or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Inside Google's Android and Apple's iPhone OS as business models
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inside Google's Android and Apple's iPhone OS as business models

post #1 of 144
Thread Starter 
Google's Android offers a free software alternative to smartphone makers hoping to catch up to the iPhone. This article is the second in a series examining how Android stacks up in comparison to the iPhone as a smartphone software platform, looking particularly at the business model of each and how this affects users.

Articles in this series:
Inside Google's Android and Apple's iPhone OS as core platforms
Inside Google's Android and Apple's iPhone OS as business models
Inside Google's Android and Apple's iPhone OS as advancing technology
Inside Google's Android and Apple's iPhone OS as software markets

Android vs. iPhone: Restrictions vs security

Platform vendors, in this case Apple and Google, have to balance various factors to create a desirable environment for consumers. On one hand, users want a phone that works reliably and does everything they might want it to do without artificial restrictions or limitations put in place by the vendor.

At the same time, users also want a progressive platform that offers them new features as they become available and want to be protected from security threats such as malicious viruses causing data theft or loss, annoying adware, spyware and spam.

The problem is that adding lots of new features tends to result in bloat, slow performance, and the inadvertent introduction of bugs, while imposing vigilant security measures results in a certain amount of inconvenience and limitation for users. Balancing these factors is an engineering art. How well Apple and Google can do this is closely tied to the business model of their smartphone platforms.

Business model: iPhone

Apple's iPhone platform has a pretty simple business model: everything is run under the tight direction of one company to deliver what it hopes to be the most desirable offering possible, in order to sell the most iPhones to users.

The iPhone's software platform is knit into Apple's own hardware design and is tightly integrated with iTunes for setup, software updates, backups, media syncing, application management, and Apple's optional MobileMe cloud sync services.

The iPhone is exclusively tied to official mobile providers who must agree to certain user-friendly concessions (such as supporting iTunes rather than pushing their own expensive ringtones and music services and software). However, Apple's carrier deals also currently limit users' options in many markets such as the US, where the iPhone can only be used on AT&T's network.

Apple also maintains rigid control over where the iPhone is sold, and manages nearly all support issues itself. There's absolutely no passing the buck on user troubleshooting, hardware problems, or software issues like security flaws or poor performance. If there's a problem with the iPhone, it's squarely Apple's fault.

On the other hand, you can't get the iPhone OS from any other source, you're not allowed to modify the core software, you can't install apps that Apple determines to be of poor quality, incompatible with its design goals (including background operation of third party apps), or damaging to its platform (such as Adobe Flash) unless you take it upon yourself to hack the iPhone via a jailbreak, something that Apple discourages and works to prevent. In some cases there's simply no way to shoehorn in features that Apple doesn't want to support or allow.

Business model: Android

Google's business model is more complex in some respects and yet also simpler. The company doesn't make money selling phone hardware or even in licensing the core Android software (which is free and open source). Google makes money selling ads and tracking users' preferences, which it does through its own Google-branded, bundled apps (which are not free nor open source).

This results in Android software only being as tightly integrated with hardware as third party vendors might choose to deliver (or are capable of producing). Hardware makers can add features that Google doesn't fully support (such as multitouch gestures or unique user interfaces), and Android can offer features that aren't implemented in certain hardware devices (such as compass support).

Unlike the iPhone and iTunes, Android phones aren't integrated into a central desktop app of any kind, so users with different mobile providers and buying from different hardware makers will all face unique configuration circumstances because setup, updates, backups, media sync, software management and cloud sync services can all be implemented in different ways on different Android-based products.

How exclusively a specific Android phone is tied to a given provider is also negotiable. Some models may be unlocked and used virtually anywhere, while others are locked down just as tight as a Verizon feature phone, with disabled hardware and non-removable VCast.

There's little leverage for Google to seek concessions from mobile providers the way Apple does, as the company is not the hardware vendor. Android is supposed to arrive on a flurry of new devices from various makers early next year, but nearly every vendor is promising to deliver a customized experience to differentiate their offering, making the Android platform nothing similar to the cohesive, global experience of the iPhone (or for that matter, Windows on the PC).

HTC markets its unique look and feel as Sense, Motorola sells its own user interface as MotoBlur, and Sony Ericsson is calling its interface for the upcoming Xperia X10 "Rachael" or UX. Other vendors are guaranteed to create their own layers of unique user interfaces.



Imagine if Dell and HP made Windows PCs with completely different desktops and user apps: would most users even recognize them to be Windows? It would be more like Linux PCs, where there's so many choices that no significant number of users makes any one of them, resulting in little commonality for software developers, user training or support resources to target. Microsoft worked very hard to force PC makers to present a unified desktop look so that consumers would know to ask for Windows, and so PC makers could present a familiar product with known features.

Many Android users won't even realize they're using an Android phone, and won't even see that much familiarity between it an an Android phone from another vendor or mobile provider. That's because there's no standardized branding, no enforced minimum feature set, no consistent user interface nor any standards on how things look, how touch gestures should work, or where physical buttons are.

The brand that wasn't there

Unlike the iPhone, Android presents no significant limitations on which apps Google will list in Android's software market, but there's also no requirement for software signing or other security restrictions in place to prevent users from being spied upon or attacked by malicious apps or hassled by adware, nor any app quality guidelines.

And while customers might not have any complaints with Google's lax brand management of Android, it will impact how the market receives Android products, and in turn, how widely adopted and competitive Android phones are, and subsequently how much software is available for the platform.

As an example, while Apple has one carefully-guarded iPhone brand worldwide, Google allows any device to call itself Android. If one vendor makes a terrible Android phone, it has the ability to taint the perception of the Android platform itself. This is another reason why Microsoft worked so hard to create a minimum standard and consistent desktop for Windows PCs.

Google has no experience in managing a platform, and does not appear to have even examined what factors helped make Microsoft successful on the PC. But Google also seems to have no sense of brand management, a curious problem for a company with a name that has become the verb for web search and with widely known products including Gmail

Google doesn't seem to be advertising the Android brand to mainstream consumers at all. Instead, it allows its partners to co-opt the brand in various ways. For example, Verizon is now branding specific Android models it carries as Droid; those same hardware devices can be from different vendors ("the Droid" is made by Motorola, while "Droid Eris" is an HTC product running a completely different user interface on an older version of Android and running on slower hardware), and those models must be named something else on other providers (Motorola's Droid will be sold as Milestone elsewhere, and the Droid Eris is HTC's Hero on other carriers).

This completely stifles any ability for Motorola to market its new Android phone globally, or for HTC to leverage the goodwill it creates with one provider to other markets. It also hijacks users' perception of Android to associate it with Verizon, despite the fact that the first Android phone sold via T-Mobile, and that all US mobile companies will likely be selling Android phones next year.

Imaging Apple allowing some carriers to exclusively sell the iPhone as "iPho" and the brand confusion that would result. Or imagine Apple trying to market the iPhone under completely different names in different markets globally. The whole point of a brand is to create awareness of a product and establish a trade name that customers recognize and associate with a strong reputation.

Google is allowing its partners to fight over the Android brand, invent competing and confusing sub-brands, and to create different experiences associated with its brand. The result will be a series of short lived flashes that fail to leave any mark in the minds of consumers, the same way LG's Prada, Vu, Viewity, Venus, Voyager, enV Touch, Cookie, Dare, Secret, Arena, Xenon, Cyon, Shine, Incite, and Renoir (all identical or very similar touchscreen models sold in different markets or by different providers) have failed to establish any sort of competitive mindshare against the iPhone during the same period of time on the market.

If there's a problem with an Android phone, users might be pointed at their mobile provider, or at the hardware vendor, or to the Android open source community, none of whom can take full responsibility for the whole widget even if they wanted to, and none of them have any real reason to want to. This results in Android being a fantastic platform for hobbyists and hackers, but one which presents series of terrible scenarios for mainstream users who want things to just work consistently and intuitively, with adequate and appropriate security and yet still offer plenty of viable commercial potential without compromising convenience and usability.

Software integration in consumer devices

Many of the issues negatively affecting Android are related to Google's business model, which happens to be very similar to Microsoft's Windows Mobile and PlaysForSure. Unlike its very successful Windows on the PC, Microsoft's efforts in mobile devices have been colossal failures, largely because the hardware/software integration issues that impact PC users are not nearly as critical as those affecting handheld devices that involve more direct use and include power management, performance and user interface issues that require much more integration work than desktop PCs.

Microsoft's software licensing model works best among servers and PCs where users are supported by professional IT staff, the same place Linux is most popular. In PCs, Microsoft's control over the user experience helps it edge out any real encroachment from Linux among mainstream users, but has not stopped Apple from eating into PC market share with its more integrated, cohesive Macs. However, in mobile devices, Apple's strict control of the user experience has enabled it to excel with the iPod and iPhone, two markets that neither Microsoft nor other broadly licensed open software platforms have managed to crack.

The best success story in mobile licensing has been Symbian, but this was largely a partnership between major phone makers who simply shared work on kernel development. Nokia, Sony Ericsson and NTT DoCoMo each maintained its own version of Symbian tightly integrated with that company's phone hardware.

Faced with competition from even more integrated phones from RIM and Apple, Symbian's share has slipped rapidly and dramatically, and Nokia has since worked to turn it into an open source foundation giving away shared code. There is yet no evidence that this will stop Symbian's share of the smartphone market from its slide in the future. The failure of both Windows Mobile and the once widely-licensed Palm OS also provide some perspective on how well this model works in mobile devices.



In addition to their differing business models, Android and the iPhone platform also differ how the core software platforms are developed and advanced, what first party software is bundled with the phone, and what third party software is available after the sale. Upcoming segments will look at how Android and the iPhone compare in these respects.
post #2 of 144
Gee, a Dilger article that should be entitled "Why Product X Sucks and Apple's Product Y Rocks".

Color me (un) surprised by this sudden turn of events.
post #3 of 144
iPhone's is proven, Android's has yet to be proven.

Simple as that.
post #4 of 144
Quote:
There's absolutely no passing the buck on user troubleshooting, hardware problems, or software issues like security flaws or poor performance. If there's a problem with the iPhone, it's squarely Apple's fault.

Nope. When OS 3.0 was having issues keeping connections to AT&T's 3G network, I had an Apple store employee tell me the issues were with AT&T and I needed to contact them. I was told the same thing from the Apple phone support.

The problem was subsequently fixed when 3.0.1 was released, so the problem was indeed not with AT&T (at least not soley)

To Apple's credit, this was after a replacement phone was issued and the problem still existed, but to say that Apple takes full responsibility for iPhone issues is disingenuous at best.
post #5 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Gee, a Dilger article that should be entitled "Why Product X Sucks and Apple's Product Y Rocks".

Color me (un) surprised by this sudden turn of events.

I thought that too.

I looked at the picture and thought "multiple options gives me choice" rather than what that image's title was. I also thought the iPhone OS interface looked a bit tired in comparison.
post #6 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

iPhone's is proven, Android's has yet to be proven.

Simple as that.

You are so correct. Froma consumer level Apple has the race won and just needs to keep updating the iPhone every so often as they have been and no one with come close to their market share.
What I would like to see and purley from a business corporate level is Apple along with AT&T produce a application interface that would let corpoations have limited control over the the platform. To be able to do what can be done with a BB. To be able to remotely manage the iPhone in a simple stand alone solution. That would include being able to handle encryption, changing the PIN, activation, remote wipe. If they did this they sky would be the limit in the Corp environment.
But then things are going pretty well right now!!! :-)

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #7 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by moo-shu cereal View Post

Nope. When OS 3.0 was having issues keeping connections to AT&T's 3G network, I had an Apple store employee tell me the issues were with AT&T and I needed to contact them. I was told the same thing from the Apple phone support.

The problem was subsequently fixed when 3.0.1 was released, so the problem was indeed not with AT&T (at least not soley)

To Apple's credit, this was after a replacement phone was issued and the problem still existed, but to say that Apple takes full responsibility for iPhone issues is disingenuous at best.

On whose part? Apple's? AT&T's? Or the author's?

Taking the full context of the statement, there is nothing disingenuous stated here:

Quote:
AppleInsider:
Apple also maintains rigid control over where the iPhone is sold, and manages nearly all support issues itself. There's absolutely no passing the buck on user troubleshooting, hardware problems, or software issues like security flaws or poor performance. If there's a problem with the iPhone, it's squarely Apple's fault.
post #8 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

You are so correct. Froma consumer level Apple has the race won and just needs to keep updating the iPhone every so often as they have been and no one with come close to their market share.

What I would like to see and purley from a business corporate level is Apple along with AT&T produce a application interface that would let corpoations have limited control over the the platform. To be able to do what can be done with a BB. To be able to remotely manage the iPhone in a simple stand alone solution. That would include being able to handle encryption, changing the PIN, activation, remote wipe. If they did this they sky would be the limit in the Corp environment.
But then things are going pretty well right now!!! :-)

It is already available. http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/integration/
post #9 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Gee, a Dilger article that should be entitled "Why Product X Sucks and Apple's Product Y Rocks".

Color me (un) surprised by this sudden turn of events.

Did you actually read this? Did you even bother to read who wrote it?

No, you did not.
post #10 of 144
I agree with this article. It's what I've been stating in the other thread, and for some time now.
post #11 of 144
I want an in depth side by side comparison between Droid and iPhone- hardware. Everyone knows Apple OS rocks and other's don't, but I want to see the physical limitations of one versus the other. Speed, power, and so on.
post #12 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

It is already available. http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/integration/

Not really......it is so hard to use. Also there is no over the air support. It would be nice to have everything done over the air without having to sync with itunes.
We are testing the iphone at my work with 100 to start the project. The admin guys are saying that the business intergration that Apple defines leaves allot to be disired. It is just so much easier with the Blackberry Enterprise Server(BES) solution.
Now this is not a knock on Apple just that they have some work to do to catch up to the BB for business. They are making strides though......

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #13 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Did you actually read this? Did you even bother to read who wrote it?

No, you did not.

Yes, I did and he is right. But is Daniel, you can't expect anything else.
post #14 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

Now this is not a knock on Apple just that they have some work to do to catch up to the BB for business. They are making strides though......

Face it - they'll never catch up as long as they're perceived as a toy (read App store, iPod, games) and have the AT&T ball & chain around their neck.
post #15 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Yes, I did and he is right. But is Daniel, you can't expect anything else.

Go back and look at who actually wrote the article before posting again.
post #16 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Gee, a Dilger article that should be entitled "Why Product X Sucks and Apple's Product Y Rocks".

Color me (un) surprised by this sudden turn of events.

You've been delivering regular personal attacks against Prince Dan, but I have yet to see any cogent explanation of why you think his articles are bad. I'd rather see you voice your own opinion that to denigrate the author's. Or even point out what you think is inaccurate or misguided. This article seems pretty spot on.

If you can't argue your own position, you might as well put on blinders and wave cardboard signs about Socialism and pictures of the president with The Mustache. I think the guys who hate Prince Dan are just upset that he's been right over and over again, from PFS to the Zune to the iPhone. He seems to be the only writer pointing out that there's some serious potential downsides to Android. Are you afraid he's right and don't want to be proven wrong next year, or can you just not put up a convincing argument about why this is all somehow off base?
post #17 of 144
Oh man, I was going to port my iPhone app to Android...

Just kidding :-) I will port it anyway. The Blackberry port is already 50% done.

What I want to say by this - I hope that all 3 (iPhone, Android and Blackberry) do well. This will make all of them much better. If there is no competition to iPhone, it will stall and start stinking, I have no doubt about that. I myself programmed for both iPhone and Android, I like both these platforms (I like iPhone a little more). Google is doing a lot to improve Android. I hope they don't drop the ball.

Maybe we need to think how we can support Android a little bit, to make iPhone even better? :-)
post #18 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Face it - they'll never catch up as long as they're perceived as a toy (read App store, iPod, games) and have the AT&T ball & chain around their neck.

Except that Apple is making big strides in both business and government. Plus, the iPhone gets far better satisfaction ratings from business users than does RIM.

I had a good link, but as happens so often, this is what's left:

http://www.businessinsider.com/smart...lients-2009-10

Here's another:

http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/a...olume-2/page-3

Obviously, Apple is doing it right.
post #19 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Face it - they'll never catch up as long as they're perceived as a toy (read App store, iPod, games) and have the AT&T ball & chain around their neck. Most businesses, in NYC at least, opt for Verizon.

The iPhone, on a single carrier, with one model, has already narrowed that gap with RIM to the extent that it is within 10% of RIM and counting, in only two years. While RIM, with numerous devices, on nearly every carrier, is only at 40% and in decline.

iPhone a toy? Why, because some generic carrier, desperate for this "toy", tells you??

The iPhone is making inroads into the enterprise. And people WANT this "toy" in business, just as much as the demand for it in the consumer sphere increases quarter by quarter.

The Blackberry is a one-trick pony that is in a downward slide. The question is not *if* the iPhone will overtake RIM, but *when.* And it looks like it won't take very long.
post #20 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I want an in depth side by side comparison between Droid and iPhone- hardware. Everyone knows Apple OS rocks and other's don't, but I want to see the physical limitations of one versus the other. Speed, power, and so on.

Why don't you type it into Google?
post #21 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by serkol View Post

Oh man, I was going to port my iPhone app to Android...

Just kidding :-) I will port it anyway. The Blackberry port is already 50% done.

What I want to say by this - I hope that all 3 (iPhone, Android and Blackberry) do well. This will make all of them much better. If there is no competition to iPhone, it will stall and start stinking, I have no doubt about that. I myself programmed for both iPhone and Android, I like both these platforms (I like iPhone a little more). Google is doing a lot to improve Android. I hope they don't drop the ball.

Maybe we need to think how we can support Android a little bit, to make iPhone even better? :-)

Since you're a developer. give us your view.

How do you plan to accommodate the differing hardware and OS features of Android?

As the OS becomes more differentiated, with different GUI's, different hardware, and little compatibility between them, what will you do?
post #22 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post

You've been delivering regular personal attacks against Prince Dan...

Are you trying to say Prince and Dan are the same person?

Google isn't branding their product to consumers, they're doing it to the manufacturers. I don't think it's part of the strategy. Google is going after the rest of the market, not the iPhone. Soon, plenty of available handsets will have Google Maps, search and who knows what else built in. Rather unsettling...
post #23 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Why don't you type it into Google?

I would if I had the time.
post #24 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Except that Apple is making big strides in both business and government. Plus, the iPhone gets far better satisfaction ratings from business users than does RIM.

I had a good link, but as happens so often, this is what's left:

http://www.businessinsider.com/smart...lients-2009-10

Here's another:

http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/a...olume-2/page-3

Obviously, Apple is doing it right.

Thanks for the links. I'll be glad if the iPhone takes it all. It deserves to. I still think there needs to be more of a business oriented OS or app store business for it to really roll it over. But then you still have AT&T. I just don't see enterprises switching as easily as the general public. Verizon will fight to keep those contracts.
post #25 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

The Blackberry is a one-trick pony that is in a downward slide.

And it was all going so well! If I recall, RIM are still gaining marketshare.
post #26 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Except that Apple is making big strides in both business and government. Plus, the iPhone gets far better satisfaction ratings from business users than does RIM.

I had a good link, but as happens so often, this is what's left:

http://www.businessinsider.com/smart...lients-2009-10

Here's another:

http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/a...olume-2/page-3

Obviously, Apple is doing it right.

And another;

Quote:
Apple Q4 2009 Conference Call
"Asked by Shaw Wu of Kaufman Brothers about Apple's sales to businesses, Cook answered, "Employee demand for iPhone in the corporate environment is very strong. Since the launch of the 3GS, the iPhone is either being deployed or being piloted in well over 50% of the Fortune 100.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...us_growth.html
post #27 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I would if I had the time.

So you can write dozens of posts here during the day, but you can't take 20 seconds to type a few words into the Google box?
post #28 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Thanks for the links. I'll be glad if the iPhone takes it all. It deserves to. I still think there needs to be more of a business oriented OS or app store business for it to really roll it over. But then you still have AT&T. I just don't see enterprises switching as easily as the general public. Verizon will fight to keep those contracts.

The fact that only AT&T has it is a major limitation. I don't know many have Sprint, but that would be a limit as well. I doubt too many use T-Mobile.

But now there's a rumor that Apple is contracting for a universal phone for late 2010, I suppose that means the June introduction. If that's true, it will be interesting.

There are plenty of business apps in the store. Some by big hitters.
post #29 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robodude View Post

And it was all going so well! If I recall, RIM are still gaining marketshare.

They are gaining marketshare but only at a fraction of what Apple is gaining each quarter and have significantly dropped their gross profit margin by offering BOGO offers in order to do it. More detrimental to RiM and what Quadra 610 means by one-trick pony is these new phones offering ActiveSync hurt their business model because there is no server-side BES HW to buy from RiM and no $100 per user per year fee that companies have to dish out. The recession has helped these other devices when companies are weighing the cost of having 100k users on Blackberries of integrating new ActiveSync capable devices onto the network.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #30 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

So you can write dozens of posts here during the day, but you can't take 20 seconds to type a few words into the Google box?

You got it. I'd be reading those specs all day long and you know how long it takes me to read and get it right.
Hey -I sent the links for The Whaling Wall on the other thread, what more can you want then that?
post #31 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

You got it. I'd be reading those specs all day long and you know how long it takes me to read and get it right.
Hey -I sent the links for The Whaling Wall on the other thread, what more can you want then that?

Sigh!
post #32 of 144
i thought Price/Dan's article is very insightful and a very good read. but in focusing on the Android platform's fragmentation problems he forgot to actually discuss its business model - the title of the piece!

Google's goal of course is to max its ad revenues (and anything it may charge for its cloud services eventually). that is its "business model." as long as Android phone owners use Google search and services a lot - and a lot of Android phones of all varieties are sold - GOOGLE DOESN'T CARE if the OEM's and telcos screw up other third party app and data interoperability via fragmentation.

in the Google business model, Apple and its iPhone are not the competition (since Google gets most of that search business too) - MS and Yahoo are. and while i suppose you can do it (need fact check), how many Android owners are going to bother to change their default search engine to Bing or Yahoo? nobody really.

Google no doubt sees search on portable devices as the huge growth market of today and tomorrow, while the desktop search market is pretty much set. that's why Android exists ....
post #33 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Sigh!

I know- right?
post #34 of 144
People seem to give Google a pass on any deficiencies in Android because it is a new venture for them and they expect it will improve over time. On the other hand AT&T and iPhone get ridiculed for every little thing as if the world has never seen such incompetent losers, when in fact Apple is also pretty new in the handset and mobile OS business and AT&T is still sorting out the pieces an parts of Cingular/SBC merge so they are pretty new in the cell game as well.

I think both Apple and AT&T have done a pretty good job ramping up to meet the challenge, but I would like to see Verizon get the iPhone so the whiners can finally get what they deserve.

In regard to corporate users preferring Verizon, that may slowly change as AT&T starts getting more coverage and speed. After all their cell reputation was basically inherited from Cingular which was not known for focusing on businesses. Furthermore, most corporations already use AT&T for their regular phone service and I believe they are pretty well regarded in that respect. I like it anyway.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #35 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robodude View Post

Are you trying to say Prince and Dan are the same person?

Google isn't branding their product to consumers, they're doing it to the manufacturers. I don't think it's part of the strategy. Google is going after the rest of the market, not the iPhone. Soon, plenty of available handsets will have Google Maps, search and who knows what else built in. Rather unsettling...

They are... Dan also writes on roughlydrafted.com (did not know about apple insider until recently)... they are one in the same
post #36 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

i thought Price/Dan's article is very insightful and a very good read. but in focusing on the Android platform's fragmentation problems he forgot to actually discuss its business model - the title of the piece!

Google's goal of course is to max its ad revenues (and anything it may charge for its cloud services eventually). that is its "business model." as long as Android phone owners use Google search and services a lot - and a lot of Android phones of all varieties are sold - GOOGLE DOESN'T CARE if the OEM's and telcos screw up other third party app and data interoperability via fragmentation.

in the Google business model, Apple and its iPhone are not the competition (since Google gets most of that search business too) - MS and Yahoo are. and while i suppose you can do it (need fact check), how many Android owners are going to bother to change their default search engine to Bing or Yahoo? nobody really.

Google no doubt sees search on portable devices as the huge growth market of today and tomorrow, while the desktop search market is pretty much set. that's why Android exists ....

It matters because Every phone sale impacts on every other phone sale.

Even if Google is looking to Win Mobile (often said to be a major thought to them) and RIM, as well as Yahoo and others, if Android phones sell well, it will impact on Apple's phone sales, even if Google isn't meaning to do so.

And the other way around, Apple's phone sales will prevent Android phones from selling as many as they would otherwise have.

You don't have to aim at a target to hit it here. Besides, Google is leaving it to the manufacturers and carriers to do the marketing. So what Google is aiming at really doesn't matter, because the phones still have to overcome other better established phones.

We can see this with Verizon's new Ads.
post #37 of 144
post #38 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I know- right?

It's ok. I love ya anyway.
post #39 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Gee, a Dilger article that should be entitled "Why Product X Sucks and Apple's Product Y Rocks".

Color me (un) surprised by this sudden turn of events.

Can we focus on the content of the article and not your personal vendetta against Dan?
post #40 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post

You've been delivering regular personal attacks against Prince Dan, but I have yet to see any cogent explanation of why you think his articles are bad.

Can I have a go, please?

To put it simply, Dan is a bullshitter. And I use the scientific definition of a bullshitter.

Let me explain. Someone who's honest knows the truth and chooses the tell the truth. Someone who's a liar knows the truth and chooses to not tell the truth. A bullshitter neither knows the truth or cares about the truth. All the bullshitter cares about is making their point and impressing his or her peers. Dan is a classic example of a bullshitter.

He writes a lot of articles on subjects that I know nothing about. What he writes is very plausible and it's easy to take what he writes at face value. However, as soon as he writes about a subject that I'm an expert in, I begin to realise what a total bullshitter he is. The basic factual errors he makes is remarkable. He cherry-picks data and he twists facts until there is zero value in the conclusions he makes.

What I don't understand is why he bothers. Apple are big enough and clever enough to defend themselves. Apple's products speak for themselves. They don't need some superficial semi-person licking their collective bums.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Inside Google's Android and Apple's iPhone OS as business models