3 ms·
Look, fellas, I keep seeing these kinds of blog posts and while I am waiting patiently for some fresh insights, I keep seeing the same discussion recycled. So t
by raganwald 16y ago
Look, fellas, I keep seeing these kinds of blog posts and while I am waiting patiently for some fresh insights, I keep seeing the same discussion recycled. So to spare everyone the angst, here's the bottom line:
Apple takes the attitude that if you give users what they just discovered they wanted, they will give Apple money.
Apple considers this more important than its relationships with the carriers, which is why AT&T got an exclusive: None of the other carriers would play ball with a phone that the carriers can't control to the point of making their users miserable.
I am not making a value judgment that this is good or great or a revolution, just stating what I believe to be Apple's business strategy.
Google works the other way, it makes an OS that in theory is just as good as iOS or even better, but in practice Google's business strategy is about getting as many copies of Android out on as many handsets as possible. Take your pick, this is to get as many search clicks and/or other data aggregations into Google's hands or to suck the oxygen out of the market from their arch-rival Microsoft, or possibly both.
To that end, they give the carriers what the carriers want, and the carriers want to make their captive market miserable.
This plays itself out in a myriad of different ways, and it always seems to come down to the same thing: Android is more open in theory, but the gap between theory and practice is smaller in theory than it is in practice, and the cause of the gap is the carriers and Googles perfectly sane business strategy of appeasing them.
I am not saying Apple's strategy is better or worse than Google's. It is possible that each strategy is a local optimum, and the poor companies between Apple and Google--like Microsoft, RIM, and so on--are between a rock and a hard place.
But I do think each strategy is valid given its company's goals, and therefore I do not expect to see anything change unless there is a seismic shift in the industry. Until then, Apple will make a lot of money off a smaller number of handsets, and Android will dominate the numbers but its users will be hostage to the carriers.
- aristidb 16y agoThat logic does not apply to unlocked GSM phones (like mine), where no carrier is involved in the purchase. These don't get updates either, despite (or because) the device manufacturer is in control, not the carrier. Maybe in the USA, it is not common to buy phones unlocked and unsubsidised, but here (Germany) many carriers offer rebates if you don't buy a subsidised phone and bring your own.
- raganwald 16y agoWell, it wouldn't apply if you could argue that the carriers don't want Google selling unlocked phones and it defies them. My guess is that there are so few unlocked phones sold that the carriers don't really care one way or another about people buying unlocked phones, they mostly care about people hacking a phone that is supposed to be locked down.
- aristidb 16y agoI think a fair number of people have unlocked phones outside the USA because their carrier offers rebates for "phoneless" contracts.
- dgreensp 16y agoI think you nailed it on the last sentence. Google originally started selling a phone directly to consumers with no carrier involved, but gave up on the idea because they weren't able to sell enough units.
- aristidb 16y agoGoogle is also not really a good retailer. They have no experience at all with directly selling stuff, and I think they messed it up. But I can directly buy phones from HTC or Samsung here (well, of course through retailers), and some people do. Electronics stores offer a big selection of unlocked smartphones (I got mine through http://www.amazon.de/ http://www.amazon.de/). I always get a bit pissed when people from the USA ignore that the rest of the world is not just inhabited by dragons.