To be able to be called "Android x.x" (fill in the version), it must pass a standard compatibility test for that version. That ensures that standard apps run on all devices with that version, and thus most developers target the standard x.x APIs.
The difference comes with specialty apps that rely on device-specific features. For example, originally HTC and Samsung had their own pen APIs, but those have now been rolled into Android. A more common example is with widgets that rely on a particular manufacturer's custom launcher. E.g. a lot of people love HTC widgets, but most only run on HTC devices. It's a way of differentiating their products.
<span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;">Some people claim that there are Android based feature phones, but they never seem to come up with an example.</span>
I provided quite a few examples when this came up before. Google 'android feature phone'.
I don't get your point. If a phone costs Apple $188 to make, and it sells it for $250 that is about a 30 percent profit margin. The original poster pointed out that was the original build cost for the iPhone 4 and presumably the build cost is less now, so margins would be higher if Apple came out with a phone based on the iPhone 4 internals.
No one outside of Apple knows the build cost. That number you're referring to is someone's GUESS of COMPONENTS ONLY.
Well, I for one don't want to find out if there is a tipping point where the proliferation of Android devices increases to the point where it compels developers to build for Android first, or, worst case scenario, where it marginalizes Apple even more causing a huge decrease in profits.
I'm not saying that there is a tipping point but the danger is definitely there and, as we've seen with the Mac, it's a long climb back.
[please know that I am mainly concerned about the Asian market]
The Asian market is the Asian market. I would guess that only a fraction of the apps in the US app store have any asian language support much less covers Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, Thai, Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc...
App developers build for their local markets first, then the next few major markets. China is important. India is important. Japan is somewhat important. Korea is somewhat important.
Everyone else can use Chinese or English versions of the apps.
There's some unique reasons why Baidu gets the Chinese government nod of approval, while Google butts heads with them. There shouldn't be any surprise that Baidu would get the bulk of search requests considering the limitations forced on Google Search. IMHO it would be more distressing if Google was the market leader there as it would be clear evidence that they were deep in bed with the Chinese leadership.
In this sense Apple is more easily compatible with the Chinese market. The parts that China cares about Apple doesn't care about that much (backend services) since that's primarily used to sell hardware whereas Google depends on that to make money.
Making the default search provider Baidu is no big deal.
Having a local app store where the government has a say in app approval is not a big deal.
Funneling social media to chinese internet companies instead of Twitter, Facebook and Google+ is no big deal.
But to Google these are big deals because it cuts to the core of their business model.
I think that Apple would not provide a backdoor to the Chinese but that's probably not required anyway. There are iOS vulnerabilities that I'm sure that Chinese have mapped out already.
A realist. App devs, except the big boys, only have so much bandwidth for internationalization. For the east asian market Chinese, Japanese and Korean are the only ones worth investing any effort in. Even then the local app devs have a huge advantage unless you really are one of the big boys.
Likewise for the European market French, Spanish and German are the prime targets.
I would guess that most small indie app devs only do their own native language anyway.
In this sense Apple is more easily compatible with the Chinese market. The parts that China cares about Apple doesn't care about that much (backend services) since that's primarily used to sell hardware whereas Google depends on that to make money.
Making the default search provider Baidu is no big deal.
Having a local app store where the government has a say in app approval is not a big deal.
Funneling social media to chinese internet companies instead of Twitter, Facebook and Google+ is no big deal.
But to Google these are big deals because it cuts to the core of their business model.
I think that Apple would not provide a backdoor to the Chinese but that's probably not required anyway. There are iOS vulnerabilities that I'm sure that Chinese have mapped out already.
I think Apple does provide certain governments back-door access in exchange for selling devices/services in certain markets.
I remember a document from last year (?) that indicated both Apple and RIM provide "OS keys" to Indian authorities for spying on users of their devices. As controlling as the Chinese are I have no doubt it's the same there.
More like it can be. Manufacturer specific apps come built into their phones. Phone specific apps will not show up in a Google Play search done on a different device.
I think Apple does provide certain governments back-door access in exchange for selling devices/services in certain markets.
I remember a document from last year (?) that indicated both Apple and RIM provide "OS keys" to Indian authorities for spying on users of their devices. As controlling as the Chinese are I have no doubt it's the same there.
"RIM has been fighting with the Indian government for years, and has denied that it can provide access to its enterprise email and messaging services. This is because the company itself does not possess the encryption keys for the same and these remain in the control of its corporate clients."
These they can give China I suppose but there's no indication it has done so. Anything you don't control the keys to isn't secure.
Whether device encryption keys are recoverable or stored by Apple I don't know. But at that point they already took your phone and can simply beat your passcode out of you.
To be able to be called "Android x.x" (fill in the version), it must pass a standard compatibility test for that version. That ensures that standard apps run on all devices with that version, and thus most developers target the standard x.x APIs.
The difference comes with specialty apps that rely on device-specific features. For example, originally HTC and Samsung had their own pen APIs, but those have now been rolled into Android. A more common example is with widgets that rely on a particular manufacturer's custom launcher. E.g. a lot of people love HTC widgets, but most only run on HTC devices. It's a way of differentiating their products.
Thanks, appreciate it.
This will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I look at this and think there is a viable concern for apple here. The concern being information. When you're able to collect vasts amounts of information from a huge sea of smartphones, 'true' smart phones or 'glorified feature' phones they still provide information, you're in an excellent position. Huge numbers of information devices, regardless of how much they cost, is key to providing features that aren't possible with other OS's that have a smaller sample size to mine from.
Case in point, car analogies or any other analogy that uses a phyiscal product fail to recognize the flaw in such an arguement. The reason there is room for high end vendors that produce physical products is that there IS a difference in what is being valued. Better parts, better assembly, etc are factors when considering how one wants to travel (what's being valued) from place to place. And yes, the same can be said for the decisions affecting purchasing of a phone; however, the cost of travel does NOT decrease exponentially and it also does NOT improve as more people start to travel. Information works differently. Settling into a high end niche of a market where the valued product is ever decreasing in cost and conversly continuing to appreciate in value as it grows is completely different and I'm not sure it's as sustainable.
It'll be interesting to see if the tortoise does catch the hare in this race. Personally I'm rooting for the tortoise.
No, it's not. Apple controls the profits. Apple's products are the solid winners when it comes to virtually every usage metric. Apple controls the show when it comes to developer profits.
I agree.
There is a great deal of talk about capturing sales to the billion+ by coming out with a less expensive iPhone - the thought, by some, is to provide a way for people to buy an iPhone who currently couldn't afford one. This, according to some is supposed to help Apple's bottom line (which is in need of this help???). The current data shows that Apple customers use their products (at a much higher rate) to make on-line purchases, apps, etc. It would make little sense for Apple to try to attract potential customers who are less likely to buy additional Apple products or services, while still providing premium support for these new customers. As was said in other posts, the Apple model is to provide premium quality and services for those who are willing to pay for the best. Apple is not perfect, but is head and shoulders ahead of it's competitors - and, still provides the best, well thought out products around.
Not all people care, or can, pay the price for the best. I was one that fell in that camp. If I could "get by" with less, I would do so. I am a "PC convert" who dumped a Windows Vista machine, and have never regretted the move - there is only so much pain a person can endure :~). Higher entry cost and my thought that one machine is about the same as another, were the only things delaying my jumping from the PC world. I was not the desired potential Apple customer, as price was the driving force for me - and, at the time, I didn't mind "workarounds" and derived some sort of pleasure overcoming the shortcomings of the products.
Once getting my first Apple product (Mac Pro), it didn't take long to see my thinking was flawed - the feel, look and solid performance had value to me. I am willing to pay more for these things, and want to minimize messing around with things that don't work well. This isn't the case for all people, and for those, there are companies like Samsung who make products that can satisfy their needs and wants. Apple should continue to leave that part of the market to others...
That switch is currently under way. There's a VZW kiosk inside of a BJs Wholesale near that I often stop by mainly because the sales girl is hot but I almost always encounter someone switching from Android to iOS.
I hope they didn't switch just because of the hot sales girl.
Here's a bit longer article about Nokia, RIM, Apple and likely others evidently providing government access via OS back-doors (and perhaps other methods).
For the foil-hat crowd another recent change to all the smartphone OS's, including iOS, raises questions about how much access goverments have to our communication devices.
There seems to be steadfast refusal amongst some here to accept that not everyone prefers an iPhone. Some of you seem to believe that, everything else being equal, iPhone would win over everyone in a "taste" test. That is just wrong. There are many people who like Samsung (or even HTC) because they do like the larger screen. There are many people who prefer the feel and look of Galaxy over that of the iPhone. There are many who prefer Android over iOS for various reasons. I am not necessarily one of those (and I have a Galaxy to go with my 3G, 4, 4S and 5).
The following "excuses" are old and we all need to get over them:
- Android activations include multiple activations for the same device (remember this one).
- Samsung only reports shipments and not sales.
- Salespeople undersell iPhones.
- Only the frugal prefer Android.
- Android is only winning in Asia and other 3rd world regions.
I understand that some of you are instinctively defending you $AAPL shares. But your lack of objectivity is hurting your investment portfolio more than any stock manipulation.
The real story is that the iPhone is not the only rational choice based on cost, look, feel, UI or engineering. Overall, Apple is still investing the most in manufacturing innovations. But this is either lost to some consumers, or is failing to win over some others because they simply don't like the Apple design theme. What some of you have to accept is that this view is not limited to a minority of the population.
Enjoy your phone, but stop deluding yourself you are smarter than the Galaxy owner who truly does exist.
This will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I look at this and think there is a viable concern for apple here. The concern being information. When you're able to collect vasts amounts of information from a huge sea of smartphones, 'true' smart phones or 'glorified feature' phones they still provide information, you're in an excellent position. Huge numbers of information devices, regardless of how much they cost, is key to providing features that aren't possible with other OS's that have a smaller sample size to mine from.
All recent statistics show that iOS devices get used more than Android so that isn't a concern for Apple or at least not yet.
Comments
You just made it more confusing.
I provided quite a few examples when this came up before. Google 'android feature phone'.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gadgetreviews/samsung-unveils-android-based-galaxy-pro-feature-phone/22864
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/leap-plans-android-feature-phone-wait-what/2011-10-12
http://brianshall.com/content/android-feature-phone-coming-you-next-year
No one outside of Apple knows the build cost. That number you're referring to is someone's GUESS of COMPONENTS ONLY.
You're correct but except for the Amazon tablets all other Android devices come with the Google Play store as the native marketplace for apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Well, I for one don't want to find out if there is a tipping point where the proliferation of Android devices increases to the point where it compels developers to build for Android first, or, worst case scenario, where it marginalizes Apple even more causing a huge decrease in profits.
I'm not saying that there is a tipping point but the danger is definitely there and, as we've seen with the Mac, it's a long climb back.
[please know that I am mainly concerned about the Asian market]
The Asian market is the Asian market. I would guess that only a fraction of the apps in the US app store have any asian language support much less covers Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, Thai, Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc...
App developers build for their local markets first, then the next few major markets. China is important. India is important. Japan is somewhat important. Korea is somewhat important.
Everyone else can use Chinese or English versions of the apps.
You must be an american.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There was a good debate about how Google should approach search in the China market here:
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-google-try-to-prevent-the-chinese-government-from-censoring-search-engine-results
There's some unique reasons why Baidu gets the Chinese government nod of approval, while Google butts heads with them. There shouldn't be any surprise that Baidu would get the bulk of search requests considering the limitations forced on Google Search. IMHO it would be more distressing if Google was the market leader there as it would be clear evidence that they were deep in bed with the Chinese leadership.
http://www.cfr.org/china/us-internet-providers-great-firewall-china/p9856
This last link is an excellent read.
In this sense Apple is more easily compatible with the Chinese market. The parts that China cares about Apple doesn't care about that much (backend services) since that's primarily used to sell hardware whereas Google depends on that to make money.
Making the default search provider Baidu is no big deal.
Having a local app store where the government has a say in app approval is not a big deal.
Funneling social media to chinese internet companies instead of Twitter, Facebook and Google+ is no big deal.
But to Google these are big deals because it cuts to the core of their business model.
I think that Apple would not provide a backdoor to the Chinese but that's probably not required anyway. There are iOS vulnerabilities that I'm sure that Chinese have mapped out already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
You must be an american.
A realist. App devs, except the big boys, only have so much bandwidth for internationalization. For the east asian market Chinese, Japanese and Korean are the only ones worth investing any effort in. Even then the local app devs have a huge advantage unless you really are one of the big boys.
Likewise for the European market French, Spanish and German are the prime targets.
I would guess that most small indie app devs only do their own native language anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
You're correct but except for the Amazon tablets all other Android devices come with the Google Play store as the native marketplace for apps.
Well, if they are hitting the Baidu store they probably don't have access to GooglePlay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
In this sense Apple is more easily compatible with the Chinese market. The parts that China cares about Apple doesn't care about that much (backend services) since that's primarily used to sell hardware whereas Google depends on that to make money.
Making the default search provider Baidu is no big deal.
Having a local app store where the government has a say in app approval is not a big deal.
Funneling social media to chinese internet companies instead of Twitter, Facebook and Google+ is no big deal.
But to Google these are big deals because it cuts to the core of their business model.
I think that Apple would not provide a backdoor to the Chinese but that's probably not required anyway. There are iOS vulnerabilities that I'm sure that Chinese have mapped out already.
I think Apple does provide certain governments back-door access in exchange for selling devices/services in certain markets.
I remember a document from last year (?) that indicated both Apple and RIM provide "OS keys" to Indian authorities for spying on users of their devices. As controlling as the Chinese are I have no doubt it's the same there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
You just made it more confusing.
Because it is...
More like it can be. Manufacturer specific apps come built into their phones. Phone specific apps will not show up in a Google Play search done on a different device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach
I wonder how many of this 70% would rather have an iPhone if they only could?
Seems to me a hughe potential for Apple to grow beyond the wildest expectations.
Targeting the bottom kills margins and profits. Samsung will eventually raise their pricing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I think Apple does provide certain governments back-door access in exchange for selling devices/services in certain markets.
I remember a document from last year (?) that indicated both Apple and RIM provide "OS keys" to Indian authorities for spying on users of their devices. As controlling as the Chinese are I have no doubt it's the same there.
I found this:
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-02/news/33001399_1_blackberry-enterprise-encryption-keys-corporate-emails
Which was later denied by RIM.
"RIM has been fighting with the Indian government for years, and has denied that it can provide access to its enterprise email and messaging services. This is because the company itself does not possess the encryption keys for the same and these remain in the control of its corporate clients."
http://news.techeye.net/mobile/rim-denies-handing-encryption-keys-to-india
I did not find any articles about Apple providing encryption keys to India.
Apple has the encryption keys to iCloud.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/04/apple-holds-the-master-key-when-it-comes-to-icloud-security-privacy/
These they can give China I suppose but there's no indication it has done so. Anything you don't control the keys to isn't secure.
Whether device encryption keys are recoverable or stored by Apple I don't know. But at that point they already took your phone and can simply beat your passcode out of you.
http://xkcd.com/538/
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
I did not find any articles about Apple providing encryption keys to India.
http://apple.slashdot.org/submission/1902912/leaked-memo-says-apple-provides-backdoor-to-govern?sdsrc=rel
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
To be able to be called "Android x.x" (fill in the version), it must pass a standard compatibility test for that version. That ensures that standard apps run on all devices with that version, and thus most developers target the standard x.x APIs.
The difference comes with specialty apps that rely on device-specific features. For example, originally HTC and Samsung had their own pen APIs, but those have now been rolled into Android. A more common example is with widgets that rely on a particular manufacturer's custom launcher. E.g. a lot of people love HTC widgets, but most only run on HTC devices. It's a way of differentiating their products.
Thanks, appreciate it.
This will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I look at this and think there is a viable concern for apple here. The concern being information. When you're able to collect vasts amounts of information from a huge sea of smartphones, 'true' smart phones or 'glorified feature' phones they still provide information, you're in an excellent position. Huge numbers of information devices, regardless of how much they cost, is key to providing features that aren't possible with other OS's that have a smaller sample size to mine from.
Case in point, car analogies or any other analogy that uses a phyiscal product fail to recognize the flaw in such an arguement. The reason there is room for high end vendors that produce physical products is that there IS a difference in what is being valued. Better parts, better assembly, etc are factors when considering how one wants to travel (what's being valued) from place to place. And yes, the same can be said for the decisions affecting purchasing of a phone; however, the cost of travel does NOT decrease exponentially and it also does NOT improve as more people start to travel. Information works differently. Settling into a high end niche of a market where the valued product is ever decreasing in cost and conversly continuing to appreciate in value as it grows is completely different and I'm not sure it's as sustainable.
It'll be interesting to see if the tortoise does catch the hare in this race. Personally I'm rooting for the tortoise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
No, it's not. Apple controls the profits. Apple's products are the solid winners when it comes to virtually every usage metric. Apple controls the show when it comes to developer profits.
I agree.
There is a great deal of talk about capturing sales to the billion+ by coming out with a less expensive iPhone - the thought, by some, is to provide a way for people to buy an iPhone who currently couldn't afford one. This, according to some is supposed to help Apple's bottom line (which is in need of this help???). The current data shows that Apple customers use their products (at a much higher rate) to make on-line purchases, apps, etc. It would make little sense for Apple to try to attract potential customers who are less likely to buy additional Apple products or services, while still providing premium support for these new customers. As was said in other posts, the Apple model is to provide premium quality and services for those who are willing to pay for the best. Apple is not perfect, but is head and shoulders ahead of it's competitors - and, still provides the best, well thought out products around.
Not all people care, or can, pay the price for the best. I was one that fell in that camp. If I could "get by" with less, I would do so. I am a "PC convert" who dumped a Windows Vista machine, and have never regretted the move - there is only so much pain a person can endure :~). Higher entry cost and my thought that one machine is about the same as another, were the only things delaying my jumping from the PC world. I was not the desired potential Apple customer, as price was the driving force for me - and, at the time, I didn't mind "workarounds" and derived some sort of pleasure overcoming the shortcomings of the products.
Once getting my first Apple product (Mac Pro), it didn't take long to see my thinking was flawed - the feel, look and solid performance had value to me. I am willing to pay more for these things, and want to minimize messing around with things that don't work well. This isn't the case for all people, and for those, there are companies like Samsung who make products that can satisfy their needs and wants. Apple should continue to leave that part of the market to others...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That switch is currently under way. There's a VZW kiosk inside of a BJs Wholesale near that I often stop by mainly because the sales girl is hot but I almost always encounter someone switching from Android to iOS.
I hope they didn't switch just because of the hot sales girl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
http://apple.slashdot.org/submission/1902912/leaked-memo-says-apple-provides-backdoor-to-govern?sdsrc=rel
Here's a bit longer article about Nokia, RIM, Apple and likely others evidently providing government access via OS back-doors (and perhaps other methods).
http://www.osnews.com/story/25486/Indian_Government_Memo_Apple_Nokia_RIM_Supply_Backdoors
For the foil-hat crowd another recent change to all the smartphone OS's, including iOS, raises questions about how much access goverments have to our communication devices.
http://www.techdevicereviews.org/technology-news/new-apple-ios-6-gives-government-back-door-access-to-control-your-iphone
There seems to be steadfast refusal amongst some here to accept that not everyone prefers an iPhone. Some of you seem to believe that, everything else being equal, iPhone would win over everyone in a "taste" test. That is just wrong. There are many people who like Samsung (or even HTC) because they do like the larger screen. There are many people who prefer the feel and look of Galaxy over that of the iPhone. There are many who prefer Android over iOS for various reasons. I am not necessarily one of those (and I have a Galaxy to go with my 3G, 4, 4S and 5).
The following "excuses" are old and we all need to get over them:
- Android activations include multiple activations for the same device (remember this one).
- Samsung only reports shipments and not sales.
- Salespeople undersell iPhones.
- Only the frugal prefer Android.
- Android is only winning in Asia and other 3rd world regions.
I understand that some of you are instinctively defending you $AAPL shares. But your lack of objectivity is hurting your investment portfolio more than any stock manipulation.
The real story is that the iPhone is not the only rational choice based on cost, look, feel, UI or engineering. Overall, Apple is still investing the most in manufacturing innovations. But this is either lost to some consumers, or is failing to win over some others because they simply don't like the Apple design theme. What some of you have to accept is that this view is not limited to a minority of the population.
Enjoy your phone, but stop deluding yourself you are smarter than the Galaxy owner who truly does exist.
All recent statistics show that iOS devices get used more than Android so that isn't a concern for Apple or at least not yet.
Lol most of the switchers were girls themselves so I don't think it was a factor.