Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|delet microsoft office 2007(new programe)||
|ASUS PB287Q - Does It Cut the 4K Mustard?||
|What kind of activity can I get involved in that's gender balanced?||
|Watch this man turn his regular Apple Watch into an Edition model for a fraction of the cost||
|Will it blend? - Apple Watch||
Posted 15 November 2012 - 19:52
Posted 15 November 2012 - 20:55
Posted 15 November 2012 - 22:54
Those people must really hate Apple with a passion...Oh wait!....Foxconn is in China, right?
Posted 15 November 2012 - 23:13
I don't think it was necessary to state the obvious (even with the negative connotation), but I'm not surprised. It's not just about being able to afford it. The Chinese are known to try to save money wherever they can. If they can get a convincing knock-off or a cheaper alternative, then most of them would go for that.
Doesn't mean they can afford it. Poor people will only be able to afford poor people's electronics.
Posted 15 November 2012 - 23:24
So what about Windows phone 7? It did get up to 7% overtaking apple.
Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:03
I think it's unfair to compare a very expensive brand to an OS that can be put on a very cheap phone.
Posted 16 November 2012 - 12:54
Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:49
Are we comparing the overall vision, strategy, and business of Apple and Google though? Both companies do things that the other doesn't (e.g. Google's search engine or Apple's range of all-in-one desktop computers). In terms of just smartphones, Google has their Nexus line and Apple has the iPhone. But what I see often are comparisons from many different Android smartphones to the iPhone. Individually, yes... the comparisons are fair. However, the odds are stacked against Apple when you lump all Android smartphones into one category regardless of the manufacturer.
Why? I think it's very fair because it's a matter of overall vision, strategy and business. Apple might have harvested tons of money first couple of years, but they have lost the war and will erode into niche as they have with Windows. The fact that they can't sell their phones for a huge price because of their unwillingness to compete or whatever it is, is the problem of their own making. I think it's perfectly fair to compare. And btw, Apple is not "expensive" brand. They charge a lot, and use fancy stuff to try to separate themselves from others with design. They are still being built by the same factories, pretty much same materials and processors as other phones. A nice design doesn't make something a more expensive brand. It just makes their design nice (which is now pretty generic as well).
And btw, I think Android is actually raising the quality of phones that run Android in general and making everyone push technology forward. If you look by specs alone they are all competing to make cheaper phones with some pretty unbelievable specs. I'd say that's a plus for everyone and thanks to the fact that Android is so open anyone can use it so bigger competition. Even the Cricket or those pre-paid Android phones are pretty damn good for what they cost. I would say they are quite snappy and nice.
I think the reason they are losing massively all over is because the fad is fading away. They are behind in almost everything, same stale OS and same stale hardware with some minor changes. Android OEMs are bringing crazy diversity and technologies and people are choosing that over the same phone over and over.
My 2 cents.
Posted 16 November 2012 - 15:07
I have to wonder what percentage of those are iPhone knockoffs running a version of Android that has been skinned to look and act just like the iPhone. Considering how many of those I see on eBay (some even being advertised with the name iPhone in the title), I'd bet that it isn't an insignificant number.
Posted 16 November 2012 - 16:15
Gotcha. I didn't see the FPN article.
I'm sure there are plenty of those, but the article on FPN says that those "fake" phones weren't counted in the statistics.