I disagree. Apple market share in US is over 40%. The users are mostly affluent and spend more time web browsing. I don't think Apple should rely on ads for revenue. This will be contradictory to the strategy I propose. Also Apple has repeatedly said giving its user best experience is its goal. Reducing ads definitely will give users better experience.
I never meant to imply Apple does or should rely on ad revenue. I'm just saying that they have picked a strategy of simply replacing Google on their devices. We've all seen complaints about maps, many justified and Siri still needs quite a lot of work. Like them or not, Google are tough to compete against when Android is barely funded by them and mostly driven by manufacturers and consumers.
I've seen some comments about how apples market share doesnt matter, because developers want active users as their audience. I think apple is in a good position right now in large part because of Tim cook, and he's learning more everyday. I do think android is still a threat because the 'cheap' phones are no longer crap. They aren't just glorified feature phones anymore. The cheap android phones can play angry birds and where's my water now, and I don't think apple would be untrue to itself to offer more low end options, like it did with the iPod. The App Store is important, and if the market gets filled with enough 'glorified feature phones' that actually work well and download apps, market share may start to matter. I say stay ahead of the curve. Apple has a lot of pressure from Wall Street to increase their margins, but I think they need to cater to their long term goals.
I think Apple has an easy strategy to compete with Google. Apple should work as hard as possible to reduce ads on the mobile devices. This will not only reduce Google revenue it also makes the users feeling much comfortable.
I think Apple has an easy strategy to compete with Google. Apple should work as hard as possible to reduce ads on the mobile devices. This will not only reduce Google revenue it also makes the users feeling much comfortable.
Apple's strategy seems clear already, they are using their own advertisement network. The problem is that they have no presence on Android devices and it seems likely they never will, wheras Google's presence is all over the Internet and on every platform. Apple's ad revenues therefore are tied directly to their device sales. That's not typically the case for Google.
I've been thinking about ads, data charges, streaming, carriers, etc...
I think the way this is going to shake out in the next few (5 or so) years is that the carriers (and CableCos into the home) are going to embrace advertising big time! They will reduce the rates on cell services and WiFi services by and recoup their investment increasing ads...
Smartphone market share is a red herring. The overall cell phone market is almost the same as last year, so the share of that market is much more revealing. Apple is gaining market share there as fast as any mass market technology has ever grown (at least in the US -- I don't know the international numbers). They just started later than smartphones did, so it takes awhile to catch up. It would be almost impossible for Apple to be doing any better, since they're matching the exponential growth rate of smartphones in general, just with a delayed starting point.
Apple will never compete with the cheap phones. Why doesn't BMW release a sub $10000 car or Tiffany's sell costume jewelry? There is no money in it for them.
This is absolutely the wrong outlook for Apple. I agree that Apple shouldn't compete at the very lowest levels, but there is an enormous gap below the 5C that they need to fill. A high-quality $250 phone is not out of Apple's reach. Such a phone wouldn't matter so much in America, the land of carrier subsidies, as it would overseas in developing markets.
Edit: I've said it before and I'll say it again - the Moto G is a device that should be striking fear into the hearts of Apple and Samsung. It costs less than $200 and gives the user a great experience with an unbelievable value quotient. The average person doesn't need any more from a phone. The G is the future of the low-end market, and it will probably have an impact on the market's idea of what a phone should cost, even at the high end.
This is absolutely the wrong outlook for Apple. I agree that Apple shouldn't compete at the very lowest levels, but there is an enormous gap below the 5C that they need to fill. A high-quality $250 phone is not out of Apple's reach. Such a phone wouldn't matter so much in America, the land of carrier subsidies, as it would overseas in developing markets.
Has anyone come out with any actual NUMBERS on PROFITS concerning sales to these "developing markets?" I mean real, hard numbers? Like, we made $x Billion in profits in India last year?
This is absolutely the wrong outlook for Apple. I agree that Apple shouldn't compete at the very lowest levels, but there is an enormous gap below the 5C that they need to fill. A high-quality $250 phone is not out of Apple's reach. Such a phone wouldn't matter so much in America, the land of carrier subsidies, as it would overseas in developing markets.
Has anyone come out with any actual NUMBERS on PROFITS concerning sales to these "developing markets?" I mean real, hard numbers? Like, we made $x Billion in profits in India last year?
I don't think so...
I've always thought that the best strategy to sell into "developing markets" is to manufacture/assemble/distribute in those same markets...
You have the potential to receive benefits (reduced taxes/tariffs, etc., govt. underwriting, etc.) -- a rising tide...
Why can't an iPhone for the India Market be built/assembled/distributed/repaired/supported in India?
Its like saying Ferrari who sold 50% more cars this year is in trouble because worldwide market share is down with Chinese car makers selling more. It tells us nothing.
So until these clowns do proper research, I wouldnt be investing in their business, that's the only true metric you can gain from these published figures, as they reflect poorly on their business practice.
The comparison of apple's iphone to Ferrari is extremely old and just plain doesn't work. Sure both are "premium" brands, but nowhere near to the same extent... First, apple's phones are expensive, 2-3x as expensive as a typical android phone. A new Ferrari is ~10x as expensive as a normal car (assuming most cars are $20k-$30k). More importantly, one must consider market share (isn't this what brought your comparison on?). Ferrari sells about 7300 cars in a year... compared to a total market of ~60,000,000 cars sold in a year. This represents ~.012% of the automobile market. Even increasing that to compensate for price differential, the total number produced is inconsequential.
In comparison, Apple owns a HUGE share of the smartphone market. Somewhere around 30-40% based on these numbers. Because Apple has such large margins, they are also making HUGE profits on these phone sales.... However this has little relevance to current investors.
Investors know what profits apple is making, and care about what profits they think they will make next year. Right now APPL is valued at ~$550, and it is earning $39.75 per share, or a return of ~7% (assuming investors got all of the profit back this year, which they won't). The analysts new numbers showing that the iphone's market share is reducing means that Apple is not going to be able to substantially increase their iphone sales (particularly as the smartphone market is maturing). They aren't putting more money into apple because they don't think it's possible for apple to increase sales enough at this point... Apple is a mature company they aren't going anywhere any time soon, but in the next 5 years it's more likely that Apple's market share (and profits) will decrease from the record high that they're at (or stay relatively flat) then that they will increase dramatically.
Either way, Apple's market share is WAY too bit for them to not care about it. The problem with being big is that it's significantly harder to keep growing. Hell, Apple could triple the number of macs sold this year, and hardly make a dent on their bottom line... This makes it extremely hard for apple to grow according to the expectations that they have set. This is why investors have pulled out of apple, and Apple's stock price is stabilizing. No, Apple is not doomed, but can they continue to grow like they have in the past?
The situation with weird bugs on specific platforms is basically identical to Windows...
I'll run with your assertion that the situation is identical in terms of support variations. But let's not lose sight of the fact that in order to bring my comparison into proper perspective, you essentially pointed out that Microsoft had to deal with a lot more variation than I was suggesting, and you did not dispute that the Android developers have to deal with a similar amount. You used the word "identical". So here's where the situation becomes different... most third party developers don't have the time or the bankroll that Microsoft had to address platform specific bugs. The testing and support under that situation is time consuming and costly. This supports my position, even if I am forced to acknowledge a potential flaw in my argument. In your zeal to correct me, it seems to me that you ended up supporting my position.
Also, you acknowledge that there are other frameworks of development than Google Play's API. (We both called out the Kindle.) If so, then would it not be proper to leave the Kindle numbers out of a comparison between the iOS App market and that of Google Play? In other words, shouldn't we compare all such frameworks independently, i.e. iOS versus Kindle, versus Google Play, etc? Note that the Kindle is the #2 platform behind iOS in the web usage statistics, so I think the distinction is relevant and important. Samsung has also opened their own App Store, and if they take it a step further and require digital signatures from that venue in order to run apps on their device, then we shall have to take up the conversation again. There is talk that Samsung will further build out its own walled-garden in order to grab some of the advertisement or sales revenue that Google and Amazon enjoy currently. I doubt that they will really jump ship on Android for Tizen, but I could easily see them decide to fork Android like Amazon did to gain control and revenue. It just seems to me that lumping all Android devices together to reach a conclusion is a dubious process.
The bottom line is that: (1) you can't just add all Android-based devices together and compare them to iOS devices; some allowance must be made to show that Amazon (and perhaps others in the future) differ from one another as much as they differ from iOS, at least in the ways that affect the consumer) and (2) the iOS App market place is accelerating its pace of downloads and sales even at a time where the iOS device market is declining in market share. The reasons for this should be understood and seen to be very different from what happened under Mac vs PC.
A year or more ago the cheap low end Android smartphones truly were incapable of doing much of anything. Phones like the original LG Optimus from 4 years ago for example only had a 3.2" display, very limited storage, and a very slow CPU. If you paid less that $400 for a phone you were assured of having a very inferior and frustrating experience. But that really is no longer the case. At $349 for 16GB and only $399 for 32GB the Nexus 5 is an extremely capable phone and matches up pretty well with even the 5s on a number of tests.
The iPhone certainly has a better build quality and is a better phone overall than the Nexus 5 but at $399 for the 32GB version unlocked vs. $749 for the unlocked 5s is the advantage that big? My point is that Apple can no longer count on all these cheap and low end phones to offer a terrible experience as was the case a few years ago. The Nexus 5 has LTE, a 5" display with a higher PPI than the iPhone, 32GB of storage, and can play games and surf the web very fast and beats the 5s in battery life. Like the iPhone no bloatware or crapware from the carrier is installed either on Nexus phones.
These so called low end phones are already better than the most expensive so called "premium" phones from just a year or two ago. I think this will end up hurting Samsung more than Apple as consumers choose to save money and buy phones like the Nexus 5 because they do everything that is required and do it well. iPhone customers tend to be far more loyal and the stickiness of the iOS ecosystem also helps keep them in the fold. But even Apple might start to bleed some customers if these low end phones continue to narrow the gap in features and people start to be more attracted to the Uncarrier model introduced by T-Mobile. Plenty of people will keep buying the iPhone as long as they can get one for $199 or $299 but not too many would be willing to shell out $649.
Edit: I've said it before and I'll say it again - the Moto G is a device that should be striking fear into the hearts of Apple and Samsung. It costs less than $200 and gives the user a great experience with an unbelievable value quotient. The average person doesn't need any more from a phone. The G is the future of the low-end market, and it will probably have an impact on the market's idea of what a phone should cost, even at the high end.
same could be said about the Nexus 5. The 5c could be well position if they can sell it around $350 when the 6 gets out.
I've been thinking about ads, data charges, streaming, carriers, etc...
I think the way this is going to shake out in the next few (5 or so) years is that the carriers (and CableCos into the home) are going to embrace advertising big time! They will reduce the rates on cell services and WiFi services by and recoup their investment increasing ads...
I've seen instances of carriers replacing adverts with their own advertising network on third party sites via their transparent HTTP proxying. It's a horrible mess but I generally just open a VPN to avoid it. Google's been a big proponent of HTTPS though (as has Apple to be fair, their security is also quite good) and so the chance of ISPs doing this without injecting a new CA on the devices is increasingly limited.
I'm finished. Going to remove Appleinsider from my shortcut bar and google currents. They don't provide any useful information - good bye, everyone and I've enjoyed reading all your comments of the years.
I think it's time to stop talking about smartphone marketshare and simply talk about cellphone marketshare. The metrics I'm interested in are is the overall cellphone market changing and how is Apple doing as a percentage of that market. Essentially all phones will soon be running a smartphone OS. Smartphones as a category is becoming meaningless as no one agrees on what is now required to be a "smartphone".
If Apple is still growing its share of the total cellphone market, it's doing just fine.
most third party developers don't have the time or the bankroll that Microsoft had to address platform specific bugs. The testing and support under that situation is time consuming and costly. This supports my position, even if I am forced to acknowledge a potential flaw in my argument. In your zeal to correct me, it seems to me that you ended up supporting my position.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not really disagreeing with you much, I just wanted to slightly correct you. For example here you are quite close, but you mistake where the testing/support costs typically lie. Microsoft rarely get involved with individual bits of hardware, they provide a reference implementation that everything must conform to. This is essentially analogous to Google's compatability kit which certifies Android devices. In both cases if bugs are found, the pressures are placed on generally the hardware manufacturer and the app developer. Little touches Microsoft or Google.
Quote:
Also, you acknowledge that there are other frameworks of development than Google Play's API. (We both called out the Kindle.) If so, then would it not be proper to leave the Kindle numbers out of a comparison between the iOS App market and that of Google Play? In other words, shouldn't we compare all such frameworks independently, i.e. iOS versus Kindle, versus Google Play, etc?
That depends on what you're trying to measure. Relatively few apps will use Amazon or Google APIs explicitly, and most can be run on 'AOSP', ie Android but without any third party frameworks. If you're trying to measure device penetration or version distribution etc then it is worth splitting out Kindles and unofficial Play devices too.
Quote:
Note that the Kindle is the #2 platform behind iOS in the web usage statistics, so I think the distinction is relevant and important. Samsung has also opened their own App Store, and if they take it a step further and require digital signatures from that venue in order to run apps on their device, then we shall have to take up the conversation again. There is talk that Samsung will further build out its own walled-garden in order to grab some of the advertisement or sales revenue that Google and Amazon enjoy currently. I doubt that they will really jump ship on Android for Tizen, but I could easily see them decide to fork Android like Amazon did to gain control and revenue. It just seems to me that lumping all Android devices together to reach a conclusion is a dubious process.
Agreed, although I did a quick Google and from what I can find the use share is around 5-10% either side of equal.
Quote:
The bottom line is that: (1) you can't just add all Android-based devices together and compare them to iOS devices; some allowance must be made to show that Amazon (and perhaps others in the future) differ from one another as much as they differ from iOS, at least in the ways that affect the consumer) and (2) the iOS App market place is accelerating its pace of downloads and sales even at a time where the iOS device market is declining in market share. The reasons for this should be understood and seen to be very different from what happened under Mac vs PC.
Well the whole platforms are different. The closest the PC has to an 'App Store' is perhaps Steam, which does extremely well so really I think it's impossible to judge at the moment. I'm just going to wait and see. It's good for the consumer either way.
Apple has been making me money hand over fist since I began investing. I started buying at $74 before the iPhone launched and it's been a nice ride since then. Sounds like you just don't know how to invest properly.
Google makes money on ads. Ads! Seriously? Most companies I know are pulling their online search marketing and moving to social media and beyond. Google will soon find that out. Google makes nothing on Android. Nothing.
But if you want to hitch a ride on a nice big ship sinking to the bottom of a sea of profit in a race to the bottom for the world domination of free and cheap, be my guest. Sounds like you'll just make another dumb investment. You can't fix stupid.
I'm invested in both, but I'm not going to come on here and be a dick about it. You can't fix a-hole.
The iPhone certainly has a better build quality and is a better phone overall than the Nexus 5 but at $399 for the 32GB version unlocked vs. $749 for the unlocked 5s is the advantage that big?
This is exactly why I bought a Nexus 5. It's exacerbated by this:
Nexus 5 32Gb - £339.00 ~ $560
iPhone 5s 32Gb - £629.00 ~ $1040
iPhone 5c 32Gb - £469.00 ~ $777
That's an awfully big difference for me too. I just can't justify spending an extra £290, nearly an extra N5 16Gb for the 5s. It's not the only concern of course but as you said, the N5 is a very capable phone.
This is exactly why I bought a Nexus 5. It's exacerbated by this:
Nexus 5 32Gb - £339.00 ~ $560
iPhone 5s 32Gb - £629.00 ~ $1040
iPhone 5c 32Gb - £469.00 ~ $777
That's an awfully big difference for me too. I just can't justify spending an extra £290, nearly an extra N5 16Gb for the 5s. It's not the only concern of course but as you said, the N5 is a very capable phone.
Could you kindly tell us what is your monthly data plan fee?
Comments
I disagree. Apple market share in US is over 40%. The users are mostly affluent and spend more time web browsing. I don't think Apple should rely on ads for revenue. This will be contradictory to the strategy I propose. Also Apple has repeatedly said giving its user best experience is its goal. Reducing ads definitely will give users better experience.
I never meant to imply Apple does or should rely on ad revenue. I'm just saying that they have picked a strategy of simply replacing Google on their devices. We've all seen complaints about maps, many justified and Siri still needs quite a lot of work. Like them or not, Google are tough to compete against when Android is barely funded by them and mostly driven by manufacturers and consumers.
I've been thinking about ads, data charges, streaming, carriers, etc...
I think the way this is going to shake out in the next few (5 or so) years is that the carriers (and CableCos into the home) are going to embrace advertising big time! They will reduce the rates on cell services and WiFi services by and recoup their investment increasing ads...
Apple will never compete with the cheap phones. Why doesn't BMW release a sub $10000 car or Tiffany's sell costume jewelry? There is no money in it for them.
This is absolutely the wrong outlook for Apple. I agree that Apple shouldn't compete at the very lowest levels, but there is an enormous gap below the 5C that they need to fill. A high-quality $250 phone is not out of Apple's reach. Such a phone wouldn't matter so much in America, the land of carrier subsidies, as it would overseas in developing markets.
Edit: I've said it before and I'll say it again - the Moto G is a device that should be striking fear into the hearts of Apple and Samsung. It costs less than $200 and gives the user a great experience with an unbelievable value quotient. The average person doesn't need any more from a phone. The G is the future of the low-end market, and it will probably have an impact on the market's idea of what a phone should cost, even at the high end.
This is absolutely the wrong outlook for Apple. I agree that Apple shouldn't compete at the very lowest levels, but there is an enormous gap below the 5C that they need to fill. A high-quality $250 phone is not out of Apple's reach. Such a phone wouldn't matter so much in America, the land of carrier subsidies, as it would overseas in developing markets.
Has anyone come out with any actual NUMBERS on PROFITS concerning sales to these "developing markets?" I mean real, hard numbers? Like, we made $x Billion in profits in India last year?
I don't think so...
I've always thought that the best strategy to sell into "developing markets" is to manufacture/assemble/distribute in those same markets...
You have the potential to receive benefits (reduced taxes/tariffs, etc., govt. underwriting, etc.) -- a rising tide...
Why can't an iPhone for the India Market be built/assembled/distributed/repaired/supported in India?
Its like saying Ferrari who sold 50% more cars this year is in trouble because worldwide market share is down with Chinese car makers selling more. It tells us nothing.
So until these clowns do proper research, I wouldnt be investing in their business, that's the only true metric you can gain from these published figures, as they reflect poorly on their business practice.
The comparison of apple's iphone to Ferrari is extremely old and just plain doesn't work. Sure both are "premium" brands, but nowhere near to the same extent... First, apple's phones are expensive, 2-3x as expensive as a typical android phone. A new Ferrari is ~10x as expensive as a normal car (assuming most cars are $20k-$30k). More importantly, one must consider market share (isn't this what brought your comparison on?). Ferrari sells about 7300 cars in a year... compared to a total market of ~60,000,000 cars sold in a year. This represents ~.012% of the automobile market. Even increasing that to compensate for price differential, the total number produced is inconsequential.
In comparison, Apple owns a HUGE share of the smartphone market. Somewhere around 30-40% based on these numbers. Because Apple has such large margins, they are also making HUGE profits on these phone sales.... However this has little relevance to current investors.
Investors know what profits apple is making, and care about what profits they think they will make next year. Right now APPL is valued at ~$550, and it is earning $39.75 per share, or a return of ~7% (assuming investors got all of the profit back this year, which they won't). The analysts new numbers showing that the iphone's market share is reducing means that Apple is not going to be able to substantially increase their iphone sales (particularly as the smartphone market is maturing). They aren't putting more money into apple because they don't think it's possible for apple to increase sales enough at this point... Apple is a mature company they aren't going anywhere any time soon, but in the next 5 years it's more likely that Apple's market share (and profits) will decrease from the record high that they're at (or stay relatively flat) then that they will increase dramatically.
Either way, Apple's market share is WAY too bit for them to not care about it. The problem with being big is that it's significantly harder to keep growing. Hell, Apple could triple the number of macs sold this year, and hardly make a dent on their bottom line... This makes it extremely hard for apple to grow according to the expectations that they have set. This is why investors have pulled out of apple, and Apple's stock price is stabilizing. No, Apple is not doomed, but can they continue to grow like they have in the past?
Phil
The situation with weird bugs on specific platforms is basically identical to Windows...
I'll run with your assertion that the situation is identical in terms of support variations. But let's not lose sight of the fact that in order to bring my comparison into proper perspective, you essentially pointed out that Microsoft had to deal with a lot more variation than I was suggesting, and you did not dispute that the Android developers have to deal with a similar amount. You used the word "identical". So here's where the situation becomes different... most third party developers don't have the time or the bankroll that Microsoft had to address platform specific bugs. The testing and support under that situation is time consuming and costly. This supports my position, even if I am forced to acknowledge a potential flaw in my argument. In your zeal to correct me, it seems to me that you ended up supporting my position.
Also, you acknowledge that there are other frameworks of development than Google Play's API. (We both called out the Kindle.) If so, then would it not be proper to leave the Kindle numbers out of a comparison between the iOS App market and that of Google Play? In other words, shouldn't we compare all such frameworks independently, i.e. iOS versus Kindle, versus Google Play, etc? Note that the Kindle is the #2 platform behind iOS in the web usage statistics, so I think the distinction is relevant and important. Samsung has also opened their own App Store, and if they take it a step further and require digital signatures from that venue in order to run apps on their device, then we shall have to take up the conversation again. There is talk that Samsung will further build out its own walled-garden in order to grab some of the advertisement or sales revenue that Google and Amazon enjoy currently. I doubt that they will really jump ship on Android for Tizen, but I could easily see them decide to fork Android like Amazon did to gain control and revenue. It just seems to me that lumping all Android devices together to reach a conclusion is a dubious process.
The bottom line is that: (1) you can't just add all Android-based devices together and compare them to iOS devices; some allowance must be made to show that Amazon (and perhaps others in the future) differ from one another as much as they differ from iOS, at least in the ways that affect the consumer) and (2) the iOS App market place is accelerating its pace of downloads and sales even at a time where the iOS device market is declining in market share. The reasons for this should be understood and seen to be very different from what happened under Mac vs PC.
A year or more ago the cheap low end Android smartphones truly were incapable of doing much of anything. Phones like the original LG Optimus from 4 years ago for example only had a 3.2" display, very limited storage, and a very slow CPU. If you paid less that $400 for a phone you were assured of having a very inferior and frustrating experience. But that really is no longer the case. At $349 for 16GB and only $399 for 32GB the Nexus 5 is an extremely capable phone and matches up pretty well with even the 5s on a number of tests.
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/review/2322580/iphone-5s-vs-nexus-5-vs-galaxy-s4-head-to-head-review
The iPhone certainly has a better build quality and is a better phone overall than the Nexus 5 but at $399 for the 32GB version unlocked vs. $749 for the unlocked 5s is the advantage that big? My point is that Apple can no longer count on all these cheap and low end phones to offer a terrible experience as was the case a few years ago. The Nexus 5 has LTE, a 5" display with a higher PPI than the iPhone, 32GB of storage, and can play games and surf the web very fast and beats the 5s in battery life. Like the iPhone no bloatware or crapware from the carrier is installed either on Nexus phones.
https://play.google.com/store/devices/details/Nexus_5_32GB_Black?id=nexus_5_black_32gb&hl=en
These so called low end phones are already better than the most expensive so called "premium" phones from just a year or two ago. I think this will end up hurting Samsung more than Apple as consumers choose to save money and buy phones like the Nexus 5 because they do everything that is required and do it well. iPhone customers tend to be far more loyal and the stickiness of the iOS ecosystem also helps keep them in the fold. But even Apple might start to bleed some customers if these low end phones continue to narrow the gap in features and people start to be more attracted to the Uncarrier model introduced by T-Mobile. Plenty of people will keep buying the iPhone as long as they can get one for $199 or $299 but not too many would be willing to shell out $649.
Edit: I've said it before and I'll say it again - the Moto G is a device that should be striking fear into the hearts of Apple and Samsung. It costs less than $200 and gives the user a great experience with an unbelievable value quotient. The average person doesn't need any more from a phone. The G is the future of the low-end market, and it will probably have an impact on the market's idea of what a phone should cost, even at the high end.
same could be said about the Nexus 5. The 5c could be well position if they can sell it around $350 when the 6 gets out.
I've been thinking about ads, data charges, streaming, carriers, etc...
I think the way this is going to shake out in the next few (5 or so) years is that the carriers (and CableCos into the home) are going to embrace advertising big time! They will reduce the rates on cell services and WiFi services by and recoup their investment increasing ads...
I've seen instances of carriers replacing adverts with their own advertising network on third party sites via their transparent HTTP proxying. It's a horrible mess but I generally just open a VPN to avoid it. Google's been a big proponent of HTTPS though (as has Apple to be fair, their security is also quite good) and so the chance of ISPs doing this without injecting a new CA on the devices is increasingly limited.
If Apple is still growing its share of the total cellphone market, it's doing just fine.
most third party developers don't have the time or the bankroll that Microsoft had to address platform specific bugs. The testing and support under that situation is time consuming and costly. This supports my position, even if I am forced to acknowledge a potential flaw in my argument. In your zeal to correct me, it seems to me that you ended up supporting my position.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not really disagreeing with you much, I just wanted to slightly correct you. For example here you are quite close, but you mistake where the testing/support costs typically lie. Microsoft rarely get involved with individual bits of hardware, they provide a reference implementation that everything must conform to. This is essentially analogous to Google's compatability kit which certifies Android devices. In both cases if bugs are found, the pressures are placed on generally the hardware manufacturer and the app developer. Little touches Microsoft or Google.
That depends on what you're trying to measure. Relatively few apps will use Amazon or Google APIs explicitly, and most can be run on 'AOSP', ie Android but without any third party frameworks. If you're trying to measure device penetration or version distribution etc then it is worth splitting out Kindles and unofficial Play devices too.
Note that the Kindle is the #2 platform behind iOS in the web usage statistics, so I think the distinction is relevant and important. Samsung has also opened their own App Store, and if they take it a step further and require digital signatures from that venue in order to run apps on their device, then we shall have to take up the conversation again. There is talk that Samsung will further build out its own walled-garden in order to grab some of the advertisement or sales revenue that Google and Amazon enjoy currently. I doubt that they will really jump ship on Android for Tizen, but I could easily see them decide to fork Android like Amazon did to gain control and revenue. It just seems to me that lumping all Android devices together to reach a conclusion is a dubious process.
Agreed, although I did a quick Google and from what I can find the use share is around 5-10% either side of equal.
The bottom line is that: (1) you can't just add all Android-based devices together and compare them to iOS devices; some allowance must be made to show that Amazon (and perhaps others in the future) differ from one another as much as they differ from iOS, at least in the ways that affect the consumer) and (2) the iOS App market place is accelerating its pace of downloads and sales even at a time where the iOS device market is declining in market share. The reasons for this should be understood and seen to be very different from what happened under Mac vs PC.
Well the whole platforms are different. The closest the PC has to an 'App Store' is perhaps Steam, which does extremely well so really I think it's impossible to judge at the moment. I'm just going to wait and see. It's good for the consumer either way.
I don't think so...
I've always thought that the best strategy to sell into "developing markets" is to manufacture/assemble/distribute in those same markets...
You have the potential to receive benefits (reduced taxes/tariffs, etc., govt. underwriting, etc.) -- a rising tide...
Why can't an iPhone for the India Market be built/assembled/distributed/repaired/supported in India?
Makes sense to me.
App
Apple has been making me money hand over fist since I began investing. I started buying at $74 before the iPhone launched and it's been a nice ride since then. Sounds like you just don't know how to invest properly.
Google makes money on ads. Ads! Seriously? Most companies I know are pulling their online search marketing and moving to social media and beyond. Google will soon find that out. Google makes nothing on Android. Nothing.
But if you want to hitch a ride on a nice big ship sinking to the bottom of a sea of profit in a race to the bottom for the world domination of free and cheap, be my guest. Sounds like you'll just make another dumb investment. You can't fix stupid.
I'm invested in both, but I'm not going to come on here and be a dick about it. You can't fix a-hole.
the Nexus 5 is an extremely capable phone
...
The iPhone certainly has a better build quality and is a better phone overall than the Nexus 5 but at $399 for the 32GB version unlocked vs. $749 for the unlocked 5s is the advantage that big?
This is exactly why I bought a Nexus 5. It's exacerbated by this:
That's an awfully big difference for me too. I just can't justify spending an extra £290, nearly an extra N5 16Gb for the 5s. It's not the only concern of course but as you said, the N5 is a very capable phone.
This is exactly why I bought a Nexus 5. It's exacerbated by this:
That's an awfully big difference for me too. I just can't justify spending an extra £290, nearly an extra N5 16Gb for the 5s. It's not the only concern of course but as you said, the N5 is a very capable phone.
Could you kindly tell us what is your monthly data plan fee?