It's really misleading and inaccurate to use the term "thermonuclear assault" to describe Apple's competitive position against Samsung. That is such a loaded term, especially since it's how Steve Jobs characterized his revenge strategy against Android. Obviously you're trying to conjure that up, and apply it to the current situation with Samsung, as if it proves that Steve Jobs finally won his thermonuclear war... or something... but that's such a stretch, and it really makes you look ridiculous.
Apple isn't doing anything to specifically attack Samsung, beyond just making really good phones that people want to buy. That isn't an attack on Samsung, it's Apple's way of doing business against the entire mobile industry. Samsung was the biggest player, so they have suffered the most, but their problems have as much to do with themselves as they do with Apple. They've been making crappy phones for a long time, and people got tired of buying them. It's not just Apple that has benefitted from Samsung's demise. LG, for example, is also surging, albeit at a smaller scale.
In your mind you want this to be some vendetta strike against Samsung, to avenge Steve Jobs... but it just isn't. You're so invested in Apple scoring points that you've fabricated this silly "thermonuclear attack" fantasy in your head. It's laughable.
This article could have been so much more effective if you had just stuck with the facts, which are compelling, and left the petulant nonsense out.
What do you mean by "misleading and inaccurate"? That the opinion expressed in the article is not yours?
Is your opinion automatically right? Is everyone else ridiculous? If so, explain why. What's wrong with expressing how the company Steve Jobs built is commercially destroying the supplier who knifed it in the back by building better products that Samsung can't copy, using the terminology Jobs used to describe how he would destroy Android, given that the techniques Apple is using to destroy Samsung closely follow the strategies Jobs sought to teach every manager at Apple?
Why don't you express and articulate your opinion, rather than just reviewing that the opinion expressed is "silly" "laughable" and "nonsense" all without offering anything other than your anonymous identity as an expert in "things that are bad"?
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/184569/apple-incs-thermonuclear-assault-on-samsung-vaporizes-androids-remaining-profit-pillar/80#post_2669201" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>starxd</strong> <a href="/t/184569/apple-incs-thermonuclear-assault-on-samsung-vaporizes-androids-remaining-profit-pillar/80#post_2669201"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <p>It's really misleading and inaccurate to use the term "thermonuclear assault" to describe Apple's competitive position against Samsung. That is such a loaded term, especially since it's how Steve Jobs characterized his revenge strategy against Android. Obviously you're trying to conjure that up, and apply it to the current situation with Samsung, as if it proves that Steve Jobs finally won his thermonuclear war... or something... but that's such a stretch, and it really makes you look ridiculous. </p><p> </p><p>Apple isn't doing anything to specifically attack Samsung, beyond just making really good phones that people want to buy. That isn't an attack on Samsung, it's Apple's way of doing business against the entire mobile industry. Samsung was the biggest player, so they have suffered the most, but their problems have as much to do with themselves as they do with Apple. They've been making crappy phones for a long time, and people got tired of buying them. It's not just Apple that has benefitted from Samsung's demise. LG, for example, is also surging, albeit at a smaller scale. </p><p> </p><p>In your mind you want this to be some vendetta strike against Samsung, to avenge Steve Jobs... but it just isn't. You're so invested in Apple scoring points that you've fabricated this silly "thermonuclear attack" fantasy in your head. It's laughable. </p><p> </p><p>This article could have been so much more effective if you had just stuck with the facts, which are compelling, and left the petulant nonsense out. </p></div></div><p><br />What do you mean by "misleading and inaccurate"? That the opinion expressed in the article is not yours?</p><p> </p><p>Is your opinion automatically right? Is everyone else ridiculous? If so, explain why. What's wrong with expressing how the company Steve Jobs built is commercially destroying the supplier who knifed it in the back by building better products that Samsung can't copy, using the terminology Jobs used to describe how he would destroy Android, given that the techniques Apple is using to destroy Samsung closely follow the strategies Jobs sought to teach every manager at Apple?</p><p> </p><p>Why don't you express and articulate your opinion, rather than just reviewing that the opinion expressed is "silly" "laughable" and "nonsense" all without offering anything other than your anonymous identity as an expert in "things that are bad"?</p>
Why don't you post under DED rather than corrections and hide behind a secondary id. What's sauce for the goose is sauce the gander
Remember google become a huge corporation by backstabbing and stealing from Apple.
I'll never forget when Eric Schmidt praised iPhone by saying "This is gonna be a hot product!" at the iPhone keynote.
And you better pray to Eric Schmidt Apple doesn't develop a search engine of its own.
Because when that day comes expect google to drop to its knees and lose upwards of %80 of its revenue stream.
It's always hilarious when morons mention google.com or laugh when iPhone users use google.com as if Apple is a competitor in search. You better hope they never are.
You'd think they would actually want Apple to compete head on in the search business. They're always going on about how "Apple needs competition, bah bah." You'd think they would want the same for Google in the search/ads biz, but they are oddly silent about it.
Why don't you post under DED rather than corrections and hide behind a secondary id. What's sauce for the goose is sauce the gander
The OP attacked the article without backing up any of his libel. It really doesn't matter that he's trolling anonymously; that wasn't the issue.
You however ran up and made an issue of anonymity, even though you know who I am, and then brought up hypocrisy and double standards, even though you're the one posting under a phony name where nobody really knows who you are.
If this were a troll contest, I'm not sure which of the two of you would win.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/184569/apple-incs-thermonuclear-assault-on-samsung-vaporizes-androids-remaining-profit-pillar/80#post_2669311" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>singularity</strong> <a href="/t/184569/apple-incs-thermonuclear-assault-on-samsung-vaporizes-androids-remaining-profit-pillar/80#post_2669311"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br /><br />Why don't you post under DED rather than corrections and hide behind a secondary id. What's sauce for the goose is sauce the gander</div></div><p><br />The OP attacked the article without backing up any of his libel. It really doesn't matter that he's trolling anonymously; that wasn't the issue.</p><p> </p><p>You however ran up and made an issue of anonymity, even though you know who I am, and then brought up hypocrisy and double standards, even though you're the one posting under a phony name where nobody really knows who you are. </p><p> </p><p>If this were a troll contest, I'm not sure which of the two of you would win. </p>
yes I know who you are. Many readers especially casual readers won't be and will be unaware that you post under multiple names. When it is totally unnecessary and just undermines what you respond with. If your standing by your articles then respond under your article account. but that's just my opinion.
I however only post on one name and will only ever post under one name. It makes it easier for people to throw the claim of "troll".
The OP attacked the article without backing up any of his libel. It really doesn't matter that he's trolling anonymously; that wasn't the issue.
You however ran up and made an issue of anonymity, even though you know who I am, and then brought up hypocrisy and double standards, even though you're the one posting under a phony name where nobody really knows who you are.
If this were a troll contest, I'm not sure which of the two of you would win.
Seriously disagreement is libel? Even if his post were inaccurate unless it said something personal about you which was defamatory and inaccurate it wasn't libel.
And he wasn't trolling either, which in this forum isn't disagreement with you but Apple bashing or Android fetishing of a certain type -- he just didn't like the use of certain words in the column.
And we are all posting anonymously, or rather pseudonymously, here -- which is normal for a forum. Posting under the line under a different name to above the line isn't normal and in fact is a form of sock puppetry.
As an Apple and an Android user, I have experienced both sides of the argument. The problem for Apple is that the very same issue that is hitting Samsung, I.e. cheap competitors, will eventually hurt Apple too. When flagship Android phones start costing $400, people will start switching from iPhone, unless Apple cuts prices significantly and then profits fall . It has happened with every consumer product in history and it will happen with smartphones. You only need to look what happened to Macbook Air prices in the face of Windows Ultrabook competition. To believe Android will die is laughable and Windows may finally become competitive in phones as they have in tablets, which is why iPad is getting killed.
Android market share makes a great headline... but there is never a compelling story after that.
That's a good point. Troy Wolverton of the SJ Merc again rushed out to publish a "but Android is winning: 80%!!!" headline that didn't tell a story. How does that result in a win, and for whom?
Google doesn't even have the ability to show ads on Open Android phones because they're hooked up to Alibaba or Amazon rather than Google services. And the ads Google gets from Android are less valuable than iOS, a net wash for Google.
Who else? Does Xiaomi, Samsung, LG, Lenovo etc benefit from having a slice of an unprofitable pie chart?
Android is like Windows but there's no Microsoft making money from it. So it doesn't get updates, it doesn't really have a clear strategy for licensees or the platform, and what strategy is there is targeted to low value adware, which doesn't benefit end users or developers.
Android is like everything bad about Windows rolled into everything bad about Linux, but with none of the advantage of either.
It is difficult to understand how Samsung can be defined as "Android's remaining profit pillar".
I'll be more specific.
Android phone shipments have increased 34% in 2014, and Android's market share has increased to 81% (up from 79% in 2013).
I can't wait to see Samsung sink, but let's not forget 2 things:
1. Samsung has already started to part ways with Android thanks to Tizen OS, and will follow that road if possible;
2. Android is a competitive market, and if Samsung's market share will fall, other OEMs will take advantage of that.
I really don't see any suffering at all in Android per se. I just see suffering OEMs (Samsung, HTC, Sony, Motorola), but OEMs ? Android.
Better keep that in mind for the future.
If nobody makes money from Android, Android will suffer. Why devellop something if your going to lose money off it? Simple as that. Google probably makes as much ad revenues from IOS than from Android despite spending little money on it. So, why should they continue pouring money into Android. Notice that Google seemingly stopped caring that their reference platform Nexus 6 and 9 are inexpensive. Android's growth essentially came at the expense of blackberry and Windows OS. In the high end smartphone arena, they lost market share significantly. That's were the money is and that will affect them long term.
That's a good point. Troy Wolverton of the SJ Merc again rushed out to publish a "but Android is winning: 80%!!!" headline that didn't tell a story. How does that result in a win, and for whom?
Google doesn't even have the ability to show ads on Open Android phones because they're hooked up to Alibaba or Amazon rather than Google services. And the ads Google gets from Android are less valuable than iOS, a net wash for Google.
Who else? Does Xiaomi, Samsung, LG, Lenovo etc benefit from having a slice of an unprofitable pie chart?
Android is like Windows but there's no Microsoft making money from it. So it doesn't get updates, it doesn't really have a clear strategy for licensees or the platform, and what strategy is there is targeted to low value adware, which doesn't benefit end users or developers.
Android is like everything bad about Windows rolled into everything bad about Linux, but with none of the advantage of either.
No. It can't last. You wrote a good piece about this last year. Android users think that there can is no way but up from here but I think the opposite. The market is going to consolidate into profit making manufacturers and unlike clone PC makers there aren't any. Except samsung. Which is rapidly declining.
Boom. At least Samsung has refrigerators to fall back on.
Or are they "innovating" by shipping toaster-fridges these days?
This is a typical naive statement. You realize samsung is one of the largest producers of dram, flat panels and flash memory, right? Not only that but iphones and ipads are comprised of samsung components?
Well said on all counts ... Re Microshit, Don't leave out stealing Quicktime then making their version create files that would not run on Macs making Macs look like they were not up to snuff with multi-media in many users eyes. Oh, and making web sites that only worked in IE (IE hahahah) and all those damn databases that only worked on Windblows. Mircroshit just die .../rant
Then there was Microsoft stealing Java and coming up with their own version in an attempt to kill Suns version anti open
Then there was Microsoft taking C and coming up with their own version called C sharp.
See the pattern?
When a monopoly company can hijack a product change it and come out with their own version which makes the early adopters version broken that's abuse of market power. It's standard operating procedure for Microsoft, now Google just did the same thing with android stole Java from oracle and broke it and was sued.
It really quite hypocritical of Google to call android open, it is nothing of the sort really. Not in the sense of anyone can take it and adapt the open source code to their platform. There are all kinds of conditions tied to a carrier using it, that is not pure openness. To be open a piece of code must be freely shared, adhere to the open reference standard and any new version made available to anyone who wants to use it. Thus the best code rises to the top like cream on the milk and gets used more and more. This is the reason Unix became so unbelievably bullet proof and such a threat to Microsoft and why gates tried to and failed to kill it. One company (Google) distributing and locking out all other dev is not open. Not only is android not open they stole the code from sun , now oracle, and denied it and got caught doing so. Then turned around and clamed it is Free and open.talk about having brass balls. It's not really free either because as we know the $ are back end loaded to profit Google by selling your information and everything about you to the highest bidder.
If android is truly open it would start to get better and better because millions of developers would have access to the code and make it bullet proof like Unix. This is not happening and never even started at all because Google owns android so android will never have the resources to test the hell out of it and make it secure and bug free as possible. Android is a proprietary OS and suffers the consequences of that just like windows and Apple's too. The fact that apple's OSs are becoming buggy is because of the many enhancements and the code is very old now with limited testing.
Samsung is attempting it too in a way. All the android cloners are doing same thing after all what is android but a new java based skin on top of Unix all android has done is replace Symbian Unix and remember iOS and Mac OS are graphical front ends on top of Unix too.
Bill gates was correct when he stated years ago that open source Unix is the single biggest threat to windows. All that has happened really is that Unix has morphed into to all these new operating systems, mainly on mobile now and it's killing windows chances of dominating on anything other than the desktop. These newer Unix flavors
are far superior to the broken and severely flawed operating system called windows. The biggest problem facing windows is that it is arguably the most primitive and fatally flawed OS surviving. I won't go into why, there are articles out there some more than 20 pages long detailing the many flaws with windows and why they will never go away.
That's a good point. Troy Wolverton of the SJ Merc again rushed out to publish a "but Android is winning: 80%!!!" headline that didn't tell a story. How does that result in a win, and for whom?
Exactly.
John Gruber also has a great headline on his latest post on Daring Fireball:
Reminder: Apple Has Never Led the Smartphone Industry in Market Share
I think people forget that little nugget of information. And look at what the iPhone has done without a lot of market share.
Isn't it weird that the iPhone can attract so many developers without a lot of market share? And not only attract... but make so much more money for developers without a lot of market share?
Isn't it weird that the iPhone created a whole sub-industry of accessories and other things to hook to your iPhone without a lot of market share?
Basically... look at what Apple is doing with so little.
Or... look at what Android is NOT doing with so much...
I have an idea that Steve will be looking down, smiling, in the knowledge that an organisation with a defined purpose (beyond making money), a clear vision, and that treads its own path will almost always win out against those that don't.
The entire Engadget staff should be fired. I have no doubts in my mind that money is changing hands. They spin everything to make android/google/samsung look good and make apple look bad. Just recently the Thermonuclear obliteration of Samsung's profits was brushed over and the news was spun to basically say that android has 81% market share. Way to deflect attention from the real news. Apple should exclude Engadget from their events. Engadget is becoming less and less relevant as a tech blog. They can disappear as far as I'm concerned.
"Some more details are emerging around AOL’s reorganization plans. Sources tell us that the company will lay off around 150 people, with the majority in sales. As part of it, AOL is also consolidating some websites. Gaming site Joystiq and Apple news site TUAW are both being folded into Engadget, and AOL Autos has already been folded into Autoblog." (They updated it to say Jostiq is actually being shut down).
As usual with these companies, you have to follow the revenue model. News is supposed to be impartial but it's often supported by advertisers. Engadget's parent company AOL is an ad company. The layoffs aren't high vs their overall headcount but every part will have to be profitable as far as ad revenue goes. If you look at an Apple site like AI, you'll see more Apple ads because the ad targets match the users. On a site like Engadget, they need to drive ad targets for more than Apple users so their news can't be all positive about Apple because they'd throw away their ad revenue by alienating the Android and Windows crowd.
John Gruber also has a great headline on his latest post on Daring Fireball:
Reminder: Apple Has Never Led the Smartphone Industry in Market Share
I think people forget that little nugget of information. And look at what the iPhone has done without a lot of market share.
Isn't it weird that the iPhone can attract so many developers without a lot of market share? And not only attract... but make so much more money for developers without a lot of market share?
Isn't it weird that the iPhone created a whole sub-industry of accessories and other things to hook to your iPhone without a lot of market share?
Basically... look at what Apple is doing with so little.
Or... look at what Android is NOT doing with so much...
It's a common troll argument that iphone somehow started with 100% of the "smartphone market" in 2007 and has been steadily losing ("loosing" in trollspeak) to Android ever since. They forget that Apple crawled its way up from zero percent. The smartphone market was dominated by Palm OS, Nokia, and Windows Mobile, and included a variety of form factors and input methods (keyboards and pen dominated). When confronted by this, they move the goalposts: "oh no, we mean Apple started with 100% of the 'modern' smartphone market!" which they define as the iPhone and the inevitable copies that followed.
But here's the problem...
If you define the "smartphone market" that way, then Apple's marketshare must decline because if you assigned Apple 100% from the start then there's no where to go but down. And if you define the market as "iPhones and the inevitable copies that followed" then a loss of marketshare for the first product on the market is built-in to the very definition of the market! Trolls use this facetious argument to "prove" that Apple is failing. But all it proves is that they rigged the definition of the ''modern" smartphone market against Apple.
The same argument was used against the iPad in the forums (the so-called "first modern tablet", which is doublespeak for "a new market category defined as iPad and the copies that will follow soon afterwards if it proves to be successful").
A far more meaningful definition of "the market" is what people are willing to buy. That changes over time, which is why it's completely legit to include Palm OS, Nokia, and Windows Mobile smartphones in marketshare calculations with the iPhone when counting the market in 2007. From that definition, Apple has increased its worldwide marketshare from zero.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/184569/apple-incs-thermonuclear-assault-on-samsung-vaporizes-androids-remaining-profit-pillar#post_2668737" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Anome</strong> <a href="/t/184569/apple-incs-thermonuclear-assault-on-samsung-vaporizes-androids-remaining-profit-pillar#post_2668737"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/><br />
'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.<br />
<br />
<br />
</div><p> </p>
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.
No irony at all. Maybe it was just the people I hung out with, but it was Windows users who would try to start arguments about who had the better operating system.
Or do you mean to suggest I might be attributing to my opponents my own traits? Maybe I am. I try to be more careful about such things, since I see it happen so often.
As for removing the word "Android" from my last sentence there, that would make that sentence pointless. I am merely trying to point out that the Android fanatics (for want of a better term) are no different from other kinds of fanatic. Implicit in that statement (and more explicit in the statements before it) is that all fanatics are like that. What you propose is rewording my statement to say "Fanatics behave this way. Fanatics are no different." which is redundant.
John Gruber also has a great headline on his latest post on Daring Fireball:
Reminder: Apple Has Never Led the Smartphone Industry in Market Share
I think people forget that little nugget of information. And look at what the iPhone has done without a lot of market share
An interesting point. Apple started with nothing in the smartphone business, and built a rather impressive (if not dominant) market share. Most manufacturers using Android already had some marketshare in smartphones to build upon.
No irony at all. Maybe it was just the people I hung out with, but it was Windows users who would try to start arguments about who had the better operating system.
Or do you mean to suggest I might be attributing to my opponents my own traits? Maybe I am. I try to be more careful about such things, since I see it happen so often.
As for removing the word "Android" from my last sentence there, that would make that sentence pointless. I am merely trying to point out that the Android fanatics (for want of a better term) are no different from other kinds of fanatic. Implicit in that statement (and more explicit in the statements before it) is that all fanatics are like that. What you propose is rewording my statement to say "Fanatics behave this way. Fanatics are no different." which is redundant.
An interesting point. Apple started with nothing in the smartphone business, and built a rather impressive (if not dominant) market share. Most manufacturers using Android already had some marketshare in smartphones to build upon.
good reply, with good points :-) Apple dominates the part they want to dominate, the high end with the profit. Coupled with the walled garden approach means it retains control over the revenue streams. I cant see Apple going for a (substantially) cheaper phone as the profits just arent there and the potential to canibilise the higher priced phone sales is too big. wheres the aspirational factor is literally everyone can have one?
Comments
It's really misleading and inaccurate to use the term "thermonuclear assault" to describe Apple's competitive position against Samsung. That is such a loaded term, especially since it's how Steve Jobs characterized his revenge strategy against Android. Obviously you're trying to conjure that up, and apply it to the current situation with Samsung, as if it proves that Steve Jobs finally won his thermonuclear war... or something... but that's such a stretch, and it really makes you look ridiculous.
Apple isn't doing anything to specifically attack Samsung, beyond just making really good phones that people want to buy. That isn't an attack on Samsung, it's Apple's way of doing business against the entire mobile industry. Samsung was the biggest player, so they have suffered the most, but their problems have as much to do with themselves as they do with Apple. They've been making crappy phones for a long time, and people got tired of buying them. It's not just Apple that has benefitted from Samsung's demise. LG, for example, is also surging, albeit at a smaller scale.
In your mind you want this to be some vendetta strike against Samsung, to avenge Steve Jobs... but it just isn't. You're so invested in Apple scoring points that you've fabricated this silly "thermonuclear attack" fantasy in your head. It's laughable.
This article could have been so much more effective if you had just stuck with the facts, which are compelling, and left the petulant nonsense out.
What do you mean by "misleading and inaccurate"? That the opinion expressed in the article is not yours?
Is your opinion automatically right? Is everyone else ridiculous? If so, explain why. What's wrong with expressing how the company Steve Jobs built is commercially destroying the supplier who knifed it in the back by building better products that Samsung can't copy, using the terminology Jobs used to describe how he would destroy Android, given that the techniques Apple is using to destroy Samsung closely follow the strategies Jobs sought to teach every manager at Apple?
Why don't you express and articulate your opinion, rather than just reviewing that the opinion expressed is "silly" "laughable" and "nonsense" all without offering anything other than your anonymous identity as an expert in "things that are bad"?
You'd think they would actually want Apple to compete head on in the search business. They're always going on about how "Apple needs competition, bah bah." You'd think they would want the same for Google in the search/ads biz, but they are oddly silent about it.
Why don't you post under DED rather than corrections and hide behind a secondary id. What's sauce for the goose is sauce the gander
The OP attacked the article without backing up any of his libel. It really doesn't matter that he's trolling anonymously; that wasn't the issue.
You however ran up and made an issue of anonymity, even though you know who I am, and then brought up hypocrisy and double standards, even though you're the one posting under a phony name where nobody really knows who you are.
If this were a troll contest, I'm not sure which of the two of you would win.
I however only post on one name and will only ever post under one name. It makes it easier for people to throw the claim of "troll".
Seriously disagreement is libel? Even if his post were inaccurate unless it said something personal about you which was defamatory and inaccurate it wasn't libel.
And he wasn't trolling either, which in this forum isn't disagreement with you but Apple bashing or Android fetishing of a certain type -- he just didn't like the use of certain words in the column.
And we are all posting anonymously, or rather pseudonymously, here -- which is normal for a forum. Posting under the line under a different name to above the line isn't normal and in fact is a form of sock puppetry.
Android market share makes a great headline... but there is never a compelling story after that.
That's a good point. Troy Wolverton of the SJ Merc again rushed out to publish a "but Android is winning: 80%!!!" headline that didn't tell a story. How does that result in a win, and for whom?
Google doesn't even have the ability to show ads on Open Android phones because they're hooked up to Alibaba or Amazon rather than Google services. And the ads Google gets from Android are less valuable than iOS, a net wash for Google.
Who else? Does Xiaomi, Samsung, LG, Lenovo etc benefit from having a slice of an unprofitable pie chart?
Android is like Windows but there's no Microsoft making money from it. So it doesn't get updates, it doesn't really have a clear strategy for licensees or the platform, and what strategy is there is targeted to low value adware, which doesn't benefit end users or developers.
Android is like everything bad about Windows rolled into everything bad about Linux, but with none of the advantage of either.
It is difficult to understand how Samsung can be defined as "Android's remaining profit pillar".
I'll be more specific.
Android phone shipments have increased 34% in 2014, and Android's market share has increased to 81% (up from 79% in 2013).
I can't wait to see Samsung sink, but let's not forget 2 things:
1. Samsung has already started to part ways with Android thanks to Tizen OS, and will follow that road if possible;
2. Android is a competitive market, and if Samsung's market share will fall, other OEMs will take advantage of that.
I really don't see any suffering at all in Android per se. I just see suffering OEMs (Samsung, HTC, Sony, Motorola), but OEMs ? Android.
Better keep that in mind for the future.
If nobody makes money from Android, Android will suffer. Why devellop something if your going to lose money off it? Simple as that. Google probably makes as much ad revenues from IOS than from Android despite spending little money on it. So, why should they continue pouring money into Android. Notice that Google seemingly stopped caring that their reference platform Nexus 6 and 9 are inexpensive. Android's growth essentially came at the expense of blackberry and Windows OS. In the high end smartphone arena, they lost market share significantly. That's were the money is and that will affect them long term.
No. It can't last. You wrote a good piece about this last year. Android users think that there can is no way but up from here but I think the opposite. The market is going to consolidate into profit making manufacturers and unlike clone PC makers there aren't any. Except samsung. Which is rapidly declining.
This is a typical naive statement. You realize samsung is one of the largest producers of dram, flat panels and flash memory, right? Not only that but iphones and ipads are comprised of samsung components?
So when will apple be receiving it's 'just deserts' for shamelessly copying?
Then there was Microsoft stealing Java and coming up with their own version in an attempt to kill Suns version anti open
Then there was Microsoft taking C and coming up with their own version called C sharp.
See the pattern?
When a monopoly company can hijack a product change it and come out with their own version which makes the early adopters version broken that's abuse of market power. It's standard operating procedure for Microsoft, now Google just did the same thing with android stole Java from oracle and broke it and was sued.
It really quite hypocritical of Google to call android open, it is nothing of the sort really. Not in the sense of anyone can take it and adapt the open source code to their platform. There are all kinds of conditions tied to a carrier using it, that is not pure openness. To be open a piece of code must be freely shared, adhere to the open reference standard and any new version made available to anyone who wants to use it. Thus the best code rises to the top like cream on the milk and gets used more and more. This is the reason Unix became so unbelievably bullet proof and such a threat to Microsoft and why gates tried to and failed to kill it. One company (Google) distributing and locking out all other dev is not open. Not only is android not open they stole the code from sun , now oracle, and denied it and got caught doing so. Then turned around and clamed it is Free and open.talk about having brass balls. It's not really free either because as we know the $ are back end loaded to profit Google by selling your information and everything about you to the highest bidder.
If android is truly open it would start to get better and better because millions of developers would have access to the code and make it bullet proof like Unix. This is not happening and never even started at all because Google owns android so android will never have the resources to test the hell out of it and make it secure and bug free as possible. Android is a proprietary OS and suffers the consequences of that just like windows and Apple's too. The fact that apple's OSs are becoming buggy is because of the many enhancements and the code is very old now with limited testing.
Samsung is attempting it too in a way. All the android cloners are doing same thing after all what is android but a new java based skin on top of Unix all android has done is replace Symbian Unix and remember iOS and Mac OS are graphical front ends on top of Unix too.
Bill gates was correct when he stated years ago that open source Unix is the single biggest threat to windows. All that has happened really is that Unix has morphed into to all these new operating systems, mainly on mobile now and it's killing windows chances of dominating on anything other than the desktop. These newer Unix flavors
are far superior to the broken and severely flawed operating system called windows. The biggest problem facing windows is that it is arguably the most primitive and fatally flawed OS surviving. I won't go into why, there are articles out there some more than 20 pages long detailing the many flaws with windows and why they will never go away.
Exactly.
John Gruber also has a great headline on his latest post on Daring Fireball:
Reminder: Apple Has Never Led the Smartphone Industry in Market Share
I think people forget that little nugget of information. And look at what the iPhone has done without a lot of market share.
Isn't it weird that the iPhone can attract so many developers without a lot of market share? And not only attract... but make so much more money for developers without a lot of market share?
Isn't it weird that the iPhone created a whole sub-industry of accessories and other things to hook to your iPhone without a lot of market share?
Basically... look at what Apple is doing with so little.
Or... look at what Android is NOT doing with so much...
I have an idea that Steve will be looking down, smiling, in the knowledge that an organisation with a defined purpose (beyond making money), a clear vision, and that treads its own path will almost always win out against those that don't.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/30/aohell/
"Some more details are emerging around AOL’s reorganization plans. Sources tell us that the company will lay off around 150 people, with the majority in sales. As part of it, AOL is also consolidating some websites. Gaming site Joystiq and Apple news site TUAW are both being folded into Engadget, and AOL Autos has already been folded into Autoblog." (They updated it to say Jostiq is actually being shut down).
As usual with these companies, you have to follow the revenue model. News is supposed to be impartial but it's often supported by advertisers. Engadget's parent company AOL is an ad company. The layoffs aren't high vs their overall headcount but every part will have to be profitable as far as ad revenue goes. If you look at an Apple site like AI, you'll see more Apple ads because the ad targets match the users. On a site like Engadget, they need to drive ad targets for more than Apple users so their news can't be all positive about Apple because they'd throw away their ad revenue by alienating the Android and Windows crowd.
It's a common troll argument that iphone somehow started with 100% of the "smartphone market" in 2007 and has been steadily losing ("loosing" in trollspeak) to Android ever since. They forget that Apple crawled its way up from zero percent. The smartphone market was dominated by Palm OS, Nokia, and Windows Mobile, and included a variety of form factors and input methods (keyboards and pen dominated). When confronted by this, they move the goalposts: "oh no, we mean Apple started with 100% of the 'modern' smartphone market!" which they define as the iPhone and the inevitable copies that followed.
But here's the problem...
If you define the "smartphone market" that way, then Apple's marketshare must decline because if you assigned Apple 100% from the start then there's no where to go but down. And if you define the market as "iPhones and the inevitable copies that followed" then a loss of marketshare for the first product on the market is built-in to the very definition of the market! Trolls use this facetious argument to "prove" that Apple is failing. But all it proves is that they rigged the definition of the ''modern" smartphone market against Apple.
The same argument was used against the iPad in the forums (the so-called "first modern tablet", which is doublespeak for "a new market category defined as iPad and the copies that will follow soon afterwards if it proves to be successful").
A far more meaningful definition of "the market" is what people are willing to buy. That changes over time, which is why it's completely legit to include Palm OS, Nokia, and Windows Mobile smartphones in marketshare calculations with the iPhone when counting the market in 2007. From that definition, Apple has increased its worldwide marketshare from zero.
Or do you mean to suggest I might be attributing to my opponents my own traits? Maybe I am. I try to be more careful about such things, since I see it happen so often.
As for removing the word "Android" from my last sentence there, that would make that sentence pointless. I am merely trying to point out that the Android fanatics (for want of a better term) are no different from other kinds of fanatic. Implicit in that statement (and more explicit in the statements before it) is that all fanatics are like that. What you propose is rewording my statement to say "Fanatics behave this way. Fanatics are no different." which is redundant.
An interesting point. Apple started with nothing in the smartphone business, and built a rather impressive (if not dominant) market share. Most manufacturers using Android already had some marketshare in smartphones to build upon.
No irony at all. Maybe it was just the people I hung out with, but it was Windows users who would try to start arguments about who had the better operating system.
Or do you mean to suggest I might be attributing to my opponents my own traits? Maybe I am. I try to be more careful about such things, since I see it happen so often.
As for removing the word "Android" from my last sentence there, that would make that sentence pointless. I am merely trying to point out that the Android fanatics (for want of a better term) are no different from other kinds of fanatic. Implicit in that statement (and more explicit in the statements before it) is that all fanatics are like that. What you propose is rewording my statement to say "Fanatics behave this way. Fanatics are no different." which is redundant.
An interesting point. Apple started with nothing in the smartphone business, and built a rather impressive (if not dominant) market share. Most manufacturers using Android already had some marketshare in smartphones to build upon.
good reply, with good points :-)Apple dominates the part they want to dominate, the high end with the profit. Coupled with the walled garden approach means it retains control over the revenue streams.
I cant see Apple going for a (substantially) cheaper phone as the profits just arent there and the potential to canibilise the higher priced phone sales is too big. wheres the aspirational factor is literally everyone can have one?