Thought I read this. Apple kind of holds its cards close to the vest, but that figure HAS to be getting their attention. Sure it is over lots of forms, but that is a BIG number.
Without a reputable source I would not believe it either.
The source is Google themselves at their earnings call yesterday.
Are they not reputable enough?
I was fortunate enough to be at the Formula 1 British Grand Prix this past weekend, along with about 100,000 others each day. By far the most common manufacturer of handset I saw in use there was HTC. Both Google and HTC are doing very well in the UK right now.
A lot of people I know use pay as you go, and I doubt many people want to pay the £510 it costs for iPhone when you can get a decent HTC Wildfire or Orange San Francisco for about £100.
Would that be new phones being activated? Or including reactivating 2nd hand phones? Never quite understood this.
It's the first activation of a phone or tablet that has Google services (usually built-in Maps, GMail, etc).
Most of those inexpensive Asian phones, tablets and other devices are not being counted, as they have no Google activation process.
So the real number being sold is higher by an unknown amount.
I find it hard to believe that Google isn't reporting every Android phone in that number.
You know what's an even bigger number?
Apple's share of the smartphone industry profits.
That's a lot of phones though.
"What effect has Android's "ascendancy" had on Google so far? The first mass-market Android phone, the HTC Dream, was released on October 22, 2008. On that day, Google's stock was $355.67 per share, and its market cap at the beginning of September 2008 was $125.94 billion. Today, Google's stock is $525.10 per share, 148 percent more than before the first Android handset hit the market. That's a respectable increase, but nowhere near the massive rise in Apple's stock. Google's market cap now stands at $171.31 billion; Apple's market cap has grown by over $200 billion since it introduced the iPhone, but Google's has only grown by $45 billion since the first Android phone hit the market. Again, $45 billion is nothing to sneeze at, but it's sure not $200 billion... and since Google's only pulling in $1 billion in revenue per year from Android, it doesn't look like it's had much positive impact on Google's stock at all".
"Here's a couple of forehead-slapping "duh" points these guys are overlooking. First, "Android" isn't a company the way Google is a company. Android is a software platform, like Windows is a software platform. That leads into the second point: Google doesn't charge for Android like Microsoft charges for Windows. Google's profits from Android come from ad revenue, carrier licensing for Google-branded proprietary apps (Maps, Gmail, Market, etc.), Android Market fees and other sources -- but not sales of its smartphone OS. The people who really stand to make money off of Android are the smartphone vendors, and they're all competing not just with Apple, but with one another. Not to mention non-Android and non-iOS players like RIM and Windows Phone makers. And all the unsmart phones out there.
"Analysts like to treat Android like it's a single entity so that they can make impressive pie charts where Android looks like Pac-Man gobbling up iOS, but once you split that up by manufacturer, the story looks a lot different. It's virtually the same story as the PC market; Apple's share of the PC market looks trifling indeed when you compare it against Windows-running PCs as a whole, but when you break it down by each PC manufacturer, Apple definitely more than holds its own. When you break it down by profitability, the contest isn't even close; Apple owns 90 percent of the "high-end" PC market."
Why not, it worked so well for Microsoft. 90% marketshare, profits through the roof. Why not emulate a process that worked so well.Google pulling an MS in the market is hardly impressive. Correction: it's very impressive in terms of sheer force of numbers. When you look at what's behind those numbers, however, things become a little too clear.
Why not, it worked so well for Microsoft.
Exceedingly well, look at their profits (in the billions) and stock price. Many CEOs would sell their souls to have what MS has, in terms of stock price, cash on hand, profits.Has it really?
Specifically what has declined with Microsoft?MS has been in decline for years. Largely because of their universal licensing racket. Thanks to their attention to that model they're absolutely lost in the markets that actually matter now.
Exceedingly well, look at their profits (in the billions) and stock price. Many CEOs would sell their souls to have what MS has, in terms of stick price, cash on hand, profits.
Specifically what has declined with Microsoft?
In fact, it probably includes any phone made by anyone that has some sort of touchscreen tech on it.
I think that the number (500,000) might be how many Android devices are being sold to carriers/outright. But not how many are actually being sold to customers.
Just a thought. From an Android user. Since 500,000 a day seems like a heck of a lot of phones. In a month, that's 15 million...
Has it really?
Someone once asked me whether I'd like to see MS fail completely.
I told them I'd never wish for that, because they make Apple look so damn good without Apple having to really do anything.
Yes, MS has the old-school PeeCee market majority share . . . along with zero prestige and negative mindshare piled up so high that you need wings to stay above it. This is what happens when you license universally. You end up ruling the bargain-bin.
MS has been in decline for years. Largely because of their universal licensing racket. Thanks to their attention to that model they're absolutely lost in the markets that actually matter now.
So no, it hasn't worked well for them in the long term - not when they're embarrassed year after year by a smaller, leaner, more efficient rival whose R&D budget is but a mere fraction of MS'.