6 ms·

The problem with many tech analysts is that they are Apple fanboys without even knowing that they are. Stating that Microsoft Surface and Samsung S8 are not com

The problem with many tech analysts is that they are Apple fanboys without even knowing that they are. Stating that Microsoft Surface and Samsung S8 are not competitors of Apple just because their products don't run Mac OS/iOS is pure fanaticism at the very least. Nevertheless, I find that the main point of the article is right. But Apple's China problem is also a very important problem for Google (actually, it's worse for Google).

tuna-piano 9y ago
I actually think the author has a good point. When the owner of an iPhone wants a new phone, they overwhelmingly buy an iPhone. The author makes the point, and I agree, that it is because of the iOS software and not the iPhone hardware. iOS users already have made investments in iOS apps, talk to their friends using iMessage, and are used to the look and feel of the OS. If these users could buy a Samsung phone with iOS on it, I suspect many would (say for phones with better battery life or other features). So when in China a user spends the vast majority of their time in one app, that app kind of becomes the OS, and there are much lower switching costs between Android and iOS. Customers in China are in large part just choosing which hardware to run WeChat on. That said, the history in desktop OS tells a less clear story. In 1998, Windows was what almost everyone needed to buy, because they needed to run Windows software. Overtime the web browser (which works the same across operating systems) became where people spent most of their time, and ChromeOS and Mac were able to gain market share. Apple laptops still have significant market share and pricing power. But when you compare the Samsung S8 vs iPhone 7, I see much fewer differences than the MacBook vs HP/Dell whatever.
- bonzini 9y ago
  It is neither because of the software not because of the hardware; it's because of the brand recognition, which is obviously higher for Apple than for Samsung or Nexus. It's the same for cars; I wouldn't be surprised if VW or Mercedes or even Toyota are able to keep more customers than Renault or Fiat, just because the "faithful Mercedes customer" is a thing that people talk about and the "faithful Renault customer" is not.
matwood 9y ago
> Stating that Microsoft Surface and Samsung S8 are not competitors of Apple just because their products don't run Mac OS/iOS is pure fanaticism at the very least. For me they are not. I've used Android on quite a few phones ranging from HTCs to various Nexus devices. It always had weird issues, the most annoying of which was some google process randomly spinning out of control and killing the battery in ~10 minutes. I'm back on iOS now, and for the most part it works. I see some interesting HW from Samsung, et al, but then I'd be forced to use Android again. So yeah, I think the author has a point without being a fanatical about Apple.
- AsyncAwait 9y ago
  > Stating that Microsoft Surface and Samsung S8 are not competitors of Apple just because their products don't run Mac OS/iOS is pure fanaticism at the very least. For me they are not. I've used Android on quite a few phones ranging from HTCs to various Nexus devices. It always had weird issues I ran into so many limitations of iOS, that I now run pure Android and have never been happier.
TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
They're not competitors in the segment of the market providing macOS, because they don't run it. Some people will be willing to look past it, but it's still a huge advantage for Apple. When I'm choosing my next laptop, though the Surface and the Dell XPS might seem nice, neither of them run macOS, and that's probably a dealbreaker for me unless Apple's laptops get really far away from my needs.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  Switched to do a 13 and ubuntu finally. For a dev, we have another choice at least.
- zeveb 9y ago
  > neither of them run macOS, and that's probably a dealbreaker for me I strongly suggest that you give Linux a shot. Depending on the distro, it can be very nice, and it means that you get to keep both your money and your freedom, which I really appreciate.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Applications matter.
    - zeveb 9y ago
      You're not wrong, but all the applications I care about run on Linux: - emacs - vi - zsh - st - SBCL - tmux - Inkscape - sxiv - Firefox - Gnucash - GraphicsMagick - Nethack - Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup - Minecraft Of those, only Minecraft isn't developed on Linux first (and maybe Firefox, depending on how you define that condition). I can be productive. I can read email (in emacs, of course!). I can play games. I can read documents. I can browse the Web. I feel as though my needs have been met.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        That's what makes you a representative of a tiny minority. I've spent part of a career writing software for people whose daily workflows required Photoshop, Illustrator, QuarkXPress, and a dozen other supporting applications, and they always ran much better on MacOS and were far easier to use and train people to use. But even those people are still a tiny minority, where most of the world revolves around MSFT Office and hundreds of applications on Windows.
MBCook 9y ago
> [...] just because their products don't run Mac OS/iOS is pure fanaticism at the very least. Is it? I like iOS and have no desire to switch, so I would never consider an S8 or a Google Pixel for my next phone. It really does matter. Even if Android is just as good there is friction in switching and people often like to stay with what is comfortable until some issue becomes too much to bare.
valuearb 9y ago
He didn't say that MSFT and Samsung weren't competitors of Apple. He said MacOS and iOS are monopolies. Those are two different things. You can switch from a monopoly over a specific service/product to a similar but not identical one. MacOS has applications and features that Windows doesn't. It historically enabled features (sealed batteries) that Windows didn't, that provided better performance. And MacOS can run linux and windows. For people who value those things, MacOS is a complete monopoly. iOS is even more differentiated from Android. Android won't support all the music/movies/shows I've bought from iTunes, does't work with iCloud, etc. It doesn't airplay to my other Apple devices. These "monopolies" are why Apple is successful. When they switched to Intel they didn't lower costs by adopting commoditized PC hardware designs and outsource OS development to MSFT by licensing windows. They used Intel to provide more powerful and more flexible Macs, and continued to differentiate themselves by adding value with aluminum bodies, retina screens, mag-safe adapters, thunderbolt, etc, etc, etc. I think Apple understands much better than most of us geeks that their customers spend a lot of time with their devices and on their Macs. If I pay $1000 more for an "equivalent" Mac than Windows PC, it costs me about 50 cents more per work hour. Which means my payback needs less than a 1% increase in productive. And it's trivial to get far more than that because despite having similar processors/ram/storage, they are in no way equivalent in build quality, flexibility, and usability. Where Apple's model fails is for the people who don't make much per hour, so building your own, or getting the cheapest, makes sense.
- bobsam 9y ago
  > It historically enabled features (sealed batteries) that Windows didn't, that provided better performance. You are saying this as it was an undisputed fact. Which is the exact issue OP pointed at.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Sealed batteries are the reason I switched to Mac laptops. I used to carry an extra battery with my top of line dell laptop to make it through a flight. Then i read about the amazing battery life MacBooks were offering and switched and was able to make it through a single flight without every charging a backup battery again. It wasn't just sealed batteries, but they offer better performance because they can better customized to fit available space in the laptop. To do that the OS has to have special drivers that condition the battery, or your battery will age rapidly and need replacement in a year or so. Apple put that into MacOS, which was a huge benefit in itself. Sealed batteries also make devices lighter and sturdier. Fewer openings, more rigid enclosures. These all seem like minor advantages, but they specifically led to me and others to became a Mac user.
petra 9y ago
>> The problem with many tech analysts is that they are Apple fanboys without even knowing that they are. That's true for most of the discussion on the internet: so much talk about how Apple's chips/apps/ui/build-quality/founders/etc are so much better. But almost no talk at all about how modern brands get built, and what such brands give to users: for example, the ability to tell stories(implicitly or explicitly) to themselves and others, stories that make them feel good about themselves. And i don't think it's fair to demand those users to forefit that right, after they paid so much for it.
- valuearb 9y ago
  If you think brand is the reason Apple succeeds, you simply are way over-discounting or don't understand unique platform features/benefits. Brands become powerful only when they are true. All the marketing in the world can't successfully position your products as valuable and unique, if they aren't. You can't fool people for long. The gods of the advertising industry want you to believe they can sell ice to eskimos, but they are merely selling their book.
  - petra 9y ago
    Branding isn't the sole reason for Apple's success. But it is probably an important one. As for the general power of branding: many commodity like products make lots of money through branding, be in the fields of luxury or fashion.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      Yea, I don't think you understand branding. Branding is the power a product gets from fulfilling it's promise to consumers. Example: Coca-Cola. People don't buy Coke because advertising tells them to, people buy Coke because advertising reminds them to. Coke has a strong brand because Coke consumers prefer it's taste. Numerous taste tests have shown this. Sam Walton spent millions on a better tasting drink than Coke, proved it was better in every taste test, and Walmart's coke bombed when it was released despite a heavy marketing push and excellent product placement. It bombed because despite the results of taste-tests, customers had developed an affinity for Coca-Cola. It was always good, they could trust it's consistency and flavor, and they really weren't motivated to gamble on something new. In the cases of luxury or fashion, their unique benefits may be subtle, so subtle you don't even notice them. But their customers do and once they experience them they continue to buy from the same vendors. It can be as simple as a purse that is extremely attractive, yet durable, yet useful with the perfect number of pockets for your needs. Once you have that pleasing experience you are far more willing to buy future products from the same vendor, thinking, they know what they are doing, they think like I do, etc. In smartphones and Macs, Apple has consistently provided high quality hardware with innovative features, and powerful but easy to use software. That's built up a brand where Apple customers have high expectations for their Apple product experiences, and that brand can only remain strong if Apple doesn't disappoint them.
dmix 9y ago
The fanboyism is strong on this one. > iPhone users very rarely switch to Android, while a fair number of Android users switch to iPhone > this is the point that was forgotten the last time Samsung was held up as an iPhone threat — a Samsung smartphone does not run iOS. That has always been Apple’s trump card Considering this is a stats blog these bold claims are both made without any proof. And Android being a far cry from iOS is an antiquated position to take in 2017. They caught up quite some time ago. The core difference is usually lock-in from using the Apple eco-system. But on a UX/hardware value level Apple doesn't have a significant advantage over companies like Samsung anymore. But agreed re: the china problem, I wish he focused more on that over making sweeping statements about Apple's (imaginary) unmatched competitive advantage.
- dep_b 9y ago
  These switching numbers do exist but they're coming from Apple so take it with a grain of salt. It's like DXOMark never reviewing the iPhone 7 Plus while Google claims how much better their phone is compared to the iPhone. The numbers are true but the bias is strong.
- IBM 9y ago
  Various third party firms have said for years that the amount of switchers from iPhone to Android pales in comparison to the switchers to iPhone. Also Apple usually says it themselves on their earnings calls.
jack9 9y ago
> Moreover, this sort of growth is exactly what you would expect given Apple’s iOS monopoly: iPhone users very rarely switch to Android, while a fair number of Android users switch to iPhone, which means that even in a saturated market Apple’s share should grow over time. I'm confident that this isn't true. Economic mobility and movement goes down more often than up, and EVERY single person who has changed their phone plan goes cheaper (eventually into Android). Every vendor (ask anywhere from Sprint to ATT) knows this downgrading (into a superior android ecosystem) is close to 100% of the time, that his statement is an indication of how utterly ignorant or purposefully misleading the whole article is. Ironically, the link embedded in that quoted sentence links to STOP DOUBTING THE IPHONE, THE MACINTOSH COMPANY Posted onWednesday, October 28, 2015, not any attempt to display the contradictory data to support the statement.
erikpukinskis 9y ago
I think you underestimate the degree of vendor lock in Apple has. If you are a heavy user of iMessage, and you are a participant in multiple iMessage group threads, and you switch to Android, you will never be able to participate in those threads again. There's no way to convert an existing iMessafe thread to a hybrid MMS one without getting every participant to delete the old thread and start a new one. Good luck communicating that fact to all of your contacts Every time I post this on HN I get a bunch of people telling me you can deregister your phone number, or start a new thread, but iMessage won't convert its own threads to MMS automatically. Every participant in every thread has to delete it. This is considered expected behavior by Apple. If you want uninterrupted communication with your contacts, and you can't afford a few missed messages, you have no choice but to stay on iPhone forever. SMS is dead. Apple owns your messaging identity now, and it's platform locked.
- tormeh 9y ago
  Where do people use iMessage? Do they refuse to be friends with Android users? The whole phenomenon sounds bizarre, like people who only communicate with people using the same carrier or something.
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    It's random... if you have three friends who happen to all have iPhones, that thread will be iMessage only forever. If one of the participants has an Android, it will use MMS. I've been in friend circles where people were using mostly iPhones.
    - probe 9y ago
      Same in my social circle - in fact if someone is on Android, we hate using text in general and go straight to FB messenger (or GroupMe depending on the size, but less so recently).

tuna-piano 9y ago

I actually think the author has a good point. When the owner of an iPhone wants a new phone, they overwhelmingly buy an iPhone. The author makes the point, and I agree, that it is because of the iOS software and not the iPhone hardware. iOS users already have made investments in iOS apps, talk to their friends using iMessage, and are used to the look and feel of the OS. If these users could buy a Samsung phone with iOS on it, I suspect many would (say for phones with better battery life or other features). So when in China a user spends the vast majority of their time in one app, that app kind of becomes the OS, and there are much lower switching costs between Android and iOS. Customers in China are in large part just choosing which hardware to run WeChat on. That said, the history in desktop OS tells a less clear story. In 1998, Windows was what almost everyone needed to buy, because they needed to run Windows software. Overtime the web browser (which works the same across operating systems) became where people spent most of their time, and ChromeOS and Mac were able to gain market share. Apple laptops still have significant market share and pricing power. But when you compare the Samsung S8 vs iPhone 7, I see much fewer differences than the MacBook vs HP/Dell whatever.

bonzini 9y ago
It is neither because of the software not because of the hardware; it's because of the brand recognition, which is obviously higher for Apple than for Samsung or Nexus. It's the same for cars; I wouldn't be surprised if VW or Mercedes or even Toyota are able to keep more customers than Renault or Fiat, just because the "faithful Mercedes customer" is a thing that people talk about and the "faithful Renault customer" is not.

matwood 9y ago

> Stating that Microsoft Surface and Samsung S8 are not competitors of Apple just because their products don't run Mac OS/iOS is pure fanaticism at the very least. For me they are not. I've used Android on quite a few phones ranging from HTCs to various Nexus devices. It always had weird issues, the most annoying of which was some google process randomly spinning out of control and killing the battery in ~10 minutes. I'm back on iOS now, and for the most part it works. I see some interesting HW from Samsung, et al, but then I'd be forced to use Android again. So yeah, I think the author has a point without being a fanatical about Apple.

AsyncAwait 9y ago
> Stating that Microsoft Surface and Samsung S8 are not competitors of Apple just because their products don't run Mac OS/iOS is pure fanaticism at the very least. For me they are not. I've used Android on quite a few phones ranging from HTCs to various Nexus devices. It always had weird issues I ran into so many limitations of iOS, that I now run pure Android and have never been happier.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

They're not competitors in the segment of the market providing macOS, because they don't run it. Some people will be willing to look past it, but it's still a huge advantage for Apple. When I'm choosing my next laptop, though the Surface and the Dell XPS might seem nice, neither of them run macOS, and that's probably a dealbreaker for me unless Apple's laptops get really far away from my needs.

brianwawok 9y ago
Switched to do a 13 and ubuntu finally. For a dev, we have another choice at least.
zeveb 9y ago
> neither of them run macOS, and that's probably a dealbreaker for me I strongly suggest that you give Linux a shot. Depending on the distro, it can be very nice, and it means that you get to keep both your money and your freedom, which I really appreciate.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Applications matter.
  - zeveb 9y ago
    You're not wrong, but all the applications I care about run on Linux: - emacs - vi - zsh - st - SBCL - tmux - Inkscape - sxiv - Firefox - Gnucash - GraphicsMagick - Nethack - Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup - Minecraft Of those, only Minecraft isn't developed on Linux first (and maybe Firefox, depending on how you define that condition). I can be productive. I can read email (in emacs, of course!). I can play games. I can read documents. I can browse the Web. I feel as though my needs have been met.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      That's what makes you a representative of a tiny minority. I've spent part of a career writing software for people whose daily workflows required Photoshop, Illustrator, QuarkXPress, and a dozen other supporting applications, and they always ran much better on MacOS and were far easier to use and train people to use. But even those people are still a tiny minority, where most of the world revolves around MSFT Office and hundreds of applications on Windows.

MBCook 9y ago

> [...] just because their products don't run Mac OS/iOS is pure fanaticism at the very least. Is it? I like iOS and have no desire to switch, so I would never consider an S8 or a Google Pixel for my next phone. It really does matter. Even if Android is just as good there is friction in switching and people often like to stay with what is comfortable until some issue becomes too much to bare.

valuearb 9y ago

He didn't say that MSFT and Samsung weren't competitors of Apple. He said MacOS and iOS are monopolies. Those are two different things. You can switch from a monopoly over a specific service/product to a similar but not identical one. MacOS has applications and features that Windows doesn't. It historically enabled features (sealed batteries) that Windows didn't, that provided better performance. And MacOS can run linux and windows. For people who value those things, MacOS is a complete monopoly. iOS is even more differentiated from Android. Android won't support all the music/movies/shows I've bought from iTunes, does't work with iCloud, etc. It doesn't airplay to my other Apple devices. These "monopolies" are why Apple is successful. When they switched to Intel they didn't lower costs by adopting commoditized PC hardware designs and outsource OS development to MSFT by licensing windows. They used Intel to provide more powerful and more flexible Macs, and continued to differentiate themselves by adding value with aluminum bodies, retina screens, mag-safe adapters, thunderbolt, etc, etc, etc. I think Apple understands much better than most of us geeks that their customers spend a lot of time with their devices and on their Macs. If I pay $1000 more for an "equivalent" Mac than Windows PC, it costs me about 50 cents more per work hour. Which means my payback needs less than a 1% increase in productive. And it's trivial to get far more than that because despite having similar processors/ram/storage, they are in no way equivalent in build quality, flexibility, and usability. Where Apple's model fails is for the people who don't make much per hour, so building your own, or getting the cheapest, makes sense.

bobsam 9y ago
> It historically enabled features (sealed batteries) that Windows didn't, that provided better performance. You are saying this as it was an undisputed fact. Which is the exact issue OP pointed at.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Sealed batteries are the reason I switched to Mac laptops. I used to carry an extra battery with my top of line dell laptop to make it through a flight. Then i read about the amazing battery life MacBooks were offering and switched and was able to make it through a single flight without every charging a backup battery again. It wasn't just sealed batteries, but they offer better performance because they can better customized to fit available space in the laptop. To do that the OS has to have special drivers that condition the battery, or your battery will age rapidly and need replacement in a year or so. Apple put that into MacOS, which was a huge benefit in itself. Sealed batteries also make devices lighter and sturdier. Fewer openings, more rigid enclosures. These all seem like minor advantages, but they specifically led to me and others to became a Mac user.

petra 9y ago

>> The problem with many tech analysts is that they are Apple fanboys without even knowing that they are. That's true for most of the discussion on the internet: so much talk about how Apple's chips/apps/ui/build-quality/founders/etc are so much better. But almost no talk at all about how modern brands get built, and what such brands give to users: for example, the ability to tell stories(implicitly or explicitly) to themselves and others, stories that make them feel good about themselves. And i don't think it's fair to demand those users to forefit that right, after they paid so much for it.

valuearb 9y ago
If you think brand is the reason Apple succeeds, you simply are way over-discounting or don't understand unique platform features/benefits. Brands become powerful only when they are true. All the marketing in the world can't successfully position your products as valuable and unique, if they aren't. You can't fool people for long. The gods of the advertising industry want you to believe they can sell ice to eskimos, but they are merely selling their book.
- petra 9y ago
  Branding isn't the sole reason for Apple's success. But it is probably an important one. As for the general power of branding: many commodity like products make lots of money through branding, be in the fields of luxury or fashion.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Yea, I don't think you understand branding. Branding is the power a product gets from fulfilling it's promise to consumers. Example: Coca-Cola. People don't buy Coke because advertising tells them to, people buy Coke because advertising reminds them to. Coke has a strong brand because Coke consumers prefer it's taste. Numerous taste tests have shown this. Sam Walton spent millions on a better tasting drink than Coke, proved it was better in every taste test, and Walmart's coke bombed when it was released despite a heavy marketing push and excellent product placement. It bombed because despite the results of taste-tests, customers had developed an affinity for Coca-Cola. It was always good, they could trust it's consistency and flavor, and they really weren't motivated to gamble on something new. In the cases of luxury or fashion, their unique benefits may be subtle, so subtle you don't even notice them. But their customers do and once they experience them they continue to buy from the same vendors. It can be as simple as a purse that is extremely attractive, yet durable, yet useful with the perfect number of pockets for your needs. Once you have that pleasing experience you are far more willing to buy future products from the same vendor, thinking, they know what they are doing, they think like I do, etc. In smartphones and Macs, Apple has consistently provided high quality hardware with innovative features, and powerful but easy to use software. That's built up a brand where Apple customers have high expectations for their Apple product experiences, and that brand can only remain strong if Apple doesn't disappoint them.

dmix 9y ago

The fanboyism is strong on this one. > iPhone users very rarely switch to Android, while a fair number of Android users switch to iPhone > this is the point that was forgotten the last time Samsung was held up as an iPhone threat — a Samsung smartphone does not run iOS. That has always been Apple’s trump card Considering this is a stats blog these bold claims are both made without any proof. And Android being a far cry from iOS is an antiquated position to take in 2017. They caught up quite some time ago. The core difference is usually lock-in from using the Apple eco-system. But on a UX/hardware value level Apple doesn't have a significant advantage over companies like Samsung anymore. But agreed re: the china problem, I wish he focused more on that over making sweeping statements about Apple's (imaginary) unmatched competitive advantage.

dep_b 9y ago
These switching numbers do exist but they're coming from Apple so take it with a grain of salt. It's like DXOMark never reviewing the iPhone 7 Plus while Google claims how much better their phone is compared to the iPhone. The numbers are true but the bias is strong.
IBM 9y ago
Various third party firms have said for years that the amount of switchers from iPhone to Android pales in comparison to the switchers to iPhone. Also Apple usually says it themselves on their earnings calls.

jack9 9y ago

> Moreover, this sort of growth is exactly what you would expect given Apple’s iOS monopoly: iPhone users very rarely switch to Android, while a fair number of Android users switch to iPhone, which means that even in a saturated market Apple’s share should grow over time. I'm confident that this isn't true. Economic mobility and movement goes down more often than up, and EVERY single person who has changed their phone plan goes cheaper (eventually into Android). Every vendor (ask anywhere from Sprint to ATT) knows this downgrading (into a superior android ecosystem) is close to 100% of the time, that his statement is an indication of how utterly ignorant or purposefully misleading the whole article is. Ironically, the link embedded in that quoted sentence links to STOP DOUBTING THE IPHONE, THE MACINTOSH COMPANY Posted onWednesday, October 28, 2015, not any attempt to display the contradictory data to support the statement.

erikpukinskis 9y ago

I think you underestimate the degree of vendor lock in Apple has. If you are a heavy user of iMessage, and you are a participant in multiple iMessage group threads, and you switch to Android, you will never be able to participate in those threads again. There's no way to convert an existing iMessafe thread to a hybrid MMS one without getting every participant to delete the old thread and start a new one. Good luck communicating that fact to all of your contacts Every time I post this on HN I get a bunch of people telling me you can deregister your phone number, or start a new thread, but iMessage won't convert its own threads to MMS automatically. Every participant in every thread has to delete it. This is considered expected behavior by Apple. If you want uninterrupted communication with your contacts, and you can't afford a few missed messages, you have no choice but to stay on iPhone forever. SMS is dead. Apple owns your messaging identity now, and it's platform locked.

tormeh 9y ago
Where do people use iMessage? Do they refuse to be friends with Android users? The whole phenomenon sounds bizarre, like people who only communicate with people using the same carrier or something.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  It's random... if you have three friends who happen to all have iPhones, that thread will be iMessage only forever. If one of the participants has an Android, it will use MMS. I've been in friend circles where people were using mostly iPhones.
  - probe 9y ago
    Same in my social circle - in fact if someone is on Android, we hate using text in general and go straight to FB messenger (or GroupMe depending on the size, but less so recently).