

Why Apple can’t be too worried about Android - kgarten
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/02/05/why-apple-cant-be-too-worried-about-android-3-0-honeycomb-tablets-taking-away-ipad-sales-part-1/

======
chalst

        That effort in “market share voodoo,” being propagated by Garner and other
        corporate data flack firms, desperately attempts to hide the failure of 
        actual Android licensees, from Samsung’s disappointing profits to 
        the shaky position of Motorola and Sony Ericsson.
    

Hmm. Why did their list not include HTC, who make $65 profit per unit, mostly
on Android phones? (cf. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2172598>) It's
quite true that most Android mfers are making wafer-thin wargins or even small
losses, but ignoring the mfer who is raking it in?

Cherry-picking piece, lots of analytic problems, not really worth reading.

~~~
bcrescimanno
If the vast majority (all but one according your post--and I have no data to
refute that claim) falls within the set and he leaves out the one--is that
cherry-picking or simply discarding an outlier? I'd argue it's the latter.

~~~
tensor
Considering that on the other side of the argument is a single data point,
Apple, I can't see how leaving out even a single company producing Android
products makes sense.

Furthermore, I don't understand why so many people appear to have a desperate
need to try to paint Apple as dominant and unable to fail. Wether there are
more Apple handsets or Android handsets, the fact that you can even make the
comparison clearly shows that Apple is no where close to dominant in the
mobile market.

Everyone also forgets that RIM still has a large market share, despite their
OS lagging Android and iOS in features. The market is anyones game at this
point and we should all be happy for the competition that exists. That
competition will create cheaper and better products for us all.

------
cpr
Gosh, I'm an Apple fanboy with the best of 'em, but I can't help reading
Dilger like an autistic kid writing from his parents' basement: yes, much of
what he's saying might be true (can't fact-check it all), but the
spitefulness, anger and slant is so strong it's almost unreadable.

Why not just present the facts as you see 'em, and, if you're right, people
will give you due respect for your vision.

~~~
Rhymenocerus
exactly

ITT: mac4lifer loves mac

/not exactly breaking news

------
maxklein
You know, often I see these long speeches, always in retrospect about how one
technology won over the other with a myriad of reasons.

In almost all of these cases, the winners had one thing in common: They had
better user interfaces. Not quality, not specifications, but user interface.

All the google vs altavista, facebook vs myspace, iphone vs android and so on,
always seem to end up with the simpler and more effective user interface
winning. The post-analysis always points to a huge confluence of things
happening, but for now I'll stick to my simple rule:

Software that is easier to use and gives the user what he wants faster (and
has the same feature-set and price) than another equivalent software will
always become more popular, given enough time.

~~~
flashgordon
I almost agree about google. Yes google had a very very simple interface but
surely pagerank must have played some part in its success. A page with a
single text field doing altavista like search would not have gone far right?

