"Nothing ain't worth nothing but it's free." Ad-noid is open and free. Consequently Google feels free. Free to take no responsibility for heaps of cheap phones bound nowhere but landfills the size of Everest. Ad-noid is a global plague.
The iOS is not free, but Apple is responsible. It uses lifecycle pricing: pay more up front; get it back upon resale. Even broken. See gazelle.com. Samsung Galaxies? Not worth a penny broken. Cheap landfill garbage. As are the millions of Chinese knockoffs.
Gazoobee is correct that this article does a poor job of framing it's argument. In generalities, I agree with some of the statements but it was tied together poorly. The explanation of why open is a failure is almost nonexistent. Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the Android v. iOS arguments across the web is the very idea that for one of the platforms to win then the other has to be losing. I think Android is winning in the areas they want to win while Apple is winning in the areas they want to win.
The explanation of why seemed pretty damn clear to me, maybe you didn't read it good enough. He isn't saying that open is a failure in and of itself, only that banking your business on "openness" is a failure because companies that use proprietary means are the ones that make money....Since making money is what every business is usually in business for why would you bank your business on being open and lose money instead of make money? What's so hard about that?
Also, in what areas does Android "want" to be winning in??? Android is just an OS, it really doesn't care about "winning". Now on the other hand if you were to say that Google, HTC, Motorola, LG etc are winning in the areas they want to be winning in because of Android, then really you need to go back and read this article again because that's exactly what it was talking about. If those companies themselves aren't winning in profits because of Android's "openness," then how are they winning at all from a business perspective??? NOT from the perspective of Android itself......
If someone buys a Dell server, and installs Linux on it, it counts as Dell hardware sales, not as "Linux revenue". If the same hires a Linux sysadmin it won't be reflected in Linux revenue share, either, even though both of these are part of the TCO equation.
Show me how often this happens in the business IT environment without a corresponding an SLES or RHEL sale. 1%? 10%? 99%? Show me that there are more Linux sysadmins than Windows admins positions. Show me a discrepancy between OS revenue share and the number of sysadmin jobs for each OS. You haven't and probably can't even if the data was readily available because server revenue IS a relevant indication of size and health of server operating system installed base/overall marketshare. Unless you want to make the laughable assertion that Linux doesn't require as many sys admins as windows because it's so easy to administer.
You keep bringing up hypotheticals or ad absurdum arguments and no supporting data that "revenue has no relevance for a free server OS". Show me ANY data that supports this assertion. Not dubious logic based on the OS being "free". If this was such an elementary fact there should be obvious supporting evidence that revenue has little or no correlation with installed base. Show me data not handwaving and I'll happily agree that Linux killed Windows in the server market and revenue share means nothing.
Your reading comprehension was poor and you've been scrambling ever since to make some kind of point.
The explanation of why seemed pretty damn clear to me, maybe you didn't read it good enough. He isn't saying that open is a failure in and of itself, only that banking your business on "openness" is a failure because companies that use proprietary means are the ones that make money....Since making money is what every business is usually in business for why would you bank your business on being open and lose money instead of make money? What's so hard about that?
The counterpoint is where IBM used Linux to destroy Sun to gain both hardware and service revenue and Google used Android to destroy Nokia and RIM to gain ad and service revenue. WinPhone share was pretty marginal even at it's peak.
FOSS can be a very effective weapon to destroy a rivals revenue stream. Of course, the inability for open source databases to destroy Oracle's revenue stream or open source office suites to destroy MS Office's revenue stream are arguments against that assertion. I guess the statement is more "FOSS can be a very effective weapon to destroy a rival's revenue stream if you can make them f*ck up even more in reaction". Something the management at Nokia, RIM and Sun managed spectacularly but then almost anything can be effective weapons in that scenario...
The counterpoint is where IBM used Linux to destroy Sun to gain both hardware and service revenue and Google used Android to destroy Nokia and RIM to gain ad and service revenue. WinPhone share was pretty marginal even at it's peak.
FOSS can be a very effective weapon to destroy a rivals revenue stream. Of course, the inability for open source databases to destroy Oracle's revenue stream or open source office suites to destroy MS Office's revenue stream are arguments against that assertion. I guess the statement is more "FOSS can be a very effective weapon to destroy a rival's revenue stream if you can make them f*ck up even more in reaction". Something the management at Nokia, RIM and Sun managed spectacularly but then almost anything can be effective weapons in that scenario...
What's disturbing is the use of words like "weapons", "destroying", "rival", etc. in terms of computers and the companies that make these things. That OVERLY competitive attitude to make a living gets real old. People don't go into business to try to destroy someone else. They should be going into business to make a living and provide a cost effective long term solution to a customer's needs where the customer doesn't feel like they are a pawn between to ASSHOLE companies. Did Apple make the iPhone to "destroy" some one else's business? NO. They did it, because they felt that the iPhone touchscreen format was better or more efficient than the BB, Palm etc. physical keyboard and that it would be better to address the needs of those that didn't like the physical keyboard paradigm.
Then Samsung, Google & co. come around and try to go after Apple's market THEY created. They try to make Apple out to be the assholes as if they were trying to start a war for money and customers.
Here's what is childish, is listening to those that treat these companies and products like its war and that the company that is "winning' the market share share war is LOSING THEIR COLLECTIVE ASSES in the financial profits war. To that, I laugh when someone THINKS that Android is winning or wants them to win because the OS is supposedly FREE and OPEN, and Customizable, as if that's better. It's not better. It's a collective mess of crap that has no one in charge of guiding the direction of the OS in a professional manner where products are supported, upgraded, and maintained like a professional company would do that has integrity. If I had a phone that wasn't loaded up with the latest version OS, and that phone is less than 2 years old, then whomever sells that phone should not be in business. In my experience, companies that try to "BUY' the business by purposely lowering the price to "BUY' market share usually end up either going out of business or losing the business they were "buying" because they don't focus on making a better product instead. Same thing goes with people that make a cheaper product because another is grabbing business because of too much competition. I've seen all of this happen with PC mfg and it's GOING to happen with Android mfg. If a company purposely makes a cheaper product to compete on price, they'll eventually lose customers because people eventually get sick of cheap products, same goes with not updating the OS, not providing good customer service, etc. "Buying" market share with lost leader products that don't make a profit will catch up to the mfg since they can't run a business from products sold with no profit. I"ve seen IBM, Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and other PC mfg get kicked out from a customer's site for various types of business practices that some might think were either kind of sleazy or not using sound business fundamentals. It's sucks to be in the middle of that and even worse if you are a customer that gets victimized because of it. I don't know why some that like Open Source OSs that are FREE try to use it as a means to DESTROY the "competition'. What's THAT all about?
If someone buys a Dell server, and installs Linux on it, it counts as Dell hardware sales, not as "Linux revenue". If the same hires a Linux sysadmin it won't be reflected in Linux revenue share, either, even though both of these are part of the TCO equation.
Show me how often this happens in the business IT environment without a corresponding an SLES or RHEL sale. 1%? 10%? 99%? Show me that there are more Linux sysadmins than Windows admins positions. Show me a discrepancy between OS revenue share and the number of sysadmin jobs for each OS. You haven't and probably can't even if the data was readily available because server revenue IS a relevant indication of size and health of server operating system installed base/overall marketshare. Unless you want to make the laughable assertion that Linux doesn't require as many sys admins as windows because it's so easy to administer.
You keep bringing up hypotheticals or ad absurdum arguments and no supporting data that "revenue has no relevance for a free server OS". Show me ANY data that supports this assertion. Not dubious logic based on the OS being "free". If this was such an elementary fact there should be obvious supporting evidence that revenue has little or no correlation with installed base. Show me data not handwaving and I'll happily agree that Linux killed Windows in the server market and revenue share means nothing.
Your reading comprehension was poor and you've been scrambling ever since to make some kind of point.
I don't have to show anything, because I make no quantitative claims. You do. You make your claims with data that does not support these claims directly. You then claim that the data you cite supports your claim indirectly. If you make that claim, show the studies, the math, the statistics, the correlation between the data you use, and the claim you make. You don't do any of that. Therefore, unless you can make such an analysis, "revenue share percentage" is not a measure of "installed base" when one of the products is free.
And stop using the sysadmin and TCO side tracks: these are not reflected in "revenue share", and therefore are just an attempt to distract from your bad reasoning.
My reading comprehension is just fine, and I'm not scrambling to make any point, besides having exposed that the numbers you cite have no significant bearing in the case you're trying to make, a fact you don't seem to be able to stomach, which is why you have to create distracting side lines of reasoning and resort to baseless attacks.
The point of taking a line of reasoning ad absurdum is to show how absurd that line of reasoning is, despite being superficially sound. If we count active server numbers, there's no "ad absurdum" because we're comparing apples with apples, and oranges with oranges.There are X number of Windows servers, and Y number of Linux servers. That sort of comparison speaks for itself. Revenue share measures revenue share, it's a measure of cash flow, not even profitability, and even less of numbers of installed servers in total or number of new servers.
Bad data can't support any side of an argument, regardless if it's the winning or the losing side of the argument, and I don't care which side of the Linux vs. Windows argument wins, because I have no stake in it, nor did I make any claims in that matter.
What happens when the implementation is full of crap, as with recent BMWs? You're stuck. My recent experience at the dealer is a great example - my 2012 BMW needed a firmware update. Unfortunately, the dealer's Gracenote rev was a different version from mine, so when the dealer upgraded my car's firmware, they could not backup and restore all the songs I had ripped to the car's hard drive. They were completely erased (my dealer warned me in advance). With an open system, there would be aftermarket tools, or I could have written something myself, to make and restore an archive of my car's music.
$1000 says that just reloading your music is quicker than any of your solutions to simply save it during the upgrade.
Heh, is AppleInsider's content managed by Mobile Nations, as Androidcentral's apparently is? Also, the difference between the two websites mentioning rival platforms is matter of scale.
Hi I am an Android guy who saw the link in Google News and decided to read this, if I am a troll, I don't meant to be.
I think you're analysis is mostly correct, however I think your concept of success as "making money" and failure as "not making money" is wrong. Google wants to make it easy for people to click on ads, and while people might be able to block ads on their phone, they did remove ad blocking apps on the play store which means 90% of users now have no idea how to download them. Google's profit from mobile web ads has skyrocketed in the past year.
You also ignore that there are high end Android smartphones that have some advantages to iPhone. Also if success is making money, why do you consider Apple to be successful despite their stock price being so low?
I don't define success as "making money" and failure as "not making money." What I'm saying is that when it comes to a for-profit entity like Google, the "sucess" of a product or service has to translate into making money. It probably cost money to develop that product/service. If you can't recoup that investment within an acceptable timeframe, you won't be in business very long.
I say this to refute people's claims that Google does what it does out of some motive other than making money.
Article confuses the concept of open. And the compares the profits of a software company (Google) to a hardware company (Apple). Nonsensical comparison.
Article confuses the concept of open. And the compares the profits of a software company (Google) to a hardware company (Apple). Nonsensical comparison.
Googs is an advertising company. It doesn't sell software. The article also compares Apple to Android vendors--why no one else is able to make a buck other than Sammy.
Article confuses the concept of open. And the compares the profits of a software company (Google) to a hardware company (Apple). Nonsensical comparison.
Apple is not a pure hardware company. Apple is a software company too. They develop the operating system for their hardware.
Googs is an advertising company. It doesn't sell software. The article also compares Apple to Android vendors--why no one else is able to make a buck other than Sammy.
That's a very good question. Considering Samsung devices aren't built much better than the competition it has to be marketing that's the deciding factor. I'm actually quite astounded as to how Note 2s I see. Never did I imagine that a phone that big would be so popular.
I used the tag "ios" and there were 3 articles in 2013, 14 for "apple". AppleInsider returned 153 articles for "android" and 164 for "samsung" for the same year.
... Just sayin' ...
Yes, there are a few articles that don't depict Apple in a good light but the exact same thing can be said about some of the articles in AppleInsider. This kind of mine is better then yours crap can be found on every site that specializes in one particular area of the tech world.
Googs is an advertising company. It doesn't sell software. The article also compares Apple to Android vendors--why no one else is able to make a buck other than Sammy.
Actually they do but they aren't meant for consumer consumption but large to medium companies and government.
That's a very good question. Considering Samsung devices aren't built much better than the competition it has to be marketing that's the deciding factor. I'm actually quite astounded as to how Note 2s I see. Never did I imagine that a phone that big would be so popular.
I was also surprised, the real kicker is how many women bought them, myself included. I loved the size, it was a great device to surf on and write emails with, it was also bearable to actually use a remote desktop app. As I always have a purse with me the size wasn't really ever a concern.
What happens when the implementation is full of crap, as with recent BMWs? You're stuck. My recent experience at the dealer is a great example - my 2012 BMW needed a firmware update. Unfortunately, the dealer's Gracenote rev was a different version from mine, so when the dealer upgraded my car's firmware, they could not backup and restore all the songs I had ripped to the car's hard drive. They were completely erased (my dealer warned me in advance). With an open system, there would be aftermarket tools, or I could have written something myself, to make and restore an archive of my car's music.
That's strange, as it's fairly easy to backup or upload all of your music, I just use a normal USB stick and never had a problem reloading my music after a firmware upgrade, I have a 2012 Alpina B5.
I used the tag "ios" and there were 3 articles in 2013, 14 for "apple". AppleInsider returned 153 articles for "android" and 164 for "samsung" for the same year.
... Just sayin' ...
Yes, there are a few articles that don't depict Apple in a good light but the exact same thing can be said about some of the articles in AppleInsider. This kind of mine is better then yours crap can be found on every site that specializes in one particular area of the tech world.
No objections here. Every hangout has plenty of folks trying to justify their choices by knocking down the 'other guy'. AI panders (and AI staff, you know you do) to that crowd. But hey, can you blame them? Click-bait brings in the ad impression dollars. By all appearances, AC does the same - I'm not pointing at them for it either.
I was just giggling at the assertion that the android-related sites "rarely mention" Apple or iOS - when the first example the OP pointed at was averaging an "Apple"-tagged news pieces 9 times a month (in 2012, maybe 2013 is a slower year), AND had an entire forum section devoted to it (although in fairness, there are 7 other "Other OS'es and Devices" section).
But yeah, it seems it's been slow for AC and really busy for AI on their respective cross-subject-posting fronts lately. :P
In 2012 I spot "iOS" and "Apple" clocking in with 48 and 108 articles, respectively, on androidcentral.com. I also see "Android" and "Samsung" scoring a whopping 219 and 357 hits on appleinsider.com for the same timespan (2012). Easily four times (4x) the number of references on AI as their counterparts on AC.
Interestingly, AI topics have zero hits for "apple" pieces in 2013 so far and only 55 for "ios".
AC racks up 364 hits for "Android" in 2013, and 352 "Samsung" tags.
Maybe Apple and iOS just aren't newsworthy (insofar as the circles that frequent sites like these are concerned). Maybe the sites have different notions on how to tag their content. Whatever. Just having my giggles.
Apple is not a pure hardware company. Apple is a software company too. They develop the operating system for their hardware.
The biggest failure to the Android platform is consistency of OS from brand/model to brand/model in the feature sets of the OS. Then there is the updating policies and practices.
ALL Android products (smartphones and tablets) should have the latest version of OS when you get the product and when the OS update is released to market, but judging from this, they would ALL have to be Nexus OS, and they would probably have to lock it down just like Windows and iOS for security reasons, and then there goes the added little features each smartphone maker add and then there's the geeks that want to circumvent the whole process because they are never happy unless they have total control over their device.
I don't see Google doing this. Even Samsung is working on their own OS, Tizen which probably won't do well in the US and most of the world. It might not even do well in their own country. It'll take them a LONG time and a LOT of marketing money to see if they can even BS enough people to buy into it, which they kind of failed at Bada.
Aside from Samsung, most of the Android mfg have not made any profits and any substantial sales. Even the Nexus phone doesn't sell that well. The Nexus 4 phone sold around 1 million units, which probably recoups the mfg and R&D and marketing/sales costs, but not the support costs and money left over for profits. Just a hunch. I wonder how many phones one company has to sell in order to break even.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the lessor known brands will just simple walk away from it.
Or maybe some companies are desperate enough to still go after business that only brings in less then 5% ROI each year in Net Profits and they have to cut corners at every step, which is why they are lessor known brands. Too many brands/models creates too much confusion and most of the money is only going to wind up in a couple of company's pockets which is what is happening in the PC industry.
if Gartner did a Magic quadrant, I think that Android should be in the bottom left for some things, the middle for others, and the top right for others, but overall not close to iOS and it stems from the lack of consistency, Enterprise ready, security, updating, level of support, and reliability/quality of products. At least that's MY observation. From a 'getting new software and hardware features", they, in some respects, do seem to have a lot of features faster than IOS, but a lot of them are only available on one model and not brand/model wide and some of these features are either not practical or not features that people seem to use. Android seems more like a hot bed for software development with no one taking control over the destiny, lots of cooks in the kitchen with pretty much no management and organization.
For the Enterprise market, I would think that Android should probably not even be a consideration. Too many negatives about the platform. Unless the military wanted to develop their own OS with it's own hardware features, but they would then have something custom made for them and I don't know if they would buy enough units to justify the R&D. Maybe they could. But they might be a candidate for their own custom made model, but it wouldn't be sold on the open market. But which mainstream apps would they want to use and would they even be available on Android?
Bottom line, I think that because Samsung has been throwing out a bunch of SPIFF money to sales reps to PUSH their Galaxy phones onto the consumer that the average consumer listens to the media hype walks into a store and if it's not an Apple Store, they are more likely going to buy something that the rep tells them to buy, or some marketing campaign because a lot of consumers are too confused. Apple made a lot of sales, because THEY had the original idea and got the media attention to it, and then sleazy Android products came out. Apple's biggest setbacks was keeping Forstall overseeing iOS, relying on Samsung for components, and then the Maps/Siri issues in the beginning. I think the new group (Federighi and Ive) have a lot more on the ball and this first iOS release under them is probably going to be a pretty good comeback and then iOS 8 might push Apple even further back into the lead. Then it's a matter of Apple getting production up to speed and coming out with multiple models of iPhones to go after the large, medium and small screen markets. That's MY opinion. It will be interesting if Apple pulls out Fingerprint ID technology and that it works well. That could be a HUGE selling point for the Enterprise customer. Also, how well new screen technology is going to work, and then it's just a matter of coming out with the really useful OS features and case design.
Comments
The iOS is not free, but Apple is responsible. It uses lifecycle pricing: pay more up front; get it back upon resale. Even broken. See gazelle.com. Samsung Galaxies? Not worth a penny broken. Cheap landfill garbage. As are the millions of Chinese knockoffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgwebb1469
Gazoobee is correct that this article does a poor job of framing it's argument. In generalities, I agree with some of the statements but it was tied together poorly. The explanation of why open is a failure is almost nonexistent. Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the Android v. iOS arguments across the web is the very idea that for one of the platforms to win then the other has to be losing. I think Android is winning in the areas they want to win while Apple is winning in the areas they want to win.
The explanation of why seemed pretty damn clear to me, maybe you didn't read it good enough. He isn't saying that open is a failure in and of itself, only that banking your business on "openness" is a failure because companies that use proprietary means are the ones that make money....Since making money is what every business is usually in business for why would you bank your business on being open and lose money instead of make money? What's so hard about that?
Also, in what areas does Android "want" to be winning in??? Android is just an OS, it really doesn't care about "winning". Now on the other hand if you were to say that Google, HTC, Motorola, LG etc are winning in the areas they want to be winning in because of Android, then really you need to go back and read this article again because that's exactly what it was talking about. If those companies themselves aren't winning in profits because of Android's "openness," then how are they winning at all from a business perspective??? NOT from the perspective of Android itself......
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
If someone buys a Dell server, and installs Linux on it, it counts as Dell hardware sales, not as "Linux revenue". If the same hires a Linux sysadmin it won't be reflected in Linux revenue share, either, even though both of these are part of the TCO equation.
Show me how often this happens in the business IT environment without a corresponding an SLES or RHEL sale. 1%? 10%? 99%? Show me that there are more Linux sysadmins than Windows admins positions. Show me a discrepancy between OS revenue share and the number of sysadmin jobs for each OS. You haven't and probably can't even if the data was readily available because server revenue IS a relevant indication of size and health of server operating system installed base/overall marketshare. Unless you want to make the laughable assertion that Linux doesn't require as many sys admins as windows because it's so easy to administer.
You keep bringing up hypotheticals or ad absurdum arguments and no supporting data that "revenue has no relevance for a free server OS". Show me ANY data that supports this assertion. Not dubious logic based on the OS being "free". If this was such an elementary fact there should be obvious supporting evidence that revenue has little or no correlation with installed base. Show me data not handwaving and I'll happily agree that Linux killed Windows in the server market and revenue share means nothing.
Your reading comprehension was poor and you've been scrambling ever since to make some kind of point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechManMike
The explanation of why seemed pretty damn clear to me, maybe you didn't read it good enough. He isn't saying that open is a failure in and of itself, only that banking your business on "openness" is a failure because companies that use proprietary means are the ones that make money....Since making money is what every business is usually in business for why would you bank your business on being open and lose money instead of make money? What's so hard about that?
The counterpoint is where IBM used Linux to destroy Sun to gain both hardware and service revenue and Google used Android to destroy Nokia and RIM to gain ad and service revenue. WinPhone share was pretty marginal even at it's peak.
FOSS can be a very effective weapon to destroy a rivals revenue stream. Of course, the inability for open source databases to destroy Oracle's revenue stream or open source office suites to destroy MS Office's revenue stream are arguments against that assertion. I guess the statement is more "FOSS can be a very effective weapon to destroy a rival's revenue stream if you can make them f*ck up even more in reaction". Something the management at Nokia, RIM and Sun managed spectacularly but then almost anything can be effective weapons in that scenario...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
The counterpoint is where IBM used Linux to destroy Sun to gain both hardware and service revenue and Google used Android to destroy Nokia and RIM to gain ad and service revenue. WinPhone share was pretty marginal even at it's peak.
FOSS can be a very effective weapon to destroy a rivals revenue stream. Of course, the inability for open source databases to destroy Oracle's revenue stream or open source office suites to destroy MS Office's revenue stream are arguments against that assertion. I guess the statement is more "FOSS can be a very effective weapon to destroy a rival's revenue stream if you can make them f*ck up even more in reaction". Something the management at Nokia, RIM and Sun managed spectacularly but then almost anything can be effective weapons in that scenario...
What's disturbing is the use of words like "weapons", "destroying", "rival", etc. in terms of computers and the companies that make these things. That OVERLY competitive attitude to make a living gets real old. People don't go into business to try to destroy someone else. They should be going into business to make a living and provide a cost effective long term solution to a customer's needs where the customer doesn't feel like they are a pawn between to ASSHOLE companies. Did Apple make the iPhone to "destroy" some one else's business? NO. They did it, because they felt that the iPhone touchscreen format was better or more efficient than the BB, Palm etc. physical keyboard and that it would be better to address the needs of those that didn't like the physical keyboard paradigm.
Then Samsung, Google & co. come around and try to go after Apple's market THEY created. They try to make Apple out to be the assholes as if they were trying to start a war for money and customers.
Here's what is childish, is listening to those that treat these companies and products like its war and that the company that is "winning' the market share share war is LOSING THEIR COLLECTIVE ASSES in the financial profits war. To that, I laugh when someone THINKS that Android is winning or wants them to win because the OS is supposedly FREE and OPEN, and Customizable, as if that's better. It's not better. It's a collective mess of crap that has no one in charge of guiding the direction of the OS in a professional manner where products are supported, upgraded, and maintained like a professional company would do that has integrity. If I had a phone that wasn't loaded up with the latest version OS, and that phone is less than 2 years old, then whomever sells that phone should not be in business. In my experience, companies that try to "BUY' the business by purposely lowering the price to "BUY' market share usually end up either going out of business or losing the business they were "buying" because they don't focus on making a better product instead. Same thing goes with people that make a cheaper product because another is grabbing business because of too much competition. I've seen all of this happen with PC mfg and it's GOING to happen with Android mfg. If a company purposely makes a cheaper product to compete on price, they'll eventually lose customers because people eventually get sick of cheap products, same goes with not updating the OS, not providing good customer service, etc. "Buying" market share with lost leader products that don't make a profit will catch up to the mfg since they can't run a business from products sold with no profit. I"ve seen IBM, Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and other PC mfg get kicked out from a customer's site for various types of business practices that some might think were either kind of sleazy or not using sound business fundamentals. It's sucks to be in the middle of that and even worse if you are a customer that gets victimized because of it. I don't know why some that like Open Source OSs that are FREE try to use it as a means to DESTROY the "competition'. What's THAT all about?
I don't have to show anything, because I make no quantitative claims. You do. You make your claims with data that does not support these claims directly. You then claim that the data you cite supports your claim indirectly. If you make that claim, show the studies, the math, the statistics, the correlation between the data you use, and the claim you make. You don't do any of that. Therefore, unless you can make such an analysis, "revenue share percentage" is not a measure of "installed base" when one of the products is free.
And stop using the sysadmin and TCO side tracks: these are not reflected in "revenue share", and therefore are just an attempt to distract from your bad reasoning.
My reading comprehension is just fine, and I'm not scrambling to make any point, besides having exposed that the numbers you cite have no significant bearing in the case you're trying to make, a fact you don't seem to be able to stomach, which is why you have to create distracting side lines of reasoning and resort to baseless attacks.
The point of taking a line of reasoning ad absurdum is to show how absurd that line of reasoning is, despite being superficially sound. If we count active server numbers, there's no "ad absurdum" because we're comparing apples with apples, and oranges with oranges.There are X number of Windows servers, and Y number of Linux servers. That sort of comparison speaks for itself. Revenue share measures revenue share, it's a measure of cash flow, not even profitability, and even less of numbers of installed servers in total or number of new servers.
Bad data can't support any side of an argument, regardless if it's the winning or the losing side of the argument, and I don't care which side of the Linux vs. Windows argument wins, because I have no stake in it, nor did I make any claims in that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf
And people wonder why android fanboys are drawn to this site... If you go on androidcentral.com or XDA you rarely see any mention of apple.
Except the standard <insert Android-based phone vendor> is better than ios/apple forum babble:
http://forums.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-s4/292372-apple-samsung-ios-android.html
And where androidcentral devoted an entire forum section to iOS:
http://forums.androidcentral.com/iphone-ios/
... and these news pieces:
http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-s-ios-7-copied-everyone-and-s-good-thing
http://www.androidcentral.com/competition-follow-apple-s-wwdc-keynote-imore
http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-removes-youtube-app-ios-6-its-not-shot-google
http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-can-t-add-galaxy-s4-samsung-patent-suit-judge-rules
Or this one, it's a peach:
http://www.androidcentral.com/what-android-features-will-apple-invent-tomorrow
Or any of over several hundred (no exaggeration) articles that mention iOS or Apple here:
http://www.androidcentral.com/tags/ios
http://www.androidcentral.com/tags/apple
... Just sayin' ...
$1000 says that just reloading your music is quicker than any of your solutions to simply save it during the upgrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief
Except the standard <insert Android-based phone vendor> is better than ios/apple forum babble:
http://forums.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-s4/292372-apple-samsung-ios-android.html
And where androidcentral devoted an entire forum section to iOS:
http://forums.androidcentral.com/iphone-ios/
... and these news pieces:
http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-s-ios-7-copied-everyone-and-s-good-thing
http://www.androidcentral.com/competition-follow-apple-s-wwdc-keynote-imore
http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-removes-youtube-app-ios-6-its-not-shot-google
http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-can-t-add-galaxy-s4-samsung-patent-suit-judge-rules
Or this one, it's a peach:
http://www.androidcentral.com/what-android-features-will-apple-invent-tomorrow
Or any of over several hundred (no exaggeration) articles that mention iOS or Apple here:
http://www.androidcentral.com/tags/ios
http://www.androidcentral.com/tags/apple
... Just sayin' ...
Heh, is AppleInsider's content managed by Mobile Nations, as Androidcentral's apparently is? Also, the difference between the two websites mentioning rival platforms is matter of scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdeasde96
Hi I am an Android guy who saw the link in Google News and decided to read this, if I am a troll, I don't meant to be.
I think you're analysis is mostly correct, however I think your concept of success as "making money" and failure as "not making money" is wrong. Google wants to make it easy for people to click on ads, and while people might be able to block ads on their phone, they did remove ad blocking apps on the play store which means 90% of users now have no idea how to download them. Google's profit from mobile web ads has skyrocketed in the past year.
You also ignore that there are high end Android smartphones that have some advantages to iPhone. Also if success is making money, why do you consider Apple to be successful despite their stock price being so low?
I don't define success as "making money" and failure as "not making money." What I'm saying is that when it comes to a for-profit entity like Google, the "sucess" of a product or service has to translate into making money. It probably cost money to develop that product/service. If you can't recoup that investment within an acceptable timeframe, you won't be in business very long.
I say this to refute people's claims that Google does what it does out of some motive other than making money.
Googs is an advertising company. It doesn't sell software. The article also compares Apple to Android vendors--why no one else is able to make a buck other than Sammy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
Article confuses the concept of open. And the compares the profits of a software company (Google) to a hardware company (Apple). Nonsensical comparison.
Apple is not a pure hardware company. Apple is a software company too. They develop the operating system for their hardware.
That's a very good question. Considering Samsung devices aren't built much better than the competition it has to be marketing that's the deciding factor. I'm actually quite astounded as to how Note 2s I see. Never did I imagine that a phone that big would be so popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief
Except the standard <insert Android-based phone vendor> is better than ios/apple forum babble:
http://forums.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-s4/292372-apple-samsung-ios-android.html
And where androidcentral devoted an entire forum section to iOS:
http://forums.androidcentral.com/iphone-ios/
... and these news pieces:
http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-s-ios-7-copied-everyone-and-s-good-thing
http://www.androidcentral.com/competition-follow-apple-s-wwdc-keynote-imore
http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-removes-youtube-app-ios-6-its-not-shot-google
http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-can-t-add-galaxy-s4-samsung-patent-suit-judge-rules
Or this one, it's a peach:
http://www.androidcentral.com/what-android-features-will-apple-invent-tomorrow
Or any of over several hundred (no exaggeration) articles that mention iOS or Apple here:
http://www.androidcentral.com/tags/ios
http://www.androidcentral.com/tags/apple
... Just sayin' ...
I used the tag "ios" and there were 3 articles in 2013, 14 for "apple". AppleInsider returned 153 articles for "android" and 164 for "samsung" for the same year.
... Just sayin' ...
Yes, there are a few articles that don't depict Apple in a good light but the exact same thing can be said about some of the articles in AppleInsider. This kind of mine is better then yours crap can be found on every site that specializes in one particular area of the tech world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Googs is an advertising company. It doesn't sell software. The article also compares Apple to Android vendors--why no one else is able to make a buck other than Sammy.
Actually they do but they aren't meant for consumer consumption but large to medium companies and government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman
That's a very good question. Considering Samsung devices aren't built much better than the competition it has to be marketing that's the deciding factor. I'm actually quite astounded as to how Note 2s I see. Never did I imagine that a phone that big would be so popular.
I was also surprised, the real kicker is how many women bought them, myself included. I loved the size, it was a great device to surf on and write emails with, it was also bearable to actually use a remote desktop app. As I always have a purse with me the size wasn't really ever a concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh
What happens when the implementation is full of crap, as with recent BMWs? You're stuck. My recent experience at the dealer is a great example - my 2012 BMW needed a firmware update. Unfortunately, the dealer's Gracenote rev was a different version from mine, so when the dealer upgraded my car's firmware, they could not backup and restore all the songs I had ripped to the car's hard drive. They were completely erased (my dealer warned me in advance). With an open system, there would be aftermarket tools, or I could have written something myself, to make and restore an archive of my car's music.
That's strange, as it's fairly easy to backup or upload all of your music, I just use a normal USB stick and never had a problem reloading my music after a firmware upgrade, I have a 2012 Alpina B5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
I used the tag "ios" and there were 3 articles in 2013, 14 for "apple". AppleInsider returned 153 articles for "android" and 164 for "samsung" for the same year.
... Just sayin' ...
Yes, there are a few articles that don't depict Apple in a good light but the exact same thing can be said about some of the articles in AppleInsider. This kind of mine is better then yours crap can be found on every site that specializes in one particular area of the tech world.
No objections here. Every hangout has plenty of folks trying to justify their choices by knocking down the 'other guy'. AI panders (and AI staff, you know you do) to that crowd. But hey, can you blame them? Click-bait brings in the ad impression dollars. By all appearances, AC does the same - I'm not pointing at them for it either.
I was just giggling at the assertion that the android-related sites "rarely mention" Apple or iOS - when the first example the OP pointed at was averaging an "Apple"-tagged news pieces 9 times a month (in 2012, maybe 2013 is a slower year), AND had an entire forum section devoted to it (although in fairness, there are 7 other "Other OS'es and Devices" section).
But yeah, it seems it's been slow for AC and really busy for AI on their respective cross-subject-posting fronts lately. :P
In 2012 I spot "iOS" and "Apple" clocking in with 48 and 108 articles, respectively, on androidcentral.com. I also see "Android" and "Samsung" scoring a whopping 219 and 357 hits on appleinsider.com for the same timespan (2012). Easily four times (4x) the number of references on AI as their counterparts on AC.
Interestingly, AI topics have zero hits for "apple" pieces in 2013 so far and only 55 for "ios".
AC racks up 364 hits for "Android" in 2013, and 352 "Samsung" tags.
Maybe Apple and iOS just aren't newsworthy (insofar as the circles that frequent sites like these are concerned). Maybe the sites have different notions on how to tag their content. Whatever. Just having my giggles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup
Apple is not a pure hardware company. Apple is a software company too. They develop the operating system for their hardware.
The biggest failure to the Android platform is consistency of OS from brand/model to brand/model in the feature sets of the OS. Then there is the updating policies and practices.
ALL Android products (smartphones and tablets) should have the latest version of OS when you get the product and when the OS update is released to market, but judging from this, they would ALL have to be Nexus OS, and they would probably have to lock it down just like Windows and iOS for security reasons, and then there goes the added little features each smartphone maker add and then there's the geeks that want to circumvent the whole process because they are never happy unless they have total control over their device.
I don't see Google doing this. Even Samsung is working on their own OS, Tizen which probably won't do well in the US and most of the world. It might not even do well in their own country. It'll take them a LONG time and a LOT of marketing money to see if they can even BS enough people to buy into it, which they kind of failed at Bada.
Aside from Samsung, most of the Android mfg have not made any profits and any substantial sales. Even the Nexus phone doesn't sell that well. The Nexus 4 phone sold around 1 million units, which probably recoups the mfg and R&D and marketing/sales costs, but not the support costs and money left over for profits. Just a hunch. I wonder how many phones one company has to sell in order to break even.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the lessor known brands will just simple walk away from it.
Or maybe some companies are desperate enough to still go after business that only brings in less then 5% ROI each year in Net Profits and they have to cut corners at every step, which is why they are lessor known brands. Too many brands/models creates too much confusion and most of the money is only going to wind up in a couple of company's pockets which is what is happening in the PC industry.
if Gartner did a Magic quadrant, I think that Android should be in the bottom left for some things, the middle for others, and the top right for others, but overall not close to iOS and it stems from the lack of consistency, Enterprise ready, security, updating, level of support, and reliability/quality of products. At least that's MY observation. From a 'getting new software and hardware features", they, in some respects, do seem to have a lot of features faster than IOS, but a lot of them are only available on one model and not brand/model wide and some of these features are either not practical or not features that people seem to use. Android seems more like a hot bed for software development with no one taking control over the destiny, lots of cooks in the kitchen with pretty much no management and organization.
For the Enterprise market, I would think that Android should probably not even be a consideration. Too many negatives about the platform. Unless the military wanted to develop their own OS with it's own hardware features, but they would then have something custom made for them and I don't know if they would buy enough units to justify the R&D. Maybe they could. But they might be a candidate for their own custom made model, but it wouldn't be sold on the open market. But which mainstream apps would they want to use and would they even be available on Android?
Bottom line, I think that because Samsung has been throwing out a bunch of SPIFF money to sales reps to PUSH their Galaxy phones onto the consumer that the average consumer listens to the media hype walks into a store and if it's not an Apple Store, they are more likely going to buy something that the rep tells them to buy, or some marketing campaign because a lot of consumers are too confused. Apple made a lot of sales, because THEY had the original idea and got the media attention to it, and then sleazy Android products came out. Apple's biggest setbacks was keeping Forstall overseeing iOS, relying on Samsung for components, and then the Maps/Siri issues in the beginning. I think the new group (Federighi and Ive) have a lot more on the ball and this first iOS release under them is probably going to be a pretty good comeback and then iOS 8 might push Apple even further back into the lead. Then it's a matter of Apple getting production up to speed and coming out with multiple models of iPhones to go after the large, medium and small screen markets. That's MY opinion. It will be interesting if Apple pulls out Fingerprint ID technology and that it works well. That could be a HUGE selling point for the Enterprise customer. Also, how well new screen technology is going to work, and then it's just a matter of coming out with the really useful OS features and case design.