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 - Page 2

post #41 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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. 
 

I've never before seen improved memory-efficiency spun as a minus.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 3/14/14 at 7:50am
post #42 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Market share remains the most important measure of how well a company is doing...

BWHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhaha *breathe* HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAhaha *cough* ha *cough**cough* hahahaha

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #43 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.

Translation:

Apple is doomed - for proof, look at their share price.

By the way, I'm stupid enough to buy and hold some.
post #44 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


BWHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhaha *breathe* HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAhaha *cough* ha *cough**cough* hahahaha

Agreed.

 

Either Constable Odo is a next level troll, or he has absolutely no knowledge of how a business works, in which case I suggest he sell his dirty, low-yield stock immediately, before AAPL drops even further.

post #45 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post
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.

For Real? 

post #46 of 239

Is it just me or this page is moving slowly i feel lag in it when i scroll maybe because of those android users who posted comments here 

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #47 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember View Post

Is it just me or this page is moving slowly i feel lag in it when i scroll maybe because of those android users who posted comments here 

The experience I get from this forum makes me think the whole site is being run on Android.
Android seems to be an illiterate product, as they only have numbers to show for.
Reply
Android seems to be an illiterate product, as they only have numbers to show for.
Reply
post #48 of 239

Someone on here has a signature "The only thing more insecure than Android is its users". This whole editorial smacks of insecurity :-)

post #49 of 239
"Google's ideological bent toward "openness" precludes real security"

While most of the article is dead on, the quote above is utter garbage.
Security and openness are not only not contradictions, openness is a prerequisite for security, because without peer reviewed code there is no security, there's just obscurity and blind trust.
However, openness cannot make up for bad design, lack of care and priorities other than security (such as spying on users to better target ads).
So, no problem criticizing Android, but don't make up ridiculous and blatantly wrong claims while doing so; anyone in computer security is laughing at you for a phrase like the one quoted above...
post #50 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


The experience I get from this forum makes me think the whole site is being run on Android.

Dude was joke, maybe i don't know i can't tell i'm using Windows right now to me everything lags 

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #51 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

The experience I get from this forum makes me think the whole site is being run on Android.
Dude was joke, maybe i don't know i can't tell i'm using Windows right now to me everything lags 

I know, and now I'm having yet another laugh.
Android seems to be an illiterate product, as they only have numbers to show for.
Reply
Android seems to be an illiterate product, as they only have numbers to show for.
Reply
post #52 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post
 

 

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, but 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.

To your point, and this what most people who praise android for. You look at all the hardware accessory for IOS devices, they have all direct lightning or the 30 pin connectors on them so you can plug in use and charge the device, these same accessories also have a Aux or line in on them so you can also use android or other device which a mini phono jack on them. Notice now of those devices have a mini USB, why, simple every manufacture puts their Mini USB part in various location on the android device. Even with in the same manufacturer they do not put their ports in the same place so it does not allow for standardization and reduced development costs.

 

The other side of the issue here is the fact the investment world rather not see standards, since if you had a standard then you not replacing your accessories all the time as people in the Android world has to do. Android generate more turn over in products thus making more money for companies. In Apple world things get handed down or reused over and over again so apple make all the money because people stay with them.

post #53 of 239

How can this article be true. Android has NFC. 

post #54 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 

They didn't start from scratch. They had previously made the app from Google's data, and now they're using someone else's.
"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 #55 of 239
Nice article. Lots of research went into this, obviously.

It's not sensationalistic, however, so major news outlets won't pick it up. This article is a wet blanket tossed on the "Android is taking over" marketshare fire that continues to be the dominant story in the media.
post #56 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAS99 View Post

Nice article. Lots of research went into this, obviously.

It's not sensationalistic, however, so major news outlets won't pick it up. This article is a wet blanket tossed on the "Android is taking over" marketshare fire that continues to be the dominant story in the media.

You forgot the /s

post #57 of 239
There's room for both, because iOS is aimed at being new and better: tossing out assumptions to make an easier-to-use, more productive platform than traditional PCs. But Android is aimed at being more like traditional PCs: hackable, moddable, yes--all good things for some--but also harder to use, more complex, easier to attack, and harder to develop for profitably.

Each has different pluses and minuses. Moddability will always have appeal, and a free OS given away to handset makers will too.

So each will have a long life. What shape Android's will take is an interesting mysetery!
post #58 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


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.

 

The N96 definitely made money for Nokia. It was a relatively small spin on the N95/N95 8GB and sold for a high price. When the N96 was released, Nokia was still selling 100 million smartphones per quarter. 

 

The N97 was the death knell though. It was bulky, slow and uncompetitive. I was actually the external beta test for it.

 

I have no idea about the subject? I think you have no idea about whether I have an idea about the subject. ;)

 

But that's not even what I'm disputing. I'm disputing DED's knowledge of what happened before the iPhone was released.

post #59 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, THE LACKAY OF VILLAIN SHUT UP !!!!!!
We, Those who Are Engaged in The Market Business, All Know that AAPL is UNFAIRLY MANIPULATED by VILLAIN in Wall Street !
AAPL Should Have Hit $1,000 by The End of 2012 and May Have Hit $1,500 to $2,000 by The End of 2013 FOR SURE.
On The Contrary, Google's over $1,000 Value is ReaLly LAUGHABLE and JOKE Completely FABRICATED and SUPPORTED by VILLAIN's MANEUVERING Stock Manipulation !!!
Now The Stock BUY & SELL Tradings Are Made by Computer Robot.
Those Processings Are DEFINITELY INVISIBLE ! And ANYTHING GOES.

Do You REMEMBER " Flash Crash in Wall Street in 2010 " ?

During 5 Minutes from At 2:42 pm to at 2:47 pm On May 6, 2010, US stock markets As A Whole Experienced Unprecedented Sudden Decline Plummetting NEARLY HIT THE BOTTOM, One Company's Stock Price with over $100 Declined to " 5 PENCE " LITERARY !

Though Almost of All Declined Stocks Bounced Back to What They Were Before During THAT 5 Minutes, It Was OBVIOUS that SOMETHIN VERY FISHY THING Underwent in The BackYard.
Though The SEC and CFTC Joint Report on The Incident Issued Later Mainly Accused The Sentiment of The Market on The Day Being Pessimistic About Greek Financial Crisis in Europe, There is No Knowing WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON.

A Number of Critics on Market Argued and Challenged The Report that Blaming A Single Order (from Waddell & Reed) for Triggering the Event was Disingenuous.
YES, It's DISINGENUOUS !!!

They're Pretending To Be NAÏVE !
And Tried to Hide SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT.

The Fact that " MARKET IS EASILY MANIPULATED " !

1mad.gif




post #60 of 239
I've always found it silly that Android is even compared to Apple. Apple is a single company that shares its profits with - itself and its shareholders. There is no such thing as "Android, Inc." that shares its profits with all makers of Android based products and their corresponding corporate shareholders. The only fair value comparisons are company-vs-company and product-vs-product and there are so few companies using Android technology that are even in the same ballpark as Apple as a company and iPhone as a product. Putting "Android" out there as if it's a single value generating entity is utter nonsense, unless of course all those companies using Android technology merge and start redistributing their profits in a unified battle against Apple.

I have nothing against Android technology at all, but comparing Apple as a company head to head with "Android" as a technology is meaningless at so many levels. It's like comparing the "market share" of gold (Apple) to the market share of dirt (Android). Yeah, there's a hell of a lot more dirt out there than there is gold, but which one is the better value in terms of profitability and wealth for its investors? I'd rather have one gold nugget than a mountain of dirt, but that's just me. Farmers and Android technology consumers may feel differently and that's fine with me.
post #61 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMe View Post

I've always found it silly that Android is even compared to Apple. Apple is a single company that shares its profits with - itself and its shareholders. There is no such thing as "Android, Inc." that shares its profits with all makers of Android based products and their corresponding corporate shareholders. The only fair value comparisons are company-vs-company and product-vs-product and there are so few companies using Android technology that are even in the same ballpark as Apple as a company and iPhone as a product. Putting "Android" out there as if it's a single value generating entity is utter nonsense, unless of course all those companies using Android technology merge and start redistributing their profits in a unified battle against Apple.

I have nothing against Android technology at all, but comparing Apple as a company head to head with "Android" as a technology is meaningless at so many levels. It's like comparing the "market share" of gold (Apple) to the market share of dirt (Android). Yeah, there's a hell of a lot more dirt out there than there is gold, but which one is the better value in terms of profitability and wealth for its investors? I'd rather have one gold nugget than a mountain of dirt, but that's just me. Farmers and Android technology consumers may feel differently and that's fine with me.

It's weird enough that we get iPhone (a complete device) compared to Android (a free mobile OS), but it gets really bizarre when it's Apple (an entire company) to Android.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #62 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

However, Android as a platform is not winning in any way that matters commercially.

Someway this can be considered true, since most of profits in smartphone market go to Apple.

But while Apple gives iOs for free in order to make profits from hardware, Google gives Android for free and hardware on par (Nexus) or let other sell hardware (Samsung and others) in order to sell its services (search with ads, map with ads, youtube with ads, ...). In this context, even if not directly a commercial success, Android is a huge success for Google: deeply embedded services and search bar in the home screen of roughly one billion devices, without paying anything to hardware manufacturers.
post #63 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradipao View Post

Someway this can be considered true, since most of profits in smartphone market go to Apple.

But while Apple gives iOs for free in order to make profits from hardware, Google gives Android for free and hardware on par (Nexus) or let other sell hardware (Samsung and others) in order to sell its services (search with ads, map with ads, youtube with ads, ...). In this context, even if not directly a commercial success, Android is a huge success for Google: deeply embedded services and search bar in the home screen of roughly one billion devices, without paying anything to hardware manufacturers.

Is Android more profitable for Google than iOS is for Google? I seem to recall numerous reports that Google gets more ad revenue from iOS users than from Android users, and that's in total, not on a device average.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #64 of 239

There are two important differences between today and seven years ago:

- ecosystems

- widespread of smartphones among costumers.

 

“History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” (Mark Twain)

post #65 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradipao View Post


Someway this can be considered true, since most of profits in smartphone market go to Apple.

But while Apple gives iOs for free in order to make profits from hardware, Google gives Android for free and hardware on par (Nexus) or let other sell hardware (Samsung and others) in order to sell its services (search with ads, map with ads, youtube with ads, ...). In this context, even if not directly a commercial success, Android is a huge success for Google: deeply embedded services and search bar in the home screen of roughly one billion devices, without paying anything to hardware manufacturers.

I wouldn't say IOS is free, the cost of IOS is baked into the cost of the iPhone. Android on the other hand has a distinct line between OS vendor and handset vendor and while Android AOSP is free, handset vendors do need to pay for Google services (GMS) like gmail, maps, play store etc.

post #66 of 239
Yes lack of innovation from others gets no press and anal-ists still bump Google's stock up even more even though they are losing money left and right on Android. They don't have an answer to a 64bit operating system, don't have a native operating system for any Android tablets, have 99% malware,spyware, DNS attacks on Android. Lot's of things wrong and yet Apple's stock goes down. There is absolutely no sense to why all the anal-ists keep pushing innovation on Apple yet not on any other company. Apple has products in the works but you can't just wave a magic wand instantly and make it appear.
post #67 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Is Android more profitable for Google than iOS is for Google? I seem to recall numerous reports that Google gets more ad revenue from iOS users than from Android users, and that's in total, not on a device average.

I remember those reports, and I did a quick search, but all the results were from 2012. Surprised it hasn't been revisited since. I'm curious to know what it is now.
"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 #68 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

DED if you put on some ruby slippers and click your heels together, maybe your dreams will come true.

For some constructive criticism, I would recommend cutting down on the disparaging comments toward Google/Android.  You could have made an interesting article about the parallels between early Java Mobile platforms and Android, but your inability to control your fury towards Google turned this into a hit piece that no unbiased reader will take seriously.  You won't convert anyone to your religion using malice or zealotry.

The clicking of the heels took Dorothy home.
"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 #69 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I remember those reports, and I did a quick search, but all the results were from 2012. Surprised it hasn't been revisited since. I'm curious to know what it is now.

Per device I'm sure Apple still wins by a wide margin but overall it could go either way. I base this on most Android-based devices simply not being used as smartphones or tablets, but rather just being used as dummy devices with a free OS.

If we only count devices that access Google Play I'm sure Apple still wins but the margin is much lower, and if we only count high-end devices like the Galaxy S3/S4Note/etc. then I'd say they would be on par for ad revenue, and likely push those devices above iDevice profit when you consider the licensing for services from the OEMs.

But I digress, and think Apple is still likely higher overall because Android's growth, according to Asymco, has plateaued.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #70 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post
 

I've just about given up on Apple as the company looks like it's being run into the ground.

 

Oh poor Hachi, please stop.  Please, please, please.  Let it go.  STOP returning to the train station, I just can't take it!

post #71 of 239
gwydion: "These fiction pieces are even better than the science fiction books you can buy in the iBook Store"

Yes, to anyone still living in the pre-iPhone era (like you) these facts do seem like "science fiction".

Who would have predicted in 2006 that Apple would produce a mobile phone, and one as technologically advanced as the iPhone (while all other mobile phones were still using ancient designs with physical keyboards like the then most popular Blackberry, or ancient operating systems that didn't offer much more than email, and other office-related apps)?

Who would have predicted that Apple's iPhone would have gone from close to 0% share in its first year of sales, to selling hundreds of millions of phones and being the best selling high-end smartphone in the world, only 7 years later?

Who would have predicted that Apple's worldwide mobile phone (ALL mobile phones including smartphones AND feature phones) profit-share would be 53%???

Looking at all of these facts, from your position in the past, it certainly does seem like "science fiction". ;-))
post #72 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

There's room for both, because iOS is aimed at being new and better: tossing out assumptions to make an easier-to-use, more productive platform than traditional PCs. But Android is aimed at being more like traditional PCs: hackable, moddable, yes--all good things for some--but also harder to use, more complex, easier to attack, and harder to develop for profitably.

Each has different pluses and minuses. Moddability will always have appeal, and a free OS given away to handset makers will too.

So each will have a long life. What shape Android's will take is an interesting mysetery!

 

I agree with you that both platforms serve/target a particular and different audience.

 

However, while Apple has long survived as a minority platform by catering to specific market segments and niches (education, graphic design, etc.), Android isn’t well suited to serving a valuable minority of the market.

 

Android, like Windows, requires majority market share to remain relevant. As soon as it loses a broad swath of the market, its business model of funneling vast amounts of data to Google begins to collapse, just as Microsoft’s Windows empire has started to collapse due to a relatively small loss of the overall market share (Apple is at what, 20% at most in PCs?) that has undermined the Windows model of "cheap stuff the affluent will also pay for if there are no other options."

 

You can’t have a People’s Car that everyone uses if there’s somebody selling proprietary, high end cars that attract buyers with money. It’s the old "socialism fails when the people who have money engage in capitalism" problem.

 

Android would have worked out about as well (better, as it is an improvement) as Java Mobile did, if the iPhone had never existed. Unfortunately, not only does the iPhone exist, but it’s grabbing the majority of valuable market share and banking that war chest for future expansion.

post #73 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


The clicking of the heels took Dorothy home.

 

Yes I know, but she got there by wishing.

post #74 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post
 

DED if you put on some ruby slippers and click your heels together, maybe your dreams will come true.

 

For some constructive criticism, I would recommend cutting down on the disparaging comments toward Google/Android.  You could have made an interesting article about the parallels between early Java Mobile platforms and Android, but your inability to control your fury towards Google turned this into a hit piece that no unbiased reader will take seriously.  You won't convert anyone to your religion using malice or zealotry.

 

If you read RoughlyDrafted articles from 2004-2010, you’ll find the same sort of caustic contempt from readers just like you who complained the exact same things about Microsoft, and how it wasn’t going to do anything but continue the 1990s into forever. They ended up all being wrong, too.


Edited by Corrections - 3/14/14 at 2:03pm
post #75 of 239

DED,

 

The following is probably going to sound more curt than I intended (my back hurts and I am trying to supplement the NSAIDs with alcohol in the pub post work) , I apologise in advance.

 

Quote: From DED
~~Windows Mobile, a platform that offered Samsung little room for differentiation. Android hasn't captured the same share as Symbian once had world wide

 

This makes absolutely no sense at all. OEMs could do pretty much whatever they wanted (with regard to form factor, hardware specs and software), hence HTC baked in Sense and before that, introduced both the finger based scrolling TrueFlo and motion based VueFlo back in early 2007. Indeed HTC were so annoyed at people porting their "innovations" to other handsets that they resorted to Cease & Desist noticed for sites offering custom ROMs containing their IP (this should be considered in a historical context, one where MS didn't care a jot if owners were flashing with newer versions of WM).  

 

I get that you hate MS, fair enough, that is your choice, but please do not distort the truth to fit your agenda.

 

Frankly after reading the above quote I decided to stop. It may well be an awfully well written article but I for one am unlikely to find out.

post #76 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.  

Lots of things are said, but they're not always true. The iPod and the iPhones were both said to be failures when they came out, because they were too expensive. The iPad was said to be a failure because it was just a big iPod Touch, and also probably too expensive. As I'm sure you know, they didn't end up being the failures that many people perceived them to be. It was also said that Apple couldn't compete in the phone business with companies like Motorola and Nokia that had been doing it for years.

 

Quote:

 Compared to Google and Android, Apple is seen as a failing company.

Funny, considering the fact that Apple is more profitable than Google, and Android doesn't actually make any money at all for Google. Last I heard, Google was making more money from iOS users than Android users, but I'm not sure if that has changed.

 

Quote:

 Apple is definitely considered a doomed company with relatively low shareholder value based on continued loss of iPhone market share to Android.

Yes, the price/earnings ratio is low compared to its peers, and that is largely attributable to the fact that many investors are worried about competition from Android devices, but it doesn't look like they're really losing important market share with the customers that they care about. 

 

You could break down the global phone market into sub-markets, and Apple only wants to dominate the higher tiers where there's money to be made. They could crank out junk to gain market share but potentially lose money and lose some of their desirability with the more lucrative customer base, but that's not in their best interest. In richer markets like the U.S., they are gaining market share, but there are probably a lot of people in poorer countries who are getting their first bare-bones smart-ish phone, and it's running Android. That's skewing the market-share numbers, but these sales aren't really hurting Apple. Those customers aren't going to be spending a lot of money on apps, so it's not like the developers are going to abandon iOS. As countries like China get richer, more and more people are going to be able to afford premium phones, which is the segment that Apple dominates. The important thing for Apple is that it continues to sell more and more phones, while maintaining good margins on the devices. 

 

Quote:

 People seem to be overlooking the fact that Google is worth $1200 a share while Apple is struggling to hold $530 a share.

You know that share price by itself is a meaningless indicator, right? Google could announce a 1-10 stock split today, and it would trade at $120/share (or $117, given the actual current price), but that wouldn't make it a less valuable company. Market cap and (ex-cash) p/e ratio are better indicators of what people think the company is worth. Still, I agree that the share price is unreasonably low considering how profitable they are.

 

Quote:

 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.

I can't see an intelligent person believing either of these things. Apple has a great track record of delivering new products, and they have explicitly said that they have some currently in the pipeline. You can argue that the best Android phones compete with the newest iPhones, depending on what you're looking for, but the average Android phone is cheap hardware running software from a few years ago.

 

Quote:

 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?

Yes, Google stock is 75% institutionally owned, versus 65% for Apple. But the reason it's possible to make money by investing in stock is that investors are often wrong about things. The trick is being right when the others are wrong, but it only works if the others eventually realize that they were wrong, because the facts become too plain to ignore. Five years ago, Apple stock was trading at $85/share, because investors weren't confident that the company would continue to grow and the share price would go higher in the foreseeable future. Between Summer 2011 and Summer 2012, Netflix stock, which is 89% institutionally owned, dropped from $295 to $54. Less than 2 years later, it's trading at $428. So was Wall Street right the whole time, that it was a winner, I mean a loser, I mean a winner? No. Perception changed, based on people's best guesses. I'm sure that everyone who sold on the way down to $54 now wishes that they hadn't.

 

And no, market share is not the most important indicator of how well a company is doing. Profit is, and in that respect Apple is blowing away everyone. You can have great market share but not make any money, and that's often relatively easy, but you will go out of business. The main purpose of companies is to make money, not to get as many units out the door as you can, whatever the cost.

 

Quote:

 Apple definitely doesn't get any respect as a company without Steve Jobs around.

That's true, but it was also mostly true when he was around, too, if you're talking about Apple's stock price compared to that of its peers. As I and others have noted, most of the products were initially considered failures by the media and analysts, and it wasn't until the sales figures came out that they had to eat their words.


Edited by Retrogusto - 3/14/14 at 11:44am
post #77 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

I agree with you that both platforms serve/target a particular and different audience.

However, while Apple has long survived as a minority platform by catering to specific market segments and niches (education, graphic design, etc.), Android isn’t well suited to serving a valuable minority of the market.

Android, like Windows, requires majority market share to remain relevant. As soon as it loses a broad swath of the market, its business model of funneling vast amounts of data to Google begins to collapse, just as Microsoft’s Windows empire has started to collapse due to a relatively small loss of the overall market share (Apple is at what, 20% at most in PCs?) that has undermined the Windows model of "cheap stuff the affluent will also pay for if there are no other options."

You can’t have a People’s Car that everyone uses if there’s somebody selling proprietary, high end cars that attract buyers with money. It’s the old "socialism fails when the people who have money engage in capitalism" problem.

Android would have worked out about as well (better, as it is an improvement) as Java Mobile did, if the iPhone had never existed. Unfortunately, not only does the iPhone exist, but it’s grabbing the majority of valuable market share and banking that war chest for future expansion.

Except that you're ignoring the fact that Google mines a ton of data from iOS users. Even if a user switches to a iPhone from a Android one they're going to download every Google app there is and except for Google's cut of apps that user will still be a source of revenue.
"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 #78 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


The clicking of the heels took Dorothy home.

 

There is an alternative theory, namely that she had been hit on the head by a window frame during a tornado, knocked unconscious and just happened to be having an elaborate dream about characters that just happened to look like members of her extended family.

 

I shall let you decide which version you would rather believe but if you, or anyone else is interested I am happy to post you magic beans in return for a cow or bitcoins (depending on which is worth more at the time of transaction).  ;-)  

post #79 of 239
This article was mostly inane drivel.

There's a lot of flawed logic, and a lot of things that don't quite add up. I'm no Fandroid by any account, but this is a bona fide Apple circle jerk.

The concept behind Android and iOS is fundamentally different. Google released Android into the wild not to make money off of it, but to provide an alternate mobile platform. Of course, they have made money from it, but there's no comparative "Google phone" like an iPhone (Nexus devices are close). For this reason alone, trying to compare the two is a futile effort at best.

I'm always amazed people like the author of this article can find work writing when they miss essential concepts like this.
post #80 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

To your point, and this what most people who praise android for. You look at all the hardware accessory for IOS devices, they have all direct lightning or the 30 pin connectors on them so you can plug in use and charge the device, these same accessories also have a Aux or line in on them so you can also use android or other device which a mini phono jack on them. Notice now of those devices have a mini USB, why, simple every manufacture puts their Mini USB part in various location on the android device. Even with in the same manufacturer they do not put their ports in the same place so it does not allow for standardization and reduced development costs.

 

The other side of the issue here is the fact the investment world rather not see standards, since if you had a standard then you not replacing your accessories all the time as people in the Android world has to do. Android generate more turn over in products thus making more money for companies. In Apple world things get handed down or reused over and over again so apple make all the money because people stay with them.

 

Have you seen a Note 3 cable?

 

This is what you get when you try and duplicate the functionality of Apple's cables:-

 

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
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