Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung *SELLS* 5 Million Notes in 5 Months!
- Thread starter mcman77
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's simple. You've absolutely no idea about the phone market and therefore are unable to comprehend the significance of what would be an enormous figure for this product.
Well no, I believe I'm capable of reading a number. My question is why is this information relevant? Are we supposed to throw a big whoop di doo because 5 million people in 5 months decided they want a gigantic screen?
It's not that significant -- you people make it seem like its some godsend miracle. All it shows is that a small part of the market either wants 1) a stylus, 2) a huge screen for a phone or a small tablet, or 3) both. It's not that surprising to be honest; it's just a device that's actually selling (for once).
Too big of a device for most of the market IMO.
Last edited:
Great. Not sure how that refutes the what I said. I said it is safer, not that it is invulnerable.
Which statement are you questioning?
Way to shift those goalposts! I didn't say you couldn't install malware if you wanted to.
Obviously, if you are willing to hack the OS and bypass security, you can do anything. What in the world? Yes, total market share can be reported quarterly and is usually reported as a percentage of sales.More successful? Depends on your definition of success. And your larger point was that Android is more popular because of the larger screen sizes. Something that you've shown absolutely no evidence of.
I think you are misunderstanding the source you linked to. Market share can be reported quarterly, but that isn't what you linked you. You linked to quarterly *sales*.
If there are 90 phones in the wild (say 57 android and 33 iOS) and quarterly sales are 7 iphones and 3 androids then:
1. Quarterly sales are 70% iOS
2. The market share is still ~60% android
What I was saying is that the overall market is still Android 1st, iOS 2nd.
The fact that Android has sold more phones faster than iOS with a similarly featured OS suggests that hardware differences (like screen size) or availability are the main reasons
The fact that a huge-screen device like the Note is selling so quickly is more evidence that screen size plays a very large part.
You can pretend that iPhone owners don't care about screen size or that 3.5" is their favorite screen size, but most indication on this very forum tell a different story.
Its the same mentality we have seen again and again... a feature isn't "cool" to an iFanboy until Apple decides to add it
The same goes for the 3.5" screen. It is smaller and more dim than the latest tech. There are 3.5" Android phones, but you don't see anyone selling 5 million of those in 5 months, do you?
If there are 90 phones in the wild (say 57 android and 33 iOS) and quarterly sales are 7 iphones and 3 androids then:
1. Quarterly sales are 70% iOS
2. The market share is still ~60% android
What I was saying is that the overall market is still Android 1st, iOS 2nd.
The fact that Android has sold more phones faster than iOS with a similarly featured OS suggests that hardware differences (like screen size) or availability are the main reasons
The fact that a huge-screen device like the Note is selling so quickly is more evidence that screen size plays a very large part.
You can pretend that iPhone owners don't care about screen size or that 3.5" is their favorite screen size, but most indication on this very forum tell a different story.
Its the same mentality we have seen again and again... a feature isn't "cool" to an iFanboy until Apple decides to add it
The same goes for the 3.5" screen. It is smaller and more dim than the latest tech. There are 3.5" Android phones, but you don't see anyone selling 5 million of those in 5 months, do you?
More successful? Depends on your definition of success. And your larger point was that Android is more popular because of the larger screen sizes. Something that you've shown absolutely no evidence of.
You do not seem to understand what market share is. It is the percentage of the total sales in a given time period. Click on the links that I supplied. See how the column header is "[4Q11] Market Share".
Maybe you are thinking about install base?
Or price or lots of other reasons.
Quickly? Not compared to the 3.5" iPhone 4S.
I'm not pretending that at all. I've never said anything of the sort. Please stop making things up.
Its the same mentality we have seen again and again... a feature isn't "cool" to an iFanboy until Apple decides to add it
Maybe you are talking about some stereotype. I have never said anything like that.
I don't know. Do you? Do you have any statistics on how many 3.5" Android phones were sold in the last 5 months?
There is no doubt that larger screens are a popular feature. Here is a repeat of a post of mine from about a week ago:
--
From 2010 to 2011, sales of 4" + screens jumped from nothing to 24% of the smartphone market.
A recent survey has also found that people tend towards larger screens, especially as they become used to web surfing and other activities on a phone. (Slightly less true for women with small hands and iPhone owners.)
Personally, I have to say that even 4" is too small for me now that I've had a 4.65" screen on the Nexus. Because it's thin and curved, it very easily slips into any pocket: shirt, jeans, whatever... but is wonderfully easy to view.
--
From 2010 to 2011, sales of 4" + screens jumped from nothing to 24% of the smartphone market.
A recent survey has also found that people tend towards larger screens, especially as they become used to web surfing and other activities on a phone. (Slightly less true for women with small hands and iPhone owners.)
Personally, I have to say that even 4" is too small for me now that I've had a 4.65" screen on the Nexus. Because it's thin and curved, it very easily slips into any pocket: shirt, jeans, whatever... but is wonderfully easy to view.
That really only applies if you are getting from outside the Google Play market. Other wise it is same.
Rule 1 to always follow
1.) iOS or Android always look threw the reviews to see if there are any red flags about the app. They are in both markets and I have seen them in both.
If you are going outside the Google Play or iOS App store then you should always check. It is just easier to go outside the Google Play market. By default it is turned off and you have to turn it on. The Malware for android often times tends to be in the pirate App stores so to speak or from pirate downloads sites. BIG BIG surprise there.
1 million sales each month for a NEW product on the market? Ofcourse that is great!
Everyone is saying how BIG it is and no one wants such a big phone and its too big for this and for that etc......turns out the figrures are telling a different story!
Figures can tell a lot of different stories depending on what you want to hear.
Around 250 million smartphones were sold in the same time period. Maybe it's a niche that most people claimed it would be. Maybe it's a significant trend.
Figures can tell a lot of different stories depending on what you want to hear.
Around 250 million smartphones were sold in the same time period. Maybe it's a niche that most people claimed it would be. Maybe it's a significant trend.
there aren't many smartphones out there that sold this well on their first time out. I'm not talking about the iphone 3gs, 4 or 4s. A totally new product that has been rejected and neglected by many people and manufacturers.
Sammy did what others won't and its turned out pretty darn well!
I believe it will open up new doors and Sammy is the leader on this one....I know i know its a first
lolReally. Maybe you somehow missed all the coverage that the Samsung Galaxy S III got when it was announced?
*cough**********cough*
....and somehow we were still right. Go figure! http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/17/3026023/4-inch-iphone-reuters-sources Maybe the evidence was there the whole time, but you simply did not want to see it.
Is this where I say "I told you so"?
Last edited by a moderator:
*Sigh* Flashback is not a virus. It is malware. It is a trojan. My statement is not wrong because you want the word to mean something other than what I used it for.
How does that prove that Android is more popular than the iPhone because of larger screen sizes? Most of the "facts" that you posted in this thread were wrong. Maybe you were right in an imaginary argument. Or one that you had with someone else.
If you can find a place in this thread where I said that Apple would not release an iPhone with a larger screen.
You really should read this. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/trojans-viruses-worms-how-does-malware-get-on-pcs-and-macs/3491
It was written for reality-denying-denizens like yourself.
Ok, I'll play along. How would anyone *prove* the statement in bold? The best way would be to poll smartphone owners about screen sizes and smartphones. This has been done and the evidence shows that users prefer larger screens.
Another way would be to look at as large a sample as possible of smartphones being used today. This is currently fairly easy to do because there are only 2 major smartphone platforms, and one of the platforms currently has only one screen size (a small one). Again, the evidence shows that the platform with the larger screen size (average or otherwise), is the more prevalent platform (and the platform that is growing faster).
Even looking at Blackberry (who are still putting out devices with small screens) and Windows Phone (who are not), the directions that those two companies' respective market shares are going holds true with what I have been saying.
Correlation is not causation, but a ton of evidence and the fact that Apple themselves are moving to larger screens is more than enough proof for me (and anyone else with a shred of objectivity) that screen size is a driving factor for smartphone purchasers. Maybe even the most important factor.... and bigger (than 3.5") is better.
This is the part where you admit that you are incorrect..... or you can blather on and defend a point/opinion that is demonstrably incorrect.
I didn't accuse you of that. Maybe you're the one getting confused about arguments with other people.If you can find a place in this thread where I said that Apple would not release an iPhone with a larger screen.
btw, I told you so.
Which reality am I denying? He said the same thing that I did. Viruses aren't the major malware issue these days.
You made an unsupported claim. I questioned your claim. You admit that it can't be proven with the data we have.
I still believe that price and distribution are much more important factors than screen size in Android's success. Especially, considering that Samsung, the largest Android vendor and the only one making a significant profit, has half the revenue per smartphone (or less) than Apple receives.
So, you post a link to a story about a 4" iPhone and say "I told you so." Seemed a pretty safe assumption on my part.
You're denying the reality that we live in. Here is the crux of the article which you apparently didn't understand (or didn't read):
.......Indeed, that obsession with the word virus is a recurring theme in Apples support forums. Search for the phrase there are no viruses at discussions.apple.com and youll find plenty of examples, like this one from January 2011:
There are no viruses that run on OSX. None. Zip. Zero.
There is some malware, such as Trojans, for Macs, though. But (unlike viruses that can get onto your system without your knowledge), you must approve their installation (via your Admin password) and/or operation (via the This application was downloaded from the internet prompt).
There is some malware, such as Trojans, for Macs, though. But (unlike viruses that can get onto your system without your knowledge), you must approve their installation (via your Admin password) and/or operation (via the This application was downloaded from the internet prompt).
Sorry, but thats not true. The Mac Defender gang already proved they can sidestep the requirement to enter an Administrator password. They already convinced tens of thousands of victims to install a small program that then downloads and installs additional malware without any user interaction. And its just a matter of time and financial motivation before they begin whacking at vulnerabilities in OS X.
And categories dont matter. These days, actual viruses are almost unheard of. Melissa, back in the late 1990s was a real virus, the kind that copied itself to documents and spread via e-mail. Today, security professionals are more interested in what a particular family of malicious code does. The delivery mechanism is usually separate.......
I made a claim which I (and other posts) supported with at least three pieces of non-subjective evidence. Survey results, sales figures and one of the details (albeit tentative) for Apple's hardware revision to the iPhone.Conversely, your counter-claim isn't supported by anything except opinion and anecdote. This, amidst your attempts to change the focus of the discussion.
Believe whatever you want... you're still wrong (however, it is fun watching you try to squirm around that inconvenient truth).
I think you've already demonstrated that none of your assumptions should be considered 'safe' by anyone with half a brain.
Ed Bott's opinion doesn't change the meaning of the word "virus" as I intended it. I stated a simple fact.
As you said, correlation does not imply causation. Lots of correlation also does not imply causation.
Thanks for the discussion.
There are no Mac viruses. In order to properly protect against threats, you need to understand the differences between the different kinds of malware. Just saying "but everyone says it's a virus so that's enough for me!" just muddies the waters and prevents proper user education, which leads to higher infection rates.
You made a semantic distinction ignoring the context of the posts that preceded it in order to imply something that simply isn't true.
I think that Mr. Stephen Colbert calls it "truthiness".
If you are going to argue semantics, then quote me properly. I said that correlation is not causation. Correlation definitely does imply causation. As for *lots* of correlation not implying causation....well actually, yes it kinda does. How do you think that we discovered atoms or elements? Lots of objective evaluation of relevant (or correlating, if you will) phenomena.
You're quite welcome
You are wasting your breath, until the iPhone comes out with a larger screen, these fanboys will continue to argue until they are blue in the face. Then when the 5" screen iPhones does come out, they will tell you "now this is how you do large screen right. And that anything less then 5" screen is for cheap outdated androids or iPhone 4."
That is simply not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
It appears you're the one squirming.
That is simply not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
It appears you're the one squirming.
You should try actually reading the articles that you link to. From the article:
.....(though correlation is necessary for linear causation in the absence of any third and countervailing causative variable, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation is a hint)......
No squirming here. If a hint doesn't imply something... then how in the world is it a hint?