^ all this is quite irrelevant, iPhone strenght is always been consistent great results when taking photos. Every phone camera have it's down and ups. I'm talking about the overall camera experience and it's been among top for many years and will be in future too.
In that case you will have meant 'consistent results' with very limited scope and with good lighting because anything else that needed, more zoom, wider angles, lower noise, better low light performance etc would have given you sub optimum results. Consistently sub optimum, though.
Good (great even) photos aren't an Apple only thing. All Android flagship phones (and heaps of non flagship phones) can get you consistently great photos. It's been that way for years.
Over the last few years though, 'versatility' has been the key feature in photography. You won't get a great shot if your camera hardware can't even accommodate it.
For example when Apple finally upped its low light game, noise was still an issue. On top of that the wide angle lens wasn't given any of the low light features. That came later but that is Apple. Drip feeding users features.
Focusing on flagship features isn't the market that Apple has established for the iPhone; it's the ecosystem, which is by all accounts, is superior to any other phone. That Apple chooses to dominate the premium market with well balanced devices that work well in the ecosystem is the reason for Apple's high ASP, high Margin, and industry leading revenues.
Hence, why those Android OS device makers want to be more like Apple.
None of that had the slightest to do with my point.
You can define Android as an ecosystem unto itself much like the internet is the mother of all networks.
That has a lot going for it and on top of that, each vendor can create its own ecosystem if it wants to.
The 'ecosystem' as you describe it is fine if you buy into that but what do you get?
Have you taken a look at that? Have you really considered what you are implying?
There are pros and contras here.
Homekit? Very limited.
Siri? Inferior to alternatives.
Map services? Google wins.
Cloud services? Google wins.
Apple physical TV? Doesn't exist
Apple content services? Better than Disney, Netflix, Prime Video...?
Car integration? Have you heard about HarmonyOS on a car?
Using a phone to unlock a car? Already done by competors.
AR/VR/XR? No devices yet.
Other devices? The world is your oyster independently of what ecosystem you use but, from Apple? No. So the 'ecosystem' can't be superior in that sense can it? So by definition the 'ecosystem' depends on collaboration. The outside world. Other services. Non-Apple hardware. Apps.
That's why not all Apple users buy into the 'only Apple' ecosystem. Not for hardware and not for services. And that is the same for Android users.
ASP has literally nothing to do with the ecosystem. Vast amounts of Apple's revenues got basically hoarded for years. It's one of the reasons I abandoned the iPhone ship. Bang for buck! I haven't looked back.
'Android' was nothing like it had been made out to be. So much for ecosystems!
^ all this is quite irrelevant, iPhone strenght is always been consistent great results when taking photos. Every phone camera have it's down and ups. I'm talking about the overall camera experience and it's been among top for many years and will be in future too.
In that case you will have meant 'consistent results' with very limited scope and with good lighting because anything else that needed, more zoom, wider angles, lower noise, better low light performance etc would have given you sub optimum results. Consistently sub optimum, though.
Good (great even) photos aren't an Apple only thing. All Android flagship phones (and heaps of non flagship phones) can get you consistently great photos. It's been that way for years.
Over the last few years though, 'versatility' has been the key feature in photography. You won't get a great shot if your camera hardware can't even accommodate it.
For example when Apple finally upped its low light game, noise was still an issue. On top of that the wide angle lens wasn't given any of the low light features. That came later but that is Apple. Drip feeding users features.
Focusing on flagship features isn't the market that Apple has established for the iPhone; it's the ecosystem, which is by all accounts, is superior to any other phone. That Apple chooses to dominate the premium market with well balanced devices that work well in the ecosystem is the reason for Apple's high ASP, high Margin, and industry leading revenues.
Hence, why those Android OS device makers want to be more like Apple.
None of that had the slightest to do with my point.
You can define Android as an ecosystem unto itself much like the internet is the mother of all networks.
That has a lot going for it and on top of that, each vendor can create its own ecosystem if it wants to.
The 'ecosystem' as you describe it is fine if you buy into that but what do you get?
Have you taken a look at that? Have you really considered what you are implying?
There are pros and contras here.
Homekit? Very limited.
Siri? Inferior to alternatives.
Map services? Google wins.
Cloud services? Google wins.
Apple physical TV? Doesn't exist
Apple content services? Better than Disney, Netflix, Prime Video...?
Car integration? Have you heard about HarmonyOS on a car?
Using a phone to unlock a car? Already done by competors.
AR/VR/XR? No devices yet.
Other devices? The world is your oyster independently of what ecosystem you use but, from Apple? No. So the 'ecosystem' can't be superior in that sense can it? So by definition the 'ecosystem' depends on collaboration. The outside world. Other services. Non-Apple hardware. Apps.
That's why not all Apple users buy into the 'only Apple' ecosystem. Not for hardware and not for services. And that is the same for Android users.
ASP has literally nothing to do with the ecosystem. Vast amounts of Apple's revenues got basically hoarded for years. It's one of the reasons I abandoned the iPhone ship. Bang for buck! I haven't looked back.
'Android' was nothing like it had been made out to be. So much for ecosystems!
So, if Android is so preeminent in features, why is Apple capturing so much of premium phone sales, along with the bulk of revenues and profit? A case of consumers voting with their wallets.
^ all this is quite irrelevant, iPhone strenght is always been consistent great results when taking photos. Every phone camera have it's down and ups. I'm talking about the overall camera experience and it's been among top for many years and will be in future too.
In that case you will have meant 'consistent results' with very limited scope and with good lighting because anything else that needed, more zoom, wider angles, lower noise, better low light performance etc would have given you sub optimum results. Consistently sub optimum, though.
Good (great even) photos aren't an Apple only thing. All Android flagship phones (and heaps of non flagship phones) can get you consistently great photos. It's been that way for years.
Over the last few years though, 'versatility' has been the key feature in photography. You won't get a great shot if your camera hardware can't even accommodate it.
For example when Apple finally upped its low light game, noise was still an issue. On top of that the wide angle lens wasn't given any of the low light features. That came later but that is Apple. Drip feeding users features.
Focusing on flagship features isn't the market that Apple has established for the iPhone; it's the ecosystem, which is by all accounts, is superior to any other phone. That Apple chooses to dominate the premium market with well balanced devices that work well in the ecosystem is the reason for Apple's high ASP, high Margin, and industry leading revenues.
Hence, why those Android OS device makers want to be more like Apple.
None of that had the slightest to do with my point.
You can define Android as an ecosystem unto itself much like the internet is the mother of all networks.
That has a lot going for it and on top of that, each vendor can create its own ecosystem if it wants to.
The 'ecosystem' as you describe it is fine if you buy into that but what do you get?
Have you taken a look at that? Have you really considered what you are implying?
There are pros and contras here.
Homekit? Very limited.
Siri? Inferior to alternatives.
Map services? Google wins.
Cloud services? Google wins.
Apple physical TV? Doesn't exist
Apple content services? Better than Disney, Netflix, Prime Video...?
Car integration? Have you heard about HarmonyOS on a car?
Using a phone to unlock a car? Already done by competors.
AR/VR/XR? No devices yet.
Other devices? The world is your oyster independently of what ecosystem you use but, from Apple? No. So the 'ecosystem' can't be superior in that sense can it? So by definition the 'ecosystem' depends on collaboration. The outside world. Other services. Non-Apple hardware. Apps.
That's why not all Apple users buy into the 'only Apple' ecosystem. Not for hardware and not for services. And that is the same for Android users.
ASP has literally nothing to do with the ecosystem. Vast amounts of Apple's revenues got basically hoarded for years. It's one of the reasons I abandoned the iPhone ship. Bang for buck! I haven't looked back.
'Android' was nothing like it had been made out to be. So much for ecosystems!
So, if Android is so preeminent in features, why is Apple capturing so much of premium phone sales, along with the bulk of revenues and profit? A case of consumers voting with their wallets.
Consumers aren't interested in ASP, revenues or profit.
They are interested in the product, what it can offer and at what price point.
Yes, consumers vote with their wallets and the overwhelming majority of them vote Android, and here's the kicker... They aren't seeing anything they are missing.
That is the reality. They have more offer, more choice.
^ all this is quite irrelevant, iPhone strenght is always been consistent great results when taking photos. Every phone camera have it's down and ups. I'm talking about the overall camera experience and it's been among top for many years and will be in future too.
In that case you will have meant 'consistent results' with very limited scope and with good lighting because anything else that needed, more zoom, wider angles, lower noise, better low light performance etc would have given you sub optimum results. Consistently sub optimum, though.
Good (great even) photos aren't an Apple only thing. All Android flagship phones (and heaps of non flagship phones) can get you consistently great photos. It's been that way for years.
Over the last few years though, 'versatility' has been the key feature in photography. You won't get a great shot if your camera hardware can't even accommodate it.
For example when Apple finally upped its low light game, noise was still an issue. On top of that the wide angle lens wasn't given any of the low light features. That came later but that is Apple. Drip feeding users features.
Focusing on flagship features isn't the market that Apple has established for the iPhone; it's the ecosystem, which is by all accounts, is superior to any other phone. That Apple chooses to dominate the premium market with well balanced devices that work well in the ecosystem is the reason for Apple's high ASP, high Margin, and industry leading revenues.
Hence, why those Android OS device makers want to be more like Apple.
None of that had the slightest to do with my point.
You can define Android as an ecosystem unto itself much like the internet is the mother of all networks.
That has a lot going for it and on top of that, each vendor can create its own ecosystem if it wants to.
The 'ecosystem' as you describe it is fine if you buy into that but what do you get?
Have you taken a look at that? Have you really considered what you are implying?
There are pros and contras here.
Homekit? Very limited.
Siri? Inferior to alternatives.
Map services? Google wins.
Cloud services? Google wins.
Apple physical TV? Doesn't exist
Apple content services? Better than Disney, Netflix, Prime Video...?
Car integration? Have you heard about HarmonyOS on a car?
Using a phone to unlock a car? Already done by competors.
AR/VR/XR? No devices yet.
Other devices? The world is your oyster independently of what ecosystem you use but, from Apple? No. So the 'ecosystem' can't be superior in that sense can it? So by definition the 'ecosystem' depends on collaboration. The outside world. Other services. Non-Apple hardware. Apps.
That's why not all Apple users buy into the 'only Apple' ecosystem. Not for hardware and not for services. And that is the same for Android users.
ASP has literally nothing to do with the ecosystem. Vast amounts of Apple's revenues got basically hoarded for years. It's one of the reasons I abandoned the iPhone ship. Bang for buck! I haven't looked back.
'Android' was nothing like it had been made out to be. So much for ecosystems!
So, if Android is so preeminent in features, why is Apple capturing so much of premium phone sales, along with the bulk of revenues and profit? A case of consumers voting with their wallets.
Consumers aren't interested in ASP, revenues or profit.
They are interested in the product, what it can offer and at what price point.
Yes, consumers vote with their wallets and the overwhelming majority of them vote Android, and here's the kicker... They aren't seeing anything they are missing.
That is the reality. They have more offer, more choice.
The reality is that Apple is building a product that sells very well, is very desireable, and holds its value, shipping on the order of 220 million iPhones a year, almost all of which exceed $400, with an ASP of almost $800, all while making a triple shit ton of money, something that those Android OS device makers are not even close to doing. Happily for consumers, there is a choice between iPhone and Android OS device makers. That Apple makes most of the profit is a fair tradeoff against shipping a lot of inexpensive phones to win marketshare.
Essentially, Apple iPhone has created and defined its own unique market, almost entirely independent of Android OS devices sales. Most iPhone users will never consider an Android OS device, not do they need to.
^ all this is quite irrelevant, iPhone strenght is always been consistent great results when taking photos. Every phone camera have it's down and ups. I'm talking about the overall camera experience and it's been among top for many years and will be in future too.
In that case you will have meant 'consistent results' with very limited scope and with good lighting because anything else that needed, more zoom, wider angles, lower noise, better low light performance etc would have given you sub optimum results. Consistently sub optimum, though.
Good (great even) photos aren't an Apple only thing. All Android flagship phones (and heaps of non flagship phones) can get you consistently great photos. It's been that way for years.
Over the last few years though, 'versatility' has been the key feature in photography. You won't get a great shot if your camera hardware can't even accommodate it.
For example when Apple finally upped its low light game, noise was still an issue. On top of that the wide angle lens wasn't given any of the low light features. That came later but that is Apple. Drip feeding users features.
Focusing on flagship features isn't the market that Apple has established for the iPhone; it's the ecosystem, which is by all accounts, is superior to any other phone. That Apple chooses to dominate the premium market with well balanced devices that work well in the ecosystem is the reason for Apple's high ASP, high Margin, and industry leading revenues.
Hence, why those Android OS device makers want to be more like Apple.
None of that had the slightest to do with my point.
You can define Android as an ecosystem unto itself much like the internet is the mother of all networks.
That has a lot going for it and on top of that, each vendor can create its own ecosystem if it wants to.
The 'ecosystem' as you describe it is fine if you buy into that but what do you get?
Have you taken a look at that? Have you really considered what you are implying?
There are pros and contras here.
Homekit? Very limited.
Siri? Inferior to alternatives.
Map services? Google wins.
Cloud services? Google wins.
Apple physical TV? Doesn't exist
Apple content services? Better than Disney, Netflix, Prime Video...?
Car integration? Have you heard about HarmonyOS on a car?
Using a phone to unlock a car? Already done by competors.
AR/VR/XR? No devices yet.
Other devices? The world is your oyster independently of what ecosystem you use but, from Apple? No. So the 'ecosystem' can't be superior in that sense can it? So by definition the 'ecosystem' depends on collaboration. The outside world. Other services. Non-Apple hardware. Apps.
That's why not all Apple users buy into the 'only Apple' ecosystem. Not for hardware and not for services. And that is the same for Android users.
ASP has literally nothing to do with the ecosystem. Vast amounts of Apple's revenues got basically hoarded for years. It's one of the reasons I abandoned the iPhone ship. Bang for buck! I haven't looked back.
'Android' was nothing like it had been made out to be. So much for ecosystems!
So, if Android is so preeminent in features, why is Apple capturing so much of premium phone sales, along with the bulk of revenues and profit? A case of consumers voting with their wallets.
Consumers aren't interested in ASP, revenues or profit.
They are interested in the product, what it can offer and at what price point.
Yes, consumers vote with their wallets and the overwhelming majority of them vote Android, and here's the kicker... They aren't seeing anything they are missing.
That is the reality. They have more offer, more choice.
The reality is that Apple is building a product that sells very well, is very desireable, and holds its value, shipping on the order of 220 million iPhones a year, almost all of which exceed $400, with an ASP of almost $800, all while making a triple shit ton of money, something that those Android OS device makers are not even close to doing. Happily for consumers, there is a choice between iPhone and Android OS device makers. That Apple makes most of the profit is a fair tradeoff against shipping a lot of inexpensive phones to win marketshare.
Essentially, Apple iPhone has created and defined its own unique market, almost entirely independent of Android OS devices sales. Most iPhone users will never consider an Android OS device, not do they need to.
That's a fair assessment.
It does not change a thing I stated though so I can only assume that you agree with me.
^ all this is quite irrelevant, iPhone strenght is always been consistent great results when taking photos. Every phone camera have it's down and ups. I'm talking about the overall camera experience and it's been among top for many years and will be in future too.
In that case you will have meant 'consistent results' with very limited scope and with good lighting because anything else that needed, more zoom, wider angles, lower noise, better low light performance etc would have given you sub optimum results. Consistently sub optimum, though.
Good (great even) photos aren't an Apple only thing. All Android flagship phones (and heaps of non flagship phones) can get you consistently great photos. It's been that way for years.
Over the last few years though, 'versatility' has been the key feature in photography. You won't get a great shot if your camera hardware can't even accommodate it.
For example when Apple finally upped its low light game, noise was still an issue. On top of that the wide angle lens wasn't given any of the low light features. That came later but that is Apple. Drip feeding users features.
Focusing on flagship features isn't the market that Apple has established for the iPhone; it's the ecosystem, which is by all accounts, is superior to any other phone. That Apple chooses to dominate the premium market with well balanced devices that work well in the ecosystem is the reason for Apple's high ASP, high Margin, and industry leading revenues.
Hence, why those Android OS device makers want to be more like Apple.
None of that had the slightest to do with my point.
You can define Android as an ecosystem unto itself much like the internet is the mother of all networks.
That has a lot going for it and on top of that, each vendor can create its own ecosystem if it wants to.
The 'ecosystem' as you describe it is fine if you buy into that but what do you get?
Have you taken a look at that? Have you really considered what you are implying?
There are pros and contras here.
Homekit? Very limited.
Siri? Inferior to alternatives.
Map services? Google wins.
Cloud services? Google wins.
Apple physical TV? Doesn't exist
Apple content services? Better than Disney, Netflix, Prime Video...?
Car integration? Have you heard about HarmonyOS on a car?
Using a phone to unlock a car? Already done by competors.
AR/VR/XR? No devices yet.
Other devices? The world is your oyster independently of what ecosystem you use but, from Apple? No. So the 'ecosystem' can't be superior in that sense can it? So by definition the 'ecosystem' depends on collaboration. The outside world. Other services. Non-Apple hardware. Apps.
That's why not all Apple users buy into the 'only Apple' ecosystem. Not for hardware and not for services. And that is the same for Android users.
ASP has literally nothing to do with the ecosystem. Vast amounts of Apple's revenues got basically hoarded for years. It's one of the reasons I abandoned the iPhone ship. Bang for buck! I haven't looked back.
'Android' was nothing like it had been made out to be. So much for ecosystems!
So, if Android is so preeminent in features, why is Apple capturing so much of premium phone sales, along with the bulk of revenues and profit? A case of consumers voting with their wallets.
Consumers aren't interested in ASP, revenues or profit.
They are interested in the product, what it can offer and at what price point.
Yes, consumers vote with their wallets and the overwhelming majority of them vote Android, and here's the kicker... They aren't seeing anything they are missing.
That is the reality. They have more offer, more choice.
The reality is that Apple is building a product that sells very well, is very desireable, and holds its value, shipping on the order of 220 million iPhones a year, almost all of which exceed $400, with an ASP of almost $800, all while making a triple shit ton of money, something that those Android OS device makers are not even close to doing. Happily for consumers, there is a choice between iPhone and Android OS device makers. That Apple makes most of the profit is a fair tradeoff against shipping a lot of inexpensive phones to win marketshare.
Essentially, Apple iPhone has created and defined its own unique market, almost entirely independent of Android OS devices sales. Most iPhone users will never consider an Android OS device, not do they need to.
That's a fair assessment.
It does not change a thing I stated though so I can only assume that you agree with me.
No, I don't agree with you, just as you don't agree with me that iPhone and Android OS device markets are essentially independent markets, as they have been for many years now.
It is a true that Android OS flagship devices, sold in magnitudes lesser numbers than iPhones, have many bleeding edge hardware features, but that hasn't translated to financial success for those companies, so is it really innovation, or just an attempt at differentiation in the Android OS market?
The fact that Apple has the necessity of sourcing hundreds of millions of the same high quality components for a few models released each upgrade cycle, is the crux of the problem for Apple, especially for imagers and lenses, and OLED screens, a problem that Apple has been resolute in mitigating by establishing new sources of supply, helped obviously by a huge stash of cash.
Meanwhile, Apple's ecosystem evolves, and the interactions of iPhones, iPads, Watch, Air Pods, and Macs becomes even more robust, yet simplified for the consumer. This is why Apple continues to dominate the market, and why feature bragging rights aren't working well for Android OS device makers.
^ all this is quite irrelevant, iPhone strenght is always been consistent great results when taking photos. Every phone camera have it's down and ups. I'm talking about the overall camera experience and it's been among top for many years and will be in future too.
In that case you will have meant 'consistent results' with very limited scope and with good lighting because anything else that needed, more zoom, wider angles, lower noise, better low light performance etc would have given you sub optimum results. Consistently sub optimum, though.
Good (great even) photos aren't an Apple only thing. All Android flagship phones (and heaps of non flagship phones) can get you consistently great photos. It's been that way for years.
Over the last few years though, 'versatility' has been the key feature in photography. You won't get a great shot if your camera hardware can't even accommodate it.
For example when Apple finally upped its low light game, noise was still an issue. On top of that the wide angle lens wasn't given any of the low light features. That came later but that is Apple. Drip feeding users features.
Focusing on flagship features isn't the market that Apple has established for the iPhone; it's the ecosystem, which is by all accounts, is superior to any other phone. That Apple chooses to dominate the premium market with well balanced devices that work well in the ecosystem is the reason for Apple's high ASP, high Margin, and industry leading revenues.
Hence, why those Android OS device makers want to be more like Apple.
None of that had the slightest to do with my point.
You can define Android as an ecosystem unto itself much like the internet is the mother of all networks.
That has a lot going for it and on top of that, each vendor can create its own ecosystem if it wants to.
The 'ecosystem' as you describe it is fine if you buy into that but what do you get?
Have you taken a look at that? Have you really considered what you are implying?
There are pros and contras here.
Homekit? Very limited.
Siri? Inferior to alternatives.
Map services? Google wins.
Cloud services? Google wins.
Apple physical TV? Doesn't exist
Apple content services? Better than Disney, Netflix, Prime Video...?
Car integration? Have you heard about HarmonyOS on a car?
Using a phone to unlock a car? Already done by competors.
AR/VR/XR? No devices yet.
Other devices? The world is your oyster independently of what ecosystem you use but, from Apple? No. So the 'ecosystem' can't be superior in that sense can it? So by definition the 'ecosystem' depends on collaboration. The outside world. Other services. Non-Apple hardware. Apps.
That's why not all Apple users buy into the 'only Apple' ecosystem. Not for hardware and not for services. And that is the same for Android users.
ASP has literally nothing to do with the ecosystem. Vast amounts of Apple's revenues got basically hoarded for years. It's one of the reasons I abandoned the iPhone ship. Bang for buck! I haven't looked back.
'Android' was nothing like it had been made out to be. So much for ecosystems!
So, if Android is so preeminent in features, why is Apple capturing so much of premium phone sales, along with the bulk of revenues and profit? A case of consumers voting with their wallets.
Consumers aren't interested in ASP, revenues or profit.
They are interested in the product, what it can offer and at what price point.
Yes, consumers vote with their wallets and the overwhelming majority of them vote Android, and here's the kicker... They aren't seeing anything they are missing.
That is the reality. They have more offer, more choice.
The reality is that Apple is building a product that sells very well, is very desireable, and holds its value, shipping on the order of 220 million iPhones a year, almost all of which exceed $400, with an ASP of almost $800, all while making a triple shit ton of money, something that those Android OS device makers are not even close to doing. Happily for consumers, there is a choice between iPhone and Android OS device makers. That Apple makes most of the profit is a fair tradeoff against shipping a lot of inexpensive phones to win marketshare.
Essentially, Apple iPhone has created and defined its own unique market, almost entirely independent of Android OS devices sales. Most iPhone users will never consider an Android OS device, not do they need to.
That's a fair assessment.
It does not change a thing I stated though so I can only assume that you agree with me.
No, I don't agree with you, just as you don't agree with me that iPhone and Android OS device markets are essentially independent markets, as they have been for many years now.
It is a true that Android OS flagship devices, sold in magnitudes lesser numbers than iPhones, have many bleeding edge hardware features, but that hasn't translated to financial success for those companies, so is it really innovation, or just an attempt at differentiation in the Android OS market?
The fact that Apple has the necessity of sourcing hundreds of millions of the same high quality components for a few models released each upgrade cycle, is the crux of the problem for Apple, especially for imagers and lenses, and OLED screens, a problem that Apple has been resolute in mitigating by establishing new sources of supply, helped obviously by a huge stash of cash.
Meanwhile, Apple's ecosystem evolves, and the interactions of iPhones, iPads, Watch, Air Pods, and Macs becomes even more robust, yet simplified for the consumer. This is why Apple continues to dominate the market, and why feature bragging rights aren't working well for Android OS device makers.
Android and iOS are of course independent markets. One is 'Android' and the other is Apple hardware. They are not essentially different though and interoperate.
How many iOS users can really get by without Google services? Very, very few I'd say. To the point that if GMS were not available for iOS I don't know a single iOS user who would still upgrade to an iPhone. That's how big a deal it would be for some. Not having access to Facebook (Meta)/Whatsapp would be equally troublesome for many.
What does that tell you?
The reality is that the ecosystems impermeate to a very high degree and on different levels. The reality is also that most of the iPhone users I know do not even own a Mac. There is no need for them. Many don't have an Apple tablet either. What ecosystem do they have then?
It's not just a case of saying 'it's all about the ecosystem'. There is much more to it.
And how can you imply that Android vendors haven't had financial success?
They have had enough 'success' to fund the R&D that leads to the bleeding edge features you mention. The ones that often end up on iPhones too. Expect to see a periscope lens on iPhone at some point. Years after Android vendors brought them to phones. R&D from Android vendors far exceeds the R&D invested by Apple. And some of those companies have more breadth than Apple and can leverage that angle.
And yes, it is innovation, and at every level, not mere differentiation (see below).
Apple has absolutely ZERO need to produce millions of every component. ZERO! It CHOOSES not to run with bleeding edge technologies because it does not WANT to. That is the crux of the matter. Not being able to pump out a few million of this or that component. It chooses to drip feed technology to users. It's obvious why. If you are happy with that, great but a lot of that cash isn't doing much for anyone except Apple itself as a corporation.
On top of that, it has made huge strategic errors. There were plenty of 5G modems available to them but teaming with Intel and getting into a spat with Qualcomm left them with their trousers right down around their ankles. Look where we are on that front!
Years ago you, and a few others, were refuting my opinions on Apple's business model by saying that Apple's strategy was not in need of change because sales were justifying the existence of only two models and an 's' update every other year. Something that was actually a disservice to users IMO.
Then came the 'third' model (iPhone X) and then even more of a spread (models and pricing). Look at what we have now! What a change!
If Huawei hadn't been sanctioned, things would have been very different for Apple today (and Samsung et al of course) and, if Huawei is to be believed, 2023 will be the year they 'return to the smartphone throne'. We'll see about that but they have just revealed that their supply chains have been rejigged to eliminate any dependency on US companies. 2023 is just around the corner so we'll see.
Apple's ecosystem is not the only one to 'evolve' either. They all do.
'Android/HarmonyOS' is going in exactly the same direction and in many ways is already ahead of Apple. In fact, Apple is moving more towards where Huawei has been for a few years on OS interoperability. Not the other way around. Apple is not 'dominating' the market. It can't. As I said, for starters, it does not even have shipping products in many areas where competitors are forging ahead with their own 'ecosystems'. And I find it somewhat ironic that the classic notion of a PC (Mac or otherwise) is actually playing less and less of a role in all this. It looks like IoT related aspects will gain more importance. A desktop or laptop might actually get relegated in some regards as more and more people begin to use them less in their everyday lives. Many won't even have one.
As an example, look at HarmonyOS on cars, which is already shipping and is leagues ahead of what Apple is 'promising' for CarPlay sometime next year (or after). Not only in software but in hardware (powertrains, batteries, charging technology etc). They are progressing with self driving technology too:
Add onto that the new 4D imaging radar which can not only 'see' the car in front of you but also the car in front of that and you begin to see that, from an ecosystem perspective, there are more than a few holes that Apple still needs to plug. Huge holes. And a lot of innovation behind them.
And then there is the 'infrastructure' side of things. How to detect and communicate with traffic infrastructure and other vehicles (V2X).
Where is Apple on that?
If the car really is going to end up as glorified IoT device and connect basically to everything (other cars included) then Apple has a way to go.
I've highlighted just one area for you here (cars) and you can see from those links where the ecosystem elements integrate. From watching video content on a 70" Virtual HUD screen while you charge or are parked, to placing video calls to the TV in your living room or converting your car into a relaxation hub etc.
Then there is the TV.
The TV is where the hub of your home should be and Apple has none (Huawei is on its fourth generation now). The phone is the hub of everything in a 'general' sense but when you are at home or in the car it should be a collaborative device. Take a look at some Huawei TVs and see what Apple could be doing in the same space. I say 'TVs' but many do not even come with classic TV tuners. They are more like 'smart screens' but way more than your average Smart TV. Is there a better way to mute sound than by simply raising your index finger to your lips?
MacOS, iOS, iPadOS, WatchOS etc are still largely 'siloed', as are systems in the industry in general and that has been the real problem to crack. Much of this was outlined at the official release of HarmonyOS back in 2019 and HarmonyOS was designed to break the walls between those siloes and also incorporate IoT and AI.
Apple is currently throwing out hooks between its systems to get them to operate between one another. That's about it at the moment.
Other systems have been designed from the ground up with that in mind and it looks like more and more devices are coming to market ready for interconnection with true IoT systems running true IoT chipsets.
Behind all these technologies there are some key developments and challenges which Huawei (to give an example I know very well) has openly put on the table. Some of them have remained unsolved in industry for decades but are about to see breakthroughs.
Here is an official snippet from the company:
Two scientific questions:
How do machines perceive the world, and can we build models that teach machines how to understand the world?
How can we better understand the physiological mechanisms of the human body, including how the eight systems of the body work, as well as human intent and intelligence?
Eight tech challenges:
New sensing and control capabilities, e.g., brain-computer interfaces, muscle-computer interfaces, 3D displays, virtual touch, virtual smell, and virtual taste
Real-time, unobtrusive blood pressure, blood sugar, and heart monitoring, and strong AI-assisted discoveries in chemical pharmaceuticals, biopharmaceuticals, and vaccines
Application-centric, efficient, automated, and intelligent software for greater value and better experience
Reaching and circumventing Shannon's limit to enable efficient, high-performance connectivity both regionally and globally
Adaptive and efficient computing models, non-Von Neumann architectures, unconventional components, and explainable and debuggable AI
Inventing new molecules, catalysts, and components with intelligent computing
Developing new processes that surpass CMOS, cost less, and are more efficient
Safe, efficient energy conversion and storage, as well as on-demand services
----- Two major feats from that list have already been reached. Overcoming the limits of Shannon's law (Polar Codes) and advancing beyond Von Neumann architectures (solved, announced, and new hardware to ship in 2023).
Some Huawei executives are claiming that non-invasive continous glucose monitoring is also ready to ship but details are still scarce as to when.
As I said, that is a lot of breadth and Apple probably isn't well suited to resolve those kinds of 'backend' problems. Apple remains a CE company but will obviously pick up on the breakthrough advances when they appear. As will everybody else.
In one way or another those developments will push the industry forward and cascade down into consumer devices and the ecosystems you speak of. However they are defined.
Interoperability is far more important to consumers than 'ecosystems' themselves, so I'm hoping to see a lot more of that together with legislation to push back against attempts of lock in.
There is still a long way to go on that front but you have to start somewhere.
Comments
You can define Android as an ecosystem unto itself much like the internet is the mother of all networks.
That has a lot going for it and on top of that, each vendor can create its own ecosystem if it wants to.
The 'ecosystem' as you describe it is fine if you buy into that but what do you get?
Have you taken a look at that? Have you really considered what you are implying?
There are pros and contras here.
Homekit? Very limited.
Siri? Inferior to alternatives.
Map services? Google wins.
Cloud services? Google wins.
Apple physical TV? Doesn't exist
Apple content services? Better than Disney, Netflix, Prime Video...?
Car integration? Have you heard about HarmonyOS on a car?
Using a phone to unlock a car? Already done by competors.
AR/VR/XR? No devices yet.
Other devices? The world is your oyster independently of what ecosystem you use but, from Apple? No. So the 'ecosystem' can't be superior in that sense can it? So by definition the 'ecosystem' depends on collaboration. The outside world. Other services. Non-Apple hardware. Apps.
That's why not all Apple users buy into the 'only Apple' ecosystem. Not for hardware and not for services. And that is the same for Android users.
ASP has literally nothing to do with the ecosystem. Vast amounts of Apple's revenues got basically hoarded for years. It's one of the reasons I abandoned the iPhone ship. Bang for buck! I haven't looked back.
'Android' was nothing like it had been made out to be. So much for ecosystems!
They are interested in the product, what it can offer and at what price point.
Yes, consumers vote with their wallets and the overwhelming majority of them vote Android, and here's the kicker... They aren't seeing anything they are missing.
That is the reality. They have more offer, more choice.
Essentially, Apple iPhone has created and defined its own unique market, almost entirely independent of Android OS devices sales. Most iPhone users will never consider an Android OS device, not do they need to.
It does not change a thing I stated though so I can only assume that you agree with me.
It is a true that Android OS flagship devices, sold in magnitudes lesser numbers than iPhones, have many bleeding edge hardware features, but that hasn't translated to financial success for those companies, so is it really innovation, or just an attempt at differentiation in the Android OS market?
The fact that Apple has the necessity of sourcing hundreds of millions of the same high quality components for a few models released each upgrade cycle, is the crux of the problem for Apple, especially for imagers and lenses, and OLED screens, a problem that Apple has been resolute in mitigating by establishing new sources of supply, helped obviously by a huge stash of cash.
Meanwhile, Apple's ecosystem evolves, and the interactions of iPhones, iPads, Watch, Air Pods, and Macs becomes even more robust, yet simplified for the consumer. This is why Apple continues to dominate the market, and why feature bragging rights aren't working well for Android OS device makers.
How many iOS users can really get by without Google services? Very, very few I'd say. To the point that if GMS were not available for iOS I don't know a single iOS user who would still upgrade to an iPhone. That's how big a deal it would be for some. Not having access to Facebook (Meta)/Whatsapp would be equally troublesome for many.
What does that tell you?
The reality is that the ecosystems impermeate to a very high degree and on different levels. The reality is also that most of the iPhone users I know do not even own a Mac. There is no need for them. Many don't have an Apple tablet either. What ecosystem do they have then?
It's not just a case of saying 'it's all about the ecosystem'. There is much more to it.
And how can you imply that Android vendors haven't had financial success?
They have had enough 'success' to fund the R&D that leads to the bleeding edge features you mention. The ones that often end up on iPhones too. Expect to see a periscope lens on iPhone at some point. Years after Android vendors brought them to phones. R&D from Android vendors far exceeds the R&D invested by Apple. And some of those companies have more breadth than Apple and can leverage that angle.
And yes, it is innovation, and at every level, not mere differentiation (see below).
Apple has absolutely ZERO need to produce millions of every component. ZERO! It CHOOSES not to run with bleeding edge technologies because it does not WANT to. That is the crux of the matter. Not being able to pump out a few million of this or that component. It chooses to drip feed technology to users. It's obvious why. If you are happy with that, great but a lot of that cash isn't doing much for anyone except Apple itself as a corporation.
On top of that, it has made huge strategic errors. There were plenty of 5G modems available to them but teaming with Intel and getting into a spat with Qualcomm left them with their trousers right down around their ankles. Look where we are on that front!
Years ago you, and a few others, were refuting my opinions on Apple's business model by saying that Apple's strategy was not in need of change because sales were justifying the existence of only two models and an 's' update every other year. Something that was actually a disservice to users IMO.
Then came the 'third' model (iPhone X) and then even more of a spread (models and pricing). Look at what we have now! What a change!
If Huawei hadn't been sanctioned, things would have been very different for Apple today (and Samsung et al of course) and, if Huawei is to be believed, 2023 will be the year they 'return to the smartphone throne'. We'll see about that but they have just revealed that their supply chains have been rejigged to eliminate any dependency on US companies. 2023 is just around the corner so we'll see.
Apple's ecosystem is not the only one to 'evolve' either. They all do.
'Android/HarmonyOS' is going in exactly the same direction and in many ways is already ahead of Apple. In fact, Apple is moving more towards where Huawei has been for a few years on OS interoperability. Not the other way around. Apple is not 'dominating' the market. It can't. As I said, for starters, it does not even have shipping products in many areas where competitors are forging ahead with their own 'ecosystems'. And I find it somewhat ironic that the classic notion of a PC (Mac or otherwise) is actually playing less and less of a role in all this. It looks like IoT related aspects will gain more importance. A desktop or laptop might actually get relegated in some regards as more and more people begin to use them less in their everyday lives. Many won't even have one.
As an example, look at HarmonyOS on cars, which is already shipping and is leagues ahead of what Apple is 'promising' for CarPlay sometime next year (or after). Not only in software but in hardware (powertrains, batteries, charging technology etc). They are progressing with self driving technology too:
https://www.gsmarena.com/aito_m5_harmonyos_system_quick_review-news-54285.php
https://www.ae-electronics.com/new/new-4-223.html
https://technode.com/2022/03/28/huaweis-next-gen-ev-charging-technology-can-add-200-km-in-5-minutes-executive/
https://digitalpower.huawei.com/en_US/DriveONE/
Add onto that the new 4D imaging radar which can not only 'see' the car in front of you but also the car in front of that and you begin to see that, from an ecosystem perspective, there are more than a few holes that Apple still needs to plug. Huge holes. And a lot of innovation behind them.
https://shifting-gears.com/huawei-reveals-high-resolution-imaging-radar-for-advanced-autonomous-driving/
And then there is the 'infrastructure' side of things. How to detect and communicate with traffic infrastructure and other vehicles (V2X).
Where is Apple on that?
If the car really is going to end up as glorified IoT device and connect basically to everything (other cars included) then Apple has a way to go.
I've highlighted just one area for you here (cars) and you can see from those links where the ecosystem elements integrate. From watching video content on a 70" Virtual HUD screen while you charge or are parked, to placing video calls to the TV in your living room or converting your car into a relaxation hub etc.
Then there is the TV.
The TV is where the hub of your home should be and Apple has none (Huawei is on its fourth generation now). The phone is the hub of everything in a 'general' sense but when you are at home or in the car it should be a collaborative device. Take a look at some Huawei TVs and see what Apple could be doing in the same space. I say 'TVs' but many do not even come with classic TV tuners. They are more like 'smart screens' but way more than your average Smart TV. Is there a better way to mute sound than by simply raising your index finger to your lips?
MacOS, iOS, iPadOS, WatchOS etc are still largely 'siloed', as are systems in the industry in general and that has been the real problem to crack. Much of this was outlined at the official release of HarmonyOS back in 2019 and HarmonyOS was designed to break the walls between those siloes and also incorporate IoT and AI.
Apple is currently throwing out hooks between its systems to get them to operate between one another. That's about it at the moment.
Other systems have been designed from the ground up with that in mind and it looks like more and more devices are coming to market ready for interconnection with true IoT systems running true IoT chipsets.
Behind all these technologies there are some key developments and challenges which Huawei (to give an example I know very well) has openly put on the table. Some of them have remained unsolved in industry for decades but are about to see breakthroughs.
Here is an official snippet from the company:
Two scientific questions:
Eight tech challenges:
- New sensing and control capabilities, e.g., brain-computer interfaces, muscle-computer interfaces, 3D displays, virtual touch, virtual smell, and virtual taste
- Real-time, unobtrusive blood pressure, blood sugar, and heart monitoring, and strong AI-assisted discoveries in chemical pharmaceuticals, biopharmaceuticals, and vaccines
- Application-centric, efficient, automated, and intelligent software for greater value and better experience
- Reaching and circumventing Shannon's limit to enable efficient, high-performance connectivity both regionally and globally
- Adaptive and efficient computing models, non-Von Neumann architectures, unconventional components, and explainable and debuggable AI
- Inventing new molecules, catalysts, and components with intelligent computing
- Developing new processes that surpass CMOS, cost less, and are more efficient
- Safe, efficient energy conversion and storage, as well as on-demand services
-----Two major feats from that list have already been reached. Overcoming the limits of Shannon's law (Polar Codes) and advancing beyond Von Neumann architectures (solved, announced, and new hardware to ship in 2023).
Some Huawei executives are claiming that non-invasive continous glucose monitoring is also ready to ship but details are still scarce as to when.
As I said, that is a lot of breadth and Apple probably isn't well suited to resolve those kinds of 'backend' problems. Apple remains a CE company but will obviously pick up on the breakthrough advances when they appear. As will everybody else.
In one way or another those developments will push the industry forward and cascade down into consumer devices and the ecosystems you speak of. However they are defined.
Interoperability is far more important to consumers than 'ecosystems' themselves, so I'm hoping to see a lot more of that together with legislation to push back against attempts of lock in.
There is still a long way to go on that front but you have to start somewhere.