Google's Android is Eating Apple's Lunch

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

They did learn to use the tools necessary, but then Microsoft decided to change/move/improve the tools. Once that happens you have to spend precious time your's & tech support or a coworker to find the damn tools again so that you can use them.

I love pc's and love learning new things about them, but I was pretty lost at first when I got MS Office 2010 after having used MS office 97 at home and maybe 2003 at work.

So what do you suggest should happen? No improvements at all?

Give me an example of something that you couldn't find right away on Office 2010.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by holymadness

No, I pointed out two different data sets. That was evidently quite clear to everyone who read the post.

And what point were you trying to make?

The first one should be: Apple makes more money than the others companies.

And the second one:... ?

I mean since the first one regards profits, since there is no explanation for the point that you are trying to make, one would expect that the second one should be profit related as well. But Apple makes most of it's money from iPhones, while for Google the overwhelming profit source is advertising.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And what point were you trying to make?

The first one should be: Apple makes more money than the others companies.

And the second one:... ?

I mean since the first one regards profits, since there is no explanation for the point that you are trying to make, one would expect that the second one should be profit related as well. But Apple makes most of it's money from iPhones, while for Google the overwhelming profit source is advertising.

The second one shows market share in the US, Android's part of which is steadily declining. Surely this is not mysterious to anyone. In the context of this thread, both datasets burst the "Android is eating Apple's lunch" bubble.

The only mystifying thing about this discussion is why people cling to the "Android is winning, Apple is losing" belief. If you look at the rationale, it boils down to one point: international market share. As pointed out earlier, this is a flimsy data point on which to rest an entire argument since the market is still growing, but there you have it. One point.

Are there any other points? Let's see how Android is doing:

Profit? Losing.
Ecosystem? Losing.
Customer satisfaction? Losing.
Critical praise? Losing.
Long-term OS support? Losing.
Sold without carrier advertising and bloatware? Losing.
Profitability for developers? Losing.
Mobile engagement of its users? Losing.
Fragmentation? Losing.

Basically, losing at everything. Except for international market share. And when you examine why that is, it comes down to one thing: price. Android phones are cheaper. That is their only advantage over iOS devices. All the rest is a checklist of failures.

So it is hardly surprising that Android is capturing market share in middle-income countries like India, Brazil, and China. After all, 80% of the world's population lives in the developing world. But what are they buying, actually? It sure isn't Samsung Galaxy SIIIs. It's low-end feature phones. Phones that would be laughed out of any comparison with an iOS device. Phones that have nothing in common with the latest Android handsets.

As a result, there is always a certain elision happening when someone talks about Android. Is it the Android that—finally, after five years—competes with iOS and runs on a top-of-the-line Samsung handset, or is it the Android that's responsible for international market share, which is decidedly unimpressive? Android is so many things it's essentially absurd to lump them all together. But it's done anyway: by the media so that they can write more linkbait headlines, and by haters who will perform any equivocation to believe that Apple is losing.

Heck, even when you give people in America high-end Android phones, they don't use them as smartphones. They do less shopping, they buy fewer apps, they upload fewer photos, and they surf the web less. And while this isn't proven—and is probably impossible to prove—I strongly suspect it's because most people buy whatever their carrier pushes on them. The carriers, who hate Apple for not allowing them to pollute their phones with advertising and bloatware, push Android.

I feel bad for those people who have no Genius Bar to visit if their phone breaks, whose phones lose almost all their resale value after a couple years, who are always the last to get the best apps (if at all), who don't know if their OS will be updated after a year, whose purchase is subsidized by the sale of their personal information to advertisers, and who are consistently less satisfied with their purchases. If that's the face of victory, why win?

[HansTWN]

Looks like we have again entered the Twilight Zone! Perhaps there is some alternate Android universe only holymadness has experienced? My personal experience with Apple in 2 countries is:

Sorry, this thing is 14 months old, out of warranty. We will have to charge you $300.- and you will get a replacement phone -- old model that is, of course (we went to an unauthorized repair shop, of course). Another case: new iphone 4 and after 1 week the other side can't hear anything during calls. Apple's comment -- you opened the case (hell we did), we will have to charge you $300.- . That was finally settled after 2 weeks of complaining. An ipod we decided to just throw away in the end. Perhaps they are better in the US, but in Asia Apple service stinks.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by holymadness

The second one shows market share in the US, Android's part of which is steadily declining. Surely this is not mysterious to anyone. In the context of this thread, both datasets burst the "Android is eating Apple's lunch" bubble.

Ah, so the problem is that you can't read graphs. Android's share is oscillating around 50%, it's not declining. Apple's share increased by taking market share from everyone else.

The "Android is eating Apple's lunch" bubble is not affected by the first dataset because of the different mindsets of the companies when it comes to profit. Apple charges $649 for a phone that costs $207 to manufacture, while Google doesn't charge for Android.

As for the second dataset, it bursts the "Android is eating Apple's lunch" bubble in the same way in which the fact that it snows in winter disproves global warming.

[HappyMartin]

I did no research on Androids flexibility or anything else before buying an Android phone. I heard it worked and bought it on price. It was so cheap compared to Apple that I wasn't concerned if I was making a mistake.

It seems Apple has a cleaner less cluttered interface but other than that Android is very similar. My life is not about figuring out technology. Sometimes I just need to make a phone call

Where Apple have it nailed, at least where I live, is the irrational bragging thing. Yesterday I had a model in the studio that as she arrived sat down and opened up her Apple laptop before taking out her iPad. A few minutes later out came the iPhone to make a call. I mean really. She was at the studio for a minor shoot and spent her time flirting with the male models. What was all the hardware actually for? My point is you can analyze the performance and costs of Android vs iOS and it means diddly squat in terms of sales and profits

[afv011]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

EDITED: I may have been missing the point. Was the point just in reference to the second chart, showing that in one mid-North American country, more Apple than Android smartphones are now sold, which only goes to show that Apple does unusually well in said nation of spendthrifts.

Yes, it was in reference to the 2nd chart. I found it confusing that there was a worldwide chart, followed by a US only chart, with no comment from the poster; hence my post to clarify the situation.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by afv011

Yes, it was in reference to the 2nd chart. I found it confusing that there was a worldwide chart, followed by a US only chart, with no comment from the poster; hence my post to clarify the situation.

And the last I have heard the Galaxy S3 costs the same as the iphone, while the Note 2 is much more expensive (still sold 5 million units in less than 2 months).

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Looks like we have again entered the Twilight Zone! Perhaps there is some alternate Android universe only holymadness has experienced? My personal experience with Apple in 2 countries is:

Sorry, this thing is 14 months old, out of warranty. We will have to charge you $300.- and you will get a replacement phone -- old model that is, of course (we went to an unauthorized repair shop, of course). Another case: new iphone 4 and after 1 week the other side can't hear anything during calls. Apple's comment -- you opened the case (hell we did), we will have to charge you $300.- . That was finally settled after 2 weeks of complaining. An ipod we decided to just throw away in the end. Perhaps they are better in the US, but in Asia Apple service stinks.

Heh, how all-encompassing of you to address the first part of one sentence of the last paragraph of my post.

As you're no doubt aware the plural of anecdote is not data. Your poor experiences tell us no more than my positive experiences. I am genuinely curious, though: what do people do if they need customer service for their HTC or Samsung phones? Do they have to phone Korea? Mail it back in a box for repairs?

Incidentally, you will forgive me if I consider that your inability to get a free replacement on an out-of-warranty device is not the strongest argument you've ever put forward. However, the cheap repair you got elsewhere is another advantage of iOS. Because of Apple's focused product line, replacement parts are far less expensive than other phones'. An iPhone 4 screen costs under $30 on eBay. The same part for the Samsung Galaxy Captivate is almost $100.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Ah, so the problem is that you can't read graphs. Android's share is oscillating around 50%, it's not declining. Apple's share increased by taking market share from everyone else.

"Oscillating around 50%" is a cute way of saying declined by 16.6% over the same 12-week period last year. The real problem is your disingenuousness.

The "Android is eating Apple's lunch" bubble is not affected by the first dataset because of the different mindsets of the companies when it comes to profit.

So what lunch is Android supposed to be eating if not profits? What is the point? Number of cheerleading posts on mobileread? Is that the lunch that got eaten? Is that why Google has spent $15-20Bn on Android over the last five years, including the Motorola purchase?

Hilarious. Suddenly, companies don't compete for profits. Profits don't matter. Try telling that to the shareholders of HTC, Samsung, LG, and Google. Unbelievable.

Apple charges $649 for a phone that costs $207 to manufacture, while Google doesn't charge for Android.

Clearly you've never owned or run a business, since you seem to think that the only cost of producing a good is the cost of its components and assembly. This distortion is trotted out with unerring reliability in these discussions and only demonstrates how much bad faith exists on the side of those who perpetuate it.

As for the second dataset, it bursts the "Android is eating Apple's lunch" bubble in the same way in which the fact that it snows in winter disproves global warming.

The US is currently the most important smartphone market in the world. I'd say it more than contributes to the general fizzling out of the OP's thesis.

[Teknikal]

As far as I'm concerned there's no competition as long as Apple keeps trying to get a monopoly with sales bans, claiming they own touch screen taps/swipes, rectangles and all kinds of nonsense I only have one choice and that's Android.

Only innovative thing Apple has ever done is the iTunes store and that's been declining badly along with the rest of their services.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by afv011

That's a very US-centric view of the world. And I'd suggest you freshen up on forum policy regarding attachments.

Whichever graph you look at, it highlights just how hugely Symbian fell.
They had almost the entire market, and lost it all.
While you can argue whether Apple or Google are 'winning', it is clear who lost.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

[...] while Google doesn't charge for Android.

<pedant>
Google do not charge for the base Android OS.
Google do charge for access to the Google Android apps, including Google Play, as well as requiring a contract which may restrict what other apps/features the manufacturer can include.
</pedant>

[PatNY]

"*BURP* I'm still eating Apple's lunch worldwide ... no matter how you try to obfuscate or slice and dice it ... and that includes countries like Australia, Germany and Brazil where my market share increased over Apple during the last year. Bye-bye ... *BURP* ... Gotta go and have another apple for lunch."

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Apple charges $649 for a phone that costs $207 to manufacture, while Google doesn't charge for Android.

[Tongue-in-cheek]
Apple does not charge $649 for hardware. They charge $349 for the hardware, and $300 for iOS . Google, on the other hand, is willing to give me Android for free, but without hardware to run it on a handfull of source code is kind of useless.

So an unlocked Samsung G3 should cost $300 less than an unlocked iPhone 5, correct? After all, Samsung makes the majority of the components for both, and has no cost for OS development (since Google gives the OS for free out of the goodness of their hearts, and certainly not for ad revenue, data mining, Play store share and other monies they recieve on the backside of giving away an OS). Oh look! An unlocked iPhone 5 (Canada) is $649 and an unlocked SG3 is $599. ZOMG, that's only a $50 difference! Where's my other $250?!?!? Samsung is ripping me off!
[/Tongue-in-cheek]

Seriously, you can't compare the sale price of hardware + OS vs manufacturing cost to the fact that an OS is initially free but makes money on use. They don't equate.