
Woz: Apple Almost Launched A Phone In 2004, Android Will “Win The Race” - davidw
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/18/woz-apple-almost-launched-a-phone-in-2004-android-will-win-the-race/
======
fab13n
Win the race in terms of volume, most likely: their product is pretty decent,
and they aim at comoditizing phones and carriers.

But the race that matters is the race in terms of profits, and Apple seems on
track to remain the most profitable company, without producing the most common
phone:

\- they have indecent margins;

\- they have a credible strategy to comoditize carriers (cf. their not-so-
secret deal with Gemalto);

\- they cash in at all stages: on the hardware, on the software, on carrier
fees, on the App store;

\- a significant part of their R&D effort is shared between iOS devices (not
only phones) and OSX.

~~~
al_james
Exactly. Google's approach is to lose money on creating the OS and promoting
it (give it free to handset manufacturers) but hope to make money off the
users that use it. I am sure they can make money from this, however, I am also
sure Apple will make more money per user by selling an actual phone to them
AND making money from the user.

~~~
bmelton
I'm guessing that's debatable. I don't know anywhere close to the numbers, but
effectively, you're saying that the iPhone (a few hundred dollar purchase up
front, plus maybe a few hundred dollars every couple years) is worth more than
the lifespan of how much revenue per user those users will be worth using
search.

The flip side of the gamble is that Google makes money of search and ad
revenues even if they don't sell an Android. Sure, the users aren't AS likely
to use gmail, or picasa web sharing, or what have you, but they likely make
some money off of almost every smart phone user, regardless of whether their
phone is an Android, iPhone, Blackberry or Windows Mobile.

You might be right, for sure, but I think Google is the long-term winner here.

~~~
mechanical_fish
This post, factually correct though it is, just shows the absurdity of setting
up these arbitrary contests.

How can you possibly compare Google's business model with Apple's? Google
seeded the world with Android to jumpstart the smartphone revolution faster.
That means that more people will see more web ads sooner. For every day that X
people view web ads, Google makes money; this is especially true if that day
is _tomorrow_ , rather than five years from now, because Google's share of the
web ad business is really good now and doesn't seem likely to go up from here.
[1] So Google increased the area under the smartphone-users-vs-time curve for
the next few years, and will then make money on that.

Google also makes money on Apple's products, of course. If Apple were capable
or interested in saturating the near-term market with iPhones, Google wouldn't
have needed to bother with Android, and maybe they wouldn't. And, to the
extent that Apple _does_ eventually saturate the market with iPhones, Google
might slack off on Android. Though that also depends on what happens with
iAds.

Meanwhile, Apple primarily sells gadgets. They make money by selling more
gadgets or by maintaining high margins, or both.

Their businesses are intertwined, and the actions of one affect the other, but
they're not in the same business and you can't run a horse race between them.
Companies don't win some prize by having a higher market share, or higher
total market cap, or higher total revenue. Zappos isn't a failure just because
its $1B revenue is 65 times smaller than Apple's.

\---

[1] Though who knows? There are other ad businesses in the world than the one
Google currently dominates.

~~~
bmelton
A year ago I would have had nothing further to say on the matter than what you
just did... then Apple introduced iAds which I think will keep Google on its
toes regarding Android until they've cemented/protected their revenue stream,
which may be indefinitely.

------
camiller
How the hell do you win a race that doesn't end? i.e. - "Aug 30, 2006 ... Why
MySpace Won The Social Networking War." There is no "winner" there is only the
current leader.

~~~
runjake
Your words are true, but think of the news as subjective and a snapshot of
time.

The MySpace headline you mention was referring to MySpace's effective killing
of it's competitors (Friendster, Orkut, etc). So for that period of time, they
did "win". But yes, the race never ends, it's a journey not a destination, and
so on.

Some day when my kids have kids, they'll have to explain this antiquity called
"Facebook" to glassed-over stares. "That's lame mom, I'll be back, I'm going
and check my HolodeckFurrySpace.com page"

------
silvestrov
There is something missing in Woz' argumentation: "He likens Android’s success
to that of Microsoft’s Windows operating system, along with the flaws and
challenges of that model."

Problem is: there has for a long time been such an OS on the market: Windows
Mobile. It didn't become dominant over time, on the contrary, it is currently
in survival mode.

Android is more like Linux. Linux didn't become dominant on the Desktop, but
Android (i.e. Linux) will fare better on smartphones because smartphones don't
rely on an huge existing base of applications and IT-support departments.

If Woz' argument was true: Why did RIM (and in Europe, Nokia) and other
vertical integrators get the lions share[1] of the smartphone market when the
"winner" strategy was already present in the market? They did because the
rules are different for the smartphone market than the desktop PC market.

[1] [http://www.asymco.com/2010/11/03/what-do-you-have-to-
believe...](http://www.asymco.com/2010/11/03/what-do-you-have-to-believe-for-
an-android-dominated-future/)

~~~
akamaka
I don't believe that was what he was trying to say.

I think his point was that Windows was successful by bringing features made
popular by MacOS to a wider market and more diverse hardware, just as Android
is doing that with the iPhone concept.

------
pronoiac
Apple did help release a phone in 2005, the badly-received ROKR -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_ROKR_E1>

Collaboration on this started in 2004. It's not a smartphone but I wonder if
this is what Woz (mis-)remembers.

