As long as Apple has a strong ecosystem in terms of a large number of all the popular apps and tons of accessories there is no reason to worry if Android controls 70% or even 90% of the market. Like others have stated Apple is still making the big $$$. All Apple needs to do is to be considered a viable alternative.
Exactly.
How long has the Mac been in 2nd place to DOS/Windows machines... almost 30 years? Did Apple ever quit because of that? No!!!
Having the most marketshare is a nice trophy to have... but Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world despite not having the most marketshare in certain areas.
I know several people that have switched from regular mobile phones or Blackberry's to Android. All of them have now switched to the iPhone.
Three months ago I handed in my parking pass and started taking the train to work. I remember the first day clearly because it was like a scene from a comedy movie. Almost everyone had her or his nose buried in a smartphone, which was amusing enough, and ALL but one or two were iPhones.
Now, a scant few months later, I see as many giant phones with enormous screens as I do iPhones. I don't know what these big devices are, but they're not big enough to be iPad Minis so I'm guessing they must be Android phones. I only see an iPhone 5 once every couple days.
Whatever *WE* may think of iOS vs. Android, there seems to be at least some anecdotal evidence that people are moving from the former to the latter. Decidedly unscientific and obviously geographically restricted, but if my living depended on the sale of iPhones, it would certainly get my attention.
Both Ford and Honda sell more cars than Mercedes and BMW, but which duo is better engineered and higher quality?
Android is on up to 100 phones (http://www.android.com/devices/), Apple iOS is on 1 phone per year (right now 3 in total for sale) - it's utterly ridiculous to compare the two OS' how Schmidt is.
At the end of the day, Google and Apple are not really competitors. Both have entirely different markets which they address. Microsoft and Google however DO compete for the same type of user (total morons).
There are plenty of morons with iPhones, just look at what happened in Australia.
If you cheat off of someone at university, you get expelled.
If you cheat off of someone in the corporate world, you get people defending their actions and questioning why others want them to go bankrupt.
Seems strange. Maybe we should be giving automatic A's to people that cheat in college.
Cheating is rampant everywhere, watch the documentary Bigger, Stronger, Faster. I'm not saying it's right just that it's done in places you'd never imagine.
First of all you must define winning. For Apple winning means selling phones and making a big profit on the phone. They do that and they do it well.
For Google, and hence Android, winning means distribution which leads to more Google search boxes and of course more profits for Google. Remember that every Android phone comes with a Google search box. The more phones, the more search boxes and the more searches. Ultimately that directly leads to more money for Google. That to them is winning.
Furthermore, people search more often than they buy a phone. You make one purchase every two years for a new iphone, but probably makes thousands of Google searches on the phone over the same two years. Figure it out!
First of all you must define winning. For Apple winning means selling phones and making a big profit on the phone. They do that and they do it well.
For Google, and hence Android, winning means distribution which leads to more Google search boxes and of course more profits for Google. Remember that every Android phone comes with a Google search box. The more phones, the more search boxes and the more searches. Ultimately that directly leads to more money for Google. That to them is winning.
Furthermore, people search more often than they buy a phone. You make one purchase every two years for a new iphone, but probably makes thousands of Google searches on the phone over the same two years. Figure it out!
And yes I am an Apple fan. I have a Mac!
1) Saying you're an Apple fan or owning some Apple product in no way validates your comment.
2) it's been shown every quarter that Google makes more money from iOS devices than all other mobile devices combines so I'm not sure how Google is winning if they make more from Apple with ad revenue and are still down many billions in their mobile division efforts. MS makes more from Android than Google does.
I worked for Eric Schmidt at Sun Microsystems. Great Guy. Very smart and talented for an executive. That said, I use both Android 4.21 and iOS 6.0.1 everyday. While users can have more control over Android, the apps, tight integration and easy of use on iOS is much, much better. I tend to have fun on my Android devices like the Nexus 7 - I really use my iPhone and iPad for business and real serious / stable work and integration with PC and Macs.
I worked for Eric Schmidt at Sun Microsystems. Great Guy. Very smart and talented for an executive. That said, I use both Android 4.21 and iOS 6.0.1 everyday. While users can have more control over Android, the apps, tight integration and easy of use on iOS is much, much better. I tend to have fun on my Android devices like the Nexus 7 - I really use my iPhone and iPad for business and real serious / stable work and integration with PC and Macs.
Apple has not proved they are the exception yet. Steve has not been with us for only a year.
So... Apple is presumed to go out of business unless they don't go out of business? I think that criteria has already been met.
You can't state a condition that can never be satisfied, i.e. "Apple has not proven they will not go out of business" which is the same as saying, "Apple has not proven they will never go out of business."
1) Saying you're an Apple fan or owning some Apple product in no way validates your comment.
They hope it improves their chances of being taken seriously. It doesn't. Pervasive "concern trolling" on the Internet has pretty much nullified the effectiveness of claiming allegiance to a particular side of an argument when attempting to argue against that side.
So... Apple is presumed to go out of business unless they don't go out of business? I think that criteria has already been met.
You can't state a condition that can never be satisfied, i.e. "Apple has not proven they will not go out of business" which is the same as saying, "Apple has not proven they will never go out of business."
All I am saying is that Apple has not yet earned the right to be considered a "post-founder success". If they prosper for another five years, that will be proof enough for me (I own a lot of their stock so I am crossing my fingers )
Exactly.
How long has the Mac been in 2nd place to DOS/Windows machines... almost 30 years? Did Apple ever quit because of that? No!!!
Having the most marketshare is a nice trophy to have... but Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world despite not having the most marketshare in certain areas.
Apple was successful because they were first to market with the Apple II, which was not competitive with the IBM PC. once the latter came out. Jobs understood this (Woz not so much), and came out with the Mac, a very innovative product (well, except for ripping off tons of IP from people, but I really don't hold that against them, except for suing everyone and his dog later) Mac, as we all know, was a very cool product, with many, many design problems, however Apple milked the coolness, did not fix the issues, which eventually led to them almost going out of business (again)/. A fate from which they were saved by Amelio, Microsoft, and Jobs, in that chronological order. The first couple of iterations of OS X were, shall we say, sketchy, and apple's market share hovered in the 3% range. However, another bout of innovation (with the iPod, this time) set them up for the next great leap forward (and the iDevices took the Mac line up further as well, that as Windows, which was really crappy for decades, actually became quite decent with Win 7/8 (except for old-school unix hacks like myself, who need the OS X unixness). My point: if Apple rests on their laurels, tey are in for a world of hurt. I know it, Apple knows it, fanbois like you appear not to know it.
Apple was successful because they were first to market with the Apple II, which was not competitive with the IBM PC. once the latter came out. Jobs understood this (Woz not so much), and came out with the Mac, a very innovative product (well, except for ripping off tons of IP from people, but I really don't hold that against them, except for suing everyone and his dog later) Mac, as we all know, was a very cool product, with many, many design problems, however Apple milked the coolness, did not fix the issues, which eventually led to them almost going out of business (again)/. A fate from which they were saved by Amelio, Microsoft, and Jobs, in that chronological order. The first couple of iterations of OS X were, shall we say, sketchy, and apple's market share hovered in the 3% range. However, another bout of innovation (with the iPod, this time) set them up for the next great leap forward (and the iDevices took the Mac line up further as well, that as Windows, which was really crappy for decades, actually became quite decent with Win 7/8 (except for old-school unix hacks like myself, who need the OS X unixness). My point: if Apple rests on their laurels, tey are in for a world of hurt. I know it, Apple knows it, fanbois like you appear not to know it.
What you appear not to know is anything at all about Apple and its history.
Apple was successful because they were first to market with the Apple II, which was not competitive with the IBM PC. once the latter came out. Jobs understood this (Woz not so much), and came out with the Mac, a very innovative product (well, except for ripping off tons of IP from people, but I really don't hold that against them, except for suing everyone and his dog later) Mac, as we all know, was a very cool product, with many, many design problems, however Apple milked the coolness, did not fix the issues, which eventually led to them almost going out of business (again)/. A fate from which they were saved by Amelio, Microsoft, and Jobs, in that chronological order. The first couple of iterations of OS X were, shall we say, sketchy, and apple's market share hovered in the 3% range. However, another bout of innovation (with the iPod, this time) set them up for the next great leap forward (and the iDevices took the Mac line up further as well, that as Windows, which was really crappy for decades, actually became quite decent with Win 7/8 (except for old-school unix hacks like myself, who need the OS X unixness). My point: if Apple rests on their laurels, tey are in for a world of hurt. I know it, Apple knows it, fanbois like you appear not to know it.
Wow... way to misinterpret what I said.
In the context of "more marketshare = winning" I was trying to say that the Mac is still a viable platform despite having a tiny amount of marketshare... yesterday or today.
Or in other words... marketshare isn't the be-all-end-all.
As for me being a fanboy... Full disclosure:
I have an iPhone 4S... my first and only iPhone... and the only computers I've EVER owned are Windows machines...
The market share analysis put out there is completely irrelevant and I have to believe market analysts and stock holders recognize that as well. Look at the bigger picture. Subsidies of Apple products is much higher than Android phones. Sure, they cost the same to the user ($199), but the cost that goes to Apple or Google is much different by a hundred or so dollars. Selling 9 million phones at $100 vs 3 million at $300 is still the same income even though market share is much more. Market share alone is irrelevant. Add in the app store income generated by Android Market vs App Store is even more favorable towards Apple. Add in the iPad market share and Apple is most likely making more money per device than Google.
As to Google being the Microsoft vs Apple battle? Not a chance. Although both Google and Microsoft get by primarily by selling the software and OS to partners and make very little off the hardware themselves, Google does not make a huge profit on the actual OS, especially when it is open source. Microsoft used to charge PC makers hundreds to use their OS and it was the only option. Amazon, Nook, etc all utilize the Android OS, but they build most of it themselves and have their own markets bypassing Google almost entirely. Google's business model is still ads and in a much lesser extent the Android Market.
As a result, I'm fairly certain that if we are purely talking monetary value, Apple is light years ahead of Google iOS compared to Android. At the end of the day, monetary value is all that matters, especially to investors and Apple.
So how much does a carrier make out of a $49 outright, PAYG, Android phone used only for calls and text?
They might suck up some poor suckers credit before they figure out how to turn the data off, but that's about all.
Comments
/s
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
It escapes me why Americans revere CEO's so much. After a company's founder dies, ~95% of companies eventually go out of business.
Apple, Ford, Boeing, etc., are the exceptions and part of the 5%. Most CEO's are dipsh*ts. And that includes Schmidt.
Apple has not proved they are the exception yet. Steve has not been with us for only a year.
Exactly.
How long has the Mac been in 2nd place to DOS/Windows machines... almost 30 years? Did Apple ever quit because of that? No!!!
Having the most marketshare is a nice trophy to have... but Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world despite not having the most marketshare in certain areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jr_b
I know several people that have switched from regular mobile phones or Blackberry's to Android. All of them have now switched to the iPhone.
Three months ago I handed in my parking pass and started taking the train to work. I remember the first day clearly because it was like a scene from a comedy movie. Almost everyone had her or his nose buried in a smartphone, which was amusing enough, and ALL but one or two were iPhones.
Now, a scant few months later, I see as many giant phones with enormous screens as I do iPhones. I don't know what these big devices are, but they're not big enough to be iPad Minis so I'm guessing they must be Android phones. I only see an iPhone 5 once every couple days.
Whatever *WE* may think of iOS vs. Android, there seems to be at least some anecdotal evidence that people are moving from the former to the latter. Decidedly unscientific and obviously geographically restricted, but if my living depended on the sale of iPhones, it would certainly get my attention.
Both Ford and Honda sell more cars than Mercedes and BMW, but which duo is better engineered and higher quality?
Android is on up to 100 phones (http://www.android.com/devices/), Apple iOS is on 1 phone per year (right now 3 in total for sale) - it's utterly ridiculous to compare the two OS' how Schmidt is.
There are plenty of morons with iPhones, just look at what happened in Australia.
This year, more than 130 million bicycles* will be produced vs 60 million cars†.
* http://www.worldometers.info/bicycles/
† http://www.worldometers.info/cars/
Cheating is rampant everywhere, watch the documentary Bigger, Stronger, Faster. I'm not saying it's right just that it's done in places you'd never imagine.
Google is right in that Android is winning.
First of all you must define winning. For Apple winning means selling phones and making a big profit on the phone. They do that and they do it well.
For Google, and hence Android, winning means distribution which leads to more Google search boxes and of course more profits for Google. Remember that every Android phone comes with a Google search box. The more phones, the more search boxes and the more searches. Ultimately that directly leads to more money for Google. That to them is winning.
Furthermore, people search more often than they buy a phone. You make one purchase every two years for a new iphone, but probably makes thousands of Google searches on the phone over the same two years. Figure it out!
And yes I am an Apple fan. I have a Mac!
1) Saying you're an Apple fan or owning some Apple product in no way validates your comment.
2) it's been shown every quarter that Google makes more money from iOS devices than all other mobile devices combines so I'm not sure how Google is winning if they make more from Apple with ad revenue and are still down many billions in their mobile division efforts. MS makes more from Android than Google does.
I worked for Eric Schmidt at Sun Microsystems. Great Guy. Very smart and talented for an executive. That said, I use both Android 4.21 and iOS 6.0.1 everyday. While users can have more control over Android, the apps, tight integration and easy of use on iOS is much, much better. I tend to have fun on my Android devices like the Nexus 7 - I really use my iPhone and iPad for business and real serious / stable work and integration with PC and Macs.
I worked for Eric Schmidt at Sun Microsystems. Great Guy. Very smart and talented for an executive. That said, I use both Android 4.21 and iOS 6.0.1 everyday. While users can have more control over Android, the apps, tight integration and easy of use on iOS is much, much better. I tend to have fun on my Android devices like the Nexus 7 - I really use my iPhone and iPad for business and real serious / stable work and integration with PC and Macs.
So... Apple is presumed to go out of business unless they don't go out of business? I think that criteria has already been met.
You can't state a condition that can never be satisfied, i.e. "Apple has not proven they will not go out of business" which is the same as saying, "Apple has not proven they will never go out of business."
They hope it improves their chances of being taken seriously. It doesn't. Pervasive "concern trolling" on the Internet has pretty much nullified the effectiveness of claiming allegiance to a particular side of an argument when attempting to argue against that side.
All I am saying is that Apple has not yet earned the right to be considered a "post-founder success". If they prosper for another five years, that will be proof enough for me (I own a lot of their stock so I am crossing my fingers
Apple was successful because they were first to market with the Apple II, which was not competitive with the IBM PC. once the latter came out. Jobs understood this (Woz not so much), and came out with the Mac, a very innovative product (well, except for ripping off tons of IP from people, but I really don't hold that against them, except for suing everyone and his dog later) Mac, as we all know, was a very cool product, with many, many design problems, however Apple milked the coolness, did not fix the issues, which eventually led to them almost going out of business (again)/. A fate from which they were saved by Amelio, Microsoft, and Jobs, in that chronological order. The first couple of iterations of OS X were, shall we say, sketchy, and apple's market share hovered in the 3% range. However, another bout of innovation (with the iPod, this time) set them up for the next great leap forward (and the iDevices took the Mac line up further as well, that as Windows, which was really crappy for decades, actually became quite decent with Win 7/8 (except for old-school unix hacks like myself, who need the OS X unixness). My point: if Apple rests on their laurels, tey are in for a world of hurt. I know it, Apple knows it, fanbois like you appear not to know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Apple was successful because they were first to market with the Apple II, which was not competitive with the IBM PC. once the latter came out. Jobs understood this (Woz not so much), and came out with the Mac, a very innovative product (well, except for ripping off tons of IP from people, but I really don't hold that against them, except for suing everyone and his dog later) Mac, as we all know, was a very cool product, with many, many design problems, however Apple milked the coolness, did not fix the issues, which eventually led to them almost going out of business (again)/. A fate from which they were saved by Amelio, Microsoft, and Jobs, in that chronological order. The first couple of iterations of OS X were, shall we say, sketchy, and apple's market share hovered in the 3% range. However, another bout of innovation (with the iPod, this time) set them up for the next great leap forward (and the iDevices took the Mac line up further as well, that as Windows, which was really crappy for decades, actually became quite decent with Win 7/8 (except for old-school unix hacks like myself, who need the OS X unixness). My point: if Apple rests on their laurels, tey are in for a world of hurt. I know it, Apple knows it, fanbois like you appear not to know it.
What you appear not to know is anything at all about Apple and its history.
Wow... way to misinterpret what I said.
In the context of "more marketshare = winning" I was trying to say that the Mac is still a viable platform despite having a tiny amount of marketshare... yesterday or today.
Or in other words... marketshare isn't the be-all-end-all.
As for me being a fanboy... Full disclosure:
I have an iPhone 4S... my first and only iPhone... and the only computers I've EVER owned are Windows machines...
Put that in your hater pipe and smoke it :smokey:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholas_hagen
The market share analysis put out there is completely irrelevant and I have to believe market analysts and stock holders recognize that as well. Look at the bigger picture. Subsidies of Apple products is much higher than Android phones. Sure, they cost the same to the user ($199), but the cost that goes to Apple or Google is much different by a hundred or so dollars. Selling 9 million phones at $100 vs 3 million at $300 is still the same income even though market share is much more. Market share alone is irrelevant. Add in the app store income generated by Android Market vs App Store is even more favorable towards Apple. Add in the iPad market share and Apple is most likely making more money per device than Google.
As to Google being the Microsoft vs Apple battle? Not a chance. Although both Google and Microsoft get by primarily by selling the software and OS to partners and make very little off the hardware themselves, Google does not make a huge profit on the actual OS, especially when it is open source. Microsoft used to charge PC makers hundreds to use their OS and it was the only option. Amazon, Nook, etc all utilize the Android OS, but they build most of it themselves and have their own markets bypassing Google almost entirely. Google's business model is still ads and in a much lesser extent the Android Market.
As a result, I'm fairly certain that if we are purely talking monetary value, Apple is light years ahead of Google iOS compared to Android. At the end of the day, monetary value is all that matters, especially to investors and Apple.
So how much does a carrier make out of a $49 outright, PAYG, Android phone used only for calls and text?
They might suck up some poor suckers credit before they figure out how to turn the data off, but that's about all.
If success is viewed in terms of profits only then there is cause for concern.
What happens when Android ships on the majority of smartphones?
- developers will jump ship and start developing first on Android.
- iOS will be less relevant and the ecosystem of apps will be less vibrant and interesting for buyers
Right now, the quality and selection of apps is a huge argument for purchasing an iPhone. If this goes then what is left?
Design? Tight integration? Google is working hard on getting this right with their NEXUS line...it is just a matter of time.