Android phone sales up 886%

[dwell]

Droid, Android, Google Phone. Myriad manufacturer UIs, fragmented OS versions. Android is as much of a brand as Linux is.

 

[tatteredpotato]

Droid, Android, Google Phone. Myriad manufacturer UIs, fragmented OS versions. Android is as much of a brand as Linux is.

Lol, just keep telling yourself that.

 

[dwell]

Lol, just keep telling yourself that.

Proof to counter the assertion?

 

[tatteredpotato]

Proof to counter the assertion?

Not going to waste my time buddy 😀

 

[dwell]

Not going to waste my time buddy 😀

So stopping talking shit in the first place. What was the point of your post? If you don't have any value to add, don't post.

 

[Deeko]

So stopping talking shit in the first place. What was the point of your post? If you don't have any value to add, don't post.

ironic

 

[Deeko]

Anyway, as far as brand recognition, likely much to Verizon's chagrin, the general public has come to understand all Android phones as being "droid phones", much like all versions of iPhones are "iPhones". I have friends of the non-technical female demographic (more typical iPhone customers) that have a Samsung Moment and an LG Ally, both of them refer to them as their "droid phones".

 

[dwell]

ironic

Irony is your zero content post, quoted above.

 

[Deeko]

Actually, my post was not ironic, as I was not in the act of attacking someone else for doing nothing of value but talking shit. Your post, on the other hand, was ironic because all you do is come in here and talk shit. Other than some minor factual disputes on the first page, this was a relatively tame thread until you came along with this inane blather. All you do is attack non-Apple phone manufacturers, you say things that you know add no real value to a discussion, all you want to do is spark a major flame war. Congrats, I guess, since the thread has exploded into worthlessness since then.

*I apologize to the mods for this post, but lets be serious...its very true, and this is far from the only thread where something like this has happened. I will not respond to anything else chris says in this thread.

 

[KingGheedora]

The operative wording in that article is *could* and that money they *could* make is not BECAUSE of android but BECAUSE of their advertising which is available on other platforms.

Google search is what is generating the revenue and that is available on multiple platforms. That money would have been there either way. The same could be said about subscription.

Now, the question is weather or not their mobile advertising is improving their bottom line. The answer to that question is most certainly yes.

You have to ask if the increase in advertising and subscription revenue is caused by the android platform. The answer is no.

1. Apple is being restrictive with competition on the iOS (e.g. 3rd parties not allowed to track ad performance data). So having more open platform out there ensures they will have a foothold from which to serve their traditional ad services to the mobile platform, which is growing explosively for the next few years. So the search and subscription revenue isn't necessarily there. They might have plans for apps and services down the road we haven't heard of. I could see them doing something with news that would create a profitable alternative for news media to survive, and they may get a cut.

2. Google makes between >0% and <=30% on every paid app in the App Market.

3. The article is unclear about this, but it implies that the 10 billion at least partly includes revenue from things other than search.

 

[tatteredpotato]

So stopping talking shit in the first place. What was the point of your post? If you don't have any value to add, don't post.

I disagreed with you, and supplied as much support for my argument as you did yours.

You seriously need to chill out dude.

 

[dwell]

Actually, my post was not ironic, as I was not in the act of attacking someone else for doing nothing of value but talking shit. Your post, on the other hand, was ironic because all you do is come in here and talk shit. Other than some minor factual disputes on the first page, this was a relatively tame thread until you came along with this inane blather. All you do is attack non-Apple phone manufacturers, you say things that you know add no real value to a discussion, all you want to do is spark a major flame war. Congrats, I guess, since the thread has exploded into worthlessness since then.

*I apologize to the mods for this post, but lets be serious...its very true, and this is far from the only thread where something like this has happened. I will not respond to anything else chris says in this thread.

That's bullshit. I offered a counterpoint to the marketing fluff presented in he OP.

Post #2: "Apple is doomed"

Post #17 was fodder which started a page of debate, which even you partook in.

Post #50 is flamebait as is post #51. I did not show up until post #52.

I am sick of your bullshit and whining. If you cannot debate the post, don't attack the poster. It's rule #1 in the Internet debate manual.

 

[Anubis]

post #2 was buy a troll & the stupidest person on AT

posts 50 and 51 are pretty much fact
you really should spend less time trolling for senior jobs and more time fixing bbzzdd so we have working pic to thread links again

 

[sactoking]

The iPhone/Android phenomenon is history repeating itself. Apple is a first-mover in a semi-new industry with a closed architecture product. Competing against it is a hodgepodge of second movers using a much more open shared architecture/system. We see Apple use it's first-mover advantage and innovation to jump out to a huge lead but the second movers gain ground quickly once they rally around a single system.

Did I just describe iPhone v Android or was it Macintosh v IBM/Microsoft/PC? Hell, even all of the discussion about "Android" v "Droid" is the same as the early/mid- 80's when any "personal computer" that wasn't a Macintosh was referred to as an IBM because it was an 'IBM compatible' machine.

 

[dwell]

Did I just describe iPhone v Android or was it Macintosh v IBM/Microsoft/PC? Hell, even all of the discussion about "Android" v "Droid" is the same as the early/mid- 80's when any "personal computer" that wasn't a Macintosh was referred to as an IBM because it was an 'IBM compatible' machine.

So in 2010 vs 1985 terms, if Apple = Apple and Google = Microsoft, who are RIM, Symbian, Microsoft, etc?

This has always been a flawed analogy, in that when Microsoft and Apple were battling it out, there weren't two other, already entrenched, personal computer platforms with greater market share than either.

 

[gsaldivar]

So in 2010 vs 1985 terms, if Apple = Apple and Google = Microsoft, who are RIM, Symbian, Microsoft, etc?

This has always been a flawed analogy, in that when Microsoft and Apple were battling it out, there weren't two other, already entrenched, personal computer platforms with greater market share than either.

It's not intended to be a perfect analogy, but it is a valid point. Apple cannot maintain its position as market leader with a locked-down, walled-garden, one-phone-fits-all strategy.

Yes, history is repeating itself. Unfortunately, it seems Apple is reading from the same playbook, with the same black turtleneck at the helm...

 

[QueBert]

So in 2010 vs 1985 terms, if Apple = Apple and Google = Microsoft, who are RIM, Symbian, Microsoft, etc?

This has always been a flawed analogy, in that when Microsoft and Apple were battling it out, there weren't two other, already entrenched, personal computer platforms with greater market share than either.

Sure there were, in 85 you had Atari & Commodore. Hell the Commodore 64 was hugely popular , not on IBM's level. But it was definitely a player back then. Atari was also quite popular with the 800XL

 

[dwell]

It's not intended to be a perfect analogy, but it is a valid point. Apple cannot maintain its position as market leader with a locked-down, walled-garden, one-phone-fits-all strategy.

Yes, history is repeating itself. Unfortunately, it seems Apple is reading from the same playbook, with the same black turtleneck at the helm...

A) Apple is not the market leader.

B) Android will never reach 95% market share, as was the case with Microsoft/Windows.

C) Even with a small percentage of the smartphone market (~25%), iOS would be more of a success than Mac OS. Apple is not looking to take over the world as they were with the original Macintosh computers. They just want a healthy ecosystem and they want to do it on their terms.

 

[tatteredpotato]

A) Apple is not the market leader.

B) Android will never reach 95% market share, as was the case with Microsoft/Windows.

C) Even with a small percentage of the smartphone market (~25%), iOS would be more of a success than Mac OS. Apple is not looking to take over the world as they were with the original Macintosh computers. They just want a healthy ecosystem and they want to do it on their terms.

Apple could do several things to increase the share of OSX, just as they could with the iPhone, but they pick a business model that makes them lots of money on a sizable share of the pie (20-30%). It's just the way Apple operates. Their profit on each unit is much more than MS or Google will make so they don't need to sell as many.

 

[dwell]

Apple could do several things to increase the share of OSX, just as they could with the iPhone, but they pick a business model that makes them lots of money on a sizable share of the pie (20-30%). It's just the way Apple operates. Their profit on each unit is much more than MS or Google will make so they don't need to sell as many.

Exactly. People like to equate market share to points in a sporting event. Just because you have the most points, does not mean you "won".

 

[JD50]

Exactly. People like to equate market share to points in a sporting event. Just because you have the most points, does not mean you "won".

Then why do you constantly gloat about iOS being installed on more devices? Why do you constantly gloat about "Android needing an army of phones to compete with the iphone? Etc....

 

[darkdemyze]

I just recently joined the Android army (Jan) with the release of Google's Nexus One and I wouldn't switch to Apple unless paid a handsome wage in order to do so 😉

 

[Patranus]

Then why do you constantly gloat about iOS being installed on more devices? Why do you constantly gloat about "Android needing an army of phones to compete with the iphone? Etc....

The goal isn't about installations rather the amount of revenue generated.

At this point in time it is clear that Apples business model is the winner.

 

[zerocool84]

The goal isn't about installations rather the amount of revenue generated.

At this point in time it is clear that Apples business model is the winner.

I think you're missing his point. All you Apple fans say that since there's more iPhones out there, it's a better product, since there are more iPods out there, it's a better product which we obviously know is not true.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I think you're missing his point. All you Apple fans say that since there's more iPhones out there, it's a better product, since there are more iPods out there, it's a better product which we obviously know is not true.

the funny thing is that Android is really the anti iPhone. A lot of the whiners are the ones on Verizon. I mean granted you see AT&T people complaining, but in the rest of the world, the whole Android vs iPhone thing isnt as big. I feel as if its blown up because the US uses exclusivity, doesn't use unlocked phones, etc etc. CDMA vs GSM.

It seems like every point Android scores is one the iPhone fanbois lash back at, and every step the iPhone trips on generates a bunch of jeering oooooohs from the Android crowd.

You could look at Android as a full competing OS but while it's also partially acting as the Anti-Apple camp, I sometimes don't think it still can pull that fight off too well. The bottom line is 65-70&#37; of the cell market is NOT on AT&T. And of the 30&#37; that is on AT&T, how many are willing to deal with the iPhone and its contract. I think Apple does quite well for being in such a limited market.

How many people of the 65-70 (PERCENT) get an Android phone because they feel its better than the iPhone? How many get an Android phone because that's all that there is on their network? How many people switched to AT&T for the iPhone? How many Verizon people would get an iPhone if it came to their network? See, there are so many variables right now this isn't even a fair comparison.

I feel as if phone sales and OS marketshare is completely fucked up in the US. It's not a true representation of marketshare. It's a representation of how the networks split up their OS allocations and who gets what subsidized phones.

The MP3 player market is totally different.

Here's a better picture. What if all the Android phones were available on every carrier, and what if the iPhone were available on every US carrier. How would you think the numbers would look?