Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Aug 2012 22:17 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless You wouldn't believe it, but something actually, truly interesting came out of the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit yesterday. Apple had conducted a survey to find out why, exactly, consumers opted to go with Android instead of the iPhone. The results are fascinating - not only do they seem to invalidate Apple's claims, they provide an unusual insight into consumer behaviour. The gist? People choose Android not because it's an iPhone copy - they choose it because of Android's unique characteristics.
Order by: Score:
Off Just a Little
by gilljr on Tue 14th Aug 2012 22:28 UTC
gilljr
Member since:
2008-01-30

While it is true that some carriers offer better service in certain areas. At the time of that survey, there was an exclusivity deal between Apple and ATT that prevented others from carrying the IPhone. It has not been until this last year that you could buy the IPhone on other carriers. The IPhone also was only GSM and the other large carriers (Sprint and Verizon) were CDMA.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Off Just a Little
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Aug 2012 22:31 UTC in reply to "Off Just a Little"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I know, that's point ;) . People went with Android because their carrier didn't have the iPhone, and couldn't switch to At&t because its service sucked in their area, for instance.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Off Just a Little
by cjosc99 on Tue 14th Aug 2012 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Off Just a Little"
cjosc99 Member since:
2011-07-13

I don't see your point.. Now, almost every carrier has the apple phone and yet ANDROID still #1 number one. So, what is the point?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Off Just a Little
by zztaz on Tue 14th Aug 2012 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Off Just a Little"
zztaz Member since:
2006-09-16

The point is that people didn't buy Android phones because they wanted a cheaper iPhone knock-off, they bought Android phones because they were better than the iPhone. The key is that they bought Android phones because of the differences, not the similarity.

Of course, some people prefer the iPhone. That's fine, and enough people prefer the iPhone for Apple to have made lots and lots of money. But lots and lots is not enough, Apple wants to drive everyone else out of the market. Apple's story is that Samsung copied the iPhone, but the survey shows that people didn't want a copy, they wanted something different.

Reply Score: 21

RE[4]: Off Just a Little
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 15th Aug 2012 06:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Off Just a Little"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

The point is that people didn't buy Android phones because they wanted a cheaper iPhone knock-off, they bought Android phones because they were better than the iPhone. The key is that they bought Android phones because of the differences, not the similarity.

Wrong, at least in my case. I bought an Android phone because I want Linux, and, *gasp*... I did NOT want to buy a motherfucking Apple device. Sorry, but I hate the company. But I have no major problems with Google, so BOOM! An Android device is obvious.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Off Just a Little
by MagicMaggie on Wed 15th Aug 2012 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Off Just a Little"
MagicMaggie Member since:
2012-08-15

BAAM! You're right! ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Off Just a Little
by kid_cid on Fri 17th Aug 2012 00:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Off Just a Little"
kid_cid Member since:
2009-11-30

That's not really "wrong". The fact you wanted linux made Android "better" for you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Off Just a Little
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 17th Aug 2012 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Off Just a Little"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Well, in a way. But I look at more in the way that I reject the Apple/Jobs faith as I do the Christian religion. I really don't have to try any of Apple's products; the company has done enough on its own regarding its business practices to cause me to avoid them every chance I get. Although there were some products by Apple that I wanted in the past, their behavior over the last half-decade or more makes me makes me proud to have never actually bought a single one one of their products in my life.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Off Just a Little
by some1 on Tue 14th Aug 2012 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Off Just a Little"
some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

He's not making a point. He's quoting the survey.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Off Just a Little
by l3v1 on Wed 15th Aug 2012 06:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Off Just a Little"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Now, almost every carrier has the apple phone


There, bolded it for you.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Off Just a Little
by wigry on Wed 15th Aug 2012 06:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Off Just a Little"
wigry Member since:
2008-10-09

Now, people still buy Android because their friends also have Android and thei can share the same experience. Apple had its time but the limitations killed the effort and now Android is simply taken over the market and people buy it because it is familiar.

Just luike Microsoft captured the desktop market. At one point Microsoft was an easy way out and at some point forward it was the software that people knew and that was the reason for the sales.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Off Just a Little
by przemo_li on Wed 15th Aug 2012 07:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Off Just a Little"
przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Read mentioned survey first.

Network effect was never mentioned.

Ofc. it was based on consumers making decisions between iOS or Android. So those who where Android-only where not counted.

But still when ppl choose conciously, there are plenty of arguments iOS do not satisfy (like BIGGER screens...).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Off Just a Little
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Aug 2012 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Off Just a Little"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't see your point.. Now, almost every carrier has the apple phone and yet ANDROID still #1 number one. So, what is the point?


Sweet Jesus - please read the WHOLE thread because the original poster on this thread stated the following:

While it is true that some carriers offer better service in certain areas. At the time of that survey, there was an exclusivity deal between Apple and ATT that prevented others from carrying the IPhone. It has not been until this last year that you could buy the IPhone on other carriers. The IPhone also was only GSM and the other large carriers (Sprint and Verizon) were CDMA.


At the time the survey was done the iPhone was exclusively an AT&T product. Btw, side note for those who think the world revolves around the United States - in most other countries people can switch back and forths between different carriers with their iPhone. The launch partner in NZ was Vodafone but it was never locked and you could buy it through the Apple online store hence you can also run it on Telecom's XT Network and 2Degrees (Telecom only just have got the ability to sell the iPhone in the last year). Australia is the same situation, buy it unlocked throw it pretty much on any network and I'm sure that is the case from where Thom is.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Off Just a Little
by bassbeast on Fri 17th Aug 2012 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Off Just a Little"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

The point is when given a choice people go with what "feels" good and works best for them and at least in my area its been HTC over iPhone for about 6 months. You still see the soccer moms with iPhones but nearly everyone else? HTC. I can't say as i blame 'em, the new HTC units fit nicely in your hand and have great screens and decent battery life, really nice little units.

Hell even my dad who didn't know of any other phone but iPhone came back from the phone store with a new HTC, I think an Inspire? He said it "fits my hand better than the iPhone and its easier for me to scroll with" so it just goes to show when there is competition you actually have to...you know...compete.

Although if Apple has their way they'll patent troll anybody but MSFT that dares step in the ring. don't forget Steve Jobs vowed before his death he'd "spend his entire fortune to nuke Android" and I have a feeling Cook is following the Jobs playbook.

Reply Score: 2

About Apple not being able to deliver
by d3vi1 on Tue 14th Aug 2012 23:12 UTC
d3vi1
Member since:
2006-01-28

I agree with people wanting the latest and greatest. But I don't agree with Apple not being able to deliver. The Android ecosystem is huge, and kudos to them for that. Android Is exactly what the industry needs in order to keep everyone on a straight(ish) path. However, I believe in Apple's power to consistently deliver beyond expectations. For the last 14 years Apple has delivered and innovated like nobody. Apple, with less financial resources than Google, Yahoo or Microsoft, has been able to deliver better than them altogether.

Since 2011, the differences minus a Steve Jobs and a big plus in financial resources. Apple has more cash than Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook altogether and I can only hope that they are investing it into competing by delivering rather than competing by lawsuits. For the sake of Wall Street, they all also have to compete by lawsuits, but until now competing has been 90% by innovation. The rest of the 10% have been lawsuits for the sake of PR.
Samsung's Galaxy line would have been nothing on the market without the awareness brought on by the Apple suits. Samsung's biggest partner is Apple. Do the math.

Until now, both Apple platforms have had an at a more than satisfactory evolution, so I can't find any reason to doubt their future. While I'm an Apple user, I watch the competition closely, and I'm hoping that they all evolve at a similar pace, with Apple making just enough difference to make my investment until now count. The difference being the same difference that we see in the price.

Reply Score: 0

Yehppael Member since:
2012-08-01

I'm missing the -1 Biased rating.

How good Apple is, doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant actually.

They have only one phone. iPhone. Not only that, but all the phones they launched are nothing more than an up-to-date.

Basically they didn't make 4 phones, they made only ONE.

Every other smartphone maker offers a lot of different brands.

Some try for the corporate market, others go for the gamers like Xperia Play.

But it's not just the hardware, it's the software as well.

I'm not talking about the app stores, they're pretty much the same, but the underlying OS. Not just Android, but every other non-iOS OS.

They all offer something, and while you may be happy with Apple and have been for 15 years, others have different tastes, different needs.
Which they can get only with a large variety, something that Apple doesn't have.

They're a big corporation, they have lots of money, but they're still thinking like the little guys with 1% share of the market.

Reply Score: 12

d3vi1 Member since:
2006-01-28

That's what makes Apple products so good!! Large corporations usually suck at innovation. Look at M$.


While I agree with the rest of the arguments of your post, I think that you got it wrong on this one. 'M$' doesn't suck at innovation. The Windows Phone 7 UI/ the Metro tiles thing is the first decent attempt to reinvent the phone UI since the iPhone. I agree that the Android UI doesn't really innovate, but Microsoft has been quite innovative lately. Honestly I wish they get a better chance over here. They deserve to sit a the big boys table with Apple and Google and their product is quite good. Furthermore, while I'm an "Apple fanboy" by some definitions, I think that more competition is good as long as Apple is able to keep innovating at the same rate.

Reply Score: 1

bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Dude quit drinking the iKoolaid...mmmkay? Apple is still and always will be single digits in the home computer market because their crap is too expensive and ALWAYS behind the curve. when Apple does a 'refresh" the same chips have been out for 4 months or more in the PC market which is a hell of a long time as fast as chips are popping out now.

And the only thing Apple did with tablets is actually put a tablet OS on a tablet...wow. Being the best at the special olympics doesn't make you a genius you know, and there is a reason why there have been a ton of "Microsoft's lost decade" articles because ever since Ballmer showed up its been "Windows Windows Windows" which is why Apple has had a free reign. All Steve did was look at a WinTablet and go "Wow, that's really fricking DUMB" and had them put a phone UI instead of a desktop one, NOT innovative, just the competition was stupid and wanted to sell more desktops.

Finally dude...its not 1993, okay? Quit writing "M$" because it makes you look like a tard. The whole "M$" thing came from M$-DOS and that hasn't been sold in 16 damned years so just stop, it makes you look like a moron.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I think that more competition is good as long as Apple is able to keep innovating at the same rate.

In other words, as long as others always slow down to the pace of Apple...

Reply Score: 2

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Look at this column, you are saying "Android" vs "iPhone" You are comparing apples and oranges! You should compare iPhone's to Galaxy S3's.


iPhone == iOS since there are no other iOS mobile devices. Whereas with Android the Galaxy S3 is only one of many mobile devices in the market running Android. Samsung itself does offer far more Android devices then only the S3 and all of them contribute to the iPhone vs Android market share. But unlike iPhone there are even more companies offering Android tyen Samsung only and even all there devices are of relevance if the contribute to the Android success story.

You yourself wrote iPhone and combining all iPhone models into that whereas you decline to do the same for Android. I would say thats Apple's vs Oranges.

You need to understand that one of the reasons why Android is such a success are all the very different devices offered. If only google would make Apple-like one device and nobody else, eg Samsung, would offer other Android devices then Android would not be where it is today. So, when we talk about Android and try to compare with the iPhone then we need to compare all offers, all of the ecosystems with each other.

Reply Score: 3

Liskat Member since:
2011-06-11

Apple vs Oranges

There's no real comparison between the two platforms, because they're different models. In that mindset we would see Apple sue Samsung for iOS vs Android, iOS UI vs Android UI + Touchwiz, iOS themeset vs Android themeset, icons vs icons.. iTunes vs Samsung Apps, Amazon app store vs ... Oops.. I'm even confused whether Apple wants to sue Samsung (using Android as base) or Android itself or is it the hardware, looks? And this is just one Android vendor ;)

Reply Score: 0

bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

That's what makes Apple products so good!! Large corporations usually suck at innovation. Look at M$.

Shall we take the number of patents granted as indicator of innovation? Let's check the situation in US in 2011 (http://www.ificlaims.com/index.php?page=misc_Top_50_2011)

#1 IBM Corp. (a tiny company, indeed) 6180 patents granted
#2 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (the shameless copiers) 4894 patents
..
#3 Microsoft Corp. 2311 patents
..
..
#39 Apple Inc. 676 patents

Thank you Apple, for driving innovation from the top of your 39th place! ;)

Reply Score: 7

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

You guy's don't get it! Apple makes one line of computers, one line of phones one line of ipods

A little more product lines - for one, two very different ipod nanos (just them) sold at the same time ...you can't even get something like that right?

Look at M$

A₱₱le <- this is how stupid you look writing like this^

Reply Score: 2

viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Which they can get only with a large variety, something that Apple doesn't have.

So what is the problem? There're zillions of different phones available from companies that use "fire&forget" tactics.
Apple is one of few who stay focused on their primary product. I used several Sony-Ericsson phones for a decade, but I no more wish to support a company that can't even support their less-than-year-old product.

Edited 2012-08-15 04:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

And you have the same iPhone-like updates with Google Nexus. If customers prefer other Android devices, which do not offer official upgrades to the newest shiny Android, then customers just do not care about it or find other things the specific Android device offers, more important.

This article even confirms that. Its not the newest technology which is at the top. There are a lot other factors which are more important for customers. Apple just confirmed that as well and proves that all those fragmentation talks is of very little relevance to customers. Confirmed, signed and published by Apple!

Reply Score: 6

viton Member since:
2005-08-09

And you have the same iPhone-like updates with Google Nexus
iPhone-like means instant update for all supported range of devices. Not waiting months or years.

There are a lot other factors which are more important for customers.
I didn't discussed the article, but reacted to the comment about "the only one iPhone".
This is the way "pre-85" and "post-97" Apple works: "focus on the product". And I highly appreciate this way and will bake it with my money.

I don't know for other customers, but I'm expected my Xperia to be upgraded to 4.0 as SE promised.

fragmentation talks is of very little relevance to customers
I will not be surprised if these customers just take it as granted. They are either don't care (and don't use smartphone functionality much) or technically unsavvy and expect the phone to suffer from technological obsolescence instead of being able to update to fresh technology.

For the contrast you may check the iOS version breakdown to see the vast majority of people have the latest versions.

http://david-smith.org/blog/2012/03/10/ios-5-dot-1-upgrade-stats

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

For the contrast you may check the iOS version breakdown to see the vast majority of people have the latest versions.


With iO6, it'll be interesting to see this breakdown per iOS 6 version (Starter, Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate).

Reply Score: 2

lindkvis Member since:
2006-11-21

"For the contrast you may check the iOS version breakdown to see the vast majority of people have the latest versions.


With iO6, it'll be interesting to see this breakdown per iOS 6 version (Starter, Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate).
"

While this is interesting, it is more important to have the latest security updates than the latest features three years after you bought your phone. Having only iOS6 "Starter" on your 3GS is still better than being stuck with iOS 4.1.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

With iO6, it'll be interesting to see this breakdown per iOS 6 version (Starter, Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate).


Could you provide me a link to a website that has said products being provided - no, I'm not being sarcastic because it is obvious that you and I inhabit different space time continuums where the Apple website I visit has none of that.

Btw, when is the Samsung Galaxy S going to receive the Android 4.0 update without that Touchwiz shit rammed down the throats of end users?

Reply Score: 0

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The thing with iOS vs Android upgrades ...people don't care so much about Android ones, because what requires OS update on Apple devices, is often brought by Google application updates on Android - and the store apps work overall on older models, it's not like devs jump on latest SDK even when there's not much need for it.

Edited 2012-08-22 00:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Apple sell iPhone 3S and up. That make it 3 phones + their variations.

"But Apple sell only ONE phone" is myth.

Reply Score: 1

dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple only sells one phone. Sure you can get that phone with a better or worse screen, faster or slower CPU and more or less storage, but they are, for all intents and purposes, the same phone.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Apple only sells one phone. Sure you can get that phone with a better or worse screen, faster or slower CPU and more or less storage, but they are, for all intents and purposes, the same phone.


Samsung only sells one phone. Sure you can get that phone with a better or worse screen, faster or slower CPU and more or less storage, but they are, for all intents and purposes, the same phone.

Reply Score: 4

dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Samsung only sells one phone.


All of Apple's phones have the same basic form factor. Samsung on the other hand offer 4 base form factors for their smart phones (small, small and waterproof, medium and large). The difference between the Xcover and the Note is far more significant than just the fact that the Note has a faster CPU and higher resolution screen. The same can hardly be said for the difference between the 3gs and 4s.

In addition to this Samsung also has a large Array of simpler non-smart phones, starting from less than $30 brand new and off contract, if you're into that sort of thing.

Reply Score: 3

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Apple only sells one phone. Sure you can get that phone with a better or worse screen, faster or slower CPU and more or less storage, but they are, for all intents and purposes, the same phone.


From my point of view as a developer, they surely are not the same!

Reply Score: 3

M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

I'm missing the -1 Biased rating.


Good thing too, or else we'd be modding each other into the ground constantly.

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Samsung's Galaxy line would have been nothing on the market without the awareness brought on by the Apple suits. Samsung's biggest partner is Apple. Do the math.

This is actually a rather interesting point. While I do not believe your conclusion that Apple and Samsung are pretending to hate one another with these legal filings only to be patting one another on the back in private (we're talking about tech companies, not our politicians), your point about public awareness is valid nevertheless. While I doubt it was Apple's intent to draw attention and promote Samsung's Galaxy line in a back-handed way, in some cases it has happened that way. It reminds me of many things in history, most notably whenever a government or religion attempts to put down a popular revolt. The more you revile it, the more you end up popularizing and promoting it at the same time. It seems we really are doomed to repeat history, although this time with tech companies and legal battles rather than soldiers and swords. Progress, I suppose.

Reply Score: 8

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

For the last 14 years Apple has delivered and innovated like nobody.

So from 1998 to 2012 you think they innovated like nobody?
1996: The first palm pilot is released
1998: The first mp3 player with a harddisk(4.8GB)
2001: Apple releases mp3 player with harddisk
2006: Jeff Han demos his breakthrough touchscreen
2006: LG(Prada) releases first finger touchscreen phone
2007: Apple releases smartphone with finger touchscreen
For the sake of Wall Street, they all also have to compete by lawsuits, but until now competing has been 90% by innovation. The rest of the 10% have been lawsuits for the sake of PR.
Samsung's Galaxy line would have been nothing on the market without the awareness brought on by the Apple suits. Samsung's biggest partner is Apple. Do the math.

Microsoft and Apple are demanding money from every smartphone maker for work they didn't do. If both companies never existed we would still have the same phones we have today. Samsungs Galaxy line gained awareness when they started making good quality products with a good OS.
Until now, both Apple platforms have had an at a more than satisfactory evolution...with Apple making just enough difference to make my investment until now count

Agreed. Apple has a satisfactory evolution. If I liked the way Apple devices work I would have no problem staying with it each year.

Reply Score: 11

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

This is overly US centric view and in fact where Galaxy found its initial success is the rest of the world. There's a reason SGSII got into the US half a year after everywhere else.

Galaxy S won hearts of the consumers bc Samsung struck the right balance about highendness, price and software customization, form factor, focusing on things that mattered and not overly compromising on those that turned out didn't (like the shell). It was simply a really good device.
SGSII has blown everybody else (in Android world) by providing exceptional HW , very polished SW (thanks to extensive Samsung optimizations to Gingerbread among others). Easy hack-ability wasn't without an impact (1mo hackers can spread the word) too.
The 3rd most important device is the Ace, that has set the new standards for low - middle end space (taking it over from HTC Wildfire).
The success Samsung enjoys now is fully deserved by the hard work they have put into their devices plus huge marketing dollars in excellent carrier relationships (they have basically replaced Nokia here).

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

The problem with exceeding expectatons, is that everyone expects that much more out of you everytime. No one can keep that up. The iphone 4s, for instance. What part of that was above anyone's expectations? Dual processors? Siri ?

OS X became better than 0s 9 years ago. Ipods were cool once they supported windows and were flash based. But I don't think they'll be more than a foot note in history. Once you step outside the reality distortion field, you'd notice that Apple has only introduced 2 ipods that were revolutionary ( original windows usb one, and mini), 2 revolutionary phones ( iphone & iphone 4), one modernized tablet ( original ipad) . That's still amazing and incredible, but every feature & spec bump isn't revolutionary.

Reply Score: 6

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple was able to compete again only by taking what the industry at large works on (which is nothing bad in itself, that's how progress works ...it's just silly when some fall into their PR)

The messiah seems to agree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY&feature=player_detailpag...

Apple had its head in the sand for the last many years [...] missed out [...] attitude of arrogance [...] the rest of the world passed us by [...] we need to bring the Mac up into the modern world [...] because we weren't first, because we didn't set the standards [...] this whole notion of being so proprietary in every facet what we do has really hurt us [...] reinvent the wheel our own way; and yeah it might be 10% better but usually it ended up being about 50% worse

(plus the whole ~"we've been always shameless about stealing great ideas")

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Tue 14th Aug 2012 23:29 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

The other reasons listed indicate that people chose Android because of its unique strengths over the iPhone: larger screens, the Google brand, the Android Market, and Google integration. These are all things where the iPhone - in the case of the Market and the brand, obviously so - the iPhone clearly lacks.

Come on Thom, you know better. First of all, only people who bought Android were surveyed. Were people who bought iPhone's surveyed the exact opposite of what you're trying to say would be the case.

Next, if you claim the Google brand is stronger than Apple, show me sales figures proving more people who picked their phone based on brand went with Android.

Also, how about people who had no real preference aside of texting, calls, games, and went with whatever the youngster at the store was pushing? This describes a very large number of users.

People are smart enough to see where this is going so I won't bother bringing up anything else. I'll simply say that to imply this survey is a reflection of the big picture, is being disingenuous at best. Assuming Apple create the survey, the one thing it does do is give insight into how Apple sees its competition.

Ps. Before you go on with your `Apple fanboi` claims, be aware that I am not loyal to any cellphone maker, cellphone OS, or otherwise. I care only if my phones suit my needs -- beyond that I couldn't care less. Unlike others, I'm not a cheerleader for any company.

Edited 2012-08-14 23:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Aug 2012 23:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

With that quote, I'm not claiming the Google brand is stronger. I'm stating that the Google brand obviously isn't a strong point of the iPhone.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by JoeBuck on Wed 15th Aug 2012 00:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
JoeBuck Member since:
2006-01-11

Apple is trying to make a "trade dress" case that people were fooled into buying Samsung phones because they look so much like Apple phones that they didn't realize they were buying the knockoff. To counter such a case, it's entirely appropriate to ask only those who bought a Samsung phone why they did so.

People aren't stupid. I respect Apple's design and engineering skills, but I don't buy their stuff because I don't want to live in a pretty jail. I can install apps on an Android phone or tablet that Apple would never allow in a million years, like SSHdroid (make your device into an SSH server and see the filesystem directly) just to give one example.

Reply Score: 14

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Wed 15th Aug 2012 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Apple is trying to make a "trade dress" case that people were fooled into buying Samsung phones because they look so much like Apple phones that they didn't realize they were buying the knockoff. To counter such a case, it's entirely appropriate to ask only those who bought a Samsung phone why they did so.

None of that has anything to do with what I said. I was talking about the spin Thom tried to put on it, nothing else.

People aren't stupid. I respect Apple's design and engineering skills, but I don't buy their stuff because I don't want to live in a pretty jail. I can install apps on an Android phone or tablet that Apple would never allow in a million years, like SSHdroid (make your device into an SSH server and see the filesystem directly) just to give one example.

That's nice and there are certainly others of the same opinion. I doubt the vast majority of cellphone users view their phone in terms of how "jailed" it is. Joe User has no use for his phone having SSH access. He has no need to browse the filesystem.

Whatever a persons reasons are for buying whichever phone they chose, as long as it suits their needs then they bought the right phone. There isn't a universal "best" as what's best is nearly 100% relative to the user.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by clasqm on Wed 15th Aug 2012 07:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
clasqm Member since:
2010-09-23

People aren't stupid. I respect Apple's design and engineering skills, but I don't buy their stuff because I don't want to live in a pretty jail. I can install apps on an Android phone or tablet that Apple would never allow in a million years, like SSHdroid (make your device into an SSH server and see the filesystem directly) just to give one example.

OK, that's you. And it's easy to see that you are utterly and completely unlike every single one of the people surveyed. "Android is open" does not even get 1% here.

Now that may simply be the result of the way the questions were framed. It's tricky to comment on results when you haven't seen the methodology (Thom? are you seeing this?). Perhaps this was simply not presented as an option to be ticked off on the questionnaire. But taking this on face value, it serves as a warning bell to all geeks who constantly praise Android for being open. The great unwashed masses don't care. If you want to promote Android, these are the points you need to get across.

Discalimer: I just ordered my iPhone 4s: I don't want a larger screen <grin>

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by l3v1 on Wed 15th Aug 2012 06:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Were people who bought iPhone's surveyed the exact opposite of what you're trying to say would be the case.


Uhmm, I wouldn't just suppose so. If you ask an iPhone buyer why (s)he bought the iPhone probably the most frequent answer would be that because they wanted an iPhone. I mean not because of x, y, z feature (well, maybe the looks would count, of course, we're talking Apple here) or because of the carrier's this and that. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just would prove that Apple has a great fashion factor and still has some coolness factor (a diminishing one, but still) at least at some locations on the planet. But I highly doubt they would or could list a number of points similar to the one in the article.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by clasqm on Wed 15th Aug 2012 08:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
clasqm Member since:
2010-09-23

They didn't list them. They were presented with a prefabricated list of choices and told to tick all that apply. As I've said elsewhere, the options that were NOT supplied might be as interesting as the ones that were. And people ticking off items on a list does not imply that they've given it a lot of thought. There's the "hadn't occurred to me, but I guess so" factor.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Drunkula on Wed 15th Aug 2012 12:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Drunkula Member since:
2009-09-03

WTF? Why would they survey people who bought Iphones to ask why they purchased an Android? Nonsense, dude.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Wed 15th Aug 2012 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Soulbender on Wed 15th Aug 2012 13:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

First of all, only people who bought Android were surveyed.


Uh, yes of course. If you want to find out why people are purchasing the competitors product you don't ask the people who purchased your product.

Reply Score: 6

v RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Wed 15th Aug 2012 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
v Comment by Tony Swash
by Tony Swash on Tue 14th Aug 2012 23:40 UTC
RE: Comment by Tony Swash
by jeffb on Wed 15th Aug 2012 00:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by Tony Swash"
jeffb Member since:
2005-07-19

Apple makes most of the money in PCs. A few years back when Apple was 8% of the PC market they made 90% of the profits. Today they are at 12%.

Apple makes more money because Apple targets the profitable sector of the market. They have consistently chosen profits over market share but not so much that they've allowed their share to fall. Apple in the 1990s was even more greedy and allowed their share to fall.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash
by Tony Swash on Wed 15th Aug 2012 10:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tony Swash"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Again you are trying to compare the PC market to the new mobile device market, they are very different.

Apple has made a fantastic job of staging a comeback in the PC world where Microsoft's hegemony was so vast. They focussed on gutting the PC OEMs profits, mostly because they were the weak link in the PC food chain where Microsoft took the bulk of the profits and left crumbs for the other feeders and so stepping around them was easy. But that fantastic comeback, even though it has delighted old fans like me and made many new converts to the OSX platform, is about yesterday's game.

The new big game in town is mobile devices and here Apple is by far the most successful player. In just five years Apple has built a business with essentially a single product, the iPhone, that on it's own is bigger than Microsoft. The software market and developer base of iOS is already bigger and far more dynamic than the Windows software/developer space. That's quite some achievement.

It seems that unlike in the PC world in the mobile device world the money (and hence the software, the developers and the peripheral makers) no longer simply follow the platform that sells the most units. This is not the PC market.

If the money, and all that is connected to money, no longer simply follows the platform with the most units shipped, then the device market needs to be looked at as a competition between device makers. For example stats like this are important: according to NPD, the top five smartphone brands, and their market shares, in Q2 were as follows:
Apple: 31 percent
Samsung: 24 percent
HTC: 15 percent
Motorola: 12 percent
LG: 6 percent

And on that list only Apple and Samsung are making much in the way of profits.

The indications are strong that in the new device markets the consumer world is far more important than the enterprise world, and in fact the former appears to be beginning to drive the latter (hence Microsoft's risky Surface initiative than is primarily intended to reassert it's enterprise hegemony). It also appears that fully integrated devices (software, hardware, sales channels, digital content) are more successful than fragmented devices (hence Google's recent downgrading of piracy related search results in order to move forward stalled content negotiations with the content owners in music and especially film and TV).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash
by mkone on Fri 17th Aug 2012 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

Again you are trying to compare the PC market to the new mobile device market, they are very different.


They are not as different as you think. Apple can, and will differentiate themselves. If the smartphone market grows to 1bn devices per annum, and Apple can capture 15% of that market, they will be more than content. Apple have shown that you do not need a monopoly to be profitable. Apple still makes less than 10% of all mobile phone, and if they can increase their overall share of the mobile phone market as the dumbphone market disappears, they will be able to make incredibly good profits.

Right now, they are growing their "PC" market share, growing their tablet business, growing their smartphone business, growing profits. They are doing exactly what they need to do.

The smartphone market will end up like the PC market. A dozen or so manufacturers making Android phone, and competing on price (by necessity). Margins for that business will drop.

Apple will use the same components and compete for the higher niche end of the market where the profits are.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Tony Swash
by zima on Tue 21st Aug 2012 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple have shown that you do not need a monopoly to be profitable.

Did they show that? Their return was really more about the music shop (where they have sort of a monopoly position) than their traditional product lines - and iOS devices are also more blood relatives of iPods.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Tony Swash
by kwan_e on Wed 15th Aug 2012 01:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by Tony Swash"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Why does Apple make so much more money than all the Android devices makers added together, especially given that the use of the almost useless but traditional metric of market share means one should expect to see Apple in commercial decline by now and Android device makers financially ascendant? Why have Android tablets failed so spectacularly?

Why is the OS distribution and update mechanism in the Android ecosystem so obviously broken?

Why, given the relative market shares, is the developer and app space in iOS so much richer, healthier and fuller than in the Android space?

These are all tremendously interesting questions


Why do you keep on asking loaded questions that presupposes the answers; the premises of which also beg the question? They are not tremendously interesting questions because the way you "ask" them don't even suggest they're intended as questions.

Seriously, you sound like a communist propaganda machine:

"Why is our Dear Leader so benevolent and wise?"

"Why are the capitalists failing so hard that they have to send tribute to our Dear Leader under the guise of 'foreign aid'?"

"How does our Dear Leader keep the people happy so that they don't want to run away?"

"Why are our enemies so jealous they want to stop our testing of nuclear delivery systems that are more advanced than theirs?"

These are similarly not interesting questions.

Reply Score: 15

v RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash
by Tony Swash on Wed 15th Aug 2012 10:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tony Swash"
RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash
by kwan_e on Wed 15th Aug 2012 11:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

You don't like those questions because you don't like what the answers would reveal.


The only answers those questions "reveal" are the ones you've already implied in the "question", making them meaningless.

THAT is why I don't like those questions. They're loaded and rhetorical and not worth serious answers. Just like those hypothetical questions I've suggested might come from a communist propaganda machine.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Tony Swash
by Tony Swash on Wed 15th Aug 2012 12:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tony Swash"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"You don't like those questions because you don't like what the answers would reveal.


The only answers those questions "reveal" are the ones you've already implied in the "question", making them meaningless.

THAT is why I don't like those questions. They're loaded and rhetorical and not worth serious answers. Just like those hypothetical questions I've suggested might come from a communist propaganda machine.
"

I am not sure how to pose the issues raised by the questions I posed but which you felt were loaded. The point of raising all these issues is to point to important phenomena that seem to indicate that the device market is behaving unlike the PC market used to. Let's retry.

Why is the pattern of revenue and profit taking so different in the device market compared to PC market even though in terms of platform market share we are at a point similar to where the PC market was in the mid 80s when already the PC revenues and profits were much, much greater in total than Apple's?

Why is the iOS developer space so much more profitable and dynamic than the Android developer space even though platform market share is at a point similar to where the PC market was in the mid 80s when software development on PCs was already moving far ahead of Apple's in terms of revenues, dynamism etc? The same question could be posed in relation to peripherals by the way.

What are the implications for platform coherence and strategic direction resulting from the differences in the way Google and Microsoft operate as managers of the OS? This relates to the issue of slow roll out of OS updates which matter a great deal more at this stage of the mobile device market development compared to, say, the PC when XP was launched and probably matters much more in the mobile space in general (given the crucial role of integrated services in adding value to mobile devices).

Generally I feel the wish fulfilment mirage that the mobile device market is going to pan out just like PC market did (Apple marginalised, left behind etc, 'Open Beats Closed', etc) obscures the fascinating unfolding drama of something entirely new and revolutionary. Frankly too many commentators sound like the old main frame and mini computer guys back in 1980 dismissing the PC as 'nothing new'.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Tony Swash
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 15th Aug 2012 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Tony Swash"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's because this is not a vendor vs. vendor war, but a platform vs. platform war. If iOS gets marginalised, this will undoubtedly harm Apple in indirect ways - as playing second fiddle when it comes to developers and partners. This is not the case *now*, but if this trend continues, it *will* be a problem a few years from now.

The collective force of all Android vendors and Google moving the platform forward simply cannot be matched by Apple. This is EXACTLY what happened in the PC market. It wasn't until the PC market was vastly oversaturated - the last few years - that Apple could stage its comeback. Many people point to Apple's share of PC market profits *right now* as an indication Apple will do fine as a 5-10% player in mobile, but these people conveniently forget that for the 15 years before that, Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy and making virtually no money in the PC space.

The iPod saved Apple's PC business - not the PC business itself. This means that in order for Apple with a marginalised mobile market share to survive, it will need the next great thing. While there's always the possibility it will have that next great thing lined up, history has taught us that companies rise and fall; after the iPod, iPhone, and iPad, there's a very real chance Apple will not have the next great thing ready to go.

We're not talking about today or even tomorrow (what Apple fans usually focus on) - we're talking about 5-10 years from now. Apple is competing in the court room because it knows it can't keep up with the android platform via market competition. This is so bloody obvious it's quite telling you're not seeing it.

Edited 2012-08-15 12:28 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Comment by Tony Swash
by puenktchen on Wed 15th Aug 2012 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Tony Swash"
puenktchen Member since:
2007-07-27

It wasn't until the PC market was vastly oversaturated - the last few years - that Apple could stage its comeback.


I'd rather say it wasn't until Apple had a. pulled the plug from the clones b. again designed somewhat special hardware (starting with the Imac) and c. ditched the antiquated Mac OS for OSX. I don't think relevant number of customers bought a Mac just because they where bored by all the Wintel boxes standing around in their house.

Many people point to Apple's share of PC market profits *right now* as an indication Apple will do fine as a 5-10% player in mobile, but these people conveniently forget that for the 15 years before that, Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy and making virtually no money in the PC space.


Not really, they only posted a big loss in 96 and 97 and a very small one in 2001. 1999 and 2000 where better than ever, I'd guess most other computer makers wouldn't dream of 10% margin. These years look very modest compared to the apple of today, but apple was far from bankruptcy but a moderately successful company.

The iPod saved Apple's PC business - not the PC business itself.


The Ipod only started to take of in 2004.

This means that in order for Apple with a marginalised mobile market share to survive, it will need the next great thing.


Only if they want to continue to reap profits which remind me of a monopoly (like say microsoft). They might still survive as a company with normal profits if they don't. That might even be better for their customers.

We're not talking about today or even tomorrow (what Apple fans usually focus on) - we're talking about 5-10 years from now. Apple is competing in the court room because it knows it can't keep up with the android platform via market competition.


Doesn't hurt to try to get ahead of your competition with lawyers even if you might manage without. This isn't about fair play, it's about big business.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Tony Swash
by Tony Swash on Wed 15th Aug 2012 13:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Tony Swash"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

It's because this is not a vendor vs. vendor war, but a platform vs. platform war.


That implies that a platform war is a platform war and they are all basically the same. I am not convinced. The logic of a platform war is simple, the platform that prevails using the metric of units sold and market share wins overall. It wins because because market share is self reinforcing because it brings more platform support, more money for the players in that platform's ecosystem (OEMs, peripheral makers and developers) and that all translates into more benefits for buyers (lower prices, better specs, greater compatibility with software and peripherals etc) and a feedback loop is created.

The problem i have with that perspective is that if that is really the ineluctable path that will be followed why isn't it happening now? Android's market share, installed base and units shipped are all significantly greater than iOS and yet overall profits in the Android ecosystem for OEMs (other than Samsung), for developers or for content sellers are anaemic compared to iOS. Similarly one could pose a similar question about software, content and peripherals and ask why isn't Android already better than iOS? Where is a price advantage for Android when like is compared to like, and could there be a price advantage for Android while Apple remains the player with by far the biggest and most powerful supply chain footprint.

You say we just have to wait a few years but why isn't it happening now? One can always project current trends a few years into the future and come up with seemingly startling predictions but that's a very risky thing to do. I could take Apple's commercial growth rates for the last five years and project it ten years down the line and say that by then Apple will represent over 50% of the global economy - but we know that is very unlikely.

Maybe you are right and Apple will retreat to a position it had in the old PC market but I remain unconvinced. It just seems so much like a wish fulfilment dream for those unhappy and disorientated by the shockingly fast rise of Apple in the last decade and those who hanker after the old PC culture of complicated devices one can tinker with, where the customer has to be the system integrator. Meanwhile in the real world there is no actual evidence that the 'platform war' is leading to the same consequences it did once before and decades ago.

This feels like a new and novel world to me.

I will ignore the bollocks about Apple is in the courts because it cannot compete or keep up. Watch Apple destroy the Nexus 7 this autumn and release what will become, easily, the world's top selling handset.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by Tony Swash
by moondevil on Thu 16th Aug 2012 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Tony Swash"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Watch Apple destroy the Nexus 7 this autumn and release what will become, easily, the world's top selling handset.


Only if your definition of World means US.

Because in Europe, there are many countries where you seldom see normal people with iPhones.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by Tony Swash
by Soulbender on Thu 16th Aug 2012 07:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Tony Swash"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Watch Apple destroy the Nexus 7 this autumn and release what will become, easily, the world's top selling handset.


Talk about wish fulfillment mirage.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Tony Swash
by orfanum on Wed 15th Aug 2012 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tony Swash"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

What are you, some kind of right-wing Korean nationalist, the sort that would perversely rather appease Japan (as history has shown) than see your own country unified under any regime that would be even slightly left of centre? How ironic that you use this analogy on the day both Koreas celebrate their liberation from the Japanese yoke. Grrrr.

Reply Score: 3

Why I chose Android...
by ferrels on Tue 14th Aug 2012 23:44 UTC
ferrels
Member since:
2006-08-15

I chose Android over the iPhone for many of the same reasons brought up in the hearings. I have a larger screen, better price for both the phone, and my monthly bill was lower, and my Android phone is an infinitely more customizable device. Heck I can even run a chroot Linux on my phone. To me, the iPhone seems to have more appeal to the brand-conscious crowd who have no technical skills whatsoever. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, it's just different. But I love my Android systems because they're infinitely more hackable than iPhones too.

@Tony Swash

And where did you get the information that Android tablets have been a spectacular failure? I own 3 tablets, my wife owns a Motorola Xoom AND and an iPad and my 2 kids also have Android tablets. They absolutely love them and my Asus Transformer Prime is so popular that my local BestBuy can't keep enough of them in stock. You should do a little better research before making such comments. Android market share will exceed 40% by the end of this year. That's sound pretty successful to me, especially since Apple had a two-year head start in the smartphone and tablet arena. Maybe you could cite some sources explaining how 40% market share is a spectacular failure.

Edited 2012-08-14 23:52 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Why I chose Android...
by jigzat on Wed 15th Aug 2012 00:04 UTC in reply to "Why I chose Android..."
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

I don't think it has anything to do to being technical skilled or not, I'm a software engineer and I really don't want to bother hacking my phone I don't even use Cydia on my iPhone anymore.

The other side of the story is that Samsung is pretty successful outside USA and I don't think all the gazillions of users are technical skilled.

To be honest I don't think Samsung success is based on user's mislead although Apple has the right to protect it's IP. I remember the one-click purchase patent by Amazon, Apple had to license it. Google and Samsung are not better or worst, they are commercial companies and when you on top on the hill you won't let anyone else, be it Apple Microsoft or the Ex ONG Google. Is really easy to be the good guy when you are in front of someone meaner than you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why I chose Android...
by cdude on Wed 15th Aug 2012 06:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Why I chose Android..."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

technical skilled or not


He refers to vertical technical skills. If you are focused on a horizontal segment like apps only, and there is nothing wrong about it since focus is important too, then it does not apply.
But if either your horizontal skills are below the app-stack, like Kernel, or your skills are vertical so it includes things below the app-stack, like the kernel, then you are lost at iPhone cause you have no access to that segments. Its a black box whereas with Android you have the option (usually not as default but yes, you can) to go down and up all of your stack.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why I chose Android...
by riha on Sat 18th Aug 2012 20:40 UTC in reply to "Why I chose Android..."
riha Member since:
2006-01-24

#ferrels

"Apple had a two-year head start in the smartphone and tablet arena. Maybe you could cite some sources explaining how 40% market share is a spectacular failure. "

The key difference is that Apple has done it all themselves while google Android is being sold by so many companies and "versions" that it would be strange if that were not the case.

It would be more interesting to pick out ONE of the android phone makers and start to compare them to apple, i would see that as an more valid compare.

Reply Score: 1

marcell
Member since:
2005-07-11

What Apple tries to prove is that software (Android) + hardware (Samsung etc.) were copied after their innovations. And yes they (Google, Samsung etc.) built on top of that innovative Apple's stuff their integration with Internet services (where Apple never really played well). So Apple would probably try to say that people can not see what's copied but they just go after desires Apple (initially) made for them. I think that kind of argument is (still) the ultimate bullshit but that's how innovation today is defensed by innovators.

Reply Score: 2

Data
by jeffb on Wed 15th Aug 2012 00:06 UTC
jeffb
Member since:
2005-07-19

Once Verizon got iPhone it moved to 54% of their smartphone sales. Android is #1 because of t-mobile, MVNO... on both AT&T and Verizon Apple is a majority.

In terms of newest technology we can't be quite sure what that means but diversity works to the advantage of Android.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Data
by Splinter on Wed 15th Aug 2012 01:19 UTC in reply to "Data"
Splinter Member since:
2005-07-13

Once Verizon got iPhone it moved to 54% of their smartphone sales. Android is #1 because of t-mobile, MVNO... on both AT&T and Verizon Apple is a majority.

In terms of newest technology we can't be quite sure what that means but diversity works to the advantage of Android.


This all goes to support Samsung in the case outlined. People can tell the difference between Samsung phones and tablets and Apples offerings. Given the choice people choose the one they want based on their preference. This is not an article about market share but why people choose the brand they do.

Reply Score: 3

Sad....
by Casey99 on Wed 15th Aug 2012 01:39 UTC
Casey99
Member since:
2011-07-14

There is no "wanted a non-Apple product" category. That would have been my #1 choice.

Reply Score: 12

RE: Sad....
by l3v1 on Wed 15th Aug 2012 06:22 UTC in reply to "Sad...."
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

There is no "wanted a non-Apple product" category. That would have been my #1 choice.


I would've +1'd you if I could, because it's a valid point, I've seen&heard it to know that. If you can accept that there are people who are only willing to buy Apple products (well, argue with that if you can), then it's not unreasonable to also accept that there are people who don't want to buy Apple products. I also happen to know a few of such people. So if someone is making a point about this, it's quite stupid to vote it down just because you're an Apple fan. Just because someone doesn't like Apple or its products, doesn't automatically become a troll you know.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Sad....
by Tony Swash on Wed 15th Aug 2012 10:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Sad...."
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

If you can accept that there are people who are only willing to buy Apple products (well, argue with that if you can), then it's not unreasonable to also accept that there are people who don't want to buy Apple products.


That may be true but it seems that there are vastly more of the former than of the latter. Apple brand loyalty seems very high in all surveys and studies I have seen, whilst actual Apple aversion seems barely to register as a social phenomena of any scale. Obviously on a site and forum like this it seems Apple aversion is a big deal but amongst the mass of normal consumers there is no evidence I can find that it is a significant factor driving purchase decisions.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Sad....
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 15th Aug 2012 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sad...."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Apple brand loyalty seems very high in all surveys and studies I have seen, whilst actual Apple aversion seems barely to register as a social phenomena of any scale.


You clearly haven't been to Europe.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Sad....
by cdude on Thu 16th Aug 2012 04:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sad...."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Confirmed. There is a clear growing trend working against Apple. Apple only has the iphone, all iphones are the same, and lot of people have one. Apple iphone is not an outsider but the market-leader when only devices are compared (means more iphone then eg Galaxy S3). More and more realize that. Its also not helping Apple draws such an uncool picture of itself with sueing everything around them.

Reply Score: 1

Apple's world
by benali72 on Wed 15th Aug 2012 01:45 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

It's difficult for Apple to accept that some people don't want to buy their locked-down consumer stuff. Or that other factors outside their control, like the carrier, could be determinative.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Apple's world
by ezraz on Wed 15th Aug 2012 19:29 UTC in reply to "Apple's world"
ezraz Member since:
2012-06-20

i'd say the opposite these days, it's hard for folks like you to accept that 50% or more of the world might actually want something that just works and is a good value for the money and yes, is built well.

i've never bought an apple product due to my fragile ego, marketing, or wanting to fit in or be trendy. i have bought apple products for 20+ years because they design for people who need to get things done, not fight/play with the tool all day and night.

my total reliability, value, ease of use, and yes flexibility is what keeps me a happy iOS and OSX customer. i'm a developer, producer, overall technical guy. i've been a geek since 1982.

sure there are some things apple products can't or won't do easily. but there's more important things that apple does best and/or first, and nearly everything else these days is an awkward knock off.

that's why when you go to a linux or other nerd conference you see macbooks everywhere. busy mobile people need rock solid rigs and apple has been making the best for years.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Apple's world
by Mellin on Wed 15th Aug 2012 22:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple's world"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

i left apple for the linux world when steve jobs came back after apple bought next

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apple's world
by Soulbender on Thu 16th Aug 2012 04:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple's world"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

busy mobile people need rock solid rigs

Because Apple, and ONLY Apple, makes good hardware. Yeah, no one else does. Ever.
I'm sure Apple make good stuff but so does other vendors.

that's why when you go to a linux or other nerd conference you see macbooks everywhere

If by everywhere you mean "some people use macbooks" then yes.

apple has been making the best for years.

A lot of "nerds" would say the same about IBM thinkpads. In fact, I think thinkpads are probably more common than macbooks in the circles you are referring to.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Apple's world
by MOS6510 on Thu 16th Aug 2012 04:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple's world"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12


A lot of "nerds" would say the same about IBM thinkpads. In fact, I think thinkpads are probably more common than macbooks in the circles you are referring to.


Not sure more common, but at least one:

http://9to5mac.com/2012/08/06/nasa-used-more-than-a-few-macbook-pro...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Apple's world
by zima on Tue 21st Aug 2012 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apple's world"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, and there are ~100 thinkpads on the ISS, zero macbooks... Overall, we can be fairly sure that NASA used many more ~PCs in any of their recent activities / that link looks like realy trying to prove something / more than a few toilets at NASA facilities are also crucial to the work conducted there...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apple's world
by zima on Tue 21st Aug 2012 23:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple's world"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

i'd say the opposite these days, it's hard for folks like you to accept that 50% or more of the world might actually want something that just works and is a good value for the money and yes, is built well.

It looks like you're so detached from how the world is, in your Apple bubble of 2+ decades, that it's hard for you to understand how for 95(+?)% of people Apple products are not good value in any conceivable way...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple's world
by bornagainenguin on Thu 16th Aug 2012 03:35 UTC in reply to "Apple's world"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

benali72 pondered...

It's difficult for Apple to accept that some people don't want to buy their locked-down consumer stuff. Or that other factors outside their control, like the carrier, could be determinative.


It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

Reply Score: 4

key qualification
by pooo on Wed 15th Aug 2012 01:57 UTC
pooo
Member since:
2006-04-22

A key qualification of this data that makes it all very misleading is that these stats are for people "that were considering and iphone". Well I know a lot of people that didn't consider the iphone at all. What is that percentage? Who knows.

The graphs suggest a distorted better picture for apple because it doesn't include those people at all.

Also, if you add up the stats it is clear that people were asked to "check all that apply". So this doesn't say that even those people chose android over iphone because of carrier issues but only that it was one of many possible factors.

So again, these stats aren are misleading except we do know that the actual interesting number, how many people chose android *only because* iphone was not available and would have otherwise, is likely far far lower than the 48% shown here.

Edited 2012-08-15 02:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Not convinced
by ze_jerkface on Wed 15th Aug 2012 02:06 UTC
ze_jerkface
Member since:
2012-06-22

People are image conscious about appearing cheap which is why you can't trust a survey like this one.

If Android phones were all $200 then you wouldn't see as many people buying them for these reasons.

I'm especially dubious given the amount of people that claimed to prefer the Android app store. That's incredibly hard to believe. I'm not an Apple fan and I own an Android tablet and I will be the first to tell you that the Android app store is a distant second place. Android has some nice benefits but the game selection just plain sucks. I don't care about mobile games so I can live with it but a spade is a spade.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not convinced
by l3v1 on Wed 15th Aug 2012 06:24 UTC in reply to "Not convinced"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

People are image conscious about appearing cheap which is why you can't trust a survey like this one.

If Android phones were all $200 then you wouldn't see as many people buying them for these reasons.


I didn't pay more than $100 for any Android phone I owned. And I still liked them. Also, most of the points listed in the survey would be valid for me, but the price would also appear as a point: you can buy really great Android phones for the price of an iPhone (remember, I'm not talking only about the U.S. here).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not convinced
by Fergy on Wed 15th Aug 2012 08:38 UTC in reply to "Not convinced"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

If Android phones were all $200 then you wouldn't see as many people buying them for these reasons.

When you say $200 you don't actually mean $200 right? You probably mean 200$ + 600$ in hidden costs.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Not convinced
by puenktchen on Wed 15th Aug 2012 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Not convinced"
puenktchen Member since:
2007-07-27

"If Android phones were all $200 then you wouldn't see as many people buying them for these reasons.

When you say $200 you don't actually mean $200 right? You probably mean 200$ + 600$ in hidden costs.
"

Still, you can get unlocked Android phones which are just good enough(tm) for just 100€ in germany, no contract needed, and that includes 19% vat (I'm thinking of the Huawei Ascend Y200). The Iphone 3GS starts at 340€. As Samsung Galaxy S3 with 32 GB costs 600€, a Iphone 4gs with 32 GB 740€. Not as drastic, but still quite a difference. If they had included the option "because it was cheaper", I'd guess 95% would have ticked it.

Reply Score: 3

v RE: Not convinced
by Yoko_T on Fri 17th Aug 2012 12:07 UTC in reply to "Not convinced"
RE[2]: Not convinced
by zima on Tue 21st Aug 2012 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Not convinced"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Games are universally by far the most popular apps on mobile phones (spanning across the spectrum, starting right from j2me http://www.opera.com/smw/2012/03/ ).
But it must feel good in that elitist bubble of yours...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 15th Aug 2012 02:08 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Just to note, iOS and Android aren't too innovate OS architecture wise. Both. Interface isn't the only part which needs innovation. I'd even say they are quite aged already. That's why stronger contenders will still come to the market.

Edited 2012-08-15 02:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by zima on Tue 21st Aug 2012 23:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It's almost as if you couldn't wait, are rooting for the kind of overall innovation that Windows Phone 8 will bring...
(progress, I suppose)

Reply Score: 2

handset subsidies ending in Australia
by unclefester on Wed 15th Aug 2012 04:43 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Telstra and Optus (Australia's two biggest phone carriers) have both decided that handset subsidies are going to end soon due to a lack of profits. This is disastrous news for Apple and very good news for Android.

Reply Score: 4

clasqm Member since:
2010-09-23

Explain? Are you saying that Apple is the only cellco-subsidized brand in Australia? Are you saying that someone who wants a Samsung must pay in hundreds of dollars while you can walk out with an iPhone for free?

Didn't think so. Stopping subsidies will slow down sales of all phones as people hang on to their existing handsets for another year. Which might not be a bad thing for the environment.

Reply Score: 0

dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Stopping subsidies will slow down sales of all phones

True, but it will probably slow down the sale of high end phones more. Sure the sales of the Galaxy SIII and HTC One X will probably slow down as much as the sale of the iPhone4, but there are also lots of Android phones that cost less than $300 unsubsidized, and the sale of those phones would probably pick up in such a scenario.

Reply Score: 4

v OSnews is going seriously downhill
by leos on Wed 15th Aug 2012 06:03 UTC
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks for the link, nice laugh / even earlier example of "people predicted the fall of civilisation & moral decay of youth since the advent of written word" than the one I had (classical ancient Greece)

And scary that Reagan also subscribed to it... (but maybe it explains some things - you don't need to really think, long-term, about economy, social welfare, environment, when all those issues will be swept aside by the coming apocalypse... and then, he nearly caused it by the idiocy of Able Archer exercise and related - really, what kind of thinking goes into launching all-out exercises of such kind at the height of tensions? Some high US official who declined to participate, and one DDR agent who was passing over to the Soviet data about true nature of what was happening - those two people probably saved the world back then)

Reply Score: 2

jaimzob Member since:
2011-08-19

Unfortunately, OSNews has now utterly degenerated into nothing *but* a meeting place for tech partisans (mostly of the anti-Apple variety) to indulge in hysterical and seemingly never-ending slanging matches. A tone largely set by the "editorial" staff. Go to theverge or arstechica for industry news and hacker news or even, god help us, Slashdot for the more techy stuff. Occasionally there is still an interesting article here, but they're few and far between now I'm afraid.

Reply Score: 0

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

The main problem being that there is only so much you can tell about alternative OS without repeating yourself.

Where are the articles about developing OS stuff, or new alternative OS only used by its developers, without having them already in previous OSNews posts?

Reply Score: 4

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

moondevil,

"The main problem being that there is only so much you can tell about alternative OS without repeating yourself."

That's true. It's nearly impossible to cover something new, but honestly I'd enjoy a good series on computer data structures even if the topic isn't new at all. I get the feeling I'm an order of magnitude more "geeky" in terms of system internals than the average readership here, and as much as I dislike some of these articles, genuine OS topics are rare to come by in the news. Generating a stream of quality articles would likely require the employment of some technical journalists & engineers to do research.

For better or worse, professional writing is giving way to the low cost blogging format.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It's also because people "an order of magnitude more" are too lazy to write and submit "quality articles" from time to time? ;)

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jaimzob,

"Unfortunately, OSNews has now utterly degenerated into nothing *but* a meeting place for tech partisans (mostly of the anti-Apple variety) to indulge in hysterical and seemingly never-ending slanging matches."

Let's distinguish between "anti-apple" and "anti-apple behaviour". Some people may have an "anti-apple" bias, however others like myself are against what apple is doing to the field of open-computing.

If apple ceased it's patent offensive and backed off the moderation of end users & developer software through its self-imposed walled garden, then you find that apple would receive much less criticism from the tech crowd.

As long as apple continues it's negative behaviours, it has only itself to blame for the criticism it receives.

Reply Score: 5

ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Let's distinguish between "anti-apple" and "anti-apple behaviour". Some people may have an "anti-apple" bias, however others like myself are against what apple is doing to the field of open-computing.

If apple ceased it's patent offensive and backed off the moderation of end users & developer software through its self-imposed walled garden, then you find that apple would receive much less criticism from the tech crowd.

As long as apple continues it's negative behaviours, it has only itself to blame for the criticism it receives.


Indeed. Years ago the worst you would hear about Apple is that their computers were expensive.

Reply Score: 4

unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Apple can't sell iPhone without massive carrier subsidies.

Conclusion - Based on the output of the regression model, it is clear that the iPhone derives most of its market share thanks to carrier subsidies and the impact of other factors like brand loyalty are comparatively low. Stay tuned for my next article on why the iPhone is so dependent on subsidies & why this will be a big problem for Apple.
tech-thoughts.net (http://s.tt/1gjz4)


http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2012/05/proof-of-iphones-dependence-on...

Edited 2012-08-15 06:15 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Marketing 101
by Chrispynutt on Wed 15th Aug 2012 08:35 UTC
Chrispynutt
Member since:
2012-03-14

For my sins I studied Marketing 12 years ago. I have tried to forget most of it. However there were some useful points I thought were worth remembering.

One was that you don't succeed in a market by doing what your competitor does even if it is a little bit better or a little bit cheaper. You do what your competitor doesn't.

HTC got a lot of complaints about the number of phones it was releasing 'because the Apple model works'. However Samsung's success proves that if you provide a phone for every possible screen size you can fill all the surrounding space.

Be where you competitor isn't and when they are late to the party that is their problem. This worked for Apple when they delivered a slick, but limited iPhone 2G compared to the clunky feature packed Nokia and the like. It also worked for Android.

This is the main reason I am not sure what new or vacant territory WP7/WP8 is going into. Really they should be focusing on enterprise as there is still an obvious market for a slick locked down enterprise device. Not so sure about being the 3rd wheel in the Android/IOS market.

Some people quote MS's bottomless pockets and the Xbox success. However surely the money was just life support and its the break through of Xbox Live and FPSs on Game Consoles that they found the new market in.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Marketing 101
by cdude on Thu 16th Aug 2012 05:04 UTC in reply to "Marketing 101"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

I tend to agree with both, your point made and the WP conclusion BUT Microsoft sees that and they try to win as many WP8 resellers as possible that focus on specific segments like low-end, mass market, high end and enterprise. Thats why, after all, they do Surface while partnering with Samsung, Asus, Nokia, HP, etc. to expand the offers.

Wherr this, your point, applies as a prime example is Nokia with its Lumia line. They indeed try to be like Apple, clone there strategy, kill off the alternate strategythat made them strong in the first place and as result they are dead, lost, done.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Marketing 101
by Chrispynutt on Thu 16th Aug 2012 08:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Marketing 101"
Chrispynutt Member since:
2012-03-14

I don't think all is lost for Nokia. Their Asha (I think) line is doing really well. A great example of where a new segment of smarter feature phone.

I agree I am a little harsh on WP7. However I don't really see how the segments they are moving into are anything, but just where Android already is.

MS is so focused on being the next Apple that they are missing out on being the next Microsoft. Something surely they should know how to be.

Nokia's success at the moment is being the next Nokia. For example bringing the power of communication to everyone no matter how far down the ladder. They would do well to remember that.

Reply Score: 3

Relevance
by wocowboy on Wed 15th Aug 2012 10:39 UTC
wocowboy
Member since:
2006-06-01

And just how is all of this relevant in a copyright case? I don't get it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Relevance
by cdude on Thu 16th Aug 2012 05:09 UTC in reply to "Relevance"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

There are concrete arguments why customers select Android over iPhone. Customers are aware that there are differences and there choice is cause of those differences.

That invalidates the whole "Samsung clones iPhone design to offer a cheaper iphone copycat what gives them a competative advantage" argumentation. Design is clearly NOT the reason, it doesn't even appear in the list, why customers pick Samsung Android rather then iPhone devices.

As consequences even if Samsung does copy Apple's design (what is not the case and may it be only cause Apple did copy it themself from others) its not a strong selling argument and hence even if Samsung needs to pay compenstation it needs to be way below what Apple asks for.

Edited 2012-08-16 05:15 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Maybe I missed something...
by thavith_osn on Wed 15th Aug 2012 11:07 UTC
thavith_osn
Member since:
2005-07-11

...but I can't see how the questionnaire invalidates Apple's claims. Apple claims Samsung copied the iPhone.

I can't see a question like...
a) You chose the Android phone because it looked a lot like an iPhone?

I can choose an Android phone because it has a larger screen (as many do) but still consider it looks like an iPhone.

"Looks like" and "exact replica" are two very different things, at least in my book...

Again, just incase anyone doesn't know which side of the fence I sit on with this one, I hope Apple and Samsung both lose, I hope the patent system is thrown out.

Oh, Samsung has some amazing patents too, apparently a patent that states that attaching images to an email on a smartphone is owned by them.

See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/samsung-says-it-patented...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Maybe I missed something...
by cdude on Thu 16th Aug 2012 05:21 UTC in reply to "Maybe I missed something..."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

They do not need to add such a specific question. Surveys like that always have a "for other then the above reasons named" choice. But its clear that the majority picked one of those answers listed above. Those points ARE the reason why customers, who had to choose between iphone and Android, picked Android. Its not design, its not "similar to iPhone but cheaper" and its not "none of them". That means customers have rather clear reasons why they pick Android over iPhone. Its cause Android offers something iPhone does NOT. Its cause of differences and NOT similarities. Android does better cause it offers things iPhone does not offer. Clear, simple, proven. Any copycat-makes-the-sells argumentation is invalidated by that.

Edited 2012-08-16 05:25 UTC

Reply Score: 4

People choose Android because
by tuma324 on Wed 15th Aug 2012 12:03 UTC
tuma324
Member since:
2010-04-09

It's better, and they like it better.

Plain and simple.

Reply Score: 3

The Need for Speed
by RI_Swamp_Yankee on Wed 15th Aug 2012 13:08 UTC
RI_Swamp_Yankee
Member since:
2012-08-15

The big, hairy elephant in the room is the lack of 4G. While Verizon and Sprint have been limping along with their 4G rollout, where I am, I can get a reliable HSPA+ signal pretty much everywhere. It makes a biiiig difference.

I have a Samsung Galaxy Nexus HSPA+ on Straight Talk (AT&T bandwidth reseller), and it's amazing - but it's not easy to set up and use. The iPhone is kind of limited and limiting, but very easy to set up and use. Once Apple pulls the thumb out and releases a 4G-capable phone (HSPA+ or LTE), they'll be back on track for utter world domination.

As a Mac evangelist since the late '80s and a die-hard Android fan, I'm conflicted about this...

Reply Score: 1

RE: The Need for Speed
by zima on Tue 21st Aug 2012 15:26 UTC in reply to "The Need for Speed"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't jump on the PR bandwagon (and only in some places, it seems...) of calling HSPA+ "4G"...

Anyway, speeds ("4G" or not) are not that crucial - if you think a nominally higher-rated iPhone will change trends, you're in for a surprise. Plus "4G" is, in practice, more about stuffing more people into the available spectrum.

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by tuma324
by tuma324 on Wed 15th Aug 2012 14:16 UTC
Android is simpler to manage too
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed 15th Aug 2012 21:57 UTC
modmans2ndcoming
Member since:
2005-11-09

No need to sync the phone to a PC or Mac to get updates or back up your information. iCloud feels like an afterthought and is confusing to non-techie people.

My mother-in-law and Sister-in-law have iPhone 3GS' and I am getting them onto Android because they have had nothing but problems. with their iPhone and iTunes.

Reply Score: 2

mrnagrom
Member since:
2008-08-13

That was g1. I've been buying iphones ever since. I don't think that there's one answer to phones. The tab phone is popular for crying out loud and I couldn't comprehend talking on one of those let alone trying to find space in my pockets for one.

If you like android, go ahead and like it. I don't. It has made big strides in terms of usability but it always seems unfinished. Like they didn't make services for the phone, they made the phone for services.

either way, i like my 4s, it may not have 200 gigs of ram and a 200 core processor with a 98 inch screen and a 4LGBT internet connection. It works and it works well, has lots of apps, is just generally consistent and helpful..

and about copying off of apple. of course they did and still do. They do some stuff in a much better way but generally stuff that shows up in android does so after it shows up in ios.

Reply Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The tab phone is popular for crying out loud and I couldn't comprehend talking on one of those let alone trying to find space in my pockets for one.

You couldn't comprehend that many people don't keep their phones in pockets? (or the existence of BT headsets; but then, your post in general displays some concern troll etc. characteristics)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Anonymous Penguin
by Anonymous Penguin on Thu 16th Aug 2012 11:23 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

People choose Android not because it's an iPhone copy - they choose it because of Android's unique characteristics.


Exactly so. Apple should stop patent trolling, they manage to annoy even some of their most loyal followers.
SCO anybody?

Edited 2012-08-16 11:27 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Anonymous Penguin
by ilovebeer on Thu 16th Aug 2012 14:26 UTC in reply to "Comment by Anonymous Penguin"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

People choose Android not because it's an iPhone copy - they choose it because of Android's unique characteristics.

Exactly so. Apple should stop patent trolling, they manage to annoy even some of their most loyal followers.
SCO anybody?

Just FYI, "patent trolls" do not make products. Apple does.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by Anonymous Penguin
by tylerdurden on Thu 16th Aug 2012 21:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by Anonymous Penguin"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

So basically, "patent trolling" does not mean what you think it does...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Anonymous Penguin
by Alfman on Fri 17th Aug 2012 04:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Anonymous Penguin"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

I know you have a specific definition in mind. But considering that there is no official definition, I still think it's reasonable if someone wants to call what apple are doing "patent trolling".

The qualified definition you'd use opens up all sorts of technicalities as to whether or not to classify an entity as a patent troll or not:

What if the patent troll sells the products of others instead of producing them itself? Keep in mind that apple don't actually manufacture their own stuff these days but contract it out to others, ie foxconn, samsung, etc.

What if a troll files offensive lawsuits using a patent portfolio, wherein only a subset of patents are known to be sold as products?

What if the troll has "plans" to sell a product, but doesn't follow through or isn't viable?

What if the troll sells a limited, unusable, or intentionally overpriced product?

What if a troll is actually a licensing subsidiary of another corporation who owns/uses the patents?

The point isn't to answer these questions, but to realise the irrelevancy of all arbitrary qualifications for the defendant who is on the receiving end of an inadvertent infringement lawsuit. The label should be applied on the basis of an aggressor's predatory actions regardless of whatever else they may be doing "on the side".

(IMHO)

Reply Score: 3

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

The person who coined the term seemed to have an idea about what it meant, and it wasn't exactly complex. Pretending it has countless grey areas doesn't actually make it true, especially when you're changing the meaning to suit your own needs.

People are always going to lob terms around & engage in name-calling like there's no tomorrow. It would just be nice if people made an effort to at least use the terms & name-calling correctly. Of course, it's nothing to lose sleep over.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

I was pointing out that there's no non-arbitrary line by which we can absolutely qualify "patent trolls" without entering significantly more subjective grey areas. Many US companies no longer build any products internally whatsoever, they outsource development and do not own or invest in the means of production. They essentially own the brand + "IP", not the means of production. It's clearly a grey area, and I suspect many will be tempted to interpret patent trolling in a way that excludes themselves rather than in a way that makes sense in describing it's harmful behaviours.


Indy dev: I'm being sued by Uniloc for building an independent implementation of a software algorithm that inadvertently infringes a software parent.

Pendant dev: Hold on a sec, let me lookup what products Uniloc sells so we can find out whether or not they are patent trolling...

Pendant dev: No products on their website; patent trolling bastards!

Indy dev: What if they're selling products somewhere else under a different brand name?

Pendant dev: ...lets see...

Indy dev: I found it: they used to sell under a subsidiary called "Uniloc PC Preload" back in 2000.

Pedant dev: Yea, but that's defunct now and they're obviously a patent trolling licensing company today.

Indy dev: Wait, I found they have a US subsidiary, and have been selling "Uniloc NetAnchor CIS", does that count?

Pendant dev: Oh yea, well then they aren't patent trolls.

Indy dev: But their product is designed to protect water and power facilities from catastrophic failure, which has nothing to do with my product whatsoever.

Pendant dev: No matter, they have a product, they aren't patent trolling you my friend.

Indy dev: Even though Uniloc's official mission statement declares themselves to be a patent licensing company?

Pendant dev: ...What grey areas?


The characters above were fictitious, but the underlying company is not. Citations:
http://www.uniloc.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniloc
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot....
http://www.osnews.com/story/26223/Minecraft_creator_sued_by_Uniloc_...


Anyways, interesting trivia: Peter Detkin, the person who first coined the term has gone on to found intellectual ventures - a patent trolling company by his own definition.

Edited 2012-08-17 07:12 UTC

Reply Score: 3

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

I was pointing out that there's no non-arbitrary line by which we can absolutely qualify "patent trolls" without entering significantly more subjective grey areas. Many US companies no longer build any products internally whatsoever, they outsource development and do not own or invest in the means of production. They essentially own the brand + "IP", not the means of production. It's clearly a grey area,

There's no such grey area. Whether or not a company actually manufactures the products they sell has never been a factor in determining if the company is a "patent troll". It simply doesn't matter. Whether the company produces products (using whatever means and resources) or not at all is what counts.

Again, when the term was coined, its meaning was not a mystery -- to the contrary he was very clear about it. Trying to inject complexity into its meaning doesn't change or accomplish anything other than cause confusion for the person doing it (I guess).

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

Except that you needed to introduce your own subjective opinion in the mix. Even if you disagree, neither of us are wrong since it's just our opinion.

Given several companies pursuing identical offensive patent lawsuits against their victims, even you, the person who claims there is no grey, would be unable to draw any distinguishing line between them until you uncovered details about the companies that have no bearing on the legal cases.

My opinion is pragmatic in that I believe the SAME ACTION deserves the SAME LABEL regardless of other disassociated actions. The addition of irrelevant qualifications only muddies the waters. It's very conceivable that Peter Detkin's primary motivation for qualifying the term was to shift the cross hairs off his own employer and avoid self incrimination, and I can't blame him for that. It's probable he would stray from his old definition today to avoid self incrimination again.

Times change, meanings change, we all must adapt somehow.

Maybe you can offer your opinion about whether companies like Uniloc are patent trolls, and what logic you needed to follow to get there? Then compare that to the quasi-arbitrariness emphasised in my little screenplay earlier.

Reply Score: 2

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Even if you disagree, neither of us are wrong since it's just our opinion.
---
Times change, meanings change, we all must adapt somehow.

These two sentences really sum up the bottom line I suppose. Regardless of how much debate occurs, the conclusion is still subject to personal opinion. In this case I doubt we'll fully see eye-to-eye so the only logical resolve is agreeing to disagree.

For the record, I get all of the points you made and do agree with some of it to an extent. But, not enough to change my view.

Reply Score: 2

What about the Price?
by syngularyx on Fri 17th Aug 2012 12:40 UTC
syngularyx
Member since:
2012-02-01

Why the price is not listed?
I guess it can be an important factor

Reply Score: 1