First off, GatorGuy's comments about how the comparison "only became inane when Android market share (was a problem)" is quite false.
And that's true Professor. The comparison was inane even when it favored the iPhone. That's why instead of moving the goalposts, iOS users and fans should just enjoy the overall experience and useability of Apple products. It's not about numbers even if they favor Apple today. Tomorrow they can change and then you have to explain why that number doesn't matter anymore.
The article says "android devices" so I'm assuming this includes tablets. If my assumption is true then this is actually a little underwhelming. If you remove that new class of devices it's possible android phone sales are flat or flattening out. Impressive numbers overall but I still question how sticky the android platform is with users as many people I know with the phones have few, if any, paid apps or services they depend on. I know far more people with iOS devices that have significant investments of time and money and swear by the devices - just some anecdotal thoughts for the discussion.
So... does this mean that sooner or later Apple will go for market share over profits with the iPhone?
Interesting quote.
They can have profit share and market share...with lower margins.
What people don't get is that the "cheap" Android phones these days are better than a Nexus One and cheaper than a new iPhone 3GS. The Motorola Cliq days are over. And that's good enough for most people.
It's like saying that Porsche is failing because it's selling fewer cars than Ford. Not everybody likes Porsches, and a Porsche isn't the right car for a large number of people - who might prefer something cheaper and more practical. Nevertheless, all Porsches are aimed at a relatively affluent market segment and turn a much higher profit margin than a Ford Focus does.[/QUOTE]
I prefer the analogy where Apple is Gucci and Android is Urban Outfitters. Apple serves one market, the ones who have money and Urban Outfitters serve those both who do and don't have a whole lot of money but still walk away looking good!
They can have profit share and market share...with lower margins.
What people don't get is that the "cheap" Android phones these days are better than a Nexus One and cheaper than a new iPhone 3GS. The Motorola Cliq days are over. And that's good enough for most people.
Well... actually... it doesn't matter what people get or don't get... it does matter what Apple gets, though, and I'm sure they are highly aware of the situation. Knowing Jobs, and especially after seeing his quote concerning market share, I would place big bets that the market share question will be answered soon.
... and, I also believe that the market share question isn't actually a pressing concern right now... no matter what a bunch of armchair quarterbacks believe.
And not because it's better, because it's free...like Android.
Actually no, in Linux's case it generally IS better. Thanks in part to investments from firms like Intel, Linux generally plays nice with MUCH more hardware and hardware configurations than most others, who are optimized for a certain range of hardware. It is inexpensive to maintain, thanks to it's small resource use(and partitioning) and requires little downtime compared to most.
I wonder how much recycling of the same users is going on with these new activations? My Android-using friends spend a shocking amount of money playing ?Simon says:? instead of keeping their phone for the contract length, they take a penalty and try ANOTHER Android phone. Because the ?good? Android phone is always just out of reach into the future for them.... and the current devices become abandonware devices rapidly. They?re still hoping for one where the battery lasts the day. Silly rabbit: just don?t install all those apps! They can?t believe I have hundreds of apps on my iPhone and the battery doesn?t die. They fight constantly with their phone. And ultimately, give up and get a different one! But still Android, because they know Apple is evil in some sense they can?t put into words.
I think one big reason (some) people don?t switch from Android to iPhone is that Android has such problems. They?ve never used an iPhone (not day-in day-out) so they think every phone has the level of problems they experience with Android. Therefore, the LAST thing they want is to have problems on an UNFAMILIAR platform. They want the devil they know! (Same thing with Macs: Windows has long been such a pain for some people that it made them scared of all computers?especially unknown ones.)
In reality, while Android IS awesome compared to their old dumphone, they?d be far better served by an iPhone. You know... the device the Android platform is an imitation of... An imitation that is always just about to get it right, with the NEXT device or release. Simon says!
...that Google Android is part of the drive that is pulling more and more people off feature phones and onto "smartphones". By reducing pricing and data plans for the less expensive Android phones, more and more people are part of the smartphone category.
Quite a few commenters assume that Google is gaining marketshare at the cost of someone else (which was true when they first moved into the market, and allowed the handset makers to drop Microsoft). Most of the marketshare is coming at the expense of feature phones - and that's OK. Because once a consumer starts using a smartphone (as opposed to just owning one and using just the basic features) their expectations move from feature to smartphone and then up the smartphone ladder from basic to more expensive (as budget allows).
This is why Rubin, while touting the number of activations, is also in the background trying to shore up the user experience on Android, exerting controls where he must to improve Android's basic consumer delivery quality. There's also pressure from ChromeOS, which could effectively limit the expansion of Android to just the smartphone market - something that is not a limiting factor for the Apple iOS.
Anyone who continues to compare this to the old Mac vs. PC competition is clearly not seeing the obvious and should be disregarded, opinion-wise. That comparison is faulty as best and is used primarily to support the underlying thesis that subsequently Google/Android will be the de facto victor in the marketplace. Not a foregone conclusion in any respect. There is still a huge feature phone amrket internationally for the competitors to pillage and pwn before the dust settles.
I have a hard time buying his report via a Tweet. Would like to see a third party verify this. My Bullshit detector is going off for some reason.
I should also add. Friend of mine just showed me her new Android phone last week. Uh...... it really SUCKS IMO. Would liken it to being forced to work in Windows 7 after using Mac OS X for a decade. Painful and stupid. It's no iPhone. Sorry Google. You guys are creepy commies and your OS bites.
So... does this mean that sooner or later Apple will go for market share over profits with the iPhone?
Interesting quote.
No, that quote is out of context... Steve was actually talking about how companies lose focus on what's important, which was to stay innovative and not concentrate on either profits or market share, which is all the "sales guys" do; they end up milking a product for all its worth and running the company into the ground after they fail to produce new products.
It was about becoming complacent when in a monopolistic position.
...that Google Android is part of the drive that is pulling more and more people off feature phones and onto "smartphones". By reducing pricing and data plans for the less expensive Android phones, more and more people are part of the smartphone category.
Quite a few commenters assume that Google is gaining marketshare at the cost of someone else (which was true when they first moved into the market, and allowed the handset makers to drop Microsoft). Most of the marketshare is coming at the expense of feature phones - and that's OK. Because once a consumer starts using a smartphone (as opposed to just owning one and using just the basic features) their expectations move from feature to smartphone and then up the smartphone ladder from basic to more expensive (as budget allows).
This is why Rubin, while touting the number of activations, is also in the background trying to shore up the user experience on Android, exerting controls where he must to improve Android's basic consumer delivery quality. There's also pressure from ChromeOS, which could effectively limit the expansion of Android to just the smartphone market - something that is not a limiting factor for the Apple iOS.
Anyone who continues to compare this to the old Mac vs. PC competition is clearly not seeing the obvious and should be disregarded, opinion-wise. That comparison is faulty as best and is used primarily to support the underlying thesis that subsequently Google/Android will be the de facto victor in the marketplace. Not a foregone conclusion in any respect. There is still a huge feature phone amrket internationally for the competitors to pillage and pwn before the dust settles.
Rubin's tweet is about device activations of any and all android devices. Not only are the android smartphones fragmented, the android devices fill a vast variety of definitions. For example some are multiple-touch, many are not. A comparison of this activations number to the iOS activations that draws inferences regarding the potential size of the app market for android vs. iOS is not really meaningful. Non-multitouch devices would generally be unable to use multitouch app effectively. Perhaps some smart analyst will study the android market and understand it for what it is and is not.
That's why instead of moving the goalposts, iOS users and fans should just enjoy the overall experience and useability of Apple products. It's not about numbers even if they favor Apple today.
No, that quote is out of context... Steve was actually talking about how companies lose focus on what's important, which was to stay innovative and not concentrate on either profits or market share, which is all the "sales guys" do; they end up milking a product for all its worth and running the company into the ground after they fail to produce new products.
It was about becoming complacent when in a monopolistic position.
"At the critical juncture in the late '80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits."
You read it your way and I'll read it mine.
Innovation is not the only way (or even the best way) to go after market share and looking back at Apple in the late 80s, early 90s, I'd say that Steve was indeed talking directly about market share and not innovation... although innovation should have also been on the table.
No it is NOT a fact. It is nonsense posted continuously on these boards, batted away with evidence, and then somebody else reposts is. On stage Jobs never mentions profit: What he and Apple do is talk about market share all the time Or, rather, they talk about it when they are winning or doing well. Jobs comes on stage and gives the figures. There are all kind of examples of this. They also responded to Rubin last year.
We also have Cook on record saying that he was unwilling to cede any market ( in particular the pre-paid) market. And that the iPhone was not for the rich.
The exception, beccause they have to, is in conference calls. They dont push margins even there. they generally guide for lower margins, and people ignore them.
Lets kill that myth. Apple want to dominate Tablets, and they want to regain momentum in phones.
You are correct as far as you go...
Apple does care about market share and would like to dominate any market they enter. But they want to do it on their own terms -- which includes a quality level and profit margin that meets their goals.
For example, Apple refused to enter the NetBook market when it was rapidly dominating the growth of the mobile PC and PC markets -- there was nothing for Apple in this market.
In the 33 years I have dealt with Apple (Customer, Reseller, Vendor, Joint project), I have never known them to sacrifice profits [below an acceptable level] or quality to attain market share.
Stated simply: when you decide to compete on price, alone -- you have no place to go... but down.
Comments
First off, GatorGuy's comments about how the comparison "only became inane when Android market share (was a problem)" is quite false.
And that's true Professor. The comparison was inane even when it favored the iPhone. That's why instead of moving the goalposts, iOS users and fans should just enjoy the overall experience and useability of Apple products. It's not about numbers even if they favor Apple today. Tomorrow they can change and then you have to explain why that number doesn't matter anymore.
So... does this mean that sooner or later Apple will go for market share over profits with the iPhone?
Interesting quote.
They can have profit share and market share...with lower margins.
What people don't get is that the "cheap" Android phones these days are better than a Nexus One and cheaper than a new iPhone 3GS. The Motorola Cliq days are over. And that's good enough for most people.
Depends what you're doing with your fridge.
But embedded systems drive much of the world we live in, and, like servers and supercomputers, most of them use Linux.
And not because it's better, because it's free...like Android.
I prefer the analogy where Apple is Gucci and Android is Urban Outfitters. Apple serves one market, the ones who have money and Urban Outfitters serve those both who do and don't have a whole lot of money but still walk away looking good!
They can have profit share and market share...with lower margins.
What people don't get is that the "cheap" Android phones these days are better than a Nexus One and cheaper than a new iPhone 3GS. The Motorola Cliq days are over. And that's good enough for most people.
Well... actually... it doesn't matter what people get or don't get... it does matter what Apple gets, though, and I'm sure they are highly aware of the situation. Knowing Jobs, and especially after seeing his quote concerning market share, I would place big bets that the market share question will be answered soon.
... and, I also believe that the market share question isn't actually a pressing concern right now... no matter what a bunch of armchair quarterbacks believe.
And not because it's better, because it's free...like Android.
Actually no, in Linux's case it generally IS better. Thanks in part to investments from firms like Intel, Linux generally plays nice with MUCH more hardware and hardware configurations than most others, who are optimized for a certain range of hardware. It is inexpensive to maintain, thanks to it's small resource use(and partitioning) and requires little downtime compared to most.
I think one big reason (some) people don?t switch from Android to iPhone is that Android has such problems. They?ve never used an iPhone (not day-in day-out) so they think every phone has the level of problems they experience with Android. Therefore, the LAST thing they want is to have problems on an UNFAMILIAR platform. They want the devil they know! (Same thing with Macs: Windows has long been such a pain for some people that it made them scared of all computers?especially unknown ones.)
In reality, while Android IS awesome compared to their old dumphone, they?d be far better served by an iPhone. You know... the device the Android platform is an imitation of... An imitation that is always just about to get it right, with the NEXT device or release. Simon says!
Quite a few commenters assume that Google is gaining marketshare at the cost of someone else (which was true when they first moved into the market, and allowed the handset makers to drop Microsoft). Most of the marketshare is coming at the expense of feature phones - and that's OK. Because once a consumer starts using a smartphone (as opposed to just owning one and using just the basic features) their expectations move from feature to smartphone and then up the smartphone ladder from basic to more expensive (as budget allows).
This is why Rubin, while touting the number of activations, is also in the background trying to shore up the user experience on Android, exerting controls where he must to improve Android's basic consumer delivery quality. There's also pressure from ChromeOS, which could effectively limit the expansion of Android to just the smartphone market - something that is not a limiting factor for the Apple iOS.
Anyone who continues to compare this to the old Mac vs. PC competition is clearly not seeing the obvious and should be disregarded, opinion-wise. That comparison is faulty as best and is used primarily to support the underlying thesis that subsequently Google/Android will be the de facto victor in the marketplace. Not a foregone conclusion in any respect. There is still a huge feature phone amrket internationally for the competitors to pillage and pwn before the dust settles.
I should also add. Friend of mine just showed me her new Android phone last week. Uh...... it really SUCKS IMO. Would liken it to being forced to work in Windows 7 after using Mac OS X for a decade. Painful and stupid. It's no iPhone. Sorry Google. You guys are creepy commies and your OS bites.
So... does this mean that sooner or later Apple will go for market share over profits with the iPhone?
Interesting quote.
No, that quote is out of context... Steve was actually talking about how companies lose focus on what's important, which was to stay innovative and not concentrate on either profits or market share, which is all the "sales guys" do; they end up milking a product for all its worth and running the company into the ground after they fail to produce new products.
It was about becoming complacent when in a monopolistic position.
...that Google Android is part of the drive that is pulling more and more people off feature phones and onto "smartphones". By reducing pricing and data plans for the less expensive Android phones, more and more people are part of the smartphone category.
Quite a few commenters assume that Google is gaining marketshare at the cost of someone else (which was true when they first moved into the market, and allowed the handset makers to drop Microsoft). Most of the marketshare is coming at the expense of feature phones - and that's OK. Because once a consumer starts using a smartphone (as opposed to just owning one and using just the basic features) their expectations move from feature to smartphone and then up the smartphone ladder from basic to more expensive (as budget allows).
This is why Rubin, while touting the number of activations, is also in the background trying to shore up the user experience on Android, exerting controls where he must to improve Android's basic consumer delivery quality. There's also pressure from ChromeOS, which could effectively limit the expansion of Android to just the smartphone market - something that is not a limiting factor for the Apple iOS.
Anyone who continues to compare this to the old Mac vs. PC competition is clearly not seeing the obvious and should be disregarded, opinion-wise. That comparison is faulty as best and is used primarily to support the underlying thesis that subsequently Google/Android will be the de facto victor in the marketplace. Not a foregone conclusion in any respect. There is still a huge feature phone amrket internationally for the competitors to pillage and pwn before the dust settles.
Great viewpoint. +1!
That's why instead of moving the goalposts, iOS users and fans should just enjoy the overall experience and useability of Apple products. It's not about numbers even if they favor Apple today.
We do. It's guys like you that don't.
No, that quote is out of context... Steve was actually talking about how companies lose focus on what's important, which was to stay innovative and not concentrate on either profits or market share, which is all the "sales guys" do; they end up milking a product for all its worth and running the company into the ground after they fail to produce new products.
It was about becoming complacent when in a monopolistic position.
"At the critical juncture in the late '80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits."
You read it your way and I'll read it mine.
Innovation is not the only way (or even the best way) to go after market share and looking back at Apple in the late 80s, early 90s, I'd say that Steve was indeed talking directly about market share and not innovation... although innovation should have also been on the table.
No it is NOT a fact. It is nonsense posted continuously on these boards, batted away with evidence, and then somebody else reposts is. On stage Jobs never mentions profit: What he and Apple do is talk about market share all the time Or, rather, they talk about it when they are winning or doing well. Jobs comes on stage and gives the figures. There are all kind of examples of this. They also responded to Rubin last year.
We also have Cook on record saying that he was unwilling to cede any market ( in particular the pre-paid) market. And that the iPhone was not for the rich.
The exception, beccause they have to, is in conference calls. They dont push margins even there. they generally guide for lower margins, and people ignore them.
Lets kill that myth. Apple want to dominate Tablets, and they want to regain momentum in phones.
You are correct as far as you go...
Apple does care about market share and would like to dominate any market they enter. But they want to do it on their own terms -- which includes a quality level and profit margin that meets their goals.
For example, Apple refused to enter the NetBook market when it was rapidly dominating the growth of the mobile PC and PC markets -- there was nothing for Apple in this market.
In the 33 years I have dealt with Apple (Customer, Reseller, Vendor, Joint project), I have never known them to sacrifice profits [below an acceptable level] or quality to attain market share.
Stated simply: when you decide to compete on price, alone -- you have no place to go... but down.