I agree to a certain extent. But Google was smart in creating Android. It gives them a strong foothold in the mobile industry. Much as it was the case for Microsoft on the desktop, manufacturers have a love-hate relationship with Android. They love it because it allows them to create phones which they couldn't by themselves, they hate it because they have a partner that dictates the rules (more so than anyone imagined).
Google played it smart though. They allowed a level of customization that was unprecedented for an OS (excluding Linux of course) providing the manufacturer with the chance to create their phone "slightly" different one from the other, still retaining compatibility with all apps.
Manufacturers love this approach, they always had. Carriers have historically tried to customize the phones they subsidize for a long time. I remember (makes me feel old though) that all Vodafone and Orange phones where so much full of personalized icons and stuff that all Vodafone devices' menus looked the same. And that the same phone on Vodafone or Orange would seem a totally different phone.
All of this led to poor innovation and disaster. Luckily the iPhone came along and disrupted this strategy. Still thankful to Jobs for providing a masterpiece of technology (dare I say it? Art!) and changing so much of the phone industry.
The level of customisation offered by Symbian and other OS's as shown by your examples, kills your earlier argument.
Wow this article is super-biased. Google may be able to fool investors but you can't fool your customers. If 80% of phones being shipped are android it's because people like it. Most of these users are people who have used android phones in the past and are happy with it. Some are switching from the iPhone (for good reason) and maybe a handful are completely new to smartphones but have been recommended by friends/family. If anything, I think it's Apple who has been trying to fool customers by selling products for double their android-equivalent prices based purely on the "it's cool" factor. But the shift to android shows that you can only fool people for so long.
Comparing their growth to Sun/Adobe is a silly comparison. In the smartphone-era android figures are unparalleled. That's not to say that android will always be the dominant OS. Sooner or later they too will join Nokia and Apple in the once-was list. But for now, they are inarguably the no.1 player. And personally I feel as a software Android 4.4 is leagues ahead of iOS7.
Wow this article is super-biased. Google may be able to fool investors but you can't fool your customers. If 80% of phones being shipped are android it's because people like it. Most of these users are people who have used android phones in the past and are happy with it. Some are switching from the iPhone (for good reason) and maybe a handful are completely new to smartphones but have been recommended by friends/family. If anything, I think it's Apple who has been trying to fool customers by selling products for double their android-equivalent prices based purely on the "it's cool" factor. But the shift to android shows that you can only fool people for so long.
Comparing their growth to Sun/Adobe is a silly comparison. In the smartphone-era android figures are unparalleled. That's not to say that android will always be the dominant OS. Sooner or later they too will join Nokia and Apple in the once-was list. But for now, they are inarguably the no.1 player. And personally I feel as a software Android 4.4 is leagues ahead of iOS7.
Most Android phones sold are cheap pieces of junk that barely function as feature phones, let alone smartphones, there is no money in them.
I agree with your comment but would also point out that Apple tends to heavily leverage their current expertise when they've ventured into other areas (not just through money at it) which does seem different than Google getting into robotics (unless they're leveraging robotics needed for their vast and numerous data centers).
I agree, but I was speaking in generalities, not in 'if Apple did it so could Google'.
This article is so full of inaccuracies and misinformation it borders on comical. This is gonna be a looooooooooooooong comment.
Let me start with the big one: Google relying on "yesterday's PC". Google's revenue is primarily based on ad revenue, that is true, but their ad revenue is not limited to PCs. They make a large percentage of their ad revenue from mobile (which includes ads on iPhones as well), with 19.1% coming from mobile as of August 2013, and expectations are that mobile ads will account for 30% by 2015. Their ad business isn't going anywhere, its' evolving, just as the market is evolving, because their ad service isn't tied to a single hardware platform.
However, that being said, the desktop (and notebook for that matter) isn't going anywhere. Mobile is not going to replace the computer any time in the near future, certainly not in businesses. Tablets are nice, but they aren't powerful or functional enough to perform at the level necessary for a business user. Mobile applications, while good, cannot compete with the desktop platform yet. We are getting there with the move towards 64 bit SOCs, but we won't see the desktop being replaced for years to come.
The author somehow suggested that Apple's success can be attributed to the hiring of Tim Cook in 1998. While it's true that he has streamlined their manufacturing process significantly, this is a completely ludicrous statement. It was Steve Jobs' vision of the future product line that brought Apple back from the depths, and suggesting anything otherwise is offensive to his legacy. If it wasn't for his foresight in designing the iPod, iPhone and iPad for the everyman, Apple wouldn't have been successful in the way they are today, end of story. Would they have had their markets? Absolutely. But not the powerhouse they are.
The reason why Apple maintains such a high average selling price while other mobile operating systems are much lower is because Apple refuses to release products to compete in emerging markets. All of their mobile offerings are priced for the high-end user, and if not for carrier subsidies, would be unaffordable by most. All other mobile OS manufacturers have cheap offerings to allow for traction in the lower price scale, and in doing so, just by volume will lower their average selling price. Looking at Apple compared to other companies in this way will always favor Apple as long as they continue to market their products as elite. That's like comparing Ferrari to Mercedes. Sure, they both make expensive vehicles, but Mercedes also makes cheaper cars whereas Ferrari only stays high end.
Comparing Apple's gross profits to Google's isn't a sound comparison because ultimately they don't run equivalent businesses. As the article points out, 90% of Apple's revenues come from mobile tech, whereas only 15% of Google's lives in mobile. Also of note, Apple is the soup-to-nuts owner of their tech. Sure, they pay for components from some parts manufacturers, but ultimately, all the profits on the sale of the phone AND the sales of their apps falls in their pockets. Google isn't a manufacturer, they only make the OS. When equivalent phones are sold (lets' say a $700 iPhone 5 vs. a $700 Samsung Galaxy S4 for arguments sake), Apple takes 100% of the margin in the sale of that phone, whereas Samsung takes the margin on the Galaxy S4 and only sends Google licensing fees. Also, Apple and Google both make 30% on app sales, however iTunes is the only option for buying an app on an iPhone, due to Apple's ecosystem being very curated by design. Android on the other hand has many alternate app store offerings, as manufacturers like Samsung and Amazon have their own stores and try to encourage (or in the case of the Kindle Fire force) users to buy apps from their app store so they take that cut of the profit. Some cheaper Android devices don't even have the Google Play store available on them. My point is, Apple takes much more profit from mobile than Google does, and anyone who understands the businesses would know that you can't just flatly compare the two companies like that. I guess that is why DED is a blog writer for Apple Insider and not a business analyst.
Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility was about the acquisition of patents, plain and simple. They weren't looking to enhance Google TV with Motorola's STB business, or stave off Motorola making Windows Phone devices. Google has no need to fear Windows Phone devices because the platform is no threat to them, it only accounts for 3% of all mobile sales. Google's hardware partners and Google themselves have been attacked in courts of late by many companies, including Apple, over patent issues, and they were trying to bolster their patent portfolio. The importance of patents in today's patent-troll era cannot be overvalued. Would Google have liked to see Motorola succeed more? Absolutely. But ultimately, Google isn't in the hardware business, they're in the services business. The Nexus lineup, the Google Play Experience device lineup, and the Moto X/G experiments were exactly that, experiments. They were never meant to bring in huge profits. Google also maintained Motorola's Advanced Research division when they sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo, because there are some more experiments in the pipeline that Google is highly interested in, such as Project Ara. But don't be mistaken, ultimately, Google sells ads and uses that profit to try their hand at other things. They don't always succeed, as is obvious if you just look at their other offerings. For every Gmail and Google Maps, there are things like Google Buzz and Google Wave. Google can afford to lose money on projects like that because they have a sound business with their AdSense.
"Apple's clear successes with ads, Maps and Siri" has to be one of the most hilarious lines I've ever read in a tech blog. I can't speak to Apple's ads business, but the fact that Google still completely owns that business would lead me to think it's PC vs. Mac all over again, with Apple clinging to a tiny percentage and claiming they're a success. Apple Maps was a giant mess, and it forced Tim Cook to issue a messy public apology, which was a big black eye in his early tenure. They released it too early when it wasn't ready for prime time and many people I know refuse to try it again based on that early experience. Siri is gret, but it's a parlor trick. People loved it when they first got it, but the allure wore off quickly because it doesn't really serve a purpose. Sure, it can make a few things faster, that's without question. But ultimately, people don't want to speak to their phone to operate it in public spaces, which is where most people use their phones. Either Siri can't hear you clearly, or you have to shout and make a scene in order for your phone to hear you. Even when Siri does hear you, it's still limited in what it can do. I don't know many people that use it regularly. Most importantly, Siri can't be monetiszed. Apple doesn't make money from its use, so I don't see how even if it was widely adopted, it will really matter in the grand scheme of the business when it's only a software program that can be duplicated on other platforms.
Google DOES have an 80 percent share of the mobile market, and as I explained before the reason why Google doesn't have four times the mobile revenue as Apple does is because of the inequalities in how their respective businesses operate. You can't poo-poo the fact that Apple's market share is declining rapidly and their business has become largely uninnovative. Companies like Samsung have taken Apple's formula and improved upon it, while Apple has kept the same attitude of "we're the best, people buy us because we're Apple" and let their market share slip. It's the same stance Blackberry had for years and while I don't think Apple will allow themselves to fail in the way Blackberry did, it's not a good place to be.
"Apple also appears to be strategically investing in wearables, a space that has been dominated by iPods, iPhones and iPad for many years. " How are the iPod, iPhone, and iPad considered "wearables"?!? Maybe iPods can be strapped to an arm when you're jogging, but that's NOT what a wearable is. A wearable is something that is ALWAYS worn on a part of your body, not something that can be strapped on using an accessory case. The thought of someone "wearing" an iPad makes me giggle uncontrollably.
Ultimately, I recognize that this is an article on Apple Insider, but at least attempt to sound like you are knowledgeable and not some corporate shill telling grossly one-sided stories to make your point. And for the record, I have nothing against Apple or their products. I just have a problem with misleading articles that are based on incorrect information.
Revenues of iTunes are strongly related to hardware sales. A slip in sales == a slip in revenue. iTunes doesn't exist as "a standalone" source of revenue.
These are the advantages and disadvantages of having an ecosystem. You can create a positive reinforcing cycle as well as a downward spiral according to sales.
Imagine Android continuing it's increase in sales: where are developers going to go? Android first and Apple second. So Apple won't have exclusives, and the interest might decrease.
Moreover: Rdio, Pandora, iTunes Radio itself are eating up music sales profits. Let's see what happens with the AppleTV. If it takes off then maybe als TV episode sales might see a slip.
Apple isn't "doomed", quite the opposite. But seeing the challenge it faces in the coming years allows to better understand, in my opinion at least, that Apple has to increase the sources of revenue (diversification) without spreading too thin, which almost turned into a disaster prior to Jobs returning.
Developers won't go Android first if iOS is where the money is to be made. We've already seen stats that show iOS customers use their devices as a smartphone more than Android customers do. iOS customers do more online browsing and spend more on apps. Basically iOS customers have more disposable income. I think I know who I'd want to develop for.
Developers won't go Android first if iOS is where the money is to be made. We've already seen stats that show iOS customers use their devices as a smartphone more than Android customers do. iOS customers do more online browsing and spend more on apps. Basically iOS customers have more disposable income. I think I know who I'd want to develop for.
These days there's even a bunch of frameworks for simpler apps or games that will let you deploy your app to every platform at once. As far as I know Apple has no problem with Unity for example, so that way you can take advantage of both markets.
Developers won't go Android first if iOS is where the money is to be made. We've already seen stats that show iOS customers use their devices as a smartphone more than Android customers do. iOS customers do more online browsing and spend more on apps. Basically iOS customers have more disposable income. I think I know who I'd want to develop for.
Actually develpers going iOS first has nothing to do with anything either of you said. Developers go iOS first because iOS is much easier to program for. With iOS, there are only a handful of devices, all with similar hardware, so programming is easy. With Android, there are so many variants in both hardware (phones with multiple buttons, phones with one button, phones with no buttons, varying resolution screens, etc.) and software (phones running the gamut of Android releases between 2.3 Gingerbread and 4.4 KitKat, phones running all the skinned variants of Android from manufacturers like Samsung TouchWiz, HTC Sense, Motorola MotoBlur, LG's skin, etc.) that is takes MUCH longer for developers to test on.
I forgot to put you on ignore for arguing like a particular stupid 12 year old who can produce nothing but stupid straw man arguments, but I've rectified that now so don't both replying.
Please add me to your block list if you haven't already.
I've heard the stolen claim a lot while posting here, but I'm not sure I know what the allegations are exactly. When you say 'the GUI' was stolen, what exactly do you mean? Early Android looked very little like iOS to my eyes, so I wonder if perhaps you're talking about concepts?
This thread might not be the appropriate place for discussing this but I'm just interested in getting a solid definition of what people consider stolen. Cheers.
'GUI' refers to the User Interface—it's what the OS looks like.
Early Android was designed to copy Blackberry, but when the iPhone came out, they quickly realised they would have to copy Apple, so they did. As Google is a company with no ethics, stealing doesn't matter to them. To most people, stealing is very wrong, which is why Google is deservedly hated by several people who write on these forums.
As you know all this, I conclude that you condone theft.
Please add me to your block list if you haven't already.
I'll wait until you are here more than 5 minutes. You don't get ignored by veterans here until I actually know who you are. I have no idea who you are.
Not sure that Android copied the GUI all that much. Samsung certainly copied a bit/lot in some versions of TouchWiz, but Android proper looks quite different to iOS, and the things that are similar are things that also look similar to PalmOS and other mobile GUIs that predate both iOS and Android. What Android "copied" was more conceptual, in its focusing on the large screen touch paradigm (whereas previous protoypes all had keyboards) and competing directly with iOS in the consumer market (it was initially meant as a BlackBerry competitor).
'GUI' refers to the User Interface—it's what the OS looks like.
Early Android was designed to copy Blackberry, but when the iPhone came out, they quickly realised they would have to copy Apple, so they did. As Google is a company with no ethics, stealing doesn't matter to them. To most people, stealing is very wrong, which is why Google is deservedly hated by several people who write on these forums.
As you know all this, I conclude that you condone theft.
I do not condone theft and I would still like you to point out what exactly is copied. This is the first Android phone as far as I know and I don't see much in the way of similarities:
edit: Crowley, I'm confused by your post too. You state that all previous phones had keyboards, but the first Android phone also had a keyboard. You also seem to state that Google copied 'being an Apple competitor' from Apple, which I don't really understand.
Outside of the US, in the auto-mobile market MirrorLink is likely to be adopted as standard.
I'm not sure about 'fooling the markets', most competition revolves around hiding existence of the best new technologies. Reality is like the tide, ever changing.
edit: Crowley, I'm confused by your post too. You state that all previous phones had keyboards, but the first Android phone also had a keyboard. You also seem to state that Google copied 'being an Apple competitor' from Apple, which I don't really understand.
Sorry, I probably worded it clumsily.
The G1, and a few other early Android phones had slide out keyboards, but the Android prototypes had fixed keyboards like BlackBerrys. And the keyboards didn't last long, manufacturers dropped them to copy Apple's approach of a touch screen and software keyboard.
Re. being an Apple competitor, I'm talking about the market they were targetting. BlackBerry were on top of the enterprise, with some minor encroachment on the consumer market, and I believe Android was conceived of as a rival to BlackBerry for that space. When Apple announced the iPhone, and it was clearly consumer-facing (albeit high end) then the target for Android was shifted to also being the consumer market.
I don't think either of these things are in any way illegal or questionable copying, but they're what got Steve Jobs so wound up. Android was refactored from a Microsoft and RIM rival for businesses, to a direct iPhone competitor and copied its touch paradigm.
The GUI itself, well it has some resemblances because it uses the same touch paradigm, but it's not really copied, it's pretty different throughout Android's lifespan.
The chart showing the constant lowering of phone prices should scare the hell out of Apple. The old days of not caring how much the phone costs are gone, people now pay monthly or upfront the entire cost of the phone, and the higher the price the more expensive their monthly phone bill. All you have to do is look at the Moto G which is a very nice phone with last years technology and all it costs is $179. Once people get out of their contract and get a great phone for not a lot of money Apple will be forced to dramatically lower their prices which will cut into the massive profit margins they have been enjoying.
I just have a problem with misleading articles that are based on incorrect information.
Ah, irony.
Originally Posted by iamstopper
The old days of not caring how much the phone costs are gone, people now pay monthly or upfront the entire cost of the phone…
Not for smartphones, they don’t.
…the higher the price the more expensive their monthly phone bill.
That sounds like the opposite of what actually happens. The more you pay up front the lower your bill would be. That is, if telecoms actually cared about customers.
Once people get out of their contract and get a great phone for not a lot of money Apple will be forced to dramatically lower their prices which will cut into the massive profit margins they have been enjoying.
I’m sure that after six years of saying this it will finally be true once¡
'GUI' refers to the User Interface—it's what the OS looks like.
Early Android was designed to copy Blackberry, but when the iPhone came out, they quickly realised they would have to copy Apple, so they did. As Google is a company with no ethics, stealing doesn't matter to them. To most people, stealing is very wrong, which is why Google is deservedly hated by several people who write on these forums.
As you know all this, I conclude that you condone theft.
Got a good view up on that horse? Stealing happens all the time. If you live in the US you're living on stolen land, we had a president that stole an election. Companies copy all the time, Philips comes out with a flat panel TV and now every single TV manufacturer makes a flat panel.
Google was smart enough to realize the paradigm shift Apple created and quickly altered their game plan, those that acted slowly are dead (Palm) or dying (BB). Now you might argue that Android hasn't made anyone money except for Samsung, but Motorola, LG, HTC, etc are surviving, and as long as they're alive they have a fighting chance to turn things around. For any of them to make yet another platform is not the answer.
Comments
I agree to a certain extent. But Google was smart in creating Android. It gives them a strong foothold in the mobile industry. Much as it was the case for Microsoft on the desktop, manufacturers have a love-hate relationship with Android. They love it because it allows them to create phones which they couldn't by themselves, they hate it because they have a partner that dictates the rules (more so than anyone imagined).
Google played it smart though. They allowed a level of customization that was unprecedented for an OS (excluding Linux of course) providing the manufacturer with the chance to create their phone "slightly" different one from the other, still retaining compatibility with all apps.
Manufacturers love this approach, they always had. Carriers have historically tried to customize the phones they subsidize for a long time. I remember (makes me feel old though) that all Vodafone and Orange phones where so much full of personalized icons and stuff that all Vodafone devices' menus looked the same. And that the same phone on Vodafone or Orange would seem a totally different phone.
All of this led to poor innovation and disaster. Luckily the iPhone came along and disrupted this strategy. Still thankful to Jobs for providing a masterpiece of technology (dare I say it? Art!) and changing so much of the phone industry.
The level of customisation offered by Symbian and other OS's as shown by your examples, kills your earlier argument.
Android largely replaced Symbian.
Comparing their growth to Sun/Adobe is a silly comparison. In the smartphone-era android figures are unparalleled. That's not to say that android will always be the dominant OS. Sooner or later they too will join Nokia and Apple in the once-was list. But for now, they are inarguably the no.1 player. And personally I feel as a software Android 4.4 is leagues ahead of iOS7.
Wow this article is super-biased. Google may be able to fool investors but you can't fool your customers. If 80% of phones being shipped are android it's because people like it. Most of these users are people who have used android phones in the past and are happy with it. Some are switching from the iPhone (for good reason) and maybe a handful are completely new to smartphones but have been recommended by friends/family. If anything, I think it's Apple who has been trying to fool customers by selling products for double their android-equivalent prices based purely on the "it's cool" factor. But the shift to android shows that you can only fool people for so long.
Comparing their growth to Sun/Adobe is a silly comparison. In the smartphone-era android figures are unparalleled. That's not to say that android will always be the dominant OS. Sooner or later they too will join Nokia and Apple in the once-was list. But for now, they are inarguably the no.1 player. And personally I feel as a software Android 4.4 is leagues ahead of iOS7.
Most Android phones sold are cheap pieces of junk that barely function as feature phones, let alone smartphones, there is no money in them.
I agree, but I was speaking in generalities, not in 'if Apple did it so could Google'.
This article is so full of inaccuracies and misinformation it borders on comical. This is gonna be a looooooooooooooong comment.
Let me start with the big one: Google relying on "yesterday's PC". Google's revenue is primarily based on ad revenue, that is true, but their ad revenue is not limited to PCs. They make a large percentage of their ad revenue from mobile (which includes ads on iPhones as well), with 19.1% coming from mobile as of August 2013, and expectations are that mobile ads will account for 30% by 2015. Their ad business isn't going anywhere, its' evolving, just as the market is evolving, because their ad service isn't tied to a single hardware platform.
However, that being said, the desktop (and notebook for that matter) isn't going anywhere. Mobile is not going to replace the computer any time in the near future, certainly not in businesses. Tablets are nice, but they aren't powerful or functional enough to perform at the level necessary for a business user. Mobile applications, while good, cannot compete with the desktop platform yet. We are getting there with the move towards 64 bit SOCs, but we won't see the desktop being replaced for years to come.
The author somehow suggested that Apple's success can be attributed to the hiring of Tim Cook in 1998. While it's true that he has streamlined their manufacturing process significantly, this is a completely ludicrous statement. It was Steve Jobs' vision of the future product line that brought Apple back from the depths, and suggesting anything otherwise is offensive to his legacy. If it wasn't for his foresight in designing the iPod, iPhone and iPad for the everyman, Apple wouldn't have been successful in the way they are today, end of story. Would they have had their markets? Absolutely. But not the powerhouse they are.
The reason why Apple maintains such a high average selling price while other mobile operating systems are much lower is because Apple refuses to release products to compete in emerging markets. All of their mobile offerings are priced for the high-end user, and if not for carrier subsidies, would be unaffordable by most. All other mobile OS manufacturers have cheap offerings to allow for traction in the lower price scale, and in doing so, just by volume will lower their average selling price. Looking at Apple compared to other companies in this way will always favor Apple as long as they continue to market their products as elite. That's like comparing Ferrari to Mercedes. Sure, they both make expensive vehicles, but Mercedes also makes cheaper cars whereas Ferrari only stays high end.
Comparing Apple's gross profits to Google's isn't a sound comparison because ultimately they don't run equivalent businesses. As the article points out, 90% of Apple's revenues come from mobile tech, whereas only 15% of Google's lives in mobile. Also of note, Apple is the soup-to-nuts owner of their tech. Sure, they pay for components from some parts manufacturers, but ultimately, all the profits on the sale of the phone AND the sales of their apps falls in their pockets. Google isn't a manufacturer, they only make the OS. When equivalent phones are sold (lets' say a $700 iPhone 5 vs. a $700 Samsung Galaxy S4 for arguments sake), Apple takes 100% of the margin in the sale of that phone, whereas Samsung takes the margin on the Galaxy S4 and only sends Google licensing fees. Also, Apple and Google both make 30% on app sales, however iTunes is the only option for buying an app on an iPhone, due to Apple's ecosystem being very curated by design. Android on the other hand has many alternate app store offerings, as manufacturers like Samsung and Amazon have their own stores and try to encourage (or in the case of the Kindle Fire force) users to buy apps from their app store so they take that cut of the profit. Some cheaper Android devices don't even have the Google Play store available on them. My point is, Apple takes much more profit from mobile than Google does, and anyone who understands the businesses would know that you can't just flatly compare the two companies like that. I guess that is why DED is a blog writer for Apple Insider and not a business analyst.
Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility was about the acquisition of patents, plain and simple. They weren't looking to enhance Google TV with Motorola's STB business, or stave off Motorola making Windows Phone devices. Google has no need to fear Windows Phone devices because the platform is no threat to them, it only accounts for 3% of all mobile sales. Google's hardware partners and Google themselves have been attacked in courts of late by many companies, including Apple, over patent issues, and they were trying to bolster their patent portfolio. The importance of patents in today's patent-troll era cannot be overvalued. Would Google have liked to see Motorola succeed more? Absolutely. But ultimately, Google isn't in the hardware business, they're in the services business. The Nexus lineup, the Google Play Experience device lineup, and the Moto X/G experiments were exactly that, experiments. They were never meant to bring in huge profits. Google also maintained Motorola's Advanced Research division when they sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo, because there are some more experiments in the pipeline that Google is highly interested in, such as Project Ara. But don't be mistaken, ultimately, Google sells ads and uses that profit to try their hand at other things. They don't always succeed, as is obvious if you just look at their other offerings. For every Gmail and Google Maps, there are things like Google Buzz and Google Wave. Google can afford to lose money on projects like that because they have a sound business with their AdSense.
"Apple's clear successes with ads, Maps and Siri" has to be one of the most hilarious lines I've ever read in a tech blog. I can't speak to Apple's ads business, but the fact that Google still completely owns that business would lead me to think it's PC vs. Mac all over again, with Apple clinging to a tiny percentage and claiming they're a success. Apple Maps was a giant mess, and it forced Tim Cook to issue a messy public apology, which was a big black eye in his early tenure. They released it too early when it wasn't ready for prime time and many people I know refuse to try it again based on that early experience. Siri is gret, but it's a parlor trick. People loved it when they first got it, but the allure wore off quickly because it doesn't really serve a purpose. Sure, it can make a few things faster, that's without question. But ultimately, people don't want to speak to their phone to operate it in public spaces, which is where most people use their phones. Either Siri can't hear you clearly, or you have to shout and make a scene in order for your phone to hear you. Even when Siri does hear you, it's still limited in what it can do. I don't know many people that use it regularly. Most importantly, Siri can't be monetiszed. Apple doesn't make money from its use, so I don't see how even if it was widely adopted, it will really matter in the grand scheme of the business when it's only a software program that can be duplicated on other platforms.
Google DOES have an 80 percent share of the mobile market, and as I explained before the reason why Google doesn't have four times the mobile revenue as Apple does is because of the inequalities in how their respective businesses operate. You can't poo-poo the fact that Apple's market share is declining rapidly and their business has become largely uninnovative. Companies like Samsung have taken Apple's formula and improved upon it, while Apple has kept the same attitude of "we're the best, people buy us because we're Apple" and let their market share slip. It's the same stance Blackberry had for years and while I don't think Apple will allow themselves to fail in the way Blackberry did, it's not a good place to be.
"Apple also appears to be strategically investing in wearables, a space that has been dominated by iPods, iPhones and iPad for many years. " How are the iPod, iPhone, and iPad considered "wearables"?!? Maybe iPods can be strapped to an arm when you're jogging, but that's NOT what a wearable is. A wearable is something that is ALWAYS worn on a part of your body, not something that can be strapped on using an accessory case. The thought of someone "wearing" an iPad makes me giggle uncontrollably.
Ultimately, I recognize that this is an article on Apple Insider, but at least attempt to sound like you are knowledgeable and not some corporate shill telling grossly one-sided stories to make your point. And for the record, I have nothing against Apple or their products. I just have a problem with misleading articles that are based on incorrect information.
Developers won't go Android first if iOS is where the money is to be made. We've already seen stats that show iOS customers use their devices as a smartphone more than Android customers do. iOS customers do more online browsing and spend more on apps. Basically iOS customers have more disposable income. I think I know who I'd want to develop for.
These days there's even a bunch of frameworks for simpler apps or games that will let you deploy your app to every platform at once. As far as I know Apple has no problem with Unity for example, so that way you can take advantage of both markets.
Developers won't go Android first if iOS is where the money is to be made. We've already seen stats that show iOS customers use their devices as a smartphone more than Android customers do. iOS customers do more online browsing and spend more on apps. Basically iOS customers have more disposable income. I think I know who I'd want to develop for.
Actually develpers going iOS first has nothing to do with anything either of you said. Developers go iOS first because iOS is much easier to program for. With iOS, there are only a handful of devices, all with similar hardware, so programming is easy. With Android, there are so many variants in both hardware (phones with multiple buttons, phones with one button, phones with no buttons, varying resolution screens, etc.) and software (phones running the gamut of Android releases between 2.3 Gingerbread and 4.4 KitKat, phones running all the skinned variants of Android from manufacturers like Samsung TouchWiz, HTC Sense, Motorola MotoBlur, LG's skin, etc.) that is takes MUCH longer for developers to test on.
Please add me to your block list if you haven't already.
He's referring to the Mac version of Safari, not the iPad version.
'GUI' refers to the User Interface—it's what the OS looks like.
Early Android was designed to copy Blackberry, but when the iPhone came out, they quickly realised they would have to copy Apple, so they did. As Google is a company with no ethics, stealing doesn't matter to them. To most people, stealing is very wrong, which is why Google is deservedly hated by several people who write on these forums.
As you know all this, I conclude that you condone theft.
I'll wait until you are here more than 5 minutes. You don't get ignored by veterans here until I actually know who you are. I have no idea who you are.
Not sure that Android copied the GUI all that much. Samsung certainly copied a bit/lot in some versions of TouchWiz, but Android proper looks quite different to iOS, and the things that are similar are things that also look similar to PalmOS and other mobile GUIs that predate both iOS and Android. What Android "copied" was more conceptual, in its focusing on the large screen touch paradigm (whereas previous protoypes all had keyboards) and competing directly with iOS in the consumer market (it was initially meant as a BlackBerry competitor).
'GUI' refers to the User Interface—it's what the OS looks like.
Early Android was designed to copy Blackberry, but when the iPhone came out, they quickly realised they would have to copy Apple, so they did. As Google is a company with no ethics, stealing doesn't matter to them. To most people, stealing is very wrong, which is why Google is deservedly hated by several people who write on these forums.
As you know all this, I conclude that you condone theft.
I do not condone theft and I would still like you to point out what exactly is copied. This is the first Android phone as far as I know and I don't see much in the way of similarities:
edit: Crowley, I'm confused by your post too. You state that all previous phones had keyboards, but the first Android phone also had a keyboard. You also seem to state that Google copied 'being an Apple competitor' from Apple, which I don't really understand.
I'm not sure about 'fooling the markets', most competition revolves around hiding existence of the best new technologies.
Reality is like the tide, ever changing.
edit: Crowley, I'm confused by your post too. You state that all previous phones had keyboards, but the first Android phone also had a keyboard. You also seem to state that Google copied 'being an Apple competitor' from Apple, which I don't really understand.
Sorry, I probably worded it clumsily.
The G1, and a few other early Android phones had slide out keyboards, but the Android prototypes had fixed keyboards like BlackBerrys. And the keyboards didn't last long, manufacturers dropped them to copy Apple's approach of a touch screen and software keyboard.
Re. being an Apple competitor, I'm talking about the market they were targetting. BlackBerry were on top of the enterprise, with some minor encroachment on the consumer market, and I believe Android was conceived of as a rival to BlackBerry for that space. When Apple announced the iPhone, and it was clearly consumer-facing (albeit high end) then the target for Android was shifted to also being the consumer market.
I don't think either of these things are in any way illegal or questionable copying, but they're what got Steve Jobs so wound up. Android was refactored from a Microsoft and RIM rival for businesses, to a direct iPhone competitor and copied its touch paradigm.
The GUI itself, well it has some resemblances because it uses the same touch paradigm, but it's not really copied, it's pretty different throughout Android's lifespan.
…Apple refuses to release products to compete in emerging markets.
Siri is gret, but it’s a parlor trick. Apple doesn’t make money from its use…
Google DOES have an 80 percent share of the mobile market…
Apple’s… …business has become largely uninnovative…
Companies like Samsung have taken Apple’s formula and improved upon it…
A laugh is always the best way to start the day.
Rule #4.
Ah, irony.
Not for smartphones, they don’t.
That sounds like the opposite of what actually happens. The more you pay up front the lower your bill would be. That is, if telecoms actually cared about customers.
I’m sure that after six years of saying this it will finally be true once¡
Got a good view up on that horse? Stealing happens all the time. If you live in the US you're living on stolen land, we had a president that stole an election. Companies copy all the time, Philips comes out with a flat panel TV and now every single TV manufacturer makes a flat panel.
Google was smart enough to realize the paradigm shift Apple created and quickly altered their game plan, those that acted slowly are dead (Palm) or dying (BB). Now you might argue that Android hasn't made anyone money except for Samsung, but Motorola, LG, HTC, etc are surviving, and as long as they're alive they have a fighting chance to turn things around. For any of them to make yet another platform is not the answer.