Still, I think the big advantage of Android is the variety. There's pretty much an Android device for whatever it is you require, whether that's a phone with a built-in projector, a phone with a 41MP camera, a top-of-the-range quadcore smartphone or a cheap-as-chips-barely-a-smartphone smartphone.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qp...

This makes it pretty unlikely that your stat about data usage is right either.

http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpri...

iOS originates 61% of mobile data traffic vs. 19% for Android.

Most of my circle of close friends are not geeks and Android frustrates them, it confuses them....and none of them, not a single one have even asked me about an Android based tablet other than the Fire and that doesn't even really count. Most of these friends are the ones that Samsung and other higher end Android devices would love to have as customers...highly educated with high disposable income. And they don't even consider their devices.

Variety is over valued in the geek community and just doesn't drive real profits in most cases and I believe this is one of them. Each of those unique phones has a lower profit ratio and drives a race to the bottom in quality because of it. None of them will drive enough sales to have a decent profit margin due to additional engineering, marketing, and support costs due to the different models.

Now, to be sure, Android isn't going away and eventually someone will find a way to make a dent in the iPad's market share but I just think the tablet market is very very different from the smart phone market. Everyone pretty much has a mobile phone and when you can get a smartphone for free you take it...but the tablet market is more discretionary and there and I just don't see people going away from iPad. If anything, the iPad could be what helps continue to drive iPhone sales since you can share your apps across devices.

Uh, that's a pretty bold assertion to make without bringing any data to back it up. How do you know that those consumers don't care about data access? How do you know that they don't "care about the 'smart' in smartphones"?

2 got droids, 3 got iphones. I've know the rough usage patterns of all the folks by asking what apps/services they use.

The droid users use it as a 1) phone, 2) email/message device, 3) maps and 4) one or two apps (not games). Basically, a google core-apps phone. One of the iPhone users is similar to the droid users (in addition, using the phone for taking photos/videos often).

Now the two remaining iPhone users are heavy data-folks. Both use bluetooth accessories, and in addition to the above uses, also play games, do twitter/social sharing, run lots of web searches.

Not a single of these users tethers or does advanced remote computing (ie, shell/vnc) - so are more "mainstream" users.

I contrast that with the Android users I know (including myself). I know of only one user who is still on a stock ROM. I don't know of any that have less than 15 apps.

If you haven't figured it out yet, most of the iOS users I know are older adults who value simplicity and ease of use. Most of the younger people I know value Android and are more than willing to accept a slightly higher initial complexity for vastly greater control. That's why I asked for data, specifically. It's very easy to draw incorrect conclusions by extrapolating from your own worldview, simply because your friends tend to be like you.

The only comparison I've seen between Android and iOS users is this (http://www.bgr.com/2011/06/17/smartphone-data-usage-jumps-89...) 9 month old study comparing the data usage between Android and iPhone users, and that actually stated that Android users consume more data than iPhone users. So, given that, I don't see how anyone can confidently assert that iPhone users use their phones more heavily than Android users. The (admittedly weak) data tells us the opposite, if it tells us anything at all.

Like Android today, Nokia had a huge market share. but that market share was useless because their users didn't give a shit about their crappy phones. their users were not spending money, etc.

(myself I always thought they had the best hardware and craptastic software)

Some of those people loved their Nokias entirely too much.

I always find it fascinating how the Apple arguments now center almost exclusively on who's making the most money. It's a fine argument to make, but it sure sounds shallow when you stack it up against the supposed Apple ethos.

You'll notice I didn't say Apple wouldn't dominate the profit center, much like they do in PCs.

I said they'll lose their market dominance. Their market share will erode until it finds a balancing point based on the iPad being at the high end of the product category. Apple has no interest in positioning the iPad anywhere else, so they will absolutely hold their pricing high.

Apple is a company, it's out to make money. What "Apple ethos"?

If anything, the Apple ethos is about designing highly usable, uncomplicated and beautiful devices and software. Which they kinda do --and has nothing to do with what part of the market they target.

I'd gladly agree, if that only was true. As an iPhone user, I tend to think, that "highly usable and beautiful devices and software" is on decline. They are more interested in keeping the market share, and more profit than giving people what they want.

The most annoying thing is that Apple is thinking that it does know better what their customers want. And after few weeks of whining, people usually agree. Since there is no point in disagreeing - nobody is listening.

Actually this thread is about the inverse: how Apple gets the most cash out of their customers providing some of the BEST prices for the device category.

To quote the article:

= =

Let’s go back to pretending you’re one of Apple’s competitors. How can you possibly beat the iPad? Well, not on price. Even before the new iPad, rivals were having a hard time matching Apple’s prices while still making a profit. Now that the cheapest iPad cost $399, they face an even tougher road. Because Apple has used its plentiful cash to corner the market on key tablet components—like touch-screen displays—many competitors will find that the only way to make a tablet with comparable features but a lower price is to sell it at a loss.

= =

Big profit margin != highest prices.

It's because of the streamlined design and product purity that they get to do so. Fewer models instead of confusion multitude of options means huge savings in economy of scale.

Insisting on quality vs quantity, translates to people wanting to buy their stuff despite them being on the high end of the market. Not to mention that given they cater the high end of the market, they do offer the best prices, or near. Can you find a cheaper touch tablet or phone? Yes. Can you find a cheaper tablet or phone that you feel it belongs in the same league? Hardly.

Except if you explain the iPad's success and Apple's 12 year rise with "sheep" and "fanboys" [], no company built something like the iPad, that a large number of people wanted to buy, UNTIL the iPad. And even after, judging from the mediocre sales of competitors.

[] which doesn't even explain how they went from 1-2 million customers and a company close to extinction to 80 million fanboys, much less how 1/4 of the US population can be an "Apple fanboy", or how a "fad" builds up and lasts for 12 years, which is an eternity in tech terms

Who ever said Apple wasn't going to try to maximize profit? I certainly didn't say that. So I'm not sure what your point is.