Android's only hope of dominance is people "judging it by it's cover." It's only when you actually have one in your hand that you can see how clunky and poorly designed it is compared to an iPhone or iOS software. It's only when you look closely that you see the lack of smoothness and sense in the UI, it's only when you start to use it in depth that the wonky settings and general "Linuxy" aspects of it start to bite you in the bum.
I completely disagree. While it's no as polished as iOS, I don't believe it to be anywhere near as "clunky" and "poorly designed" as you say. If you don't like the way the home screen looks (I'll give you that a lot of OEM UIs are weird), you can fix that by downloading one of the many Home replacement apps from the Market (LauncherPro and ADW.Launcher being the leading two favorites).
Those take up the majority of how you interact with an Android phone, as you can customize them to look however you want. The rest of the phone is the settings menus, the notification slider, and the App Drawer that holds all the apps you don't place on your main screen. In a way, this lets you pick the purpose and sense of the UI.
inability to keep up with huge demand on the iPhone side has led to the Android lead.
Careful there. You are coming close to saying that failed execution has cost Apple their lead. You need to think a couple of steps ahead if you want to advance these sorts of propositions.
And besides, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that any manufacturing problems have limited iPhone sales significantly.
No problem. Native apps on Android would be more relevant to me, I don't have time to do things like root it and so on. On iPhone and iPad I just jailbreak to get display out capability (full mirroring video out from the iPhone 4 and iPad using the Apple iPad Dock to VGA cable using the DisplayOut software through Cydia)
By "native" I mean apps you can get directly from the Market. As opposed to apps that start out as betas only available from the developer's website.
In a way, this is also another part of what makes Android interesting. You can decide to try out these betas before their put into the Market. A good deal of Android developers go this route to get feedback so when it does hit the Market, it will have a good deal of bugs worked out, as well as an installed group of people who've used the app and offered improvement suggestions/features along the way and would be willing to pay for the app.
I'm wondering how many Android phones have actually been sold for full price, instead of including the ones that you get for free. Verizon and other carriers were doing a Buy One and Get One Free program on many of their Android models. You'll see that the figures show how many were activated. The free phones are included in that total. The iPhone has never been part of a BOGO promotion.
It will be interesting to see how well iPhones sell once they are on more than one carrier in the U.S. market.
NO THEY DON'T... This is the same silly post fanboys run to every week. The phones are subsidized and the manufacture gets their money. If AT&T (or any other carrier) wishes, they too could "give away" the iPhone which makes no difference to Apple.
For the first time in a long time I'm not yet certain I'll be getting an Apple product. The iPhone has a lot going for them, but I gotta say some of the Androids look pretty nice too.
Can I use an Android phone with my Mac?
You're the right customer for an Android - you're a geek. That wasn't an insult.
I have my doubts. There's a lot that people may not like, and it is not at all finished yet. It is missing basic stuff like multitasking.
I mean two years out. And I don't mean more overall, I mean more per quarter by then. 2 years after release Microsoft will begin to show signs of moving past Google in the mobile phone department.
RIM, for example, has many different phones, but they do not dominate.
There are scads of different Symbian smartphones, but they do not dominate.
I see no correlation between the variety of handsets on an OS and the dominance of the OS. Indeed, iOS once dominated despite its lack of hardware variety.
Instead, I think that Android's dominance of the smartphone market is for other reasons, including, but not limited to, the fact that most people like it better than the other OS choices.
Comparisons to RIM are appropos in this case because RIM operates an ecosystem with their own hardware/handsets - they do not release Blackberry OS to all the handset makers, and therefore is comparable to iOS, but not Android. There are sixteen or so active BB handsets, out of the twenty or so handsets total, with another subset of other handsets not made by RIM who can run the BB email-client, but not the OS.
There are a total of 162 handsets for Nokia that actually run the Symbian OS as a "smartphone" depending on the interface and version of Symbian. SO let's be generous and include all of the Sony/Eriksson, Siemens, Samsung, Panasonic, Motorola, LG, DoMoCo, Benq and Arima handsets with the Nokia ones. So this actually makes Symbian more like Android or WinMo than iOS.
But this begs the question. AT NO TIME DID THE IPHONE DOMINATE ANY MARKET! Look carefully. US market - RIM held that. Worldwide - Nokia has that. So what are we comparing then?
If it is the OS IN USE (not sale per time period) on a given handset, Nokia clearly owns dominance in the world with Symbian. If the US market alone, then RIM still holds that, based on reports used by GigaOm by Gartner. Notably, Symbian is an also-ran in the US currently, but commands world-wide. In fact world-wide It is, in descending order, Symbian, RIM, iPhone*, WinMo, Linux and Android.
*does not include iOS running on any other Apple device.
One of the huge issue with the numbers being reported is the failure to account for the difference between device manufacturer, exclusive versus licensed eocsystems, and comparing OS numbers to devices numbers. Those are comparison mistakes that in some cases are deliberate in order to cast one supplier against another in the most favorable light. If you reference installed base which is the only valid measure of market penetration, and device against device, you get a much clearer picture and can actually speak fact to opinion.
Gads... I hope that bloody at&t exclusive ends soon. Apple's desire for a secure return with at&t has ceded so much ground to Android, it's like the desktop wars all over again with Android playing the part of Windows. Fulfill the pent-up demand for the iPhone, Apple!
I remember when the iPhone first came out and we found out there was a 5-year exclusive agreement with ATT. We all thought that was nuts! Not that there was an exclusive agreement, but that it was 5 years! That's eons in the cell phone game, and Apple really should have known that that was too long to be tied to a single carrier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
Android may be doing well now, but I don't think it has legs. That platform is going to suffer from fragmentation...
Has anyone ever attempted to quantify the effect of fragmentation? If Android has about twice the sales as the iPhone, but it's "fragmented" what is the net effect? Yes, there are differences between the various Android platforms. But there are also similarities. The differences hold them back (usabilty, dev support, marketing, etc), but the shear volume of similar devices gives them momentum and inertia.
If Android has twice the marketshare, but fragmentation makes them 1/3 less "effective" (for lack of a better term), then they are still leading the pack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherperson
I believe that people who buy Android phones instead of iPhones overwhelmingly do so for only two reasons:
1. In the USA, they want to use Verizon instead of AT&T
2. They can't afford an iPhone and, generally speaking, have a very small amount of disposable income.
3. They don't like the iPhone form factor.
Apple should try to find ways to diversify the iPhone offering. Even if that has an impact on the developers due to the dreaded fragmentation factor, if they can provide a single development environment to target multiple iOS devices, that's still going to be easier than developers targeting the vast array of Android devcies, right?
I still think an iPhone nano (think the current nano as a flip-phone) would get folks into the Apple camp. Get them using iTunes to manage their phone to sync music, contacts, events (think about it, EVERY cell phone has these functions, and yet nobody uses them because it's either disabled by the carrier or too complicated to figure out). Then when it's time for them to upgrade to a smart phone with applications and web browsing, an iOS device is the logical choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
It's radically different from the desktop wars. Apple never had the kind of marketshare with the Mac that it has with the iPhone, and Apple never had the kind of financial strength that it has now. Plus, Android is a hollow imitator of the Windows business model. Google is depending on (and ceding power to) their OEM partners much more heavily than MS ever did, which is going to lead to fragmentation and degradation of the Android brand.
I believe in the early years of the Mac Apple had 20+% market share. That was when most PCs were still running DOS and Windows was still working out its kinks. And personal computers were mainly used in offices and schools.
From that viewpoint, it's very similar to today's smartphone market. A few years ago smartphone were mostly only for business folks. Apple comes along and makes them easier to use, gains quick market share. It will take time for Android to work out the kinds, but like MS & Windows, they may eventually get it sorted out enough that people choose it over Apple's limited and expensive options.
The iPhone is likely coming to Verizon soon, so Apple’s share of smartphones will continue to climb. On the other hand, Android will have its share taken away by Windows Phone 7, HPalm, etc.
Android's only hope of dominance is people "judging it by it's cover." It's only when you actually have one in your hand that you can see how clunky and poorly designed it is compared to an iPhone or iOS software. It's only when you look closely that you see the lack of smoothness and sense in the UI, it's only when you start to use it in depth that the wonky settings and general "Linuxy" aspects of it start to bite you in the bum.
Sorry there Professor, as I mentioned many times before, using a bunch of Fanyboy terms like "clunky" won't work in 2010. Apple is playing in the big leagues now, trying to sell a product to the masses, not a small group of mind dead drones.
Android phones are no more "clunky" than your iPhone is "elegant"... Android is going to take over the smartphone market and the developers will follow...
If this trend continues, it is likely that many devs will switch from iOS to Android. It seems that Android will swamp iOS soon.
This is the big question, since these are really "App Phones". Right now it's a lot harder to actually make money selling into the Android market than it is on the iOS market. Despite Android having higher market share, they have a much, much lower share of the money developers are making. The delta isn't even close; last I checked it's over a billion dolalrs more that have gone to iOS developers.
Right now things are still developed for iPhone and ported to Android, and that doesn't seem to be changing at the moment despite the market share. It'll be interesting to see how it unfolds over the next couple years.
I doubt shareholders smile when they see 100% market penetration and $0 gross profits.
Yeah, that's exactly what I wonder too when I buy ANY product, .. How much does the manufacture make?
I'm going out shopping for a new boat and kitchen cabinets. Since I now know what is really important, can you advise me what companies that manufacture boats and cabinets make the most money?
Android's global market share is still in single digits outside the US. In fact, with the exception of China at 13%, its share is only 1 or 2% in every other country. (China suffers from the same problem as the US market in only having one carrier with the phone. And even then it has been officially sold for only about a year at that.)
Android continues to do well in the US ONLY because of the AT&T exclusive deal, and because the other carriers are giving Android devices away for free! (Just as they are with RIM devices.) The problem in the US is that the commodity company (the carriers), are giving away the added value product (smartphones) for free thus driving the entire market to commodity status, while Apple continues to sweep up the majority of the profit.
I am wondering where you are getting your data from. 1-2% is probably about right in most poorer countries where Symbian tends to dominate, but in most wealthy nations I believe the percentage is much higher. That said, the US is one of the only countries where Android is actually beating the iPhone in sales. Once it is available on more networks it will have a good chance of being able to beat out Android in terms of shipments.
The iPhone is likely coming to Verizon soon, so Apple?s share of smartphones will continue to climb. On the other hand, Android will have its share taken away by Windows Phone 7, HPalm, etc.
Palm have a good OS, but don't have good hardware or a large platform. Apple should have bought up Palm, but they were too expensive.
Comments
Android's only hope of dominance is people "judging it by it's cover." It's only when you actually have one in your hand that you can see how clunky and poorly designed it is compared to an iPhone or iOS software. It's only when you look closely that you see the lack of smoothness and sense in the UI, it's only when you start to use it in depth that the wonky settings and general "Linuxy" aspects of it start to bite you in the bum.
I completely disagree. While it's no as polished as iOS, I don't believe it to be anywhere near as "clunky" and "poorly designed" as you say. If you don't like the way the home screen looks (I'll give you that a lot of OEM UIs are weird), you can fix that by downloading one of the many Home replacement apps from the Market (LauncherPro and ADW.Launcher being the leading two favorites).
Those take up the majority of how you interact with an Android phone, as you can customize them to look however you want. The rest of the phone is the settings menus, the notification slider, and the App Drawer that holds all the apps you don't place on your main screen. In a way, this lets you pick the purpose and sense of the UI.
inability to keep up with huge demand on the iPhone side has led to the Android lead.
Careful there. You are coming close to saying that failed execution has cost Apple their lead. You need to think a couple of steps ahead if you want to advance these sorts of propositions.
And besides, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that any manufacturing problems have limited iPhone sales significantly.
No problem. Native apps on Android would be more relevant to me, I don't have time to do things like root it and so on. On iPhone and iPad I just jailbreak to get display out capability (full mirroring video out from the iPhone 4 and iPad using the Apple iPad Dock to VGA cable using the DisplayOut software through Cydia)
By "native" I mean apps you can get directly from the Market. As opposed to apps that start out as betas only available from the developer's website.
In a way, this is also another part of what makes Android interesting. You can decide to try out these betas before their put into the Market. A good deal of Android developers go this route to get feedback so when it does hit the Market, it will have a good deal of bugs worked out, as well as an installed group of people who've used the app and offered improvement suggestions/features along the way and would be willing to pay for the app.
I'm wondering how many Android phones have actually been sold for full price, instead of including the ones that you get for free. Verizon and other carriers were doing a Buy One and Get One Free program on many of their Android models. You'll see that the figures show how many were activated. The free phones are included in that total. The iPhone has never been part of a BOGO promotion.
It will be interesting to see how well iPhones sell once they are on more than one carrier in the U.S. market.
NO THEY DON'T... This is the same silly post fanboys run to every week. The phones are subsidized and the manufacture gets their money. If AT&T (or any other carrier) wishes, they too could "give away" the iPhone which makes no difference to Apple.
For the first time in a long time I'm not yet certain I'll be getting an Apple product. The iPhone has a lot going for them, but I gotta say some of the Androids look pretty nice too.
Can I use an Android phone with my Mac?
You're the right customer for an Android - you're a geek. That wasn't an insult.
I have my doubts. There's a lot that people may not like, and it is not at all finished yet. It is missing basic stuff like multitasking.
I mean two years out. And I don't mean more overall, I mean more per quarter by then. 2 years after release Microsoft will begin to show signs of moving past Google in the mobile phone department.
I don't think that makes any sense.
RIM, for example, has many different phones, but they do not dominate.
There are scads of different Symbian smartphones, but they do not dominate.
I see no correlation between the variety of handsets on an OS and the dominance of the OS. Indeed, iOS once dominated despite its lack of hardware variety.
Instead, I think that Android's dominance of the smartphone market is for other reasons, including, but not limited to, the fact that most people like it better than the other OS choices.
Comparisons to RIM are appropos in this case because RIM operates an ecosystem with their own hardware/handsets - they do not release Blackberry OS to all the handset makers, and therefore is comparable to iOS, but not Android. There are sixteen or so active BB handsets, out of the twenty or so handsets total, with another subset of other handsets not made by RIM who can run the BB email-client, but not the OS.
There are a total of 162 handsets for Nokia that actually run the Symbian OS as a "smartphone" depending on the interface and version of Symbian. SO let's be generous and include all of the Sony/Eriksson, Siemens, Samsung, Panasonic, Motorola, LG, DoMoCo, Benq and Arima handsets with the Nokia ones. So this actually makes Symbian more like Android or WinMo than iOS.
But this begs the question. AT NO TIME DID THE IPHONE DOMINATE ANY MARKET! Look carefully. US market - RIM held that. Worldwide - Nokia has that. So what are we comparing then?
If it is the OS IN USE (not sale per time period) on a given handset, Nokia clearly owns dominance in the world with Symbian. If the US market alone, then RIM still holds that, based on reports used by GigaOm by Gartner. Notably, Symbian is an also-ran in the US currently, but commands world-wide. In fact world-wide It is, in descending order, Symbian, RIM, iPhone*, WinMo, Linux and Android.
*does not include iOS running on any other Apple device.
One of the huge issue with the numbers being reported is the failure to account for the difference between device manufacturer, exclusive versus licensed eocsystems, and comparing OS numbers to devices numbers. Those are comparison mistakes that in some cases are deliberate in order to cast one supplier against another in the most favorable light. If you reference installed base which is the only valid measure of market penetration, and device against device, you get a much clearer picture and can actually speak fact to opinion.
Gads... I hope that bloody at&t exclusive ends soon. Apple's desire for a secure return with at&t has ceded so much ground to Android, it's like the desktop wars all over again with Android playing the part of Windows. Fulfill the pent-up demand for the iPhone, Apple!
I remember when the iPhone first came out and we found out there was a 5-year exclusive agreement with ATT. We all thought that was nuts! Not that there was an exclusive agreement, but that it was 5 years! That's eons in the cell phone game, and Apple really should have known that that was too long to be tied to a single carrier.
Android may be doing well now, but I don't think it has legs. That platform is going to suffer from fragmentation...
Has anyone ever attempted to quantify the effect of fragmentation? If Android has about twice the sales as the iPhone, but it's "fragmented" what is the net effect? Yes, there are differences between the various Android platforms. But there are also similarities. The differences hold them back (usabilty, dev support, marketing, etc), but the shear volume of similar devices gives them momentum and inertia.
If Android has twice the marketshare, but fragmentation makes them 1/3 less "effective" (for lack of a better term), then they are still leading the pack.
I believe that people who buy Android phones instead of iPhones overwhelmingly do so for only two reasons:
1. In the USA, they want to use Verizon instead of AT&T
2. They can't afford an iPhone and, generally speaking, have a very small amount of disposable income.
3. They don't like the iPhone form factor.
Apple should try to find ways to diversify the iPhone offering. Even if that has an impact on the developers due to the dreaded fragmentation factor, if they can provide a single development environment to target multiple iOS devices, that's still going to be easier than developers targeting the vast array of Android devcies, right?
I still think an iPhone nano (think the current nano as a flip-phone) would get folks into the Apple camp. Get them using iTunes to manage their phone to sync music, contacts, events (think about it, EVERY cell phone has these functions, and yet nobody uses them because it's either disabled by the carrier or too complicated to figure out). Then when it's time for them to upgrade to a smart phone with applications and web browsing, an iOS device is the logical choice.
It's radically different from the desktop wars. Apple never had the kind of marketshare with the Mac that it has with the iPhone, and Apple never had the kind of financial strength that it has now. Plus, Android is a hollow imitator of the Windows business model. Google is depending on (and ceding power to) their OEM partners much more heavily than MS ever did, which is going to lead to fragmentation and degradation of the Android brand.
I believe in the early years of the Mac Apple had 20+% market share. That was when most PCs were still running DOS and Windows was still working out its kinks. And personal computers were mainly used in offices and schools.
From that viewpoint, it's very similar to today's smartphone market. A few years ago smartphone were mostly only for business folks. Apple comes along and makes them easier to use, gains quick market share. It will take time for Android to work out the kinds, but like MS & Windows, they may eventually get it sorted out enough that people choose it over Apple's limited and expensive options.
Comparisons to RIM are appropo in this case?.
apropos?
- iPhone is and has been since it's debut, the most popular smartphone in decades, possibly ever.
How many decades have smartphones been available? Somehow I missed that part of computing history...
Anyway this forum is exactly the same discussion people had 20-30 years ago in Apple vs PC. That's all I have to say on the matter.
I doubt shareholders smile when they see 100% market penetration and $0 gross profits.
Android's only hope of dominance is people "judging it by it's cover." It's only when you actually have one in your hand that you can see how clunky and poorly designed it is compared to an iPhone or iOS software. It's only when you look closely that you see the lack of smoothness and sense in the UI, it's only when you start to use it in depth that the wonky settings and general "Linuxy" aspects of it start to bite you in the bum.
Sorry there Professor, as I mentioned many times before, using a bunch of Fanyboy terms like "clunky" won't work in 2010. Apple is playing in the big leagues now, trying to sell a product to the masses, not a small group of mind dead drones.
Android phones are no more "clunky" than your iPhone is "elegant"... Android is going to take over the smartphone market and the developers will follow...
Jobs obviously learned nothing in 1984.
Vote for Steve as Fortunes's 2010 businessperson of the year!
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...oll/index.html
Don't worry. They'll give it to him anyway.
Guarantees good newsstand sales.
I believe in the early years of the Mac Apple had 20+% market share.
Personal Computer Market Share 1975-2005
http://jeremyreimer.com/postman/node/329
(link is a source for Wiki's Apple Inc. page, so it should have some credibility)
If this trend continues, it is likely that many devs will switch from iOS to Android. It seems that Android will swamp iOS soon.
This is the big question, since these are really "App Phones". Right now it's a lot harder to actually make money selling into the Android market than it is on the iOS market. Despite Android having higher market share, they have a much, much lower share of the money developers are making. The delta isn't even close; last I checked it's over a billion dolalrs more that have gone to iOS developers.
Right now things are still developed for iPhone and ported to Android, and that doesn't seem to be changing at the moment despite the market share. It'll be interesting to see how it unfolds over the next couple years.
I want to see bank account statements.
I doubt shareholders smile when they see 100% market penetration and $0 gross profits.
Yeah, that's exactly what I wonder too when I buy ANY product, .. How much does the manufacture make?
I'm going out shopping for a new boat and kitchen cabinets. Since I now know what is really important, can you advise me what companies that manufacture boats and cabinets make the most money?
Android's global market share is still in single digits outside the US. In fact, with the exception of China at 13%, its share is only 1 or 2% in every other country. (China suffers from the same problem as the US market in only having one carrier with the phone. And even then it has been officially sold for only about a year at that.)
Android continues to do well in the US ONLY because of the AT&T exclusive deal, and because the other carriers are giving Android devices away for free! (Just as they are with RIM devices.) The problem in the US is that the commodity company (the carriers), are giving away the added value product (smartphones) for free thus driving the entire market to commodity status, while Apple continues to sweep up the majority of the profit.
I am wondering where you are getting your data from. 1-2% is probably about right in most poorer countries where Symbian tends to dominate, but in most wealthy nations I believe the percentage is much higher. That said, the US is one of the only countries where Android is actually beating the iPhone in sales. Once it is available on more networks it will have a good chance of being able to beat out Android in terms of shipments.
The iPhone is likely coming to Verizon soon, so Apple?s share of smartphones will continue to climb. On the other hand, Android will have its share taken away by Windows Phone 7, HPalm, etc.
Palm have a good OS, but don't have good hardware or a large platform. Apple should have bought up Palm, but they were too expensive.
apropos?
corrected