Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Aug 2013 21:16 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless I wrote this almost exactly three years ago, to much debate:

Sure, Apple will most likely still make far more money per sold iPhone device than competitors will per Android phone, but the trend is clear: as much as I love my iPhone, it will be relegated to a ~10% market share figure within a few quarters.

It took a little longer than "a few quarters", but here we are. Android has revolutionised the smartphone market. I'm not particularly happy about that (both Android and Samsung are far too dominant, which is bad for the market and thus for consumers), but there it is.

Order by: Score:
Apples vs Androids
by Nelson on Wed 7th Aug 2013 21:27 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

I think Android's meteoric rise can be attributed to near perfect timing and an almost unilateral tunnel vision by everyone else in the market except Apple.

Android filled a "not an iPhone" void which helped catapult it into relevance. From there, Android morphed into this all encompassing hundred headed hydra that runs on everything from phones to tablets to watches to glasses. Its impressive how Google effectively used Microsoft's own playbook against them (While Microsoft tried to emulate the iPhone's strategy, or at least a happy medium in 2010).

Android was the OS for everybody. HTC wanted to put a shitty skin on it? Fuck yeah, go ahead. Samsung? Why not? Skin it too. You want a dual screen landscape flip phone, or (even today) a 5 inch monster with volume buttons on the back? Android is your thing.

Want the freedom to tinker as you please, want to include uninstallable crapware from OEMs/Carriers? The answer is yes and yes.

Want to run on every SoC under the sun, across every possible permutation of screen size and resolution? All Android baby.

Some might argue its flexible to a fault, but you can't argue that this strategy hasn't been fruitful for Google's intended purpose: Getting Google services infront of users on their own time. Without relying on Windows.

Google transformed itself from essentially a Windows software vendor to a global services phenom with the most widely used smartphone OS under its wing.

Android has become the Windows of the mobile phone OSes.

Reply Score: 16

RE: Apples vs Androids
by Tony Swash on Wed 7th Aug 2013 21:57 UTC in reply to "Apples vs Androids"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

The evolution of market share between the big mobile device platforms is interesting but does it mean very much? I ask that question in all seriousness because it is quite clear that in fundamental ways the dynamics of mobile device platform performance, and of related commercial dynamics, seems to be very different to the dynamics of the PC market where market share gained traction as the proxy indicator of choice.

The problem with use of platform market share as some sort of critically important metric in the mobile device markets is it's not a good proxy for anything. Saying X% of devices run a particular OS carries as much meaning as saying X% of devices are coloured black unless market share directly connects to, and therefore is a good proxy measure of, other important and significant characteristics of platform performance. And at the moment it doesn't seem to be.

Looking at the device market I see huge imbalances which could be very unstable and which could trigger very big changes in the shape of the industry over the next few years, and none of these imbalances relate to market share. In fact I am not sure market share has any impact on anything of substance in the device markets.

Consider some of the imbalances in the device market that could trigger profound change:

Apple takes an absurdly large proportion of mobile device profits.

Apple remains critically dependent on it's main device competitor Samsung for crucial component supply

Samsung utterly dominates the branded global Android OEMs

There is rapidly growing sales of Android handsets by Chinese firms that have zero connection to Google services and whose medium term impact on other Android OEMs (including Samsung) are unknown.

Google following the departure of Andy Rubins seems to be repositioning Chrome as the centre piece for the horizontal domination of services across all mobile device platforms.

Google and Samsung are both tied together in strong dependencies at the same time driven apart by separating interests (Google wants to control devices more and make Motorola profitable, Samsung wants more of the services and content revenue cake and wants to control it's own OS destiny).

What's interesting about all those tensions, imbalances and instabilities I have listed, any one of which could trigger profound change in the mobile device markets, is that none of them have anything directly to do with market share.

Edited 2013-08-07 22:00 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Apples vs Androids
by Nelson on Wed 7th Aug 2013 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Apples vs Androids"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I happen to agree. It makes for an interesting case study in how everyone else dropped the ball and how the stars aligned for Android, but it isn't a good measure unless accompanied by stories of developer success and consumer delight.

Microsoft, Google, Apple, et all surely don't spend billions of dollars fighting over percentages and install bases. They fight for mind share, a "stage" to provide their services through, and a profitable ecosystem to make it self sustaining.

I guess the point of discussion then pivots to what is a good way to measure the health of an ecosystem at regular intervals? IDC, Gartner, Kantar, etc probably are so focused on because they provide regular snapshots of something.

Its hard to measure engagement, especially in app engagement, or to gauge consumer satisfaction with an OS as a whole. Its hard to source reliable numbers from developers as well to get a view of the platform in aggregate.

Also it begs the question, how are we even measuring the size of an ecosystem? We focus on shipped market share instead of install base share. We focus on a huge Android ecosystem but include dubious white box devices which don't seem to have a tangible impact on the ecosystem. We obsess over devices shipped over users satisfied. Its a major flaw in how the news is reported on the current state of affairs and I suspect there's a very different untold story.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apples vs Androids
by pan0k on Wed 7th Aug 2013 22:08 UTC in reply to "Apples vs Androids"
pan0k Member since:
2013-06-05

Also take a look at the price on all these phones. I think more and more people came to realize that you don't have to pay a premium to get into smartphone world. Take a look at how well the Nokia 521 sells.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apples vs Androids
by Deviate_X on Thu 8th Aug 2013 07:57 UTC in reply to "Apples vs Androids"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

That was a pretty flawless critique! Its frightening to see that apples market share could shortly be counted in single digits!

The latest Frome IDC http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24257413

Reply Score: 5

transami
Member since:
2006-02-28

I blame HP and by extension M$ who I think was largely behind the mess. M$ couldn't afford any further competition to their late arriving Windows 8 wares, so they made sure Hurd got canned and strong armed Apotheker. There is no doubt that some shenanigans were going on behind the seen b/c no one in their right mind spends $2 billion on a product launch and then throws in the towel just six weeks in.

But M$ is daft. Instead of helping themselves, they actually ended up just strengthening Androids hand. Now guess who is selling a dirt cheap Android tablet? Oh yea, that would be HP.

Reply Score: 6

open mobile platforms
by project_2501 on Wed 7th Aug 2013 21:36 UTC
project_2501
Member since:
2006-03-20

Just as surely as water runs downhill, does software become open and commodity, ever lower barriers to entry, and ever fewer dominance.

So I predict the next revolution (well slow infusion really) will be something like firefoxOS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: open mobile platforms
by dsmogor on Thu 8th Aug 2013 16:23 UTC in reply to "open mobile platforms"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

The initiall FF OS devices price positions them against dumb phones. These are no longer separate price segments.
Their biggest shot is at stopping Android proliferation at low end while finishing sucking remaining live from dumb phone market ( Asha is currently a target).
FFOS could make sense as an "occasional" smartphone, something that Symbian was meant to do in pre - Elop Nokia s strategy.

Edited 2013-08-08 16:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

The final conclusion???
by themwagency on Wed 7th Aug 2013 21:50 UTC
themwagency
Member since:
2013-03-06

You didn't regard the (then) market status as being the inevitable final conclusion. How is it that you regard the current market status as the inevitable final conclusion?

How will you justify it to yourself/us if/when Apple takes back the dominant roll?

Edited 2013-08-07 21:51 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: The final conclusion???
by bnolsen on Thu 8th Aug 2013 00:10 UTC in reply to "The final conclusion???"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

The mobile market isn't fresh anymore. In order for big changes to happen now will require some other new technology or business model to shake things up yet again. Android is taking profits and dominating marketshare. Basically it's becoming the huge juggernaut. All the things that had been going for Apple are diminishing as their install base percentage starts to drop due to the sheet number of units that are shipped with android. AND android is most developer friendly of the mobile platforms. Anyone can get what they need for android development today at the cost of hardware only (linux install + tools).

I'm just not sure what the big disappointing negatives are about android. On the technical side I absolutely have complaints but I consider myself (and many viewers of this site) to not be a target market for "general" consumer tech.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The final conclusion???
by cdude on Thu 8th Aug 2013 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE: The final conclusion???"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

I'm just not sure what the big disappointing negatives are about android


Neither can anybody else whats why its still the same old fragmentation spin. The argument about missing competition is as void. Competition, invention happens. Its even more required then ever when everybody starts from the same origin. No advantage by ecosystem, vendor lock-in, by just being there. Think how iOS could be if not only Apple does, how WP could be when Nokia could do and how Android would be if only e.g. Moto had it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: The final conclusion???
by Fergy on Thu 8th Aug 2013 06:12 UTC in reply to "The final conclusion???"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

How will you justify it to yourself/us if/when Apple takes back the dominant roll?

Do you have good reasons why Apple would gain significant marketshare? They have so much competition now: Android, Winp, BB, Linux, FirefoxOS etc.

What advantages does iPhone have over them?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: The final conclusion???
by Lennie on Thu 8th Aug 2013 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE: The final conclusion???"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I think it will be hard to innovate at the OS/hardware on smartphone at all.

So what big advances are going to happen ?

The biggest problem right now is: battery technology.

If that gets improved, there can be proper innovation again.

There are some signs that it might happen though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The final conclusion???
by Fergy on Thu 8th Aug 2013 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The final conclusion???"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

The biggest problem right now is: battery technology.

Having a 2x better battery technology would be nice but I think it can be solved by smarter engineering. Intel is working hard on this stuff with integrated power management processors and choosing the most power efficient components for the motherboard. On top of that software can be a lot smarter. My phone does a lot of stuff in the background when it is in my pocket. Why? It should just standby for calls/sms and do the bare minimum of keeping the clock running.
My HTC One has a few battery tricks I like and that really work well but even then it could be much better.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: The final conclusion???
by Lennie on Thu 8th Aug 2013 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The final conclusion???"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Making the software or apps more efficient is a slow process everyone needs to repeat.

If it can be solved at the source, it would mean all these other people don't have to think about (as much) anymore. This allows developers to focus on more useful things.

That alone already makes a huge difference.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The final conclusion???
by Fergy on Thu 8th Aug 2013 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The final conclusion???"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

If it can be solved at the source, it would mean all these other people don't have to think about (as much) anymore. This allows developers to focus on more useful things.

Of course you are right. But from what I see they are making phones so powerful you could drain a 3000mAh within an hour. Which means batteries would have to be at least 10x more efficient at the same size and weight to counterbalance stupid software.
Example: carmageddon ran in software on a p166 which means my htc one should be able to run the android version with 3d support at at most 166Mhz(krait600 has a higher ipc I think) and the 3d card should barely activate. YET it becomes hot after playing for 30min!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: The final conclusion???
by leos on Fri 9th Aug 2013 02:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The final conclusion???"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

On top of that software can be a lot smarter. My phone does a lot of stuff in the background when it is in my pocket. Why? It should just standby for calls/sms and do the bare minimum of keeping the clock running.


So you don't want email, you don't want the system to check for updates, you don't want push notifications about anything, etc etc
Plenty of legitimate reasons for background activity.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The final conclusion???
by HappyGod on Thu 8th Aug 2013 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE: The final conclusion???"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

I think that the performance of Android might cause some users who have switched to switch back.

Not enough to make a difference, but I think it could be significant.

I've made the switch to Android, after using an iPhone and then a WM8. But I'll be switching back to iPhone. Android is just too slow. Even with 8 cores.

Additionally, cost is a big draw for Android. If Apple starts offering a cheaper alternative, it might change the game.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The final conclusion???
by leos on Fri 9th Aug 2013 02:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The final conclusion???"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

I think that the performance of Android might cause some users who have switched to switch back.

Not enough to make a difference, but I think it could be significant.

I've made the switch to Android, after using an iPhone and then a WM8. But I'll be switching back to iPhone. Android is just too slow. Even with 8 cores.

Additionally, cost is a big draw for Android. If Apple starts offering a cheaper alternative, it might change the game.


Agreed on the performance front. I think Android is getting better, but even with 4.3 and a Nexus device it is still not quite there. I am hypersensitive to lag though, so I suspect it is good enough for most people.

However don't hold your breath for cheaper apple gear. Apple has always been a premium manufacturer, they're not about to change.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The final conclusion???
by Fergy on Fri 9th Aug 2013 06:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The final conclusion???"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I think that the performance of Android might cause some users who have switched to switch back.

Not enough to make a difference, but I think it could be significant.

I've made the switch to Android, after using an iPhone and then a WM8. But I'll be switching back to iPhone. Android is just too slow. Even with 8 cores.

Additionally, cost is a big draw for Android. If Apple starts offering a cheaper alternative, it might change the game.

For phones like Samsung S4 and HTC One the cost is not a big draw. I have never heard iPhone users complain about the price? People that just want a cheap phone don't really care which OS it is.
About performance: my HTC one feels super fast even with task switching

Reply Score: 3

And ++Elop at Nokia
by tomz on Wed 7th Aug 2013 23:56 UTC
tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

Symbian was dated but hardly dead, especially with the dumb to smart transition where better than dumb would work. And they always had incredible hardware.

Like the N9 and N950. They were so good they could have been the target of the transition and the 3rd ecosystem. There was a full opensource foundation.

Instead, we have the Lumia. (Maybe I should say "Lamia" as in "Drag you to Hell"). Jolla may end up outselling WPx.

HP Bought and killed Palm. WebOS had a few hiccups but was also a competitor. Buy and Die?

That leaves Blackberry, who is financially in good shape, has the battery efficient QNX, can run Android apps but also native API, is far more secure (the crypto chain). It may be a dark horse, but I don't think they will drop the apple like hardware+software.

Note what most don't have is the "iPod Touch" or "Galaxy Player" device - the device minus phone for about half the cost that works with wifi, but allows development. (I need to pull my n810 WiMax out again...).

The history of the auto makers might be instructive. Back when Detroit was the high-tech capital of the USA, Ford was "any color as long as its black", who got their lunch eaten by GM "Any color you want".

Then in the late '60s the unreliable gas guzzlers all of a sudden found competition with the Japanese when Oil went to $100/bbl (in 1973 dollars!).

Reply Score: 2

RE: And ++Elop at Nokia
by zima on Tue 13th Aug 2013 13:54 UTC in reply to "And ++Elop at Nokia"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Symbian was dated but hardly dead, especially with the dumb to smart transition where better than dumb would work. And they always had incredible hardware.
Like the N9 and N950. They were so good they could have been the target of the transition and the 3rd ecosystem. There was a full opensource foundation.

This will be more silly than Amiga mythos...

Reply Score: 2

v Shipments?
by bram on Wed 7th Aug 2013 23:58 UTC
RE: Shipments?
by bnolsen on Thu 8th Aug 2013 00:15 UTC in reply to "Shipments?"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

You must not read this site very often:

http://www.osnews.com/story/27218/Chipping_away_at_the_smartphone_l...

http://www.osnews.com/story/27200/6000_mobile_developers_Android_mo...

the margins of "profitability" are moving quickly and not in Apple's favor.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Shipments?
by Fergy on Thu 8th Aug 2013 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Shipments?"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

the margins of "profitability" are moving quickly and not in Apple's favor.

And Android is becoming a game platform which could get them Steam like profits.

Reply Score: 5

Gaming Platform?
by shotsman on Thu 8th Aug 2013 06:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Shipments?"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

And what percentage of all Android users are also on Steam?

Gaming in not the be-all and end-all of a platform.

Personally, the ability (or not) to run the latest blockbuster crash/bang/shoot game is about 1% of my decision making. I do appreciate that a lot of male users, gaming is 100% but gamers don't make 100% of the market.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Gaming Platform?
by Fergy on Thu 8th Aug 2013 06:39 UTC in reply to "Gaming Platform?"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

And what percentage of all Android users are also on Steam?

Gaming in not the be-all and end-all of a platform.

Personally, the ability (or not) to run the latest blockbuster crash/bang/shoot game is about 1% of my decision making. I do appreciate that a lot of male users, gaming is 100% but gamers don't make 100% of the market.

That doesn't have anything to do with how much money Android is making.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Shipments?
by jared_wilkes on Thu 8th Aug 2013 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Shipments?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You haven't looked at AAPL/GOOG/Steam's revenue/profit figures at all, have you?

Reply Score: 3

Smartphone market grows healthy
by telltec on Thu 8th Aug 2013 05:23 UTC
telltec
Member since:
2012-06-15

I think the smartphone market is becoming a lot healthier these days:
Next to Apple and Android devices you have a of course young but solid and well designed alternative in Windows Phone.

I also think that we will have a strong competitor for low end smartphones with Firefox OS, which is already getting strong carrier support.

I don't think that there is much more room for more than three or four good smartphone OS unless there will be a successful system for easily porting fully featured web apps between them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Smartphone market grows healthy
by Fergy on Thu 8th Aug 2013 06:18 UTC in reply to "Smartphone market grows healthy"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

unless there will be a successful system for easily porting fully featured web apps between them.

Doesn't FirefoxOS already have that?

Edited 2013-08-08 06:22 UTC

Reply Score: 4

tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

Indeed it does. The "Firefox Marketplace" works for Firefox on Android as well.

Reply Score: 3

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

I would love to think that Qt apps could be easily ported between Blackberry 10, Jolla, and Ubuntu, but I've never actually done that. Has anyone here tried to do this who could enlighten me?

Pretty much all phones can use web apps. Firefox OS and Tizen make web their primary platform.

And all of the new OS competitors run at least some Android apps except Firefox OS.

So in addition to single-platform iOS and Winp, Android and web covers all the rest (am I missing anything?), and Qt has some lovely advantages and covers 3 platforms as well. Perhaps the market can support 4 or even 5 app platforms adequately. Perhaps.

I'd really like to avoid an Android OS mobile monopoly aka Windows on desktop, even though Android is certainly more open. I'm probably naive, but I like the diversity and choice.

Reply Score: 2

v Channel stuffing
by ezraz on Thu 8th Aug 2013 12:21 UTC
RE: Channel stuffing
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 8th Aug 2013 12:34 UTC in reply to "Channel stuffing"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Shipped units of a free phone sitting on a palette somewhere is market share in this world.


If you think this happens than you make it very clear you have ZERO understanding of how modern chain stores work. Inventories are specifically kept to a minimum to reduce costs. I know this, because I've worked on that side of the equation for ten years. Stuff sitting on a pallet = wasted money. If you truly believe that retailers have been buying phones for three years straight that they know won't sell, then you, sir, are being an idiot.

But remember Apple only reports what it actually sells to real people


Another one of Apple's fantastically crafted lies. Go read Apple's SEC filings: Apple specifically states in those that it REDEFINES "shipping" as "sold". Apple reports SHIPPED numbers, only it has redefined them as SOLD for gullible people such as yourself.

Go to any Dutch (or European, I would guess) electronics store, and the walls are lined with iPad, iPhone and Mac boxes. Apple has a shortage for a few weeks after every launch (just like there are shortages for Galaxy phones for a while after release), after which you can get them at any store here with zero waiting time.

You clearly believe the lies Apple and its bloggers have spun without actually looking at the facts.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: Channel stuffing
by ezraz on Thu 8th Aug 2013 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Channel stuffing"
RE[3]: Channel stuffing
by zima on Tue 13th Aug 2013 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Channel stuffing"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I think our "facts" might be different between US and Europe

Now understand that the world in general is even further away from the US situation than Europe...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Channel stuffing
by MOS6510 on Thu 8th Aug 2013 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Channel stuffing"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Another one of Apple's fantastically crafted lies. Go read Apple's SEC filings: Apple specifically states in those that it REDEFINES "shipping" as "sold".


How can something be a lie if it's specifically stated in a SEC filing?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Channel stuffing
by JAlexoid on Thu 8th Aug 2013 15:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Channel stuffing"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Because the definition is not communicated via the press releases. They define sold the same way as Samsung defines shipped - payment received and goods dispatched.

a.k.a lying by omission.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Channel stuffing
by Nelson on Thu 8th Aug 2013 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Channel stuffing"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Apple reports unit sold directly to consumers via its Apple Stores. To retailers it records unit sold to them (aka the channel), just like everyone else.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Channel stuffing
by JAlexoid on Thu 8th Aug 2013 15:56 UTC in reply to "Channel stuffing"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

In the US - no way Apple has 10% of the actual smartphone market - the kind of people who use and purchase from their phone.

Yeah... No need to read the article.
Lookout boys, we've got another one.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Channel stuffing
by ezraz on Thu 8th Aug 2013 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Channel stuffing"
Why
by sb56637 on Thu 8th Aug 2013 13:15 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

In my opinion, Android's initial success was due to the availability of hardware features that were unavailable on Apple's offering. The most important were:

1. Removable battery
2. Expandable storage
3. Hardware QWERTY keyboards on several early models

Today, all three of these features are rapidly disappearing on recent and upcoming Android smartphones... leaving us with a plethora of sealed black-box devices that essentially look and act like an iPhone except with less UI polish and poorer quality hardware. Plus a profusion of millions of devices running slightly different variants of Android that can't be updated and will turn into security exploit nightmares as the years go on. Thanks, Android, for the legacy!

--A frustrated Android user

Edited 2013-08-08 13:17 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Why
by tkeith on Thu 8th Aug 2013 13:55 UTC in reply to "Why"
tkeith Member since:
2010-09-01

I'll probably get downvoted again for this, but those features are disappearing for a reason. Yes, they probably contributed to the rise of Android(specifically the Moto Droid), but they were solutions to problems that aren't as big as they were back then.

1. Battery technology has improved somewhat, as well as power consumption. Do you really want to replace batteries? I'd rather have a larger one that doesn't degrade.

2. When phones came with only 512Mb of storage this was important, but it creates partitions and separation of data. With 32Gb models becoming common, this is less important.

3. With today's huge screens and great software keyboards, most people are happy without a hardware keyboard. Yes a few of you "get off my lawn" people love them, but face it most don't.

Still the reason these features existed are because of Android's non-locked down nature and multiple hardware vendors. That still stands today and for the foreseeable future.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Why
by sb56637 on Thu 8th Aug 2013 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Why"
sb56637 Member since:
2006-05-11

I agree that #2 and #3 aren't really an issue for a lot of people, although unfortunately it doesn't really change my personal preference. However, I still feel very strongly that removable batteries are vastly superior. Li-Ion cells still do degrade after a few years of normal use. So a simple replacement battery for less than $10 after a few years makes the phone perform like new again. No trips to the service center, no downtime without a phone. Complete battery failure is another potential problem that can be easily solved by changing the battery. I personally had a Droid 2 that somehow started to shutdown the OS but got hung up, causing it to drain the battery until it tripped the protection circuit, resulting in an un-chargeable cell. Again, a simple battery replacement by me fixed the phone. And a friend of mine left his Android inside an extremely hot car on a summer day, ruining the battery. So, he changed the battery, phone works like new. Try that with a newer sealed Android phone.

Edited 2013-08-08 14:18 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Why
by jello on Thu 8th Aug 2013 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why"
jello Member since:
2006-08-08

[quote]... So, he changed the battery, phone works like new. Try that with a newer sealed Android phone. [/quote]

... the same is true for the iPhone.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why
by sb56637 on Thu 8th Aug 2013 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why"
sb56637 Member since:
2006-05-11

That's the point. Android smartphones are losing a huge competitive advantage they used to have over the iPhone.

Reply Score: 2

The Smartphone Market Exploded...
by jello on Thu 8th Aug 2013 17:09 UTC
jello
Member since:
2006-08-08

Companies that had a huge market share in the past like Blackberry and Apple sell way more phones compared to the time when they dominated the Smartphone market. (Blackberry customers even doubled in size...)

But because the market exploded they find themselves with a small market share number now that Android powered phones dominate.

At the end of the day the question is if the revenue they generate is enough to keep them alive.
I think so... especially Apple.

Reply Score: 3