3 ms·

If Samsung and the others see the updates as just a zero-ROI cost for them, then they are really short-sighted. They keep scrambling to develop the skins that m

If Samsung and the others see the updates as just a zero-ROI cost for them, then they are really short-sighted. They keep scrambling to develop the skins that many say they don't even want, when there is a differentiation solution right in front of them: offering updates to all their phones for a much longer period. Now that's some real differentiation, that even non-techie people will want. Who wouldn't want to go with the company that supports the phones for the longest time?

kenjackson 15y ago
That's not really all that differentiable, and it costs money both short and long-term. First, on the differentiation angle, things like length of maintanance are not things that usually sell devices. Especially not since the lifetime of the average device is just a tad longer than two years. Second, it's not as if Samsung can rev every device for free. They have to go through the carrier to test each update and the carriers have finite resources. Therefore Samsung may have to stall the release of a new phone in order to test all of the other phones that exist, including that phone that only sold 10,000 units. And these tests cost the OEMs a pretty penny. At the end of the day the Android model really is kind of broken. Updates are not just some ad hoc thing, but it really needs to be planned. Everything from how many devices each carrier has, the number of devices each manufacturer has, to the update rate, etc... Feature phones didn't really have the update requirement so the Samsung model of a million phones made sense. But now it actually hurts their ability to deliver customer satisfaction. Due to the nature of Android, there will never be a cohesive update strategy. What you see now is what you'll have in the future with Android.
- jerrya 15y ago
  "That's not really all that differentiable, and it costs money both short and long-term." The classic counter example is Nordstrom. Nordstrom looks at you and figures that if they keep you as a customer, you will spend $100,000 at Nordstrom over the course of your life. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_lifetime_value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_lifetime_value) Because of that, they will (Snopes says "maybe" http://www.snopes.com/business/consumer/nordstrom.asp http://www.snopes.com/business/consumer/nordstrom.asp) allow you to return tires to Nordstrom that everyone knows you purchased somewhere else, because they aren't losing money so much as they are ensuring their $100,000 of your money. Regardless of the truth of the tire story, Nordstrom is known for having excellent customer care and that helps customer retention and supports their other pricing policies.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    If it's such a good idea, why doesn't Walmart do it? 1) It works great as a publicity, but not in actual practice. If we all returned tires to Nordstrom they'd very quickly shutdown the practice, if they actually even do it now. Upgrades to Android phones would have to be practiced -- Samsung just can't create an urban legend that some phone in the midwest of the US was updated before. 2) Most people prefer cheaper prices rather than more expensive prices w/ better support. I don't have data, but I suspect that Walmart consistently does better than Nordstrom. And if Samsung effectively doubles the lifetime of each Android device and it's successful then other Android manufacturers will do the same. The net effect? Half total revenue in the Android marketspace -- unless this practice is able to eat away at iPhone -- which I doubt since Apple already does a pretty solid job of updates. It's one of those things that would be better for the customer. But due to the way the market is segmented it likely hurt the bottom line. The only company that could pull this is off is Motorola. Google doesn't care about the total revenue in the HW market. What's Samsung and HTC going to do? Focus on Windows Phone? Not likely. Google could squeeze almost all of the profits out of the HW manufacturers knowing they have very little alternative. I wouldn't be surprised if Google did just this.
    - jerrya 15y ago
      Are the Samsung Galaxy S, S II, Nexus, Note devices more of a Walmart product, or more of a Nordstrom product?
      - kenjackson 15y ago
        http://www.walmart.letstalk.com/product/product.htm?prId=39809 http://www.walmart.letstalk.com/product/product.htm?prId=398... Cell phones don't really have the same kind of super high margin distinction as exists in high-end retail. Another reason why the Nordstrom example doesn't work. Nordstrom has jewelry with crazy markup so they can make up in a single purchase for the cost of a lot of service. That doesn't exist with Android smartphones. When there are $2000 Android smartphones (after subsidizing) we can talk the "Nordstrom" brand.
Terretta 15y ago
> Who wouldn't want to go with the company that supports the phones for the longest time? Seemingly, everyone who buys Andriod instead of iOS. The platform gets what it wants: total customizability of an infinite variety of hardware, or devices that are all alike but keep getting every update 3 years after end of warranty. It's a trade off, and with the original purchase, one is voting for which model one wants.

kenjackson 15y ago

That's not really all that differentiable, and it costs money both short and long-term. First, on the differentiation angle, things like length of maintanance are not things that usually sell devices. Especially not since the lifetime of the average device is just a tad longer than two years. Second, it's not as if Samsung can rev every device for free. They have to go through the carrier to test each update and the carriers have finite resources. Therefore Samsung may have to stall the release of a new phone in order to test all of the other phones that exist, including that phone that only sold 10,000 units. And these tests cost the OEMs a pretty penny. At the end of the day the Android model really is kind of broken. Updates are not just some ad hoc thing, but it really needs to be planned. Everything from how many devices each carrier has, the number of devices each manufacturer has, to the update rate, etc... Feature phones didn't really have the update requirement so the Samsung model of a million phones made sense. But now it actually hurts their ability to deliver customer satisfaction. Due to the nature of Android, there will never be a cohesive update strategy. What you see now is what you'll have in the future with Android.

jerrya 15y ago
"That's not really all that differentiable, and it costs money both short and long-term." The classic counter example is Nordstrom. Nordstrom looks at you and figures that if they keep you as a customer, you will spend $100,000 at Nordstrom over the course of your life. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_lifetime_value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_lifetime_value) Because of that, they will (Snopes says "maybe" http://www.snopes.com/business/consumer/nordstrom.asp http://www.snopes.com/business/consumer/nordstrom.asp) allow you to return tires to Nordstrom that everyone knows you purchased somewhere else, because they aren't losing money so much as they are ensuring their $100,000 of your money. Regardless of the truth of the tire story, Nordstrom is known for having excellent customer care and that helps customer retention and supports their other pricing policies.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  If it's such a good idea, why doesn't Walmart do it? 1) It works great as a publicity, but not in actual practice. If we all returned tires to Nordstrom they'd very quickly shutdown the practice, if they actually even do it now. Upgrades to Android phones would have to be practiced -- Samsung just can't create an urban legend that some phone in the midwest of the US was updated before. 2) Most people prefer cheaper prices rather than more expensive prices w/ better support. I don't have data, but I suspect that Walmart consistently does better than Nordstrom. And if Samsung effectively doubles the lifetime of each Android device and it's successful then other Android manufacturers will do the same. The net effect? Half total revenue in the Android marketspace -- unless this practice is able to eat away at iPhone -- which I doubt since Apple already does a pretty solid job of updates. It's one of those things that would be better for the customer. But due to the way the market is segmented it likely hurt the bottom line. The only company that could pull this is off is Motorola. Google doesn't care about the total revenue in the HW market. What's Samsung and HTC going to do? Focus on Windows Phone? Not likely. Google could squeeze almost all of the profits out of the HW manufacturers knowing they have very little alternative. I wouldn't be surprised if Google did just this.
  - jerrya 15y ago
    Are the Samsung Galaxy S, S II, Nexus, Note devices more of a Walmart product, or more of a Nordstrom product?
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      http://www.walmart.letstalk.com/product/product.htm?prId=39809 http://www.walmart.letstalk.com/product/product.htm?prId=398... Cell phones don't really have the same kind of super high margin distinction as exists in high-end retail. Another reason why the Nordstrom example doesn't work. Nordstrom has jewelry with crazy markup so they can make up in a single purchase for the cost of a lot of service. That doesn't exist with Android smartphones. When there are $2000 Android smartphones (after subsidizing) we can talk the "Nordstrom" brand.

Terretta 15y ago

> Who wouldn't want to go with the company that supports the phones for the longest time? Seemingly, everyone who buys Andriod instead of iOS. The platform gets what it wants: total customizability of an infinite variety of hardware, or devices that are all alike but keep getting every update 3 years after end of warranty. It's a trade off, and with the original purchase, one is voting for which model one wants.