Uuumm, yes, of course. Otherwise Cisco and others would not be releasing these products into the market.
Note: the Cisco tablet does have 3G/4G support.
When a company already has a Cisco IPT network, a Cisco messaging and presence system, a Cisco video conferencing system, along with video to the desktop. i.e. a fully integrated Unified Communications experience, then who's product do you think said company will be investing in to extend that functionality to the mobile user?
Not just Cisco, but all the major players will have something similar soon, by all accounts Android will be present in most. Of course, not Microsoft - they obviously have their own mobile OS to integrate with their business telephony and messaging offerings.
Apple have always skirted around the edge of the corporate marketplace, they have never shown any real willingness to play in this market at all. And while yes there are obvious opportunities for iPad in business right now (i use one) it would be foolish to suggest that the companies who already own the corporate space in terms of unified communications are not the ones who will continue to do so. Apple do not have an offering to business that even comes close to what the established players already have, and never will.
You guess wrong.
What the Autodesk example shows is for heavy engineering in enterprise shops it is no longer a risk but a shrewd investment to build on OS X and more importantly build out on 3 major areas of OS X [OS X Desktop/Server, iOS iPads and iOS iPhones/iPods] for your enterprise needs with them being managed in a distributed, but central ecosystem, ala iTunes/Appstore/iBooks/Games Center, etc.
...Apple have always skirted around the edge of the corporate marketplace, they have never shown any real willingness to play in this market at all. And while yes there are obvious opportunities for iPad in business right now (i use one) it would be foolish to suggest that the companies who already own the corporate space in terms of unified communications are not the ones who will continue to do so. Apple do not have an offering to business that even comes close to what the established players already have, and never will.
It is true for the corporate (and even education) market, in terms of Macs, Apple has indeed skirted around the edges and has not really got into it.
As for the iPad in business, the problem is Apple can't make enough for global consumption. As such, Apple can decide to focus whatever they can make, plus throw in additional service/support, to cater specifically to business, at the expense of millions of consumers. It is a tough choice, but I think Apple will go the route of as many iPads as possible for everyone, let the app developers and other developers integrate iPad in businesses where possible, and do some incremental business support such as how they've done Exchange support.
At the end of the day, the battle lines will be drawn at consumer vs business, and Apple over the next 5 years is all about the consumer. Business and creative users, well, they will face some challenges, but Apple is as successful as ever in terms of total units of Mac OS X and iOS being used in business.
I was just referencing the iPad and iPhone. With the new iPod Touch, iPod Nano and any future devices I'd imagine as China and India expand we'll see 8+ million per month.
Indeed. We could be looking at 100 million iOS devices sold 2011. However are you assuming iPod nano will be considered an iOS device? I wonder if Apple will count it as an iOS device to boost iOS numbers. That would be naughty.
Unless Apple licenses iOS, it has no chance of fending off Android. Android will be as ubiquitous as Windows and Apple will be at 6%, again.
Another idiot who has no clue what they are talking about. Why in the world would apple license their OS when they are THE most successful technology company on the planet and the combination of the software and hardware is what provides users with a far superior experience? Further, Android will soon start maxing out as consumers discover what an inferior hardware and software platform it is. The fragmentation taking place, plus the embarrassing lack of real opportunity for developers will soon slow its growth.
What the Autodesk example shows is for heavy engineering in enterprise shops it is no longer a risk but a shrewd investment to build on OS X and more importantly build out on 3 major areas of OS X [OS X Desktop/Server, iOS iPads and iOS iPhones/iPods] for your enterprise needs with them being managed in a distributed, but central ecosystem, ala iTunes/Appstore/iBooks/Games Center, etc.
Lol, I guess wrong.
Couple of points....
1 - I am not guessing.
2 - You have not really answered my point and have gone of on a tangent, really talking about something completely different.
To be fair, much of what you said I agree with. There is no reason at all while it cannot be proven to be less of a risk to look at OSX in the enterprise, an utilising some of Apple's end points in that mix. But that does not mean to say it is going to happen, and it certainly does not address my main point in that there are huge holes in Apple's portfolio that simply means they will never be able to have the dominance in enterprise communications that the likes of Cisco and MS already have.
But, to be fair, Apple clearly have no desire to play in this space anyway, at least not at present. If they ever did want to get serious about it though I think acquisition is the only way they can.
It is about risk, in fact it is all about risk. Hence why the last post I replied to was so wide of the mark talking about screen sizes, and battery life - features? anyone really think that multi-million dollar enterprise communication solutions are bought based on features? It is always about risk and there is an old saying in the industry - nobody ever gets fired for buying Cisco.
Anyway, back to my original point, it was quite simple really. If you have already invested in an end-to-end unified communications infrastructure from a single vendor, that includes telephones, desktop applications, video conferencing, instant messaging, desktop video, mobile applications, collaboration and presence. Then when that company released a mobile tablet to allow you to take all of these features outside with you - would you really buy iPad's for your staff instead? Only if you were barking mad would be my answer here.
That was my only point, do not underestimate the role that Cisco and others will play in this market. Whether or not that is a good choice or not is a completely different conversation. But it would certainly not be a bad way for Apple to start dipping their toe into the market by partnering up with some of these companies and offering iOS to them for mobile devices. It is not hard to understand why they are using Android, there is not really much option other than costly development work or acquisition.
The ironic thing of course is that Cisco's own firmware for their switches and routers has always actually been called IOS - I seem to remember some deal was made with Cisco over the name - likewise the iPhone name, which i believe was a Cisco (Linksys) registered name.
Wouldn't it be funny that in say 5-10 years time and Google has all but lost it's last appeal in the oracle vs. Google case and google turns around and says... Well, it was fun while it lasted but any Android devices in development or unsold must be returned immediately to the manufacturer.
10 years of just about every cellphone maker NOT maintaining an OS of their own... All those eggs stacked solely in googles basket... A basket that Oracle just crushed with it's boot heal... Will they ALL just run to MS for their next OS? Or HP? or would they actually try and build a smartphone all by themselves like the grownup companies do?
As for the others, if each manufacturer builds their own platform, then OS developers are going to have even more smartphone platforms to choose from in developing apps. The market's already Balkanized enough, anyway. Add it all up, and those who were lazy will likely remain lazy (and for good reason).
Another thing to consider: Many smartphone makers, including Samsung and HTC, have long built Windows Mobile smartphones, and will make Windows 7 smartphones from the start. And regardless of the Oracle lawsuit's result, I'm sure that Android-only smartphone makers will pick up their own Microsoft parachute, too, if they're smart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphster
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee
You expect businesses to flock to a 7" tablet that gets apx 8 hours of battery life without any 3G/4G support running Android v2.2 the hacker communities most beloved OS???
Are you sure about that?
Uuumm, yes, of course. Otherwise Cisco and others would not be releasing these products into the market.
Note: the Cisco tablet does have 3G/4G support.
When a company already has a Cisco IPT network, a Cisco messaging and presence system, a Cisco video conferencing system, along with video to the desktop. i.e. a fully integrated Unified Communications experience, then who's product do you think said company will be investing in to extend that functionality to the mobile user?
Not just Cisco, but all the major players will have something similar soon, by all accounts Android will be present in most. Of course, not Microsoft - they obviously have their own mobile OS to integrate with their business telephony and messaging offerings.
1. That assumes Microsoft never decides to license their OS to competitors. Blackberry never technically needed to provide Exchange support in their smartphones, especially since RIM had BES. But they did it, anyway, because they knew it would encourage more enterprises to invest in their platform.
So, assuming Microsoft scales WinPhone7 to tablets, why can't Microsoft license their smartphone technology to Cisco? Besides, where else does Cisco go for a mobile OS if Oracle's lawsuit results in the death of Android? Well, there would be Chrome OS and WebOS. I doubt Cisco will build their own.
2. Android is slowly gaining enterprise features. By 3.0 (Gingerbread), it could be right at iPhone's level. That Cisco tablet will likely be upgradeable, assuming businesses allow it.
So, assuming Microsoft scales WinPhone7 to tablets, why can't Microsoft license their smartphone technology to Cisco?
That is one thing that can be 100% discounted.
In business communications Cisco are now in direct competition with Microsoft, not just on the desktop but more importantly now in the cloud. Cisco even now have a cloud based alternative to exchange as well as all the messaging and collaboration type services that MS have been the pioneers in on the corporate desktop.
* of course I will admit that one could say Google are expected to emerge as a major player in this space themselves in the future, but that is some way off yet of course.
licensing iOS does not have to mean letting anyone have it to do as they see fit, it could be more a case of choosing select vendors and working closely with them to bring something to a market that Apple currently cannot reach adequately.
> The amount of browsing that those few iPads are doing is not insignificant.
Posted by 0yvind
> Facts: In a recent overview by NetMarketshare.com the iPad already has 0.27 % of the total browsing (worldwide), as opposed to the best-scoring Android version, 2.1, at 0.09 %. If you add Android 1.6 and 2.2, the combined result is 0.17 % - lower that the iPad alone.
Posted by newtron
> I would call a quarter of one percent "insignificant". We can disagree on this one.
Of course we can. From your standpoint all mobile web browsing would be "insignificant" as it only account for 2.6% of the total web browsing. But that little percentage, and the fact that Android was "gaining" on iOS in US-only stats (albeit with skewed numbers possibly excluding the iPad and iPod Touch while including Dell Streak etc) was in fact the reason for this thread in the first place...
Flood the market with dozens of phones at different price points, hardware configurations, and OS versions in order to compete with Apple's ONE (or at most, two) phone, and hope to eventually surpass them.
A strategy for losers who can't make ONE decent phone to outdo Apple's one phone (or at most two) on a single US carrier.
- 250,000 Apps currently available before an app purge it was nearly 300k
- 6.5B App downloads includes updates iirc
- $1,000,000,000.00 paid to App developers after Apple took it's 30%
- 120,000,000 iOS devices sold to date.
- 15,000 App Store Submissions Per Week .. Yes I typed week.
Now let's hear your numbers...
The point that you made, and that I was responding to, had nothing to do with the Apple app store numbers.
You claimed that few developers would write for Android given the stuff you cited. I corrected you, and pointed out that many, many apps are developed for Android, despite the concerns you raised.
Why you seek to now change the subject is pretty obvious. Why not just admit that Android has plenty of software, despite the factors you cited, and be done with it?
I disagree. I think it is easier to grow if you already have a large installed base of rabid fans who buy new product from you every time you add a feature.
or would they actually try and build a smartphone all by themselves like the grownup companies do?
Apple does not build a smartphone all by themselves.
Indeed, they build no smartphones at all, given that they own no production facilities, no chip fabrication plants, no plastic molding companies, no PCB manufacturing facilities nor anything else necessary to build a smartphone.
They design stuff with help from the ChiComs. They build nothing.
This graph could potentially be misinterpreted like "iPhone users are leaving iOS for Android" when in fact everything is still just booming. Would be in place to show a graph over the whole mobile web usage growth as well to understand the situation better.
I think Android has the potential to get in the hands of more users when the mobile web user base is getting to its top. Mostly thanks to its open nature. But Apple has done a great job leading the way, and I think the iPhone always will be unmatched. Nobody else cares for creating the whole product and experience.
Do you think HTC for example cares that the Android market is #1 or do they care more about were HTC ranks against other mfgs in profit?
I can assure you that HTC does not care about their relative profit rank. HTC cares about maximizing its profits, given its resources. What the others are doing is relevant ONLY insofar as it affects HTC.
HTC has big rivals and small rivals. Whether their rival makes a large profit or a small profit matters matters not a bit to HTC - they care only about HTC's profits.
Perhaps you have a warped Apple meme that you you are trying to cite? Whenever folks bring up the fact that relatively few consumers choose Apple products, knees start to jerk and profit is cited.
Are you attempting to cite this meme in the context of what HTC cares about? I assure you, HTC cares very much about their own profitability. But HTC cares little or none about the gross amounts of profit that anybody else makes. Only the owners of a company care abut that.
Apple does not build a smartphone all by themselves.
Indeed, they build no smartphones at all, given that they own no production facilities, no chip fabrication plants, no plastic molding companies, no PCB manufacturing facilities nor anything else necessary to build a smartphone.
They design stuff with help from the ChiComs. They build nothing.
Please let stop this nonsense!
Isn't designing itself building?
Design doesn't account engineering?
Can you erect a thing without engineering?
Isn't designing itself erecting?
Truth is Apple is one company competing with software and engineering companies.
Give them some credit.
In the USA is practically the only one revenant engineering company, USA automobile companies cannot compete with Asian and European companies.
If you think this is the only goal that drives Apple, then you're the one that's delusional. There is clearly a passion for design and a user experience that transcends "shareholder value".
Those things are a means to an end. You confuse the tactic with the strategy.
Comments
Uuumm, yes, of course. Otherwise Cisco and others would not be releasing these products into the market.
Note: the Cisco tablet does have 3G/4G support.
When a company already has a Cisco IPT network, a Cisco messaging and presence system, a Cisco video conferencing system, along with video to the desktop. i.e. a fully integrated Unified Communications experience, then who's product do you think said company will be investing in to extend that functionality to the mobile user?
Not just Cisco, but all the major players will have something similar soon, by all accounts Android will be present in most. Of course, not Microsoft - they obviously have their own mobile OS to integrate with their business telephony and messaging offerings.
Apple have always skirted around the edge of the corporate marketplace, they have never shown any real willingness to play in this market at all. And while yes there are obvious opportunities for iPad in business right now (i use one) it would be foolish to suggest that the companies who already own the corporate space in terms of unified communications are not the ones who will continue to do so. Apple do not have an offering to business that even comes close to what the established players already have, and never will.
You guess wrong.
What the Autodesk example shows is for heavy engineering in enterprise shops it is no longer a risk but a shrewd investment to build on OS X and more importantly build out on 3 major areas of OS X [OS X Desktop/Server, iOS iPads and iOS iPhones/iPods] for your enterprise needs with them being managed in a distributed, but central ecosystem, ala iTunes/Appstore/iBooks/Games Center, etc.
...Apple have always skirted around the edge of the corporate marketplace, they have never shown any real willingness to play in this market at all. And while yes there are obvious opportunities for iPad in business right now (i use one) it would be foolish to suggest that the companies who already own the corporate space in terms of unified communications are not the ones who will continue to do so. Apple do not have an offering to business that even comes close to what the established players already have, and never will.
It is true for the corporate (and even education) market, in terms of Macs, Apple has indeed skirted around the edges and has not really got into it.
As for the iPad in business, the problem is Apple can't make enough for global consumption. As such, Apple can decide to focus whatever they can make, plus throw in additional service/support, to cater specifically to business, at the expense of millions of consumers. It is a tough choice, but I think Apple will go the route of as many iPads as possible for everyone, let the app developers and other developers integrate iPad in businesses where possible, and do some incremental business support such as how they've done Exchange support.
At the end of the day, the battle lines will be drawn at consumer vs business, and Apple over the next 5 years is all about the consumer. Business and creative users, well, they will face some challenges, but Apple is as successful as ever in terms of total units of Mac OS X and iOS being used in business.
I was just referencing the iPad and iPhone. With the new iPod Touch, iPod Nano and any future devices I'd imagine as China and India expand we'll see 8+ million per month.
Indeed. We could be looking at 100 million iOS devices sold 2011. However are you assuming iPod nano will be considered an iOS device? I wonder if Apple will count it as an iOS device to boost iOS numbers. That would be naughty.
Sony used to be there too with television sets. Now they ain't nothing.
Watch out for hubris. Everything is changing very fast, especially in the sandbox that Apple plays in.
Apple is not Sony.
One example. Sony just announced this past april that they are going to stop supporting floppy disk drives. I'm not kidding.
Unless Apple licenses iOS, it has no chance of fending off Android. Android will be as ubiquitous as Windows and Apple will be at 6%, again.
Another idiot who has no clue what they are talking about. Why in the world would apple license their OS when they are THE most successful technology company on the planet and the combination of the software and hardware is what provides users with a far superior experience? Further, Android will soon start maxing out as consumers discover what an inferior hardware and software platform it is. The fragmentation taking place, plus the embarrassing lack of real opportunity for developers will soon slow its growth.
You guess wrong.
What the Autodesk example shows is for heavy engineering in enterprise shops it is no longer a risk but a shrewd investment to build on OS X and more importantly build out on 3 major areas of OS X [OS X Desktop/Server, iOS iPads and iOS iPhones/iPods] for your enterprise needs with them being managed in a distributed, but central ecosystem, ala iTunes/Appstore/iBooks/Games Center, etc.
Lol, I guess wrong.
Couple of points....
1 - I am not guessing.
2 - You have not really answered my point and have gone of on a tangent, really talking about something completely different.
To be fair, much of what you said I agree with. There is no reason at all while it cannot be proven to be less of a risk to look at OSX in the enterprise, an utilising some of Apple's end points in that mix. But that does not mean to say it is going to happen, and it certainly does not address my main point in that there are huge holes in Apple's portfolio that simply means they will never be able to have the dominance in enterprise communications that the likes of Cisco and MS already have.
But, to be fair, Apple clearly have no desire to play in this space anyway, at least not at present. If they ever did want to get serious about it though I think acquisition is the only way they can.
It is about risk, in fact it is all about risk. Hence why the last post I replied to was so wide of the mark talking about screen sizes, and battery life - features? anyone really think that multi-million dollar enterprise communication solutions are bought based on features? It is always about risk and there is an old saying in the industry - nobody ever gets fired for buying Cisco.
Anyway, back to my original point, it was quite simple really. If you have already invested in an end-to-end unified communications infrastructure from a single vendor, that includes telephones, desktop applications, video conferencing, instant messaging, desktop video, mobile applications, collaboration and presence. Then when that company released a mobile tablet to allow you to take all of these features outside with you - would you really buy iPad's for your staff instead? Only if you were barking mad would be my answer here.
That was my only point, do not underestimate the role that Cisco and others will play in this market. Whether or not that is a good choice or not is a completely different conversation. But it would certainly not be a bad way for Apple to start dipping their toe into the market by partnering up with some of these companies and offering iOS to them for mobile devices. It is not hard to understand why they are using Android, there is not really much option other than costly development work or acquisition.
The ironic thing of course is that Cisco's own firmware for their switches and routers has always actually been called IOS - I seem to remember some deal was made with Cisco over the name - likewise the iPhone name, which i believe was a Cisco (Linksys) registered name.
Wouldn't it be funny that in say 5-10 years time and Google has all but lost it's last appeal in the oracle vs. Google case and google turns around and says... Well, it was fun while it lasted but any Android devices in development or unsold must be returned immediately to the manufacturer.
10 years of just about every cellphone maker NOT maintaining an OS of their own... All those eggs stacked solely in googles basket... A basket that Oracle just crushed with it's boot heal... Will they ALL just run to MS for their next OS? Or HP? or would they actually try and build a smartphone all by themselves like the grownup companies do?
Samsung is already building their own mobile OS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bada_(operating_system)
As for the others, if each manufacturer builds their own platform, then OS developers are going to have even more smartphone platforms to choose from in developing apps. The market's already Balkanized enough, anyway. Add it all up, and those who were lazy will likely remain lazy (and for good reason).
Another thing to consider: Many smartphone makers, including Samsung and HTC, have long built Windows Mobile smartphones, and will make Windows 7 smartphones from the start. And regardless of the Oracle lawsuit's result, I'm sure that Android-only smartphone makers will pick up their own Microsoft parachute, too, if they're smart.
You expect businesses to flock to a 7" tablet that gets apx 8 hours of battery life without any 3G/4G support running Android v2.2 the hacker communities most beloved OS???
Are you sure about that?
Uuumm, yes, of course. Otherwise Cisco and others would not be releasing these products into the market.
Note: the Cisco tablet does have 3G/4G support.
When a company already has a Cisco IPT network, a Cisco messaging and presence system, a Cisco video conferencing system, along with video to the desktop. i.e. a fully integrated Unified Communications experience, then who's product do you think said company will be investing in to extend that functionality to the mobile user?
Not just Cisco, but all the major players will have something similar soon, by all accounts Android will be present in most. Of course, not Microsoft - they obviously have their own mobile OS to integrate with their business telephony and messaging offerings.
1. That assumes Microsoft never decides to license their OS to competitors. Blackberry never technically needed to provide Exchange support in their smartphones, especially since RIM had BES. But they did it, anyway, because they knew it would encourage more enterprises to invest in their platform.
So, assuming Microsoft scales WinPhone7 to tablets, why can't Microsoft license their smartphone technology to Cisco? Besides, where else does Cisco go for a mobile OS if Oracle's lawsuit results in the death of Android? Well, there would be Chrome OS and WebOS. I doubt Cisco will build their own.
2. Android is slowly gaining enterprise features. By 3.0 (Gingerbread), it could be right at iPhone's level. That Cisco tablet will likely be upgradeable, assuming businesses allow it.
So, assuming Microsoft scales WinPhone7 to tablets, why can't Microsoft license their smartphone technology to Cisco?
That is one thing that can be 100% discounted.
In business communications Cisco are now in direct competition with Microsoft, not just on the desktop but more importantly now in the cloud. Cisco even now have a cloud based alternative to exchange as well as all the messaging and collaboration type services that MS have been the pioneers in on the corporate desktop.
* of course I will admit that one could say Google are expected to emerge as a major player in this space themselves in the future, but that is some way off yet of course.
licensing iOS does not have to mean letting anyone have it to do as they see fit, it could be more a case of choosing select vendors and working closely with them to bring something to a market that Apple currently cannot reach adequately.
> Posted by krabbelen
> The amount of browsing that those few iPads are doing is not insignificant.
Posted by 0yvind
> Facts: In a recent overview by NetMarketshare.com the iPad already has 0.27 % of the total browsing (worldwide), as opposed to the best-scoring Android version, 2.1, at 0.09 %. If you add Android 1.6 and 2.2, the combined result is 0.17 % - lower that the iPad alone.
Posted by newtron
> I would call a quarter of one percent "insignificant". We can disagree on this one.
Of course we can. From your standpoint all mobile web browsing would be "insignificant" as it only account for 2.6% of the total web browsing. But that little percentage, and the fact that Android was "gaining" on iOS in US-only stats (albeit with skewed numbers possibly excluding the iPad and iPod Touch while including Dell Streak etc) was in fact the reason for this thread in the first place...
What is this mythical low end you are talking about that Android is supposed to fill, given the prices are the same, and the plan costs are the same.
It is expected that Android will be used on a range of different phones in the future.
As of now, it is predominantly used on flagship models. But once it becomes the ubiquitous standard, expect to see it everywhere.
A strategy for losers who can't make ONE decent phone to outdo Apple's one phone (or at most two) on a single US carrier.
- 250,000 Apps currently available before an app purge it was nearly 300k
- 6.5B App downloads includes updates iirc
- $1,000,000,000.00 paid to App developers after Apple took it's 30%
- 120,000,000 iOS devices sold to date.
- 15,000 App Store Submissions Per Week .. Yes I typed week.
Now let's hear your numbers...
The point that you made, and that I was responding to, had nothing to do with the Apple app store numbers.
You claimed that few developers would write for Android given the stuff you cited. I corrected you, and pointed out that many, many apps are developed for Android, despite the concerns you raised.
Why you seek to now change the subject is pretty obvious. Why not just admit that Android has plenty of software, despite the factors you cited, and be done with it?
It's a hell of a lot easier to grow from nothing.
I disagree. I think it is easier to grow if you already have a large installed base of rabid fans who buy new product from you every time you add a feature.
or would they actually try and build a smartphone all by themselves like the grownup companies do?
Apple does not build a smartphone all by themselves.
Indeed, they build no smartphones at all, given that they own no production facilities, no chip fabrication plants, no plastic molding companies, no PCB manufacturing facilities nor anything else necessary to build a smartphone.
They design stuff with help from the ChiComs. They build nothing.
I think Android has the potential to get in the hands of more users when the mobile web user base is getting to its top. Mostly thanks to its open nature. But Apple has done a great job leading the way, and I think the iPhone always will be unmatched. Nobody else cares for creating the whole product and experience.
Do you think HTC for example cares that the Android market is #1 or do they care more about were HTC ranks against other mfgs in profit?
I can assure you that HTC does not care about their relative profit rank. HTC cares about maximizing its profits, given its resources. What the others are doing is relevant ONLY insofar as it affects HTC.
HTC has big rivals and small rivals. Whether their rival makes a large profit or a small profit matters matters not a bit to HTC - they care only about HTC's profits.
Perhaps you have a warped Apple meme that you you are trying to cite? Whenever folks bring up the fact that relatively few consumers choose Apple products, knees start to jerk and profit is cited.
Are you attempting to cite this meme in the context of what HTC cares about? I assure you, HTC cares very much about their own profitability. But HTC cares little or none about the gross amounts of profit that anybody else makes. Only the owners of a company care abut that.
Not consumers. Not competitors. Only owners.
Apple does not build a smartphone all by themselves.
Indeed, they build no smartphones at all, given that they own no production facilities, no chip fabrication plants, no plastic molding companies, no PCB manufacturing facilities nor anything else necessary to build a smartphone.
They design stuff with help from the ChiComs. They build nothing.
Please let stop this nonsense!
Isn't designing itself building?
Design doesn't account engineering?
Can you erect a thing without engineering?
Isn't designing itself erecting?
Truth is Apple is one company competing with software and engineering companies.
Give them some credit.
In the USA is practically the only one revenant engineering company, USA automobile companies cannot compete with Asian and European companies.
Let's see your numbers.
iOS devices account for less than 6% of web browsing.
If you think this is the only goal that drives Apple, then you're the one that's delusional. There is clearly a passion for design and a user experience that transcends "shareholder value".
Those things are a means to an end. You confuse the tactic with the strategy.
> It's a hell of a lot easier to grow from nothing.
Exactly:
Operating system "A" har grown from 5 copies sold a month to 40! - WOW, that's a 800% increase!
Where as sysem "B" har only grown from 1 million copies to 1.5 million - that's only 50% growth.
Consequently, operating system "B" is doomed, because system "A" is growing 16 times faster than system "B"... ;o)