Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Jul 2011 22:09 UTC
Legal Two different graphs. Both happen to be published at Ars Technica, with one of them coming from a different source. Seemingly completely unrelated, but when you ponder the waterfall of recent lawsuit-related news, these two graphs suddenly tell all there is to tell. These two innocent little graphs illustrate why Apple is attacking Android so ferociously.
Order by: Score:
v Apple can't compete on merit
by rhavyn on Wed 27th Jul 2011 22:22 UTC
RE: Apple can't compete on merit
by JAlexoid on Wed 27th Jul 2011 22:44 UTC in reply to "Apple can't compete on merit"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Apple is now filing complaints about Android tablets, are you ready to admit that Apple isn't afraid, they simply don't like their intellectual property infringed?

Both sides are hypocritical bul****ers. Apple being the most aggressive in the legal department, however.

100% YoY revenue and profit growth on multi-billion dollar companies is literally unheard of

That is why they should beat Exxon in market cap. Those people on the US stock market are helluva optimists, if you ask me... Apple beating Exxon just plain sounds like a joke....

I'm not exactly sure "afraid" is the right way to describe Apple.


If they aren't, then they should be worried. The premium smartphone market will be saturated soon enough and Apple will be left out cold with their current product offerings.
It'll be the same as Mac Books, great sales, great profits - but not much growth.(Their product offerings are premium segment only. I maintain that their notebook growth is in line with premium priced notebook market growth, so they didn't beat the market.)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Apple can't compete on merit
by rhavyn on Wed 27th Jul 2011 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple can't compete on merit"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"100% YoY revenue and profit growth on multi-billion dollar companies is literally unheard of

That is why they should beat Exxon in market cap. Those people on the US stock market are helluva optimists, if you ask me... Apple beating Exxon just plain sounds like a joke....
"

Apple should be close to if not beating Exxon in market cap now. For some reason Apple's stock is undervalued: http://www.asymco.com/2011/07/25/apples-share-price-adjusted-for-ea...

Their EPS hasn't been this low since 2008. No one is able to believe that they continue to grow 100% YoY.

"I'm not exactly sure "afraid" is the right way to describe Apple.


If they aren't, then they should be worried. The premium smartphone market will be saturated soon enough and Apple will be left out cold with their current product offerings.
"

But, what do you think Apple's market share and growth will look like in CYQ4 if they release a new iPhone in CYQ3?

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You do realise these figures include the release of the iPhone 4, right? Heck, it even includes the much-vaunted launch on Verizon...

Reply Score: 3

rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

You do realise these figures include the release of the iPhone 4, right? Heck, it even includes the much-vaunted launch on Verizon...


I'm not sure which figures you are talking about or what relevance they have to Apple's unprecedented growth and how their market cap and share price compare to Exxon.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You asked what would happen if a new iPhone hits.

Reply Score: 1

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Watch what happens when iPhone 5 is released.

I don't even know why you're bragging about your past predictions. Of coarse a company will protect their cash cows. Apple of all companies.... No brainer.

Reply Score: 3

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

I'm not sure which figures you are talking about or what relevance they have to Apple's unprecedented growth and how their market cap and share price compare to Exxon.


New talking point this week, I see.

Reply Score: 2

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Does it include the enormous Android return raid, because basically it's not as good as an iPhone?

Reply Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Does it include the enormous Android return raid, because basically it's not as good as an iPhone?


[citation needed]

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Android is a lot simpler to use than a Blackberry so I'm really not sure what that article is on about.

However, even that aside, it doesn't really prove your point. All it says is return rates are close to 40% on some phones. Well I'd expect that on the low end crap that people buy thinking they're getting a "$100 iPhone". In that respect budget Android handsets /are/ mis-sold.

However I'd be more interested in the return rates of the middle to top end Android handsets - the ones that do directly compete with (and often even pull ahead of) Apple's iPhone. I bet those return rates are significantly lower.

Reply Score: 4

aldo Member since:
2010-02-17



From the article:

"However, on the ground, many return rates are approaching 40% said a person familiar with handset sales for multiple manufacturers."

That is just laugh-out-loud pathetic. A "person familiar with handset sales for multiple manufacturers" is not a source - it's someone that was invented for the purposes of the article. What you've linked to is not evidence that Android is worse than iPhone - it's more evidence that Apple is terrified of Android.

Reply Score: 3

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Still $50bn difference. And considering value of a share for Exxon and Apple, Apple's EPS is 6.4% of the price while Exxon's is 8.5%.
And as unlikely as it sounds to me Apple will beat Exxon. (I even lost a bet on it for 20 pints of beer)

But, hey, as I said "WallStreet is full of nutters". And no thanks to Bloomberg and their "analysts" that predict that Apple will get to $550. And now they will!

But, what do you think Apple's market share and growth will look like in CYQ4 if they release a new iPhone in CYQ3?

If they don't enter lower priced market segments, they will soon hit "the wall". I predict that they will sell no more than 23million iPhones for Q3, if they stay solely in the premium market. And I think premium market is somewhere around 200mil per year.
With tablets, it's harder because competitor sales are statistically insignificant compared to Apple to evaluate growth of the whole market.

Reply Score: 2

iinlane Member since:
2010-09-17

"Worried" is much better word than "afraid". I do not think it's the greed and desire to satisfy shareholders that drives people at Apple. While the legal department pursues the competition the rest of Apple probably does not care much.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple can't compete on merit
by andydread on Thu 28th Jul 2011 00:41 UTC in reply to "Apple can't compete on merit"
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

http://www.osnews.com/thread?481144

http://gigaom.com/2011/07/11/apple-keeps-the-pressure-on-htc-with-n...

Apple is now filing complaints about Android tablets, are you ready to admit that Apple isn't afraid, they simply don't like their intellectual property infringed?

Also...

"and it would seem Apple is unable to turn the tide with just new products alone


Apple hasn't released a new product in over a year, and they are still seeing growth in iPhone sales and market share. HTC released, what, 10 different handsets last quarter and they only grew their market share by 4%, 1% more than Apple with a 1 year old phone and a 2 year old phone.

Combine that with the fact that Apple is seeing historically unprecedented growth for a company it's size (100% YoY revenue and profit growth on multi-billion dollar companies is literally unheard of), I'm not exactly sure "afraid" is the right way to describe Apple.
"


I remember the incredible growth Apple had in the 80s
Then there came along a thing called PC clones with MS-DOS then Windows on a myriad of hardware. Then came the 90s and Apple was about to go the way of Commodore. Then came the 00s and Apple is back on top of the world. Now comes Android on a myriad of hardware. I think Apple remembers this scenario too.

Reply Score: 11

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I think Apple remembers this scenario too.


I'm not sure that they do. Or if they do, then I question if they learned anything from.

I remember the Apple ][ vs IBM PC war, I remember the Mac vs Windows war. Both started off with Apple earning first-mover advantage with an innovative product that garnered leading market share and industry support that eventually deteriorated due to their un-yielding stubbornness and un-willingness to adapt to the different demands of a larger and more diverse market.

To me this is deja vu all over again. Apple has achieved tremendous market success with the iPhone and has the industry clamoring to catch up. I've seen this episode before and know how it eventually ends.

Jobs has some brilliant ideas. While most people gush about him being a visionary, I don't really think he is. I think the real secret to his success is his ability to execute. The man has an idea and he can drive it and make it happen with a better track record of success than just about any CEO I can think of in recent history.

But the same quality of character that demands perfection and control over his products simply does not scale beyond a certain size, and that is why Apple will inevitably be eclipsed. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Reply Score: 14

RE: Apple can't compete on merit
by molnarcs on Thu 28th Jul 2011 07:38 UTC in reply to "Apple can't compete on merit"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

http://www.osnews.com/thread?481144

http://gigaom.com/2011/07/11/apple-keeps-the-pressure-on-htc-with-n...

Apple is now filing complaints about Android tablets, are you ready to admit that Apple isn't afraid, they simply don't like their intellectual property infringed?

Also...



You ARE relentless, aren't you. I thought we agreed some time ago that these IP lawsuits are bullshit:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?480925

You come back weeks later with the same IP nonsense. What property are you talking about? Ideas that they had first? How about ideas that they copied from others? They do exactly what everyone does - sometimes they come up with something new, sometimes they copy from others. Only difference is, that they don't want others do what they themselves do!

Of course, fanboys always try to show how Apple's copying is different. No, it's not. Apple had it's firsts with the iPhone, as did Android (notifications, multitasking, widgets, etc.) Thankfully, Apple finally copied Android's notifications. It made a lot of sense, because it's such an elegant implementation. And yet, here we are again, with the IP bullshit.

Reply Score: 11

RE[2]: Apple can't compete on merit
by rhavyn on Thu 28th Jul 2011 15:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple can't compete on merit"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"http://www.osnews.com/thread?481144

http://gigaom.com/2011/07/11/apple-keeps-the-pressure-on-htc-with-n...

Apple is now filing complaints about Android tablets, are you ready to admit that Apple isn't afraid, they simply don't like their intellectual property infringed?

Also...



You ARE relentless, aren't you. I thought we agreed some time ago that these IP lawsuits are bullshit:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?480925
"

I'm not exactly sure what you're freaking out about. In my first link I had asked Thom:

"If Apple filed a patent lawsuit against Motorola for the Xoom or RIM for the PlayBook tomorrow, would claim Apple can't compete with them?"

Since he was consistently saying Apple can't compete on merit. He replied:

"Of course I wouldn't. Those products sell like ass. If Apple were to sue over those, then with regards to those products, it wouldn't be about litigation over competition."

Apple is now going after Android tablets so I was asking Thom if what he says stands, that these lawsuits aren't about Apple's ability to compete. I have no idea what the rest of your rant is about since I didn't say express an opinion pro or con regarding the lawsuits, nor about their validity.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"[q]http://www.osnews.com/thread?481144

http://gigaom.com/2011/07/11/apple-keeps-the-pressure-on-htc-with-n...

Apple is now filing complaints about Android tablets, are you ready to admit that Apple isn't afraid, they simply don't like their intellectual property infringed?

Also...



You ARE relentless, aren't you. I thought we agreed some time ago that these IP lawsuits are bullshit:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?480925
"

I'm not exactly sure what you're freaking out about. In my first link I had asked Thom:

"If Apple filed a patent lawsuit against Motorola for the Xoom or RIM for the PlayBook tomorrow, would claim Apple can't compete with them?"

Since he was consistently saying Apple can't compete on merit. He replied:

"Of course I wouldn't. Those products sell like ass. If Apple were to sue over those, then with regards to those products, it wouldn't be about litigation over competition."

Apple is now going after Android tablets so I was asking Thom if what he says stands, that these lawsuits aren't about Apple's ability to compete. I have no idea what the rest of your rant is about since I didn't say express an opinion pro or con regarding the lawsuits, nor about their validity. [/q]

The lawsuit against HTC is still over HTC's smartphones, with the tablets thrown in for good measure simply because they also use Sense. In addition, they were ADDED to an EXISTING lawsuit only to INCREASE Apple's chances.

Come back to me when Apple launches a new lawsuit against i.e. RIM or HP/Palm over a tablet. Trust me - until those devices become successful, they won't. And even if they do - it does NOT negate the fact that the CURRENT lawsuits are what they are.

Reply Score: 1

molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

We are discussing the _reasons_ for these lawsuits. Protection of intellectual property is the reason Apple gives you, and we all know it's BS. Why? Because it's all about ideas/software patents. We identified two reasons, one is the "can't compete on merit" line. You read that line way to literally. Of course Apple can compete, they build excellent products, don't they? But others happen do build excellent products (smartphones, not tablets though), so Apple does feel threatened. This is not a new market, and it's harder and harder for Apple to come out with firsts. We have a more level playing field, and that seems to disturb Apple - hence the "can't compete on merit" line of thought.

Personally, I think these lawsuits have excellent marketing potential, and I doubt Apple is not perfectly aware of these. Each lawsuits have a loud and very clear message: "WE WERE FIRST. YOU COPY US. YOU STOLE OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY." - and that message is picked up by all major media outlets (not only geek sites, but the BBC, CNN, etc. as well). We know it's nonsense, for most major players had their first, and all major players use each others' ideas. Including Apple.

So imho Apple has two reasons for these: 1) marketing 2) "can't compete on merit," which in my case (and I'm sure most people would agree) simply means that they find it harder and harder to differentiate their products from the competition. Now the competition has cool stuff like 3D pics/video, 4g, better and better app support, etc.

My point is that suggesting that "all they want to do is protect their IP" is way to simplistic, and has been dealt with already. Why bring up again and run endless circles around it? It's quite boring.

Apple is now filing complaints about Android tablets, are you ready to admit that Apple isn't afraid, they simply don't like their intellectual property infringed?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apple can't compete on merit
by henderson101 on Thu 28th Jul 2011 07:42 UTC in reply to "Apple can't compete on merit"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Interesting - it's impossible to vote this comment up. "you have recently moderated this user".... Really? I don't think so. Even if I did, it wouldn't have been so recent that it should matter. Interestingly, it seems to let me vote the comment down just fine..... So, either the comment voting system is broken or it is rigged. Any staffers care to comment? What is the criteria for disallowing vote ups, why does it still allow vote downs and when is the block reset?

Reply Score: 4

Phones vs tablets
by WorknMan on Wed 27th Jul 2011 22:34 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Of course, this isn't the entire story; the iPad is doing great, accounting for 21% of Apple's revenue, and there's little indication that Android tablets today pose much of a threat. However, the situation was the same with Android smartphones only 18-24 months ago. They were laughed away as geek toys no normal person would buy. Look how that turned out. Give it a few years - maybe even less - and we'll be sitting here all over again.


Well, the difference is that back in the day, iPhones were only available on one (suck-ass) carrier in the US, which pushed a lot of people (including myself) towards an Android phone. This isn't the case with tablets. Also, I'm sure that some Android phones being a lot cheaper than iPhones is another factor that pushed people in Android's direction, but very few people seem to be taking much interest in the cheap Android tablets (and for good reason, as many of them are crap).

Speaking of the iPhone, the next iteration will be the first time that a new iPhone refresh has been available on Verizon at launch, so I think this is going to answer a lot of questions. Besides iPhones only being available on AT&T, two other reasons why I went Android is because the iPhone was tethered to iTunes, and because of it's crappy notification system. However, all three of these issues will not be a factor going forward.

As for me, I'm still on the fence about whether I'll be jumping ship to the iPhone next time; still waiting for more info on ice cream sandwich. The way I see it, if you're an Android user, you currently have 3 options:

1. Stick with the stock ROM for your phone and have to wait months for updates to come (if they even come at all), plus having to deal with the vendor bloatware
2. Root your phone and rely on hackers working in their spare time for updates, and hope they can build stable roms
3. Get a Google dev phone, and get stuck on a crap carrier (in the US)

IMHO, none of these is an acceptable option, so something needs to change.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Phones vs tablets
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 27th Jul 2011 22:36 UTC in reply to "Phones vs tablets"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think this is going to answer a lot of questions.


*looks at meteoric Android growth in Europe*

Guess shit just got answered.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Phones vs tablets
by apoclypse on Thu 28th Jul 2011 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Phones vs tablets"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

No matter how much they grow they still can't touch Apple's revenue and that is the only thing Apple cares about. You seem to be under the impression that Apple not selling as many units as Android hurts them in some way. It doesn't. Steve-o himself has said before countless times that he doesn't care about market share, they care about making money and right now Apple is pretty much shitting on everybody else selling less product to less carriers. So no Thom, this doesn't prove shit. This proves the opposite, it proves that Apple can sell a product to the masses without actually being the market leader and still come out winning.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Phones vs tablets
by ccraig13 on Thu 28th Jul 2011 02:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Phones vs tablets"
ccraig13 Member since:
2011-05-31

Exactly. You don't see BMW worrying because Hyundai sells more units.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Phones vs tablets
by tomcat on Thu 28th Jul 2011 03:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Phones vs tablets"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Exactly. You don't see BMW worrying because Hyundai sells more units.


This is essentially the same argument that Apple used when it ceded the bulk of the PC market to Microsoft in the early 90s.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Phones vs tablets
by kristoph on Thu 28th Jul 2011 03:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Phones vs tablets"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

This is essentially the same argument that Apple used when it ceded the bulk of the PC market to Microsoft in the early 90s.


Yeah, and looked how that turned out.

(Apple - essentially a hardware company - makes more money then Microsoft - a software company.)

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Phones vs tablets
by Beta on Thu 28th Jul 2011 08:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Phones vs tablets"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

"This is essentially the same argument that Apple used when it ceded the bulk of the PC market to Microsoft in the early 90s.


Yeah, and looked how that turned out.

(Apple - essentially a hardware company - makes more money then Microsoft - a software company.)
"

Because they found a new market, not that they came back with computers.
Where will Apple go next?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Phones vs tablets
by molnarcs on Thu 28th Jul 2011 08:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Phones vs tablets"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

"This is essentially the same argument that Apple used when it ceded the bulk of the PC market to Microsoft in the early 90s.


Yeah, and looked how that turned out.

(Apple - essentially a hardware company - makes more money then Microsoft - a software company.)
"

I looked. They almost went out of business. Saved by some Microsoft money, then Jobs came back and created new markets. I'm not sure Apple is ready to create yet another new market. And when it comes to this market (smartphones/tablets) they are in for a very similar situation they faced before Jobs's return.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Phones vs tablets
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jul 2011 09:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Phones vs tablets"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You have t come back from the brink of destruction to get to where Apple is today.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Phones vs tablets
by kaiwai on Thu 28th Jul 2011 14:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Phones vs tablets"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually when Apple was recovering and growing Steve Jobs noted: "For Apple to succeed Microsoft doesn't have to fail".

Btw, revenue doesn't mean jack at the end of the day - what matter is profit, big juicy delicious profits - and quite frankly as a consumer do I purchase an iPhone with 3 years software support or do I purchase an Android phone that is abandoned after 6 months by the handset vendor? Case in point, look at the number of handsets still shipping with out of date Android and the handset vendors refusing to provide updates. Need I remind Droidboys that Samsung told a carrier in the US that they would refuse to provide software updates in favour of pushing new phones? funny how every time I raise that we have Droidboys never addressing this problem.

Edited 2011-07-28 14:25 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Phones vs tablets
by molnarcs on Thu 28th Jul 2011 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Phones vs tablets"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Actually when Apple was recovering and growing Steve Jobs noted: "For Apple to succeed Microsoft doesn't have to fail".

Btw, revenue doesn't mean jack at the end of the day - what matter is profit, big juicy delicious profits - and quite frankly as a consumer do I purchase an iPhone with 3 years software support or do I purchase an Android phone that is abandoned after 6 months by the handset vendor? Case in point, look at the number of handsets still shipping with out of date Android and the handset vendors refusing to provide updates. Need I remind Droidboys that Samsung told a carrier in the US that they would refuse to provide software updates in favour of pushing new phones? funny how every time I raise that we have Droidboys never addressing this problem.

Ok, I'll address it. It's not a problem. There.
Alright, actually it is a problem for us, geeks. But believe me, nobody else cares. I had a girlfriend who owned a Samsung Android phone, forget which one exactly (they all look the same to me). She loved it... she had yahoo messenger that's still dominant around here, some photo software to take funny pictures, her email of course, and games. That's all she wanted. She couldn't care less about version numbers. And that's how people are Non-geeks, that is.

Don't forget, geeks tend to seek out other geeks. Probably we have more geeks in our circles than others ;) But due to my job, I meet a lot of people (and get to know them somewhat). And they are like my ex. Apple actually recognizes this, as they say, it's all about the applications! And right now, the applications satisfy the average customer, and they don't care about OTA updates. They don't even know what OTA is. I asked one of my colleagues - whom I assumed is is at least more computer/tech-literate than the average - if he received the OTA update from HTC (he had a Desire). He had no idea what OTA is, and didn't care. He was very much into cool Android apps though (Layar, AirPaint, etc.).

I don't say the situation is good. I'd rather have 2+ years customer support on each and every Android device. But then again, I'm a geek. I care about those things. And I know which phones to buy, of course. That's why I have the Nexus One running Gingerbread. By the time Ice-Cream comes out, it will be almost 2 years old model. I guess I'll sell it, and buy the next Nexus when it comes out, or perhaps next year. I think the 2+ year lifecycle is alright when it comes to smartphones. The technology evolves at a blinding speed. I recall owning a walkman phone from SE (the W800i) for 4 years, but at that time, nothing interesting happened. The smartphone market is quite different.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Phones vs tablets
by kaiwai on Fri 29th Jul 2011 01:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Phones vs tablets"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Ok, I'll address it. It's not a problem. There.
Alright, actually it is a problem for us, geeks. But believe me, nobody else cares. I had a girlfriend who owned a Samsung Android phone, forget which one exactly (they all look the same to me). She loved it... she had yahoo messenger that's still dominant around here, some photo software to take funny pictures, her email of course, and games. That's all she wanted. She couldn't care less about version numbers. And that's how people are Non-geeks, that is.


I beg to differ, they'll start caring when they hear on BBC World service that there is a worm that is infecting Android phones and they find that they're up shit creek with a teaspoon after finding their handset vendor has left them high and dry. End users only start caring when their $1099 ( http://store.telecom.co.nz/mobile/prepaid/htc-sensation ) phone turns into a giant paper weight.

Don't forget, geeks tend to seek out other geeks. Probably we have more geeks in our circles than others ;) But due to my job, I meet a lot of people (and get to know them somewhat). And they are like my ex. Apple actually recognizes this, as they say, it's all about the applications! And right now, the applications satisfy the average customer, and they don't care about OTA updates. They don't even know what OTA is. I asked one of my colleagues - whom I assumed is is at least more computer/tech-literate than the average - if he received the OTA update from HTC (he had a Desire). He had no idea what OTA is, and didn't care. He was very much into cool Android apps though (Layar, AirPaint, etc.).

I don't say the situation is good. I'd rather have 2+ years customer support on each and every Android device. But then again, I'm a geek. I care about those things. And I know which phones to buy, of course. That's why I have the Nexus One running Gingerbread. By the time Ice-Cream comes out, it will be almost 2 years old model. I guess I'll sell it, and buy the next Nexus when it comes out, or perhaps next year. I think the 2+ year lifecycle is alright when it comes to smartphones. The technology evolves at a blinding speed. I recall owning a walkman phone from SE (the W800i) for 4 years, but at that time, nothing interesting happened. The smartphone market is quite different.


I don't know who you know but most people know about hooking their phone up to their computer, synchronising and checking for updates - when you have 'hack attacks' on mobile phones in the news and end users asking, "am I patched up" are they going to be happy that their $1099 phone is now a giant liability because the handset vendor refuses to provide a timely update? for all the faults of Microsoft, if anyone asks me for a device other than iOS I'll always advocate Windows Phone 7 instead (especially considering Mango will be released soon). I'm not against Android or competition but what I am against are organisations who put out products then abandon it at the earliest possible moment whilst their fanboys scream "Apple sucks".

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Phones vs tablets
by galvanash on Thu 28th Jul 2011 04:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Phones vs tablets"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Exactly. You don't see BMW worrying because Hyundai sells more units.


That is a totally ridiculous comparison. No one who would buy a Hyundai would ever buy a BMW or vice versa - those are two entirely different market demographics.

If you want to use that analogy fairly, you would have to say something more along the lines of

"You don't see BMW worrying because Lexus sells more units."

That is obviously not true at all, BMW spends a considerable amount of time and energy marketing against the "econo-luxury" car makers...

Im not taking sides here, I like iOS and Android devices. But denying the fact that every Android device sold is a lost Apple sale is just sticking your head in the sand. Any steady increase in Android device volume, even if it is small, represents a serious threat to Apple.

Its not about Apple's huge margin - sure they have a gigantic advantage there. Even if they lost half their sales volume they would still likely always have the margin advantage and will make money...

Its about trajectory - something that frankly matters even more than revenue to Apple's stock price. If Apple is seen to be losing market share that could easily result in a sell-off. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that they are over valued. They could easily lose more money in a week than they make in a year if that happened.

Apple's stock price represents real money - cash they have access to now that is being bet on future performance - they haven't earned a tenth of it yet...

Think about that. Android does not have that problem - there are a multitude of hardware makers and they are not riding high on a cash bubble. Facts are facts, Apple has everything to lose - Android as a platform has little...

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Phones vs tablets
by shotsman on Thu 28th Jul 2011 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Phones vs tablets"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

An Android purchase is NOT Always a lost iPhone sale.
As has been said, there are different demographics in the phone market.
Those cheap android phones (eg Samsung Tocco Lite) will appeal to a very differeny buyer than an iPhone.

er um... Like me.
I want a phone. I want to send a few texts and do a bit of web browsing (weather, train times etc)
Yes I could lash out and buy an iPhone or any of the similarly priced Android devices. I have an iPod and two MacBooks so I'm not anti-apple but I've chosen a more basic phone because it does the job I want it to.

While I was browsing in my local stores the other day, I saw three phones being sold. They were all iPhone 4's. I know it is a statistically insignificant sample but one comment from one buyer was, Why are those HTC phones so expensive. Enough said?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Phones vs tablets
by galvanash on Thu 28th Jul 2011 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Phones vs tablets"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

An Android purchase is NOT Always a lost iPhone sale.


Fair enough - but there is more overlap than not. I think it would be fair to say that many Android sales are lost Apple sales.

Edited 2011-07-28 17:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Phones vs tablets
by kaiwai on Fri 29th Jul 2011 01:38 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Phones vs tablets"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Depends on the market - if you go into a Telecom, Vodafone or 2Degrees shop in NZ the biggest moving Android devices are the low end $200 smart phones by Huawei and ZTE. These people who purchase such phones were NEVER going to purchase an iPhone in the first place and that is where the volume is; it is like piracy statistics that automatically assumes that every person who pirates software would purchase the authentic version if the pirated version wasn't available - it is Enron style mathematics at best.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Phones vs tablets
by unclefester on Thu 28th Jul 2011 04:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Phones vs tablets"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

In another five years BMW will be getting very, very nervous. Hyundai is already well on the way towards directly competing with BMW and Mercedes. Hyundai already have the highest reliability rating in the entire car industry and some of the best engines/drivetrains available.

KIA (a Hyundai subsidiary) design their cars in Germany.

Edited 2011-07-28 04:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Phones vs tablets
by henderson101 on Thu 28th Jul 2011 07:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Phones vs tablets"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

*sigh* the reason for the meteoric growth in Europe is price. I can go out today and buy an Orange San Francisco (ZTE Blade) on PAYG (pay as you go) for about £110 (and therefore own it outright), bring it home, unlock it for free and put my current sim card in it. I can then root it, update it to 2.2 or 2.3 if I really want to. What is my cheapest iPhone option? 3GS, only for £99 I'm tied to a contract for at least 1 year. If I want a contract free one, I'm looking at double the cost.

Moreover, if I buy a phone of a contract in the UK, I still end up paying over £100 for an iPhone 4, unless I go on to a ridiculous tariff. An Android phone, depending on model, is almost always Free or less than £100 for the handset.

That is the real reason. Total cost of contract phones is cheap, and prepaid is peanuts compared to Apple. Most kids buy prepaid in the UK, so given the bling factor of needing a smartphone to look cool, you have your answer.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Phones vs tablets
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 28th Jul 2011 09:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Phones vs tablets"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

*sigh* the reason for the meteoric growth in Europe is price. I can go out today and buy an Orange San Francisco (ZTE Blade) on PAYG (pay as you go) for about £110 (and therefore own it outright), bring it home, unlock it for free and put my current sim card in it. I can then root it, update it to 2.2 or 2.3 if I really want to. What is my cheapest iPhone option? 3GS, only for £99 I'm tied to a contract for at least 1 year. If I want a contract free one, I'm looking at double the cost.

Moreover, if I buy a phone of a contract in the UK, I still end up paying over £100 for an iPhone 4, unless I go on to a ridiculous tariff. An Android phone, depending on model, is almost always Free or less than £100 for the handset.

That is the real reason. Total cost of contract phones is cheap, and prepaid is peanuts compared to Apple. Most kids buy prepaid in the UK, so given the bling factor of needing a smartphone to look cool, you have your answer.


[citation needed]

When I look around, I see the expensive Android phones from HTC and Samsung all around me - no cheap phones AT ALL. These phones are often even MORE expensive than iPhones. In The Netherlands, you can get iPhones on whatever carrier you want, with whatever contract you want - yet Android is still growing far faster.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Phones vs tablets
by linux-it on Thu 28th Jul 2011 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Phones vs tablets"
linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

and not only that, the return rate of botched iPhones is hiher than those HTC ones. We have seen so far ONE htc vision coming back, shattered. I have seen 6 or 7 iPhones now.

The android growth is in the netherlands indeed something Apple has to worry about.

Apple wants to control what you do with your stuff, if you don't like or want it.... android is there.

The only reason iPhones have longer battery runs, is because of the lack of decent mulitasking, not because the platform is better. Play a video on both devices and you will run out approx the same time.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Phones vs tablets
by henderson101 on Fri 29th Jul 2011 10:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Phones vs tablets"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

[citation needed]


Depends on provider, but all you need to do is look at the Vodafone UK, Orange UK, T-Mobile UK and O2 UK sites. You can get a Galaxy 2S for LESS than an iPhone 4 on most sites, or at worst, the same cost. The iPhone 4 is, what, 9 months older design wise. So, basically, the iPhone 4 is still being sold at a PREMIUM price, where as the Android phones that came after it have dropped in price greatly. I'm not going to do your work for you. You're the part time journalist, I'm the Software Engineer.

When I look around, I see the expensive Android phones from HTC and Samsung all around me - no cheap phones AT ALL.


But the Netherlands isn't seeing the same economic crunch that the UK and the US is, so that is not a fair comparison. Here, we see a lot of cheap Android phones and they sell well. I see countless people trawling the various discount phone stores we have (Phones4u, Carphone Warehouse, etc) as well as the vendor own shops (as most UK mobile providers have shops on the high street) as well as online sales (google "cheap UK phone") for the absolute best offer. We don't have the same Mobile phone culture in the UK as the rest of Europe, as most people have subsidised contract phones or fairly cheap pre paid.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Phones vs tablets
by moochris on Fri 29th Jul 2011 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Phones vs tablets"
moochris Member since:
2009-03-20

Counter-anecdote: I live in the UK as well and most Android phones I see people with are the more expensive HTCs and Samsungs. I actually don't think I have any friends or family with a cheap Android phone at all.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Phones vs tablets
by henderson101 on Mon 1st Aug 2011 09:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Phones vs tablets"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Sure, but it depends on the circles you move in. I see city boys with flash phones, but urban tube dwellers with cheap Android PAYG handsets. Why is this? Well, the fact that Android has so many handsets made by a range of different manufacturers is a large factor. You *can* buy the Android phone that was "hot" 6 months ago at a low cost, because the perceived turn over of hardware stock is so high now. This was always what drove the UK market.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Phones vs tablets
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jul 2011 09:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Phones vs tablets"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And yet based on the prices of the off contract phones, iPhone4 in UK is the single best selling smartphone...

(Compare price of a off-contract iPhone4 with other EU markets...)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Phones vs tablets
by aahjnnot on Thu 28th Jul 2011 12:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Phones vs tablets"
aahjnnot Member since:
2008-07-24

*sigh* the reason for the meteoric growth in Europe is price.

Not so. Here's a conversation that I recently overheard in Carphone Warehouse in the UK:

"I'd like to buy an iPhone, please"

"Fantastic; it's a great phone. But before you make your mind up, let me show you some of these Android phones. They let you do everything that an iPhone does, but, in my opinion, they're more powerful and you can choose from a range of different handsets"

"Really? I've never hear of Android. Are they really as good as an iPhone"

"Yes. I use one myself, and it's brilliant. Let me show you and you can make your own mind up."

Fifteen minutes later the customer was signing a contract for a top end Android phone. Price wasn't even mentioned as a benefit.

Sales people tend to sell what they believe in. And Android is winning the hearts and minds of the UK's mobile phone sales force.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Phones vs tablets
by shotsman on Thu 28th Jul 2011 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Phones vs tablets"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Wrong.
The sales droid (pun intended) will sell whatever gets them the most commission at the end of the day.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Phones vs tablets
by MOS6510 on Thu 28th Jul 2011 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Phones vs tablets"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

My guess is he ran out of iPhones.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Phones vs tablets
by kristoph on Thu 28th Jul 2011 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Phones vs tablets"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

... and today we have ...

http://www.pricegrabber.com/about.php/about=press/article=187/

35% of ALL consumers in the US plan to buy the iPhone 5, a product that has not been promoted, announced, or even seen by anyone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Phones vs tablets
by vitae on Thu 28th Jul 2011 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Phones vs tablets"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Hmmm. "Los Angeles, Calif" might be the key terms here. Asking people in LA? I'm sure they will be buying them in Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Bel Air, etc. But in less afluent areas of the city or in the backwoods which makes up most of the state, I'm seriously doubting it. The same could be said for most of the nation. Unemployment is godawful (thus more screaming than usual about immigration), people really are living in the streets and camping out in the woods, and basically I'm pretty sure alot of people in the wealthier areas just don't realize how bad it's gotten elsewhere. And Congress still can't be bothered to fix the budget.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Phones vs tablets
by iinlane on Fri 29th Jul 2011 06:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Phones vs tablets"
iinlane Member since:
2010-09-17

Me, my girlfriend and many of my friends bought Android because we could not afford iPhone - the price of iPhone 4 without contract is over 700 euros here. It's hard to shell out the cash when HTC desire costs half of that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Phones vs tablets
by kristoph on Fri 29th Jul 2011 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Phones vs tablets"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01



*looks at meteoric Android growth in Europe*

Guess shit just got answered.


IDC today ...

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS22962811


It might be that Android is rising somewhere but it's clearly not impacting Apple's growth.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Phones vs tablets
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 29th Jul 2011 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Phones vs tablets"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You realise those figures include feature phones, right? And that the growth figures for evryone but Apple are hindered by those?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Phones vs tablets
by evilbastard on Thu 28th Jul 2011 02:18 UTC in reply to "Phones vs tablets"
evilbastard Member since:
2006-03-22

I purchased my Atrix from AT&T back in February 2011, and I have already two OS Updates.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Phones vs tablets
by spiderman on Thu 28th Jul 2011 06:11 UTC in reply to "Phones vs tablets"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

4. Get a N9

Anyway, Verizon is not significant enough to change the trend. The US market is actually a small market for smartphones. The numbers of units sold by Verizon will be lost in rounding and not be noticeable in worldwide numbers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Phones vs tablets
by ricegf on Fri 29th Jul 2011 10:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Phones vs tablets"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

It's a brilliant phone hobbled by a defective CEO.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Phones vs tablets
by TemporalBeing on Thu 28th Jul 2011 17:44 UTC in reply to "Phones vs tablets"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Well, the difference is that back in the day, iPhones were only available on one (suck-ass) carrier in the US, which pushed a lot of people (including myself) towards an Android phone. This isn't the case with tablets. Also, I'm sure that some Android phones being a lot cheaper than iPhones is another factor that pushed people in Android's direction, but very few people seem to be taking much interest in the cheap Android tablets (and for good reason, as many of them are crap).


Well, it doesn't help that Android devices typically have better hardware specs than iOS devices too. Apple simply doesn't rev the hardware enough to keep up with the multitude of Android devices.

For example, when Google/HTC released the NexusOne it was a couple millimeters thicker, had a lot smaller hard drive (only 512 MB Flash), and a 6 MegaPixel Camera when compared with an iPhone4 of the same time frame, which while having a lot larger hard drive (upto 32 GB flash), only had a 2 MegaPixel camera. The two phones were, for the most part, on par in many other respects. It wasn't until the iPhone5 - nearly a year later - that the iPhone became more competitive with the NexusOne, where the only difference (other than OS) was the size of the hard drive; and Google quickly turned around offered the Nexus S through Samsung with a 16 GB flash - still not the 32/64 GB Apple offers, but it does for the most part eliminate the issue.

Of course, that is only comparing Apple with one other line of phones - the ones controlled directly by Google; leaving out the rest of the vendors and the other phones that may have had worse and better specs during that time frame as well.

Simply put, Apple is not churning out revisions fast enough. But could one vendor supporting a single OS be able to do so against multiple vendors supporting a competing OS?

I think the PC Windows vs. Macintosh era shows us that the answer is simply no, it cannot.

That's not to say that Apple won't continue to offer a good product for a niche market - they'll be around a lot longer than Microsoft will be. But they're not going to control the market like they originally envisioned - just like with the Mac. So long as they want to control the hardware and the software, their software platform will be doomed to a niche market.

If they continue to control the software, while letting others put it on their phones through special agreements that give them some say of the phones, then they will certainly be able to have a larger market.

The same will play out in tablets.

Reply Score: 4

Apple said...
by thavith_osn on Wed 27th Jul 2011 22:50 UTC
thavith_osn
Member since:
2005-07-11

...they would sue anyone that infringed on their patents, and that they would patent their devices as much as they could...

Apple said this way back in the day, before Android had any numbers.

Apple are probably worried, but this isn't why they do what they do. I can show you man never walked on the moon, but that doesn't mean they didn't. Some guys at OSNews seem to be looking for a conspiracy where none exist.

If war is fought with arrows, you use arrows, if war is fought with patents, you fight with them and get the best war chest you can. Sadly all wars are stupid and gain nothing, but Apple would be incredible stupid not to fight the way wars are fought. If we are lucky enough to see software patents die the death they should, then I am sure Apple would be very happy, they have been sued as much as anyone.

I know people out there disagree, and that's cool, but I have been watching this space for a long time now, and really don't see the conspiracy other's do. Apple is just a company, protecting what they believe is theirs. Do I agree with every decision Apple make?, far from it. But I also don't believe Apple is being "Evil" either.

It seems when a company does well, we assume they are "Evil". Remember the hatred for MS? Remember the hatred for "IBM". Soon Apple will be replaced by someone else (most likely Google) and people will start hating them instead. Apple had the 1984 ad, Google has "Don't be Evil". We love them, then we hate them. Same 'ol same 'ol...

Maybe pure open source is the way to go, but without the focus that companies have, we would most likely still be using CLI's on VT100's (which may not be a bad thing ;-)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Apple said...
by fran on Thu 28th Jul 2011 11:58 UTC in reply to "Apple said..."
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

You make a good point, but..
Apple play by crueler rules than most. Generally they refuse to even license some technology at all. Their aim is not to co-exist but to annihilate.
Not good for technology or the consumer.

Bad thing? you may ask. I mean it's only business.
All it take for evil to succeed is for good people to say it's only business.

Edited 2011-07-28 12:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

not much room to grow
by orsg on Wed 27th Jul 2011 22:51 UTC
orsg
Member since:
2011-02-09

another reason for Apples market share to grow a lot slower is that the amount of people, that buy an 800€ phone (or pay for an appropriate contract),desite being trendy and hip, is just limited and probably kind of saturated by now. People, who really want a good phone and are ready to spend some money already got one for now.
The largest part of the market to conquer is probably in the lower priced sections, and unless Apple introduces an i(iPhone), which I'm actually expecting for quite some time now, its market share won't climb anywhere near what I could be.

Reply Score: 2

RE: not much room to grow
by -oblio- on Thu 28th Jul 2011 05:52 UTC in reply to "not much room to grow"
-oblio- Member since:
2008-05-27

Thing is, lots of people who can afford a 800$ phone are those that can afford and that want to buy a new 800$ phone when it comes out, provided that the each generation comes after at least 1 year.

Of course, there are many who can't really afford a smartphone but buy one because of image/prestige/etc, and probably those won't upgrade.

Reply Score: 1

An other number
by Lennie on Wed 27th Jul 2011 22:52 UTC
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

There was survey recently.

They interviewed 3000 people and 23% said they want to buy the iPhone 5. Eventhough people know nothing about what the iPhone 5 will be like or competing products.

So they may have some customer loyalty ?

Reply Score: 3

RE: An other number
by jabbotts on Thu 28th Jul 2011 17:42 UTC in reply to "An other number"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06
RE[2]: An other number
by Lennie on Thu 28th Jul 2011 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE: An other number"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Yep, very appropriate. :-)

Reply Score: 2

Samsung explosion
by stabbyjones on Wed 27th Jul 2011 23:16 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

A 430% growth over one year for Samsung is amazing. The Galaxy S2 is quite possibly the best phone I've ever held in my hand.

But I'm not the interesting one, what makes Samsung's growth interesting is that I have rooted Galaxy S1 and S2's for 3 of my wife's friends in the last month.

Guess what their last phone was? an iPhone...

I've been waiting for this since Android phones first came out. Apple is losing repeat business where the entire basis of Apple's business is based around keeping you in their ecosystem.

People are actually willing to break out now.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Samsung explosion
by kristoph on Wed 27th Jul 2011 23:21 UTC in reply to "Samsung explosion"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple is losing repeat business where the entire basis of Apple's business is based around keeping you in their ecosystem.


Really? Do have some stats to back that up or are you just making stuff up?

Apple's return rate is 1.7% on the iPhone 4 while Android phone have a 30+% return rate ...

http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/07/26/android.device.return...

Apple may, eventually, get beaten by Android but, just now, it's in no danger.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Samsung explosion
by stabbyjones on Thu 28th Jul 2011 01:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Samsung explosion"
stabbyjones Member since:
2008-04-15

I have personally started to see iPhone users skipping Apple for their new phones, something I didn't expect an average consumer to do for a long time.

Your comment has nothing to do with what I said. Which I fully understand is anecdotal evidence based on my experience so it's lacking a pie chart for you. But these people have moved from iPhone to Android and haven't returned them.

It's pretty obvious that itunes, facetime, icloud is all about making sure you are too reliant to think about leaving Apple, something which people will freely admit to.

Return rates are totally interesting though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Samsung explosion
by unclefester on Thu 28th Jul 2011 04:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Samsung explosion"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

An anonymous source has heard some rumours that 30-40% of Android phones are being returned.

Credibility = Zero

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Samsung explosion
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jul 2011 09:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Samsung explosion"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You own linked article claims that SGS2 has a very strong acceptance rate:
Some Android phones are known to have very strong acceptance, such as with Samsung's three million Galaxy S II sales...
Read more: http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/07/26/android.device.return...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Samsung explosion
by imaginant on Thu 28th Jul 2011 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Samsung explosion"
imaginant Member since:
2010-02-26

From article: "The claims don't yet have full corroborating evidence from outside sources."

The article contains speculation. IMHO, one might expect higher return rates for Android. Apple training in its stores is an effective avenue for building customer loyalty. Android training, if it does exists, is far less effective. Few realize the role Apple's "one-2-one" program has played on fueling growth and customer loyalty. Sorry, limited space prohibits further explanation.

Apple does have a weakness. Android phones are more diversified helping specific phones more easily match specific needs. As Android matures, and more people demonstrate the advantages of their phone to friends, Sales of Android will increase its even now phenomenal growth. Friends helping friends could overcome Apple's training advantage. If you think this a bit wacky (I don't blame you), and are near an Apple store, just pop in and have an Apple employee show you how the iPhone works and ask about the one2one program. The average non-technical person is reassured that they too can take advantage of this amazing technology and some one will be there to hold there hand. An amazing and effective marketing strategy virtually unmatched in the industry

Reply Score: 2

Growth
by kristoph on Wed 27th Jul 2011 23:17 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

The iPhone has been the fastest growing smartphone by volume since 2008. It's sales rate is growing at 142% year over year.

These are not numbers that are in any way 'concerning'.

I am sure Apple is worried about the penetration of Android in the long term and they should be!

They should be worried about Microsoft too for that matter.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Growth
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jul 2011 09:24 UTC in reply to "Growth"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

They should be worried that it's in Micrisoft's best financial interest to promote Android...

Reply Score: 2

Channeling Henry Ford
by unclefester on Thu 28th Jul 2011 04:34 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Henry Ford obviously thought things were going very well back in 1920 with his massively profitable single model strategy. By 1925 Ford was facing disaster from the onslaught of new models form other makers.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Channeling Henry Ford
by -oblio- on Thu 28th Jul 2011 05:55 UTC in reply to "Channeling Henry Ford "
-oblio- Member since:
2008-05-27

Nice one! Quite relevant to this situation, despite being a 90 year old example. Ford's decision at the time allowed GM to become the number 1 car manufacturer in the world for almost 80 years! ;)

Reply Score: 1

WOW!
by kovacm on Thu 28th Jul 2011 07:24 UTC
kovacm
Member since:
2010-12-16

For a company that has been a computer manufacturer most of its life, this is pretty amazing.


Thom, did you miss: Apple drops 'Computer' from name - Jan. 2007. ? ;)

http://www.macworld.com/article/54770/2007/01/applename.html


I do not see anything strange here: Apple create complete new MARKETS by INNOVATION (just like with Macs in 1984) through iPhone and especial with iPad and it will defend these new markets by all means.

Of course, this isn't the entire story; the iPad is doing great, accounting for 21% of Apple's revenue, and there's little indication that Android tablets today pose much of a threat. However, the situation was the same with Android smartphones only 18-24 months ago.


of course, Google needs time to COPY Apple. But eventually they will make good enough copy of iPad too.

Do you remember first Android Phones?

Edited 2011-07-28 07:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: WOW!
by pgeorgi on Thu 28th Jul 2011 08:12 UTC in reply to "WOW!"
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

Do you remember first Android Phones?

Actual phones or dev boards?

That popular image ("6 months before launch, 6 months after launch") compares a dev board (that comes with a keyboard to simplify development and preproduction default UI) with a phone carrying a heavily modified Android system (not the default UI, but HTC-or-someone's iOS UI clone). Apples and oranges.

Reply Score: 1

RE: WOW!
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Jul 2011 09:29 UTC in reply to "WOW!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm pretty sure that most of it's life means more that 75% of Apple Inc(formerly Apple Comupter Inc).
An lo and behold! Apple is 35 y/o and for 11% of their lifetime they have not had the word "computer" in their title. I think 89%(31 years against 4 years) still qualifies for the term most of it's lifetime.

Reply Score: 4

RE: WOW!
by Soulbender on Thu 28th Jul 2011 15:06 UTC in reply to "WOW!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I do not see anything strange here: Apple create complete new MARKETS by INNOVATION (just like with Macs in 1984) through iPhone and especial with iPad and it will defend these new markets by all means.


What new markets would that be? smartphones? Sorry, Apple did not create that market. Internet tablets? Nope, didn't create that market. The portable mp3 player? Nope, not that either.
Creating a popular and successful product in an existing market is not the same as creating the market.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: WOW!
by MOS6510 on Thu 28th Jul 2011 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE: WOW!"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Those markets were full of crap before Apple entered them.

The tablet market was even so bad many people now believe the iPad is the first tablet computer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: WOW!
by jabbotts on Thu 28th Jul 2011 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: WOW!"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Yet, the markets already existed before St Steve, with a casual brush of his turtleneck, blessed them with Apple product. That is the question being asked; for those who claim that Apple created all these new wonderous technology markets - what markets would these be that where created by Apple before other's joined in?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: WOW!
by vitae on Thu 28th Jul 2011 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: WOW!"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Precisely. The yuppy factor can't be overemphasized here. "Oh look, that's what the celebrities/rich people have. It must be the thing to get. If I get one, it'll up my status. Might even make it the popular crow."

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: WOW!
by Soulbender on Fri 29th Jul 2011 07:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: WOW!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

That's not the point. The point is that they already existed and that Apple "only" created successful products for already existing markets.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: WOW!
by MOS6510 on Fri 29th Jul 2011 08:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: WOW!"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Nobody disputes these markets existed, they just had crappy products and not many (big) players were involved.

Apple entered those markets and proved you could make big money, this caused competing companies to jump in to try and get their share.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: WOW!
by danger_nakamura on Fri 29th Jul 2011 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: WOW!"
danger_nakamura Member since:
2011-06-21

Nobody disputes these markets existed, they just had crappy products and not many (big) players were involved.


The OP, in the post that soulbender was responding to, states that Apple created these markets. 'Create' is a very different concept from 'enter'. You may not agree with the OP, but the context of your reply is rather strange. The reply was directed at what was explicitly claimed, and the reply is valid.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: WOW!
by kovacm on Fri 29th Jul 2011 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE: WOW!"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

I do not see anything strange here: Apple create complete new MARKETS by INNOVATION (just like with Macs in 1984) through iPhone and especial with iPad and it will defend these new markets by all means.


What new markets would that be? smartphones? Sorry, Apple did not create that market. Internet tablets? Nope, didn't create that market. The portable mp3 player? Nope, not that either.
Creating a popular and successful product in an existing market is not the same as creating the market.


call it as you like ;)

BEFORE iPhone there was Nokia, Microsoft WM and RIM.
They did not copy Apple iPhone fast enough and now they are in free fall!

Google DID copy iPhone fast enough and now he can compete with Apple. Rest of bunch (Nokia, Microsoft WM and RIM): can not!

If Apple did not invent smartphone markets, they did surely make _revolution_, set new standards for each market. He raise bar so high that other companies simple can not achieve Apple quality. (e.g. Nokia have 6x times more engineers and spend 10 times more cash on R&D than Apple and again they market share is in constant fall since iPhone introduction!)

same for tablet devices - before iPad there was no real tablet market. Apple sell more iPads (in first few months) than Microsoft sold TabletPCs in 10 years!

Edited 2011-07-29 11:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: WOW! - "created new markets"
by jabbotts on Thu 28th Jul 2011 18:11 UTC in reply to "WOW!"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

This has been tossed around a few times now so I'll ask; what new market did Apple create recently?


mp3 players existed before the Ipod
PDA existed before the Iphone (market created by Palm?)
smartphones existed before the Iphone (Palm, Microsoft, Blackberry)
tablets existed before the Ipad (MS work on tablets?)

network delivered content market? Apple wasn't the first.

Don't get me wrong, Apple has indeed been successful in the existing markets it's chosen to enter recently. I'm just not seeing the "new markets" they've created.

Reply Score: 3

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Those markets indeed existed, but Apple introduced products that made a lot of money causing other companies to have a go at it.

I can't name a single pre-iPad tablet. Hell, I only saw one once and it was stored away. After the iPad dozens of tablets have been introduced.

Same for the media player market.

Smart phones was already a big money business, but most if not all smart phones weren't very good or smart. The iPhone lit the market up.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Yes, Apple did indeed introduce products which made a lot of money. That was previously recognized but entering into a market and being successful is not the same as creating a new market.

Pre-Ipad tablets, all those laptop "convertables" with the screen that spins and folds back fall into this category. panasonic has had pure tablet form factors for a while now as have other's. Simply put; the Ipad was not the first tablet form factor device regardless of if one remembers the other's or not.

Pre-Ipod? The creative Zen was popular in it's time. Sony has mp3 players out. Nomad was another. The list of no-name mp3 players puts a long tail ont he end. Again, not remembering what came before the Ipod may indicate it's success in the market but again, the portable music player and portable digital music player markets where alive and well long before Apple's marketing re-wrote history.

Smart phones? Realy, You don't remember the WinCE, Palm Treo and Blackberry phones previous to the Iphone launch? Merging the PDA and cell phone into a single device was well under way before even rumours that Apple was going to make a phone (everyone remember how far fetched that sounded?).

I think claiming that you can't remember a single tablet, portable media player or smartphone previous to Apple's product launches is either grossly disengenious or potentially authentic if you've only been aware of the gadget market for the last three years.

Reply Score: 3

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

With "I can't remember" I mean there wasn't much to remember.

It's hard not to spot an iPhone, iPad or iPod at least a few times a day, while I never saw someone with a tablet pc. Most media players were walkmans, discmans. Phones were Nokia's. Sure I know the Treo from adverts or stories, but never met anyone owning one. Dozens of people I know have an iPhone.

When people were still listening to discmans I wanted to buy an mp3 player, couldn't get one anywhere.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Apple does a heck of a marketing job. The white headphones where all about marketing.

The market was relatively young but it was already to the point where most people had moved from tap and CD player to some brand or another of mp3 player. The audiophiles had fat cabled big headphones while the normal folk simply used headphones in black. Along comes Apple's marketing team with a whole campaign run on the siloet with headphones re-enforced by bright white headphones stuck in every ipod owner's ears.

At the time, the joke was buying white headphones to plug into whatever non-Apple mp3 player you had so you could blend in. It wasn't enough to have a portable music player, you had to have bright white headphones proclaiming your auditory self endulgance. Having subtle black headphones snaked through shirt and under hair was no long acceptable. Headphones now had to be fashion accessories.

In short, folks listening to music on portable devices and any of a dozen or more make/models of mp3 player had already become very common. Folks making a big show of the fact that they where listening to an mp3 player; most of that was Apple's brilliant marketing strategy. (and they do really deserve credit for the marketing.)

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

They essentially created the market by making it popular and profitable ... creation in this sense shouldn't be taken 100% literally.

These markets would have still been niche if Apple had not entered them and dominated them.

Edited 2011-07-28 20:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"These markets would have still been niche if Apple had not entered them and dominated them."

Hypothetically, why exactly do you think consumer tablets would not have occurred without apple?


It seems to be the direction we were headed in anyways, with the technological advancements of lower power cpus, better battery life, all round lower costs, much cheaper data plans, the time seemed ripe for tablets to become popular. I really wanted a tablet nearly a decade ago, but I baulked at the prices at the time. I am positive that I wasn't alone. In my opinion price has always been the main barrier to mass adoption. We just needed to wait for moores law to kick in and put them at price points consumers were comfortable with.

Edited 2011-07-29 00:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Hypothetically, why exactly do you think consumer tablets would not have occurred without apple?


Because many other companies tend to "design by commitee" ... whereas Apple don't.

I not saying it definetely wouldn't have happened, however other companies don't do the combination of Design, Marketing and Simplicity of use and don't create a Buzz ...

Apple devices for the most part have a good synergy of form and function. Even on my quite old iBook ... nice little things like having the USB ports in the right place ... make all the difference.

Edited 2011-07-29 06:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"Because many other companies tend to 'design by commitee' ... whereas Apple don't."

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Do you have examples? My impression that apple is one of the most bureaucratic and controlling employers in existence, though I could be wrong.


No one entity in the world is so important that the world couldn't get by without them. This is a good thing.

I say as long as there's healthy competition, then consumers will be able to find what they want at competitive prices.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Do you have examples? My impression that apple is one of the most bureaucratic and controlling employers in existence, though I could be wrong.


The point is that there is a single vision from Jobs,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/may/09/inside-apple-...

The article (which is not yet online) indicates that Apple is driven by Jobs's personality: "the creative process at Apple is one of constantly preparing someone - be it one's boss, boss's boss, or oneself - for a presentation to Jobs," writes Adam Lashinsky, who calls him "a corporate dictator who makes every critical decision - and oddles of seemingly noncritical calls too".


And what happens when you get it wrong at Apple.

Jobs's reputation as a manager who takes no prisoners is reinforced with an anecdote from the time in 2008 when the relaunched MobileMe cloud service had significant outages. Jobs called the MobileMe team together to the Town Hall Auditorium on the campus. "Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is meant to do?" Jobs began. On getting a response describing it, he replied: "So why the f--k doesn't it do that?" A 30-minute tirade followed - and a new person was put in overall charge of the group. (Many of the developers left the group soon afterwards.)

...

To understand why Apple does so well and has such good brand loyalty watch to Simon Sinek's Video on Why ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_KHyed_uRc&feature=related

Edited 2011-07-29 08:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"The point is that there is a single vision from Jobs,"


Well, I think he's good at capitalizing on the up and coming markets which he predicted along with others. Though I don't believe he's actually responsible for those markets. If Bill Gates and Steve Jobs never came to be, there's no reason to think we'd be at a technological loss today - just different people to take the credit.

IMHO, apple is not good at competing in a crowded market - it never was. I doubt Jobs learned anything from apple's history. With him gone, maybe apple can fix his mistakes before apple becomes irrelevant again. I know, it's all blasphemy to you, but mark my words apple's stance on controlling everyone will drive people away once the hype has faded.

Reply Score: 2

smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

To understand why Apple does so well and has such good brand loyalty watch to Simon Sinek's Video on Why ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_KHyed_uRc&feature=related


i particularly liked the part where he compared the wright-brothers with apple ;)

the wright-brothers weren't the first to do a motorised flight
gustave whitehead was (for clément ader it's not so clear)
and while whitehead just made his flights the wright-brothers had press and lawyers with them during their little jump

yes, they were like apple is today, but i don't think that is what sinek had in mind with this comparison ;)

Edited 2011-07-30 00:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

They essentially created the market by making it popular and profitable


No, that would be reinvigorate. Besides, both smart phones and mp3 players were already popular and profitable.

creation in this sense shouldn't be taken 100% literally.


No, creating a market means just that, to create a new market that did not previously exist. The first tablets, mp3 players and smartphones created new markets.

These markets would have still been niche if Apple had not entered them and dominated them.


That's just speculation. If Apple hadn't it's perfectly possible that someone else would have.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No, creating a market means just that, to create a new market that did not previously exist. The first tablets, mp3 players and smartphones created new markets.


Can we not split hairs about the terminology ... The market was much smaller before Apple entered the picture ... then everyone wanted a slice of the action.

That's just speculation. If Apple hadn't it's perfectly possible that someone else would have.


Yes it is perfectly possible, but no other company actually did it ... Anyone could possibly do it ... but they didn't ... and Apple have done it successfully now on 3 occasions ...

Most hardware manufacturers don't lead they follow, and they are usually following Apple.

Reply Score: 2

carriers
by Darkness on Thu 28th Jul 2011 07:57 UTC
Darkness
Member since:
2005-08-27

Good thing that in Europe the phone companies cannot really force you to use a specific carrier like in the US. In Europe, a phone works on any carrier, though you might need to unlock the device in some countries because Apple tries to abuse their market position there.

That leaves more room for competition as well, illustrated by the popularity of android.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Thu 28th Jul 2011 08:04 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

I'm on holiday in Turkey and it's all iPhones and iPads here in the hotel lobby (free WiFi). The staff even tried to buy my iPad on several occassions or asking about it.

At one point I got a 350 euro offer for my iPad 1/32 GB/WiFi. I told him I wouldn't sell it even if he offered 1000 euro.

They seem to ignore my iPhone 4 though, even though it has an Angry Birds cover.

Now I must swim.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by molnarcs on Thu 28th Jul 2011 18:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

I have exactly the same experience, but in a fairly different part of the world - Vietnam ;)

iPhones no longer excite, tablets, however, are all the rage with young people and teens. I have an Asus EP121, fairly big, with a leather cover, but steel looks rather slick. And when I take it out, people ask me: is that an iPad2? The iPad has become the top "Want This" item among the youth around here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Thu 28th Jul 2011 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

They just want an original for the fake copies. :-p

I've spotted fake Nano's here, 3rd, 4th and 5th gens. Was tempted to buy one, but I already have too many media players.

Watches are great here too, they are fake but look so real. It's amazing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by molnarcs on Thu 28th Jul 2011 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

As curious as it sounds, the Vietnamese don't like fake copies. Most westerners believe that SE Asia is the same (and it's like China). There are a lot of differences. Fake airbooks, iphones, etc. are all the rage in China. Here? Well, you can find them, but you really really have to look hard. As I drive through the city, I see a lot of mobile shops advertising iPhones, or exclusive mac stores, and all are genuine. Actually, a lot of Chinese products in general have the same bad reputation around here like in our countries, and people are trying to avoid buying them when possible.

Watches, however, are a different matter ;) They sell great Rolexes around here ;)

Edited 2011-07-28 19:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Thu 28th Jul 2011 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I bought a Rolex last year for 100 euro, it's a Submariner and looks totaly like the real thing ($5000+). It makes you wonder what the profit margin is for a real Rolex. I always wanted a Rolex, but didn't want to spend $5000 to know what time it was, while a cheap Casio digital lcd watch also has a stopwatch, alarm, chime and perhaps even more.

Computers and media players are a different thing, not so easy to create a perfect copy. Which is a shame!

At work someone has a Chinese BlackBerry, it even says so above the screen. The software running on it is crap, but you can make calls with it.

Reply Score: 1

The real issue
by Alexandre on Thu 28th Jul 2011 09:36 UTC
Alexandre
Member since:
2008-10-30

Some of my thoughts:
Apple is selling very well, and I think they are not worried for not being the leaders on sales charts.
Microsoft has made much more money in its history than Apple, Microsoft is going down, but Apple has a lot to catch up on being as successful as MS history shows.
Android is leading the growth on smart phones, google is capable of amazing things, the trend will keep on.
Software patents are normally silly, but hey if Apple can use a weapon that works they will use it... but it's not pretty. Again Google is keeping their image clean being the "nice guys".
I wonder what if google removes access to google applications to iOS?!!?! Is that even possible?! No gmail, no google maps, .... that would mean war!... I don't believe on that.
I personally believe that Android is better than iOS but being less "refined", but the important part in this equation for Apple is not about being the best or not, is about being fashion, and eventually Apple will loose it. They are not making people dependent on Apple technology like Microsoft have done with Windows... and I think also Google is being able to do it. Apple still have the prettiest "gadgets".

My prediction:
Microsoft is out of smart mobile market and is going to take Nokia down with them.
Rim will keep falling.
Apple will be reaching the peak in 1 or 2 years (maybe sooner), they will start falling slowly... and then faster... unless they come up with something new.
Android will be the leading platform in mobile computing by a large margin.
If google is able to make a viable alternative to office, Microsoft will have to find "another job".

Edited 2011-07-28 09:51 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: The real issue
by molnarcs on Thu 28th Jul 2011 18:32 UTC in reply to "The real issue"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Not a bad assessment. I'm not sure about Microsoft though. Remember that WinMo 7 is a good system praised by critics in almost every publication. Presently, they simply lack distribution channels, because all manufacturers are caught up in the phenomenal success of Android. Why would they extend their portfolio and confuse potential users? Apple has such a huge brand presence that they would just chose an iPhone if things gets complicated in the rest of the mobile market.

However, Microsoft has NOKIA. True, they are rather late to market, but Nokia still has a huge distribution channel. Yes, they are sliding rapidly, but the time window for recovery is more than a year. If they get out their new WinMo 7 models within that time frame, they'll quickly get a 10-15% market share within another year. That's what most analysts predict for the reasons I mention here (10+% WinMo marketshare within 3 years). Unless they make some huge mistakes along the way, that's quite doable I think. We'll see.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by zizban
by zizban on Thu 28th Jul 2011 17:42 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

This constant bashing of Apple by OSnews is getting really, really old.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by zizban
by molnarcs on Thu 28th Jul 2011 18:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by zizban"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

I somewhat agree, although I'm one of those people who often criticize Apple for some of its practices. I like their products a great deal though.

The problem is, that you can't have an intelligent discussion about Android, Google, patents, and a variety of subjects without Apple fanboys cropping up and starting to spew nonsense. What you see happening now is the result of that - Thom tries to address some of the issues that these fanboys constantly raise, because he is an optimist. He thinks people can be convinced by a fair amount of evidence and logical reasoning. He tries to provide them. It doesn't really work - hence the "Apple bashing" continues.

I'd rather things were different, but unless you can convince the mrshasbeen clones to just ignore Android, Google, etc. news, I don't see much hope. Patents, the basic principles of innovation, etc. in the context of Apple's litigious fervor remains a hot topic.

Reply Score: 3

Where is the history
by TechGeek on Fri 29th Jul 2011 03:17 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Apple did not invent any markets. All you need to do is look through wikipedia a bit. I know, thats asking a lot of an Apple zealot.

Nokia had internet tablets for sale YEARS before the iPad. As did Asus, Archos, Cowon, Samsung, Fujitsu...But right, Apple invented the market.

Diamond marketed the first really successful mp3 player. Enough so that it spurred lawsuits by the RIAA. Of course that was 3 years before Apple entered the scene. Even Creative beat Apple to the party. In fact, Apple paid Creative a large amount of money for stealing the interface from their mp3 player for the iPod.

As for phones, we all know there were smart phones long before Apple built any. The Nokia 9000 was released in 1996. Symbian released one in 2000.Apple was pretty much last to the party again.

Apple distortion field neutralized.....

Reply Score: 4

STFU
by paul-thecatcher on Fri 29th Jul 2011 03:47 UTC
paul-thecatcher
Member since:
2011-07-29

The iOS vs. Android discussion is so old and tiresome.
If you like the iOS product then 'buy' the damn thing. If you like the Android based product then 'buy' the damn thing. Unfortunately you tech people get too caught up in the technology and religious garbley-gook about stupid stuff. In the end, neither product or company will be here in a hundred years and it really doesn't matter. . .
Spend your money where you want and move on. . .

Reply Score: 1

Autocratic companies usually fail
by unclefester on Fri 29th Jul 2011 08:29 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Autocratic companies such as Ford, IBM, Commodore, MS, Sun, Dell etc are often extraordinarily successful for decades. However the CEO (or his successor) almost invariably makes a massive error of judgement by failing to adapt or betting most of the companies resources on a product that fails spectacularly. Then it is a desperate scramble to avoid bankruptcy.

IMHO anyone who buys Apple stock now should be certified as legally insane. The only possible direction in the long term (5-10 years) is downwards. In the most extreme case Apple may not even exist in a decade.

Reply Score: 2

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Edit:

Autocratic companies such as Ford, IBM, Commodore, MS, Sun, Dell etc are often extraordinarily successful for decades. However the founder (or his successors) almost invariably makes a massive error of judgement by failing to adapt or betting most of the companies resources on a product that fails spectacularly. Then it is a desperate scramble to avoid bankruptcy.

Reply Score: 2

A couple of interesting article
by Tony Swash on Fri 29th Jul 2011 17:05 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Why market share doesn't matter

http://www.technightowl.com/2011/07/why-androids-market-share-doesn...

How Apple is taking two thirds of all phone makers profits

http://www.asymco.com/2011/07/29/apple-captured-two-thirds-of-avail...

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29



Ah yes, the shifting of goalposts.

"Android will never be functionally close to the iPhone."

"Android will never be popular among non-geeks."

"Android devices will never be of the same quality as iPhones."

"Just you wait, the iPhone 4 will close the hardware gap with Android devices, and then Android's rise will stop!"

"Android will never surpass the iPhone in market share."

"Just you wait, the Verizon iPhone will reverse Android's growing trend!"

And now:

"Despite us laughing over Android's insignificant market share in the beginning, market share is now suddenly no longer important!"

"Just you wait, the iPhone 5 will reverse the trend!"

And this gem, from Apple spokesperson Gruber:

"It'll be interesting to see what happens with Verizon iPhone sales when the new iPhone hits in September, though. Might be a lot of people waiting for that."

Pathetic.

Edited 2011-07-29 17:15 UTC

Reply Score: 1

rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple increased their share of the profits in the mobile industry from 57% last quarter to 66.3% this quarter. Only two vendors that sell Android devices are even profitable (HTC and Samsung). I understand, Thom, that you are very impressed with Androids growth (at least in the smartphone category). But how, exactly, do you see that growth continuing when all the money in the industry is being siphoned away by Apple? You understand that if it's unprofitable to make Android handsets it doesn't matter how well they sell, no one is going to, right? Additionally, you understand that if the iPhone 5 is released and Apple takes home 70% of the mobile profits in Q4, it doesn't matter if Apple only increases their market share by 1 or 2%, right?

No matter how many times people make the comparison, the mobile wars look nothing like the Mac/PC wars of the 80s. During that time Apple consistently did worse, quarter over quarter and Microsoft was massively profitable. But with mobile platforms, from a profit perspective, Android looks a lot more like Apple in the Mac/PC wars and Apple looks like Microsoft. Companies are going to need to figure out how to make money with Android, and fast, or companies like Motorola are going to start looking at Android the way Logitech is looking at GoogleTV.

Or, an alternative perspective, Android looks a lot like the business model of many internet companies in 1999. We'll give it away from free and make up for it in volume.

Now, go ahead and mod me to oblivion again since I'm now bowing to the alter of Google.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, now it's about profits, just because Apple is doing very well in that area at the moment? Funny, back when Apple was doing well in market share, it was all about market share - but now that Android is doing miles better at market share, it's suddenly no longer important? Do you see how hypocritical that is?

Since Samsung sells its phones in the same price category as Apple does, and since Samsung also creates all the hardware in-house (more so than Apple, even), and the cost of Android is quite low for Samsung (lower than Apple, since they have the expenses of developing iOS), what's going to happen when Samsung's meteoric market share growth inevitably leads to Samsung reaping larger and larger profit shares?

Will you guys move on to the next thing Apple will still be the best at by then? I don't know, probably the amount of outstanding aggressive lawsuits will define a company's penis size?

Edited 2011-07-29 18:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It is funny though that the company that imitated the iPhone to the highest degree is doing best.

Reply Score: 1

Joy_Division_Lives! Member since:
2011-07-29

So, now it's about profits, just because Apple is doing very well in that area at the moment? Funny, back when Apple was doing well in market share, it was all about market share - but now that Android is doing miles better at market share, it's suddenly no longer important? Do you see how hypocritical that is?


I find it just as hypocritical, or rather disingenuous, to make a comparison between the popularity of IOS and Android by smartphone marketshare only when the combined presence of IOS across all its devices (iPads and iPods included) is greater than Android. (59% bigger, if memory serves me). So...let's make a more appropriate comparison, between smartphone manufacturers. There, Apple is kicking everyone's butt...soundly. And (as noted by Asymco.com), Apple's share of the smartphone profits is at a whopping 66%! The Apple App store outstrips the Android Marketplace and other Android stores by a 25 to 1 margin (in terms of app downloads). It is taking 6 manufactures and roughly 48 different Android smartphone models to beat the iPhone...ONE PHONE that's already 1.5 years old.

You talk about others moving the goalposts when it's clear that marketshare doesn't mean very much if you are not making the lionshare of money. And...considering there have been reports of Android smartphone returns above 30%, I really don't see why you and the other Android fans are crowing so much.

Edited 2011-07-29 19:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That return rate figures has no sources, so it's a bunch of nonsense. Secondly, you clearly didn't read this article very well. Thirdly, I'm not an Android fanboy. I don't even own any Android devices.

Typed on my iPad while checking my WP7 device for text messages.

Reply Score: 1

Joy_Division_Lives! Member since:
2011-07-29

Thom, it's clear you don't know very much about business and your analysis is a bit flawed. I suggest you become a regular reader of Asymco.com and get yourself educated.

And don't be so defensive. :-)

Edited 2011-07-29 19:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

We know your not an Android fanboi Thom. We just object to your hyperbole.

Reply Score: 3

rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

So, now it's about profits, just because Apple is doing very well in that area at the moment? Funny, back when Apple was doing well in market share, it was all about market share - but now that Android is doing miles better at market share, it's suddenly no longer important? Do you see how hypocritical that is?

Since Samsung sells its phones in the same price category as Apple does, and since Samsung also creates all the hardware in-house (more so than Apple, even), and the cost of Android is quite low for Samsung (lower than Apple, since they have the expenses of developing iOS), what's going to happen when Samsung's meteoric market share growth inevitably leads to Samsung reaping larger and larger profit shares?

Will you guys move on to the next thing Apple will still be the best at by then? I don't know, probably the amount of outstanding aggressive lawsuits will define a company's penis size?


That is an awesome straw man. But if you look, I pretty consistently talk about revenue and profit because that's what matters, not market share. I lived through the internet bubble and burst and know exactly what market share means at the end of the day without profit.

But, sure, let's assume you're correct. Samsung brings in 15% of profits in the cell phone industry. If Samsung is the only other company selling Android hardware, how long do you think they last against Apple?

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/22/comscore-androids-uk-market-shar...

First, Apple has overtaken Symbian to become the top smartphone platform in the UK (with a 27 percent market share).


HMM

Keep on ignoring facts Thom and getting into a hissy fit when the facts don't fit your rhetoric.

Edited 2011-07-29 19:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/22/comscore-androids-uk-market-shar...

"First, Apple has overtaken Symbian to become the top smartphone platform in the UK (with a 27 percent market share).


HMM

Keep on ignoring facts Thom and getting into a hissy fit when the facts don't fit your rhetoric.
"

...and according to the figures you just linked to, Android grew by 634% in the UK, and is only half a percentage point behind iOS.

You were saying?

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

...and according to the figures you just linked to, Android grew by 634% in the UK, and is only half a percentage point behind iOS.

You were saying?


Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics ...

My point still stands.

Apple sell 1 phone against how many Android phones which are cheaper on contract ... (iPhone 4 until recently was £40 contract, and £160 one off fee, HTC desire is free on £30 contract).

It like comparing Windows notebooks against MacBook Pros ... there is only 1 vendor producing Macbook Pros compared to everyone and their wife producing Windows notebooks.

The stats don't mean anything until you actually normalise it against the number of manufacturers for android ...

So iPhone still managed 46% growth with one manufacturer and android was 600+% with how many, HTC, motorola, samsung, lg, sony etc ... oh it doesn't seem that impressive growth once you factor in the fact that iOS and iPhone are pretty much one product against many products that just happen to be running android.

It ends up with swings and roundabout ... and Apple still making profits ... and still leading the smartphone and tablet market.

Oh btw ... 6hours ago

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20085342-37/iphone-doubles-world-...

HMM ...

Oh I liked how you lost it against me when discussing innovation after I provided evidence .. to support my opinions ...

Edited 2011-07-29 20:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Verizon results for the last quarter
by Sasparilla on Sat 30th Jul 2011 03:18 UTC
Sasparilla
Member since:
2007-12-07

Interesting results from Verizon for the quarter, now you get to see the iPhone (without the benefit of a cheap / prior version for sale) head to head with an entrenched Android base.

Activated 2.3 million iPhone 4's, which was less than Verizon was hoping for.

The shocking number was the Android number, in comparison.

"For the quarter, the company reported sales of 1.2 million LTE and Android devices, which includes tablets, smartphones and wireless modems."

Not what I was expecting (I expected Android to double the iPhone sales easy, more really..). Once the next iPhone is brought out, Verizon will have a cheap iPhone available (ATT does it for $49 + contract).

Here's the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/technology/iphone-bolsters-verizo...

Edited 2011-07-30 03:36 UTC

Reply Score: 1

beefs with the iOS
by torjv on Sat 30th Jul 2011 03:35 UTC
torjv
Member since:
2011-07-30

I'm wondering why no droidis never mention the complete and utterly failure with the iOS HMI design. The iOS/droid battle is easy won by droid in the HMI.

As a open minded droidling, I wonder why Apple have placed all actions on top while the main button is at the bottom. Another thing that droid wins, is the GUI logic, based on personal experience, why place Bluetooth operations under "General #stuff" and not as droid does it, "Wireless #stuff"?

An other reason I feel that the iOS HMI logic sucks big time is, that it could be that I'm a too advance user to understand their logic, the bluetooth point was made when my old- (almost prewar)school, "I do not need help, I'm gonna fix it myself" dad, ask me for help to tether his iPhone to this car".

He complained about too low a volume.

I feel that the iOS speaks to my dad(who loves simple, but want a droid for it's features) or fashion guys/girls that want to make a "statement of them self" and, like in the old days, wears LEVIS 501 pants, just too be different.

I could be wrong, because I do not understand why people want to choose an inferior and overpriced product, over a sensible and logic product that does not tries to limit your options..

Disclaimer
The author of this comment, is by no means a fan of any sort regarding brand /or OS when commenting on Osnews.
This person's wet dream, is a Haiku based smart phone, with Be Inc's(Haiku's) developer madness OS.

"HAIKU, evig!"

Reply Score: 1