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)
Comparison of iOS6 to ICS & WP7.5:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57...ampaign=Feed:+cnet/YIbS+(CNET+News+-+Pulse+2)
Why would you not group all android devices together? They all run android. If apple just makes on phone then that is up to them, meanwhile android will keep eating away at their market share. Kind of like windows did.
In all seriousness, does anyone think the iPhone is still relevant?
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.
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.
This makes perfect sense when you realize Ford's CEO came from Boeing. Boeing is like Microsoft, they both try to push a technology before its time, screw up the details, fail miserably, then sit around while they get beaten by their competitors.
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
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.
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.
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: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.
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...the iPhone is where the money is and there isn't a chart or graph in the world that shows that changing anytime soon.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Well said.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.
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.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.
My fault, I thought you were well informed on the topic.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?
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.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.
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.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.
How is that statement misleading?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.
Well said.
So far you've only proven they gained market share...
...blah, blah, blah...
...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.