marioestrada said:
@lawfer you actually can buy an iPhone without being activated. And by the way there's no data published by no carrier other than by Apple itself and the latest was published on October 2010, where's any updated data, but analysis from market researchers actually found that the iPhone on Verizon did slow Android sales. And stating "Google is beating Apple" as a fact when there's no factual data is a bit misleading. [Thankfully the story has been updated]
Google does design hardware, they don't manufacture though.
"As I previously stated" was my mistake, on my first post I originally wrote about it but forgot I deleted that paragraph and posted the message without it. My bad.
Apple finances matter because they have more than doubled since the release of the iPhone and iOS devices, still going up, and as a result Apple is the currently the most valued technology company and I believe 2nd in the world in general. So if that's being beaten, then great.
The smartphone wars is a media thing, do you think Apple is jealous of MS because they have a 90% market share on PCs or do you think Apple is happy about having a healthy OS and software environment, great product sales, great revenue and highest quality products. Of course Apple or MS or Google would love more market share anywhere or everywhere, but that's not all of it.
I don't care who has a bigger market share, I just don't like seeing that kind of unnecessary fanboy-like remarks on a serious article. It's not the first time Emil does it and I'm sure won't be the last, I have no problem with it or him, I just think it's unnecessary and a bit childish calling out on Apple on an unrelated article. He's a great writer, we just have different opinions.
I would just like a neutral stance on every TS article since I do work for the site.
I wonder why is it that people don't admit being wrong anymore? I miss the old, humble days...
Anyway, no, you cannot simply buy phones from carriers. There are two options: 2-year contract, and no commitment. You can either a) get an iPhone with a two year contract for $199.99, or b) get an iPhone for $649 (or $749 for the 32GB) with no commitment. Now, the no commitment plan means you won't be locked into a contract, not that you won't have service. You still have to signup service with them, if you buy through them. Carriers not only give the phones, they give the service. So, yet again, you're incorrect. Go to your nearest AT&T or Verizon store, if you still don't believe me.
And why do you keep insisting on saying there is no data? Why? A simple Google search will give you the data. Just to help you, AT&T alone reported 3.6 Million activations in the first quarter. And Verizon reported 2.2 million in the first quarter. Google activates 500,000 devices <b>A DAY</b>. Even if half of that was tablets, Google would still activate more devices more than both AT&T and Verizon combined. Granted, we all know there many Android phones, while there's only one iPhone. But we are not discussing proportions, we are discussing how delusional you sound by saying there's no data, when it's clearly publicly available.
I believe you have a reading problem. I am not trying to be a jerk, but I truly believe so. I never said Apple earnings didn't matter, I specifically said that those Apple's earnings were not a cause of their mobile presence. I said that the reason why Apple is a top company, as you detailed, is NOT solely because of their iPhone, but because of its wide arrange of products, services, and personal computers. And that comparing such a company with Google, who simply develops software and web services, is completely unfair. Read (really hard) my last comment again.
The smartphone war, is just a colloquial way of saying "mobile competition." If you truly believe Apple is not competing against Android, then your "fanboy-ism" is quite apparent. And since when does a company have to be jealous to be competitive? You sound spiteful with this: "do you think Apple is jealous of MS because they have a 90% market share on PCs..." Really, Mario, what are you trying to tell us? Are you trying to open up or something? And who brought PCs into the argument? Why are you bringing irrelevant stuff to make up an argument? You defend Apple so vehemently, that you even forget what the topic is. Wow.
I don't understand (yet again). You say you don't care about who has a bigger market share, but you disagreed with Emil, whose conclusion was that Google was beating Apple at, guess what... *drum roll*... market share! I'm baffled at your reasoning. You contradict yourself, after contradicting yourself, after contradicting yourself. It's pretty amazing to be honest. And how is it unrelated to compare the two biggest mobile competitors on an article that shows how one those competitors is outpacing the other?
marioestrada said:
I would just like a neutral stance on every TS article since I do work for the site
Sorry, but half the site already knows you designed the mobile version of TS. That won't recover the credibility you lost today. Nice try though.
The only hardware Google has actually designed are the Nexus phones. Not enough to consider it a hardware designer, but yes, a fact is a fact. It is true, they have designed these phones. You see, admitting being incorrect on something is not that bad, you should definitely try it sometime... so don't say you never learned something from this.
