What message? "We've got money and are willing to give it to you in exchange for things we want."? I think that's a message game companies should listen to!
I don't get a "buy phone without contract" link or button on that page and, in fact, that's the same page I linked to already (view source of my original post, or the correctly-posted link in the followup post I made). I'm glad you used to sell phones in college, I used to sell them right out of high school, but I'm not going to bring up a retail job from 12 years ago as a point of refernce for actually knowing anything; when I say I've worked in the industry, I mean very recently and with those details. Every carrier subsidizes their phones, even prepaid carriers, this is a fact for which I could provide more than ample documentation, were I not bound by an NDA. How much a phone is subsidized depends on a number of factors; if there's a contract, it will certainly be subsidized more than without a contract, but simply the act of locking the phone to the network, while it can be bypassed by someone in-the-know (like myself, i've unlocked every phone I've owned, with the exception of my current HTX One X -- the GSM version of the EVO 4G LTE, by the way -- I'm still within the exchange period on this one), keeps enough people on the service for long enough to recoup the subsidy and make some profit, so those are subsidized, as well, just not as much. The only phone on the market today that is not subsidized by most carriers is the iPhone, and obviously if you buy an unlocked phone from a 3rd party it will not be subsidized.
Locked phones (like the Evo we've both linked to now) bought through 3rd parties (like Amazon) are, however, subsidized. When you buy a phone from a 3rd party supplier and that phone is locked to a provider, that phone was bought by that supplier from that provider, not from the manufacturer. The manufacturer will only sell a provider-locked phone direct to the provider, period.
Further, yes, list price is "full" retail (and you are correct, typically inflated when displayed on sites like Amazon), the actual retail price is usually 10-20% lower than "list" at most retailers who provide it, it's a marketing gimick, but you can be sure someone out there is taking advantage of it and selling at that price. That's not the point, here, though, we've both already acknowledged the difference between list, wholesale, and retail. Unless you can provide concrete evidence (e.g. a wholesale price list that includes at least one of these phones) that these phones are not subsidized, which I know you can't do because I'm looking at such a list right now and you are wrong (again, NDA), you aren't going to win this.
More like $350....Do you really think that Sprint is going to offer you the best price on a non-contract phone?
I'd grant you that, were it the same phone. Hell, I'll grant it anyway, there's still a $50 subsidy. The Evo 3D has been out for a little over a year now, the Evo V has been out for a little over a month, it's not the $350 phone you linked to; neither is the Evo 4G, which came out in May. Looking at Sprint's phone lineup (sorry, I forgot to link it before) again, it's worth noting that the $549 phone I referenced is the Evo 4G LTE, not the Evo 4G that came out in June of 2010 and is not currently offered by Sprint. So, while the Evo 4G can be found for $220, and the Evo 3D can be found for $350, list price on the Evo 4G LTE is $729.99
, so it seems that Sprint is, in fact, subsidizing it somewhat, even off contract. Mind you, Virgin's Evo V is a little over a month newer than the Evo 4G LET, and is also a 4G capable phone, including a 3D camera, the price point of both phones will be similar.
Next time you're going to refute my facts, make sure you've got your facts straight. Apparently, I need to do the same, as the facts I found while researching the information you provided fly even more in the face if your theory about the iPhone being more expensive, and they destroy your theory that prepaid carriers don't subsidize. Of course, having worked in the industry, I could simply cite myself as a reference for that las bit, but hey, what do I know?
Bullshit prepaid carries don't subsidize phones, they do and they lock the phone to their network. Yes, I know they allow you to bring your own phone, I acknowledged that when I mentioned buying an unlocked iPhone direct from Apple, but that has no bearing on whether or not they subsidize the phones. They don't subsidize *iPhones* because Apple won't allow it, but they damned well do subsidize other phones. Every single phone on this page, aside from the two iPhone models, is subsidized. Take, for example, the LG Optimus Elite (the first phone listed there that I found on another carrier); Sprint gives it away for free with a 2 year contract, $249.99 unsibsidized, $149.99 through Virgin Mobile. It's cheap because it's an entry-level phone; it's not even on par with the iPhone 3Gs, which can be had, unsibsidized, from AT&T for $375.99. That LG phone is subsidized, buddy, as are the rest of the Android phones on that page, and the $15-50 dumb-phones they offer. The only thing on that page that is not subsidized, I'll say it again, are the iPhones.
Virgin Mobile doesn't offer any Android phones that come close to comparing with even the iPhone 3Gs, save for maybe the HTC Evo V, which I'd compare to the HTC Evo 4G on Sprint, except that the Evo V has a 3d camera. For the sake of fairness, we'll say that adds nothing to the price of the phone, Sprint's subsidized price is $199.99, while Virgin is selling it for 299.99; unsubsidized, it's a $549.99 phone. Now, if the 3d camera adds to the price of the phone, which you and I both know it does, Virgin is subsidizing it by more than is indicated by the above.
Statistically speaking at least in the US...
Because that's all that matters, right?
[The] 3 major providers who carry the iPhone are still only a small fraction of the world cellular market, and in that market, there are many, many more Android phones in use.
I could go on limiting the scope in ways that make my position look valid, as well, but I don't have to. Also, your second point only works to further prove the point I was trying to make. Regardless which of these estimates you beleive, it's clear that Android sales surpassed iPhone sales by the end of last year. If you go with the lower estimate of 32 million Android phones sold by Samsung (and ONLY Samsung), and spend about 10 seconds doing some research, you'll find that there were certainly more than 3.1 million Android phones sold in the same quarter by other manufacturers, a statistic that tops Apple's 35.06 million figure. If you go with either of the other estimates, Samsung singlehandedly beat Apple's sales in Q3 of last year. Samsung's market share has been steadily growing since then, while Apple's growth seems to be slowing. Samsung's sales have been ahead of Apple's all year; now, add the other Android phone manufacturers to that and tell me, which platform is more in demand?
But, of course, you'll just limit the scope back to the US again, and you're right, Android is on a decline in the US, but it's exploding everywhere else. The US comprises a mere 5% of the world population, with China having more than 4x the population of the US; I should say the US market doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
I'm with AT&T and have both an iPhone 4s and an HTC One X in active use in the household. I tried the iPhone for 3 months, I didn't like it; my wife tried Android for a year, then wanted her iPhone back; two informed decisions based on research and actually using the devices. No, Verizon is not herding me, because I'm not using their service; and it's not just their Android users they're herding.
Those sub-$100 prepaid phones are still subsidised and locked to that prepaid carrier. Nobody sells an iPhone for prepaid use, so you have to buy one direct from Apple, unlocked, no subsidy. Find that same Android phone, unlocked, and compare pricing.
As for the three major carrers claiming they sell more iPhones than Android? So what? Their numbers could be inaccurate (admittedly unlikely) or it could just, you know, not matter in the grand scheme of things; the 3 major providers who carry the iPhone are still only a small fraction of the world cellular market, and in that market, there are many, many more Android phones in use. It's not like people who want an iPhone can't run out their contract, or opt to pay the early termination fee if they don't want to wait for that, and switch to a provider that carries it, or even buy an unlocked one direct from Apple. They're not stuck with Android because it's all they can get, they chose it over the iPhone; just like I did after using an iPhone for 3 months and just like my wife chose the iPhone over Android after switching for a year.
Ahh... But, if you want to argue that people are spending more on iPhones... No, they're not. The iPhone simply gets a bigger carrier subsidy than other phones; the only ones spending more in iPhones are the carriers and the few who want more than the base model.
"Speaking with your dollars" = buying, not necessarily spending more. More people are speaking for Android, it's just that the few speaking for iOS are speaking louder.
That's Verizon, you know, the company with the highest rated customer service in the mobile industry (in the US, at least). I'm actually amazed there aren't more iPhone uses on Verizon, the way they manage to herd their users like sheep.
Given that AT&T has a larger share of the market [if ever so slightly] than Verizon and has been selling the iPhone for much longer, enough that their reps are properly trained in its features, it might be more appropriate to find a similar story about them, no? Is there one?
Here's one, first party: I went in to the AT&T store 3 weeks ago to buy my wife an iPhone 4s, and no attempt was made to dissuade my from my purchase. I went in to the same AT&T store last week to purchase an HTC One X for myself, and there was likewise no attempt to dissuade me from my Android purchase, though I was offered a Galaxy S-III.
Don't put Verizon's faults on Android as though it's an inherent property of a company selling both platforms to favor one over the other.
No, I'm arguing that Samsung, alone, beats Apple, the other companies only further diminish Apples marketshare. When you're trying to determine which product sells better (e.g. consumer demant, or which product more people want), you tend to look at sales numbers, or, you know, how many actual sales are made. Profit is a function of profit margin and sales made, and does not indicate consumer demand. Samsung's Android devices outsell Apple's iOS devices, plain and simple, regardless who rakes in the most cash in the process; this indicates that there is more demand for Android devices.
Before you go off and say Android devices only sell because they're cheaper, consider these facts.
My most recent album purchase (2 days ago) was about to be a single rtack purchase, because the samples provided were all weak points in the songs. Had I not thought beyond the weak samples provided and pirated the album, I would not have turned aroudn and purchased the whole album an hour later. Argue what you want, but the terms under which I preview and purchase my media lead to more sales, not less. This may not apply to everyone, but it certainly applies to me.
Oh damn, looks like you got me. You're absolutely correct, iPhone is the Son of God. Let's ignore, still, that I was refering to those companies (Android offerings) as a group, and just say that because Sony (whose phones do suck) isn't making money selling phones, that Android isn't what people want. Samsung is singlehandedly selling more Android devices than Apple is selling iOS devices, the other companies add to that, further diminishing Apple's marketshare, it's clear what people want, Android outnumbers iOS be a large margin.
Sales numbers, the numbers that actually indicate consumer demand, indicate that Android manufacturers are eating Apple's lunch, with regard to sales. In units sold, the actual measure of, you know, how well something is selling, they absolutely are being trounced. I explained this in my previous post, you must have missed it, so here it is again.
They have other divisions that are losing money, and smaller margins on their profitable phones. You're trying to compare *profit* to *units sold*, but that breaks down when Apple has a 50% markup on their phone, but other manufacturers clearly sell more phones than they do.
Ahh, forgot to list my source. I'd provide a link directly to the page, but AT&T has ensured it's impossible to do so. Start here, click "Shop", click "Wireless", then check "Android" and "Apple®" under the "Filter by Operating System" heading.
You see fewer Android phones "in the wild" because people don't typically flaunt them like iPhone users do. The initial attraction to the iPhone is the "shiny factor", which attracts people who want attention; these are the people most likely to drive fire-engine red sports cars, make a scene at a restaurant because their soup came out only a couple minutes before their main course, and flash their iPhone at every pair of eyes they can. Note that I'm not saying that *all* iPhone users are like this, my wife is certainly not (though she does drive a fire-engine red sports car), nor is my boss, but a designer we recently let go totally is.
As for your position that people buy Android because they don't want to pay more for the iPhone, the iPhone 3Gs is 99 cents, the iPhone 4s starts at $149. Yes, there are a few free and 1 cent Android phones out there, but are you telling me that the 98 or 99 cents is the threshold for people jumping to Android? If so, iOS must not be very compelling. Now, I'll grant you that between the 99 cent 3Gs and the $149 4s there are a few $99 Android phones, there is also a $99 iPhone 4, which can also be had for $20 refurbished with a cosmetic blemish ar $50 refurbished like new. The iPhone matches 2 Android phones at the $30 price point and matches 4 of them at the $50 proce point. Hell, at the $149 price point, it beats 3 Android phones, and if you want new, rather than refurb, the $199 price point matches 2 and beats 1, still.
To summarize, if someone wants a cheaper phone, they can still have an iPhone, they weigh in at anywhere from 99 cents for a 3Gs, to $30-99 for an iPhone 4, to $149-400 for a 4s. Unless you think you can convince me that the free or 1 cent price points are truly that much more appealing than 99 cents, I think you're missing the boat. With the majority of both iPhones and Android phones at or below the $99 price point, they're not competing on price in that market.
And, as stated a few posts ago, I do pay for the audio/video/experience I want. I hear that song on the radion, I want it, I set out to purchase it, but before I do, I determine which purchase best suits me (the single track, or the whole album). This generally results in *more* sales, not less.
Did you eaven read my post, or did you see the phrase "I'm a pirate" and just go off?
Samsung, alone, sells twice as many phones as Apple does. Apple simply applies a 50% markup to their hardware. What people want is indicated by sales numbers; the only thing profit margins indicate is how much a company wants to make off each sale.
So everybody who buys Apple products is an evil Apple fanboy?
There's a difference between a fan and a fanboi/girl (or vagina). There's also a difference between buying a product because it's what you want and buying it because it performs the task you need, at a fair price point. I love how you put that argument in my mouth, though; got anything else you want to shove in there, while your at it? Been to chik-fil-a lately? see? I can make implications so interesting as to distract the reader into thinking they were actually implied by your comment, too.
I use OSX daily, by choice; I also use Linux and Windows, and I'm not attacking any platform, here. I use OSX at work because, when I started at this job, it was a requirement that I do so; it hasn't been for over a year, I have my own development environment (Aptana) for my personal projects but I continue to use OSX at work because there is no compelling reason for me to put forth the effort to switch, it's a comfortable environment that does what I need it to do.
As a develpoer, I prefer Android for my phone, since I can do more with it; my wife, on the other hand, prefers the iPhone. I have an Android tablet and kept my Motorola Atrix (after upgrading to an HTC One X) to use as a netbook, with the lapdock; my wife prefers the iPad. We live together and we get along wonderfully because neither of us are fanbois for either platform. It is possible for other iOS and Android users to do the same; can we at least pretend to try?
You really need to learn to relax.
/me holds up a mirror
Who's getting all worked up over this?
If these companies all know what [people] want then why are all of the Android manufacturers except Samsung losing money?
They have other divisions that are losing money, and smaller margins on their profitable phones. You're trying to compare *profit* to *units sold*, but that breaks down when Apple has a 50% markup on their phone, but other manufacturers clearly sell more phones than they do.
And as far as Amazon and B&N, they don't even market that tablets as Android based devices.
Does it matter? They're not selling Android, they're selling features and an experience that people want, and people are buying. I'll grant you that Apple is currently owning the tablet market, if you'll grant me that Android manufacturers are trouncing them in the phone arena.
Slashdot Mirror
What message? "We've got money and are willing to give it to you in exchange for things we want."? I think that's a message game companies should listen to!
I don't get a "buy phone without contract" link or button on that page and, in fact, that's the same page I linked to already (view source of my original post, or the correctly-posted link in the followup post I made). I'm glad you used to sell phones in college, I used to sell them right out of high school, but I'm not going to bring up a retail job from 12 years ago as a point of refernce for actually knowing anything; when I say I've worked in the industry, I mean very recently and with those details. Every carrier subsidizes their phones, even prepaid carriers, this is a fact for which I could provide more than ample documentation, were I not bound by an NDA. How much a phone is subsidized depends on a number of factors; if there's a contract, it will certainly be subsidized more than without a contract, but simply the act of locking the phone to the network, while it can be bypassed by someone in-the-know (like myself, i've unlocked every phone I've owned, with the exception of my current HTX One X -- the GSM version of the EVO 4G LTE, by the way -- I'm still within the exchange period on this one), keeps enough people on the service for long enough to recoup the subsidy and make some profit, so those are subsidized, as well, just not as much. The only phone on the market today that is not subsidized by most carriers is the iPhone, and obviously if you buy an unlocked phone from a 3rd party it will not be subsidized.
Locked phones (like the Evo we've both linked to now) bought through 3rd parties (like Amazon) are, however, subsidized. When you buy a phone from a 3rd party supplier and that phone is locked to a provider, that phone was bought by that supplier from that provider, not from the manufacturer. The manufacturer will only sell a provider-locked phone direct to the provider, period.
Further, yes, list price is "full" retail (and you are correct, typically inflated when displayed on sites like Amazon), the actual retail price is usually 10-20% lower than "list" at most retailers who provide it, it's a marketing gimick, but you can be sure someone out there is taking advantage of it and selling at that price. That's not the point, here, though, we've both already acknowledged the difference between list, wholesale, and retail. Unless you can provide concrete evidence (e.g. a wholesale price list that includes at least one of these phones) that these phones are not subsidized, which I know you can't do because I'm looking at such a list right now and you are wrong (again, NDA), you aren't going to win this.
Botched the EVO 4G LTE link in that last post...
More like $350....Do you really think that Sprint is going to offer you the best price on a non-contract phone?
I'd grant you that, were it the same phone. Hell, I'll grant it anyway, there's still a $50 subsidy. The Evo 3D has been out for a little over a year now, the Evo V has been out for a little over a month, it's not the $350 phone you linked to; neither is the Evo 4G, which came out in May. Looking at Sprint's phone lineup (sorry, I forgot to link it before) again, it's worth noting that the $549 phone I referenced is the Evo 4G LTE, not the Evo 4G that came out in June of 2010 and is not currently offered by Sprint. So, while the Evo 4G can be found for $220, and the Evo 3D can be found for $350, list price on the Evo 4G LTE is $729.99
, so it seems that Sprint is, in fact, subsidizing it somewhat, even off contract. Mind you, Virgin's Evo V is a little over a month newer than the Evo 4G LET, and is also a 4G capable phone, including a 3D camera, the price point of both phones will be similar.
Next time you're going to refute my facts, make sure you've got your facts straight. Apparently, I need to do the same, as the facts I found while researching the information you provided fly even more in the face if your theory about the iPhone being more expensive, and they destroy your theory that prepaid carriers don't subsidize. Of course, having worked in the industry, I could simply cite myself as a reference for that las bit, but hey, what do I know?
Bullshit prepaid carries don't subsidize phones, they do and they lock the phone to their network. Yes, I know they allow you to bring your own phone, I acknowledged that when I mentioned buying an unlocked iPhone direct from Apple, but that has no bearing on whether or not they subsidize the phones. They don't subsidize *iPhones* because Apple won't allow it, but they damned well do subsidize other phones. Every single phone on this page, aside from the two iPhone models, is subsidized. Take, for example, the LG Optimus Elite (the first phone listed there that I found on another carrier); Sprint gives it away for free with a 2 year contract, $249.99 unsibsidized, $149.99 through Virgin Mobile. It's cheap because it's an entry-level phone; it's not even on par with the iPhone 3Gs, which can be had, unsibsidized, from AT&T for $375.99. That LG phone is subsidized, buddy, as are the rest of the Android phones on that page, and the $15-50 dumb-phones they offer. The only thing on that page that is not subsidized, I'll say it again, are the iPhones.
Virgin Mobile doesn't offer any Android phones that come close to comparing with even the iPhone 3Gs, save for maybe the HTC Evo V, which I'd compare to the HTC Evo 4G on Sprint, except that the Evo V has a 3d camera. For the sake of fairness, we'll say that adds nothing to the price of the phone, Sprint's subsidized price is $199.99, while Virgin is selling it for 299.99; unsubsidized, it's a $549.99 phone. Now, if the 3d camera adds to the price of the phone, which you and I both know it does, Virgin is subsidizing it by more than is indicated by the above.
Statistically speaking at least in the US...
Because that's all that matters, right?
[The] 3 major providers who carry the iPhone are still only a small fraction of the world cellular market, and in that market, there are many, many more Android phones in use.
I could go on limiting the scope in ways that make my position look valid, as well, but I don't have to. Also, your second point only works to further prove the point I was trying to make. Regardless which of these estimates you beleive, it's clear that Android sales surpassed iPhone sales by the end of last year. If you go with the lower estimate of 32 million Android phones sold by Samsung (and ONLY Samsung), and spend about 10 seconds doing some research, you'll find that there were certainly more than 3.1 million Android phones sold in the same quarter by other manufacturers, a statistic that tops Apple's 35.06 million figure. If you go with either of the other estimates, Samsung singlehandedly beat Apple's sales in Q3 of last year. Samsung's market share has been steadily growing since then, while Apple's growth seems to be slowing. Samsung's sales have been ahead of Apple's all year; now, add the other Android phone manufacturers to that and tell me, which platform is more in demand?
But, of course, you'll just limit the scope back to the US again, and you're right, Android is on a decline in the US, but it's exploding everywhere else. The US comprises a mere 5% of the world population, with China having more than 4x the population of the US; I should say the US market doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
I'm with AT&T and have both an iPhone 4s and an HTC One X in active use in the household. I tried the iPhone for 3 months, I didn't like it; my wife tried Android for a year, then wanted her iPhone back; two informed decisions based on research and actually using the devices. No, Verizon is not herding me, because I'm not using their service; and it's not just their Android users they're herding.
Those sub-$100 prepaid phones are still subsidised and locked to that prepaid carrier. Nobody sells an iPhone for prepaid use, so you have to buy one direct from Apple, unlocked, no subsidy. Find that same Android phone, unlocked, and compare pricing.
As for the three major carrers claiming they sell more iPhones than Android? So what? Their numbers could be inaccurate (admittedly unlikely) or it could just, you know, not matter in the grand scheme of things; the 3 major providers who carry the iPhone are still only a small fraction of the world cellular market, and in that market, there are many, many more Android phones in use. It's not like people who want an iPhone can't run out their contract, or opt to pay the early termination fee if they don't want to wait for that, and switch to a provider that carries it, or even buy an unlocked one direct from Apple. They're not stuck with Android because it's all they can get, they chose it over the iPhone; just like I did after using an iPhone for 3 months and just like my wife chose the iPhone over Android after switching for a year.
Ahh... But, if you want to argue that people are spending more on iPhones... No, they're not. The iPhone simply gets a bigger carrier subsidy than other phones; the only ones spending more in iPhones are the carriers and the few who want more than the base model.
"Speaking with your dollars" = buying, not necessarily spending more. More people are speaking for Android, it's just that the few speaking for iOS are speaking louder.
That's Verizon, you know, the company with the highest rated customer service in the mobile industry (in the US, at least). I'm actually amazed there aren't more iPhone uses on Verizon, the way they manage to herd their users like sheep.
Given that AT&T has a larger share of the market [if ever so slightly] than Verizon and has been selling the iPhone for much longer, enough that their reps are properly trained in its features, it might be more appropriate to find a similar story about them, no? Is there one?
Here's one, first party: I went in to the AT&T store 3 weeks ago to buy my wife an iPhone 4s, and no attempt was made to dissuade my from my purchase. I went in to the same AT&T store last week to purchase an HTC One X for myself, and there was likewise no attempt to dissuade me from my Android purchase, though I was offered a Galaxy S-III.
Don't put Verizon's faults on Android as though it's an inherent property of a company selling both platforms to favor one over the other.
Please, allow me to put the lower cost myth to rest
Oh, really?
No, I'm arguing that Samsung, alone, beats Apple, the other companies only further diminish Apples marketshare. When you're trying to determine which product sells better (e.g. consumer demant, or which product more people want), you tend to look at sales numbers, or, you know, how many actual sales are made. Profit is a function of profit margin and sales made, and does not indicate consumer demand. Samsung's Android devices outsell Apple's iOS devices, plain and simple, regardless who rakes in the most cash in the process; this indicates that there is more demand for Android devices.
Before you go off and say Android devices only sell because they're cheaper, consider these facts.
Have you actually done a market comparison? I have. It only covers AT&T, but it's a good representative sample.
My most recent album purchase (2 days ago) was about to be a single rtack purchase, because the samples provided were all weak points in the songs. Had I not thought beyond the weak samples provided and pirated the album, I would not have turned aroudn and purchased the whole album an hour later. Argue what you want, but the terms under which I preview and purchase my media lead to more sales, not less. This may not apply to everyone, but it certainly applies to me.
*by a large margin*
I love typos...
Oh damn, looks like you got me. You're absolutely correct, iPhone is the Son of God. Let's ignore, still, that I was refering to those companies (Android offerings) as a group, and just say that because Sony (whose phones do suck) isn't making money selling phones, that Android isn't what people want. Samsung is singlehandedly selling more Android devices than Apple is selling iOS devices, the other companies add to that, further diminishing Apple's marketshare, it's clear what people want, Android outnumbers iOS be a large margin.
Sales numbers, the numbers that actually indicate consumer demand, indicate that Android manufacturers are eating Apple's lunch, with regard to sales. In units sold, the actual measure of, you know, how well something is selling, they absolutely are being trounced. I explained this in my previous post, you must have missed it, so here it is again.
They have other divisions that are losing money, and smaller margins on their profitable phones. You're trying to compare *profit* to *units sold*, but that breaks down when Apple has a 50% markup on their phone, but other manufacturers clearly sell more phones than they do.
Ahh, forgot to list my source. I'd provide a link directly to the page, but AT&T has ensured it's impossible to do so. Start here, click "Shop", click "Wireless", then check "Android" and "Apple®" under the "Filter by Operating System" heading.
You see fewer Android phones "in the wild" because people don't typically flaunt them like iPhone users do. The initial attraction to the iPhone is the "shiny factor", which attracts people who want attention; these are the people most likely to drive fire-engine red sports cars, make a scene at a restaurant because their soup came out only a couple minutes before their main course, and flash their iPhone at every pair of eyes they can. Note that I'm not saying that *all* iPhone users are like this, my wife is certainly not (though she does drive a fire-engine red sports car), nor is my boss, but a designer we recently let go totally is.
As for your position that people buy Android because they don't want to pay more for the iPhone, the iPhone 3Gs is 99 cents, the iPhone 4s starts at $149. Yes, there are a few free and 1 cent Android phones out there, but are you telling me that the 98 or 99 cents is the threshold for people jumping to Android? If so, iOS must not be very compelling. Now, I'll grant you that between the 99 cent 3Gs and the $149 4s there are a few $99 Android phones, there is also a $99 iPhone 4, which can also be had for $20 refurbished with a cosmetic blemish ar $50 refurbished like new. The iPhone matches 2 Android phones at the $30 price point and matches 4 of them at the $50 proce point. Hell, at the $149 price point, it beats 3 Android phones, and if you want new, rather than refurb, the $199 price point matches 2 and beats 1, still.
To summarize, if someone wants a cheaper phone, they can still have an iPhone, they weigh in at anywhere from 99 cents for a 3Gs, to $30-99 for an iPhone 4, to $149-400 for a 4s. Unless you think you can convince me that the free or 1 cent price points are truly that much more appealing than 99 cents, I think you're missing the boat. With the majority of both iPhones and Android phones at or below the $99 price point, they're not competing on price in that market.
Ugh... typo... "radion" should be "radio"...
And, as stated a few posts ago, I do pay for the audio/video/experience I want. I hear that song on the radion, I want it, I set out to purchase it, but before I do, I determine which purchase best suits me (the single track, or the whole album). This generally results in *more* sales, not less.
Did you eaven read my post, or did you see the phrase "I'm a pirate" and just go off?
Samsung, alone, sells twice as many phones as Apple does. Apple simply applies a 50% markup to their hardware. What people want is indicated by sales numbers; the only thing profit margins indicate is how much a company wants to make off each sale.
So everybody who buys Apple products is an evil Apple fanboy?
There's a difference between a fan and a fanboi/girl (or vagina). There's also a difference between buying a product because it's what you want and buying it because it performs the task you need, at a fair price point. I love how you put that argument in my mouth, though; got anything else you want to shove in there, while your at it? Been to chik-fil-a lately? see? I can make implications so interesting as to distract the reader into thinking they were actually implied by your comment, too.
I use OSX daily, by choice; I also use Linux and Windows, and I'm not attacking any platform, here. I use OSX at work because, when I started at this job, it was a requirement that I do so; it hasn't been for over a year, I have my own development environment (Aptana) for my personal projects but I continue to use OSX at work because there is no compelling reason for me to put forth the effort to switch, it's a comfortable environment that does what I need it to do.
As a develpoer, I prefer Android for my phone, since I can do more with it; my wife, on the other hand, prefers the iPhone. I have an Android tablet and kept my Motorola Atrix (after upgrading to an HTC One X) to use as a netbook, with the lapdock; my wife prefers the iPad. We live together and we get along wonderfully because neither of us are fanbois for either platform. It is possible for other iOS and Android users to do the same; can we at least pretend to try?
You really need to learn to relax.
/me holds up a mirror
Who's getting all worked up over this?
If these companies all know what [people] want then why are all of the Android manufacturers except Samsung losing money?
They have other divisions that are losing money, and smaller margins on their profitable phones. You're trying to compare *profit* to *units sold*, but that breaks down when Apple has a 50% markup on their phone, but other manufacturers clearly sell more phones than they do.
And as far as Amazon and B&N, they don't even market that tablets as Android based devices.
Does it matter? They're not selling Android, they're selling features and an experience that people want, and people are buying. I'll grant you that Apple is currently owning the tablet market, if you'll grant me that Android manufacturers are trouncing them in the phone arena.