But iOS has such a minuscule worldwide market share vs Android. It’s almost as if iOS doesn’t even exist. Why would Google even care?
The market share (of mobile devices) for iOS may only be around 15%, but its share of the installed base is considerably higher - perhaps 30-35%. That's what matters in this context, that and how much portions (e.g. those using particular OSes) of that installed base, on average, use their devices. Apple may have an advantage in that latter regard.
I think what some miss is that Android was essentially a defensive play by Google. Google was the dominant player in search while desktops and laptops dominated personal computing. With the explosion in mobile device (i.e. smartphone and tablet) use that the coming of the iPhone portended, that dominance might be threatened. The state of search share (and that of other basic service functions) on mobile devices wasn't set. It could have developed into a battleground with others seriously challenging Google for dominance, or at least substantial share. Google saw that the best way to defend its dominance in search as personal computing moved to mobile devices was to control an operating system which might become the default for a large share of the mobile device market (similar to what Windows represented for desktops and laptops, but with a different business model).
Apple's iPhone might set off an explosion in mobile device use, but Apple wasn't going to be the dominant player in terms of the OS used on mobile devices. So even if Google was to be the default search on iOS devices (an even if it felt confident it would keep that status in the future), Google might be vulnerable if it didn't have a way to be the default for other mobile devices. So it brought Android to market as quickly as it could and gave it away to device makers who were, at that moment, in real need of a ready-to-deploy OS in order to compete with Apple (or, rather, grab shares of the new market which the iPhone would expand but which Apple itself wasn't initially going to try to address). The timing was right and the tactic worked. Google, in making Android the default (non-Apple) OS for mobile devices, secured its dominance in search (and other kinds of services) as personal computing moved toward mobile devices.
But even with that success, iOS represents a threat to Google's dominance in certain services. It's a very important mobile OS and could - if Google doesn't keep it for itself by, e.g., paying Apple to be the default search - represent an opportunity for competing services to get a foothold and steal away some of Google's share.
But iOS has such a minuscule worldwide market share vs Android. It’s almost as if iOS doesn’t even exist. Why would Google even care?
ROFL, 'as if iOS doesn't even exist' too funny, $815 Billion and counting and the anti-Apple folks would tell you Apple is risky as it's all too dependent on iPhones, which in case you haven't noticed run iOS. So I suspect iOS exists big time. You know the odd thing is as I travel I hardly ever see an Android device. Sit in most US airports and it's a sea of glowing Apples on Mac laptops and iPhones and iPads wall to wall. It's as if Android doesn't even exist.
Not that I care, but I've seen it's the opposite in Asian countries. Meanwhile, it's a mixed bag in Australia/NZ and Europe.
On the topic: there is no harm for Apple to include Google in their search engine as long as it also offers the alternatives.
I am not sure that is strictly true...it is more related to affluence...in Manhatten you will see nothing but iPhones and MacOS devices. Even less than the well to do will have an older iPhone.
When my wife and I travelled in Kyoto (which these days is overrun with affluent Chinese tourists) it was nothing but iPhones on display both with the Japanese and Chinese out and about.
When we went to Myanmar (Burma), it was nothing but Samsung devices because they are in tight with the autocratic regime there.
But iOS has such a minuscule worldwide market share vs Android. It’s almost as if iOS doesn’t even exist. Why would Google even care?
The market share (of mobile devices) for iOS may only be around 15%, but its share of the installed base is considerably higher - perhaps 30-35%. That's what matters in this context, that and how much portions (e.g. those using particular OSes) of that installed base, on average, use their devices. Apple may have an advantage in that latter regard.
I think what some miss is that Android was essentially a defensive play by Google. Google was the dominant player in search while desktops and laptops dominated personal computing. With the explosion in mobile device (i.e. smartphone and tablet) use that the coming of the iPhone portended, that dominance might be threatened. The state of search share (and that of other basic service functions) on mobile devices wasn't set. It could have developed into a battleground with others seriously challenging Google for dominance, or at least substantial share. Google saw that the best way to defend its dominance in search as personal computing moved to mobile devices was to control an operating system which might become the default for a large share of the mobile device market (similar to what Windows represented for desktops and laptops, but with a different business model).
Apple's iPhone might set off an explosion in mobile device use, but Apple wasn't going to be the dominant player in terms of the OS used on mobile devices. So even if Google was to be the default search on iOS devices (an even if it felt confident it would keep that status in the future), Google might be vulnerable if it didn't have a way to be the default for other mobile devices. So it brought Android to market as quickly as it could and gave it away to device makers who were, at that moment, in real need of a ready-to-deploy OS in order to compete with Apple (or, rather, grab shares of the new market which the iPhone would expand but which Apple itself wasn't initially going to try to address). The timing was right and the tactic worked. Google, in making Android the default (non-Apple) OS for mobile devices, secured its dominance in search (and other kinds of services) as personal computing moved toward mobile devices.
But even with that success, iOS represents a threat to Google's dominance in certain services. It's a very important mobile OS and could - if Google doesn't keep it for itself by, e.g., paying Apple to be the default search - represent an opportunity for competing services to get a foothold and steal away some of Google's share.
I agree, Android was a defensive move... but not against Apple.
In the latter part of 2004 when Google began investing in Android development it was Microsoft they were worried about. Apple wasn't even on their radar as a possible future competitor. Google was one of the earliest big techs to truly understand the importance of the future mobile space. That's why Android was important to them, so much so that by early 2005 they owned the project outright, months before there was even a hint of news that Apple would be interested in developing a mobile OS of their own along with a phone to run it on.
Jobs wasn't convinced it was a viable enough project until late in 2005 when he finally gave it the green light. Even when the iPhone finally released in 2007 it was still Microsoft that analysts were predicting would grab the lion's share of the mobile space within a very short few years.
We see how that turned out of course, but it's plainly obvious it was Microsoft and their mobile plans that originally concerned Google enough to heavily commit to making Android a competitive operating system. Apple wasn't their enemy, nor was Google theirs. Then came 2010, Jobs temper, Android's huge and unexpected success (over 300K new Android devices were suddenly being purchased every day!), one lone Google VP's overzealous stage comment, and the friendship began to crumble.
Of course there will be some here that will proclaim Google set out from the beginning to simply copy Apple. Whatever. People will believe what makes them happy I suppose, but it's simply their version of revisionist history if they claim it as fact. Android was Google's buttress against Microsoft. Apple wasn't even in the picture, tho it's certainly possible Google discussed Android with Steve Jobs from the beginning. In fact I'd actually be really surprised Brin and Page did not. Afterall he was their friend and mentor, a trusted advisor to the fledgling Google. So IMHO there's not much doubt he was aware of Google's rationale in developing Android before he ever fully committed to Apple doing their own "smartphone" roughly a year later.
But iOS has such a minuscule worldwide market share vs Android. It’s almost as if iOS doesn’t even exist. Why would Google even care?
The market share (of mobile devices) for iOS may only be around 15%, but its share of the installed base is considerably higher - perhaps 30-35%. That's what matters in this context, that and how much portions (e.g. those using particular OSes) of that installed base, on average, use their devices. Apple may have an advantage in that latter regard.
I think what some miss is that Android was essentially a defensive play by Google. Google was the dominant player in search while desktops and laptops dominated personal computing. With the explosion in mobile device (i.e. smartphone and tablet) use that the coming of the iPhone portended, that dominance might be threatened. The state of search share (and that of other basic service functions) on mobile devices wasn't set. It could have developed into a battleground with others seriously challenging Google for dominance, or at least substantial share. Google saw that the best way to defend its dominance in search as personal computing moved to mobile devices was to control an operating system which might become the default for a large share of the mobile device market (similar to what Windows represented for desktops and laptops, but with a different business model).
Apple's iPhone might set off an explosion in mobile device use, but Apple wasn't going to be the dominant player in terms of the OS used on mobile devices. So even if Google was to be the default search on iOS devices (an even if it felt confident it would keep that status in the future), Google might be vulnerable if it didn't have a way to be the default for other mobile devices. So it brought Android to market as quickly as it could and gave it away to device makers who were, at that moment, in real need of a ready-to-deploy OS in order to compete with Apple (or, rather, grab shares of the new market which the iPhone would expand but which Apple itself wasn't initially going to try to address). The timing was right and the tactic worked. Google, in making Android the default (non-Apple) OS for mobile devices, secured its dominance in search (and other kinds of services) as personal computing moved toward mobile devices.
But even with that success, iOS represents a threat to Google's dominance in certain services. It's a very important mobile OS and could - if Google doesn't keep it for itself by, e.g., paying Apple to be the default search - represent an opportunity for competing services to get a foothold and steal away some of Google's share.
I agree, Android was a defensive move... but not against Apple.
In 2004 when Google began investing in Android development it was Microsoft they were worried about. Apple wasn't even on their radar as a possible competitor. Google was one of the very first big techs to truly understand the importance of the future mobile space. That's why Android was important to them, so much so that by early 2005 they owned the project outright, months before there was even a hint that Apple might be interested in developing a mobile OS of their own along with a phone to run it on. Jobs wasn't convinced it was a viable enough project until late in 2005 when he finally gave it the green light. Even when the iPhone fianlly released in 2007 it was still Microsoft that analysts were predicting would grab the lion's share of the mobile space.
We see how that turned out of course, but it's plainly obvious it was Microsoft and their mobile plans that concerned Google enough to heavily commit to making Android a competitive operating system. Apple wasn't their enemy, nor was Google theirs.
I’m not sure your history of iphone is accurate. You’re suggesting Jobs green lighted it in 2005 and they had the finished iphone by 2007. The shortness of that claim aside, your narrative is off. It’s already been documented that they were working on a tablet first, but Jobs saw it and wondered if they couldn’t get it small enough to do a phone first, tablet later. I don’t recall the year, but I’m fairly certain it was earlier than 2005.
Yes android was conceived of before iPhone, but it was a crappy looking blackberry styled system. It was retooled to take on iphone. And I already quoted you google exec Vic’s quote that it was needed to prevent one company, one man, one product from dominating mobile. he wasn’t talking about RIM.
But iOS has such a minuscule worldwide market share vs Android. It’s almost as if iOS doesn’t even exist. Why would Google even care?
iPhone users are famously more likely to buy things than Android users. Also consume much more online content than Android users. Most Android users have them because they are cheap. Google is the largest advertising company in the world (and little else). Their real customers, advertisers, know that iPhone users are Far more valuable than Android users.
I didn't expect AI forum commenters would need to be educated about "sarcasm". Couple of newcomers not understanding the sarcasm - I can understand. But @Rayz2016 too? Unbelievable!!!
Sit in most US airports and it's a sea of glowing Apples on Mac laptops and iPhones and iPads wall to wall. It's as if Androd doesn't even exist.
OTOH, in other parts of the world
Sit in most NON US airports and it's a sea of cheapo Windows laptops
and low cost Android Phones/Phablets wall to wall. It's as if Apple doesn't even
exist.
I had one person say to me in one Asian Airport as I waited for my flight to HK earlier this year, "You still use Apple? You westerners are so behind the times."
Different places and different experiences.
In Asia, you could said the same thing or worse 10, 20 or 25 years ago. In fact, only before 1990 I think someone would not have said that.
But iOS has such a minuscule worldwide market share vs Android. It’s almost as if iOS doesn’t even exist. Why would Google even care?
The market share (of mobile devices) for iOS may only be around 15%, but its share of the installed base is considerably higher - perhaps 30-35%. That's what matters in this context, that and how much portions (e.g. those using particular OSes) of that installed base, on average, use their devices. Apple may have an advantage in that latter regard.
I think what some miss is that Android was essentially a defensive play by Google. Google was the dominant player in search while desktops and laptops dominated personal computing. With the explosion in mobile device (i.e. smartphone and tablet) use that the coming of the iPhone portended, that dominance might be threatened. The state of search share (and that of other basic service functions) on mobile devices wasn't set. It could have developed into a battleground with others seriously challenging Google for dominance, or at least substantial share. Google saw that the best way to defend its dominance in search as personal computing moved to mobile devices was to control an operating system which might become the default for a large share of the mobile device market (similar to what Windows represented for desktops and laptops, but with a different business model).
Apple's iPhone might set off an explosion in mobile device use, but Apple wasn't going to be the dominant player in terms of the OS used on mobile devices. So even if Google was to be the default search on iOS devices (an even if it felt confident it would keep that status in the future), Google might be vulnerable if it didn't have a way to be the default for other mobile devices. So it brought Android to market as quickly as it could and gave it away to device makers who were, at that moment, in real need of a ready-to-deploy OS in order to compete with Apple (or, rather, grab shares of the new market which the iPhone would expand but which Apple itself wasn't initially going to try to address). The timing was right and the tactic worked. Google, in making Android the default (non-Apple) OS for mobile devices, secured its dominance in search (and other kinds of services) as personal computing moved toward mobile devices.
But even with that success, iOS represents a threat to Google's dominance in certain services. It's a very important mobile OS and could - if Google doesn't keep it for itself by, e.g., paying Apple to be the default search - represent an opportunity for competing services to get a foothold and steal away some of Google's share.
I agree, Android was a defensive move... but not against Apple.
In 2004 when Google began investing in Android development it was Microsoft they were worried about. Apple wasn't even on their radar as a possible competitor. Google was one of the very first big techs to truly understand the importance of the future mobile space. That's why Android was important to them, so much so that by early 2005 they owned the project outright, months before there was even a hint that Apple might be interested in developing a mobile OS of their own along with a phone to run it on. Jobs wasn't convinced it was a viable enough project until late in 2005 when he finally gave it the green light. Even when the iPhone fianlly released in 2007 it was still Microsoft that analysts were predicting would grab the lion's share of the mobile space.
We see how that turned out of course, but it's plainly obvious it was Microsoft and their mobile plans that concerned Google enough to heavily commit to making Android a competitive operating system. Apple wasn't their enemy, nor was Google theirs.
I’m not sure your history of iphone is accurate. You’re suggesting Jobs green lighted it in 2005 and they had the finished iphone by 2007. The shortness of that claim aside, your narrative is off. It’s already been documented that they were working on a tablet first, but Jobs saw it and wondered if they couldn’t get it small enough to do a phone first, tablet later. I don’t recall the year, but I’m fairly certain it was earlier than 2005.
Yes android was conceived of before iPhone, but it was a crappy looking blackberry styled system. It was retooled to take on iphone. And I already quoted you google exec Vic’s quote that it was needed to prevent one company, one man, one product from dominating mobile. he wasn’t talking about RIM.
But iOS has such a minuscule worldwide market share vs Android. It’s almost as if iOS doesn’t even exist. Why would Google even care?
The market share (of mobile devices) for iOS may only be around 15%, but its share of the installed base is considerably higher - perhaps 30-35%. That's what matters in this context, that and how much portions (e.g. those using particular OSes) of that installed base, on average, use their devices. Apple may have an advantage in that latter regard.
I think what some miss is that Android was essentially a defensive play by Google. Google was the dominant player in search while desktops and laptops dominated personal computing. With the explosion in mobile device (i.e. smartphone and tablet) use that the coming of the iPhone portended, that dominance might be threatened. The state of search share (and that of other basic service functions) on mobile devices wasn't set. It could have developed into a battleground with others seriously challenging Google for dominance, or at least substantial share. Google saw that the best way to defend its dominance in search as personal computing moved to mobile devices was to control an operating system which might become the default for a large share of the mobile device market (similar to what Windows represented for desktops and laptops, but with a different business model).
Apple's iPhone might set off an explosion in mobile device use, but Apple wasn't going to be the dominant player in terms of the OS used on mobile devices. So even if Google was to be the default search on iOS devices (an even if it felt confident it would keep that status in the future), Google might be vulnerable if it didn't have a way to be the default for other mobile devices. So it brought Android to market as quickly as it could and gave it away to device makers who were, at that moment, in real need of a ready-to-deploy OS in order to compete with Apple (or, rather, grab shares of the new market which the iPhone would expand but which Apple itself wasn't initially going to try to address). The timing was right and the tactic worked. Google, in making Android the default (non-Apple) OS for mobile devices, secured its dominance in search (and other kinds of services) as personal computing moved toward mobile devices.
But even with that success, iOS represents a threat to Google's dominance in certain services. It's a very important mobile OS and could - if Google doesn't keep it for itself by, e.g., paying Apple to be the default search - represent an opportunity for competing services to get a foothold and steal away some of Google's share.
I agree, Android was a defensive move... but not against Apple.
In the latter part of 2004 when Google began investing in Android development it was Microsoft they were worried about. Apple wasn't even on their radar as a possible future competitor. Google was one of the earliest big techs to truly understand the importance of the future mobile space. That's why Android was important to them, so much so that by early 2005 they owned the project outright, months before there was even a hint of news that Apple would be interested in developing a mobile OS of their own along with a phone to run it on.
Jobs wasn't convinced it was a viable enough project until late in 2005 when he finally gave it the green light. Even when the iPhone finally released in 2007 it was still Microsoft that analysts were predicting would grab the lion's share of the mobile space within a very short few years.
We see how that turned out of course, but it's plainly obvious it was Microsoft and their mobile plans that originally concerned Google enough to heavily commit to making Android a competitive operating system. Apple wasn't their enemy, nor was Google theirs. Then came 2010, Jobs temper, Android's huge and unexpected success (over 300K new Android devices were suddenly being purchased every day!), and the friendship began to crumble.
Of course there will be some here that will proclaim Google set out from the beginning to simply copy Apple. Whatever. People will believe what makes them happy I suppose, but it's simply their version of revisionist history if they claim it as fact. Android was Google's buttress against Microsoft. Apple wasn't even in the picture, tho it's certainly possible Google discussed Android with Steve Jobs from the beginning. In fact I'd actually be really surprised Brin and Page did not. Afterall he was their friend and mentor, a trusted advisor to the fledgling Google. So IMHO there's not much doubt he was aware of Google's rationale in developing Android before he ever committed to Apple doing their own "smartphone" roughly a year later.
I wasn't suggesting it was a defensive play against Apple. It was a defensive play in that it was meant to protect Google's search dominance as personal computing transitioned from desktops and laptops to mobile devices. It was meant to protect against the development of other ways (provided by others) for people to find what they were looking for from mobile devices. Working with Apple early on (e.g. in providing Maps data and being the default search on iPhones) was another prong in Google's defense of its existing dominance.
But iOS has such a minuscule worldwide market share vs Android. It’s almost as if iOS doesn’t even exist. Why would Google even care?
The market share (of mobile devices) for iOS may only be around 15%, but its share of the installed base is considerably higher - perhaps 30-35%. That's what matters in this context, that and how much portions (e.g. those using particular OSes) of that installed base, on average, use their devices. Apple may have an advantage in that latter regard.
I think what some miss is that Android was essentially a defensive play by Google. Google was the dominant player in search while desktops and laptops dominated personal computing. With the explosion in mobile device (i.e. smartphone and tablet) use that the coming of the iPhone portended, that dominance might be threatened. The state of search share (and that of other basic service functions) on mobile devices wasn't set. It could have developed into a battleground with others seriously challenging Google for dominance, or at least substantial share. Google saw that the best way to defend its dominance in search as personal computing moved to mobile devices was to control an operating system which might become the default for a large share of the mobile device market (similar to what Windows represented for desktops and laptops, but with a different business model).
Apple's iPhone might set off an explosion in mobile device use, but Apple wasn't going to be the dominant player in terms of the OS used on mobile devices. So even if Google was to be the default search on iOS devices (an even if it felt confident it would keep that status in the future), Google might be vulnerable if it didn't have a way to be the default for other mobile devices. So it brought Android to market as quickly as it could and gave it away to device makers who were, at that moment, in real need of a ready-to-deploy OS in order to compete with Apple (or, rather, grab shares of the new market which the iPhone would expand but which Apple itself wasn't initially going to try to address). The timing was right and the tactic worked. Google, in making Android the default (non-Apple) OS for mobile devices, secured its dominance in search (and other kinds of services) as personal computing moved toward mobile devices.
But even with that success, iOS represents a threat to Google's dominance in certain services. It's a very important mobile OS and could - if Google doesn't keep it for itself by, e.g., paying Apple to be the default search - represent an opportunity for competing services to get a foothold and steal away some of Google's share.
I agree, Android was a defensive move... but not against Apple.
In the latter part of 2004 when Google began investing in Android development it was Microsoft they were worried about. Apple wasn't even on their radar as a possible future competitor. Google was one of the earliest big techs to truly understand the importance of the future mobile space. That's why Android was important to them, so much so that by early 2005 they owned the project outright, months before there was even a hint of news that Apple would be interested in developing a mobile OS of their own along with a phone to run it on.
Jobs wasn't convinced it was a viable enough project until late in 2005 when he finally gave it the green light. Even when the iPhone finally released in 2007 it was still Microsoft that analysts were predicting would grab the lion's share of the mobile space within a very short few years.
We see how that turned out of course, but it's plainly obvious it was Microsoft and their mobile plans that originally concerned Google enough to heavily commit to making Android a competitive operating system. Apple wasn't their enemy, nor was Google theirs. Then came 2010, Jobs temper, Android's huge and unexpected success (over 300K new Android devices were suddenly being purchased every day!), and the friendship began to crumble.
Of course there will be some here that will proclaim Google set out from the beginning to simply copy Apple. Whatever. People will believe what makes them happy I suppose, but it's simply their version of revisionist history if they claim it as fact. Android was Google's buttress against Microsoft. Apple wasn't even in the picture, tho it's certainly possible Google discussed Android with Steve Jobs from the beginning. In fact I'd actually be really surprised Brin and Page did not. Afterall he was their friend and mentor, a trusted advisor to the fledgling Google. So IMHO there's not much doubt he was aware of Google's rationale in developing Android before he ever committed to Apple doing their own "smartphone" roughly a year later.
I wasn't suggesting it was a defensive play against Apple. It was a defensive play in that it was meant to protect Google's search dominance as personal computing transitioned from desktops and laptops to mobile devices. It was meant to protect against the development of other ways (provided by others) for people to find what they were looking for from mobile devices. Working with Apple early on (e.g. in providing Maps data and being the default search on iPhones) was another prong in Google's defense of its existing dominance.
Nope, the iPhone did not get a whole-hearted project commitment from Steve Jobs until well into 2005. And so you don't do the typical dismissal of that link I purposefully choose one that is decidedly anti-Google.
Gator, you really have that whole grain-of-truth thing down pat. Try using your Favorite Search Engine on "Project Purple".
(You know this, of course, and it's pretty obvious why you omitted it. I'll be waiting for your truthy response.)
Nope, the iPhone did not get a whole-hearted project commitment from Steve Jobs until well into 2005. And so you don't do the typical dismissal of that link I purposefully choose one that is decidedly anti-Google.
Gator, you really have that whole grain-of-truth thing down pat. Try using your Favorite Search Engine on "Project Purple".
(You know this, of course, and it's pretty obvious why you omitted it. I'll be waiting for your truthy response.)
Project Purple was not the iPhone. Use YOUR favorite search engine to research it.
It wasn't until later in 2005, following the failure of the Rokr as Apple's entry to mobile phones and after Apple engineering giving Jobs enough proof to satisfy him that they could do the iPhone, that Jobs committed the company to it. Truthy enough for you?
But iOS has such a minuscule worldwide market share vs Android. It’s almost as if iOS doesn’t even exist. Why would Google even care?
The market share (of mobile devices) for iOS may only be around 15%, but its share of the installed base is considerably higher - perhaps 30-35%. That's what matters in this context, that and how much portions (e.g. those using particular OSes) of that installed base, on average, use their devices. Apple may have an advantage in that latter regard.
This is the point that everyone (not only Wall Street and the media, but about 90% of those on AI as well) misses. Marketshare discussions almost exclusively focus on "unit shipments" in a given quarter or year. Installed base is about who has a smartphone (and presumably uses it). This figure is not something captured (that I have seen) by research companies, but we get a few data points at times, and some Apple analysts (not Wall Street) have their own estimates.
At this years Google I/O, it was mentioned that ~2B Android devices access Google services. Apple stated last year that there were over 1B active iOS devices - given sales rates (with some estimates of devices removed), it is certainly possible that there are now 1.2B active iOS devices. So outside of China, Apple's installed device base is between 35-40% (37.5% using the above numbers) when compared with Android devices. And that 35-40% is comprised of "mostly" more affluent users - those willing to spend premium $$ for an iOS device - and as history has shown this means more $/user spent on services. Thus it is more valuable.
Apple products last longer, are supported far longer with software updates, and have a much longer usable life. It is not unusual to expect the installed base that results.
But iOS has such a minuscule worldwide market share vs Android. It’s almost as if iOS doesn’t even exist. Why would Google even care?
ROFL, 'as if iOS doesn't even exist' too funny, $815 Billion and counting and the anti-Apple folks would tell you Apple is risky as it's all too dependent on iPhones, which in case you haven't noticed run iOS. So I suspect iOS exists big time. You know the odd thing is as I travel I hardly ever see an Android device. Sit in most US airports and it's a sea of glowing Apples on Mac laptops and iPhones and iPads wall to wall. It's as if Android doesn't even exist.
Not that I care, but I've seen it's the opposite in Asian countries. Meanwhile, it's a mixed bag in Australia/NZ and Europe.
(partial quote for clarity). That I would totally expect.
Sit in most US airports and it's a sea of glowing Apples on Mac laptops and iPhones and iPads wall to wall. It's as if Androd doesn't even exist.
OTOH, in other parts of the world
Sit in most NON US airports and it's a sea of cheapo Windows laptops
and low cost Android Phones/Phablets wall to wall. It's as if Apple doesn't even
exist.
I had one person say to me in one Asian Airport as I waited for my flight to HK earlier this year, "You still use Apple? You westerners are so behind the times."
Different places and different experiences.
No doubt. However, I'd refer you back to my main, non anecdotal side bar your picking up on, look at the profits.
I run a small IT company and we recently stopped google advertising. Purely by coincidenc - google then demoted our place in their non-paid search results.
I'd say you are lacking something else with your web site. I also run a small company and have never used any Google advertising. My company has been consistently at the very top of the first page of Google search results for more than a dozen years when using our key words. Admittedly, it is a very niche market, which I invented in 1998, but nevertheless when others have tried to compete they never even get on the first page. I dominate the first page of results. There are a lot of factors that contribute to ranking - factors that no one really knows except Google themselves, but I have found that pages that have the most links from other sites do the best and that is something I have in spades. I'd suggest that you try to get your customers and associates to link to you.
Comments
I think what some miss is that Android was essentially a defensive play by Google. Google was the dominant player in search while desktops and laptops dominated personal computing. With the explosion in mobile device (i.e. smartphone and tablet) use that the coming of the iPhone portended, that dominance might be threatened. The state of search share (and that of other basic service functions) on mobile devices wasn't set. It could have developed into a battleground with others seriously challenging Google for dominance, or at least substantial share. Google saw that the best way to defend its dominance in search as personal computing moved to mobile devices was to control an operating system which might become the default for a large share of the mobile device market (similar to what Windows represented for desktops and laptops, but with a different business model).
Apple's iPhone might set off an explosion in mobile device use, but Apple wasn't going to be the dominant player in terms of the OS used on mobile devices. So even if Google was to be the default search on iOS devices (an even if it felt confident it would keep that status in the future), Google might be vulnerable if it didn't have a way to be the default for other mobile devices. So it brought Android to market as quickly as it could and gave it away to device makers who were, at that moment, in real need of a ready-to-deploy OS in order to compete with Apple (or, rather, grab shares of the new market which the iPhone would expand but which Apple itself wasn't initially going to try to address). The timing was right and the tactic worked. Google, in making Android the default (non-Apple) OS for mobile devices, secured its dominance in search (and other kinds of services) as personal computing moved toward mobile devices.
But even with that success, iOS represents a threat to Google's dominance in certain services. It's a very important mobile OS and could - if Google doesn't keep it for itself by, e.g., paying Apple to be the default search - represent an opportunity for competing services to get a foothold and steal away some of Google's share.
When my wife and I travelled in Kyoto (which these days is overrun with affluent Chinese tourists) it was nothing but iPhones on display both with the Japanese and Chinese out and about.
When we went to Myanmar (Burma), it was nothing but Samsung devices because they are in tight with the autocratic regime there.
Agree Europe is half and half.
Jobs wasn't convinced it was a viable enough project until late in 2005 when he finally gave it the green light. Even when the iPhone finally released in 2007 it was still Microsoft that analysts were predicting would grab the lion's share of the mobile space within a very short few years. We see how that turned out of course, but it's plainly obvious it was Microsoft and their mobile plans that originally concerned Google enough to heavily commit to making Android a competitive operating system. Apple wasn't their enemy, nor was Google theirs. Then came 2010, Jobs temper, Android's huge and unexpected success (over 300K new Android devices were suddenly being purchased every day!), one lone Google VP's overzealous stage comment, and the friendship began to crumble.
Of course there will be some here that will proclaim Google set out from the beginning to simply copy Apple. Whatever. People will believe what makes them happy I suppose, but it's simply their version of revisionist history if they claim it as fact. Android was Google's buttress against Microsoft. Apple wasn't even in the picture, tho it's certainly possible Google discussed Android with Steve Jobs from the beginning. In fact I'd actually be really surprised Brin and Page did not. Afterall he was their friend and mentor, a trusted advisor to the fledgling Google. So IMHO there's not much doubt he was aware of Google's rationale in developing Android before he ever fully committed to Apple doing their own "smartphone" roughly a year later.
Yes android was conceived of before iPhone, but it was a crappy looking blackberry styled system. It was retooled to take on iphone. And I already quoted you google exec Vic’s quote that it was needed to prevent one company, one man, one product from dominating mobile. he wasn’t talking about RIM.
I didn't expect AI forum commenters would need to be educated about "sarcasm". Couple of newcomers not understanding the sarcasm - I can understand. But @Rayz2016 too? Unbelievable!!!
Nope, the iPhone did not get a whole-hearted project commitment from Steve Jobs until well into 2005. And so you don't do the typical dismissal of that link I purposefully choose one that is decidedly anti-Google.
(You know this, of course, and it's pretty obvious why you omitted it. I'll be waiting for your truthy response.)
It wasn't until later in 2005, following the failure of the Rokr as Apple's entry to mobile phones and after Apple engineering giving Jobs enough proof to satisfy him that they could do the iPhone, that Jobs committed the company to it. Truthy enough for you?
At this years Google I/O, it was mentioned that ~2B Android devices access Google services. Apple stated last year that there were over 1B active iOS devices - given sales rates (with some estimates of devices removed), it is certainly possible that there are now 1.2B active iOS devices. So outside of China, Apple's installed device base is between 35-40% (37.5% using the above numbers) when compared with Android devices. And that 35-40% is comprised of "mostly" more affluent users - those willing to spend premium $$ for an iOS device - and as history has shown this means more $/user spent on services. Thus it is more valuable.
Apple products last longer, are supported far longer with software updates, and have a much longer usable life. It is not unusual to expect the installed base that results.
No doubt. However, I'd refer you back to my main, non anecdotal side bar your picking up on, look at the profits.