Apple Inc's thermonuclear assault on Samsung vaporizes Android's remaining profit pillar

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 134
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post



    Boom. At least Samsung has refrigerators to fall back on.

    Or are they "innovating" by shipping toaster-fridges these days?

     

    I bought a new refrigerator a couple weeks ago. On the exterior, the Samsung and LG fridges tend to look pretty good with the brushed metal finish, especially at the $1-2k price range. But once you open the door, man it's pretty bare inside. Compared to fridges from Mitsubishi (which we bought), Panasonic and Hitachi, the Korean fridges just didn't add up. The Japanese fridges tended to have variable shelves, ice makers, and specialised compartments. Samsung fridges had... compartments.

     

    The pricing was fairly similar too. It didn't really take much comparison to see that the Korean fridges were not a good buy. We are really happy with the Mitsubishi that we bought, and low energy consumption as well.

  • Reply 42 of 134
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,842moderator
    marktime wrote: »
    Yet there still are people writing articles such as this one in today's Mercury News in San Jose - Despite Apple Gains, Android Rules Smartphones. The author goes on about iOS losing ground to Android because last year because Android went from 78.9 percent to 81.2 percent of all Smartphones shipped in 2014. Never once does the author try to explain what Android is winning. Have Android phones increased their share of online commerce, have Android manufacturers increased their profit share, have Android phones started attracting more developers/applications than iOS?

    Talk about phyrric victories...

    To authors of such articles, I say...

    Market share is meaningful only when it confers some advantage not attainable otherwise. This could be economies of scale in manufacturing costs, visibility to consumers, ecosystem lock-in, greater profits, etc. But Android gains no appreciable advantage from selling many more smartphones at the low-end of the market versus Apple. Apple sells sufficient numbers of its phones to achieve enormous clout and economies of scale and associated price discounts in the manufacture of its products. Apple is arguably more visible to consumers than Android in its position as the more desirable brand, so again, no market share advantage for Android. And the amounts of money earned by developers in the Apple ecosystem causes most developers to develop for iOS first, so no market share advantage to Android there either. Since Apple’s iPhone earns the majority of profits in the smartphone industry, with far less market share, even this metric doesn’t support an argument that market share has any meaning with respect to Apple’s position in this market.
  • Reply 43 of 134
    fallenjt wrote: »
    Refrigerators and TV won't help. Let's see. We buy refrigerators every 10-15 years and TV every 7-10 years.

    You make it sound like nobody should even bother selling refrigerators and TVs because of how infrequently they're purchased.

    Look... a person might only buy major appliances once every 7-15 years.... but people buy them every day. That's why big-box stores are full of them.

    And it's the same for cars. They don't get replaced too often either... but someone walks onto the car lot every day.

    There are certain products that don't get purchased often. That's OK.

    But as long as a company can sell enough of them... and make a profit on every one... they'll be fine.
  • Reply 44 of 134
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    inkling wrote: »
    I'm glad to see Apple doing well, but the company should keep in mind that size and success can breed federal intervention, as when the Clinton administration took on Microsoft and when the Obama administration went after Apple and the Big Five publishers.

    Apple needs to behave like a very, very good little boy, not doing anything that could get it into trouble. The company's executives should study the troubles AT&T and IBM got into decades ago when they tried to bully and control.

    In the long run, 'going nuclear' may prove a very bad idea.

    Size and success alone doesn't entail scrutiny. It's the abuse of its power that doomed Microsoft. Apple didn't force carriers to sell iPhones at the expense of others. Appld also doesn't have the market share lead either. Everyone is free to buy another phone. Apple is "winning" because people want to buy iPhones.

    I hope this kills the Temple of Market Share crowd. Market share doesn't pay the bills.
  • Reply 45 of 134

    What a great read. I was literally eating popcorn (and drinking a good port) while reading it.

     

    I can't wait for the next DED article parsing google's failing numbers (and trying to make sense of wall street's bizarre blindness to google's falling star). 

     

    NB: I try not to put too much stock into, um, stock, but the market cap numbers today are very interesting: Apple's market cap (692.8) is twice that of google's (346.4). How do you like them AAPLs, schmidt?

     

    Edit: Has Lord Amhran actually gone 44+ posts without some sort of passive aggressive or derisive statement about the article!?

  • Reply 46 of 134
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Inkling View Post



    I'm glad to see Apple doing well, but the company should keep in mind that size and success can breed federal intervention, as when the Clinton administration took on Microsoft and when the Obama administration went after Apple and the Big Five publishers.



    Apple needs to behave like a very, very good little boy, not doing anything that could get it into trouble. The company's executives should study the troubles AT&T and IBM got into decades ago when they tried to bully and control.



    In the long run, 'going nuclear' may prove a very bad idea.

     

    You just don't have an Inkling do you? Either about how Apple is right now or about how to troll properly.

  • Reply 47 of 134
    Thank you for this unbiased and carefully balanced article. This is the sort of reporting that the world needs right now. Why even try to obfuscate the facts by sensationalizing our favorite multi billion dollar conglomerate corporation that not just wants my money and by no means should be criticised. I shall read this to my future children and grandchildren, and show them what online journalism looks like and it's unmatched credibility. 10/10
  • Reply 48 of 134
    koopkoop Posts: 337member
    sflocal wrote: »

    That there's the problem.. only the Android "nerds", bedwetters, and basement-dwellers are the only ones that own the Note 4.  They think what's good for them surely has to be good for everyone else therefore they live in their little make-believe bubble and pretend everyone owns one.

    It's unbelievable to me that you truly think this. It's just phones guys. Relax.
  • Reply 49 of 134
    koopkoop Posts: 337member
    To authors of such articles, I say...

    Market share is meaningful only when it confers some advantage not attainable otherwise. This could be economies of scale in manufacturing costs, visibility to consumers, ecosystem lock-in, greater profits, etc. But Android gains no appreciable advantage from selling many more smartphones at the low-end of the market versus Apple. Apple sells sufficient numbers of its phones to achieve enormous clout and economies of scale and associated price discounts in the manufacture of its products. Apple is arguably more visible to consumers than Android in its position as the more desirable brand, so again, no market share advantage for Android. And the amounts of money earned by developers in the Apple ecosystem causes most developers to develop for iOS first, so no market share advantage to Android there either. Since Apple’s iPhone earns the majority of profits in the smartphone industry, with far less market share, even this metric doesn’t support an argument that market share has any meaning with respect to Apple’s position in this market.

    Google doesn't care about this as much as HTC or Motorola does. I imagine they would love for Google Play to take off the way iTunes did, but it's not going to destroy what ultimately they've gained here. Google has an automatic "in" with 80% of the world. Where it's not automatic like the iPhone they have a relatively strong suite of apps on the App Store. They were happy to release their maps app during the Apple maps fiasco. That's neither here or there. The point is they are ubiquitous.

    I think people here put to much weight on profitability. If the margins are good, the company is dominant. Google is ubiquitous, has vast access to information, and has positioned itself to be irreplaceable by most standards. You can't discount that. 20 years from now people will be happy with $200 smartphones and $300 computers, and Google will be right there chugging along serving its mission to collect and distribute information. Apple on the other hand has much more to lose.
  • Reply 50 of 134
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,092member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by koop View Post





    It's unbelievable to me that you truly think this. It's just phones guys. Relax.



    I truly do believe it, and if you comprehended my original post, I was not referring to the hardware.  Fandroids / iHaters are the worst of the worse when it comes to spouting off at the mouth, trolling endlessly on numerous forums and polluting what should have been a healthy dialogue.  They literally lie to make their point, or are so much in denial on just how bad the Android model is that they will just continue the status-quo, look the other way, and pretend that all is happy in Android-land.



    I have complete respect for Microsoft's Windows Phone, and the late Palm WebOS.  Why?  Because at least they tried with their own home-grown OS.  

  • Reply 51 of 134
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

     

     

    I think Android will limp along for the foreseeable future, in one form or another.  There will always be lowball hardware makers who want a free OS.  Looking to shave a few pennies off the cost of each unit as they all try to push each other off the low-margin cliff.  Welcome to that unpleasant little mosh pit, Samsung.

     

    And the Chinese government would love to keep spying on their citizens through whatever backdoors they've forced hardware makers to install in Android.  I bet Xiaomi's success warms the hearts of Beijing party apparatchiks.

     

    Of course, precious little of that "market share" benefits Google in any way.  Google Play sales to cheapskate lowball Android-appliance buyers?  Forget it.  Google ads served up to the vast bottom-feeding low-end of the Chinese market?  Good luck with that.




    oh sure, there will be billions of cheap droid phones of some kind around the world for many years to come. made by dozens of developing world companies we never hear of here. Google doesn't give a damn what happens to any OEM as a result. so the big name brands we do recognize like Samsung, Sony, and the rest will be pushed out of the market one by one, unable to compete at either the high or low end of the market and bleeding cash as long as they try.

     

    but at some point - two or three years from now i bet - Google will have to try to close Android, as DED and others have predicted, to force as many as they can of these new OEM's and their carriers to stay in the Google advertising network. otherwise they will gradually all opt out for their own like the Chinese do now. they'll leave Kit Kat or whatever is the last version technically open, but not support it. this will violate all the underlying Android open source licenses, but Google won't care, BS good enough for all the website whores, and no one will stop it. this will also give Google a chance to limit fragmentation from then on by enforcing consistent hardware and updating standards via licensing.

     

    of course there is always the alternative - MS' hobby Windows Phone. heck, MS may even pay them to try it.

  • Reply 52 of 134
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by koop View Post





    Google doesn't care about this as much as HTC or Motorola does. I imagine they would love for Google Play to take off the way iTunes did, but it's not going to destroy what ultimately they've gained here. Google has an automatic "in" with 80% of the world. Where it's not automatic like the iPhone they have a relatively strong suite of apps on the App Store. They were happy to release their maps app during the Apple maps fiasco. That's neither here or there. The point is they are ubiquitous.



    I think people here put to much weight on profitability. If the margins are good, the company is dominant. Google is ubiquitous, has vast access to information, and has positioned itself to be irreplaceable by most standards. You can't discount that. 20 years from now people will be happy with $200 smartphones and $300 computers, and Google will be right there chugging along serving its mission to collect and distribute information. Apple on the other hand has much more to lose.

     

    you're right! because once you become THE BIGGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD, MAKING THE MOST MONEY EVER, why you have nowhere to go but down! ironclad logic there.

     

    and in the long run of course, we all die. sic tempus fugit!

     

    but of course Google will be exempt from such mortality. not "irreplaceable," tho. "inescapable" is the goal - Skynet.

  • Reply 53 of 134
    Thank you for this unbiased and carefully balanced article. This is the sort of reporting that the world needs right now. Why even try to obfuscate the facts by sensationalizing our favorite multi billion dollar conglomerate corporation that not just wants my money and by no means should be criticised. 10/10
  • Reply 54 of 134
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member

    Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

     

    oh sure, there will be billions of cheap droid phones of some kind around the world for many years to come. made by dozens of developing world companies we never hear of here. Google doesn't give a damn what happens to any OEM as a result. so the big name brands we do recognize like Samsung, Sony, and the rest will be pushed out of the market one by one, unable to compete at either the high or low end of the market and bleeding cash as long as they try.

     

    but at some point - two or three years from now i bet - Google will have to try to close Android, as DED and others have predicted, to force as many as they can of these new OEM's and their carriers to stay in the Google advertising network. otherwise they will gradually all opt out for their own like the Chinese do now. they'll leave Kit Kat or whatever is the last version technically open, but not support it. this will violate all the underlying Android open source licenses, but Google won't care, BS good enough for all the website whores, and no one will stop it. this will also give Google a chance to limit fragmentation from then on by enforcing consistent hardware and updating standards via licensing.

     

    of course there is always the alternative - MS' hobby Windows Phone. heck, MS may even pay them to try it.


     

    Agree.  During the 2012 Oracle Java trial, Larry Page said "I believe Android was very important for Google.  I wouldn't say it was critical."  He was referring to Google in 2010, of course, but things really haven't changed.  He was answering a question about Android as a delivery mechanism for Google technology, which means advertising technology, which means revenue from advertisers.  End-user be damned.

     

    "Larry Page: Android isn't critical, it's a delivery vehicle for Google services"

    http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/18/2957682/larry-page-android-isnt-critical-its-a-delivery-vehicle-for-google

     

    But let's not forget about Chrome.  Google may still think that the user experience can be funneled into a browser.  The legacy desktop, current mobile, future wearable user interactions.  Chrome OS fits that browser-for-everything mentality perfectly: dumb end-user hardware, massive server infrastructure behind it all.  Don't need a smartphone or pad or 3GHz x86 to run Chrome OS.  Eventually we'll be living in a "Her"-like world.   Simple wearable devices, voice and gesture-activated, with powerful AI running on servers.  Android doesn't fit well into that future vision.  (And neither does iOS, for that matter.)

  • Reply 55 of 134
    Daniel, this article meanders too much. It overuses the word "thermonuclear".

    Apple did not have to go "thermonuclear" on Android. Apple did not even need to compete against Samsung. Apple is at a stage of its development that the only competition to Apple is Apple itself.

    And Apple simply had to do what it does best:
    1. focus - it is the best company at focus.
    2. focus on the customer experience
    3. design for the customer experience
    4. make the best products it can.

    What automatically flows are:
    1. profits
    2. customers willing to pay higher prices for quality products
    3. attract even tightwad and less affluent customers who are willing to pay higher prices for quality products.

    Samsung is simply a pretender once Apple does what it does best.
  • Reply 56 of 134
    enzosenzos Posts: 344member



    Good one, Dan. 

     

    If anyone has actually used the Note / Galaxy for any length of time, they'll know why Samsung is going down the gurglers. Fast big and gaudy but they have all the design and build quality of a Fisher Price toy. The waterproofing hatches broke off on the Galaxy, the trim is chipping and the wife can hardly charge the Note because of a dodgy USB socket, and when fully charged, it hardly lasts a couple of hours (6 months old). Just dumb, plastic, unforgivable rubbish, and people won't buy the same again. 

  • Reply 57 of 134
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

     

     

    Agree.  During the 2012 Oracle Java trial, Larry Page said "I believe Android was very important for Google.  I wouldn't say it was critical."  He was referring to Google in 2010, of course, but things really haven't changed.  He was answering a question about Android as a delivery mechanism for Google technology, which means advertising technology, which means revenue from advertisers.  End-user be damned.

     

    "Larry Page: Android isn't critical, it's a delivery vehicle for Google services"

    http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/18/2957682/larry-page-android-isnt-critical-its-a-delivery-vehicle-for-google

     

    But let's not forget about Chrome.  Google may still think that the user experience can be funneled into a browser.  The legacy desktop, current mobile, future wearable user interactions.  Chrome OS fits that browser-for-everything mentality perfectly: dumb end-user hardware, massive server infrastructure behind it all.  Don't need a smartphone or pad or 3GHz x86 to run Chrome OS.  Eventually we'll be living in a "Her"-like world.   Simple wearable devices, voice and gesture-activated, with powerful AI running on servers.  Android doesn't fit well into that future vision.  (And neither does iOS, for that matter.)




    good point, Google may instead just abandon Android - gradually - and replace it with the Chrome Phone. might even try to become an OEM again to make real $'s from its technology.

     

    but no, a web based OS can't totally replace local hardware in any meaningful timeframe. it just won't be possible to always be connected for various reasons, and some heavy duty processing has to be done local, especially the extremely popular camera/video stuff. yes, the chips will become so tiny they could all fit on a button - but then why do people prefer bigger screen phones instead? and sure, someday that sci-fi stuff will come to pass in some form, but don't hold your breath - that's for the grandkids. after all eventually humans will have implants in our brain to communicate by telepathy and have websites (or whatever they are by then) projected onto our eyeballs from the inside and record everything we see!

     

    but in just three months we'll have the Apple Watch. all it's really missing for me is FaceTime. that's probably coming in v.2 next year.

  • Reply 58 of 134
    tcaseytcasey Posts: 199member

    apple don't need to bully they have demand and innovation on there side..

  • Reply 59 of 134
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    Everyone on AI predicted samsung's profit fall

    Good job guys :)
  • Reply 60 of 134
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Anome View Post



    'Twas always thus. I've been using Macs since the 80s, and have constantly heard about how Mac Users always go on about how much better they are than Windows, while in reality I've only ever heard Windows users talk like that. Basically, people attribute to their enemies their own worst traits. Android fanatics are no different.





     

    you seem to be having an irony overload if that is what you truely believe. In this thread alone there appears to be some statements that would go against your assertion. Though I whole heartedly agree with your last statement, though it does need android removed to make it more accurate.
Sign In or Register to comment.