I've never got a free phone, and I don't know anybody that has.
Every person I've ever seen within an android phone, has in fact a real, proper android phone.
So stop using the free phone thing as an excuse forth enormous proliferation
of Android 3 into it's release.
If it wasn't for the iPad, Apples numbs wouldn't be anywhere as good as androids.
So you want to move the goalposts back to all android devices Vs iPhone?
Or did you want to stuck with a operating system vs operating system discussion, Android Vs. iOS as the article you are posting is about.
The iPad runs iOS, so since iOS is the same mobile OS that the iPhone and iPT run, shouldn't it be included?
Or should we exclude some android devices from the tally so your argument can be valid?
How about we exclude any android build that is altered in any way with an OEM UI alteration that brands the UX.
Vanilla Builds only?
Sounds silky doesn't it. Now you know how everyone else reacts when android fanboys have to add their own caveats to skew numbers because for some reason, they think that just because there are more droid registrations coming through network infrastructure, those users all represent the same class of consumer that Apple iDevices are targeting.
The high end android phones, whose users actively consume digital media, purchase applications and movies and music, purchase applications, are active in the android ecosystem. Those are the types of customers that this arrive is referencing, which is why I commented on why there is such a giant disparity between the number of android users and their lesser contribution to the purpose of the higher end, more capable devices, which is selling media and services that augment or replace laptops, game consoles, remote administration, televisions, dvd players etc...in certain situations. When addressing the economic impact of all android devices, I'm sure you agree that you would understand the need to compare that metric to the economic impact of all iOS devices as well.
Which is the point behind the graph above. Apple targets a different consumer class. They don't want people who can just have an iDevice. They want people who will use it to spend money on iTunes, the AppStore, in far greater amounts than on the device itself. Because they understand that alone is the largest factor behind getting developers to develop quality (albeit sometimes not so quality) applications for the AppStore. People are buying. And again, it's not because the of the sheer number of applications in the AppStore, it's because of the affluence of the customers that use the AppStore because they have a platform that makes the experience worth buying the $12.99 console class game, or the $89 tbt gps app, Buying a 9.99 movie on their iPad instead of the DVD, paying to subscribe to periodicals at higher prices than the magazine from the book store. Buying books....all of it. People spend money on post sale of the device itself...slot more money. Apple has a client base that spends way more money than android users do, despite their smaller numbers.
That is the point of this article. Market share is a great metric. If googles goal is to get a trophy for having the ability to give away or distribute android on the cheap so that more people, regardless of what they do after it gets in their hands, then they have certainly proved they can do it without the stockholders being concerned. That means they have a warchest. If that's how they define success then they are successful.
Apple is different. They want customers who will buy the high end, media and best experience that is available. Apple accomplishes this by not creating a vagrant friendly condition. They need people who will spend money after the fact, to attract vertical partnerships with application developers, media distributors, the entertainment industry....companies and individuals who know that they will get ROI developing on an iOS platform. That's how apple defines success. And they are successful.
