Apple Sneaks by Android in Fourth Quarter U.S. Smartphone Sales

[samcraig]

He did say something similar before. I remember it because I replied to him arguing it was a ludicrous notion.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1305968/


In other words when the sales are merely great, it's because Apple "core" buyers who keep buying Apple products whereas Android is getting all these new customers. When Apple succeeds in an unprecedented fashion, it's "expected" that a company would succeed like that because, you know, adding a new carrier automatically boosts sale, even though the very same poster said Apple's mostly getting old Apple iPhone buyers instead of getting new customers.

Apple just cannot win with some people on this forum.

No - I think you missed his point. I *think* he was saying that ATT users upgrade to another iPhone. "So basically the carriers have built up a core iPhone user group that they can depend on to keep buying for themselves and their family."

But prior to last year - Verizon had no CORE iPhone users. So it was an "open" market so to speak once they started offering it.

But I won't speak for kdarling. I'm only interpreting it the way I read his comments.

 

[voonyx]

I do respect kdarling for being a gentleman and usually making reasonable arguments. However as you've said, he's one of many here who is definitely slanted against the grain and be a contrarian whenever possible.

If the anti-Apple crowds here were more to be about the potential strategic pitfall of Apple without trying to resort to making overreaching arguments on how Apple isn't really all that successful.

Also if they really want to have a "neutral" conversation, why aren't they doing it on other non-Apple centric sites? If it's only to have the attention of Apple enthusiasts, that's in a good part trolling.

Absolutely. I'm not attacking his personality or saying he posts maliciously, but there are inherent flaws in his arguments and contradictions that are obvious to anyone who actually looks past the fancy words and the niceness.

The bias is there, and the only people who don't see that are the ones who are just as biased as him.

 

[BaldiMac]

"Technically" speaking - they could have broken their contract and switched to ATT. Or they could have had a 2nd phone.

But how realistic/practical is that. I would say EXTREMELY slim. And only for the extreme die-hards who couldn't possibly wait. But if they were that die-hard, I am sure they switched before the 4S anyway.

AT&T customers were under contracts as well. They couldn't get a subsidized iPhone until their contracts were up either. Customers were not any more limited in their ability to purchase an iPhone if they were on Verizon or Sprint then if they were on AT&T, outside of whatever percentage did not have AT&T coverage.

 

[KnightWRX]

If the anti-Apple crowds here

Why does this always come back ? Why do people that aren't 100% positive about Apple always have to be painted as "anti-apple". You know, between 100 and 0 there are 99 other integer numbers.

 

[DeathChill]

Why does this always come back ? Why do people that aren't 100% positive about Apple always have to be painted as "anti-apple". You know, between 100 and 0 there are 99 other integer numbers.

I don't see him saying that, but it's very clear that there are people here who are anti-Apple and only post negative things.

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't see him saying that, but it's very clear that there are people here who are anti-Apple and only post negative things.

kdarling not being one of them. And they are discussion that particular poster. In fact, I find kdarling is quite leveled and rarely goes into positive/negative, he mostly goes into fact/history about the industry as a whole.

 

[voonyx]

kdarling not being one of them. And they are discussion that particular poster. In fact, I find kdarling is quite leveled and rarely goes into positive/negative, he mostly goes into fact/history about the industry as a whole.

...and he also contradicts himself as proven here already. let's be real.

 

[rhett7660]

And really, it is the "victim" who's at fault. iOS is not more secure, it's secured differently. Apple have their human reviewers but Google implemented something different since they do not have a vetting process and the market is more open :

http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/security/security.html#permissions



So basically when you install an app, it'll tell you what permissions this app is requesting if it's not something allowed by the app signature (the signature permissions are for app to app exchanges, basically, a developer requesting acccess to data inside another one of their apps) or by the user explicitly. Also note the text about it not nagging the user. You only need to tell that Note taking app once that you do not allow it to send data over the Internet or to poll your location.

So Android and iOS both have mechanisms in place that secure them from malware posing as legitimate applications. The problem is users are made responsible on Android and some of them just are too conditioned to click YES on everything, the same reason that malware managed to spread on OS X.

Nagging? I am not nagged every time an app wants to access the internet or poll my location. Was this just a general statement about both os's or one in particular?

Why does this always come back ? Why do people that aren't 100% positive about Apple always have to be painted as "anti-apple". You know, between 100 and 0 there are 99 other integer numbers.

Come on Knight, you can't be that naive. There are a few here who are not even 50% positive. The majority of the time there posts are anti-apple and heck even some have sold off all their apple gear and yet still come here to post crap about OSX, iOS and like. Come on now. Really.

 

[DeathChill]

kdarling not being one of them. And they are discussion that particular poster. In fact, I find kdarling is quite leveled and rarely goes into positive/negative, he mostly goes into fact/history about the industry as a whole.

Really? kdarling does not do it in the same fashion as most of the other anti-Apple crowd, but he is most definitely negative about Apple and more supportive of its competitors.

 

[voonyx]

Nagging? I am not nagged every time an app wants to access the internet or poll my location. Was this just a general statement about both os's or one in particular?

You're clearly not smart enough to understand why a mobile game requires full internet access and phone state. Silliness, right?

 

[samcraig]

AT&T customers were under contracts as well. They couldn't get a subsidized iPhone until their contracts were up either. Customers were not any more limited in their ability to purchase an iPhone if they were on Verizon or Sprint then if they were on AT&T, outside of whatever percentage did not have AT&T coverage.

ATT has often offered early upgrades to existing customers. Especially in regards to the iPhone. And the iPhone has been available on ATT since 2007. 1-2 years from that is 2009. 1-2 years from that is 2011. That means that ATT customers - even IN contract could have easily upgraded.

Could Verizon/Sprint users have switched carriers in the interim all those years - yes. And I am sure many did. Just as I am sure that MANY did not because they had good discounts, better plans, rest of their family/friends were on that network - whatever. IE - the iPhone (alone) wasn't reason to switch. Which is why they waited.

So yes - we can talk all day about how technically - they could have gotten an iPhone just like we can say technically everyone in the WORLD could have gotten an iPhone (unlocked and used on whatever GSM carrier they wanted) - but in the real world - it didn't/doesn't work that way.

If selling the iPhone on different carriers didn't open up new markets for Apple or have a benefit - then why do it. If everyone CAN get an iPhone on ATT (in the US) - why sign up other carriers. The reason and logic is clear.

 

[KnightWRX]

Nagging? I am not nagged every time an app wants to access the internet or poll my location. Was this just a general statement about both os's or one in particular?

It's a statement about how I hate nag boxes like UAC, iOS's "This app wants to know your location!" and would hate having to hit YES/NO combos everytime I launched an app if I owned an Android phone and Google had implemented it differently.

Asking once is perfectly fine.

 

[samcraig]

...and he also contradicts himself as proven here already. let's be real.

Just because you say something, doesn't make it a fact. But keep on trying.

 

[rhett7660]

You're clearly not smart enough to understand why a mobile game requires full internet access and phone state. Silliness, right?

Sarcasm? Pretty hard to tell on a forum.

----------

It's a statement about how I hate nag boxes like UAC, iOS's "This app wants to know your location!" and would hate having to hit YES/NO combos everytime I launched an app if I owned an Android phone and Google had implemented it differently.

Asking once is perfectly fine.

Which is why I asked,,,,,, Thank you.

 

[KnightWRX]

Really? kdarling does not do it in the same fashion as most of the other anti-Apple crowd, but he is most definitely negative about Apple and more supportive of its competitors.

See, you just did exactly what I was posting about. If a guy isn't "positive", he's "anti-apple". Being objective does not make you "pro" or "anti" anything, it makes you objective.

The problem with this forum is that with a few posters being so overly positive, anyone trying to correct their factual errors is seen in a negative light because they have to support the counter argument. Really, because I correct someone's factual error about Android/Google/Motorola/Nokia/RIM/Microsoft or whoever does not make me anti-Apple or and pro whatever.

It's like saying people are communists because they don't agree with extreme right wing agendas. No, you can be a right winger, but just not in line with extreme ring wing ideas. There are shades of grey, numbers between 100 and 0, etc.. etc..

I don't know why this constantly has to be discussed. Calling anyone a fan or hater is just idiotic.

 

[BaldiMac]

iPhone Drives AT&T's Record-Smashing Quarter for Smartphone Sales with 7.6 Million Activations

Seems like that would bust the theory that the iPhones growth in the US was predictable because of more carriers theory.

4Q 2010: 4.1 million iPhone activations
4Q 2011: 7.6 million iPhone activations

 

[voonyx]

iPhone Drives AT&T's Record-Smashing Quarter for Smartphone Sales with 7.6 Million Activations

Seems like that would bust the theory that the iPhones growth in the US was predictable because of more carriers theory.

4Q 2010: 4.1 million iPhone activations
4Q 2011: 7.6 million iPhone activations

It's cuz they opened up their market to 210M more people thereby doubling their market but Apple has a core group of people who keep buying it so new sales are from existing customers (kdarling's words)...contradiction? yes.

Sarcasm? Pretty hard to tell on a forum.

Yep I was being sarcastic. People shouldn't have to wonder why a mobile game needs full network access. Blaming the victim is ridiculous.

 

[dgree03]

iPhone Drives AT&T's Record-Smashing Quarter for Smartphone Sales with 7.6 Million Activations

Seems like that would bust the theory that the iPhones growth in the US was predictable because of more carriers theory.

4Q 2010: 4.1 million iPhone activations
4Q 2011: 7.6 million iPhone activations

Impressive indeed, I still think a better measure would be how many of those 4.1 or 7.6 were already iPhone owners? This has nothing to do with profitability, but more to do with marketshare.

 

[samcraig]

iPhone Drives AT&T's Record-Smashing Quarter for Smartphone Sales with 7.6 Million Activations

Seems like that would bust the theory that the iPhones growth in the US was predictable because of more carriers theory.

4Q 2010: 4.1 million iPhone activations
4Q 2011: 7.6 million iPhone activations

No it doesn't. ATT is just one piece of the pie. All this says is that ATT sold a bunch of iPhones. It doesn't say if it's new customers or existing.

For someone who usually is so careful about their semantics and fact gathering - you seem to be making some leaps with this one.

 

[rhett7660]

Snip....


Yep I was being sarcastic. People shouldn't have to wonder why a mobile game needs full network access. Blaming the victim is ridiculous.

LOL... kind of had a feeling..

 

[DeathChill]

See, you just did exactly what I was posting about. If a guy isn't "positive", he's "anti-apple". Being objective does not make you "pro" or "anti" anything, it makes you objective.

Where do you see me saying that? I said he is always negative about Apple, which is NOT being objective.

When I saw this thread I knew exactly which posters would come in here and marginalize/'negatize' it. I don't think I'm psychic so I'm going I assume that there may just be something to it.

EDIT: Here's a post I made awhile ago, which I think makes my point a bit clearer:

I don't know if you hang out in different threads than I do, but there are tons of anti-Apple posters here. I 100% agree that valid criticisms should be discussed here, but there are MANY posters who come here to only say negative things about Apple. That is not constructive and is not meant to foster discussion. I think part of the issue is that single comments by these people don't seem that bad, but when placed into their posting history it's always the same thing.

I'm also not sure why this meme is repeated that if we didn't have these anti-Apple people the place would suddenly turn into an Apple love fest. I see plenty of discussion going on about Apple and it's products from both viewpoints before the "trolls" come in. I think it's hilarious that because a forum dedicated to a company and it's products obviously has some fanatic members that somehow every member who doesn't consistently say negative things about Apple is labeled a fanboy.

I also want to point out that having negative opinions about some things related to Apple doesn't make you a troll; having only negative things to say about Apple does. A good example of this is KnightWRX: he often criticizes Apple (sometimes wrongly, I feel) but the man is open to discussion and I've seen plenty of positive posts by him as well. He actually has an interest in Apple and just may not like every aspect of it but the people that most members complain about ONLY post negative things.

Excuse any errors, I typed it on my phone as quickly as I could!

 

[voonyx]

Where do you see me saying that? I said he is always negative about Apple, which is NOT being objective.

When I saw this thread I knew exactly which posters would come in here and marginalize/'negatize' it. I don't think I'm psychic so I'm going I assume that there may just be something to it.

Damn...and here I was thinking I was psychic!

 

[samcraig]

Where do you see me saying that? I said he is always negative about Apple, which is NOT being objective.

When I saw this thread I knew exactly which posters would come in here and marginalize/'negatize' it. I don't think I'm psychic so I'm going I assume that there may just be something to it.

I don't think it's marginalizing anything myself. Apple had a kick but quarter/year and has continued it's unparallelled success. Pointing out that increasing carriers was going to naturally increase sales is obvious. The fact that some people are arguing this point, to me, seems ludicrous.

Do some people really believe that this quarter's boom in sales has NOTHING to do with the fact that the iPhone was available on more carriers? To be that's putting your head in the sand.

 

[DeathChill]

I don't think it's marginalizing anything myself. Apple had a kick but quarter/year and has continued it's unparallelled success. Pointing out that increasing carriers was going to naturally increase sales is obvious. The fact that some people are arguing this point, to me, seems ludicrous.

Do some people really believe that this quarter's boom in sales has NOTHING to do with the fact that the iPhone was available on more carriers? To be that's putting your head in the sand.

Oh no I definitely agree that opening up to more carriers is going to increase sales. I am not involved in that discussion because I think that is pretty obvious.

 

[voonyx]

Oh no I definitely agree that opening up to more carriers is going to increase sales. I am not involved in that discussion because I think that is pretty obvious.

The actual discussion is whether opening up to more carriers leads to "expecting" a doubling of your share. Is that obvious?