(Hi, Carmen, I'm re-arranging your remarks for more straightforward reply and removing sections I'm not interested in replying to, specifically.)
Nobody really uses Sprint....which should mean wonders for their network since they won't ever have to experience the issues At & t supposedly has with their network.
Hello, Carmen, from one of the 48+ million nobodies.
Stock:Sprint Nextel (S)
I find it interesting people(people on these forums) Say they drop calls but people i know who have AT & t actually never experienced drop calls.
Maybe AT&T is fabulous on the East Coast then - because it sucks so bad in the West and on the West Coast that it can pull 40" of mercury up a little glass tube.
The kindest thing I can say regarding your skepticism is that people you know's mileage may vary from our own.
True, 77% were upgrades...i did a quick calculation...the iphones other 23% is around 391,000 which is still more then evo's launch day sales.
Apple has excellent momentum in the market, exploits that very well in a number of different marketing channels (covering two of the four key factors in supply and demand) and has not forgotten that it's learned to create and craft
pent-up demand.
The only pent-up demand for Android is for Froyo (Android 2.2).
I really do not think Android will ever see the success apple sees in one device...Even with Verizon(the biggest carrier), every ONE android device is a fail compared to apple. Which is why it has been stated before, that it takes ALL android devices to see the success of Apple.
However, this means with all the android devices combined this will allow GOOGLE ANDROID TO OVERTAKE APPLE. The evo is a great device but to be honest, i wouldn't say it does much anything better than an iphone 4...if anything, a phone is basically on the same level as iphone for once.
You fall to the most common mistake made in the analysis of Apple products vs. competitors:
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. Some of their software is incredibly good, and some of that is for sale. None of their software for sale that I can think of is available for non-Apple hardware. OS X is the prime example.
Apple software (and services) exists solely to support Apple hardware sales. They are not supported financially by advertising.
Google is a software and services company, with a large component of their revenue coming from advertising related to their services.
They have different business models and therefore very different revenue models.
Android is not a part of HTC or Motorola or Samsung (let's call 'em the Big3 (for Android)) - Android is a part of Google.
That it "would take all of Android" to overcome the iPhone's iOS is exactly one of Google's targets. That is not in any way a target for the Big3 or any one of the Big3.
The Big3 are hardware companies. Defeating Apple is not really their key concern - any more than it is to defeat each other.
Apple, as of March 2009 (last number I was comfortable with) had sold more than 30 million iPhones and iPod Touches
combined - and has substantial gains with a 130% quarter-to-quarter increase from Q1 2009 to Q1 2010 (over 8 million iPhones reported sold Q1 2010).
Samsung, on the other hand - sold over 52 million cellphones in 2009.
Now - the Big3, with others coming on board - are using Android as a
PART of their competitive strategy. Like WinMO in their competitive strategy, they'll use anything that works - they really couldn't care less, as long as they're moving iron.
30 million iPhones sold — now that’s a game platform | VentureBeat
Wireless/Mobile statistics
Apple, HTC and Motorola increase smartphone market share - GSMArena.com news
You've made the classic mistake constantly made analyzing Windows vs. Mac - a Mac is a piece of hardware, Windows comes on non-Mac hardware.
Same-same for Android.
Simple market forces would have to turn into those wishful horses that we could all ride in order to make your analysis stick.
You've heard of the old saying -
Never compare apples to androids. 
At the end of the day, Android's "open" philosophy and Apple's "walled garden"...nobody really cares from a customer perspective.
I could be way wrong in the following conjecture I'm about to suggest - but I'm dead-on factually for its basis:
- Apple was at the brink of demise; Jobs returned, had the company embrace open source, and regained mindshare critical to re-build the company (I refer to all layers below Aqua, the user layer, in OS X)
- The gamble worked because it was no gamble - the market demand for open-source based products was quite high at that time
- Apple's growth ensued until they hit commoditized market winners - the iPod and the iPhone - these are based now on closed software
- That commoditized success is sufficient to sustain Apple's hardware goals.
- Apple was once a closed garden, became open, and is now a closed garden again.
You may (or may not be) right in that consumers don't care about "open" vs. "walled garden" - but that dialog, popular to fans and pundits, also misses the essential point.
While some consumers enjoy the safety and comfort of a commoditized product, others prefer to structure their choice into separate hardware choices with a common software platform.
I think in this light you'll find an interesting dichotomy:
- When that comparison is Windows vs. Mac, everyone uses these market factors to explain why Mac can never win
- When applied to Android vs. iPhone, those exact same market factors are considered and the opposite conclusion is reached
- By largely the same pundits and self-proclaimed analysts!
There are no such simple dichotomies in supply and demand, despite what "professional" people want to say or believe.
When this shakes itself out the light of hindsight for most all pundits and analysts is going to be quite blinding.
PS - Like others, I find your comments sufficiently thought provoking to elicit a response.
PPS - Take the * off of your link in your sig if you want to people to visit your website to see important insights into the real you more easily.
[hint]
PPPS -
Now that I think of it, the Apple ][+ was open for its day - easy to access hardware slots and no operating secrets whatsoever for anyone who understood 6502 assembly and could afford one of the many how-to books or magazines. huh. how 'bout that? That was the product that really put them on the map in the first place.
.
