3 ms·

The tricky part with Android adoption, is that it's so tightly coupled with manufacturer adoption. Can we intelligently say that someone buying the Motorola Dr

by roc 16y ago

The tricky part with Android adoption, is that it's so tightly coupled with manufacturer adoption. Can we intelligently say that someone buying the Motorola Droid X is choosing Android? or are they choosing Motorola? (or are they choosing Verizon?) Geeks seem to ignore this point; likely because we'd been making fun of feature-phones for years before the smartphones hit. But those phones were well-liked by a great many people and had non-trivial brand loyalty.

MatthewPhillips 16y ago
Does that matter as far as future growth is concerned? Motorola isn't going to stop producing Android phones, nor is Verizon.
- roc 16y ago
  It absolutely matters. Remember when Vista was "the fastest selling operating system ever" [1]? Would it have been wise to read those first months of sales as indicative of interest-in and preference-for Vista and thus safe to extrapolate? Or was it due to other, stronger factors (bundling, brand-recognition) that have very clear analogues in the phone market? [1] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749132%28WS.10%29.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749132%28WS.10%...
  - MatthewPhillips 16y ago
    The article doesn't extrapolate Android sales based on the current growth trajectory; in fact it specifically warns against doing that. The iOS growth shows a discernible pattern, whereas the Android chart doesn't yet do that. However the analogy to Vista doesn't strike me as valid, for a number of reasons. Vista is a version of Windows much like Froyo is a version of Android. Vista's growth was diffused by people not buying new computers; not because they chose computers other than those running Windows. Additionally computer manufacturers were more willing to continue to release computers still running XP; this is not analogous to the phone world (there is no demand for older versions of Android). I guess what you are possibly suggesting is that Android adoption has been based on reasons apart from a desire to own an Android device; this may or may not be true. We won't be able to judge that until the wave of adopting users have come off their current contracts and are able to upgrade to a new phone. However this article specifically warns against extrapolating the Android data points as they currently are shown.
    - roc 16y ago
      The point to my original post was to call attention to the strong impact of manufacturer and carrier adoption on android adoption. I didn't think it was something left to interpretation. You questioned whether that state of affairs was relevant to future growth. My reply to that, was an example of a platform whose very-fast adoption was manufacturer-driven, specifically to point out that you can't reasonably extrapolate from short-run data in these situations. As for the analogy, like any analogy, isn't worth arguing. You clearly saw what I was aiming at and that was its only purpose. Again, the only time I brought up extrapolation was to point out that you can't. So I'm not sure why you've twice decided to point out that I'm agreeing with the article.
CoffeeDregs 16y ago
Wasn't this exact point the case with PC/Mac? People bought IBM, Compaq, Dell, Gateway because of the manufacturer (...back when the manufacturer mattered), so purchasing was tightly coupled to manufacturer adoption. So could we intelligently say that someone buying the Compaq Whatever was choosing Windows 3.1? And what would it have mattered or would that have been a tricky part of understanding adoption? No: network effects had taken hold and one operating system was going to win without regard to manufacturer adoption. I guess you're trying to point out that there aren't two separate markets in the Android space(ie. Android vs iOS and Apple vs Motorola) and instead there is just one market (ie. Motorola-Android vs HTC-Android vs Apple-iOS). I just don't see that to be the case. The market seems pretty fragmented and rich. Everyone I know who's bought an Android phone has either shopped amongst the brands or has gotten an Android because "they heard the iPhone sucked". I haven't heard of any brand loyalty.

by roc 16y ago

MatthewPhillips 16y ago

Does that matter as far as future growth is concerned? Motorola isn't going to stop producing Android phones, nor is Verizon.

roc 16y ago
It absolutely matters. Remember when Vista was "the fastest selling operating system ever" [1]? Would it have been wise to read those first months of sales as indicative of interest-in and preference-for Vista and thus safe to extrapolate? Or was it due to other, stronger factors (bundling, brand-recognition) that have very clear analogues in the phone market? [1] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749132%28WS.10%29.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749132%28WS.10%...
- MatthewPhillips 16y ago
  The article doesn't extrapolate Android sales based on the current growth trajectory; in fact it specifically warns against doing that. The iOS growth shows a discernible pattern, whereas the Android chart doesn't yet do that. However the analogy to Vista doesn't strike me as valid, for a number of reasons. Vista is a version of Windows much like Froyo is a version of Android. Vista's growth was diffused by people not buying new computers; not because they chose computers other than those running Windows. Additionally computer manufacturers were more willing to continue to release computers still running XP; this is not analogous to the phone world (there is no demand for older versions of Android). I guess what you are possibly suggesting is that Android adoption has been based on reasons apart from a desire to own an Android device; this may or may not be true. We won't be able to judge that until the wave of adopting users have come off their current contracts and are able to upgrade to a new phone. However this article specifically warns against extrapolating the Android data points as they currently are shown.
  - roc 16y ago
    The point to my original post was to call attention to the strong impact of manufacturer and carrier adoption on android adoption. I didn't think it was something left to interpretation. You questioned whether that state of affairs was relevant to future growth. My reply to that, was an example of a platform whose very-fast adoption was manufacturer-driven, specifically to point out that you can't reasonably extrapolate from short-run data in these situations. As for the analogy, like any analogy, isn't worth arguing. You clearly saw what I was aiming at and that was its only purpose. Again, the only time I brought up extrapolation was to point out that you can't. So I'm not sure why you've twice decided to point out that I'm agreeing with the article.

CoffeeDregs 16y ago

Wasn't this exact point the case with PC/Mac? People bought IBM, Compaq, Dell, Gateway because of the manufacturer (...back when the manufacturer mattered), so purchasing was tightly coupled to manufacturer adoption. So could we intelligently say that someone buying the Compaq Whatever was choosing Windows 3.1? And what would it have mattered or would that have been a tricky part of understanding adoption? No: network effects had taken hold and one operating system was going to win without regard to manufacturer adoption. I guess you're trying to point out that there aren't two separate markets in the Android space(ie. Android vs iOS and Apple vs Motorola) and instead there is just one market (ie. Motorola-Android vs HTC-Android vs Apple-iOS). I just don't see that to be the case. The market seems pretty fragmented and rich. Everyone I know who's bought an Android phone has either shopped amongst the brands or has gotten an Android because "they heard the iPhone sucked". I haven't heard of any brand loyalty.