1857 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Re: @AC 28th August 2013 14:07 but Apple will probably wait ..
So what makes that different to any other company? I have an mp3 player that's great. I prefer Windows and the Linux distribution's looks to OS X "big row of icons" fisher-price appearance - but really this is a matter of opinion. If you mean in the past, then classic MacOS started off as a horrendous black and white affair.
Colour of computers is also a matter of opinion - I prefer platforms therefore that let me choose from a large range of computers, rather than one that limits me to "gray". It also seems an odd criticism, considering how tacky the light up fridge magnet logo looks like.
PDAs, smartphones, media players were all "tablets", that were light to use. The ones which were heavy were full blown PCs, which the ipad is not. We do now have such full blown PCs in tablet form, but it's not from Apple.
The iphone wasn't a smartphone, or even a feature phone, since it didn't run apps. I've found Symbian, Android, and feature phones all easy to use. "Sexy" is not a word I personally use for hardware - again you are appealing to opinion. I've loved the look of entirely black devices from Nokia and Samsung. Better than something covered in a noticable corporate logo, which doesn't scream "sexy" to me.
"if they were rubbish they would not sell the amounts they do"
But hang on - you base your argument on the competition being rubbish, and Apple being the first to produce something better. But how do you explain the amounts sold for Windows, or how many other smartphones were being sold in 2007 by Nokia etc?
Re: but Apple will probably wait ..
"Touch-screen smartphones and proper tablets (not just a computer stuck in a touchscreen unit)? Siri? iTunes?"
Touch-screen - nope (though if you said multitouch, you'd be right). They didn't popularise it either (the most successful smartphone of all time is from 2009, and a touchscreen - it wasn't made by Apple, but by Nokia).
Proper tablets - by which you mean smartphones rather than computers in a touchscreen. Well, they already existed for years - most notably, smartphones. There were also "media players" which had larger screens and did Internet, videos, apps (including ones that run Android in 2009). In the early 2000s, we had PDAs. Tablets that weren't "computers in a touchscreen unit" existed for years, we just called them by a different name, and originally, "tablet PC" was only used for PCs. That's not being first, that's playing with dictionary definitions.
Siri? A trademark for voice recognition that existed for years on other platforms. And even Siri itself wasn't invented by Apple, but bought out.
Yes, they were first to market with itunes, that's because itunes is an Apple product, just like Nokia were first to market with Lumia phones, or MS are first to market with Windows.
"Someone selling a few mp3s online doesn't really count"
Aha, here we have it - Apple were first, except for those who did it before them. If we can discount those who sell less, then we can discount the early iphones, as Apple sold far less phones than several other companies. We can discount MacOS's GUI, as Windows sold far more. And we can discount ipads, when Android tablets are now starting to sell far more. We can also discount the first ipod as it sold poorly compared to the competition (it wasn't until they added support for Windows that it started to sell better).
"And a fully touch-screen phone is /was a pretty bold move."
Not as bold as those doing it in the previous year.
Re: What's interesting
It's worth noting that Apple have been doing cheaper lower end models for years - the older iphone models. The other day, I saw phones4U advertising ancient iphone 4s (that's 4s, not 4Ss) at £15/month, for example. And this article talks about using a "4S innards", so it's going to be lower spec too.
If there are people who want to "finally" get an iphone, they can already do so. You could probably pick an original iphone out the trash, but quite why anyone would want such an ancient dumb phone in 2013 is beyond me.
So launching a lower end model doesn't change anything. It might mean they can better optimise things that are aimed at a lower end from the start, but the flipside is that it no longer appears to the fools who think they're getting a "high end" phone, because it's a cut down ("cheap plastic"!) model from the start.
"So they will pay twice as much as for a Nexus 4"
On that note, interesting to see the massive price cut on the already excellent value Nexus 4. Just £160 for the 8GB model.
Re: Better than "Designed in California" but "Made in China"
I agree - given that Android and WP are from US companies, most smartphones could be said to be "Designed in the USA" anyway.
What completely loses me though is them running the "Designed in California" on UK TV - why should most UK viewers favour a US product over an Asian one, I wonder (given that's where most the competing electronics companies are - or where they want us to think they're "designed"). In the US, it's appealing to protectionism, but to the UK, it's appealing to racism.
"Nobody is forced to use touch, but so many of the design decisions were clearly biased towards touch."
Such as? Honest question. I find it works fine. I can understand some people don't like the new start screen, but that's got nothing to do with touch (and can easily be changed with a free utility). The full screen apps are optional - you can carry on running your old Windows apps same as before. I hated the Windows XP start menu, but I didn't go around claiming it was made for touch, or Windows was therefore a flop. I don't think everything's perfect - there are criticisms are made. But I fail to fathom how it's unusable without touch, or that the diferences were made from touch in the first place.
Some things are done with a right mouse click on the start screen - how does that work with touch? Indeed one of the biggest complains, lack of a start button, makes no sense with touch either - how do I hover my finger over a hotspot? I assume there are different ways to do these operations with a touchscreen. Normally you'd expect a UI made for touch to be requiring buttons, not getting rid of them!
"like the iPhone changed mobiles"
No, it didn't. It couldn't even run apps. It wasn't first with a touchscreen. Did it popularise them? Nope, the most successful smartphone of all time is the 2009 Nokia 5230, with 150 million sales, compared to a few million for the 2007 iphone 1. It had a touchscreen. By platform, Symbian and later Android did far more to popularise touchscreens to the masses.
"In 10 years time maybe we'll all be seeing Windows 8 as a glorious failure that was before its time, but I doubt it."
With 100 million sales, it's already a runaway success, whatever one thinks of it. It's painful how people insist it's a flop - yet the original iphone was regarded as a runaway success with a mere one million sales in 76 days!
The Surface sales don't seem unreasonable either (again compare to the first iphone, or how do they compare to many Android tablets, or the Nexus line of phones until the Nexus 4?) - the mistake seems to have been to make far too many of them. Same with advertising - there's vastly more marketing for Apple than anyone else (e.g., product placement in virtually every US TV show, and also in plenty of adverts). One has to endure an Applevert multiple times a day, compared to an MS advert every few weeks. If there was a mistake, it was getting ripped off if they spent so much money, for so little resultant marketing that I've seen.
And actually, if Windows XP is anything to go by, ironically it will be the Windows critics themselves spinning Windows 8 as a glorious success, claiming how wonderful it is, and that MS are now doomed because of their horrible new Windows 10...
Re: Hang on, what?
Quite - and the Lumia 520 the article compares it to as being better is £80 on PAYG, hardly comparable to a £340 phone! There are far cheaper Android phones also, I wouldn't put this one in that category.
For other comparisons made, I'm not sure I'd miss a webcam in an £80 phone. I've not used a phone for video calling since they started appearing in even feature phones 8 or more years ago. I'm not sure many people use this, outside of Apple-product-placement-ads in TV trying to make it appear that people actually use it...
Then the article jumps to listing the iphone 5 as one of the top line of phones, without mention of it being a "small-screen" iphone 5... (not to mention the still on sale iphone 4S and 4 - at much higher prices than a Lumia 520 - are even smaller displays).
Re: What all this proves is that you can’t get a £550 phone for £350
An iphone has SD card and OTG?
Re: Would you buy...
More like, i add functionality by some third party unsupported hack, then complain because it stops working. Would you blame the car company, or the one who based their product on an unofficial unsupported hack?
If you want the product based on its sdk support, the sensible buyer advice is to wait until the sdk is released. Making a judgement now either way makes no sense. And for ppl who don't care, the functionality advertised by Google hasn't been broken, so your analogy is invalid.
Re: Removal of features
Quite, the only ones promising the functionality were those apps, and they are the ones ppl should be annoyed at for offering functionality that then disappears. Was this using the official 3rd party sdk? I thought that hadn't been released yet. As a developer, i wouldn't expect to base something on an unsupported api, then go crying when my app breaks.
I hope they do add the official sdk, with local streaming. But even without any such support, it still seems a bargain for what it does now.
It's annoying, though most TVs on sale today already play local content, and there are plenty of other solutions for that. But the streaming functionality, and mirroring displays, is less easy, and at $35 I'd buy it just for that. It does mean it won't kill off smart tvs, but it was stupid to claim that in the first page.
Does it matter?
120,000 applications is still 120,000. I guess there's a risk if this one developer decides to stop making applications, but it doesn't make the applications worthless. And how does this compare to other platforms - are there single companies cranking out huge numbers of applications there too?
That some applications are low quality or pointless is a problem with all platforms, and the whole idea of "number of applications" is pretty useless as a measure of software quality, and is really just used by people trying to claim their platform is better (just look at how Apple fans for years insisted fewer numbers of applications on Mac OS didn't matter, yet then claimed the raw number of apps was the single most important statistic ever when it came to iphones - yet have now gone quiet again, now that Android has won the race to a million apps...)
That's what I mean by "the vast majority of mobile devices" :) There are also older Nokia phones around that didn't charge on micro USB, but it's still a standard that the majority of the market is now on.
Although yes, it sadly wouldn't surprise me if a factor is idiots who think that Apple are a majority of the market, or only want to cater to the minority of Apple users (like the car that someone mentioned elsewhere in these comments, or the ridiculous number of alarm clock radios that provide charging only for the minority of Apple phones).
It is sad to see things go like this with wireless charging, as you say. I'm sure I recall a few years ago a story that the EU was going to force phone manufacturers to standardise if they didn't do it themselves - why aren't they jumping on Apple to do this, I wonder...
How many coffee shops and pubs currently offer electrical sockets (or USB) for people to charge things? True, there's less convenicence as people have to bring the charger, but it would still be an advantage, yet it seems most places aren't keen to give people power. The only place I really see plugs is on trains, and even then, it's not available on many services. So we have something that's long been a standard, yet little interest in providing sockets for people.
Or what about micro USB? This would charge the vast majority of mobile devices. Perhaps not as elegant as just putting a device on a pad, you'd have to hook it up to the cord, but again, it's an established standard, something available today, and this time has the convenience of not having to bring your charger or a cord. If coffee shops and pubs are so eager, why haven't they already do this? Are there technical or cost reasons why wireless pads would be different?
I agree it's a good thing to get more online - though I can't help struggle to work out what part Zuckerberg says he or his company are going to do. I mean, companies like Nokia have done huge amounts of work in getting communication and online access to over a billion people around the world over the years with low cost devices, usually for very little recognition by the press who'd rather focus on the latest flashy expensive device from a US company. By comparison, this looks like some high-school essay on Why I Think It Would Be Good For More People To Be Online, but doesn't actually say anything other than they'll make the site use less data (good - but nothing notable, and they've got a long way to go to get back to the simplicity that most sites manage).
Here's my high school essay: Stop trying to force everyone into a walled garden, where I have to be on Facebook to be able to do things online.
Re: Competition is a wonderful thing
"Are you aware that Intel have a history of paying market-leading customers to use their chips rather than the competition's?"
But the original claim included "And then there is still the issue of unit price - Intel being way more expensive than ARM", so which is it - is it more expensive than ARM, or less so?
Yes, it may be that it's only less expensive because Intel are currently subsidising it; it may be that Intel have higher prices for some customers and lower prices for "market-leading" ones; but that's fair game for Intel to do - the point is, we're looking at it from the point of view of those market-leading customers. I don't see how you can simultaneously claim Samsung are better off with ARM because it's cheaper, whilst saying they only use Intel because, er, it's cheaper. The alleged wrongdoing of Intel you reference is more about collusion and antitrust issues (which perhaps would apply far less in a market where they aren't dominant?) - in principle, if a company says "Our TVs cost £1000 but we'll pay you £500 to buy one" is no different to "Our TV costs £500"; the issue is more dodgy deals and collusion to limit competition.
I can accept that maybe Intel are only getting somewhere in mobile because of offering a lower cost to companies, but they can't then be criticised for being more expensive.
So now that we've established the price issue isn't true, how does performance compare? Again, an honest question - I've long wanted to see benchmarks comparing Intel to ARM on CPU and GPU, but I've so far only found charts that compare within each family. I realise benchmarks can be misleading, but is there any attempt to come up with a rule of thumb for comparing? (E.g., it's possible to have a rough idea of how Intel and AMD CPUs compare, or how Intel, AMD and NVIDIA GPUs compare.) That I'll probably get voted down for merely asking the question rather than given evidence doesn't gives me even less confidence on these claims...
Re: Competition is a wonderful thing
It's common to see the assumption thrown about here that Intel on mobile is uncompetitive, slow, expensive etc. But honest question - why are we seeing Android tablets now based on Intel, including flagships like the Samsung Galaxy Tab 3?
Unlike a Windows (or Linux or OS X) device, there's no reason to do so from a compatibility point of view, on the contrary, it's a slight downside as some Android applications won't run on Intel.
Re: The new iPod
The first ipod *was* a flop. It was only when they added Windows support in later generations it became more popular. Don't make the common fallacy of conflating a single product (which was what "ipod", "iphone" etc originally referred to, and what critics would therefore be talking about).
Most the time though, "success" or "flop" is simply how the media spin the figures - one million in 76 days was hailed a runaway success for the 2007 iphone (and the Nokia 5230's 150 million sales gets ignored), whilst the Surface or the first Lumia sells millions and gets labelled a flop.
I suspect, like most of the products of Apple, MS and other companies, it'll neither be a flop or runaway success, but get normal sales comparable to products by multinationals.
Re: Doesn't surprise me
If you don't like Samsung's software, get a Nexus device.
Re: And more "smart" people use Samsung
"No, just because there has been a survey you disagree with, it isn't then OK to re-interpret (and misinterpret) the data based on a secondary source. You're just making it up."
Which source did I misinterpret, and what did I make up?
It is true that if we look just at the US market, Samsung don't have 2x share as Apple - but then, a US-only survey isn't representative at all of the worldwide market in the first place.
"The reality is Apple iPhone buyers are on average, higher educated, more engaged with their smartphones, have higher disposable income, are prepared to spend more money through their smartphones"
I and others have already pointed out how the "on average" statements like these are flawed on numerous counts. And I don't really care if other people are more willing to spend money - it's zero factor in terms of what phone I want to buy; it's also of no relevance as to deciding which platform is best.
"the reason a higher proportion of older people are buying Samsung is because a large proportion of Android devices are being bought by older people who don't give a hoot about Smartphones but are buying them because the prices have now reached price points previously occupied by feature phones."
Firstly Samsung sell well even on their high end priced models alone (as does Android as a whole). Secondly, Apple's sales are made up of lower priced models - the older models that are still on sale.
The fact that "feature" phones are now marketed as "smart" phones is a reason why the market for "smart" phones has increased, but that applies to Apple just as much as anyone else. Once an original iphone cost a ridiculous amount (even though it wasn't even a feature phone, due to lack of apps), now and iphone 4 or especially 3GS can be bought much more cheaply.
I don't even know what "give a hoot about Smartphones" means, how you could measure it, why it matters, nor any evidence that it applies less to Apple?
"Surveys left right and centre are showing users prefer iPhone."
It shows that iphone users prefer them. The fact that some people are more fanatical or less critical doesn't make a product better.
"The logical result of these dynamics is that as various markets mature we will see more of what is now occurring in the US occurring elsewhere. Android in decline."
Wake me up when it happens. We've had 6 years now of predictions of iphone domination, and it's failed. Failed against Symbian, failed against Android. We're still waiting.
Because it's entry level (and the microSD slot still allows a maximum storage of 80GB even on the base 16GB model, higher than any iphone). If you want 32GB built in, go and buy that version.
I don't know how cheap Samsung get the materials for. But so - it's proven that Apple have the highest profit margins, which by definition means the component cost is lower compared to the sale price. Yet oddly, Apple fans spin that as a positive for Apple too! Which is it - do you want more expensive components, or the company taking higher profit margins?
S4 sales are massive - the only negative aspect is that some "experts" claimed they'd be even higher.
And more "smart" people use Samsung
Indeed, the same problem also applies to the one about education. The article reports:
Degree: Samsung 50%, Apple 60%
No degree: Samsung 50%, Apple 40%
Except in absolute numbers, there are more people with a degree buying Samsung. The flaw is that the percentages are done by company, when they should be done by education status. At 2x Samsung sales (and that's just their Android phones), it works out to:
Degree: Samsung 62.5% Apple 37.5%
No degree: Samsung 71.4% Apple 28.6%
So actually among educated people, Samsung is still massively preferred - it's just that these misleading stats penalise Samsung because they do even better selling to non-educated people.
Terrible reporting. And why should we waste time trying to report these convoluted stats anyway? We can just look at the hard facts of sales data, and see that Android continues to dominate, and Samsung has further extended their massive lead over Apple.
Another problem is only looking at Samsung and Apple. Let's consider if in a year, 50% of customers move from A to B, 50% from B to C, and 50% from C to A, the market is stable - but if we look at just A and B, it looks like B is much better than A!
Re: Smart or Featurephone
But what is the difference between a feature and smart phone? I'd say there isn't one - it's just marketing. Even "dumb phone" is meaningless these days, in an age when even a £20 phone can come with Internet, apps and a QWERTY keyboard.
I don't see why HTML5 or Java makes something a "feature" phone - Android uses Java and its own VM, after all. A certain phone couldn't even run applications at all, making it more a dumb phone, but was marketed as a smartphone...
Re: 256 MB RAM? Luxury!
Actually MS has been moving away from the "fisher price" style of Windows XP (or OS X, come to that) - Windows 7 seems nicer imo, though still flashy. Meanwhile, Windows 8 has done away with the fancy partially-transparent windows altogether, and goes for a much more simpler and functional look for the windows and GUI.
"as apposed to Android which can install anything it likes."
Not true at all, by default things are limited to Google Play.
And never mind the theory, how does practice compare? All claimed instances of Android malware have been on sites other than Google Play, so there is no evidence that IOS's method is more secure. But we do have plenty of examples of how Apple have used the power to block all kinds of applications that people might find useful.
Nokia Store has checks too - and as much as I loved Symbian, I have to say that as a user and developer, I much prefer the straightforward method of Android and Google Play, compared to the laborious and restrictive checks of someone else telling you what you can release for the platform.
Re: @Simon Barker
"But even rabid Apple haters have to admit that the first iPhone was superior to any smartphone that came before it"
No, it wasn't. Nothing to do with hate or not, just a fact - to claim otherwise is opinion. The first iphone wasn't a smartphone anyway - it wasn't even a feature phone, due to inability to run apps. Whatever things the iphone did better, there are plenty more features that other phones did better. The idea that a phone that can't even do apps, has no 3G, and a shitty resolution, was good, let alone better than anything else, is laughable. Judging by the sales, I'm not the only one who thought that about the 2007 iphone - individual Nokia phones and smartphones massively outsold it.
TV interfaces are mainly limited either by slower CPUs (which is something that will improve gradually with time), or the limitations of using a remote control. It's already possible to use smartphones/tablets to improve the experience with existing TVs. Chromecast makes this even easier.
What's left for Apple to do? I love how Apple fans now play the game of asserting that Apple have something better up their sleeve, even when we have no idea what it is. Perhaps we should wait for the new AmigaTV?
Re: Given a choice
And those people were right - the earlier iphones did sell crap, with other manufacturers continuing to sell far more. It's only after many years that Apple have managed to build their sales up, by which point they're no longer a "company that has never sold one before" (and even now, they've never gone beyond 3rd place).
The idea that Apple had massive overnight success in the phone market in 2007 is a myth.
64GB phone (e.g., S4) plus 64GB microSD - 128GB phones are already available today. And probably far cheaper than who knows how much Apple will charge for the 128GB option. I imagine 128GB microSD will be available soon too.
"Since Apple is in charge of both hardware and OS design,"
A common claim for their phones and computers, but it doesn't make sense. The hardware is manufactured by companies like Intel and Samsung. True, they have a hand in it, but Samsung also have a hand in their OS design (since Android is Open Source, and they build their own OS around it). Apple may have more control over their OS, but Samsung have more control over their hardware, which they make themselves.
Re: re: Evil
No, it's consumers who "die" and lose out by it.
If company A does something wrong, I'm not sure that makes it okay for company B to do it. If the former was criticised, the latter should be too. In both cases, consumers lose out.
"Unlike Microsoft, who can arguably be called evil (there is evidence), and who constantly produce c**p and have been doing so for decades (I know because I had/have to suffer their abominations), Google seem to make best/better products and services than are out there"
I'm not sure the debate about how much you like their products or not (which is very much opinion, personally I like and use products from both companies) has anything to do with how "evil" they supposedly are.
It's an interesting point - why don't Google just support WP themselves? It can't be because of wanting to keep things to Android, as now they're happily giving away all sorts of features to the minority of IOS users. It can't be market share either, as they also happily support Mac users (Mac market share on PC platforms is not that much higher than WP market share on phones).
One wonders if they fear WP more in the long term, because they know that IOS will only run on Apple phones (which will also never run Android), but WP is much closer competition to Android, in that it's an OS provided for other hardware manufacturers.
I'm fed up with the "who's evil" debate (personally, both are fine by me, better than a company that sues for rounded rectangles) - restricting choice for consumers is a bad thing, no matter what company does it. I love that I can run One Note on my Android phone - why shouldn't WP users get Youtube.
Re: This can't be true??
You may be joking, but given that the Sony phone that's doing better also runs Android, it's not really an issue anyway for Android fans (I'm sure plenty of Android fans are also a bit annoyed that the media focus on Samsung).
Interesting to see 1.3 million phones for the Xperia A, in just one country. By iphone fan standards, one million in 76 days worldwide was a runaway success, yet this higher success in just one country barely gets a mention... I also remember how it was mainstream news when the iphone was the best selling model in only one country, for one month, just after a new model - yet for every country and every month apart from this, I've never seen a news item.
Re: anyone know the breakdown
"Only two international manufacturers profit from smartphones. Apple and Samsung. Apple make quite a lot more by way of profit."
Who cares? Never in the most heated Windows vs Mac or Linux debate did someone go "but look how much money Bill makes!" Profit means money taken from consumers that doesn't go into the product. As a consumer, that's not a good thing. Same as a developer. The only reason to care is if you're a shareholder, in which case that's astroturfing.
"Apple recently returned to being the largest company in the world when measured by market cap."
Who cares? Another contrived statistic - what was the "largest" company before that, by that statistic? No one knows, because no one cares, except when the media pick up the press release and spread it as "news".
"Once seasonal adjustments are taken into account, Apple have sold more handsets year-on-year every year since 2007."
WP has gone up too - selling more in a rapidly growing market isn't that significant.
"Their market share has gone down because of the the rapidity of the growth of Android, not because their (seasonally adjusted) sales have decreased."
True, though note this is the same thing that was true of Symbian for years after 2007, but all we heard from the media was about how Nokia were doomed because of falling share, and how Apple were number one even though they weren't. It's annoying to see this fallacy - though fair's fair that it now bites Apple.
"Apple iPhones and iPads have higher overall satisfaction ratings than the handsets by any Android phone/tablet manufacturer"
You're actually making the argument that it's better, because the fans say it is? The RDF is well known - the fact that users of one platform blindly evangelise it, and others do not, doesn't make one better. Why aren't people flocking from Android to ios devices then, instead of the reverse?
"iPhones retain their value better than all Android devices"
So does an Amiga. Who cares, I can afford to buy the best, without worrying about what I sell it for - isn't that what we're told when people point out the prices of iphones?
Higher second hand sale prices is usually an indicator of lack of supply of newer products that people want. Same reason why it was easier to get better sale prices of old Macs or Amigas, when an older PC would be worthless. It's not that no one wanted PCs, it's that the rate of progress of PCs had moved way ahead.
"Revenues from Android remains lower for app developers"
I'd like to see a survey that includes ad revenue, and also looks at other stores too, both Android, and other platforms. But anyhow, from a user point of view, this is good - more apps at lower prices, or for free. Being able to make money from trivial apps is usually a sign of an immature platform.
"Cost of development for Android, for those wishing to address the "full and larger market" is much higher than for iOS"
SDK is free, and I can develop on my existing computer, and $25 one-off fee to publish to Google Play. For IOS, it's mandatory $99/year, and you need to purchase an Apple computer.
Even if developers restricted themselves to Touchwiz Samsung phones, they'd still have higher market share.
"More teenagers in the US express the desire to buy iPhones than Android phones, even though more are now purchasing Android phones because they can't afford iPhones."
But, they can sell them second hand, right? Which is it - is Android cheaper, or more expensive?
This kind of argument makes no sense anyway - sure, if I could get a £500 thing for £200, I'd want it, but that doesn't mean that the £500 is made by a better company. If the company had to drop prices, they'd also have to make sacrifices in the hardware too. The price is just as much a factor as anything else, like RAM or screen resolution. If Samsung can deliver the product people want at the price they can pay, that's a success for them.
Anyhow, this really is a contrived statistic - not just one country, but only teenagers? What about other countries, or adults in the US? Are you telling me that everyone would buy iphones, it's just that even in the richest country, adults can't afford it? Worldwide, I'm sure that even at the high end, Android is the winner. But stats like these just reward Apple for being expensive.
"There is more malware on Android and the Google Play store and zip on iOS"
"Significantly more Android users plan to switch to using iOS than iOS users want to switch to using Android"
Wake me up when it happens.
"There is a logical conclusion to this and that is after the initial flash growth due to Android in-filling the feature phone market by hitting feature phone price points"
Android is a smartphone; the locked down ios phones are feature phones.
"Yes the latest data shows Android is starting to lose ground to iOS in what is now the most mature market - the US."
Most mature market? The US has always been Android's weakest market, and ios's strongest, and the phone market has always been very different to the rest of the world. But even in the US, Android grows (though with seasonal fluctuations). The US market typically lagged behind the rest of the world - which is why the US media were impressed in 2007 by a phone that didn't even do apps or 3G (something standard years earlier on low end feature phones).
Re: anyone know the breakdown
A Galaxy Mini may not be the high end of Android phones, but it easily beats the iphone 4/4S still on sale, so I don't see the difference, nor is it true that Apple are trying to keep things simple, or at the high end.
Not to mention that the S4 Mini actually has 50% more RAM, and I think the same resolution as the latest iphone 5...
Re: anyone know the breakdown
Apple do compete not just at the high end - because their sales area made up of older phones too, selling at lower prices.
Also note that whilst these figures include 100% of Apple's, they only included about half of Samsung's, because they're only counting the higher end "smart" phones (mainly Android) anyway. If we're including the low end, then there's a whole load more phones (which are still capable of Internet, apps, etc) that Samsung sell, putting them even further ahead.
Re: VLP == Vain Losers Poserphone
If you're going to criticise the size of such a device, at least go back to 2010 and criticise the 10" ipad. (And no, being a "phone" makes no difference - smartphones and "tablets" are the same kind of thing. At 6", this is middle-size in a range that goes from 4" to 10" or beyond.)
Re: Just because previous fingerprint sensors didn't catch on
To be honest, if they're at the state that a fingerprint sensor is a headline feature, that says it all. (Android phones added face-unlock, but this was just one of a long list of features, and I don't believe was ever a flagship or marketed feature of the Android smartphones.)
But then, after basic features like apps, multitasking or speech recognition being flagship features of earlier iphones, it wouldn't surprise me that this is the main new addition of the 5S/6/5GS/whatever.
Re: Maybe to you...
Well that's the people overrating it!
Or even so, by numbers, it's still overrated and overhyped - more coverage should be given to still Nokia, and especially Samsung.
A multinational company gets "something right"? Is that your goalpost-moving argument? Well amazing, give them a medal!
Re: And another nail is added to Nokia's coffin
It's competition, but hardly a nail. More of a nail for Apple, who have no ability to compete at the lower end (other than selling old out of date products), if that's where the market moves in future.
Your logic is also plain confusing - Nokia are doing well in one area, so therefore this is a nail in the coffin? Surely the argument would be if they were doing badly in that area. I mean, Samsung are doing well at the high end, so by your logic, it's a nail in their coffin if someone else releases a high end phone?
I don't really understand your distinction between feature and smart - does this mean an iphone is a feature phone, because of the limitations? Maybe it is - I think that's a far argument - though unfortunately most the media are using a different definitions, making the distinction between the terms fairly meaningless.
(Unless you mean apps, but then that's not a distinction, as "feature" phones have had 3rd party apps from 2004 or earlier.)
The iphone 2007 couldn't run 3rd party apps at all (and hence wasn't a smart/feature phone, but a dumb phone). This can, so is a smart phone (as someone else says, the difference between feature and smart is just marketing) - that the language is HTML5 isn't really relevant, as long as the user can install applications similar to other smart phones.
Re: Specs make the iPad Mini look REALLY crap.
"Arcade shooters all use 3:4"
Since when? Different games use different resolutions, and Android games will be more optimised for wider aspect ratios.
Being a portable video player is surely when of a few things a tablet does well. Whilst having higher depth can be useful for productivity, it's not like a keyboard-less device will do that well anyway.
And there are 4:3 Android tablets, anyway, as well as lots of other ratios - that's the good thing about Android, you have the choice, unlike Apple. Even if you went for a costly low-spec ipad mini because it had the aspect ratio you liked, what if the next version isn't 4:3 (Apple has changed the aspect ratio of their devices, e.g., iphones)? You'd be stuffed, and have to switch platform when you want to buy a new device. With Android, you can keep buying whichever aspect ratio you want.
Re: Specs make the iPad Mini look REALLY crap.
Ah yes, it's the appeal to popularity fallacy. I don't know about you, but when I buy, I care what I want, not want a bunch of Apple fans want.
I guess we're agreed that Android phones (and Symbian before that) are much better than iphones, and Windows PCs are much better than Macs, by your logic? Oh, and Android tablets are now outselling ios ones - the ipad mini just has the advantage that there's just one device of that size, whilst there are hundreds of Android tablets.
Re: Specs make the iPad Mini look REALLY crap.
If you don't care about specs, and are happy with low resolution, 512MB RAM etc, that's fine - but you can get that with a budget £100 Android tablet. But why not get the Nexus 7 - you get something better, and you save around £60 (or £100 for the 2012 version). But, the moment Apple bring out something that beats other devices on some contrived spec, you'll be first in line claiming how it's the most important thing ever (e.g., "PPI! PPI!" for 2010).
Sluggishnesh? I don't have any problems on my 18 month old Galaxy Nexus - but even that has better specs that than much larger and newer ipad mini.
First off, of course generalisations are bad - yes, some people will always buy some product as an informed decision. However, you do get people arguing it must be better, because it's made by them. The people who buy it because it's what their friends have, I would argue also still count as buying it "because of the badge".
It's also a reasonable view of many media articles, that hype up an Apple product even before its release, and then for years afterwards conclude it as the champion, with no clear reason why. It may be now the iphone 5 not the 2007 iphone, but this hype still traces all the way back to 2007.
The stereotype isn't helped by it being the only company with really prominent logos, in some cases light up.
Perhaps Samsung are aquiring a similar aspect of this too, but I don't think that's an argument against it. And I've yet to have strangers interrupt my conversation to tell me I should get an S4; you don't hear people go "Get a Samsung" in response to every technical problem someone has; you don't hear then referring to every product they only by its brandname.
Indeed, I find it interesting when people simultaneously praise the "build quality" while telling us how good the "free" (that they paid for) insurance is for replacing it every time it breaks.
But the BBC were one of the worst culprits for covering every i-device with as much hype as possible, whilst completely ignoring what until 2011 was the number one smartphone platform, Symbian (including in the UK, so unlike the US media, they don't have the excuse that the iphone was somewhat new to the American market). Prime culprit being the BBC tech correspondent Rory who I recall only mentioned Nokia to criticise them.
If the BBC have a "left wing bias", then that still makes a mockery of any idea of a correlation between that, and disliking Apple products.
Re: Correct descision, even if the taint lingers
It may be the correct decision, but that outstanding one billion dollar fine can't go unnoticed - is Obama overturning that too? Real people are affected by that too: employees, consumers, and other companies.
I thought that some older Samsung products were at risk of being banned too, I don't know what happened to that(?)
Re: Word has it
If you want a simple feature phone, that's fine, though you can get those at a fraction of the price. Android is a smartphone, not a feature phone.
We've been hearing about these surveys for years, but despite this, Android continues to rocket ahead in market share, whilst iphone share flails and now this year has plummetted. The gap between even WP and iphone is now far smaller than between iphone and Android.
Wake me up when these so-called surveys actually translate in a mass shift towards Apple's feature phones, because it hasn't happened in 7 years of overwhelming media hype. That's a fail.
Re: Just get an iPhone for gods sake.
Let's argue back like an Apple user: But it doesn't matter that Android doesn't have this feature, because I never use it, therefore no one does, and in fact Android is better off by not having it, because it has another way of doing the same thing, a whole new paradigm (though I'm not going to explain what it is). I don't care about grumpy featurism, Android is therefore still better. It did everything first, and Apple users need to be thankful of that. And Android Android Android Android Android, posted from my Android phone.
(Only 3 years behond? Did you finally get copy and paste, or 3G and apps yet?)
- +Comment Trips to Mars may be OFF: The SUN has changed in a way we've NEVER SEEN
- Vid Google opens Inbox – email for people too stupid to use email
- Back to the ... drawing board: 'Hoverboard' will disappoint Marty McFly wannabes
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- Google+ goes TITSUP. But WHO knew? How long? Anyone ... Hello ...