Still today microsoft computers with "vista" still outsells apple 30 to 1
This is kind of like comparing the number of Hondas sold to the number of non-Hondas sold. No matter now bottom-heavy that ratio happens to be, only a fool would suggest that Honda would trade places with just about anyone right now. Volume has nothing to do with the long-term health or viability of a company.
Google aren't making a phone (yet?). They're producing the Android operating system. The hardware (HTC 'Dream' I presume?) may have some kind of exclusivity deal in the US, but the OS doesn't. I expect there will be an iPhone build of the OS before too long.
I have been a Windows users from day one and have been "enjoying" Vista for about a year now. Vista slowed down my daily mundane tasks working with Outlook, Word, EXCEL and surfing. Even though my previous XP notebook was 2 years old when I replaced it with a new Vista machine, everything on the XP notebook was faster. Talking to other people who "upgraded" to Vista experienced similar issues. And the regular updates do not help either - the last ones on August 12th messed up the computer of a colleague; luckily, mine was not affected. Meanwhile, I have been watching over the shoulders of a number of friends who effortlessly do work on their Macs. My frustration with Vista has been so great that I will likely switch to a Mac when the new Mac Book Pro comes out. That's why I am lurking around this board...
same thing could be said about the iphone. it's only the second try, it's still a kid in the game.
I agree that the iPhone is still a young platform but if we are talking about the OS then it's on more than its 2nd try. They have released 12 versions of the OS since it's release 13 months ago (note that one of them was a bug fix for the iPhone Touch for those who didn't wish to pay for v2.0).
Yet I only count 13 different versions (link below) for the the entire Windows Mobile/CE/Pocket PC history since 1996 (exlcuding the v3.0 Core Add On Pack but including v6.1 not on the chart). Or did the re-branding to PocketPC and then to Windows Mobile require new underlying code that would make it a proper new version instead of a variant of the same version for different HW or marketing. Either way, it's pretty sad for 12 years of development so I don't think we should be complaining about an update almost one a month for the iPhone.
but what I love is that one of the biggest complaints about the iphone is that you have to use ATT. so I would think that anyone that wanted to really create competition would go open market on carriers. and yet, this Google phone is T-Mobile only. and the Instinct is Sprint only. i believe there is one also that is Verizon only.
but they don't get yelled out. just Apple for picking one carrier and forcing that one on everyone.
It is funny that this common marketing tactic that long predates the iPhone is now all Apple's fault.
Despite Android's open source nature they still have to effort for specific HW and, to a lesser extent, different carriers. I think Android going with one device on one carrier makes sense and for the exact same reasons that Apple did it.
I've been following this thread with interest, weighing up the old Mac vs Window arguments and seeing how they relate to the new iPhone vs Android debate.
To me, with regard to OSes, Apple and Microsoft are both doing the same thing now that they were 10-15 years ago. Nothing has really changed. However the balance is shifting and the reason is more to do with the consumers than the technology.
10 years ago, far fewer homes had computers -- they were still largely the realm of geeks, gamers and gaming geeks. Others were interested in the Internet and battled with dial-up connections to get access to Web pages and email. Word processing was also of interest. A lot of people would've wanted to dip their toe into this new world without spending too much money, so would spend enough money to buy a computer that was just good enough to perform these basic tasks. Windows was the operating system that came with these cheaper models. Windows was also interesting to the geeks and gamers because they could roll their own systems, installing the latest graphics cards, overclocking their processors and plumbing in some water cooling.
Today, the needs of the general public are more sophisticated. They want the internet, email (with fast always-on connections) and word processing, but now they also want to view their digital photographs, edit home movies, download music and do their shopping online. However much their needs have changed, most people remain just as technically un-savvy as they always were, so need their computers to just work.
This is an important point. Nowadays, computers aren't just a nice-to-have. For many reasons they have become indispensible to us. We cannot imagine not being able to get on the internet and booking our holidays on-line, or being able to watch a TV programme we missed, even though these are relatively recent developments.
People get frustrated when the technology lets them down or is too difficult to use, and many people are now affluent enough that they are willing to pay a little extra for a computer that just works.
This is where the balance has shifted.
Anecdotally, I've recently had separate conversations with two non-technical friends of mine who, I found out, had just assumed that battling, and losing to, viruses was just a normal, everyday part of being on-line. That, somehow, it was the natural price they had to pay for the convenience that came with on-line access. They were disbelieving when I said that my Mac didn't suffer from viruses at all. I didn't even need special software installed. I had to explain in several different ways that there simply aren't viruses for Macs just yet. This was such a revelation to them that both said that they would seriously consider switching from Windows to Mac when it came to updating their hardware.
Importantly, these days the fact that you can't buy a Mac as cheaply as you can a Windows machine is less important. They are willing to pay extra for something that just works. This is why Apple are doing so well at the moment selling >$1000 computers in the same way that BMW do so well selling reliable, comfortable, stylish cars. That's want people want, more than they did a decade ago.
I feel the same is true for the mobile phone/smartphone market. People are beyond the stage where they just want a phone. They want to be able to do much more, without it being difficult or complicated or unreliable. This, again, is where iPhone trumps Windows Mobile. It works generally seamlessly and allows people to do some amazing things. Maybe not as many amazing things as cheaply as Windows Mobile, by it does it in a way that's easier and more stylish.
iPhone is many things, but its not cheap. However, Apple have realised that people look at more than just the price tag these days. They look for a user experience that delights them, and functionality that matches their new, sophisticated needs.
Google have to battle that. If Android is to succeed it can't just beat iPhone on price. It can't just beat it in how fast its data connection is (a mistake Samsung made with the marketing for the Instinct). It can't just beat it in its UI, or the applications that are available. It has to try and beat it on all of those things, and that's going to be really difficult for them to do and, on the evidence of the video, they may have a way to go.
How does it maintain a singular vision if you don't somehow lock it down?
Modification or extension by the user only affects their copy. Allowing that takes nothing away from your control over what the product is like fresh after install.
If someone modifies it and doesn't revert back to the original, maybe they don't care about your vision, or they think your execution of that vision can be improved. No matter. Either way the software is obviously more useful to them modified.
So, from the viewpoint of the user, other things being the same, a system being open is at worst equally good than closed, and it being closed is at best equally good than open. They are only equal, if the user doesn't want to modify or verify anything about the system's operation.
Modification or extension by the user only affects their copy. Allowing that takes nothing away from your control over what the product is like fresh after install.
If someone modifies it and doesn't revert back to the original, maybe they don't care about your vision, or they think your execution of that vision can be improved. No matter. Either way the software is obviously more useful to them modified.
So, from the viewpoint of the user, other things being the same, a system being open is at worst equally good than closed, and it being closed is at best equally good than open. They are only equal, if the user doesn't want to modify or verify anything about the system's operation.
That assumes that there complete accountability on the user's part, which there isn't. If they hose their system they blame the company that sold it to them. This is especially true if they don't even realise that the fault was theirs, which is common among people that don't know what they are doing which is most people using computers and phones. The good balance is to have a hurdle to get unofficial apps running. The current hacks support this very well. It seems to me that if Apple was really concerned about hacking they wouldn't have made the iPhone's root password 'alpine', they would have changed it with each firmware revision to be pricks, and they would have used a much longer and complex password. But that doesn't mean they want the average techtarded iPhone and iPod Touch user to fudge their system daily.
Modification or extension by the user only affects their copy. Allowing that takes nothing away from your control over what the product is like fresh after install.
If someone modifies it and doesn't revert back to the original, maybe they don't care about your vision, or they think your execution of that vision can be improved. No matter. Either way the software is obviously more useful to them modified.
That sounds like a complete mess to me. How is any software vendor supposed to effectively and predictably support that situation?
Different hardware company will make different competing hardware with different configurations and options.
Samsung will make a different phone than HTC....
Thats true, however in that case, Samsung will make sure all of their drivers work together for each of their phones. With Windows, an end user can take all sorts of devices and have them work together, never knowing when drivers may be incompatible with each other. With phones, its all tested before release, but with computers, the machine might turn off one way and boot up with new hardware.
Here is what i believe; it is based on nothing more than my opinion.
The iPhone is a revolutionary new product.
So were the 1st GUI-based Macs.
The iPhone is tightly controlled by Apple.
So were the 1st GUI-Macs.
The iPhone will fail the same way the original Macs did because of the tight hardware/software control. People will stop looking at their cell phones as "phones" and see them for what they are... mini computers. Once people get a feel for a 'mini computer cell phone' that they can customize any way they like only having to pay for the data/voice plan. This market will be flipped on its head.
Apple is once again starting this tech revolution, but there game plan looks to be the same to me. They did lose the PC war you know.
Wait for "free" (with contract) Android phones to hit the market, Apple will never have a free phone it would tarnish there image.
I highly doubt this Admob report is reflective of actual iPhoneOS versus Android Internet traffic. iPhones outnumber Android phones by a factor of 3 at least, if not by an order of magnitude.
Now, it certainly is possible that Android devices will outnumber iPhoneOS devices by the next couple of years, but it certainly is not now.
And yes, Apple will let carriers offer iPhones for "free". I believe they already let a few non-US carriers do that. Not only that, I think they will eventually have a specific iPhone, not just last year's model, in the sub $100 slot. Maybe not even next year, but I think it will come.
Here is what i believe; it is based on nothing more than my opinion.
The iPhone is a revolutionary new product.
So were the 1st GUI-based Macs.
The iPhone is tightly controlled by Apple.
So were the 1st GUI-Macs.
The iPhone will fail the same way the original Macs did because of the tight hardware/software control. People will stop looking at their cell phones as "phones" and see them for what they are... mini computers. Once people get a feel for a 'mini computer cell phone' that they can customize any way they like only having to pay for the data/voice plan. This market will be flipped on its head.
Apple is once again starting this tech revolution, but there game plan looks to be the same to me. They did lose the PC war you know.
From the depths I come...
BTW why did someone other than me edit my post?
I understand my Gamer/spelling is horrid, but i think my ability as a tech profit out weights those things.
I think the following statement in that article is wrong:
"Android is winning, partly because it represents what Windows used to represent: flexibility."
I don't think that has anything to do with it as far as flexibility from the user's point of view. The reasons I see Android being successful include:
- a lot of people just plain don't like Apple and go out of their way to avoid buying Apple products even to the point of lunacy where they pay more money for an inferior product
- Apple won't build a dirt cheap phone, Android device manufacturers will
- Android is available for use by multiple hardware manufacturers. If that's what the artice meant by flexibility then I agree with that.
Windows eventually dominated by being used by dozens of hardware manufacturers. Apple is just one manufacturer.
This is starting to look like the case with Android but the share ratio isn't 72:14, that's just the ratio of new devices. The overall share is in the region of 50:30. It may eventually reach the point where it is the Windows ratio of 85:10 or something like that but Apple's sales aren't slowing down. Having a userbase of over 400 million with 100 million+ units per year and rising is nothing like the old Apple under Microsoft's thumb.
The latest mobile software goes to iOS first, the best hardware peripherals go to iOS devices first, Apple makes more profit than everyone else. This is polar opposite to the Windows situation and was a coup of the highest order. The best part was, nobody saw it coming and even when it arrived, they were complacent and dismissive.
If Apple hits a manufacturing limit, that could affect their ultimate marketshare but how many devices can be owned by people? We know there are about 7b people in the world and half can't afford a phone. So that leaves a potential audience of about 3.5b. iOS and Android together will soon make up 1b devices already.
What happens when they hit the peak ownership? People just keep upgrading but that doesn't mean the ownership share changes. 400 million iOS device owners might only upgrade every 2-3 years but Android device owners every year because the lower end ones are junk and break. Unless current iOS device owners downgrade to Android devices, the marketshare won't change.
Say Apple sells 100 million a year and Android is on 300 million a year and both grow by 25% each year
Some of the phones will break of course instead of being passed on but by 2016, there are few new customers to be had so the overall share becomes about 2:1 in favour of Android, which is not the Windows situation. Dumphones might never get wiped out entirely - can you even build a capacitive touch Android phone for under $20?
Google also doesn't treat Apple the way Microsoft treated Apple. There's a similar culture between Apple and Google and they will both do well in their own right and Microsoft, RIM, Nokia etc will become irrelevant.
Comments
That's not an inherent problem. You can develop any open system the same as you develop a closed system. The difference is you don't lock it down.
How does it maintain a singular vision if you don't somehow lock it down?
Still today microsoft computers with "vista" still outsells apple 30 to 1
This is kind of like comparing the number of Hondas sold to the number of non-Hondas sold. No matter now bottom-heavy that ratio happens to be, only a fool would suggest that Honda would trade places with just about anyone right now. Volume has nothing to do with the long-term health or viability of a company.
this Google phone is T-Mobile only
Google aren't making a phone (yet?). They're producing the Android operating system. The hardware (HTC 'Dream' I presume?) may have some kind of exclusivity deal in the US, but the OS doesn't. I expect there will be an iPhone build of the OS before too long.
I have been a Windows users from day one and have been "enjoying" Vista for about a year now. Vista slowed down my daily mundane tasks working with Outlook, Word, EXCEL and surfing. Even though my previous XP notebook was 2 years old when I replaced it with a new Vista machine, everything on the XP notebook was faster. Talking to other people who "upgraded" to Vista experienced similar issues. And the regular updates do not help either - the last ones on August 12th messed up the computer of a colleague; luckily, mine was not affected. Meanwhile, I have been watching over the shoulders of a number of friends who effortlessly do work on their Macs. My frustration with Vista has been so great that I will likely switch to a Mac when the new Mac Book Pro comes out. That's why I am lurking around this board...
You are NOT alone.
same thing could be said about the iphone. it's only the second try, it's still a kid in the game.
I agree that the iPhone is still a young platform but if we are talking about the OS then it's on more than its 2nd try. They have released 12 versions of the OS since it's release 13 months ago (note that one of them was a bug fix for the iPhone Touch for those who didn't wish to pay for v2.0).
Yet I only count 13 different versions (link below) for the the entire Windows Mobile/CE/Pocket PC history since 1996 (exlcuding the v3.0 Core Add On Pack but including v6.1 not on the chart). Or did the re-branding to PocketPC and then to Windows Mobile require new underlying code that would make it a proper new version instead of a variant of the same version for different HW or marketing. Either way, it's pretty sad for 12 years of development so I don't think we should be complaining about an update almost one a month for the iPhone.
but what I love is that one of the biggest complaints about the iphone is that you have to use ATT. so I would think that anyone that wanted to really create competition would go open market on carriers. and yet, this Google phone is T-Mobile only. and the Instinct is Sprint only. i believe there is one also that is Verizon only.
but they don't get yelled out. just Apple for picking one carrier and forcing that one on everyone.
It is funny that this common marketing tactic that long predates the iPhone is now all Apple's fault.
Despite Android's open source nature they still have to effort for specific HW and, to a lesser extent, different carriers. I think Android going with one device on one carrier makes sense and for the exact same reasons that Apple did it.
To me, with regard to OSes, Apple and Microsoft are both doing the same thing now that they were 10-15 years ago. Nothing has really changed. However the balance is shifting and the reason is more to do with the consumers than the technology.
10 years ago, far fewer homes had computers -- they were still largely the realm of geeks, gamers and gaming geeks. Others were interested in the Internet and battled with dial-up connections to get access to Web pages and email. Word processing was also of interest. A lot of people would've wanted to dip their toe into this new world without spending too much money, so would spend enough money to buy a computer that was just good enough to perform these basic tasks. Windows was the operating system that came with these cheaper models. Windows was also interesting to the geeks and gamers because they could roll their own systems, installing the latest graphics cards, overclocking their processors and plumbing in some water cooling.
Today, the needs of the general public are more sophisticated. They want the internet, email (with fast always-on connections) and word processing, but now they also want to view their digital photographs, edit home movies, download music and do their shopping online. However much their needs have changed, most people remain just as technically un-savvy as they always were, so need their computers to just work.
This is an important point. Nowadays, computers aren't just a nice-to-have. For many reasons they have become indispensible to us. We cannot imagine not being able to get on the internet and booking our holidays on-line, or being able to watch a TV programme we missed, even though these are relatively recent developments.
People get frustrated when the technology lets them down or is too difficult to use, and many people are now affluent enough that they are willing to pay a little extra for a computer that just works.
This is where the balance has shifted.
Anecdotally, I've recently had separate conversations with two non-technical friends of mine who, I found out, had just assumed that battling, and losing to, viruses was just a normal, everyday part of being on-line. That, somehow, it was the natural price they had to pay for the convenience that came with on-line access. They were disbelieving when I said that my Mac didn't suffer from viruses at all. I didn't even need special software installed. I had to explain in several different ways that there simply aren't viruses for Macs just yet. This was such a revelation to them that both said that they would seriously consider switching from Windows to Mac when it came to updating their hardware.
Importantly, these days the fact that you can't buy a Mac as cheaply as you can a Windows machine is less important. They are willing to pay extra for something that just works. This is why Apple are doing so well at the moment selling >$1000 computers in the same way that BMW do so well selling reliable, comfortable, stylish cars. That's want people want, more than they did a decade ago.
I feel the same is true for the mobile phone/smartphone market. People are beyond the stage where they just want a phone. They want to be able to do much more, without it being difficult or complicated or unreliable. This, again, is where iPhone trumps Windows Mobile. It works generally seamlessly and allows people to do some amazing things. Maybe not as many amazing things as cheaply as Windows Mobile, by it does it in a way that's easier and more stylish.
iPhone is many things, but its not cheap. However, Apple have realised that people look at more than just the price tag these days. They look for a user experience that delights them, and functionality that matches their new, sophisticated needs.
Google have to battle that. If Android is to succeed it can't just beat iPhone on price. It can't just beat it in how fast its data connection is (a mistake Samsung made with the marketing for the Instinct). It can't just beat it in its UI, or the applications that are available. It has to try and beat it on all of those things, and that's going to be really difficult for them to do and, on the evidence of the video, they may have a way to go.
How does it maintain a singular vision if you don't somehow lock it down?
Modification or extension by the user only affects their copy. Allowing that takes nothing away from your control over what the product is like fresh after install.
If someone modifies it and doesn't revert back to the original, maybe they don't care about your vision, or they think your execution of that vision can be improved. No matter. Either way the software is obviously more useful to them modified.
So, from the viewpoint of the user, other things being the same, a system being open is at worst equally good than closed, and it being closed is at best equally good than open. They are only equal, if the user doesn't want to modify or verify anything about the system's operation.
Modification or extension by the user only affects their copy. Allowing that takes nothing away from your control over what the product is like fresh after install.
If someone modifies it and doesn't revert back to the original, maybe they don't care about your vision, or they think your execution of that vision can be improved. No matter. Either way the software is obviously more useful to them modified.
So, from the viewpoint of the user, other things being the same, a system being open is at worst equally good than closed, and it being closed is at best equally good than open. They are only equal, if the user doesn't want to modify or verify anything about the system's operation.
That assumes that there complete accountability on the user's part, which there isn't. If they hose their system they blame the company that sold it to them. This is especially true if they don't even realise that the fault was theirs, which is common among people that don't know what they are doing which is most people using computers and phones. The good balance is to have a hurdle to get unofficial apps running. The current hacks support this very well. It seems to me that if Apple was really concerned about hacking they wouldn't have made the iPhone's root password 'alpine', they would have changed it with each firmware revision to be pricks, and they would have used a much longer and complex password. But that doesn't mean they want the average techtarded iPhone and iPod Touch user to fudge their system daily.
Modification or extension by the user only affects their copy. Allowing that takes nothing away from your control over what the product is like fresh after install.
If someone modifies it and doesn't revert back to the original, maybe they don't care about your vision, or they think your execution of that vision can be improved. No matter. Either way the software is obviously more useful to them modified.
That sounds like a complete mess to me. How is any software vendor supposed to effectively and predictably support that situation?
Yea...
Me waiting for Andriod was a good idea.
Watch the video, makes the Iphone and it's "one app at a time" processing look like the stone age.
Me waiting for Andriod was a good idea.
Watch the video, makes the Iphone and it's [I
"one app at a time"[/I] processing look like the stone age.
A software demo is no real indication that all of this is actually going to work.
A software demo is one thing. Actually getting all of this to work problem free is entirely different.
Ahhhh... yes it does.
Different hardware company will make different competing hardware with different configurations and options.
Samsung will make a different phone than HTC....
Thats true, however in that case, Samsung will make sure all of their drivers work together for each of their phones. With Windows, an end user can take all sorts of devices and have them work together, never knowing when drivers may be incompatible with each other. With phones, its all tested before release, but with computers, the machine might turn off one way and boot up with new hardware.
Here is what i believe; it is based on nothing more than my opinion.
The iPhone is a revolutionary new product.
So were the 1st GUI-based Macs.
The iPhone is tightly controlled by Apple.
So were the 1st GUI-Macs.
The iPhone will fail the same way the original Macs did because of the tight hardware/software control. People will stop looking at their cell phones as "phones" and see them for what they are... mini computers. Once people get a feel for a 'mini computer cell phone' that they can customize any way they like only having to pay for the data/voice plan. This market will be flipped on its head.
Apple is once again starting this tech revolution, but there game plan looks to be the same to me. They did lose the PC war you know.
Nice to see my theory was right
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/27/adm...raffic-in-u-s/
And this is still just the beginning.
Wait for "free" (with contract) Android phones to hit the market, Apple will never have a free phone it would tarnish there image.
Nice to see my theory was right
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/27/adm...raffic-in-u-s/
And this is still just the beginning.
Wait for "free" (with contract) Android phones to hit the market, Apple will never have a free phone it would tarnish there image.
A couple models by one company being out sold / out used by over a dozen models sold by several different companies, so Apple is doomed™.
Nice to see my theory was right
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/27/adm...raffic-in-u-s/
And this is still just the beginning.
Wait for "free" (with contract) Android phones to hit the market, Apple will never have a free phone it would tarnish there image.
I highly doubt this Admob report is reflective of actual iPhoneOS versus Android Internet traffic. iPhones outnumber Android phones by a factor of 3 at least, if not by an order of magnitude.
Now, it certainly is possible that Android devices will outnumber iPhoneOS devices by the next couple of years, but it certainly is not now.
And yes, Apple will let carriers offer iPhones for "free". I believe they already let a few non-US carriers do that. Not only that, I think they will eventually have a specific iPhone, not just last year's model, in the sub $100 slot. Maybe not even next year, but I think it will come.
Here is what i believe; it is based on nothing more than my opinion.
The iPhone is a revolutionary new product.
So were the 1st GUI-based Macs.
The iPhone is tightly controlled by Apple.
So were the 1st GUI-Macs.
The iPhone will fail the same way the original Macs did because of the tight hardware/software control. People will stop looking at their cell phones as "phones" and see them for what they are... mini computers. Once people get a feel for a 'mini computer cell phone' that they can customize any way they like only having to pay for the data/voice plan. This market will be flipped on its head.
Apple is once again starting this tech revolution, but there game plan looks to be the same to me. They did lose the PC war you know.
From the depths I come...
BTW why did someone other than me edit my post?
I understand my Gamer/spelling is horrid, but i think my ability as a tech profit out weights those things.
http://www.zdnet.com/android-really-is-the-new-windows-7000007450/
Yea, i was right
I think the following statement in that article is wrong:
"Android is winning, partly because it represents what Windows used to represent: flexibility."
I don't think that has anything to do with it as far as flexibility from the user's point of view. The reasons I see Android being successful include:
- a lot of people just plain don't like Apple and go out of their way to avoid buying Apple products even to the point of lunacy where they pay more money for an inferior product
- Apple won't build a dirt cheap phone, Android device manufacturers will
- Android is available for use by multiple hardware manufacturers. If that's what the artice meant by flexibility then I agree with that.
Windows eventually dominated by being used by dozens of hardware manufacturers. Apple is just one manufacturer.
This is starting to look like the case with Android but the share ratio isn't 72:14, that's just the ratio of new devices. The overall share is in the region of 50:30. It may eventually reach the point where it is the Windows ratio of 85:10 or something like that but Apple's sales aren't slowing down. Having a userbase of over 400 million with 100 million+ units per year and rising is nothing like the old Apple under Microsoft's thumb.
The latest mobile software goes to iOS first, the best hardware peripherals go to iOS devices first, Apple makes more profit than everyone else. This is polar opposite to the Windows situation and was a coup of the highest order. The best part was, nobody saw it coming and even when it arrived, they were complacent and dismissive.
If Apple hits a manufacturing limit, that could affect their ultimate marketshare but how many devices can be owned by people? We know there are about 7b people in the world and half can't afford a phone. So that leaves a potential audience of about 3.5b. iOS and Android together will soon make up 1b devices already.
What happens when they hit the peak ownership? People just keep upgrading but that doesn't mean the ownership share changes. 400 million iOS device owners might only upgrade every 2-3 years but Android device owners every year because the lower end ones are junk and break. Unless current iOS device owners downgrade to Android devices, the marketshare won't change.
Say Apple sells 100 million a year and Android is on 300 million a year and both grow by 25% each year
2013: A=500m, G=800m
2014: A=625m, G=1175m
2015: A=780m, G=1640m
2016: A=975m, G=2225m
Some of the phones will break of course instead of being passed on but by 2016, there are few new customers to be had so the overall share becomes about 2:1 in favour of Android, which is not the Windows situation. Dumphones might never get wiped out entirely - can you even build a capacitive touch Android phone for under $20?
Google also doesn't treat Apple the way Microsoft treated Apple. There's a similar culture between Apple and Google and they will both do well in their own right and Microsoft, RIM, Nokia etc will become irrelevant.