

Dear Steve Jobs: You're wrong again. - Garbage
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17196/dear_steve_jobs_youre_wrong_again

======
brown9-2
JR Raphael: "First, when you say that Apple has more daily activations than
Android, your figures include all iOS devices: iPhones, iPads, and iPods. The
Android figures we've been looking at so far focus solely on phones."

The actual quote from Steve Jobs on the earnings call:

"Well, what about Google? Last week, Eric Schmidt reiterated that they are
activating 200,000 Android devices per day. And have around 90,000 apps in
their App Store. For comparison, Apple has activated around 275,000 iOS
devices per day on average for the past 30 days with a peak of almost 300,000
iOS devices per day on a few of those days. And Apple has 300,000 apps on its
App Store." (Source: [http://seekingalpha.com/article/230710-apple-s-ceo-
discusses...](http://seekingalpha.com/article/230710-apple-s-ceo-
discusses-f4q10-results-earnings-call-transcript))

Why is the author rebuking Steve Jobs about "your figures include all iOS
devices" when that is _exactly what Steve Jobs actually said_?

Mr. Raphael even cites an article which has a disclaimer at the top that says
"The story you're about to read is not (entirely) true" as evidence that Mr.
Jobs doesn't allow the word "open" to be used in his house.

This feels like manufactured criticism.

~~~
jnovek
I believe that the author was implying that Steve Jobs carefully chose data to
support an argument when other data would have better suited the comparison
that he as making. Disagreements about whether he was trying to conceal his
choice in data don't seem very relevant to me.

EDIT: You are probably right about the author. He does seem to have an axe to
grind. But I don't think it make his argument (in this case) less correct.

~~~
GHFigs
_I believe that the author was implying that Steve Jobs carefully chose data
to support an argument when other data would have better suited the comparison
that he as making._

Which is likewise wrong. Jobs cites total iOS activations because Apple makes
no distinction. It's reflective of how the company that he represents
_actually_ thinks, and he used the data that they actually pay attention to.

The author presumes that including iPads and iPods is somehow "cheating", but
he's the one selectively picking only the market in which Android is
succeeding. If you look at everything that runs either OS, Jobs is right. It's
only if you selectively pick smartphones (and growth, specifically, as Apple's
share is still greater) that Android looks good.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>Jobs cites total iOS activations because Apple makes no distinction. It's
reflective of how the company that he represents actually thinks, and he used
the data that they actually pay attention to.

So you mean Apple has no way to find out the number of iPhones activated per
day since they make no distinction?

Analysts want to compare the number of Android phones vs. the number of
iPhones sold. Apple is intentionally withholding that data because it makes
them look bad and is instead talking only iOS numbers.

~~~
GHFigs
_So you mean Apple has no way to find out the number of iPhones activated per
day since they make no distinction?_

No, that's not what I mean at all. What I am saying is that Apple thinks of
the iPhone, iPod, and iPad as three different containers for the same thing
rather than as three wholly independent product lines. I don't see how that's
controversial or unusual, and the existence of Android media players and
tablets is evidence that this thinking is not unique to Apple. It's not clear
that Schmidt's 200,000 activations/day figure excluded such devices, either,
nor do I think it should.

 _Analysts want to compare the number of Android phones vs. the number of
iPhones sold. Apple is intentionally withholding that data because it makes
them look bad and is instead talking only iOS numbers._

Nonsense. The quarterly sales figures for the iPhone were stated twice in the
very same call (the transcript linked above). It's also _very_ hard to believe
that Jobs is afraid that the iPhone being out-sold by the sum of all Android
phones makes Apple look bad when he even said so himself in the same call:

"[...] Android is our biggest competitor. They out-shipped us in the June
quarter as we were transitioning to iPhone 4. They out-shipped us for the
first time according to Gartner's numbers, which we think are pretty
accurate."

~~~
easp
Clearly the only legitimate comparison is the number of phones activated on
Verizon's network. Anyone who feels differently is a sheep who puts fashion
and popularity ahead of the only things that really matter and has been sucked
into Steve Jobs's reality distortion field.

------
preek
I'm concerned with the authors heart rate. I hope he's well.

The article certainly has truth in it, but I would propose a rename to: Random
ramblings from an Android user. Also, I propose the author might take a look
into Paul Grahams essay on "How to disagree"[1].

1\. <http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html>

~~~
Dbug
If the author wants to rant, I would think digging into the motives for Apple
backing away from Java support might be more fertile territory. At least it'd
have more substance to it that what amount to PR positions on numbers.

Things to ponder... Could Apple be trying to throw a wet towel on doing Java
development for other platforms (Android in particular)?

Of course if they're wanting more of a closed system, they're probably also
aware that some of the more popular peer to peer apps use Java too. (Limewire
/ Frostwire, Vuze / Azureus). Between not being allowed on the store, Java
probably not being installed by default soon, and questionable robustness of
future Java options, they've thrown a wet towel on the sharing apps too.

It's not like the cost of paying developers to work on Java is a burden for
Apple, and it doesn't have the reputation Flash does for crashing/slowing the
system.

Vulnerabilities could be an excuse to stay clear of Java, but like Flash, if
users have it installed and have to get updates outside of the (semi)
automatic software updates, users are less likely to be up to date, not more.

If the author wants a little speculation for his rant, he ought to ask
questions like will Steve kill X11?

The Mac with OS X has had a lot of respect as a stable very interoperable do-
everything platform. If Apple wants to change that, some of us will be kicking
and screaming. Apple has been able to give users an extra nudge towards new
hardware by limiting the length of time old hardware sees major OS updates.
(The 1985 Mac Plus was still supported under System 7.5, well past the five
year period seen now). Killing support for something without the justification
of certain hardware being inadequate is a tougher pill to swallow. If Apple
goes too far, they'll certainly lose more science/engineering types to Linux.

~~~
philwelch
_Things to ponder... Could Apple be trying to throw a wet towel on doing Java
development for other platforms (Android in particular)?_

No, because Android already distributes an SDK for Mac, and can easily deploy
whatever Java stuff they need along with it:
<http://developer.android.com/sdk/index.html>

* Of course if they're wanting more of a closed system, they're probably also aware that some of the more popular peer to peer apps use Java too. (Limewire / Frostwire, Vuze / Azureus). Between not being allowed on the store, Java probably not being installed by default soon, and questionable robustness of future Java options, they've thrown a wet towel on the sharing apps too.*

Transmission, the best BitTorrent client, runs natively on Mac.

------
apl
_P.S. That was a nice black turtleneck you had on the other day. You should
really consider wearing those more often._

Well played, JR.

[EDIT: Wait a minute: That classless hack makes a vacuous _ad hominem_ attack
his punchline, and I get voted down for pointing that out?]

~~~
jordanmessina
You get my up-vote considering I copied that exact line to point it out until
I saw you already did. This guy's Twitter handle is AndroidPower, I couldn't
even take him serious writing about Jobs. Leave it to CW to get the best of
the bunch!

------
chadp
Ok, this computerworld kid has a couple of points but the writing is drawn out
drivel.

The personal dig about steve's wardrobe was totally un-needed and unclassy.

Steve Jobs has masterminded the most amazing turnaround story probably in
history. Have some respect at least. What an idiot this writer is.

~~~
drats
You say that the dig about the wardrobe is "un-needed and unclassy" and then
go on to say the writer is an "idiot". I think you need to look in the mirror
and see that the pot is just as black as the kettle.

------
zaphar
I found his ramblings on it Just Working to be of interest. My experience with
getting an IPod to just work was the same. Getting music and apps on the
Android phone is far easier than the IPod. Their stance of requiring the
ITunes app really harms the User Experience there. It actually suprises me
that they have let it go like this for so long. I would have expected from
Apple's reputation that they would have made it much easier by now.

~~~
cshenoy
I agree but I would assume it has to do with anti-piracy measures. Being the
number-one music vendor in the US has its downsides since all the record
companies (and RIAA) have a vested interest in it.

Though I could be wrong.

------
rodericksilva
I don't want to piss anybody off but I know a lot of Android users that would
be using an iPhone but they are not on AT&T.

If the iPhone was available on every carrier we would have real numbers.

Plus, we ARE comparing OSes so platform does not matter. Right now it iOS vs
Droid. The fact that Apple has managed to push it on multiple devices should
not count against them...just as keeping it in one carrier has hurt them.

~~~
gloob
_If the iPhone was available on every carrier we would have real numbers._

I disagree with the notion that the real numbers are somehow not real, and the
_real_ "real numbers" are the result of a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" situation.

~~~
rodericksilva
Ok, you are right Gloob. Real is a bad choice of words.

If the iPhone were available on every carrier their would be a lot more people
using the iPhone. It's almost like its every carrier and every phone
manufacturer vs Apple.

Don't get me wrong, if I were in contract at Sprint or Verizon I would be on
Droid also.

I have invested money in applications (not a whole lot). Switching platforms
would also mean finding new software and purchasing some of them.

------
sp4rki
So it's alright for people to inflate Android's numbers by using all the
phones, tablets, and e-readers when comparing them with the iPhone as was done
some time ago, BUT when Apple adds the other iOS devices to the party (which
off course makes a fairer comparison) and surpasses Android's numbers they're
wrong?

Jesus there are more than 60 phones right on Android, more than 25 tablets,
and a couple of readers. How is that a fair comparison? In any case, the real
issue is not iOS vs Android, who cares about adoption rates of an OS when
you're in the business of selling the product itself. The iPhone is still the
most popular and best selling smartphone, and the iPad does the same for
tablets. That's not going to change overnight because 20 new crappy phones
from China are now Android powered.

~~~
usaar333
1) Comparing all Android devices to just the iPhone is also deceptive.

2) It is much more important to compare OS share to individual phone share.
This is because it indicates the industry's trajectory far better. A user who
has an Android phone and purchase another and not have to spend anytime
learning a new framework; he'll highly likely buy a new Android phone
(regardless of manufacturer) when he needs a new one. And on mobile devices,
downloadable apps remain very important; the most popular OS (not phone!) will
get the most developer attention, producing a virtuous cycle for the winner.

~~~
sp4rki
1) Uhm that is exactly what I said. It's common practice to compare Android as
an OS adoption vs the iPhone adoption rates. Then when people do the same for
Apple and add the other iOS devices, then articles as the one in the OP are
born. Read my post again, because you're agreeing with me kind sir.

2) Here you're assuming that the users actually care about the iOS vs Android
wars. A regular user who has an Android phone will not buy another Android
phone because of its OS, they'll buy it because it's marketed as the successor
of the phone they used before. By your example a regular user of Blackberry
phones would easily move to another brand because it used the same Blackberry
OS, or a iPhone user would move to a different phone manufacturer because he
was told it also has iOS. This is simply not true. Nexus One users are more
likely to buy a Nexus Two (and not a HTC Magic 2 in contrast) and iPhone4
users are more prone to buying a iPhone5 because of the product loyalty and
brand popularity inherent in both choices. Industry trajectory is not measured
by who has the most amount of devices with an specific OS out there, it's
measured on who has the most amount of POPULAR devices period. Twelve years
ago, people bought Nokia phones because they where the most popular ones
around, not because they used Symbian OS.

On the downloadable app part you seem to equate quantity with quality, which
is flawed at best. Quality developers will flock to the platform that is more
profitable and merchantable. You're right, the most popular platform is the
one that will get more developer attention, but device share is not a measure
of popularity in the mobile app sector. Profits are.

~~~
usaar333
1) Oh I was agreeing with you; probably should have prefixed that with 'I
agree'.

2) I disagree with you here. How much loyalty do users have to HP, Dell, etc?
Certainly some, but I feel the loyalty to Windows, OS/X, etc. exceeds that
loyalty.

In terms of users wanting a certain phone, the mobile industry has changed a
lot in the past 10 years -- phones are much more powerful. Users now end up
investing substantial time and money into apps. Such apps lock users in; on an
upgrade the user better have the damn things work out of the box.

Profits of a given device are quite different from profits of applications
made for that device. Sure, there's some correlation, but how much? Case in
point, the operating profit percents of Macs as a total % of computers is 35%.
I'd be amazed if the operating profits of OS/X software profit as a % of total
desktop software are even a third of that.

~~~
sp4rki
At least we agreed on one count ^_^

Anyways, on the loyalty issue, I use an iMac and a System76 laptop with Arch
Linux, and as such I am loyal to my operating systems, as you probably are
too. Now the machines in my college where either Macs for design or Dell's for
everything else. The machines in my girlfriend's families' house are all
Toshiba. My sister has had 4 HP laptops and wants a new one for christmas.
These people (the regular people that are the bulk of computer users
everywhere) follow brands more than anything else. I had a company that did
integration of computer systems 8 years ago and trust me, most of this people
(regular folks) follow brands and products, and seldom care about
implementations, operating systems, and the such.

I agree with you completely on the the app lock in, and here come's a thought:
The reason most people start buying Android devices, is because of the
integration with their Google accounts, though you can use your accounts on an
iPhone, it makes more sense to the general consumer to use the "Google phone"
right? And of course, the catch with the iPhone couldn't have been far away...
there are so many more usable apps, that are linked not only with software,
but with webservices on the iPhone that it isn't even funny. I'll give you two
examples of lock in (in my case): I will not buy an iPhone or a Nexus, because
I need my Blackberry with the Blackberry Messenger service; I will also not
buy an Android tablet, because they don't have Things nor Plaintext as the
iPad does. iOS already has such penetration with the "cool, new, and awesome"
apps that it's hard to compete with them, and in the cases where there's a
cool app for Android, there's also an equivalent for the iPhone, though not
generally the same case the other way around.

The one thing that drives millions of people to Android devices is not Android
itself, it's both the marketing based on integration with Google services AND
the AT&T fiasco that Apple for some reason didn't understand was maiming their
business.

On the profits topic, I meant profit for app developers not profit on device
sales. As long as iPhone developers are making thousands, and in some cases
millions of dollars, in comparison to Android developers whom are making much
much less on an average, quality developers are going to stick with the iPhone
platform, Android being a second class citizen for them. It all comes down to
the fact that developers are going to flock to Android only after, and if, it
becomes the next goldmine.

To be honest, last time I used an Android phone, I liked it a lot. Until I
tried the keyboard. That completely sealed the deal for me. I'm sticking to my
Blackberry until I can use BBM on the iPhone (probably never :S)!

------
yoak
It always surprises me when someone mistakes this kind of smarminess for wit,
especially if they appear to have learned to bathe and not make messes in the
house otherwise. There were a couple of points in there that might have been
pleasant to read under other circumstances.

------
davidedicillo
Why people can't accept the fact that Apple doesn't care about having biggest
market share. Of course if they can they'll be happy to take it like for the
mp3 players market. At the moment, looking at the numbers, Android is eating
market share mostly from Apple's other competitors. Remember, this is not a
race to be the company who makes the most money, it's just about making tons
of money, and this is what Apple cares about. Look at the computer marktet,
they don't care in selling more pc than Dell, they care of making a boatload
of profit, even with their 7%.

~~~
ergo98
_Why people can't accept the fact that Apple doesn't care about having biggest
market share_

Thank you for bringing up the _biggest lie in technology_. It's a transparent
loser's speech that, thankfully, we've yet to actually hear Apple incant.

Apple is trying quite hard to get the biggest market share: Did you happen to
catch Steve bragging about leaving RIM in their rearview? How desperately he
compares iPhone activations to Android activations?

Have you noticed the incredible quantities of lucre that Apple is dumping on
mass media advertising lately? (I don't have the numbers, but it is, by far,
the #1 advertised brand from my perspective). Have you noticed that Apple is
now making products at virtually every price point?

Apple is the very definition of a mass market company. They are not a niche or
a luxury maker, and delusions to that effect are simply bizarre.

Sure, they don't sell a discount iPhone, but that's entirely because consumers
are accustomed to subsidized models, so going from $600 to $500 really makes
no difference (it really doesn't matter whether the phone is $200, $150, $99,
$49, or even _FREE_ when each comes bound with a $3500 smartphone contract).

If people were accustomed to buying devices without subsidization, Apple would
have the entire low-end market covered. On the Android front by far the most
popular phones are the high end phones like the Galaxy S and the Droid 2,
which are hardly inexpensive devices.

Apple came incredibly close to achieving a brilliant strategic lock-in to the
nascent smartphone market that would have locked them in as the default
choice: Many organizations had a mobile strategy that simply relied upon
"releasing an iPhone app", creating a network effect where you were either
onboard with the iPhone, or you're a second class citizen. Here on HN there
were quite a few single-person startups that had a business plan involving
nothing more than creating an iPhone app, yielding a strong anti-Android bias
-- having multiple platforms is just a PITA, right?

 _Remember, this is not a race to be the company who sells the most units,
it's just about making tons of money, and this is what Apple cares about._

I edited that slightly to what I suspect you meant to say. It's another
ridiculous lie that we keep hearing.

Apple had the "niche market" for quite a few years. Yeah it led them to
desperately go to Microsoft, hat in hand, begging for some "we'll get the
anti-trust police off your backs" payoffs (which they got, funding the
recovered Apple).

HTC is a relatively new smartphone company. They've been going gangbusters on
the backs of Android. Motorola was in complete mobile collapse so their
balance sheet isn't quite so great right now, but without Android they would
have been done. On and on. The "Apple makes more profit" angle is nice, I
guess, if you own Apple shares, but otherwise it's completely meaningless.

I don't want Android to dominate. In fact I hope that RIM gets some mojo back
(and that QNX plays a part. Anyone who did comp sci in Ontario is generally in
love with QNX, because it's a beautiful OS), that Windows Mobile 7 can get an
R2 out soon that fixes many of the failings, and of course Apple is and won't
be going anywhere, and will continue to provide technology kungfu.

We need a vibrant, competitive market where one person -- like Steve Jobs --
isn't making technology decrees for an entire industry (see: Flash).

~~~
masklinn
> HTC is a relatively new smartphone company.

Wrong. HTC is a relatively new smartphone _brand_ , they've been making
smartphones since _2000_. They created the first Windows Mobile smartphone,
the first 3G Windows Mobile smartphone, the Palm Treo 650, the iPaq and the
first Android smartphone. They were probably _the_ major WiMo smartphone
builder in WiMo's heydays (and they might very well still be).

HTC is a relatively new smartphone company? By that metric, RIM is just
getting started building communication devices.

~~~
ergo98
>HTC is a relatively new smartphone brand

Yes, that's quite clearly the _point_. If Foxconn -- the makers of the iPhone
-- came out with a smartphone, they would be a new smartphone company, witty
caustic replies notwithstanding.

~~~
rbranson
Except that Foxconn is a manufacturing company that builds to spec. HTC
designs the hardware and does white labeling. That is a VERY important
distinction.

------
Pewpewarrows
What I find hilarious is when people say in the same sentence that it's not
fair to compare Android numbers to Apple's because iPhone isn't on multiple
carriers, then in the next breath say that comparing Android to iOS on all
devices is fair and balanced. You can't have it both ways.

~~~
ceejayoz
There are Android tablets. Why is it unfair to compare the Android OS to the
iOS?

~~~
Pewpewarrows
Google has made public announcements saying Android isn't ready for the Tablet
yet. Just because some manufacturers managed to get it working on some doesn't
make it equivalent to the sponsored and ready-for-retail iPad. It's the
equivalent of someone hacking the iPhone to work on Verizon and then Google
trying to claim that the carrier argument is now null and void. Even if you
factor in tablet activations with phones, Android wins. Why?...

You're also conveniently ignoring the iPod Touch. iPhone sales have
historically accounted for only a little over half of total iOS devices. In
terms of phones, Android activations dominantly win, no matter how Jobs feels
like playing around with the numbers.

------
fleitz
Steve jobs is right because as he's said numerous times, he doesn't give a
shit about market share, what he gives a crap about are profit share and
making great products, I suspect the latter is primarily to ensure the former.

The low end of Apple's products are last year's model. With 3 generations
going they don't need to make 'low-end' hardware, Moore's law takes care of
that for them.

~~~
random42
The term profit _share_ makes me curious (about something). Can you please
find the link where Jobs says so?

~~~
fleitz
[http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/21/pie-chart-apples-
outr...](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/21/pie-chart-apples-outrageous-
share-of-the-mobile-industrys-profits/)

An old one:
[http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Steve_Jobs_Talks_Mark...](http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Steve_Jobs_Talks_Market_Share_Innovation_With_UK_Newspaper/)

"If you went to BMW and asked them why they donit outsell the Ford Taurus,
they would say they donit want to make that sort of car," says Mr Jobs. "Apple
has 25 million customers around the world, and our goal is to give them the
best personal computer that we can, with the best operating system and some of
the best applications."

~~~
random42
Thanks.

------
mattdonahoe
Did not know about the TweetDeck thing.

