is more seamless than having one device running all your familiar apps that adapts to how you're interfacing with it during the course of a day. If I had a dollar for the amount of times I've been asked, when will I be able to do x on a tablet? Or when I can run z type app on any tablet? I'd have bought another iPad by now.
gee what a nice guy you are.
my points are simple: most consumers prefer simple over complicated, especially with portable devices. they are not "power users." and any desktop OS/application is more complicated than a mobile OS/app. mixing the two together on any portable device is one "kitchen sink" idea too many. and most users are actually focused on the thing they are working on - that is, the file of whatever kind - not the app/application and underlying OS that allows them to manipulate it. they want that to "just work."
MS' concept is still "Windows (seamlessly) everywhere" just like it was 15 years ago. Apple's concept is "your content (seamlessly) everywhere." we'll see how it turns out in a year or two.
I don't have any definitive knowledge of the activation numbers, but I do know that there is a lot of clear evidence that Andy Rubin is neither trustworthy, honest or believable for the most part.
I think it's pretty clear that Android handsets have higher sales, but also that these "sales" include channel stuffing, as well as a high turnover of devices and multiple devices for one individual. So to some degree those sales figures are inflated.
It's also clear that more people use iPhones to browse the web than they do Android phones by a very, very large margin. That data is crystal clear and has been the same now for the last couple of years.
Those two pieces of information fit together quite well. Especially when you also figure in the fact that iOS and iPhone is also the most popular consumer choice and has been since the very start.
Google's activations data on the other hand doesn't fit unless you assume that the sales figures are *not* inflated, and that the usage data is completely wrong. In other words you have to throw out all the other data to make it work. The trouble is that the usage data and the sales figures come from many third party sources and the activation data only comes from Google (directly from Andy the untrustworthy in fact).
Therefore, Occam's razor says that Google is fudging those numbers somehow.
Do you understand basic arithmetic? Re. the original post, [700,000/day]*[90 days] = 63 million.
Also, I asked you specifically if you know how many are sold. I'll tell you the answer: you have no clue.
Move along.... you run the risk of making Android apologists look even more silly (if that is possible).
You make the assumption that there were 700k activations every single day of the quarter. This was not the case. Andy Rubin simply said that Google reached 700k activations a day, but this was in the middle of the quarter and it wasn't specified if that was now an every day thing or just a single day.
The more realistic number is probably closer to 50 million activations.
Not so fast, people. I have verified Rubin's qualified numbers, at least from how the averaging was being recorded. I obviously can't state what is exactly included or if any of the numbers are legitimate, but some thing you just have to take at face value.
From a post over a month ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solipsism
Rubin stated 500k activations on June 28th, 2011. That's week 26, this is week 51 for a difference of 25 weeks.
So we have A = P (1 + r) ^n, right?
500,000 ( 1 + 4.4/100) ^ 26 = 1,531,733 activations per day if they were maintaining a 4.4% growth rate per week.
Since then they have only reported on activations per day but have not stated their week over week increase. I was able to figure out that they dropped to just 1.35 week over week when taking the new and old numbers, and time frame into account. That's a huge drop off.
(Too tired to hunt down the other post showing the drop in adoption week over week.)
You're stating a lot of your own useless opinion as fact and in someways sound like the inverse of those who dismissed the iPad as a giant iPod touch. Since Windows 8 nor its tablets are finalized you're making statements based on an early dev preview and can't yet prove what the final experience will be. You're forcing a iPad based model/experience on an ecosystem that works very differently. Judging by what I saw at CES it's obvious Windows 8 is being thought of very differently from the iPad / basic touch tablet approach. Nothing is more seamless than having one device running all your familiar apps that adapts to how you're interfacing with it during the course of a day. If I had a dollar for the amount of times I've been asked, when will I be able to do x on a tablet? Or when I can run z type app on any tablet? I'd have bought another iPad by now.
Speaking of useless opinion being proffered as fact.....
How is the iPad "basic"? It runs a host of applications with a vast array of functionality, more so all the time. It has a huge range of peripherals, and is increasingly being incorporated as the touch UI/brains to standalone products across dozens of industries.
I guess you mean that an "advanced" tabled should be able to run "all your familiar apps" (AKA Windows apps) but in fact we've had that for a long time-- they're called Windows tablets and they've failed in the marketplace.
Now if you imagine that ARM based tablets with iPad like battery life are going to run Windows 8 desktop apps, that seems increasingly unlikely. ARM based Metro tablets will run what amounts to an iOS for Windows-- same code base as Windows but a different flavor, with how many hooks to desktop versions remaining to be seen. Intel based tablets will likely offer Windows 8 desktop/tablet enabled apps, which is the exact style of interface that people rejected for older Windows tablets. And then there's desktop machines with the Metro UI replacing the start menu.
So what you actually get is Metro on iPad class tablets, Windows on the desktop with a smear of Metro style to help you pretend one OS is running everywhere, and possibly some poorly selling Intel tablets that aren't much different from the clunky MS tablets of yesterday.
You're right, that's much more advanced that the the dreadfully basic iPad.
but I do know that there is a lot of clear evidence that Andy Rubin is neither trustworthy, honest or believable for the most part.
I think you meant Google in general. From the last year article @ AllthingD
Quote:
"Meanwhile, Page also said on Thursday that Google+ facilitates one billion items shared and received per day. We clarified with Google the way it calculated this number.
Essentially, each counted “share” is the number of people who potentially see any one item.
If a user shares a picture with a Google Circle of 40 people, that counts as 40 shares — even if all 40 people don’t actually look at the photo. If a user shares something publicly, it’s not counted.
Google said this is consistent with the way it counts sharing in Gmail and other products. However, it’s a bit of a tricky metric; at first glance it would be easy to think that Google means one billion items are posted to Google+ on a daily basis already — which it doesn’t."
Wondering if the new Google data use policy will have any effect. Granted, hardly anyone associates buying any hardware, even an Android phone, with Google's tentacles, so...
But this thing about not being able to register a phone with just a lame duck gmail account is notable. It creates a Google profile and Google + account, which then puts what you post as part of their search results, with no opting out? And worse, Google sending alerts when your location service (not opt-outable) doesn't jive with getting to an appointment on your calendar on time? Obviously it's just a data mining profit move, like many others do, but if it turns into a big damage control effort first that can only bring more bad publicity into the orbits of people who wouldn't have known or cared about such things if they could have been more delicate in implementing it. Right now it's on the headlines of several news bots, though not Google News for some reason
Oh well. I just read through the new Verizon email upgrade, and they brag about how microscopically they'll be going through all off my outgoing email (as well as the incoming the we assumed they did) in order to improve our user experience
Like I say, it's obviously no surprise any of this. But it doesn't read very well IMO : )
Let's do some math. Google does 700,000 activations a day now of new devices. That's 63,000,000 a quarter. Being that the iPad "has no real competition" and iPod touches have no real competition, that leaves most of those 700,000 activations a day as smart phones. Apple sold 62 million iOS devices last quarter with 37million of them being iPhones. How is the iPhone closing the gap? I think I'm missing some math here because it would seem a blow out on the smart phones in Android's favor. Or its just a real good spin by Apple.
your math could be correct, we cant say for sure, Its not too reliant tho, these are statistics that cant be verified & we don't have enough information to say what an activation actually is, the comparison to both would be using the same criteria, so one thing would be total units sold by both & more important then that, is profit of both compared, because we are talking about companies that are tying to make money here.
Stats can be twisted & used in many many ways & depending on how its interpreted it can tell a different story depending on whoevers argument it suits.
As far as my understanding of the Android VS iOS is, There are more android units being sold, but there is far more profit in iOS.
Which to how the world works is more important, only thing the number of units has over profit is bragging rights.
Comments
Or you're making things up because Google has paid you to shill for them.
Can you provide a legitimate reference that specifically states that a phone can only be activated once?
I didn't think so.
For the last time Andy Rubin himself explained that already.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/11259974...ts/Kkjf8oESTZs
But nice try.
Let's do some math. Google does 700,000 activations a day now of new devices. That's 63,000,000 a quarter. ....
Blah blah blah. You apologists always throw around these oblique numbers for Androids and their supposed share, but not a single manufacturer ever seems to provide data on actual numbers sold.
Until they do, it's all bogus speculation. No amount of bleating on your part will change that.
For the last time Andy Rubin himself explained that already.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/11259974...ts/Kkjf8oESTZs
But nice try.
Who's Andy Rubin? And why should someone believe something that he says in a Google+ page?
Blah blah blah. You apologists always throw around these oblique numbers for Androids and their supposed share, but not a single manufacturer ever seems to provide data on actual numbers sold.
Until they do, it's all bogus speculation. No amount of bleating on your part will change that.
You don't need them to, just add the totals the carriers report since they actually sell the phones. Problem mostly solved.
Verizon said 15 million Android and 10 million iphones in 2011 today. We'll get AT&T on Thursday.
You're stating a lot of your own useless opinion as fact and in someways sound like the inverse of those who dismissed the iPad as a giant iPod touch. Since Windows 8 nor its tablets are finalized you're making statements based on an early dev preview and can't yet prove what the final experience will be. You're forcing a iPad based model/experience on an ecosystem that works very differently. Judging by what I saw at CES it's obvious Windows 8 is being thought of very differently from the iPad / basic touch tablet approach. Nothing is more seamless than having one device running all your familiar apps that adapts to how you're interfacing with it during the course of a day. If I had a dollar for the amount of times I've been asked, when will I be able to do x on a tablet? Or when I can run z type app on any tablet? I'd have bought another iPad by now.
gee what a nice guy you are.
my points are simple: most consumers prefer simple over complicated, especially with portable devices. they are not "power users." and any desktop OS/application is more complicated than a mobile OS/app. mixing the two together on any portable device is one "kitchen sink" idea too many. and most users are actually focused on the thing they are working on - that is, the file of whatever kind - not the app/application and underlying OS that allows them to manipulate it. they want that to "just work."
MS' concept is still "Windows (seamlessly) everywhere" just like it was 15 years ago. Apple's concept is "your content (seamlessly) everywhere." we'll see how it turns out in a year or two.
Who's Andy Rubin? And why should someone believe something that he says in a Google+ page?
Really? Or are you just trolling? Andy Rubin is the SVP of Mobile at Google and runs Android.
That's like asking who Scott Forstall is. Some people never cease to amaze me...
You don't need them to, just add the totals the carriers report since they actually sell the phones. Problem mostly solved.
Verizon said 15 million Android and 10 million iphones in 2011 today. We'll get AT&T on Thursday.
Do you understand basic arithmetic? Re. the original post, [700,000/day]*[90 days] = 63 million.
Also, I asked you specifically if you know how many are sold. I'll tell you the answer: you have no clue.
Move along.... you run the risk of making Android apologists look even more silly (if that is possible).
Really? Or are you just trolling? Andy Rubin is the SVP of Mobile at Google and runs Android.
That's like asking who Scott Forstall is. Some people never cease to amaze me...
Don't be foolish.
And don't answer the one question (of two) that is convenient for you to answer.
Just proving the point that people like you never answer the real question (see above).
You don't need them to, just add the totals the carriers report since they actually sell the phones. Problem mostly solved.
Verizon said 15 million Android and 10 million iphones in 2011 today. We'll get AT&T on Thursday.
Excellent.
There are 200 other carriers around the globe who sell Android phones.
I need those numbers by the end of the week
For the last time Andy Rubin himself explained that already.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/11259974...ts/Kkjf8oESTZs
But nice try.
I don't have any definitive knowledge of the activation numbers, but I do know that there is a lot of clear evidence that Andy Rubin is neither trustworthy, honest or believable for the most part.
I think it's pretty clear that Android handsets have higher sales, but also that these "sales" include channel stuffing, as well as a high turnover of devices and multiple devices for one individual. So to some degree those sales figures are inflated.
It's also clear that more people use iPhones to browse the web than they do Android phones by a very, very large margin. That data is crystal clear and has been the same now for the last couple of years.
Those two pieces of information fit together quite well. Especially when you also figure in the fact that iOS and iPhone is also the most popular consumer choice and has been since the very start.
Google's activations data on the other hand doesn't fit unless you assume that the sales figures are *not* inflated, and that the usage data is completely wrong. In other words you have to throw out all the other data to make it work. The trouble is that the usage data and the sales figures come from many third party sources and the activation data only comes from Google (directly from Andy the untrustworthy in fact).
Therefore, Occam's razor says that Google is fudging those numbers somehow.
Move along.... you run the risk of making Android apologists look even more silly (if that is possible).
After HaDarder? Impossible.
Do you understand basic arithmetic? Re. the original post, [700,000/day]*[90 days] = 63 million.
Also, I asked you specifically if you know how many are sold. I'll tell you the answer: you have no clue.
Move along.... you run the risk of making Android apologists look even more silly (if that is possible).
You make the assumption that there were 700k activations every single day of the quarter. This was not the case. Andy Rubin simply said that Google reached 700k activations a day, but this was in the middle of the quarter and it wasn't specified if that was now an every day thing or just a single day.
The more realistic number is probably closer to 50 million activations.
After HaDarder? Impossible.
LOL. He can troll longer and harder than the rest of us on a single battery charge! He's still running on his 2011 charge.
From a post over a month ago:
Rubin stated 500k activations on June 28th, 2011. That's week 26, this is week 51 for a difference of 25 weeks.
So we have A = P (1 + r) ^n, right?
500,000 ( 1 + 4.4/100) ^ 26 = 1,531,733 activations per day if they were maintaining a 4.4% growth rate per week.
Here is Rubin's Twitter comment on it: https://twitter.com/#!/arubin/status/85660213478309888
Since then they have only reported on activations per day but have not stated their week over week increase. I was able to figure out that they dropped to just 1.35 week over week when taking the new and old numbers, and time frame into account. That's a huge drop off.
(Too tired to hunt down the other post showing the drop in adoption week over week.)
You're stating a lot of your own useless opinion as fact and in someways sound like the inverse of those who dismissed the iPad as a giant iPod touch. Since Windows 8 nor its tablets are finalized you're making statements based on an early dev preview and can't yet prove what the final experience will be. You're forcing a iPad based model/experience on an ecosystem that works very differently. Judging by what I saw at CES it's obvious Windows 8 is being thought of very differently from the iPad / basic touch tablet approach. Nothing is more seamless than having one device running all your familiar apps that adapts to how you're interfacing with it during the course of a day. If I had a dollar for the amount of times I've been asked, when will I be able to do x on a tablet? Or when I can run z type app on any tablet? I'd have bought another iPad by now.
Speaking of useless opinion being proffered as fact.....
How is the iPad "basic"? It runs a host of applications with a vast array of functionality, more so all the time. It has a huge range of peripherals, and is increasingly being incorporated as the touch UI/brains to standalone products across dozens of industries.
I guess you mean that an "advanced" tabled should be able to run "all your familiar apps" (AKA Windows apps) but in fact we've had that for a long time-- they're called Windows tablets and they've failed in the marketplace.
Now if you imagine that ARM based tablets with iPad like battery life are going to run Windows 8 desktop apps, that seems increasingly unlikely. ARM based Metro tablets will run what amounts to an iOS for Windows-- same code base as Windows but a different flavor, with how many hooks to desktop versions remaining to be seen. Intel based tablets will likely offer Windows 8 desktop/tablet enabled apps, which is the exact style of interface that people rejected for older Windows tablets. And then there's desktop machines with the Metro UI replacing the start menu.
So what you actually get is Metro on iPad class tablets, Windows on the desktop with a smear of Metro style to help you pretend one OS is running everywhere, and possibly some poorly selling Intel tablets that aren't much different from the clunky MS tablets of yesterday.
You're right, that's much more advanced that the the dreadfully basic iPad.
but I do know that there is a lot of clear evidence that Andy Rubin is neither trustworthy, honest or believable for the most part.
I think you meant Google in general. From the last year article @ AllthingD
"Meanwhile, Page also said on Thursday that Google+ facilitates one billion items shared and received per day. We clarified with Google the way it calculated this number.
Essentially, each counted “share” is the number of people who potentially see any one item.
If a user shares a picture with a Google Circle of 40 people, that counts as 40 shares — even if all 40 people don’t actually look at the photo. If a user shares something publicly, it’s not counted.
Google said this is consistent with the way it counts sharing in Gmail and other products. However, it’s a bit of a tricky metric; at first glance it would be easy to think that Google means one billion items are posted to Google+ on a daily basis already — which it doesn’t."
By the Numbers: Google+ the Biggest Social Network Launch Ever?
Who believes anything Google said religiously is a fool.
Now they tied in Google+ with Gmail so Larry could be super-excited every year.
But this thing about not being able to register a phone with just a lame duck gmail account is notable. It creates a Google profile and Google + account, which then puts what you post as part of their search results, with no opting out? And worse, Google sending alerts when your location service (not opt-outable) doesn't jive with getting to an appointment on your calendar on time? Obviously it's just a data mining profit move, like many others do, but if it turns into a big damage control effort first that can only bring more bad publicity into the orbits of people who wouldn't have known or cared about such things if they could have been more delicate in implementing it. Right now it's on the headlines of several news bots, though not Google News for some reason
Oh well. I just read through the new Verizon email upgrade, and they brag about how microscopically they'll be going through all off my outgoing email (as well as the incoming the we assumed they did) in order to improve our user experience
Like I say, it's obviously no surprise any of this. But it doesn't read very well IMO : )
Who's Andy Rubin? And why should someone believe something that he says in a Google+ page?
I laughed so hard at this I cried a little!
Let's do some math. Google does 700,000 activations a day now of new devices. That's 63,000,000 a quarter. Being that the iPad "has no real competition" and iPod touches have no real competition, that leaves most of those 700,000 activations a day as smart phones. Apple sold 62 million iOS devices last quarter with 37million of them being iPhones. How is the iPhone closing the gap? I think I'm missing some math here because it would seem a blow out on the smart phones in Android's favor. Or its just a real good spin by Apple.
your math could be correct, we cant say for sure, Its not too reliant tho, these are statistics that cant be verified & we don't have enough information to say what an activation actually is, the comparison to both would be using the same criteria, so one thing would be total units sold by both & more important then that, is profit of both compared, because we are talking about companies that are tying to make money here.
Stats can be twisted & used in many many ways & depending on how its interpreted it can tell a different story depending on whoevers argument it suits.
As far as my understanding of the Android VS iOS is, There are more android units being sold, but there is far more profit in iOS.
Which to how the world works is more important, only thing the number of units has over profit is bragging rights.
there be my 2cents
I'm going to quote myself...
Lol... :-)