If we going to measure revenue by support systems, then Google can claim pretty much every modern OS out there since they are the default search engine on most (if not all) of them. It?s like Apple saying they make billions or a year from WebKit because it was the truly great part of the original iPhone that no one could compete with.
True, but you can't say that Android is generating zero revenue at all for Google.
Quote:
But Google isn't giving away a vital smartphone component out of the goodness of its heart. Its plan is to make money by driving mobile users to enter searches, both on its mobile site and through pre-installed apps that route traffic to Google. It also gets a 30% cut of Android Marketplace app purchases, and sells in-app ads for outside developers through its AdMob network.
By 2013, Android will be a $4 billion-a-year business for the company...
If you took out every single other smartphone device Google's on besides Android, Google would still be making money off of it.
Well I prefer to plug my iPhone in while tethering so I use the MacBooks much larger battery as a power source.
I also like not having my Internet connection drop when a call comes in and the fact that the average download speed on my HSDPA based network is higher than the Droids peak CDMA speed.
Different strokes for different folks, the grass isn't always greener etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayhammy
I agree with your reasoning. But I find, for example, the Droid Incredible an amazing device that does everything I want and more. Plus, one killer feature that it has (among many) that iPhone doesn't is wireless hotspot. I can hook up my Macbook pro, Mac Pro tower, Windows laptop and anything else to it wirelessly to get to the internet. Up to 8 devices at a time, in fact. Many people are getting Android phones with wireless hotspots along with their Wifi iPads. How ironic!
True, but you can't say that Android is generating zero revenue at all for Google.
If you took out every single other smartphone device Google's on besides Android, Google would still be making money off of it.
True, they do license apps for Android that the vendor (or vendor affiliate) can choose not to include. They surely make money on them, the question is, how much?
Well I prefer to plug my iPhone in while tethering so I use the MacBooks much larger battery as a power source.
I also like not having my Internet connection drop when a call comes in and the fact that the average download speed on my HSDPA based network is higher than the Droids peak CDMA speed.
Different strokes for different folks, the grass isn't always greener etc.
Exactly. I also plug in my Incredible because using it as a "wireless" hotspot for all my devices at the same time does drain the battery. After all, my normal wireless router is plugged in - why wouldn't I plug in my phone that's acting as a wireless hotspot as well?
With the iPhone you buy the case you like, download the apps you like, arrange them on the screen in the way you like and you add the wallpaper you like. After that Apple handles the rest.
That's the iPhone. For better or for worse that's the whole point of the iPhone - like a BMW, you trust that BMW does its part well. You sacrifice total customizability for build, simplicity and the whole it-just-works thing.
I actually DO get it. Like you said, for better or for worse. It's all in perspective. Obviously, millions of people agree with you across the globe on that. However, there are now millions who no longer do agree (who've switched) or who never have.
Remember: my whole point here is not to bash but, rather, to highlight the differences. We all win from competition.
Does anyone really believe that iOS's version of multitasking (limited though it may be) would have been on iOS 4 if iPhone users hadn't complained about not having it? And...logic goes, people complained about not having it because they SAW it on other devices, like Crackberry and Android. If those platforms didn't have it, then most likely it wouldn't have been so highly desired by iPhone users. THAT'S the beauty of competition.
Jobs talks about iOS DEVICES, which fans of Android conveniently overlook in discussions of Android marketshare tending to focus, as they do, only on iPhones.
It will be interesting to see if the same split is applied when devices such as the Galaxy Tab and Dell streak start building Android marketshare.
Actually, I don't think they conveniently overlook this. It's the converse: Apple conveniently puts out their numbers as a whole iOS, instead of breaking it down by iPhone, iPad, iTouch, etc. That would show that when comparing "phone to phone" the iPhone has been surpassed by Android phones.
Folks, this isn't a bad thing: this is normal. There's no way one device from one maker can sustain its trajectory against 20 Android devices (in the US) on multiple carriers. Some of these devices are entry-level, mid-range, and high-end.
And, more importantly, Apple SHOULDN'T try to beat those figures or it will begin to produce phones that are no longer of high quality (think: antennagate and proximity sensor times 10).
If you took out every single other smartphone device Google's on besides Android, Google would still be making money off of it.
I'd like to see the assumptions behind the $4billion dollar figure.
Because I can't work out what they are.
Nokia makes just 8 Euro profit for every phone it sells. This is the profit for actually selling the device. And this is for the lifetime of the device.
If Android is to make $4B annually - It would need to make $8 per device, per year.
And it would need to have half-a-billion Android devices in active service. I don't think any of those figures are remotely achievable.
Where would that money come from? Paid search? Mobile advertising? An ad click brings pennies.
Has anyone ever clicked on a mobile ad ever?
My three Android predictions are:
1) Android will become by far the most popular Mobile OS by far.
2) The revenues for Google will remain poor. <10% of Apple's mobile profits.
3) The profit margins of Android handset manufacturers will tend towards the 0%-8% figure.
They actually aren't overlooked at all. The vast majority of Android devices currently available are smartphones. Hence the comparison to the iPhone only. You have to be a bit logical about this too. If numbers came out for Android devices that included its use in household appliances, cars, airplane entertainment systems, etc, wouldn't you cry foul too?
But I agree that once the Android-powered tablets start becoming more mainstream, I'd like to see how the total numbers compare.
You're trying to have it both ways.
You're arguing that market share is important because developers are concerned about how many devices are out there that will run their app. Then you want to ignore Apple's non-phone devices for some reason.
Rationally, as a developer, you're MOST concerned about how much money you can make - and iOS wins this one hands down.
Next concern is how many devices can run your app. For that, you have to consider ALL iOS devices and ALL Android devices.
The only way that the number of Android phones vs number of iOS phones matters to a developer is if you're making an app that only works on a cell phone.
The only way that the number of Android phones vs number of iOS phones matters to a developer is if you're making an app that only works on a cell phone.
And even then you have to consider the relative likelihood of the different audiences to actually PAY.
Android Market is engineered differently, and isn't available in some territories.
Which might have something to do with the fact that Android customers have not not shown themselves as willing to pay for apps as Apple users.
The base number of units sold is simply not a good proxy for the return of investment.
I played with the default UI for a bit and didn't find it all that bad. But if you look up LauncherPro or ADW.Launcher and use one of them, I bet that a lot of the "buggy UI" problems will go away. I personally use LauncherPro+ (paid version).
As for the "forced updates", I have no idea what you're talking about. My roommate bought his DX a week before the 2.2 update went live and he went weeks without updating it. He never knew one was available until I told him. Android devices will generally notify you when a system update is available (or when you ping the server manually), but I have never heard of it forcing you to update. I have gone through many of these updates on the Droid (2.0 -> 2.0.1 -> 2.1 -> 2.2) and the 2.1 -> 2.2 on the DX and I was never forced to update.
I keep hearing the same thing about the updates not being forced.
I was never prompted to update my phone, It updates itseld over night. Same with my Wife's X.
I'd like to see the assumptions behind the $4billion dollar figure.
Because I can't work out what they are.
Nokia makes just 8 Euro profit for every phone it sells. This is the profit for actually selling the device. And this is for the lifetime of the device.
If Android is to make $4B annually - It would need to make $8 per device, per year.
And it would need to have half-a-billion Android devices in active service. I don't think any of those figures are remotely achievable.
Where would that money come from? Paid search? Mobile advertising? An ad click brings pennies.
Has anyone ever clicked on a mobile ad ever?
My three Android predictions are:
1) Android will become by far the most popular Mobile OS by far.
2) The revenues for Google will remain poor. <10% of Apple's mobile profits.
3) The profit margins of Android handset manufacturers will tend towards the 0%-8% figure.
C.
These are great predictions. I think #1 will be most likely. #2 is wrong because "remain poor" infers that Google's revenue is already bad. Have you seen the latest financial report from Google where they stated that they've made over a billion already from Android? The only way they make money from Android is from ads--the OS is free (open source) and even their own apps are free (maps, sky map, navigation, etc.) They also stated that Android was their "best deal" on any acquisition to date. #3, also wrong. HTC has had tremendous record-breaking year over year profits due almost exclusively to Android. Motorola has also done quite well. Samsung? They're kicking butt with the worldwide launch of the Galaxy S phones.
I keep hearing the same thing about the updates not being forced.
I was never prompted to update my phone, It updates itseld over night. Same with my Wife's X.
I also use LauncherPro which makes my Incredible an entirely different phone. Again, that's the beauty of Android--I can tweak it till my heart's content. Something I don't like, I can change it. iPhone is locked in so all of them, quite ironically, look like Droids (and I don't mean Android Droids).
I predict this will change as Jobs feels the pressure to allow more customization to the platform.
You're arguing that market share is important because developers are concerned about how many devices are out there that will run their app. Then you want to ignore Apple's non-phone devices for some reason.
Rationally, as a developer, you're MOST concerned about how much money you can make - and iOS wins this one hands down.
Next concern is how many devices can run your app. For that, you have to consider ALL iOS devices and ALL Android devices.
The only way that the number of Android phones vs number of iOS phones matters to a developer is if you're making an app that only works on a cell phone.
I agree with the person you quoted. He's comparing Apples to Apples (pun intended). That's the only fair way to compare. He's comparing smartphone market penetration to smartphone market penetration. To include iTouch and iPad would be akin to one group comparing apples and other group comparing their apples, oranges, and apricots. You can't do that in true logic.
Android is less mature than iOS. Once the tablet market for Android takes hold, then it would be fair to compare there as well. But it's still, IMHO, best to compare simply apples to apples - only phones to phones.
You're arguing that market share is important because developers are concerned about how many devices are out there that will run their app. Then you want to ignore Apple's non-phone devices for some reason.
Rationally, as a developer, you're MOST concerned about how much money you can make - and iOS wins this one hands down.
Next concern is how many devices can run your app. For that, you have to consider ALL iOS devices and ALL Android devices.
The only way that the number of Android phones vs number of iOS phones matters to a developer is if you're making an app that only works on a cell phone.
I never said anything about claiming that marketshare is important to developers. Seems like you're putting words in my mouth just so you can have something to rant against. All I said is that at the current time, the majority of Android devices are smartphones. Which is why you can say "Android vs. iPhone" (to a point) for now if a company wants to compare smartphone devices.
As time moves on and more and more tablets and other devices running Android hit the market, that comparison will no longer hold and I whole-heartedly agree that we'll have to switch to "Android vs. iOS".
I keep hearing the same thing about the updates not being forced.
I was never prompted to update my phone, It updates itseld over night. Same with my Wife's X.
Based off of the image below, I'm guessing what happened is that somehow, the update was "pushed" to your devices and the timer showed up. You were both asleep, which caused you to miss the window popping up, and thus not be able to postpone the update. Unfortunate timing if anything...
Again, it seems odd because my roommate has went weeks after the 2.2 roll-out without being updated.
I'm curious to what you object to for the update. 2.2 has done nothing but better my DX.
These are great predictions. I think #1 will be most likely. #2 is wrong because "remain poor" infers that Google's revenue is already bad. Have you seen the latest financial report from Google where they stated that they've made over a billion already from Android? The only way they make money from Android is from ads--the OS is free (open source) and even their own apps are free (maps, sky map, navigation, etc.) They also stated that Android was their "best deal" on any acquisition to date. #3, also wrong. HTC has had tremendous record-breaking year over year profits due almost exclusively to Android. Motorola has also done quite well. Samsung? They're kicking butt with the worldwide launch of the Galaxy S phones.
Let's pull that apart.
Google "made a billion on Android"?
Can you cite where and how that figure was derived?
It was an extrapolated figure. Google gives no numbers for profitability. And no numbers for the cost of development. They cite revenues without costs.
The TOTAL number of Android devices in the world is what? <60M. To arrive at a billion dollars Google would have to be making $16 per device per year. That figure does not sound credible unless Google charged vendors.
And we should contrast that with the $300 or so Apple makes per device *before* it sells any services.
On the profitability of Android handset makers. It's obvious that Android is a leveller. There is no great opportunity to add value because the software platform is shared. So Android devices, like Windows clones, simply compete themselves into very low margins.
Let's look at them margins...
It's pretty clear that all the Android vendors are being drawn towards an average of 4% or so.
HTC's margin is FALLING.
Samsung running at 10%.
Motorola made roughly 1$ per device sold! Having risen to a few percent from a negative margin.
First, it's worth noting that if you're concerned about $99, you're not much of a developer.
More importantly, NONE of the things you've listed are the important thing. For a developer hoping to make money, the only question that matters is: "which platform will allow me to make the most money?" The answer is, overwhelmingly at this point, iOS.
Did you read that i said $99 isn't that much? That aside, do you honestly think that $99 isn't a lot to some folks (think outside USA)? Sure if you work for a company that develops app that fee is negligible.
Those things are what I AM looking at, as in things that matter to ME. Some things may not matter to you but I never intended to say that all those reasons are clear cut to everyone.
"which platform will allow me to make the most money?"
Why is the answer so overwhelmingly iOS? You are over simplifying a complicated question. Do you have statistics of how much money a developer gains for selling an app vs ad-supported?
If I can give away 100 apps with ads that give me money at a rate of $1.00 per day vs. selling 10 apps for $0.99, I'd take the ad route this way and earn more money overtime. You shouldn't underestimate the shear size of low-income customers
The story within the mobile development community is that iOS generates about 5-10 times more revenue than any other platform.
C.
For now. And that's the key word.
I have a number of theories about this. I would assert that the iPhone's higher tax bracket clientele is at least in part a function of the iPhone being the first to market. Early smartphone adopters are folks with money. That does not necessarily mean that over time, this same class of wealthy early adopters will stick to the iPhone. But I would assert that with this class of people, ease of use (time is money and none in this class would want to waste time customizing the phone) is probably a major driver keeping them tied to the iPhone. Conversely though, they are also the folks who have enough cash that switching over to another platform (whether BB, Android, WebOS or WP7) is not necessarily daunting.
There's also the age factor. I recently read that Android users tend to be significantly younger than iPhone users. If that's true, that can cut both ways for Apple. Obviously, older folk have more disposable income....more profit today. But today's younger folk become tomorrow's older folk. If those teens and twentysomethings rocking Android today get so used to the platform that they don't want to transition to iOS devices in the future, Apple could have a tough fight some years from now.
Next, given that smartphone penetration is still low, I would suggest that it's still very early in the game. Too early to tell whether the Android model or the iOS app sales models are better. What I would suggest though, is that these market share numbers moving forward are very relevant...because it's all the dumbphone converts that are going to determine who wins the smartphone wars. If Android keeps outselling the iPhone over 1.5 to 1, the Android installed base will start to gain ground on iOS eventually....especially if the existing trajectory holds. There's a real possibility that Android phone sales alone could overtake all iOS device sales in a few years. It's a faint possibility. But I would not dismiss it as a totally implausible scenario. Don't forget that last quarter most people were suggesting that Android outselling the iPhone was a fluke and that the iPhone 4 would have Apple in the lead this quarter.
Also, you can't discount the halo effect. The iPad benefited from the iPhone's halo. Android tablets will certainly experience a similar effect from strong handset sales. So while the iPad's totally dominant today (and I don't see why anybody would buy any other tablet right now), it's a matter of time before Android OEMs catch up on the tablet front, just like their tech caught up on the phone front. And when they do, all those Android phone users will suddenly find themselves oddly familiar and comfortable with Android tablets, just like iPhone users find the learning curve relatively shallow on the iPad.
So this whole 5-10x more profitability argument, is very much a snapshot in time argument and I think most developers recognize that. Going forward, there's a lot of ways this could play out. And I don't think it'd be very wise for any developer to base his planning and resource allocation based on where the market is at today, if he's in it for the long haul. That's not to say, iOS is going to become unprofitable or something....merely that I don't think this 5-10x more profitable argument is going to hold in perpetuity.
...and from a personal perspective.....everybody should just use what's good for them. As much as I enjoy a good debate I would never try and convert someone. People who force their tech on others are as bad as Jehovah's Witness who disturb my weekend sleep!
Comments
If we going to measure revenue by support systems, then Google can claim pretty much every modern OS out there since they are the default search engine on most (if not all) of them. It?s like Apple saying they make billions or a year from WebKit because it was the truly great part of the original iPhone that no one could compete with.
True, but you can't say that Android is generating zero revenue at all for Google.
But Google isn't giving away a vital smartphone component out of the goodness of its heart. Its plan is to make money by driving mobile users to enter searches, both on its mobile site and through pre-installed apps that route traffic to Google. It also gets a 30% cut of Android Marketplace app purchases, and sells in-app ads for outside developers through its AdMob network.
By 2013, Android will be a $4 billion-a-year business for the company...
If you took out every single other smartphone device Google's on besides Android, Google would still be making money off of it.
I also like not having my Internet connection drop when a call comes in and the fact that the average download speed on my HSDPA based network is higher than the Droids peak CDMA speed.
Different strokes for different folks, the grass isn't always greener etc.
I agree with your reasoning. But I find, for example, the Droid Incredible an amazing device that does everything I want and more. Plus, one killer feature that it has (among many) that iPhone doesn't is wireless hotspot. I can hook up my Macbook pro, Mac Pro tower, Windows laptop and anything else to it wirelessly to get to the internet. Up to 8 devices at a time, in fact. Many people are getting Android phones with wireless hotspots along with their Wifi iPads. How ironic!
True, but you can't say that Android is generating zero revenue at all for Google.
If you took out every single other smartphone device Google's on besides Android, Google would still be making money off of it.
True, they do license apps for Android that the vendor (or vendor affiliate) can choose not to include. They surely make money on them, the question is, how much?
Well I prefer to plug my iPhone in while tethering so I use the MacBooks much larger battery as a power source.
I also like not having my Internet connection drop when a call comes in and the fact that the average download speed on my HSDPA based network is higher than the Droids peak CDMA speed.
Different strokes for different folks, the grass isn't always greener etc.
Exactly. I also plug in my Incredible because using it as a "wireless" hotspot for all my devices at the same time does drain the battery. After all, my normal wireless router is plugged in - why wouldn't I plug in my phone that's acting as a wireless hotspot as well?
You don't get it.
With the iPhone you buy the case you like, download the apps you like, arrange them on the screen in the way you like and you add the wallpaper you like. After that Apple handles the rest.
That's the iPhone. For better or for worse that's the whole point of the iPhone - like a BMW, you trust that BMW does its part well. You sacrifice total customizability for build, simplicity and the whole it-just-works thing.
I actually DO get it. Like you said, for better or for worse. It's all in perspective. Obviously, millions of people agree with you across the globe on that. However, there are now millions who no longer do agree (who've switched) or who never have.
Remember: my whole point here is not to bash but, rather, to highlight the differences. We all win from competition.
Does anyone really believe that iOS's version of multitasking (limited though it may be) would have been on iOS 4 if iPhone users hadn't complained about not having it? And...logic goes, people complained about not having it because they SAW it on other devices, like Crackberry and Android. If those platforms didn't have it, then most likely it wouldn't have been so highly desired by iPhone users. THAT'S the beauty of competition.
Jobs talks about iOS DEVICES, which fans of Android conveniently overlook in discussions of Android marketshare tending to focus, as they do, only on iPhones.
It will be interesting to see if the same split is applied when devices such as the Galaxy Tab and Dell streak start building Android marketshare.
Actually, I don't think they conveniently overlook this. It's the converse: Apple conveniently puts out their numbers as a whole iOS, instead of breaking it down by iPhone, iPad, iTouch, etc. That would show that when comparing "phone to phone" the iPhone has been surpassed by Android phones.
Folks, this isn't a bad thing: this is normal. There's no way one device from one maker can sustain its trajectory against 20 Android devices (in the US) on multiple carriers. Some of these devices are entry-level, mid-range, and high-end.
And, more importantly, Apple SHOULDN'T try to beat those figures or it will begin to produce phones that are no longer of high quality (think: antennagate and proximity sensor times 10).
If you took out every single other smartphone device Google's on besides Android, Google would still be making money off of it.
I'd like to see the assumptions behind the $4billion dollar figure.
Because I can't work out what they are.
Nokia makes just 8 Euro profit for every phone it sells. This is the profit for actually selling the device. And this is for the lifetime of the device.
If Android is to make $4B annually - It would need to make $8 per device, per year.
And it would need to have half-a-billion Android devices in active service. I don't think any of those figures are remotely achievable.
Where would that money come from? Paid search? Mobile advertising? An ad click brings pennies.
Has anyone ever clicked on a mobile ad ever?
My three Android predictions are:
1) Android will become by far the most popular Mobile OS by far.
2) The revenues for Google will remain poor. <10% of Apple's mobile profits.
3) The profit margins of Android handset manufacturers will tend towards the 0%-8% figure.
C.
They actually aren't overlooked at all. The vast majority of Android devices currently available are smartphones. Hence the comparison to the iPhone only. You have to be a bit logical about this too. If numbers came out for Android devices that included its use in household appliances, cars, airplane entertainment systems, etc, wouldn't you cry foul too?
But I agree that once the Android-powered tablets start becoming more mainstream, I'd like to see how the total numbers compare.
You're trying to have it both ways.
You're arguing that market share is important because developers are concerned about how many devices are out there that will run their app. Then you want to ignore Apple's non-phone devices for some reason.
Rationally, as a developer, you're MOST concerned about how much money you can make - and iOS wins this one hands down.
Next concern is how many devices can run your app. For that, you have to consider ALL iOS devices and ALL Android devices.
The only way that the number of Android phones vs number of iOS phones matters to a developer is if you're making an app that only works on a cell phone.
The only way that the number of Android phones vs number of iOS phones matters to a developer is if you're making an app that only works on a cell phone.
And even then you have to consider the relative likelihood of the different audiences to actually PAY.
Android Market is engineered differently, and isn't available in some territories.
Which might have something to do with the fact that Android customers have not not shown themselves as willing to pay for apps as Apple users.
The base number of units sold is simply not a good proxy for the return of investment.
C.
I played with the default UI for a bit and didn't find it all that bad. But if you look up LauncherPro or ADW.Launcher and use one of them, I bet that a lot of the "buggy UI" problems will go away. I personally use LauncherPro+ (paid version).
As for the "forced updates", I have no idea what you're talking about. My roommate bought his DX a week before the 2.2 update went live and he went weeks without updating it. He never knew one was available until I told him. Android devices will generally notify you when a system update is available (or when you ping the server manually), but I have never heard of it forcing you to update. I have gone through many of these updates on the Droid (2.0 -> 2.0.1 -> 2.1 -> 2.2) and the 2.1 -> 2.2 on the DX and I was never forced to update.
I keep hearing the same thing about the updates not being forced.
I was never prompted to update my phone, It updates itseld over night. Same with my Wife's X.
I'd like to see the assumptions behind the $4billion dollar figure.
Because I can't work out what they are.
Nokia makes just 8 Euro profit for every phone it sells. This is the profit for actually selling the device. And this is for the lifetime of the device.
If Android is to make $4B annually - It would need to make $8 per device, per year.
And it would need to have half-a-billion Android devices in active service. I don't think any of those figures are remotely achievable.
Where would that money come from? Paid search? Mobile advertising? An ad click brings pennies.
Has anyone ever clicked on a mobile ad ever?
My three Android predictions are:
1) Android will become by far the most popular Mobile OS by far.
2) The revenues for Google will remain poor. <10% of Apple's mobile profits.
3) The profit margins of Android handset manufacturers will tend towards the 0%-8% figure.
C.
These are great predictions. I think #1 will be most likely. #2 is wrong because "remain poor" infers that Google's revenue is already bad. Have you seen the latest financial report from Google where they stated that they've made over a billion already from Android? The only way they make money from Android is from ads--the OS is free (open source) and even their own apps are free (maps, sky map, navigation, etc.) They also stated that Android was their "best deal" on any acquisition to date. #3, also wrong. HTC has had tremendous record-breaking year over year profits due almost exclusively to Android. Motorola has also done quite well. Samsung? They're kicking butt with the worldwide launch of the Galaxy S phones.
I keep hearing the same thing about the updates not being forced.
I was never prompted to update my phone, It updates itseld over night. Same with my Wife's X.
I also use LauncherPro which makes my Incredible an entirely different phone. Again, that's the beauty of Android--I can tweak it till my heart's content. Something I don't like, I can change it. iPhone is locked in so all of them, quite ironically, look like Droids (and I don't mean Android Droids).
I predict this will change as Jobs feels the pressure to allow more customization to the platform.
You're trying to have it both ways.
You're arguing that market share is important because developers are concerned about how many devices are out there that will run their app. Then you want to ignore Apple's non-phone devices for some reason.
Rationally, as a developer, you're MOST concerned about how much money you can make - and iOS wins this one hands down.
Next concern is how many devices can run your app. For that, you have to consider ALL iOS devices and ALL Android devices.
The only way that the number of Android phones vs number of iOS phones matters to a developer is if you're making an app that only works on a cell phone.
I agree with the person you quoted. He's comparing Apples to Apples (pun intended). That's the only fair way to compare. He's comparing smartphone market penetration to smartphone market penetration. To include iTouch and iPad would be akin to one group comparing apples and other group comparing their apples, oranges, and apricots. You can't do that in true logic.
Android is less mature than iOS. Once the tablet market for Android takes hold, then it would be fair to compare there as well. But it's still, IMHO, best to compare simply apples to apples - only phones to phones.
You're trying to have it both ways.
You're arguing that market share is important because developers are concerned about how many devices are out there that will run their app. Then you want to ignore Apple's non-phone devices for some reason.
Rationally, as a developer, you're MOST concerned about how much money you can make - and iOS wins this one hands down.
Next concern is how many devices can run your app. For that, you have to consider ALL iOS devices and ALL Android devices.
The only way that the number of Android phones vs number of iOS phones matters to a developer is if you're making an app that only works on a cell phone.
I never said anything about claiming that marketshare is important to developers. Seems like you're putting words in my mouth just so you can have something to rant against. All I said is that at the current time, the majority of Android devices are smartphones. Which is why you can say "Android vs. iPhone" (to a point) for now if a company wants to compare smartphone devices.
As time moves on and more and more tablets and other devices running Android hit the market, that comparison will no longer hold and I whole-heartedly agree that we'll have to switch to "Android vs. iOS".
I keep hearing the same thing about the updates not being forced.
I was never prompted to update my phone, It updates itseld over night. Same with my Wife's X.
Based off of the image below, I'm guessing what happened is that somehow, the update was "pushed" to your devices and the timer showed up. You were both asleep, which caused you to miss the window popping up, and thus not be able to postpone the update. Unfortunate timing if anything...
Again, it seems odd because my roommate has went weeks after the 2.2 roll-out without being updated.
I'm curious to what you object to for the update. 2.2 has done nothing but better my DX.
These are great predictions. I think #1 will be most likely. #2 is wrong because "remain poor" infers that Google's revenue is already bad. Have you seen the latest financial report from Google where they stated that they've made over a billion already from Android? The only way they make money from Android is from ads--the OS is free (open source) and even their own apps are free (maps, sky map, navigation, etc.) They also stated that Android was their "best deal" on any acquisition to date. #3, also wrong. HTC has had tremendous record-breaking year over year profits due almost exclusively to Android. Motorola has also done quite well. Samsung? They're kicking butt with the worldwide launch of the Galaxy S phones.
Let's pull that apart.
Google "made a billion on Android"?
Can you cite where and how that figure was derived?
It was an extrapolated figure. Google gives no numbers for profitability. And no numbers for the cost of development. They cite revenues without costs.
The TOTAL number of Android devices in the world is what? <60M. To arrive at a billion dollars Google would have to be making $16 per device per year. That figure does not sound credible unless Google charged vendors.
And we should contrast that with the $300 or so Apple makes per device *before* it sells any services.
On the profitability of Android handset makers. It's obvious that Android is a leveller. There is no great opportunity to add value because the software platform is shared. So Android devices, like Windows clones, simply compete themselves into very low margins.
Let's look at them margins...
It's pretty clear that all the Android vendors are being drawn towards an average of 4% or so.
HTC's margin is FALLING.
Samsung running at 10%.
Motorola made roughly 1$ per device sold! Having risen to a few percent from a negative margin.
I am pretty happy to stand by all my predictions.
C.
First, it's worth noting that if you're concerned about $99, you're not much of a developer.
More importantly, NONE of the things you've listed are the important thing. For a developer hoping to make money, the only question that matters is: "which platform will allow me to make the most money?" The answer is, overwhelmingly at this point, iOS.
Did you read that i said $99 isn't that much? That aside, do you honestly think that $99 isn't a lot to some folks (think outside USA)? Sure if you work for a company that develops app that fee is negligible.
Those things are what I AM looking at, as in things that matter to ME. Some things may not matter to you but I never intended to say that all those reasons are clear cut to everyone.
"which platform will allow me to make the most money?"
Why is the answer so overwhelmingly iOS? You are over simplifying a complicated question. Do you have statistics of how much money a developer gains for selling an app vs ad-supported?
If I can give away 100 apps with ads that give me money at a rate of $1.00 per day vs. selling 10 apps for $0.99, I'd take the ad route this way and earn more money overtime. You shouldn't underestimate the shear size of low-income customers
"which platform will allow me to make the most money?"
The story within the mobile development community is that iOS generates about 5-10 times more revenue than any other platform.
C.
The story within the mobile development community is that iOS generates about 5-10 times more revenue than any other platform.
C.
For now. And that's the key word.
I have a number of theories about this. I would assert that the iPhone's higher tax bracket clientele is at least in part a function of the iPhone being the first to market. Early smartphone adopters are folks with money. That does not necessarily mean that over time, this same class of wealthy early adopters will stick to the iPhone. But I would assert that with this class of people, ease of use (time is money and none in this class would want to waste time customizing the phone) is probably a major driver keeping them tied to the iPhone. Conversely though, they are also the folks who have enough cash that switching over to another platform (whether BB, Android, WebOS or WP7) is not necessarily daunting.
There's also the age factor. I recently read that Android users tend to be significantly younger than iPhone users. If that's true, that can cut both ways for Apple. Obviously, older folk have more disposable income....more profit today. But today's younger folk become tomorrow's older folk. If those teens and twentysomethings rocking Android today get so used to the platform that they don't want to transition to iOS devices in the future, Apple could have a tough fight some years from now.
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/...lphone-market/
Next, given that smartphone penetration is still low, I would suggest that it's still very early in the game. Too early to tell whether the Android model or the iOS app sales models are better. What I would suggest though, is that these market share numbers moving forward are very relevant...because it's all the dumbphone converts that are going to determine who wins the smartphone wars. If Android keeps outselling the iPhone over 1.5 to 1, the Android installed base will start to gain ground on iOS eventually....especially if the existing trajectory holds. There's a real possibility that Android phone sales alone could overtake all iOS device sales in a few years. It's a faint possibility. But I would not dismiss it as a totally implausible scenario. Don't forget that last quarter most people were suggesting that Android outselling the iPhone was a fluke and that the iPhone 4 would have Apple in the lead this quarter.
Also, you can't discount the halo effect. The iPad benefited from the iPhone's halo. Android tablets will certainly experience a similar effect from strong handset sales. So while the iPad's totally dominant today (and I don't see why anybody would buy any other tablet right now), it's a matter of time before Android OEMs catch up on the tablet front, just like their tech caught up on the phone front. And when they do, all those Android phone users will suddenly find themselves oddly familiar and comfortable with Android tablets, just like iPhone users find the learning curve relatively shallow on the iPad.
So this whole 5-10x more profitability argument, is very much a snapshot in time argument and I think most developers recognize that. Going forward, there's a lot of ways this could play out. And I don't think it'd be very wise for any developer to base his planning and resource allocation based on where the market is at today, if he's in it for the long haul. That's not to say, iOS is going to become unprofitable or something....merely that I don't think this 5-10x more profitable argument is going to hold in perpetuity.
...and from a personal perspective.....everybody should just use what's good for them. As much as I enjoy a good debate I would never try and convert someone. People who force their tech on others are as bad as Jehovah's Witness who disturb my weekend sleep!