The data is a summary of the preferences of many peope, not just you, therefore it is infinitely more meaningful.
The data is a summary that people want the cheapest ass, vaguely acceptable touch screen phone they can get their hands on, regardless of the experience. Period!
Nothing more, nothing less. (90% of those Android owners couldn't give a crap about Android OR "openness"). They just want a cheap phone.
The data also says that despite Apple's high price tags they can still hold their own and remain desirable against a sea of "cheap crap"!
The only problem is that with the iPhone, a developer can still target more phones with one version of your app, which is why most developers till today put the iPhone first.
Who has that problem ? You ? Android developer can also target more phones with just single version of an app, resolution independence is baked in Android since the Cupcake release. What's your point ?
Despite being produced by many different companies, it is pretty homogenous platform, there are almost no phones without compass (unlike original iPhone) or if you take in account the entire iOS platform, without camera (unlike iPad), without GPS (unlike iPad Wifi) or without phone part (unlike iPod, iPad), although Android tablets will change that.
Android will grow and grow. Just wait when China floods the market with very cheap ones then it's game over for number, much like PC and Mac. Do I care? No [...]
Except for all the extra botnets flooding our inboxes with spam, that is.
Who has that problem ? You ? Android developer can also target more phones with just single version of an app, resolution independence is baked in Android since the Cupcake release. What's your point ?
Despite being produced by many different companies, it is pretty homogenous platform, there are almost no phones without compass (unlike original iPhone) or if you take in account the entire iOS platform, without camera (unlike iPad), without GPS (unlike iPad Wifi) or without phone part (unlike iPod, iPad), although Android tablets will change that.
Your logic falters a couples of ways: If the resolution independence was robust then they did not need to do a separate tablet build - but that obviously is not the case as they have produced Honeycomb to address the tablet issue. Hence the point.
Let's make sure we are clear on the Many companies/homogeneity point. There is one Android OS being used by many handset manufacturers in place of the WinCE/Mo or their own proprietary OS on what are now being called Android phones. Early Android phones did not have compass or GPS built in just like the 1st gen iPhone so again your logic in very imprecise.
Let's make sure also we understand what has happened and what IS happening in the market. Android was introduced to the handset makers as an alternative to WinMo and their own proprietary OSes. Effectually Google set out to and was very successful at not only undermining the WinMo platform, but also allowing the handset makers to offline a bunch of internal OS dev work and save money. A couple still offer their own GUI overlay on top of Android to both differentiate and address what they see as shortcomings in the GUI. Google now is driving Android deeply into featurephone territory to gobble up segment in that part of the cellphone market as well - much to Nokia's chagrine. So Android marketshare derives primarily from share gained from WinMo, from Nokia's featurephone marketshare, and perhaps from some of RIM's Blackberry platform as well. Which is what these reported numbers (and others as well) demonstrate to anyone who has been watching the industry and not playing around on their cellphone
Understand also that, since Google is giving away Android to the handset makers, the Android team is a COST CENTER for Google, as opposed to their search team - which is a profit center, because ad placement is intergral to the search engine. Ad placement is not integral to the Android platform, and since it generates no direct revenue for Google, it is continually at risk. Especially with ChromeOS waiting in the wings, and in which ad placement can be made integral. Android is a very important segment holder for Google, but one that costs them money. Adherents to the platform need to recognize the reality behind what Google is doing, and be prepared for Android to be cashiered out when they bring ChromeOS primetime as the next mobile platform.
Google is busy watering down, I mean expanding, what the smartphone segment is as it erodes the featurephone market. Under Google's influence, the featurephone market will lose a significant percentage up into "smartphone" territory, even as Google figures out how to get Android eventually on featurephones as well. By diluting the smartphone definition they can bring Android to subset smartphones with reduced capacity and features in order to drive "marketshare". This isn't necessarily bad for Apple because unlike Android, Apple is a platform, not just an OS. Microsoft and Nokia ran into each other's arms, because they discover their vulnerabilities - Microsoft needs handset makers to license and market the WP7 platform, Nokia needs a viable, ready for market smartphone OS. Google is eating both of their lunches, without making any direct revenue off the effort. Apple on the other hand will continue to grow into the upper portion of the market currently occupied by RIM. RIM is struggling with maintaining, let alone growing their platform. They are losing some share to Android, but mostly to Apple as the platform wars heat up. HP is a wildcard in this game as they are potentially a platform (with WebOS), but they are not ready for primetime competition - yet. But Android categorically is NOT a platform, it is an OS, supporting features like the Marketplace notwithstanding. A platform encompasses the hardware, the OS and the software being delivered to the consumer.
Handset makers are busy competing with each other using the same OS, trying to differentiate the hardware enough to gain against the other Android models, but are completely dependent on Google continuing to advance Android. Profit margins for them are better with Android (no licensing fees) for now, but Microsoft has already fired a couple of lawsuits or threats of lawsuits against them to get them to pony up some licensing money for the touch interface - so suddenly Android isn't as "free" anymore for Motorola and HTC.
There that should help you better understand what's going on.
When iPhone surpassed RIM in the quarter ending October 2010 sales numbers, Steve Jobs declared that there was no way RIM would recover versus iPhone. NOTE: Steve's focus is clearly on the OEM side as this is the most meaningful assessment when success of the smartphone is measured. After all, what each device manufacturer cares about is its individual performance relative to the overall performance in hardware sales. In the case of Android devices, the OEMs should feel crap about their devices not performing very well.
In the recent Nielsen report (January 2011), Apple and RIM share the top spot with 27%, HTC has 12%, Motorola 10%, Samsung 5%, Others 2%. Obviously, these numbers don't include -Verizon iPhone 4.
Your logic falters a couples of ways: If the resolution independence was robust then they did not need to do a separate tablet build - but that obviously is not the case as they have produced Honeycomb to address the tablet issue. Hence the point.
Let's make sure we are clear on the Many companies/homogeneity point. There is one Android OS being used by many handset manufacturers in place of the WinCE/Mo or their own proprietary OS on what are now being called Android phones. Early Android phones did not have compass or GPS built in just like the 1st gen iPhone so again your logic in very imprecise.
Let's make sure also we understand what has happened and what IS happening in the market. Android was introduced to the handset makers as an alternative to WinMo and their own proprietary OSes. Effectually Google set out to and was very successful at not only undermining the WinMo platform, but also allowing the handset makers to offline a bunch of internal OS dev work and save money. A couple still offer their own GUI overlay on top of Android to both differentiate and address what they see as shortcomings in the GUI. Google now is driving Android deeply into featurephone territory to gobble up segment in that part of the cellphone market as well - much to Nokia's chagrine. So Android marketshare derives primarily from share gained from WinMo, from Nokia's featurephone marketshare, and perhaps from some of RIM's Blackberry platform as well. Which is what these reported numbers (and others as well) demonstrate to anyone who has been watching the industry and not playing around on their cellphone
Understand also that, since Google is giving away Android to the handset makers, the Android team is a COST CENTER for Google, as opposed to their search team - which is a profit center, because ad placement is intergral to the search engine. Ad placement is not integral to the Android platform, and since it generates no direct revenue for Google, it is continually at risk. Especially with ChromeOS waiting in the wings, and in which ad placement can be made integral. Android is a very important segment holder for Google, but one that costs them money. Adherents to the platform need to recognize the reality behind what Google is doing, and be prepared for Android to be cashiered out when they bring ChromeOS primetime as the next mobile platform.
Google is busy watering down, I mean expanding, what the smartphone segment is as it erodes the featurephone market. Under Google's influence, the featurephone market will lose a significant percentage up into "smartphone" territory, even as Google figures out how to get Android eventually on featurephones as well. By diluting the smartphone definition they can bring Android to subset smartphones with reduced capacity and features in order to drive "marketshare". This isn't necessarily bad for Apple because unlike Android, Apple is a platform, not just an OS. Microsoft and Nokia ran into each other's arms, because they discover their vulnerabilities - Microsoft needs handset makers to license and market the WP7 platform, Nokia needs a viable, ready for market smartphone OS. Google is eating both of their lunches, without making any direct revenue off the effort. Apple on the other hand will continue to grow into the upper portion of the market currently occupied by RIM. RIM is struggling with maintaining, let alone growing their platform. They are losing some share to Android, but mostly to Apple as the platform wars heat up. HP is a wildcard in this game as they are potentially a platform (with WebOS), but they are not ready for primetime competition - yet. But Android categorically is NOT a platform, it is an OS, supporting features like the Marketplace notwithstanding. A platform encompasses the hardware, the OS and the software being delivered to the consumer.
Handset makers are busy competing with each other using the same OS, trying to differentiate the hardware enough to gain against the other Android models, but are completely dependent on Google continuing to advance Android. Profit margins for them are better with Android (no licensing fees) for now, but Microsoft has already fired a couple of lawsuits or threats of lawsuits against them to get them to pony up some licensing money for the touch interface - so suddenly Android isn't as "free" anymore for Motorola and HTC.
There that should help you better understand what's going on.
Yours falters almost everywhere, together with some blatant lies. Let's go step by step
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
If the resolution independence was robust then they did not need to do a separate tablet build - but that obviously is not the case as they have produced Honeycomb to address the tablet issue. Hence the point.
Your assumption is wrong. Honeycomb doesn't deal with resolution independence at all. Applications written according the Android specs and best practices run on tablets with or without Honeycomb just fine. Honeycomb adds bunch of features that makes sense on the bigger screen estate, such as system-wide drag'n'drop support, multiple applications sharing screen at the same time etc. so tablet OS doesn't look like like oversized (i)phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
Let's make sure we are clear on the Many companies/homogeneity point. There is one Android OS being used by many handset manufacturers in place of the WinCE/Mo or their own proprietary OS on what are now being called Android phones.
That's just your speculation. Android founder made clear what was the reason Google bought their company...they wanted to produce phone with a decent browser so that more users can surf the net everywhere, which was plan they set up before the iPhone went to public. They succeeded in this. I am afraid that his explanation makes much more sense, than try to "undermine" WinCE, system that never had any substantial market share, just because high end phones needed to run it were too expensive to became mainstream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
Early Android phones did not have compass or GPS built in just like the 1st gen iPhone so again your logic in very imprecise.
This is just a lie. The very first Android phone, HTC G1 has both compass and GPS. Every other substantial phone, be it Hero, Droid, Legend, Nexus... had all these features. All have camera and 3G networking, too. Perhaps there was a phone shipping without them, but their sales were pretty marginal. Check the facts first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
Let's make sure also we understand what has happened and what IS happening in the market. Android was introduced to the handset makers as an alternative to WinMo and their own proprietary OSes. Effectually Google set out to and was very successful at not only undermining the WinMo platform, but also allowing the handset makers to offline a bunch of internal OS dev work and save money.
Again this is just your speculation. Even if you repeat it thousand more times, it is no more relevant than your personal opinion, not backed by any evidence and having no merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
A couple still offer their own GUI overlay on top of Android to both differentiate and address what they see as shortcomings in the GUI.
Oh, the famous "fragmentation" argument ;-) Have you noticed that those changes happen only to the skin of the home/launcher application and the API and functionality of the phone is intact across all those "differentiated" phones ? From the developer's perspective, it is all just one phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
Google now is driving Android deeply into featurephone territory to gobble up segment in that part of the cellphone market as well - much to Nokia's chagrine.
And so does Apple as well. What we really see nowadays is expanding once niche high-end phone segment into mainstream. It is backed by the fact, that phone hardware got so much cheaper. Apple will have to drop the prices some day, too. My guess is that we'll see multiple versions of iPhone 5, following the same pattern they used with the iPod, but this is just my speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
So Android marketshare derives primarily from share gained from WinMo, from Nokia's featurephone marketshare, and perhaps from some of RIM's Blackberry platform as well. Which is what these reported numbers (and others as well) demonstrate to anyone who has been watching the industry and not playing around on their cellphone
Windows Mobile never have the total number of devices Android have now. The entire segment is expanding. It is the same thing that happened to PCs. IT was high-tech toy to rich and then one day it was owned and used by everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
Understand also that, since Google is giving away Android to the handset makers, the Android team is a COST CENTER for Google, as opposed to their search team - which is a profit center, because ad placement is intergral to the search engine.
Another speculation of yours. Why do you think there is no direct revenue from Android ? If you were in this industry for some time you might have noticed, that manufacturers are eager to pay fortune for any competitive advantage they can get, thus having early access for non-public versions of the OS is worth a lots of money to them. Another fact : the Android sources doesn't include Google suite of apps, and to have them available to manufacturer is another nice source of income for Google. As Andy Rubin said, Android unit is "about to be even". There are no public available data to proof this, so I don't call your speculation a lie, but it is pretty close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
Ad placement is not integral to the Android platform, and since it generates no direct revenue for Google, it is continually at risk.
They are happy to increase a number of browsers available to the users, so they strengthened their core business. It is very sound strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
Especially with ChromeOS waiting in the wings, and in which ad placement can be made integral.
What you know about future plans of Google regarding those two OS ? They are not public. Unless you happen to sit in their board, this is another speculation of yours that has no merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
Android is a very important segment holder for Google, but one that costs them money. Adherents to the platform need to recognize the reality behind what Google is doing, and be prepared for Android to be cashiered out when they bring ChromeOS primetime as the next mobile platform.
Its just a speculation at best, as explained above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
Google is busy watering down, I mean expanding, what the smartphone segment is as it erodes the featurephone market. Under Google's influence, the featurephone market will lose a significant percentage up into "smartphone" territory, even as Google figures out how to get Android eventually on featurephones as well. By diluting the smartphone definition they can bring Android to subset smartphones with reduced capacity and features in order to drive "marketshare". This isn't necessarily bad for Apple because unlike Android, Apple is a platform, not just an OS. Microsoft and Nokia ran into each other's arms, because they discover their vulnerabilities - Microsoft needs handset makers to license and market the WP7 platform, Nokia needs a viable, ready for market smartphone OS. Google is eating both of their lunches, without making any direct revenue off the effort. Apple on the other hand will continue to grow into the upper portion of the market currently occupied by RIM. RIM is struggling with maintaining, let alone growing their platform.
Even if I won't label the following paragraph as another speculation, I can't see what's your point there ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
They are losing some share to Android, but mostly to Apple as the platform wars heat up. HP is a wildcard in this game as they are potentially a platform (with WebOS), but they are not ready for primetime competition - yet.
Can you read the numbers presented there ? Apple share is about the same, Rim goes down, Android goes up. What drives you to conclusion "losing share mostly to Apple" ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
But Android categorically is NOT a platform, it is an OS, supporting features like the Marketplace notwithstanding. A platform encompasses the hardware, the OS and the software being delivered to the consumer.
That's just your definition. Honestly I don't care. I believe most users who bought Androids in such steady pace don't care either. Just curious...what is Android in your opinion then ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
Handset makers are busy competing with each other using the same OS, trying to differentiate the hardware enough to gain against the other Android models, but are completely dependent on Google continuing to advance Android. Profit margins for them are better with Android (no licensing fees) for now, but Microsoft has already fired a couple of lawsuits or threats of lawsuits against them to get them to pony up some licensing money for the touch interface - so suddenly Android isn't as "free" anymore for Motorola and HTC.
If you haven't noticed, everybody is firing lawsuits agains everybody. What brings you to the conclusion that Microsoft wins against the Motorola and HTC and it will cost them money ? Why it can't be Apple who'll be forced to pay royalties to Nokia ? Or nobody ?
If you bother to try to search a little bit about the history of the (multi)touch interface, you'll learn that most of this "novelty stuff" was in fact invented by the University of Toronto way back in 1980-ies and thus it is clear "prior act" and quite likely nobody succeeds in suing anyone, but this is just my guess, the legal system is too unpredictable to make whatever speculation there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
There that should help you better understand what's going on.
Yeah. You're a fanboy, that's what going on. I like both platforms as they provide a revenue stream for me. iOS have some pretty interesting features, but so has Android, too. It is no surprise both platforms are so popular, this is what I think the article was about.
shouldn't mobile platforms include both the iPod touch and iPad as iOS devices?
it's Android vs iOS, and iOS should still be well ahead.
Not if they are discussing mobile phones.
If you are discussing OS platforms, then yes.
Though that is likely to change. I don't think Android tablets will grow much different to Android phones... especially that Apple had less of a head-start with tablets than it had with phones.
I am wondering if we will see flood of Android MP3 players as well. That would be harder nut to crack (considering how dominant and how long is iPod) but it seems natural thing for Android to turn to.
Give me numbers comparing iPhone to any other PHONE (or even all phones manufactured by a single company) and I'll be interested.
Otherwise give me numbers comparing all Android devices to All iOS devices.
Apple isn't competing against Google... its competing against Motorola, HTC, etc.
And the Android manufactures are competing against each other (as in real dog-fight competition) as much or more than they're competing against Apple.
This is purely a religious, not technological or economic story.
Well of course you can compare that as well. All of those compares are legit for me - model popularity, brand popularity, platform popularity.
But I am still interested how many iOS phones are out there, vs how many Android phones, vs how many Windows, WebOS, Blackberry phones. I'd also like to see a bit more granular compare - for example, how many iOS3 phones are out there vs. iOS4 vs Android 2.1 vs Android 2.2 etc.
It would also be interesting to see how many original iPhones are still in use, and how many iPhones 3, 3Gs... of course same for early and current Android models.
I'm not concerned about this at all, Android can have all the market shares but iOS is still the best in terms of user experience and that's what matters to me as a user.
I wouldn't mind Apple creating more variety of phones though. Differnt materials, different size, different color, etc, just like iPod.
That is excellent point. I couldn't agree more.
I really don't understand why some people here are so obsessed to see iOS numbers bigger than Android numbers at any cost. It looks almost as some sort of inferiority complex. Much as I am concerned, as long as my brand/product/platform is healthy, selling well and not going away anytime soon, I couldn't care less how much better or worse others are doing.
1. Regarding the cannibalization of RIM by Android, they don't really give any total numbers so RIM may (or may not) be holding steady and the Android growth is coming from new subscribers. The data in the article does not indicate an answer here.
2. If all iOS devices were included in mobile OS numbers, would we need to include WebOS numbers later when HP starts shipping it on all their computers? That would be kind of screwy I guess!
Additionally - what happens if Android starts showing on, say, TVs, SatNavs, media boxes, stereos? Microwaves?
I don't mind OS platform compares, but I am also perfectly fine with device Platonism compares: smartphones, tablet, media players. Give me them all.
The *only* valid comparisons are the two mentioned. That's why these sales figures of "smartphones" (an essentially made-up category who's definition changes from analyst to analyst), are completely irrelevant even if you ignore the obvious issues over sales reporting, channel stuffing etc.
The iPhone is a phone that runs an OS.
Comparing it's sales to all the other phones that run Android ignores the fact that you are comparing one phone's sales figures to the sales figures of dozens and dozens of phones which is unfair by definition. It's like comparing the sales of the Ford F150 to the sales of all Honda's.
If you want to compare Android to iOS on the other hand, you have to include all the devices that run iOS (platform to platform), otherwise it's similarly unfair by definition. It's not like there aren't Android tablets now and Android music players as well.
To compare "how Android is doing" versus iOS you have to include all devices. To compare "how the iPhone is doing" versus an Android phone, you have to compare phone to phone. iOS wins in each category of course.
Judging by the rate of growth, iOS devices will swamp Android devices sooner rather than later, but everyone is so focussed on these bogus sales figures they won't notice it for a while.
RIM is likely to collapse almost completely after they finally get the Playbook out the door for instance. All the signs are there. What happens to the market when those users all have to pick between Android and iOS? Certainly the majority of them will pick iOS if recent consumer surveys are accurate. Same with Nokia when it finally goes down. iOS will pick up the lion's share of users with each collapse IMO.
That's totally incorrect, and the problem is that you don't seem to understand categories. Do you know what a venn diagram is? Imagine one circle representing all smartphones. On the left side is a partially overlapping circle representing Android, and on the right side, a similar circle representing iOS. The Android circle represents all products running Android, and the iOS circle represents all products running iOS. The two regions where those circles overlap with the smartphones circle represent all smartphones running Android and all smartphones running iOS. Those two regions are what articles like this one deal with. It doesn't matter how many phones go in each overlapping region. Nor does it matter how many devices go in the Android or iOS circles outside of the overlapping regions. All smartphones running Android currently outsell all smartphones running iOS. That is the extent of it.
Your logic falters a couples of ways: If the resolution independence was robust then they did not need to do a separate tablet build - but that obviously is not the case as they have produced Honeycomb to address the tablet issue. Hence the point.
Let's make sure we are clear on the Many companies/homogeneity point. There is one Android OS being used by many handset manufacturers in place of the WinCE/Mo or their own proprietary OS on what are now being called Android phones. Early Android phones did not have compass or GPS built in just like the 1st gen iPhone so again your logic in very imprecise.
Let's make sure also we understand what has happened and what IS happening in the market. Android was introduced to the handset makers as an alternative to WinMo and their own proprietary OSes. Effectually Google set out to and was very successful at not only undermining the WinMo platform, but also allowing the handset makers to offline a bunch of internal OS dev work and save money. A couple still offer their own GUI overlay on top of Android to both differentiate and address what they see as shortcomings in the GUI. Google now is driving Android deeply into featurephone territory to gobble up segment in that part of the cellphone market as well - much to Nokia's chagrine. So Android marketshare derives primarily from share gained from WinMo, from Nokia's featurephone marketshare, and perhaps from some of RIM's Blackberry platform as well. Which is what these reported numbers (and others as well) demonstrate to anyone who has been watching the industry and not playing around on their cellphone
Understand also that, since Google is giving away Android to the handset makers, the Android team is a COST CENTER for Google, as opposed to their search team - which is a profit center, because ad placement is intergral to the search engine. Ad placement is not integral to the Android platform, and since it generates no direct revenue for Google, it is continually at risk. Especially with ChromeOS waiting in the wings, and in which ad placement can be made integral. Android is a very important segment holder for Google, but one that costs them money. Adherents to the platform need to recognize the reality behind what Google is doing, and be prepared for Android to be cashiered out when they bring ChromeOS primetime as the next mobile platform.
Google is busy watering down, I mean expanding, what the smartphone segment is as it erodes the featurephone market. Under Google's influence, the featurephone market will lose a significant percentage up into "smartphone" territory, even as Google figures out how to get Android eventually on featurephones as well. By diluting the smartphone definition they can bring Android to subset smartphones with reduced capacity and features in order to drive "marketshare". This isn't necessarily bad for Apple because unlike Android, Apple is a platform, not just an OS. Microsoft and Nokia ran into each other's arms, because they discover their vulnerabilities - Microsoft needs handset makers to license and market the WP7 platform, Nokia needs a viable, ready for market smartphone OS. Google is eating both of their lunches, without making any direct revenue off the effort. Apple on the other hand will continue to grow into the upper portion of the market currently occupied by RIM. RIM is struggling with maintaining, let alone growing their platform. They are losing some share to Android, but mostly to Apple as the platform wars heat up. HP is a wildcard in this game as they are potentially a platform (with WebOS), but they are not ready for primetime competition - yet. But Android categorically is NOT a platform, it is an OS, supporting features like the Marketplace notwithstanding. A platform encompasses the hardware, the OS and the software being delivered to the consumer.
Handset makers are busy competing with each other using the same OS, trying to differentiate the hardware enough to gain against the other Android models, but are completely dependent on Google continuing to advance Android. Profit margins for them are better with Android (no licensing fees) for now, but Microsoft has already fired a couple of lawsuits or threats of lawsuits against them to get them to pony up some licensing money for the touch interface - so suddenly Android isn't as "free" anymore for Motorola and HTC.
There that should help you better understand what's going on.
And if I may add, these handset makers will eventually break away from Android and craft their own OS to TOTALLY differentiate their handsets from their Android kin. LG has already expressed annoyance with too much Android in the market and may support Windows Mobile as a viable alternative. Windows-Nokia tandem, if proven successful may create a trend that will pull the device manufacturers away from Android. When that happens Google will not have anything to fall back on even if they decide to build their own vertically-integrated device. Nexus One was a strong testament to that, which by the way was a total failure.
And if I may add, these handset makers will eventually break away from Android and craft their own OS to TOTALLY differentiate their handsets from their Android kin. LG has already expressed annoyance with too much Android in the market and may support Windows Mobile as a viable alternative. Windows-Nokia tandem, if proven successful may create a trend that will pull the device manufacturers away from Android. When that happens Google will not have anything to fall back on even if they decide to build their own vertically-integrated device. Nexus One was a strong testament to that, which by the way was a total failure.
Wow ! Another pure speculation. You seem totally ignore the fact that Android manufacturers such as HTC or Motorola made a lot of dough by selling their successful models. I can't see them walking away from that for still unproven WP7 (the sales seen some decline lately) where Nokia is a special partner to OS vendor. But if they do for some weird reason, maybe - using your logic - we'll see Apple to ditch iOS and jump to gorgeous WP platform to make it even more crowded...no I don't think your point has any merit.
Wow ! Another pure speculation. You seem totally ignore the fact that Android manufacturers such as HTC or Motorola made a lot of dough by selling their successful models. I can't see them walking away from that for still unproven WP7 (the sales seen some decline lately) where Nokia is a special partner to OS vendor. But if they do for some weird reason, maybe - using your logic - we'll see Apple to ditch iOS and jump to gorgeous WP platform to make it even more crowded...no I don't think your point has any merit.
Made a lot of dough? Oh I see, CRUMBS, is that what you mean? I guess so and you are right. Nielsen Nov 10-Jan 11 rating had Apple/RIM cornered the OEM market at 27% apiece while HTC and Motorola had 12% and 10% (COMBINED FOR 22%, still off when compared to iPhone 4 and iPhone was not yet on Verizon). On this timeframe, HTC and Motorola were littering the market with cheap refresh that were pushed out on BOGO arrangement and hoping would give them a decent marketshare. But they still fell short.
I give Android 16 months and once WP7 on Nokia takes off, we will see a mass exodus of OEM devices from Android. These OEMs are not stupid you know. They will trade their Android loyalty for something better to differentiate their hardware and give them decent profit margin. A scenario where LG and Samsung (bottom-feeders in latest Nielsen OEM rating) leave Android for WP7 will have Android compete for third place against WP7. What if HTC and Motorola do the same and migrate to WP7? Too bad for Google, the WP7/Nokia was a deal that's causing them to puke right now. In all these, Apple is standing on a rock with iOS and will continue to dominate the market in terms of most sales and profit margin.
And so does Apple as well. What we really see nowadays is expanding once niche high-end phone segment into mainstream. It is backed by the fact, that phone hardware got so much cheaper. Apple will have to drop the prices some day, too.
It already has. I just saw an TV ad for a 3GS for $49. The ad was promoting how cheap you can get an iPhone for.
Quote:
Can you read the numbers presented there ? Apple share is about the same, Rim goes down, Android goes up. What drives you to conclusion "losing share mostly to Apple" ?
Heh, I was thinking the same thing when I read that. There is no other way to read that other than Android is eating RIM market share.
Quote:
Boy, you have a lot of patience! Couldn't have rebutted it better myself.
Cry those bitter Apple Fanboy tears over your Starbucks you hipster douchebags!
Love it!
Look on the bright side assclowns, even though Google is beating the shit out of your piece of junk iPhones, at least you can still laugh at Microsoft's epic Windows Phone 7 failure.
Comments
At the end of the day, revenue/profit is what powers everything. That would be another metric.
Profit that powers everything, revenue is almost irrelevant.
The data is a summary of the preferences of many peope, not just you, therefore it is infinitely more meaningful.
The data is a summary that people want the cheapest ass, vaguely acceptable touch screen phone they can get their hands on, regardless of the experience. Period!
Nothing more, nothing less. (90% of those Android owners couldn't give a crap about Android OR "openness"). They just want a cheap phone.
The data also says that despite Apple's high price tags they can still hold their own and remain desirable against a sea of "cheap crap"!
The only problem is that with the iPhone, a developer can still target more phones with one version of your app, which is why most developers till today put the iPhone first.
Who has that problem ? You ? Android developer can also target more phones with just single version of an app, resolution independence is baked in Android since the Cupcake release. What's your point ?
Despite being produced by many different companies, it is pretty homogenous platform, there are almost no phones without compass (unlike original iPhone) or if you take in account the entire iOS platform, without camera (unlike iPad), without GPS (unlike iPad Wifi) or without phone part (unlike iPod, iPad), although Android tablets will change that.
Android will grow and grow. Just wait when China floods the market with very cheap ones then it's game over for number, much like PC and Mac. Do I care? No [...]
Except for all the extra botnets flooding our inboxes with spam, that is.
Who has that problem ? You ? Android developer can also target more phones with just single version of an app, resolution independence is baked in Android since the Cupcake release. What's your point ?
Despite being produced by many different companies, it is pretty homogenous platform, there are almost no phones without compass (unlike original iPhone) or if you take in account the entire iOS platform, without camera (unlike iPad), without GPS (unlike iPad Wifi) or without phone part (unlike iPod, iPad), although Android tablets will change that.
Your logic falters a couples of ways: If the resolution independence was robust then they did not need to do a separate tablet build - but that obviously is not the case as they have produced Honeycomb to address the tablet issue. Hence the point.
Let's make sure we are clear on the Many companies/homogeneity point. There is one Android OS being used by many handset manufacturers in place of the WinCE/Mo or their own proprietary OS on what are now being called Android phones. Early Android phones did not have compass or GPS built in just like the 1st gen iPhone so again your logic in very imprecise.
Let's make sure also we understand what has happened and what IS happening in the market. Android was introduced to the handset makers as an alternative to WinMo and their own proprietary OSes. Effectually Google set out to and was very successful at not only undermining the WinMo platform, but also allowing the handset makers to offline a bunch of internal OS dev work and save money. A couple still offer their own GUI overlay on top of Android to both differentiate and address what they see as shortcomings in the GUI. Google now is driving Android deeply into featurephone territory to gobble up segment in that part of the cellphone market as well - much to Nokia's chagrine. So Android marketshare derives primarily from share gained from WinMo, from Nokia's featurephone marketshare, and perhaps from some of RIM's Blackberry platform as well. Which is what these reported numbers (and others as well) demonstrate to anyone who has been watching the industry and not playing around on their cellphone
Understand also that, since Google is giving away Android to the handset makers, the Android team is a COST CENTER for Google, as opposed to their search team - which is a profit center, because ad placement is intergral to the search engine. Ad placement is not integral to the Android platform, and since it generates no direct revenue for Google, it is continually at risk. Especially with ChromeOS waiting in the wings, and in which ad placement can be made integral. Android is a very important segment holder for Google, but one that costs them money. Adherents to the platform need to recognize the reality behind what Google is doing, and be prepared for Android to be cashiered out when they bring ChromeOS primetime as the next mobile platform.
Google is busy watering down, I mean expanding, what the smartphone segment is as it erodes the featurephone market. Under Google's influence, the featurephone market will lose a significant percentage up into "smartphone" territory, even as Google figures out how to get Android eventually on featurephones as well. By diluting the smartphone definition they can bring Android to subset smartphones with reduced capacity and features in order to drive "marketshare". This isn't necessarily bad for Apple because unlike Android, Apple is a platform, not just an OS. Microsoft and Nokia ran into each other's arms, because they discover their vulnerabilities - Microsoft needs handset makers to license and market the WP7 platform, Nokia needs a viable, ready for market smartphone OS. Google is eating both of their lunches, without making any direct revenue off the effort. Apple on the other hand will continue to grow into the upper portion of the market currently occupied by RIM. RIM is struggling with maintaining, let alone growing their platform. They are losing some share to Android, but mostly to Apple as the platform wars heat up. HP is a wildcard in this game as they are potentially a platform (with WebOS), but they are not ready for primetime competition - yet. But Android categorically is NOT a platform, it is an OS, supporting features like the Marketplace notwithstanding. A platform encompasses the hardware, the OS and the software being delivered to the consumer.
Handset makers are busy competing with each other using the same OS, trying to differentiate the hardware enough to gain against the other Android models, but are completely dependent on Google continuing to advance Android. Profit margins for them are better with Android (no licensing fees) for now, but Microsoft has already fired a couple of lawsuits or threats of lawsuits against them to get them to pony up some licensing money for the touch interface - so suddenly Android isn't as "free" anymore for Motorola and HTC.
There that should help you better understand what's going on.
In the recent Nielsen report (January 2011), Apple and RIM share the top spot with 27%, HTC has 12%, Motorola 10%, Samsung 5%, Others 2%. Obviously, these numbers don't include -Verizon iPhone 4.
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/...28Nielsen+Wire
Nielsen has been the longest in the ratings business and has quite a reputation of being objective and not slanted to a particular product or service.
Your logic falters a couples of ways: If the resolution independence was robust then they did not need to do a separate tablet build - but that obviously is not the case as they have produced Honeycomb to address the tablet issue. Hence the point.
Let's make sure we are clear on the Many companies/homogeneity point. There is one Android OS being used by many handset manufacturers in place of the WinCE/Mo or their own proprietary OS on what are now being called Android phones. Early Android phones did not have compass or GPS built in just like the 1st gen iPhone so again your logic in very imprecise.
Let's make sure also we understand what has happened and what IS happening in the market. Android was introduced to the handset makers as an alternative to WinMo and their own proprietary OSes. Effectually Google set out to and was very successful at not only undermining the WinMo platform, but also allowing the handset makers to offline a bunch of internal OS dev work and save money. A couple still offer their own GUI overlay on top of Android to both differentiate and address what they see as shortcomings in the GUI. Google now is driving Android deeply into featurephone territory to gobble up segment in that part of the cellphone market as well - much to Nokia's chagrine. So Android marketshare derives primarily from share gained from WinMo, from Nokia's featurephone marketshare, and perhaps from some of RIM's Blackberry platform as well. Which is what these reported numbers (and others as well) demonstrate to anyone who has been watching the industry and not playing around on their cellphone
Understand also that, since Google is giving away Android to the handset makers, the Android team is a COST CENTER for Google, as opposed to their search team - which is a profit center, because ad placement is intergral to the search engine. Ad placement is not integral to the Android platform, and since it generates no direct revenue for Google, it is continually at risk. Especially with ChromeOS waiting in the wings, and in which ad placement can be made integral. Android is a very important segment holder for Google, but one that costs them money. Adherents to the platform need to recognize the reality behind what Google is doing, and be prepared for Android to be cashiered out when they bring ChromeOS primetime as the next mobile platform.
Google is busy watering down, I mean expanding, what the smartphone segment is as it erodes the featurephone market. Under Google's influence, the featurephone market will lose a significant percentage up into "smartphone" territory, even as Google figures out how to get Android eventually on featurephones as well. By diluting the smartphone definition they can bring Android to subset smartphones with reduced capacity and features in order to drive "marketshare". This isn't necessarily bad for Apple because unlike Android, Apple is a platform, not just an OS. Microsoft and Nokia ran into each other's arms, because they discover their vulnerabilities - Microsoft needs handset makers to license and market the WP7 platform, Nokia needs a viable, ready for market smartphone OS. Google is eating both of their lunches, without making any direct revenue off the effort. Apple on the other hand will continue to grow into the upper portion of the market currently occupied by RIM. RIM is struggling with maintaining, let alone growing their platform. They are losing some share to Android, but mostly to Apple as the platform wars heat up. HP is a wildcard in this game as they are potentially a platform (with WebOS), but they are not ready for primetime competition - yet. But Android categorically is NOT a platform, it is an OS, supporting features like the Marketplace notwithstanding. A platform encompasses the hardware, the OS and the software being delivered to the consumer.
Handset makers are busy competing with each other using the same OS, trying to differentiate the hardware enough to gain against the other Android models, but are completely dependent on Google continuing to advance Android. Profit margins for them are better with Android (no licensing fees) for now, but Microsoft has already fired a couple of lawsuits or threats of lawsuits against them to get them to pony up some licensing money for the touch interface - so suddenly Android isn't as "free" anymore for Motorola and HTC.
There that should help you better understand what's going on.
Very insightful, man. Good job.
Your logic falters a couples of ways
Yours falters almost everywhere, together with some blatant lies. Let's go step by step
If the resolution independence was robust then they did not need to do a separate tablet build - but that obviously is not the case as they have produced Honeycomb to address the tablet issue. Hence the point.
Your assumption is wrong. Honeycomb doesn't deal with resolution independence at all. Applications written according the Android specs and best practices run on tablets with or without Honeycomb just fine. Honeycomb adds bunch of features that makes sense on the bigger screen estate, such as system-wide drag'n'drop support, multiple applications sharing screen at the same time etc. so tablet OS doesn't look like like oversized (i)phone.
Let's make sure we are clear on the Many companies/homogeneity point. There is one Android OS being used by many handset manufacturers in place of the WinCE/Mo or their own proprietary OS on what are now being called Android phones.
That's just your speculation. Android founder made clear what was the reason Google bought their company...they wanted to produce phone with a decent browser so that more users can surf the net everywhere, which was plan they set up before the iPhone went to public. They succeeded in this. I am afraid that his explanation makes much more sense, than try to "undermine" WinCE, system that never had any substantial market share, just because high end phones needed to run it were too expensive to became mainstream.
Early Android phones did not have compass or GPS built in just like the 1st gen iPhone so again your logic in very imprecise.
This is just a lie. The very first Android phone, HTC G1 has both compass and GPS. Every other substantial phone, be it Hero, Droid, Legend, Nexus... had all these features. All have camera and 3G networking, too. Perhaps there was a phone shipping without them, but their sales were pretty marginal. Check the facts first.
Let's make sure also we understand what has happened and what IS happening in the market. Android was introduced to the handset makers as an alternative to WinMo and their own proprietary OSes. Effectually Google set out to and was very successful at not only undermining the WinMo platform, but also allowing the handset makers to offline a bunch of internal OS dev work and save money.
Again this is just your speculation. Even if you repeat it thousand more times, it is no more relevant than your personal opinion, not backed by any evidence and having no merit.
A couple still offer their own GUI overlay on top of Android to both differentiate and address what they see as shortcomings in the GUI.
Oh, the famous "fragmentation" argument ;-) Have you noticed that those changes happen only to the skin of the home/launcher application and the API and functionality of the phone is intact across all those "differentiated" phones ? From the developer's perspective, it is all just one phone.
Google now is driving Android deeply into featurephone territory to gobble up segment in that part of the cellphone market as well - much to Nokia's chagrine.
And so does Apple as well. What we really see nowadays is expanding once niche high-end phone segment into mainstream. It is backed by the fact, that phone hardware got so much cheaper. Apple will have to drop the prices some day, too. My guess is that we'll see multiple versions of iPhone 5, following the same pattern they used with the iPod, but this is just my speculation.
So Android marketshare derives primarily from share gained from WinMo, from Nokia's featurephone marketshare, and perhaps from some of RIM's Blackberry platform as well. Which is what these reported numbers (and others as well) demonstrate to anyone who has been watching the industry and not playing around on their cellphone
Windows Mobile never have the total number of devices Android have now. The entire segment is expanding. It is the same thing that happened to PCs. IT was high-tech toy to rich and then one day it was owned and used by everyone.
Understand also that, since Google is giving away Android to the handset makers, the Android team is a COST CENTER for Google, as opposed to their search team - which is a profit center, because ad placement is intergral to the search engine.
Another speculation of yours. Why do you think there is no direct revenue from Android ? If you were in this industry for some time you might have noticed, that manufacturers are eager to pay fortune for any competitive advantage they can get, thus having early access for non-public versions of the OS is worth a lots of money to them. Another fact : the Android sources doesn't include Google suite of apps, and to have them available to manufacturer is another nice source of income for Google. As Andy Rubin said, Android unit is "about to be even". There are no public available data to proof this, so I don't call your speculation a lie, but it is pretty close.
Ad placement is not integral to the Android platform, and since it generates no direct revenue for Google, it is continually at risk.
They are happy to increase a number of browsers available to the users, so they strengthened their core business. It is very sound strategy.
Especially with ChromeOS waiting in the wings, and in which ad placement can be made integral.
What you know about future plans of Google regarding those two OS ? They are not public. Unless you happen to sit in their board, this is another speculation of yours that has no merit.
Android is a very important segment holder for Google, but one that costs them money. Adherents to the platform need to recognize the reality behind what Google is doing, and be prepared for Android to be cashiered out when they bring ChromeOS primetime as the next mobile platform.
Its just a speculation at best, as explained above.
Google is busy watering down, I mean expanding, what the smartphone segment is as it erodes the featurephone market. Under Google's influence, the featurephone market will lose a significant percentage up into "smartphone" territory, even as Google figures out how to get Android eventually on featurephones as well. By diluting the smartphone definition they can bring Android to subset smartphones with reduced capacity and features in order to drive "marketshare". This isn't necessarily bad for Apple because unlike Android, Apple is a platform, not just an OS. Microsoft and Nokia ran into each other's arms, because they discover their vulnerabilities - Microsoft needs handset makers to license and market the WP7 platform, Nokia needs a viable, ready for market smartphone OS. Google is eating both of their lunches, without making any direct revenue off the effort. Apple on the other hand will continue to grow into the upper portion of the market currently occupied by RIM. RIM is struggling with maintaining, let alone growing their platform.
Even if I won't label the following paragraph as another speculation, I can't see what's your point there ?
They are losing some share to Android, but mostly to Apple as the platform wars heat up. HP is a wildcard in this game as they are potentially a platform (with WebOS), but they are not ready for primetime competition - yet.
Can you read the numbers presented there ? Apple share is about the same, Rim goes down, Android goes up. What drives you to conclusion "losing share mostly to Apple" ?
But Android categorically is NOT a platform, it is an OS, supporting features like the Marketplace notwithstanding. A platform encompasses the hardware, the OS and the software being delivered to the consumer.
That's just your definition. Honestly I don't care. I believe most users who bought Androids in such steady pace don't care either. Just curious...what is Android in your opinion then ?
Handset makers are busy competing with each other using the same OS, trying to differentiate the hardware enough to gain against the other Android models, but are completely dependent on Google continuing to advance Android. Profit margins for them are better with Android (no licensing fees) for now, but Microsoft has already fired a couple of lawsuits or threats of lawsuits against them to get them to pony up some licensing money for the touch interface - so suddenly Android isn't as "free" anymore for Motorola and HTC.
If you haven't noticed, everybody is firing lawsuits agains everybody. What brings you to the conclusion that Microsoft wins against the Motorola and HTC and it will cost them money ? Why it can't be Apple who'll be forced to pay royalties to Nokia ? Or nobody ?
If you bother to try to search a little bit about the history of the (multi)touch interface, you'll learn that most of this "novelty stuff" was in fact invented by the University of Toronto way back in 1980-ies and thus it is clear "prior act" and quite likely nobody succeeds in suing anyone, but this is just my guess, the legal system is too unpredictable to make whatever speculation there.
There that should help you better understand what's going on.
Yeah. You're a fanboy, that's what going on. I like both platforms as they provide a revenue stream for me. iOS have some pretty interesting features, but so has Android, too. It is no surprise both platforms are so popular, this is what I think the article was about.
shouldn't mobile platforms include both the iPod touch and iPad as iOS devices?
it's Android vs iOS, and iOS should still be well ahead.
Not if they are discussing mobile phones.
If you are discussing OS platforms, then yes.
Though that is likely to change. I don't think Android tablets will grow much different to Android phones... especially that Apple had less of a head-start with tablets than it had with phones.
I am wondering if we will see flood of Android MP3 players as well. That would be harder nut to crack (considering how dominant and how long is iPod) but it seems natural thing for Android to turn to.
Give me numbers comparing iPhone to any other PHONE (or even all phones manufactured by a single company) and I'll be interested.
Otherwise give me numbers comparing all Android devices to All iOS devices.
Apple isn't competing against Google... its competing against Motorola, HTC, etc.
And the Android manufactures are competing against each other (as in real dog-fight competition) as much or more than they're competing against Apple.
This is purely a religious, not technological or economic story.
Well of course you can compare that as well. All of those compares are legit for me - model popularity, brand popularity, platform popularity.
But I am still interested how many iOS phones are out there, vs how many Android phones, vs how many Windows, WebOS, Blackberry phones. I'd also like to see a bit more granular compare - for example, how many iOS3 phones are out there vs. iOS4 vs Android 2.1 vs Android 2.2 etc.
It would also be interesting to see how many original iPhones are still in use, and how many iPhones 3, 3Gs... of course same for early and current Android models.
I'm not concerned about this at all, Android can have all the market shares but iOS is still the best in terms of user experience and that's what matters to me as a user.
I wouldn't mind Apple creating more variety of phones though. Differnt materials, different size, different color, etc, just like iPod.
That is excellent point. I couldn't agree more.
I really don't understand why some people here are so obsessed to see iOS numbers bigger than Android numbers at any cost. It looks almost as some sort of inferiority complex. Much as I am concerned, as long as my brand/product/platform is healthy, selling well and not going away anytime soon, I couldn't care less how much better or worse others are doing.
1. Regarding the cannibalization of RIM by Android, they don't really give any total numbers so RIM may (or may not) be holding steady and the Android growth is coming from new subscribers. The data in the article does not indicate an answer here.
2. If all iOS devices were included in mobile OS numbers, would we need to include WebOS numbers later when HP starts shipping it on all their computers? That would be kind of screwy I guess!
Additionally - what happens if Android starts showing on, say, TVs, SatNavs, media boxes, stereos? Microwaves?
I don't mind OS platform compares, but I am also perfectly fine with device Platonism compares: smartphones, tablet, media players. Give me them all.
Yours falters almost everywhere, together with some blatant lies. Let's go step by step
Boy, you have a lot of patience! Couldn't have rebutted it better myself.
This is just crazy talk.
The *only* valid comparisons are the two mentioned. That's why these sales figures of "smartphones" (an essentially made-up category who's definition changes from analyst to analyst), are completely irrelevant even if you ignore the obvious issues over sales reporting, channel stuffing etc.
The iPhone is a phone that runs an OS.
Comparing it's sales to all the other phones that run Android ignores the fact that you are comparing one phone's sales figures to the sales figures of dozens and dozens of phones which is unfair by definition. It's like comparing the sales of the Ford F150 to the sales of all Honda's.
If you want to compare Android to iOS on the other hand, you have to include all the devices that run iOS (platform to platform), otherwise it's similarly unfair by definition. It's not like there aren't Android tablets now and Android music players as well.
To compare "how Android is doing" versus iOS you have to include all devices. To compare "how the iPhone is doing" versus an Android phone, you have to compare phone to phone. iOS wins in each category of course.
Judging by the rate of growth, iOS devices will swamp Android devices sooner rather than later, but everyone is so focussed on these bogus sales figures they won't notice it for a while.
RIM is likely to collapse almost completely after they finally get the Playbook out the door for instance. All the signs are there. What happens to the market when those users all have to pick between Android and iOS? Certainly the majority of them will pick iOS if recent consumer surveys are accurate. Same with Nokia when it finally goes down. iOS will pick up the lion's share of users with each collapse IMO.
That's totally incorrect, and the problem is that you don't seem to understand categories. Do you know what a venn diagram is? Imagine one circle representing all smartphones. On the left side is a partially overlapping circle representing Android, and on the right side, a similar circle representing iOS. The Android circle represents all products running Android, and the iOS circle represents all products running iOS. The two regions where those circles overlap with the smartphones circle represent all smartphones running Android and all smartphones running iOS. Those two regions are what articles like this one deal with. It doesn't matter how many phones go in each overlapping region. Nor does it matter how many devices go in the Android or iOS circles outside of the overlapping regions. All smartphones running Android currently outsell all smartphones running iOS. That is the extent of it.
Your logic falters a couples of ways: If the resolution independence was robust then they did not need to do a separate tablet build - but that obviously is not the case as they have produced Honeycomb to address the tablet issue. Hence the point.
Let's make sure we are clear on the Many companies/homogeneity point. There is one Android OS being used by many handset manufacturers in place of the WinCE/Mo or their own proprietary OS on what are now being called Android phones. Early Android phones did not have compass or GPS built in just like the 1st gen iPhone so again your logic in very imprecise.
Let's make sure also we understand what has happened and what IS happening in the market. Android was introduced to the handset makers as an alternative to WinMo and their own proprietary OSes. Effectually Google set out to and was very successful at not only undermining the WinMo platform, but also allowing the handset makers to offline a bunch of internal OS dev work and save money. A couple still offer their own GUI overlay on top of Android to both differentiate and address what they see as shortcomings in the GUI. Google now is driving Android deeply into featurephone territory to gobble up segment in that part of the cellphone market as well - much to Nokia's chagrine. So Android marketshare derives primarily from share gained from WinMo, from Nokia's featurephone marketshare, and perhaps from some of RIM's Blackberry platform as well. Which is what these reported numbers (and others as well) demonstrate to anyone who has been watching the industry and not playing around on their cellphone
Understand also that, since Google is giving away Android to the handset makers, the Android team is a COST CENTER for Google, as opposed to their search team - which is a profit center, because ad placement is intergral to the search engine. Ad placement is not integral to the Android platform, and since it generates no direct revenue for Google, it is continually at risk. Especially with ChromeOS waiting in the wings, and in which ad placement can be made integral. Android is a very important segment holder for Google, but one that costs them money. Adherents to the platform need to recognize the reality behind what Google is doing, and be prepared for Android to be cashiered out when they bring ChromeOS primetime as the next mobile platform.
Google is busy watering down, I mean expanding, what the smartphone segment is as it erodes the featurephone market. Under Google's influence, the featurephone market will lose a significant percentage up into "smartphone" territory, even as Google figures out how to get Android eventually on featurephones as well. By diluting the smartphone definition they can bring Android to subset smartphones with reduced capacity and features in order to drive "marketshare". This isn't necessarily bad for Apple because unlike Android, Apple is a platform, not just an OS. Microsoft and Nokia ran into each other's arms, because they discover their vulnerabilities - Microsoft needs handset makers to license and market the WP7 platform, Nokia needs a viable, ready for market smartphone OS. Google is eating both of their lunches, without making any direct revenue off the effort. Apple on the other hand will continue to grow into the upper portion of the market currently occupied by RIM. RIM is struggling with maintaining, let alone growing their platform. They are losing some share to Android, but mostly to Apple as the platform wars heat up. HP is a wildcard in this game as they are potentially a platform (with WebOS), but they are not ready for primetime competition - yet. But Android categorically is NOT a platform, it is an OS, supporting features like the Marketplace notwithstanding. A platform encompasses the hardware, the OS and the software being delivered to the consumer.
Handset makers are busy competing with each other using the same OS, trying to differentiate the hardware enough to gain against the other Android models, but are completely dependent on Google continuing to advance Android. Profit margins for them are better with Android (no licensing fees) for now, but Microsoft has already fired a couple of lawsuits or threats of lawsuits against them to get them to pony up some licensing money for the touch interface - so suddenly Android isn't as "free" anymore for Motorola and HTC.
There that should help you better understand what's going on.
And if I may add, these handset makers will eventually break away from Android and craft their own OS to TOTALLY differentiate their handsets from their Android kin. LG has already expressed annoyance with too much Android in the market and may support Windows Mobile as a viable alternative. Windows-Nokia tandem, if proven successful may create a trend that will pull the device manufacturers away from Android. When that happens Google will not have anything to fall back on even if they decide to build their own vertically-integrated device. Nexus One was a strong testament to that, which by the way was a total failure.
Rebuttal to Brainless:
And if I may add, these handset makers will eventually break away from Android and craft their own OS to TOTALLY differentiate their handsets from their Android kin. LG has already expressed annoyance with too much Android in the market and may support Windows Mobile as a viable alternative. Windows-Nokia tandem, if proven successful may create a trend that will pull the device manufacturers away from Android. When that happens Google will not have anything to fall back on even if they decide to build their own vertically-integrated device. Nexus One was a strong testament to that, which by the way was a total failure.
Wow ! Another pure speculation. You seem totally ignore the fact that Android manufacturers such as HTC or Motorola made a lot of dough by selling their successful models. I can't see them walking away from that for still unproven WP7 (the sales seen some decline lately) where Nokia is a special partner to OS vendor. But if they do for some weird reason, maybe - using your logic - we'll see Apple to ditch iOS and jump to gorgeous WP platform to make it even more crowded...no I don't think your point has any merit.
Wow ! Another pure speculation. You seem totally ignore the fact that Android manufacturers such as HTC or Motorola made a lot of dough by selling their successful models. I can't see them walking away from that for still unproven WP7 (the sales seen some decline lately) where Nokia is a special partner to OS vendor. But if they do for some weird reason, maybe - using your logic - we'll see Apple to ditch iOS and jump to gorgeous WP platform to make it even more crowded...no I don't think your point has any merit.
Made a lot of dough? Oh I see, CRUMBS, is that what you mean? I guess so and you are right. Nielsen Nov 10-Jan 11 rating had Apple/RIM cornered the OEM market at 27% apiece while HTC and Motorola had 12% and 10% (COMBINED FOR 22%, still off when compared to iPhone 4 and iPhone was not yet on Verizon). On this timeframe, HTC and Motorola were littering the market with cheap refresh that were pushed out on BOGO arrangement and hoping would give them a decent marketshare. But they still fell short.
I give Android 16 months and once WP7 on Nokia takes off, we will see a mass exodus of OEM devices from Android. These OEMs are not stupid you know. They will trade their Android loyalty for something better to differentiate their hardware and give them decent profit margin. A scenario where LG and Samsung (bottom-feeders in latest Nielsen OEM rating) leave Android for WP7 will have Android compete for third place against WP7. What if HTC and Motorola do the same and migrate to WP7? Too bad for Google, the WP7/Nokia was a deal that's causing them to puke right now. In all these, Apple is standing on a rock with iOS and will continue to dominate the market in terms of most sales and profit margin.
And so does Apple as well. What we really see nowadays is expanding once niche high-end phone segment into mainstream. It is backed by the fact, that phone hardware got so much cheaper. Apple will have to drop the prices some day, too.
It already has. I just saw an TV ad for a 3GS for $49. The ad was promoting how cheap you can get an iPhone for.
Can you read the numbers presented there ? Apple share is about the same, Rim goes down, Android goes up. What drives you to conclusion "losing share mostly to Apple" ?
Heh, I was thinking the same thing when I read that. There is no other way to read that other than Android is eating RIM market share.
Boy, you have a lot of patience! Couldn't have rebutted it better myself.
Ditto. His arguments were spot on.
Love it!
Look on the bright side assclowns, even though Google is beating the shit out of your piece of junk iPhones, at least you can still laugh at Microsoft's epic Windows Phone 7 failure.