That's a version of the chart I was looking for! Thanks! There was another version that actually broke down HTC Android vs HTC WinMo at least.
B
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Motorola Xoom Tablet Sales: Approximately 100,000 Units So Far?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's a version of the chart I was looking for! Thanks! There was another version that actually broke down HTC Android vs HTC WinMo at least.
B
Yeah, plenty more. Unless you need apps, of course. But man, it's awesome that it has bluetooth file transfer!
When the G1 launched iphone had way more apps, and I'm sure all the mac nerds laughed at the low numbers sold vs iphone. Look at where we're now?
The same reasons why android is the dominant phone OS will be the same reasons why it will be the dominant tablet OS. This time around it will be even faster for android to displace iOS.
Where we're at now:
Still more iOS apps available, with iOS making MUCH more money for developers
iOS still on more devices than Android.
iPhone still outsells any Android phone.
And looking at phones is the wrong example to use for tablets. Most people think it's much closer to the mp3 / portable audio market. We know how that turned out.
Refer back to the chart dsnort linked to a few posts above. Apple still eats EVERYONE's lunch in terms of the dollars they rake in. Whether you count it per phone or in aggregate.
Oh yeah. They'll make it up in volume. http://www.hulu.com/watch/4258/saturday-night-live-first-citywide-change-bank-1
B
Why would I care if developers make more money on iOS? as long as they make apps that's all I care about.
Amusing how you point out iOS is on more devices, but then at the same time you say iphone outsells any single android phone. Cut the BS, there are more android phones than iphones.
Most people think tablets are closer to MP3 players than smartphones? GTFOH
What I dont get is why so many people here like to brag about how apple is making so much more money selling iphones than everyone else. Do you guys feel proud that a very rich corporation is getting even richer by charging people more for the same exact hardware that other companies are selling?
How are iPhones / iPad exactly like everyone else's hardware? That's like saying all cars are the same thing. Also seems like Apple has better prices that the competition that's trying to copy them. Go figure.
I'm delighted Apple's sold 20+ million iPads, that means it's not just a niche product and will have huge number of folks developing apps for years to come.
Android is a fragmented mess, that doesn't help anybody.
I wonder if they feel the same way about their power and cable companies? Would they rather pay more for their new car so that the dealer and manufacturer made a healthy profit? How about health insurance premiums? Auto insurance, etc?
What do you think motivates them to develop apps?
And what does that mean, at all? It's a totally useless fact. The only things that matter are OS penetration (for developer base and user network effect) and best selling handset (for recognizability and "gotta have" factor). Apple wins on both counts. Users don't care that the HTC phone they have and the Motorola phone that their friend has are on the same OS. Why should they? And developers don't care that by taking a subset of devices, you can skew it to have Android in the lead. Why should they?
Most people think tablets are closer to MP3 players than smartphones? GTFOH
So, you've proven you don't really know what you're talking about. Without the externalities of carriers and contracts, yes, the tablet MARKET is much closer to the MP3 player MARKET.
High end smartphones all use the same commodity parts. The only thing different is the casing. As another poster helpfully pointed out, apple sells more phones than any single other manufacturer, so their BOM should be lower per phone. But does apple pass that savings on to the consumer? Absolutely not.
Who are you kidding. A device that costs $500+ that does less than a $300 netbook will always be niche. ipads are toys for the rich.
Why do you care? Do you own an android phone? I'd bet that for the people that do, most of them don't really care about fragmentation.
Money. And since there are lots of apps for android obviously they are making money. If they make a lot more for any particular OS, why should I care? As long as they are making apps thats all that matters. So bringing up that developers make more money on iOS is meaningless to the end user.
wtf are you serious? The best reasons you can come up with for why "best selling handset" (and OS penetration) should be one of the only 2 metrics that should be considered is "recognizability" and "gotta have factor"? rofl. Only sheeple care about that.
The only reason you even want to measure iOS "devices" instead of the proper smartphone OS comparison is that it suits your argument now. Should we toss in android powered ebook readers and TVs too if we're doing an OS comparison? LOL
lol that's like the saying if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Last edited:
Most people think tablets are closer to MP3 players than smartphones? GTFOH
It is amusing that some Android people like to call the iPad just a large iPod touch when they are trying to make flippant comments, while you are now claiming that the iPad is closer to a smartphone. Splitting hairs, I know, but it just seems that when people want to be negative they say whatever they feel gives them the advantage, regardless if it is true.
Additionally, I believe that Google does in fact now have more devices with Android OS than Apple has products with it's OS. Or it is really close. Android is simply on so many Phones, with so many carriers, this should be the way it is. But, realize that Apples iPhone department alone, brings in more cash-flow than all of Google combined! That is an amazing stat.
As for the iPad vs android tablet debate. No one knows for sure what will happen here. Will enough companies be able to create tablets with Android on them that actually have enough people buying them to stay in the market, or will each OEM give it a go, lose a ton of money and shut down their tablet departments, ie iPod wars all over again?
I do think that at least one company will get it right and be able to compete with the iPad, but it won't be until Google gets Honeyomb out of the Beta stage.
And there is no real point in resorting to profanity or making disparaging remarks against people on a bbs. Not everyone here cares about or wants to hear about Google products. I don't mind since I am in the process of buying my first Android phone, but not everyone is in my position.
The point is quite the opposite. Reporting the profits and revenues for each serves to show that the sheeple/fanboys saying that Android is winning something don't understand the business models.
The extra profitability comes from the different business model. Larger volume with a single design leads to lower production costs. Apple also benefits from having established direct to customer distribution channels fewer middlemen = more cash.
The PS3/Xbox 360/Wii "war" is a similar one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(seventh_generation)Of the three, the Wii was the only one that made Nintendo money on the hardware from the get go. One can argue the superior technical merits of the other two platforms and sales numbers, but it has to be understood that Nintendo was operating under a completely different set of assumptions and business model than the other two players. With the Wii, you basically have a choice of the color of the enclosure, with the others you have several other feature choices. Of the three platforms, the Wii has had a common feature set since the device was introduced, and has only seen a single price drop. The others have had feature changes case changes, etc... Which do you think is cheaper to manage from a business point of view? If you were a business, would you rather be Nintendo/Apple or one of their competitors
Should Apple ever decide to use their huge horde of money to buy their way into a market (like Microsoft wrapping the first Xboxes in $100 bills) they can, but they have demonstrated that they can do so, like Nintendo, without doing so.
B
Except corporate profit and revenue doesn't really matter to us consumers. In a sense, it's a sign that Apple is gouging the consumer, using marketing to push some kind of perception of value that isn't there and riding a wave of hype into the consumer's hand.
The simple fact is, Apple has the widdest margins in the industry, they could charge less and still come out on top, benefiting the consumer. All showing these profit graphs does is remind us of this fact. Unless you're a shareholder, profit as a metric of success is meaningless.
Anyway, the point is moot. No one is "winning". There doesn't need to be a winner and a loser. Steve himself said it best : "Microsoft doesn't need to lose for Apple to win". This applies to every field in the industry. There's enough room for everyone to win in their own way.
I agree with your last point, and this is essentially what I have been saying.
The Android folks saying "Android is winning" and "Android dominance is inevitable" are measuring only one thing: number of units. It should be clear that, while Apple has recently come to dominate several market segments, they still know how to make money (lots of it) no matter how many or few (relatively) of something they sell.
Profitability certainly does matter, indirectly. Companies that are profitable are the ones who can take risks and innovate, they are also stable and are more likely to be around to support your product throughout its lifespan.
B
Except that we are talking about the subsidized smartphone market. Apple isn't "gouging" consumers. The iPhone costs most consumers the same as any other high end smartphone. If anything, Apple is "gouging" the carriers.
This is the real answer to the original question of the day. Profitability does matter to consumers, especially considering the reality of vendor lock in.
And that's not just consumer->OEM/OS lock-in, but also OEM->OS Provider vendor.
It has been oft-rumored that HTC is actively developing their own smartphone OS. If they do, do you think they will continue to support their Android and WP7 phones as actively as they do now? Is that good for the consumers who buy their phones now?
What about all of Nokia's Symbian users?
B
Remember the "I want an iPhone 4" vs the HTC EVO Flash video?
Turns out the customer was no fool and the salesman was misinformed (the HTC won't turn into a jet let alone fly you to an island)
Turns out the customer was no fool and the salesman was misinformed (the HTC won't turn into a jet let alone fly you to an island)
And the point that the Apple folks (if you really want to polarize this argument has an "us vs them" debate, which it is not, a lot of Android users are also Apple users, something I refuse to get into) don't get is that number of units and "market share dominance" is an important factor. Relevance of the platform is what is being fought about.
When the Mac had a piddly market share in the late 90s, early 00s, it lost a lot of developer mindshare which resulted in the platform not getting the software titles it needed to remain relevant. The Linux desktop suffers from the same fate.
Eventually, the numbers game does matter, especially to a consumer. Do you buy the compatible option that is everywhere and has the most support or do you buy the niche platform ?
For now, iOS is more widespread than Android as far as accessories and apps goes. Will that remain true always ? Maybe, maybe not.
Except Apple has a tendency to hoard cash and quickly EOL everything, making both your points here quite moot in their case.
I don't know either, but I think Apple's headstart and their retail presence (at least in the US) counts for a lot in making sure they will not be relegated to a niche player. And even then, Apple know how to dominate a profitable niche. Like the $1000+ computer market in the US.
Grandma (and there's more Grandma's than l33t g33ks) can drop by the Apple Store for help and training on using her iDevices. Where can she get that same level of service with an Android device?
I see folks bringing in their PPC Macs for repair to the Apple Store frequently. My iPhone 3G hasn't suddenly turned into a doorstop and my 2006 iMac is still keeping up with the latest OS and software. They certainly don't feel like they are at the end of their life. I can't remember any PC I've owned having a longer useful life than my 2006 iMac.
As I've said before Apple's cash hoard allows them to make strategic buys of companies, supply chain items, IP, etc... For all you know they're saving their pennies for a major acquisition. If they feel like dropping $B+ on supply deals for displays, flash memory, and other critical components that will keep their suppliers happy, keep competitors out of the market, and keep their margin high that's not hoarding cash or gouging customers, that's just good business.
B
If that is the point of the market share comparison, than at some point the differences between Android, the OS endorsed by Google, and Android, the open-source project have to be quantified. If reports of "Chinese variants" and such are true, and if the numbers are significant, then they should be separated from the overall Android market share since that are not part of the same platform.
Sure it hasn't. You know what, my ColecoVision system hasn't either, it still plays Donkey Kong and Montezuma's Revenge like the day I bought it.
Doesn't mean it hasn't been EOL'ed though.
The iPhone 3G only got iOS 4.0 in version field only, it got none of the actual important features of iOS 4.0. It was essentially EOL'ed at 3.1. I fear the 3GS might not see 5.0.
Code:
$ cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -i -e name -e MHz -e vendor
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
model name : Pentium II (Deschutes)
cpu MHz : 334.078Doesn't mean it hasn't been EOL'ed though.
I don't feel any more ripped off than the Android folks who are unable to upgrade to Froyo or Gingerbread on their phones.
Not my fault you're a glutton for punishment.
Until recently I had a P150 that worked, but had been reclassed from my main desktop to an Ubuntu server box. I realized I could get better performance from a VM (or even a pogoplug) and recycled it. Your box also seems to be running Unix. Not quite what I meant by useful life for a consumer's computer.
B
Proves my point, your argument that Apple's better profits enable them to support products longer is moot in the light that they don't support them any longer than the less profitable Android device vendors. So their "profit" share being bigger in this instance doesn't matter to normal consumers.
Your box also seems to be running Unix. Not quite what I meant by useful life for a consumer's computer.
Wait, OS X is useful and it is Unix... I don't quite get what you're trying to say here.
And I am a consumer and that box is critical to my home network (while it used to double as my desktop, it simply doesn't run X11 anymore and just does what I've always done with it : run the HTTP/DB/DNS/DHCP servers, quite splendidly too).
While it may be more powerful if ran in a VM on a proper host system, I don't quite know where I could run this VM as this is my only floor system (aside from a Sun Ultra 5 I retired last year). And while I do have a QNAP NAS that could technically double as a home server, the OS on it is too limited for my taste (yes, it runs Linux, but the distribution it uses doesn't give you the freedom of a true PC) and it has much less RAM.