[quote]you believe the garbage he's spewing? The only company that can provide that kind of real-time data is Google. Not Apple, MS or even IBM. Proof that they were paid by Apple to come up with these fake numbers. [/quote]
Wow, amazing insight into one of the world most successful computer company for over a century.
So just for the ignorance people still live with their mom. Big Blue handle more real time data than most of the commoner believe.
Do you know 1/4 of your bank transaction done on one of the big blue platform (yeah those are call main frame) the entire London traffic CCTV system is handling by Big Blue. That's more impressive than Google handle bunch of text flying around, they are real time OCR!
And they have been pushing their real time retail analysis platform for several years. Of course, people who never buy a million dollar a piece software WTF do they know?
Oh BTW most of the till backend still running on the big blue truck size box, Jones (New York) they are the largest whole seller (women apparel) in the US. Just tab into that pipe they sure know more than Google ever could.
We shouldn't believe IBM. They said pretty much the same thing last year (iOS dominating Android for online sales on Black Friday).
It's impossible that iOS, with such a small market share, can do so well against all those Android devices. Equally impossible is the data IBM provided that said the average iOS user spent $131 while the average Android user spent $111.
There are only two possible reasons for this discrepancy:
- IBM is being sponsored by Apple, so the numbers are "adjusted" to make Apple look good.
- All those Android owners changed their user agents, and IBM's analytics is too stupid to notice.
Here are some quotes from Jay Henderson from IBM in regards to how they get their data:
"We are able to determine the source of online retail shopping traffic, where sales are coming from, breakouts between devices (tablets versus smartphone), and even differences between operating systems (Apple vs. Android),"
"For example, in the early part of November, IBM noticed that even though Android devices have a greater market share, online shopping was dominated by consumers using iPhones, indicating device market share doesn’t necessarily translate into shopping behavior."
"In contrast, the IBM Digital Analytics Benchmark campaign uniquely provides real-time, detailed results by channel and device. This enables marketers and retailers to adjust their plans on-the-fly in a way they have never been able to do before."
Can you believe the garbage he's spewing? The only company that can provide that kind of real-time data is Google. Not Apple, MS or even IBM. Proof that they were paid by Apple to come up with these fake numbers.
Traffic or settled transactions..? The two have very different meanings.
Also, my understanding is that IBM provides back-office support to Apple. So I'm not sure who is paying who.
Pull data from Apple's SAP systems and let's settle on those numbers.
Here are some quotes from Jay Henderson from IBM in regards to how they get their data:
"We are able to determine the source of online retail shopping traffic, where sales are coming from, breakouts between devices (tablets versus smartphone), and even differences between operating systems (Apple vs. Android),"
"For example, in the early part of November, IBM noticed that even though Android devices have a greater market share, online shopping was dominated by consumers using iPhones, indicating device market share doesn’t necessarily translate into shopping behavior."
"In contrast, the IBM Digital Analytics Benchmark campaign uniquely provides real-time, detailed results by channel and device. This enables marketers and retailers to adjust their plans on-the-fly in a way they have never been able to do before."
Can you believe the garbage he's spewing? The only company that can provide that kind of real-time data is Google. Not Apple, MS or even IBM. Proof that they were paid by Apple to come up with these fake numbers.
IBM is the king of "BIG DATA." Look that one up and get a clue. I do believe what Jay Henderson is saying. He's a smart man who has a great education. Why would I believe you, hiding behind your fake name, hip deep in takeout boxes and living in your mother's basement?
We shouldn't believe IBM. They said pretty much the same thing last year (iOS dominating Android for online sales on Black Friday).
It's impossible that iOS, with such a small market share, can do so well against all those Android devices. Equally impossible is the data IBM provided that said the average iOS user spent $131 while the average Android user spent $111.
There are only two possible reasons for this discrepancy:
- IBM is being sponsored by Apple, so the numbers are "adjusted" to make Apple look good.
- All those Android owners changed their user agents, and IBM's analytics is too stupid to notice.
Here are some quotes from Jay Henderson from IBM in regards to how they get their data:
"We are able to determine the source of online retail shopping traffic, where sales are coming from, breakouts between devices (tablets versus smartphone), and even differences between operating systems (Apple vs. Android),"
"For example, in the early part of November, IBM noticed that even though Android devices have a greater market share, online shopping was dominated by consumers using iPhones, indicating device market share doesn’t necessarily translate into shopping behavior."
"In contrast, the IBM Digital Analytics Benchmark campaign uniquely provides real-time, detailed results by channel and device. This enables marketers and retailers to adjust their plans on-the-fly in a way they have never been able to do before."
Can you believe the garbage he's spewing? The only company that can provide that kind of real-time data is Google. Not Apple, MS or even IBM. Proof that they were paid by Apple to come up with these fake numbers.
Yes, they did. The new title is not only impressive for Apple, but also accurate
You seem to have been savaged pretty hard this post. In this case even though the diagram clearly shows the meaning, an incorrect headline is often click bait and worth calling out for being misleading.
The lesson to learn here is, always include the actual mistake in quotes as well as comment on it, to avoid being flamed after it's corrected.
Fandroids and users of other inferior platforms were too busy at Walmart kicking the living crap out of each other, while waiting in line to pick up their awesome $49 tablets yesterday. You can even see videos of these violent creatures and worthless bums posted to youtube.
It is doubtful that these sorts of people even have internet connections. Heck, they might not even have indoor plumbing. It is no wonder that Android does well in the third world, as a great many Fandroid users who live in the US might as well be living in a third world country. These sorts of people are not using their "smart devices" as smart devices at all.
Fandroids truly disgust me, and they are the same exact sort of people that were getting into fights yesterday, acting like rabid animals, just to save a buck or two on a junk item.
We shouldn't believe IBM. They said pretty much the same thing last year (iOS dominating Android for online sales on Black Friday).
So? Why? The second statement doesn't support the first. You have to provide something to support your assertion to have even a semblance of credibility. All you've asserted here is that you don't believe them, but not why. You've said nothing of substance here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
It's impossible that iOS, with such a small market share, can do so well against all those Android devices. Equally impossible is the data IBM provided that said the average iOS user spent $131 while the average Android user spent $111.
Even assuming the "marketshare" claims for Android are in fact representative, "impossible" is a very absolute term. Had you said "unlikely", that might've carried your argument a little, but as it stands, you've got nothing as I can prove your first statement false with a simple edge-case scenario. Assuming iOS has anything more than zero marketshare, if only one iOS device was used to make an online purchase, then it could still be responsible for more purchases (absolutely or as a percentage) than Android if Android devices were used to make none. The second statement is also unsupported and as easily proved false, so you've done nothing but make a null statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
There are only two possible reasons for this discrepancy:
- IBM is being sponsored by Apple, so the numbers are "adjusted" to make Apple look good.
- All those Android owners changed their user agents, and IBM's analytics is too stupid to notice.
First of all, one can easily generate hypotheticals all day long (not just two), so that's just false to say there's only two possibilities. Next, the first "reason" could as easily say Google is being supported by Android, so the numbers are "adjusted" to make Google look good. However, without support, it's just a hypothetical with no weight. Third, without proof and only the numbers in the article (which is all you have), even in the best-case (and wholly unlikely) scenario for your second "proof", the entirety of the 63% other mobile purchases were in fact attributable to Android users who changed their user agent, bringing the total mobile purchasing to ~69.7% for Android versus 30.3% for iOS. Ignoring the absolute lunacy of this argument, as this implies that approximately 90% of all Android users change their user agent, how do you support the assertion with the data at hand and the support you've provided (which is nothing)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Here are some quotes from Jay Henderson from IBM in regards to how they get their data:
"We are able to determine the source of online retail shopping traffic, where sales are coming from, breakouts between devices (tablets versus smartphone), and even differences between operating systems (Apple vs. Android),"
"For example, in the early part of November, IBM noticed that even though Android devices have a greater market share, online shopping was dominated by consumers using iPhones, indicating device market share doesn’t necessarily translate into shopping behavior."
"In contrast, the IBM Digital Analytics Benchmark campaign uniquely provides real-time, detailed results by channel and device. This enables marketers and retailers to adjust their plans on-the-fly in a way they have never been able to do before."
Can you believe the garbage he's spewing? The only company that can provide that kind of real-time data is Google. Not Apple, MS or even IBM. Proof that they were paid by Apple to come up with these fake numbers.
Do you realize all those quotes do nothing to support your position? Do you also realize that IBM is in fact one of the heavyweights in the "Big Data" world? Moreover, do you realize that IBM's CoreMetrics is arguably superior to Google Analytics for enterprise data of the nature of what's being discussed here?
As for the assertion that only Google can provide this data, that is patently false and verifiably so. What it does do, is suggest an inability or unwillingness on your part to leverage actual fact in the argument. However, it does not prove anything else.
---
So it seems what you're left with when one disregards the irrelevant, unsupported, unverifiable and/or patently false statements you've made, is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
A pity, you could've saved yourself a lot of typing, since none of the rest meant anything.
Comments
[/quote]
Wow, amazing insight into one of the world most successful computer company for over a century.
So just for the ignorance people still live with their mom. Big Blue handle more real time data than most of the commoner believe.
Do you know 1/4 of your bank transaction done on one of the big blue platform (yeah those are call main frame) the entire London traffic CCTV system is handling by Big Blue. That's more impressive than Google handle bunch of text flying around, they are real time OCR!
And they have been pushing their real time retail analysis platform for several years. Of course, people who never buy a million dollar a piece software WTF do they know?
Oh BTW most of the till backend still running on the big blue truck size box, Jones (New York) they are the largest whole seller (women apparel) in the US. Just tab into that pipe they sure know more than Google ever could.
I'm curious of the original report.
Citation..?
We shouldn't believe IBM. They said pretty much the same thing last year (iOS dominating Android for online sales on Black Friday).
It's impossible that iOS, with such a small market share, can do so well against all those Android devices. Equally impossible is the data IBM provided that said the average iOS user spent $131 while the average Android user spent $111.
There are only two possible reasons for this discrepancy:
- IBM is being sponsored by Apple, so the numbers are "adjusted" to make Apple look good.
- All those Android owners changed their user agents, and IBM's analytics is too stupid to notice.
Here are some quotes from Jay Henderson from IBM in regards to how they get their data:
"We are able to determine the source of online retail shopping traffic, where sales are coming from, breakouts between devices (tablets versus smartphone), and even differences between operating systems (Apple vs. Android),"
"For example, in the early part of November, IBM noticed that even though Android devices have a greater market share, online shopping was dominated by consumers using iPhones, indicating device market share doesn’t necessarily translate into shopping behavior."
"In contrast, the IBM Digital Analytics Benchmark campaign uniquely provides real-time, detailed results by channel and device. This enables marketers and retailers to adjust their plans on-the-fly in a way they have never been able to do before."
Can you believe the garbage he's spewing? The only company that can provide that kind of real-time data is Google. Not Apple, MS or even IBM. Proof that they were paid by Apple to come up with these fake numbers.
Traffic or settled transactions..? The two have very different meanings.
Also, my understanding is that IBM provides back-office support to Apple. So I'm not sure who is paying who.
Pull data from Apple's SAP systems and let's settle on those numbers.
So I'm not all that sure this is positive marketing.
IBM is the king of "BIG DATA." Look that one up and get a clue. I do believe what Jay Henderson is saying. He's a smart man who has a great education. Why would I believe you, hiding behind your fake name, hip deep in takeout boxes and living in your mother's basement?
You're off your meds again...
Go to:
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/marketing-solutions/benchmark-hub/index.html
We shouldn't believe IBM. They said pretty much the same thing last year (iOS dominating Android for online sales on Black Friday).
It's impossible that iOS, with such a small market share, can do so well against all those Android devices. Equally impossible is the data IBM provided that said the average iOS user spent $131 while the average Android user spent $111.
There are only two possible reasons for this discrepancy:
- IBM is being sponsored by Apple, so the numbers are "adjusted" to make Apple look good.
- All those Android owners changed their user agents, and IBM's analytics is too stupid to notice.
Here are some quotes from Jay Henderson from IBM in regards to how they get their data:
"We are able to determine the source of online retail shopping traffic, where sales are coming from, breakouts between devices (tablets versus smartphone), and even differences between operating systems (Apple vs. Android),"
"For example, in the early part of November, IBM noticed that even though Android devices have a greater market share, online shopping was dominated by consumers using iPhones, indicating device market share doesn’t necessarily translate into shopping behavior."
"In contrast, the IBM Digital Analytics Benchmark campaign uniquely provides real-time, detailed results by channel and device. This enables marketers and retailers to adjust their plans on-the-fly in a way they have never been able to do before."
Can you believe the garbage he's spewing? The only company that can provide that kind of real-time data is Google. Not Apple, MS or even IBM. Proof that they were paid by Apple to come up with these fake numbers.
Please use yr brain!
That is STUPID!
I'm curious of the original report.
Citation..?
Of course you are.
I'm starting to have a difficult time discerning between sarcasm and non-sarcasm in this thread.
I think we all need to start using the "/s" marker again.
You seem to have been savaged pretty hard this post. In this case even though the diagram clearly shows the meaning, an incorrect headline is often click bait and worth calling out for being misleading.
The lesson to learn here is, always include the actual mistake in quotes as well as comment on it, to avoid being flamed after it's corrected.
I'm pretty sure he'll be doing that next time.
"Interesting. It seems that the only way to win this game, is not to play.
How about a nice game of chess?" - WOPR, War Games
True but i actually had to do a double take before replying. Luckily I recognized your username.
These statistics are not surprising at all.
Fandroids and users of other inferior platforms were too busy at Walmart kicking the living crap out of each other, while waiting in line to pick up their awesome $49 tablets yesterday. You can even see videos of these violent creatures and worthless bums posted to youtube.
It is doubtful that these sorts of people even have internet connections. Heck, they might not even have indoor plumbing. It is no wonder that Android does well in the third world, as a great many Fandroid users who live in the US might as well be living in a third world country. These sorts of people are not using their "smart devices" as smart devices at all.
Fandroids truly disgust me, and they are the same exact sort of people that were getting into fights yesterday, acting like rabid animals, just to save a buck or two on a junk item.
We shouldn't believe IBM. They said pretty much the same thing last year (iOS dominating Android for online sales on Black Friday).
So? Why? The second statement doesn't support the first. You have to provide something to support your assertion to have even a semblance of credibility. All you've asserted here is that you don't believe them, but not why. You've said nothing of substance here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
It's impossible that iOS, with such a small market share, can do so well against all those Android devices. Equally impossible is the data IBM provided that said the average iOS user spent $131 while the average Android user spent $111.
Even assuming the "marketshare" claims for Android are in fact representative, "impossible" is a very absolute term. Had you said "unlikely", that might've carried your argument a little, but as it stands, you've got nothing as I can prove your first statement false with a simple edge-case scenario. Assuming iOS has anything more than zero marketshare, if only one iOS device was used to make an online purchase, then it could still be responsible for more purchases (absolutely or as a percentage) than Android if Android devices were used to make none. The second statement is also unsupported and as easily proved false, so you've done nothing but make a null statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
There are only two possible reasons for this discrepancy:
- IBM is being sponsored by Apple, so the numbers are "adjusted" to make Apple look good.
- All those Android owners changed their user agents, and IBM's analytics is too stupid to notice.
First of all, one can easily generate hypotheticals all day long (not just two), so that's just false to say there's only two possibilities. Next, the first "reason" could as easily say Google is being supported by Android, so the numbers are "adjusted" to make Google look good. However, without support, it's just a hypothetical with no weight. Third, without proof and only the numbers in the article (which is all you have), even in the best-case (and wholly unlikely) scenario for your second "proof", the entirety of the 63% other mobile purchases were in fact attributable to Android users who changed their user agent, bringing the total mobile purchasing to ~69.7% for Android versus 30.3% for iOS. Ignoring the absolute lunacy of this argument, as this implies that approximately 90% of all Android users change their user agent, how do you support the assertion with the data at hand and the support you've provided (which is nothing)?
Quote:
Here are some quotes from Jay Henderson from IBM in regards to how they get their data:
"We are able to determine the source of online retail shopping traffic, where sales are coming from, breakouts between devices (tablets versus smartphone), and even differences between operating systems (Apple vs. Android),"
"For example, in the early part of November, IBM noticed that even though Android devices have a greater market share, online shopping was dominated by consumers using iPhones, indicating device market share doesn’t necessarily translate into shopping behavior."
"In contrast, the IBM Digital Analytics Benchmark campaign uniquely provides real-time, detailed results by channel and device. This enables marketers and retailers to adjust their plans on-the-fly in a way they have never been able to do before."
Can you believe the garbage he's spewing? The only company that can provide that kind of real-time data is Google. Not Apple, MS or even IBM. Proof that they were paid by Apple to come up with these fake numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee