
As Android hits 75% market share, can anyone tell me why this is not Mac vs PC? - ForFreedom
http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/01/as-android-grabs-75-market-share-can-anyone-tell-me-why-this-is-not-mac-vs-pc-all-over-again/
======
archgrove
I think any answer to this will have to hinge on why, given the sales
disparity, app revenue and "usage" metrics (i.e. mobile browsing) is still
either in favour of iOS or tied. My personal reasoning is that carriers are
pushing low end Android phones as the standard handset you get when you walk
in the door and say "I need a phone". These people don't really know what
they're getting in terms of an ecosystem, and seem to use very little smart
functionality.

iPhone users (and "high end" Android users), on the other hand, probably know
exactly what they're buying into. These are the users that will determine
developer targeting. Two ways I see for Android to decisively win this: either
these "low-end" users start to participate in the eco-system, or the rise of
low income countries (much of Asia, Africa etc) makes the weight of numbers so
far in Android's favour that even with a much lower engagement rate, the
money's there. Apple could counter this with "iPhone Nano", I guess, but it
would require them to sacrifice a lot of margin.

Outside tip: Samsung are becoming the Apple of Android smartphones, selling
the preponderance of the high end handsets. Within 18 months, I suspect we'll
see them fork Android to differentiate themselves from the "sell at near cost,
make it up on ecosystem" strategy that Google's pursuing now with the Nexus
(that reduce Samsung to basically a hardware supplier on razor-thin margins).
Either that, or they'll use carrier relationships to ensure these cheap, high-
end handsets don't ever really get in front of non-geeky consumers.

~~~
bad_user
Samsung may be tempted to fork Android, but this will mean no Google Play (in
addition to no Google Maps and others), and Samsung is incapable of growing an
ecosystem of developers and apps around their platform the size of Google
Play.

Microsoft, Apple and Google have this in their DNA. Phone manufacturers, like
Nokia and Samsung don't. If they could have build their own Android / their
own Google Play, they would have done so already.

~~~
Someone
On the other hand, it is easier to walk a well-worn path, especially with
money in hand. Samsung has the best hand here. Reading [http://communities-
dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/08/smartph...](http://communities-
dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/08/smartphone-market-shares-q2-full-numbers-
samsung-and-android-solidifying-their-leads.html), it has 30% of the world
market for smartphones. The big problem would not be replacing Google Play,
but replacing Google Maps and, to a lesser extent, GMail. In the current
climate, one would not think it, but I do not rule out reading a 'Samsung and
Apple collaborate in mapping' or 'Samsung and Microsoft collaborate in
mapping' headline in a few years time.

Also, companies can mutate 'their DNA'; it is not frozen at birth. For
example, the Tabulating Machines Company (nowadays called IBM) has reinvented
itself several times, and Nintendo started as a manufacturer of playing cards,
and DSM (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM_(company)>) started life as 'The
State Mines' and mined coal, but now is, quoting their site "a global science-
based company active in health, nutrition and materials".

------
beloch
Even if OS-wars don't matter as much as they used to, Android vs iOS is
shaping up to be an interesting one. Android has taken the lead in features.
Every new release of iOS is packed with things that Android has had for years.
Android is still lagging behind in polish, and iOS is utterly dominant when it
comes to gaming.

Google spends more than twice what Apple does on research (that's after Apple
bumped up their R&D budget too!). Apple is going to be playing catch-up in
terms of features for the foreseeable future. Google has taken some steps to
improve their polish, such as project butter, but that bright future is most
unevenly distributed. Google's attempts at polish will likely be thwarted by
the same thing that scares off game-writers: fragmentation.

In the near future, I think Android will take the lead and become the better
OS, _except_ for gaming. Google is putting too much effort into polish not to
catch up quick (with their premier devices at least) while Apple isn't doing
enough to close the feature-gap and is actually falling further behind (e.g.
NFC, wireless charging, etc.). If Google ever manages to solve their
fragmentation woes that'll basically be it for the iPhone.

Windows 8 phones are, of course, a bit of a dark horse. WM8 appears to be a
nice mobile OS that is going to come on some very nice hardware. It might be
WM7 all over again, or it might actually catch on. I'd love to see another
front opened up in this war!

~~~
MrScruff
The fact that Android has more features than iOS doesn't really mean anything.
There were existing smartphones that had more features than the iPhone at it's
launch. It was the quality of the implementation of these features that made
it stand out.

Now clearly Android is a far more capable OS than the smart phones OS's of
2007, but in some ways it still lags iOS. One that matters to me for example
is the lack of a good low latency audio API. Audio production apps are very
popular on iOS and some of them are ground breaking. This matters far more to
me than NFC or wireless charging.

In addition, although Google plans to add (or maybe already has) a better
audio API, there will be a huge lag before there are enough devices with the
new API available, so most developers won't bother porting.

On the other hand, it's easy for Apple to add wireless charging or NFC since
they're mostly hardware.

To address the original post, I don't think this is like Mac vs Windows. Apple
is making a large share of the industry profits, and unless Android developers
start suddenly making considerably more money than iOS developers it still has
greater developer mindshare. Also, the premium Apple is charging for it's
devices is less than it was for the Mac vs PCs duing the 80s/90s, and most of
it is swallowed by the carriers.

I think it's clear Apple isn't going dominate the sales numbers, but I don't
see any signs of iOS dwindling to near obscurity like MacOS did during the
90s.

~~~
amaranth
Low latency audio is actually really hard to do on a mobile device because low
latency and low power use are literally the exact opposite. I wonder if Apple
dynamically adjusts things to only have low latency when requested or if they
just burn power here and make it up elsewhere.

In any case, Google just needs to swap out AudioFlinger for PulseAudio and
they'd have this taken care of. Collabora have even done most of the work for
them already.

------
Achshar
It is not Mac v/s PC all over again because android can also be shipped
without google. Windows cannot be shipped without Microsoft. It is also not
mac v/s PC because a rival had a considerable share of revenue stream of
android. (Much like if linux had a revenue portion of windows) And android's
owner has different plans for earning money off of android. Mostly by search
traffic and store sales and negligible for licensing.

~~~
mtgx
You can talk about those differences, and of course it's not a 100% analogy,
but I think his main point was about the market share and the ecosystem. If
Android ends up with 3 billion users in 2015, and iOS only 1 billion, as
predicted (also with the whole of Windows at 1.5 billion users, from 1.3 bn
now), I expect most developers will be wanting to develop for Android first by
then, and it should be their #1 source for income, too, simply through sheer
numbers of users.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
_"I expect most developers will be wanting to develop for Android first by
then"_

I doubt it:

\- Owners of Android handsets on average have lower disposable income than
owners of iOS devices. On top of that, a lot of Android phones are in
developing countries.

\- Most Android handsets run an old version of the OS and will never be
updated, thus limiting the choice of APIs that developers can use.

\- Many Android handsets are used as dumbphones, their owners will never
download apps.

\- There is not one main app marketplace for Android, and not all Android
users can use the same marketplaces.

\- Few Google Play accounts have credit cards linked to them. Amazon is in a
much better position, but Apple still has more credit cards on file.

\- Google makes developers pay for chargebacks.

~~~
cageface
For-sale apps are a dwindling market anyway. All the contract work I get now
is for companies that want an app as part of some larger business and are
almost never direct revenue sources.

For this increasingly dominant app category reach is what counts.

~~~
taligent
Dwindling market based on what facts ?

I haven't seen any evidence of Apple's App Store revenues dropping markedly.
Pretty sure the market would be VERY concerned if that were the case.

~~~
cageface
Revenue is skewing ever more heavily to the handful of big players at the top.
For the typical developer profitability is a moot point.

------
oneandoneis2
Possibly the fact that the creator(s) of Android don't (directly) make any
money out of the sales?

Every Apple phone sold = Money for Apple

Every Android phone != Money for Google

That's not to say that Apple shouldn't be worried, but unlike in the Mac vs.
PC situation, their competition isn't a single company making profit off every
unit sold. It's a mass of semi-co-operative, semi-competitive groups; many of
which are helping themselves to the free Android software without giving
anything back to the people who made it.

That's a big difference.

~~~
dewiz
just wondering, is Android free also for smartphones' makers Samsung, HTC etc
?

~~~
Someone
Yes and no. The OS is free, using the 'Android' name is not free as in speech,
but (I think) free as in beer, as it does require compliance with Google's
Compatibility Definition Document (CDD). See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Lice...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_\(operating_system\)#Licensing)

Shipping Google's applications (GMail, Maps, Google's store; maybe others)
requires a license from Google. That probably is not free as in beer, either,
but I find it hard to find definitive statements for that on the web.
developer.android.com seems to only target software developers.

Also, some technologies used in Android are patented, and require payments to
patent holders.

So, in practice, Android is not free for smartphone makers.

~~~
Rastafarian
Full license, including the name, access to Play, all Google apps is between
$10 and $20 per device. The license comes with a very good rate for every
online search made from an Android phone or tablet.

------
easyfrag
The difference is that there's no comparable 800 pound gorilla controlling the
dominant Non-Apple OS that runs on commodity non-Apple hardware. Well I guess
there is but adhering to Google's terms are entirely voluntary (see Amazon).
Microsoft was far more controlling which helped DOS/Windows develop into a
single ubiquitous ecosystem. Google isn't so Android won't.

------
davidlumley
More shipment based speculation with little regard to actual sales.

For me, the biggest difference between Mac vs PC, and iOS vs Android is that
Mac and PC are mostly comparable. iOS and some Android phone/tablets are
comparable but a large majority of cheap Android phones are not in the same
market as iOS devices, and for me - not comparable.

------
d4nt
The difference this time is that there are very workable ways in which
developers can target both platforms i.e. web/HTML5, and some other
frameworks. Plus there's usually more paying customers in the iOS world so
going "Native Android first" is not the obvious strategy that "Native Windows
first" was.

~~~
maxdeliso
Although that's true in principle it's a little idealized: HTML5 development
on mobile is still a little half baked and impractical. You only have to look
at Facebook's massive abandonment (at least temporarily) of that platform in
favor of the native API.

The whole point of the article is that while there are more paying customers
in the iOS world NOW, it's unlikely that the situation will continue to be
true given the current trends.

------
andrewcooke
what does "mac vs pc" mean?

i know it was an advertising campaign. i know there was competition between
apple and pc manufacturers. but this article seems to assume that the phrase
has some clear meaning/implication for the future (and that "it" is happening
again). but what is "it"?

is it just saying - look, the market is dividing into two brands, one with
wider appeal and lower prices, the other aimed more at discretionary spending?

if so, what is interesting about that? serious q - i feel i'm completely
missing the point here. is the idea that this is dangerous for apple? if so,
isn't the counterargument that, historically, apple has managed to adapt and
innovate? i mean, it's hardly suffering right now.

~~~
netcan
He's referring to the competition between Apple's Mac & MS Dos + Windows in
the late 80s to mid-90s. The compressed version of the narrative is:

Mac was innovative, brilliant, early but too expensive & without enough
applications.

Windows was late, copied & sucked but was cheaper (because of commodity
hardware) had all the dos apps from the 80s and got gradually better. By 95
the network effects of the developer ecosystem had locked windows in to 20
years of dominance. It also helped that by 95 windows didn't really suck much.

The moral of the story is (supposedly) that OS Platforms have one winner.
Developers develop for the largest user base and users buy the cheapest
platform with the most apps.

------
kgarten
I don't think it's Mac vs. PC, as we are talking about eco-systems now. Also
their statistic is majorly bogus, they use "units shipped" not sold. Web-
traffic and profits show a "slightly" different picture.

Edit: got rid off an unnecessary comment.

------
LaGrange
The difference is (at least for now) that I actually get more useful apps on
my iPhone. And if that changes, then in 3 years I'll get an Android. For now
though, it seems that iOS remains more attractive for developers, and that's
what keeps it more attractive for me as well.

I am worried about what will happen if a company that doesn't get the majority
of its profits from hardware "wins," but on the other hand — the most recent
turn of the real "mac vs PC" doesn't really seem that bad for Macs either.

------
goldfeld
Don't forget little FirefoxOS, our Linux in the making. Let's hope this time
it's sexy and mainstream from the start. That'd be an interesting scenario.

------
ja27
It's a little more like MS-DOS clones vs. the Apple II line. The Apple II had
an early lead in the personal computer market, especially for businesses. The
IBM PC eventually took over, but mostly thanks to third party PCs running
licensed MS-DOS. Microsoft never built their own PC to run MS-DOS (or later,
Windows) until just now.

------
Tycho
Isn't it obvious? Because phones have completely different use cases to PCs.
There's no Microsoft Office effect that renders your smartphone inconvenient
due to the small marketshare of its OS.

~~~
Rastafarian
Of course there is, e.g. any government/public funded mobile app will have to
be developed on Android first or only.

~~~
Tycho
But mobile apps are always secondary to websites anyway. I do not think this
would rise above occasional minor irritation. Whereas Mac incompatibility was
a deal breaker in the 90s. It also helps that Apple has a lot more muscle
these days.

------
recoiledsnake
Carriers(at least in the US), for one. Carriers eat the extra cost of the
iPhone making it the same $199 as other flagship Android phones. Whereas in
the PC market, the price difference between Dell/Compaq/etc. and Apple made
all the difference.

Also, $199(or the $650 unlocked) is well within reach of a large number of
customers nowadays, whereas $3000 in the later 80s was a huge amount(even more
so than now because of inflation). In dollar terms, $3000 in 1989 would be
$5,598.56 now.

~~~
justinschuh
It amazes me that so few people understand that the carrier subsidy is such a
huge part of the iPhone's success. Apple has pulled in obscene profits by
making the carriers pay huge subsidies to keep the iPhone's price competitive.
And the carriers turn around and amortize that cost over the rest of their
customer base. So, the customers that don't own iPhones are the ones really
getting screwed because they're paying the same higher rates but not getting
the same hardware subsidy.

