I believe those comScore numbers are installed base, not current sales.
You believe wrong. Every quarter that Google announces the squishy "Android Activations per day". Apple announces the number of iPhones and iPads sold. For the last two quarters, while they haven't given out exact iPod Touch numbers, they have given out iPod numbers and said "more than half" are Touches. Simple math shows that Apple is still selling more iOS devices than Android.
Wonderful to see the patent system doing its job to promote innovation, isn't it?
What's "innovative" about copying someone else's UI? Whatever you may think of HTC Sense, MotoBlur, WinMo 7's "Metro UI", Palm's WebOS, etc. at least they tried to do something different than just copy the iPhone UI.
Apple is fifth in market share (around 10%) behind 4 other companies in terms of units sold. Their market share has doubled in the last five years but it's relatively easy to grow from 5% compared with HP's nearly 30% or Dell's 20+%. They've grown but they've only taken a fraction of the market share and almost all at the high end of the consumer market. Apple does not seriously compete in corporate PC sales nor do they compete at the lowest end of the consumer market.
The premise was that Apple couldn't continue being highly profitability while competing with "commodity hardware", they are doing exactly that with PC's.
In fact, the average selling price (consumer price + subsidy) of the iPhone has increased over the years.
Demonstrably incorrect. There are tablets out there for equal or less money from (potentially) serious competitors like Research In Motion and Motorola. Somewhat misleading though since tablets are essentially a new market so there has been little time for competitors to bring competing products to market, regardless of price.
The Xoom is the same price with a lesser GPU and the Playbook is the same price with a smaller screen.
Flash memory is not generally purchased in large quantities on a spot market. You can't just run to Toshiba and say I'd like 3 million flash memory chips delivered tomorrow. They have to purchase in advance and only then do the manufacturers produce the products. Buying market moving percentages of anything does not always result in lower prices if other people want that commodity too. If you buy 75% of the world's supply of anything, by definition you paid more than others were willing meaning you moved the price up, not down. There are numerous suppliers of flash memory and they adjust supply as demand shifts. Apple is a big player in this market but hardly the only one.
The vast majority of the profit Apple makes is from selling hardware. Yes they make some money on the side from software and music sales and the rest it's a fraction of their overall revenue. Any profit Apple makes from software sales is simply gravy. Itunes exists to keep people buying iPods and iPads and iPhones. It is widely known that Apple does not make huge amounts of money from music sales. They do pretty well with App Store sales but those still are a fraction of their hardware sales. Don't take my word for it, look at Apple's financial statements.
I said profit from selling there own software for iPads.
Apple sells Numbers, Pages, GarageBand, and iMovie for the iPad. 30% of the profit would be recognized from iTunes and the other 70% would be recognized under software sells. If the average iPad buyer spends $50 extra between buying Apple software and accessories (headphones, smart covers, etc.) that's almost pure marginal profit.
Furthermore since Google is bankrolling the software development for them (Apple has to eat those software development costs themselves) the Android OEMs have a theoretically lower price floor than Apple. Conceivably they could sell the Android device for less than Apple's cost and still be profitable.
Unless you're HTC paying Microsoft a "license" for each Android phone sold. iOS development costs are spread over roughly 50 million iOS devices and the core OS is also used for roughly 12 million Macs. But either way, that has nothing to do with marginal profit.
Conceivably they could sell the Android device for less than Apple's cost and still be profitable.
That doesn't seem to be working out to well for Motorola....
The risk to Apple from Android is that smartphones (and other devices) get commoditized thereby sucking significant profits out of their devices.
Apple's computer sells have been outpacing the market for years since it went to "commodity" PC hardware.
Apple is a company build on selling differentiated hardware at higher prices - they cannot compete on low prices and when they tried in the past it nearly put them out of business.
The iPad costs less than its competitors. Apple can compete on price because it has $60 billion in the bank to buy up components raising the price for everyone else. At one point Apple was buying 75% of the worlds capacity of flash memory. Apple still buys 25% of the world's supply. Apple also can get the retailer's profit (retail price - wholesale price) on every one of it products that it sells online and at the Apple store.
The big difference is that Google can (theoretically) make just as much money from a low priced smartphone as a high priced one whereas Apple cannot./blockquote?
Apple can make money off of low priced iOS devices by selling its own software (i.e. iWorks and Garage Band for the iPad), accessories (some predictions are that Apple makes more just off of smart covers for the iPad than Motorola makes from the Xoom), licensing (Made for iPod/AirPlay), iTunes sells (apps, music, ebooks, audio books, music, movies, tv shows, magazine subscriptions), ad sales, etc.
What can an Android OEM make money from besides the phone?
Most of the decent android tablets (samsung/motorola) have assisted GPS (AGPS) that works amazingly well. Of course you need to be within cell coverage but even the wifi only versions have this capability, you don't need 3G.
"Assisted GPS" is not what you think it is.
The "assisted" part is just using the cell network (or WI-FI hot spots) to get a faster time-to-first-fix and then the GPS chip takes over for a more accurate fix and works alongside the cell network information. Even without an active 3G connection, the GPS will give you location data, it will just take longer to get a TTFF.
Verizon already tried that with the Droid brand. When the iPhone was exclusively to AT&T, Verizon saw much lower growth rates. Why do you think as soon as they got the iPhone, they completely dropped their Droid Does campaign and now have three categories of phones - the iPhone, smart phones, and feature phones? Android manufacturers can't help but compete on price. There is no brand loyalty.
Even if both Apple and an Android manufacturer sell a phone fir a retail price if $500 before subsidies, Apple will still make a larger profit because it gets better component prices, it can sell them at their own stores and online (capturing the retailers profit), and it still can make a profit off of iTunes sells.
Apple has been able to get larger profit margins than pc manufacturers even after going to intel, larger profit margins on mp3 players for the last decade, and get larger profit margins than other tablet makers AND sell them for less.
No other manufacturer can take advantage of the vertical integration and the retail presence that Apple does. Every other manufacturer gas to depend on the carrier and third party retailers. When you go to an Apple store, they are pushing nothing but Apple products.
You, however, decided to add an extra product category, mp3 players, just to make apple look like it's somehow trouncing Android. There is no Android mp3 player, and for good reason: Mp3 players are obsolete, as their function is now provided by our smartphones anyway.
The iPod Touch is more than just an "MP3 Player". The Touch is a wireless device running iOS without 3G. Samsung and other manufactureres are releasing devices that are basically phones without 3G.
How is it comparing Apple to Oranges? When Google talks about "Android Activations", do you think they are excluding the Xoom and the Tab?
When developers are looking at what platform to develop for, they are looking at iOS versus Android devices. They don't care whether it is a phone or not.
And to "catch up" there would have to be more "Android" devices selling than Apple is selling iOS devices -- which they aren't.
My Bottom Line: Microsoft is still more profitable
A company stock price is based on among other things the expected growth of the company. Apple is growing faster than MS.
On the flipside the future hold uncertainty since everyone keeps pointing out that Microsoft is expected to beat Apple in marketshare
Even if you do believe that someone can magically predict the future, MS makes a whopping $12 on each WinMo license sold. Apple makes a $265 profit on each iPhone sold.
and Android has already started killing it in the market.
Not really, Apple sells more iOS devices than all Android devices combined (iPhone,Touch, iPad) and makes close to 50% of all the profit in the mobile phone industry.
Apple became the second highest selling phone manufacturer overnight,
If by overnight you mean 12+ years.....
as many a fanboy will point out. Why cant the reverse happen overnight.
It's not like Apple has a huge R&D base to keep it afloat after commercial failure like Nokia has
No it just has over $40 Billion+ in cash and growing, no debt, and 4 product lines (Computers, phones, mp3 players, and tablets) that are more profitable than any of its peers.
. Apple is entirely dependent on remaining strong in retail.
Yes companies are completely dependent on people buying their products...News at 11....
"No apps run in the background on the iPad (or iPod touch or iPhone). The system does, core features and services such as music playback and push notifications."
So you left out five.
When else would you need a program to actually "do something" in the background that's not covered by one of those?
I wish there were a way for a third party program to initiate a download in the background but there would need to be tightly controlled (i.e. not download over cellular, when the battery is low, etc.)
I assume that "an extremely high, unrealistic number" applies to your 1700% figure as well.
The 1700% comes directly from the IHS study.
I assume that "an extremely high, unrealistic number" applies to your 1700% figure as well.
We do have some real data, which you can check out here. It turns out, that writing your app for BlackBerry can easily be more lucrative than for iOS or Android.
And it still shows that Android is a less desirable platform....
Answer: No. No apps run in the background on the iPad (or iPod touch or iPhone). The system does, core features and services such as music playback and push notifications. But no downloadable apps run in the background; they page out nicely so that you can get back i quickly, but if you're recording and you move into a different interface for playing guitar, the recording stops.
Simple. If making a good tablet isn't enough to sell a good tablet, that means that the demand for tablets is being driven by Apple rather than a need for tablets. That seems, to me, to be a classic indicator that a product is meeting a fad-driven need as opposed to a real need.
So is the Mp3 player "fad driven" since Apple has a maintained dominance for almost a decade?
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/17/androids-pursuit-of-the-biggest-losers/
You believe wrong. Every quarter that Google announces the squishy "Android Activations per day". Apple announces the number of iPhones and iPads sold. For the last two quarters, while they haven't given out exact iPod Touch numbers, they have given out iPod numbers and said "more than half" are Touches. Simple math shows that Apple is still selling more iOS devices than Android.
Apple's "iOS devices" consist of more than just phones.....
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Apple-iOS-Devices-Overwhelm-Android-Gadgets-by-59-comScore-707928/
What's "innovative" about copying someone else's UI? Whatever you may think of HTC Sense, MotoBlur, WinMo 7's "Metro UI", Palm's WebOS, etc. at least they tried to do something different than just copy the iPhone UI.
http://gigaom.com/video/google-forces-roku-to-take-down-its-youtube-channel/
http://www.webpronews.com/skyhook-wireless-sues-google-2010-09
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/google_clamps_down_on_android_partners/
http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-schmidt-tried-to-get-google-to-hide-his-political-donation-in-search-results-2011-4?op=1
If you bought any of those for students, you should be fired.
Viewsonic gTablet?
http://www.laptopmag.com/review/tablets/viewsonic-g-tablet.aspx
Velocity Cruz?
http://tabletconnect.blogspot.com/2010/11/velocity-micro-cruz-tablet-t104-review.html
Superpad?
Couldn't find a review....
Archos 7?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364818,00.asp
The premise was that Apple couldn't continue being highly profitability while competing with "commodity hardware", they are doing exactly that with PC's.
In fact, the average selling price (consumer price + subsidy) of the iPhone has increased over the years.
The Xoom is the same price with a lesser GPU and the Playbook is the same price with a smaller screen.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/83670-apple-on-huge-order-breaks-nand-flash-supply
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20080703/apple-takes-top-honors-in-competitive-nand-eating-contest/
I said profit from selling there own software for iPads.
Apple sells Numbers, Pages, GarageBand, and iMovie for the iPad. 30% of the profit would be recognized from iTunes and the other 70% would be recognized under software sells. If the average iPad buyer spends $50 extra between buying Apple software and accessories (headphones, smart covers, etc.) that's almost pure marginal profit.
Unless you're HTC paying Microsoft a "license" for each Android phone sold. iOS development costs are spread over roughly 50 million iOS devices and the core OS is also used for roughly 12 million Macs. But either way, that has nothing to do with marginal profit.
That doesn't seem to be working out to well for Motorola....
Apple's computer sells have been outpacing the market for years since it went to "commodity" PC hardware.
The iPad costs less than its competitors. Apple can compete on price because it has $60 billion in the bank to buy up components raising the price for everyone else. At one point Apple was buying 75% of the worlds capacity of flash memory. Apple still buys 25% of the world's supply. Apple also can get the retailer's profit (retail price - wholesale price) on every one of it products that it sells online and at the Apple store.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20032012-37.html
Apple's app store revenue 2010 - $1.782 billion
Google's App Market Revenue - $102 million
"Assisted GPS" is not what you think it is.
The "assisted" part is just using the cell network (or WI-FI hot spots) to get a faster time-to-first-fix and then the GPS chip takes over for a more accurate fix and works alongside the cell network information. Even without an active 3G connection, the GPS will give you location data, it will just take longer to get a TTFF.
Verizon already tried that with the Droid brand. When the iPhone was exclusively to AT&T, Verizon saw much lower growth rates. Why do you think as soon as they got the iPhone, they completely dropped their Droid Does campaign and now have three categories of phones - the iPhone, smart phones, and feature phones? Android manufacturers can't help but compete on price. There is no brand loyalty.
Even if both Apple and an Android manufacturer sell a phone fir a retail price if $500 before subsidies, Apple will still make a larger profit because it gets better component prices, it can sell them at their own stores and online (capturing the retailers profit), and it still can make a profit off of iTunes sells.
Apple has been able to get larger profit margins than pc manufacturers even after going to intel, larger profit margins on mp3 players for the last decade, and get larger profit margins than other tablet makers AND sell them for less.
No other manufacturer can take advantage of the vertical integration and the retail presence that Apple does. Every other manufacturer gas to depend on the carrier and third party retailers. When you go to an Apple store, they are pushing nothing but Apple products.
The iPod Touch is more than just an "MP3 Player". The Touch is a wireless device running iOS without 3G. Samsung and other manufactureres are releasing devices that are basically phones without 3G.
How is it comparing Apple to Oranges? When Google talks about "Android Activations", do you think they are excluding the Xoom and the Tab?
When developers are looking at what platform to develop for, they are looking at iOS versus Android devices. They don't care whether it is a phone or not.
And to "catch up" there would have to be more "Android" devices selling than Apple is selling iOS devices -- which they aren't.
A company stock price is based on among other things the expected growth of the company. Apple is growing faster than MS.
Even if you do believe that someone can magically predict the future, MS makes a whopping $12 on each WinMo license sold. Apple makes a $265 profit on each iPhone sold.
Not really, Apple sells more iOS devices than all Android devices combined (iPhone,Touch, iPad) and makes close to 50% of all the profit in the mobile phone industry.
Yeah because we all know how good that Android OEMs are about releasing timely updates.
If by overnight you mean 12+ years.....
No it just has over $40 Billion+ in cash and growing, no debt, and 4 product lines (Computers, phones, mp3 players, and tablets) that are more profitable than any of its peers.
Yes companies are completely dependent on people buying their products...News at 11....
And seeing that Apple has the second highest market cap of any company in the US, obviously it must be failing.....
Putting Windows on a tablet computer. Why didn't someone think of this earlier?
Oh yeah they did! Every year for the past 10+ years and they have all failed.
No, your phone just sucks. Playing music should take almost no CPU time. In a modern device, I would hope there were a dedicated chip for it.
Your statement was
"No apps run in the background on the iPad (or iPod touch or iPhone). The system does, core features and services such as music playback and push notifications."
So you left out five.
When else would you need a program to actually "do something" in the background that's not covered by one of those?
I wish there were a way for a third party program to initiate a download in the background but there would need to be tightly controlled (i.e. not download over cellular, when the battery is low, etc.)
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/04/apple-passes-wal-mart-now-1-music-retailer-in-us.ars
The 1700% comes directly from the IHS study.
And it still shows that Android is a less desirable platform....
So authoritative and wrong.....
So is the Mp3 player "fad driven" since Apple has a maintained dominance for almost a decade?
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/03/more-app-store-economics-case-study-of-10m-download-game-monetized-through-ads-how-much-money.html