But how do you know it's had no affect? If the Mini was not launched Android sales could have been even higher.
Because Android tablet sales have not slowed down. They increased 163% in the past year. Plus if the iPad Mini had been successful in reacting to Android and retaining a hold in the market, Apple would not have lost half their market share.
I think it's wishful thinking to suggest that the "cheaper" iPhone could turn the tables on Android.
I was,and still to some degree,an Apple fan. I could not live without my iPad. But the same does not apply to the iPhone. In the past I've had the 4 4S and 5,which at the various times of ownership I could not fault. Then the HTC One came along,and since I've owned one,no way would I go back to the iPhone 5. It just seems so outdated compared to the One. I'm looking forward to the 10th September and the launch of the new iPhone,but there needs to be some big improvements to bring it anywhere near the HTC.
What you and he said a poles apart, so for clarity is it your contention that is what you have been saying through this thread then?
Yes.
"if you have a whole range of products at various price points and cover all of the market, you have massively more potential customers and are more likely to command a large market share."
Is pretty much exactly what I said at the start, i.e. because there are Android phones available at more price points, including many at lower price points to that of the iPhone, then they'll obviously sell more low cost phones.
Which in turn will obviously affect their overall market share.
Of course you did you have always said that the different form factors, features such as removable battery, sd card, larger screens, better more advanced OS alongside price etc are really important factors in people wishing an android phone.
Hang on no you didn't it was all about price, I will let history be the judge of your squirming and weaseling in this thread
.
The adoption of Android has absolutely nothing to do with any features of Android, it is entirely down to price and availability of different form factors.
I think I've been pretty clear by now with what I've been saying. I certainly know I've said that with that particular quote I would probably have said "largely" rather than "entirely".
What I originally said was that more people buy more low (and mid) cost phones than buy high end phones.
And, as IslandNiles said, "if you have a whole range of products at various price points and cover all of the market, you have massively more potential customers and are more likely to command a large market share.".
Having to hold your hand and join the dots here is quite painful, but if more people are buying more low (and mid) cost phones, and there are dozens of low and mid cost Android phones, but no low to mid cost iPhones then of course that will mean that Android will benefit enormously when it comes to gaining market share.
Even with the quote above about prices, I would argue that price was a bigger differentiation than features. Put it this way, there are dozens of Android phones on the market, the majority of which cost less than an iPhone. And even then, three iPhone models manage to command around a 20% market share.
If there were as many iPhones, at as many price points, as there are Android phones, I don't believe for a second that Android would have the market share that it does.
Conclusion: the fact that there are so many different Android models available at so many different price points plays an enormous part in Android having the market share that it does.
I think I've been pretty clear by now with what I've been saying. I certainly know I've said that with that particular quote I would probably have said "largely" rather than "entirely".
What I originally said was that more people buy more low (and mid) cost phones than buy high end phones.
And, as IslandNiles said, "if you have a whole range of products at various price points and cover all of the market, you have massively more potential customers and are more likely to command a large market share.".
Having to hold your hand and join the dots here is quite painful, but if more people are buying more low (and mid) cost phones, and there are dozens of low and mid cost Android phones, but no low to mid cost iPhones then of course that will mean that Android will benefit enormously when it comes to gaining market share.
Even with the quote above about prices, I would argue that price was a bigger differentiation than features. Put it this way, there are dozens of Android phones on the market, the majority of which cost less than an iPhone. And even then, three iPhone models manage to command around a 20% market share.
If there were as many iPhones, at as many price points, as there are Android phones, I don't believe for a second that Android would have the market share that it does.
Just because you think you have been clear, does not make you correct! Something you need to learn!
Fact is, you have absolutely no idea what would happen. None whatsoever. This whole daft argument is based on biased opinions.
More people buy more lower cost phones, so the fact that there are so many lower cost Android phones helps Android gain a larger marker share need to be.
If you want to highlight something that wasn't clear, by all means do.
But you're right - I have no idea what would happen.
That three high end Apple phones manage to command 20% of the market amongst literally dozens of Android phones, most of which are cheaper than iPhones....
...certainly doesn't guarantee that if there were as many iOS phones, at as many price points as Android phones, that their respective market shares would be a lot closer.
Who knows - maybe despite selling so many iPhones at the higher end of the market, Apple would really struggle to sell any at lower prices.
But I somehow doubt it.
That I think they would not have much trouble sell a lot of lower cost iPhones, is based on the fact that they sell so many of their existing models.
There is nothing biased about that - its basic common sense.
More people buy more lower cost phones, so the fact that there are so many lower cost Android phones helps Android gain a larger marker share need to be.
If you want to highlight something that wasn't clear, by all means do.
But you're right - I have no idea what would happen.
That three high end Apple phones manage to command 20% of the market amongst literally dozens of Android phones, most of which are cheaper than iPhones....
...certainly doesn't guarantee that if there were as many iOS phones, at as many price points as Android phones, that their respective market shares would be a lot closer.
Who knows - maybe despite selling so many iPhones at the higher end of the market, Apple would really struggle to sell any at lower prices.
But I somehow doubt it.
That I think they would not have much trouble sell a lot of lower cost iPhones, is based on the fact that they sell so many of their existing models.
There is nothing biased about that - its basic common sense.
Yes, you have been clear but it makes no odds as its pure guess work.
You have no idea what would happen with the market.
Yes, you have been clear but it makes no odds as its pure guess work.
You have no idea what would happen with the market.
So if I've been clear, what's with the patronising BS about needing to learn to be clear then? :rolleyes:
But yes, I take your point - the theory that iOS would dilute Android's market share if there were as many iOS devices at as many price points as there are Android devices is a complete stab in the dark. A complete guess. Utterly unfounded and impossible to imagine being the case, its such a ridiculously far fetched theory.
So if I've been clear, what's with the patronising BS about needing to learn to be clear then? :rolleyes:
But yes, I take your point - the theory that iOS would dilute Android's market share if there were as many iOS devices at as many price points as there are Android devices is a complete stab in the dark. A complete guess. Utterly unfounded and impossible to imagine being the case, its such a ridiculously far fetched theory.
And I'm the one who's supposed to be biased?
It's not meant to be patronising at all
I'm saying your post has been clear, but it makes no difference since its a daft argument anyway.
I'm saying your post has been clear, but it makes no difference since its a daft argument anyway.
The argument that because Android has a whole range of products at various price points and covering the entire market, it has massively more potential customers than iOS and so is more likely to command a large market share?
Could you go as far as to explain what is daft about that argument?
It strikes me as nothing more than obvious common sense.
The argument that because Android has a whole range of products at various price points and covering the entire market, it has massively more potential customers than iOS and so is more likely to command a large market share?
Could you go as far as to explain what is daft about that argument?
It strikes me as nothing more than obvious common sense.
That's just common sense, there's no point stating this as if it's something new. Everyone knows this. If anything, it just shows that Apple didn't learn from its mistakes in the PC market.
Google can't be blamed for having a superior business model to Apple. There are currently 3 iPhones on sale, the cheapest of which is just over £300, which is the cost of a mid-range Android handset SIM-free. So I'm not buying this idea that "Apple doesn't compete in the mid-range". The iPhone 4 is not a high-end device.
The "cheaper" iPhone is going to have to be sub £200 for it to make any real impact, otherwise, I can't see it having any effect on Android's growth. They'll just be competing with Windows Phone for the scraps.
That's just common sense, there's no point stating this as if it's something new. Everyone knows this. If anything, it just shows that Apple didn't learn from its mistakes in the PC market.
Google can't be blamed for having a superior business model to Apple. There are currently 3 iPhones on sale, the cheapest of which is just over £300, which is the cost of a mid-range Android handset SIM-free. So I'm not buying this idea that "Apple doesn't compete in the mid-range". The iPhone 4 is not a high-end device.
The "cheaper" iPhone is going to have to be sub £200 for it to make any real impact, otherwise, I can't see it having any effect on Android's growth. They'll just be competing with Windows Phone for the scraps.
I think its common sense.
You think its common sense. (although if you do now think its common sense, its odd that earlier you didn't think anyone could be sure of that without asking a million Android owners.)
Stiggles thinks its daft.
And swordman has been arguing the toss about it over it for several pages now.
It only came up in reference to the point about how "price" was a significant factor in Android having the market share that it does.
You say superior business model, but I guess that depends what you decide to measure.
And swordman has been arguing the toss about it over it for several pages now.
It only came up in reference to the point about how "price" was a significant factor in Android having the market share that it does.
But that doesn't appear to be what you were trying to say at all. There was no clarity in your argument, especially as you were just describing the iPhone 4 as a "high-end" device.
As I said, the "cheaper" iPhone is going to have little impact on the market unless it can be priced below £200. Samsung has the high-end market cornered, while there are various Android OEMs doing well in the mid-range.
At this stage, it's going to take a massive shift to bring Android down, I think Apple have just left it too late now. If anyone's going to pose a threat, it will be Windows Phone. iDevices are fast becoming niche products in the same manner as Macs.
But that doesn't appear to be what you were trying to say at all. There was no clarity in your argument, especially as you were just describing the iPhone 4 as a "high-end" device.
As I said, the "cheaper" iPhone is going to have little impact on the market unless it can be priced below £200. Samsung has the high-end market cornered, while there are various Android OEMs doing well in the mid-range.
At this stage, it's going to take a massive shift to bring Android down, I think Apple have just left it too late now. If anyone's going to pose a threat, it will be Windows Phone. iDevices are fast becoming niche products in the same manner as Macs.
I've said several times that exact price or exact definition of premium or high end doesn't really matter.
There point is that there are dozens more Android phones, covering pretty much the entire market, compared to just three iOS phones.
It has been a main stay of specification ever since Apple upgraded their phones with that Retina trademark.
Yes, tri core graphics, quad core CPU and lots of camera mega pixels hit the mix. But the screen usually matters most.
I think it is a balance which ends up giving the user a premium experience. You could have the highest resolution screen on the market, but if all the colours are over saturated that isn't great for the user.
Comments
Because Android tablet sales have not slowed down. They increased 163% in the past year. Plus if the iPad Mini had been successful in reacting to Android and retaining a hold in the market, Apple would not have lost half their market share.
I think it's wishful thinking to suggest that the "cheaper" iPhone could turn the tables on Android.
Well maybe they would have increased by 200% if it wasn't for the ipad mini
anyway here's what Mike Elgan suggests apple should do to leapfrog Google/Android/Moto X(!) in particular
http://www.cultofmac.com/241143/how-apple-can-leapfrog-the-moto-x/
Nothing about slashing prices.
And I predict, that the 5s will do none of these things, except maybe #2 with fingerprints at an outside bet.
I get what they are trying to say there but I think apple have bigger problems that just the X.
What you and he said a poles apart, so for clarity is it your contention that is what you have been saying through this thread then?
Yes.
"if you have a whole range of products at various price points and cover all of the market, you have massively more potential customers and are more likely to command a large market share."
Is pretty much exactly what I said at the start, i.e. because there are Android phones available at more price points, including many at lower price points to that of the iPhone, then they'll obviously sell more low cost phones.
Which in turn will obviously affect their overall market share.
Hang on no you didn't it was all about price, I will let history be the judge of your squirming and weaseling in this thread
What I originally said was that more people buy more low (and mid) cost phones than buy high end phones.
And, as IslandNiles said, "if you have a whole range of products at various price points and cover all of the market, you have massively more potential customers and are more likely to command a large market share.".
Having to hold your hand and join the dots here is quite painful, but if more people are buying more low (and mid) cost phones, and there are dozens of low and mid cost Android phones, but no low to mid cost iPhones then of course that will mean that Android will benefit enormously when it comes to gaining market share.
Even with the quote above about prices, I would argue that price was a bigger differentiation than features. Put it this way, there are dozens of Android phones on the market, the majority of which cost less than an iPhone. And even then, three iPhone models manage to command around a 20% market share.
If there were as many iPhones, at as many price points, as there are Android phones, I don't believe for a second that Android would have the market share that it does.
Conclusion: the fact that there are so many different Android models available at so many different price points plays an enormous part in Android having the market share that it does.
Just because you think you have been clear, does not make you correct! Something you need to learn!
Fact is, you have absolutely no idea what would happen. None whatsoever. This whole daft argument is based on biased opinions.
How much clearer does:
More people buy more lower cost phones, so the fact that there are so many lower cost Android phones helps Android gain a larger marker share need to be.
If you want to highlight something that wasn't clear, by all means do.
But you're right - I have no idea what would happen.
That three high end Apple phones manage to command 20% of the market amongst literally dozens of Android phones, most of which are cheaper than iPhones....
...certainly doesn't guarantee that if there were as many iOS phones, at as many price points as Android phones, that their respective market shares would be a lot closer.
Who knows - maybe despite selling so many iPhones at the higher end of the market, Apple would really struggle to sell any at lower prices.
But I somehow doubt it.
That I think they would not have much trouble sell a lot of lower cost iPhones, is based on the fact that they sell so many of their existing models.
There is nothing biased about that - its basic common sense.
Yes, you have been clear but it makes no odds as its pure guess work.
You have no idea what would happen with the market.
So if I've been clear, what's with the patronising BS about needing to learn to be clear then? :rolleyes:
But yes, I take your point - the theory that iOS would dilute Android's market share if there were as many iOS devices at as many price points as there are Android devices is a complete stab in the dark. A complete guess. Utterly unfounded and impossible to imagine being the case, its such a ridiculously far fetched theory.
And I'm the one who's supposed to be biased?
It's not meant to be patronising at all
I'm saying your post has been clear, but it makes no difference since its a daft argument anyway.
The argument that because Android has a whole range of products at various price points and covering the entire market, it has massively more potential customers than iOS and so is more likely to command a large market share?
Could you go as far as to explain what is daft about that argument?
It strikes me as nothing more than obvious common sense.
That's just common sense, there's no point stating this as if it's something new. Everyone knows this. If anything, it just shows that Apple didn't learn from its mistakes in the PC market.
Google can't be blamed for having a superior business model to Apple. There are currently 3 iPhones on sale, the cheapest of which is just over £300, which is the cost of a mid-range Android handset SIM-free. So I'm not buying this idea that "Apple doesn't compete in the mid-range". The iPhone 4 is not a high-end device.
The "cheaper" iPhone is going to have to be sub £200 for it to make any real impact, otherwise, I can't see it having any effect on Android's growth. They'll just be competing with Windows Phone for the scraps.
Low end these days is £100 or less. So I quite imagine that come September IOS will fully stay mid end.
I see you are a specs man:)
I think its common sense.
You think its common sense. (although if you do now think its common sense, its odd that earlier you didn't think anyone could be sure of that without asking a million Android owners.)
Stiggles thinks its daft.
And swordman has been arguing the toss about it over it for several pages now.
It only came up in reference to the point about how "price" was a significant factor in Android having the market share that it does.
You say superior business model, but I guess that depends what you decide to measure.
But that doesn't appear to be what you were trying to say at all. There was no clarity in your argument, especially as you were just describing the iPhone 4 as a "high-end" device.
As I said, the "cheaper" iPhone is going to have little impact on the market unless it can be priced below £200. Samsung has the high-end market cornered, while there are various Android OEMs doing well in the mid-range.
At this stage, it's going to take a massive shift to bring Android down, I think Apple have just left it too late now. If anyone's going to pose a threat, it will be Windows Phone. iDevices are fast becoming niche products in the same manner as Macs.
I've said several times that exact price or exact definition of premium or high end doesn't really matter.
There point is that there are dozens more Android phones, covering pretty much the entire market, compared to just three iOS phones.
If you think screen resolution defines whether a device is premium or not, then fine. As I said, you are a specs man.
Yes, tri core graphics, quad core CPU and lots of camera mega pixels hit the mix. But the screen usually matters most.
I think it is a balance which ends up giving the user a premium experience. You could have the highest resolution screen on the market, but if all the colours are over saturated that isn't great for the user.
What we are told is often out of balance.