4 ms·

Couldn't agree more with both points. Of course android ate Nokia's pie (cheap phones for everyone). Rather unsure about blackberry, i think thats more a thing

by ricw 13y ago

Couldn't agree more with both points. Of course android ate Nokia's pie (cheap phones for everyone). Rather unsure about blackberry, i think thats more a thing that android and ios both now have excellent infrastructure integration (MS exchange etc) for corporate support. You're also right with how cheap OEM android phones are taking over the market. iOS is losing marketshare pretty much everywhere where phones are not heavily subsidised or the comparative income is low, namely everywhere but the US and UK (and a couple of others). Unless apple drops its ios prices to more reasonable levels (they are really taking the p*ss), it's going to be the same story as the one that unfolded with mac/windows.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
gibwell 13y ago
Whilst I agree that Nokia and Blackberry were disrupted by Android, not the iPhone, Apple is gaining customers everywhere. 'Marketshare' is a flawed concept because it assumes a unified market of undifferentiated customers. Apple is simply not in the market of commodity devices. It never had any of that market to lose. Claiming that apple is losing those customers is clearly incorrect. If the story does unfold as it did with Mac/Windows, Apple will again be the clear winner, just as they are in the PC market.
- sien 13y ago
  Apple is not the 'clear winner' in the PC market, they are a small segment of it. Working in corporate and government environments is an Apple free zone. Lower price competitors have repeatedly caught up and outperformed higher priced vertical companies that make the entire stack. Android is well positioned to do exactly this to Apple over the next decade. Phones and cheaper devices also seem to see this happen repeatedly. Apple's phone division should see a warning in Nokia and RIM, not a comfort. SGI, Sun, Commodore, Atari, DEC and many others are all defunct. All full stack companies. Apple and IBM are left. IBM mainframes are extremely difficult to remove. Apple are easier but may survive with enough iOS lock in. But you'd be very brave to bet on it.
  - jryle70 13y ago
    You're right that low price is a great competitive edge, but one can name many now defunct computer makers that were anything but full stack -- Compaq, Gateway, eMachine, Packard Bell, Siemens (the PC maker), Olivetti. As a matter of fact, one can argue that they went under because their products didn't stand out from the competition. Full stack can be seen as a great advantage. Otherwise Microsoft wouldn't make Surface or acquire Nokia. It all depends on specific business cases.
    - sien 13y ago
      Non-full stack companies come and go. That's part of the strength. Most people are not fussed if they buy an HP, Sony, Compaq, ASUS, Acer, MSI or whatever for a PC. Android buyers can happily switch between a dozen manufacturers as well. The point is for general purpose computing full stack was common but is now exceptional. If it was a great advantage surely there would be more full stack companies around.
      - jryle70 13y ago
        You seemed to imply that SGI, Sun, etc are gone because they were full stack. I just offered counterexamples of non full stack companies that are also gone. There are simply no evidence that full stack is inherently bad, or vice versa. It's all specific to individual companies. > Non-full stack companies come and go. That's part of the strength Or more precisely, that's a benefit of hardware commodity. From the business perspective however, it isn't fun to be a loser, full stack or not.
        sien 13y ago
        There is evidence that full stack is hard to keep going. In general computing devices there are only 2 companies left doing it that matter. IBM & Apple. The non-full stack companies that are gone have been replaced. The full stack ones have been replaced by combinations of non full stack companies. New non-full stack companies come in and get big. What new full stack company that matters that has been started in the past decade?

by ricw 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

gibwell 13y ago

Whilst I agree that Nokia and Blackberry were disrupted by Android, not the iPhone, Apple is gaining customers everywhere. 'Marketshare' is a flawed concept because it assumes a unified market of undifferentiated customers. Apple is simply not in the market of commodity devices. It never had any of that market to lose. Claiming that apple is losing those customers is clearly incorrect. If the story does unfold as it did with Mac/Windows, Apple will again be the clear winner, just as they are in the PC market.

sien 13y ago
Apple is not the 'clear winner' in the PC market, they are a small segment of it. Working in corporate and government environments is an Apple free zone. Lower price competitors have repeatedly caught up and outperformed higher priced vertical companies that make the entire stack. Android is well positioned to do exactly this to Apple over the next decade. Phones and cheaper devices also seem to see this happen repeatedly. Apple's phone division should see a warning in Nokia and RIM, not a comfort. SGI, Sun, Commodore, Atari, DEC and many others are all defunct. All full stack companies. Apple and IBM are left. IBM mainframes are extremely difficult to remove. Apple are easier but may survive with enough iOS lock in. But you'd be very brave to bet on it.
- jryle70 13y ago
  You're right that low price is a great competitive edge, but one can name many now defunct computer makers that were anything but full stack -- Compaq, Gateway, eMachine, Packard Bell, Siemens (the PC maker), Olivetti. As a matter of fact, one can argue that they went under because their products didn't stand out from the competition. Full stack can be seen as a great advantage. Otherwise Microsoft wouldn't make Surface or acquire Nokia. It all depends on specific business cases.
  - sien 13y ago
    Non-full stack companies come and go. That's part of the strength. Most people are not fussed if they buy an HP, Sony, Compaq, ASUS, Acer, MSI or whatever for a PC. Android buyers can happily switch between a dozen manufacturers as well. The point is for general purpose computing full stack was common but is now exceptional. If it was a great advantage surely there would be more full stack companies around.
    - jryle70 13y ago
      You seemed to imply that SGI, Sun, etc are gone because they were full stack. I just offered counterexamples of non full stack companies that are also gone. There are simply no evidence that full stack is inherently bad, or vice versa. It's all specific to individual companies. > Non-full stack companies come and go. That's part of the strength Or more precisely, that's a benefit of hardware commodity. From the business perspective however, it isn't fun to be a loser, full stack or not.
      - sien 13y ago
        There is evidence that full stack is hard to keep going. In general computing devices there are only 2 companies left doing it that matter. IBM & Apple. The non-full stack companies that are gone have been replaced. The full stack ones have been replaced by combinations of non full stack companies. New non-full stack companies come in and get big. What new full stack company that matters that has been started in the past decade?