5 ms·

Why is this considered an amazing insight? If you could get an iphone on more than one carrier there might actually be something to discuss here. Android is d

Why is this considered an amazing insight? If you could get an iphone on more than one carrier there might actually be something to discuss here. Android is due to win simply because there are more people who can get it at any one time.

cryptoz 16y ago
> Android is due to win simply because there are more people who can get it at any one time. This is true due to cost, not carriers. The iPhone is available on most (all?) carriers in Canada. In fact, the USA is, I think, the only place in the world that has the carrier problem with iPhone. And since the USA is only ~5% of the world's population, that particular problem isn't very significant in the grand scheme of things. More people are able to get Android phones than iPhones because there are price variations in the Android ones that allow people with little money to buy an Android phone.
- ergo98 16y ago
  Here's the discount argument. Just to be clear, so people can sign up for $3000+ contracts, but they just can't afford that $159 for the iPhone 4? (on contract at Rogers. Or they can get the 3GS for $99) That ridiculous argument doesn't pass the most superficial of consideration. Further, the Galaxy S costs $179 on contract. I guess it's for the really rich. Even the miserable Dell streak is $149. The Blackberry Torch pushes in at $229. If cost were a serious factor, Apple would have long had a iPhone 4LE or something of that sort. Right now they know it doesn't make a difference.
  - cryptoz 16y ago
    Coming soon to Canada: an Android phone for $50. http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/03/lg-gw620-eve-coming-to-rogers-android-deftly-avoids-atandt-yet-ag/ http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/03/lg-gw620-eve-coming-to-ro... Even if there aren't many cheap Android phones out there right now, the potential is there and will be exploited. There'll probably never be a cheap iPhone, however.
    - ergo98 16y ago
      Still, though, it's $50 on a 3-year contract, over which time thousands of dollars will be paid in tithe to the mobile company. In smartphone pricing anything below $200 (in a contract) is a wash, because very few people actually buy their phone outside of a term. And yes, that includes internationally. There'll probably never be a cheap iPhone, however There's this myth that Apple just never lowers themselves to becoming the discount option. Except with the iMac, which became popular because it was a cheap, all-in-one computer. Except with the iPod and iPod Touch, which have always led the entire category in value. Except for the iPad, which still can't be matched by competitors. Except with Apple TV. Except with the iPhone, compared to the Blackberry competition at the time. Apple plays a great value game. That they are considered some sort of BMW of electronics is laughable. They are the Toyota of electronics: Great products, but if you really think they're exclusive...
      - johnmmix 16y ago
        > Apple plays a great value game. That they are considered some sort of BMW of electronics is laughable. They are the Toyota of electronics: Great products, but if you really think they're exclusive... In some markets such as the UK, BMW models such as the 3-series outsell all the comparable vehicles from 'mainstream' manufacturers (e.g. Ford Mondeo, Vauxhall/Opel [GM] Insignia, Toyota Avensis, Honda Accord), so comparing Apple and BMW as examples of false exclusivity isn't necessarily that far off the mark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DeLarge/Top_10_best_selling_cars_in_Britain#2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DeLarge/Top_10_best_sellin...
ergo98 16y ago
"Why is this considered an amazing insight? If you could get an iphone on more than one carrier there might actually be something to discuss here." A year ago I decided to embrace Android (as a user and as a developer), a principal reason being that it was obvious that the inertia that was going to grow behind it would be huge: The iPhone was so enormously successfully against a litany of foes, that it was obvious that those foes would have to converge on some sort of counter-attack, and Android was there at the right time and place, with the right openness, ability for customization and differentiation, and technology stack. So I paid attention to the arguments that took place. To say they were completely the opposite of what you and others are now saying is not exaggerating. Android was doomed, we were told, for any of countless reasons. The iPhone was secure in its pending world domination. Now of course the argument has changed, over the past quarter absolutely doing a 180. Now it's just all so obvious, right, with so many makers and so many models and so many options against just one itsy bitsy little phone (you know....like Symbian and J2ME, or even the Blackberry, but...well...ignore those because they don't fit the narrative). The new argument you're supposed to embrace is the "iPhone is for the elite, while Android is for the poor, what with their two for one discounts and low-end phones", while filling out and eagerly consuming self-selecting surveys that comfort that ridiculous notion.
gloob 16y ago
It's considered an insight because a year ago HN was raging with debates over whether Android might be a viable competitor to iOS, or whether it would be stillborn. Now, "everyone knows" Android's going to win.

cryptoz 16y ago

> Android is due to win simply because there are more people who can get it at any one time. This is true due to cost, not carriers. The iPhone is available on most (all?) carriers in Canada. In fact, the USA is, I think, the only place in the world that has the carrier problem with iPhone. And since the USA is only ~5% of the world's population, that particular problem isn't very significant in the grand scheme of things. More people are able to get Android phones than iPhones because there are price variations in the Android ones that allow people with little money to buy an Android phone.

ergo98 16y ago
Here's the discount argument. Just to be clear, so people can sign up for $3000+ contracts, but they just can't afford that $159 for the iPhone 4? (on contract at Rogers. Or they can get the 3GS for $99) That ridiculous argument doesn't pass the most superficial of consideration. Further, the Galaxy S costs $179 on contract. I guess it's for the really rich. Even the miserable Dell streak is $149. The Blackberry Torch pushes in at $229. If cost were a serious factor, Apple would have long had a iPhone 4LE or something of that sort. Right now they know it doesn't make a difference.
- cryptoz 16y ago
  Coming soon to Canada: an Android phone for $50. http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/03/lg-gw620-eve-coming-to-rogers-android-deftly-avoids-atandt-yet-ag/ http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/03/lg-gw620-eve-coming-to-ro... Even if there aren't many cheap Android phones out there right now, the potential is there and will be exploited. There'll probably never be a cheap iPhone, however.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    Still, though, it's $50 on a 3-year contract, over which time thousands of dollars will be paid in tithe to the mobile company. In smartphone pricing anything below $200 (in a contract) is a wash, because very few people actually buy their phone outside of a term. And yes, that includes internationally. There'll probably never be a cheap iPhone, however There's this myth that Apple just never lowers themselves to becoming the discount option. Except with the iMac, which became popular because it was a cheap, all-in-one computer. Except with the iPod and iPod Touch, which have always led the entire category in value. Except for the iPad, which still can't be matched by competitors. Except with Apple TV. Except with the iPhone, compared to the Blackberry competition at the time. Apple plays a great value game. That they are considered some sort of BMW of electronics is laughable. They are the Toyota of electronics: Great products, but if you really think they're exclusive...
    - johnmmix 16y ago
      > Apple plays a great value game. That they are considered some sort of BMW of electronics is laughable. They are the Toyota of electronics: Great products, but if you really think they're exclusive... In some markets such as the UK, BMW models such as the 3-series outsell all the comparable vehicles from 'mainstream' manufacturers (e.g. Ford Mondeo, Vauxhall/Opel [GM] Insignia, Toyota Avensis, Honda Accord), so comparing Apple and BMW as examples of false exclusivity isn't necessarily that far off the mark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DeLarge/Top_10_best_selling_cars_in_Britain#2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DeLarge/Top_10_best_sellin...

ergo98 16y ago

"Why is this considered an amazing insight? If you could get an iphone on more than one carrier there might actually be something to discuss here." A year ago I decided to embrace Android (as a user and as a developer), a principal reason being that it was obvious that the inertia that was going to grow behind it would be huge: The iPhone was so enormously successfully against a litany of foes, that it was obvious that those foes would have to converge on some sort of counter-attack, and Android was there at the right time and place, with the right openness, ability for customization and differentiation, and technology stack. So I paid attention to the arguments that took place. To say they were completely the opposite of what you and others are now saying is not exaggerating. Android was doomed, we were told, for any of countless reasons. The iPhone was secure in its pending world domination. Now of course the argument has changed, over the past quarter absolutely doing a 180. Now it's just all so obvious, right, with so many makers and so many models and so many options against just one itsy bitsy little phone (you know....like Symbian and J2ME, or even the Blackberry, but...well...ignore those because they don't fit the narrative). The new argument you're supposed to embrace is the "iPhone is for the elite, while Android is for the poor, what with their two for one discounts and low-end phones", while filling out and eagerly consuming self-selecting surveys that comfort that ridiculous notion.

gloob 16y ago

It's considered an insight because a year ago HN was raging with debates over whether Android might be a viable competitor to iOS, or whether it would be stillborn. Now, "everyone knows" Android's going to win.