It's just to prove the point he wasn't willing to accept.. that Android sale number is useless and nobody care. Many people, a majority even, in India, Africa or even China bought Android phone not because they like Android but because it's a phone they can buy. This is not elitism, it's a plain hard fact.
She and I are close by the way and we are more like friends than employer and employee. (and yes, she just use her phone solely for call and texts, and taking a photo occasionally, in case you're wondering.)
Fair enough. But my question is, why did she settle for a cheap smartphone? I am only a security guard, and I doubt I would be very far off in assuming that your maid and I have a very similar annual income. The difference between she and I is that I sure as hell would stop at nothing to budget my dispensable cash so that I am damn well guaranteed to be able to afford an iPhone. My 6 is the most amazing piece of technology I have every owned (well, my MacBook Air may well dispute that claim, as would my ? Watch Sport that is in the mail system on its way to me as we speak).
I am not in debt, and I feel that I can afford Apple products. In fact, I make sure I can afford their products. I don't personally believe that people should settle for anything less if price is the number one motivating factor in their decision-making process. Spoil yourself once a year with a luxury purchase! Especially something you'll use daily and is less than a grand (a non-sensical price ceiling that I have decided for myself should be the max I "throw away" on my "spoil myself once a year" luxury purchase). Anyway, just my thoughts.
Fair enough. But my question is, why did she settle for a cheap smartphone?
Her kids' education is a priority I guess. Beside, in my country you have to buy a phone unsubsidised and normally a good enough Android phone is like 10 times cheaper than an iPhone.
She and I are close by the way and we are more like friends than employer and employee. (and yes, she just use her phone solely for call and texts, and taking a photo occasionally, in case you're wondering.)
So you're banging her? The least you could do is get her an old iPhone.
Fair enough. But my question is, why did she settle for a cheap smartphone? .
He told you. She only uses one for phone calls, texts and the occasional photo. A $200 phone serves her needs just as well as one costing 4 times as much.
I have friends with money. Lots of it. They don't all have iPhones. A few of them won't ever buy a new vehicle for the same reasons. They believe they understand the value of money and think it wasteful to spend more than necessary to fill the need.
He told you. She only uses one for phone calls, texts and the occasional photo. A $200 phone serves her needs just as well as one costing 4 times as much.
I have friends with money. Lots of it. They don't all have iPhones. A few of them won't ever buy a new vehicle for the same reasons. They believe they understand the value of money and think it wasteful to spend more than necessary to fill the need.
Understood, but sometimes people think they don't need anything other than talk and text. Imagine back to when you got your first smartphone. Wasn't it significantly more useful than you ever thought it would be? I certainly never imagined it would improve some of the most basic things I have always done daily. I was a naysayer before I had one.
Not everyone can afford brand name clothing. Everyone who buys the cheap knockoff wants the real thing, doesn't mean they can have it.
I agree it does sound mean whenever you tell others that someone is using a cheap android. It's offensive. Like pointing out that someone is wearing fake Jordan's or cheap jewelry.
There is an aspirational aspect to the iPhone that will see many current Android owners switching, or working their way up into the Apple ecosystem, starting with refurbished or otherwise pre-owned iPhones. I don't think there is any evidence that Android has that attachment, and very little evidence that even Android brands have the loyalty and attachment that Apple has.
As I have stated many times, Android phones are in a race to the bottom, and now Google is in a race to repurpose Android. Currently, that focus is on the IoT and Payment, and I suspect that again, Google's business model will display rapid numbers in growth, with little return in profit for the participants.
Her kids' education is a priority I guess. Beside, in my country you have to buy a phone unsubsidised and normally a good enough Android phone is like 10 times cheaper than an iPhone.
That's a good point, without mobile companies subsidizing phones in the US, Apple nor Samsung would have the market share that they enjoy today. Most would opt for a phone under the 300 dollar mark which is almost entirely Android and a few Windows phones.
Not everyone can afford brand name clothing. Everyone who buys the cheap knockoff wants the real thing, doesn't mean they can have it.
I agree it does sound mean whenever you tell others that someone is using a cheap android. It's offensive. Like pointing out that someone is wearing fake Jordan's or cheap jewelry.
There is an aspirational aspect to the iPhone that will see many current Android owners switching, or working their way up into the Apple ecosystem, starting with refurbished or otherwise pre-owned iPhones. I don't think there is any evidence that Android has that attachment, and very little evidence that even Android brands have the loyalty and attachment that Apple has.
As I have stated many times, Android phones are in a race to the bottom, and now Google is in a race to repurpose Android. Currently, that focus is on the IoT and Payment, and I suspect that again, Google's business model will display rapid numbers in growth, with little return in profit for the participants.
Lather, rinse, and repeat.
Same as it ever was.
That whole 'race to the bottom' is bullshit. You act as if there are no OEMs making high end devices. That they're all cutting each other's throat by making the crappiest devices and selling them at the lowest possible price.
I don't think there is any evidence that Android has that attachment, and very little evidence that even Android brands have the loyalty and attachment that Apple has.
While not at Apple levels, there's plenty of evidence that brand loyalty is high for some Android vendors.
Without naming specific phones, I think you can speculate to a certain extent which "smartphones" are being used as "feature phones" just by the OS install base.
Everything using below 4.4 Android in this "speculative" case:
That whole 'race to the bottom' is bullshit. You act as if there are no OEMs making high end devices. That they're all cutting each other's throat by making the crappiest devices and selling them at the lowest possible price.
Sadly, you miss the picture. In this race to the bottom, it is margins that are being killed. That's why Apple makes so much of the profit for the whole industry; they have hight margins.
Without profit, there isn't any funds for R & D to differentiate the product, and given that Android already hobbles differentiation, its a pretty serious impediment.
Actually, its more like a death spiral to the bottom.
That's a good point, without mobile companies subsidizing phones in the US, Apple nor Samsung would have the market share that they enjoy today. Most would opt for a phone under the 300 dollar mark which is almost entirely Android and a few Windows phones.
Except that mobile companies were dying to capture iPhone buyers. Look what the iPhone exclusive did for AT&T.
For the record, it isn't even a subsidy, its a deferred payment embedded into the monthly charge. It's just another financing plan. Either way, it doesn't help companies with devices that no one wants, even at cut rate pricing.
That whole 'race to the bottom' is bullshit. You act as if there are no OEMs making high end devices. That they're all cutting each other's throat by making the crappiest devices and selling them at the lowest possible price.
Sadly, you miss the picture. In this race to the bottom, it is margins that are being killed. That's why Apple makes so much of the profit for the whole industry; they have hight margins.
Without profit, there isn't any funds for R & D to differentiate the product, and given that Android already hobbles differentiation, its a pretty serious impediment.
Actually, its more like a death spiral to the bottom.
Please. Look at other industries. Low margins are the norm, and they operate just fine. Apple is the only company that's been able to sell a high margin product in high amounts. It's usually one or the other but rarely has it been both. To ever expect anyone else to replicate that is asinine.
Please. Look at other industries. Low margins are the norm, and they operate just fine. Apple is the only company that's been able to sell a high margin product in high amounts. It's usually one or the other but rarely has it been both. To ever expect anyone else to replicate that is asinine.
So, if Xiaomi eats Samsung lunch for a 1.8% margin in the markets they compete in, you think that is normal?
Please. Look at other industries. Low margins are the norm, and they operate just fine. Apple is the only company that's been able to sell a high margin product in high amounts. It's usually one or the other but rarely has it been both. To ever expect anyone else to replicate that is asinine.
So, if Xiaomi eats Samsung lunch for a 1.8% margin in the markets they compete in, you think that is normal?
Absolutely. How many high margin products are now gone because the Chinese came with a low margin crappy equivalent? How many companies are a shell of their former selves because low margin products killed them?
I realize that there are people who feel strongly about Android. Unfortunately, the OS has been mismanaged by Google, which remains a wallstreet darling.
Google should fostered a close relationship with Samsung. Unfortunately they estranged their relationship with their most capable hatdware manufacturer. Samsung at worst will supply all of their high components for the iPhone and at best, will be able to drive their Tizen OS into a competitive position in the market. Either way, Google's Android is the big loser.
The Chinese manufacturers have nowhere near the engineering talent and technical expertise that Samsung does. Samsung would likely be more profitable as a components manufacturer for Apple than trying to compete with the likes of Xiaomi and Asus on price. It's doubtful that Samsung's high end CPUs, memory or screens go into any low end devices produced by Xiaomi and the like.
Wall Street rejoices as the Chinese OEMs are taking over Android. The truth of the matter is that in doing so, Google services gets locked out of the largest consumer market on the planet. As Google's ad revenues decline in the face of increasing competition from Facebook and the rollout of applications from the vendors themselves (such as Amazon), they will find it harder and harder to continue investing in Android. Android is essentially headed to a dead end.
As Apple readies itself to, metaphorically speaking, push the thermonuclear button and remove Google search completely from iOS, Ongoing development of the OS is about slow down dramatically. Apple has the cash to continue developing iOS and to purchase state of the art components. The trend will accelerate. The old adage still holds true. "You get what you pay for." The market prides value and not cost. It's why Apple's model is hugely profitable and why Samsung is under substantial duress. Xiaomi and Asus won't be anymore successful as India, Vietnam and other low cost labor markets make even cheaper devices running the "free" Android OS.
Although Google is in a death spiral, but Android itself is not. Microsoft, Intel, and a number of other companies will be line attempting to acquire the OS. There are simply too many users to ignore. But it will not stop the incredible momentum of iOS.
Had Google chosen to continue working closely with Samsung, they could have established a partnership much like the one MSFT did with INTC. They didn't and are going to pay a far higher price than their acquisition of Motorola.
Comments
Fair enough. But my question is, why did she settle for a cheap smartphone? I am only a security guard, and I doubt I would be very far off in assuming that your maid and I have a very similar annual income. The difference between she and I is that I sure as hell would stop at nothing to budget my dispensable cash so that I am damn well guaranteed to be able to afford an iPhone. My 6 is the most amazing piece of technology I have every owned (well, my MacBook Air may well dispute that claim, as would my ? Watch Sport that is in the mail system on its way to me as we speak).
I am not in debt, and I feel that I can afford Apple products. In fact, I make sure I can afford their products. I don't personally believe that people should settle for anything less if price is the number one motivating factor in their decision-making process. Spoil yourself once a year with a luxury purchase! Especially something you'll use daily and is less than a grand (a non-sensical price ceiling that I have decided for myself should be the max I "throw away" on my "spoil myself once a year" luxury purchase). Anyway, just my thoughts.
Fair enough. But my question is, why did she settle for a cheap smartphone?
Her kids' education is a priority I guess. Beside, in my country you have to buy a phone unsubsidised and normally a good enough Android phone is like 10 times cheaper than an iPhone.
I manage web-centric content websites.
Out of 100 million page impressions:
15% are mobile users
54.38% are "Android"
41.72% are "iOS"
2.55% are "Windows" (0.79% are "Windows Phone")
0.43% are Blackberry
And everything else isn't significant enough to matter.
This further can be divided by:
44.50% Apple
22.10% Samsung
4.93% Motorola
4.92% Google
3.79% LG
Or even by specific devices:
22.87% iPhone
20.11% iPad
2.04% Google Nexus 5
1.74% Samsung Galaxy S5 (Verizon model)
1.53% iPod
1.43% Google Nexus 7
1.37% Samsung Galaxy S5 (AT&T model)
0.98% Samsung Galaxy S4
0.91% Motorola XT1080 Ultra
0.85% Microsoft Windows RT Tablet
0.70% Samsung Galaxy S5 (Sprint model)
A drill-down on the Android browser also says this:
98.36% 4.0
0.46% 4.2.2
If I sort "Chrome" by OS:
69.77% Windows
16.02% Android
9.20% MacOS X
1.80% iOS
1.63% Linux
1.57% ChromeOS
If I sort "Safari" by OS:
70.35% iOS
27.62% MacOS X
1.60% Windows Phone ?
If I sort "Firefox by OS:
84.16% Windows
8.45% Mac OS X
5.42% Linux
1.93% Android
Nothing else is particularly significant. The on-device Android browser gets as much use as Opera does across all devices and operating systems.
So you're banging her? The least you could do is get her an old iPhone.
I have friends with money. Lots of it. They don't all have iPhones. A few of them won't ever buy a new vehicle for the same reasons. They believe they understand the value of money and think it wasteful to spend more than necessary to fill the need.
Understood, but sometimes people think they don't need anything other than talk and text. Imagine back to when you got your first smartphone. Wasn't it significantly more useful than you ever thought it would be? I certainly never imagined it would improve some of the most basic things I have always done daily. I was a naysayer before I had one.
Not everyone can afford brand name clothing. Everyone who buys the cheap knockoff wants the real thing, doesn't mean they can have it.
I agree it does sound mean whenever you tell others that someone is using a cheap android. It's offensive. Like pointing out that someone is wearing fake Jordan's or cheap jewelry.
There is an aspirational aspect to the iPhone that will see many current Android owners switching, or working their way up into the Apple ecosystem, starting with refurbished or otherwise pre-owned iPhones. I don't think there is any evidence that Android has that attachment, and very little evidence that even Android brands have the loyalty and attachment that Apple has.
As I have stated many times, Android phones are in a race to the bottom, and now Google is in a race to repurpose Android. Currently, that focus is on the IoT and Payment, and I suspect that again, Google's business model will display rapid numbers in growth, with little return in profit for the participants.
Lather, rinse, and repeat.
Same as it ever was.
That's a good point, without mobile companies subsidizing phones in the US, Apple nor Samsung would have the market share that they enjoy today. Most would opt for a phone under the 300 dollar mark which is almost entirely Android and a few Windows phones.
That whole 'race to the bottom' is bullshit. You act as if there are no OEMs making high end devices. That they're all cutting each other's throat by making the crappiest devices and selling them at the lowest possible price.
I don't think there is any evidence that Android has that attachment, and very little evidence that even Android brands have the loyalty and attachment that Apple has.
While not at Apple levels, there's plenty of evidence that brand loyalty is high for some Android vendors.
http://www.statista.com/chart/2460/brand-retention-in-the-smartphone-industry/
Why?
Even worse for iOS devs.
That whole 'race to the bottom' is bullshit. You act as if there are no OEMs making high end devices. That they're all cutting each other's throat by making the crappiest devices and selling them at the lowest possible price.
Sadly, you miss the picture. In this race to the bottom, it is margins that are being killed. That's why Apple makes so much of the profit for the whole industry; they have hight margins.
Without profit, there isn't any funds for R & D to differentiate the product, and given that Android already hobbles differentiation, its a pretty serious impediment.
Actually, its more like a death spiral to the bottom.
That's a good point, without mobile companies subsidizing phones in the US, Apple nor Samsung would have the market share that they enjoy today. Most would opt for a phone under the 300 dollar mark which is almost entirely Android and a few Windows phones.
Except that mobile companies were dying to capture iPhone buyers. Look what the iPhone exclusive did for AT&T.
For the record, it isn't even a subsidy, its a deferred payment embedded into the monthly charge. It's just another financing plan. Either way, it doesn't help companies with devices that no one wants, even at cut rate pricing.
Now, there are plenty of financing plans.
Even worse for iOS devs.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/186617/wwdc-2015-guaranteed-to-highlight-growing-gap-between-apple-and-google
Why, even Daniel agrees.
Please. Look at other industries. Low margins are the norm, and they operate just fine. Apple is the only company that's been able to sell a high margin product in high amounts. It's usually one or the other but rarely has it been both. To ever expect anyone else to replicate that is asinine.
Like I give a flying f what Daniel believes. Nobody cares about DED. I rarely see him quoted nor invited to share his opinion on other sites.
Please. Look at other industries. Low margins are the norm, and they operate just fine. Apple is the only company that's been able to sell a high margin product in high amounts. It's usually one or the other but rarely has it been both. To ever expect anyone else to replicate that is asinine.
So, if Xiaomi eats Samsung lunch for a 1.8% margin in the markets they compete in, you think that is normal?
Absolutely. How many high margin products are now gone because the Chinese came with a low margin crappy equivalent? How many companies are a shell of their former selves because low margin products killed them?
Google should fostered a close relationship with Samsung. Unfortunately they estranged their relationship with their most capable hatdware manufacturer. Samsung at worst will supply all of their high components for the iPhone and at best, will be able to drive their Tizen OS into a competitive position in the market. Either way, Google's Android is the big loser.
The Chinese manufacturers have nowhere near the engineering talent and technical expertise that Samsung does. Samsung would likely be more profitable as a components manufacturer for Apple than trying to compete with the likes of Xiaomi and Asus on price. It's doubtful that Samsung's high end CPUs, memory or screens go into any low end devices produced by Xiaomi and the like.
Wall Street rejoices as the Chinese OEMs are taking over Android. The truth of the matter is that in doing so, Google services gets locked out of the largest consumer market on the planet. As Google's ad revenues decline in the face of increasing competition from Facebook and the rollout of applications from the vendors themselves (such as Amazon), they will find it harder and harder to continue investing in Android. Android is essentially headed to a dead end.
As Apple readies itself to, metaphorically speaking, push the thermonuclear button and remove Google search completely from iOS, Ongoing development of the OS is about slow down dramatically. Apple has the cash to continue developing iOS and to purchase state of the art components. The trend will accelerate. The old adage still holds true. "You get what you pay for." The market prides value and not cost. It's why Apple's model is hugely profitable and why Samsung is under substantial duress. Xiaomi and Asus won't be anymore successful as India, Vietnam and other low cost labor markets make even cheaper devices running the "free" Android OS.
Although Google is in a death spiral, but Android itself is not. Microsoft, Intel, and a number of other companies will be line attempting to acquire the OS. There are simply too many users to ignore. But it will not stop the incredible momentum of iOS.
Had Google chosen to continue working closely with Samsung, they could have established a partnership much like the one MSFT did with INTC. They didn't and are going to pay a far higher price than their acquisition of Motorola.