Are you comparing marketshare of an OS to a device? Pick any iOS-based smartphone that came out in 2010 and pick any Android-based smartphone that came out in 2010. Which one sold more? Was the Android-based smartphone you choose able to sell out continuously? Did its sales increase each quarter? Is it even still selling more than a half a year after it was released or did the vendor leave if for dead because it wasn?t selling and they had some slightly different Android-based smartphone to push? When did the HW vendor offer it an update?
Every Thunderbolt sold is one less Charge/Droidx sale JUST AS MUCH as it is one less Iphone Sale.
They are two completely different markets, and no matter how much either side tries to skew the numbers to say otherwise this WILL NOT CHANGE unless:
1) Apple starts releasing MULTIPLE current version devices at similar price points
or
2) Google locks down android so that there is only ONE new model a year.
Both options are completely counter to the business model of those two companies.
If even their old kit is popular, they can barely keep ahead of their current supply chain, and they make over 50% of the world?s handset profits then I don?t think they need to any such thing to compete.
I?d like them to make a larger iOS-based device, but that isn?t the same as me thinking they need to make one.
Nokia once had 65% profit. Now they don't. The loss of marketshare eventually loses profit. Not that Apple is losing market share yet. the supply chain is an issue, however Nokia could dominate the market as one company, Apple need to get that in order.
I spent the last 12 months hearing that the only reason Andoid is doing so well is all the cheap devices. Now we hear a lot of apple sales are old, cheap devices.
Looks like that argument cant be used to justify why android OS had 50% for smartphone sales in Q1 2011, way above the iPhone.
Well no. This EXACTLY proves that Android was selling BECAUSE it was cheap;
1) When on the same platform, for the same price, people choose the iPhone
2) More EXPENSIVE iPhones also sell.
3) When an iPhone is not available, an ANDROID outsells all other phones.
4) There are NO UNSOLD iPHONES.
The market trend is that the MOBILE PHONE is going to become a SMART PHONE -- as long it doesn't cost much more. So, if you are going to get vanilla Nokia cheap handset or vanilla ANDRIOD cheap handset -- you get the ANDROID.
That's what the market is doing; the NEW cheap handset is a smart phone and that happens to usually be an Android. When people have enough money -- then they shell out for the premium product; an iPhone.
>> But the perception of even people who BUY Andriods, is that it's a cheap, smart phone. And when possible, people get an iPhone -- even if it is cheap.
OK, is there any way to make this point simpler but not TOO simple?
Nokia once had 65% profit. Now they don't. The loss of marketshare eventually loses profit. Not that Apple is losing market share yet. the supply chain is an issue, however Nokia could dominate the market as one company, Apple need to get that in order.
But if Nokia still made the top 2 phones, they might still have the profits.
What % of those sales are pre 2.0 phones that will never be upgraded and are completely irrelevant as part of the Android platform?
Google says 5%, but that is based on accesses to the Marketplace. Why would these users even bother to access a market place they can not use Apps from, so the number is something > then 5%. Google does not release raw numbers, this would likely shatter the enitire Android market share myth. Pre 2.2 the #is 30%, there a lot of incompatibilities between 2.1 and 2.2 as well.
If we want to compare platforms, we should look at developer revenues. This is what matters for the platform. In this case, Android is being annihilated...
I don't care. Those are excuses. It is valid to include all iOS vs Android. The rest of your liturgy is some wank about how Apple does better per device: I know that and therefore I conclude they would do even better with more models, both cheaper models and possibly a high end with bigger screens. If they are at 31% with two devices on two carriers they can take majority phone marketshare in the US. Let's not make pre-emotive excuses.
1) The excuses are comparing the iPhone device to all Android-based devices and then saying Apple is losing. It?s like saying the Mac is losing when it takes a ⅓ of PC industry profits.
2) It?s myopic to think marketshare means more profit. Have you ever wondered why Apple and the others release a product to a specific carriers instead of just selling a product right away that will work on all carriers?
If we want to compare platforms, we should look at developer revenues. This is what matters for the platform. In this case, Android is being annihilated...
I'm not sure we DO know that. I haven't seen any recent figures on developer revenues between the two app markets. Things change so fast in mobile that we can't use 3-6 month old data and assume it's still true.
Nokia once had 65% profit. Now they don't. The loss of marketshare eventually loses profit. Not that Apple is losing market share yet. the supply chain is an issue, however Nokia could dominate the market as one company, Apple need to get that in order.
Nokia still sells the lion?s share of handsets in the world, yet according to your reasoning they should have the lion?s share of profits. News flash: they don?t.
I'm not sure we DO know that. I haven't seen any recent figures on developer revenues between the two app markets. Things change so fast in mobile that we can't use 3-6 month old data and assume it's still true.
Solipcism, Evernote's experiences don't tell us much about the AppStore compared to Android developer revenues. Wasn't it a month ago that the Angry Bird's guys said they made as much or more from their Android app as their iOS one?
I cant imagine why you would use the qualifier "individual".
English is not my first language, but I'm pretty sure you already figured out I meant there is no single Android handset model that sells more units than the iPhone 4. No need to be a grammar nazi here...
Solipcism, Evernote's experiences don't tell us much about the AppStore compared to Android developer revenues. Wasn't it a month ago that the Angry Bird's guys said they made as much or more from their Android app as their iOS one?
1) So data from last quarter doesn’t count nor does recent data from a particular company that makes an app for multiple platforms? So no matter what the App Store can never be deemed successful in your eyes because we’ll never get Apple and Google to release this data in the same place, at the same time, and with all the same metrics.
2) Rovio stated the revenues had reached parity back in March*. Revenues don’t keep the lights on, profits do. Are you really going to argue that Angry Birds for iOS is mostly costly to build than Angry Birds for all the Android handsets they service. With Android-based handset outnumbering the iPhone any parity will mean less profit per unit.
1) Rovio stated the revenues had reached parity back in March*. Revenues don’t keep the lights on, profits do. Are you really going to argue that Angry Birds for iOS is mostly costly to build than Angry Birds for all the Android handsets they service. With Android-based handset outnumbering the iPhone any parity will mean less profit per unit.
* Who was it that just told me we can’t use any 3 month old data because things change so fast?
My point exactly. We can't depend on three month old data still being valid. As for revenue vs. profit, did the Angry Bird's developers make any statements on that? If not, then we'd both be guessing.
In any case I know you're not arguing that one app makes a market.
My point exactly. We can't depend on three month old data still being valid. As for revenue vs. profit, did the Angry Bird's developers make any statements on that? If not, then we'd both be guessing.
In any case I know you're not arguing that one app makes a market.
I?m not guessing because I?m using a little thing called critical thinking.
Because Google makes its software available free to a range of phone manufacturers, there are dozens of different Android-compatible devices on the market, each with different screen sizes, memory capacities, processor speeds and graphics capabilities. An app that works beautifully on, say, a Motorola Droid might suffer from glitches on a phone made by HTC. IPhone developers, meanwhile, need to worry about only a few devices: iPhones, iPods and iPads.
When Rovio, the Finnish software development company behind the popular iPhone game Angry Birds, decided to release a version for Android, the company spent months testing the game on a variety of devices to make sure it was up to par.
?It?s so fragmented,? said Peter Vesterbacka, a developer at the company. ?It?s a lot more challenging than developing for one device, like the iPhone.?
The combined revenues for the major app stores will hit $4 billion this year, representing furious growth for smartphones and Apple's winning app ecosystem formula.
The Cupertino, Calif.-based company's App Store will be responsible for about three quarters of that according to market research firm iSuppli, with Google's Android Market, Research in Motion's BlackBerry App World, and Nokia's Ovi Store dividing the rest.
[?]
The differential in profit suggests that Apple developers are able to more effectively monetize their apps. That suggests those apps tend to be worth more to users, which would be a credit to Apple's vetting process, as opposed to Google's come-one-come-all approach.
App revenues encourage app developers to code for a given platform, so the Apple App Store's high returns suggest it will continue to hold on to strong talent. Given that smartphone platforms sink or swim on the quality of their app catalogs, these numbers affirm iOS's long-term strength despite Android's dizzying ascent.
[?]
Google recognizes this, and recently introduced in-app purchases to help developers' make sustainable business models.
[?]
Despite Apple's dominant position, Google is showing the fastest growth, with revenues this year projected to triple last year's take. This makes sense given Android's meteoric rise: Google's mobile platform now controls nearly half the U.S. smartphone market.
However, iSuppli estimates that Apple's App Store revenues will still comprise the majority, 60 percent, of the total market in 2014.
The combined revenues for the major app stores will hit $4 billion this year, representing furious growth for smartphones and Apple's winning app ecosystem formula.
The Cupertino, Calif.-based company's App Store will be responsible for about three quarters of that according to market research firm iSuppli, with Google's Android Market, Research in Motion's BlackBerry App World, and Nokia's Ovi Store dividing the rest.
[?]
The differential in profit suggests that Apple developers are able to more effectively monetize their apps. That suggests those apps tend to be worth more to users, which would be a credit to Apple's vetting process, as opposed to Google's come-one-come-all approach.
App revenues encourage app developers to code for a given platform, so the Apple App Store's high returns suggest it will continue to hold on to strong talent. Given that smartphone platforms sink or swim on the quality of their app catalogs, these numbers affirm iOS's long-term strength despite Android's dizzying ascent.
[?]
Google recognizes this, and recently introduced in-app purchases to help developers' make sustainable business models.
[?]
Despite Apple's dominant position, Google is showing the fastest growth, with revenues this year projected to triple last year's take. This makes sense given Android's meteoric rise: Google's mobile platform now controls nearly half the U.S. smartphone market.
However, iSuppli estimates that Apple's App Store revenues will still comprise the majority, 60 percent, of the total market in 2014.
MS only needs mediocre success with Windows 7 on Nokia handsets for Marketplace to becomemore profitable than Android Market.
While I agree that Apple's been much better at monetizing apps than Android has, these figures forget two very important points when it comes to things like app purchases:
1- iOS devices (like the iPad and iPod touch) can be had without a cellular contract or data plan. This means that market groups who would not otherwise have a smartphone, might purchase these products. This is especially true with the teen/preteen market. A parent might not be willing to pay $30 a month for johnny to have a cellphone for 2 years, but they are ok with spending a similar amount of money up front to get him a cool Christmas present. This is a market that Android still has very little play in (Specifically with PMPs), and a market where apple had significant lock-in long before apps, thanks to the popularity of itunes.
2-Gift Cards. This is huge, specifically for off contract devices. Parents/friends/relatives can give someone an itunes giftcard, and they can choose what they want. For parents, this is a way to make the expensive Christmas gift last longer
I am NOT saying that these are the only reasons (or even the main reasons) why Apple is more profitable for developers. Things like Development framework, App discovery, and compatibility are huge factors, but gift cards and the ipod touch are also significant factors, enough of one that I think that even if Google (or someone else) matched Apple on the other factors, they'd still struggle to make the ecosystem as profitable.
... I am NOT saying that these are the only reasons (or even the main reasons) why Apple is more profitable for developers. Things like Development framework, App discovery, and compatibility are huge factors, but gift cards and the ipod touch are also significant factors, enough of one that I think that even if Google (or someone else) matched Apple on the other factors, they'd still struggle to make the ecosystem as profitable.
Still trying to use smoke and mirrors to explain away the fact that Android users just don't want to pay for anything? That's the real reason, and everything else is just rhetoric.
While I agree that Apple's been much better at monetizing apps than Android has, these figures forget two very important points when it comes to things like app purchases:
[…]
I am NOT saying that these are the only reasons (or even the main reasons) why Apple is more profitable for developers. Things like Development framework, App discovery, and compatibility are huge factors, but gift cards and the ipod touch are also significant factors, enough of one that I think that even if Google (or someone else) matched Apple on the other factors, they'd still struggle to make the ecosystem as profitable.
All those reasons and more are why the App Store is more successful, not inspire of. Apple shouldn’t be blamed or discounted because they built a better foundation than their competitors.
If Android’s installed base can become 3-4x the size of iOS’ installed based then I think then we could see the Android Market be more profitable than the App Store. That still won’t resolve the per unit cost for developers but with a multifold difference in installed base Android devs could see a higher return rate for their effort despite the extra costs involved.
There is no reason that Android’s free and open* nature should not be able to achieve such results unless Android falters on multiple levels do to poor OS, SDK and vendor HW levels. So far they are growing well below what I’d expect from an OS usable by any and all vendors… but I hear that they will soon get it all worked out.
* Open as in open to carriers and vendors to lock and restrain customers as they see fit.
Nokia once had 65% profit. Now they don't. The loss of marketshare eventually loses profit. Not that Apple is losing market share yet. the supply chain is an issue, however Nokia could dominate the market as one company, Apple need to get that in order.
Eh...most of Nokia's "smart phones" weren't. Which is why they started losing the high end. With Android pushing smartphone prices down to fancy feature phone prices then Nokia started losing the middle and low end as well.
This is why Android can gain massive share with iOS still growing it's own share. Android isn't competing with Apple so much as beating the crap out of Nokia and RIM.
A nano based iPhone is probably the only reasonable addition to the line up to capture numerical share. A higher end iPhone probably wouldn't help as much in that arena.
I don't think a nano-based iPhone will actually do that much for the profit share and would have to run it's own version of more limited apps.
Apple started with very small share and huge profits so I don't accept that loss of market share eventually loses profit. Releasing crappy products will cost you both.
Comments
Are you comparing marketshare of an OS to a device? Pick any iOS-based smartphone that came out in 2010 and pick any Android-based smartphone that came out in 2010. Which one sold more? Was the Android-based smartphone you choose able to sell out continuously? Did its sales increase each quarter? Is it even still selling more than a half a year after it was released or did the vendor leave if for dead because it wasn?t selling and they had some slightly different Android-based smartphone to push? When did the HW vendor offer it an update?
Every Thunderbolt sold is one less Charge/Droidx sale JUST AS MUCH as it is one less Iphone Sale.
They are two completely different markets, and no matter how much either side tries to skew the numbers to say otherwise this WILL NOT CHANGE unless:
1) Apple starts releasing MULTIPLE current version devices at similar price points
or
2) Google locks down android so that there is only ONE new model a year.
Both options are completely counter to the business model of those two companies.
If even their old kit is popular, they can barely keep ahead of their current supply chain, and they make over 50% of the world?s handset profits then I don?t think they need to any such thing to compete.
I?d like them to make a larger iOS-based device, but that isn?t the same as me thinking they need to make one.
Nokia once had 65% profit. Now they don't. The loss of marketshare eventually loses profit. Not that Apple is losing market share yet. the supply chain is an issue, however Nokia could dominate the market as one company, Apple need to get that in order.
I spent the last 12 months hearing that the only reason Andoid is doing so well is all the cheap devices. Now we hear a lot of apple sales are old, cheap devices.
Looks like that argument cant be used to justify why android OS had 50% for smartphone sales in Q1 2011, way above the iPhone.
Well no. This EXACTLY proves that Android was selling BECAUSE it was cheap;
1) When on the same platform, for the same price, people choose the iPhone
2) More EXPENSIVE iPhones also sell.
3) When an iPhone is not available, an ANDROID outsells all other phones.
4) There are NO UNSOLD iPHONES.
The market trend is that the MOBILE PHONE is going to become a SMART PHONE -- as long it doesn't cost much more. So, if you are going to get vanilla Nokia cheap handset or vanilla ANDRIOD cheap handset -- you get the ANDROID.
That's what the market is doing; the NEW cheap handset is a smart phone and that happens to usually be an Android. When people have enough money -- then they shell out for the premium product; an iPhone.
>> But the perception of even people who BUY Andriods, is that it's a cheap, smart phone. And when possible, people get an iPhone -- even if it is cheap.
OK, is there any way to make this point simpler but not TOO simple?
Nokia once had 65% profit. Now they don't. The loss of marketshare eventually loses profit. Not that Apple is losing market share yet. the supply chain is an issue, however Nokia could dominate the market as one company, Apple need to get that in order.
But if Nokia still made the top 2 phones, they might still have the profits.
What % of those sales are pre 2.0 phones that will never be upgraded and are completely irrelevant as part of the Android platform?
http://developer.android.com/resourc...-versions.html
Google says 5%, but that is based on accesses to the Marketplace. Why would these users even bother to access a market place they can not use Apps from, so the number is something > then 5%. Google does not release raw numbers, this would likely shatter the enitire Android market share myth. Pre 2.2 the #is 30%, there a lot of incompatibilities between 2.1 and 2.2 as well.
If we want to compare platforms, we should look at developer revenues. This is what matters for the platform. In this case, Android is being annihilated...
I don't care. Those are excuses. It is valid to include all iOS vs Android. The rest of your liturgy is some wank about how Apple does better per device: I know that and therefore I conclude they would do even better with more models, both cheaper models and possibly a high end with bigger screens. If they are at 31% with two devices on two carriers they can take majority phone marketshare in the US. Let's not make pre-emotive excuses.
1) The excuses are comparing the iPhone device to all Android-based devices and then saying Apple is losing. It?s like saying the Mac is losing when it takes a ⅓ of PC industry profits.
2) It?s myopic to think marketshare means more profit. Have you ever wondered why Apple and the others release a product to a specific carriers instead of just selling a product right away that will work on all carriers?
If we want to compare platforms, we should look at developer revenues. This is what matters for the platform. In this case, Android is being annihilated...
I'm not sure we DO know that. I haven't seen any recent figures on developer revenues between the two app markets. Things change so fast in mobile that we can't use 3-6 month old data and assume it's still true.
Nokia once had 65% profit. Now they don't. The loss of marketshare eventually loses profit. Not that Apple is losing market share yet. the supply chain is an issue, however Nokia could dominate the market as one company, Apple need to get that in order.
Nokia still sells the lion?s share of handsets in the world, yet according to your reasoning they should have the lion?s share of profits. News flash: they don?t.
I'm not sure we DO know that. I haven't seen any recent figures on developer revenues between the two app markets. Things change so fast in mobile that we can't use 3-6 month old data and assume it's still true.
How about last week?
I cant imagine why you would use the qualifier "individual".
English is not my first language, but I'm pretty sure you already figured out I meant there is no single Android handset model that sells more units than the iPhone 4. No need to be a grammar nazi here...
Solipcism, Evernote's experiences don't tell us much about the AppStore compared to Android developer revenues. Wasn't it a month ago that the Angry Bird's guys said they made as much or more from their Android app as their iOS one?
1) So data from last quarter doesn’t count nor does recent data from a particular company that makes an app for multiple platforms? So no matter what the App Store can never be deemed successful in your eyes because we’ll never get Apple and Google to release this data in the same place, at the same time, and with all the same metrics.
2) Rovio stated the revenues had reached parity back in March*. Revenues don’t keep the lights on, profits do. Are you really going to argue that Angry Birds for iOS is mostly costly to build than Angry Birds for all the Android handsets they service. With Android-based handset outnumbering the iPhone any parity will mean less profit per unit.
3) Here is another one from last week: http://www.insidemobileapps.com/2011...os-glu-mobile/
PS: My handle is spelled exactly like the noun.
* Who was it that just told me we can’t use any 3 month old data because things change so fast?
1) Rovio stated the revenues had reached parity back in March*. Revenues don’t keep the lights on, profits do. Are you really going to argue that Angry Birds for iOS is mostly costly to build than Angry Birds for all the Android handsets they service. With Android-based handset outnumbering the iPhone any parity will mean less profit per unit.
* Who was it that just told me we can’t use any 3 month old data because things change so fast?
My point exactly. We can't depend on three month old data still being valid. As for revenue vs. profit, did the Angry Bird's developers make any statements on that? If not, then we'd both be guessing.
In any case I know you're not arguing that one app makes a market.
My point exactly. We can't depend on three month old data still being valid. As for revenue vs. profit, did the Angry Bird's developers make any statements on that? If not, then we'd both be guessing.
In any case I know you're not arguing that one app makes a market.
I?m not guessing because I?m using a little thing called critical thinking.
Yet another article from last week?MS only needs mediocre success with Windows 7 on Nokia handsets for Marketplace to becomemore profitable than Android Market.
While I agree that Apple's been much better at monetizing apps than Android has, these figures forget two very important points when it comes to things like app purchases:
1- iOS devices (like the iPad and iPod touch) can be had without a cellular contract or data plan. This means that market groups who would not otherwise have a smartphone, might purchase these products. This is especially true with the teen/preteen market. A parent might not be willing to pay $30 a month for johnny to have a cellphone for 2 years, but they are ok with spending a similar amount of money up front to get him a cool Christmas present. This is a market that Android still has very little play in (Specifically with PMPs), and a market where apple had significant lock-in long before apps, thanks to the popularity of itunes.
2-Gift Cards. This is huge, specifically for off contract devices. Parents/friends/relatives can give someone an itunes giftcard, and they can choose what they want. For parents, this is a way to make the expensive Christmas gift last longer
I am NOT saying that these are the only reasons (or even the main reasons) why Apple is more profitable for developers. Things like Development framework, App discovery, and compatibility are huge factors, but gift cards and the ipod touch are also significant factors, enough of one that I think that even if Google (or someone else) matched Apple on the other factors, they'd still struggle to make the ecosystem as profitable.
... I am NOT saying that these are the only reasons (or even the main reasons) why Apple is more profitable for developers. Things like Development framework, App discovery, and compatibility are huge factors, but gift cards and the ipod touch are also significant factors, enough of one that I think that even if Google (or someone else) matched Apple on the other factors, they'd still struggle to make the ecosystem as profitable.
Still trying to use smoke and mirrors to explain away the fact that Android users just don't want to pay for anything? That's the real reason, and everything else is just rhetoric.
While I agree that Apple's been much better at monetizing apps than Android has, these figures forget two very important points when it comes to things like app purchases:
[…]
I am NOT saying that these are the only reasons (or even the main reasons) why Apple is more profitable for developers. Things like Development framework, App discovery, and compatibility are huge factors, but gift cards and the ipod touch are also significant factors, enough of one that I think that even if Google (or someone else) matched Apple on the other factors, they'd still struggle to make the ecosystem as profitable.
All those reasons and more are why the App Store is more successful, not inspire of. Apple shouldn’t be blamed or discounted because they built a better foundation than their competitors.
If Android’s installed base can become 3-4x the size of iOS’ installed based then I think then we could see the Android Market be more profitable than the App Store. That still won’t resolve the per unit cost for developers but with a multifold difference in installed base Android devs could see a higher return rate for their effort despite the extra costs involved.
There is no reason that Android’s free and open* nature should not be able to achieve such results unless Android falters on multiple levels do to poor OS, SDK and vendor HW levels. So far they are growing well below what I’d expect from an OS usable by any and all vendors… but I hear that they will soon get it all worked out.
* Open as in open to carriers and vendors to lock and restrain customers as they see fit.
You're trying too hard to spin this like it's a good news!
Lame, lame
Are we now saying the low end of the Market matters?
The flip flopping by cheerleaders is amazing.
Nokia once had 65% profit. Now they don't. The loss of marketshare eventually loses profit. Not that Apple is losing market share yet. the supply chain is an issue, however Nokia could dominate the market as one company, Apple need to get that in order.
Eh...most of Nokia's "smart phones" weren't. Which is why they started losing the high end. With Android pushing smartphone prices down to fancy feature phone prices then Nokia started losing the middle and low end as well.
This is why Android can gain massive share with iOS still growing it's own share. Android isn't competing with Apple so much as beating the crap out of Nokia and RIM.
A nano based iPhone is probably the only reasonable addition to the line up to capture numerical share. A higher end iPhone probably wouldn't help as much in that arena.
I don't think a nano-based iPhone will actually do that much for the profit share and would have to run it's own version of more limited apps.
Apple started with very small share and huge profits so I don't accept that loss of market share eventually loses profit. Releasing crappy products will cost you both.