Instead of using sarcasm you could explain your unclear statement.
I did. Twice. jungmark even provided a great analogy which you clearly ignored since you think an Android version 2.3 phone with a 3" display and 2009 HW being sold for $50 off contract is going to be used the same was an iPhone 5S or Samsung Galaxy S4 and not beyond some dividing line as a "feature phone" simply because it could technically connect to the internet even when you say that including all children in a list of home buyers under 5.5' is flawed.
I did. Twice. jungmark even provided a great analogy which you clearly ignored since you think an Android version 2.3 phone with a 3" display and 2009 HW being sold for $50 off contract is going to be used the same was an iPhone 5S or Samsung Galaxy S4 and not beyond some dividing line as a "feature phone" simply because it could technically connect to the internet even when you say that including all children in a list of home buyers under 5.5' is flawed.
It's not my problem if you can't understand the difference.
Nah: poor and uneducated people like Android. The surveys and studies point that out in plain english. There are exceptions but the general rule is rich/educated prefer iPhone.
But what about the 90,000,000 galaxy phones sold last year? Those are just as expensive as iPhone. Yes. But with an Android phone you can easily put your illegal/free apps, music, movies on it. It ain't easy to do that on the iPhone. So yes they are willing to pay upfront for the phone but then they get apps/music/movies free. Thus they are poorer.
I mean really, have you ever seen a rich person or celebrity using a Galaxy phone who's not get paid to use the phone? I see tons of rich/celebrity types that use iPhones and they are not getting paid 1 cent from Apple. I go to the rich area shopping centers and its 90% iPhone users. I go to ghetto areas then i see more Samdung and Motorola.
Also alot of Galaxy sales are to people who can't afford both a smartphone and tablet. Thus poorer. If you have an iPadMini or iPad there really isn't any need to have a huge phone. If you can afford both an iPad + iPhone you must be pretty decent money wise. Thus many Galaxy owners can't afford both. So they get a huge-ass phone and try to make it with a compromised product that is too big to be a phone and too small to be a tablet.
Lol. The NFL is streaming the Super Bowl to iOS devices because iOS users can't even afford a TV.
You had a few grammatical and logical errors in your comment but I corrected them for you. You can thank me later.
Trust me, I'm not confused about that. But you're getting off track. You seemed to be trying to say that a study of short vs tall people, including children, buying houses was just as faulty as this study. The only way this study would be comparable is if they included flip phones or home phones. As it was performed it is valid. I'm very sorry that the iPhone got lumped in lesser phones.
You had a few grammatical and logical errors in your comment but I corrected them for you. You can thank me later.
Trust me, I'm not confused about that. But you're getting off track. You seemed to be trying to say that a study of short vs tall people, including children, buying houses was just as faulty as this study. The only way this study would be comparable is if they included flip phones or home phones. As it was performed it is valid. I'm very sorry that the iPhone got lumped in lesser phones.
I think there is a much deeper point, which is that two different significant factors are being conflated as one causal factor. Assuming that the study accurately distinguishes data usage as a function of screen size, the observation is fine, but the implied causal link - that the larger screen is the reason for the greater data usage - is not necessarily correct.
The point being made in this thread is that screen size itself is a function of phone type. Cheap smartphones (little more than feature phones) tend to have small screens and those cheap phones probably use relatively little data for reasons other than their screen size. Customer demographics likely plays a large part in that wealthier customers are likely to use more data. If we could assume there to be equal numbers of large-screen and small-screen cheap smartphones then this effect might balance, leaving the screen size as the determining factor, but that's not the case. Cheap smartphones almost exclusively reside in the small-screen bin and thus skew the data, leaving it as impossible to determine how much of the usage imbalance is due to screen size.
We also know from many studies that the iPhone, which is in the small-screen bin, accounts for more data per user (and more data overall) than Android phones, which further supports the conclusion of the study is flawed.
Nah: poor and uneducated people like Android. The surveys and studies point that out in plain english. There are exceptions but the general rule is rich/educated prefer iPhone.
But what about the 90,000,000 galaxy phones sold last year? Those are just as expensive as iPhone. Yes. But with an Android phone you can easily put your illegal/free apps, music, movies on it. It ain't easy to do that on the iPhone. So yes they are willing to pay upfront for the phone but then they get apps/music/movies free. Thus they are poorer.
I mean really, have you ever seen a rich person or celebrity using a Galaxy phone who's not get paid to use the phone? I see tons of rich/celebrity types that use iPhones and they are not getting paid 1 cent from Apple. I go to the rich area shopping centers and its 90% iPhone users. I go to ghetto areas then i see more Samdung and Motorola.
Also alot of Galaxy sales are to people who can't afford both a smartphone and tablet. Thus poorer. If you have an iPadMini or iPad there really isn't any need to have a huge phone. If you can afford both an iPad + iPhone you must be pretty decent money wise. Thus many Galaxy owners can't afford both. So they get a huge-ass phone and try to make it with a compromised product that is too big to be a phone and too small to be a tablet.
Lol. The NFL is streaming the Super Bowl to iOS devices because iOS users can't even afford a TV.
Your name and your statement are both logically incorrect, so at least you are consistent.
I think there is a much deeper point, which is that two different significant factors are being conflated as one causal factor. Assuming that the study accurately distinguishes data usage as a function of screen size, the observation is fine, but the implied causal link - that the larger screen is the reason for the greater data usage - is not necessarily correct.
The point being made in this thread is that screen size itself is a function of phone type. Cheap smartphones (little more than feature phones) tend to have small screens and those cheap phones probably use relatively little data for reasons other than their screen size. Customer demographics likely plays a large part in that wealthier customers are likely to use more data. If we could assume there to be equal numbers of large-screen and small-screen cheap smartphones then this effect might balance, leaving the screen size as the determining factor, but that's not the case. Cheap smartphones almost exclusively reside in the small-screen bin and thus skew the data, leaving it as impossible to determine how much of the usage imbalance is due to screen size.
We also know from many studies that the iPhone, which is in the small-screen bin, accounts for more data per user (and more data overall) than Android phones, which further supports the conclusion of the study is flawed.
I recognize that there are other factors that can influence data usage. I said so before and even suggested that other studies could observe those factors' effects. This study didn't look at those factors. There is nothing inherently flawed about this study.
I think there is a much deeper point, which is that two different significant factors are being conflated as one causal factor. Assuming that the study accurately distinguishes data usage as a function of screen size, the observation is fine, but the implied causal link - that the larger screen is the reason for the greater data usage - is not necessarily correct.
The point being made in this thread is that screen size itself is a function of phone type. Cheap smartphones (little more than feature phones) tend to have small screens and those cheap phones probably use relatively little data for reasons other than their screen size. Customer demographics likely plays a large part in that wealthier customers are likely to use more data. If we could assume there to be equal numbers of large-screen and small-screen cheap smartphones then this effect might balance, leaving the screen size as the determining factor, but that's not the case. Cheap smartphones almost exclusively reside in the small-screen bin and thus skew the data, leaving it as impossible to determine how much of the usage imbalance is due to screen size.
We also know from many studies that the iPhone, which is in the small-screen bin, accounts for more data per user (and more data overall) than Android phones, which further supports the conclusion of the study is flawed.
I recognize that there are other factors that can influence data usage. I said so before and even suggested that other studies could observe those factors' effects. This study didn't look at those factors. There is nothing inherently flawed about this study.
If you do not regard the study as implying correlation between the two parameters then technically you are correct, but in that case the study is simply pointless, rather than flawed.
If you do not regard the study as implying correlation between the two parameters then technically you are correct, but in that case the study is simply pointless, rather than flawed.
Yeah it's kind of pointless. The data is “low resolution" and, as we've covered, there are lots of other factors that would be beneficial to observe.
To all that say only the poor use Android, that is completely false. I work in one of richest cities in America. I work for a luxury line car dealership and everyday people get new phones and come to us to pair it with the Bluetooth system. My customers have both Android and iOS. I can say that 3 years ago it was mainly iOS. But the past 2 years we had a lot of our customers switch over to new Android phones. Android is now the majority of the devices by maybe 60%. Most were Samsung devices. I ask them why the change over and a lot say they like the bigger screen. I asked if they missed there iPhone, most said no. These are business men and house wives with a medium income of 185k a year with the high rollers coming in at 50k a month. If you think that is classified as "poor" then I'd like to see what you call "rich". BTW.... That city is Bethesda, MD.
To all that say only the poor use Android, that is completely false. I work in one of richest cities in America. I work for a luxury line car dealership and everyday people get new phones and come to us to pair it with the Bluetooth system. My customers have both Android and iOS. I can say that 3 years ago it was mainly iOS. But the past 2 years we had a lot of our customers switch over to new Android phones. Android is now the majority of the devices by maybe 60%. Most were Samsung devices. I ask them why the change over and a lot say they like the bigger screen. I asked if they missed there iPhone, most said no. These are business men and house wives with a medium income of 185k a year with the high rollers coming in at 50k a month. If you think that is classified as "poor" then I'd like to see what you call "rich". BTW.... That city is Bethesda, MD.
I think the accusation (post #35) was that "poor and uneducated people like Android". Perhaps you are dealing with the uneducated, rather than the poor? The make of car might shed more light on that.
I think the accusation (post #35) was that "poor and uneducated people like Android". Perhaps you are dealing with the uneducated, rather than the poor? The make of car might shed more light on that.
I highly doubt that my customers are uneducated. The DC metropolitan area ranks in the top 3 for education. If you search for car dealerships in Bethesda, MD their aren't a lot. You could probably figure it out if your " well educated".
To all that say only the poor use Android, that is completely false. I work in one of richest cities in America. I work for a luxury line car dealership and everyday people get new phones and come to us to pair it with the Bluetooth system. My customers have both Android and iOS. I can say that 3 years ago it was mainly iOS. But the past 2 years we had a lot of our customers switch over to new Android phones. Android is now the majority of the devices by maybe 60%. Most were Samsung devices. I ask them why the change over and a lot say they like the bigger screen. I asked if they missed there iPhone, most said no. These are business men and house wives with a medium income of 185k a year with the high rollers coming in at 50k a month. If you think that is classified as "poor" then I'd like to see what you call "rich". BTW.... That city is Bethesda, MD.
Yeah... that statement is false. It needs to be reworded.
Instead of "only poor people use Android" you could say "poor people only use Android"
I'm speaking, of course, about unsubsidized smartphones around the world. That's how most smartphones are purchased... at full retail price.
If you're rich and you have $600 to spend on a smartphone... you have the choice of iPhone or Android.
However... if you're poor and you only have $80 to spend on a smartphone... Android becomes your only choice.
Apple's phones start at $450. So if your budget is anything less than that... you'll have to go Android.
Again... that's across the entire world with unsubsidized phones.
If you're a rich person living in a suburb of Washington DC... you can obviously afford any damn phone you want.
But poor people in other parts of the world don't have that choice... Android is their only option in that price range.
Yeah... that statement is false. It needs to be reworded.
Instead of "only poor people use Android" you could say "poor people only use Android"
I'm speaking, of course, about unsubsidized smartphones around the world. That's how most smartphones are purchased... at full retail price.
If you're rich and you have $600 to spend on a smartphone... you have the choice of iPhone or Android.
However... if you're poor and you only have $80 to spend on a smartphone... Android becomes your only choice.
Apple's phones start at $450. So if your budget is anything less than that... you'll have to go Android.
Again... that's across the entire world with unsubsidized phones.
If you're a rich person living in a suburb of Washington DC... you can obviously afford any damn phone you want.
But poor people in other parts of the world don't have that choice... Android is their only option in that price range.
Your statement is sensible. That is mainly true to a point. You will always have some of the poor saving up just to buy their iPhone or high end Android phone. That happens a lot more than people think. "Yeah I got a nice phone but can I borrow some money for lunch?"
Your statement is sensible. That is mainly true to a point. You will always have some of the poor saving up just to buy their iPhone or high end Android phone. That happens a lot more than people think. "Yeah I got a nice phone but can I borrow some money for lunch?"
Oh yeah... there will always be exceptions.
But my point was... Android phones range from "cheap" to "expensive"
While Apple phones only come in "expensive"
That's what you're faced with when you get ready to buy a smartphone.
If people could save their money... there wouldn't be a "cheap" phone market. But that's a discussion for another day
I'm predicting 50%+ share by the end of 4th Qtr 2014:
...
Maybe even before the end of 2014, since the study didn't count activations during the holidays; which according to many sources (analysts) was spectacular for apple.
Comments
I did. Twice. jungmark even provided a great analogy which you clearly ignored since you think an Android version 2.3 phone with a 3" display and 2009 HW being sold for $50 off contract is going to be used the same was an iPhone 5S or Samsung Galaxy S4 and not beyond some dividing line as a "feature phone" simply because it could technically connect to the internet even when you say that including all children in a list of home buyers under 5.5' is flawed.
It's not my problem if you can't understand the difference.
You had a few grammatical and logical errors in your comment but I corrected them for you. You can thank me later.
Lol. The NFL is streaming the Super Bowl to iOS devices because iOS users can't even afford a TV.
Trust me, I'm not confused about that. But you're getting off track. You seemed to be trying to say that a study of short vs tall people, including children, buying houses was just as faulty as this study. The only way this study would be comparable is if they included flip phones or home phones. As it was performed it is valid. I'm very sorry that the iPhone got lumped in lesser phones.
You had a few grammatical and logical errors in your comment but I corrected them for you. You can thank me later.
Trust me, I'm not confused about that. But you're getting off track. You seemed to be trying to say that a study of short vs tall people, including children, buying houses was just as faulty as this study. The only way this study would be comparable is if they included flip phones or home phones. As it was performed it is valid. I'm very sorry that the iPhone got lumped in lesser phones.
I think there is a much deeper point, which is that two different significant factors are being conflated as one causal factor. Assuming that the study accurately distinguishes data usage as a function of screen size, the observation is fine, but the implied causal link - that the larger screen is the reason for the greater data usage - is not necessarily correct.
The point being made in this thread is that screen size itself is a function of phone type. Cheap smartphones (little more than feature phones) tend to have small screens and those cheap phones probably use relatively little data for reasons other than their screen size. Customer demographics likely plays a large part in that wealthier customers are likely to use more data. If we could assume there to be equal numbers of large-screen and small-screen cheap smartphones then this effect might balance, leaving the screen size as the determining factor, but that's not the case. Cheap smartphones almost exclusively reside in the small-screen bin and thus skew the data, leaving it as impossible to determine how much of the usage imbalance is due to screen size.
We also know from many studies that the iPhone, which is in the small-screen bin, accounts for more data per user (and more data overall) than Android phones, which further supports the conclusion of the study is flawed.
Lol. The NFL is streaming the Super Bowl to iOS devices because iOS users can't even afford a TV.
Your name and your statement are both logically incorrect, so at least you are consistent.
That's probably because people who have taste can't afford to look at a crap designed TV, and are therefore waiting on Apple to release one.
I recognize that there are other factors that can influence data usage. I said so before and even suggested that other studies could observe those factors' effects. This study didn't look at those factors. There is nothing inherently flawed about this study.
I think there is a much deeper point, which is that two different significant factors are being conflated as one causal factor. Assuming that the study accurately distinguishes data usage as a function of screen size, the observation is fine, but the implied causal link - that the larger screen is the reason for the greater data usage - is not necessarily correct.
The point being made in this thread is that screen size itself is a function of phone type. Cheap smartphones (little more than feature phones) tend to have small screens and those cheap phones probably use relatively little data for reasons other than their screen size. Customer demographics likely plays a large part in that wealthier customers are likely to use more data. If we could assume there to be equal numbers of large-screen and small-screen cheap smartphones then this effect might balance, leaving the screen size as the determining factor, but that's not the case. Cheap smartphones almost exclusively reside in the small-screen bin and thus skew the data, leaving it as impossible to determine how much of the usage imbalance is due to screen size.
We also know from many studies that the iPhone, which is in the small-screen bin, accounts for more data per user (and more data overall) than Android phones, which further supports the conclusion of the study is flawed.
I recognize that there are other factors that can influence data usage. I said so before and even suggested that other studies could observe those factors' effects. This study didn't look at those factors. There is nothing inherently flawed about this study.
If you do not regard the study as implying correlation between the two parameters then technically you are correct, but in that case the study is simply pointless, rather than flawed.
Yeah it's kind of pointless. The data is “low resolution" and, as we've covered, there are lots of other factors that would be beneficial to observe.
To all that say only the poor use Android, that is completely false. I work in one of richest cities in America. I work for a luxury line car dealership and everyday people get new phones and come to us to pair it with the Bluetooth system. My customers have both Android and iOS. I can say that 3 years ago it was mainly iOS. But the past 2 years we had a lot of our customers switch over to new Android phones. Android is now the majority of the devices by maybe 60%. Most were Samsung devices. I ask them why the change over and a lot say they like the bigger screen. I asked if they missed there iPhone, most said no. These are business men and house wives with a medium income of 185k a year with the high rollers coming in at 50k a month. If you think that is classified as "poor" then I'd like to see what you call "rich". BTW.... That city is Bethesda, MD.
I think the accusation (post #35) was that "poor and uneducated people like Android". Perhaps you are dealing with the uneducated, rather than the poor? The make of car might shed more light on that.
I highly doubt that my customers are uneducated. The DC metropolitan area ranks in the top 3 for education. If you search for car dealerships in Bethesda, MD their aren't a lot. You could probably figure it out if your " well educated".
Yeah... that statement is false. It needs to be reworded.
Instead of "only poor people use Android" you could say "poor people only use Android"
I'm speaking, of course, about unsubsidized smartphones around the world. That's how most smartphones are purchased... at full retail price.
If you're rich and you have $600 to spend on a smartphone... you have the choice of iPhone or Android.
However... if you're poor and you only have $80 to spend on a smartphone... Android becomes your only choice.
Apple's phones start at $450. So if your budget is anything less than that... you'll have to go Android.
Again... that's across the entire world with unsubsidized phones.
If you're a rich person living in a suburb of Washington DC... you can obviously afford any damn phone you want.
But poor people in other parts of the world don't have that choice... Android is their only option in that price range.
Your statement is sensible. That is mainly true to a point. You will always have some of the poor saving up just to buy their iPhone or high end Android phone. That happens a lot more than people think. "Yeah I got a nice phone but can I borrow some money for lunch?"
Oh yeah... there will always be exceptions.
But my point was... Android phones range from "cheap" to "expensive"
While Apple phones only come in "expensive"
That's what you're faced with when you get ready to buy a smartphone.
If people could save their money... there wouldn't be a "cheap" phone market. But that's a discussion for another day
Agreed.
I'm predicting 50%+ share by the end of 4th Qtr 2014:
...
Maybe even before the end of 2014, since the study didn't count activations during the holidays; which according to many sources (analysts) was spectacular for apple.
Some irony there.