Editorial: Apple's iOS is the new Windows

145791012

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 225
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Manufacturers being able to fork it and not use any of Google's services kinda kills your anti competitive claim. There's a big difference between giving something away and someone else taking it. The OS is on it's servers and anyone including you and I can get a hold of it to use as we please.


     


    I believe his (jungmark's) contention is what you are describing is anticompetitive (since they are giving something away for free, as opposed to charging for it). This would seem to be a totally ridiculous contention, except it has been made in earnest (by the likes of Microsoft) against the free software movement.

  • Reply 122 of 225
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Manufacturers being able to fork it and not use any of Google's services kinda kills your anti competitive claim. There's a big difference between giving something away and someone else taking it. The OS is on it's servers and anyone including you and I can get a hold of it to use as we please.

    Dumping
  • Reply 123 of 225
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member


    Interesting analogy. As in most cases, there are arguments that support this just as there are many that contradict the model.


     


    The most important contradictory argument is this - Windows has always been made available via many hardware vendors. Consumers and business customers have choices. As we can see in the Android world, it is Samsung and not necessarily Android that is attracting the most customers.


     


    Apple doesn't offer choice, and really offers limited variety. So it is hard to imagine Apple ever dominating marketshare like Microsoft has done with Windows.


     


    In the end, I think these analogies are interesting fodder for discussion but hardly accurate. The fact is that neither iOS nor Android is tracking Windows' history.

  • Reply 124 of 225
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member



    Google, Samsung, Amazon and Microsoft are all working to build similar mobile ecosystems for their Android, Kindle, TouchWiz/Bada/Tizen and Windows Phone platforms, but they all have little to leverage and transform apart from minority segments of customers attracted to low priced hardware. These customers are not very valuable because they don't attract the kind of developer effort that reinforces the value of the underlying platform and ecosystem, creating a vicious cycle of failure.



     


    Mostly true.  I agree that the majority of non-iPad users are either looking for rock-bottom prices (and don't mind the bad quality) or they simply have no idea what they need, and are looking for a "My First Pad Computer" experience to get their toes wet.  To see what this whole post-PC thing is all about.  The latter will get iPads if they ever progress past the newbie-pad-user stage.  They'll then discover Apple's vast and robust app + content + services infrastructure, and they'll be Apple users forever.


     


    I'd add that Kindle users are probably more valuable to Amazon than generic (aka non-forked) Android users are to, well, anybody.  Kindle Fire acts as an at-home point of sale terminal mashed together with a text/audio/video consumption device.  Directing the user straight to Amazon goods and media, of course.  In a sense, it acts as a hardware component in Amazon's retail ecosystem.  And of the companies in the quoted paragraph ("Google, Samsung, Amazon, and Microsoft"), Amazon has the biggest and best ecosystem.


     


    And, as Daniel carefully explains elsewhere in the article, the ecosystem is the key to acquiring and maintaining your mobile user base.  Good luck to any manufacturers trying to catch up to Apple and Amazon.

  • Reply 125 of 225
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    solipsismx wrote: »

    Google doesn't sell it. You and I can make a SolimanX phone put a forked version of Android and our very own app store and give absolutely nil to Google. In my book that's the epitome of anticompetitiveness.
  • Reply 126 of 225
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Google doesn't sell it.

    1000
  • Reply 127 of 225
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member


    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    The most important contradictory argument is this - Windows has always been made available via many hardware vendors. Consumers and business customers have choices. As we can see in the Android world, it is Samsung and not necessarily Android that is attracting the most customers.



     


    But there haven't been any "forks" of Windows.  All hardware manufacturers are required to ship (a) standard version[s] of Windows (plus or minus random per-manufacturer spamware.)  The result, for end users, is a single Windows experience independent of whatever hardware they end up with. Different hardware, same UI.  Microsoft has subjugated their hardware partners by establishing the importance of software over hardware.  So in terms of actual experience, customers have zero choice.


     


     




    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    Apple doesn't offer choice, and really offers limited variety. So it is hard to imagine Apple ever dominating marketshare like Microsoft has done with Windows.




     


    But consumers do have freedom of choice.  Plenty of variety out there.  They can buy smartphones from Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, Samsung, HTC, LG, and others.  All with different user experiences in addition to the different hardware.  Vastly more variety than in the Wintel PC world.


     


    And yet iPhone totally dominates smartphone sales in the US.  39% US smartphone market share and growing.  Samsung is #2 at 21.7% and growing more slowly.  Do the math.


     


    Source: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/03/apple-widens-lead-in-us-smartphone-market-as-iphone-nears-40-share

  • Reply 128 of 225
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,293member
    fredd wrote: »
    Recent research shows the Android platform already has more download potential for developers and revenue is I think less but also catching up. The revenue element is obviously most important, but that will very likely exceed the iOS platform by next year.

    Revenue isn't catching up and the most important market - the US is increasing share for Apple. This proves that Apple can win where it is equal in cost (the effective cost of iPhones is cheaper in the US). Apple will probably try and win the middle market back in rich countries. And it does need a low cost alternative in poorer countries. But not for the next few years.

    I see Apple massively expanding their payments API over time. If the can get users to put in their bank details - which is no different from a debit card for the user but bypasses visa etc. - they can use NFC to get payments from apps, think an oyster app in the UK - and if these payments take off per user, they can start making cheaper phones.

    Only Apple , controlling the whole widget, can do this.

    ( And passbook was a toe in the water).
  • Reply 129 of 225
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    bdkennedy1 wrote: »
    Apple doesn't care about any of this. They have repeatedly said they don't care about market share.

    In the sense that they would make a design choice just to gain share, no they don't.

    This is something many, including DED, forget. Apple doesn't let price points, stock value or market share guide their game. They could not that Steve is dead but the time since this has shown that following their hearts as Steve asked them to means sticking with that bit of the 'old school'
  • Reply 130 of 225
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    fredd wrote: »
    I agree.  Very silly article, when iPhone's market share worldwide is threatening to drop to single digits in Q3 and when Apple has dropped to less than 50% of the tablet market share (a market many pundits thought they would dominate forever) and clearly heading rapidly to 20%


    The followup question to that is: is Apples % falling because their number of sales is falling or because there's more devices added into the mix increasing the total. While I suspect it's a touch of both its likely more of the latter than the former as we've seen the Surface, several Android etc new lines come out.

    I would be curious to see that chart plotted with total sales numbers for Apple's tablets and all brands, markers for when new items launched and even just the number of tablet models on sale during a given period. The overall would likely paint a slightly different picture than just showing their share %.
  • Reply 131 of 225
    freddfredd Posts: 9member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hydr View Post


    As long as the iPad is the single most sold tablet out there, Apple has nothing to worry about when it comes to declining marketshare.



    Thats ignoring the network effect. Loss of market share is not inevitable.  It did not happen to Windows for example. Apple is losing market share because its them against all the other OEMs.  iOS would have maintained market share if other OEMs could license the OS, but of course we know that will never happen.


     


    Basically because iOS is closed from a licensing POV the market share loss was inevitable. And at a critical point that also means a loss of influence. When Apple gets to 10% market share, like in the PC business, do you really think games will be released on iOS first? Or social apps?  What would be the point, except for a trial run?


     


    I would have though long time Mac users would have known market share very much does matter, no matter what Apple's profits are.

  • Reply 132 of 225
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    1000

    Dumping, where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss. Though the company loses money for each sale, the company hopes to force other competitors out of the market, after which the company would be free to raise prices for a greater profit.

    How can Google raise the price on something free?
  • Reply 133 of 225
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,106member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Dumping, where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss. Though the company loses money for each sale, the company hopes to force other competitors out of the market, after which the company would be free to raise prices for a greater profit.



    How can Google raise the price on something free?


     


    Google is in the "eyeballs" business, not the phone business. Any way they can, they try to get more people using their services.

  • Reply 134 of 225
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    Google is in the "eyeballs" business, not the phone business. Any way they can, they try to get more people using their services.

    Yes that's true but Amazon has kept Google's eyes out of their customers that use Kindles. Apps are purchased from Amazon and there are 0 apps by Google on it.
  • Reply 135 of 225
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    igriv wrote: »
    I believe his (jungmark's) contention is what you are describing is anticompetitive (since they are giving something away for free, as opposed to charging for it). This would seem to be a totally ridiculous contention, except it has been made in earnest (by the likes of Microsoft) against the free software movement.

    Both the law and common sense say that you're wrong.

    If it was as simple as 'giving something away', then you might have a point. But, instead, Google has used an enormous market power in the search and internet advertising areas to leverage their way into an entirely different market - mobile devices. At least in the US (and in Europe, as well, IIRC), that's illegal. That is exactly why Microsoft was punished for bundling IE. Giving IE away for free was not a problem - if Netscape or anyone else had done it. But MS used their monopoly in the OS arena to try to lock in the Internet, as well.

    That's exactly what Google is doing with Android.
  • Reply 136 of 225
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Both the law and common sense say that you're wrong.



    If it was as simple as 'giving something away', then you might have a point. But, instead, Google has used an enormous market power in the search and internet advertising areas to leverage their way into an entirely different market - mobile devices. At least in the US (and in Europe, as well, IIRC), that's illegal. That is exactly why Microsoft was punished for bundling IE. Giving IE away for free was not a problem - if Netscape or anyone else had done it. But MS used their monopoly in the OS arena to try to lock in the Internet, as well.



    That's exactly what Google is doing with Android.


     


    Why don't you explain to me what it is about giving away an OS (which anyone can [and does] fork), where the default browser (at least on my HTC) is not Chrome, where the vendor add-ons compete directly with corresponding Google products (HTC sense; Facebook Home are both quite contrary to google's interests) is illegal? As opposed to pervasive vendor lock-in (as practiced by Apple -- notice that you cannot play iTunes on your android device without going through some amount of pain; you can not read your iCloud mail [except through the clunky web app], you can not open your iWork documents -- I could go on, but I think you get the idea), which, I am sure is as wholesome and American as Apple pie.

  • Reply 137 of 225
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Both the law and common sense say that you're wrong.

    If it was as simple as 'giving something away', then you might have a point. But, instead, Google has used an enormous market power in the search and internet advertising areas to leverage their way into an entirely different market - mobile devices. At least in the US (and in Europe, as well, IIRC), that's illegal. That is exactly why Microsoft was punished for bundling IE. Giving IE away for free was not a problem - if Netscape or anyone else had done it. But MS used their monopoly in the OS arena to try to lock in the Internet, as well.

    That's exactly what Google is doing with Android.

    How did they leverage their way in? Not one single manufacturer is forced to use Android they chose to and can totally keep Google out of it. Samsung did just that with the first Galaxy S, but Google got smart and put all its apps in the Play Store, before then Google apps were built in to the OS.
  • Reply 138 of 225
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by igriv View Post

    As opposed to pervasive vendor lock-in (as practiced by Apple — notice that you cannot play iTunes on your android device without going through some amount of pain…


     


    But you can do it.






    …you can not read your iCloud mail [except through the clunky web app]…



     


    But you CAN do it.





    …you can not open your iWork documents…


     


    But you… CAN… do it.






    …I could go on…



     


    Please do. In fact, you've not yet started.

  • Reply 139 of 225
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,687member
    fredd wrote: »
    Thats ignoring the network effect. Loss of market share is not inevitable.  It did not happen to Windows for example. Apple is losing market share because its them against all the other OEMs.  iOS would have maintained market share if other OEMs could license the OS, but of course we know that will never happen.

    Basically because iOS is closed from a licensing POV the market share loss was inevitable. And at a critical point that also means a loss of influence. When Apple gets to 10% market share, like in the PC business, do you really think games will be released on iOS first? Or social apps?  What would be the point, except for a trial run?

    I would have though long time Mac users would have known market share very much does matter, no matter what Apple's profits are.

    The iPhone has never dominated the market share game. Developers look to make money. Surveys have shown iOS users spend more money on apps than Androiders. It's also doubtful that iOS will fall to 10% as the iPad and iPhone still dominate individual sales. In addition their usage share is relatively higher than the estimated market share.
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    How did they leverage their way in? Not one single manufacturer is forced to use Android they chose to and can totally keep Google out of it. Samsung did just that with the first Galaxy S, but Google got smart and put all its apps in the Play Store, before then Google apps were built in to the OS.

    What were their choices? Develop their own OSes? License an out of date windows mobile? Or take a free OS?
  • Reply 140 of 225
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    How did they leverage their way in? Not one single manufacturer is forced to use Android they chose to and can totally keep Google out of it. Samsung did just that with the first Galaxy S, but Google got smart and put all its apps in the Play Store, before then Google apps were built in to the OS.

    Are you purposely being obtuse? Your argument is like MS' "How are we leveraging anything when we allow other internet browsers to be installed?" They offer up something seemingly "cheap" to gain market share quickly and then generate fees at the other end. Are you really going to claim those billion "activations" and all those services they charge vendors for aren't there to generate any revenue under the guise of a "free" OS? If there was no one attaching themselves to Google's services then you'd have a point, but that's the exception, not the rule. Now it's a completely other argument as to whether this is illegal or not but their actions of "giving away" an OS are quite clear so please stop trying to paint Google as being altruistic.
Sign In or Register to comment.