How astute of you! So your saying that Apple's business model is all about selling iAds? I would say it's at #3, 4... or #100 "hobby stage" at the moment in comparison to Google.
In fact, hasn't Apple come under serious pressure from publishers demanding customer info, and they won't give in is from what I understand. OK. Maybe I'm wrong.
<sarcasm>Apple is only about ads and marketing.</sarcasm>
OMG! Ya don't say?! Apple is just a shakin' in their boots! Who makes more money and profit, for both themselves, and their developers? As they say on the Interwebz: crickets is all can hear.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Android "could" eventually have up to 80% of the phone market. But ya know what, I'll bet that Apple at the same time with 15%:
1) still outsells every singe manufacturer,
2) makes more profit from it's devices (1 phone!) than all of them combined;
3) continues to make the most money for it's developers and from the App Store.
So go ahead... let Google dominate the marketshare category. Because the only one making money, is Google (period).
One by one Apple/Stevo is winning the arguments! The next one to win is the privacy issue. No thanks Google and Facebook, I will stay with Apple on that one, too!
Today's Mac users talking of Android sound like yesterday's Windows users talking about Mac.
Let's see if that blithe, unsupported statement stands up to any kind of scrutiny.
Yesterday's Windows user:
1) Was, by and large, obliged to use the platform because their business demanded it. Their business demanded it because it was what the IT Department knew or was willing to deal with. Their business also demanded it because of a legacy investment in software, both in dollars and in time leaning it.
SImilarity with iOS vs. Android: NONE.
2) Yesterday's Windows user chose the platform because it was 'a standard'.
SImilarity with iOS vs. Android: NONE.
3) For yesterday's Windows user, the Internet was not a major factor.
SImilarity with iOS vs. Android: NONE.
4) Yesterday's Windows user either did not buy applications (they were supplied by their employer), or bought applications compatible with whatever they used at work. (With the exception of games.)
SImilarity with iOS vs. Android: NONE (aside from the purchase of games).
5) Yesterday's Windows user conceded the Mac as a platform 'for graphics people, and Mac users saw that PCs were 'for business'.
SImilarity with iOS vs. Android: NONE.
6) Most PCs were purchased for business use.
SImilarity with iOS vs. Android: NONE.
You can make these comparisons all day - if you're honest. Or you can ignore the facts and make ridiculous, unsupported statements that sound like they might be factual. That is, until you actually look at them.
FWIW, that issue was pretty much taken care of yesterday ... To the majority of owners a little control wouldn't even be noticed, much less bothersome.
I see Gatorguy has deigned to grace us with a bit of what he has himself called "stategic communication". For the rest of us, that's known as Google sponsored shilling.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Android "could" eventually have up to 80% of the phone market. But ya know what, I'll bet that Apple at the same time with 15%:
1) still outsells every singe manufacturer,
2) makes more profit from it's devices (1 phone!) than all of them combined;
3) continues to make the most money for it's developers and from the App Store.
So go ahead... let Google dominate the marketshare category. Because the only one making money, is Google (period).
I see Gatorguy has deigned to grace us with a bit of what he has himself called "stategic communication". For the rest of us, that's known as Google sponsored shilling.
Hey, if that's his ricebowl (an Asian term for "his way of earning his daily bread"), who am I to hate. It's nice having our very own one-man Google PR team specially for us here on AppleInsider.
I see Gatorguy has deigned to grace us with a bit of what he has himself called "stategic communication". For the rest of us, that's known as Google sponsored shilling.
Good morning to you too Anonymouse
No one could claim you're not persistent and predictable.
Okay time to be serious now. I've watched the Google I/O 2011 Keynote. Basically Google is throwing everything they have at becoming the next OS that really matters. Take Windows on with Chrome. And for the new battleground, mobile, tablets, your house, the car, everything else... take it on with Android.
The weak link is this: They are operating at a very fast pace only on the software side. The limitations are thereby twofold: the rate of change, and being only on the software side.
Rate of change
The level of OS updates and major releases is probably too fast for carriers and hardware manufacturers to keep up with - unlike Apple, where one source does everything, the end user must go through curation (har har) by their carrier AND their manufacturer AND Google. Sure, I forsee things being better, but to stay on the cutting edge of Android releases will take some effort on the part of the end user.
Software-only approach
Despite the Nexus One, or whatever came or will come next, Google still has to depend on other hardware implementors. Especially now that Android will do everything from run on a phone, to a tablet, to powering an amusement park. All that depends on a lot of different manufacturers doing a lot of work to get the hardware working well with the software. I think Google is trying to improve this, but it remains a weak link.
Still, there is no doubt in my mind now that Google is all out for dominating any "connected" part of our lives. The premise of a virtually unlimited and ever-exciting playground for developers and consumers, covering everything from phones to cars is the bait for delivering ads to you wherever you are.
In fact, Google is on the cusp of achieving advertising's biggest dream - knowing what you like, what you do, where you are, and putting a product you probably are interested in, in front of you every step you take. This is chilling to the bone. This is also, the future, for better or worse. The best thing is that you need not even buy this product. Google will make money nonetheless, whether it's clickthroughs, pageviews, paid search placement, whatever.
Today's Mac users talking of Android sound like yesterday's Windows users talking about Mac.
iOS is a good platform, Android is a good platform, and neither is going away. The perception of a platform war is the stuff of corporate marketing and end-user fan sites; smart developers deploy to both.
It is the margins that allow Apple to innovate where others follow- which is a DIRECT benefit to consumers. And consumers are demonstrating their appreciation of that benefit by driving continuous marketshare gains, in spite of the competition. With the amount of revenue generated by the profitability is exactly HOW Apple does it. You don't see Dell, or HP or even Lenovo or Sony innovating at the same level as Apple. Which is why Apple has proven to be a moving target. Credit the Android team with the engineering chutzpah to be able to build out a parallel OS that can deliver attractive features that allow a price point from the handset makers that let them sell an attractive product at a decent price. But the Android team only is able to do it because Google is funding it as their ad revenue trojan horse in the mobile space.
You can be sure that Google is pumping a lot of money into Android to ensure that the platform gains the ubiquity they need to drive the profitability they want from the mobile space. Google is not intrinsically interested in Android as a platform, they are interested in Android as a mobile ad delivery vehicle. To that end they will do whatever they need to do to ensure that it delivers - until they find something that delivers better. If Andy was smart he would be cultivating background safety-nets to land Android in when Google switches gears and dumps it for something even more pervasive. Because Android is a COST center for Google, not a revenue center. There are no direct revenues generated by Android and this above all should be ever present in Rubin's mind.
Comments
It's like Helen Keller trying to copy a Rembrandt.
Was that in reply to this?
Spooning is nice and preferably with another man!
Now that's "cheeky"
Yep, it's a good thing Apple will never attempt anything like that.
How astute of you! So your saying that Apple's business model is all about selling iAds? I would say it's at #3, 4... or #100 "hobby stage" at the moment in comparison to Google.
In fact, hasn't Apple come under serious pressure from publishers demanding customer info, and they won't give in is from what I understand. OK. Maybe I'm wrong.
<sarcasm>Apple is only about ads and marketing.</sarcasm>
I couldn't find a copy of the original "Baird Report" in a somewhat quick search, but did come across one that better described what was in it.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application...-Baird-586234/
That future is now:
"Yet another report has come out today claiming that Android has overtaken iOS globally."
http://www.intomobile.com/2011/04/14...-ios-globally/
Just as iOS developers target v3, Android developers who target 2.1 get nearly all users with one app.
Anyone here actually seen the Baird report AI likes to keep making reference to?
Perceived fragmentation on the Android platform is a bigger issue in Mac end-user forums than it is in Android dev forums:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...5&postcount=67
OMG! Ya don't say?! Apple is just a shakin' in their boots! Who makes more money and profit, for both themselves, and their developers? As they say on the Interwebz: crickets is all can hear.
1) still outsells every singe manufacturer,
2) makes more profit from it's devices (1 phone!) than all of them combined;
3) continues to make the most money for it's developers and from the App Store.
So go ahead... let Google dominate the marketshare category. Because the only one making money, is Google (period).
Yep, it's a good thing Apple will never attempt anything like that.
But, unlike Google, selling ads isn't the primary focus/objective/money spinner.
Your point is rather irrelevant.
Apple's ad revenue isn't exactly that great. Google's is their core!
Today's Mac users talking of Android sound like yesterday's Windows users talking about Mac.
Let's see if that blithe, unsupported statement stands up to any kind of scrutiny.
Yesterday's Windows user:
1) Was, by and large, obliged to use the platform because their business demanded it. Their business demanded it because it was what the IT Department knew or was willing to deal with. Their business also demanded it because of a legacy investment in software, both in dollars and in time leaning it.
SImilarity with iOS vs. Android: NONE.
2) Yesterday's Windows user chose the platform because it was 'a standard'.
SImilarity with iOS vs. Android: NONE.
3) For yesterday's Windows user, the Internet was not a major factor.
SImilarity with iOS vs. Android: NONE.
4) Yesterday's Windows user either did not buy applications (they were supplied by their employer), or bought applications compatible with whatever they used at work. (With the exception of games.)
SImilarity with iOS vs. Android: NONE (aside from the purchase of games).
5) Yesterday's Windows user conceded the Mac as a platform 'for graphics people, and Mac users saw that PCs were 'for business'.
SImilarity with iOS vs. Android: NONE.
6) Most PCs were purchased for business use.
SImilarity with iOS vs. Android: NONE.
You can make these comparisons all day - if you're honest. Or you can ignore the facts and make ridiculous, unsupported statements that sound like they might be factual. That is, until you actually look at them.
Angry Birds Makes More Money from the Free Android Version than from Paid Ones
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Angry...s-170596.shtml
FWIW, that issue was pretty much taken care of yesterday ... To the majority of owners a little control wouldn't even be noticed, much less bothersome.
I see Gatorguy has deigned to grace us with a bit of what he has himself called "stategic communication". For the rest of us, that's known as Google sponsored shilling.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Android "could" eventually have up to 80% of the phone market. But ya know what, I'll bet that Apple at the same time with 15%:
1) still outsells every singe manufacturer,
2) makes more profit from it's devices (1 phone!) than all of them combined;
3) continues to make the most money for it's developers and from the App Store.
So go ahead... let Google dominate the marketshare category. Because the only one making money, is Google (period).
This is what matters.
I see Gatorguy has deigned to grace us with a bit of what he has himself called "stategic communication". For the rest of us, that's known as Google sponsored shilling.
Hey, if that's his ricebowl (an Asian term for "his way of earning his daily bread"), who am I to hate. It's nice having our very own one-man Google PR team specially for us here on AppleInsider.
I see Gatorguy has deigned to grace us with a bit of what he has himself called "stategic communication". For the rest of us, that's known as Google sponsored shilling.
Good morning to you too Anonymouse
No one could claim you're not persistent and predictable.
The weak link is this: They are operating at a very fast pace only on the software side. The limitations are thereby twofold: the rate of change, and being only on the software side.
Rate of change
The level of OS updates and major releases is probably too fast for carriers and hardware manufacturers to keep up with - unlike Apple, where one source does everything, the end user must go through curation (har har) by their carrier AND their manufacturer AND Google. Sure, I forsee things being better, but to stay on the cutting edge of Android releases will take some effort on the part of the end user.
Software-only approach
Despite the Nexus One, or whatever came or will come next, Google still has to depend on other hardware implementors. Especially now that Android will do everything from run on a phone, to a tablet, to powering an amusement park. All that depends on a lot of different manufacturers doing a lot of work to get the hardware working well with the software. I think Google is trying to improve this, but it remains a weak link.
Still, there is no doubt in my mind now that Google is all out for dominating any "connected" part of our lives. The premise of a virtually unlimited and ever-exciting playground for developers and consumers, covering everything from phones to cars is the bait for delivering ads to you wherever you are.
In fact, Google is on the cusp of achieving advertising's biggest dream - knowing what you like, what you do, where you are, and putting a product you probably are interested in, in front of you every step you take. This is chilling to the bone. This is also, the future, for better or worse. The best thing is that you need not even buy this product. Google will make money nonetheless, whether it's clickthroughs, pageviews, paid search placement, whatever.
That Apple charges the highest margins in the industry is both well known and not exactly a benefit to consumers.
As for developers, you raise a good question:
Android now more profitable than iOS for well-known game developer
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17941...ios_app_profit
Angry Birds Makes More Money from the Free Android Version than from Paid Ones
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Angry...s-170596.shtml
Developer says Pocket Legends makes more money on Android than iOS
http://www.androidcentral.com/develo...ey-android-ios
Android vs. iOS: A Developer's Perspective
http://www.junauza.com/2011/03/andro...rspective.html
IDC: Developer interest in Android nearly equals iOS
http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...iOS/1295993954
Today's Mac users talking of Android sound like yesterday's Windows users talking about Mac.
iOS is a good platform, Android is a good platform, and neither is going away. The perception of a platform war is the stuff of corporate marketing and end-user fan sites; smart developers deploy to both.
It is the margins that allow Apple to innovate where others follow- which is a DIRECT benefit to consumers. And consumers are demonstrating their appreciation of that benefit by driving continuous marketshare gains, in spite of the competition. With the amount of revenue generated by the profitability is exactly HOW Apple does it. You don't see Dell, or HP or even Lenovo or Sony innovating at the same level as Apple. Which is why Apple has proven to be a moving target. Credit the Android team with the engineering chutzpah to be able to build out a parallel OS that can deliver attractive features that allow a price point from the handset makers that let them sell an attractive product at a decent price. But the Android team only is able to do it because Google is funding it as their ad revenue trojan horse in the mobile space.
You can be sure that Google is pumping a lot of money into Android to ensure that the platform gains the ubiquity they need to drive the profitability they want from the mobile space. Google is not intrinsically interested in Android as a platform, they are interested in Android as a mobile ad delivery vehicle. To that end they will do whatever they need to do to ensure that it delivers - until they find something that delivers better. If Andy was smart he would be cultivating background safety-nets to land Android in when Google switches gears and dumps it for something even more pervasive. Because Android is a COST center for Google, not a revenue center. There are no direct revenues generated by Android and this above all should be ever present in Rubin's mind.