Apple's iPhone 5c ate up Android while Google's Moto X flopped: why everyone was wrong

15681011

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 220
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    GrangerFX wrote: »

    Agreed! I can't understand the premiums Samsung is getting.

    ...or not getting so much of any more.

    Hence their shareholder warnings.
  • Reply 142 of 220
    mrbofusmrbofus Posts: 33member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post





    You missed that Apple is on record stating that the 5c considerably outsold its middle-tier predecessor from the year before, the 4s. I guarantee that was more than 100 units.

     

    Ah, I see.  Where was this in the article?  I browsed through the article a second time and couldn't find this information.  My reading skills are seriously lacking today!

  • Reply 143 of 220

    That productivity App is already here: Goodreader! 

  • Reply 144 of 220
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Xiamenbill View Post

     

    That productivity App is already here: Goodreader! 


    good reader is an OLD app, that was one of the first apps I downloaded when I got my iPad when it first came out.  :-)  I don't use it anymore, but I used it a lot in the beginning.  :-)

  • Reply 145 of 220
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,678member
    GrangerFX wrote: »
    This is an Alcatel Onetouch Fierce 4G. It has a 5MP camera with a flash. I can't tell if it has autofocus or not but the image is in focus and looks OK to me. Not sure what the screen resolution is but my eyes are not good enough to see retina pixels anyway. Bigger is better for me. No comparing the camera quality to an iPhone's certainly but I come back to the 14x price difference. We are going to see a lot of decent $40 and under Android phones this year and I still question why anyone would pay the premium for a second best iPhone? If I am going to shell out that kind of cash, I only want the best and that is the 5s.

    Since you mentioned the name I looked it up. It actually sells for $140. Maybe you missed the $100 in all posts, maybe you got a once off discount. It's moot anyway as most phones in the US are sold on contract.

    And the revues are in and not spectacular.

    http://www.cnet.com/uk/pictures/alcatels-not-so-fierce-one-touch-fierce-pictures/


    I bet this phone isn't as fast as an iPhone 4. Apple is not really going after the mid tier yet - off contract the 5C is expensive enough. In the next few years I expect them to have a cheap version of the 5C selling along side higher specced and priced bigger screen models. That will sell like gangbusters.
  • Reply 146 of 220
    Another fanboy propaganda piece from Apple Insider. Why am I not surprised?
  • Reply 147 of 220

    ^another knee jerk response from someone that should just stay away from AI in the first place.

     

    BTW, this article is a wonderfully written and factual piece by AI. Bravo

  • Reply 148 of 220
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

     

    There is nothing wrong with a company attempting to develop core competencies in other areas. If Google wants to try to develop a core competency in hardware, that's okay. If Google was trying to compete against Apple in hardware, Google was going about it the wrong way entirely. For years, Apple has been derided for its model of vertical integration. The fact that Google bought Motorola's phone business and manufactured a phone was Google going against its own philosophy of universal licensing. The fact that Samsung is the only Android OEM making money is more proof of the fact that the universal licensing model totally sucks for OEMs. For all the talk about about how Android is dominating iOS, it's questionable as to how much it actually adds to Google's bottom line. I don't know if Android is actually a money loser for Google but I'm pretty sure that for all the "success" of Android, it hasn't amounted to much for Google financially.

     

    As for your other point about how Apple will replace Google with Yahoo and Microsoft, I'm afraid it's a long time in the making. I don't buy the Google hype for a second. I take media reports glorifying Google's ventures into self-driving cars and smart contact lenses with a grain of salt because (1) those products are years away from going on the market and a lot has to happen for those to get there and (2) Google's track record with products besides search is not good at all. However, Google search is the best search engine on the market. Yahoo and Bing are simply no match for Google. 


    I agree with your reasoning, but Yahoo and Bing have been more than adequate and accurate for all my searches. I can't remember the last time i asked for anything from Poople. They are irrelevant in my digital life and will never have a place set at my digital dinner table.  

    NO SEARCH FOR YOU!!

  • Reply 149 of 220
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    vvswarup wrote: »
    There is nothing wrong with a company attempting to develop core competencies in other areas. If Google wants to try to develop a core competency in hardware, that's okay. If Google was trying to compete against Apple in hardware, Google was going about it the wrong way entirely. For years, Apple has been derided for its model of vertical integration. The fact that Google bought Motorola's phone business and manufactured a phone was Google going against its own philosophy of universal licensing. The fact that Samsung is the only Android OEM making money is more proof of the fact that the universal licensing model totally sucks for OEMs. For all the talk about about how Android is dominating iOS, it's questionable as to how much it actually adds to Google's bottom line. I don't know if Android is actually a money loser for Google but I'm pretty sure that for all the "success" of Android, it hasn't amounted to much for Google financially.

    As for your other point about how Apple will replace Google with Yahoo and Microsoft, I'm afraid it's a long time in the making. I don't buy the Google hype for a second. I take media reports glorifying Google's ventures into self-driving cars and smart contact lenses with a grain of salt because (1) those products are years away from going on the market and a lot has to happen for those to get there and (2) Google's track record with products besides search is not good at all. However, Google search is the best search engine on the market. Yahoo and Bing are simply no match for Google. 

    If vertical integration is a no fail model then what happened to Palm, and BB? There is no simple formula for success. I think Android has helped Moto, HTC, LG to survive. Had they gone the vertical integration route with their own OS they wouldn't be around at this time.
  • Reply 150 of 220
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    I agree with your reasoning, but Yahoo and Bing have been more than adequate and accurate for all my searches. I can't remember the last time i asked for anything from Poople. They are irrelevant in my digital life and will never have a place set at my digital dinner table.  
    NO SEARCH FOR YOU!!

    I agree by the time you filter through Google's SEO and advertising tainted results there really isn't much benefit in using them.

    1996 was a long time ago.
  • Reply 151 of 220
    None of the previous commenters are able to
  • Reply 152 of 220
    None of the previous dissenting comments are substantially valid. Market share is meaningless without profits. Sandboxing and Open is why 99% of malware targets Android. Dilger is not obsessed necessarily with Android/Google but more likely, inaccurate journalism.

    The way management wastes profits at Google is astounding. No wonder they dilute the float with non-voting shares.
  • Reply 153 of 220
    baederbaeder Posts: 25member
    GrangerFX wrote: »
    This is an Alcatel Onetouch Fierce 4G. It has a 5MP camera with a flash. I can't tell if it has autofocus or not but the image is in focus and looks OK to me. Not sure what the screen resolution is but my eyes are not good enough to see retina pixels anyway. Bigger is better for me. No comparing the camera quality to an iPhone's certainly but I come back to the 14x price difference. We are going to see a lot of decent $40 and under Android phones this year and I still question why anyone would pay the premium for a second best iPhone? If I am going to shell out that kind of cash, I only want the best and that is the 5s.
    Please provide a link for the $40 price that anyone can get. All I see are ads for $129. Granted, still cheap but no where near $40. For $40 no one could make any profit, yet alone pay licensing fees for the technology inside a 4G phone.
  • Reply 154 of 220
    Wow. This thread has attracted some off-the-wall posts.

    Wonder what woodwork these weirdos are wandering out from....
  • Reply 155 of 220
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,225member
    dbam987 wrote: »
    Someone is a little scared it seems to write a long article comparing the Moto X to the 5C. Here's one that'll nullify the 5C: Customizability.

    While the Moto X was a decent design it was a complete market failure mostly because Google put too much faint on "customizability".
  • Reply 156 of 220
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,190member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GrangerFX View Post



    I am very much an Apple fan but I have to say that factoring in the price, the larger screen, the FM radio and the Google apps and features, the $40 Android smart phone I just purchased from Amazon is a better phone than the Apple 5c. For one thing, you could carry this Android phone around and never worry about it getting damaged, lost or stolen. Neither it or the iPhone 5c can resist water damage but at least with the Android phone I am only out $40 in the worst case. The 5c will cost you $550 to replace since Apple Care does not cover water damage.

     

    AppleCare+ DOES cover water damage and is the only AppleCare you can buy now. Not sure where that came from. I have yet to see any links to this magical $40 phone. 

     

    People aren't buying the iPhones over Android phones because one is cheaper than the other. Apple has proved this time and time again with Macs, iPods, iPads, and iPhone. They couldn't give two shits what the specs of the phone are (except maybe the camera and screen size). What they're buying is the Apple experience and ecosystem, something no matter how much time and money Google and other Android manufacturers try, they'll never have. 

  • Reply 157 of 220
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    DED is clearly right about the overwhelming double standard in media coverage of everything Apple. for example, take the New York Times ... please.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/apples-profit-climbs-but-cracks-are-showing.html?ref=brianxchen

    the url shows the article's original headline and lede, but both were later edited to change "cracks" to "pressure"! LOL.

    but the worm may be turning somewhat as Google gets more time as media punching bag due to internal strife, a la Microsoft:

    http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/24/google-is-walking-dead/

    and a few are even starting to notice that Amazon really doesn't make money!

    http://247wallst.com/consumer-electronics/2014/04/27/will-amazon-lose-money-for-years/
  • Reply 158 of 220
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by baeder View Post





    Please provide a link for the $40 price that anyone can get. All I see are ads for $129. Granted, still cheap but no where near $40. For $40 no one could make any profit, yet alone pay licensing fees for the technology inside a 4G phone.



    If you do a search on best buy, you can find a few sub $50 no contract android phones, however I can't find any that go past 3G. I left out the link because store search links often break.

  • Reply 159 of 220
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    blastdoor wrote: »
    "Google desperately needs a hardware business"

    Maybe this is true now, given the choices that Google has made over the last 10 years, but it did not have to be this way. Google makes its money off of search, advertising, web services. If Google had played the role that Steve Jobs had envisioned, Apple would never have moved to compete with Google in these areas.

    I wonder how much money Google has lost since Apple introduced its own maps app and how much more google will lose as apple shifts to yahoo and Microsoft. Google should have stuck to its knitting rather than trying to take on apple in hardware. Android may go down as the biggest strategic blunder in tech in the first two decades of this century -- not only is it a money loser for Google as it's own business, it also damaged Google's core business.

    Keep in mind that even Samsung is openly talking about moving their phones and tablets into a "post-Google" world. The kids at Google have to be worried about talk like that.
  • Reply 160 of 220
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Keep in mind that even Samsung is openly talking about moving their phones and tablets into a "post-Google" world. The kids at Google have to be worried about talk like that.

    Are you referring to Tizen?  I don't think that will be the answer for Samsung.  

Sign In or Register to comment.