4 ms·

>Apple effectively gives iOS away (it’s a hardware company, after all), and Amazon gets Android for free While I get what the author's saying here, it's a bit

by pdubs 14y ago

>Apple effectively gives iOS away (it’s a hardware company, after all), and Amazon gets Android for free While I get what the author's saying here, it's a bit disingenuous to call either of those situations "free". Both companies invest nontrivial amounts of money into their OS. Apple develops their in-house OS, and Android is a "some assembly required" product.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
sespindola 14y ago
Yes but, in the case of android, the assembly work is rather trivial if they wanted to offer a standard android rom. Most of the complexity lies in the gui elements added by the manufacturers (TouchWiz, HTC Sense, etc) in an attempt to differentiate themselves from the rest and foster brand loyalty. In any case, I don't think the software customization cost per unit in android phones it's anywhere near those MS license costs.
- mendocino 14y ago
  > Yes but, in the case of android, the assembly work is rather trivial if they wanted to offer a standard android rom. Only if you want to ship an SoC already supported by Linux. (Even then, there is tons of board specific code.) If not, you are looking at a very non trivial amount of work.
  - nextparadigms 14y ago
    By now Android supports most of the ARM chips architectures. The only case where this might not be true is when a completely new one appears, and Google chose to launch with another architecture and not support that one. But even then, the chip maker will do most of the work to support the latest version of Android.
    - joenathan 14y ago
      You really don't know what you are talking about, Android is only originally built around the Nexus device Google is launching with the particular version of the OS, it is a huge effort to make compatible drivers for all the different pieces of tech that goes in to the different Android devices. Hence why it took so long for the Nexus S to get Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich, not to mention the plethora of other devices still waiting on a port.
electrograv 14y ago
It only used the word "free" for Amazon's use of Android, which is factually accurate. It said that Apple gives iOS away, which again is an accurate statement. It doesn't seem disingenuous to me; in fact the wording implies that Apple is indeed "giving away" real value.
- mikeash 14y ago
  The cost of iOS is accounted for in the cost of an iPad. Apple no more gives iOS away than they give the iPad's camera or flash storage away.
- Duff 14y ago
  Not really. Microsoft wants to make significant money on it's investment in developing operating system software. Samsung wants to make money on it's manufacturing operations. You have an extra layer of overhead with a Microsoft device vs. an iPad. Plus, because Samsung, HTC, etc are all making the devices, they cannot come close to the economies of scale that Apple does. Apple's model is very clever. As a niche player until recently, they had to be more clever to survive. Look at their product lines -- they all share lots of components.
- pdubs 14y ago
  The article cites the Windows licensing price (~$90), then goes on to say how it would be "hard pushed to compete" at $10, then states Apple giving iOS for free and Amazon getting Android for free. The contextual implication is that Apple and Amazon pay ~$0 (certainly <$10) for their OSs.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
Splines 14y ago
Exactly. Microsoft charges a license fee that represents what it thinks is fair value for the work involved in creating an OS. Apple marks up the price of the iPad over the hardware costs, some of this includes paying for the iOS engineers. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. It's just that Apple is more efficient at producing the entire thing than Microsoft+Intel+Samsung are.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- beagle3 14y ago
  > Exactly. Microsoft charges a license fee that represents what it thinks is fair value for the work involved in creating an OS. Microsoft charges a license fee that they believe will maximize their total revenue (units sold multiplied by price). Fair value is only indirectly related, in the sense that a grossly high unfair price would reduce their total revenue.

by pdubs 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

sespindola 14y ago

Yes but, in the case of android, the assembly work is rather trivial if they wanted to offer a standard android rom. Most of the complexity lies in the gui elements added by the manufacturers (TouchWiz, HTC Sense, etc) in an attempt to differentiate themselves from the rest and foster brand loyalty. In any case, I don't think the software customization cost per unit in android phones it's anywhere near those MS license costs.

mendocino 14y ago
> Yes but, in the case of android, the assembly work is rather trivial if they wanted to offer a standard android rom. Only if you want to ship an SoC already supported by Linux. (Even then, there is tons of board specific code.) If not, you are looking at a very non trivial amount of work.
- nextparadigms 14y ago
  By now Android supports most of the ARM chips architectures. The only case where this might not be true is when a completely new one appears, and Google chose to launch with another architecture and not support that one. But even then, the chip maker will do most of the work to support the latest version of Android.
  - joenathan 14y ago
    You really don't know what you are talking about, Android is only originally built around the Nexus device Google is launching with the particular version of the OS, it is a huge effort to make compatible drivers for all the different pieces of tech that goes in to the different Android devices. Hence why it took so long for the Nexus S to get Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich, not to mention the plethora of other devices still waiting on a port.

electrograv 14y ago

It only used the word "free" for Amazon's use of Android, which is factually accurate. It said that Apple gives iOS away, which again is an accurate statement. It doesn't seem disingenuous to me; in fact the wording implies that Apple is indeed "giving away" real value.

mikeash 14y ago
The cost of iOS is accounted for in the cost of an iPad. Apple no more gives iOS away than they give the iPad's camera or flash storage away.
Duff 14y ago
Not really. Microsoft wants to make significant money on it's investment in developing operating system software. Samsung wants to make money on it's manufacturing operations. You have an extra layer of overhead with a Microsoft device vs. an iPad. Plus, because Samsung, HTC, etc are all making the devices, they cannot come close to the economies of scale that Apple does. Apple's model is very clever. As a niche player until recently, they had to be more clever to survive. Look at their product lines -- they all share lots of components.
pdubs 14y ago
The article cites the Windows licensing price (~$90), then goes on to say how it would be "hard pushed to compete" at $10, then states Apple giving iOS for free and Amazon getting Android for free. The contextual implication is that Apple and Amazon pay ~$0 (certainly <$10) for their OSs.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

Splines 14y ago

Exactly. Microsoft charges a license fee that represents what it thinks is fair value for the work involved in creating an OS. Apple marks up the price of the iPad over the hardware costs, some of this includes paying for the iOS engineers. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. It's just that Apple is more efficient at producing the entire thing than Microsoft+Intel+Samsung are.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
beagle3 14y ago
> Exactly. Microsoft charges a license fee that represents what it thinks is fair value for the work involved in creating an OS. Microsoft charges a license fee that they believe will maximize their total revenue (units sold multiplied by price). Fair value is only indirectly related, in the sense that a grossly high unfair price would reduce their total revenue.