6 ms·

Not sure I understand what you're trying to say. The things you've mentioned are completely valid points and they still exist. I'm not trying to overlook Samsu

by dombili 13y ago

Not sure I understand what you're trying to say. The things you've mentioned are completely valid points and they still exist. I'm not trying to overlook Samsung's success, but they _do_ sell tons of different devices while Apple only sell one (but 3 different versions), and profits _do_ matter. I'm not sure about this but I believe Apple still beats Galaxy S4 in terms of profits and iPhone 5 released last year in September. I also don't get this type of discussions. Technology evolves everyday. Apple used to beat other companies in terms of profits and market share, now Samsung is at the helm. Let's see what Apple can do this fall. As long as us, the consumer wins, I don't care who makes more money.

statictype 13y ago
Tangential to the discussion but: Profits matter to the company. Not to you or me (unless you or I work for the company or have stock in them). On the other hand, market share does affect consumers. The more popular your particular device is, the better it is for you (in terms of app availability, web compatibility, tech support etc...).
- dombili 13y ago
  >Profits matter to the company. Not to you or me. Absolutely. I wasn't trying to say that profits matter to consumers (Indirectly it may effect them though, because more profits means more freedom for a company to try new things without being too worried about wasting money). >On the other hand, market share does affect consumers. The more popular your particular device is, the better it is for you. I agree, but I don't think it matters all that much. Just look at the current situation. Can you honestly say that Windows' ecosystem is better than Mac's, despite the indisputable market share of Windows? Same goes with Android vs iOS (although they're pretty close). An argument could be made that Microsoft only makes the software while Apple does both software and hardware, but Mac support, ecosystem, app quality is miles ahead of Windows, in my opinion.
  - cageface 13y ago
    This depends entirely on which particular app domain matters to you. If business software or games are your priority then Windows is a no-brainer first choice. For a lot of other things it's a tossup and for some domains like music creation software the Mac is arguably better.
    - dombili 13y ago
      Yeah, it's like choosing which Linux distro is the best. My point was that market share doesn't exactly translate into better services, better app quality etc. It is certainly a factor though, no point in denying that.
- adventured 13y ago
  Without profits the company doesn't exist; their market share doesn't exist; their ability to provide support for their phones doesn't exist; their ability to update / fix / improve their software doesn't exist; their ability to invest into the expensive infrastructure necessary to provide high quality app markets doesn't exist; their ability to market their phones to drive adoption doesn't exist; and on and on. Profits matter for consumers as much as market share does, even if they don't realize it. The phone hardware business is a very expensive and difficult market. Companies like HTC demonstrate just how hard it is to stay in the game, and just how expensive it is. Being profitable is a requirement to produce at the massive economies of scale necessary to compete in the smart phone market (or you have to sell less units while charging a lot more for them, but you still require that profit to keep churning out new phones). The only reason Blackberry, for example, still exists at all is that they were so profitable for so many years, and able to build up a cash hoard; without that, they'd already have disappeared.
- simonh 13y ago
  When you're buying a device in which the OS and ecosystem are developed and maintained by the same company, that company being profitable and its business sustainable is a vital customer concern. If you buy an android phone and the vendor goes bust, no big deal. If you buy an iPhone and apple goes bust, bye bye iTunes, iOS updates, App Store, etc, etc. I say this as an apple customer and iPhone user. I think a lot of the discussion on this thread is just silly, but Apple being a strong going concern is a big deal to all iPhone and Mac users.
RyanZAG 13y ago
If what I'm trying to say isn't clear enough: these things are symptoms or indicators: Profit Selling more of 1 device or less of others Market Share These things are the real issues: Features/Benefits Price Experience/'Freedom' It doesn't really matter what those indicators look like over the last year. It is the real issues that will shape those indicators in the future. I disagree about not caring who 'wins' though. If Apple wins, all developers have to build to Apple's closed platform. If Google wins, anybody can take Android and run the same apps (see: Amazon). Google winning is good for everyone. Apple winning is only good for Apple. Microsoft winning is also only good for Microsoft - so I wouldn't want them to win either.
- dombili 13y ago
  If you're talking about what will make a company more profitable in the future, I agree with you. No one chooses one company over another because that company makes more profit. But in the context of this discussion, I don't think it is right to overlook things such as profits, market share and the volume of devices that's on the market. As for your last point, I don't think regular consumers cares about open/closed platforms. They probably don't even know what that means. We're talking about mobile devices, not desktop computers. People want devices that just works, especially if those devices are built to make their lives easier, not harder. Android used to have a lot of problems but now they caught up to iOS (even surpassed it). Android is not where it is today because it is open[1]. Android would've had the same success if it was as closed as iOS. In the general scheme of things, I agree with you. Android is not completely open and definitely not a free software, but it is better for consumers than iOS (and I'm an iOS user). But as long as there's a competition and either of those companies (Apple and Google) don't get to do whatever the hell they want, I'm saying that the consumer wins. It doesn't matter which company has the more open OS. [1] Android had a lot of options in terms of devices, so their openness was a factor in their success, but it was not a major one.
- mwfunk 13y ago
  At no point is anybody going to "win" this particular contest. Numbers go up and down and back and forth, but this isn't a horse race. If any company were to win here (even, or possibly especially, Google) it would be a huge loss for everyone. The fact that you're even using that word is very telling. Monopolies are bad news for everyone regardless of who possesses them. You seem to be rooting for some sort of open source monopoly rather than a Google monopoly, but I think even that would be a bad thing. I'd much rather see a world where different business models and different development methodologies (open source vs. proprietary vs. hybrid, walled gardens vs. Wild West vs. everything in between, etc.) are all doing what they do best and competing with each other and learning from each other. It's absolutely true that Android as you know it now simply would not exist if it didn't originally have the iPhone to draw inspiration from; this is pretty incontrovertible. I'm not saying that to denigrate Android in any way, but rather to point out that different approaches to product development have different pros and cons, and having all of those approaches coexisting and competing and evolving is a much better situation for everyone than having only one major player or one development methodology industry-wide. This is includes the seemingly-positive-but-not-really outcome where some form of "freedom" or "openness" becomes the monopoly.

by dombili 13y ago

statictype 13y ago

Tangential to the discussion but: Profits matter to the company. Not to you or me (unless you or I work for the company or have stock in them). On the other hand, market share does affect consumers. The more popular your particular device is, the better it is for you (in terms of app availability, web compatibility, tech support etc...).

dombili 13y ago
>Profits matter to the company. Not to you or me. Absolutely. I wasn't trying to say that profits matter to consumers (Indirectly it may effect them though, because more profits means more freedom for a company to try new things without being too worried about wasting money). >On the other hand, market share does affect consumers. The more popular your particular device is, the better it is for you. I agree, but I don't think it matters all that much. Just look at the current situation. Can you honestly say that Windows' ecosystem is better than Mac's, despite the indisputable market share of Windows? Same goes with Android vs iOS (although they're pretty close). An argument could be made that Microsoft only makes the software while Apple does both software and hardware, but Mac support, ecosystem, app quality is miles ahead of Windows, in my opinion.
- cageface 13y ago
  This depends entirely on which particular app domain matters to you. If business software or games are your priority then Windows is a no-brainer first choice. For a lot of other things it's a tossup and for some domains like music creation software the Mac is arguably better.
  - dombili 13y ago
    Yeah, it's like choosing which Linux distro is the best. My point was that market share doesn't exactly translate into better services, better app quality etc. It is certainly a factor though, no point in denying that.
adventured 13y ago
Without profits the company doesn't exist; their market share doesn't exist; their ability to provide support for their phones doesn't exist; their ability to update / fix / improve their software doesn't exist; their ability to invest into the expensive infrastructure necessary to provide high quality app markets doesn't exist; their ability to market their phones to drive adoption doesn't exist; and on and on. Profits matter for consumers as much as market share does, even if they don't realize it. The phone hardware business is a very expensive and difficult market. Companies like HTC demonstrate just how hard it is to stay in the game, and just how expensive it is. Being profitable is a requirement to produce at the massive economies of scale necessary to compete in the smart phone market (or you have to sell less units while charging a lot more for them, but you still require that profit to keep churning out new phones). The only reason Blackberry, for example, still exists at all is that they were so profitable for so many years, and able to build up a cash hoard; without that, they'd already have disappeared.
simonh 13y ago
When you're buying a device in which the OS and ecosystem are developed and maintained by the same company, that company being profitable and its business sustainable is a vital customer concern. If you buy an android phone and the vendor goes bust, no big deal. If you buy an iPhone and apple goes bust, bye bye iTunes, iOS updates, App Store, etc, etc. I say this as an apple customer and iPhone user. I think a lot of the discussion on this thread is just silly, but Apple being a strong going concern is a big deal to all iPhone and Mac users.

RyanZAG 13y ago

If what I'm trying to say isn't clear enough: these things are symptoms or indicators: Profit Selling more of 1 device or less of others Market Share These things are the real issues: Features/Benefits Price Experience/'Freedom' It doesn't really matter what those indicators look like over the last year. It is the real issues that will shape those indicators in the future. I disagree about not caring who 'wins' though. If Apple wins, all developers have to build to Apple's closed platform. If Google wins, anybody can take Android and run the same apps (see: Amazon). Google winning is good for everyone. Apple winning is only good for Apple. Microsoft winning is also only good for Microsoft - so I wouldn't want them to win either.

dombili 13y ago
If you're talking about what will make a company more profitable in the future, I agree with you. No one chooses one company over another because that company makes more profit. But in the context of this discussion, I don't think it is right to overlook things such as profits, market share and the volume of devices that's on the market. As for your last point, I don't think regular consumers cares about open/closed platforms. They probably don't even know what that means. We're talking about mobile devices, not desktop computers. People want devices that just works, especially if those devices are built to make their lives easier, not harder. Android used to have a lot of problems but now they caught up to iOS (even surpassed it). Android is not where it is today because it is open[1]. Android would've had the same success if it was as closed as iOS. In the general scheme of things, I agree with you. Android is not completely open and definitely not a free software, but it is better for consumers than iOS (and I'm an iOS user). But as long as there's a competition and either of those companies (Apple and Google) don't get to do whatever the hell they want, I'm saying that the consumer wins. It doesn't matter which company has the more open OS. [1] Android had a lot of options in terms of devices, so their openness was a factor in their success, but it was not a major one.
mwfunk 13y ago
At no point is anybody going to "win" this particular contest. Numbers go up and down and back and forth, but this isn't a horse race. If any company were to win here (even, or possibly especially, Google) it would be a huge loss for everyone. The fact that you're even using that word is very telling. Monopolies are bad news for everyone regardless of who possesses them. You seem to be rooting for some sort of open source monopoly rather than a Google monopoly, but I think even that would be a bad thing. I'd much rather see a world where different business models and different development methodologies (open source vs. proprietary vs. hybrid, walled gardens vs. Wild West vs. everything in between, etc.) are all doing what they do best and competing with each other and learning from each other. It's absolutely true that Android as you know it now simply would not exist if it didn't originally have the iPhone to draw inspiration from; this is pretty incontrovertible. I'm not saying that to denigrate Android in any way, but rather to point out that different approaches to product development have different pros and cons, and having all of those approaches coexisting and competing and evolving is a much better situation for everyone than having only one major player or one development methodology industry-wide. This is includes the seemingly-positive-but-not-really outcome where some form of "freedom" or "openness" becomes the monopoly.