# Android now accounts for more than two-thirds of all smartphones shipped



## editor (Aug 8, 2012)

New figures for the last quarter show Android bagging an almighty 68% share of all smartphones shipped in Q2 2012.

Apple came in at a far distant second with just 17% share of the global market, while beleaguered BlackBerry and fast fading Symbian could only muster 4.8% and 4.4%, respectively.

Things will obviously change with the release of the new iPhone, but Android's lead now looks insurmountable for the foreseeable future.

As for Blackberry. Bless. (((RIM)))

More: http://www.wirefresh.com/android-wipes-out-ios-with-an-immense-market-share-in-q2-2012/


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 9, 2012)

w00t!!!11!!1!

\o/


----------



## Kanda (Aug 9, 2012)

Well done!


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Well done!


 Android handset makers still aren't making any where near as much lovely, lovely moolah as Apple though.

I think some people might get iStiffies each time Apple's growing profits and vast stockpiles of cash are announced.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 9, 2012)

editor said:


> I think some people might get iStiffies each time Apple's growing profits and vast stockpiles of cash are announced.


 
Well, they're fucking idiots. Stiffies are for crumpet, not for poxy gadgets.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Well, they're fucking idiots. Stiffies are for crumpet, not for poxy gadgets.


You should see how many blogs and tech sites describes gadgets, iPhones and other devices as 'sexy'.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 9, 2012)

editor said:


> You should see how many blogs and tech sites describes gadgets, iPhones and other devices as 'sexy'.


 
iPhone is a gadget isn't it?


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

Kanda said:


> iPhone is a gadget isn't it?


No idea where you're going with this one.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 9, 2012)

It's not really all that surprising. If you were making a phone nowadays, would you (a) spend loads of cash developing your own OS for it or (b) use Android?


----------



## Kanda (Aug 9, 2012)

editor said:


> No idea where you're going with this one.


 
Just curious how you separated 'gadgets', 'iPhones', 'other devices'...

Galaxy 3 is a gadget or other device? Why does iPhone have it's own kinda category there?


----------



## maldwyn (Aug 9, 2012)

Again, another half-arsed way of presenting data - not too many iPhones sold in the last quarter, why would that be? ​


----------



## souljacker (Aug 9, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Again, another half-arsed way of presenting data - not too many iPhones sold in the last quarter, why would that be?


 
Because they are shit! 

Wheres Windows in all this?


----------



## maldwyn (Aug 9, 2012)

TBH, I'm surprised the Android % isn't higher


----------



## TitanSound (Aug 9, 2012)

souljacker said:


> Because they are shit!
> 
> Wheres Windows in all this?


 
I found this on Wikipedia







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Current_market_share_and_outlook


----------



## mrs quoad (Aug 9, 2012)

editor said:


> Android handset makers still aren't making any where near as much lovely, lovely moolah as Apple though.
> 
> I think some people might get iStiffies each time Apple's growing profits and vast stockpiles of cash are announced.


Cross-thread off-topic sideswipe in two posts flat 

Nicely done


----------



## mrs quoad (Aug 9, 2012)

TitanSound said:


> I found this on Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I had to lay any kind of bets, I'd bet that, whatever the market looks like in 2016, it won't look particularly like that. 

Gotta love the wa that pretty much every projection from mid-2013 on is basically a flat / near-flat line, in stark contrast with pretty much everything that precedes it.

"Looking at the market's consistent volatility, we predict stability from hereon in...."


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2012)

Why is "Android" compared with "Apple"?  Shouldn't it be the individual manufacturers each compared with each other?  It seems a bit odd to break it down by OS -- what does Motorola care if it is Samsung or Apple that is beating it in market share?


----------



## maldwyn (Aug 9, 2012)

And with the introduction of cheaper 'smart phones' the market must've expanded massively, I think my new fridge came installed with jellybean.


----------



## mrs quoad (Aug 9, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Why is "Android" compared with "Apple"?  Shouldn't it be the individual manufacturers each compared with each other?  It seems a bit odd to break it down by OS -- what does Motorola care if it is Samsung or Apple that is beating it in market share?


Think someone was posting recently that Samsung is pretty much the only manufacturer turning a profit, with htc just about breaking even. Which might also play out in quite interesting ways wrt the future of manufacturers AND oses.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 9, 2012)

which version of andriod because android is so fragmented as an os now that it means nothing to say android has the market lead... 

most handset manuifactures haven't upgraded to ICS and this isn't even the latest version any more...

which is causing significant developer fragmentation too... which is what's really important...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/20/android_interest_slipping/


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Why is "Android" compared with "Apple"?


Because "Windows" is often compared with "Mac OS." They're competing systems, just like the mobile ones, so I'm not sure why you find it so unusual to compare their market shares.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> which version of andriod because android is so fragmented as an os now that it means nothing to say android has the market lead...
> 
> most handset manuifactures haven't upgraded to ICS and this isn't even the latest version any more...
> 
> ...


That's from March. Here's a more recent article showing that developers clearly aren't being put off ( although fragmentation remains an issue, it's often overstated)





> *iOS, Android Developer Gap Is Shrinking: Report*
> The release of Apple's iOS 6 Beta 3 and Android's Jelly Bean were greeted with almost exactly the same number of downloads from developers. This could mean that developers are more serious about Android.
> 
> For the last several years, Apple's iOS mobile operating system has been getting most of the attention from software developers every time a new version comes out, in comparison with new releases of Google's competing Android OS.
> ...


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> And with the introduction of cheaper 'smart phones' the market must've expanded massively, I think my new fridge came installed with jellybean.


Nikon are rumoured to be releasing a new camera powered by Android. And that could be the start of something very big indeed.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> which version of andriod because android is so fragmented as an os now that it means nothing to say android has the market lead...
> 
> most handset manuifactures haven't upgraded to ICS and this isn't even the latest version any more...
> 
> ...


I find that very interesting.  I'm thinking about getting a tablet in the next few months.  I was planning on an Asus Transformer Prime, which is obviously Android, but reading that article, I'm thinking that an iPad 3 may be the safer bet.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2012)

editor said:


> Because "Windows" is often compared with "Mac OS." They're competing systems, just like the mobile ones, so I'm not sure why you find it so unusual to compare their market shares.


Data is meaningless without a purpose, of course.  It all depends on what you are interested in.  If people are interested in Android vs. iOS then that data is great.  If they are interested in how well individual manufacturers are doing, it is not the right data!


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Just curious how you separated 'gadgets', 'iPhones', 'other devices'...
> 
> Galaxy 3 is a gadget or other device? Why does iPhone have it's own kinda category there?


Because 'sexy' is the word that regularly gets applied to Apple products more than others. Even you described an iPhone as being sexy.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 9, 2012)

editor said:


> . Even you described an iPhone as being sexy.


 
That was a pisstake post.. 

Dragging posts up from 2008? Stalker...


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Data is meaningless without a purpose, of course. It all depends on what you are interested in. If people are interested in Android vs. iOS then that data is great.


That is what the thread is about. 


kabbes said:


> If they are interested in how well individual manufacturers are doing, it is not the right data!


Samsung are outselling Apple and all the other Android manufacturers. Read the link.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Dragging posts up from 2008? Stalker...


Just learning from you on that score.


Kanda said:


> Just fancied something different, of my own, get to know Mac OS, sexy little thing etc


[Talking about a Mac]


Kanda said:


> But it's quite sexy isn't it?


Consider yourself well pwned sunshine.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2012)

editor said:


> Samsung are outselling Apple and all the other Android manufacturers. Read the link.


I'm not surprised.  Even I bought a Samsung Galaxy, and my last phone purchase before that was a Nokia 3310 in about 2001.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I'm not surprised. Even I bought a Samsung Galaxy, and my last phone purchase before that was a Nokia 3310 in about 2001.


It's selling more than the next four or five Android manufacturers combined, IIRC.


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 9, 2012)

What it is with these threads that make grown reasonable men act like 10 year olds?


----------



## Kanda (Aug 9, 2012)

editor said:


> Just learning from you on that score.
> 
> [Talking about a Mac]
> 
> Consider yourself well pwned sunshine.


 
Not really, when I use those terms to wind you up in the first place.

Consider YOURSELF wound up. Grow up, geezus


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 9, 2012)

editor said:


> That's from March. Here's a more recent article showing that developers clearly aren't being put off ( although fragmentation remains an issue, it's often overstated)


here's a better one from last week then
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/02/android_ics_august_2012/






dispute any of the points that andriod is becoming to fragmented to become dominant and care to state what in your orignal article you mean by "andriod" as it is a fragmented os...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 9, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> What it is with these threads that make grown reasonable men act like 10 year olds?


I think ted there's a presumption they act like adults else where...


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 9, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> I think ted there's a presumption they act like adults else where...


 
Don't you start.

Can someone just throw in some "ya Mum's an Android" or something to really nail the 'look'.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2012)

What the hell is with all these silly names for Android systems?  And how is a layperson like me supposed to know whether Honeycomb or Jelly Bean or Froyo (wtf?) or Eclair is the more advanced?


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 9, 2012)

fnar


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 9, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Don't you start.
> 
> Can someone just throw in some "ya Mum's an Android" or something to really nail the 'look'.


you posts a mums android...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 9, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> fnar


coming out after jelly bean I think...


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Not really, when I use those terms to wind you up in the first place.


Sure you do, luv.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 9, 2012)

editor said:


> Sure you do, luv.


 
Clearly. Otherwise you wouldn't be dragging up 4 year old posts (again)


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> here's a better one from last week then
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/02/android_ics_august_2012/
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, the fragmentation of the platform has been well documented and discussed here - and it's something that's increasingly affecting the iPhone too, although to a lesser extent.

Not sure how that relates to my point about developers though.

Kanda: give it a rest please.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2012)

I have just discovered that "froyo" is an Americanism for "frozen yoghurt".  So I have learned something today.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I have just discovered that "froyo" is an Americanism for "frozen yoghurt". So I have learned something today.


So have I!

I think the idea behind the daft names is (a) they're a bit of fun and (b) they're a bit more memorable than version 10.756743c.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 9, 2012)

editor said:


> Yes, the fragmentation of the platform has been well documented and discussed here - and it's something that's increasingly affecting the iPhone too, although to a lesser extent.
> 
> Not sure how that relates to my point about developers though.


read my link.

fragmentation hasn't at all been covered in this thread other than me, you are positively avoiding defining what you mean by android.   a thoroughly dishonest claim.  

you might as well use the equally ambiguous term smart phone... 

but you're clearly spoiling for a ruck rather than wanting to debate. AGAIN.

so fuck it I can't be arsed... 

as you were google cock is nicer than apples cock or whatever you're bollocks nonsense argument is...

once, just once, it might be fucking nice to use that knowledge of yours about of tech to discuss a fucking thing rather than have to constantly wade through your constant, combating, baiting, fanboi toss..


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> fragmentation hasn't at all been covered in this thread other than me, you are positively avoiding defining what you mean by android.


"Here" being _on these boards_. It's been discussed in many other threads.

Not sure where I've been 'positively avoiding ' a definition of Android, but here's one if that's what you're looking for:


> Android is a Linux-based operating system for mobile devices such assmartphones andtablet computers. It is developed by theOpen Handset Alliance, led byGoogle.





GarfieldLeChat said:


> but you're clearly spoiling for a ruck rather than wanting to debate. AGAIN.


Now that is priceless.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 9, 2012)

kabbes said:


> What the hell is with all these silly names for Android systems? And how is a layperson like me supposed to know whether Honeycomb or Jelly Bean or Froyo (wtf?) or Eclair is the more advanced?


It's a bit like Intel - "Prescott", "Clarkdale" , "Ivy Bridge" etc ...

Mind you, you need to have studied computer science to get anywhere understanding this stuff, but it _*seemed*_ simpler before ...


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 9, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I have just discovered that "froyo" is an Americanism for "frozen yoghurt". So I have learned something today.


 
Wait til someone tells you where it comes in the alphabet relative to Ice Cream Sandwich and Gingerbread


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2012)

I never understand why laptop makers come up with forgettable new model names like the 14" u7900-DD045EC or whatever.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Wait til someone tells you where it comes in the alphabet relative to Ice Cream Sandwich and Gingerbread


Hang on one gosh-darned second...


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2012)

Interesting new study:
*IDC: Android claims 75 percent of smartphone shipments in Q3, 136 million handsets sold*





​http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/01/android-75-percent-marketshare-136-million-shipped/​


----------



## Crispy (Nov 2, 2012)

Woo! Go teams!


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2012)

Be interesting to see how it looks this time next year. It's supposed to be the year of Windows Mobile soon, isn't it?


----------



## Sunray (Nov 2, 2012)

The numbers are impressive, but the profits less so given those numbers.

There is a fixed hardware pie that quite a number of companies are going after which clearly dilutes the profits. Samsung with its decent phone portfolio and blanket advertising are are doing nicely. HTC are struggling, Motorola which Google now own are not alone in making  losses.   Differentiation is an issue for all the people trying to make these phones. Once sold the hardware people don't see anything from software sales.

Potentially $10 of millions of dollars if not more spent developing the OS. How much does the great google maps cost to make and maintain? Every one of those 500 million Android devices can use the maps for free, far more useful when out and about.  Its 20 Petabytes without streetview.  What does that cost to keep running in hardware and power 24 hours a day? 

The 30% they charge developers for their apps is probably only break even for the app store.  Apple have said they are just at break even with the app store, as they don't charge for free apps, therefore the paid subsidise the free.  I can only assume that is the same with google play, there are a lot more free apps for Android.

I'm assuming there aren't ads in Android, just on apps and in the browser, been a while since I looked.

I'm starting to wonder if Google in its drive for adoption has also driven itself into a bit of a financial cul-de-sac with Android.  Their open approach has clearly been very successful, 500 million android devices.  But the Android eco system (Android development, maps, Google play) has to be paid for somewhere, unless Google continue to underwrite it forever from their other divisions, which would be very nice of them. Otherwise I'm wondering who going to bear the costs?


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2012)

Sunray said:


> The numbers are impressive, but the profits less so given those numbers.


Who gives a fuck when you can get a truly amazing phone like the Nexus 4 at bargain basement prices?


----------



## Kanda (Nov 2, 2012)

editor said:


> Who gives a fuck when you can get a truly amazing phone like the Nexus 4 at bargain basement prices?


 
That was irony yes?


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2012)

Kanda said:


> That was irony yes?


Why would you think that? Consumers don't give a flying fuck about wild speculation about Google's supposed "financial cul-de-sac". All they care about is getting a great phone that does everything they want it to do at a great price. The Nexus 4 is an incredible phone and one that should get right thinking people wondering why they have to pay so much for the iPhone 5 when the Nexus is easily a match for it.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)

editor said:


> The Nexus 4 is an incredible phone and one that should get right thinking people wondering why they have to pay so much for the iPhone 5 when the Nexus is easily a match for it.


 
Do they really need to wonder? Its no mystery that Apple products come at a price premium.

As for the issue of profits, its not exactly healthy that there only seem to be two companies taking the lions share of the smartphone profits. Some of the other manufacturers will be ok if they sell a range of other products and make good money from them, but I dont look forward to the possible failure of some phone hardware companies if the situation continues for years to come, it will reduce choice. And its not Google people should be worried about, its the likes of HTC.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 3, 2012)

Sunray said:


> The numbers are impressive, but the profits less so given those numbers.
> 
> There is a fixed hardware pie that quite a number of companies are going after which clearly dilutes the profits. Samsung with its decent phone portfolio and blanket advertising are are doing nicely. HTC are struggling, Motorola which Google now own are not alone in making losses. Differentiation is an issue for all the people trying to make these phones. Once sold the hardware people don't see anything from software sales.
> 
> ...


 
I'm surprised you don't know the answer to this.  Google can afford to keep maps, gmail and the rest of their services free because we're paying for it with our personal information rather than cash.  Google's profit comes almost entirely from selling targeted ads.  Everything they do has the primary purpose of getting more information about more people so that they can build up more accurate profiles.  This makes their advertising more effective and is the reason why they have a huge lead in online advertising market share.

I use Google search on my desktop, Maps, and Gmail as well as Google+, Tasks and Talk - all while logged in.  Then I have an Android phone, which has the same list of apps as on the desktop, but they also get my app preferences, phone model and network, location history (via Latitude), music preferences (Google Music) and files that I use (GDrive). Oh, and my contacts.  There is something called Google Voice in the US which can transcribe your voice mails and route your texts, so they have access to some people's communications now, too.

All of this will be used to build consumer profiles which gives advertisers the chance to target more efficiently, the people they believe will buy their shit.  So advertisers use Google and they both make money.  In response for providing my personal information, I get a shitload of really useful and well designed software services which I don't have to pay for with cash.

If you see Google doing something which doesn't seem to make money, or make sense, just think about how it can be linked with an existing person using Googles services. It will usually be something that gives a little more information about that person that Google previously didn't have.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 3, 2012)

Incredible numbers when you consider beyond profits the amount of web traffic that Android accounts for. Massive disparity...


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 3, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Incredible numbers when you consider beyond profits the amount of web traffic that Android accounts for. Massive disparity...


 
What do you mean?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 3, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> What do you mean?



Web traffic is important because its about eye ball time which you need if you want to sell advertising. iOS pisses all over Android in this area despite getting roundly trounced in the number of active units.


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2012)

When I buy a phone the amount of 'eyeball time' is probably the very, very, very last thing I give the slightest flying fuck about.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 4, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Web traffic is important because its about eye ball time which you need if you want to sell advertising. iOS pisses all over Android in this area despite getting roundly trounced in the number of active units.


 
You're confused on two fronts.  Firstly, Google don't need to have people looking at adverts on their phones.  Secondly, they don't care if it's an Android user or an Iphone user who is looking at their ads; just that someone is.

How much time Android users spend browsing is irrelevant to them.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2012)

I dont think many are trying to use the web use stats for smartphones to suggest that this is a great problem for Google. Rather they are trying to make some point about people buying smartphones and not actually using them as smartphones very much, or at least not fitting one particular kind of idea about what a smartphone user does with their device.

I think this avenue quickly becomes absurd if pushed to any extent. The web surfing stats are of some vague interest to me, but I wouldnt try to build a partisan picture out of it. It may be tempting to push this concept a little more when it comes to tablets, because the insinuation may be that a proportion of android tablets are gathering dust. But as I hope is clear from this post I only buy into this in a very limited way, if at all.


----------



## pocketscience (Nov 4, 2012)

elbows said:


> I dont think many are trying to use the web use stats for smartphones to suggest that this is a great problem for Google. Rather they are trying to make some point about people buying smartphones and not actually using them as smartphones very much, or at least not fitting one particular kind of idea about what a smartphone user does with their device.
> 
> I think this avenue quickly becomes absurd if pushed to any extent. *The web surfing stats* are of some vague interest to me, but I wouldnt try to build a partisan picture out of it. It may be tempting to push this concept a little more when it comes to tablets, because the insinuation may be that a proportion of android tablets are gathering dust. But as I hope is clear from this post I only buy into this in a very limited way, if at all.


Agreed. Web surfing traffic and general web traffic are two entirely different things. As iCloud is being used by iPhones more as a background service, I think the assumption that iOS "pissing all over android" on general web traffic is of little to no relevance to 3rd party web based advertisers.


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2012)

For what it's worth, there's been several reports of Android users consuming more data than their iOS counterparts over the years. Or "pissing all over iOS with their data consumption" as Kid Eternity might like to word it.


----------



## Firky (Nov 4, 2012)

I just bought a 8GB iPhone 3GS for £35. Couldn't resist at that price, going to ebay it for £80 - £100 or keep it,

Sorry Android, I wouldn't have done it if the Nexus 4 was available now.


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2012)

firky said:


> I just bought a 8GB iPhone 3GS for £35. Couldn't resist at that price, going to ebay it for £80 - £100 or keep it,
> 
> Sorry Android, I wouldn't have done it if the Nexus 4 was available now.


I could be wrong but I've got a hunch you might regret that decision. The Nexus looks_ amazing_ for that price.


----------



## Firky (Nov 4, 2012)

You're hunch is quite well informed, but for £35 I couldn't say no!

However I figure with my Giffgaff SIM, even if I only get only two months use out of it, it has only cost me £18pm plus a tasnner on GG. It'll fill the downtime in between not having a phone and waiting for the N4.

The Nexus 4 is even giving the SIII a bit of a bruising:

http://www.autoomobile.com/news/lg-nexus-4-vs-samsung-galaxy-s3-4/1006905/


As good build quality as an iPhone?!



> The Samsung Galaxy S3 has been slammed for its tacky plastic casing, and the Nexus 4 looks quite a bit classier – a bit like the current Galaxy Nexus mixed with the build quality of the iPhone 4S. The LG Nexus 4 is in front.
> 
> 
> The Samsung Galaxy S3 has been lording it over the smartphone world for a while, so it’ll be interesting to see if the Nexus 4 can take it down a peg or two. It’d got the necessary goods but with two downfalls – a lack of LTE and lower storage space. However it explains this with a $299 price tag. In contrast, a contract-free Samsung Galaxy S3 will run you upwards of $500.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2012)

There's been some movement in the tablet world too:



> Apple's share sank from 65.5 percent in the second quarter of 2012 to 50.4 percent in the third quarter. In the same period last year, Apple's market share was 59.7 percent.
> 
> The other four vendors ranked in the top five all gained share during the quarter. Samsung led the way, buoyed by its Galaxy Tab and Note 10.1, shipping 5.1 million tablets worldwide in the third quarter, up 115 percent from the second quarter of this year. And that's an increase of 325 percent from the third quarter of 2011, when it shipped 1.2 million tablets.
> 
> ...


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2012)

Yeah I've seen stats like those before and the thing that always amazes me is Samsungs apparent share. Given how little the samsung tablets are ever mentioned on forums like this one, its been easy to think of them as a total dud, especially as things were not very rosy when they first launched some tablets.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 5, 2012)

I have a Samsung tablet and I love it.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2012)

elbows said:


> Yeah I've seen stats like those before and the thing that always amazes me is Samsungs apparent share. Given how little the samsung tablets are ever mentioned on forums like this one, its been easy to think of them as a total dud, especially as things were not very rosy when they first launched some tablets.


I guess it's because Samsung owners tend not to go on and on and on and on about their devices.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2012)

editor said:


> I guess it's because Samsung owners tend not to go on and on and on and on about their devices.


 
I only see this as a partial explanation at best, since there isnt exactly silence about their smartphones, and other android tablets like the nexus 7 get a fair amount of attention here.

Even the price of the Samsung tablets surprised me and demonstrated how stealthy some of their tablets have become here, eg when I was speculating about the nexus 10 price I had no idea there were already large samsung tablets at a similar price point (albeit without the superb resolution).


----------



## Firky (Nov 6, 2012)

editor said:


> I could be wrong but I've got a hunch you might regret that decision. The Nexus looks_ amazing_ for that price.


 
You were right.

I am pissed off with it already!


----------



## Badgers (Nov 6, 2012)

firky said:


> I just bought a 8GB iPhone 3GS for £35. Couldn't resist at that price, going to ebay it for £80 - £100 or keep it,


 
I might have a spare box for that model if you did not get one Firks?


----------



## Firky (Nov 6, 2012)

It came with a box, thank you and I still have my old Otter Box! 

I am attempting to Jailbreak it but iTunes isn't playing ball and keeps crashing.


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 7, 2012)

But only 2.7% using Jelly Bean, fragmentation still an issue.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 7, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> But only 2.7% using Jelly Bean, fragmentation still an issue.


 
It's not an issue.  Is the fact that only 1 in 4 Macs run Mountain Lion a fragmentation issue?  Or that Windows XP still accounts for a healthy chunk of PC users' OSs?  Or that people are putting off upgrading to IOS6 to keep Google Maps?

Most people don't even know what Jelly Bean is.


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 7, 2012)

IOS 6 had 200 million upgrades in the first month. 

Most Android users wouldn't be able to have Jelly Bean even if they knew what it was.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 7, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> IOS 6 had 200 million upgrades in the first month.
> 
> Most Android users wouldn't be able to have Jelly Bean even if they knew what it was.


 
The only people who are really running Android are Nexus users, and they will be on Jelly Bean.  Those who aren't using Nexus devices are running forks of Android, essentially, and are at the mercy of the manufacturers when it comes to upgrades.

Not that it matters.  What's the issue with 'fragmentation'?


----------



## Firky (Nov 7, 2012)

Everytime I read 'nexus' I want to beat me chest like a gorilla.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> IOS 6 had 200 million upgrades in the first month.
> 
> Most Android users wouldn't be able to have Jelly Bean even if they knew what it was.


What percentage of Android users, do you think, give a flying fuck?


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 7, 2012)

Usually the one's who bang on about how the latest *feature rich* Android OS leaves Apple's behind.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Usually the one's who bang on about how the latest *feature rich* Android OS leaves Apple's behind.


One day you'll get a widget of your own to play with.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2012)

Latest figures from Gartner.

Engadget span the facts into an article with the headline: *"Gartner: smartphone sales up 47 percent in Q3 -- Apple wins, Nokia loses"*





Baffled user comments include; 



> Is it just me or does the article sound like its talking about something completely different from what the image shows...?


 


> Samsung took the lead and has more smartphones sold than Apple in last quarter, why it this article talking about apple? Also Galaxy S3 alone were more populart than iPhones.





> Samsung sold 15 million more phones, compared to Apple selling 6 million more in the same time period. Samsung should be on the headline, not Apple


http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/14/gartner-phone-sales-q3-2012/


----------



## elbows (Nov 14, 2012)

So continues the theme of media putting Apple in their headlines, presumably to attract eyeballs.

I am not trying to defend Engadget but its really not that hard to see why they thought they could get away with that headline - year on year smartphone increases in percentage terms. In that sense Apple beats Samsung (36.2% v 18.6%). But its pretty stupid to only look at this one set of numbers, especially when Samsung sell way more smartphones than Apple.

Numbers eh, and how people spin them.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 14, 2012)

What I don't get is why Apple are perceived as cool*?  When they truly _were_ cool, no one I knew had Apple products and it was probably only geeks who did (or digital artists, etc).

If popularity is what makes them cool, then Samsung win on that front.  But Samsung aren't seen as cool, or even anything close to being cool.

*I'm making the assumption here that that's why people lead with Apple headlines, and why everything they do is seen as important.


----------



## elbows (Nov 14, 2012)

The 'cool' factor actually kept me away from Apple for a long time, in the end I only gave in because the actual functionality of the technology met my needs better than any other at the time.

Probably have to go back in time to explore this stuff, and the word cool doesnt really do it justice, but anyway, here are a variety of historical points which are in some way relevant:


Microsoft and Windows wasnt cool, so a viable alternative was seen as attractive to those who hated windows as much as editor currently hates apple 
Physical design of computers, eg the first iMac at a time when most PCs were noisy beige boxes.
Dominance of the iPod, iTunes as the 'legit' answer to music industries mp3 nightmare.
The psychology of premium branding & price.
The sort of people who were in some of the niche sectors which Apple computers did well in. For decades this was not so obvious in the UK as Apple had little presence here, but by this century those who worked in areas such as video editing, VJing, what used to be called 'desktop publishing' etc were likely to have started to worship in the church of Apple, even if the priest was a hipster. This also ties into location, certain hip cities with those groovy young things who influenced the media & marketing.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2012)

Here's another example of the bizarre press focus on Apple.

Google introduces TV voice search, yet the article title becomes: *Google Just Beat Siri to TV Voice Search*

* *


----------



## elbows (Nov 14, 2012)

I note that the Verge article they linked to manages not to mention Apple or Siri at all.

Not that I necessarily think there is anything wrong with mentioning Siri in this context, given that Apple TV has almost certainly sold more than Google TV so far due to vastly different price (Apple cheaper for once!) and they really should be competing against each other if Google can get their TV strategy straightened out.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2012)

elbows said:


> Not that I necessarily think there is anything wrong with mentioning Siri in this context, given that Apple TV has almost certainly sold more than Google TV so far due to vastly different price (Apple cheaper for once!) and they really should be competing against each other if Google can get their TV strategy straightened out.


The actual _new_s is Google releasing some innovative technology.

Apple have not released such technology, or even announced their intention to do so.


----------



## elbows (Nov 14, 2012)

But people are bound to place such innovation into the context of what their competitor Apple have failed to do this far. Be happy, Google beat Apple to something. If only someone round these parts actually owned a Google TV box.

Not that its simply a question of Apple adding Siri to the Apple TV via a software update, since there is a hardware issue - a microphone, and one that is up to the job.


----------



## souljacker (Nov 14, 2012)

editor said:


> Here's another example of the bizarre press focus on Apple.
> 
> Google introduces TV voice search, yet the article title becomes: *Google Just Beat Siri to TV Voice Search*
> 
> * *


 

Samsung beat them both too it anyway.


----------



## elbows (Nov 14, 2012)

Well that does tie in nicely with the media focus point - at least Google get some attention these days, unlike all the companies that do stuff with smart tv's that dont seem to get on the radar at all.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2012)

Android has taken a 90% market share in China. 







http://bgr.com/2012/11/16/android-chinese-market-share-2012/


----------



## mrs quoad (Nov 16, 2012)

They appear to have achieved a huge landgrab from Symbian in only five quarters!


----------



## mrs quoad (Nov 16, 2012)

Bleh. And no data source / methodology again, beyond a company name.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Bleh. And no data source / methodology again, beyond a company name.


Why don't you write to them and ask? They're a big, well established research firm so I imagine they'd be happy to expand upon their methods.


----------



## sim667 (Nov 16, 2012)

There is something that irritates me about those percentages.

Is android not used on a number of different handsets from different makers, where as ios, blackberry etc are all used on one manufacturer......


----------



## mrs quoad (Nov 16, 2012)

editor said:


> Why don't you write to them and ask? They're a big, well established research firm so I imagine they'd be happy to expand upon their methods.


And yet, they don't.

And tech bloggers seemingly continue to throw out numbers and graphs with no idea of where they come from, or what they might actually represent. Is this study drawing on 200 people, or a billion? From what kind of data source? There is *one fuck* of a difference, depending on how they got their stats.

It's the apparent willingness of people - like the source you cite - to regurgitate figures bereft of any context or understanding whatsoever that amazes me more than anything else. I can't believe that it does tech bloggers, or the credibility of what they're posting, to parrot any pretty number and graph produced by any (paid) research company (with an interest in securing publicity).

And yet that *seems* to be what happens. afaict.

There *are* pieces of info that people link to that contain some details of where that data's come from. It amazes me that data's picked up and thrown around without any context at all.

(The data isn't on the company's UK page, fwiw, and my brief attempt at babelfishing the Chinese page failed, presumably because of the quantity of characters.)


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> And yet, they don't.
> 
> And tech bloggers seemingly continue to throw out numbers and graphs with no idea of where they come from, or what they might actually represent. Is this study drawing on 200 people, or a billion? There is *one fuck* of a difference, depending on how they got their stats.


Instead of ranting away here all over again, why don't you just _ask them_ what methods they use and then base your criticism on any flaws you find in those methods?


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2012)

sim667 said:


> There is something that irritates me about those percentages.
> 
> Is android not used on a number of different handsets from different makers, where as ios, blackberry etc are all used on one manufacturer......


The graph purports to show _OS share_, so I'm not sure why you'd be irritated by that fact.


----------



## mrs quoad (Nov 16, 2012)

editor said:


> Instead of ranting away here all over again, why don't you just _ask them_ what methods they use?


Why aren't you interested? Why do you report it anyway, with no qualifications or curiosity? Why does the tech blogger who originally reported it not follow it up?

That's what amazes me more than anything else.

Am I interested in sending emails to check the methodology of every single research study posted?

Fuck, no. But I'll continue to briefly check, and comment on the lack of methodology / validity for so long as it's not reported.

Because I find it astounding that potential junk can be taken and parroted so consistently with no apparent interest in what it actually means or represents, when the companies producing it have a vested interest in it being reported, and shit data - frankly - leads to shit reporting.

What was that '1m google activations per month' projection? Eight months out on a one-month projection? That's astounding.

I can't credit that it does anyone any favours to post numbers without context. It's an open goal for any company that wants publicity, irrespective of how meaningful their data is. And I'm astounded how that can *not* bother any tech blogger who values credibility, as opposed to just kinda valuing shiny graphs irrespective of what they mean.


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 16, 2012)

As the market expands due to budget smartphone it's obvious Apple's share would be in decline.

That graph data was proper rubbish.


----------



## sim667 (Nov 16, 2012)

editor said:


> The graph purports to show _OS share_, so I'm not sure why you'd be irritated by that fact.


 
I didnt see the graph.......... its blocked by work proxy


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Why aren't you interested? Why do you report it anyway? Why does the tech blogger who originally reported it not follow it up?
> 
> That's what amazes me more than anything else.
> 
> ...


I view such graphs as an interesting point to start a conversation, not as the Holy Bible Of Precise And Exact Stats.

I don't think anyone here takes them as serious as you do, and you take them _very seriously indeed_.


----------



## mrs quoad (Nov 16, 2012)

Equally, good data is good.

I can't see why anyone would want to mess all data up in one big heap, irrespective of its quality and provenance, when that means that the 'good' data is given just as much credibility as the 'shit.'

That isn't only doing shit data a favour; it's doing good data a massive disservice, too. And anyone relying on either of them to suggest anything about anything.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Because I find it astounding that potential junk can be taken and parroted so consistently with no apparent interest in what it actually means or represents, when the companies producing it have a vested interest in it being reported, and shit data - frankly - leads to shit reporting.


Oh, and you've just described the majority of Apple-based stories covered on tech sites. Strangely enough, they don't seem to anger you anywhere near as much.


----------



## mrs quoad (Nov 16, 2012)

editor said:


> I view such graphs as an interesting point to start a conversation, not as the Holy Bible Of Precise And Exact Stats.
> 
> I don't think anyone here takes them as serious as you do, and you take them _very seriously indeed_.


But you seem to post anything pretty, without knowing (or having any curiosity) as to whether it's complete shite or gold-standard research.

Without even that curiosity (or, at least, without indicating any such curiosity when you post them), how can that meaningfully 'start a conversation'? About what? If you don't know if you're talking about a great big steaming lump of shit; or excellent, gold-standard, national-level data gathered from network providers? And if those two are presented, as though they're identical?

Like, you posted: 





> Android has taken a 90% market share in China.


 
That isn't 'starting a conversation.' It's presenting the data as hard, concrete fact. When you - and, I presume, the bloke you originally quoted - have got literally no idea whether it's good data, or complete shite. Whether it's about 200 mates of Danny the Researcher, or a genuine, full sample of the Chinese telecoms network.

IMO, that can't help tech blogging. Can it? To not ask those questions? To have no curiosity about the meaning of what tech bloggers or research companies are reporting?

Wouldn't a more critical approach help?

Or am I completely fucking off on one, for thinking that not knowing whether something is complete shit or remotely meaningful might help the credibility of reporting? And a fact-based / informative approach to technology and technology markets?


----------



## mrs quoad (Nov 16, 2012)

editor said:


> Oh, and you've just described the majority of Apple-based stories covered on tech sites. Strangely enough, they don't seem to anger you anywhere near as much.


Why not develop a critical / inquisitive mind, and approach that, then?

Please, do! It'd be fantastic - seriously - IMO.

IMO, a critical approach to data is absolutely essential in understanding any market. Based on any platform. Any device.

If you're up for applying those faculties to Apple data then, please, do! It'll be wonderful. I'm 400% behind it. And if I've missed dodgy data being reported on any company, then that certainly isn't intentional.

Shit data is shit. Understanding what's good and what's shit is important, if credibility is to mean anything. Good judgment can't be based on shit data.

So, fuck, yeah. Go for it. Seriously.

e2a: I should probably add: I won't see those stories unless they're reposted on here. IME, on here, most of the genuinely unprovenanced stories I've encountered have been posted by you. That may be because I've missed posts that have cropped up here; it may be because the shit reporting of Apple data / research hasn't been reposted here.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> But you seem to post anything pretty, without knowing (or having any curiosity) as to whether it's complete shite or gold-standard research.


 A large percentage of the Apple related threads on these board are based around _extremely_ dubious sources, yet you don't seem interested in delivering your lectures on those threads. Why is that*?

*this isn't an invite for you to start by the way, because your endless ranting on this topic is fucking boring enough as it is. Just like the Apple rumours, no one is presenting these stats as being *The Absolute Unequivocal Truth* but unlike the Apple 'rumours' at least there's an actual attributed source.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Shit data is shit. Understanding what's good and what's shit is important, if credibility is to mean anything. Good judgment can't be based on shit data.


How about you start a dedicated thread on this topic, going into as much detail as you like?

Then, whenever someone posts a link to a survey they find interesting or noteworthy, you can just add a link to your thread in case anyone takes the stats as seriously as you.

Oh, and for future reference, whenever you see me post up a link about some research, please take it for granted that I'm only posting it up to start a discussion and I am not wholeheartedly endorsing that study as being 100% accurate.


----------



## mrs quoad (Nov 16, 2012)

editor said:


> Oh, and for future reference, whenever you see me post up a link about some research, please take it for granted that I'm only posting it up to start a discussion and I am not wholeheartedly endorsing that study as being 100% accurate.


Of course!

Then I'll presume that you'll welcome any notes re: the reliability of that data, given you haven't endorsed it!

In this instance,


mrs quoad said:


> Bleh. And no data source / methodology again, beyond a company name.


And it's done!

See how quick and simple it could be


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Of course!
> 
> Then I'll presume that you'll welcome any notes re: the reliability of that data, given you haven't endorsed it!
> 
> ...


Just put it all in the one thread then you won't have to have a fresh mentasm every time you see a new study being mentioned nor will you have to keep on repeating yourself.

Will you be doing one for equally unscientific, unsourced Apple rumours, or are they all OK in your book?


----------



## mrs quoad (Nov 16, 2012)

editor said:


> Just put it all in the one thread then you won't have to have a fresh mentasm every time you see a new study being mentioned nor will you have to keep on repeating yourself.
> 
> Will you be doing one for equally unscientific, unsourced Apple rumours, or are they all OK in your book?


So run that by me again: you knew it was potentially unreliable / unsourced, but you didn't want it to be pointed out, and you never want the unreliability of anything you post in future to be pointed out even if (particularly if) you know it might be unreliable, and describing as 'unprovenanced' something that you knew was unprovenanced but which you (accidentally?) attached to a seemingly-factual statement is... platform-based persecution?

Just... wow 

And hell, yeah! I'm up for any unprovenanced stats being described as unprovenanced! Irrespective of their platform!  I hope I made that clear several posts ago!


----------



## freshnero (Nov 16, 2012)

Most people i know who own a andriod phone just replaced there nokia with the phone that was available in store. They didn't actively choose android it was just the phone taking up most space in store. And there is a huge difference in the experience that i get on my galaxy S2 then what you get from a £100 andriod 

I think that the fact that iphone users browse the internet more than andriod user is down to the fact that iphone offers a pleasurable internet experience for every user while using the internet on cheaper andriod handset is a bit shit ,dull screens, lags loading pages

I love andriod but i would choose a iphone over a cheap andriod every time.Thats what you get with fragmentation


----------



## elbows (Nov 16, 2012)

Trying to compare rumours (which this year often turned out to be true) to statistics seems like a new low. Fight dire with dire eh.


----------



## elbows (Nov 16, 2012)

Meanwhile I cant study the methodology behind that study because the source companies website is in Chinese.

In any case I have little reason to doubt that androids market share in China is much larger than Apples.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2012)

elbows said:


> In any case I have little reason to doubt that androids market share in China is much larger than Apples.


Indeed. And that is the talking point - and it's an interesting one too, considering the size and influence of the Chinese market.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> So run that by me again: you knew it was potentially unreliable / unsourced,


It's not unsourced. It has the source written clearly at the bottom of the graphic. 

Have you written to them to ask about their methods yet or are you just going to go on and on about them from a position of ignorance?. Which would be just a tad hypocritical, no?


----------



## mattie (Nov 16, 2012)

Blimey. I'm amazed you two can maintain the energy.

Two questions, to help allay (some of) my ignorance.

Firstly, there's a Linux phone OS?

Secondly, any idea what the OS written in Chinese characters is? Assume it's some internal Chinese offering. I'd be interested in how local OSes fair against the big boys.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 1, 2012)

I have to say though, having been looking into getting a smartphone, that when you look at build quality, the only thing comparable to Apple seems to be (from what I can tell) HTC, but their UK customer service is so bad that Watchdog dedicated a special report to it.

When you look into the feedback about quality of support for most of the other options, it doesn't look too good either, with one rather obvious exception.

Which means that for someone who isn't too interested in bells and whistles, isn't particularly fussed about paying a bit more to avoid hassle, but who does want something solid that works really well for the core functions like call quality, music, tethering etc....

I mean, yeah sure, in theory I'd like a phone that I can write my own cool stuff in Python or whatever for, but in practice, I'm too busy and couldn't be arsed to take advantage of the wondrous freedom of Android. I just want something that works and has good support when it doesn't and that'll do the core functions I need really well. I still haven't exactly made my mind up, but I'm definitely leaning towards a 4s or 5.


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2012)

Not so sure about that. My 18-month old Samsung S2 has stood up to all end of knocks and still looks fine and the standard of finish on Eme's Sensation XL seems very high.  I'd recommend the Nexus 4 though. It's utterly incredible value.


----------



## maldwyn (Dec 1, 2012)

I wish my iPhone 4 would hurry up and die so I can justify buying a replacement - 30 months old and it's still going strong!


----------



## Elvis Parsley (Dec 2, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I have to say though, having been looking into getting a smartphone, that when you look at build quality, the only thing comparable to Apple seems to be (from what I can tell) HTC, but their UK customer service is so bad that Watchdog dedicated a special report to it.
> 
> When you look into the feedback about quality of support for most of the other options, it doesn't look too good either, with one rather obvious exception.
> 
> ...


Same as ed, my S2 still looks lovely despite numerous drops, i did stick it in one of those rather sleek samsung mesh cases, but that only improved things for me as it was a little too thin and slippery before that. Around the time i upgraded there were three others at work also looking for new phones, two went iphone and one blackberry, all three had been in for repair by last July whereas my S2 hasn't missed a beat, apart from an unsuccessful rooting which i've since sorted.

Surprised to hear HTC got a bad rep, when the screen on my old Desire went they had it picked up, fixed and back to me in three working days.

Agree about the Nexus 4 too, with price vs specs it's what i'd go for.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 2, 2012)

Here's the Watchdog piece on HTC's customer service. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2011/10/htc_phones.html

A year old, so maybe they're fantastic now ...


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2012)

Rated above average and second only to Apple in this more comprehensive review from Sept:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57508125-37/iphone-again-tops-j.d-power-satisfaction-survey/#

And here, they're even above Apple: 






http://www.webpronews.com/windows-phone-htc-outscore-the-rest-in-customer-satisfaction-2012-10


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 2, 2012)

Interesting. Tends to confirm my subjective impression that HTC is the closest Android brand to Apple in terms of overall quality.

Those are customer satisfaction though. Not customer service specifically, which appears to be the main concern with HTC in the UK. Also support appears nowhere in the weighted criteria for the first survey.

I've seen some reliability figures which place HTC just below Apple as well, and ahead of the other brands.

The Nexus 4 looks great, but again, if Google made that much of a hash of launching it that you can't even find out when they'll be available at RRP, one isn't immediately filled with confidence that they can support it either.


----------



## ohmyliver (Dec 2, 2012)

mattie said:


> Blimey. I'm amazed you two can maintain the energy.
> 
> Two questions, to help allay (some of) my ignorance.
> 
> Firstly, there's a Linux phone OS?


 
Yes, Maemo... it's basically Debian with a touchscreen interface. However it runs on one phone the Nokia n900, and Nokia killed it off in 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maemo#Maemo_5

Android is linux based though.

*eta*  There's going to be Ubuntu for Android though... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_for_Android
http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/android


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> The Nexus 4 looks great, but again, if Google made that much of a hash of launching it that you can't even find out when they'll be available at RRP, one isn't immediately filled with confidence that they can support it either.


I'm not entirely convinced by your logic there. Why would you have suspicions about customer support just because a product has proved so popular that it sold out immediately? Their support for the original Nexus phones has been very good.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 3, 2012)

editor said:


> I'm not entirely convinced by your logic there. Why would you have suspicions about customer support just because a product has proved so popular that it sold out immediately? Their support for the original Nexus phones has been very good.


 
Well, I guess it's that I've worked for a long time in the tech industry and I've seen both chancers and pros in action. Not being able to provide a clear availability date makes the Nexus 4 guys look more like chancers than pros.


----------



## editor (Dec 3, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, I guess it's that I've worked for a long time in the tech industry and I've seen both chancers and pros in action. Not being able to provide a clear availability date makes the Nexus 4 guys look more like chancers than pros.


Once again, I'm not entirely convinced by your logic here. It's hardly unusual for hot products to sell out quickly in the tech industry.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 3, 2012)

True, but the complete inability to provide a date when they _will_ be available suggests confusion and panic rather than competence.

If they were at all in control of what was going on, they'd surely be able to say when it would be possible to buy a Nexus 4 from Play.

As it stands, they appear to be weak in at least one area associated with supplying an actual physical product and likely weak in others. Like supporting a physical product.

Which is a pity given how nice the Nexus 4 looks on paper.


----------



## elbows (Dec 3, 2012)

Until you started moaning about it the Nexus 4 launch day ordering & stock debacle had completely escaped my attention. There seem to be plenty of scathing articles about this, and yes it does make them look bad. Given the very large services they run on the net people wonder why their play store melted down under the strain. I cant say I'm that shocked myself though because I have a rather low regard for their play store in general, although on the android front it does seem to be gradually improving.

It wouldnt actually put me off getting one of their devices if thats what I had set my heart on though, and a less than stellar reputation for support doesnt bother me that much either as I usually get away without making use of such services.

I remain satisfied but not overwhelmed by the galaxy nexus phone I got just over a year ago, although I admit I have not forgotten that it shipped with a bug that made the volume drop to zero randomly. The wait for that to be fixed was agonising, especially as I overslept once as a result of it, although in reality it probably only took a couple of weeks to get the fix.

I dont know as any of this stuff really affects their ability to succeed in the longer term with their disruptively priced stuff though, it doesnt really stop their stuff winning big on value & functionality. If there is a lesson I suppose its not to go crazy for google stuff on launch day or the weeks that follow, wait till the dust settles. I suppose this isnt too surprising really as we have long been in an era where launch supplies of devices from a range of manufacturers cannot hope to meet initial demand, let alone when googles crazy low prices are factored in.


----------

