3 ms·

This article really reminded me how much Apple screwed up to let Android get a foothold. Look how unassailable the Apple and Android are now -- you can't get a

This article really reminded me how much Apple screwed up to let Android get a foothold. Look how unassailable the Apple and Android are now -- you can't get a foothold at the bottom of the market because it's hugely fragmented and there are no profit margins, while at the top of the market you're taking on beloved brands and have to try crazy over-the-top bets to get in the door -- which usually backfire. Android could have been the Fire Phone of its day. The earliest Android phones were just amazingly bad compared to the iPhone. But iPhones were only available on AT&T. Do you live in an area where AT&T had no service? Your only choice was an Android. iPhones insisted for years on having exactly one clearly unpopular screen size. Want a 4" screen? Your only choice was an Android. Apple refused to develop a downmarket phone. Want something less than a flagship? Your only choice was an Android. That window has closed. iOS has finally filled in all the places it used to suck (well, maybe except for developing an economical model, but last year's phone looks better now than it used to, and in any case Android filled that niche to the overflowing).

Spooky23 12y ago
Well, good for us. Without Android, the iPhone would suck. We finally have the competition everyone wished for in the Windows 98 days.
fpgeek 12y ago
Apple didn't screw up. The disadvantages you cite are inevitable consequences of the strategy they consciously chose (selling premium devices differentiated by user experience). If Apple hadn't waited until carriers (especially Verizon) to come to them, iPhones would be as full of branding and bloatware as any other carrier-sold phone, not to mention interference with updates, interference with retail launches and who knows what else. Limiting the range of phones they offer means they miss niches, but also helps control costs (allowing them to use premium components more affordably), simplifies the buying process for customers, supports a broader and deeper accessory ecosystem and so on. Not jumping on many new technologies (e.g. LTE), creates an opening for competitors, but also lets Apple avoid the associated growing pains so they can provide a more consistent user experience. If Apple had followed the path you advocate, they'd have picked up many of the disadvantages of the Android ecosystem, without the corresponding advantages (most notably rapid improvements via intra-ecosystem competition). That seems obviously worse than the path they actually chose.
- tim333 12y ago
  Indeed, it's hard to figure they screwed up too badly when according to Canaccord Genuity's autumn 2014 estimates, Apple took 86% of the handset industry profits. I used to think they'd missed an opportunity by not dominating the lower end of the market too like they did with the ipod but I think a big issue would be having the apps and software run on their phones. They are after all a software platform and if you produce cheap crap phones then the whole business of just being able to download an app and run it on your Apple phone breaks as the cheap phones may not be up to it. You'd then end up with different software and marketing efforts for the different phones and before you knew it you'd be Nokia. http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/04/apple-continues-to-dominate-with-massive-86-share-of-handset-industry-profits http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/04/apple-continues-to...
- aetherson 12y ago
  They certainly chose their strategy consciously -- it was just a bad strategy, relative to the counterfactual. Apple was wise to launch on just AT&T, you're right that it did in fact let them create the (clearly very popular) experience that it did. But once the iPhone was a mega-hit, they went 4 years before getting Verizon in on the game. That was a huge mistake, and Apple clearly had the power to negotiate a pure iPhone experience with Verizon and get out of its exclusivity contract with AT&T far before 2011. Certainly getting onto LTE early and increasing screen size earlier than they did would have provoked little missed steps in their UI and general experience -- and once Android was an entrenched competitor, perhaps that was exactly the right decision, since purity of user experience is a core part of the iOS versus Android value prop. But back when the Android user experience was just purely awful, it's pretty hard to argue that the iPhone would have been materially hurt by a few little grinding points. The Motorola DROID wasn't released until Nov 2009, and I had one of those -- it was clearly far, far behind the iPhone of the time in terms of UI. If Apple had followed the path I described, the iPhone might well be materially worse now than it actually is -- but it would also have 80%+ market share with no serious competitor, rather than 21% market share.
bdcravens 12y ago
The earliest Androids, like the HTC Incredible, were about the same size as the iPhone. There's plenty of people who prefer the configurability Android's had for years. Some people are turned off by Apple because the perception of hipsterness. Apple chooses to not compete with downmarket (they also are losing MacBook sales to $349 Toshibas). I say all this as an Apple enthusiast (laptop, display, mouse, 6plus, iPad Air all in front of me ... I'm on my 4th MB, 4th iPad, and 6th iPhone), but I clearly see why someone wouldn't buy an iPhone, and I don't think Apple could have easily altered that reality, nor would they necessarily want to.

Spooky23 12y ago

Well, good for us. Without Android, the iPhone would suck. We finally have the competition everyone wished for in the Windows 98 days.

fpgeek 12y ago

Apple didn't screw up. The disadvantages you cite are inevitable consequences of the strategy they consciously chose (selling premium devices differentiated by user experience). If Apple hadn't waited until carriers (especially Verizon) to come to them, iPhones would be as full of branding and bloatware as any other carrier-sold phone, not to mention interference with updates, interference with retail launches and who knows what else. Limiting the range of phones they offer means they miss niches, but also helps control costs (allowing them to use premium components more affordably), simplifies the buying process for customers, supports a broader and deeper accessory ecosystem and so on. Not jumping on many new technologies (e.g. LTE), creates an opening for competitors, but also lets Apple avoid the associated growing pains so they can provide a more consistent user experience. If Apple had followed the path you advocate, they'd have picked up many of the disadvantages of the Android ecosystem, without the corresponding advantages (most notably rapid improvements via intra-ecosystem competition). That seems obviously worse than the path they actually chose.

tim333 12y ago
Indeed, it's hard to figure they screwed up too badly when according to Canaccord Genuity's autumn 2014 estimates, Apple took 86% of the handset industry profits. I used to think they'd missed an opportunity by not dominating the lower end of the market too like they did with the ipod but I think a big issue would be having the apps and software run on their phones. They are after all a software platform and if you produce cheap crap phones then the whole business of just being able to download an app and run it on your Apple phone breaks as the cheap phones may not be up to it. You'd then end up with different software and marketing efforts for the different phones and before you knew it you'd be Nokia. http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/04/apple-continues-to-dominate-with-massive-86-share-of-handset-industry-profits http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/04/apple-continues-to...
aetherson 12y ago
They certainly chose their strategy consciously -- it was just a bad strategy, relative to the counterfactual. Apple was wise to launch on just AT&T, you're right that it did in fact let them create the (clearly very popular) experience that it did. But once the iPhone was a mega-hit, they went 4 years before getting Verizon in on the game. That was a huge mistake, and Apple clearly had the power to negotiate a pure iPhone experience with Verizon and get out of its exclusivity contract with AT&T far before 2011. Certainly getting onto LTE early and increasing screen size earlier than they did would have provoked little missed steps in their UI and general experience -- and once Android was an entrenched competitor, perhaps that was exactly the right decision, since purity of user experience is a core part of the iOS versus Android value prop. But back when the Android user experience was just purely awful, it's pretty hard to argue that the iPhone would have been materially hurt by a few little grinding points. The Motorola DROID wasn't released until Nov 2009, and I had one of those -- it was clearly far, far behind the iPhone of the time in terms of UI. If Apple had followed the path I described, the iPhone might well be materially worse now than it actually is -- but it would also have 80%+ market share with no serious competitor, rather than 21% market share.

bdcravens 12y ago

The earliest Androids, like the HTC Incredible, were about the same size as the iPhone. There's plenty of people who prefer the configurability Android's had for years. Some people are turned off by Apple because the perception of hipsterness. Apple chooses to not compete with downmarket (they also are losing MacBook sales to $349 Toshibas). I say all this as an Apple enthusiast (laptop, display, mouse, 6plus, iPad Air all in front of me ... I'm on my 4th MB, 4th iPad, and 6th iPhone), but I clearly see why someone wouldn't buy an iPhone, and I don't think Apple could have easily altered that reality, nor would they necessarily want to.