- Last Active
Avon B7 said, "No manufacturer of low or mid tier phones has even the slightest intention of massive profit. Comparing those profits to those of Apple serves little or no purpose."
If maximizing profits isn't the goal, then it's time for those companies to get out of the business.
The criticism of the points DED made with statements like this are pretty ridiculous.
Apple and Samsung are the only two companies capable of reliably profiting from the smartphone industry. Samsung primarily in components and Apple in the finished product and vertically integrated system.
Samsung is attempting to move to Apple's vertically integrated model much to the consternation of Google. Samsung's plan is to move off of Android all together and over to Tizen. Samsung's Tizen phone sales in India are pretty nice. And it is quite worrisome to Google. Because if Samsung is successful, the only high end players will be Apple and Samsung. And neither will be running on Android.
So it actually be self-fulfilling if the low end Android device manufacturers aren't interested in large profits. Because it won't happen. There will be Apple and Samsung. The others, including Huawei won't be playing at the high end of anything. Samsung's Gear S3 makes the Android wear watches from Huawei and LG look atrocious.
Samsung is so far ahead everyone else, it is going to take a major setback or a new technology development to displace them.
While the others are getting started, Samsung is now working on raising efficiencies and lowering costs of production. Samsung will continue to offer the best combination of lowest cost and high quality panels for some time. They make outstanding components. Unless Foxconn is willing to take losses on their upcoming panels, Samsung will be getting Apple's business for a long time. And Cook would be smart to do so. It will keep OLED panel prices higher for the rest of the market. Such that the Pixel from Google will be seriously disadvantaged.
Google just doesn't get it. If they are serious, they need to focus and go about things in a disciplined fashion.
Despite all of the talk about Brin and Page being visionaries, they are not. They are two guys who got lucky, much like Gates and Allen did.
Jobs was the true visionary in which MSFT and GOOGL stole their ideas and products. And Android would have died if it weren't for Samsung who are true hardware innovators.
Samsung will eventually move off of Amdroid and Google will not be able to follow. Google had better hope that LG and Huawei can keep up.
3 million pixel phones is inconsequential. Samsung sells more smartwatches than that. They also sell more Tizen based Z series phones. Samsung innovated the rotating bezel on their smartwatch. Google has since copied it. Samsung invested heavily in NVM, OLED and CPU fabrication technology. Where's Google in all of this? Apple purchased PA Semi and pushed advanced CPU development; moving forward at an unheard of pace and even taking Intel itself by surprise.
Google's best hardware product is glass and that was a failure. Building a laptop with generic components, slapping a non-standard OS on it with few applications is a recipe for failure. Putting Android on the desktop won't drive the adoption of a third desktop OS either.
At least Google gets part of it. Hardware development can drive a new computing paradigm. After all, Apple eliminated Microsoft's monopoly. But if Google wants to do that, they need to truly get serious about it. By all indications, they appear utterly incapable.
I actually think that this is a good thing. More competition in office based productivity software is good for the market. Especially if Amazon bundles the service into Prime like so much else of what they do.
I rather despise MSFT's move to a subscription based model. I don't use any of Google docs and I rather like what Apple has delivered with respect to office based software. If Amazon delivers a nice product and makes it available to their prime membership, I would definitely give it a try.
I rather like the service that Amazon provides for their prime members. More competition is not a bad thing and Amazon has several million prime members who might just adopt these products for primary use.
rob53 said:Then Apple should win its lawsuit against Qualcomm who used the entire cost of the iPhone as the basis for FRAND calculations. If Samsung wins the reduced amount Apple should win a greatly reduced patent royalty charge as well as a return on previous charges. If the EU can collect in arrears then so can Apple. I doubt The cost of Qualcomm hardware is more than a few dollars per device at the most.
Apple has already likely made a decision to move to Intel for cellular modems and QCOM is going to suffer in the move to 5G and the loss of Apple's business. It means that they are going to have to make some awful choices. Continue to invest in baseband technology now competing with Intel, or invest in CPU technology and compete with Apple.
Competing with both simultaneously with reduced revenues is going to be awfully difficult.
Samsung is likely to be one the few winners with QCOM's loss of competitiveness. They make their own modems and SOCs. Huawei is also another beneficiary and perhaps LG if they successfully develop and release the Nuclun processor.
Google's Android will be the ultimate loser as Samsung, Huawei and LG demand concessions with the other OEMs reduced to low performance modems and CPUs from QCOM.
I don't expect much to come from the lawsuit. It doesn't really matter much as the landscape has changed dramatically from Steve Jobs' time at Apple.
What is interesting to watch is what Samsung does to Google over the next several years. The Pixel won't be competitive for long. Not by a long shot. And apart from the phone itself, Samsung runs their other electronics on Tizen.
With the crippling of QCOM, Google won't have many options left to exploit.