6 ms·

It's actually /why/ they never had a chance of winning.

by gnarbarian 6y ago

nojvek 6y ago
Well they are winning with iPhones aren’t they?
- gnarbarian 6y ago
  Nope. Android has more market share despite apple having the head start.
  - agumonkey 6y ago
    It's somehow easier to be a follower here, Apple set the trends for years, Android only had to replicate and sell cheaper.
    - mattnewton 6y ago
      I don't think apple is looking to beat android in marketshare, but instead in profits. They are mostly not interested in selling cheaper commodities, and instead work hard for premium differentiation (and maximal value capture of the whole ecosystem around premium smartphones with services and peripherals). Besides, if they did win smartphone marketshare too hard, they risk regulation on the amount of control they enjoy of their platforms, which might harm their profits.
      - agumonkey 6y ago
        Possibly yes, and Apple has historically never been into that. Macs were not the biggest share either.
      - zepto 6y ago
        As alluded to elsewhere, Google doesn’t care about Android being profitable. They only care that it is widely used so they can continue to deliver ads and harvest data.
- danilocesar 6y ago
  Are they? Last time I've heard Android still runs in the vast majority of phones, worldwide.
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    Worldwide stats are a lot less important than addressable market stats.
  - Bud 6y ago
    Apple is winning in terms of making virtually all the profit available to those selling phones, and Android's market share advantage is not nearly as big as you think, at least not in areas where people have a lot of disposable income, like in the US, where it's basically 50/50 between Android and iOS.
    - aptwebapps 6y ago
      Why is that the more important metric given the subject?
      - tachyonbeam 6y ago
        It's not. Google had android users using Google Software, and seeing Google Ads. Having more users on android gives you more value when it comes to data collection and selling things to people.
        est31 6y ago
        But aren't apple customers some of the best targets for ads because of their higher spending power?
      - izacus 6y ago
        It's an important metric because it makes post writers favorite company win.
- mattnewton 6y ago
  It's a question of what winning means I think. In terms of profits, they might be winning. If it's market share though, they are not winning, and that means there is still an opening for open standards.
  - sooheon 6y ago
    If it was your company, would you rather have 99% market share and 1% of profits, or 1% market share and 99% of profits?
    - Zarel 6y ago
      99% of profits, obviously, but you've forgotten what thread we're in. This is a thread about Linux and software freedom. For that, market share is way more important than profit share.
    - ecnahc515 6y ago
      If I was making 99% of the profit off of 1% the market, I’d be terrified someone could just undercut me and take either my 1% or a big portion of the remaining market, that I’m trying to also get. Owning the profit is great, but owning the market means longevity.
ogre_codes 6y ago
Apple opened up to third party licensees for some time. It only hurt the their profitability while gaining Mac OS very little market share. Apple "lost" the PC war because they were trying to sell slow computers for more money than the fastest available PCs. People bitch about the Apple tax now, but the premium for modern Macs is nowhere near as bad as it used to be. (And from the early signs, bang for the buck the M1 Macs are ahead of the PC industry)
- krooj 6y ago
  This is spot on - pre-G3 & G4 PowerPC macs (think 601, 603/e, 604/e/v), were dogshit-slow and ran a legitimately inferior OS and 68k macs were possibly worse. I do admire how experimental Apple was with their hardware back in those days, though: built in TV tuners, NUBUS, audio interfaces, not to mention the very progressive laptop designs (Duo, 2400c) and Newton! Part of me really misses how fun an inventive hardware was between the 90s and mid-2000s. Things feel very stale these days and maybe M1 is the push that this industry needs to get innovating on new platforms again? edit: if Dell or Lenovo would do an ARM variant of the XPS13 or X1C that was capable of running Linux, I'd buy the hell out of it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
pjmlp 6y ago
PC clones only happened to the reverse engineering success from Compaq and IBM being unable to prevent it in court. All other 16 bit platforms were just like the Macs back then.

It's actually /why/ they never had a chance of winning.

nojvek 6y ago

Well they are winning with iPhones aren’t they?

gnarbarian 6y ago
Nope. Android has more market share despite apple having the head start.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  It's somehow easier to be a follower here, Apple set the trends for years, Android only had to replicate and sell cheaper.
  - mattnewton 6y ago
    I don't think apple is looking to beat android in marketshare, but instead in profits. They are mostly not interested in selling cheaper commodities, and instead work hard for premium differentiation (and maximal value capture of the whole ecosystem around premium smartphones with services and peripherals). Besides, if they did win smartphone marketshare too hard, they risk regulation on the amount of control they enjoy of their platforms, which might harm their profits.
    - agumonkey 6y ago
      Possibly yes, and Apple has historically never been into that. Macs were not the biggest share either.
    - zepto 6y ago
      As alluded to elsewhere, Google doesn’t care about Android being profitable. They only care that it is widely used so they can continue to deliver ads and harvest data.
danilocesar 6y ago
Are they? Last time I've heard Android still runs in the vast majority of phones, worldwide.
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  Worldwide stats are a lot less important than addressable market stats.
- Bud 6y ago
  Apple is winning in terms of making virtually all the profit available to those selling phones, and Android's market share advantage is not nearly as big as you think, at least not in areas where people have a lot of disposable income, like in the US, where it's basically 50/50 between Android and iOS.
  - aptwebapps 6y ago
    Why is that the more important metric given the subject?
    - tachyonbeam 6y ago
      It's not. Google had android users using Google Software, and seeing Google Ads. Having more users on android gives you more value when it comes to data collection and selling things to people.
      - est31 6y ago
        But aren't apple customers some of the best targets for ads because of their higher spending power?
    - izacus 6y ago
      It's an important metric because it makes post writers favorite company win.
mattnewton 6y ago
It's a question of what winning means I think. In terms of profits, they might be winning. If it's market share though, they are not winning, and that means there is still an opening for open standards.
- sooheon 6y ago
  If it was your company, would you rather have 99% market share and 1% of profits, or 1% market share and 99% of profits?
  - Zarel 6y ago
    99% of profits, obviously, but you've forgotten what thread we're in. This is a thread about Linux and software freedom. For that, market share is way more important than profit share.
  - ecnahc515 6y ago
    If I was making 99% of the profit off of 1% the market, I’d be terrified someone could just undercut me and take either my 1% or a big portion of the remaining market, that I’m trying to also get. Owning the profit is great, but owning the market means longevity.

ogre_codes 6y ago

Apple opened up to third party licensees for some time. It only hurt the their profitability while gaining Mac OS very little market share. Apple "lost" the PC war because they were trying to sell slow computers for more money than the fastest available PCs. People bitch about the Apple tax now, but the premium for modern Macs is nowhere near as bad as it used to be. (And from the early signs, bang for the buck the M1 Macs are ahead of the PC industry)

krooj 6y ago
This is spot on - pre-G3 & G4 PowerPC macs (think 601, 603/e, 604/e/v), were dogshit-slow and ran a legitimately inferior OS and 68k macs were possibly worse. I do admire how experimental Apple was with their hardware back in those days, though: built in TV tuners, NUBUS, audio interfaces, not to mention the very progressive laptop designs (Duo, 2400c) and Newton! Part of me really misses how fun an inventive hardware was between the 90s and mid-2000s. Things feel very stale these days and maybe M1 is the push that this industry needs to get innovating on new platforms again? edit: if Dell or Lenovo would do an ARM variant of the XPS13 or X1C that was capable of running Linux, I'd buy the hell out of it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

pjmlp 6y ago

PC clones only happened to the reverse engineering success from Compaq and IBM being unable to prevent it in court. All other 16 bit platforms were just like the Macs back then.