Google does have a monopoly on search in Europe as it constitutes over 80% share of the search market in Europe, far higher than here in the states. Plus Android is being investigated for anti competitive behavior as other competing and sometimes superior products are locked out due to the bundling of Google services in Android. Much like MS was forced to unbundle IE in Windows in the EU I look for Google to be forced to give Android users the option of hangin built in search and other services in Android!!!!
No it Doesnt.
From the dictionary on my Macbook: • monopoly - a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group.
80% isn't exclusivity. Google offers a service that people can choose to use or not - in exactly the same way that Apple offers products that people can choose to buy or not. The majority of people seem to think Google's product is superior, hence the market share, but there are very viable options available.
What superior competing products to Google's are locked out of Android to the point users can't avail of their use?
I have a Nokia and - surprise, surprise - the default search function uses Bing.
Anytime you read that Google has claimed some "80 percent share" in the mobile market, you can confidently assume the author is an idiot who only repeats numbers he or she does not comprehend and hasn't given the subject even cursory thought.
From the dictionary on my Macbook: • monopoly - a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group.
80% isn't exclusivity. Google offers a service that people can choose to use or not - in exactly the same way that Apple offers products that people can choose to buy or not. The majority of people seem to think Google's product is superior, hence the market share, but there are very viable options available.
What superior competing products to Google's are locked out of Android to the point users can't avail of their use?
I have a Nokia and - surprise, surprise - the default search function uses Bing.
You'd have to assume that these people throw their old devices away though. Even if they pass them on or sell them used, that's a new owner, some do hold onto them for backup devices. Any consideration of overall units is still clearly more accurate than any financial quarter. At the very least, a 1-3 year period would be better than 3 months as that doesn't even account for seasonality or proximity to a major product revision.
I don't disagree with any of this really. I wasn't supporting using any 3 month period as a benchmark, just saying that no reliable estimates have been produced that support either argument as far as I know.
Quote:
Xiaomi is not a significant fraction. The Kindle is significant in the realm of tablets but nowhere near smartphones.
I was simply trying to illustrate that the situation is quite complex, there are a huge number of smartphones sold in china which do not come with Google Play, and accounting for those is very tricky.
Quote:
That depends on what you want to prove. Did Apple steal their original smartphone design from a competitor in the market? No. Did Google and Samsung? Yes. Did Apple steal anything? Nobody has proven this to be the case, it's what people want to be the case and so they assume it is. It's not really hard to take the position that Apple is 'innocent' of theft because there's no evidence otherwise. It's common for people to try and put them on equal ground though.
Where did I say theft? I did not. What I said was that Samsung copies. Google's first smartphone was not made by Samsung.
With regard to Apple, I think it'd be hard to deny that they have introduced features inspired by everything from the jailbreak community to their direct competitors. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing this though, it's just that Samsung brings little in the way of their own innovation or improvement, and simply tries to compete by reproducing whatever else anyone offers.
Quote:
I don't think the article was taking issue with new sales. The article addresses the 80% figure under the assumption of it being used to represent "the mobile market", not limited to new sales, hence the accusation that the "author is an idiot who only repeats numbers he or she does not comprehend and hasn't given the subject even cursory thought". These people are repeating the phrases that make them feel good outside of their context and changing their meaning.
I certainly didn't read this meaning into the original article, and it doesn't come across in the wording of the critical quote IMO.
Quote:
This places Android's recent growth at 2:1 vs iOS. You then assume that leads to 80:20 (4:1) marketshare. Clearly that doesn't add up. There's a disparity between the activations and the marketshare stats too. If Google is only activating at 2:1, then the quarterly sales share showing 4:1 have to be due to channel flooding, which are balanced out in other quarters.
I made (and make) no claims to a 4:1 marketshare. I simply stated that the calculations are very difficult because even though we have some relatively concrete numbers the market has been growing significantly and hundreds of millions more devices have been sold. Divining their actual marketshare is not something I would like to try.
Yes, but much like MS was forced to unbundle IE in Windows, Apple could be forced to open the platform to other browser and even to show an ugly ballot screen.
Except Apple doesn't have the dominant market share in any market, which is a blessing, that would garner anti trust actions to proceed.
He wrote about facts from the past and present so for DED to write about the next five years he's going to have to make shit up. I much prefer him sticking to the facts here, but if he wants to weigh in on how he thinks these companies will evolve I would welcome its own separate article.
Fair enough. Just seems like it was missing some kind of conclusion.
I understand this is an 'editorial', and this is an 'Apple' site, but this site has become the the exact opposite of the crappy gossip writers at BI. How about a a balanced approach and writing? Apple is an incredibly awesome company with brilliant products. But iPhone is 7 years old, and how long will they be able to sell it with an ASP of nearly $620? 2 more years? 3 more years? what happens to company's financials when the ASP goes down to $550? $500? 450?
Fair enough. Just seems like it was missing some kind of conclusion.
I personally felt the "What About the Future?" conclusion was sufficient to close it out. If he hadn't included that I would agree it felt that it just ended abruptly.
Great analysis about Google and Apple. I would even argue that besides Samsung, it is far more profitable to be selling iPhone accessaries than selling iPhone competitor.
I think media has this fascination about software companies like Google and Microsoft because their margins are actually higher than Apple's. I'd argue that companies like Google and Microsoft do not understand hardware and never will. Experiments like Glass, Moto X, and even Nest will end up being good products but with marketshare comparable to Zune.
I've thought this for years. Apple should come out with products quarterly if they are going to do things on an annual basis. iPhones, iPads, Desktops, Laptops, Apple TV, Pro Apps, iLife, iWork, iOS, OS X. These things can be released throughout the year on a schedule. Laptops certainly during the Summer in time for the school year. There could be much more interest throughout the year with publicly expected deadlines for different products. Once each year isn't buzz, it's buzz kill.
"Google, in contrast, has been hyping glasses that cause headaches, touting robotics acquisitions that have no obvious business model...,"
As a reader/investor in Apple who strongly believes in their products and business model, for the record, Google's plans into investing resources in robotics is because they plan to automate manufacturing. The US can't compete vs. low offshore wages; therefore, to restore competitive manufacturing in the US, robots will be the future (they'll run 24/7/365; no hourly wages, no HR issues, no sick days, no health premiums, etc.).
I applaud Google's efforts in this new business model. Will it work? Time will tell.
Meh.
This is another instance of Google trying to reinvent the wheel. They’re pretty late to the party. If they really wanted to learn about industrial robotics, they should seek out advice from companies like Siemens, Rockwell, Mistubishi, etc. who are highly advanced in this field: http://robohub.org/credit-suisse-picks-7-automationrobotics-stocks/
This is another instance of Google trying to reinvent the wheel. They’re pretty late to the party. If they really wanted to learn about industrial robotics, they should seek out advice from companies like Siemens, Rockwell, Mistubishi, etc. who are highly advanced in this field: http://robohub.org/credit-suisse-picks-7-automationrobotics-stocks/
...or they could check out Apple's factory in Austin, Tx where the Mac Pro is made.
I urge everyone to check out the link Chris Marriott provides
Edit: To clarify, it's a link to his blog, sometimes considered questionable posting, but in this case it's justified, I think. It's serious, and non commercial anyway.
The commercial part is the services being sold under the same domain. Promoting the blog entries promotes the services as far as search engines are concerned but it's relevant enough in that instance. If it happens regularly though, they'll be removed. The expected way is to copy/paste the content into the forum rather than link but that one was too long.
no reliable estimates have been produced that support either argument as far as I know.
80% of new sales in a given quarter is believable enough - Samsung sells 2x the smartphones of Apple alone and they make up 60% of Android phones.
That information however is not particularly important when considering device usage or ad revenue because it doesn't give an indication of the ownership share. It's also not clear what devices are in the remaining 40% because there doesn't seem to be any profit outside of Samsung and Apple. If they are all operating at a loss for this long, they're not going to last and the sales will be absorbed by Samsung or Apple.
I certainly didn't read this meaning into the original article, and it doesn't come across in the wording of the critical quote IMO.
The critical quote is "repeats numbers he or she does not comprehend". The objection isn't the accuracy of the figures but what they mean.
"if Google had actually captured 80 percent of the success in smartphones, it should be reporting a similar percentage of revenues and profits: four times Apple's mobile performance."
Google's ad revenue comes from device ownership, not new sales. If Android had 80% ownership, the revenues would be different. Why would there be an objection in the article to authors misusing the figure if it wasn't the usage of the figure rather than the figure itself that was in question?
What evidence do you have that he has Jobs' taste or attention to detail. Jobs took a company which was bleeding to death, righted the ship, released OS X - the basis of all their success - on time; then when Apple was stable produced new and ground breaking products. Cook has taken over that company and as yet has done nothing in terms of innovation, is far too beholden to Wall Street ( buy backs and dividends would never have happened under Jobs - he never tried to prop up the stock). Cook may come good yet, we'll see this year.
I forgot Jobs ran Apple by himself. Everyone else was just a pretty face with a fancy title.
I forgot Jobs ran Apple by himself. Everyone else was just a pretty face with a fancy title.
I forgot to put you on ignore for arguing like a particular stupid 12 year old who can produce nothing but stupid straw man arguments, but I've rectified that now so don't both replying.
I forgot to put you on ignore for arguing like a particular stupid 12 year old who can produce nothing but stupid straw man arguments, but I've rectified that now so don't both replying.
Keep your pants on, everypeople. Let’s look at this again.
Originally Posted by asdasd
What evidence do you have that he has Jobs' taste or attention to detail.
Cook doesn’t have to. Ive does. Cook does in the business, Ive does in the products. As does Federighi.
Steve trained his team to be him after he couldn’t be him.
Originally Posted by jungmark
I forgot Jobs ran Apple by himself.
He’s not wrong in what he said. Jobs is the one who saved the company from going over the cliff. Jobs took the reins, but pulling the carriage was his team from NeXT. The wheels were Apple’s existing infrastructure. The carriage was the brand name. The shrieking woman inside the carriage was Jonathan Ive. And the metaphor’s running thin now.
Do you think that a NeXT purchase, without Jobs, would have seen Apple become what it is today?
He’s not wrong in what he said. Jobs is the one who saved the company from going over the cliff. Jobs took the reins, but pulling the carriage was his team from NeXT. The wheels were Apple’s existing infrastructure. The carriage was the brand name. The shrieking woman inside the carriage was Jonathan Ive. And the metaphor’s running thin now.
Do you think that a NeXT purchase, without Jobs, would have seen Apple become what it is today?
Yes Jobs saved Apple but he didn't do it alone. No one should downplay the team just to put Jobs on a pedestal.
Comments
Google does have
Google does have a monopoly on search in Europe as it constitutes over 80% share of the search market in Europe, far higher than here in the states. Plus Android is being investigated for anti competitive behavior as other competing and sometimes superior products are locked out due to the bundling of Google services in Android. Much like MS was forced to unbundle IE in Windows in the EU I look for Google to be forced to give Android users the option of hangin built in search and other services in Android!!!!
No it Doesnt.
From the dictionary on my Macbook: • monopoly - a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group.
80% isn't exclusivity. Google offers a service that people can choose to use or not - in exactly the same way that Apple offers products that people can choose to buy or not. The majority of people seem to think Google's product is superior, hence the market share, but there are very viable options available.
What superior competing products to Google's are locked out of Android to the point users can't avail of their use?
I have a Nokia and - surprise, surprise - the default search function uses Bing.
Wow, that's some strong editorializing!
(And I like it like that.)
That would mean that MS never had a monopoly?
You'd have to assume that these people throw their old devices away though. Even if they pass them on or sell them used, that's a new owner, some do hold onto them for backup devices. Any consideration of overall units is still clearly more accurate than any financial quarter. At the very least, a 1-3 year period would be better than 3 months as that doesn't even account for seasonality or proximity to a major product revision.
I don't disagree with any of this really. I wasn't supporting using any 3 month period as a benchmark, just saying that no reliable estimates have been produced that support either argument as far as I know.
I was simply trying to illustrate that the situation is quite complex, there are a huge number of smartphones sold in china which do not come with Google Play, and accounting for those is very tricky.
Where did I say theft? I did not. What I said was that Samsung copies. Google's first smartphone was not made by Samsung.
With regard to Apple, I think it'd be hard to deny that they have introduced features inspired by everything from the jailbreak community to their direct competitors. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing this though, it's just that Samsung brings little in the way of their own innovation or improvement, and simply tries to compete by reproducing whatever else anyone offers.
I certainly didn't read this meaning into the original article, and it doesn't come across in the wording of the critical quote IMO.
I made (and make) no claims to a 4:1 marketshare. I simply stated that the calculations are very difficult because even though we have some relatively concrete numbers the market has been growing significantly and hundreds of millions more devices have been sold. Divining their actual marketshare is not something I would like to try.
Except Apple doesn't have the dominant market share in any market, which is a blessing, that would garner anti trust actions to proceed.
Fair enough. Just seems like it was missing some kind of conclusion.
---
dailyfirstpages
I personally felt the "What About the Future?" conclusion was sufficient to close it out. If he hadn't included that I would agree it felt that it just ended abruptly.
I think media has this fascination about software companies like Google and Microsoft because their margins are actually higher than Apple's. I'd argue that companies like Google and Microsoft do not understand hardware and never will. Experiments like Glass, Moto X, and even Nest will end up being good products but with marketshare comparable to Zune.
How do you delete double/triple post?
"Google, in contrast, has been hyping glasses that cause headaches, touting robotics acquisitions that have no obvious business model...,"
As a reader/investor in Apple who strongly believes in their products and business model, for the record, Google's plans into investing resources in robotics is because they plan to automate manufacturing. The US can't compete vs. low offshore wages; therefore, to restore competitive manufacturing in the US, robots will be the future (they'll run 24/7/365; no hourly wages, no HR issues, no sick days, no health premiums, etc.).
I applaud Google's efforts in this new business model. Will it work? Time will tell.
Meh.
This is another instance of Google trying to reinvent the wheel. They’re pretty late to the party. If they really wanted to learn about industrial robotics, they should seek out advice from companies like Siemens, Rockwell, Mistubishi, etc. who are highly advanced in this field: http://robohub.org/credit-suisse-picks-7-automationrobotics-stocks/
Meh.
This is another instance of Google trying to reinvent the wheel. They’re pretty late to the party. If they really wanted to learn about industrial robotics, they should seek out advice from companies like Siemens, Rockwell, Mistubishi, etc. who are highly advanced in this field: http://robohub.org/credit-suisse-picks-7-automationrobotics-stocks/
...or they could check out Apple's factory in Austin, Tx where the Mac Pro is made.
The commercial part is the services being sold under the same domain. Promoting the blog entries promotes the services as far as search engines are concerned but it's relevant enough in that instance. If it happens regularly though, they'll be removed. The expected way is to copy/paste the content into the forum rather than link but that one was too long.
80% of new sales in a given quarter is believable enough - Samsung sells 2x the smartphones of Apple alone and they make up 60% of Android phones.
That information however is not particularly important when considering device usage or ad revenue because it doesn't give an indication of the ownership share. It's also not clear what devices are in the remaining 40% because there doesn't seem to be any profit outside of Samsung and Apple. If they are all operating at a loss for this long, they're not going to last and the sales will be absorbed by Samsung or Apple.
The critical quote is "repeats numbers he or she does not comprehend". The objection isn't the accuracy of the figures but what they mean.
"if Google had actually captured 80 percent of the success in smartphones, it should be reporting a similar percentage of revenues and profits: four times Apple's mobile performance."
Google's ad revenue comes from device ownership, not new sales. If Android had 80% ownership, the revenues would be different. Why would there be an objection in the article to authors misusing the figure if it wasn't the usage of the figure rather than the figure itself that was in question?
I forgot Jobs ran Apple by himself. Everyone else was just a pretty face with a fancy title.
I forgot to put you on ignore for arguing like a particular stupid 12 year old who can produce nothing but stupid straw man arguments, but I've rectified that now so don't both replying.
Keep your pants on, everypeople. Let’s look at this again.
Cook doesn’t have to. Ive does. Cook does in the business, Ive does in the products. As does Federighi.
Steve trained his team to be him after he couldn’t be him.
He’s not wrong in what he said. Jobs is the one who saved the company from going over the cliff. Jobs took the reins, but pulling the carriage was his team from NeXT. The wheels were Apple’s existing infrastructure. The carriage was the brand name. The shrieking woman inside the carriage was Jonathan Ive. And the metaphor’s running thin now.
Do you think that a NeXT purchase, without Jobs, would have seen Apple become what it is today?
Yes Jobs saved Apple but he didn't do it alone. No one should downplay the team just to put Jobs on a pedestal.