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.
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?
But the part of your reply that I was "correcting" was when you stated "Another competitor ......". Even if you never reveal it to be Google, we all knew who you were referring to. My reply was in response to you referring to Google as "Another competitor ......." (to Apple), not that I don't think you were correct in saying that Google also highly integrate their own hardware. If you were to just say "Another company ....", I probably would not have responded.
Comments
But the part of your reply that I was "correcting" was when you stated "Another competitor ......". Even if you never reveal it to be Google, we all knew who you were referring to.