redstater

Intel did not so much lose out to A9 chips, as A9 chips are only used in Apple products. Instead, Intel - and AMD - lost out to Asian manufacturers of ARM chips such as Samsung, Nvidia, Qualcomm and especially MediaTek. The more expensive and midrange Android phones and tablets tended to use Qualcomm and occasionally Samsung, plus Nvidia every now and then. The problem was that Intel utterly failed to gain traction on cheaper phones and tablets against MediaTek. The only manufacturer that they were ever able to get on board was Asus, and even Asus started using MediaTek in their latest models. Another problem is that Windows and ChromeOS got to the point where they run fine on ARM architecture, so most cheaper 2-in-1 and tablets passed up Intel also. For example, the Asus Flip ChromeOS convertible and the Chromebit (think Roku Stick except with ChromeOS, or perhaps a Chromecast except the full ChromeOS instead of just the Cast Receiver app) Asus chose to use Rockchip ARM CPUs instead of Intel.

The problem with Intel is that during the 90s and 00s, most PC manufacturers were based in the United States: HP, Compaq, Dell, Packard Bell and of course IBM. So they were more likely to use components from American companies like Intel and AMD. However, with the exception of Apple and a couple of other companies who combined may only push 5 million tablets (and no phones) a year such as Amazon and Dell, mobile means Android and Android means Asia: South Korea (Samsung and LG), Taiwan (HTC, Asustek, Acer), Japan (Sony, Sharp and Kyocera) and China (Huawei, ZTE, Xiaomi, Foxconn etc.) plus India. They have lots of cost, business, logistical etc. reasons to favor component manufacturers in their region over Intel, despite Google trying their level best to help Intel by putting a lot of work into making Android work on x86 architecture.

Of course, Google also hampered Intel's efforts by not making Android useful on large-screened devices. Several companies especially Dell, Toshiba and Samsung did waste a lot of money on trying to come up with compelling Android-based tablet and 2-in-1 products, but got no help at all from Google on the OS or software side. The reason: Google feared that if you could get a quality big tablet or laptop running Android, who would buy Chrome OS devices? The problem is that Chrome OS runs just as well on ARM as does Android, and its main selling point was the ability to make cheaper devices out of cheaper components than were needed to make Windows 7 and Windows 8 devices. (Windows 10 has now been engineered to run on ARM just as well as Chrome OS and Android does, though too little too late.) But Intel badly needed Google to make a productivity-based OS that would justify the advantages that their processors do enjoy over ARM, but they got no help. Google is now finally working on making Android a productivity OS, but that is too little, too late to help Intel. It is also too late to prevent Samsung, Xiaomi and others from using Windows 10 for their latest line of 2-in-1s and convertibles, not Android. It really is just a huge screwup by Google from which they and their partners will never recover. ChromeOS will never make a dime for Google, and Android is never going to be anything but an OS to drive phones that cost $300 or less.

Intel could - and should - have just manufactured their own devices using their own chips. They had a non-compete agreement with Microsoft and IBM that kept them from doing so with PCs, but that never applied to mobile devices. So the billions that they spent subsidizing Bay Trail and Cherry Trail could have instead gone towards their own tablets, phones and even laptops. They could have built them with Google's help, even built a Nexus device for them, and made headway in the American and European markets based on their name recognition. Or in a less risky move, they could have licensed Foxconn or another company in Asia to build and perhaps even supply their devices for them. Anyway, pretty much anything would have worked better than what they did, which was offer gigantic wads of cash to anyone willing to use their hardware and still finding no takers.

Microsoft only got into hardware out of desperation; one of many bad Ballmer moves. The only reason why they haven't cut bait with the strategy is because of pride, and because they have significantly reduced their original strategy - which was to seriously compete with Apple by selling many tens of millions of hardware yearly - to emulate the similarly failed Nexus strategy, which is to the Surface program to sell devices to their devoted fans, to have something to show off to their (still strong) enterprise customers, and free advertising. But at the end of the day, Microsoft is a software (now software and services) company. Any money that they get on hardware is a bonus. And if they aren't going to make money on their own hardware, they will more than make up for it by making money on everyone else's, including all of the Office 360 licenses they are getting from iPad Pro users. Another thing: Microsoft isn't the only one making Windows 10 2-in-1 devices. HP, Dell and a bunch of other companies are also. Samsung's Galaxy Note 6 will run Android in smartphone mode, but it is being sold with a dock that will switch it to Windows 10 when it is in tablet/laptop mode. At least a couple of Chinese smartphone companies are coming out with similar Android/Windows 10 docking devices, and I think at least 1 copycat is trying to beat Samsung to market. Of course, Microsoft is thrilled about this, and Google is the opposite of thrilled. Samsung's doing this is what finally got Google to put multi-window/multi-tasking in Android. Before they wouldn't do it because of the turf war between Chrome OS and Android. It was the same reason why Google didn't do squat for tablets and other larger form factor devices since releasing Honeycomb (Android 3.0) way back in 2011. But now to keep the OEMs from migrating to Windows 10 - which Microsoft is also giving out for free - Google is putting Google Play Store on Chrome OS - to make touchscreen ChromeOS devices like the Asus Flip actually worth buying - and is putting productivity features in Android. Too little, too late. They left Microsoft an opening, and to their credit Microsoft went through it. Google should have told their ChromeOS division to sink or swim on their own merit. As it is, Google totally lost the tablet market - which will still be pretty important going forward in the enterprise and creative markets - because they were trying to prop up a failed ChromeOS idea whose only niche is standardized-testing driven public schools who can neither afford or manage better tech.

pmz said:

I don't know of anyone ...

Source: I work with a lot of people that purchase their own equipment for work.

Anecdotes as market research.

cali said:

Why is Apple making these people happy? There should be a notice that says "Only available on iOS" when trying to access certain features.

Because if Apple Music isn't competitive with the MANY music services already available on Android, no one is going to choose the inferior option. Do you honestly think that people are going to give up their Samsung Galaxy or Nexus 6P just to listen to Apple Music? Of course not. They will keep their Android devices and listen to Spotify and Google Play Music instead. Which is, you know, what they did before Apple Music was released in 2015 in the first place.

bobschlob said:

fallenjt said:

Look at the penetration of garbage phones: Huawei and Oppo, pure Chinese copycats. These phones probably make close to zero profits.

Doesn't matter.
Point is; these People all have 'those' phones in their pockets now. Not an iPhone.

Of course, you would define anything other than an iPhone to be a garbage phone regardless of its hardware, build quality or operation. Permit me to offer an alternate viewpoint. The average selling price of an Android phone in 2015: $180. That happens to be the price of the Moto G, bought directly from the manufacturer with no contract. Do you believe the Moto G to be a garbage phone? If so, your opinion would be in the minority: see here and here and here and here for examples.

The smartphone is no different from every other piece of technology. is subject to the same laws as every other piece of new technology. When they are first introduced, the price is high and the number of companies capable of offering quality products are few because the expertise required to design and manufacture them is scarce and in many instances the necessary components are sparse. Over time - and the iPhone has been around for 9 years - the know how becomes much more common and the parts even more so, to the point where teenagers are now building smartphones using Raspberry Pi kits. That's why where an Apple computer once cost $3000 in today's money, a Mac Mini can be had for $500 and a MacBook Air for not much more. The iPod Shuffle went from $150 to $50 in less time than the iPhone has been on the market. The DVD player that used to cost over $500 now costs $30. And HDTVs have astoundingly dropped from $8000 to as little as $200 in less than 15 years.

Incidentally, one reason why more companies than Apple are now capable of making quality smartphones: the competition has been poaching Apple talent (current and former) for years. Mostly mid-level guys, sure, but every now and then an upper level person too. Huawei's devices got better right after they hired Abigail Baker, for example. But it hasn't all been in one direction. Perhaps the best recognition that the competition is also making good products is Apple has been hiring their talent also and has been for years: here and here and here.

As for making zero profits: it is curious. The only smartphone manufacturer to leave the business or go bankrupt in all this time (not counting Motorola who had been in trouble long before the iPhone) was Nokia, the only one not to adopt Android! The only two companies that have consistently lost money the past several years are HTC and Sony. Sony's problem is longtime mismanagement, which afflicts more than merely their mobile division, HTC's is simply being too small to compete in advertising, R&D and supply chain. The rest either do in fact make "small" profits of several hundred million to a billion a year, or are willing to break even or actually take a small loss because they use their smartphones to push other products and services. LG for instance states that their smartphones helps them sell HDTVs and audio hardware. Xiaomi and Huawei bundle their smartphones with broadband, mobile and streaming services. That's why not only are there no Android device makers going broke or exiting the market - though Dell it seems is slowly dropping Android to go all in on Windows 10 for their tablets and hybrids - but rather more new companies enter the market with devices each year.

So you can believe what you choose, but only because you very badly, desperately want to believe that the iPhone is the one product in the world that only a single company can make well and earn a profit doing so.