What I am suggesting is that Apple is doing more with less. On devices with similar specifications, iOS 5 is performing better (especially with respect to graphics and responsiveness of the UI to touch).
By taking their foot off the brake I mean that Apple could decide to speciate the iPhone form factor with different sizes and additional hardware features that are said to be things that keep people from buying. For example, you have a large population (of which I am not a member) that learned to type accurately with their thumbs. If you wanted to target that population you might include a hardware keyboard for each character set you wished to support or you could make the individual hardware keys into displays that can change a single displayed character based on a user selection. This would be a logistics challenge of dubious payback but it might lead to wider adoption of iOS.
They could also create a separate model for each carrier's peculiar allocation of radio bandwidth and networking technology.
They could introduce a larger phone with a larger display and monster battery to power a 4G LTE radio for the markets in which it has been already rolled out.
They could make a dual-screened flip-phone that is compact enough to fit in the smallest pockets.
They could make a phone that is only an earwig and is operated by voice alone and displays on the palm of your hand or a wall when you look at it.
They could make a phone with a display built into a contact lens and the speakers built into your ears.
Instead they are taking the prudent course of building in such a way as to meet the needs of 80% of the people with a 95% solution.
- Sent from my iPhone 4S via Siri dictation
I didn't know Siri could dictate. Cool beans.
That aside; I agree that Apple's crazy optimisation has allowed them to save money and perform better than the equivalent and perform alarmingly close to those with higher specifications. Android tablets being a good benchmark for this.
Honeycomb needs 1GB of RAM, iOS5 can run on 256mb. Nice!
I have to agree with a number of you this article and the obvious research the article is based on, it is confusing. If you were not familiar with the over industry this could be very miss leading.
As it was said Google (not yet) is not in the cell phone business they attempted and failed, and I would argue they are not in the cellphone OS business either since the basic premise of being in a business or market segment is you actually sell and make revenue which they do not. They are in the ad business and they clearly said their objective is to be presents in the mobile ad space. Google needs to be measures on what they claim is their primary business which is ads not cell phone sales or Cell phone OS since they do not sell either of those items
Even though they have over 50% more opportunities to place an ad in front of an mobile use, they still do not dominate in the space. I think their ad dollars from this space is less than 50%. It sounds like the ad vehicle (android) is not doing what they expected.
The marketshare (or percentage of new handsets with a particular OS that are sold) is relevant because it can foreshadow developer support with their focusing third party apps for you OS platform. Installed base (the total number of active units on which the same OS is installed) is also important.
Did you even read what I wrote?
If you're a developer trying to decide which OS to support, you wouldn't simply look at smartphone handset market share. Among the other important considerations:
1. If your app is not restricted to being used on a phone, you'd look at ALL iOS devices vs all Android devices - not just phones. After all, iPhone apps run just fine on the iPod Touch and (with minimal developer effort) on the iPad. If you look at all iOS devices vs all Android devices, the numbers are roughly equal.
2. With iOS, a properly coded app will run on all recent systems. The same is not true for Android. So let's assume that the numbers are roughly equal for iOS and Android. But if 90% of iOS devices will run your app, but only 20% of Android devices will run each version, there's a difference in reward.
3. Android hardware is far more variable. There are a lot of cheap, low end Android devices out there that probably won't run any app worth developing. So you have to break it down by which devices are powerful enough to run your app.
4. It has been well documented that developers make far more money on iOS than on Android (about 4:1, IIRC). So you have to consider possible returns, as well.
Anyone who simply looks at the number of Android handsets sold vs the number of iPhones when trying to decide which platform to develop for is making a HUGE mistake.
Given the number of iPads and iPods sold, I'd have to bring the android lead into question considering the level of disinterest in all Android devices outside the smartphone market.
The statement of the person to whom you responded is false. Apple iOS has 54% market share for mobile operating systems.
It's my opinion that Nokia made te wrong bet when they chose Microsoft for a mobile OS. Supposedly they chose WP7 over Android because Google's terms were more restrictive, but what has Microsoft allowed Nokia to do with WP7 that Google wouldn't allow with Android? Has Nokia actually customized WP7 beyond the blue tiles? What makes Nokia's WP7 any different from WP7 on other phones? I think in the end Nokia is going to regret that choice, right before they sack Elop.
That aside; I agree that Apple's crazy optimisation has allowed them to save money and perform better than the equivalent and perform alarmingly close to those with higher specifications. Android tablets being a good benchmark for this.
Honeycomb needs 1GB of RAM, iOS5 can run on 256mb. Nice!
iPhone 4S provides a system-wide dictation feature. This isn't really part of Siri but the pervasiveness of dictation and the general sense of having a personal assistant vis-a-vis dictation is critical to the magical feel of Siri.
Anyone who simply looks at the number of Android handsets sold vs the number of iPhones when trying to decide which platform to develop for is making a HUGE mistake.
Neither one has rules saying if you develop for one you can't do so for the other. In addition, once you have the principal idea for an app developed and most of the kinks figured out, it's easier and less expensive to port that app to another platform than start from scratch on a new idea. That's especially true with the average app even on iOS not making back their investment in time and money. The last figure I saw was the average i-publisher getting $8500 a year gross, and that may be shared among several people.
"While there may have been over 10 billion app downloads, that number spreads the $2 billion that Apple has paid to publishers over its three-year lifespan very thin. These numbers translate into an economy where there is just over $8,500 per publisher per year to go around. Keep in mind that a publisher may be just a single developer, or a whole team of analysts, developers, testers and managers."
That's not enough to rely on for a living is it? The numbers sound huge when throwing around x-Billion claims, but divided up it's relatively tiny.
It's my opinion that Nokia made te wrong bet when they chose Microsoft for a mobile OS. Supposedly they chose WP7 over Android because Google's terms were more restrictive, but what has Microsoft allowed Nokia to do with WP7 that Google wouldn't allow with Android? Has Nokia actually customized WP7 beyond the blue tiles? What makes Nokia's WP7 any different from WP7 on other phones? I think in the end Nokia is going to regret that choice, right before they sack Elop.
If they went with Android they'd just be another HW vendor vying for sales from those that want Android phones. It would be like Windows PC vendors all clawing their way to the bottom.
At least with WP7 they have a unique edge. And WP7 is great and their app store is okay. It's say it's just below the threshold of being large enough that size isn't an issue.
The Nokia Lumia 800 looks great, too. I'd love to buy one but at $1400 that's just too steep. They need to be a lot more competitive. I did read just yesterday they are in talks with US carriers so hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later.
Neither one has rules saying if you develop for one you can't do so for the other. In addition, once you have the principal idea for an app developed and most of the kinks figured out, it's easier and less expensive to port that app to another platform than start from scratch on a new idea. That's especially true with the average app even on iOS not making back their investment in time and money. The last figure I saw was the average i-publisher getting $8500 a year gross, and that may be shared among several people.
"While there may have been over 10 billion app downloads, that number spreads the $2 billion that Apple has paid to publishers over its three-year lifespan very thin. These numbers translate into an economy where there is just over $8,500 per publisher per year to go around. Keep in mind that a publisher may be just a single developer, or a whole team of analysts, developers, testers and managers."
That's not enough to rely on for a living is it? The numbers sound huge when throwing around x-Billion claims, but divided up it's relatively tiny.
I was pointing out that you can't simply look at the number of licensed handsets if you're trying to decide whether to develop for a given platform or not.
Your response was (as is usual for you) totally irrelevant to that question and full of misleading information.
I was pointing out that you can't simply look at the number of licensed handsets if you're trying to decide whether to develop for a given platform or not.
Your response was (as is usual for you) totally irrelevant to that question and full of misleading information.
Totally irrelevant is a stretch since I was pointing out other factors to consider just as you were.
Misleading information? Please point those parts out.
If they went with Android they'd just be another HW vendor vying for sales from those that want Android phones. It would be like Windows PC vendors all clawing their way to the bottom.
At least with WP7 they have a unique edge. And WP7 is great and their app store is okay. It's say it's just below the threshold of being large enough that size isn't an issue.
The Nokia Lumia 800 looks great, too. I'd love to buy one but at $1400 that's just too steep. They need to be a lot more competitive. I did read just yesterday they are in talks with US carriers so hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later.
Hmm. Well I guess the question is: will it be enough to reverse Nokia's fortunes?
A consideration of the OS, as it applies to iOS, involves more than smartphones when it comes to 3rd party Apps, which makes these figures somewhat useless.
The figures are far from useless. If a consumer wants an OS that has a lot of staying power, they may well choose Android.
Android is far, far in the lead. Android is surging.
i don't know if android would still be in the lead, but just like ferrari will never outsell fiat toyota and ford together (or even 1 vs 1), android being in the lead makes sense.
but what's the point? android products are cheaper, so there's nothing apple can do besides playing with it's strengths. they (apple) sell more and more and it won't stop soon. they sell almost everything they can produce, android doesn't (and shouldn't) matter. different markets. android will become just low-end (like it already is).
You are confused. The iPhone is not a Ferrari. The iPhone is a Toyota Camry. Good enough for most people. Good in general. So it wells well.
Given that Apple's self-imposed constraints have permitted Android to achieve critical mass, one has to wonder what will happen when Apple takes it foot off the brake.
Apple will never take its foot off the brake. Or ore precisely, Apple does not have any feet on any brakes. Apple is attempting to get rid of as much product as possible, at the highest margins possible. Everything Apple does is to accomplish these ends.
Apple does NOT have its foot on the brakes. That is foolish.
If you wanted to target that population you might include a hardware keyboard for each character set you wished to support or you could make the individual hardware keys into displays that can change a single displayed character based on a user selection. This would be a logistics challenge of dubious payback but it might lead to wider adoption of iOS.
They could also create a separate model for each carrier's peculiar allocation of radio bandwidth and networking technology.
They could introduce a larger phone with a larger display and monster battery to power a 4G LTE radio for the markets in which it has been already rolled out.
They could make a dual-screened flip-phone that is compact enough to fit in the smallest pockets.
They could make a phone that is only an earwig and is operated by voice alone and displays on the palm of your hand or a wall when you look at it.
They could make a phone with a display built into a contact lens and the speakers built into your ears.
Instead they are taking the prudent course of building in such a way as to meet the needs of 80% of the people with a 95% solution on a third of the carriers.
- Sent from my iPhone 4S via Siri dictation
Jony Ives would slap those ideas into oblivion.
If any of those strategies would allow Apple to rake in more moolah, they would have been implemented already. Fact is, Apple makes more money by NOT doing those things.
Apple will ALWAYS do exactly what they think will make them the highest profits. And Apple thinks that each of those ideas will yield LESS profit for Wall Street.
If you're a developer trying to decide which OS to support, you wouldn't simply look at smartphone handset market share. Among the other important considerations:
1. If your app is not restricted to being used on a phone, you'd look at ALL iOS devices vs all Android devices - not just phones. After all, iPhone apps run just fine on the iPod Touch and (with minimal developer effort) on the iPad. If you look at all iOS devices vs all Android devices, the numbers are roughly equal.
2. With iOS, a properly coded app will run on all recent systems. The same is not true for Android. So let's assume that the numbers are roughly equal for iOS and Android. But if 90% of iOS devices will run your app, but only 20% of Android devices will run each version, there's a difference in reward.
3. Android hardware is far more variable. There are a lot of cheap, low end Android devices out there that probably won't run any app worth developing. So you have to break it down by which devices are powerful enough to run your app.
4. It has been well documented that developers make far more money on iOS than on Android (about 4:1, IIRC). So you have to consider possible returns, as well.
Anyone who simply looks at the number of Android handsets sold vs the number of iPhones when trying to decide which platform to develop for is making a HUGE mistake.
Maybe you missed the part where said I own an iPhone and prefer iOS?
Also, since if a developer is targeting a certain OS release, their considerations should include whether the 20% of up-to-date Android systems you refer to is a larger number than up-to-date iOS systems.
At the moment both Android and iOS are expanding at the expense of other players. At some point in the future, price will win out. But, unlike the Mac era, Apple is offering devices at all the same price points. So, there is a good chance things won't play out toward one OS dominating everything.
Marketshare is important. But so is profitability for the developer.
Maybe you missed the part where said I own an iPhone and prefer iOS?
So? That's not the least bit relevant to anything being discussed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me
Also, since if a developer is targeting a certain OS release, their considerations should include whether the 20% of up-to-date Android systems you refer to is a larger number than up-to-date iOS systems.
At the moment both Android and iOS are expanding at the expense of other players. At some point in the future, price will win out. But, unlike the Mac era, Apple is offering devices at all the same price points. So, there is a good chance things won't play out toward one OS dominating everything.
Marketshare is important. But so is profitability for the developer.
Absolutely. So why were you implying that the only thing that mattered was marketshare?
The marketshare (or percentage of new handsets with a particular OS that are sold) is relevant because it can foreshadow developer support with their focusing third party apps for you OS platform. Installed base (the total number of active units on which the same OS is installed) is also important.
These numbers suggest that Android would likely fall in the category of an OS a developer would likely support either first or most certainly second if that developer wanted access to the most potential customers.
The reports I have seen have indicated that Apple iPhone consumers purchase more apps, use apps more frequently, are willing to pay more for high quality apps and generate more ad-based revenue than Android-based smartphone consumers. While not the only factors to consider these are certainly major factors given the vast disparity in usage behavior of the two platforms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me
Given the structure of Android's business plan, the needs of the hardware manufacturers and users are secondary to the dissemination of the platform to as wide an audience as can be advertised to. A phone from one manufacturer can be slotted in with another with limited differentiation available to the OEM save specifications and most current version of the OS.
The problem with this belief is that supposedly many of the Android-based smartphones and devices lock Google out such as the Amazon Kindle. Google representatives have stated that 2/3 of Google mobile advertising profits are derived from Apple products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me
The fact is Android is good enough and has many advantages in certain areas like access to bleeding edge hardware as OEMs compete for handset share with other Android OEMs. Android is also a first-class recipient of most of Google's online services. Because of the penetration purchased by offering free services like GMail, Google is able to leverage a large userbase from the Windows and Mac desktop audiences.
Please demonstrate the actual advantages of any "bleeding edge hardware" on an Android smartphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me
Google is also iterating their OS faster in response to the market. It has many novel and useful features and satisfies the desires of many to individualize their experience with their phone.
The customization argument has always been a misnomer to some degree. There isn't infinite customization, you are still reliant upon the limitations of the operating system. More importantly, novel features quickly lose their appeal. I do appreciate that Google has NFC but most smartphones haven't implemented NFC effectively yet and there isn't sufficient market saturation of NFC capable devices in North America for NFC to be a major value proposition. I do; however, applaud Google's efforts which may spur Apple to developing a more effective model sooner rather than later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me
For most of its existence the iPhone has been on a limited number of carriers and appeared on a single phone form factor. This allows Apple more profit per handset and lower manufacturing costs but it limits adoption by those for whom the lack of alternate form-factors and hardware (such as a flip, slider, keyboard or removable battery, removable storage) are deal-breakers.
While this statement appears true this may not be accurate. Apple is the leading smartphone manufacturer by a considerable margin. The best selling smartphones from Apple competitors are clones of the Apple iPhone. While the iClones may have removable battery and removable storage there is a strong argument that these are required due to major disadvantages of the competition. Apple's sales barriers have primarily been carrier availability, product availability and salesperson bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me
Given that Apple's self-imposed constraints have permitted Android to achieve critical mass, one has to wonder what will happen when Apple takes it foot off the brake.
Apple won't "take its foot off the brake." Apple is performing amazingly well based on virtually every metric conceivable. In fact, I can't name a single metric where Apple isn't the leader.
Hmm. Well I guess the question is: will it be enough to reverse Nokia's fortunes?
I'm not sure about Nokia but MS can certain ride out the current trends for many years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Apple won't "take its foot off the brake." Apple is performing amazingly well based on virtually every metric conceivable. In fact, I can't name a single metric where Apple isn't the leader.
Comments
What I am suggesting is that Apple is doing more with less. On devices with similar specifications, iOS 5 is performing better (especially with respect to graphics and responsiveness of the UI to touch).
By taking their foot off the brake I mean that Apple could decide to speciate the iPhone form factor with different sizes and additional hardware features that are said to be things that keep people from buying. For example, you have a large population (of which I am not a member) that learned to type accurately with their thumbs. If you wanted to target that population you might include a hardware keyboard for each character set you wished to support or you could make the individual hardware keys into displays that can change a single displayed character based on a user selection. This would be a logistics challenge of dubious payback but it might lead to wider adoption of iOS.
They could also create a separate model for each carrier's peculiar allocation of radio bandwidth and networking technology.
They could introduce a larger phone with a larger display and monster battery to power a 4G LTE radio for the markets in which it has been already rolled out.
They could make a dual-screened flip-phone that is compact enough to fit in the smallest pockets.
They could make a phone that is only an earwig and is operated by voice alone and displays on the palm of your hand or a wall when you look at it.
They could make a phone with a display built into a contact lens and the speakers built into your ears.
Instead they are taking the prudent course of building in such a way as to meet the needs of 80% of the people with a 95% solution.
- Sent from my iPhone 4S via Siri dictation
I didn't know Siri could dictate. Cool beans.
That aside; I agree that Apple's crazy optimisation has allowed them to save money and perform better than the equivalent and perform alarmingly close to those with higher specifications. Android tablets being a good benchmark for this.
Honeycomb needs 1GB of RAM, iOS5 can run on 256mb. Nice!
It's insane to think that only one type of comparison has any value.
This comment could be posted to any thread here at AppleInsider and it would be relevant.
As it was said Google (not yet) is not in the cell phone business they attempted and failed, and I would argue they are not in the cellphone OS business either since the basic premise of being in a business or market segment is you actually sell and make revenue which they do not. They are in the ad business and they clearly said their objective is to be presents in the mobile ad space. Google needs to be measures on what they claim is their primary business which is ads not cell phone sales or Cell phone OS since they do not sell either of those items
Even though they have over 50% more opportunities to place an ad in front of an mobile use, they still do not dominate in the space. I think their ad dollars from this space is less than 50%. It sounds like the ad vehicle (android) is not doing what they expected.
The marketshare (or percentage of new handsets with a particular OS that are sold) is relevant because it can foreshadow developer support with their focusing third party apps for you OS platform. Installed base (the total number of active units on which the same OS is installed) is also important.
Did you even read what I wrote?
If you're a developer trying to decide which OS to support, you wouldn't simply look at smartphone handset market share. Among the other important considerations:
1. If your app is not restricted to being used on a phone, you'd look at ALL iOS devices vs all Android devices - not just phones. After all, iPhone apps run just fine on the iPod Touch and (with minimal developer effort) on the iPad. If you look at all iOS devices vs all Android devices, the numbers are roughly equal.
2. With iOS, a properly coded app will run on all recent systems. The same is not true for Android. So let's assume that the numbers are roughly equal for iOS and Android. But if 90% of iOS devices will run your app, but only 20% of Android devices will run each version, there's a difference in reward.
3. Android hardware is far more variable. There are a lot of cheap, low end Android devices out there that probably won't run any app worth developing. So you have to break it down by which devices are powerful enough to run your app.
4. It has been well documented that developers make far more money on iOS than on Android (about 4:1, IIRC). So you have to consider possible returns, as well.
Anyone who simply looks at the number of Android handsets sold vs the number of iPhones when trying to decide which platform to develop for is making a HUGE mistake.
Given the number of iPads and iPods sold, I'd have to bring the android lead into question considering the level of disinterest in all Android devices outside the smartphone market.
The statement of the person to whom you responded is false.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/mobile-market-share
I didn't know Siri could dictate. Cool beans.
That aside; I agree that Apple's crazy optimisation has allowed them to save money and perform better than the equivalent and perform alarmingly close to those with higher specifications. Android tablets being a good benchmark for this.
Honeycomb needs 1GB of RAM, iOS5 can run on 256mb. Nice!
iPhone 4S provides a system-wide dictation feature. This isn't really part of Siri but the pervasiveness of dictation and the general sense of having a personal assistant vis-a-vis dictation is critical to the magical feel of Siri.
Anyone who simply looks at the number of Android handsets sold vs the number of iPhones when trying to decide which platform to develop for is making a HUGE mistake.
Neither one has rules saying if you develop for one you can't do so for the other. In addition, once you have the principal idea for an app developed and most of the kinks figured out, it's easier and less expensive to port that app to another platform than start from scratch on a new idea. That's especially true with the average app even on iOS not making back their investment in time and money. The last figure I saw was the average i-publisher getting $8500 a year gross, and that may be shared among several people.
"While there may have been over 10 billion app downloads, that number spreads the $2 billion that Apple has paid to publishers over its three-year lifespan very thin. These numbers translate into an economy where there is just over $8,500 per publisher per year to go around. Keep in mind that a publisher may be just a single developer, or a whole team of analysts, developers, testers and managers."
That's not enough to rely on for a living is it? The numbers sound huge when throwing around x-Billion claims, but divided up it's relatively tiny.
http://gigaom.com/apple/the-average-...ng-much-money/
It's my opinion that Nokia made te wrong bet when they chose Microsoft for a mobile OS. Supposedly they chose WP7 over Android because Google's terms were more restrictive, but what has Microsoft allowed Nokia to do with WP7 that Google wouldn't allow with Android? Has Nokia actually customized WP7 beyond the blue tiles? What makes Nokia's WP7 any different from WP7 on other phones? I think in the end Nokia is going to regret that choice, right before they sack Elop.
If they went with Android they'd just be another HW vendor vying for sales from those that want Android phones. It would be like Windows PC vendors all clawing their way to the bottom.
At least with WP7 they have a unique edge. And WP7 is great and their app store is okay. It's say it's just below the threshold of being large enough that size isn't an issue.
The Nokia Lumia 800 looks great, too. I'd love to buy one but at $1400 that's just too steep. They need to be a lot more competitive. I did read just yesterday they are in talks with US carriers so hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later.
Neither one has rules saying if you develop for one you can't do so for the other. In addition, once you have the principal idea for an app developed and most of the kinks figured out, it's easier and less expensive to port that app to another platform than start from scratch on a new idea. That's especially true with the average app even on iOS not making back their investment in time and money. The last figure I saw was the average i-publisher getting $8500 a year gross, and that may be shared among several people.
"While there may have been over 10 billion app downloads, that number spreads the $2 billion that Apple has paid to publishers over its three-year lifespan very thin. These numbers translate into an economy where there is just over $8,500 per publisher per year to go around. Keep in mind that a publisher may be just a single developer, or a whole team of analysts, developers, testers and managers."
That's not enough to rely on for a living is it? The numbers sound huge when throwing around x-Billion claims, but divided up it's relatively tiny.
http://gigaom.com/apple/the-average-...ng-much-money/
So what? Can you say 'non-sequitor'?
I was pointing out that you can't simply look at the number of licensed handsets if you're trying to decide whether to develop for a given platform or not.
Your response was (as is usual for you) totally irrelevant to that question and full of misleading information.
So what? Can you say 'non-sequitor'?
I was pointing out that you can't simply look at the number of licensed handsets if you're trying to decide whether to develop for a given platform or not.
Your response was (as is usual for you) totally irrelevant to that question and full of misleading information.
Totally irrelevant is a stretch since I was pointing out other factors to consider just as you were.
Misleading information? Please point those parts out.
If they went with Android they'd just be another HW vendor vying for sales from those that want Android phones. It would be like Windows PC vendors all clawing their way to the bottom.
At least with WP7 they have a unique edge. And WP7 is great and their app store is okay. It's say it's just below the threshold of being large enough that size isn't an issue.
The Nokia Lumia 800 looks great, too. I'd love to buy one but at $1400 that's just too steep. They need to be a lot more competitive. I did read just yesterday they are in talks with US carriers so hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later.
Hmm. Well I guess the question is: will it be enough to reverse Nokia's fortunes?
A consideration of the OS, as it applies to iOS, involves more than smartphones when it comes to 3rd party Apps, which makes these figures somewhat useless.
The figures are far from useless. If a consumer wants an OS that has a lot of staying power, they may well choose Android.
Android is far, far in the lead. Android is surging.
Apple is way behind. iOS is stagnant.
i don't know if android would still be in the lead, but just like ferrari will never outsell fiat toyota and ford together (or even 1 vs 1), android being in the lead makes sense.
but what's the point? android products are cheaper, so there's nothing apple can do besides playing with it's strengths. they (apple) sell more and more and it won't stop soon. they sell almost everything they can produce, android doesn't (and shouldn't) matter. different markets. android will become just low-end (like it already is).
You are confused. The iPhone is not a Ferrari. The iPhone is a Toyota Camry. Good enough for most people. Good in general. So it wells well.
Given that Apple's self-imposed constraints have permitted Android to achieve critical mass, one has to wonder what will happen when Apple takes it foot off the brake.
Apple will never take its foot off the brake. Or ore precisely, Apple does not have any feet on any brakes. Apple is attempting to get rid of as much product as possible, at the highest margins possible. Everything Apple does is to accomplish these ends.
Apple does NOT have its foot on the brakes. That is foolish.
If you wanted to target that population you might include a hardware keyboard for each character set you wished to support or you could make the individual hardware keys into displays that can change a single displayed character based on a user selection. This would be a logistics challenge of dubious payback but it might lead to wider adoption of iOS.
They could also create a separate model for each carrier's peculiar allocation of radio bandwidth and networking technology.
They could introduce a larger phone with a larger display and monster battery to power a 4G LTE radio for the markets in which it has been already rolled out.
They could make a dual-screened flip-phone that is compact enough to fit in the smallest pockets.
They could make a phone that is only an earwig and is operated by voice alone and displays on the palm of your hand or a wall when you look at it.
They could make a phone with a display built into a contact lens and the speakers built into your ears.
Instead they are taking the prudent course of building in such a way as to meet the needs of 80% of the people with a 95% solution on a third of the carriers.
- Sent from my iPhone 4S via Siri dictation
Jony Ives would slap those ideas into oblivion.
If any of those strategies would allow Apple to rake in more moolah, they would have been implemented already. Fact is, Apple makes more money by NOT doing those things.
Apple will ALWAYS do exactly what they think will make them the highest profits. And Apple thinks that each of those ideas will yield LESS profit for Wall Street.
Did you even read what I wrote?
If you're a developer trying to decide which OS to support, you wouldn't simply look at smartphone handset market share. Among the other important considerations:
1. If your app is not restricted to being used on a phone, you'd look at ALL iOS devices vs all Android devices - not just phones. After all, iPhone apps run just fine on the iPod Touch and (with minimal developer effort) on the iPad. If you look at all iOS devices vs all Android devices, the numbers are roughly equal.
2. With iOS, a properly coded app will run on all recent systems. The same is not true for Android. So let's assume that the numbers are roughly equal for iOS and Android. But if 90% of iOS devices will run your app, but only 20% of Android devices will run each version, there's a difference in reward.
3. Android hardware is far more variable. There are a lot of cheap, low end Android devices out there that probably won't run any app worth developing. So you have to break it down by which devices are powerful enough to run your app.
4. It has been well documented that developers make far more money on iOS than on Android (about 4:1, IIRC). So you have to consider possible returns, as well.
Anyone who simply looks at the number of Android handsets sold vs the number of iPhones when trying to decide which platform to develop for is making a HUGE mistake.
Maybe you missed the part where said I own an iPhone and prefer iOS?
Also, since if a developer is targeting a certain OS release, their considerations should include whether the 20% of up-to-date Android systems you refer to is a larger number than up-to-date iOS systems.
At the moment both Android and iOS are expanding at the expense of other players. At some point in the future, price will win out. But, unlike the Mac era, Apple is offering devices at all the same price points. So, there is a good chance things won't play out toward one OS dominating everything.
Marketshare is important. But so is profitability for the developer.
Maybe you missed the part where said I own an iPhone and prefer iOS?
So? That's not the least bit relevant to anything being discussed.
Also, since if a developer is targeting a certain OS release, their considerations should include whether the 20% of up-to-date Android systems you refer to is a larger number than up-to-date iOS systems.
At the moment both Android and iOS are expanding at the expense of other players. At some point in the future, price will win out. But, unlike the Mac era, Apple is offering devices at all the same price points. So, there is a good chance things won't play out toward one OS dominating everything.
Marketshare is important. But so is profitability for the developer.
Absolutely. So why were you implying that the only thing that mattered was marketshare?
The marketshare (or percentage of new handsets with a particular OS that are sold) is relevant because it can foreshadow developer support with their focusing third party apps for you OS platform. Installed base (the total number of active units on which the same OS is installed) is also important.
These numbers suggest that Android would likely fall in the category of an OS a developer would likely support either first or most certainly second if that developer wanted access to the most potential customers.
The reports I have seen have indicated that Apple iPhone consumers purchase more apps, use apps more frequently, are willing to pay more for high quality apps and generate more ad-based revenue than Android-based smartphone consumers. While not the only factors to consider these are certainly major factors given the vast disparity in usage behavior of the two platforms.
Given the structure of Android's business plan, the needs of the hardware manufacturers and users are secondary to the dissemination of the platform to as wide an audience as can be advertised to. A phone from one manufacturer can be slotted in with another with limited differentiation available to the OEM save specifications and most current version of the OS.
The problem with this belief is that supposedly many of the Android-based smartphones and devices lock Google out such as the Amazon Kindle. Google representatives have stated that 2/3 of Google mobile advertising profits are derived from Apple products.
The fact is Android is good enough and has many advantages in certain areas like access to bleeding edge hardware as OEMs compete for handset share with other Android OEMs. Android is also a first-class recipient of most of Google's online services. Because of the penetration purchased by offering free services like GMail, Google is able to leverage a large userbase from the Windows and Mac desktop audiences.
Please demonstrate the actual advantages of any "bleeding edge hardware" on an Android smartphone.
Google is also iterating their OS faster in response to the market. It has many novel and useful features and satisfies the desires of many to individualize their experience with their phone.
The customization argument has always been a misnomer to some degree. There isn't infinite customization, you are still reliant upon the limitations of the operating system. More importantly, novel features quickly lose their appeal. I do appreciate that Google has NFC but most smartphones haven't implemented NFC effectively yet and there isn't sufficient market saturation of NFC capable devices in North America for NFC to be a major value proposition. I do; however, applaud Google's efforts which may spur Apple to developing a more effective model sooner rather than later.
For most of its existence the iPhone has been on a limited number of carriers and appeared on a single phone form factor. This allows Apple more profit per handset and lower manufacturing costs but it limits adoption by those for whom the lack of alternate form-factors and hardware (such as a flip, slider, keyboard or removable battery, removable storage) are deal-breakers.
While this statement appears true this may not be accurate. Apple is the leading smartphone manufacturer by a considerable margin. The best selling smartphones from Apple competitors are clones of the Apple iPhone. While the iClones may have removable battery and removable storage there is a strong argument that these are required due to major disadvantages of the competition. Apple's sales barriers have primarily been carrier availability, product availability and salesperson bias.
Given that Apple's self-imposed constraints have permitted Android to achieve critical mass, one has to wonder what will happen when Apple takes it foot off the brake.
Apple won't "take its foot off the brake." Apple is performing amazingly well based on virtually every metric conceivable. In fact, I can't name a single metric where Apple isn't the leader.
Hmm. Well I guess the question is: will it be enough to reverse Nokia's fortunes?
I'm not sure about Nokia but MS can certain ride out the current trends for many years.
Apple won't "take its foot off the brake." Apple is performing amazingly well based on virtually every metric conceivable. In fact, I can't name a single metric where Apple isn't the leader.
They seem to be dead last when it comes to:
? Layoffs
? Race to the bottom