Bare in mind that although Android outsells iPhone's, Apple still has 40% of the profit of the entire smartphone industry.
To each his own.
This is really the important statement. Phones are in a state now that I think we can actually have 3 viable OSes in the market. I know families where the dad has a BB, the mom an iPhone, and a child an Android (or Sidekick back in the day), and no one cares. It's not like PCs.
When I go and look at a WebOS device or WP7 I'm not worried about the fact that they have small market share. For the most part it doesn't matter that much to me as a consumer. Sure WP7 only has 20,000 apps. But unless you're Robert Scoble, you'll be more than happy (and if you're Robert Scoble, apps don't even count until you hit 500k).
It's a very different world, and I think we'll see things evolve quite differently.
Partially, and partially to indicate that the way Apple is doing things must be at least somewhat right and sustainable.
Why is it so hard for Android manufacturers to release updates for their phones? Because they don't make enough on them to continue supporting them. They make money on new devices sales, so they keep churning out more new handsets.
Just an odd concern for an end user, IMO. When I go to buy a car I don't look at the profits of Honda vs Ford. Sure you may not want a company that will go bankrupt, but even if they did the impact really isn't all that huge.
Why is it so hard for Android manufacturers to release updates for their phones?
Because they make deeply integrated skins. They have to reintegrate the skin with a new drop from Google -- not on their schedule, but on Google's (that's when customers start screaming for the update).
Because they don't make enough on them to continue supporting them. They make money on new devices sales, so they keep churning out more new handsets.
Everyone makes money on new device sales. The difference is if you get an iOS device -- Apple gets the profit. HTC/Samsung/Moto/LG/etc have to compete for the next sale, even if you've already decided it will be Android.
Apple is ridding the wave, releasing kick-ass products one after another; but you never know how tomorrow will look like for Apple. On the other hand, if Samsung stops making Android devices or goes out of business, there are others to fill in.
So it's not really so cut and dry.
About as odd as end users concerned about which OS has a more true multi-tasking implementation. Those who mention the profitability of iOS devices as a plus are probably about as numerous as those who mention multi-tasking.
"Everyone makes money on new device sales."
I think you misunderstood. I never said Android manufacturers aren't making money, I said they aren't making enough to support the device as long as people would like:
"Because they don't make enough on them to continue supporting them."
These are both uncommon concerns, to be sure, but they're not both odd.
The difference is that the former has no direct effect on the user experience, at best it's an enabler for continued updates.
There might well be a use for the phone in which true multitasking is desired, if you need that use then wanting the feature is no more 'odd' than someone wanting a plumber's snake because they're a plumber.
The GP's car analogy falls apart here because when I buy a car, unless I'm an after-market modder, I don't plan to add more functionality to the car. Instead, I expect the car to continue to work as I bought it (aside from normal wear and tear of course), regardless of what other cars are on the highway. I expect my phone, on the other hand, to be able to run the latest and greatest apps and games, so when another platform keeps getting all the shiny apps, it impacts my user experience.
Yes, "true" multitasking might be a desired feature for some people, in which case it should be weighted accordingly. But it's not anymore odd to consider a company's profitability as a decision factor.
The funny thing is, nobody had that expectation until the iPhone came along. Score one for Apple.
Not true. Apple making a huge profit says nothing about your ability to make a profit. XBox wasn't profitable for a long time, yet game devs have made tons of money from it. In contrast the Wii was FAR more profitable out the gate, but the attach rate is much lower than the XBox360.
So XBox360 has a bigger ecosystem, better attach rate, higher quality games -- yet was less profitable than the Wii. How can that be? Because profit != ecosystem.
Yes, "true" multitasking might be a desired feature for some people, in which case it should be weighted accordingly. But it's not anymore odd to consider a company's profitability as a decision factor.
Again, a company's profitability says nothing about the phone or the app ecosystem. The ONLY thing it says is that Apple has huge margins which it has obtained through very good deals with the carriers. End users buying phones are paying about the same price for Android or iPhone devices. They all pretty much range from $50-$250 dollars on contract.
And while Android may not have the margins that the iPhone does, do you think anyone goes into a Verizon and thinks -- what if Google goes bankrupt?
I was saying that you probably wouldn't want to buy from a bankrupt company (psychological), which is the figure you cited. But I point out that even if you did the impact wouldn't be that huge. The impact you point out is to sales, not the actual consumer.
There are several reasons why this is the case:
1) Your warranty is almost certainly not owned by the company, but rather another company who will continue to fulfill it.
2) Service centers will continue to thrive. In fact sales are often loss leaders so that they can host authorized service centers.
3) AAA has almost all of the services provided by most car companies.
4) Parts for discontinued cars can still be made, and often/usually are.
Most people have virtually no contact with the corporation after they purchse their cars.
so yes, going bankrupt will have a huge impact on Ford's bottomline. But if you bought a Ford car today and tomorrow they went bankrupt, the impact on you, as the average consumer, will be close to zero.
I would argue that if skin development is introducing even the slightest delay into the release cycle, they should cut it out ASAP.
RIM collapsed this quarter but for keen market watchers its fate was clearly shown when its profit per unite slipped with no significant unit gain.
The same goes for Apple, when iPhone has to be sold at a discount but market share does not go up noticeably, Apple is in trouble. For now iPhone enjoys a better half of the entire industry profit while ARP goes up and defies seasonal fluctuation.
Currently yes the app store does have all the latest games and that makes sense as iPhone users were previous iTunes users. Unfortunately, i think Android draws more the non music buyers who used p2p and are looking for free ride - not all but a good majority. I think a useful study would be iPhone and their P2P usage(always, rarely - iTunes instead or never pirate iTunes buyer always) vs. Android users & their P2P usage(always, rarely - use iTunes instead or never pirate iTunes buyer always). I think you would see why apps are developed first for the iPhone and sometimes only for the iPhone. Even with a bigger market share Android developers are not making the mint iPhone developers have been and continue to make. iPhone owners are of a different mind-set/demographic (for the most part) i am thinking. Also Android's marketplace is a mess comparatively.
Overall i was an Apple iPhone fanboy but the tons and tons of Android phones are outpacing Apple's prior innovations.
1. http://www.laptopmag.com/review/cell-phones/motorola-droid-x...
and one important thing in the next line: and 5:39 for the average smartphone.
So it's pretty much in line with what the parent posted...
Games or heavy wifi browsing can easily eat into your battery life in several hours, regardless of the phone.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4424/hp-veer-4g-review-getting...
edit: replaced single chart with link to page with 3 charts.
In defense of the OP he may have a 3GS which is not far from Droid X2 on these charts.
The iPhone 4 is much better than either of those in terms of battery life and performance. Mine lasts about two days on one charge, whereas my previous iPhone, the 3G, barely lasted a day. The new phone is also much faster.
They can charge a high margin because of a lack of suitable replacements. That there is a lack of suitable replacements means the product (which consumers evidently highly value) very well might not exist if not for that company making it. Companies that make high quality products being rewarded with profit is something that encourages other companies to make high quality products.
"Shouldn't this make you less trusting of Apple and their intentions instead?"
No. My default assumption is that the intentions of every for profit company is to maximize their profits. Maximum profit determines the price a product will sell at and a company that sells at a price that minimizes profit will quickly find itself in bankruptcy court.
Due to shifting exchange rates it might cost Apple 5 bucks more or less to make the exact same ipad next month and their profits will increase or decrease accordingly but that doesn't have any impact on the buyer who gets the exact same ipad.
>Bare [sic] in mind that although Android outsells iPhone's,
>Apple still has 40% of the profit of the entire
>smartphone industry.
Usually, unless there are serious switching costs (see Microsoft-of-the-90s), production learning curves (see Exxon), etc, excess profits invite high levels of competition and the mobile market seems pretty crazily competitive and innovative right now. (HTC 3D?! Gimmicky? Sure. Super cool? Totally!)
And the consistent 2nd and 3rd place by this metric are Nokia and RIM, both gently falling below 20% each over the last year, who most people consider to be dead ducks.