12 ms·

>There are a lot of people who would have picked up the attractive, well built, well engineered Nokia devices if they had the platform of Android. Yeah maybe.

>There are a lot of people who would have picked up the attractive, well built, well engineered Nokia devices if they had the platform of Android. Yeah maybe. There is no guarantee that the outcome would have been more favorable than being bought out by Microsoft. >Apple obviously is very much in a battle with Android ... Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. There is zero chance of that changing anytime soon. Apple's saving grace is that they can cut themselves a nice little niche, and make some good margins based on the strength of their brand much like they do with Macs. This will be doubly true if HTML pushes out native apps and and makes the platform largely superfluous again. The war is over however.

hippee-lee 13y ago
Can we not talk about this in terms of war and battle? It is the business of selling consumer electronics, same as it has always been. You do explain your position well but I feel the references to war and battle water it down. No one has been killed in the development of phones. I get that the MBA crowd read the art of war and it's practical knowledge seeped into popular discussion. But the endless reference to war in consumer electronics (and other areas not really war) is tedious and uninformative.
- corresation 13y ago
  Whatever your personal hangups are, words such as "battle" (an extended contest, struggle, or controversy) and "war" (a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end) are entirely and absolutely appropriate for such discussions. Your comment borders on bizarre.
  - hippee-lee 13y ago
    No personal hang ups. Just expressing an opinion on the use of words that I think are overused and therefore watered down in today's environment. You clearly have a different take on it. No need to belittle me for my opinion.
  - Apocryphon 13y ago
    Those combat terms assume zero-sum conflicts. There can be a situation where the smartphone OS market consists of multiple survivors, even if it's only a duopoly.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    Neither of those are the full definition of the terms mentioned. Both have connotations of violence. War is an armed conflict. Battle is a military conflict. Both have non-military meanings, but what is being said about the use the terms is not weird or bizarre.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  How about we use language and imagery that most people understand.
  - hippee-lee 13y ago
    Is this a question or a statement? Modern battle and war have very little in common with business. So, it is my opinion that the use is such terms waters down an otherwise reasonable well thought out comment.
    - macspoofing 13y ago
      Statement. >the use of such terms waters down an otherwise reasonable well thought out comment. This may not be a battle you're going to win.
      - girvo 13y ago
        > This may not be a battle you're going to win. I think the war on this phrase has already been lost to be honest.
- markb139 13y ago
  It probably felt like it to the staff who got fired a couple of years back
- Moto7451 13y ago
  If you want to play a fun game, switch "Apple", "Google", "Microsoft", "Samsung", etc with the names of toothpaste and deodorant brands. It pretty much shows these oddly passionate arguments for what they really are: weird tech company zero sum games repackaged as religious wars. So long as any of these companies have appreciable market share and are profitable they're winning. If Apple goes out of business it'll be scrappy MS v.s. Giant Google. Or if Google goes out of business it'll be the underdog MS v.s. the 800lb Gorilla named Apple. Even AMD, who has really no business competing with Intel at this point, and also has to deal with the higher performance ARM chips manages to survive and sometimes be profitable. Ultimately none of it matters because history has shown that there's always going to be competition. And ultimately thats exactly the way we want it to be. Not a single person here should hope Apple and MS go out of business. Otherwise we might find out how evil Google is willing to be. The same holds true for the others. 90% Apple market share wouldn't be particularly good, even for the most rabid Apple fans. iPhone 5SSSSS anyone? Ultimately what I find the most amusing about the rhetoric, is that post iMac and pre iPod/iPhone, Mac users were just happy that Apple wasn't going to go out of business. Pre Android, Samsung users were happy they were buying quality air conditioners and TVs... People would do well to gain some perspective on this stuff.
  - kybernetikos 13y ago
    I agree. I strongly dislike Apples locked down ecosystem and many of their offerings, but there can be no doubting that their success has been great for the industry. It's broken the MS monopoly (which has had beneficial side effects for linux too), encouraged companies to make products that aim for better than the lowest common denominator, brought UX front and center, recreated the small team of developers making software that lots of people can buy dynamic, encouraged the open web, etc. As long as we have healthy competition for these marketplaces, I don't worry about the future too much.
- tripzilch 13y ago
  Hey it's not just consumer electronics, Nokia used to develop DPI surveillance technology for oppressive regimes too! I can't quite decide if them being eaten by a US corporation is a good or bad thing. Nokia dearly promised[0] they wouldn't do it any more. But now all that expertise is safely owned by a US company and Nokia technically is not the same company any more, plus it's not really an oppressive regime if it's the global role model for Democracy(TM) I'm kidding, I'm kidding. They are going to make phones. I can do some creative wildly free-associating tinfoil kookery if it's buried this deep in the comments, can't I? :) [0] http://nsn.com/news-events/press-room/clarification-on-nokia-siemens-networks-business-in-iran http://nsn.com/news-events/press-room/clarification-on-nokia...
- metageek 13y ago
  Back at Netscape, Jim Barksdale hated the term "browser war", on the grounds that a war justifies extreme behavior. He didn't want us believing the browser war meant we should be breaking the normal rules.
clarky07 13y ago
Android has 80% worldwide market share, but it's much much closer in the US. If you take out the crap phones that are smartphone in name only, it's much closer worldwide. While Android is clearly winning by a decent margin, I'm not convinced it's over. I think the hopefully coming soon cheaper iPhone could make things a lot more interesting. Note that I don't actually want the iPhone to win. I would very much prefer that neither "wins". 50% each would be a better outcome for consumers for years. Better yet, windows gaining share and having 3 at 33% would be awesome.
- gbog 13y ago
  No, please, we have such hard time moving MS out of the hot field, don't bring them back! Remember when everyone feared MS? I mean, that was really terriying time for our industry. How forgetful is it to "wish" MS could gain a third of the phone OS market shared... Apple and Google conjugated efforts kept the wolf outside and you want to open the gates? However, I agree that a domineering Android/Google or Android/Samsumg is harmful for the market. Let us hope some other OSes can grab a piece of it. I have some hope in Cyanogenmod, which could be forking away from Android (just like Linux forked Unix). And, if you look at it, that is just what Chinese companies are doing (xiaomi, etc.): forking Android and gain market shares.
  - valleyer 13y ago
    Huh? Microsoft was terrifying because they dominated the PC market. This comment proposes their having 33% of the smartphone market. How is that "terrifying"?
    - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
      Microsoft has a long history of not playing fair. If it were to have 33% of the market, it isn’t unthinkable that it will try all possible dirty tricks in the book to gain the upper hand. Right now, Windows Phone’s market share is negligible, Microsoft has zero leverage so it has to play by the book.
      - 13y ago
StandardFuture 13y ago
I'm sorry but moving this conversation towards being about Android and Android's "market share" is going off topic. Microsoft clearly did not need to purchase Nokia to have a Windows Phone. That already exists (in partnership with multiple hardware vendors as well). So, market share of Mobile OSes is obviously not a (main) motivation behind this acquisition.
- tanzam75 13y ago
  Nokia accounts for 80% of Windows Phone sales. The "other OEMs" are basically HTC and Samsung. Both of which are primarily Android companies.
- Maarten88 13y ago
  > Microsoft clearly did not need to purchase Nokia to have a Windows Phone. They could not afford having anyone else buying Nokia. With the low stock valuation of Nokia, that was a realistic and very scary scenario for Microsoft. I see it as a pre-emptive move of Microsoft, and a move of Nokia (the non-phone part) to preserve their long-term independence.
guiambros 13y ago
Market Share (of a free OS) <> Profit. Plus, Market Share has little correlation with innovation or product quality. In fact, Innovator's Dilemma presents a compelling case of the exact opposite. So, exactly which "war" are you referring to?
bdcravens 13y ago
"Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market." Everyone throws this out there, but phones running 2.3 that cost less than $100 are practically a different product than what Apple and Samsung are offering, which is where the true battle is. Over 1/3 of all Androids run 2.3: http://www.ibtimes.com/android-vs-ios-adoption-rates-jelly-bean-finally-most-popular-version-google-mobile-operating-system http://www.ibtimes.com/android-vs-ios-adoption-rates-jelly-b...
- DominikR 13y ago
  A 2.3 Phone will run almost every existing Android app out there. In fact, most Android apps target 2.2 and up.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Which shows how backwards the platform is.
    - beedogs 13y ago
      yeah, how dare they allow people to have a useful phone for several years at a time.
      - coldtea 13y ago
        What? It's the very inverse: they DONT allow people to have a useful phone for several years at a time, they saddle them with an osbolete OS and don't provide upgrades. It's a very big pain point that Android makers don't provide upgrades for their older devices (even 1 year old ones). For some models they don't provide upgrades AT ALL, and you have to get custom-install on them to have a new Android. That's why (Google's own numbers) older (by up to 3 years) Android releases amount to 60%+ of the CURRENT installed base, whereas on iOS over 80% of users update on the latest version on the very first month of its release.
        bdcravens 13y ago
BuckRogers 13y ago
> Apple already lost to Android. That's not true. Apple's mobile devices are more profitable than any single line of Android devices. Also, sales of the iPad vs any other line of Android tablets, ie. Samsung's are not even close. Your comparison is no different than comparing Windows Server vs Linux servers. Yes, it might have hurt the market for WinServer a little bit (and Apple's iOS devices), but it's not like anyone is making a killing off of all those Linux/Android powered devices out there. When comparing what Android itself as a free platform (mostly free, there are contracts for Google's services that most sign onto)- iOS is far more profitable for Apple than Android is for Google. What you're repeating is common man nonsense. Secondly, FirefoxOS and Ubuntu Mobile will be cheaper devices and likely only cut into Android's marketshare. Add in Tizen, which is being specifically created to STOP paying fees to Google for Android, and you will see your 'zero chance' of Android's 80% marketshare changing. And sooner than you believe. Android has the most precarious position as a 'free' choice. There are many more entrants on the way for the cheap market. The war is just getting started, and I'd rather be in Apple's shoes than Google's (but you act as if Google cares about Android, they don't- it's just a delivery mechanism for their services). Signed by someone who uses a GS3.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  >Your comparison is no different than comparing Windows Server vs Linux servers. I think a better comparison is Mac vs. Windows. Windows won, but Macs are still thriving, and Apple is making nice margins. This is how I see iOS vs. Android playing out.
  - cageface 13y ago
    Perhaps, but the difference here is that Macs are still better machines in most respects. Macs endure as a niche product because they're higher quality products. Premium Android phones, on the other hand, provide a user experience that a lot of people consider superior.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      Some people prefer Windows to Mac OS, too, so I really don't see your point.
ddeck 13y ago
>Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. That's like suggesting that Mercedes Benz have lost already to Ford because they have smaller market share. Apple produce a premium product with prices and margins that reflect that. Of course they would prefer dominant market share, as would Mercedes. But a non-majority share does not imply that they've somehow lost.
- cageface 13y ago
  The car analogy gets trotted out over and over again when talking about smart phone market share but it really doesn't work at all. Smart phone ecosystems have powerful network effects that just don't exist for most luxury goods.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    Ok, then go by profit.
    - cageface 13y ago
      Samsung is very quickly closing that gap. This is likely to snowball if iOS's share starts dipping into single digits.
  - snom380 13y ago
    Maybe a better example is the PC market, where Apple also has a small market share but huge profits?
    - cageface 13y ago
      Sure. This analogy I can buy and this seems to be where Apple is headed right now.
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    Good point. Which ecosystem seems to be stronger again? It's like mercedes, only mercedes also gets to drive on nicer roads that go more places. When market share translates to usage and developer revenue, as it may some day, this will change. But network effects scarcely reinforce your point.
coldtea 13y ago
>Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. Yes. The low-margin 80% of the market that makes few profits. Apple makes as much revenue/profits from it's 20% share as the rest of the 80% Android OEMS combined (namely, Samsung). >There is zero chance of that changing anytime soon. That's great, because who would really want the 80%, low margin market segment? If it'll play like the PC Market (where Apple makes more money that the rest 4 top PC makers), then Android will be like Windows all over again. Dell, anyone?
- powertower 13y ago
  To put some figures on this - Global operating profits in the smartphone market for the second quarter of 2013: Apple - 53% (shipped 31.2M smartphones) Samsung - 50% (shipped 72.5M smartphones) All Others - negative 3% (operating losses)

hippee-lee 13y ago

Can we not talk about this in terms of war and battle? It is the business of selling consumer electronics, same as it has always been. You do explain your position well but I feel the references to war and battle water it down. No one has been killed in the development of phones. I get that the MBA crowd read the art of war and it's practical knowledge seeped into popular discussion. But the endless reference to war in consumer electronics (and other areas not really war) is tedious and uninformative.

corresation 13y ago
Whatever your personal hangups are, words such as "battle" (an extended contest, struggle, or controversy) and "war" (a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end) are entirely and absolutely appropriate for such discussions. Your comment borders on bizarre.
- hippee-lee 13y ago
  No personal hang ups. Just expressing an opinion on the use of words that I think are overused and therefore watered down in today's environment. You clearly have a different take on it. No need to belittle me for my opinion.
- Apocryphon 13y ago
  Those combat terms assume zero-sum conflicts. There can be a situation where the smartphone OS market consists of multiple survivors, even if it's only a duopoly.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  Neither of those are the full definition of the terms mentioned. Both have connotations of violence. War is an armed conflict. Battle is a military conflict. Both have non-military meanings, but what is being said about the use the terms is not weird or bizarre.
macspoofing 13y ago
How about we use language and imagery that most people understand.
- hippee-lee 13y ago
  Is this a question or a statement? Modern battle and war have very little in common with business. So, it is my opinion that the use is such terms waters down an otherwise reasonable well thought out comment.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    Statement. >the use of such terms waters down an otherwise reasonable well thought out comment. This may not be a battle you're going to win.
    - girvo 13y ago
      > This may not be a battle you're going to win. I think the war on this phrase has already been lost to be honest.
markb139 13y ago
It probably felt like it to the staff who got fired a couple of years back
Moto7451 13y ago
If you want to play a fun game, switch "Apple", "Google", "Microsoft", "Samsung", etc with the names of toothpaste and deodorant brands. It pretty much shows these oddly passionate arguments for what they really are: weird tech company zero sum games repackaged as religious wars. So long as any of these companies have appreciable market share and are profitable they're winning. If Apple goes out of business it'll be scrappy MS v.s. Giant Google. Or if Google goes out of business it'll be the underdog MS v.s. the 800lb Gorilla named Apple. Even AMD, who has really no business competing with Intel at this point, and also has to deal with the higher performance ARM chips manages to survive and sometimes be profitable. Ultimately none of it matters because history has shown that there's always going to be competition. And ultimately thats exactly the way we want it to be. Not a single person here should hope Apple and MS go out of business. Otherwise we might find out how evil Google is willing to be. The same holds true for the others. 90% Apple market share wouldn't be particularly good, even for the most rabid Apple fans. iPhone 5SSSSS anyone? Ultimately what I find the most amusing about the rhetoric, is that post iMac and pre iPod/iPhone, Mac users were just happy that Apple wasn't going to go out of business. Pre Android, Samsung users were happy they were buying quality air conditioners and TVs... People would do well to gain some perspective on this stuff.
- kybernetikos 13y ago
  I agree. I strongly dislike Apples locked down ecosystem and many of their offerings, but there can be no doubting that their success has been great for the industry. It's broken the MS monopoly (which has had beneficial side effects for linux too), encouraged companies to make products that aim for better than the lowest common denominator, brought UX front and center, recreated the small team of developers making software that lots of people can buy dynamic, encouraged the open web, etc. As long as we have healthy competition for these marketplaces, I don't worry about the future too much.
tripzilch 13y ago
Hey it's not just consumer electronics, Nokia used to develop DPI surveillance technology for oppressive regimes too! I can't quite decide if them being eaten by a US corporation is a good or bad thing. Nokia dearly promised[0] they wouldn't do it any more. But now all that expertise is safely owned by a US company and Nokia technically is not the same company any more, plus it's not really an oppressive regime if it's the global role model for Democracy(TM) I'm kidding, I'm kidding. They are going to make phones. I can do some creative wildly free-associating tinfoil kookery if it's buried this deep in the comments, can't I? :) [0] http://nsn.com/news-events/press-room/clarification-on-nokia-siemens-networks-business-in-iran http://nsn.com/news-events/press-room/clarification-on-nokia...
metageek 13y ago
Back at Netscape, Jim Barksdale hated the term "browser war", on the grounds that a war justifies extreme behavior. He didn't want us believing the browser war meant we should be breaking the normal rules.

clarky07 13y ago

Android has 80% worldwide market share, but it's much much closer in the US. If you take out the crap phones that are smartphone in name only, it's much closer worldwide. While Android is clearly winning by a decent margin, I'm not convinced it's over. I think the hopefully coming soon cheaper iPhone could make things a lot more interesting. Note that I don't actually want the iPhone to win. I would very much prefer that neither "wins". 50% each would be a better outcome for consumers for years. Better yet, windows gaining share and having 3 at 33% would be awesome.

gbog 13y ago
No, please, we have such hard time moving MS out of the hot field, don't bring them back! Remember when everyone feared MS? I mean, that was really terriying time for our industry. How forgetful is it to "wish" MS could gain a third of the phone OS market shared... Apple and Google conjugated efforts kept the wolf outside and you want to open the gates? However, I agree that a domineering Android/Google or Android/Samsumg is harmful for the market. Let us hope some other OSes can grab a piece of it. I have some hope in Cyanogenmod, which could be forking away from Android (just like Linux forked Unix). And, if you look at it, that is just what Chinese companies are doing (xiaomi, etc.): forking Android and gain market shares.
- valleyer 13y ago
  Huh? Microsoft was terrifying because they dominated the PC market. This comment proposes their having 33% of the smartphone market. How is that "terrifying"?
  - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
    Microsoft has a long history of not playing fair. If it were to have 33% of the market, it isn’t unthinkable that it will try all possible dirty tricks in the book to gain the upper hand. Right now, Windows Phone’s market share is negligible, Microsoft has zero leverage so it has to play by the book.
    - 13y ago

StandardFuture 13y ago

I'm sorry but moving this conversation towards being about Android and Android's "market share" is going off topic. Microsoft clearly did not need to purchase Nokia to have a Windows Phone. That already exists (in partnership with multiple hardware vendors as well). So, market share of Mobile OSes is obviously not a (main) motivation behind this acquisition.

tanzam75 13y ago
Nokia accounts for 80% of Windows Phone sales. The "other OEMs" are basically HTC and Samsung. Both of which are primarily Android companies.
Maarten88 13y ago
> Microsoft clearly did not need to purchase Nokia to have a Windows Phone. They could not afford having anyone else buying Nokia. With the low stock valuation of Nokia, that was a realistic and very scary scenario for Microsoft. I see it as a pre-emptive move of Microsoft, and a move of Nokia (the non-phone part) to preserve their long-term independence.

guiambros 13y ago

Market Share (of a free OS) <> Profit. Plus, Market Share has little correlation with innovation or product quality. In fact, Innovator's Dilemma presents a compelling case of the exact opposite. So, exactly which "war" are you referring to?

bdcravens 13y ago

"Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market." Everyone throws this out there, but phones running 2.3 that cost less than $100 are practically a different product than what Apple and Samsung are offering, which is where the true battle is. Over 1/3 of all Androids run 2.3: http://www.ibtimes.com/android-vs-ios-adoption-rates-jelly-bean-finally-most-popular-version-google-mobile-operating-system http://www.ibtimes.com/android-vs-ios-adoption-rates-jelly-b...

DominikR 13y ago
A 2.3 Phone will run almost every existing Android app out there. In fact, most Android apps target 2.2 and up.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Which shows how backwards the platform is.
  - beedogs 13y ago
    yeah, how dare they allow people to have a useful phone for several years at a time.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      What? It's the very inverse: they DONT allow people to have a useful phone for several years at a time, they saddle them with an osbolete OS and don't provide upgrades. It's a very big pain point that Android makers don't provide upgrades for their older devices (even 1 year old ones). For some models they don't provide upgrades AT ALL, and you have to get custom-install on them to have a new Android. That's why (Google's own numbers) older (by up to 3 years) Android releases amount to 60%+ of the CURRENT installed base, whereas on iOS over 80% of users update on the latest version on the very first month of its release.
      - bdcravens 13y ago

BuckRogers 13y ago

> Apple already lost to Android. That's not true. Apple's mobile devices are more profitable than any single line of Android devices. Also, sales of the iPad vs any other line of Android tablets, ie. Samsung's are not even close. Your comparison is no different than comparing Windows Server vs Linux servers. Yes, it might have hurt the market for WinServer a little bit (and Apple's iOS devices), but it's not like anyone is making a killing off of all those Linux/Android powered devices out there. When comparing what Android itself as a free platform (mostly free, there are contracts for Google's services that most sign onto)- iOS is far more profitable for Apple than Android is for Google. What you're repeating is common man nonsense. Secondly, FirefoxOS and Ubuntu Mobile will be cheaper devices and likely only cut into Android's marketshare. Add in Tizen, which is being specifically created to STOP paying fees to Google for Android, and you will see your 'zero chance' of Android's 80% marketshare changing. And sooner than you believe. Android has the most precarious position as a 'free' choice. There are many more entrants on the way for the cheap market. The war is just getting started, and I'd rather be in Apple's shoes than Google's (but you act as if Google cares about Android, they don't- it's just a delivery mechanism for their services). Signed by someone who uses a GS3.

macspoofing 13y ago
>Your comparison is no different than comparing Windows Server vs Linux servers. I think a better comparison is Mac vs. Windows. Windows won, but Macs are still thriving, and Apple is making nice margins. This is how I see iOS vs. Android playing out.
- cageface 13y ago
  Perhaps, but the difference here is that Macs are still better machines in most respects. Macs endure as a niche product because they're higher quality products. Premium Android phones, on the other hand, provide a user experience that a lot of people consider superior.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    Some people prefer Windows to Mac OS, too, so I really don't see your point.

ddeck 13y ago

>Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. That's like suggesting that Mercedes Benz have lost already to Ford because they have smaller market share. Apple produce a premium product with prices and margins that reflect that. Of course they would prefer dominant market share, as would Mercedes. But a non-majority share does not imply that they've somehow lost.

cageface 13y ago
The car analogy gets trotted out over and over again when talking about smart phone market share but it really doesn't work at all. Smart phone ecosystems have powerful network effects that just don't exist for most luxury goods.
- chrischen 13y ago
  Ok, then go by profit.
  - cageface 13y ago
    Samsung is very quickly closing that gap. This is likely to snowball if iOS's share starts dipping into single digits.
- snom380 13y ago
  Maybe a better example is the PC market, where Apple also has a small market share but huge profits?
  - cageface 13y ago
    Sure. This analogy I can buy and this seems to be where Apple is headed right now.
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Good point. Which ecosystem seems to be stronger again? It's like mercedes, only mercedes also gets to drive on nicer roads that go more places. When market share translates to usage and developer revenue, as it may some day, this will change. But network effects scarcely reinforce your point.

coldtea 13y ago

>Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. Yes. The low-margin 80% of the market that makes few profits. Apple makes as much revenue/profits from it's 20% share as the rest of the 80% Android OEMS combined (namely, Samsung). >There is zero chance of that changing anytime soon. That's great, because who would really want the 80%, low margin market segment? If it'll play like the PC Market (where Apple makes more money that the rest 4 top PC makers), then Android will be like Windows all over again. Dell, anyone?

powertower 13y ago
To put some figures on this - Global operating profits in the smartphone market for the second quarter of 2013: Apple - 53% (shipped 31.2M smartphones) Samsung - 50% (shipped 72.5M smartphones) All Others - negative 3% (operating losses)