Comparison of iOS6 to ICS & WP7.5:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57...ampaign=Feed:+cnet/YIbS+(CNET+News+-+Pulse+2)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57...ampaign=Feed:+cnet/YIbS+(CNET+News+-+Pulse+2)
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
What is APPLE planning?
- Thread starter NetViper
- Start date
- Joined
- 18 November 2004
- Messages
- 120
Not really a meaningful comparison since its a future version of iOS being compared to current versions of WP and Android.
There's a WP event scheduled for next week to discuss Apollo. I'm not sure when Jelly Bean will be announced but ALL 3 of these OS's are scheduled for Q3 releases, so an apropos comparison would take the newer features of the other 2 into consideration.
Found this to be funny:
Eating away? Android is KILLING the iPhone. Not even close.
In all seriousness, does anyone think the iPhone is still relevant? Seems so 1 dimensional compared to Android.
Well, in all seriousness, the iPhone is certainly still relevant, and will be for the forseeable future. Both are eating away at RIM's ever dwindling marketshare. Windows will hang on as a niche (and because it has Microsoft's billions supporting it). I'm frankly shocked to see anyone still running Symbian.
Android and iOS will continue to step over one another, adding features. The big difference is that if Android adds a feature previously available on iOS, the fanbois will scream that Google is copying Apple. But if Apple adds a feature previously on Android (like, notifications, or turn-by-turn), it'll be hailed as a grand new iPhone feature.
I do not like the Android operating system at all. Personal preference. Yes, I have had both. As far as that distribution goes I am sure its correct.
Given that here is some food for thought:
Android is an open OS running across multiple platforms on all the carriers. Many Android phones sell for $0 with a contract. On the other hand Apple just recently opened the other carriers to their products and there are still many of them without the iPhone such as Tmobile, cricket etc. Additionally it is locked to 1 device and those devices are set pricing and are not thrown around cheaply like Android devices are.
I would say that given those circumstances a 29.5 market share compared to a 48.6 market share is actually doing substantially well.
The only thing I think is fair to say is that Android has a larger market share not killing Apple. By that end it is most likely due to the lower entry cost and availability across all carriers. If all things were equal it would most likely be much different.
RIM on the other hand ...
Given that here is some food for thought:
Android is an open OS running across multiple platforms on all the carriers. Many Android phones sell for $0 with a contract. On the other hand Apple just recently opened the other carriers to their products and there are still many of them without the iPhone such as Tmobile, cricket etc. Additionally it is locked to 1 device and those devices are set pricing and are not thrown around cheaply like Android devices are.
I would say that given those circumstances a 29.5 market share compared to a 48.6 market share is actually doing substantially well.
The only thing I think is fair to say is that Android has a larger market share not killing Apple. By that end it is most likely due to the lower entry cost and availability across all carriers. If all things were equal it would most likely be much different.
RIM on the other hand ...
Ugh, I hate fanboy wars. That said, it's not just about market share. What does Google make off each Android sale vs iOS for Apple? Who makes a bigger profit from app market sales?
Speaking from a bottom line perspective, I'd much rather take Apple's profits from iOS than Google's from Android.
Last edited:
Thanks to the carrier distribution model, there are more Android phones, but the iPhone is where the money is and there isn't a chart or graph in the world that shows that changing anytime soon.
Eating away? Android is KILLING the iPhone. Not even close.
In all seriousness, does anyone think the iPhone is still relevant? Seems so 1 dimensional compared to Android.
IMO a better metric to show relevancy is browser usage, not unit share. I'll bet a very large number of Android users use their smartphones just like a dumbphone.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8&qpcustomd=1
Last edited:
A Quick Look at iOS 6 and Its New Android Features
A Quick Look at iOS 6 and Its New Android Features :biggrin:
A Quick Look at iOS 6 and Its New Android Features :biggrin:
A lot of people are missing the point here. Regardless of how much profit there is in Android vs. IOS, Google just wants the OS to be ubiquitous. You can't make a profit for marketshare you don't have. Part of their strategy is based around what people have said, lower entry cost and availability across all carriers. But features, multiple cost tiers, multiple hardware manufacturers all contribute to dominating the market.
The reason why I mentioned the separation of smartphone from the "mobile" umbrella is to look at a trend clearly. Consider the fact that Android started after iPhone. Google focused their efforts to grow that market, and now is double the size of the next competitor, Apple, which had a large head start. Only now Google is putting their focus on the tablet market with Ice Cream Sandwich being the first real milestone on that road. The strategy and history is on Google's side for future tablet dominance.
When you look at mobile or browser usage as a whole, it masks the trend of Android encroachment in the market. But when you look at smartphones specifically:
The Apple smartphone market is still growing, although it is slow. Compare that to Android though... and all at the cost of RIM.
Make the software a low cost barrier for entry, make it run on everything, make it feature rich and highly configurable. Then make sure you work with everyone it interfaces with. All the hardware players will use it, and all the carriers will carry it. The ensuing hardware wars will keeps the costs down while making sure new tech is constantly added. It's a good strategy. I suspect it may be better than suing everyone and pissing them off.
The reason why I mentioned the separation of smartphone from the "mobile" umbrella is to look at a trend clearly. Consider the fact that Android started after iPhone. Google focused their efforts to grow that market, and now is double the size of the next competitor, Apple, which had a large head start. Only now Google is putting their focus on the tablet market with Ice Cream Sandwich being the first real milestone on that road. The strategy and history is on Google's side for future tablet dominance.
When you look at mobile or browser usage as a whole, it masks the trend of Android encroachment in the market. But when you look at smartphones specifically:
The Apple smartphone market is still growing, although it is slow. Compare that to Android though... and all at the cost of RIM.
Make the software a low cost barrier for entry, make it run on everything, make it feature rich and highly configurable. Then make sure you work with everyone it interfaces with. All the hardware players will use it, and all the carriers will carry it. The ensuing hardware wars will keeps the costs down while making sure new tech is constantly added. It's a good strategy. I suspect it may be better than suing everyone and pissing them off.
This comment resounds my sentiments:
Apple is great at targeting stagnant markets and dominating them. This seems like a great way to be everywhere.
I guess it all depends on what web/news/paper/mag you read to see who's on top?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/06/09/why-apple-is-the-top-smarphone-maker/
http://blog.flurry.com/bid/85911/App-Developers-Signal-Apple-Allegiance-Ahead-of-WWDC-and-Google-I-O
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/06/09/why-apple-is-the-top-smarphone-maker/
http://blog.flurry.com/bid/85911/App-Developers-Signal-Apple-Allegiance-Ahead-of-WWDC-and-Google-I-O
I guess it all depends on what web/news/paper/mag you read to see who's on top?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/06/09/why-apple-is-the-top-smarphone-maker/
http://blog.flurry.com/bid/85911/App-Developers-Signal-Apple-Allegiance-Ahead-of-WWDC-and-Google-I-O
Not sure who you are disputing, but that chart, with the exception of 1 low for Android and 1 spike for IOS, clearly shows Android dominating in millions of users added per month. In most cases it is somewhere between 2 to 1 and 3 to 1.
I think most people are characterizing it as "Finally! They should have done this a long time ago." I don't think you'll find many iPhone fans saying it's a grand new feature. Everyone recognizes, or if not, will soon have it shoved into their face that a feature is something that already existed somewhere else. Generally, they're just glad to have it, and there's nothing wrong with that.
And how can anyone make it a criticism of any company that they are filling in holes in their feature set? I suppose you can criticize the implementation quality of a feature….
Last edited:
Fully agree with you. It's all about profits which is why Apple's strategy is working. Apple claimed a staggering 80% of mobile profit in Q4. Aside from Samsung, Android OEM's & others are struggling to make a profit:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/06/133_112409.html
Google gets 40% of their mobile sales from iOS:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...percent-of-googles-mobile-sales-says-analyst/
That will definitely decrease now that Apple has kicked Google Maps out of iOS.
This. Developers pick iOS first and Android is an after thought. Android users do not spend as much money on apps as compared to iOS users either.
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/07...cant-lead-over-android-in-developer-interest/
http://www.macworld.com/article/116...tes_why_developers_pick_ios_over_android.html
I think the only person missing the point might be you. PROFIT is key. Google doesnt understand this because they aren't a manufacturer. They don't make the phones, therefore they don't care if Android is on a low-cost feature phone or a high-end smartphone. Android gained market share due to the reasons you stated but that strategy does not equate to profit. If OEM's continue to struggle, I don't see how they would continue to build Android phones.
lolwut? What happened to Honey Comb? That was Google's first attempt at a tablet OS yet it failed miserably and then they adopted Apple's model in having one OS for both mobile & tablet markets.
Everyone that has entered the tablet game has failed when attempting to beat the iPad. The only tablet that saw any success was the Kindle fire and even then, it was so highly skinned that you wouldn't even consider it an Android tablet. The demand for the Kindle Fire is now severely slumping.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/257183/kindle_fire_once_hot_now_cold.html
Explain how any of the feature phones that Android is on are able to fully take advantage of the features in ICS? They can't. Google themselves claimed that ICS is only on 7% of their phones. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
Last time I checked, the amount of iDevice accessories far outweigh anything for Android, most cars now have iPod/iPhone interfaces (not an 'Android' interface), iPad's are being used in schools as education tools, and now with Siri's Eyes Free integration, Apple is set to dominate even in the automotive space. All these features just bring up the value proposition for buying Apple devices. It's no wonder that when offered on a carrier, the iPhone becomes the most popular/selling phone on that carrier.
I understand Google's strategy: build market share by undercutting your competitors. Sounds pretty familiar (Microsoft and IE, anyone?), but how profitable is this approach? If Apple was to give away iOS for free and allowed other manufacturers to use it on their own hardware, do you still think Android would have the market share it does today? My point was that Apple clearly does not want to turn their products into commodities, they're in it for the high profit margins.
If Android was Google's bread and butter, would they even be able to survive as a company? Contrast that with Apple and iOS; they're profitable because of it, and not in spite of it. The only reason Android has a bigger install base is because carriers give away the phones for free. Price Android devices higher than iPhones, and let's see who comes out on top. We've already seen how more expensive Android tablets fare against the iPad, which is why Google is switching strategy and coming out with a low cost Nexus tablet (but whether that hurts the iPad, or existing Android-based tablets like the Kindle Fire more remains to be seen).
In addition, Apple is not going away anytime soon for the following reasons:
1. Many people still perceive Android phones to be second tier or budget devices, and Apple to be a premium (and therefore more desirable) brand. Android's strength (availability on a myriad of devices) is also its weakness, and enough people are fashion conscious about their phone that they will choose to go with a premium brand. Call them isheep, posers, or whatever, but Apple is still laughing all the way to the bank.
2. Technology does not stand still and continues to evolve. Android will get better, but so will iOS (and other mobile platforms). However there is enough of an established base that people will not abandon Apple completely unless the company makes some really stupid decisions. I certainly have no desire to switch platforms and repurchase all my apps again, do you? If iOS meets most people's needs and provides a sufficiently satisfactory user experience, what incentive do they have to switch? Fanboys aside, most people use their phones as cameras, music listening devices, for social networking, and play games--all things that iOS does very well.
Last edited:
The "profit is key" statement is pretty obvious to any business. But it really doesn't say anything about about how those businesses tackle building those profits short term and long term. Android growth in the smartphone market is a very telling trend on what Google is trying to do, and a pretty successful one.
As far as OEM's struggling, you took an article about a foreign company trying to make inroads into a heavily saturated and established tech country then expanded it into "OEMs are struggling". You are telling everyone here that Samsung, LG, Motorola and HTC are "struggling" to stay afloat?
Honey Comb was the first attempt, but a unified OS is the holy grail. It always has been for OS developers. That is not an "Apple's model". All OS developers move toward making a unified OS that runs across multiple platforms. While Honey Comb got Google in the game, ICS is a serious beginning to try to penetrate the market.
So your argument is that no one has been able to beat the iPad, therefore it will never happen? Really? Just because the current landscape has the iPad dominating the market does not mean it will always be so.
This isn't about how much ICS is spread across phones, its about how the Android business is using a particular strategy to gain marketshare. Do you think the average Android smartphone user is upset that they don't have ICS? Hardware has become commodity. ICS and future updates will trickle out to users just through people buying new phones and tablet hardware. In the meantime, the software and hardware developers have a better target to work with.
Last time I checked, most cars have a USB interface.
And the statement about iPhone being the most popular phone on any carrier is misleading. The iPhone competes against multiple Android phones from different manufacturers. If you take the total amount of android phones sold against the iPhone, you get charts like the ones in previous posts.
Not sure who you are disputing, but that chart, with the exception of 1 low for Android and 1 spike for IOS, clearly shows Android dominating in millions of users added per month. In most cases it is somewhere between 2 to 1 and 3 to 1.
Look at the last gray bar. It will be interesting to see what happens next.
-j
Well said.
So far you've only proven they gained market share. That has yet to equate to profit. Android does not bring them profit, mobile search brings them profit. Its just as Phoenix or others have described. Lets not forget that Google has to pay MS license fees for Android phones.
My fault, I thought you were well informed on the topic.
Motorola struggling...
http://allthingsd.com/20120501/motorola-mobility-posts-wider-loss/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304050304577378411127458498.html
The only Android OEM that is making money is Samsung within the mobile space. Nokia is struggling with Windows Phones, LG finally posted a profit after 7 consecutive quarters of losses, and HTC has already been discussed. So yes, within the mobile market, these companies are struggling.
The unified OS is APPLE'S MODEL within the mobile/tablet space and it has been proven to be a huge success which Google is now copying. Honey Comb was supposed to be Google's trump card against the iPad, yet it failed miserably. Not only were the majority of Honey Comb tablets rushed to the market, but the OS was confusing and clunky. Google obviously thought this would be successful or else they wouldn't have put it out. This isn't anything new for Google though, they generally steal from all successful models and then attempt to undercut their competition in price or put it out for free.
Remember this? Google's original Android phone which was a copy of RIM's blackberry. Than after the iPhone showed initial success, Google redid their strategy.
Yes, I think many Android users are upset that they don't have ICS. iOS is touted as being simple and very easy to master. Android is supposed to have a higher learning curve yet have much more areas for customization if you know what you're doing. Why wouldn't the avg. Android user be upset that they have yet to get updates which would bring their phones new features? What happened to Android Alliance? Why should Android users be forced to purchase new products in order to get the latest and greatest of Android OS? Just another reason to be annoyed with Google and their lack of control within Android. I'm sure that factors into their not-so spectacular satisfaction scores.
How is that statement misleading?
http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/smart_phones/232800138
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402523,00.asp
My statement was 100% accurate. What's even worse is that the combined sales of Android phones are not greater than the iPhone on AT&T, Verizon, or Sprint. Even the iPhone 4 & 3GS outpace Android phones on certain carriers. All those feature phones that Android gives away for free in other countries truly have helped to gain market share but Google will never see profits with that tactic. Do I need to mention how flawed the methods are for determining mobile market share? A solid read if you care to learn about the issue.
The only point I made is that Google has a strategy to gain marketshare. They can monetize any way they see fit when they have the dominating share, which they do. You all keep banging away about profit when what really mattered to Google is if they owned the market or not. Every company across the globe understands this, from Microsoft to China dumping solar panels to every drug dealer standing on a corner. If Google owns 80% and Apple owns 20% you think your argument is still going to stand?
Every company goes through losses at some point. As far as OEMs struggling because of Android, no.
A unified OS is not Apple's model. Software developers wanting a unified OS goes back to the dawn of time. No matter how much you say it's Apple's model doesn't give them ownership of the idea.
Google remodeling their phone is just that, a remodel. It follows with their overall strategy. There was no point to your statement other than to let it be known, "omg, Google copied Apple!"
The points about ease of use, desires and being "forced to buy a phone for new software" doesn't pertain to the argument and is ridiculous. First off, the 10s of millions of Android users are not pining away for the new ICS features. Of the small subset that do, they all know if they want new features they buy a new product, or wait for their phone to receive it, or unlock the phone and install it themselves. Is Siri on every iPhone? No.
I never said your statement about the iPhone being the bestseller being inaccurate. I said it was misleading. But now you padded it with inaccuracies. Android as a whole has outpaced IOS growth by 2 to 1 and sometimes 3 to 1. You can try to spin it any way you want, but that is the truth.
All your prattling was never the point to begin with. All I said was that Google had a certain strategy to dominate the smartphone market and the trend was obvious. Then all the fanbois lost their minds, but mostly you.
Did Google have a strategy to expand their Android market in smartphones?
Yes.
Was it successful?
Yes.
Will they try the same strategy in the tablet market?
Yes.
Will it be successful?
Probably.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9327871/WWDC-Apple-highlights-Android-fragmentation.html
Look OEMs are indeed struggling in many ways. First off they are struggling for identity. If all phones run Android - what's to set one phone apart from the others? Yeah, there are different form factors and such but all phone manufacturers can do this.
This is why these Android companies are modifying Android to suit their own needs and to gain a competitive foothold over the other Android players.
And this, coupled with all of phone and hardware variations is why we have "Fragmendroid" phones with only 7% of users having the latest and greatest.
Look OEMs are indeed struggling in many ways. First off they are struggling for identity. If all phones run Android - what's to set one phone apart from the others? Yeah, there are different form factors and such but all phone manufacturers can do this.
This is why these Android companies are modifying Android to suit their own needs and to gain a competitive foothold over the other Android players.
And this, coupled with all of phone and hardware variations is why we have "Fragmendroid" phones with only 7% of users having the latest and greatest.
