Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th May 2010 14:55 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless When Apple sued HTC, and targeted Android specifically (news which came out of the blue), many people, including myself, were convinced this was Apple letting the world know they were afraid of Android's rising popularity. This notion was laughed away by many an Apple fan, but it turns out that this is most likely far closer to reality than many dare to admit: in the first quarter of 2010, Android conquered the number two market share spot from the iPhone in the US - and by a wide margin too. Update: Added a graph which better shows the trend.
Order by: Score:
Did you read the article?
by kristoph on Mon 10th May 2010 15:05 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

The author of this particular research report made the point that the volume of Android devices is being driven by carrier agreements - in the US it's available on all carriers while the iPhone is only available on AT&T- and also by Verizon's 2 for 1 program (where you get 2 Android phones for the price of 1).

Your gleeful comment about how the iPhone will be relegated to 10% market share is therefore somewhat premature - and also does tend to demonstrate that your rather biased in your reporting.

K

Reply Score: 2

RE: Did you read the article?
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 10th May 2010 15:16 UTC in reply to "Did you read the article?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The author of this particular research report made the point that the volume of Android devices is being driven by carrier agreements - in the US it's available on all carriers while the iPhone is only available on AT&T- and also by Verizon's 2 for 1 program (where you get 2 Android phones for the price of 1).


You didn't read, did you?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Did you read the article?
by kristoph on Mon 10th May 2010 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Did you read the article?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

I take it your jobsian response indicates you understand the research so let's review ...

1) you understand that the iphone is available to ~35% of US subscribers while the Androis is available to 100%

2) you presumably understand that, at some point in the future - perhaps next month perhaps in 2 years - the iPhone will be available to a much large percentage of US consumers (lets say it will double)

3) you understand that a good part of Android growth is 2 for 1 pricing

4) you surelly recognize the iPhone has not been updated in 12 months while a slew of great android devices have been launched and have been heavily promoted

So from these facts you draw the conclusion that the iPhone is headed for 10% market share? And you don't think your biased at all?

Reply Score: 10

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'll just quote the relevant aspect of the article, which you clearly did not read:

Buyers can get capable Android phones on the cheap, and get a free one to boot (people prefer cheap), and they can choose from a multitude of models and carriers (people prefer choice). Given no encumbrances, a market will always strive for openness and choice - both on the consumer end, as well as the supplier end.


Your points are addressed in the article, and clearly too: people prefer cheap and choice, and the iPhone cannot deliver either. It doesn't deliver choice, since it's tied to AT&T, and there's only two models; it doesn't deliver cheap either (Android does: you can get cheap Android phones, or partake in a two-for-one scheme).

The two-for-one thing still means instead of just one, two Android phones make it onto the market - maybe for your partner, your children, a friend, whatever. You seem to think that the free phone somehow vanishes - which is nonsense.

As for the new iPhone coming out - the Android world isn't sitting still, and hasn't sat still either. The iPhone is currently playing catch-up to the top-notch Android phones (hardware-wise), so don't expect miracles there, and of course, new Android phones are coming out all the time. Apple simply cannot compete with the dozens of Android phone makers all at once.

While you want to discount things like the two-for-one scheme lack of carrier choice, it are exactly these things that are vital to Android's success!

Edited 2010-05-10 15:42 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE[4]: Did you read the article?
by kristoph on Mon 10th May 2010 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Did you read the article?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Buyers can get capable Android phones on the cheap, and get a free one to boot (people prefer cheap), and they can choose from a multitude of models and carriers (people prefer choice). Given no encumbrances, a market will always strive for openness and choice - both on the consumer end, as well as the supplier end.


Yes, well, except that if you compare Apple's to Apple's (no pun intended) then - from the article:

AT&T has 32% of smart phone market in the US. Apple has 21% of the US market, all of it from AT&T.

So 2/3 AT&T customers, who presumably have a choice and can purchase a much cheaper device, prefer the iPhone. Indeed, I am an AT&T customer, and AT&T regularly sends me offers for free or 2/1 smart phones.

My issue here is that your just offering your opinions and twisting the data to mean what you want it to mean.

Indeed, if you were to project Apple's market share based on the total market size it would only grow (dramatically), not decline. Now todays statistics are not a good indicator of future market conditions but, really, just pulling a number of the air is ridiculous.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Your reasoning is flawed, since AT&T offers only one Android phone, the BackFlip (two if you count the Nexus One, but this is only sold by Google - not by AT&T itself on its web site).

In other words, people forced to use AT&T can't really choose Android over the iPhone, since there are no Android phones to choose from!

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Did you read the article?
by kristoph on Mon 10th May 2010 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Did you read the article?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

No Thom, it is your analysis which is flawed ...

In order to get an iPhone from AT&T the lock-in of an existing AT&T customer has to have elapsed. So that customer can migrate to any other provider to get another device (taking their number with them).

If what you say is true, and it's all about choice and cost, then customers would - I would think - migrate from AT&T.

I personally don't think it's about choice or cost or freedom. Research has shown that the bulk of the populace who have been with their carrier for years will stay with their carrier, irrespective of the device they offer.

The true market test is when they compete head on and if you look at other markets the iPhone does very well. Now, Android devices are very good so they may, in fact, overtake the iPhone's mindshare but there is nothing in this report to suggest that, you just twisting facts to advance your own agenda.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Now, Android devices are very good so they may, in fact, overtake the iPhone's mindshare but there is nothing in this report to suggest that, you just twisting facts to advance your own agenda.


The facts are such: in the first quarter of 2010, Android held 28% of the market. The iPhone 21%. As simple as that. It is YOU who is coming up with all sots of reasons as to why these figures are supposedly wrong - YOU are doing the twisting, not me.

People who said Android would overtake the iPhone in sales were derided for predicting something like that - and now that IT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED, we're called biased because we merely point out that fact, and dare to draw some conclusions from it?

Priceless.

Reply Score: 8

RE[7]: Did you read the article?
by gustl on Wed 12th May 2010 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Did you read the article?"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Well, your argument goes like "IF AT&T were not the only one who is allowed to sell the iPhone then ..."

It looks to me like the iPhone is contractually tied to AT&T, so if Apple wants to sell the iPhone with other carriers, my guess is that AT&T will wave some nasty contract.

Apple chose this path, because when the iPhone first appeared they were the only ones offering this kind of user experience, so they probably got the maximum money out of it with an exclusive contract. Nobody but Apple and AT&T knows when this contract (if ever) will terminate.

In the meantime Apple might actually be able to get more money with a more open business model, sacrificing margin for volume. Then on the other hand they may not.

However, the smartphone market is no market with a high probability of producing a monopoly like the desktop operating market, as the network effects are pretty slim. We will continue to see huge marketshare shifts within short periods of time, since changing your phone OS does not exclude you from making a phonecall.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

There are some logical hole sin your conclusion as well:

* Most cell phone purchases are based on the two year contract cycle. As the article says there are many people who's contract with at&t is coming up this summer. Those people have not had an opportunity to choose an alternative android phone yet, as android wasn't available on at&t two years ago.

* It should also be noted that there is going to be some lock in with iphone users. They are familiar to the interface and may have invested in apps that would not be transferable to android phones. A neutral user that has the choice of choosing a first smart phone will not have that lockin.

Based on those two points, I don't think you can reliably assume that apple's at&t smart phone market share would be duplicated, if it were now available to a larger audience.

That doesn't mean that Thom's prediction will bear out. Just correcting inaccuracies,wild craziness and statistical abuse where I see it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Did you read the article?
by kristoph on Mon 10th May 2010 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Did you read the article?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

I totally agree that Apple's success with AT&T will not be duplicated with other carriers, I think that's a given. I actually also think Apple's share of the AT&T market will decline. However, given that Apple has another 65+% of the US market it can tap it would take a collapse of biblical proportion for them to fall to 10%.

]{

Reply Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Well, if the iphones turned into snakes and killed everyone's first born son. Then, it would be a collapse of biblical proportions.

Out of morbid curiosity, I wonder if anyone has built a ten commandments monument out of ipads for display in a courtroom/ modern art display.

Reply Score: 3

bolomkxxviii Member since:
2006-05-19

Statistics are like a lamp post to an alcoholic. Used more for support than for enlightenment.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Did you read the article?
by righard on Mon 10th May 2010 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Did you read the article?"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Briljant!

Reply Score: 3

JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

You seem to think that 2 sold phones equals more phones used, when a large number of cases will be with Android phones being exactly like underwear: some people wear one, while they have others available for use, but not in use at any given time, while some don't wear any at all (don't borrow their pants!). It isn't the phone itself that costs a lot: it's the service plans, which is where the real money comes in. Now, if all those 2-for-1 deals require that you activate both phones and pay for the service, then, yes, there are twice as many phones sold to a customer at a time: otherwise, unless those phones are activated and used, the other phone is like spare underwear: available when you crap your first pair. Granted, it's not a perfect analogy, but analogies rarely are perfect. Until those phones are actually in use, those phones don't really count for much except for perhaps a longer time period after the initial phone purchase (where they get two) to buy the next one, unless they really dislike the phone they got, and think getting a later model of the same Android-based phone will solve that problem, even if the old one isn't "broken" otherwise.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Did you read the article?
by David on Mon 10th May 2010 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Did you read the article?"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

I think you can certainly accuse Thom of being incorrect that the market forces described in the article will push Apple's marketshare down, and it would even be fair to accuse him of being foolish to think that. (I also disagree with Thom in his analysis).

But jumping to the conclusion that his incorrectness is a result of bias really only makes you look biased.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Did you read the article?
by kristoph on Mon 10th May 2010 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Did you read the article?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

but also the dominance of the iPhone OS among AT&T customers


Except... That point has already been debunked a comment upwards. AT&T only offers one Android phone - and a pretty bad one, at that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Did you read the article?
by kristoph on Mon 10th May 2010 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Did you read the article?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

... and again, nothing really keeps these customers from moving to other carriers to get the choice/cost you claim is what drives purchasing decisions, right?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Did you read the article?
by marktn on Mon 10th May 2010 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Did you read the article?"
marktn Member since:
2009-10-06

Except the outrageous fees those customers would have to pay for leaving their multi-year plans early.

Reply Score: 3

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

" but also the dominance of the iPhone OS among AT&T customers


Except... That point has already been debunked a comment upwards. AT&T only offers one Android phone - and a pretty bad one, at that.
"

It's kind of a hard comparison for AT&T and other carriers, since outside of the few (roughly 4 dozen) phones you can get from AT&T directly, you can only get 2 AT&T 3G compatible phones from third parties: Apples's iPhone (which you can get directly from Apple too) and Google's NexusOne.

Conversely, T-Mobile has the most options available from third-party's for their 3G network; Verizon, etc. still have a closer lock-in on their markets since you have to go to them to switch phones around (e.g. no SIM card or equivalent unless you are going out-of-country; but then, you get a SIM to you use in your otherwise Verizon-controlled device).

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Did you read the article?
by darknexus on Mon 10th May 2010 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Did you read the article?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

It's kind of a hard comparison for AT&T and other carriers, since outside of the few (roughly 4 dozen) phones you can get from AT&T directly, you can only get 2 AT&T 3G compatible phones from third parties: Apples's iPhone (which you can get directly from Apple too) and Google's NexusOne.


Are you certain? When the Nexus 1 first came out, the specs only listed T-mobile's 3g frequencies as being supported. It will, of course, work on the standard GSM and Edge via AT&T, but have Google released a model that supports AT&T's 3g bands now? If they have I might just have to switch eventually. The only 3g android phone I could find at the time of the Nexus 1's release that supported AT&T's nonstandard 3g freqs was the Motorola Milestone, which is way out of my price range. T-mobile is not an option where I live, no reception at all.

Reply Score: 2

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

ATT only offers one iPhone. The difference between the 3G and the 3GS is more to do with specification. I've owned both (recently got upgraded to a 3GS through an insurance claim) and so have recent experience with both. Same apps running on same OS version, there really isn't too much difference, until you put the processor under any load (running games for example.)

So - back to your point - big deal?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Did you read the article?
by hazydave on Tue 11th May 2010 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Did you read the article?"
hazydave Member since:
2010-05-11

This one was premature, sure... there was lots of Android momentum going into 1Q2010, and nothing particular pushing the iPhone. Then again, the iPhone was and is still far more established than the Android platform. Macs don't outsell Windows PCs even in a bad quarter for Windows (or a bad era, such as the Vista years).

The simple fact is that, just as on the desktop, it's being set up as Apple vs. nearly everyone else. It's foolish to believe that everyone else will not collectively outsell Apple on a regular basis at some point. I wasn't expecting it to start until 2011, nor become a regular thing until 2012.

Also, the 10% number is unlikely... the iPhone will probably stabilize at 25% of the smart phone market. Apple will never even try to replace the Blackberry (their insistence on selling only via iTunes is enterprise hostile... businesses don't buy their apps that way, and they won't bend for Apple), nor will they try to match the variety of Android models that will exist, just as they only offer a handful of different Mac models at any given time.

Even the simple fact that, currently, more than half of all smart phone users want a real keyboard, at least as an option, will drive people away from the iPhone. Apple's not going to cut prices enough for iPhones to be "free with contract", but that's completely possible with entry-level Android phones.

Simply put, there is no possible way that Apple will remain as strong as they are. Yes, multiple carriers would certainly help. To double their availability, they need to get Verizon and/or both Sprint and T-Mobile. Either Sprint or Verizon requires their building a CDMA2000 version... we'll see.

When the new iPhone ships in June or July, Apple will absolutely be back on top, though because of that, I'll bet 2Q2010 is even worse for them in phones, not to mention the distraction of the iPad. But the new iPhone sales will be nearly all upgrades by existing iPhone users. A large majority of the Android phones are being sold to users who did not use smartphones previously. If Android fails to deliver, Apple could get a nice bump in two years, and the whole Android thing falls apart. But if the users are happy with it, the Android market will see the same virtuous circle effect that Apple has... existing users upgrade, those on the fence get pulled in by friends and coworkers, etc.

I know from personal experience that there were quite a few of my iPhone-toting buddies drooling just a little over my Droid. The Droid is better than the 3GS in nearly every way, yet at this point, six months later, it's no longer a leading edge Android device in terms of performance and cool features. There's a bigger, better Android device every month or two. This is a problem for Apple, who do this only once a year.

Also, while I've been predicting Android wins eventually, I was looking at the global market. Android phones are just starting up on China Mobile, for example... they have more customers than there are people in the USA. They have the Lenovo OPhone now, and one of Dell's new models Real Soon Now; others are being actively sought by China Mobile (they use a proprietary Chinese 3G technology over GSM, so you have to develop your phone for China).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Did you read the article?
by tomcat on Thu 13th May 2010 05:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Did you read the article?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

1) you understand that the iphone is available to ~35% of US subscribers while the Androis is available to 100%


Part of the reason why Apple slipped to #3.

2) you presumably understand that, at some point in the future - perhaps next month perhaps in 2 years - the iPhone will be available to a much large percentage of US consumers (lets say it will double)


That speculation is not based in reality. There's no evidence that Apple is planning on expanding the set of carriers for the iPhone.

3) you understand that a good part of Android growth is 2 for 1 pricing


Something which Apple will never do. Which means that the iPhone may, in fact, slip to 10% or less of the market over time. Because it doesn't want to compete on volume. Which was the original poster's comment.

4) you surelly recognize the iPhone has not been updated in 12 months while a slew of great android devices have been launched and have been heavily promoted


Android is being rev'd at a faster rate than iPhone. If you're counting on the new iPhone to take significant market share, it would need to be an order of magnitude better. Which it won't be. Hence, incremental technological improvements aren't going to help.

So from these facts you draw the conclusion that the iPhone is headed for 10% market share? And you don't think your biased at all?


I agree with his analysis. Apple tends to squander leads in technology because it values high margins more than market share. The iPhone was revolutionary. It combined top quality hardware and software in a well-integrated package. But Android and many other competitors have those same capabilities now, and any improvements that are being made are incremental, not revolutionary. Furthermore, Apple's attempts to charge a toll for every single piece of media that we consume is going to fail.

(I have and use an iPhone every day. My next phone will be either Windows Phone 7 or Android.)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Did you read the article?
by marktn on Mon 10th May 2010 17:08 UTC in reply to "Did you read the article?"
marktn Member since:
2009-10-06

Although I too would suggest the "10% market share" comment is stretching it, I can see the iPhone under serious market pressure from Android phones. Multiple carriers and multiple phone models means out selling iPhone period. And remember, no matter what you think of the iPhone's software/hardware qualities, it is still shackled to that ball-and-chain of a network ATT.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Did you read the article?
by scofmb on Mon 10th May 2010 20:13 UTC in reply to "Did you read the article?"
scofmb Member since:
2010-02-20

Do you work for apple... all your comments in this page have been about saying how good is apple, how wrong everbody bashing them and how jobs smile make your day.

srsly. do you work for apple?

If ppl check your profile and check your comments... they will see that what im saying is true

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Contacted some sources. No, he doesn't work for Apple, just one of many apple enthusiasts. Don't over react. The only thing worse than an apple enthusiast is an anti apple enthusiast.

Reply Score: 2

Two Comments
by David on Mon 10th May 2010 15:06 UTC
David
Member since:
1997-10-01

I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords. But seriously, as an iPhone user, I welcome Android's rise, because it will put pressure on Apple. Will it force them to open up the iphone to non-approved apps? Well, we can hope, but any pressure would be a good thing.

Second, I will point out that the current iPhone 3GS is getting a little stale, and everyone knows that a new iPhone is coming out soon, so it's no surprise that iPhone sales are in the low point in their cycle. I bet that Android phones won't be anywhere near Apple's numbers in the quarter that includes the release of the new iPhone.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Two Comments
by mtzmtulivu on Mon 10th May 2010 15:34 UTC in reply to "Two Comments"
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords. But seriously, as an iPhone user, I welcome Android's rise, because it will put pressure on Apple. Will it force them to open up the iphone to non-approved apps? Well, we can hope, but any pressure would be a good thing.


The only way apple will be pressured to change their business tactics is if their current ones stop making them money. To continue to give them money by buying into their ecosystem while hope for change seem counter intuitive to me.

Edited 2010-05-10 15:34 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Two Comments
by David on Mon 10th May 2010 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Two Comments"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

I agree. And I'm certain that Android's availability on more carriers in the US is a major factor in its rise, so the first pressure that Apple will be feeling will be pressure to "open" the iphone to more carriers, and particularly making a CDMA version available. But if they feel that the open nature of the OS is a competitive advantage that Android is exploiting, then Apple will feel pressured to counter that by opening the iPhone, or at least that's the scenario that I'm laying out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Two Comments
by Babi Asu on Mon 10th May 2010 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Two Comments"
Babi Asu Member since:
2006-02-11

The Android is open source, thus free, and the handsets also are given freely. Can you call it "Sales"?

Reply Score: 1

2010 Really
by Deviate_X on Mon 10th May 2010 15:11 UTC
Deviate_X
Member since:
2005-07-11

Is The Year of Linux

;)

Reply Score: 10

RE: 2010 Really
by phoudoin on Mon 10th May 2010 15:14 UTC in reply to "2010 Really"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Agreed, except that the mainstreet consumer wont know it.
;-)

Reply Score: 6

RE: 2010 Really
by Karitku on Tue 11th May 2010 06:26 UTC in reply to "2010 Really"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

Is The Year of Linux ;)

Indeed, here is recipe for Linux success.
1) Get rid all the shit related to Linux, kernel is only piece of gold here.
2) Say FU to kernel devs, go rogue and develop the kernel outside official system.
3) Get rid Linux name on all possible ways since L stands for lusers.
4) Garnish cake with own superior apps that doesn't use or resemble anyway standard Linux apps.

Truth hurts.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 2010 Really
by unoengborg on Tue 11th May 2010 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE: 2010 Really"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

"Is The Year of Linux ;)

Indeed, here is recipe for Linux success.
1) Get rid all the shit related to Linux, kernel is only piece of gold here.
2) Say FU to kernel devs, go rogue and develop the kernel outside official system.
3) Get rid Linux name on all possible ways since L stands for lusers.
4) Garnish cake with own superior apps that doesn't use or resemble anyway standard Linux apps.

Truth hurts.
"

I don't think the truth is that standard Linux apps generally succs, and that this is the reason for people not to use the Linux desktop.People don't use the Linux desktop because it is too expensive to switch to Linux.

They have already spent a lot of time to overcome all the difficulties in windows, they don't want to repeat that process with another OS. They don't want to get the answer "I don't know" every time they ask if this new device they are considering to purchase work on their OS. They don't want to bother finding out what applications in the Linux world that can read their existing data. In other words people have a history with windows that is hard to undo. Another factor is that it would be more expensive to hardware vendors to have two support organizations, so they continue to sell windows devices, as that worked well in the past.
For Linux on the desktop to ever happen, Linux must not only be as good as MacOS or Windows. It must be better and not only a little better like some distros are today, they must be much better or there will be no incentive for people to switch.

In the cell phone world most people don't have lots of old documents, or lots of applications, most people don't even use a smart phone, and that makes for an interesting marketing target. In a sense Android is growing in the same way windows once did, i.e. make use of a new need for personal computing. Back then it was a shift from the mainframe computing to the desktop computing, now it is a shift from the desktop to your pocket.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 2010 Really
by Neolander on Wed 12th May 2010 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE: 2010 Really"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

"Is The Year of Linux ;)

Indeed, here is recipe for Linux success.
1) Get rid all the shit related to Linux, kernel is only piece of gold here.
2) Say FU to kernel devs, go rogue and develop the kernel outside official system.
3) Get rid Linux name on all possible ways since L stands for lusers.
4) Garnish cake with own superior apps that doesn't use or resemble anyway standard Linux apps.

Truth hurts.
"
I disagree with 2/ but for the rest it sounds just so insanely right...

Reply Score: 1

Devious
by Fettarme H-Milch on Mon 10th May 2010 15:48 UTC
Fettarme H-Milch
Member since:
2010-02-16

Once again it's so amusing seeing the double standards here.
Let's recap:

a.) AVC/h.264 is bad, because it's patented in some parts of the world.

b.) Novell is bad, because it entered a cross-licensing deal for patents with Microsoft.

c.) Android is covered by patents owned by Microsoft and HTC licensed them from MS. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/apr10/04-27mshtcpr.ms...
But hey, somehow nobody cares about this.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Devious
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 10th May 2010 15:54 UTC in reply to "Devious"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

a.) AVC/h.264 is bad, because it's patented in some parts of the world.


H264 is bad because it shackles the web to a proprietary standard, which will hurt innovation and the little guy on the web, while also opening the door to litigation.

b.) Novell is bad, because it entered a cross-licensing deal for patents with Microsoft.


It's not the deal itself people get angry about - it's the fac tthat despite years of empty threats, we still have not one single shred of proof regarding these so-called patents.

c.) Android is covered by patents owned by Microsoft and HTC licensed them from MS.


Uhm, we don't know that. HTC might simply be brushing MS off because it is busy enough dealing with Apple. Again, we have no clue as to WHAT Android is supposedly infringing upon. Show us the proof - Microsoft has been remarkably reluctant to do so, which raises a lot of flags.

If Microsoft really were certain about its patents being infringed upon, it would have no qualms about showing us the patents in question. Right now, it reeks of FUD.

Edited 2010-05-10 15:56 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Devious
by Fettarme H-Milch on Mon 10th May 2010 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Devious"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

H264 is bad because it shackles the web to a proprietary standard, which will hurt innovation and the little guy on the web, while also opening the door to litigation.

MPEG-LA clearly states on the AVC licensing page of their website that only commercially acting enterprises with more than 100,000 customers per year are required to pay licensing fees. All others are free to go.

There is no such clause regarding Android patents by MS.

I tell you who "the little guy" is: It's not someone with more than 100,000 customers per year. It's the self-employed guy who owns a small phone shop and who's now in constant threat to be sued by Microsoft when he sells Android phones that are not from HTC -- no matter if he has less or more than 100,000 customers.

If Microsoft really were certain about its patents being infringed upon, it would have no qualms about showing us the patents in question.

MS showed the affected patents to HTC. If those weren't valid, HTC would not signed the deal. In fact in a potential battle against Microsoft, HTC would have the upper hand: HTC is the biggest manufacturer of Windows Mobile phones.
If HTC was to drop its complete Windows Mobile lineup, Windows Phone 7 would be dead before it even launched. MS would be wiped off the handheld map.

BTW: Did you even ask Microsoft which patents are the cause of the licensing deal? Or are you just making it up that "Microsoft has been remarkably reluctant to show us proof"?

Microsoft has an entire website dedicated to patent licensing, along with a contact e-mail address:
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/ipl...

Edited 2010-05-10 16:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Devious
by JAlexoid on Mon 10th May 2010 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Devious"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

HTC is the biggest manufacturer of Windows Mobile phones.


And they are not stupid enough to drop that valuable segment. Plain and simple.

BTW: Did you even ask Microsoft which patents are the cause of the licensing deal?


OSNews probably did not, but CNet did. And the patents remain undisclosed.

Or are you just making it up that "Microsoft has been remarkably reluctant to show us proof"?


Oh, you must be unaware of the claims from Microsoft that Linux infrindes on over 200 patents?

Microsoft has an entire website dedicated to patent licensing, along with a contact e-mail address:
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/ipl...


The only actual publicly disclosed agreement on IP is with Novell. So read the page before you refer to it, please. The only place where HTC appears is "Exchange ActiveSync Protocol Licensees"

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Devious
by Fettarme H-Milch on Mon 10th May 2010 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Devious"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

Oh, you must be unaware of the claims from Microsoft that Linux infrindes on over 200 patents?

That has nothing to do with the concrete licensing deal that was signed with HTC.

HTC and MS signed a deal about Andoid patents which confirms that Android uses techniques that are patented by MS or HTC wouldn't have signed it. MS would've not taken such steps that annoy its biggest licensee of Windows Mobile -- Motorola would be a good target for a PR stunt. Motorola only sells Android phones and is way to poor for a long-running lawsuit.

But that actually not the point. The point is that Android is defended by you guys (as you just proved). You just stick you head in the sand and pretend no patent is valid.
OTOH you guys have no problem bashing AVC based on misinformation. The AVC licensing terms on the MPEG-LA website are very clear that no "little guys" are even required to pay fees as aren't low volume businesses with less than 100,000 paying customers per year.

As a side, note unlike Android, MeeGo is actually safe from patent threats. Intel and Nokia both guaranty that they will defend any MeeGo adopter who is being threatened. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/04/meego_linux_mobile_android_...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Devious
by JAlexoid on Thu 13th May 2010 14:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Devious"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You just stick you head in the sand and pretend no patent is valid.

A) Me personally, and a lot of people are against software patents in general. Most Linux advocates actually take the same side. So, no I don't stick my head in the sand, I actively fight to keep software patents out of my country and EU(even when it goes against my employer's wishes). (See http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ and http://en.swpat.org/)
B) Android was never THE SOURCE of patents, MPEG-LA is a SOURCE. I.e Android does not own any patents**. MPEG-LA does not technically own patents, but MPEG-LA is an association. So when we "bash" MPEG-LA, we bash the whole collection of companies for supporting patents and patenting more software stuff.
C) If you actually read the text above, there is nothing hypocritical about being anti-software-patent overall.

*-you may replace "we" to "I" in the text...
**- if Android does, then please enlighten us.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Devious
by arpan on Tue 11th May 2010 15:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Devious"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

HTC sells windows phones because it makes them money. If they didn't sell them, somebody else might. How does dropping Windows phones help them?

Reply Score: 1

Its Microsoft that should be worried
by Tony Swash on Mon 10th May 2010 17:02 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Android's main threat is to Microsoft as most phone makers will prefer a free OS (and one that has actually been released) to one that has a license fee - and MS's whole business model is based on that license fee.

Apple will continue to sell iPhones in increasing numbers in the US and across the global market for a long time yet (until the market is saturated) and will continue to make very handsome profits doing so. As a company they have never sought to dominate market share for its own sake - rather they are fixated on making truly excellent products (you may disagree about whether they succeed but that is their intention) which also makes lots of money.

The iPhone is part of the bigger mobile/touch revolution, which is rendering the desktop a backwater, and in this new market Apple continue to have a unique set of advantages and will therefore be a major force for the foreseeable future. At this point it looks like Google will be the other major player and Microsoft may well fade into relative obscurity and irrelevance.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Android's main threat is to Microsoft as most phone makers will prefer a free OS (and one that has actually been released) to one that has a license fee - and MS's whole business model is based on that license fee.


MS plans on selling games and apps with their existing xbox live system.

Android is providing some good competition but it still sucks when it come to games. There's no movie rental service either.

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Android is providing some good competition but it still sucks when it come to games.

That will definitely change when Unity3D comes out for Android. Their early builds are very good.

Reply Score: 3

Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

Android's main threat is to Microsoft as most phone makers will prefer a free OS (and one that has actually been released) to one that has a license fee - and MS's whole business model is based on that license fee.

Microsoft already gets license fees from HTC because of Android: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/apr10/04-27mshtcpr.ms...

Android isn't any freer than patented MPEG codecs.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft already gets license fees from HTC because of Android:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/apr10/04-27mshtcpr.ms...

Android isn't any freer than patented MPEG codecs.


Unfortunately there are some out there who some how equate open source equally patent free; As I noted previously, there is no such thing as a piece of software not infringing on some patent some where - as soon as you move beyond a basic hello world programme you're going to hit a patent somewhere along the lines. I wouldn't be surprised whether other patent holders are simply allowing Android to slide or waiting for the same time to pounce.

I think the biggest problem with Android is that you're licensing it from no one, so if the sh-t does hit the fan it'll be you the OEM who takes the fall and not the software licenser. If you go and licence Windows Phone 7 then Microsoft takes on that responsibility as so far as patents go but if you go with Android then you're opening you're self up for a bag of hurt because you're responsibility for whether there are patents infringed (as so far as software is concerned).

Reply Score: 2

This is a U.S. phenomenon
by Moochman on Mon 10th May 2010 17:58 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

I applaud this fact and all, but I don't think it's necessarily evidence of Android's superiority as much as it is of Verizon's superiority compared to AT&T. The playing ground for the iPhone in the U.S. is not level. I have plenty of relatives and friends in the U.S. who would love an iPhone but balk at the idea of switching away from Verizon, because they realize that being able to make calls reliably trumps all else.

Admittedly this is Apple's own doing. Maybe we will see things change, though, if the rumors of a Verizon iPhone hold true.

Edited 2010-05-10 18:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: This is a U.S. phenomenon
by No it isnt on Mon 10th May 2010 19:03 UTC in reply to "This is a U.S. phenomenon"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Is that so? Browsing various .uk and .no sites for mobile phones, I see far more interest in Android phones than in the iPhone. Perhaps you're reading Apple sites instead?

Reply Score: 1

RE: This is a U.S. phenomenon
by TemporalBeing on Mon 10th May 2010 19:55 UTC in reply to "This is a U.S. phenomenon"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

I have plenty of relatives and friends in the U.S. who would love an iPhone but balk at the idea of switching away from Verizon, because they realize that being able to make calls reliably trumps all else.


Verizon is in the same boat as AT&T realistically. The big difference is that the iPhone makes it more obvious on AT&T's network, and Verizon hasn't had anything nearly as popular yet. Android will likely change that.

The real problem, however, is that none of the carriers allocate enough bandwidth to support their customers, whether wireless via cell, or broadband. They just don't want to invest the money.

Reply Score: 2

Market forces
by JeffS on Mon 10th May 2010 18:48 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

Regardless of how anybody interprets the statistics about market share, the simple fact remains that Android is growing rapidly. This current market share stat linked by the article shows it already has a larger market share than iPhone.

The fact that Android runs on multiple devices from multiple OEMs and on multiple carriers puts it at a huge advantage over iPhone, in terms of growth potential and long term market share.

Also, Android's more open sdk, less draconian restrictions, and support of multiple technologies (like Flash), will mean ultimately Android will gain greater developer mind share over iPhone/iPad. Plus, Android uses Java (almost) clone Davlik. There are way more Java developers than Objective-C developers.

Nonetheless, Apple will still sell boat-loads of iPhones and iPads, and make boat-loads of money.

It's just that Android will be bigger.

Reply Score: 3

The os Mac vs PC war...
by Quake on Mon 10th May 2010 19:15 UTC
Quake
Member since:
2005-10-14

Doesn't this reminds your of the MAC vs PC war of the past? Where the PC market share was higher because of the clones...

Edited 2010-05-10 19:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: The os Mac vs PC war...
by shashank_hi on Mon 10th May 2010 20:03 UTC in reply to "The os Mac vs PC war..."
shashank_hi Member since:
2009-08-27

In this case, there are more than two major players, so it seems unlikely that one of them would establish majority and monopoly from there on. Also, a good portion of PCs success was due to Apple shooting its own foot (never used OS9, but have heard horror stories about it). Linux didn't have a decent UI then to compete for consumer market share.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The os Mac vs PC war...
by elsewhere on Mon 10th May 2010 21:19 UTC in reply to "The os Mac vs PC war..."
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Doesn't this reminds your of the MAC vs PC war of the past? Where the PC market share was higher because of the clones...


That's precisely where the market is heading, and if things keep going this way, it will be deja vu all over again for Apple.

I remember the PC/Apple ][ "wars", where you were clearly on one side or the other (many unresolved arguments to this day with my old childhood friends). The Mac changed things, it was a breakthrough product that many lusted after. Everyone wanted one, but it was pricey and that kept it inaccessible to many.

There's probably numerous reasons, many open to debate, about why Microsoft was able to succeed so well with Windows, which back then was a pale imitation of what Mac offered. Ultimately it boils down to market choice; everyone, whether consumer or business user, has a different set of requirements and emphasizes different features over others, when determining what they want or need to purchase. Things like price, usability, software availability, vendor support, third-party support etc. all form a complex equation that differs for everyone. Some people will emphasize price above all else, others will pay a premium for features that they feel they absolutely require.

Apple had a first-to-market advantage with the Mac, but simply weren't able to scale it across the market as fast as Microsoft was able to with Windows. While Windows may not have been anything more than a clumsy attempt at implementing a Mac-like GUI environment, it did have the advantage of running on various different hardware platforms. It was able to tap the existing userbase of DOS-applications. The smart ISVs leveraged their DOS-base as they migrated to Windows, others such as Adobe and Microsoft themselves started focusing their core applications on Windows. Macs were ultimately relegated to a niche player in a market they had effectively launched.

First-to-market doesn't guarantee long term product viability and success, which is a mistake many companies make. Assuming that initial success will expand past your initial market and into a wider one can be a fatal. There are many reasons why a "breakthrough" product can achieve rapid initial success, or even fail to despite perceived superiority. Did that initial market share come from a niche market segment with needs and requirements that differ significantly from the market at large? Did it address a perceived need that could be applied to the market at large? Did it appeal only to a market willing to accept any inherent disadvantages in the personal cost/benefit decision? Will that scale across a larger market in general?

First-to-market gives a company an advantage that is theirs to lose. You can use the time (and profit) it buys you to invest in refining and further developing your product to target a wider market, or you can pour it into marketing to target a wider market and assume that initial success will follow. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Now we have the iPhone, which was ground-breaking in terms of making Smart Phones appealing to a wider market. As with the Mac, they didn't really offer anything in terms of functionality that hadn't existed to that point. Web browsing, email, app downloads, multimedia, gaming etc. on handsets existed long before the iPhone. What they did do is what they do best; take existing concepts and features, and wrap them in a tightly integrated package and interface to create an overall superior user experience.

They've had a good three year run with their first-to-market advantage, but now the competition seems to be accelerating faster than Apple is. The potential problem for Apple is that they appear to be investing in an ecosphere around the iPhone OS geared more towards locking in users and developers, rather than scaling their product to appeal to a wider market. Deja Vu.

Setting aside arguments of developer frameworks, App Store control etc., the fact is that in a large and complex market, there are going to be customers emphasizing requirements that Apple will not be able to fulfill. Some users will only settle for a physical keyboard. Some users will want a high-quality camera for photos and video above all else. Some will want large storage for carrying personal files and media around. Some can't or won't sign up with AT&T/insert-carrier-here. Some will sacrifice frills for lower price. And some will certainly want to play their favorite flash games on the go. Unless Apple suddenly breaks precedent and starts offering a wide range of products with varying features, there is a portion of the market they will never be able to reach.

Yet Android and other competitors will.

The only question is how large the potential market is.

Apple is gambling that the App Store and their userbase/mindshare will continue to solidify their market and pull in developers and content providers. That's the part that just reeks of Mac vs PC. Jobs is really gambling a lot considering that, despite their success, their market hold is not as firmly entrenched as they appear to be acting.

I find market share numbers to be dubious at best, utterly unsubstantative at worst. The number that is more important is how their userbase is growing. How many of those handsets represent actual users, versus upgrades? My wife and I both have 3G phones sitting in a drawer, because our provider let us upgrade to the 3GS last summer despite having purchased our 3G models less than a year previous. And I suspect that when the next model comes out, they'll be enticing us to upgrade again with similar new user upgrade pricing. Somehow Apple has worked out a deal with our provider that will allow us to keep purchasing a new iPhone for $200 each year (signing a renewal, of course). That's a killer method for generating hardware sales and the market share numbers that accompany them, but are they expanding their user base?

And it's not just me, I know there are 3 people I work with that also took those early upgrades, and wound up doing nothing with their original 3G models.

Certainly I can't qualify that empirically across Apple's entire market, but I wouldn't discount it entirely either. Just as I know people that upgrade their Macbooks every year when the new models come out, I'm sure there is a substantially loyal base of iPhone users that upgrade their phone on a regular basis. That's good revenue, but not an increased market.

This is where I think Android's potential is (and Nokia's, if they can make any progress with Symbian and Meego). Expand the reach to simply include customers that Apple has, by choice, excluded themselves from. Android is a less refined platform than iPhone OS, but it brims with potential, and if Google can address some of the immediate concerns (particularly with regards to fragmentation), it could succeed simply enough as a "good enough" platform that runs on hardware with the features users want.

It's Apple's game to lose right now, but it's only a matter of time before they hit a wall with their existing approach that they can't grow beyond.

Anyways, just my 2c.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: The os Mac vs PC war...
by nt_jerkface on Tue 11th May 2010 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE: The os Mac vs PC war..."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

That was your 2 cents? More like 20 dollars.

Summarize next time.

Edited 2010-05-11 00:11 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The os Mac vs PC war...
by elsewhere on Tue 11th May 2010 06:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The os Mac vs PC war..."
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

That was your 2 cents? More like 20 dollars.


Yes, it was 2c. I need to be careful. I have lots of words bouncing around my brain. If I gave my 20 dollars worth, it would not only take down this site from the sheer volume of content, it would likely take down a good portion of the internet tubes with it.

Summarize next time.


I'm too lazy, so just scroll by next time, easier for both of us.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The os Mac vs PC war...
by alcibiades on Tue 11th May 2010 08:06 UTC in reply to "RE: The os Mac vs PC war..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Yes, its basically driving your potential customers to the competition. This is what they did in the eighties, they could not satisfy demand, and would not let anyone else help them. People would rather have had macs, but they needed some kind of a computer, so they bought what there was and what they could afford, and it was Windows.

Its always been the great paradox of mac advocacy, that people urge the public to do something which they cannot all do: standardize on Apple products. They cannot, the demand simply cannot be met by one company.

Now its deja vue all over again with smartphones. People want a smartphone. They can't all have Apple ones, they are either not available for their network or are too expensive. So they will buy a different make. What else are they supposed to do? Do without?

In the end, you end up with a niche product, you basically drive your customers to new entrants. Its creating the market for the competition. With what satisfaction they must have seen the latest stuff in the development contract!

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: The os Mac vs PC war...
by sorpigal on Tue 11th May 2010 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The os Mac vs PC war..."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

What Apple really did in the 80s was help their competition. They did the expensive and risky R&D and release of a brand new product and then refused to sell it to everyone. Their competitors had a shitload of free marketing from Apple: Everyone wanted a Mac and as soon as someone offered a Mac-like UI which people could afford they bought it. And then Apple filed a patent suit against those offering the competing product. Hmmm.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The os Mac vs PC war...
by sorpigal on Tue 11th May 2010 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE: The os Mac vs PC war..."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Apple had a first-to-market advantage with the Mac, but simply weren't able to scale it across the market as fast as Microsoft was able to with Windows. While Windows may not have been anything more than a clumsy attempt at implementing a Mac-like GUI environment, it did have the advantage of running on various different hardware platforms. It was able to tap the existing userbase of DOS-applications. The smart ISVs leveraged their DOS-base as they migrated to Windows, others such as Adobe and Microsoft themselves started focusing their core applications on Windows. Macs were ultimately relegated to a niche player in a market they had effectively launched.

...

Setting aside arguments of developer frameworks, App Store control etc., the fact is that in a large and complex market, there are going to be customers emphasizing requirements that Apple will not be able to fulfill. Some users will only settle for a physical keyboard. Some users will want a high-quality camera for photos and video above all else. Some will want large storage for carrying personal files and media around. Some can't or won't sign up with AT&T/insert-carrier-here. Some will sacrifice frills for lower price. And some will certainly want to play their favorite flash games on the go. Unless Apple suddenly breaks precedent and starts offering a wide range of products with varying features, there is a portion of the market they will never be able to reach.


So, to extrapolate a bit, Android can become the Windows of mobile OSes. Without getting in to an OS/2 debate it might help if Android included a compatibility layer that let it run BlackBerry native apps and old Palm apps, this being the closest equivalent of old DOS apps.

After that, the range of competing OEMs will provide the variety of hardware.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The os Mac vs PC war...
by kaiwai on Tue 11th May 2010 11:16 UTC in reply to "The os Mac vs PC war..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Doesn't this reminds your of the MAC vs PC war of the past? Where the PC market share was higher because of the clones...


It does remind me very much, and the contorting and backflipping I would see by Mac advocates about how 'it is unfair' to compare Apple to the market as a whole.

Android is challenging and over taking iPhone, Microsoft has finally got its act together where by the time 'Windows Phone 7" Release 2 or something to that effect is released by next year will have something competitive with what is out there, and Apple is still believing that they can 'rule the roost' by being the only supplier. They assume that there is a single solution to a single problem when in reality there are multiple problems with multiple solutions thus requiring many different vendors working to deliver different products for each case scenario. The iPhone isn't the swiss army knife but merely one of many knives one can choose from when slicing up the vegetables for a salad.

Personally nothing would satisfy me more than seeing Apple being pulled down a few notches and humbled a bit; just as Microsoft has been humbled and court off guard in some areas, I have a feeling that Apple might learn the hard way unless they're willing to admit some of the flaws in their business model when looking at it from a long term (10-20 years).

Edited 2010-05-11 11:21 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: The os Mac vs PC war...
by sorpigal on Tue 11th May 2010 16:07 UTC in reply to "The os Mac vs PC war..."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

This is a little more than eerily similar.

Apple not only had a similar position in the 80s with the Macintosh and MacOS but they had a similar--okay, to be honest an identical--reaction to competition.

When Microsoft released a Mac-like UI Apple sued Microsoft for patent infringement.

When HTC released an iPhone-like phone Apple sued HTC for patent infringement.

We've all seen this play before and I can't wait for act II. I just hope that Apple learns a little from history (not likely with Jobs in charge again) and doesn't blow up and die. I don't much like Apple for many reasons but they're useful fellows and do useful things (like figure out how to make people want computers).

Reply Score: 3

And what about the developers?
by alcibiades on Mon 10th May 2010 19:26 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

http://www.runrev.com/company/runrev-blog/

In which the head of the Revolution programming environment, a successor to Hypercard, reveals that this is banned from the App store, despite having offered to make considerable adaptations which would result in the IDE generating Objective-C. The whole post is worth careful reading.

This is what he proposed, an excerpt:

....we create an iPhone-only product that uses native Cocoa objects, supports 100% of their API, works perfectly with multitasking and battery life, but uses a variant of the revTalk language to use these objects and APIs, and then translates those into native code. While a significant engineering departure for us from the current revMobile path, this solution would have resulted in perfect-quality iPhone-only applications impossible to distinguish from native applications. It would have been impossible to tell these applications apart from native iPhone applications because they would be native applications. As native applications running directly without a compatibility layer, there would have been no battery life issues, multitasking and iAds would work perfectly, and new APIs would be supported as they came out. In other words, we set out to offer Apple what they wanted by raising our game in response to their stricter requirements, while dropping the other mobile platforms we originally intended to support.

To which the answer was: No.

So guess what they will be obliged to focus on? Android, and probably Linux with it. Along with lots of other people who will do and are doing the same thing.

This is Apple doing once more what it did so well in the eighties, its driving its potential customers to the competition.

Those who the Gods wish to destroy, they first drive mad.

Reply Score: 4

RE: And what about the developers?
by JeffS on Mon 10th May 2010 19:56 UTC in reply to "And what about the developers?"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

Also from that post:

"Some of our customers have suggested that we continue to develop the version of revMobile that outputs entirely native code (as detailed above). However such a solution--even though it would create perfect applications--would be in violation of Apple's agreement, which states that code must originally be developed in one of their approved languages. As such, we cannot risk hundreds of thousands of dollars of further engineering budget to create a solution that does not guarantee Apple acceptance to the app store."

This says it all, and will ultimately (over time) be Apple's demise. Well, "demise" might be an extreme term. Let's just say that Apple is working really hard to marginalize itself and it's products. Their arrogance, and current revenue, is what's keeping them from seeing this.

Reply Score: 3

Equal share
by shashank_hi on Mon 10th May 2010 19:58 UTC
shashank_hi
Member since:
2009-08-27

From the comments and the article, it seems that eventually the mobile ecosystem would have 3-4 major OSes and all of them would end up with a 20-30% market share. IMO, this will be great, because this would put interoperability as a high priority for application developers and create better standards.

Reply Score: 1

Why I got an Andriod
by TemporalBeing on Mon 10th May 2010 20:01 UTC
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

...I refuse to pay for data plans. I don't use data via the Cell Network, but from WiFi is sufficient. iPhone was too expensive and AT&T/Apple requires a $30/month data plan to go with it ($200 up front, plus $720 over the next two years = $920 total for the phone).

Of course, AT&T requires all smart-phones that they put on their network to have a data plan, a minimum of $5/month. But you can get around that if you don't buy the phone through AT&T.

So I went to Google and bought the NexusOne; disabled/deleted the APN settings for Cingular/AT&T, and now I've got what I wanted (for the most part).

The interface is a bit better too. We got a iPod Touch for my wife, which is basically the same as the iPhone, and I can certainly notice the difference when switching between the two. The back button on the NexusOne is a big plus.

Of course, as a developer, I may end up hacking into the NexusOne a bit more too, but it gives a level of freedom that I'd never be able to get from an iPhone, and in some cases more than any other carrier provided phone too.

Reply Score: 5

It's based on survey
by Babi Asu on Mon 10th May 2010 20:59 UTC
Babi Asu
Member since:
2006-02-11

Methodology: The NPD Group compiles and analyzes mobile device sales data based on more than 150,000 completed online consumer research surveys each month. Surveys are based on a nationally balanced and demographically-representative sample, and results are projected to represent the entire population of U.S. consumers. Note: Sales figures do not include corporate/enterprise mobile phone sales.

Reply Score: 3

RE: It's based on survey
by elsewhere on Tue 11th May 2010 06:53 UTC in reply to "It's based on survey"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Maybe, but 150,000 is a pretty respectable sample size. Major news networks project national election results, for better or worse, on far smaller samples. ;)

Reply Score: 3

Comment by vtolkov
by vtolkov on Tue 11th May 2010 00:38 UTC
vtolkov
Member since:
2006-07-26

> Apple didn't launch the iPad just because it wanted to - it launched it because it needs to.
Because it can. iPhone OS and experience are good enough to fit another niche. It will cut a piece from netbook/notebook market. Android tablets are promised, but no one has appeared yet.

Reply Score: 1

What about symbian?
by iAlex on Tue 11th May 2010 04:57 UTC
iAlex
Member since:
2010-02-06

From what i know Nokia is still the worlds largest mobile phone manufacturer.

I think Android will win in the long run because of market penetration. As long as you produce phones you can make an android device. Even Apple can. Only Apple produces iphones with the iphone os.

Android loves the user, Apple loves the users money.

Also, i think that Nokia is not doing a good job defending it self in the "new" touch phone market. Big changes will come here if they don't catch up.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What about symbian?
by abubasim on Wed 12th May 2010 06:57 UTC in reply to "What about symbian?"
abubasim Member since:
2008-10-16


Android loves the user, Apple loves the users money.

Android? You mean Google? And they're an NPO today?

Reply Score: 1

Apple doesn't care about market share
by Mr.Manatane on Tue 11th May 2010 09:32 UTC
Mr.Manatane
Member since:
2010-03-19

When people will stop to say "aha, Apple have just so small market share" or "Apple's market share is falling".

They just don't care. They have almost as money as Microsoft with their little market share and limited products.

It's the only thing THEY care about...

Why should they sell as much as RIM or Nokia if they can earn more money selling less ?

Edited 2010-05-11 09:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by darkcoder
by darkcoder on Wed 12th May 2010 01:38 UTC
darkcoder
Member since:
2006-07-14

The article made some points Apple should not ignore. Unless they bring better hardware/software (yes multitasking), more network coverage, and cheaper prices. the iPhone is doomed to fail. Maybe not be extinct, but gone to a distand second or third place.

On other topic...

Is incredible how Apple keep doing the same mistakes over, and over, and over. They tried to capitalize the PC market with crappy OS (Pre X era) and they failed. Now they want to capitalize the phone market with not that crappy, but still inferior hardware and software, and keep everything as closed as their PC's... guest what... they will fail again.

If you watch their current iPhone commercials, they are not about the phone capabilities, but about the amount of apps you can get. Third parties will move to the platform with the most potential sales.

The only thing that I thank the iPhone, and other non Windows based smartphones is that they are slowly openning the mind of the masses, showing them that they don't need a Windows device for their Internet needs. That eventually will open a market to Linux, BSD and other solutions for the desktop.

Edited 2010-05-12 01:39 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by darkcoder
by darkcoder on Wed 12th May 2010 01:58 UTC
darkcoder
Member since:
2006-07-14

For the guy that mention Windows sales over Apple as an example, hey you made a bad one. Windows was not the best offering during the whole reign of the eighties and nighties. There where better solutions like OS/2, Geoworks, Amigas. Microsoft used a lot of tecniques in their history, including incredible amount of marketing, unfair competition practices that end killing many of those systems, especially those that run on PC clone hardware.

Two MS examples I personaly was involved:
(1) The university I studied made an aggrement with MS for some site software licenses, and end up with a "Can only use Microsoft software" clause. They cannot even install Linux/BSD servers.
(2) A marketing company I used to work made an agremment to get the Microsoft account. What they said... "You can get our account if you aggre to use only Microsoft software in all your offices, and servers. The only exception is Graphic Artist, that can use Macs."

Edited 2010-05-12 02:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

iPhone can't be a winner
by siki_miki on Wed 12th May 2010 12:57 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

Massive number of Android models available will certainly decrease Apple's market share. So cheap vs. quality - most people are cheap and prefer cheap, especially if the look and feel is similar (a plain glass screen so software makes a difference). App store and all the locking in tricks won't help, Android gained much already and will be well covered by application availability. Problem for Apple is that their strategy was based on being a better package/product than competition, but that no longer holds.

Nokia however is proof that a single company can dominate long in the mobile phone market, so Apple will remain strong, but they lost a chance to create a monopoly in mobile markets. Maybe they need more models. If they continue restrict themselves to a single device (I don't count iphone variants as separate models), Android will just have 20 of them on the same shelf and sell better. OTOH, Apple has a significant loyal user base, so it will continune selling well.

MS also wants a piece of the cake, using same patent troll tactics as with the Novell, but I doubt anyone else will pay except the HTC, which doesn't need another trial right now.

Reply Score: 2

RE: iPhone can't be a winner
by Neolander on Wed 12th May 2010 16:21 UTC in reply to "iPhone can't be a winner"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Nokia however is proof that a single company can dominate long in the mobile phone market, so Apple will remain strong, but they lost a chance to create a monopoly in mobile markets. Maybe they need more models. If they continue restrict themselves to a single device (I don't count iphone variants as separate models), Android will just have 20 of them on the same shelf and sell better. OTOH, Apple has a significant loyal user base, so it will continune selling well.

Well... In my opinion, nokia succeeded for such a long time because they know how to provide people with a large variety of cheap and robust phones with an OS which doesn't absolutely suck.

Cheap samsung phones proved to mean "fragile" for me and my friends, while cheap LG phones often had an horrible buggy and/or unintuitive OS. Only SE and Nokia knew how to make good cheap phones for quite a long time, AFAIK. And since, until recently, cheap phones totally ruled the mobile market...

Edited 2010-05-12 16:25 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Android out sells iPhone
by kc_call on Wed 12th May 2010 16:59 UTC
kc_call
Member since:
2010-05-12

I don't think Android out sold iPhone on its own merit. It is Not a superior product. Apple made the mistake when it decided to go with AT&T. It partnered with the wrong cell phone company. So don't get to perky Google. When iPhone is released to other carriers Apple will be on top again.

Reply Score: 1