Over 10% of U.S. Mobile Phone Users Now on an iPhone

[D4F]

And, they want to do so even at the expense of the user (for the sake of even more profits). This is my main beef with this company. I dont want to ONLY have Apple products, and i dont ONLY want to communicate with others that do. Hopefully, with Jobs out of the picture, this crazy mentality will slowly fade away.

You got alternatives so I wouldn't worry. Problem will begin once other messengers will get booted out of app store (doubtful but who knows).
I mean just look at blackberry. They were always so closed and it was working... to a point.
With cross platform you always have a way to move. In closed system you're stuck within those walls. Sometimes might be too late to start new foundations or rebuild existing ones.

 

[slinky199]

No, it means Google has a big spatula to spread their crap around to OEMs. Anyone can sell on universal licensing + volume + price.

Just look at ZTE and Huawei. *gag*

(and ZTE commands a big share of the Android market)

Oh, so you're saying you were wrong before, and that innovation is cannot be measured by sales, or is that a double standard you apply only to anything touched by the hand of Jobs?

 

[*LTD*]

Oh, so you're saying you were wrong before, and that innovation is cannot be measured by sales, or is that a double standard you apply only to anything touched by the hand of Jobs?

It depends why and how the sales are happening.

A horizontally integrated platform in which a universally-licensed OS is spread out to everyone who can slam together a box, will experience substantial sales for reasons far different than a vertically integrated platform that is highly differentiated, vetted, comparatively more expensive, with a closed-licensing model where the focus is on differentiation and User Experience (and not pushing massive volume on price.)

You can certainly measure innovation by sales, but if you don't understand your measure (sales) then you'll come to wrong conclusions.

Apple can sell 100 units and Google can sell 100 units via x-number of OEMs. They both sold 100 units. However, there are vastly different forces at work here.

What's happening with Google/Android is your typical OEM-based horizontal business model at work. Virtually any OEM, provided they push enough volume, can outsell Apple by sheer force of numbers and nothing more. And these OEMs *combined* - even if they're ZTE or Huawei, can pinch off and push out even more.

At one point Nokia far outsold Apple with all manner of flotsam and jetsam - a lot of it essentially low-end commodity-ware. It's quite something else, however, to gain the share Apple has with essentially one or two models that run an unlicensed OS. That one phone had better be amazing, and the numbers bear out that it is.

Not all forms of "success" are equal. Google/Android's is rather weak in comparison to Apple's. OEMs pushing volume is nothing to really boast about.

Look at PCs today. Then look at Macs today.

Anyone can pimp out an OS to OEMS and sell tons of $400 eMachines. But what is the consumer actually getting?

We know what they're getting with a Mac, though. Each and every time.

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/20/...secutive-time/

Similarly, look at Android phone sales vs. iPhone sales. Certainly, Android manufacturers combined and even some of them on their own far outsell Apple, especially given that even some of them on their own have a portfolio of 40+ devices, some of them decent, some of them total junk.

I wouldn't wish a ZTE Blade on anyone, but ZTE actually commands a large portion of Android share. ZTE far outsells Apple. Impressive? Not really.

Because here is what is *actually* happening - here is where the rubber meets the road:

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/0...rankings-of-smartphone-consumer-satisfaction/

http://cdn.macnn.com/news/1110/androidfragmentation-lg1.jpg

An unweeded garden is an unweeded garden, no matter how large. And it will show, one way or the other.

So getting back to your question: yes, you can certainly measure innovation by sales, but not all sales are created equal. Understand the measure you are using.

 

[slinky199]

It depends why and how the sales are happening.

A horizontally integrated platform in which a universally-licensed OS is spread out to everyone who can slam together a box, will experience substantial sales for reasons far different than a vertically integrated platform that is highly differentiated, vetted, comparatively more expensive, with a closed-licensing model where the focus is on differentiation and User Experience (and not pushing massive volume on price.)

You can certainly measure innovation by sales, but if you don't understand your measure (sales) then you'll come to wrong conclusions.

Apple can sell 100 units and Google can sell 100 units via x-number of OEMs. They both sold 100 units. However, there are vastly different forces at work here.

What's happening with Google/Android is your typical OEM-based horizontal business model at work. Virtually any OEM, provided they push enough volume, can outsell Apple by sheer force of numbers and nothing more. And these OEMs *combined* - even if they're ZTE or Huawei, can pinch off and push out even more.

At one point Nokia far outsold Apple with all manner of flotsam and jetsam - a lot of it essentially low-end commodity-ware. It's quite something else, however, to gain the share Apple has with essentially one or two models that run an unlicensed OS. That one phone had better be amazing, and the numbers bear out that it is.

Not all forms of "success" are equal. Google/Android's is rather weak in comparison to Apple's. OEMs pushing volume is nothing to really boast about.

Look at PCs today. Then look at Macs today.

Anyone can pimp out an OS to OEMS and sell tons of $400 eMachines. But what is the consumer actually getting?

We know what they're getting with a Mac, though. Each and every time.

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/20/...secutive-time/

Similarly, look at Android phone sales vs. iPhone sales. Certainly, Android manufacturers combined and even some of them on their own far outsell Apple, especially given that even some of them on their own have a portfolio of 40+ devices, some of them decent, some of them total junk.

I wouldn't wish a ZTE Blade on anyone, but ZTE actually commands a large portion of Android share. ZTE far outsells Apple. Impressive? Not really.

Because here is what is *actually* happening - here is where the rubber meets the road:

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/0...rankings-of-smartphone-consumer-satisfaction/

http://cdn.macnn.com/news/1110/androidfragmentation-lg1.jpg

An unweeded garden is an unweeded garden, no matter how large. And it will show, one way or the other.

So getting back to your question: yes, you can certainly measure innovation by sales, but not all sales are created equal. Understand the measure you are using.

So...sales are a necessary but not sufficient result of innovation?

So...Lisa, NeXT and Newton are not innovative because they don't even satisfy necessary conditions, right?

 

[*LTD*]

So...sales are a necessary but not sufficient result of innovation?

Perfect!

So...Lisa, NeXT and Newton are not innovative because they don't even satisfy necessary conditions, right?

There are ways to completely stymie innovation, such as pricing the product way out of the market, bringing a product to market that is way ahead of its time (no one really understands until years later, i.e., the "Blade Runner Effect"), or innovation that falls into highly incapable hands (e.g., WebOS at Palm and HP.)

 

[samcraig]

Perfect!


There are ways to completely stymie innovation, such as pricing the product way out of the market, bringing a product to market that is way ahead of its time (no one really understands until years later, i.e., the "Blade Runner Effect"), or innovation that falls into highly incapable hands (e.g., WebOS at Palm and HP.)

So what we've learned here is that it's innovation of LTD determines it to be so and he is free to change his definition at will. Got it.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

So what we've learned here is that it's innovation of LTD determines it to be so and he is free to change his definition at will. Got it.

No you got it wrong.

The defintions of innovation according to LTD is very simple. It is innovating if and only if Apple does it or Apple buys it up.
Everything else is either stealing or it sucks and therefor not innovating.

It is as simple as that. Apple label = good (and it could be dog crap but if it has an Apple logo on it then it is good)

Everything else sucks.

 

[miggitymac]

It depends why and how the sales are happening.

A horizontally integrated platform in which a universally-licensed OS is spread out to everyone who can slam together a box, will experience substantial sales for reasons far different than a vertically integrated platform that is highly differentiated, vetted, comparatively more expensive, with a closed-licensing model where the focus is on differentiation and User Experience (and not pushing massive volume on price.)

You can certainly measure innovation by sales, but if you don't understand your measure (sales) then you'll come to wrong conclusions.

Apple can sell 100 units and Google can sell 100 units via x-number of OEMs. They both sold 100 units. However, there are vastly different forces at work here.

What's happening with Google/Android is your typical OEM-based horizontal business model at work. Virtually any OEM, provided they push enough volume, can outsell Apple by sheer force of numbers and nothing more. And these OEMs *combined* - even if they're ZTE or Huawei, can pinch off and push out even more.

At one point Nokia far outsold Apple with all manner of flotsam and jetsam - a lot of it essentially low-end commodity-ware. It's quite something else, however, to gain the share Apple has with essentially one or two models that run an unlicensed OS. That one phone had better be amazing, and the numbers bear out that it is.

Not all forms of "success" are equal. Google/Android's is rather weak in comparison to Apple's. OEMs pushing volume is nothing to really boast about.

Look at PCs today. Then look at Macs today.

Anyone can pimp out an OS to OEMS and sell tons of $400 eMachines. But what is the consumer actually getting?

We know what they're getting with a Mac, though. Each and every time.

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/20/...secutive-time/

Similarly, look at Android phone sales vs. iPhone sales. Certainly, Android manufacturers combined and even some of them on their own far outsell Apple, especially given that even some of them on their own have a portfolio of 40+ devices, some of them decent, some of them total junk.

I wouldn't wish a ZTE Blade on anyone, but ZTE actually commands a large portion of Android share. ZTE far outsells Apple. Impressive? Not really.

Because here is what is *actually* happening - here is where the rubber meets the road:

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/0...rankings-of-smartphone-consumer-satisfaction/

http://cdn.macnn.com/news/1110/androidfragmentation-lg1.jpg

An unweeded garden is an unweeded garden, no matter how large. And it will show, one way or the other.

So getting back to your question: yes, you can certainly measure innovation by sales, but not all sales are created equal. Understand the measure you are using.

Nice theory but the reality of what's happening is that both Google and Apple have one goal: to satisfy their shareholders by making a profit. Apple does it with unmatched marketing which is why so many owners of Apple products feel cool or special, sometimes even superior...the result of owning an "exclusive" brand product. Google does it by being non-exclusive via licensing arrangements. Sure, that means their target market is larger than Apple's, but it doesn't explain how/why Android outsells and outlicences other companies that try to follow the same model (i.e. every company other than Apple).

Just face it, iOS and Android are two different beasts, and they're both successful and innovative in their own right. To think Android's success is due to the fact that it's widely available is oversimplifying the situation.

And to suggest that the majority of the Android marketshare are using less-than-satisfactory hardware is a contradiction...if people weren't satisfied with their hardware, then there's no way Android would have the marketshare that it does. Generally, people buy the highest-quality products they can find that also fit within their budgets...for the majority of people, those products carry Android, not iOS. And yes, in reality, volume does matter.

Apple has 5 models of the iPhone and now the 3GS is free with a contract. Will that boost their marketshare? Sure. But will it get them to almost 50% marketshare like Android? Not so sure. Why not? Because even though you and others feel Apple products are superior, some people, maybe even the majority of people, prefer Android. <gasp!>

 

[vrDrew]

Sales and innovation are totally independent concepts.

There is nothing "innovative" about a Hostess Twinkie (they are pretty much the same as when they were invented in 1930) and yet they sell billions of the things. And plenty of very real innovations never get sold at all.

You need to stop conflating the two.

Sales are sometimes a byproduct of an innovative product's introduction: the "innovation" of key airliners and broadcast television led to the growth of the broadcasting and air travel industries.

Yes - the Newton and Lisa were, for their time "innovative" products, that didn't sell very well. The Segway was/is another example of a truly innovative product that hasn't sold a lot.

Claiming that Android's large market share proves its "innovativeness" is a logical non-sequitur.

 

[miggitymac]

Sales and innovation are totally independent concepts.

There is nothing "innovative" about a Hostess Twinkie (they are pretty much the same as when they were invented in 1930) and yet they sell billions of the things. And plenty of very real innovations never get sold at all.

You need to stop conflating the two.

Sales are sometimes a byproduct of an innovative product's introduction: the "innovation" of key airliners and broadcast television led to the growth of the broadcasting and air travel industries.

Yes - the Newton and Lisa were, for their time "innovative" products, that didn't sell very well. The Segway was/is another example of a truly innovative product that hasn't sold a lot.

Claiming that Android's large market share proves its "innovativeness" is a logical non-sequitur.

Well said. True innovation has nothing to do with sales.

People are confusing innovation with marketing that labels things as innovative. Steve Jobs was a master at convincing people that the two concepts were the same.

 

[slinky199]

Perfect!

Oh, I see! So Lisa, NeXT and Newton are definitely not innovative.

There are ways to completely stymie innovation, such as pricing the product way out of the market, bringing a product to market that is way ahead of its time (no one really understands until years later, i.e., the "Blade Runner Effect"), or innovation that falls into highly incapable hands (e.g., WebOS at Palm and HP.)

Um...so now you're saying Lisa, NeXT and Newton are just ahead of it's time?

So, you're shooting your own foot?

Which one is it?
1. Sales are necessary to be innovative, or
2. Lisa, NeXT and Newton innovative and sales are irrelevant to innovation?

Simple question, no need to WARGBLRRRRRR again.

 

[*LTD*]

Oh, I see! So Lisa, NeXT and Newton are definitely not innovative.



Um...so now you're saying Lisa, NeXT and Newton are just ahead of it's time?

So, you're shooting your own foot?

Which one is it?
1. Sales are necessary to be innovative, or
2. Lisa, NeXT and Newton innovative and sales are irrelevant to innovation?

Neither.

You're getting tangled up in absolutes.

Take Lisa, NeXT and Newton out of the equation, since they're just creating confusion, and instead deal with the Apple/Android comparisons above.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Neither.

You're getting tangled up in absolutes.

Take Lisa, NeXT and Newton out of the equation, since they're just creating confusion, and instead deal with the Apple/Android comparisons above.

No they need to stay in. They are in there to prove a point and that is your entire concept of innovation n has massive flaws in it. They prove that you twist facts big time so you can keep living in your Reality distortion field.

Par as normal when someone percents an argument that complete derails your point you completely avoid it

 

[Deedlez]

I'm pretty sure that Apple will be happy to keep this kind of percentage, assuming they also keep the percentage of overall profits in the mobile sector as reported elsewhere.

The tablet sector, however, they seem very keen to use everything at their disposal to keep as their own with the iPad. Not that anyone has yet to really compete with them so far - interesting to see if the Amazon Fire will be a proper competitor, or just another notch on Apple's list of Android tablets crushed by the iPad.

 

[slinky199]

Neither.

You're getting tangled up in absolutes.

Take Lisa, NeXT and Newton out of the equation, since they're just creating confusion, and instead deal with the Apple/Android comparisons above.

So...your definition of innovative only applies to Apple and Android, and even at that, when Android sales are dominating, their sales don't signify innovation? So in the end, sales don't signify innovation, even though you initially said they do?

WHU?

 

[*LTD*]

So...your definition of innovative only applies to Apple and Android, and even at that, when Android sales are dominating, their sales don't signify innovation?

No, they're signifying a market flooded with scads of phones at all price points, using a universally licensed-OS. It's just OEMs pushing volume. What about ZTE and Huawei is innovative? LOL

http://www.digitimes.com/Reports/Report.asp?datepublish=2011/4/18&pages=RS&seq=400

ZTE's share shot up by a massive 57.9 percent recently, putting the company into fourth place. And they're known for their ********* products.

The market for junk is vast. Don't underestimate the power of corner-cutting and low-end volume pushing to increase share. This is typical of OEM box-makers.

 

[Michael Scrip]

No, they're signifying a market flooded with scads of phones at all price points, using a universally licensed-OS. It's just OEMs pushing volume. What about ZTE and Huawei is innovative? LOL

http://www.digitimes.com/Reports/Report.asp?datepublish=2011/4/18&pages=RS&seq=400

ZTE's share shot up by a massive 57.9 percent recently, putting the company into fourth place. And they're known for their ********* products.

The market for junk is vast. Don't underestimate the power of corner-cutting and low-end volume pushing to increase share. This is typical of OEM box-makers.

It's kinda the same as HP, Dell and Acer dominating PC sales... but their products tend to be junk.

But... they must not be too bad... since people keep buying them.

Conundrum...

 

[slinky199]

No, they're signifying a market flooded with scads of phones at all price points, using a universally licensed-OS. It's just OEMs pushing volume. What about ZTE and Huawei is innovative? LOL

http://www.digitimes.com/Reports/Report.asp?datepublish=2011/4/18&pages=RS&seq=400

ZTE's share shot up by a massive 57.9 percent recently, putting the company into fourth place. And they're known for their ********* products.

The market for junk is vast. Don't underestimate the power of corner-cutting and low-end volume pushing to increase share. This is typical of OEM box-makers.

So sales ARE irrelevant and it's actually decoupled from innovation?

 

[starvingartist8]

I bet a lot of the android % is users who hate apple without actually using apple just like the computer war. I bet more than half the haters would gladly switch to iOS having used it for more than 5 minutes in an Apple store just like os x.

I find most haters hate without reason. They have just been told to hate it by their friends / family much like how a religion works. Poor souls who are easily manipulated.

Open minded ftw

----------

It's kinda the same as HP, Dell and Acer dominating PC sales... but their products tend to be junk.

But... they must not be too bad... since people keep buying them.

Conundrum...

read above

A lot of it is due to pricing. For me I would rather pay a bit extra to get a quality build (Glass, Aluminium) than plastic and also I prefer os x to windows.

 

[slinky199]

I bet a lot of the android % is users who hate apple without actually using apple just like the computer war. I bet more than half the haters would gladly switch to iOS having used it for more than 5 minutes in an Apple store just like os x.

I find most haters hate without reason. They have just been told to hate it by their friends / family much like how a religion works. Poor souls who are easily manipulated.

Open minded ftw

----------



read above

I bet a lot of the apple % is users who hate android without actually using android just like the computer war. I bet more than half the haters would gladly switch to android having used it for more than 5 minutes just like windows 7.

I find most haters hate without reason. They have just been told to hate it by their friends / family much like how a religion works. Poor souls who are easily manipulated.

Open minded ftw

 

[thenerdal]

I bet a lot of the apple % is users who hate android without actually using android just like the computer war. I bet more than half the haters would gladly switch to android having used it for more than 5 minutes just like windows 7.

I find most haters hate without reason. They have just been told to hate it by their friends / family much like how a religion works. Poor souls who are easily manipulated.

Open minded ftw

I agree with this.

 

[kdarling]

Wow, one out of ten US cell phone subscribers uses some model of old or new iPhone?

It's reminiscent of when the RAZR was the hot phone to own.

That's over 30 million iPhones in use. Wonder how that's broken down between carriers?

 

[*LTD*]

Innovation.

http://www.neowin.net/news/htc-announces-which-devices-to-get-ice-cream-sandwich

https://www.facebook.com/notes/htc-...d-40-updates-for-htc-handsets/300698153293006

HTC announces which devices to get Ice Cream Sandwich

After less than a year you can forget about your device running the latest Android version. Of course, you can root your device and run some unsupported ROM. Unreal.

Apple supports their devices for around three years. THAT is value.

 

[samcraig]

Innovation.

http://www.neowin.net/news/htc-announces-which-devices-to-get-ice-cream-sandwich

https://www.facebook.com/notes/htc-...d-40-updates-for-htc-handsets/300698153293006

HTC announces which devices to get Ice Cream Sandwich

After less than a year you can forget about your device running the latest Android version. Of course, you can root your device and run some unsupported ROM. Unreal.

Apple supports their devices for around three years. THAT is value.

Depends on what you mean by supports. Yes - Apple releases a new OS version and it's available for most devices but clearly all the features are not. Of course these are hardware limitations.

Android works its best (from what I understand) to support as many devices as it can and is also hardware based. The difference being - there are far more models and far more hardware differences since there are different manufacturers. It's not as easy to come out with one new OS that will work seamlessly with some devices.

Personally I don't see what the big deal is - most people who care about OS upgrades are also more likely to get a new phone every 2 years - so legacy beyond that isn't even an issue. The people who own phones for years and years, in my experience, are people who rarely (if ever) even upgrade their OS at all.

"Of course, you can root your device and run some unsupported ROM. Unreal."

Yeah - kind of like how the jailbreak community is figuring out how to get Siri on the iPhone 4. Unreal!

 

[D4F]

Innovation.

http://www.neowin.net/news/htc-announces-which-devices-to-get-ice-cream-sandwich

https://www.facebook.com/notes/htc-...d-40-updates-for-htc-handsets/300698153293006

HTC announces which devices to get Ice Cream Sandwich

After less than a year you can forget about your device running the latest Android version. Of course, you can root your device and run some unsupported ROM. Unreal.

Apple supports their devices for around three years. THAT is value.

They stated first wave. Do you know what that means?

And obviously since you wrote (red part)... Where's Siri for my iP4?