Smart phones for stupid people

[Defiant]

Treating "Android" as a monolithic "product" makes no sense because the mobile operating systems aren't competing with each other.

Eh?

[RunningMn9]

Treating "Android" as a monolithic "product" makes no sense because the mobile operating systems aren't competing with each other.

Eh?

Apple doesn't offer iOS as a product that is competing against Android. Samsung doesn't offer Android as a product that is competing against iOS. Apple makes handsets (that happen to have iOS) that compete with Samsung handsets (that happen to have Android).

The mobile OS itself isn't the product. So organizing market share according to the mobile OS they run will always skew the data in one direction because iOS isn't a product. It's not like Samsung has the choice to make an Android phone and an iOS phone, and they chose to offer Android. Android is just an OS that their phones run.

Aggregating by mobile OS makes things look great for Google. And things are great for Google (don't get me wrong). But aside from Samsung, most of the other handset manufacturers are getting savaged. And that reality gets hidden by looking at "Android" as a monolithic block.

Looking at "Android" as a monolithic block also obscures the reality that Apple is the most successful mobile phone manufacturer in the world - by several orders of magnitude. If you are talking about any metric in the mobile phone space that doesn't acknowledge that, one would be wise to question the validity of the metric.

This is one of those cases. Samsung and LG aren't in league. They are directly competing against each other as much as they are against Apple. Analysis of market share should reflect that.

[Defiant]

Apple doesn't offer iOS as a product that is competing against Android. Samsung doesn't offer Android as a product that is competing against iOS. Apple makes handsets (that happen to have iOS) that compete with Samsung handsets (that happen to have Android).

This is like saying that Windows never competed with MacOS because (apart from recently) they didn't run on the same systems. Apple and Google are absolutely competing with each other for consumers in the cellphone market, in terms of the OS share, respective marketplaces, ad sales and so on.

[RunningMn9]

This is like saying that Windows never competed with MacOS because (apart from recently) they didn't run on the same systems. Apple and Google are absolutely competing with each other for consumers in the cellphone market, in terms of the OS share, respective marketplaces, ad sales and so on.

It's a lot like saying that. If Apple viewed Mac OS X as a product that was competing with Windows, it wouldn't have artificially restricted Max OS X to only running on Apple hardware.

Apple is a hardware company, not a software company (with respect to their main business). Microsoft and Google are software companies. They have productized their operating systems. Apple has not.

In the personal computer space, Apple is a manufacturer akin to HP, Dell, etc. Those are their competitors. Not Microsoft. In the mobile space, Apple is a manufacturer akin to Samsung, HTC, LG, etc. Those are their competitors. Not Google.

You could argue that there is competition between Android and iOS in terms of third-party app delivery platforms, I guess. I have no issue with that.

[GreenGoo]

Lol.

If this is important enough for you to give it the treatment, by all means, have at it.

[RunningMn9]

Lol.

If this is important enough for you to give it the treatment, by all means, have at it.

It's not important at all.

[Pyperkub]

This is like saying that Windows never competed with MacOS because (apart from recently) they didn't run on the same systems. Apple and Google are absolutely competing with each other for consumers in the cellphone market, in terms of the OS share, respective marketplaces, ad sales and so on.

It's a lot like saying that. If Apple viewed Mac OS X as a product that was competing with Windows, it wouldn't have artificially restricted Max OS X to only running on Apple hardware.

Apple is a hardware company, not a software company (with respect to their main business). Microsoft and Google are software companies. They have productized their operating systems. Apple has not.

In the personal computer space, Apple is a manufacturer akin to HP, Dell, etc. Those are their competitors. Not Microsoft. In the mobile space, Apple is a manufacturer akin to Samsung, HTC, LG, etc. Those are their competitors. Not Google.

You could argue that there is competition between Android and iOS in terms of third-party app delivery platforms, I guess. I have no issue with that.

The thing is that apple has vertically integrated it's product line, iOS is is more than the OS, it is the iTunes/app store foundation, and in that realm it is 100% competing with Google/MS/Amazon, etc. Samsung/HTC etc, are not as vertically integrated but (due to the apple iOS-iTunes/app store integration), their hardware is absolutely competing against the software/services side because of the lock in. If Amazon could open an iOS appstore, or another software/media/service provider could, then things might be different.

Also note the sweetheart deals Apple gets with the carriers. Not just the phone subsidy, but a cut of the service charges. Samsung/HTC/etc. are also having to compete with that. Apple has created a competitive advantage across the board that the other phone manufacturers have to try to match... which is competition.

Also, don't forget the personal data. Google has built an empire on that data, and Apple's walled garden is a significant threat to that.

[RunningMn9]

Apple has created a competitive advantage across the board that the other phone manufacturers have to try to match... which is competition.

yes...between the phone manufacturers.

Like i said, i can understand the concept of mobile OS penetration for certain situations, it's just that I've seen these kinds of numbers misused a ton over the past couple of months.

[GreenGoo]

Apple has created a competitive advantage across the board that the other phone manufacturers have to try to match... which is competition.

yes...between the phone manufacturers.

Like i said, i can understand the concept of mobile OS penetration for certain situations, it's just that I've seen these kinds of numbers misused a ton over the past couple of months.

This is silly. So before MS bought a part of Nokia, they weren't competing in cellphone market?

Google is not competing, but there is a 20 way patent war going on, of which Google is a participant?

I don't really care how you prefer to define the market Rmn9, but you're wrong if you think there aren't other aspects of the market that are relevant, or that your viewpoint is the only relevant one.

This whole thing is entering the surreal.

[Kasey Chang]

I actually analyzed the market a little and explained how the 4 layers of the market (hardware, carrier, mobile OS, and apps) are vertically and horizontally competing.

http://kschang.hubpages.com/hub/Smart-P ... Tech-World" target="_blank

[Kraken]

FWIW, when we bought my wife's smartphone (and this is my thread, remember?) we went in looking specifically for an Android phone, with no hardware brand in mind. She chose a Samsung (I think) because it had a slide-out keyboard and she found some positive user reviews. On this basic level, at least, Apple is competing with Android and not Samsung. We didn't care who made the hardware.

But it's an apples (heh) and oranges comparison because Apple doesn't license their OS. You can't talk about iOS without specifically meaning Apple. I do understand RM9's point, though, that there is no Android Corp. that's growing fat on its market dominance.

This is really just the old Mac vs. PC debate with the difference that the Mac hasn't been outcompeted (yet).

[RunningMn9]

This is silly. So before MS bought a part of Nokia, they weren't competing in cellphone market?

Pay attention. No one said that. It was simply pointed out that arbitrarily looking at the Q3 2011 data for mobile OS penetration isn't very relevant because there are contextual factors that affect the expected trajectory of the thing you were looking at.

The Q3 numbers for Apple were depressed by the reality that consumers were waiting to purchase handsets in Q4 with the release of the iPhone 4S, and the price reductions expected on the iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS. This was pointed out to you, not to defend Apple - but to call attention to the fact that your analysis of the Q3 numbers was superficial enough that it gave you the wrong impression of the smartphone market.

Looking at the latest data (which is easily available, found in 3.1 seconds here), you'll note that rather than just offer a table of data, they offer some context that explains gains/drops.

You'll also note that market share isn't broken down by mobile phone OS.

[GreenGoo]

This is silly. So before MS bought a part of Nokia, they weren't competing in cellphone market?

Pay attention. No one said that. It was simply pointed out that arbitrarily looking at the Q3 2011 data for mobile OS penetration isn't very relevant because there are contextual factors that affect the expected trajectory of the thing you were looking at.

Of course it's relevant. It's you that isn't paying attention. There is a whole conversation in this thread that you missed. You come in here throwing your opinion around like it means something in the context of this thread.

Honestly Rmn9, I know I can be pig headed, but this is just another shit in your pants you're trying to sit through to make a point. No one is countering your points. I just don't care about them. Take them to the "time to sell Apple" thread because no one is looking for companies to invest in in this thread, and hardware was a secondary conversation right from the start, that began with smartphones, android or iOS?

There is nothing misleading about the numbers I posted. No one is misrepresenting anything, and no one is claiming that Apple sucks. If you don't want to compare Android directly to IOS that's fine. But don't tell me it's wrong to do so, or that it isn't relevant. Geezus.

Edit: My link broke marketshare down by manufacturer in one table, and by OS in another. Yours probably should too, given that it is a hot topic that has been heatedly discussed over the last 2 years. Especially given that typical smartphone decisions are made by OS first. No one walks into your local telecom store, trying to decide between manufacturers. They walk in trying to decide between an iPhone and Android. AFTER that decision is made, they pick the hardware they want to run it on (assuming it's Android. If it's iPhone, the decision is made for you). By your logic it makes no sense to compare an OS on one hand and hardware on another. Feel free to explain that to the hundreds of thousands of people doing it, and how they are basing their decision on irrelevant considerations.

[RunningMn9]

Of course it's relevant.

At least you know that you can be pig-headed, so there's a chance that we'll get through this.

Let me simplify. Your initial post with the data wasn't irrelevant or misleading simply because it provided market share data on iOS vs. Android. It was irrelevant and misleading because:

1) The data is more than 5 months old, and more recent data was readily available.
2) The snapshot that you chose came at a particularly poor time for drawing conclusions because there were several factors that were depressing the numbers for some of the manufacturers that were not particularly indicative of a long-term trend, or the actual state of the industry, outside of the specific conditions of Q3.
3) It was clearly misleading, as it lead you to conclude that "Android is dominating". In the following quarter, Android lost 13-14% of their market share, depending on which research group you look at, and which data set they are discussing, while Apple saw substantial gains.
4) The manufacturers of all smartphones don't give a squirt about the distinction between mobile phone OS. In other words, none of the players involved are trying to drive market penetration of a mobile OS. Samsung isn't trying to increase Android's market share, they are trying to increase Samsung's market share (whether that comes at the expense of Apple, RIM, HTC, LG or whomever, they don't care). HTC isn't trying to increase Android's market share, they are trying to increase HTC's market share. Same goes for Apple. If no one involved is trying to drive the numbers you are analyzing, then it's a good bet that what you are looking at isn't nearly as important as you think it is. None of the people involved think that it's important enough to pursue, why do you?

The clear message from any analysis of smartphone sales is that only two companies are dominating. Apple and Samsung. Everyone else is practically a non-factor.

hardware was a secondary conversation right from the start, that began with smartphones, android or iOS?

Continuing to repeat a mistake doesn't make it right. How can you ignore hardware when talking about hardware companies? Apple isn't a software company, and they don't promote iOS as a product (I would agree that there are times when it is ok to consider it as a separate product, but looking at market share of smartphone sales isn't one of them). Any comparison that seeks to treat iOS as a product that is trying to acquire mobile OS marketshare is wrong-headed. Because Apple doesn't treat it as a product that is trying to acquire mobile OS marketshare.

There is nothing misleading about the numbers I posted.

Aside from the fact that you posted stale data without any relevant context explaining the numbers that you posted.

No one is misrepresenting anything

You are, when you attempted to draw conclusions from stale data that was provided sans context.

Especially given that typical smartphone decisions are made by OS first. No one walks into your local telecom store, trying to decide between manufacturers. They walk in trying to decide between an iPhone and Android. AFTER that decision is made, they pick the hardware they want to run it on (assuming it's Android. If it's iPhone, the decision is made for you).

Actually, no. This may be how you decide on which smartphone to get (and I would agree that it's a perfectly legitimate place to start). But this clearly isn't how the masses choose which smartphone to buy.

There is one group of consumers that genuinely cares whether or not they own an Android or an iPhone. And for them, making that choice first is accurate (NOTE: for this group of consumers, I am agreeing with you). But that isn't the largest group of consumers. For the bulk of consumers, the first choice they make is the network carrier. And while handset choice (including Android vs. iOS) may be a part of that - there are other concerns that can and do outweight that. Network coverage, 4G availability, pricing models, data limitations, etc.

If you want to understand this phenomenon, look at the launch of the iPhone on the Verizon network. While it definitely pulled some subscribers away from AT&T (to your point about caring first and foremost about mobile OS), the majority of iPhone sales on Verizon were already Verizon customers. Their initial smartphone selection wasn't based on mobile OS. It was based on choosing the carrier first, and dealing with whatever handsets were available.

The next class of consumers, after choosing a carrier, make their decision based on price. Many consumers might want an iPhone, but aren't willing to pay that price premium (nor are they willing to pay for the top-of-the-line Android handsets). Carriers offer Android-based phones from a variety of manufacturers at every price point, including free. So for many, the choice isn't really about mobile OS, so much as it is about price. For an example of understanding that phenomenon, look at what happened with the relatively ancient iPhone 3GS after they started offering it for free or with the iPhone 4 after they dropped the price to $100.

I'll even give you a prediction to validate my hypothesis. Right now, there are a significant number of people that own Android handsets, not because they run Android, but because that's the only option available for 4G. When Apple releases a phone with 4G capability, watch what happens. And I'll note that 4G isn't a feature of the Android OS. It's a hardware feature offered by the smartphone manufacturers and the carriers. And yet it indirectly manipulates the mobile OS market share numbers.

I'll even be nice and give you a counter-example, which is what happened with Sprint after they offered the iPhone. They saw a reasonably large jump in subscribership. I point this out so that you get that I understand the decision you are talking about (clearly all those new subs had chosen other carriers because Sprint didn't offer the iPhone). But that type of consumer is the minority. Most people want a smartphone, they don't start out caring whether it's Android or iOS.

Feel free to explain that to the hundreds of thousands of people doing it, and how they are basing their decision on irrelevant considerations.

For those hundreds of thousands of people doing it - it's particularly relevant.

For the other tens of millions of people doing different things, it's not nearly as relevant.

I'll say it one more time - there are times when you would need to look at mobile OS market share. Let's imagine that I was an app developer and had to choose where to allocate my resources. In that case, it would certainly be nice to know how many "Android" (forgetting that the Android OS ecosystem has much greater fragmentation considering the number of different versions that are out in the wild) handsets are out there versus how many "iOS" devices are out there (although I would want tablets included in those numbers).

But for taking a look at the smartphone industry as a whole? It seems to make a lot more sense to look at the industry in terms that all of the players in the smartphone industry look at themselves. Or at the very least, you shouldn't choose a particularly poor data set as the one that contains artificially reduced demand for some of the players due to anticipated product launches (which are always more relevant to Apple, but in this case where significant for Windows Phone as well). I haven't seen any evidence yet of pent up demand in the Android-space. That is presumably due to having 16 product launches per month over a wide variety of manufacturers.

I have no dog in this fight. The top-of-the-line Android phones available are amazing pieces of technology. While I personally don't want one (I don't care for their march towards ever-increasing sizes of phones), I can certainly see why other people want to buy them. I'm not any particular fan of Apple, other than the 4S met my requirements for size and functionality at the time I bought it.

I'm just tired of seeing old data be used without context when both context and fresher data are easily available. Consider the following as an example:

But there is no arguing against the fact that there are more than 3 times the number of hands holding androids than are holding iPhones.

There is arguing against that fact, because it isn't true. The data that you offered, and from which you drew that conclusion was misleading. For starters, the data you showed only includes handsets sold in that quarter, it doesn't reflect the actual install base. And even within the quarter's data, it doesn't acknowledge the fact that demand for the iPhone was suppressed in anticipation of the 4S and price drops on the older models. And the data supplied ignores upgrades (an existing Android or iPhone user upgrading to a newer Android or iPhone handset doesn't change the size of the install base).

Or this:

Cost is obviously a factor, but the cost of top end Android phones are in the same price range as iPhones, yet they still sell well enough comparatively.

This is also not shown in the data you provided, as it doesn't break down sales by model. The top-end Android phones don't even come close to the top end iPhones. They sell "well enough" for some manufacturers (Samsung), and are disappointing for others (HTC). But neither approach the ridiculous sales numbers of the iPhone 4S (or previously with the iPhone 4, or in the future when the iPhone 5 is released).

[Exodor]

Rm9 must be bored - quick, someone create a Quinn thread or something.

[RunningMn9]

This is like saying that Windows never competed with MacOS because (apart from recently) they didn't run on the same systems. Apple and Google are absolutely competing with each other for consumers in the cellphone market, in terms of the OS share, respective marketplaces, ad sales and so on.

I think that you could easily make the argument that Microsoft was competing with Apple, or that Google is competing with Apple. What I'm saying is that people don't seem to realize that Apple isn't competing with Microsoft or Google. Apple is competing with Samsung, HTC, LG, HP, Dell, etc.

Microsoft and Google are OS vendors. Apple isn't. There has been a lot of pressure internally at Apple to become an OS vendor by releasing a version of Mac OS X that runs directly on PCs (it has long been rumored that they maintain a version internally, just in case). But the word from on high (Steve Jobs) has always been the same. Apple is a hardware company, not an OS vendor.

They compete with other hardware companies, not other OS vendors. Most of their patent lawsuits are against other hardware manufacturers (Samsung and Motorola Mobility), no?

[Defiant]

Apple is a hardware company, not a software company (with respect to their main business). Microsoft and Google are software companies.

Jobs disagreed:

Jobs said, when it comes down to it, all its products are really just software wrapped up in a beautiful box and that's why Apple competes with Microsoft.

"The big secret about Apple of course – a not so big secret maybe – is that Apple views itself as a software company and there aren’t very many software companies left," he said. "Microsoft is a software company and so we look at what they do and we think some of it’s really great and we think a little bit of it’s competitive and most of it’s not. We don’t have a belief that the Mac is going to take over 80 percent of the PC market."

http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/1 ... early.html" target="_blank

But lets say for the moment that Apple is predominantly a hardware company. That doesn't mean that the software isn't vital to that - no one would have bought an apple computer without the operating system to run software on it.

Take a look at, say, AT&T. You might say that they're not a cellphone company, they're a cell service company. And there's a perfectly reasonable classification. But no one can deny that the cellphones it offers is very important to it being competitive - otherwise the arrangement AT&T and Apple made to give AT&T a monopoly on the iphones wouldn't have happened.

[RunningMn9]

Jobs disagreed

That would certainly seem so, based on that interview. Although my insight comes from current and former employees, and what was given to them in terms of direction from on high. Although obviously a direct quote from Jobs trumps my sources.

But lets say for the moment that Apple is predominantly a hardware company. That doesn't mean that the software isn't vital to that - no one would have bought an apple computer without the operating system to run software on it.

I'm not sure why you think that I have been saying something other than that. OF COURSE the software that runs on the hardware is vital to it. In the eyes of Apple, it's a single product. The box doesn't exist separately from the OS, and the OS doesn't exist separately from the box. That's the point. Microsoft Windows is a thing that as a consumer, I can just go buy. Mac OS X isn't a thing that as a consumer, I can just go buy. Again, maybe we've been following different research groups over the years, but in every market share study I've ever seen on the desktop market, market share is based on PC vs. Other. Not Windows vs. Other. The reason is more obvious here, because a PC doesn't have to run Windows.

Take a look at, say, AT&T. You might say that they're not a cellphone company, they're a cell service company. And there's a perfectly reasonable classification. But no one can deny that the cellphones it offers is very important to it being competitive - otherwise the arrangement AT&T and Apple made to give AT&T a monopoly on the iphones wouldn't have happened.

Again, why are you thinking that I've objected to that? I've specifically agreed with GreenGoo on that point (for some people). AT&T isn't a cellphone company. They are a network carrier. And they are competing with other network carriers (Verizon Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.). One of the things that they can compete on is the kinds of handsets that they offer.

This was a *huge* deal when there was the initial iPhone, and no Android phones. And as I noted, adding the iPhone to their lineup was a big deal for both Verizon and Sprint when they did it. What I was explaining to GreenGoo is that mobile OS, for most consumers, comes after choosing a carrier (where available handsets and mobile OS flavors are one of many possible selection criteria). A lot of people chose Verizon over AT&T, in spite of the iPhone's exclusivity on AT&T, and even with no comparable smartphone to choose from on Verizon. Whether they did it for network coverage, price, or whatever, the decision didn't come down to "I will choose my carrier because it offers the iPhone".

To get to your point. I know several people that own Macs because they prefer Mac OS X over Windows. But that number is dwarfed by the people that buy Macs because the Mac ecosystem is easier to deal with. They're buying a complete product from a single vendor. They aren't buying a computer from a computer manufacturer that has bundled all manner of shenanigans on it (to help their bottom line, not their customer's experience). They are typically far more aesthetically pleasing (in terms of hardware design) than PCs, and that plays into it as well.

Just like someone might choose to get an Android phone, not because they want an Android phone, but because they want a smartphone that supports 4G. And right now, all of the phones that have the hardware to support 4G, happen to run Android OS. That's a hardware feature, not an OS feature. It has nothing to do with whether or not a user prefers one mobile OS over the other. Anymore than say, the camera used. Or the physical size of the phone, or the dimensions/resolution of the display.

Here's an example. Here is the product page for the Samsung Epic 4G Touch.

What are the selling points of the phone, in the eyes of Samsung? Based on the design of that page, I would say the compelling features are:

1) 4G
2) Bright, big, colorful display
3) Fast, dual-core processor
4) The Samsung Media Hub
5) 8 MP 1080p camera
6) Samsung AllShare
7) Exchange ActiveSync support

That's it. Nowhere in the "Features" list does Samsung promote it's Android-ness. And while we can agree that most everyone in the market for a smartphone probably goes in knowing that it's an Android phone - the marketing of the cell phone is clearly based on an impressive set of hardware features. Not on the mobile OS that provides the software platform that runs them.

As far as I can tell, Android is mentioned only once, in the spec sheet, and not particularly prominently. And I only say this to illustrate that Samsung is a smartphone vendor. They happen to leverage Android as their operating system. But they aren't actively trying to promote or push the Android platform, and they aren't even using it in their marketing materials to sell the device. The sales pitch is *entirely* about the hardware (well, and a few Samsung specific software elements ).

[RunningMn9]

Contrast that to the product page for the Samsung Nexus, which is Google's design. That product page is all about Android.

[Pyperkub]

RM9 - fwiw, the ever increasing size of phone is mostly due to the size of the LTE antennas. That is one of the reasons the iPhone 4s didn't come with an LTe variant (others being worldwide and AT&T LTE penetration is really small).

Epic 4g/Tapatalk

[RunningMn9]

RM9 - fwiw, the ever increasing size of phone is mostly due to the size of the LTE antennas. That is one of the reasons the iPhone 4s didn't come with an LTe variant (others being worldwide and AT&T LTE penetration is really small).

That's part of it, certainly. Although I suspect that they are constantly striving to make a better media experience with larger screens as well. Samsung has of course taken it to absurd lengths with the Note.

[Pyperkub]

RM9 - fwiw, the ever increasing size of phone is mostly due to the size of the LTE antennas. That is one of the reasons the iPhone 4s didn't come with an LTe variant (others being worldwide and AT&T LTE penetration is really small).

That's part of it, certainly. Although I suspect that they are constantly striving to make a better media experience with larger screens as well. Samsung has of course taken it to absurd lengths with the Note.

The Evo was too big for me, but I see the Note almost as a shirt pocket notepad replacement. Probably a perfect detective smart phone/device...

Epic 4g/Tapatalk

[RunningMn9]

The Evo was too big for me, but I see the Note almost as a shirt pocket notepad replacement. Probably a perfect detective smart phone/device...

I'm sure the giant screens appeal to lots of people. They just don't appeal to me. And it just seemed for a while that every new phone that came out on the Android side was touting how much bigger the display was, culminating in the Samsung Note Super Bowl commercial which I though was crafted for me personally by the folks over at The Onion.

The iPhone is the perfect size for me. If they grow it for 4G, I will most likely resist, as long as Verizon allows me to stick with 3G.

[GreenGoo]

16g iPhone 4S selling for $650 bucks (canadian) sans contract link
16g Galaxy Nexus selling for $600 bucks (canadian) sans contract. link

Both those are popular wireless providers right now. I guess I should have said comparable high end androids, as there isn't a 64g version that I'm aware of. Both sites have a listing for Galaxy Nexus, and both sites start the feature list with Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich before mentioning anything else. I guess it depends on the provider and phone whether it is important or not. Given that the Galaxy Nexus is the flagship phone, I think this reflects both Google's and Samsung's desire to promote the features of this phone, one of which is it's operating system. You know, the thing that makes it useful as a smartphone.

Both can be found cheaper during deals and such.

I did not cherry pick my Q3 results. they were sufficient to illustrate windows phone 7 lack of progress, and they were the first hit returned. Given that I identified them as Q3, I think that should be good enough for viewers at home to take that into account when I spoke.

Looking for more accurate, current numbers, they are all over the place from December of last year to February of this year, with Apple approaching Android's numbers during the holidays and then falling off again. I found lots of numbers. All of which varied from each other to one degree or another.

Apple itself talks about how the iOS will lead them into the future, through iPad and iPhone sales and it is here that they expect to innovate. I couldn't find a single article quoting anyone at Apple talking about hardware as their way ahead. It is clear to anyone willing to follow them that their business strategy is almost entirely software based. iOS is running on two apple products now, whereas there isn't an alternative OS for their phones (although I hear hackers are working on getting linux running on it ).

Honestly, talking about Apple is boring to me. They seem to be pulling the same nonsense they did when they nearly bankrupted themselves last time. The last article I read saw Apple stumbling in China, whereas Samsung is making decent in-roads, using android based phones of course. They are doing well, but have done well before with superior product. They aren't going to disappear tomorrow, but I think the closed garden which has done well so far is going to be their undoing as the rest of the world decides to use something more open.

Showing my bias, I think Android as a competitive product and Apple's business practices are going to be Apple's undoing. I think 5 years will give us some indication of what the future will bring in this market. I suspect it will be obvious much earlier than that, but I'll put 5 years out as a good solid amount of time for things to shake out.

Not sure what any of this has to do MS falling down completely in the mobile market, but Apple seems to be a popular and occasionally controversial topic even when they aren't the subject of conversation.

[Pyperkub]

I'm not so sure. Let's see what the iPad 3 does, I kind of think it might blow the doors off of any Android Tablet out there in terms of performance and battery with the alleged screen. Even a top of the line Transformer Prime won't be able to compete with that for 6+ months, and Apple is supposed to be slightly behind the hardware curve.

Samsung's foldable displays might... if they can get to market quick enough with no durability or cost/defect issues.

Samsung is also hamstrung by their poor software. I will never buy another Samsung phone unless it's a Nexus, which is dependent on Google for the updates as it really is the Google phone.

[GreenGoo]

I'm not so sure. Let's see what the iPad 3 does, I kind of think it might blow the doors off of any Android Tablet out there in terms of performance and battery with the alleged screen. Even a top of the line Transformer Prime won't be able to compete with that for 6+ months, and Apple is supposed to be slightly behind the hardware curve.

Samsung's foldable displays might... if they can get to market quick enough with no durability or cost/defect issues.

Samsung is also hamstrung by their poor software. I will never buy another Samsung phone unless it's a Nexus, which is dependent on Google for the updates as it really is the Google phone.

Their fall is not starting now. They will continue to do well. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I assume they completely dominate the tablet market. Android based tablets were slow to the market, and they are only being adopted slowly, at least that's what it feels like. I'd like to see some numbers, but I'm in no rush.

As I said, their fall will have nothing to do with the quality of their products, which by any measure are top of the line. I actually prefer the formfactor of the iPhone to any of the last 3 Google phones. And holding it in your hand, it just exudes quality.

[RunningMn9]

16g iPhone 4S selling for $650 bucks (canadian) sans contract link
16g Galaxy Nexus selling for $600 bucks (canadian) sans contract. link

Both those are popular wireless providers right now. I guess I should have said comparable high end androids, as there isn't a 64g version that I'm aware of.

There are certainly comparably priced phones. Your comment was that the comparably priced phones were selling comparably. Consider the Galaxy Nexus listed above. Finding reported sales figures has proven difficult, which probably isn't a good sign. However, based on some voodoo, this site estimated that there were sales of about 700,000 between the launch in November, and the beginning of January. 700k is not comparable to the over 4 million iPhone 4S handsets sold in the first weekend that it was available.

The only phone that might have a shot at comparable sales figures is Samsung's other Galaxy flagship phone. But I haven't seen recent sales figures on that either - other than to note that it didn't come anywhere close to the launch that the 4S had.

Both sites have a listing for Galaxy Nexus, and both sites start the feature list with Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich before mentioning anything else.

I noted this in my post, when referencing Samsung's own page about the Galaxy Nexus. The difference between that phone and all of it's other phones is that the Nexus is designed by Google to be the flagship Android phone. Google is directly behind that phone, and thus the mobile OS is featured much more prominently in the marketing material.

I did not cherry pick my Q3 results. they were sufficient to illustrate windows phone 7 lack of progress, and they were the first hit returned. Given that I identified them as Q3, I think that should be good enough for viewers at home to take that into account when I spoke.

I didn't accuse you of intentionally cherry-picking those results. I simply noted that the data was stale, and that there was some context there with regards to the numbers for Apple and Microsoft, which made the post misleading (because it was using old data without context to draw an incorrect conclusion about the trajectory of all three mobile operating systems).

I didn't state or imply that you did it intentionally. Or if I implied it, I apologize. I didn't mean to.

The last article I read saw Apple stumbling in China

We'll know in the middle of April I guess. They've got another launch with China Telecom on Friday.

Not sure what any of this has to do MS falling down completely in the mobile market, but Apple seems to be a popular and occasionally controversial topic even when they aren't the subject of conversation.

Microsoft has hunkered down to relaunch their platform on the backs of Nokia, and have heavily committed their fortunes to this segment (as evidenced by redesigning their desktop OS to match their mobile platform - something that Apple is doing as well with the release of Mountain Lion).

The Q4 numbers would reflect the initial results of how Microsoft is changing their strategy (incidentally, the largest change for them is to remove focus on the OS, and to instead focus on the hardware devices themselves). I would start with those numbers, and then observe the next couple of quarters to see what happens.

[Jaymon]

I have been debating if i need to upgrade my phone for several months now. I am slow like that.
The thing is, I really like my phone Nokia Music Express 5310

It works really well for phone calls and playing music. Once I got it, I was able to set aside my MP3 player. This phone is small and light enough to be used for jogging and fit in a pocket.

But recently I have been distressed by lack of internet and other online features, as well as wanting to use software or 'Apps', as the cool kids call them.
But every time I go and look at phones, its just a bunch of advertising buzzwords and garbledegook, and when I try the phones in the store I hate them. I have tried a number of phones at the T-Mobile store, and no I don't remember which ones.
They are too big, or look flimsy, or are just difficult to use.
I know my phone will break eventually, but its 2 1/2 years old, and still works. Looking at the phones in the store, I don't get any sense they will last that long, and almost everybody who has a 'smart' phone seems to replace them fairly often.

So what do I do, do I keep this phone and wait for it to finally quit working, (it has no problems now except for a scratch on the screen) or do i try something new? I hate trying something new, it makes me cranky. And I don't want a piece of over hyped garbage that will be outdated in 6 months.

I am generally considered to be a smart person, and I am tech savvy, but everything about smart phones makes me hate them, hate the advertisers, hate the data plans.
I just get the sense that people are all the time upgrading their smart phones because every phone they buy gives them buyer remorse.

[GreenGoo]

The Q4 numbers would reflect the initial results of how Microsoft is changing their strategy (incidentally, the largest change for them is to remove focus on the OS, and to instead focus on the hardware devices themselves). I would start with those numbers, and then observe the next couple of quarters to see what happens.

That's fine, and of course we will continue to see what they are up to and how it works for them. Except they didn't just leave the starting gate and after a year have less market share than they did 2 years ago. As I've said earlier in the thread, they have to succeed in this market or they will move ever closer to being irrelevant in consumer computing. I don't believe that desktops are going to go away (at least, I hope not) but for the average person their mobile device will soon be everything they need, if it isn't already.

They are "focused" on hardware because they couldn't get anyone to commit serious resources to making phones that ran their OS. They managed to get an exclusivity deal with Nokia (a major coup for them, not so much for Nokia) and eventually bought that division. So if by concentrate on hardware you mean buy themselves a company so that someone would be willing to make phones that ran their OS, I guess that's right.

Jaymon, people keep upgrading their phones, as far as I can tell, because they like having the biggest and the best. It's not a whole lot different from upgrading a video card every time the market goes nuts over the next break through product, although with Apple I guess there were features missing on previous versions. I know several people who can't get enough. Every time a new phone is announced, they start salivating like World of Warcraft 2 was announced =P. And of course the increased horsepower doesn't hurt. For example my Nexus One, a flagship phone from...2 years ago? 1.5 years ago? Something like that anyway. My Nexus One runs Cartoon Wars (a mindless game, but fun) as a slide show. I've tried just suffering through it, but I can't. It sucks. My phone just cannot handle it. On my tablet however, it runs like a dream. And the larger surface makes it easier and more enjoyable to control (which is one of the driving forces behind bigger screens. Apps). If I cared enough, I would upgrade to a Galaxy Nexus. But I'm not made of money and I only enjoy my phone, I'm not enamored with it, so my motivation is not there. But I know people who upgrade every single time a new phone comes out, and all they do is make phone calls, check email and play angry birds on it.

[Isgrimnur]

I hate trying something new, it makes me cranky. And I don't want a piece of over hyped garbage that will be outdated in 6 months.

That's pretty much the state of the industry. It's been almost 5 months since the iPhone 4S was released, and you can reasonable expect the next one by this fall.

I am generally considered to be a smart person, and I am tech savvy, but everything about smart phones makes me hate them, hate the advertisers, hate the data plans.
I just get the sense that people are all the time upgrading their smart phones because every phone they buy gives them buyer remorse.

I carried my iPhone 3G for 3 years before its obsolescence and inability to keep up made me upgrade. Then I dropped it in a water glass the night before I got my new one. During the first 2.5 years, it did everything that I wanted it to do. It played my music, streamed Pandora, allowed me web access, etc. The last half year was a bit more frustrating as things didn't work nearly as smoothly, as the apps are constantly upgrading as well. So I spent another 6 months waiting so that I could get the latest model.

Assuming you're not looking for functionality that's niched into a subcorner of the market, any of the devices should be able to meet your needs. Don't ask the store personnel about the phones, as they're trying to make a sale. Ask people that use the devices. Ask specific questions. Have someone guide you through the use. The device form factor is going to be new to you. Expect to invest in a case. It will make the phone bigger, but improve survivability.

No device is going to be perfect. Mine requires iTunes integration. Android is fragmented in terms of OS by the support and upgrade path of the handset mfgs.

[RunningMn9]

GreenGoo, when I say that they are concentrating more on hardware, I mean that the product pages for the phones with WP7.5 will look more like the Samsung Epic linked above (marketed by the manufacturer, using the hardware specs as the selling point, and barely mentioning the OS), and less like the Galaxy Nexus, which advertises the feature list of ICS as prominently as the hardware features.

[RLMullen]

I don't believe that desktops are going to go away (at least, I hope not) but for the average person their mobile device will soon be everything they need, if it isn't already.

Desktops are not going anywhere. My desktop is where I put my laptop, my tablet, my Kindle, and my phone. I occasionally eat lunch off of my desktop.

[Kraken]

So what do I do, do I keep this phone and wait for it to finally quit working, (it has no problems now except for a scratch on the screen) or do i try something new?

My old (dumb) cell phone finally died after 6 years -- well, not exactly, but rather than replace the battery for the third time I figured I should get a new one. I flirted reluctantly with smartphones (I think I started this thread during that time), but in the end I bought another flip phone as similar to my old one as I could find.

Unfortunately, it's a lot more complicated than the old one, and I don't like it very much. I wish I'd just bought a battery and kept the old one for a couple more years. If I were you, I'd hang on to the one you like for as long as you can.

[Jaymon]

I finally decided, keeping my current phone, but getting a tablet. the Galaxy Tab 7. I want the mobile internet stuff, but also don't want to upgrade my phone. best of both worlds, right?

Stupid Tmobil site won't let me buy it.
"We are temporarily unable to take your order online. We apologize for the inconvenience."
of course I can't get the web site only pricing if I call the number, so i am back to being totally cranky about phone purchase again.

[Kraken]

I DID IT! Only took me 3 years but I have officially joined the 21st century.

Staples had the Galaxy S4 for 1 cent with a trade-in and activation. Verizon had a 1-day Presidents Day rebate of $100 for upgrading from a dumb to a smart phone plus free activation. I had a staples coupon for $10 and a $5 rebate certificate for ink cartridges I'd previously returned.

So it only cost me $230! ($130 after I get that Verizon credit.)

Wait. What?

I bought the phone damage insurance because it was half off ($75 instead of $150). I bought a case, a screen protector, and a 32 GB memory card. And I bought a new printer cartridge.

I still haven't decided if the insurance was a dumb move or not. Unlike every other phone I've ever owned, I do intend to carry this one around with me and use it as a music player. The saleskid was genuinely convinced that it was a good deal at half off.

The new Verizon plan costs $40 per phone plus $50 for 2 GB shared data per month. We were paying $105 for 700 talk minutes and unlimited data for one phone, plus my dumb phone. So getting unlimited talk and a second smart phone for only $25/mo more was a surprisingly good deal, especially since my wife often goes over the 700 minute limit.

[Kasey Chang]

If the $75 is for 2 years, and deductible is $50, then it's a good deal. Phone insurance generally runs for about $7-10 per MONTH.

On the other hand, you probably got gibbed for all the accessories, as they are often MUCH cheaper off Amazon or such places.

[Jeff V]

I just dropped my phone insurance because (1) we're 6 months away from contract renewal time and (2) once again, we were facing exceeding our data limit, this time more than 2 weeks before month end (wife gets very bored on these overnight shifts). Dropping the insurance more than covered doubling the data from 1 GB shared to 2 GB. Yesterday, Verizon just sent me an email telling me that my data has been doubled again at no extra charge (so 4 GB?). Maybe I'll have to revert to the earlier plan.

[Kraken]

If the $75 is for 2 years, and deductible is $50, then it's a good deal. Phone insurance generally runs for about $7-10 per MONTH.

On the other hand, you probably got gibbed for all the accessories, as they are often MUCH cheaper off Amazon or such places.

2 years with $99 deductible. For the accessories I needed $75 to use a $10 coupon, but I was really paying for the convenience of 1-stop shopping. Also earned some staples reward points and got 5% credit card rebate...so all of that together probably made them competitive.

The real icing on the cake was that $100 credit from verizon for upgrading to a smart phone. With that, my cost was $130 for the phone, insurance, accessories...and a printer cartridge. Not feeling bad about the overall purchase.

Now I have to teach myself how to use the phone. Already discovered how to make it use wi-fi at home.

[Kasey Chang]

Well, it's a $500 phone, so $100 deductible ain't that bad.

[Kraken]

And today I read my first-ever QR code. I'm going to assume this all gets easier after you get accounts set up and EULAs agreed to and whatnot. Seems to take forever to do simple things when you're setting up a new phone.

Soon I will be asking questions about apps. Haven't had much time to play with it yet.