4 ms·

Android isn't bad at all, but you need to understand why it's so popular - it lets just about every phone maker produce incredibly cheap handsets. Despite the i

Android isn't bad at all, but you need to understand why it's so popular - it lets just about every phone maker produce incredibly cheap handsets. Despite the iPhone having a 22% share of smart phones it commands a significantly larger percentage of revenue, so high that Samsung, the android leader, won't reveal revenue figures for their android business. (Samsung reveal that their entire mobile division has 17B revenue, Apple's iPhone devision, excluding iPod/iPad is 23B.) Apple are very good at making premium products, they have a greater than 94% market share for computers over $1,000USD. They all but own the tablet space despite their significantly higher retail price. The only competitors that succeed against Apple are the ones willing to have razor thin margins producing commodity products - this is where Android comes in, the bulk of Android devices are budget conscious. Google tried the premium Android approach originally and it failed enough for them to abort the approach completely.

Kylekramer 14y ago
Haven't really aborted the idea: http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2012/04/galaxy-nexus-now-on-sale-in-google-play.html http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2012/04/galaxy-nexus-now-on...
mkr-hn 14y ago
It took Apple a long time to connect good design with something that could take a big chunk out of a market. It won't be any different for its competitors. It's slowly happening with laptops. My Toshiba Satellite from a few years ago already looks great and has great usability. I'm sure newer models are even better. How many years did it take non-Apple laptop manufacturers to figure it out after Apple proved you could make a nice laptop that people would buy?
huggyface 14y ago
Android isn't bad at all Who are you replying to? The comment you replied to makes the arguable point that vendor add-ons are a problem. That is a debatable point as each iteration of Android has essentially usurped functionality pioneered in those skins. but you need to understand why it's so popular - it lets just about every phone maker produce incredibly cheap handsets Gah! Where are all of these "incredibly cheap" handsets? ZTE? Huwei? The overwhelming bulk of Android handsets (edit: I realize this is worded poorly, but I mean relative to sales -- the top selling handsets are predominately the top tier devices) are priced similarly to the iPhone. And why are you making uninformed comments about Android on a board where the overwhelming majority of participants are very informed on the market? And ignoring the fact that Samsung, HTC, and Motorola probably spend more on software developer, per handset, than a Windows Phone license, even if they went for Windows Phone licenses is that $5-$15 license fee going to really be the difference between "incredibly cheap" and not incredibly cheap? This Android == the low end nonsense is garbage. It is hubris of the worst kind. Terrible. Just terrible. I'm going full jerk now, threatening my glorious Avg:5 score, but save comments like that for Engadget stories.
- dagw 14y ago
  Where are all of these "incredibly cheap" handsets? ZTE? Huwei? The overwhelming bulk of Android handsets are priced similarly to the iPhone. Not even close to true. Having a look at my favorite purveyor of phones (www.katshing.se) I see that, by far, the most expensive phone they sell is the 64GB 4s and the only phones that are close to the price of a 16GB 4s is HTC One X, the Galaxy Note and the preorder for the Galaxy SIII. In the half-the-price-of-the-4s category you have some pretty decent phones like the HTC OneV, Experia Arc S and Samsung Galaxy S plus. Halving the price again (~$250) and you can get a Samsung Galaxy Ace, HTC Explorer or Wildfire S or Motorola Defy Mini. The simple truth is that probably half the people I know with android phones have android phones because they where a lot cheaper than the iPhone. The fact that you can buy a great smart phone from a brand name like Samsung for $200 unlocked and off contract is incredibly enticing to a large number of people, and Android helped make that happen.
  - huggyface 14y ago
    Not even close to true. Having a look at my favorite purveyor of phones I didn't put a specific disclaimer for Sweden, I suppose. the most expensive phone they sell is the 64GB 4s Incredibly few people buy the 64GB variant. Since we're so fond of anecdotes, I know zero people who bought the 64GB iPhone 4S. I see no reason, at all, why that data point has any relevance. The top selling Android phones, worldwide, are the Galaxy Notes, SII's, Razrs, and other premium devices. Low cost devices -- despite your anecdotes -- haven't even made a dent in the top 10 yet. It is a completely irrelevant aspect, thus far. That will change, of course, but when someone buys a Razr or an SII or a Note or a One X, they aren't choosing a discount option.
    - glhaynes 14y ago
      The top selling Android phones, worldwide, are the Galaxy Notes, SII's, Razrs, and other premium devices. Low cost devices -- despite your anecdotes -- haven't even made a dent in the top 10 yet. But there are a million low-end models with little to differentiate them, so it's not surprising at all that none of them are in the top 10. That by itself doesn't mean that the "Non-Top 10" category isn't 99% of the market. (It's not, of course; I'm just saying that looking at the top 10 doesn't give you any more info on the total makeup of the market than the comment you're so vociferously responding to.)
bookwormAT 14y ago
"Apple are very good at making premium products, they have a greater than 94% market share for computers over $1,000USD" Wait, what? Do you have a source for that? I'm pretty sure these numbers are not correct.
- idspispopd 14y ago
  I'm having difficulty digging up the recent data, but here is the 2009 NPD source that shows their 91% share of computers over $1000 http://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/07/apple-nabs-91-of-premium-computer-market-in-june/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/07/apple-nabs-91-of-premiu...
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    It always pays to check the fine print. If you click through to the story this is based on, you find this: http://betanews.com/2009/07/22/apple-has-91-of-market-for-1-000-pcs-says-npd/ http://betanews.com/2009/07/22/apple-has-91-of-market-for-1-... Two caveats: 1. They're talking about revenue-share, not a share of units. That 91% revenue-share is very likely to translate into a somewhat smaller share of units because Apple's Mac ASP is probably substantially higher than the overall Windows ASP, even when you're restricting both to the $1000+ segment. 2. They're talking about PCs sold "at US retail". I'm not sure what their definition of that is (I couldn't easily find the original report), but there are two things it almost certainly does not include: sales to businesses and direct sales from manufacturer websites. I find that unsurprising. I think it would be hard for NPD to gather that sort of data. However, both segments are important in $1000+ Windows PC market. Business buy plenty of $1000+ PCs (I'm sitting in a room of them). And the best price for a $1000+ consumer PC is almost always at the manufacturer website. I strongly suspect that, for most manufacturers (except Apple), the majority of $1000+ PCs are sold directly from their website.

Kylekramer 14y ago

Haven't really aborted the idea: http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2012/04/galaxy-nexus-now-on-sale-in-google-play.html http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2012/04/galaxy-nexus-now-on...

mkr-hn 14y ago

It took Apple a long time to connect good design with something that could take a big chunk out of a market. It won't be any different for its competitors. It's slowly happening with laptops. My Toshiba Satellite from a few years ago already looks great and has great usability. I'm sure newer models are even better. How many years did it take non-Apple laptop manufacturers to figure it out after Apple proved you could make a nice laptop that people would buy?

huggyface 14y ago

Android isn't bad at all Who are you replying to? The comment you replied to makes the arguable point that vendor add-ons are a problem. That is a debatable point as each iteration of Android has essentially usurped functionality pioneered in those skins. but you need to understand why it's so popular - it lets just about every phone maker produce incredibly cheap handsets Gah! Where are all of these "incredibly cheap" handsets? ZTE? Huwei? The overwhelming bulk of Android handsets (edit: I realize this is worded poorly, but I mean relative to sales -- the top selling handsets are predominately the top tier devices) are priced similarly to the iPhone. And why are you making uninformed comments about Android on a board where the overwhelming majority of participants are very informed on the market? And ignoring the fact that Samsung, HTC, and Motorola probably spend more on software developer, per handset, than a Windows Phone license, even if they went for Windows Phone licenses is that $5-$15 license fee going to really be the difference between "incredibly cheap" and not incredibly cheap? This Android == the low end nonsense is garbage. It is hubris of the worst kind. Terrible. Just terrible. I'm going full jerk now, threatening my glorious Avg:5 score, but save comments like that for Engadget stories.

dagw 14y ago
Where are all of these "incredibly cheap" handsets? ZTE? Huwei? The overwhelming bulk of Android handsets are priced similarly to the iPhone. Not even close to true. Having a look at my favorite purveyor of phones (www.katshing.se) I see that, by far, the most expensive phone they sell is the 64GB 4s and the only phones that are close to the price of a 16GB 4s is HTC One X, the Galaxy Note and the preorder for the Galaxy SIII. In the half-the-price-of-the-4s category you have some pretty decent phones like the HTC OneV, Experia Arc S and Samsung Galaxy S plus. Halving the price again (~$250) and you can get a Samsung Galaxy Ace, HTC Explorer or Wildfire S or Motorola Defy Mini. The simple truth is that probably half the people I know with android phones have android phones because they where a lot cheaper than the iPhone. The fact that you can buy a great smart phone from a brand name like Samsung for $200 unlocked and off contract is incredibly enticing to a large number of people, and Android helped make that happen.
- huggyface 14y ago
  Not even close to true. Having a look at my favorite purveyor of phones I didn't put a specific disclaimer for Sweden, I suppose. the most expensive phone they sell is the 64GB 4s Incredibly few people buy the 64GB variant. Since we're so fond of anecdotes, I know zero people who bought the 64GB iPhone 4S. I see no reason, at all, why that data point has any relevance. The top selling Android phones, worldwide, are the Galaxy Notes, SII's, Razrs, and other premium devices. Low cost devices -- despite your anecdotes -- haven't even made a dent in the top 10 yet. It is a completely irrelevant aspect, thus far. That will change, of course, but when someone buys a Razr or an SII or a Note or a One X, they aren't choosing a discount option.
  - glhaynes 14y ago
    The top selling Android phones, worldwide, are the Galaxy Notes, SII's, Razrs, and other premium devices. Low cost devices -- despite your anecdotes -- haven't even made a dent in the top 10 yet. But there are a million low-end models with little to differentiate them, so it's not surprising at all that none of them are in the top 10. That by itself doesn't mean that the "Non-Top 10" category isn't 99% of the market. (It's not, of course; I'm just saying that looking at the top 10 doesn't give you any more info on the total makeup of the market than the comment you're so vociferously responding to.)

bookwormAT 14y ago

"Apple are very good at making premium products, they have a greater than 94% market share for computers over $1,000USD" Wait, what? Do you have a source for that? I'm pretty sure these numbers are not correct.

idspispopd 14y ago
I'm having difficulty digging up the recent data, but here is the 2009 NPD source that shows their 91% share of computers over $1000 http://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/07/apple-nabs-91-of-premium-computer-market-in-june/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/07/apple-nabs-91-of-premiu...
- fpgeek 14y ago
  It always pays to check the fine print. If you click through to the story this is based on, you find this: http://betanews.com/2009/07/22/apple-has-91-of-market-for-1-000-pcs-says-npd/ http://betanews.com/2009/07/22/apple-has-91-of-market-for-1-... Two caveats: 1. They're talking about revenue-share, not a share of units. That 91% revenue-share is very likely to translate into a somewhat smaller share of units because Apple's Mac ASP is probably substantially higher than the overall Windows ASP, even when you're restricting both to the $1000+ segment. 2. They're talking about PCs sold "at US retail". I'm not sure what their definition of that is (I couldn't easily find the original report), but there are two things it almost certainly does not include: sales to businesses and direct sales from manufacturer websites. I find that unsurprising. I think it would be hard for NPD to gather that sort of data. However, both segments are important in $1000+ Windows PC market. Business buy plenty of $1000+ PCs (I'm sitting in a room of them). And the best price for a $1000+ consumer PC is almost always at the manufacturer website. I strongly suspect that, for most manufacturers (except Apple), the majority of $1000+ PCs are sold directly from their website.