Apple killed Android plans for Apple Watch

AppleInsider

Apple planned Android support for the Apple Watch but ultimately scrapped the project once they realized it might affect iPhone sales, according to a recent Bloomberg report.

Apple Watch Series 9

"The move, codenamed Project Fennel, would have brought the company's health features -- and the health benefits Apple has repeatedly underlined -- to many more people, especially in countries where Apple has little market share," writes Mark Gurman.

Ultimately, the project was axed for fear that Apple might kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Project Fennel was cancelled close to completion, Gurman claimed, "in part because the Apple Watch is a driver of iPhone sales."

It's quite a stark turnabout from the iPod days.

The "halo effect" is a long-recognized cognitive bias demonstrated by consumers who develop a positive impression of a company or brand based on a singular product experience, and buy other products from the same company as a result. The term first came into popular use around Apple products more than two decades ago after the launch of the iPod.

When Apple first released the iPod in 2001, consumers needed a Mac (equipped with FireWire) to make it work. There were certainly MP3 players available for Windows PCs, but Windows consumers clamored for Apple's device.

Less than a year after the initial iPod debuted, Apple iterated the device and added Windows support. Mac sales did indeed rise along with iPod sales in those years.

The halo effect would again be brought up with the iPhone's release in 2007. A positive experience with the iPhone would lead to more sales of other Apple products, the story went -- and that is indeed what happened.

More than 20 years past the introduction of the iPod, Apple occupies a very different space in the consumer tech ecosystem than it did, and the iPhone remains the company's premier hardware product.

Apple's scrapped Android plans for Apple Watch would seem to mirror what happened with Apple's iMessage plans for Android. Steve Jobs once claimed that Apple would publish iMessage and FaceTime as open industry standards, but Apple abandoned those plans.

The internal discussion over Apple's plans for iMessage were revealed during the Epic Games v Apple court case. Apple VP Craig Federighi told other executives that Messages for Android "would simply serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones."

The Apple Watch continues to dominate smartwatch sales, capturing the lion's share of smartwatch shipments and revenue, and has indeed changed the entire nature of the watch industry itself. It's a huge product segment for Apple, garnering $41.1 billion in revenue in 2022.

But some analysts predict a year-over-year sales decline for the Apple Watch based on current shipment momentum. Apple will report its latest quarterly earnings after the close of the bell on Thursday.

At which point we may collectively get a better sense of how Apple Watch sales are doing, now that we're well into the Series 9 and Ultra 2 era.

Read on AppleInsider

mikethemartian

Don’t they offer Apple Music on Android? I assume they expect that to not affect iPhone demand as much as AW?

saarek

mikethemartian said:

Don’t they offer Apple Music on Android? I assume they expect that to not affect iPhone demand as much as AW?

They do. But seeing as you can get the direct equivalent of Apple Music on those other platforms it can’t really do any harm.

honkers

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

canukstorm

Apple Watch is a great device and the king of smart watches.  It literally owns the market, like iPod did the MP3 player market.  If Apple is serious about making a difference in health, and I genuinely think they are, this is a mistake.  When you factor in Android, the potential market for AW is bigger than iPhone, not just in terms of device sales but also social impact.

edited November 2023

eightzero

Honkers said:

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

Apple Watch was clearly designed as an iPhone accessory. The analogy to the iPod in this article is insightful, as it does show how far this concept has come in 20 years. Curious how the anti-trust cases will view this. 

twolf2919

Honkers said:

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

I imagine both..  I know several people who were interested in better tracking their health and their workouts and  understood AW to be the 'best'.  So they switched from Android to iPhone. 

I think Apple's entire business model depends on products helping each other sell.  The vaunted Apple ease-of-use becomes clearer as one buys more and more Apple products.  Nobody else integrates as many devices and services as Apple, so once a consumer realizes they want a simpler life across more than a couple gadgets, there really is no competition to Apple's offerings.

mark fearing

I call B.S. If they killed it it's because Android is a leak factory and maintaining the watch on that platform would be a nightmare.  Trying to provide equal quality - a nightmare. And why do it? For a tiny number of watch sales? So nightmare crossed with Not Worth It...And it would provide little benefit to the wearer divorced from the Apple system. 

edited November 2023

davidw

eightzero said:

Honkers said:

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

Apple Watch was clearly designed as an iPhone accessory. The analogy to the iPod in this article is insightful, as it does show how far this concept has come in 20 years. Curious how the anti-trust cases will view this. 

So long as the Apple Watch don't have monopoly market share of the fitness (smart) watch market and Apple allows other fitness (smart) watches to function on iOS, there  will be no anti-trust case. (Not in the US at least.)

Now if Apple put hardware features in their iPhone that increases the functionality of their Apple Watch over the competition, I can see the EU with their BS gatekeeper rules forcing Apple to allow other fitness (smart) watches access to those features. Plus Apple would not be allow to promote their own Apple Watch, over other fitness watches on iOS. Or otherwise be fine 10% of their global revenue.

avon b7

twolf2919 said:

Honkers said:

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

I imagine both..  I know several people who were interested in better tracking their health and their workouts and  understood AW to be the 'best'.  So they switched from Android to iPhone. 

I think Apple's entire business model depends on products helping each other sell.  The vaunted Apple ease-of-use becomes clearer as one buys more and more Apple products.  Nobody else integrates as many devices and services as Apple, so once a consumer realizes they want a simpler life across more than a couple gadgets, there really is no competition to Apple's offerings.

There are other companies that offer far more integration across far more products than Apple. 

In comparison, Apple offers relatively few 'gadgets' (no routers, cars, TVs...) 

For the watch specifically, there are competing products that offer consumers what Apple doesn't (fashion, extra long battery life, blood pressure monitoring etc). 

It's the same with earpods. 

Integration is key to providing a seamless experience but Apple isn't alone in setting that as an objective. 

davidmalcolm

I suspect a big part of it was also the expected cost of supporting Apple Watch on Android.

you gotta keep in mind a huge chunk of Android users are they very bottom of the barrel. When you get to the people who always want the cheapest crap, providing the level of support Apple wants gets impossible, because a lot of those people are just stupid. (I know I worked for an ISP. The people who had Acers never wanted to admit that their cheap assed Acer was the root of their problem.)

I think Apple dodged a bullet. The people who have Apple Watch as an accessory for their iPhone love it. But given that they won’t be making it a separate product it is kinda funny that they still have a Watch app. You don’t have a HomePod app or an AirPods app. 

filemakerfeller

mark fearing said:

I call B.S. If they killed it it's because Android is a leak factory and maintaining the watch on that platform would be a nightmare.  Trying to provide equal quality - a nightmare. And why do it? For a tiny number of watch sales? So nightmare crossed with Not Worth It...And it would provide little benefit to the wearer divorced from the Apple system. 

I agree with you. This is from Bloomberg, which has a policy of publishing articles that affect the stock price of a given company. It sounds like preparation for a series of negative hit pieces on big, bad, we're-not-going-to-share-with-anybody, we-want-to-protect-our-profits-at-the-cost-of-helping-people Apple to drive the stock price down, then in January when AVP is released, hype it to the hilt and ride the wave up.

Frankly, if the project was real the only thing that would have killed it is Apple's privacy requirements for such sensitive data.

Remember, Apple allows the iPhone to control more than one Watch - so if you buy your kids a cheap Android phone you as the parent can still manage their watch using your own device. That doesn't jibe with the claim being put forth here.

lordjohnwhorfin

15 years ago this former coworker laughed at me for using a Mac and an iPhone. He loved Windows and couldn’t imagine life without his Android phone. A few years later he needed a tablet and realized iPad was the only game in town. He was seduced by the beauty and simplicity and that pushed him over the edge and he finally bought an iPhone. It was only a couple of years before he finally made the big jump and got a MacBook. Now he’s been full-Apple for quite a while and wondering what took him so long.

Sorry for the long story, but I was trying to illustrate that any product can be an “in” into your ecosystem and, while I’m sure Apple figured out the numbers and didn’t take that decision on a whim, it may be shortsighted. Platform switching is a long game.

gatorguy

twolf2919 said:

Honkers said:

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

I think Apple's entire business model depends on products helping each other sell.  The vaunted Apple ease-of-use becomes clearer as one buys more and more Apple products.  Nobody else integrates as many devices and services as Apple, so once a consumer realizes they want a simpler life across more than a couple gadgets, there really is no competition to Apple's offerings.

Apple is great as we all agree, and the products are top notch, but that statement isn't even close to true.

Another competitor is integrating first-party routers, watches, phones, doorbells, security cameras, speakers, displays, computers, smoke and CO2 alarms, live TV and media streaming, earbuds, tablets, thermostats, and a dozen different services from music to storage to streaming media to a cellular phone plan, and all working together. Apple has nothing to offer in many of those areas.

The good news? It doesn't matter as much anymore because first-party hardware and services are becoming less essential.  Now that Apple has thrown its hat in with Thread, many of those devices that might not have been compatible with Apple's ecosystem before will now work with the rest of your Apple smart home system, and most of the services found on Android (and Windows?) will port over as well. Everything is beginning to work together, a huge improvement from a consumer point of view. 

edited November 2023

muthuk_vanalingam

gatorguy said:

twolf2919 said:

Honkers said:

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

I think Apple's entire business model depends on products helping each other sell.  The vaunted Apple ease-of-use becomes clearer as one buys more and more Apple products.  Nobody else integrates as many devices and services as Apple, so once a consumer realizes they want a simpler life across more than a couple gadgets, there really is no competition to Apple's offerings.

Apple is great as we all agree, and the products are top notch, but that statement isn't even close to true.

Another competitor is integrating first-party routers, watches, phones, doorbells, security cameras, speakers, displays, computers, smoke and CO2 alarms, live TV and media streaming, earbuds, tablets, thermostats, and a dozen different services from music to storage to streaming media to a cellular phone plan, and all working together. Apple has nothing to offer in many of those areas.

The good news? It doesn't matter as much anymore because first-party hardware and services are becoming less essential.  Now that Apple has thrown its hat in with Thread, many of those devices that might not have been compatible with Apple's ecosystem before will now work with the rest of your Apple smart home system, and most of the services found on Android (and Windows?) will port over as well. Everything is beginning to work together, a huge improvement from a consumer point of view. 

Who is the Apple's competitor referred by you? Initially I thought it may be Huawei, but then I checked who the poster is. And it is not Avon B7, it is GatorGuy. I am aware that Google is into many of those areas, but are they really into all those areas (displays, computers in particular)? And is google one of the key players in those areas (among the top known brands, available all over the world etc)? Or are they working with key players in those areas to make the Google's ecosystem an attractive one? Just curious to know the details.

gatorguy

muthuk_vanalingam said:

gatorguy said:

twolf2919 said:

Honkers said:

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

I think Apple's entire business model depends on products helping each other sell.  The vaunted Apple ease-of-use becomes clearer as one buys more and more Apple products.  Nobody else integrates as many devices and services as Apple, so once a consumer realizes they want a simpler life across more than a couple gadgets, there really is no competition to Apple's offerings.

Apple is great as we all agree, and the products are top notch, but that statement isn't even close to true.

Another competitor is integrating first-party routers, watches, phones, doorbells, security cameras, speakers, displays, computers, smoke and CO2 alarms, live TV and media streaming, earbuds, tablets, thermostats, and a dozen different services from music to storage to streaming media to a cellular phone plan, and all working together. Apple has nothing to offer in many of those areas.

The good news? It doesn't matter as much anymore because first-party hardware and services are becoming less essential.  Now that Apple has thrown its hat in with Thread, many of those devices that might not have been compatible with Apple's ecosystem before will now work with the rest of your Apple smart home system, and most of the services found on Android (and Windows?) will port over as well. Everything is beginning to work together, a huge improvement from a consumer point of view. 

Who is the Apple's competitor referred by you? Initially I thought it may be Huawei, but then I checked who the poster is. And it is not Avon B7, it is GatorGuy. I am aware that Google is into many of those areas, but are they really into all those areas (displays, computers in particular)? And is google one of the key players in those areas (among the top known brands, available all over the world etc)? Or are they working with key players in those areas to make the Google's ecosystem an attractive one? Just curious to know the details.

Google Pixelbooks, but being retired in favor of third parties for the moment. I hope they continue the line as mine is going on 4 years old now. 
Nest Hub, Next Hub Max for smart displays, Pixel Tablet, Chromecast for live TV and subscribed media, plus all the other products mentioned.....
https://store.google.com/?hl=en-US ;
The only thing in the store (other than a couple of accessories) that's not a Google product is the Yale Lock.

muthuk_vanalingam

gatorguy said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

gatorguy said:

twolf2919 said:

Honkers said:

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

I think Apple's entire business model depends on products helping each other sell.  The vaunted Apple ease-of-use becomes clearer as one buys more and more Apple products.  Nobody else integrates as many devices and services as Apple, so once a consumer realizes they want a simpler life across more than a couple gadgets, there really is no competition to Apple's offerings.

Apple is great as we all agree, and the products are top notch, but that statement isn't even close to true.

Another competitor is integrating first-party routers, watches, phones, doorbells, security cameras, speakers, displays, computers, smoke and CO2 alarms, live TV and media streaming, earbuds, tablets, thermostats, and a dozen different services from music to storage to streaming media to a cellular phone plan, and all working together. Apple has nothing to offer in many of those areas.

The good news? It doesn't matter as much anymore because first-party hardware and services are becoming less essential.  Now that Apple has thrown its hat in with Thread, many of those devices that might not have been compatible with Apple's ecosystem before will now work with the rest of your Apple smart home system, and most of the services found on Android (and Windows?) will port over as well. Everything is beginning to work together, a huge improvement from a consumer point of view. 

Who is the Apple's competitor referred by you? Initially I thought it may be Huawei, but then I checked who the poster is. And it is not Avon B7, it is GatorGuy. I am aware that Google is into many of those areas, but are they really into all those areas (displays, computers in particular)? And is google one of the key players in those areas (among the top known brands, available all over the world etc)? Or are they working with key players in those areas to make the Google's ecosystem an attractive one? Just curious to know the details.

Google Pixelbooks, but being retired in favor of third parties for the moment. I hope they continue the line as mine is going on 4 years old now. 
Nest Hub, Next Hub Max for smart displays, Pixel Tablet, Chromecast for live TV and subscribed media, plus all the other products mentioned.....
https://store.google.com/?hl=en-US ;
The only thing in the store (other than a couple of accessories) that's not a Google product is the Yale Lock.

Ok, Thank you for the details. Google has to expand the availability and marketing of their products all over the world, to further strengthen their ecosystem.

danox

gatorguy said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

gatorguy said:

twolf2919 said:

Honkers said:

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

I think Apple's entire business model depends on products helping each other sell.  The vaunted Apple ease-of-use becomes clearer as one buys more and more Apple products.  Nobody else integrates as many devices and services as Apple, so once a consumer realizes they want a simpler life across more than a couple gadgets, there really is no competition to Apple's offerings.

Apple is great as we all agree, and the products are top notch, but that statement isn't even close to true.

Another competitor is integrating first-party routers, watches, phones, doorbells, security cameras, speakers, displays, computers, smoke and CO2 alarms, live TV and media streaming, earbuds, tablets, thermostats, and a dozen different services from music to storage to streaming media to a cellular phone plan, and all working together. Apple has nothing to offer in many of those areas.

The good news? It doesn't matter as much anymore because first-party hardware and services are becoming less essential.  Now that Apple has thrown its hat in with Thread, many of those devices that might not have been compatible with Apple's ecosystem before will now work with the rest of your Apple smart home system, and most of the services found on Android (and Windows?) will port over as well. Everything is beginning to work together, a huge improvement from a consumer point of view. 

Who is the Apple's competitor referred by you? Initially I thought it may be Huawei, but then I checked who the poster is. And it is not Avon B7, it is GatorGuy. I am aware that Google is into many of those areas, but are they really into all those areas (displays, computers in particular)? And is google one of the key players in those areas (among the top known brands, available all over the world etc)? Or are they working with key players in those areas to make the Google's ecosystem an attractive one? Just curious to know the details.

Google Pixelbooks, but being retired in favor of third parties for the moment. I hope they continue the line as mine is going on 4 years old now. 
Nest Hub, Next Hub Max for smart displays, Pixel Tablet, Chromecast for live TV and subscribed media, plus all the other products mentioned.....
https://store.google.com/?hl=en-US ;
The only thing in the store (other than a couple of accessories) that's not a Google product is the Yale Lock.

Creepy……

davidw

gatorguy said:

twolf2919 said:

Honkers said:

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

I think Apple's entire business model depends on products helping each other sell.  The vaunted Apple ease-of-use becomes clearer as one buys more and more Apple products.  Nobody else integrates as many devices and services as Apple, so once a consumer realizes they want a simpler life across more than a couple gadgets, there really is no competition to Apple's offerings.

Apple is great as we all agree, and the products are top notch, but that statement isn't even close to true.

Another competitor is integrating first-party routers, watches, phones, doorbells, security cameras, speakers, displays, computers, smoke and CO2 alarms, live TV and media streaming, earbuds, tablets, thermostats, and a dozen different services from music to storage to streaming media to a cellular phone plan, and all working together. Apple has nothing to offer in many of those areas.

The good news? It doesn't matter as much anymore because first-party hardware and services are becoming less essential.  Now that Apple has thrown its hat in with Thread, many of those devices that might not have been compatible with Apple's ecosystem before will now work with the rest of your Apple smart home system, and most of the services found on Android (and Windows?) will port over as well. Everything is beginning to work together, a huge improvement from a consumer point of view. 

When you ask anyone on the street to mention "Apple" main products, they will most likely first think of .... iPhone .... iPad .... Macs .... Apple Watch .... Airbuds .... Air Tag .... .

When you ask anyone on the street to mention "Google" main products, they will most likely first think of ... search engine .... Android ..... You Tube .... Google Map .... G-mail .... Chrome browser ...

Where all of the first half dozen products anyone on the street would think of when asked about "Apple" main products, are actual hardware products that Apple sells to consumers, the first half dozen Google products are software products that Google practically give away to consumers for free.

I would hardly call Apple a "competitor" to Google (or vice versa). For sure there are markets where both Apple and Google have competing products, but they are not really "competing" with each other at nearly the same level as  Apple vs Samsung or Apple vs Spotify or Apple vs Dell or Google vs Facebook or Google vs Microsoft or Google vs TikTok. Where as Google makes over 75% of their revenue from selling targeted ads over the internet, Apple makes over 75% of their revenue from selling hardware. I can't think of any hardware that Google sells, that have more than a single digit market share, let alone one that really competes with any of Apple hardware, in a market that matters to either of them. About the only Google hardware that I can think of that "competes" with Apple hardware in the same market  are, Google Pixel phone and tablet vs Apple iPhone and iPad, Google Pixel Watch vs Apple Watch, Google ChromeCast vs Apple TV, Google Pixel Buds vs Apple AirBuds and Google Nest speakers vs Apple Home Pod. Hardly any real competition that either Apple or Google care about, when it comes to their bottom line.

But Android device makers for sure feels the competition from Google hardware sales more than Apple do. And for this reason, Google have no real incentive to make their own hardware better than Apple hardware, as it would eventually drive more already Android users to buy Google hardware than Apple users switching. Which would result in a loss for Google ad business. Remember, Google makes more in ad revenue (their bread and butter) from iPhone users than from Android phone users. If anything, one would have to think that Google must be secretly rooting for more Apple device users.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/explained-why-google-pays-apple-billions-of-dollars-every-year/articleshow/85645547.cms

https://www.seroundtable.com/google-apple-business-search-34933.html

google ...... "Google top competitors" and Apple will most likely not appear in the top ten, if at all. Don't confuse hardware devices running on Android as Google devices  competing with Apple devices. Google is only listed as a top competitor to Apple (when googling .... Apple top competitors") because of Android, not because of any Google brand hardware. Android affects Apple hardware revenue way more than iOS affects Google ad revenue. But both Android and iOS are given away for free.

gatorguy

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

twolf2919 said:

Honkers said:

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

I think Apple's entire business model depends on products helping each other sell.  The vaunted Apple ease-of-use becomes clearer as one buys more and more Apple products.  Nobody else integrates as many devices and services as Apple, so once a consumer realizes they want a simpler life across more than a couple gadgets, there really is no competition to Apple's offerings.

Apple is great as we all agree, and the products are top notch, but that statement isn't even close to true.

Another competitor is integrating first-party routers, watches, phones, doorbells, security cameras, speakers, displays, computers, smoke and CO2 alarms, live TV and media streaming, earbuds, tablets, thermostats, and a dozen different services from music to storage to streaming media to a cellular phone plan, and all working together. Apple has nothing to offer in many of those areas.

The good news? It doesn't matter as much anymore because first-party hardware and services are becoming less essential.  Now that Apple has thrown its hat in with Thread, many of those devices that might not have been compatible with Apple's ecosystem before will now work with the rest of your Apple smart home system, and most of the services found on Android (and Windows?) will port over as well. Everything is beginning to work together, a huge improvement from a consumer point of view. 

When you ask anyone on the street to mention "Apple" main products, they will most likely first think of .... iPhone .... iPad .... Macs .... Apple Watch .... Airbuds .... Air Tag .... .

When you ask anyone on the street to mention "Google" main products, they will most likely first think of ... search engine .... Android ..... You Tube .... Google Map .... G-mail .... Chrome browser ...

Where all of the first half dozen products anyone on the street would think of when asked about "Apple" main products, are actual hardware products that Apple sells to consumers, the first half dozen Google products are software products that Google practically give away to consumers for free.

I would hardly call Apple a "competitor" to Google (or vice versa). For sure there are markets where both Apple and Google have competing products, but they are not really "competing" with each other at nearly the same level as  Apple vs Samsung or Apple vs Spotify or Apple vs Dell or Google vs Facebook or Google vs Microsoft or Google vs TikTok. Where as Google makes over 75% of their revenue from selling targeted ads over the internet, Apple makes over 75% of their revenue from selling hardware. I can't think of any hardware that Google sells, that have more than a single digit market share, let alone one that really competes with any of Apple hardware, in a market that matters to either of them. About the only Google hardware that I can think of that "competes" with Apple hardware in the same market  are, Google Pixel phone and tablet vs Apple iPhone and iPad, Google Pixel Watch vs Apple Watch, Google ChromeCast vs Apple TV, Google Pixel Buds vs Apple AirBuds and Google Nest speakers vs Apple Home Pod. Hardly any real competition that either Apple or Google care about, when it comes to their bottom line.

But Android device makers for sure feels the competition from Google hardware sales more than Apple do. And for this reason, Google have no real incentive to make their own hardware better than Apple hardware, as it would eventually drive more already Android users to buy Google hardware than Apple users switching. Which would result in a loss for Google ad business. Remember, Google makes more in ad revenue (their bread and butter) from iPhone users than from Android phone users. If anything, one would have to think that Google must be secretly rooting for more Apple device users.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/explained-why-google-pays-apple-billions-of-dollars-every-year/articleshow/85645547.cms

https://www.seroundtable.com/google-apple-business-search-34933.html

google ...... "Google top competitors" and Apple will most likely not appear in the top ten, if at all. Don't confuse hardware devices running on Android as Google devices  competing with Apple devices. Google is only listed as a top competitor to Apple (when googling .... Apple top competitors") because of Android, not because of any Google brand hardware. Android affects Apple hardware revenue way more than iOS affects Google ad revenue. But both Android and iOS are given away for free.

A nicely worded reply, with lots of thought put into it. You always do your homework.

But the argument had nothing to do with competing. I agree with you about Apple hardware vs. Google hardware. If you reread my post you'll understand it wasn't about who was better at promoting their products or how the hardware lines did and did not overlap. It had to do with this statement from another member:
 "Nobody else integrates as many devices and services as Apple"

So now that you've reread, was my response correct or not correct? 

edited November 2023

avon b7

gatorguy said:

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

twolf2919 said:

Honkers said:

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

I think Apple's entire business model depends on products helping each other sell.  The vaunted Apple ease-of-use becomes clearer as one buys more and more Apple products.  Nobody else integrates as many devices and services as Apple, so once a consumer realizes they want a simpler life across more than a couple gadgets, there really is no competition to Apple's offerings.

Apple is great as we all agree, and the products are top notch, but that statement isn't even close to true.

Another competitor is integrating first-party routers, watches, phones, doorbells, security cameras, speakers, displays, computers, smoke and CO2 alarms, live TV and media streaming, earbuds, tablets, thermostats, and a dozen different services from music to storage to streaming media to a cellular phone plan, and all working together. Apple has nothing to offer in many of those areas.

The good news? It doesn't matter as much anymore because first-party hardware and services are becoming less essential.  Now that Apple has thrown its hat in with Thread, many of those devices that might not have been compatible with Apple's ecosystem before will now work with the rest of your Apple smart home system, and most of the services found on Android (and Windows?) will port over as well. Everything is beginning to work together, a huge improvement from a consumer point of view. 

When you ask anyone on the street to mention "Apple" main products, they will most likely first think of .... iPhone .... iPad .... Macs .... Apple Watch .... Airbuds .... Air Tag .... .

When you ask anyone on the street to mention "Google" main products, they will most likely first think of ... search engine .... Android ..... You Tube .... Google Map .... G-mail .... Chrome browser ...

Where all of the first half dozen products anyone on the street would think of when asked about "Apple" main products, are actual hardware products that Apple sells to consumers, the first half dozen Google products are software products that Google practically give away to consumers for free.

I would hardly call Apple a "competitor" to Google (or vice versa). For sure there are markets where both Apple and Google have competing products, but they are not really "competing" with each other at nearly the same level as  Apple vs Samsung or Apple vs Spotify or Apple vs Dell or Google vs Facebook or Google vs Microsoft or Google vs TikTok. Where as Google makes over 75% of their revenue from selling targeted ads over the internet, Apple makes over 75% of their revenue from selling hardware. I can't think of any hardware that Google sells, that have more than a single digit market share, let alone one that really competes with any of Apple hardware, in a market that matters to either of them. About the only Google hardware that I can think of that "competes" with Apple hardware in the same market  are, Google Pixel phone and tablet vs Apple iPhone and iPad, Google Pixel Watch vs Apple Watch, Google ChromeCast vs Apple TV, Google Pixel Buds vs Apple AirBuds and Google Nest speakers vs Apple Home Pod. Hardly any real competition that either Apple or Google care about, when it comes to their bottom line.

But Android device makers for sure feels the competition from Google hardware sales more than Apple do. And for this reason, Google have no real incentive to make their own hardware better than Apple hardware, as it would eventually drive more already Android users to buy Google hardware than Apple users switching. Which would result in a loss for Google ad business. Remember, Google makes more in ad revenue (their bread and butter) from iPhone users than from Android phone users. If anything, one would have to think that Google must be secretly rooting for more Apple device users.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/explained-why-google-pays-apple-billions-of-dollars-every-year/articleshow/85645547.cms

https://www.seroundtable.com/google-apple-business-search-34933.html

google ...... "Google top competitors" and Apple will most likely not appear in the top ten, if at all. Don't confuse hardware devices running on Android as Google devices  competing with Apple devices. Google is only listed as a top competitor to Apple (when googling .... Apple top competitors") because of Android, not because of any Google brand hardware. Android affects Apple hardware revenue way more than iOS affects Google ad revenue. But both Android and iOS are given away for free.

A nicely worded reply, with lots of thought put into it. You always do your homework.

But the argument had nothing to do with competing. I agree with you about Apple hardware vs. Google hardware. If you reread my post you'll understand it wasn't about who was better at promoting their products or how the hardware lines did and did not overlap. It had to do with this statement from another member:
 "Nobody else integrates as many devices and services as Apple"

So now that you've reread, was my response correct or not correct? 

Absolutely. 

Your bolded snippet was the reason I chimed in too. 

I think the OP got carried away or possibly wasn't aware that the claim was incorrect.