Well, contrary to popular belief, and unlike Google, and Microsoft before them, I don't think Apple is necessarily interested in World Domination.
Perhaps more importantly, analogies with Mac OS vs. Windows (often made from a flawed perspective to begin with) don't really carry over to the current market
the idea that Apple should license iOS doesn't make any sense. I also don't think it makes any sense for them to make a bunch of different models themselves -- one phone to rule them all is their best strategy.
I was not thinking about world domination. I agree with the analyst that Apple should lower the cost of ownership. And they should do it by every means including the option of having a CDMA version for Verizon. Apple can grab a bigger market share if they reduced their margins and try to be more flexible with carriers.
As for the analogy, it holds if you think about the developer ecosystem. The day the number of Android handsets is greater than iOs devices than it will spell the decline of Apple. Developers will migrate to the dominant platform.
No I don't believe they have to license iOs but they could offer more models the same way you have different models of the iPod. Not everyone likes a virtual keyboard and for some, it's a deal breaker.
I don't get it. Apple doesn't set rates, AT&T does. Apple can affect TCO only marginally. AT&T's lowering of the data rates is going to pull a lot of new people into the market, much more than anything Apple could do.
Further, Microsoft was not ingenious and hardly brilliant. The PC hardware market was not created by them, and they were never in that market from day one. They were merely in a fortunate position to exploit it. They played the high cards they were dealt. The only "ingenious" thing Microsoft did was use illegal means to force what few competitors they had out of the PC OS market.
None of this replicable. Not sure what you are suggesting for Apple.
I agree that Apple does not set rates but they can have an indirect impact on this. They can definitely stimulate some competition among carriers by not giving AT&T the exclusivity.
Smartphones are computers. There is an operating system on which apps run on. Very simply put, the company with the most vibrant and dominant software ecosystem will prevail.
I was not thinking about world domination. I agree with the analyst that Apple should lower the cost of ownership. And they should do it by every means including the option of having a CDMA version for Verizon. Apple can grab a bigger market share if they reduced their margins and try to be more flexible with carriers.
As for the analogy, it holds if you think about the developer ecosystem. The day the number of Android handsets is greater than iOs devices than it will spell the decline of Apple. Developers will migrate to the dominant platform.
No I don't believe they have to license iOs but they could offer more models the same way you have different models of the iPod. Not everyone likes a virtual keyboard and for some, it's a deal breaker.
The cost of the iPhone, at $99 for a 3GS, is already minimal compared to the overall cost of owning one. I don't think it would benefit Apple at all to offer an iPhone at, say, $49 or offering BOGO deals. People want the iPhone and are willing to pay the current prices, and the current prices are not, I believe, an actual barrier to ownership.
As for mechanical keyboards on phones, that's the past, and Apple's not going there, there's no reason to, and the number of people not buying iPhones for that reason is insignificant.
I also don't think it's essential for Apple to maintain simple numerical dominance in handsets to continue to attract developers or customers. After all, developers clamored for, and flocked to, the App store while other phones (think RIM) had, and still have, numerical dominance. The entire equation is extremely complex, but the bottom line is that as long as it's profitable the ecosystem will hold up and developers will remain. And, it's also not a foregone conclusion that Android will ever gain any significant dominance in numbers.
I agree that Apple does not set rates but they can have an indirect impact on this. They can definitely stimulate some competition among carriers by not giving AT&T the exclusivity.
Smartphones are computers. There is an operating system on which apps run on. Very simply put, the company with the most vibrant and dominant software ecosystem will prevail.
Very indirect. Nobody likes the AT&T exclusivity, but no doubt there are good business reasons behind it, or at least there were in the beginning and Apple seems to be stuck with it for the time being. You are assuming that ending carrier exclusivity would lower the cost of ownership significantly. Where is the evidence for this? Is the TCO for the iPhone substantially higher than other smart phones? I think not. More carriers might mean more sales, but not because TCO decreases substantially.
Yes, smart phones are computers. What of it? Apple already has the most vibrant and dominant software ecosystem. They have blended the iPhone software market with a broader mobile computing device market, something none of their competitors are equipped to duplicate (Microsoft, perhaps, but they don't seem to have a clue about how).
Finally, nobody has to "prevail" in the market. If you're looking for a repeat of the PC market to happen here, then I think you are looking for something that will not happen. As I pointed out before, Microsoft's domination of that market was a quirk of history. It's not going to happen again, and we as consumers should be grateful for that. Instead we will have a vibrant and competitive market with several strong players and nobody making up the rules for everyone else.
I also don't think it's essential for Apple to maintain simple numerical dominance in handsets to continue to attract developers or customers.
I guess this is where our views differ. Market share is a critical indicator otherwise I don't think Apple would be pressed to show statistics about this at every WWDC.
You are assuming that ending carrier exclusivity would lower the cost of ownership significantly. Where is the evidence for this?.
Finally, nobody has to "prevail" in the market. If you're looking for a repeat of the PC market to happen here, then I think you are looking for something that will not happen.
I believe it will happen, it's just business. The smartphone market is still immature and there's a lot of fragmentation at the moment. Like any market that matures, there is going to be a dominant player.
I believe it will happen, it's just business. The smartphone market is still immature and there's a lot of fragmentation at the moment. Like any market that matures, there is going to be a dominant player.
Just like the ____ market?
Please don't fill in the blank with the PC, which was a freak of nature. It is not the normal order of things. Every indication is that the mobile electronics market will develop as a normal, healthy markets do -- fully competitive, with a variety of products, and no dominant player.
I guess this is where our views differ. Market share is a critical indicator otherwise I don't think Apple would be pressed to show statistics about this at every WWDC.
I don't think they are "pressed". BTW, that part of the WWDC is called a pep rally.
Like any market that matures, there is going to be a dominant player.
In the sense that there will always be a player in any market that has the greatest marketshare, yes, but that's not exactly a very insightful analysis applied to this market.
Please don't fill in the blank with the PC, which was a freak of nature. It is not the normal order of things. Every indication is that the mobile electronics market will develop as a normal, healthy markets do -- fully competitive, with a variety of products, and no dominant player.
Really? Please name a mature market and you will find a player with a dominant player. And yes, by dominant player I meant to say a company with the majority of the market share. I thought it was obvious. If you take a look at the banking industry, the oil industry or even just the Processor industry.
But this is besides the point a I wanted to make. I simply agree with the analyst. I share in her view that lowering the TCO for the iPhone would be really good for Apple. And I think we can agree on that
In the sense that there will always be a player in any market that has the greatest marketshare, yes, but that's not exactly a very insightful analysis applied to this market.
My point was that the smartphone business is still young and as it evolves Apple has a unique chance to shape it by gaining market share as quickly as possible. Developer adoption is key and market share is important for a developer. Perhaps I am wrong but the trend seems to indicate that Android has the strongest momentum at the moment. Android devices are available on every carrier and offer the widest selection of models.
My initial point was that Apple should do whatever it can to lower the TCO for the iPhone. How can we not agree on this?
Really? Please name a mature market and you will find a player with a dominant player. And yes, by dominant player I meant to say a company with the majority of the market share. I thought it was obvious. If you take a look at the banking industry, the oil industry or even just the Processor industry.
But this is besides the point a I wanted to make. I simply agree with the analyst. I share in her view that lowering the TCO for the iPhone would be really good for Apple. And I think we can agree on that
The PC microprocessor industry (Intel) is probably your only workable example, and it was part of the duopoly which was spawned by the same historical accident which created Microsoft's unnatural dominance. Still, beyond the specific market for PC processors, I think you will find that nobody has that kind of dominance in the semiconductor industry as a whole. The oil industry is one of the most concentrated in the world, but I think you will find that no one company has a majority market share of production, refining or distribution. And that's an industry where supply is heavily controlled by an international cartel. Even with all the bank mergers, no player has a majority market share.
Yes, we agree that lowering TCO is a good thing for Apple (assuming they can keep up with the hardware demand, which is proving to be a challenge). My point is, I think that AT&T has done more for them on that front by tiering the data plans than Apple could do themselves. Also, I don't think Apple has to worry very much about one company becoming the big fish in this pond. I see many strong players providing a variety of products to a growing and evolving market. This is so different than what we witnessed in the '80s and '90s PC market.
Perhaps I am wrong but the trend seems to indicate that Android has the strongest momentum at the moment. Android devices are available on every carrier and offer the widest selection of models.
We had this discussion in another thread, and, worldwide, I forget the exact numbers but, iPhone is on more carriers than Android. The numbers also don't show Android with more momentum (only the bogus increase in market share against itself shows that, but it's, well, bogus). As I've stated before, I don't think the number of models is of any importance.
With a total user install base of 30 million at the end of 2009, Apple's number of active iPhone subscribers is expected by one prominent analyst to more than triple to 100 million by the end of 2011.
I didn't know Apple had any subscribers...
Quote:
"We see the iPhone installed base rising from approximately 30M subscribers at the end of 2009 to over 100M by the end of 2011," she wrote.
But those would be AT&T subscribers using Apple hardware. They are not "Apple subscribers".
Comments
Kind of puts it into perspective.
Well, contrary to popular belief, and unlike Google, and Microsoft before them, I don't think Apple is necessarily interested in World Domination.
Perhaps more importantly, analogies with Mac OS vs. Windows (often made from a flawed perspective to begin with) don't really carry over to the current market
the idea that Apple should license iOS doesn't make any sense. I also don't think it makes any sense for them to make a bunch of different models themselves -- one phone to rule them all is their best strategy.
I was not thinking about world domination. I agree with the analyst that Apple should lower the cost of ownership. And they should do it by every means including the option of having a CDMA version for Verizon. Apple can grab a bigger market share if they reduced their margins and try to be more flexible with carriers.
As for the analogy, it holds if you think about the developer ecosystem. The day the number of Android handsets is greater than iOs devices than it will spell the decline of Apple. Developers will migrate to the dominant platform.
No I don't believe they have to license iOs but they could offer more models the same way you have different models of the iPod. Not everyone likes a virtual keyboard and for some, it's a deal breaker.
I don't get it. Apple doesn't set rates, AT&T does. Apple can affect TCO only marginally. AT&T's lowering of the data rates is going to pull a lot of new people into the market, much more than anything Apple could do.
Further, Microsoft was not ingenious and hardly brilliant. The PC hardware market was not created by them, and they were never in that market from day one. They were merely in a fortunate position to exploit it. They played the high cards they were dealt. The only "ingenious" thing Microsoft did was use illegal means to force what few competitors they had out of the PC OS market.
None of this replicable. Not sure what you are suggesting for Apple.
I agree that Apple does not set rates but they can have an indirect impact on this. They can definitely stimulate some competition among carriers by not giving AT&T the exclusivity.
Smartphones are computers. There is an operating system on which apps run on. Very simply put, the company with the most vibrant and dominant software ecosystem will prevail.
I was not thinking about world domination. I agree with the analyst that Apple should lower the cost of ownership. And they should do it by every means including the option of having a CDMA version for Verizon. Apple can grab a bigger market share if they reduced their margins and try to be more flexible with carriers.
As for the analogy, it holds if you think about the developer ecosystem. The day the number of Android handsets is greater than iOs devices than it will spell the decline of Apple. Developers will migrate to the dominant platform.
No I don't believe they have to license iOs but they could offer more models the same way you have different models of the iPod. Not everyone likes a virtual keyboard and for some, it's a deal breaker.
The cost of the iPhone, at $99 for a 3GS, is already minimal compared to the overall cost of owning one. I don't think it would benefit Apple at all to offer an iPhone at, say, $49 or offering BOGO deals. People want the iPhone and are willing to pay the current prices, and the current prices are not, I believe, an actual barrier to ownership.
As for mechanical keyboards on phones, that's the past, and Apple's not going there, there's no reason to, and the number of people not buying iPhones for that reason is insignificant.
I also don't think it's essential for Apple to maintain simple numerical dominance in handsets to continue to attract developers or customers. After all, developers clamored for, and flocked to, the App store while other phones (think RIM) had, and still have, numerical dominance. The entire equation is extremely complex, but the bottom line is that as long as it's profitable the ecosystem will hold up and developers will remain. And, it's also not a foregone conclusion that Android will ever gain any significant dominance in numbers.
I agree that Apple does not set rates but they can have an indirect impact on this. They can definitely stimulate some competition among carriers by not giving AT&T the exclusivity.
Smartphones are computers. There is an operating system on which apps run on. Very simply put, the company with the most vibrant and dominant software ecosystem will prevail.
Very indirect. Nobody likes the AT&T exclusivity, but no doubt there are good business reasons behind it, or at least there were in the beginning and Apple seems to be stuck with it for the time being. You are assuming that ending carrier exclusivity would lower the cost of ownership significantly. Where is the evidence for this? Is the TCO for the iPhone substantially higher than other smart phones? I think not. More carriers might mean more sales, but not because TCO decreases substantially.
Yes, smart phones are computers. What of it? Apple already has the most vibrant and dominant software ecosystem. They have blended the iPhone software market with a broader mobile computing device market, something none of their competitors are equipped to duplicate (Microsoft, perhaps, but they don't seem to have a clue about how).
Finally, nobody has to "prevail" in the market. If you're looking for a repeat of the PC market to happen here, then I think you are looking for something that will not happen. As I pointed out before, Microsoft's domination of that market was a quirk of history. It's not going to happen again, and we as consumers should be grateful for that. Instead we will have a vibrant and competitive market with several strong players and nobody making up the rules for everyone else.
I also don't think it's essential for Apple to maintain simple numerical dominance in handsets to continue to attract developers or customers.
I guess this is where our views differ. Market share is a critical indicator otherwise I don't think Apple would be pressed to show statistics about this at every WWDC.
You are assuming that ending carrier exclusivity would lower the cost of ownership significantly. Where is the evidence for this?.
Finally, nobody has to "prevail" in the market. If you're looking for a repeat of the PC market to happen here, then I think you are looking for something that will not happen.
I believe it will happen, it's just business. The smartphone market is still immature and there's a lot of fragmentation at the moment. Like any market that matures, there is going to be a dominant player.
I believe it will happen, it's just business. The smartphone market is still immature and there's a lot of fragmentation at the moment. Like any market that matures, there is going to be a dominant player.
Just like the ____ market?
Please don't fill in the blank with the PC, which was a freak of nature. It is not the normal order of things. Every indication is that the mobile electronics market will develop as a normal, healthy markets do -- fully competitive, with a variety of products, and no dominant player.
I guess this is where our views differ. Market share is a critical indicator otherwise I don't think Apple would be pressed to show statistics about this at every WWDC.
I don't think they are "pressed". BTW, that part of the WWDC is called a pep rally.
Like any market that matures, there is going to be a dominant player.
In the sense that there will always be a player in any market that has the greatest marketshare, yes, but that's not exactly a very insightful analysis applied to this market.
Just like the ____ market?
Please don't fill in the blank with the PC, which was a freak of nature. It is not the normal order of things. Every indication is that the mobile electronics market will develop as a normal, healthy markets do -- fully competitive, with a variety of products, and no dominant player.
Really? Please name a mature market and you will find a player with a dominant player. And yes, by dominant player I meant to say a company with the majority of the market share. I thought it was obvious. If you take a look at the banking industry, the oil industry or even just the Processor industry.
But this is besides the point a I wanted to make. I simply agree with the analyst. I share in her view that lowering the TCO for the iPhone would be really good for Apple. And I think we can agree on that
In the sense that there will always be a player in any market that has the greatest marketshare, yes, but that's not exactly a very insightful analysis applied to this market.
My point was that the smartphone business is still young and as it evolves Apple has a unique chance to shape it by gaining market share as quickly as possible. Developer adoption is key and market share is important for a developer. Perhaps I am wrong but the trend seems to indicate that Android has the strongest momentum at the moment. Android devices are available on every carrier and offer the widest selection of models.
My initial point was that Apple should do whatever it can to lower the TCO for the iPhone. How can we not agree on this?
Really? Please name a mature market and you will find a player with a dominant player. And yes, by dominant player I meant to say a company with the majority of the market share. I thought it was obvious. If you take a look at the banking industry, the oil industry or even just the Processor industry.
But this is besides the point a I wanted to make. I simply agree with the analyst. I share in her view that lowering the TCO for the iPhone would be really good for Apple. And I think we can agree on that
The PC microprocessor industry (Intel) is probably your only workable example, and it was part of the duopoly which was spawned by the same historical accident which created Microsoft's unnatural dominance. Still, beyond the specific market for PC processors, I think you will find that nobody has that kind of dominance in the semiconductor industry as a whole. The oil industry is one of the most concentrated in the world, but I think you will find that no one company has a majority market share of production, refining or distribution. And that's an industry where supply is heavily controlled by an international cartel. Even with all the bank mergers, no player has a majority market share.
Yes, we agree that lowering TCO is a good thing for Apple (assuming they can keep up with the hardware demand, which is proving to be a challenge). My point is, I think that AT&T has done more for them on that front by tiering the data plans than Apple could do themselves. Also, I don't think Apple has to worry very much about one company becoming the big fish in this pond. I see many strong players providing a variety of products to a growing and evolving market. This is so different than what we witnessed in the '80s and '90s PC market.
Perhaps I am wrong but the trend seems to indicate that Android has the strongest momentum at the moment. Android devices are available on every carrier and offer the widest selection of models.
We had this discussion in another thread, and, worldwide, I forget the exact numbers but, iPhone is on more carriers than Android. The numbers also don't show Android with more momentum (only the bogus increase in market share against itself shows that, but it's, well, bogus). As I've stated before, I don't think the number of models is of any importance.
With a total user install base of 30 million at the end of 2009, Apple's number of active iPhone subscribers is expected by one prominent analyst to more than triple to 100 million by the end of 2011.
I didn't know Apple had any subscribers...
"We see the iPhone installed base rising from approximately 30M subscribers at the end of 2009 to over 100M by the end of 2011," she wrote.
But those would be AT&T subscribers using Apple hardware. They are not "Apple subscribers".