In just over two years on the market, Apple has 11% of the smartphone market and in 2 1/2 years it will only have another 2%; heck, the way that juggernaut is going, it will crack 13% next quarter
Still, Apple does have to shorten its product cycle, like release new models every 6 months, but other than that, I expect to see 100 million sold by the end of 2010 with at least 10 million tablets out the door as well. It'll be pitiful for the competition to scuffle over the remaining 30% market that APple will never own-- Like the 30% non-iPod MP3 player market--APple has the deep pockets for research on battery technology, on chips and a patent portfolio to match
I think most posts are missing the point. The article is not about Android v. iPhone. The analysis is about Android gaining at the expense RIM and Nokia. While the prediction of exact share could be obviously wrong, I think the directionality of the analysis is spot on.
Moreover, even if it only maintains share, the iPhone will continue to grow quite well since the segment itself is the fastest-growing. Additionally, the issue will not be just quantity sold and revenue, but the profits generated per-unit sold.
I highly doubt the iPhone will be as dominant as the iPod range - especially not with one model.
There are 3 models of iPhone currently on the market, with different processors, amounts of memory, etc.
It is a mistake, I think, to continue to think that smartphone manufacturers need to differentiate their models by making them vary in appearance and basic functionality. This is the old model that the iPhone has upset. The main thing that differentiates the iPhone from other phones is the software and the physical appearance doesn't need to change from model to model. Shopping for smartphones will become more and more like shopping for computers, where one looks at the OS, processor speed, memory, etc. as they become more and more powerful, and less like shopping for phones has been in the past.
However, it's exactly this old model that Android phone manufacturers are following and which will cause confusion in the marketplace and problems in the software development community, Windows Mobile providing a prime example of this.
Still, Apple does have to shorten its product cycle, like release new models every 6 months, but other than that, I expect to see 100 million sold by the end of 2010 .......
Apple absolutely should not do that. It is simply a waste of investment and R&D dollars, lousy for the environment, confusing to customers, and most important, margin-reducing to shorten the product cycle any more than it is now.
Other than for a handful of geeks on boards like these, that is simply too rapid a cycle.
Who cares about whether Apple sells 100 million or 50 million. The key is what they will generate as cash flows from it, relative to competitors.
I gotta say this is a tough one to call, theoretically android biz model should 'win' out in terms of units sold. If this situation were to arise then it's my guess that apple retains the most profitable segment of the market much as they do now. Android is the new PC in my opinion, and will suffer from much the same problems.
However, it all depends on the moves made by Apple, if Apple play their cards right (which they seem to have a habit of doing), they should be able to hold on to the lead (units sold) for some considerable time.
I think most posts are missing the point. The article is not about Android v. iPhone. The analysis is about Android gaining at the expense RIM and Nokia. While the prediction of exact share could be obviously wrong, I think the directionality of the analysis is spot on.
Sorry, but I think YOU are missing the point. Gartner made headlines with the prediction that Android will surpass iPhone OS, and the numbers are really, really strange. How he got the magic sales numbers 71.51 for Apple and 75.69 for Android? It's clear that this kind of precision for a relatively long-term prediction is meaningless, but it's the Android will surpass iPhone OS statement that makes the headlines. So, we are not missing the point.
There are 3 models of iPhone currently on the market, with different processors, amounts of memory, etc.
Not true- there are 2 and one is over a year old. The original is off the market. One is available with 2 different hard drive capacities- both are a 3GS.
Sorry, but I think YOU are missing the point. Gartner made headlines with the prediction that Android will surpass iPhone OS, and the numbers are really, really strange. How he got the magic sales numbers 71.51 for Apple and 75.69 for Android? It's clear that this kind of precision for a relatively long-term prediction is meaningless, but it's the Android will surpass iPhone OS statement that makes the headlines. So, we are not missing the point.
Ah, the headline, not the content.
Now I understand why we live in a soundbite world.
Wouldn't cars work much better and be of higher quality if buyers were allowed to pick their own parts?
Battery by this company; doors by that one; engine by another.
It's cool that Android runs on myriad hardware platforms. That's much better than a piece of software designed to work on spec hardware, like the iPhone.
If you look at Windows PCs, for example, their quality is impeccable because there are so many different hardware configurations, and the Windows OS is adept at recognizing these difference pieces, installing the correct driver, and making things silky smooth from the get-go.
That's why I look forward to these Android phones. They will be solid pieces of equipment due to their nebulous design and ability to run on any and all hardware platforms.
Not true- there are 2 and one is over a year old. The original is off the market. One is available with 2 different hard drive capacities- both are a 3GS.
Oh, TS...
8GB 3G
16GB 3GS
32GB 3GS
None of these has a "hard drive". 1 is differentiated from 2 & 3 by processor and other features, including memory. 2 & 3 are differentiated by memory alone. Three distinct models, three distinct prices. The fact that 2 & 3 share the 3GS moniker doesn't make them the same model. The 3G and 3GS labels are family names, much like iMac and Mac Pro, not model names.
Edit: You might have an argument if 2 could be "field upgraded" to 3 by adding memory, but it can't be.
Now I understand why we live in a soundbite world.
Couldn't agree with you more. The concept is really simple. Other handset manufacturers cannot use iPhone OS, so they will use the best available and it looks like Android is expected to fill that role at the expense of Symbian and Windows Mobile. Device manufacturers are expected to flood the market with android phones available on virtually all carriers (CDMA and GSM) and at many different price points including $0 with a contract. Whether or not Android succeeds is almost solely based on its relative strength against the other available phone operating systems (in the eyes of both consumers and device manufacturers). Including the iPhone in the headline simply ensures that the article will get a ton of readers.
Of course the numbers could be wrong (and probably are), but the concept is correct. Also, the iPhone achieving iPod like success would be terrible for us all, we need competition to keep things moving forward.
Wrong- look to the RAZR which shows why relying on one phone will eventually do you in. The cell phone market is a highly fickle market. 3 years into the market and the fact is Apple has only 1 cellphone available and to the general public, it's getting stale. Where is the Nano version?
Also, this will be played out much differently than the PC game of the 1980's because here you have a very important deciding factor - AT&T which is getting slammed almost daily now. Funny how no posts are factoring in AT&T's badwill.
I agree that having only one model is not a great idea in the long run. The iPhone is still a novelty but this will wear off and people will want different models, even if only cosmetically. I really think Apple can own this market if they want to, however. I hope they will bring out different models such as a nano phone, but most of all different form factors. Another thing they could do (not sure how possible) is allow for more software visual customization in the form of skins. As Android matures and other phone makers bring out funky looking phones the allure of the iPhone will wane. There are other elements such as iTunes, iPhoto etc, but for most people those things aren't enough. People are fickle, they want variety and choice as far as phones go. Computers, not so much, perhaps.
Re the AT&T badwill - in more and more countries the iPhone is carried by multiple carriers. I am sure Apple is dying for Verizon to carry the phone and it will happen as soon as Verizon can prove they have viable coverage. In Canada, where Rogers was the only GSM carrier when I got my iPhone a year or so ago, two other carriers have suddenly popped up and announced that they too will carry the iPhone. I am amazed at how quickly they have got new network technology up and running.
You re-itterate Palm's argument which did not work for them. This was the case in pre-iPhone era: all phones were getting a bug-fixing firmware upgrade at best. All new features and functionality were coming with new phones.
Apple was the first to draw 3 major OS releases for it's first iPhone. There is a reason: they are building a platform. Abandoning a platform is not as easy as changing the phone.
Oh, in many European countries you can get fully unlocked iPhone (no carrier or country lock) with no contract whatsoever. You can use it with any SIM card, including post-paid ones. So, please forget those "2 years", this is US only and it can go away as soon as Apple decides to drop it.
and how many people complained when OS 3 came out and didn't offer much new functionality for older iphones?
for android, there are constant OS updates as well that work on older phones. and since android is not as mature they offer new functionality for older phones. last year's T-Mo Android phone started on Android v1 and they are on 1.6 now
Not true- there are 2 and one is over a year old. The original is off the market. One is available with 2 different hard drive capacities- both are a 3GS.
For many people, if not most, there are two models. A white one and a black one.
There are 3 models of iPhone currently on the market, with different processors, amounts of memory, etc.
It is a mistake, I think, to continue to think that smartphone manufacturers need to differentiate their models by making them vary in appearance and basic functionality. This is the old model that the iPhone has upset. The main thing that differentiates the iPhone from other phones is the software and the physical appearance doesn't need to change from model to model. Shopping for smartphones will become more and more like shopping for computers, where one looks at the OS, processor speed, memory, etc. as they become more and more powerful, and less like shopping for phones has been in the past.
However, it's exactly this old model that Android phone manufacturers are following and which will cause confusion in the marketplace and problems in the software development community, Windows Mobile providing a prime example of this.
One size doesn't fit all:
1. Asian markets like the stylus for characters
2. Some users prefer physical keys
One person stated that the iPhone would have the 70%+ market share enjoyed by the iPod and I am saying I don't think this would have been possible for the iPod if Apple stuck with one model. The market for mp3 players is less differentiated than that for smart phones, there are more needs to be catered to especially with these phones becoming more like computers.
Also, the sheer variety of operating systems means people are less likely to look at processor speed and memory. In fact people look at 'features' like camera quality (and, yes, megapixels ) and various other bells and whistles - Apple is hardly leading the way here. With over 5 operating systems and even more user interfaces the products are really differentiated. I just can't see Apple consolidating this market quickly, if at all.
Comments
Still, Apple does have to shorten its product cycle, like release new models every 6 months, but other than that, I expect to see 100 million sold by the end of 2010 with at least 10 million tablets out the door as well. It'll be pitiful for the competition to scuffle over the remaining 30% market that APple will never own-- Like the 30% non-iPod MP3 player market--APple has the deep pockets for research on battery technology, on chips and a patent portfolio to match
Moreover, even if it only maintains share, the iPhone will continue to grow quite well since the segment itself is the fastest-growing. Additionally, the issue will not be just quantity sold and revenue, but the profits generated per-unit sold.
I highly doubt the iPhone will be as dominant as the iPod range - especially not with one model.
There are 3 models of iPhone currently on the market, with different processors, amounts of memory, etc.
It is a mistake, I think, to continue to think that smartphone manufacturers need to differentiate their models by making them vary in appearance and basic functionality. This is the old model that the iPhone has upset. The main thing that differentiates the iPhone from other phones is the software and the physical appearance doesn't need to change from model to model. Shopping for smartphones will become more and more like shopping for computers, where one looks at the OS, processor speed, memory, etc. as they become more and more powerful, and less like shopping for phones has been in the past.
However, it's exactly this old model that Android phone manufacturers are following and which will cause confusion in the marketplace and problems in the software development community, Windows Mobile providing a prime example of this.
Still, Apple does have to shorten its product cycle, like release new models every 6 months, but other than that, I expect to see 100 million sold by the end of 2010 .......
Apple absolutely should not do that. It is simply a waste of investment and R&D dollars, lousy for the environment, confusing to customers, and most important, margin-reducing to shorten the product cycle any more than it is now.
Other than for a handful of geeks on boards like these, that is simply too rapid a cycle.
Who cares about whether Apple sells 100 million or 50 million. The key is what they will generate as cash flows from it, relative to competitors.
However, it all depends on the moves made by Apple, if Apple play their cards right (which they seem to have a habit of doing), they should be able to hold on to the lead (units sold) for some considerable time.
I think most posts are missing the point. The article is not about Android v. iPhone. The analysis is about Android gaining at the expense RIM and Nokia. While the prediction of exact share could be obviously wrong, I think the directionality of the analysis is spot on.
Sorry, but I think YOU are missing the point. Gartner made headlines with the prediction that Android will surpass iPhone OS, and the numbers are really, really strange. How he got the magic sales numbers 71.51 for Apple and 75.69 for Android? It's clear that this kind of precision for a relatively long-term prediction is meaningless, but it's the Android will surpass iPhone OS statement that makes the headlines. So, we are not missing the point.
Dan has an excellent piece about this fantasy story here:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/1...r-in-2012-why/
He makes a whole lot of sense, explaining why Gartner's shill income is about to evaporate from WinMo and has to look elsewhere for FUD dollars.
WOW, what a great article, many leads, good analysis, and insight, great links a must read, thanks for the find
There are 3 models of iPhone currently on the market, with different processors, amounts of memory, etc.
Not true- there are 2 and one is over a year old. The original is off the market. One is available with 2 different hard drive capacities- both are a 3GS.
Sorry, but I think YOU are missing the point. Gartner made headlines with the prediction that Android will surpass iPhone OS, and the numbers are really, really strange. How he got the magic sales numbers 71.51 for Apple and 75.69 for Android? It's clear that this kind of precision for a relatively long-term prediction is meaningless, but it's the Android will surpass iPhone OS statement that makes the headlines. So, we are not missing the point.
Ah, the headline, not the content.
Now I understand why we live in a soundbite world.
Battery by this company; doors by that one; engine by another.
It's cool that Android runs on myriad hardware platforms. That's much better than a piece of software designed to work on spec hardware, like the iPhone.
If you look at Windows PCs, for example, their quality is impeccable because there are so many different hardware configurations, and the Windows OS is adept at recognizing these difference pieces, installing the correct driver, and making things silky smooth from the get-go.
That's why I look forward to these Android phones. They will be solid pieces of equipment due to their nebulous design and ability to run on any and all hardware platforms.
Sarcasm brought to you by Amway.
Not true- there are 2 and one is over a year old. The original is off the market. One is available with 2 different hard drive capacities- both are a 3GS.
Oh, TS...
None of these has a "hard drive". 1 is differentiated from 2 & 3 by processor and other features, including memory. 2 & 3 are differentiated by memory alone. Three distinct models, three distinct prices. The fact that 2 & 3 share the 3GS moniker doesn't make them the same model. The 3G and 3GS labels are family names, much like iMac and Mac Pro, not model names.
Edit: You might have an argument if 2 could be "field upgraded" to 3 by adding memory, but it can't be.
Ah, the headline, not the content.
Now I understand why we live in a soundbite world.
Couldn't agree with you more. The concept is really simple. Other handset manufacturers cannot use iPhone OS, so they will use the best available and it looks like Android is expected to fill that role at the expense of Symbian and Windows Mobile. Device manufacturers are expected to flood the market with android phones available on virtually all carriers (CDMA and GSM) and at many different price points including $0 with a contract. Whether or not Android succeeds is almost solely based on its relative strength against the other available phone operating systems (in the eyes of both consumers and device manufacturers). Including the iPhone in the headline simply ensures that the article will get a ton of readers.
Of course the numbers could be wrong (and probably are), but the concept is correct. Also, the iPhone achieving iPod like success would be terrible for us all, we need competition to keep things moving forward.
Wrong- look to the RAZR which shows why relying on one phone will eventually do you in. The cell phone market is a highly fickle market. 3 years into the market and the fact is Apple has only 1 cellphone available and to the general public, it's getting stale. Where is the Nano version?
Also, this will be played out much differently than the PC game of the 1980's because here you have a very important deciding factor - AT&T which is getting slammed almost daily now. Funny how no posts are factoring in AT&T's badwill.
I agree that having only one model is not a great idea in the long run. The iPhone is still a novelty but this will wear off and people will want different models, even if only cosmetically. I really think Apple can own this market if they want to, however. I hope they will bring out different models such as a nano phone, but most of all different form factors. Another thing they could do (not sure how possible) is allow for more software visual customization in the form of skins. As Android matures and other phone makers bring out funky looking phones the allure of the iPhone will wane. There are other elements such as iTunes, iPhoto etc, but for most people those things aren't enough. People are fickle, they want variety and choice as far as phones go. Computers, not so much, perhaps.
Re the AT&T badwill - in more and more countries the iPhone is carried by multiple carriers. I am sure Apple is dying for Verizon to carry the phone and it will happen as soon as Verizon can prove they have viable coverage. In Canada, where Rogers was the only GSM carrier when I got my iPhone a year or so ago, two other carriers have suddenly popped up and announced that they too will carry the iPhone. I am amazed at how quickly they have got new network technology up and running.
You re-itterate Palm's argument which did not work for them. This was the case in pre-iPhone era: all phones were getting a bug-fixing firmware upgrade at best. All new features and functionality were coming with new phones.
Apple was the first to draw 3 major OS releases for it's first iPhone. There is a reason: they are building a platform. Abandoning a platform is not as easy as changing the phone.
Oh, in many European countries you can get fully unlocked iPhone (no carrier or country lock) with no contract whatsoever. You can use it with any SIM card, including post-paid ones. So, please forget those "2 years", this is US only and it can go away as soon as Apple decides to drop it.
and how many people complained when OS 3 came out and didn't offer much new functionality for older iphones?
for android, there are constant OS updates as well that work on older phones. and since android is not as mature they offer new functionality for older phones. last year's T-Mo Android phone started on Android v1 and they are on 1.6 now
Not true- there are 2 and one is over a year old. The original is off the market. One is available with 2 different hard drive capacities- both are a 3GS.
For many people, if not most, there are two models. A white one and a black one.
I don't know a single person who has an android phone. This story is utterly bullshit.
Did you even read the article?
They are very clear that Android has very, very low market acceptance and penetration right now. The Gartner report is a forecast.
He also does not understand that Apple learned well from losing with the Apple II to the PC.
Apple has shown that well with its handling of the iPod.
Barry Gamble
The only leaping the Android is going to do is right over the "never made it" ledge of the nearest building.
There are 3 models of iPhone currently on the market, with different processors, amounts of memory, etc.
It is a mistake, I think, to continue to think that smartphone manufacturers need to differentiate their models by making them vary in appearance and basic functionality. This is the old model that the iPhone has upset. The main thing that differentiates the iPhone from other phones is the software and the physical appearance doesn't need to change from model to model. Shopping for smartphones will become more and more like shopping for computers, where one looks at the OS, processor speed, memory, etc. as they become more and more powerful, and less like shopping for phones has been in the past.
However, it's exactly this old model that Android phone manufacturers are following and which will cause confusion in the marketplace and problems in the software development community, Windows Mobile providing a prime example of this.
One size doesn't fit all:
1. Asian markets like the stylus for characters
2. Some users prefer physical keys
One person stated that the iPhone would have the 70%+ market share enjoyed by the iPod and I am saying I don't think this would have been possible for the iPod if Apple stuck with one model. The market for mp3 players is less differentiated than that for smart phones, there are more needs to be catered to especially with these phones becoming more like computers.
Also, the sheer variety of operating systems means people are less likely to look at processor speed and memory. In fact people look at 'features' like camera quality (and, yes, megapixels
This guy does not have a clue as to how important being first is.
He also does not understand that Apple learned well from losing with the Apple II to the PC.
Apple has shown that well with its handling of the iPod.
Barry Gamble
Apple weren't first, so this point is moot.