Well, if we assume Google is lying about it's Android activation numbers, and all the available corroborating evidence points to that being the case
While I don't disagree that Google's claims for activations are fishy, what corroborating evidence is there outside a bunch of "Nuh uh!" statements around the web. I would love to have links to pull out on my Android friends, but currently I don't have anything showing anything close to solid.
While I don't disagree that Google's claims for activations are fishy, what corroborating evidence is there outside a bunch of "Nuh uh!" statements around the web. I would love to have links to pull out on my Android friends, but currently I don't have anything showing anything close to solid.
The evidence is that every time there is a survey of Internet usage by OS (whether advertising or page hits), Android comes out far, far lower than based on Google's numbers. Either Google's numbers are wrong or they're reporting very large numbers of phones that do not access the internet (or both).
Agreed. This survey is meaningless. I bet he just polled 400 of his mates from around the world and published it because he has a target of so many articles per week to get out.
The inherent value of an iPhone or any other product is simply what enough people are willing to pay for it. My iPhone cost £700 so it's worth £700 to me. Someone else might have a different view.
Exactly. If you think it's worth $300, you're not going to pay $700 for it - or, at least, not the tens of millions of people who currently buy them.
The evidence is that every time there is a survey of Internet usage by OS (whether advertising or page hits), Android comes out far, far lower than based on Google's numbers. Either Google's numbers are wrong or they're reporting very large numbers of phones that do not access the internet (or both).
That and that reported (and personal) sightings in the wild just don't support Google's activation numbers. While the sightings numbers aren't conclusive, the Internet usage numbers certainly cast a huge shadow of doubt that Google is being honest. The best case (for Google) is that they are including millions of feature phones that may not have data plans, or even include a web browser. The worst case is that their 'activation' numbers are complete bullshit. Google is known to lie about pretty much anything to everyone, so, without independent corroboration, their activation numbers simply shouldn't be trusted as meaningful, or even honest, data -- i.e., we should assume the numbers are cooked until their is some evidence supporting them.
The evidence is that every time there is a survey of Internet usage by OS (whether advertising or page hits), Android comes out far, far lower than based on Google's numbers. Either Google's numbers are wrong or they're reporting very large numbers of phones that do not access the internet (or both).
Or as Android users like to point out, people switch their browser to read like a desktop browser to not get limited versions of websites. I seriously doubt even 1/4 of all Android phone users do this personally, but it is one of the prime defenses they use. Unfortunately this is still not actually hard evidence. I wonder what would happen if Google ever came out and admitted they were lying and Android sales were only about 1/10th* of the numbers they try and claim. The shitstorm would be massive
* Example, made up percentage
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Google is known to lie about pretty much anything to everyone, so, without independent corroboration, their activation numbers simply shouldn't be trusted as meaningful, or even honest, data -- i.e., we should assume the numbers are cooked until their is some evidence supporting them.
Kind of like Amazon talking about Kindle numbers. "Oh sure we've sold a lot, but we won't show you how many. Just trust us". That really doesn't fly w/me.
These are drastically different from the very close numbers displayed by Stat COunter over on wikipedia (altho Jan-March 2012 are the most recent there). These stat counter numbers are unlike any other I have ever seen as Android is nearly even w/iOS using these.
Except that's NOT what they paid for it. They paid $299 PLUS a 2 year contract. The contract includes subsidies for the phone. For example, I was paying AT&T well over $100 per month for my phone. When I switched to Straight Talk (prepaid), I got better service and it only costs $45 per month. A wise consumer adds in that $1320 difference in the cost of his phone.
As for the end of the contract, I just sold a 2 year old iPhone 4 for $300 when my contract expired.
Well, to be fair the monthly fee is just the monthly fee because the carriers don't charge you any less if you keep the phone beyond your contract expiration date and they also charge the same amount to the Android users so in terms of the survey, which is crap of course, it is a wash.
I'm sure iPhone users would value their devices much higher than $313 on average. I know I value mine at $1,000,000 because it's that important to me. It's one of those most important things in my life.
I am just amazed how many people do not understand the question, maybe because most of you do not pay for things, (mommy and daddy pay for you) or you really do not understand the concept of what value something has. Every day when you go out and buy something that is not required for you to live, or earn a living you decide whether consciously or not how much you are willing to pay to have it.
I know most of you complain how much something cost by ever day you make decision on whether to spend your hard earn money to buy something. In this case they are saying iphone uses put a higher value or their more willing to pay more for an iphone. It says that andriod use are not willing to pay as much. So either iphone uses do not care about spending as much and the android user are cheap, which we all suspect since most Andriod phones are giving away and the uses do not use data. Or an Iphone has a much higher perceived value to users.
This poll is stupid. People are $70 a month or more to use these phones. They must value their phones way more than they stated or they'd have cancelled their service long ago.
The survey found that among the 208 current iPhone users, the average value was $313, which is over $100 more than the subsidized price of the 16-gigabyte iPhone 4S.
Sweet! I will gladly buy these people's iPhone 4S' for $313 and sell them for far more on Craiglist.
Cars do effectively the same thing... get you from point A to point B. Would you also question their price difference?
True---or cruise cabins--they all are used for sleeping/resting, BUT the price difference will dictate how much perks you will have inside a cabin--an inside stateroom is way inferior than a presidential suite, and of course way cheaper! So too with the more expensive yet way superior iPhone!
could that not just mean that iPhone users are more stupid..?
perceived value given smartphones do effectively the same thing...?
bizarre question...questionable sanity.
it's a reasonable question, but it needs more scientific analysis
a butcher knife and a scalpel 'effectively do the same thing' and surprisingly, the butcher knife costs more per unit. To a butcher, a scalpel is worthless, and to a surgeon, a butcher knife definitely limits her ability to exercise her craft. To the patient, you want your surgeon to have a scalpel if at all possible. and my mother (a housewife), prefers a fillet knife for just about everything
To wit: If I can charge you $10K for plastic surgery when using a scalpel, and get sued with malpractice if I use a Butcher knife... which knife has a higher perceived value? If my mom measures the time and ease to prepare a meal, would she miss either a scalpel or the butcher knife from the knife drawer.*
If the killer app on my iPhone can enable/save an additional $2000 a month in revenue (let's say a real estate broker app), vs an Android phone, what is the perceived value of that phone?
*(My dad grew up learning how to butcher meat, was Pre-Vet, then became an MD [lots of bad jokes when that topic came up, especially since my dad was a terrible suturer], so he was quite specific about his cutting instruments).
*(My dad grew up learning how to butcher meat, was Pre-Vet, then became an MD [lots of bad jokes when that topic came up, especially since my dad was a terrible suturer], so he was quite specific about his cutting instruments).
Whether he was a Physician or a Surgeon would seem to be relevant here.
This poll is stupid. People are $70 a month or more to use these phones. They must value their phones way more than they stated or they'd have cancelled their service long ago.
Value is not equal to Expense. Value is what's left over after you spend money.
They realize that the 'floor' of the valuation is the $70 (same for either phone, thus has no intrinsic value). "I'm going to spend 1900 plus the cost of the phone, either way, but this phone feels like it improves my life by $313 worth after all those expenses are done"
Value is often a soft measure and varies by individual... a Golden Corral Steak meal at $15.99 all you can eat, vs a $65 porterhouse at Emeril's New Orlean's steakhouse. If it's all about maximizing beef protein and carbs and fats, Golden Corral is a better value... If the gastronomical experience, ambiance, and is what you seek, you think Golden Corral like it's throwing away money for tasteless swill.
Whether he was a Physician or a Surgeon would seem to be relevant here.
relevant to the joke or choice of knife?
And to your point, no. Long story short. in small town country doctoring in the 50's-70's, if you had MD after your name, you had quite a few procedures where you 'cut' even if you weren't a Surgeon. (Dad once did a Tracheostomy on our kitchen table on a saturday afternoon, when a local kid went anaphylactic after a bee sting to the neck).
No its not misleading, its just leaving out alot of information. I didnt case my 4, its got a million little scratches that you would never see with the screen on but are still there and seen when the screen is off. Off hand I would think I could sell mine for $200 but I think when you include the time that took or the cut from a webiste like ebay, you aren't going to be appreciably better off than the $99+"upgrade fee" or whatever. And more importantly, even if I could get $300 for mine, I still need a phone. I'm not replacing it with a worse phone, so again that comes down to a cost or replacement/upgrade that decides the worth rather than what you could get for it, or what you paid for it.
As far as the contract goes, thats a bill thats being paid regardless. Does ATT lower your bill when you arent on a contract? No they dont, so you really do not pay for the phone beyond the upfront cost. Yes, from ATT's perspective thats whats happening, but considering that you have no choice but to accept rates based on subsidized phones (if you are going post paid) then the price of phones is simply built into your bill. So if I can replace my iphone right now for $99 then that is the cost to me. The subsidy involved is not my cost for that phone because my phone bill never changes regardless.
Hence if I am due for upgrade the worth of the phone I have is FAR LESS than if I have recently upgraded and cannot receive a full subsidy on a replacement.
This is kinda to everyone. The problem is we don't know what the questions even are to be speculating that people are even considering subsidized or not.
What these results tells me, is that there is not a single Android phone that has distinquished itself from the pack in the eyes of the average Joe to place a higher premium on it above or equal to a iPhone. Considering the number of Android models that exist I don't think people are aware of some of the "premium" models and may not be aware that some really cheap smart phone is Android at all.
I wonder what those numbers would look like for people who have used both! A huge number of average, everyday Android users, who bought whatever the carrier pushed on them, and who can’t name one single concrete benefit of an “open source” phone, are enjoying a knock-off iPhone which is still totally awesome compared to the previous “feature phone” era. Yet it’s also deeply flawed in ways that truly matter to most people, and lacking in the same breadth of the same quality apps—and they just don’t know what they’re missing by not using the real thing.
I wonder what those numbers would look like for people who have used both! A huge number of average, everyday Android users, who bought whatever the carrier pushed on them, and who can’t name one single concrete benefit of an “open source” phone, are enjoying a knock-off iPhone which is still totally awesome compared to the previous “feature phone” era. Yet it’s also deeply flawed in ways that truly matter to most people, and lacking in the same breadth of the same quality apps—and they just don’t know what they’re missing by not using the real thing.
I think the price difference might also be the value that they may place on the user experience as well. So, perhaps, in a way they are acknowledging "what they are missing" perhaps?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Well, if we assume Google is lying about it's Android activation numbers, and all the available corroborating evidence points to that being the case
While I don't disagree that Google's claims for activations are fishy, what corroborating evidence is there outside a bunch of "Nuh uh!" statements around the web. I would love to have links to pull out on my Android friends, but currently I don't have anything showing anything close to solid.
The evidence is that every time there is a survey of Internet usage by OS (whether advertising or page hits), Android comes out far, far lower than based on Google's numbers. Either Google's numbers are wrong or they're reporting very large numbers of phones that do not access the internet (or both).
Exactly. If you think it's worth $300, you're not going to pay $700 for it - or, at least, not the tens of millions of people who currently buy them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The evidence is that every time there is a survey of Internet usage by OS (whether advertising or page hits), Android comes out far, far lower than based on Google's numbers. Either Google's numbers are wrong or they're reporting very large numbers of phones that do not access the internet (or both).
That and that reported (and personal) sightings in the wild just don't support Google's activation numbers. While the sightings numbers aren't conclusive, the Internet usage numbers certainly cast a huge shadow of doubt that Google is being honest. The best case (for Google) is that they are including millions of feature phones that may not have data plans, or even include a web browser. The worst case is that their 'activation' numbers are complete bullshit. Google is known to lie about pretty much anything to everyone, so, without independent corroboration, their activation numbers simply shouldn't be trusted as meaningful, or even honest, data -- i.e., we should assume the numbers are cooked until their is some evidence supporting them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The evidence is that every time there is a survey of Internet usage by OS (whether advertising or page hits), Android comes out far, far lower than based on Google's numbers. Either Google's numbers are wrong or they're reporting very large numbers of phones that do not access the internet (or both).
Or as Android users like to point out, people switch their browser to read like a desktop browser to not get limited versions of websites. I seriously doubt even 1/4 of all Android phone users do this personally, but it is one of the prime defenses they use. Unfortunately this is still not actually hard evidence. I wonder what would happen if Google ever came out and admitted they were lying and Android sales were only about 1/10th* of the numbers they try and claim. The shitstorm would be massive
* Example, made up percentage
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Google is known to lie about pretty much anything to everyone, so, without independent corroboration, their activation numbers simply shouldn't be trusted as meaningful, or even honest, data -- i.e., we should assume the numbers are cooked until their is some evidence supporting them.
Kind of like Amazon talking about Kindle numbers. "Oh sure we've sold a lot, but we won't show you how many. Just trust us". That really doesn't fly w/me.
Just for fun:
6/12 Mobile browsers:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/07/firefox-fights-back-holds-on-to-second-place-in-world-browser-shares/
65.79 safari
19.17 Android
10.45 Opera Mini
1.63 Blackberry
0.86 Symbian
0.67 IE
0.38 Opera Mobile
1.23 Other
These are drastically different from the very close numbers displayed by Stat COunter over on wikipedia (altho Jan-March 2012 are the most recent there). These stat counter numbers are unlike any other I have ever seen as Android is nearly even w/iOS using these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#StatCounter_Mobile
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Except that's NOT what they paid for it. They paid $299 PLUS a 2 year contract. The contract includes subsidies for the phone. For example, I was paying AT&T well over $100 per month for my phone. When I switched to Straight Talk (prepaid), I got better service and it only costs $45 per month. A wise consumer adds in that $1320 difference in the cost of his phone.
As for the end of the contract, I just sold a 2 year old iPhone 4 for $300 when my contract expired.
Well, to be fair the monthly fee is just the monthly fee because the carriers don't charge you any less if you keep the phone beyond your contract expiration date and they also charge the same amount to the Android users so in terms of the survey, which is crap of course, it is a wash.
This seems wrong to me.
I'm sure iPhone users would value their devices much higher than $313 on average. I know I value mine at $1,000,000 because it's that important to me. It's one of those most important things in my life.
I am just amazed how many people do not understand the question, maybe because most of you do not pay for things, (mommy and daddy pay for you) or you really do not understand the concept of what value something has. Every day when you go out and buy something that is not required for you to live, or earn a living you decide whether consciously or not how much you are willing to pay to have it.
I know most of you complain how much something cost by ever day you make decision on whether to spend your hard earn money to buy something. In this case they are saying iphone uses put a higher value or their more willing to pay more for an iphone. It says that andriod use are not willing to pay as much. So either iphone uses do not care about spending as much and the android user are cheap, which we all suspect since most Andriod phones are giving away and the uses do not use data. Or an Iphone has a much higher perceived value to users.
This poll is stupid. People are $70 a month or more to use these phones. They must value their phones way more than they stated or they'd have cancelled their service long ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The survey found that among the 208 current iPhone users, the average value was $313, which is over $100 more than the subsidized price of the 16-gigabyte iPhone 4S.
Sweet! I will gladly buy these people's iPhone 4S' for $313 and sell them for far more on Craiglist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago
could that not just mean that iPhone users are more stupid..?
perceived value given smartphones do effectively the same thing...?
bizarre question...questionable sanity.
Kias and Bimmers do effectively the same thing. You buy me a Bimmer and I'll buy you a Kia. Deal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat
Cars do effectively the same thing... get you from point A to point B. Would you also question their price difference?
True---or cruise cabins--they all are used for sleeping/resting, BUT the price difference will dictate how much perks you will have inside a cabin--an inside stateroom is way inferior than a presidential suite, and of course way cheaper! So too with the more expensive yet way superior iPhone!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago
could that not just mean that iPhone users are more stupid..?
perceived value given smartphones do effectively the same thing...?
bizarre question...questionable sanity.
it's a reasonable question, but it needs more scientific analysis
a butcher knife and a scalpel 'effectively do the same thing' and surprisingly, the butcher knife costs more per unit. To a butcher, a scalpel is worthless, and to a surgeon, a butcher knife definitely limits her ability to exercise her craft. To the patient, you want your surgeon to have a scalpel if at all possible. and my mother (a housewife), prefers a fillet knife for just about everything
To wit: If I can charge you $10K for plastic surgery when using a scalpel, and get sued with malpractice if I use a Butcher knife... which knife has a higher perceived value? If my mom measures the time and ease to prepare a meal, would she miss either a scalpel or the butcher knife from the knife drawer.*
If the killer app on my iPhone can enable/save an additional $2000 a month in revenue (let's say a real estate broker app), vs an Android phone, what is the perceived value of that phone?
*(My dad grew up learning how to butcher meat, was Pre-Vet, then became an MD [lots of bad jokes when that topic came up, especially since my dad was a terrible suturer], so he was quite specific about his cutting instruments).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
*(My dad grew up learning how to butcher meat, was Pre-Vet, then became an MD [lots of bad jokes when that topic came up, especially since my dad was a terrible suturer], so he was quite specific about his cutting instruments).
Whether he was a Physician or a Surgeon would seem to be relevant here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynameisjoe
This poll is stupid. People are $70 a month or more to use these phones. They must value their phones way more than they stated or they'd have cancelled their service long ago.
Value is not equal to Expense. Value is what's left over after you spend money.
They realize that the 'floor' of the valuation is the $70 (same for either phone, thus has no intrinsic value). "I'm going to spend 1900 plus the cost of the phone, either way, but this phone feels like it improves my life by $313 worth after all those expenses are done"
Value is often a soft measure and varies by individual... a Golden Corral Steak meal at $15.99 all you can eat, vs a $65 porterhouse at Emeril's New Orlean's steakhouse. If it's all about maximizing beef protein and carbs and fats, Golden Corral is a better value... If the gastronomical experience, ambiance, and is what you seek, you think Golden Corral like it's throwing away money for tasteless swill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Whether he was a Physician or a Surgeon would seem to be relevant here.
relevant to the joke or choice of knife?
And to your point, no. Long story short. in small town country doctoring in the 50's-70's, if you had MD after your name, you had quite a few procedures where you 'cut' even if you weren't a Surgeon. (Dad once did a Tracheostomy on our kitchen table on a saturday afternoon, when a local kid went anaphylactic after a bee sting to the neck).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
relevant to the joke or choice of knife?
Well, both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox
Sweet! I will gladly buy these people's iPhone 4S' for $313 and sell them for far more on Craiglist.
I wonder where they did the survey? would sell back to them definitely! ^_^
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz
No its not misleading, its just leaving out alot of information. I didnt case my 4, its got a million little scratches that you would never see with the screen on but are still there and seen when the screen is off. Off hand I would think I could sell mine for $200 but I think when you include the time that took or the cut from a webiste like ebay, you aren't going to be appreciably better off than the $99+"upgrade fee" or whatever. And more importantly, even if I could get $300 for mine, I still need a phone. I'm not replacing it with a worse phone, so again that comes down to a cost or replacement/upgrade that decides the worth rather than what you could get for it, or what you paid for it.
As far as the contract goes, thats a bill thats being paid regardless. Does ATT lower your bill when you arent on a contract? No they dont, so you really do not pay for the phone beyond the upfront cost. Yes, from ATT's perspective thats whats happening, but considering that you have no choice but to accept rates based on subsidized phones (if you are going post paid) then the price of phones is simply built into your bill. So if I can replace my iphone right now for $99 then that is the cost to me. The subsidy involved is not my cost for that phone because my phone bill never changes regardless.
Hence if I am due for upgrade the worth of the phone I have is FAR LESS than if I have recently upgraded and cannot receive a full subsidy on a replacement.
This is kinda to everyone. The problem is we don't know what the questions even are to be speculating that people are even considering subsidized or not.
What these results tells me, is that there is not a single Android phone that has distinquished itself from the pack in the eyes of the average Joe to place a higher premium on it above or equal to a iPhone. Considering the number of Android models that exist I don't think people are aware of some of the "premium" models and may not be aware that some really cheap smart phone is Android at all.
I wonder what those numbers would look like for people who have used both! A huge number of average, everyday Android users, who bought whatever the carrier pushed on them, and who can’t name one single concrete benefit of an “open source” phone, are enjoying a knock-off iPhone which is still totally awesome compared to the previous “feature phone” era. Yet it’s also deeply flawed in ways that truly matter to most people, and lacking in the same breadth of the same quality apps—and they just don’t know what they’re missing by not using the real thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
I wonder what those numbers would look like for people who have used both! A huge number of average, everyday Android users, who bought whatever the carrier pushed on them, and who can’t name one single concrete benefit of an “open source” phone, are enjoying a knock-off iPhone which is still totally awesome compared to the previous “feature phone” era. Yet it’s also deeply flawed in ways that truly matter to most people, and lacking in the same breadth of the same quality apps—and they just don’t know what they’re missing by not using the real thing.
I think the price difference might also be the value that they may place on the user experience as well. So, perhaps, in a way they are acknowledging "what they are missing" perhaps?