Discussion about
3 million units moved works out to less than 140k units per day, which is less than Android's supposed 160k per day.
Don't forget that Android is relatively new, and only quite recently has matched and surpassed the iPhone's capabilities. Google still has a long way to go to get anywhere near the recognition of Apple.
I would guess that very few people I know are aware of Android, but I'd be surprised if I know a single person who doesn't know what an iPhone is. In fact, with non-tech people the iPhone is almost synonymous with 'smartphone'.
In a very short time Android has caught up to Apple's sales (marketshare is still a fair way behind), and the Android app marketplace is growing faster (again, still far behind in terms of app numbers).
I would guess that very few people I know are aware of Android, but I'd be surprised if I know a single person who doesn't know what an iPhone is. In fact, with non-tech people the iPhone is almost synonymous with 'smartphone'.
In a very short time Android has caught up to Apple's sales (marketshare is still a fair way behind), and the Android app marketplace is growing faster (again, still far behind in terms of app numbers).
That's a crock. Apple chooses not to license their OS - it doesn't make the comparison any less legitimate. OSX has less than 10% marketshare for the same reason.
It's true that it is not a fair comparison though, since I don't know the sales of the 3GS, but I have to believe that they are relatively insignificant.
It's true that it is not a fair comparison though, since I don't know the sales of the 3GS, but I have to believe that they are relatively insignificant.
It's not a crock because the continued "Android vs iPhone" is a fundamentally misleading, if not outright flawed, comparison. It's comparing one specific model of phone running one specific OS against the sum total of all others. It's like comparing sales figures of the Volkwagon GTI to other cars using unleaded gasoline, then using those numbers to claim the GTI is crap, or somehow going to die a painful death. It's comparing a top to bottom platform of tightly integrated software and hardware to an operating system, which is one part of the whole.
Yet despite that, the sales numbers for iPhone (1 model, 1 carrier) vs Android (many models across several carriers) are still pretty damn close. Of course, that won't always be the case. Eventually there will be so many different phones running Android that it will be nigh impossible to ship enough iPhones to outsell them. And of course Android will be declared "the winner" meanwhile the iPhone will continue to make Apple a ton of money and continue be a robust platform that many MILLIONS of people use and enjoy every day.
Also, it seems to be getting lost on people that sales figures aren't the primary indicator of a quality product. Just look at the pop music charts for an example of that.
Yet despite that, the sales numbers for iPhone (1 model, 1 carrier) vs Android (many models across several carriers) are still pretty damn close. Of course, that won't always be the case. Eventually there will be so many different phones running Android that it will be nigh impossible to ship enough iPhones to outsell them. And of course Android will be declared "the winner" meanwhile the iPhone will continue to make Apple a ton of money and continue be a robust platform that many MILLIONS of people use and enjoy every day.
Also, it seems to be getting lost on people that sales figures aren't the primary indicator of a quality product. Just look at the pop music charts for an example of that.
It all depends on how you spin it. In terms of platform (yes, iPhone is a platform) Android is now leading sales. In terms of single devices, the iPhone outsells any single Android phone (probably by quite a bit).
The only valid comparison here is platform. Essentially all Android phones are bought for similar reasons. Some people like a physical keyboard or a larger screen, so they choose the specific model that suits them (something that Apple doesn't offer in their limited platform).
Would you argue it's unfair of Apple to claim 65% of the MP3 player market because they have a lot more iPod models than any competitor? Microsoft has about 4% of the US MP3 player market with Zune, though the Zune HD probably outsells a lot of individual MP3 players (possibly even some iPod models). It's a 'feature' of the iPod that there are so many types to choose from to suit anyone's specific needs - tiny shuffles, high-capacity classics, app-running touchscreens, etc. Just like Android phones.
The only valid comparison here is platform. Essentially all Android phones are bought for similar reasons. Some people like a physical keyboard or a larger screen, so they choose the specific model that suits them (something that Apple doesn't offer in their limited platform).
Would you argue it's unfair of Apple to claim 65% of the MP3 player market because they have a lot more iPod models than any competitor? Microsoft has about 4% of the US MP3 player market with Zune, though the Zune HD probably outsells a lot of individual MP3 players (possibly even some iPod models). It's a 'feature' of the iPod that there are so many types to choose from to suit anyone's specific needs - tiny shuffles, high-capacity classics, app-running touchscreens, etc. Just like Android phones.
Another interesting thing is that companies generally prefer profit over unit sales (ask Nokia how they'd like to swap their unit sales for Apple-level profit), however in Google's case, their business model actually doesn't care about profit at all and ONLY cares about unit sales! That's pretty damn genius of them.
Google does care about profit, but they are clearly thinking more long-term. Apple gets very high profits on their products (simple maths - you charge 50% more for the same hardware you make more money). Google believes that if they take over the market (by being cheaper, open, and better) they will eventually monetise it. Once you get a massive install base you only need to make small amounts of profit from each user.
That's how Microsoft make so much money from really only selling a copy of Windows to someone each time they buy a new PC every few years, whereas Apple sells less computers than most of their competitors but makes much higher profits.
I prefer companies who make money by being better, not by being more expensive.
That's how Microsoft make so much money from really only selling a copy of Windows to someone each time they buy a new PC every few years, whereas Apple sells less computers than most of their competitors but makes much higher profits.
I prefer companies who make money by being better, not by being more expensive.
How is it a crock? You're actually making my point; They don't license the OS, don't sell more than one model, and aren't on more than one carrier (in the US), so Android should be selling 20:1 over iPhones or more. Windows sells many more copies over OSX for the same reasons (though I'd argue in that case price is the most significant reason).
Now, that may happen eventually, but it isn't happening yet.
Now, that may happen eventually, but it isn't happening yet.
Apple chooses to limit its platform. Regardless of what an Apple fanboy will say, that is NOT a feature, it's an limitation
Apple's refusal to create choice on their platform doesn't exempt them from being unfavourably compared to other platforms. Traditionally, computers and smartphones are platform based. Apple choose to do things differently, but that doesn't excuse them from comparisons. A platform with one device (though the differnt iPhone versions are all counted in marketshare stats) is still a platform.
Apple's refusal to create choice on their platform doesn't exempt them from being unfavourably compared to other platforms. Traditionally, computers and smartphones are platform based. Apple choose to do things differently, but that doesn't excuse them from comparisons. A platform with one device (though the differnt iPhone versions are all counted in marketshare stats) is still a platform.
A couple things to elaborate on: the comparison is really invalid entirely as the Android statistic is for devices - not phones. Does anyone know of any popular Android devices that aren't phones? The dell streak is the only one I can think of, but that has phone capabilities even if they aren't using them.
Another thing is that iPhone 4 sold 1.7 million in the first few days, but has only sold 1.3 million in the period since then. I presume this drop has to be due to supply constraints though.
Another thing is that iPhone 4 sold 1.7 million in the first few days, but has only sold 1.3 million in the period since then. I presume this drop has to be due to supply constraints though.
The only well known device is probably the Archos, but I doubt that adds but a few to the overall numbers. Right now the 160K is probably all phones, and after this month I am going to guess the number will jump to 200K or more with the Droid X and Samsung models shipping this week.
There's not even a comparison. The iPhone is a phone, Android is not. This is the old trick Microsoft uses with Windows, adding up a number of completely separate devices related only by the operating system they use.
It's a platform comparison. Apple chooses to use a closed, tightly controlled platform. As an individual phone the iPhone is far more popular than any Android device, but in terms of platform Android is now outselling iPhone and will continue to do so.
Apple fanboys love moving the goalposts. The lack of carriers (only an issue in the US as far as I'm aware) and the lack of device choice are platform limitations chosen by Apple. The same goes for Windows and Mac OS. Mac users have a handful of Macs to choose from with set (and generally behind the curve) hardware, whereas Windows users can buy or build whatever computer they want. I'm sure some Mac models sell as well as some PC models, but that's irrelevant to the fact that hardly anyone uses the Mac platform.
Apple fanboys love moving the goalposts. The lack of carriers (only an issue in the US as far as I'm aware) and the lack of device choice are platform limitations chosen by Apple. The same goes for Windows and Mac OS. Mac users have a handful of Macs to choose from with set (and generally behind the curve) hardware, whereas Windows users can buy or build whatever computer they want. I'm sure some Mac models sell as well as some PC models, but that's irrelevant to the fact that hardly anyone uses the Mac platform.
You're implying it's unfair to compare the sales of the iPhone with Android because it's only one model, and then claim low sales of one single Android phone.
Part of the reason the iPhone is so popular is that it is a single, simple device with a lot of 'mind share'. Other manufacturers don't have that kind of brand recognition, but sales of the more popular Android phones are actually quite good (and increasing) despite being lower than the iPhone. Once some of the iPhone-buying plebs catch on to Android that will change.
Part of the reason the iPhone is so popular is that it is a single, simple device with a lot of 'mind share'. Other manufacturers don't have that kind of brand recognition, but sales of the more popular Android phones are actually quite good (and increasing) despite being lower than the iPhone. Once some of the iPhone-buying plebs catch on to Android that will change.
If they had the white and black available in unlimited quantities on June 24th, they could have sold 9 million by now.
