or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › How Android lost global open market share to Apple's integrated iOS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Android lost global open market share to Apple's integrated iOS

post #1 of 239
Thread Starter 
Ever since Google's Android began to first gain mainstream support among smartphone makers in late 2009, Android platform enthusiasts have predicted that it would win out over proprietary mobile platforms, particularly Apple's iOS. The obvious parallel they like to draw is the rise of Microsoft's Windows in the mid 1990s at the expense of Apple's Macintosh. But that's wrong, here's why.



The fantasy of Android domination in smartphones & tablets



Today, Android's backers like to point out that (at least in terms of unit market share) Android is "winning" both in smartphone and in tablet shipment figures. They use this data point to predict that a similar shift will occur in the fields of automotive integration, wearables and in the living room with TV and video game systems.

However, Android as a platform is not winning in any way that matters commercially. And in fact, the "success" that Android now enjoys is virtually identical to the kind of ubiquitous shipment share that Symbian claimed in the early days of the smartphone industry, just a few years before it collapsed at the feet of Apple's iPhone in 2009.

Symbian, developed in a 1998 partnership that initially included Psion (the PDA maker that created its origins), Nokia, Ericsson and Motorola, eventually became a widely licensed mobile platform led by Nokia. It was also adapted by Sony Ericsson, Japan's NTT DoCoMo, Samsung and many others.

This All Happened Before



While tech history is quickly forgotten, it's useful to remember that in 2009 Samsung's smartphone lineup was 80 percent Windows Mobile and 20 percent Symbian, and it had just migrated its flagship Omni model from Windows Mobile to Symbian ("Omnia HD") in an effort to not look ridiculous next to Apple's iPhone 3GS. Sony Ericsson had made a similar transition, replacing its 2008 Windows Mobile Xperia X1 flagship failure with a new Symbian-based "Idou" concept for 2009. It too failed.

Well aware of the weakness of Symbian, Samsung announced in 2009 that at least 30 percent of its 2010 smartphones would run Android as it migrated away from Windows Mobile, a platform that offered Samsung little room for differentiation. Android hasn't captured the same share as Symbian once had world wide

Today, Samsung is saying that it will similarly transition from Android to its own Tizen operating system. Coming from Android's largest licensee (by far), that's hardly an endorsement of Android. But first, consider what happened when Samsung and other foreign hardware makers grew tired of Symbian and its inability to keep up with Apple's iOS.

Nokia ended up taking over its Symbian platform in late 2008 just as Symbian began proving itself incapable of competing against the iPhone 3G. In the spirit of Mozilla, Nokia converted Symbian into an open source project for the community to develop, an effort that failed entirely.

Android has seemingly proved far more successful than Symbian. However, while Symbian essentially ruled the early smartphone market for nearly a decade, Android has only been around about half that long. Android also hasn't captured the same share as Symbian once had world wide, neither in its cut of volume units nor in terms of valuable, premium market share. Symbian isn't the only harbinger of Android's future.

Java Mobile before Android



While Symbian is often viewed as the first and largest original smartphone platform, Sun's Java Mobile overlapped it as a mobile software middleware platform, enabling the development applets that could ostensibly run not only on Symbian phones but also Palm, BlackBerry, Windows Mobile and even simple embedded phones that hosted the Java Mobile environment on top of Linux. In fact, the only smartphone that famously couldn't run Java Mobile applets was Apple's new iPhone released in 2007.

Java Mobile was perceived as such an important platform at the time that when Steve Jobs was asked about the newly announced iPhone's ability to run Sun's Java and Adobe's Flash, he confidently said the new iPhone wouldn't run Flash but only committed to "maybe" when addressing Java. The success of native iOS App Store titles eventually erased any allure of Java Mobile, but Apple had a tense year of deflecting attention away from the question of whether the iPhone would ever run the supposed vast array of Java Mobile applets available.

Sun kept the tech media fully immersed in the marketing line that Java Mobile was "the Most Ubiquitous Application Platform for Mobile Devices," and the majority of those journalists reporting on the subject proved themselves fully unable to imagine the potential of that situation ever changing. But it did, and very rapidly.

While Sun attempted to float its own copycat "JPhone" at its summer 2007 JavaOne conference, and then promised to release Java Mobile for iPhone in 2008, the success of Apple's iOS App Store suddenly diverted a critical mass of attention away from the "ubiquitous" Java Mobile and toward Apple's "commercial viable" iOS.



After Apple's iPhone became firmly established with a healthy installed user base capable of running "desktop-class" iOS apps based on a mobile-optimized version of the Mac's OS X Cocoa development frameworks, Google reintroduced a derivative version of Java Mobile running on Linux, branded as Android. Initially, the new phone platform was aimed at hobbyists. But by 2009, it began to gain attention from major manufacturers who had, up to that point, been struggling to get Sun's official Java Mobile to work.

Like Sun's official Java Mobile on Linux, Google's free Android software has facilitated the rapid development of hardware products. But it isn't doing this very successfully, because the majority of Android licensees are losing money on Android hardware (including Google itself) because the products Android helps to "innovate" are not compelling enough to attract premium buyers. This is an important fact to keep in mind for later. But first, consider what Android has actually accomplished over its first five years.

Android a continuation of the Symbian, Java Mobile/Linux status quo



Between 2004 and 2007 when the iPhone first appeared, Symbian powered around 60 percent of smartphones in China and well above 80 percent of smartphones everywhere else apart from North America, where popular sales of Palm and BlackBerry smartphones had kept Symbian in the minority. Combine Symbian with generic Linux (particularly in China where Motorola was selling lots of closed Linux phones), and "open" platforms accounted for 90 percent or more of the world's smartphones quite consistently between 2004 and 2007, everywhere else but in North America.

Smartphone market 2004 to 2007


Android therefore isn't a new thing; it is the continuation of what was once the status quo when the iPhone arrived. It's the world's foreign smartphone makers attempting to make do with a cost effective, communal software platform. However, the difference between 2007 and 2014 is that Apple isn't just taking a significant portion (27 percent) of North American sales anymore.

Today, Apple commands by far the largest share of high end smartphone sales globally, having sold 150 million iPhones in 2013 compared to Samsung's 100 million shipments of premium Galaxy S and Note phones. No other smartphone maker even reports sales numbers of their premium, iPhone-class device sales, and for good reason. They're not selling enough to brag about them. LG's flagship G2 fell far under expectations with quarterly sales of around?2.3M, while Google's flagship Moto X sold just 0.1M phones in its launch quarter, despite being priced far below Apple's top of the line iPhone 5s.

HTC's flagship One lineup and Nokia's high end Lumia phones are similarly not attracting sustainable audiences. Apple is trouncing every phone maker on earth in the valuable and lucrative premium segment of the smartphone market. This is not even controversial.

However, even when you fold in shipments of "basic smartphones" like Samsung's Galaxy Y and generic "white box" shipments (mass market, sub-$200 devices that Apple doesn't even currently sell), the iPhone's global market share as reported by IDC remains above 17 percent worldwide. And in the U.S., Apple's iPhone share is now at around 45 percent and still growing, according to NPD.



Apple's global iPhone sales have achieved a far greater share percentage of the world's smartphone sales than the combined reach that BlackBerry, Microsoft and Palm achieved between 2004-2007, back when nobody was saying that those three platforms were going to lose share to Symbian and or Linux in the way that IDC, Gartner and Strategy Analytics consistently fret about iOS "losing share" to Android in their press releases today.

Conversely, the dominant mobile platform between 2004 and 2007 (which one could arguably identify as either Symbian or Sun's Java Mobile, which ran on Symbian, Linux, BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, Palm and Linux) has contracted from between 90 to almost 100 percent of all smartphone shipments when the iPhone appeared to a figure now at around 78 percent for Android. Remember, that's unit share. Android doesn't have 78 percent of the valuable share in the market; it only has a virtual lock on low end devices that make nearly no money.

There are two reasons for this. First, while Google and its Android partners would love to have a larger cut of the lucrative, premium phone market, they have simply been unable to deliver products that the market desires, with the notable exception of Samsung. And Samsung's success hasn't been due to using Android; it's quite clearly due to using Apple's designs.

There's a black and white difference between Android vendors who follow Google's design cues on one side (Motorola lost over $2.3 billion over the past two years doing this) and between Samsung, which has been successful in smartphones since it engaged in a concerted effort to copy Apple's iPhone 3GS, its marketing, its packaging and its accessories in early 2010.

Google's packaging of a revamped Java Mobile on top of Linux has rebranded the generic platform that existed before it, but it hasn't been able to maintain the same industry dominating market share. And that's true even before Apple has gained full access to vast markets including China and India. In affluent markets where Apple has its products on every major carrier, including the U.S. and Japan, Android's share has taken a severe beating. That's allowing Apple to siphon off a 53 percent share of the industry's profits worldwide, with the remaining profits being taken almost entirely by Samsung.

The reality is that Android isn't taking share from Apple; it's falling to maintain the dominant share position Sun's Java Mobile once held, and it's having to do this via desperate volume plays involving loss leaders or the razor thin margins of low end product categories that Apple isn't even bothering to address. Outside of smartphones, things look even bleaker for Android, as the following segment will address.

The future of Android is bleaker than Symbian, Java/Linux



Android hasn't just failed to restore the dominant monoculture that Symbian and Java Mobile once imposed over smartphones in the model of Microsoft Windows on the desktop. It has also proven unable to advance the combined efforts of worldwide manufacturers to successfully compete against Apple.

Android was once associated with previewing technology features ahead of Apple. For example, Motorola and most other hardware makers shipped 4G LTE handsets well in advance of the first 4G iPhone 5. Android licensees once bested Apple's iPhone cameras, and for the first half of 2010, they delivered high resolution displays that were superior to the iPhone. But those advances weren't because of Android; they were due to the fact that Motorola, Samsung, LG, HTC and other Android licensees had been established mobile manufacturers for many years before Apple launched the iPhone. It's hardly surprising that they would have a long lead in delivering their own technologies first, at least for a few years.

After nearly five years of inhaling the majority of the phone industry's profits (that's right, not just smartphones but all mobile devices), Apple is now in a position that is very difficult to compete against. In 2011 Apple launched Siri, a beta feature that iOS 5 delivered across Apple's entire user base even as Google struggled to get more than a fraction of Android users on a new enough edition of Android to support its own voice search features. In 2012 Apple launched its own Maps to replace Google's, and within a year it had eaten up 80 percent of the valuable traffic Google had been benefitting from as the formerly default purveyor of maps to iOS users.

Last year Apple launched iPhone 5s with a modern 64-bit Application Processor and deeply integrated, secure support for Touch ID fingerprint unlocking and purchase authentication. Google had struggled for years trying to implement its own Google Wallet micro-purchasing system for Android using inferior NFC technology paired to various Android devices that suffered a variety of security and incompatibility issues.

Third parties can recompile Android to run on 64-bit Intel chips, but they can't reengineer the existing installed base of Android into a secure platform. Security isn't a core value for Android. Google's ideological bent toward "openness" precludes real security, forcing vendors like Samsung to tack on cumbersome security diapers like Knox to clean up the embarrassing leaks Google has permitted its hippie star child to roll in because it didn't want to impose too many boundaries.

It's particularly notable that in 2013, the year that certain members of the media began fighting over who could shout "Apple isn't innovating" louder and more incessantly, was the same year that Google completely failed to launch an ambitious new Android 5.0 to counter Apple's own significantly new iOS 7 release. The tech media has been curiously silent about that lack of "innovation."

Instead, Google just quietly bumped its Android platform down a notch to better work on the low end types of hardware that Android is actually shipping on. And while Apple has converted virtually all of its customers globally to iOS 7 within just a few months, Google's installed base is still overwhelmingly stuck on outdated versions of Android with known security flaws.



In 2008, it became broadly apparent to the tech industry that Symbian was an outdated platform based on yesterday's technology and lacking the resources to innovate its way into the future, a gargantuan task that was impossible for even the then still profitable Nokia and the world community of open source developers available to contribute their efforts.

Five years later, it should be apparent that the troubles Symbian suffered are reappearing for Google and its Android platform based on its outdated notion of applets running on a Java-like virtual machine. Google can't roll out even its latest minor updates to more than a couple percentage points of its most active Google Play users in the space of several months. How could it possibly transition its Android installed base to a new, secure and modern mobile platform?

Comparing Android to Windows is actually not flattering



Recall that it took Microsoft half a decade to migrate its Windows 95/DOS users to a more substantial Windows NT OS foundation, and that was between 1995-2002, when Microsoft faced virtually no competition in PC operating systems. Since then, Apple has gone from a minor PC vendor to the world's largest computer maker, providing Microsoft with increasingly fierce competition.

How well has Microsoft fared? In 2006, it began struggling to update its Windows users to Vista, a release that borrowed heavily from ideas in OS X, including the modern graphics composition engine Apple had debuted five years earlier. Microsoft is now struggling to gain traction with Windows 8, which attempts to force the Windows user base to a new environment that works like an inconsistent amalgam of Apple's iPad and the 1990s' Windows desktop. Meanwhile, Apple is releasing progressive new versions of iOS and OS X in tandem every year, and its users are rapidly and enthusiastically adopting each one at a pace that has never occured before in the history of technology.

Google shouldn't entertain any comparisons between the future of Android and the history of Windows. Or for that matter Symbian, or Java Mobile, or Linux, all of which have struggled in the consumer market despite carrying the same "open" battle flag that Android does now. Additionally, while Microsoft successfully taxed the PC industry with Windows licensing fees for the decade during which it effectively had no competition, Google is not collecting such fees nor it is operating without significant competition.

Additionally, it's useful to remember that looking back, it wasn't Symbian or Java Mobile that benefitted during the pre-iPhone days of the smartphone industry. It was the hardware makers who were profiting, principally Nokia, Palm, RIM/BlackBerry and HTC, (which at one point was making 80 percent of Microsoft's Windows Phone devices).

It therefore shouldn't be too hard to understand why Apple is making the most money, by far, in today's mobile market, nor why Apple is lined up to continue making the lion's share of profits in the future. And looking at the history of iPods, it should be obvious that once Apple runs out of easy low hanging fruit among high end smartphones, it will have the upper hand in developing desirable low end devices to attack the remaining volume of the mobile market, just as it did with the iPod mini, iPod nano and iPod shuffle.

Smartphones aren't the only battleground in the mobile market. A look at how the Android platform has fared elsewhere only reinforces the reality that Apple's future in mobile devices, automotive integration, wearables and in the home is going to be impossibly difficult to compete against with an "open" platform that waters down vendors' ability differentiate their products while holding back the pace of innovation to accommodate low end, mass market volume sales in the interest of spreading Google's ad empire. The next segment will expand upon this.
post #2 of 239

I think this article is relevant only for the US market. But Apple does a lot of things better than Google in general.

post #3 of 239
from my experience, high level executives hate software in general, and do their best to try to avoid having to deal with it.

this is crazy, but that's the way it is.

hence this crazy idea of using a third party software (especially welcome, if of course it is "free"), without even looking at the profound implications ...

Shame to these overpaid managers

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply
post #4 of 239
Well written analysis of actual history, vs Android Revisionist History. Long live Symbian... I mean Android...I mean Sun... err, Oracle java.
post #5 of 239
Well written article, but I am sure the analyst will recommand a downgrade of Apple so Apple could buy back more of its own share cheap. The journalists also will tell more lies and IDC will start using the number of screws in order to make android camp to look better in terms of numbers...o...Google stock will double in no time while the judges will continue to pound on Apple's lawyers...
post #6 of 239

I usually like the editorials but this one if off the deep side and not at all balanced.  Android is now an ecosystem like iOS and unlike Symbian, etc.  It and iOS will both have staying power for a long time as consumers are invested in both.    One does not have to fail for other to succeed.  You will likely see share shift back and forth over the coming years.  Apple can grow from 20% of market to 40% over the years but Android won't be going the way of Symbian for a long time - especially since Apple won't take on the low end at all.  I think a larger Apple phone will mean more to consumers than 64 bit.  After that, it will be their ability to make iBeacon and payments relevant so you will really want an Apple phone or be missing out on more things.  

post #7 of 239
Apple should implement fully-functional USB ports (not proprietary crippled ones) on iOS devices, besides a decent fie system showing all files (not hiding them), no more sandboxing between files and specific applications (let and application open and write to any file it can), no more iTunes requirements for basically everything (set it free), and jailbreak it all (no more limitations!) by default.

In other words, iOS should behave as much as possible as Mac (with specific optimizations for a touch interface, of course), because the Mac interface is far superior. I want freedom and full control over the device and OS, not the other way around. Otherwise, it is a deal breaker!
Edited by AppeX - 3/14/14 at 4:22am
post #8 of 239
You say, 'In 2011 Apple launched Siri, a beta feature that iOS 5 delivered across Apple's entire user base'. If only this were true! As the user of an iPhone 4 and iPad 2, alas, I am one of the large number of users at the time who were left behind. This is not a criticism, just an observation. Technology moves on, features are added, older equipment is left in the past. However, with iOS 7.1 running on both my devices, I certainly don't feel forgotten or abandoned. Apple has given me all the advances my older gadgets can handle. That's pretty good, in my opinion.
post #9 of 239

I didn't know the story of Java Mobile, thanks. Just wait until Apple release even smaller, more resource constrained, devices such as a wristwatch.

 

The smaller the device the more Apple will dominate, because, on the hardware side they have years of experience shaving off 1mm extra here and there, and on the software side, they have a single C-based platform. Compared with Java, Flash and all the other nonsense the competition use, they are very efficient. Efficiency enables smaller devices.

post #10 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppeX View Post

Apple should implement fully-functional USB ports (not proprietary crippled ones) on iOS devices, besides a decent fie system showing all files (not hiding them), no more sandboxing between files and specific applications (let and application open and write to any file it can), no more iTunes requirements for basically everything (set it free), and jailbreak it all (no more limitations!) by default.

In other words, iOS should behave as much as possible as Mac (with specific optimizations for a touch interface, of course), because the Mac interface is far superior. I want freedom and full control over the device and OS, not the other way around. Otherwise, it is a deal breaker!


So you accept hidden files on Mac OS X ?

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply
post #11 of 239

To summarize:

 

Apple is winning, really!

post #12 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppeX View Post

Apple should implement fully-functional USB ports (not proprietary crippled ones) on iOS devices, besides a decent fie system showing all files (not hiding them), no more sandboxing between files and specific applications (let and application open and write to any file it can), no more iTunes requirements for basically everything (set it free), and jailbreak it all (no more limitations!) by default.

I think the USB port is missing because of Apple's wireless preference. You can get Bluetooth keyboards and game controllers for example.

 

Regarding files, you can transfer data between apps, you just don't do it by saving a file in one app and loading it in another, you do through the clipboard basically copying and pasting data between apps.

post #13 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

These fiction pieces are even better than the science fiction books you can buy in the iBook Store

 

I think the fiction is in your mind....what specifically is wrong with this write up? 

post #14 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhart376 View Post

I usually like the editorials but this one if off the deep side and not at all balanced.  Android is now an ecosystem like iOS and unlike Symbian, etc.  It and iOS will both have staying power for a long time as consumers are invested in both.    One does not have to fail for other to succeed.  You will likely see share shift back and forth over the coming years.  Apple can grow from 20% of market to 40% over the years but Android won't be going the way of Symbian for a long time - especially since Apple won't take on the low end at all.  I think a larger Apple phone will mean more to consumers than 64 bit.  After that, it will be their ability to make iBeacon and payments relevant so you will really want an Apple phone or be missing out on more things.  

Apparently "wallpapers" are the most popular "apps" for sub $300 handsets which make up the majority of Android.

Something for developers to bear in mind.

Anyhow another great article.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #15 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apparently "wallpapers" are the most popular "apps" for sub $300 handsets which make up the majority of Android.

Something for developers to bear in mind.

Anyhow another great article.


You can compare the top downloads from Google Play and iOS side-by-side over at AppAnnie, even broken down by country, smartphone and tablet.
http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/top/united-states/?device=iphone
Edited by Gatorguy - 3/14/14 at 5:33am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
You can compare the top downloads from Google Play and iOS side-by-side over at AppAnnie, even broken down by country, smartphone and tablet.
http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/top/united-states/?device=iphone

This listed "FaceTime", by Apple, in the Paid column, along with apps like "Final Cut Pro", "Cinemagraph Pro", etc. I am surprised. Isn't FaceTime free?

post #17 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Smartphones aren't the only battleground in the mobile market. A look at how the Android platform has fared elsewhere only reinforces the reality that Apple's future in mobile devices, automotive integration, wearables and in the home is going to be impossibly difficult to compete against with an "open" platform that waters down vendors' ability differentiate their products while holding back the pace of innovation to accommodate low end, mass market volume sales in the interest of spreading Google's ad empire. The next segment will expand upon this.

I highly doubt someone will want to have Google in their home

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #18 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj.yuan View Post

This listed "FaceTime", by Apple, in the Paid column, along with apps like "Final Cut Pro", "Cinemagraph Pro", etc. I am surprised. Isn't FaceTime free?

I see FaceTune but not FaceTime
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #19 of 239
Market share doesn't matter except when it can be used to criticise Android.

And TouchID for some reason is comparable to Google Wallet.

Another barely concealed rant of an editorial that throws everything against the wall to try and make criticism stick. Ironically similar to Android development practice.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #20 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj.yuan View Post

This listed "FaceTime", by Apple, in the Paid column, along with apps like "Final Cut Pro", "Cinemagraph Pro", etc. I am surprised. Isn't FaceTime free?

Did you misread Facetune for FaceTime?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #21 of 239

I think the biggest thing to take out of this article (besides seeing the past systems running smartphones) is that Samsung is hedging their bets on Android by moving forward with Tizen. 

 

Apple and iOS won't be the determining factor on whether Android will continue to be a viable platform, it will be on what Samsung (the only one making money on the Android side) runs their devices. If they leave Android, then Android will die as a full fledged alternative. It may live on the cheap phones, but development for those customers will fizzle away.

post #22 of 239
My first smartphone, back in 2003, was a Sony Ericsson P900i, and I've used nothing but smartphones ever since. Your revisionist history of pre-2007 smartphone market is so full of twisted facts and guesswork that it's laughable.

Not that many will spot this invented history. Very few people cared about smartphones before the iPhones and so are ignorant to what went on before 2007.
post #23 of 239

Every smart guy who tries both Android and iPhone is next upgrade will just be an iPhone! 
here an example that he will notice:
iPhone 5s
Big Feature: You have a feature that no one has "The Hardware and Softaware configuration" that alone cost way more than 1000 $
Processor: you get A7 chip -World's most advanced mobile processor
Camera: you get an iPhone 5 camera "World's most popular camera" with cool features like SloMo and bigger specs
Fingerprint Sensor: World's most advanced Fingerprint Scanner
Design: On of the lightest and thinnest smartphone out there with a gorgeous design of alumunium and for f!!!k sake you even have sapphire diamond in it
Display: one of the most or probably the gorgeous displays out there second after the iPad Air
         -No HD please stop living in the past move your butt back in the present that was cool five years ago when Blu-Ray launced
SD card Slot: don't be selfish
OS: Android 4.4 Kit Kat vs iOS 7 "That is not fair how about Kit Kat vs iOS 7.1 or iOS 8" 

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #24 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
Did you misread Facetune for FaceTime?

I am sorry that I didn't make myself clear. It's the Mac app FaceTime that's Paid.

post #25 of 239
"Security isn't a core value for Android. Google's ideological bent toward "openness" precludes real security, forcing vendors like Samsung to tack on cumbersome security diapers like Knox to clean up the embarrassing leaks Google has permitted its hippie star child to roll in because it didn't want to impose too many boundaries."

1biggrin.gif Dilger is reaching new heights in his vivid imagery and turns of phrase! Now that he's dealt with "Number One", I can hardly wait to read his next installment. Can he write a single sentence that includes "Number Two", Android and Depends?

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #26 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Last year Apple launched iPhone 5s with a modern 64-bit Application Processor and deeply integrated, secure support for Touch ID fingerprint unlocking and purchase authentication. Google had struggled for years trying to implement its own Google Wallet micro-purchasing system for Android using inferior NFC technology paired to various Android devices that suffered a variety of security and incompatibility issues.

DED seems to be venturing further and further away from sanity. I look forward to his doubtless forthcoming comparison of Google Maps and the accelerometer functionality on iOS.

post #27 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

"Security isn't a core value for Android.

I think he was referring to mis-translated (from English to French and back to English 1hmm.gif) comments supposedly made by Google's Android chief, Pinchar. The actual comments were posted the next day but I don't know that he ever acknowledged it. No matter really as it wouldn't have changed the article.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 239

This whole article seems rather silly saying how great Apple, iPhones and iOS is considering Google is said to be the future of the internet and everything else.  Compared to Google and Android, Apple is seen as a failing company.  Apple is definitely considered a doomed company with relatively low shareholder value based on continued loss of iPhone market share to Android.  Almost no one sees Apple as being able to sustain its profits and many claim Apple will be simply put out of business within a few years as all their products are commoditized.  People seem to be overlooking the fact that Google is worth $1200 a share while Apple is struggling to hold $530 a share.  No intelligent investor has any faith in Apple being able to deliver new products and most believe that a high-end iPhone isn't any better than the common Android smartphone.  No matter how many iPhones Apple sells, it's never nearly enough to keep pace with Android smartphone sales and that is seen as a major failing.

 

I honestly don't see how anyone can say that Apple is a better company than Google is when Google has the strongest backing on Wall Street.  Market share remains the most important measure of how well a company is doing and Apple looks pretty sick based on shrinking market share.  Doesn't it make sense that investors put their money on a company that looks like a winner?  Apple certainly does not look like a winner from an investor's point of view.  I have no doubt that Apple is making the most revenue and profits at the moment but nearly everyone claims those days are practically over.  I'm a long-term Apple shareholder but even from my point of view Apple seems like a struggling company with nearly no one backing the company.  It's never been said that Google is a dying company.  Apple holds that title.  Apple definitely doesn't get any respect as a company without Steve Jobs around.  Tim Cook doesn't seem fit to be Apple's CEO.  Apple seems to be throwing away so many opportunities to give itself a solid future despite sitting on a huge mountain of cash.  I've just about given up on Apple as the company looks like it's being run into the ground.

post #29 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj.yuan View Post

I am sorry that I didn't make myself clear. It's the Mac app FaceTime that's Paid.

I think Facetime for the Mac is .99 isn't it?
https://discussions.apple.com/message/20733672#20733672
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 

DED seems to be venturing further and further away from sanity. I look forward to his doubtless forthcoming comparison of Google Maps and the accelerometer functionality on iOS.

Now Apple Maps and Google Maps are almost indentical good but also we have to keep in mind that's 10 yrs vs 2 yrs 

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #31 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

My first smartphone, back in 2003, was a Sony Ericsson P900i, and I've used nothing but smartphones ever since. Your revisionist history of pre-2007 smartphone market is so full of twisted facts and guesswork that it's laughable.

Not that many will spot this invented history. Very few people cared about smartphones before the iPhones and so are ignorant to what went on before 2007.

Symbian phones, like the P900 did dominate, towards the end Nokia alone had 60% of the smartphone market, everything from the budget 6120 through the E and N series.

The N95 was their last successful phone, in terms of money making, the N96, N97 was their death knell as even though they were selling as many phones as ever, the average price went into free fall.

Methinks you have no idea on this subject.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #32 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppeX View Post

Apple should implement fully-functional USB ports (not proprietary crippled ones) on iOS devices, besides a decent fie system showing all files (not hiding them), no more sandboxing between files and specific applications (let and application open and write to any file it can), no more iTunes requirements for basically everything (set it free), and jailbreak it all (no more limitations!) by default.

In other words, iOS should behave as much as possible as Mac (with specific optimizations for a touch interface, of course), because the Mac interface is far superior. I want freedom and full control over the device and OS, not the other way around. Otherwise, it is a deal breaker!

Here is what you fail to understand and this is coming from a techie/engineer who know his way around a computer system and debugs problems without the need of starting form scratch.

 

Apple is not interested in you as customer, they do not care if the geek crowd can play around inside the phone and the file system. You are a small minority of the customers in the world, believe it of not you represent only about 5% of the world population.

 

I know this is hard for geeks to understand, if you want to make money and not give your stuff away, who would you sell and market to, the 5% like you or the 95% who do not care about anything that you outline as deal breakers. I have the benefit of year of working in this industry not understand why what appears to be completely obvious must do's in a product only find out people will not pay for it nor do they care about it.


Edited by Maestro64 - 3/14/14 at 8:58am
post #33 of 239
Originally Posted by AppeX View Post
Apple should implement fully-functional USB ports (not proprietary crippled ones) on iOS devices

 

They do, and always have since the beginning. Problem solved.

 
…besides a decent fie system showing all files (not hiding them)…

 

I bet Mac OS X makes you FURIOUS, huh? And Windows. And all flavors of Linux. Oh, and Android, too.

 
…no more sandboxing between files and specific applications (let and application open and write to any file it can)…

 

So… you want an operating system that is EXACTLY LIKE HOW IT IS TODAY, except the user gets to see dozens of extra files in each application that that application CANNOT OPEN, wasting visual space and serving only to confuse and dishearten the user.

 
…no more iTunes requirements for basically everything…

 

You don’t get it at all.

 
…and jailbreak it all…

 

And you’re completely bonkers.

 
In other words, iOS should behave as much as possible as Mac…

 

So you’ve never used a Mac, then.

Quote:
…because the Mac interface is far superior. 

 

While we’re at it, why don’t we make it so iOS can only be used with a cursor, huh? Plug a mouse into one of those magical “fully featured USB ports” and have at it.

 
Otherwise, it is a deal breaker!  

 

Enjoy never buying any computer running any operating system from any manufacturer.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #34 of 239

Great article, though I don't know why would you even compare iOS to Android? Apple has a completely unique procedure of working. They see the future better than any other company (and this has been proved many times). They design products that are beautiful, easy-to-use and and that sing the ballads of quality. Google on the other hand seized just one great opportunity (the internet search), and well, has been playing the catch-up part ever since on every other front they try to bag.

 

It's like comparing Jaguar E-type to a Lincoln Town Car - one was a British design so immaculate, it instantly became the standard definition of 'beauty', the other, was some car that just happened to be 'made' cheaply for the masses. It doesn't matter if the Lincoln sold 10 times as much, it doesn't even come close to the former.

post #35 of 239

Android is going DOWN!  it is just like Java and it will soon be as unpopular as Windows among us premium buyers.  Nobody has ever made a dime selling Android.  Not even Google.  They will abandon it soon.

post #36 of 239
Interesting article. I too did not know how prominent Sun was in the mobile field.

I cannot wait to see what Tizen does to Google's advertising revenue base. If Google does not diversify its income to be less dependent on Android deployment, its commercial viability and perceived potential for growth will collapse. I'd like to see the figures for where that tipping point is and whether a non-Google-Ad tied Tizen would be enough to reach it.

My concern is that without significant competition from Google, Apple will get complacent. Programming standards at Apple appear to have suffered in the last couple of years (e.g. try writing an App Store review on an iPhone in portrait mode and watch the cursor hide under the keyboard as the review gets longer). Inconsistencies in the interface have crept in. The golden standard of GUI redundancy (more ways to do similar things so the user can develop a personalized use-style) have been eroded. iOS is still head and shoulders better than Android in GUI consistency but I believe competition is essential to get Apple to maintain good human factors.

Apple loses market share to Android with switchers who buy in to the advertising hype tactics from the likes of Samsung. Subsequently, some percentage of switchers get annoyed at difficult to use facilities and come back but the drain is still there. Android marketing is "in your face" and compelling. The notion that if it is necessary to pay so much to advertise your product that there must be something fundamentally wrong with it appears to be hardly considered by the buying public (until the product is tried and rejected (or worse, tried and put up with)). The use of sales kick-backs that effectively buy a biased external sales force also plays into a loss of sales for iOS (not that I would ask Apple to do similar). I wonder if Apple could play to the outrage of the customer who discovers that the sales person is pushing Android over IOS, not because it is a better product or offers a better user experience, but because they're being paid to do so by the device manufacturer.

And, while I'm on a rant (sorry)… where's my 3D GUI already? Closest thing I've seen to real use of 3D in iOS is the "select a page" view in Safari. How about letting me navigate my files by wandering through a desktop landscape? Get the brain to kick in a few cycles and take some strain off the graphics engines - all that MMRPG design expertise must have some cross over.
post #37 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhart376 View Post
 

I usually like the editorials but this one if off the deep side and not at all balanced.  Android is now an ecosystem like iOS and unlike Symbian, etc.  It and iOS will both have staying power for a long time as consumers are invested in both.    One does not have to fail for other to succeed.  You will likely see share shift back and forth over the coming years.  Apple can grow from 20% of market to 40% over the years but Android won't be going the way of Symbian for a long time - especially since Apple won't take on the low end at all.  I think a larger Apple phone will mean more to consumers than 64 bit.  After that, it will be their ability to make iBeacon and payments relevant so you will really want an Apple phone or be missing out on more things.  

 

Android is hardly like iOS in terms of ecosystem. First of all, you need a singular platform in order to build a viable ecosystem around and Android is broken into many different platforms that all have unique hardware features and services. You have the "pure" Android experience in Google's Nexus line. Motorola had some very unique hardware features in their Droid line. And although Samsung seems to act like they're "pure" Android, they have many of their own services and hardware devices that only work within their Galaxy ecosystem. And then there's Amazon, who's Kindle is so far removed from what Android is, it shouldn't even be considered an Android device (they forked Android years ago to create their FireOS). The fact is, Android is more of an OS for building platforms than platform itself, which is actually a good thing. Unfortunately, all Android-based devices are grouped together whether they're compatible with each other or not. It's misleading from a development point-of-view where you might want to target the largest section of a market to get more "bang for your buck" so to speak.

 

Apple's iOS ecosystem is built around hardware, software/OS, and services and their ability to control, maintain, and advance them. They have the largest compatible installed base that developers of software, hardware peripherals, services, and makers of accessories can target. Not only that they have the largest pool of users who have money and are willing spend it. Combine all these things together and you end up with a thriving, sustainable ecosystem - regardless of marketshare numbers.

 

 

As far as Android going away... Android currently enjoys brand recognition, so of course OEMs are going to flock to it. But they can change their course just as quickly as they did with Symbian; all that needs to happen is a viable alternative is released on the market and gains some notoriety. Android struggled for its first year, because promises were made by both Nokia and Microsoft that they will soon have an OS that could compete with the iPhone. After waiting too long for this to happen, all the OEMs switched to Android and it only took a year. Furthermore, a vast majority of people who use an Android device, don't even give a crap that it's Android - they were only interested in the price of the device.

 

Android's biggest problem is of course Samsung, who over the course of the last 3 or 4 years have done everything to emulate Apple's business model. What google needs to worry about is that Samsung goes the next step and switched its flagship line to their own OS - Tizen. Over time, that could trickle down to cheaper and cheaper phones severely cutting into Android's marketshare.


Edited by mjtomlin - 3/14/14 at 9:42am
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #38 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post
 

This whole article seems rather silly saying how great Apple, iPhones and iOS is considering Google is said to be the future of the internet and everything else.  Compared to Google and Android, Apple is seen as a failing company.  Apple is definitely considered a doomed company with relatively low shareholder value based on continued loss of iPhone market share to Android.  Almost no one sees Apple as being able to sustain its profits and many claim Apple will be simply put out of business within a few years as all their products are commoditized.  People seem to be overlooking the fact that Google is worth $1200 a share while Apple is struggling to hold $530 a share.  No intelligent investor has any faith in Apple being able to deliver new products and most believe that a high-end iPhone isn't any better than the common Android smartphone.  No matter how many iPhones Apple sells, it's never nearly enough to keep pace with Android smartphone sales and that is seen as a major failing.

 

I honestly don't see how anyone can say that Apple is a better company than Google is when Google has the strongest backing on Wall Street.  Market share remains the most important measure of how well a company is doing and Apple looks pretty sick based on shrinking market share.  Doesn't it make sense that investors put their money on a company that looks like a winner?  Apple certainly does not look like a winner from an investor's point of view.  I have no doubt that Apple is making the most revenue and profits at the moment but nearly everyone claims those days are practically over.  I'm a long-term Apple shareholder but even from my point of view Apple seems like a struggling company with nearly no one backing the company.  It's never been said that Google is a dying company.  Apple holds that title.  Apple definitely doesn't get any respect as a company without Steve Jobs around.  Tim Cook doesn't seem fit to be Apple's CEO.  Apple seems to be throwing away so many opportunities to give itself a solid future despite sitting on a huge mountain of cash.  I've just about given up on Apple as the company looks like it's being run into the ground.

You confuse me.  You go on and on with all these negatives about AAPL, but then you call yourself a "long-term Apple shareholder".  If you really believe all the negative things you wrote, then you need to sell your AAPL immediately (and presumably buy GOOG with the proceeds).  But if, through your own free will, you decide to hold your AAPL, then you need to provide some balance in your posts and share with us the reasons WHY you choose to hold AAPL, despite your overwhelmingly negative assessment. 

 

Which is it?  Show us some coherence.

post #39 of 239
Originally Posted by victorson 
tl;dr version: Android arr1!!1 bad Google malware viruses arrrr!!1 no profit suckers arrrrrg!!!13 Apple rulez I fanboy woop woop!

 

I see Samsung has kept up its “Free paint chips with every purchase” campaign.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #40 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember View Post
 

Now Apple Maps and Google Maps are almost indentical good but also we have to keep in mind that's 10 yrs vs 2 yrs 

I think you misunderstood me slightly - I was parodying his comparison of Google Wallet's NFC efforts (which is a way to pay for items in a shop via a NFC reader device linked to your credit details on the phone) with Apple's Touch ID purchases (which is a way to pay for items in the Apple Store using fingerprint instead of password). The two things aren't remotely similar - to compare them is like comparing Maps (which is an application using GPS and wi-fi to triangulate your location and show mapping data) with the accelerometer (which is a hardware device that detects movement of the phone). 

 

If he wanted to compare Google Play purchasing with App Store purchasing, that'd be fine - I think the ability to use Touch ID is a pretty nifty feature and it's something Google Play lacks. But Apple doesn't have any services like Google Wallet's NFC - the closest thing is probably Passbook, but even so that's not quite the same thing. It's not a comparison that's valid or helpful.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › How Android lost global open market share to Apple's integrated iOS