Eh?RunningMn9 wrote: Treating "Android" as a monolithic "product" makes no sense because the mobile operating systems aren't competing with each other.
![Neutral :|](./images/smilies/icon/neutral.gif)
Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k
Eh?RunningMn9 wrote: Treating "Android" as a monolithic "product" makes no sense because the mobile operating systems aren't competing with each other.
Apple doesn't offer iOS as a product that is competing against Android. Samsung doesn't offer Android as a product that is competing against iOS. Apple makes handsets (that happen to have iOS) that compete with Samsung handsets (that happen to have Android).Defiant wrote:Eh?RunningMn9 wrote: Treating "Android" as a monolithic "product" makes no sense because the mobile operating systems aren't competing with each other.
This is like saying that Windows never competed with MacOS because (apart from recently) they didn't run on the same systems. Apple and Google are absolutely competing with each other for consumers in the cellphone market, in terms of the OS share, respective marketplaces, ad sales and so on.RunningMn9 wrote: Apple doesn't offer iOS as a product that is competing against Android. Samsung doesn't offer Android as a product that is competing against iOS. Apple makes handsets (that happen to have iOS) that compete with Samsung handsets (that happen to have Android).
It's a lot like saying that. If Apple viewed Mac OS X as a product that was competing with Windows, it wouldn't have artificially restricted Max OS X to only running on Apple hardware.Defiant wrote:This is like saying that Windows never competed with MacOS because (apart from recently) they didn't run on the same systems. Apple and Google are absolutely competing with each other for consumers in the cellphone market, in terms of the OS share, respective marketplaces, ad sales and so on.
It's not important at all.GreenGoo wrote:Lol.
If this is important enough for you to give it the treatment, by all means, have at it.
The thing is that apple has vertically integrated it's product line, iOS is is more than the OS, it is the iTunes/app store foundation, and in that realm it is 100% competing with Google/MS/Amazon, etc. Samsung/HTC etc, are not as vertically integrated but (due to the apple iOS-iTunes/app store integration), their hardware is absolutely competing against the software/services side because of the lock in. If Amazon could open an iOS appstore, or another software/media/service provider could, then things might be different.RunningMn9 wrote:It's a lot like saying that. If Apple viewed Mac OS X as a product that was competing with Windows, it wouldn't have artificially restricted Max OS X to only running on Apple hardware.Defiant wrote:This is like saying that Windows never competed with MacOS because (apart from recently) they didn't run on the same systems. Apple and Google are absolutely competing with each other for consumers in the cellphone market, in terms of the OS share, respective marketplaces, ad sales and so on.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company (with respect to their main business). Microsoft and Google are software companies. They have productized their operating systems. Apple has not.
In the personal computer space, Apple is a manufacturer akin to HP, Dell, etc. Those are their competitors. Not Microsoft. In the mobile space, Apple is a manufacturer akin to Samsung, HTC, LG, etc. Those are their competitors. Not Google.
You could argue that there is competition between Android and iOS in terms of third-party app delivery platforms, I guess. I have no issue with that.
yes...between the phone manufacturers.Pyperkub wrote: Apple has created a competitive advantage across the board that the other phone manufacturers have to try to match... which is competition.
This is silly. So before MS bought a part of Nokia, they weren't competing in cellphone market?RunningMn9 wrote:yes...between the phone manufacturers.Pyperkub wrote: Apple has created a competitive advantage across the board that the other phone manufacturers have to try to match... which is competition.
Like i said, i can understand the concept of mobile OS penetration for certain situations, it's just that I've seen these kinds of numbers misused a ton over the past couple of months.
Pay attention. No one said that. It was simply pointed out that arbitrarily looking at the Q3 2011 data for mobile OS penetration isn't very relevant because there are contextual factors that affect the expected trajectory of the thing you were looking at.GreenGoo wrote:This is silly. So before MS bought a part of Nokia, they weren't competing in cellphone market?
Of course it's relevant. It's you that isn't paying attention. There is a whole conversation in this thread that you missed. You come in here throwing your opinion around like it means something in the context of this thread.RunningMn9 wrote:Pay attention. No one said that. It was simply pointed out that arbitrarily looking at the Q3 2011 data for mobile OS penetration isn't very relevant because there are contextual factors that affect the expected trajectory of the thing you were looking at.GreenGoo wrote:This is silly. So before MS bought a part of Nokia, they weren't competing in cellphone market?
At least you know that you can be pig-headed, so there's a chance that we'll get through this.GreenGoo wrote:Of course it's relevant.
Continuing to repeat a mistake doesn't make it right. How can you ignore hardware when talking about hardware companies? Apple isn't a software company, and they don't promote iOS as a product (I would agree that there are times when it is ok to consider it as a separate product, but looking at market share of smartphone sales isn't one of them). Any comparison that seeks to treat iOS as a product that is trying to acquire mobile OS marketshare is wrong-headed. Because Apple doesn't treat it as a product that is trying to acquire mobile OS marketshare.GreenGoo wrote:hardware was a secondary conversation right from the start, that began with smartphones, android or iOS?
Aside from the fact that you posted stale data without any relevant context explaining the numbers that you posted.GreenGoo wrote:There is nothing misleading about the numbers I posted.
You are, when you attempted to draw conclusions from stale data that was provided sans context.GreenGoo wrote:No one is misrepresenting anything
Actually, no. This may be how you decide on which smartphone to get (and I would agree that it's a perfectly legitimate place to start). But this clearly isn't how the masses choose which smartphone to buy.GreenGoo wrote:Especially given that typical smartphone decisions are made by OS first. No one walks into your local telecom store, trying to decide between manufacturers. They walk in trying to decide between an iPhone and Android. AFTER that decision is made, they pick the hardware they want to run it on (assuming it's Android. If it's iPhone, the decision is made for you).
For those hundreds of thousands of people doing it - it's particularly relevant.GreenGoo wrote:Feel free to explain that to the hundreds of thousands of people doing it, and how they are basing their decision on irrelevant considerations.
There is arguing against that fact, because it isn't true. The data that you offered, and from which you drew that conclusion was misleading. For starters, the data you showed only includes handsets sold in that quarter, it doesn't reflect the actual install base. And even within the quarter's data, it doesn't acknowledge the fact that demand for the iPhone was suppressed in anticipation of the 4S and price drops on the older models. And the data supplied ignores upgrades (an existing Android or iPhone user upgrading to a newer Android or iPhone handset doesn't change the size of the install base).GreenGoo wrote:But there is no arguing against the fact that there are more than 3 times the number of hands holding androids than are holding iPhones.
This is also not shown in the data you provided, as it doesn't break down sales by model. The top-end Android phones don't even come close to the top end iPhones. They sell "well enough" for some manufacturers (Samsung), and are disappointing for others (HTC). But neither approach the ridiculous sales numbers of the iPhone 4S (or previously with the iPhone 4, or in the future when the iPhone 5 is released).GreenGoo wrote:Cost is obviously a factor, but the cost of top end Android phones are in the same price range as iPhones, yet they still sell well enough comparatively.
I think that you could easily make the argument that Microsoft was competing with Apple, or that Google is competing with Apple. What I'm saying is that people don't seem to realize that Apple isn't competing with Microsoft or Google. Apple is competing with Samsung, HTC, LG, HP, Dell, etc.Defiant wrote:This is like saying that Windows never competed with MacOS because (apart from recently) they didn't run on the same systems. Apple and Google are absolutely competing with each other for consumers in the cellphone market, in terms of the OS share, respective marketplaces, ad sales and so on.
Jobs disagreed:RunningMn9 wrote:
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company (with respect to their main business). Microsoft and Google are software companies.
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/1 ... early.html" target="_blankJobs said, when it comes down to it, all its products are really just software wrapped up in a beautiful box and that's why Apple competes with Microsoft.
"The big secret about Apple of course – a not so big secret maybe – is that Apple views itself as a software company and there aren’t very many software companies left," he said. "Microsoft is a software company and so we look at what they do and we think some of it’s really great and we think a little bit of it’s competitive and most of it’s not. We don’t have a belief that the Mac is going to take over 80 percent of the PC market."
That would certainly seem so, based on that interview. Although my insight comes from current and former employees, and what was given to them in terms of direction from on high. Although obviously a direct quote from Jobs trumps my sources.Defiant wrote:Jobs disagreed
I'm not sure why you think that I have been saying something other than that. OF COURSE the software that runs on the hardware is vital to it. In the eyes of Apple, it's a single product. The box doesn't exist separately from the OS, and the OS doesn't exist separately from the box. That's the point. Microsoft Windows is a thing that as a consumer, I can just go buy. Mac OS X isn't a thing that as a consumer, I can just go buy. Again, maybe we've been following different research groups over the years, but in every market share study I've ever seen on the desktop market, market share is based on PC vs. Other. Not Windows vs. Other. The reason is more obvious here, because a PC doesn't have to run Windows.Defiant wrote:But lets say for the moment that Apple is predominantly a hardware company. That doesn't mean that the software isn't vital to that - no one would have bought an apple computer without the operating system to run software on it.
Again, why are you thinking that I've objected to that? I've specifically agreed with GreenGoo on that point (for some people). AT&T isn't a cellphone company. They are a network carrier. And they are competing with other network carriers (Verizon Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.). One of the things that they can compete on is the kinds of handsets that they offer.Defiant wrote:Take a look at, say, AT&T. You might say that they're not a cellphone company, they're a cell service company. And there's a perfectly reasonable classification. But no one can deny that the cellphones it offers is very important to it being competitive - otherwise the arrangement AT&T and Apple made to give AT&T a monopoly on the iphones wouldn't have happened.
That's part of it, certainly. Although I suspect that they are constantly striving to make a better media experience with larger screens as well. Samsung has of course taken it to absurd lengths with the Note.Pyperkub wrote:RM9 - fwiw, the ever increasing size of phone is mostly due to the size of the LTE antennas. That is one of the reasons the iPhone 4s didn't come with an LTe variant (others being worldwide and AT&T LTE penetration is really small).
The Evo was too big for me, but I see the Note almost as a shirt pocket notepad replacement. Probably a perfect detective smart phone/device...RunningMn9 wrote:That's part of it, certainly. Although I suspect that they are constantly striving to make a better media experience with larger screens as well. Samsung has of course taken it to absurd lengths with the Note.Pyperkub wrote:RM9 - fwiw, the ever increasing size of phone is mostly due to the size of the LTE antennas. That is one of the reasons the iPhone 4s didn't come with an LTe variant (others being worldwide and AT&T LTE penetration is really small).
I'm sure the giant screens appeal to lots of people. They just don't appeal to me. And it just seemed for a while that every new phone that came out on the Android side was touting how much bigger the display was, culminating in the Samsung Note Super Bowl commercial which I though was crafted for me personally by the folks over at The Onion.Pyperkub wrote:The Evo was too big for me, but I see the Note almost as a shirt pocket notepad replacement. Probably a perfect detective smart phone/device...
Their fall is not starting now. They will continue to do well. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I assume they completely dominate the tablet market. Android based tablets were slow to the market, and they are only being adopted slowly, at least that's what it feels like. I'd like to see some numbers, but I'm in no rush.Pyperkub wrote:I'm not so sure. Let's see what the iPad 3 does, I kind of think it might blow the doors off of any Android Tablet out there in terms of performance and battery with the alleged screen. Even a top of the line Transformer Prime won't be able to compete with that for 6+ months, and Apple is supposed to be slightly behind the hardware curve.
Samsung's foldable displays might... if they can get to market quick enough with no durability or cost/defect issues.
Samsung is also hamstrung by their poor software. I will never buy another Samsung phone unless it's a Nexus, which is dependent on Google for the updates as it really is the Google phone.
There are certainly comparably priced phones. Your comment was that the comparably priced phones were selling comparably. Consider the Galaxy Nexus listed above. Finding reported sales figures has proven difficult, which probably isn't a good sign. However, based on some voodoo, this site estimated that there were sales of about 700,000 between the launch in November, and the beginning of January. 700k is not comparable to the over 4 million iPhone 4S handsets sold in the first weekend that it was available.GreenGoo wrote:16g iPhone 4S selling for $650 bucks (canadian) sans contract link
16g Galaxy Nexus selling for $600 bucks (canadian) sans contract. link
Both those are popular wireless providers right now. I guess I should have said comparable high end androids, as there isn't a 64g version that I'm aware of.
I noted this in my post, when referencing Samsung's own page about the Galaxy Nexus. The difference between that phone and all of it's other phones is that the Nexus is designed by Google to be the flagship Android phone. Google is directly behind that phone, and thus the mobile OS is featured much more prominently in the marketing material.GreenGoo wrote:Both sites have a listing for Galaxy Nexus, and both sites start the feature list with Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich before mentioning anything else.
I didn't accuse you of intentionally cherry-picking those results. I simply noted that the data was stale, and that there was some context there with regards to the numbers for Apple and Microsoft, which made the post misleading (because it was using old data without context to draw an incorrect conclusion about the trajectory of all three mobile operating systems).GreenGoo wrote:I did not cherry pick my Q3 results. they were sufficient to illustrate windows phone 7 lack of progress, and they were the first hit returned. Given that I identified them as Q3, I think that should be good enough for viewers at home to take that into account when I spoke.
We'll know in the middle of April I guess. They've got another launch with China Telecom on Friday.GreenGoo wrote:The last article I read saw Apple stumbling in China
Microsoft has hunkered down to relaunch their platform on the backs of Nokia, and have heavily committed their fortunes to this segment (as evidenced by redesigning their desktop OS to match their mobile platform - something that Apple is doing as well with the release of Mountain Lion).GreenGoo wrote:Not sure what any of this has to do MS falling down completely in the mobile market, but Apple seems to be a popular and occasionally controversial topic even when they aren't the subject of conversation.
That's fine, and of course we will continue to see what they are up to and how it works for them. Except they didn't just leave the starting gate and after a year have less market share than they did 2 years ago. As I've said earlier in the thread, they have to succeed in this market or they will move ever closer to being irrelevant in consumer computing. I don't believe that desktops are going to go away (at least, I hope not) but for the average person their mobile device will soon be everything they need, if it isn't already.RunningMn9 wrote:The Q4 numbers would reflect the initial results of how Microsoft is changing their strategy (incidentally, the largest change for them is to remove focus on the OS, and to instead focus on the hardware devices themselves). I would start with those numbers, and then observe the next couple of quarters to see what happens.
That's pretty much the state of the industry. It's been almost 5 months since the iPhone 4S was released, and you can reasonable expect the next one by this fall.Jaymon wrote:I hate trying something new, it makes me cranky. And I don't want a piece of over hyped garbage that will be outdated in 6 months.
I carried my iPhone 3G for 3 years before its obsolescence and inability to keep up made me upgrade. Then I dropped it in a water glass the night before I got my new one.Jaymon wrote:I am generally considered to be a smart person, and I am tech savvy, but everything about smart phones makes me hate them, hate the advertisers, hate the data plans.
I just get the sense that people are all the time upgrading their smart phones because every phone they buy gives them buyer remorse.
Desktops are not going anywhere. My desktop is where I put my laptop, my tablet, my Kindle, and my phone. I occasionally eat lunch off of my desktop.GreenGoo wrote:I don't believe that desktops are going to go away (at least, I hope not) but for the average person their mobile device will soon be everything they need, if it isn't already.
My old (dumb) cell phone finally died after 6 years -- well, not exactly, but rather than replace the battery for the third time I figured I should get a new one. I flirted reluctantly with smartphones (I think I started this thread during that time), but in the end I bought another flip phone as similar to my old one as I could find.Jaymon wrote:
So what do I do, do I keep this phone and wait for it to finally quit working, (it has no problems now except for a scratch on the screen) or do i try something new?
2 years with $99 deductible. For the accessories I needed $75 to use a $10 coupon, but I was really paying for the convenience of 1-stop shopping. Also earned some staples reward points and got 5% credit card rebate...so all of that together probably made them competitive.Kasey Chang wrote:If the $75 is for 2 years, and deductible is $50, then it's a good deal. Phone insurance generally runs for about $7-10 per MONTH.
On the other hand, you probably got gibbed for all the accessories, as they are often MUCH cheaper off Amazon or such places.