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.
This is a common mistake made in these types of discussions. Apple's smartphone marketshare is absolutely unprecedented in the company's computer-selling history (iPod is another story, obviously). The Mac was a money loser for its first few years on the market, and the bulk of Apple's profits came from the apple 2 for most of the 1980s. Even the Apple II was not nearly as big of a deal as man people believe today, at least in terms of marketshare.
The huge volume of iPhones that Apple now sells gives them the economies of scale that they never had with the Mac, and the ability to really leverage their vertical integration like never before.
Apple's iPhone was the best-selling smartphone in the third quarter of 2010, taking 26.2 percent of the market, but the wide variety of handsets running Google's Android represented a commanding 43.6 percent.
In related news, sales of all General Motors cars combined were greater than sales of the Toyota Camry.
Who cares? Apple isn't interested in market share. They're interested in profits - and have done extremely well for the last 10 years or so.
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.
Just like how I view iOS's notification system as "clunky" and Android's as 'elegant".
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.
Your point 2 does not make a whole lot of sense, given that a high end Android phone costs the same as an iPhone 4 and you can get an iPhone 3G3 for $99. Cost of ownership simply is not a differentiating factor.
DOnt kid yourself. Only those close to the tech see fragmentation. COnsumers looking for a deal will buy android and the sales prove it. The past is the past-whether Verizon or Apple is to blame is irrelevant. Apple needs to diversify to the other carriers or android will consume 75 percent of the market within two years. But with only one carrier that is already maxed out, Apple is doomed if they dont swallow their pride and release for all the major players. Android will still win but not by as much.
This is why I say that Android doesn't have legs. Yes, it can do well in the short term, because you're quite right that consumers aren't focused on an esoteric issue like fragmentation. But consumers will eventually feel the effects of fragmentation, even though they don't know that fragmentation is the cause. When they find that they can't upgrade their OS because they bought the "wrong" Android phone, or that they can't install an app their friend has because they bought the "wrong" Android phone, or that they can't call google to get support for Android, or that the UI on their new Android phone is strangely different from the UI on their old one (or their friend's) -- that's when the effects of fragmentation will be felt. That's when user satisfaction numbers start to decline. That's when people start looking to alternatives.
Consider this -- we all know that the Mac "lost" the desktop war, right? If so, how is it that Apple has been making marketshare gains with the Mac for the last 5 years straight? At least part of the answer is that Apple provides many of the same advantages in the Mac that it provides in the iPhone, and even though Apple lacks the huge economies of scale with the Mac that it has with the iPhone, those advantages are still compelling for many people. In a way, the iPhone combines the advantages of the Mac with huge economies of scale that the Mac never had. Android is Windows, but with greater fragmentation (and resulting entropy) and less control/responsibility for the platform being taken by the OS creator.
(But I totally agree that Apple should get the iPhone on Verizon ASAP)
I"m truly amazed at the comments in these forums whenever an article like this comes out. The Jobs loyalists just can't seem to realize that this is good news for everyone. Jobs is feeling the pressure to build better devices. He can't just sit back on his laurels. The competition is too fierce.
Just accept the fact that Android is outselling the iPhone and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future BUT that this will relegate the iPhone not to "lesser" status but to a superior alternative.
Has anyone on here actually sat down and compared devices, such as:
Droid X to iP4
Incredible to iP4
Epic 4G to iP4
Well, I have, and those 3 Android devices, I'm sorry to say, blow the iP4 out of the water. Yes, the iP4 is GORGEOUS and the UI is simply beautiful, etc. But you get more out of the other devices by far--more power, more customization, more options, more more more.
Wait for the next iPhone to come out next year--it will set the bar for the next round of Android devices to jump over.
I would say "blows out of the water" is rather subjective. As an Android user, I'd certainly say that Android is more difficult to use compared to the iPhone. That said, it's not the insurmountable learning curve that most posters on here make it out to be. I'd argue that it's only marginally more difficult to use than the iPhone. And that the loss of ease of use is being traded for a huge increase in functionality. That works for some. Not for others.
In my observation though, for those who criticize, it's a comfort level issue. I've never owned an iPhone, so I find it awkward to use one. I'm always feeling for the hard back button and I miss haptic feedback when I type. I am sure, most iPhone owners handling an Android device, probably feel just as awkward and so they write off Android completely as "unusuable". And that's what I disagree with.
I think the iPhone has it's biggest drawbacks on hardware actually. Beautiful as the iPhone 4 is, the lack of a keyboard option, the lack of choice in screen sizes, with the iPhone 4 actually having a screen on the smaller end of even most Android devices, probably costs it a few sales (not that Jobs is crying over these lost sales).
Anyway, I really think the differences between the platforms are vastly overblown. And certainly, among my friends and family, nobody seems to think the iPhone is sooo much more superior than my Android device. In most cases, they are actually torn. They love the increased functionality (free navigation for example) but will readily admit that they are used to the iPhone, have paid up for many apps and so they can't imagine switching. I would imagine it's that way for most users. I really think this contest will come down to new smartphone buyers, not existing ones.
Well that's a very stupid generalization you made. All the high-end Android devices sell for the same contract price as the iPhone 4 and with more or less the exact same plan prices too.
True. And his first point about Most people flocking to Verizon instead of AT@T last quarter is dead wrong. AT&T gained something like 2.6 million net new customers, whereas Verizon got less than a million. Sprint's number was in the 400,000's. This is with the common lore about AT&T being so bad that people rather wait or pass on the iPhone and stay with Verizon instead. So who is selling and who is buying all these Android-based phones?
Go back and look at Smartphone sales by Motorola (3.8 million), HTC (6.3 - all Android based?), Samsung (7.9 million -total, not just Android) , and Sony Ericsson (5.2 million) which came out in the last week or so. Add them all up (the Android-based ones) and compare them with Apple's 14.1 million. So i't about 23 million versus 14 million assuming they are all Android based and not Windows Mobile/Phone, or Bada, etc.
"Since its launch in June, Galaxy S has been rolled out in 90 countries and has been selected by 210 carriers worldwide. Samsung projects sales of 10 million units by the end of 2010."
Projected 10 million units in 7 months, or less than 5 million average per quarter.
"Driving this was the worldwide release of its Galaxy S i9000 smartphone, as well as its bada-based Wave model. Samsung has now sold 7 million Galaxy S smartphones and 2 million Wave devices since their launches)."
This would suggest about (7/9)x7.9=6.2 million were Android-based. Now you are comparing 21.3 vs. 14.1. These numbers are worldwide shipments. Now if you ask what portion of sales were to markets like China where Android-based phones have a huge advantage, and consider the popular lore in US about relative quality of Verizon and AT&T networks, as well as the numbers of new subscribers for the quarter, you'd have to admit that there is something not quite right about the chart in this article.
(link is a source for Wiki's Apple Inc. page, so it should have some credibility)
Thanks for the link. I was trying to find a reference before making my post, but didn't find anything good. So I was going on memory. Perhaps the stat I am remembering was for GUI based computers (ie, Mac v Windows, etc). Take out all the DOS-running PCs and perhaps that's where the 20% figure was coming from?
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.
I'll believe it when I see it. I am in the minority here but somehow I doubt Verizon will pass up the control they have, through their Android handsets, for a handset on which they basically have no revenue generating opportunities beyond the handset sale.
While their Android lockdown has been bad for consumers, it's been remarkably good for Verizon.
And I suspect that's exactly why they may have passed on Windows Phone 7. No opportunity to push their own services.
No, marketshare matters because developers are going to go where they can get the most bang for their buck.. Don't believe me??? For years I've had to use software on my Mac that's "just like", or "better than", or "similar to"...
I want to run the most popular software in the world on my Mac that exists for the PC (and please, don't bring up "dual booting or parallels") not a substitute .... Fact is the Mac has about 5% of the world market in PC's. Because of that FACT, the same software isn't available, and I don't blame the developers 1 bit.
The same thing will happen with iOS and Android. Fanboys will come to this and other Mac forums and scream a bunch of group-speak fanboy terms like "clunky", "crappy", "ugly", and "fragmented" while the rest of the world moves on and they're running whatever bit of software is available on their "elegant", "gorgeous", "sexy" and "delicious" iOS device...
The most bang for the buck for developers is iOS. While Android marketshare has grown considerably, profit for Android developers hasn't matched that growth. Android users aren't spending money on apps in the same way that they are on iOS devices. Free (Ad based) apps are great for users, but not so great for developers. With Apple loosening their grip on the AppStore guidelines, they give yet more reasons for developers to continue to develop for iOS 1st and then Android.
No, marketshare matters because developers are going to go where they can get the most bang for their buck.. Don't believe me??? For years I've had to use software on my Mac that's "just like", or "better than", or "similar to"...
I want to run the most popular software in the world on my Mac that exists for the PC (and please, don't bring up "dual booting or parallels") not a substitute .... Fact is the Mac has about 5% of the world market in PC's. Because of that FACT, the same software isn't available, and I don't blame the developers 1 bit.
The same thing will happen with iOS and Android. Fanboys will come to this and other Mac forums and scream a bunch of group-speak fanboy terms like "clunky", "crappy", "ugly", and "fragmented" while the rest of the world moves on and they're running whatever bit of software is available on their "elegant", "gorgeous", "sexy" and "delicious" iOS device...
Marketshare is an undefined variable. the iPhone only has 4% of the handset market in the world yet where are devs making the most money on 3rd-party apps for handsets? Java-based apps had a near monopoly of the “marketshare” and still outnumber anything that only runs on Android because Android also runs Java, but where are the devs that want to make money?
The reason you are wrong and will continue to be wrong is your inability to look at the big picture. It’s not about marketshare, it’s about the developer’s realistic goals of making as much money as possible for the amount of the effort they put into their app. Devs don’t care if Java apps are the most common for any handset to use across the globe if 1) people aren’t going to seek them out, 2) people aren’t going to pay for them because they specifically choose a cheap or free wth contract phone because they are cheap, or 3) because the amount of effort to debug and test across a non-linear cycle of HW and OSes with fluctuation complications of other 3rd-party apps that can and will affect their product. That’s to name a few of the big ones. If you are a lone developer and you haven’t considered these issues then you have already failed. Apple may have streamlined the system to make such devs profitable but they can’t fix stupid.
"Android phones" is a smoke screen and misnomer. There was only ONE "Android phone" and that was the Nexus One. There are currently many phones running variants of the Android OS, but they are categorically NOT "Android phones". This includes the routinely and deliberately ignored mass of android OS versions 1.5 and 1.6, which is still the vast majority of the so-called "android phone" marketshare. Most of the champions of Android OS don't want detractors looking at that simple fact, and instead point sales increase percentages, sales increase percentages in the US particularly, and ignore the fact that Android on one handset can be radically different than Android on another handset.
Oh please. First off, most apps are written so they run on 1.6. Next, the vast majority (something like 3/4 of the Android installed base) is on 2.1 or higher and that number is growing rapidly month by month.
Not to say fragmentation isn't real and something that has to be addressed sooner rather than later, but it is overblown, and unless you have a very dated handset, you really aren't going to suffer massively for picking up an Android device. For the most part, the fragmentation boogieman is more FUD than fact.
And the proof is in the pudding. If it's that big an issue, why aren't Android sales stumbling?
Oh please. First off, most apps are written so they run on 1.6. Next, the vast majority (something like 3/4 of the Android installed base) is on 2.1 or higher and that number is growing rapidly month by month.
Not to say fragmentation isn't real and something that has to be addressed sooner rather than later, but it is overblown, and unless you have a very dated handset, you really aren't going to suffer massively for picking up an Android device. For the most part, the fragmentation boogieman is more FUD than fact.
And the proof is in the pudding. If it's that big an issue, why aren't Android sales stumbling?
There are two vectors for Androids growth.
1) The US - apparently 50% of the smart phone market. Where they sell 9.1 M, or half their total. 43% of the US market.
2) China, probably most of the rest. Androids are not really visible anywhere else. I have not seen one in the wild in the UK, for instance. A few angry geeks where I work. Thats it.
So Android has 43% of the US market, and that is half it's market. Pretty much. Apple's market is mostly outside the US, where it sells 9 M, about equal to Android. And so,when both markets, China and US come available next year with the release of the iPhone CDMA phone. Android;s day is done.
Microsoft's approach with WP7 is a combination of Apple and Google approach. It's available on different handsets from different manufacturers but MS is putting a tighter grip and more say as far as requirements for WP7 to be in manufacturers hardware so it doesn't get out of hand and fragmented. The missing feature will come soon enough..
Your point 2 does not make a whole lot of sense, given that a high end Android phone costs the same as an iPhone 4 and you can get an iPhone 3G3 for $99. Cost of ownership simply is not a differentiating factor.
I as already stated in this thread once: It's not simply about cost at point of purchase, but cost after purchase. The number of free applications in the Android market versus... every other app store is heavily in favor of free apps. It's cheaper to own an Android phone with you pay so little for apps.
"The Android Market version is currently ad-supported, but Rovio said it will soon add a paid version that will not include ads. "We will bring it out once we have sorted out some of the problems we seem to have with some devices. Not that many, but still," Rovio said. The company went with an ad-supported model first because "paid apps have not done very well on Android," it said."
with 100% market share out for the taking, lets say Apple has 30%. That is 30% all by themselves. meanwhile the remaining 70% is composed of lets say 20 different handset makers, each with like 20 different variations of cell phone. I think you'd agree that Apple is doing just fine. This is a numbers game. Period. Apple's margins in this cell phone business may be small but they are competing with no one in their margin.
Comments
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.
Nope -- http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2...otal-share.ars.
This is a common mistake made in these types of discussions. Apple's smartphone marketshare is absolutely unprecedented in the company's computer-selling history (iPod is another story, obviously). The Mac was a money loser for its first few years on the market, and the bulk of Apple's profits came from the apple 2 for most of the 1980s. Even the Apple II was not nearly as big of a deal as man people believe today, at least in terms of marketshare.
The huge volume of iPhones that Apple now sells gives them the economies of scale that they never had with the Mac, and the ability to really leverage their vertical integration like never before.
Apple's iPhone was the best-selling smartphone in the third quarter of 2010, taking 26.2 percent of the market, but the wide variety of handsets running Google's Android represented a commanding 43.6 percent.
In related news, sales of all General Motors cars combined were greater than sales of the Toyota Camry.
Who cares? Apple isn't interested in market share. They're interested in profits - and have done extremely well for the last 10 years or so.
And Android as an OS is being picked more.
No.
Android may be the most popular smart phone OS in the US... but "more people" (57% vs 43%) are buying something else.
Thank you for playing, Asian Bob.
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.
Just like how I view iOS's notification system as "clunky" and Android's as 'elegant".
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.
Your point 2 does not make a whole lot of sense, given that a high end Android phone costs the same as an iPhone 4 and you can get an iPhone 3G3 for $99. Cost of ownership simply is not a differentiating factor.
DOnt kid yourself. Only those close to the tech see fragmentation. COnsumers looking for a deal will buy android and the sales prove it. The past is the past-whether Verizon or Apple is to blame is irrelevant. Apple needs to diversify to the other carriers or android will consume 75 percent of the market within two years. But with only one carrier that is already maxed out, Apple is doomed if they dont swallow their pride and release for all the major players. Android will still win but not by as much.
This is why I say that Android doesn't have legs. Yes, it can do well in the short term, because you're quite right that consumers aren't focused on an esoteric issue like fragmentation. But consumers will eventually feel the effects of fragmentation, even though they don't know that fragmentation is the cause. When they find that they can't upgrade their OS because they bought the "wrong" Android phone, or that they can't install an app their friend has because they bought the "wrong" Android phone, or that they can't call google to get support for Android, or that the UI on their new Android phone is strangely different from the UI on their old one (or their friend's) -- that's when the effects of fragmentation will be felt. That's when user satisfaction numbers start to decline. That's when people start looking to alternatives.
Consider this -- we all know that the Mac "lost" the desktop war, right? If so, how is it that Apple has been making marketshare gains with the Mac for the last 5 years straight? At least part of the answer is that Apple provides many of the same advantages in the Mac that it provides in the iPhone, and even though Apple lacks the huge economies of scale with the Mac that it has with the iPhone, those advantages are still compelling for many people. In a way, the iPhone combines the advantages of the Mac with huge economies of scale that the Mac never had. Android is Windows, but with greater fragmentation (and resulting entropy) and less control/responsibility for the platform being taken by the OS creator.
(But I totally agree that Apple should get the iPhone on Verizon ASAP)
I"m truly amazed at the comments in these forums whenever an article like this comes out. The Jobs loyalists just can't seem to realize that this is good news for everyone. Jobs is feeling the pressure to build better devices. He can't just sit back on his laurels. The competition is too fierce.
Just accept the fact that Android is outselling the iPhone and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future BUT that this will relegate the iPhone not to "lesser" status but to a superior alternative.
Has anyone on here actually sat down and compared devices, such as:
Droid X to iP4
Incredible to iP4
Epic 4G to iP4
Well, I have, and those 3 Android devices, I'm sorry to say, blow the iP4 out of the water. Yes, the iP4 is GORGEOUS and the UI is simply beautiful, etc. But you get more out of the other devices by far--more power, more customization, more options, more more more.
Wait for the next iPhone to come out next year--it will set the bar for the next round of Android devices to jump over.
I would say "blows out of the water" is rather subjective. As an Android user, I'd certainly say that Android is more difficult to use compared to the iPhone. That said, it's not the insurmountable learning curve that most posters on here make it out to be. I'd argue that it's only marginally more difficult to use than the iPhone. And that the loss of ease of use is being traded for a huge increase in functionality. That works for some. Not for others.
In my observation though, for those who criticize, it's a comfort level issue. I've never owned an iPhone, so I find it awkward to use one. I'm always feeling for the hard back button and I miss haptic feedback when I type. I am sure, most iPhone owners handling an Android device, probably feel just as awkward and so they write off Android completely as "unusuable". And that's what I disagree with.
I think the iPhone has it's biggest drawbacks on hardware actually. Beautiful as the iPhone 4 is, the lack of a keyboard option, the lack of choice in screen sizes, with the iPhone 4 actually having a screen on the smaller end of even most Android devices, probably costs it a few sales (not that Jobs is crying over these lost sales).
Anyway, I really think the differences between the platforms are vastly overblown. And certainly, among my friends and family, nobody seems to think the iPhone is sooo much more superior than my Android device. In most cases, they are actually torn. They love the increased functionality (free navigation for example) but will readily admit that they are used to the iPhone, have paid up for many apps and so they can't imagine switching. I would imagine it's that way for most users. I really think this contest will come down to new smartphone buyers, not existing ones.
Well that's a very stupid generalization you made. All the high-end Android devices sell for the same contract price as the iPhone 4 and with more or less the exact same plan prices too.
True. And his first point about Most people flocking to Verizon instead of AT@T last quarter is dead wrong. AT&T gained something like 2.6 million net new customers, whereas Verizon got less than a million. Sprint's number was in the 400,000's. This is with the common lore about AT&T being so bad that people rather wait or pass on the iPhone and stay with Verizon instead. So who is selling and who is buying all these Android-based phones?
Go back and look at Smartphone sales by Motorola (3.8 million), HTC (6.3 - all Android based?), Samsung (7.9 million -total, not just Android) , and Sony Ericsson (5.2 million) which came out in the last week or so. Add them all up (the Android-based ones) and compare them with Apple's 14.1 million. So i't about 23 million versus 14 million assuming they are all Android based and not Windows Mobile/Phone, or Bada, etc.
http://www.techzone360.com//topics/t...d-the-ugly.htm
"Since its launch in June, Galaxy S has been rolled out in 90 countries and has been selected by 210 carriers worldwide. Samsung projects sales of 10 million units by the end of 2010."
Projected 10 million units in 7 months, or less than 5 million average per quarter.
Again re Samsung - http://forums.appleinsider.com/newre...eply&p=1744617
"Driving this was the worldwide release of its Galaxy S i9000 smartphone, as well as its bada-based Wave model. Samsung has now sold 7 million Galaxy S smartphones and 2 million Wave devices since their launches)."
This would suggest about (7/9)x7.9=6.2 million were Android-based. Now you are comparing 21.3 vs. 14.1. These numbers are worldwide shipments. Now if you ask what portion of sales were to markets like China where Android-based phones have a huge advantage, and consider the popular lore in US about relative quality of Verizon and AT&T networks, as well as the numbers of new subscribers for the quarter, you'd have to admit that there is something not quite right about the chart in this article.
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)
Thanks for the link. I was trying to find a reference before making my post, but didn't find anything good. So I was going on memory. Perhaps the stat I am remembering was for GUI based computers (ie, Mac v Windows, etc). Take out all the DOS-running PCs and perhaps that's where the 20% figure was coming from?
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.
I'll believe it when I see it. I am in the minority here but somehow I doubt Verizon will pass up the control they have, through their Android handsets, for a handset on which they basically have no revenue generating opportunities beyond the handset sale.
While their Android lockdown has been bad for consumers, it's been remarkably good for Verizon.
And I suspect that's exactly why they may have passed on Windows Phone 7. No opportunity to push their own services.
No, marketshare matters because developers are going to go where they can get the most bang for their buck.. Don't believe me??? For years I've had to use software on my Mac that's "just like", or "better than", or "similar to"...
I want to run the most popular software in the world on my Mac that exists for the PC (and please, don't bring up "dual booting or parallels") not a substitute .... Fact is the Mac has about 5% of the world market in PC's. Because of that FACT, the same software isn't available, and I don't blame the developers 1 bit.
The same thing will happen with iOS and Android. Fanboys will come to this and other Mac forums and scream a bunch of group-speak fanboy terms like "clunky", "crappy", "ugly", and "fragmented" while the rest of the world moves on and they're running whatever bit of software is available on their "elegant", "gorgeous", "sexy" and "delicious" iOS device...
The most bang for the buck for developers is iOS. While Android marketshare has grown considerably, profit for Android developers hasn't matched that growth. Android users aren't spending money on apps in the same way that they are on iOS devices. Free (Ad based) apps are great for users, but not so great for developers. With Apple loosening their grip on the AppStore guidelines, they give yet more reasons for developers to continue to develop for iOS 1st and then Android.
No, marketshare matters because developers are going to go where they can get the most bang for their buck.. Don't believe me??? For years I've had to use software on my Mac that's "just like", or "better than", or "similar to"...
I want to run the most popular software in the world on my Mac that exists for the PC (and please, don't bring up "dual booting or parallels") not a substitute .... Fact is the Mac has about 5% of the world market in PC's. Because of that FACT, the same software isn't available, and I don't blame the developers 1 bit.
The same thing will happen with iOS and Android. Fanboys will come to this and other Mac forums and scream a bunch of group-speak fanboy terms like "clunky", "crappy", "ugly", and "fragmented" while the rest of the world moves on and they're running whatever bit of software is available on their "elegant", "gorgeous", "sexy" and "delicious" iOS device...
Marketshare is an undefined variable. the iPhone only has 4% of the handset market in the world yet where are devs making the most money on 3rd-party apps for handsets? Java-based apps had a near monopoly of the “marketshare” and still outnumber anything that only runs on Android because Android also runs Java, but where are the devs that want to make money?
The reason you are wrong and will continue to be wrong is your inability to look at the big picture. It’s not about marketshare, it’s about the developer’s realistic goals of making as much money as possible for the amount of the effort they put into their app. Devs don’t care if Java apps are the most common for any handset to use across the globe if 1) people aren’t going to seek them out, 2) people aren’t going to pay for them because they specifically choose a cheap or free wth contract phone because they are cheap, or 3) because the amount of effort to debug and test across a non-linear cycle of HW and OSes with fluctuation complications of other 3rd-party apps that can and will affect their product. That’s to name a few of the big ones. If you are a lone developer and you haven’t considered these issues then you have already failed. Apple may have streamlined the system to make such devs profitable but they can’t fix stupid.
edit: Succinctly pipped by depannist
"Android phones" is a smoke screen and misnomer. There was only ONE "Android phone" and that was the Nexus One. There are currently many phones running variants of the Android OS, but they are categorically NOT "Android phones". This includes the routinely and deliberately ignored mass of android OS versions 1.5 and 1.6, which is still the vast majority of the so-called "android phone" marketshare. Most of the champions of Android OS don't want detractors looking at that simple fact, and instead point sales increase percentages, sales increase percentages in the US particularly, and ignore the fact that Android on one handset can be radically different than Android on another handset.
Oh please. First off, most apps are written so they run on 1.6. Next, the vast majority (something like 3/4 of the Android installed base) is on 2.1 or higher and that number is growing rapidly month by month.
Not to say fragmentation isn't real and something that has to be addressed sooner rather than later, but it is overblown, and unless you have a very dated handset, you really aren't going to suffer massively for picking up an Android device. For the most part, the fragmentation boogieman is more FUD than fact.
And the proof is in the pudding. If it's that big an issue, why aren't Android sales stumbling?
Free (Ad based) apps are great for users, but not so great for developers.
Please pass on that tidbit to Rovio.
Oh please. First off, most apps are written so they run on 1.6. Next, the vast majority (something like 3/4 of the Android installed base) is on 2.1 or higher and that number is growing rapidly month by month.
Not to say fragmentation isn't real and something that has to be addressed sooner rather than later, but it is overblown, and unless you have a very dated handset, you really aren't going to suffer massively for picking up an Android device. For the most part, the fragmentation boogieman is more FUD than fact.
And the proof is in the pudding. If it's that big an issue, why aren't Android sales stumbling?
There are two vectors for Androids growth.
1) The US - apparently 50% of the smart phone market. Where they sell 9.1 M, or half their total. 43% of the US market.
2) China, probably most of the rest. Androids are not really visible anywhere else. I have not seen one in the wild in the UK, for instance. A few angry geeks where I work. Thats it.
So Android has 43% of the US market, and that is half it's market. Pretty much. Apple's market is mostly outside the US, where it sells 9 M, about equal to Android. And so,when both markets, China and US come available next year with the release of the iPhone CDMA phone. Android;s day is done.
Next year: The empire strikes back.
1) Android users have very little software lockdown. Its all free to them.
2) Surveys show that Android users are less reluctant to switch.
Microsoft's approach with WP7 is a combination of Apple and Google approach. It's available on different handsets from different manufacturers but MS is putting a tighter grip and more say as far as requirements for WP7 to be in manufacturers hardware so it doesn't get out of hand and fragmented. The missing feature will come soon enough..
Copy and paste?
Your point 2 does not make a whole lot of sense, given that a high end Android phone costs the same as an iPhone 4 and you can get an iPhone 3G3 for $99. Cost of ownership simply is not a differentiating factor.
I as already stated in this thread once: It's not simply about cost at point of purchase, but cost after purchase. The number of free applications in the Android market versus... every other app store is heavily in favor of free apps. It's cheaper to own an Android phone with you pay so little for apps.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/05/distimo-june-2010/
Please pass on that tidbit to Rovio.
who said, in a recent press release
"The Android Market version is currently ad-supported, but Rovio said it will soon add a paid version that will not include ads. "We will bring it out once we have sorted out some of the problems we seem to have with some devices. Not that many, but still," Rovio said. The company went with an ad-supported model first because "paid apps have not done very well on Android," it said."
with 100% market share out for the taking, lets say Apple has 30%. That is 30% all by themselves. meanwhile the remaining 70% is composed of lets say 20 different handset makers, each with like 20 different variations of cell phone. I think you'd agree that Apple is doing just fine. This is a numbers game. Period. Apple's margins in this cell phone business may be small but they are competing with no one in their margin.
HELLO!!!!!