Apple had legitimate competitors. WebOS, Windows Phone 8, etc. Android should never have existed as it does. All it did was destroy most cell phone companies and leave a smoking crater in a large portion of the market. So no, you don't understand Android and why it was and is a terrible creation.
Please, those companies destroyed themselves. They did too little too late.
Marketshare paints a picture but does not reveal the story.
In this article, the reference to market share is only to state that the iPhone is growing in China. To visualize growth, you paint the picture using market share.
Market share means nothing without profits. We all saw that with android. People exploded when android (many vendors) overtook iOS (one vendor). But when the numbers actually came out Apple was just raking in the profits. That's all that matters when talking about market share.
I think Amazon is starting to feel some heat from Wall Street after not turning a profit since...
Android seems to suck now because it is seeded out on shit devices that hardly meet specs of feature phones before the Phonedustrial Revolution. Android seems to suck now because of lax regulations on OEMs and years of smeared marketing because at one point, it really did just suck.
Samsung is like that guy that keeps bragging about how good he is in bed, and ends up lasting 10 seconds.
Or that bully that incessantly mocks you, but then completely breaks down and runs back to his mommy once you slug him in the face.
Or that Balloon that is mocking the other balloons for not inflating as quickly, and then suddenly pops as he over-inflates.
Or the Hare that can sprint for a few seconds, all the while looking back at you and laughing it's ass off, until it slams into a tree and never recovers.
I can go all day with these analogies. It's why I kept picking up shares during the whole "OMG SAMSUNG IS KING APPLE IS FINISHED" narrative was going on, because every bone in my body told me there would be an implosion with this fraud of a company.
Thanks Samsung, your predictable implosion and shit performance has contributed to my $30,000 profit. Just keep spinning down the toilet. Hopefully your demise will lead to better performance of slightly more deserving companies in the space, like HTC etc.
Please, those companies destroyed themselves. They did too little too late.
Right, every company that Apple defeats "destroyed themselves", right? I remember when webOS was being released, it was being described by many as the killer of iOS, and the new palm was supposed to be a massive threat to the iPhone business. That concept only seems laughable AFTER the fact.
Right, every company that Apple defeats "destroyed themselves", right? I remember when webOS was being released, it was being described by many as the killer of iOS, and the new palm was supposed to be a massive threat to the iPhone business. That concept only seems laughable AFTER the fact.
1) Those ? Every
2) Yes, Palm destroyed themselves by doing too little too late, as well as a series of horrible missteps, like rushing to release WebOS right before the 2nd generation iPhone and iOS 2 née OS X iPhone were due to arrive just so they could be first. WebOS was arguably the second-best mobile OS on the market then and had some great ideas, but Palm was far too lazy in SW and HW for too long and then they didn't create a business model that made sense to keep them viable. Now the remains of Palm are being shipped from company to company to be fucked by necrophiliacs before they get tired of it and then sell the soiled remains to yet another buyer who will do the same until there is nothing left.
Right, every company that Apple defeats "destroyed themselves", right? I remember when webOS was being released, it was being described by many as the killer of iOS, and the new palm was supposed to be a massive threat to the iPhone business. That concept only seems laughable AFTER the fact.
It wasn't the OS, it was the crappy hardware. Even if Android hadn't existed the Palm Pre still would've failed.
Is there just one person posting a defense of, well not Samsung, but some hand wavy defense of allegedly "not so bad" nonspecific "high end" Android phones?
I remember when flame bait articles about Samsung marketshare would end 200 posts later. Maybe if DED wrote it.
flounders (to flop around awkwardly) or founders(to sink) both make sense... but I feel like it should be founders. Flounders just sounds weird to my ear.
One minute we're saying market share doesn't matter and the next we're saying it does. Which is it?
Market share is like a report card at the end of the quarter. They add up all the units shipped in the entire market... then they figure out the percentage that belong to each individual manufacturer.
It's simply a snapshot of the entire market over a period of time.
So... considering Apple is extremely successful without having a lot of market share... would you say market share matters?
IMO Android's problem is not that the latest Android sucks, per se, it's that with so many different phone manufacturers out there, and especially manufacturers selling so many cheap phones, that Android has become so fragmented. There are so many people content to use older/cheaper phones with older versions of Android that there is not enough of a base of current Android users to empower app developers to design great apps that really take advantage of it. And these numerous phone makers are often doing little or nothing to help their customers to discover, acquire and take advantage of the Android software updates when they become available.
Apple's customers are more affluent and thus upgrade more often and Apple, having only a few different phones to support at any given time, is able to push out the IOS updates to everyone and keep everything running well, which is really helpful to its developers and its customers.
One of you mentioned that just because there are many low-end Android phones does not mean you can't choose to get a high-end Android phone...but is there one really? One with expensive specs AND good/great industrial design? It looks to me like even the top of the line Samsung phones are made of plastic (am I wrong?) and that after purchase Samsung leaves it to your carrier to communicate with you about your software rather than continuing the relationship with its customers in a meaningful way the way Apple does.
There's a delicious irony in that Samsung has lost out to Apple at the top, and a shameless Apple copier at the bottom. Also I wonder if 'founders' might have been more appropriate than 'flounders', in this instance, the former meaning to fill with water and sink, the latter meaning to flap around clumsily like a er... a flounder, albeit a drunk flounder.
One minute we're saying market share doesn't matter and the next we're saying it does. Which is it?
While Apple grabbed more market share, they didn't lower the price or quality to get it. So, one could say, Apple did it the hard way.
The essential difference is that a company, and Samsung is a good example, who sets out to gain market share will do it by sacrificing profit (lower the product's price), or they will inflate their specs by stating their product excels when it really doesn't in meaningful ways for the customer; or they will offer a lesser quality product hoping the customer doesn't notice before purchasing. Another way of trying to gain market share is to build your product so it is confused with a market leader, even if you infringe on patents. FInally one can outspend the competition on advertising hoping to seem far more desirable due to the "buzz" such marketing can cause (Samsung also tried this method by spending $13 Billion dollars in a single year).
While market share is important, Apple prefers to get it by being the best product for the consumer, not by promoting cheap crap that really is less then "good enough."
IMO Android's problem is not that the latest Android sucks, per se, it's that with so many different phone manufacturers out there, and especially manufacturers selling so many cheap phones, that Android has become so fragmented. There are so many people content to use older/cheaper phones with older versions of Android that there is not enough of a base of current Android users to empower app developers to design great apps that really take advantage of it. And these numerous phone makers are often doing little or nothing to help their customers to discover, acquire and take advantage of the Android software updates when they become available.
Apple's customers are more affluent and thus upgrade more often and Apple, having only a few different phones to support at any given time, is able to push out the IOS updates to everyone and keep everything running well, which is really helpful to its developers and its customers.
One of you mentioned that just because there are many low-end Android phones does not mean you can't choose to get a high-end Android phone...but is there one really? One with expensive specs AND good/great industrial design? It looks to me like even the top of the line Samsung phones are made of plastic (am I wrong?) and that after purchase Samsung leaves it to your carrier to communicate with you about your software rather than continuing the relationship with its customers in a meaningful way the way Apple does.
Here's the bottom line with Android: It is such a resource hog that the chips that can run it at speeds that don't cause things to jerk when they scroll or cause games to skip frames will also cause the device to over heat and the hardware will then cut back the speed (hurt the experience) to protect the device. According to what I've read, running all out for 10 minutes is all the best of the hardware can do. After that, it's life in the slow lane.
Apple's hardware can run at full speed giving you a top experience without hitting a thermal barrier for as long as you want it. If the guts of an iPhone 6+ were to be transplanted into a MBA it could be sped up by some unknown amount due to the larger heat dissipating enclosure of a MBA. Even then, I'm sure the MBA could hit the speeds of an Intel processor, but it could be improved.
Market share with high profits matter, surely that is an obvious difference from high markershare with no or little profits isn't it?
Apple is the exception. Most high profit products aren't designed for a high market share, which is exactly what SJ was aiming for. What the iPhone has accomplished is truly phenomenonal, and literally impossible for anyone to emulate.
Here's the bottom line with Android: It is such a resource hog that the chips that can run it at speeds that don't cause things to jerk when they scroll or cause games to skip frames will also cause the device to over heat and the hardware will then cut back the speed (hurt the experience) to protect the device. According to what I've read, running all out for 10 minutes is all the best of the hardware can do. After that, it's life in the slow lane.
Apple's hardware can run at full speed giving you a top experience without hitting a thermal barrier for as long as you want it. If the guts of an iPhone 6+ were to be transplanted into a MBA it could be sped up by some unknown amount due to the larger heat dissipating enclosure of a MBA. Even then, I'm sure the MBA could hit the speeds of an Intel processor, but it could be improved.
Here's my experience, I have a Android phone (Galaxy Nexus), and a iPod Touch, I read AI using the browser in my phone, and never get any lag while scrolling, yet I get plenty of lag using the AI app on my iPod, I also play Ski Safari on both, and the game runs smoothly on my phone, yet I get hesitation on the iPod. I also have a iPad mini (1st gen) plus a Nexus 7 (1st gen), and they both stutter, and lag almost equally. Apologies if I don't buy into the notion that iOS is lag free.
The main issue with Android is that there a lot a crappy devices with Android. So the name 'Android' is never a guarantee for quality. In contrast to Apple phones, which are all high quality devices.
The main issue with a lot of people posting here, is that they beleive that all Android devices are crappy. They aren't. There are excellent Android devices, only you have to look more carefully around when buying one. Look at Xiaomi, in Q4 2013 it was below the market share of Apple but with its excellent smartphones it surpassed Apple in 2014 (at least in China).
I have next to my iPhone always a Android phone in my pocket and use both of them extensively. And on some aspects (e.g. sound) Android scores better than Apple. It is good that there is competition.
Is there just one person posting a defense of, well not Samsung, but some hand wavy defense of allegedly "not so bad" nonspecific "high end" Android phones?
I remember when flame bait articles about Samsung marketshare would end 200 posts later. Maybe if DED wrote it.
The same thing had occurred to me. Even Gatorguy, the least offensive supporter of the underbelly of tech we have, is very quiet these days. We do still have a hard core few but they end to just be obnoxious for the sake of it and probably feed off being disliked for some mental disorder reason.
Comments
Please, those companies destroyed themselves. They did too little too late.
In this article, the reference to market share is only to state that the iPhone is growing in China. To visualize growth, you paint the picture using market share.
Market share means nothing without profits. We all saw that with android. People exploded when android (many vendors) overtook iOS (one vendor). But when the numbers actually came out Apple was just raking in the profits. That's all that matters when talking about market share.
I think Amazon is starting to feel some heat from Wall Street after not turning a profit since...
Samsung is like that guy that keeps bragging about how good he is in bed, and ends up lasting 10 seconds.
Or that bully that incessantly mocks you, but then completely breaks down and runs back to his mommy once you slug him in the face.
Or that Balloon that is mocking the other balloons for not inflating as quickly, and then suddenly pops as he over-inflates.
Or the Hare that can sprint for a few seconds, all the while looking back at you and laughing it's ass off, until it slams into a tree and never recovers.
I can go all day with these analogies. It's why I kept picking up shares during the whole "OMG SAMSUNG IS KING APPLE IS FINISHED" narrative was going on, because every bone in my body told me there would be an implosion with this fraud of a company.
Thanks Samsung, your predictable implosion and shit performance has contributed to my $30,000 profit. Just keep spinning down the toilet. Hopefully your demise will lead to better performance of slightly more deserving companies in the space, like HTC etc.
Please, those companies destroyed themselves. They did too little too late.
Right, every company that Apple defeats "destroyed themselves", right? I remember when webOS was being released, it was being described by many as the killer of iOS, and the new palm was supposed to be a massive threat to the iPhone business. That concept only seems laughable AFTER the fact.
1) Those ? Every
2) Yes, Palm destroyed themselves by doing too little too late, as well as a series of horrible missteps, like rushing to release WebOS right before the 2nd generation iPhone and iOS 2 née OS X iPhone were due to arrive just so they could be first. WebOS was arguably the second-best mobile OS on the market then and had some great ideas, but Palm was far too lazy in SW and HW for too long and then they didn't create a business model that made sense to keep them viable. Now the remains of Palm are being shipped from company to company to be fucked by necrophiliacs before they get tired of it and then sell the soiled remains to yet another buyer who will do the same until there is nothing left.
It wasn't the OS, it was the crappy hardware. Even if Android hadn't existed the Palm Pre still would've failed.
I remember when flame bait articles about Samsung marketshare would end 200 posts later. Maybe if DED wrote it.
flounders (to flop around awkwardly) or founders(to sink) both make sense... but I feel like it should be founders. Flounders just sounds weird to my ear.
Market share with high profits matter, surely that is an obvious difference from high markershare with no or little profits isn't it?
Market share is like a report card at the end of the quarter. They add up all the units shipped in the entire market... then they figure out the percentage that belong to each individual manufacturer.
It's simply a snapshot of the entire market over a period of time.
So... considering Apple is extremely successful without having a lot of market share... would you say market share matters?
Apple's customers are more affluent and thus upgrade more often and Apple, having only a few different phones to support at any given time, is able to push out the IOS updates to everyone and keep everything running well, which is really helpful to its developers and its customers.
One of you mentioned that just because there are many low-end Android phones does not mean you can't choose to get a high-end Android phone...but is there one really? One with expensive specs AND good/great industrial design? It looks to me like even the top of the line Samsung phones are made of plastic (am I wrong?) and that after purchase Samsung leaves it to your carrier to communicate with you about your software rather than continuing the relationship with its customers in a meaningful way the way Apple does.
There's a delicious irony in that Samsung has lost out to Apple at the top, and a shameless Apple copier at the bottom. Also I wonder if 'founders' might have been more appropriate than 'flounders', in this instance, the former meaning to fill with water and sink, the latter meaning to flap around clumsily like a er... a flounder, albeit a drunk flounder.
While Apple grabbed more market share, they didn't lower the price or quality to get it. So, one could say, Apple did it the hard way.
The essential difference is that a company, and Samsung is a good example, who sets out to gain market share will do it by sacrificing profit (lower the product's price), or they will inflate their specs by stating their product excels when it really doesn't in meaningful ways for the customer; or they will offer a lesser quality product hoping the customer doesn't notice before purchasing. Another way of trying to gain market share is to build your product so it is confused with a market leader, even if you infringe on patents. FInally one can outspend the competition on advertising hoping to seem far more desirable due to the "buzz" such marketing can cause (Samsung also tried this method by spending $13 Billion dollars in a single year).
While market share is important, Apple prefers to get it by being the best product for the consumer, not by promoting cheap crap that really is less then "good enough."
Here's the bottom line with Android: It is such a resource hog that the chips that can run it at speeds that don't cause things to jerk when they scroll or cause games to skip frames will also cause the device to over heat and the hardware will then cut back the speed (hurt the experience) to protect the device. According to what I've read, running all out for 10 minutes is all the best of the hardware can do. After that, it's life in the slow lane.
Apple's hardware can run at full speed giving you a top experience without hitting a thermal barrier for as long as you want it. If the guts of an iPhone 6+ were to be transplanted into a MBA it could be sped up by some unknown amount due to the larger heat dissipating enclosure of a MBA. Even then, I'm sure the MBA could hit the speeds of an Intel processor, but it could be improved.
Apple is the exception. Most high profit products aren't designed for a high market share, which is exactly what SJ was aiming for. What the iPhone has accomplished is truly phenomenonal, and literally impossible for anyone to emulate.
Here's my experience, I have a Android phone (Galaxy Nexus), and a iPod Touch, I read AI using the browser in my phone, and never get any lag while scrolling, yet I get plenty of lag using the AI app on my iPod, I also play Ski Safari on both, and the game runs smoothly on my phone, yet I get hesitation on the iPod. I also have a iPad mini (1st gen) plus a Nexus 7 (1st gen), and they both stutter, and lag almost equally. Apologies if I don't buy into the notion that iOS is lag free.
The main issue with Android is that there a lot a crappy devices with Android. So the name 'Android' is never a guarantee for quality. In contrast to Apple phones, which are all high quality devices.
The main issue with a lot of people posting here, is that they beleive that all Android devices are crappy. They aren't. There are excellent Android devices, only you have to look more carefully around when buying one. Look at Xiaomi, in Q4 2013 it was below the market share of Apple but with its excellent smartphones it surpassed Apple in 2014 (at least in China).
I have next to my iPhone always a Android phone in my pocket and use both of them extensively. And on some aspects (e.g. sound) Android scores better than Apple. It is good that there is competition.
The same thing had occurred to me. Even Gatorguy, the least offensive supporter of the underbelly of tech we have, is very quiet these days. We do still have a hard core few but they end to just be obnoxious for the sake of it and probably feed off being disliked for some mental disorder reason.