It’s been quite a while since I wrote a Smartphone Wars post; I let the series lapse when I concluded that the source I was using for U.S. market share figures had likely disconnected from reality (and more recent surveys from other sources suggest I was right). But the developments of the last couple of days demand comment. Nokia has sold its phone business to Microsoft; Stephen Elop has returned to Microsoft to head its devices group; and there is talk he might succeed Ballmer.
You couldn’t make this stuff up for a satirical novel and have it believed. The conspiracy theorists who maintained that Elop was a Microsoft mole sent in to set up a takeover look prescient now – but a takeover to what purpose? Nokia’s phone business, the world’s most successful and respected a few short years ago, is now a shattered wreck.
And as for Elop: he masterminded what was probably the biggest destruction in shareholder value ever – and this is the guy who’s being talked of as Ballmer’s successor? Astonishing. On his record, the man isn’t competent to run a Taco Bell store; that that he’s even in consideration suggests Microsoft’s board has developed some perverse desire to replace a strategic idiot with an even more wrongheaded strategic idiot.
While all this is going on, IDC now has Android up to 79.3% worldwide market share and still rising; iOS is down to 13.2% and falling; and the rest of the ecosystems are scrambling for 8% of scraps. Microsoft, at 3.7%, is just barely leading the bush leagues in the presence of Blackberry and Symbian’s continuing collapse.
There have been a rash of stories lately about how good Microsoft’s sales-growth figures look year over year, but I rather suspect the company is up to its old channel-stuffing tricks. Actual consumers don’t report any interest in Windows phones (I’m not seeing them on the street) and the company’s Surface tablet line has been a dismal flop.
The new deal means Nokia is done, finished, gone. It will retain only its digital-mapping and network-equipment businesses and a handful of lottery tickets in the form of patent lawsuits; the smartphones and dumbphones go to Microsoft, where as head of the devices group Elop will (incredibly) continue to manage them even if he doesn’t succeed Ballmer.
One thing the change means is that we can expect the dumbphone side of the business (the part that, you know, made all the actual money back when Nokia made money) to be resource-starved and wound down even more rapidly than this was happening at Nokia. Because there is no place in Microsoft’s strategy for a business that doesn’t feed consumers to its Windows/Office cash cow, and there’s no effective way dumbphones can do that.
But I don’t really see how acquiring Nokia’s smartphone business gives Microsoft any advantage it didn’t already have under its previous sweetheart deal with the company. Well, unless Ballmer somehow thinks 0.5% market share is worth paying $2.2 billion for, which would be exceptionally stupid even by his chair-throwing, monkey-grunting standards.
If Elop was a mole, what were his instructions? “Elop. Go forth. Destroy Nokia so we can buy things we already effectively control for huge amounts of money.” Sense this makes not.
I’m put in mind of the wave of mergers in the 1980s among mainframe computer manufacturers, what we called at the time “dinosaurs mating”. Those didn’t make any sense either; when you merge two huge, doomed, inefficient thunder-lizards together you don’t tend to get a mammal.
Meanwhile – and of course – Android continues to stomp its competition flat. Even the post-Jobs Apple can’t stem the tide; it’s pretty close to the 10% niche market share I predicted back in 2009 already, with no sign that trend will or can be reversed.
What is pigging annoying here is that the N900 was a much better version of Linux on a phone than the replacement S4 think I’m having to put up with now. I’m still having to compromise on many things that have worked fine on the old phone for years :(
> dumbphone side of the business (the part that, you know, made all the actual money back when Nokia made money)
Nokia’s smartphone business was profitable up until the announcement of the Windows Phone strategy in February 2011. It’s made a loss ever since.
I’d be personally quite happy to see Elop become CEO and work his magic on Microsoft as a whole (= reduce the company to a smoking crater). Yesterday I’d have guessed that the MS board would never go for that, but apparently I don’t know anything.
Has tech-wars become an evolutionary milieu? If so, then Android may be the surrogate indicator for the eventual dominance of open source.
The buggy whips are fighting fiercely, but the King is dead.
Microsoft dead = Ubuntu and Mac OS compete for the lion’s share of the desktop and laptop computer market, other Linux distros get some portion of the server and embedded markets, and Android continues to dominate the smartphone/tablet market, with Apple a successful boutique player, and Ubuntu a growing threat. Cool.
Corporate dinosaurs take a while to die, however, so we’ll have Windoze to contend with for a number of years still. Unless Elop’s as bad as ESR thinks, in which case he may beat the averages.
@ESR
What?!? Your objection to the comscore numbers was when the showed Android flattening and US marketshare for Apple increasing slightly. Since then we’ve seen strong growth in Apple as reported by Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Kanter, Comscore continuing and Ender’s analysis. When price is not a factor, i.e. Americans on postpaid plans for example, go about 70/30 Apple/Android.
Moreover, your theory presupposed that carriers would decrease subsidy levels as less expensive Androids appears. As Verizon, AT&T and Sprint have all reported including in statements made under penalty of perjury their subsidy levels on phones have been increasing as they continue to see high priced phones as a way to sell telco services. This isn’t lost on carriers abroad and the idea of trying to import something like the USA model is being tried in several European and Indian markets, though they face structural hurdles that weren’t present in the USA.
I’m not sure how you could have been more wrong about Comscore. We have quarter after quarter of confirmation.
____
In terms of the rest of the post, as marketshare is being dominated by poorer and poorer people, no one cares about marketshare. As we move to the 2nd billion for smartphones the value of even advertising is not going to be worth the cost of providing Google services. Beyond that the numbers get incredibly stark. Google is not happy that Android is battling JavaVM for the bottom of the market. If marketshare were all that mattered, Nokia sells far more phones than Apple, they just sell cheap low margin phones at ever falling prices.
>And as for Elop: he masterminded what was probably the biggest destruction in shareholder value ever – and this is the guy who’s being talked of as Ballmer’s successor? Astonishing.
If the conspiracy theorists are right, said destruction of shareholder value was masterfully executed as part of his job at Microsoft, and has nothing at all to do with incompetence.
Here BTW is a very good recent image from Ben-Evans on what the handset market really looks like:
http://static.squarespace.com/static/50363cf324ac8e905e7df861/t/5225a3b2e4b0a46e5f1dcb0f/1378198451366/Screen%20Shot%202013-09-03%20at%209.53.44%20am.png
Meanwhile – and of course – Android continues to stomp its competition flat. Even the post-Jobs Apple can’t stem the tide; it’s pretty close to the 10% niche market share I predicted back in 2009 already, with no sign that trend will or can be reversed.
Not so fast. According to Kantar: “In every region examined, except for Germany and China, Apple grew its smartphone market share from July 2012 to July 2013, with the largest growth in the U.S. and Great Britain.”
Or Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP): “20 per cent of Apple’s iPhone customers over the past year were switching from an Android phone, but only 7 per cent of Samsung buyers had previously owned an iPhone.”
It looks like Android is growing largely because of people switching from dumbphones, but that transition happens only once. If Android users are less loyal than iOS users, and the numbers hold up, then (in the U.S. at least) iPhone ownership will exceed Android ownership by 2015..
From Tomi Ahonen’s blog:
Microsoft and Nokia … the first thought that came to mind this morning was “dinosaurs mating.” I’m glad someone else remembers that term and had the same thought re. these two companies.
And for all the M$ apologists who keep shouting “Revenue! Revenue! Revenue!” like a sweaty Ballmer, claiming that Microsoft is still the king because they make lots of money … remember that revenue trails relevance, often by years. Microsoft knows very well that the end of its monopoly is an existential threat to its entire business model. Microsoft does not know how to operate in a space it does not utterly dominate.
claiming that Microsoft is still the king because they make lots of money
For the last year or two, Apple has made more money (both gross and net) from the iPhone alone than Microsoft has made from everything they do.
I’ll say that I rather liked Maemo and never tried MeeGo, but I heard quite good things about the latter from the people who played with it. If you’re looking for a motive to slot into your conspiracy theory, it could be to prevent Nokia’s coming out with a successful non-virtualized Linux smartphone platform.
There has unfortunatly been little activity on the meego site since 2011. The maemo site is still active supporting those phones that are still working – which mine isn’t :(
@Ignatius
Baloney. During Ballmer’s rein Microsoft’s big areas of growth have been enterprise server. For example shifting SQL Server upmarket. When he took over SQLServer had a moderate share of the enterprise market and none of the higher end data warehousing. Now they are a major player at almost all tiers in that space. Another area has been unified communications (Lync). This is an area where Microsoft wasn’t even a player a decade ago and certainly wasn’t dominant. For that matter they aren’t even dominant in server operating systems Linux and other Unixes have nice share. They don’t dominate developer tools but Visual Studio continues to be a major player. They don’t dominate entertainment but XBox is a major revenue source, though not a profit source. Etc…
MeeGo is dead. Its successors are Tizen, backed by Samsung; and Sailfish, developed by Jolla, a company consisting of former Nokia engineers who were savvy enough to jump ship just after Elop set a course for an iceberg. (Hint: “jolla” means “dinghy” in Finnish.) Mer is a community-developed open source fork of the MeeGo core.
I read talk about MS targetting tablets more than phones. Their phone sales are only kept up by selling them below cost. Lumias were famously sold from bargain bins at Aldi stores in Europe (lowest price retailer in most of Europe).
Nokia had just announced to start making Windows RT tablets. So, maybe this is about tablets? Or it is all a smokescree.
In other news, changing a practice that’s been in place for more than 30 years, Microsoft did not seed developers with pre-release versions of the RTM bits for Windows 8.1.
Combine these two news stories, and start asking yourself which Open Source group managed to get control of the Orbital Mind Control Lasers from the NSA for a long weekend.
If this weren’t showing up on ZDNet and PCMag and the tech news sites, I’d think this was from The Onion.
@CD-host
“Since then we’ve seen strong growth in Apple as reported by Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Kanter, Comscore continuing and Ender’s analysis. When price is not a factor, i.e. Americans on postpaid plans for example, go about 70/30 Apple/Android.”
World wide market share for Android 80%. When pushed hard with price manipulation and cross subsidies, consumers in the USA are prefering BMW, sorry, iPhone. But that is just another way of saying that Android outsells Apple 7:1.
If money is all that counts, go for LVHM. For all others, the situation in the USA is simply an illustration of the effects of oligopoly and market manipulation.
Eric has been crying “Imminent Death of Microsoft Predicted!” for decades now. It still hasn’t happened. Until you can come up with a viable alternative to Word, Excel, and PowerPoint that’s usable by the decision makers of the world, Microsoft will not die.
There’s also one more thing: I call these Shenpen’s Iron Laws of OS Development because Shenpen has cited them as basic assumptions that users expect of any OS. Here they are:
* The OS will support any piece of hardware attached to the system on which it runs, out of the box.
* Any software written against a given version of the OS will run bit-identical on any later version.
The desktop OS that comes closest to meeting these two criteria is Windows. Apple has stopped caring, and Linux was always broken in this regard. The backwards-compatibility criterion is particularly important in a business setting: it makes far, far more sense to deploy Windows on business desktops because there is an implicit guarantee that any apps you buy will still run, after the original hardware and software have been replaced many times over. It’s one of the fundamental principles upon which Windows development is based.
Oh, horseshit. The rule of thumb always has been that Microsoft doesn’t get it right until version 3. Windows Phone 8 is, by all reports, a phenomenal OS, and is probably their “finally got it right” release (after the shitfests that were Windows CE and Windows Phone 7). The problem is app support; if Microsoft could really focus on the whole “developers! developers! developers!” bit and not make developing for Windows Phone such a pain in the ass, they could easily take back enough share to even surpass Android in wealthy markets like North America and Europe.
Android is a lot nicer than it was, but it still looks and feels like a cheap Chinese knockoff of iOS, which is what it’s so frequently used for and why it has such a high market share.
they could easily take back enough share to even surpass Android in wealthy markets like North America and Europe
That seems… optimistic.
@esr
So IDC is the Comscore replacement? You now consider their numbers reliable? If so, what changed to convince you of this?
>So IDC is the Comscore replacement? You now consider their numbers reliable? If so, what changed to convince you of this?
I suppose the implied assumption can be reasonably drawn from what I wrote, but in fact I don’t know of any market-survey outfit that I consider reliable enough to base a forecast on; IDC is no exception. I quoted IDC’s numbers because they’re what came up first in a Google search, and auxiliary to my main point – which is that Microsoft and ex-Nokia have screwed up really badly and no actual value is being created by this move.
Jeff, Microsoft just canceled a large chunk of TechNet subscriptions….
http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-responds-to-pressure-over-canceled-technet-subscriptions-7000020178/
I only THOUGHT I was joking in my prior post…
“The problem is app support; if Microsoft could really focus on the whole “developers! developers! developers!” bit and not make developing for Windows Phone such a pain in the ass, they could easily take back enough share to even surpass Android in wealthy markets like North America and Europe.”
Polite version: Jeff, that’s an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence to back it up. Please produce it.
No-so-polite version: Jeff, what are you smoking and where can I get some?
Impolite version: Jeff, you’re so full of shit it’s leaking out your ears.
What makes you think Windows can possibly overcome the rather large advantage Android and iOS have in that space? Why should a user who’s already committed to Android or iOS switch, including buying apps all over again and reworking their support infrastructure?
>Impolite version: Jeff, you’re so full of shit it’s leaking out your ears.
As usual. Remember, this guy took “peak oil” seriously. Mocking laughter is more than appropriate.
Word, Excel and PowerPoint usable by the decision makers of the world? They are not usable by anybody. Office 2010 is one of the worst quality sw I’ve ever seen in my life. Now they not only refuse to go to the bottom of the window-stack upon minimize, there is no way to tell if they are in focus. Decades of Office menu hotkeys skills? Good bye. Welcome ribbon.
The OS supports any piece of hardware out of the box? My Win7 laptop at the office has no sound at all after a standby. As opposed to my home laptops with Linux Mint, where everything just works.
Take it from somebody who uses both on a daily basis: the fragmented, unstable Linux desktop is far far superior to Windows. But I think I should stop feeding the trolls. Now.
Of the Microsoft Office suite components, I use Word because the majority of my publishers expect Word files. I use its version compare and change tracking features.
Excel is amazing. Nothing in the Open Source world even comes close to a third of what Excel does.
PowerPoint is why the Microsoft executive team is going to spend all of their afterlives staring at 4-plex slideshows, and only wishing they were getting a red-hot poker up their ass.
I’m sure by “viable” you mean “perfect compatibility with Microsoft Office”? It’s a point that even Office fails at — if you have documents created 3 versions ago or older, all bets are off if an attempt will even be made by the program to open the thing.
If that’s not what you mean, I await how OpenOffice/LibreOffice are such failures :)
For what it’s worth, I personally view Word (and other word processors of the like) as being totally worthless; Excel and spreadsheets in general are nearly universally used as an idiot’s database. PowerPoint is probably the only salvagable part of it, and it’s not like presentations aren’t done anywhere else…
I’ve seen exactly one Windows Phone in the wild since MSFT rolled out WP7.
>I’ve seen exactly one Windows Phone in the wild since MSFT rolled out WP7
I’ve seen several in stores, but yes: only one in live use by an actual consumer, and that was two years ago.
What has this bought Microsoft?
Quite simply, I think: the continued manufacture of Windows Phone devices.
If the required for breakeven sales are 50mil devices/year, as Microsoft have themselves stated, then its’ quite obvious that Nokia’s smartphone division was quite a long way from being profitable once again. Also note that the Nokia-Microsoft licensing agreement was approaching renegotiation.
I think that what we can glean from this is that Nokia were planning to either wind down their smartphones division, or transition it to another OS (presumably Android). The root to profitability was too long and uncertain, and, importantly, it was hampering the ability of Nokia’s other profitable divisions (note that Nokia-Siemens Networks brought in something in the region of half of the company’s profits) to operate efficiently; for example, the damage to Nokia’s creditworthiness increasing the cost of debt for those divisions.
Nokia is now a slimmed down enterprise company, made up of NSN and their Here mapping division (nee NAVTEQ); and while the latter has a less certain future, it has a 10 year guaranteed revenue stream as a result of this agreement. Microsoft have taken on their phone divisions because they had no other way to keep WP8 in the marketplace.
Don’t knock NAVTEQ. Lotsa car makers use their data.
Anyone want to guess how much this was influenced by Google’s purchase of Motorola Mobility? Now all 4 major mobile platforms have captive hardware makers.
Winter, where did you see that Nokia was going to manufacture Windows RT tablets?
…
I can see the appeal to an end user, but I have no idea why you think these criteria are qualities of Windows.
The term “DLL Hell” didn’t originate from any of the Unix communities. People routinely recycle working Windows machines and peripheral hardware due to lack of driver support, often forfeiting their favorite software (or even their data!) in the process. People routinely make terrible business decisions based on garbage data generated from incompatible Excel versions. Microsoft’s current best practice for running old Windows applications is to run them on old versions of Windows in a VM–something any OS can do. A corporate Office or Exchange upgrade deployment is an enterprise-wide disaster with IT department PR spin that makes it sound like something the enterprise elected to do to itself. Every major release of Windows seems to include a new and just a little bit incompatible filesystem API, so new applications can create files in places that older applications can’t reach with their bit-identical backward compatibility layers.
Apple solves these problems for iOS by holding veto power over anything that might fail to meet the criteria, and making explicit the expectation that users will never own any software and therefore never have to worry about backward compatibility (they try to do it for OSX too, but their control over user and developer choices is less direct there). Developers (of software or hardware) pay for the privilege of targeting new Apple devices, and Apple forces them to sort out any compatibility issues before users are permitted to encounter them. By these two criteria (and maybe only these two), Apple is the clear winner here.
Apple got one thing right: Users expect service continuity, not backward compatibility. Backward compatibility can help achieve service continuity, but it’s not useful otherwise, and the extra code or hardware cost can be prohibitive. If backward compatibility was important, modern smartphones would have 25-pin D-shell RS-232 connectors on them so you could tether your laptop.
In business settings people just pay to upgrade, or learn to live under dead technology, or lose craptons of money by making poor technical decisions (a surprisingly popular option in the business world).
Jeff wrote: “The rule of thumb always has been that Microsoft doesn’t get it right until version 3. Windows Phone 8 is, by all reports, a phenomenal OS, and is probably their “finally got it right” release (after the shitfests that were Windows CE and Windows Phone 7).”
If you’re going to count Windows CE, you should also count Windows Mobile and Pocket PC. Heck, you might even want to add Windows for Pen Computing. Between all the major updates to all the products, Windows Phone 7 is NOT Microsoft’s “version 3” attempt at a mobile OS – it’s more like “version 20”.
Owen Shepherd isn’t the only one with his reasoning about the why’s of the deal:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-microsoft-really-bought-nokia-134644902.html
There’s a really good chance that he’s right.
>There’s a really good chance that he’s right.
I agree. If Nokia was getting ready to jump to Android internally, that would have been pretty good motivation for Microsoft to buy the phone business before it happened.
In fact, now I wonder if somebody on Nokia’s board didn’t push such a move internally as a way to push Microsoft into doing just that. If any group of people rationally benefits from this deal it’s Nokia shareholders; they get a big chunk of cash and a much smaller but relatively healthy business.
I’m sorry, Mr. Gore, but a well-funded and often-repeated lie is still a lie. Open source productivity apps reached parity with Microsoft several years ago, and the quality of Microsoft Office is now in decline as they cram “touch-friendly” UI down the throats of desktop users.
Eric has been crying “Imminent Death of Microsoft Predicted!” for decades now. It still hasn’t happened. Until you can come up with a viable alternative to Word, Excel, and PowerPoint that’s usable by the decision makers of the world, Microsoft will not die.
First a repetition of the succinct response: Jeff, you’re so full of shit it’s leaking out your ears.
And now to elaborate; Eric may have been predicting the death of MS somewhat early but “Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence” (Eliezer Yudkowsky).
No one is afraid of MS any more and hasn’t been for a long time, their two main competitors (Mac, Linux) are getting much bigger, and MS can’t copy a good idea that is half decent any more. The latter was the Big Microsoft Strength, they aren’t doing it
— Foo Quuxman
I suspect that the status quo was unsustainable. It still was within Nokia’s technical abilities to put Android on its phones instead of Windows Phone. I suspect there was a solid segment of the board that wanted to do just that, and Elop went to Microsoft and said, “I’ve got a board revolt on my hands. You can buy us, or Nokia’s going Android.”
And if Nokia went Android, Windows Phone would be completely dead.
Google has a mighty castle on a hill, search, but Microsoft and Apple used to control the approaches to the castle. Now they don’t any more. Google is perfectly happy to lose buckets of money on Android every year forever.
Microsoft and and apple were Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Now they are gone, their companies will fade into obscurity and irrelevance.
Ios is better, obviously better than Android, Windows obviously better than Linux – for the moment. But this will not last long.
Not yet they have not, but writing is on the wall.
I use LibreOffice, not because it is better, it is not, nor for ideological reasons, but because, seeing the writing on the wall, I choose to switch now to avoid getting content marooned in a dead format.
Re: seeing Lumias in the wild, the sales have been up in some specific markets outside of the US, such as Italy, the UK, and Finland, of course. I think the market share of WP has actually declined in the US even during the slight worldwide increase in recent months.
One small curiosity: the first person to get the boot in this deal seems to be Nokia’s head of design, Marko Ahtisaari. He’s frequently been suspected of having landed the job purely for his connections, as he is the son of Martti Ahtisaari, a former president of Finland and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Marko Ahtisaari has no training in design and had no background in the field before joining Nokia a couple of years ago. He sold his small startup to Nokia. Ahtisaari is now said to “become an entrepreneur”. The new head of design is Stefan Pannenbecker, who comes from within Nokia.
It’s some kind of a gesture that they actually bothered to take Elop and Ballmer all the way to Salo to host the conference call about the deal. Salo is the site of the original Mobira/Nokia phone factory, more than an hour’s drive away from the Nokia HQ in Espoo (next to Helsinki). Elop shut down the last of manufacturing at Salo last year, after he’d said he wouldn’t. There are some engineers and developers still working there, but I suspect they’ll be fired sooner rather than later. It’s a small town, quite a few of whose residents might want to lynch Elop at this point. Both he and Ballmer were careful to say the required platitudes about the greatness of Nokia and Finland. I don’t think it helped much.
“Open source productivity apps reached parity with Microsoft several years ago,”
Here’s a test. Can you create a resume in any of the OpenOffice-family variants in use these days (I can’t tell them apart without a scorecard), save it as .docx, and send it off to a recruiter without telling them and have them not notice?
@Jay
Why would a person put that in anything other than plaintext / PDF / HTML?
— Foo Quuxman
This is doable with a bit of care. An old trick that Linux hackers used to use was to compose an HTML resume, save it with a .doc extension, and send it to recruiters; Word would open it without blinking and the recruiter was usually none the wiser. (Most of them possess barely enough competence to drive Word adequately, let alone do things like determine that a candidate with C# experiences is well-qualified to work on .NET.)
Here’s a much more relevant test. You are given an arbitrary .docx from a boss, client, or other important business contact. You only have Open/LibreOffice. What do you see when you open it?
If the answer is anything except “exactly what you would have seen in Word” then OpenOffice fails the test. I’ve received documents for which the answer was “a blank page”.
I thought my emotional scars were fading…..but you had to bring this shit up again. My N900 tears were all-but-dried.
F U ESR
F U and your Android fanboidom to hell.
(Oh…that new Galaxy looks so good…………..F U ESR FU FU FU FU FU )
;)
With iOS 6 and 7 basically being blatent rip-offs of functionality Android already had, and iOS 7 in particular going as far to basically mimick the theme of Android 4.x, that claim is dubious at best. And Windows? Seriously? The only possible advantage it has is the capability to run applications never ported off the platform, assuming that your application doesn’t happen to work correctly in Wine.
Just goes back to my previous comment — that basing the viability of the office suite by its compatibility with Microsoft Office is extreme. No, “docx” isn’t a standard; Office Open was a farce of the standards committees and MS Office doesn’t even implement the “standard” to its letter. The state of it is hardly better than totally undocumented binary formats.
Plus, if the display is so important, why not just send a PDF? Pretty much everyone has a PDF reader of some sort. OpenOffice and MS Office both have PDF exporting capabilities, as well as several other programs, a CUPS PDF driver, and a few Windows PDF printer drivers; making them is not hard. Even better; if the formatting isn’t important, plain text will suffice perfectly well. Even MS Word can open plain text without issue. :)
Foo: I’ve been sending off PDFs, but have encountered at least two help wanted ads in the past week that specified Word format only.
Mike: “Just goes back to my previous comment — that basing the viability of the office suite by its compatibility with Microsoft Office is extreme.” No, it’s living in the real world.
I have never had any problems with my OO resume being transmitted as an Office doc.
I keep it simple, elegant and professional.
If I encounter recruiters that have problems, they are immediately discarded.
I wish I was in a position to discard recruiters.
Back in 2010 when I was applying to my current company, I put together my resume in LaTeX before handing it off to the recruiter as a PDF. The recruiter proceeded to OCR the PDF and convert it to a .docx without bothering to fix any of the OCR errors or correct any of the formatting that the OCR destroyed. I have no freaking clue why I still got that interview.
I’ll add to this office suite debate: the fact that people are still mentioning the ribbon UI 6 years after it debuted as an area in which (the lack of it in) open source office suites means they’re better, means they really haven’t spent any time talking to the average Office user.
See, my experience when asking people generally goes like this “Yeah, it sucked for a couple of weeks, but once you get used to it it really is better”
And you know what? They’re right. The “Home palette” is pretty much the main toolbar; while things that used to be consigned to menus are now surfaced in the available tabs. Useful features like styles, previously only visible through an opaque drop-down, are now highly visible. Commonly used features are bigger; less commonly used features smaller. Additionally, it’s context sensitive in a way which is not at all confusing.
It’s highly discoverable, rarely takes more clicks than the previous UI, and doesn’t make you do the precise tightrope walk that is menu navigation.
The traditional UI was a “perverse advantage” of a sorts back in 2007, in that it didn’t require any user retraining. These days, most users have been upgraded to one of the ribbon featuring versions of Office, and Office 2010/2013 make aOO/LibreOffice look particularly clunky.
Its’ time for a UI rethink. aOO integrating the work IBM did for Symphony will be a good start.
The version of MS Office I use at work has the ability to save in Open Document formats. I find this a major win, because an open format will always have free software implementations that use it. If MS can sell a better user experience and still be 100% interoperable with Star/Libre/OpenOffice/etc., then good for them.
I’ll have to try renaming an OO file with a .doc extension and see if the version of MS Word that groks Open Document just opens it up.
I don’t want to click a mouse (or even a touch pad, trackball, or that funky eraser-between-the-G&H-keys thing on my work ThinkPad) to navigate menus. I want to hit Alt, F for File, etc., and use my keyboard. But I’m one of those people who were dragged kicking and screaming to Excel because my fingers could do the Lotus 1-2-3 slash menus (which were also used to create macros) without looking most of the time, and I didn’t need any steenking mouse to do that at all.
AND GET OFF MY LAWN!
” Ios is better, obviously better than Android, Windows obviously better than Linux – for the moment. But this will not last long. ”
Am I missing something here?
Ios and Android are simply other desktops on top of Linux … just like KDE and Gnome … scratch under the hood and all are the same. When my lads have problems with their mac’s is linux tools which fix them. It would be nice if they all followed the spirit of open source – and to my mind the license on Linux – and made things cooperate better and a lot more open?
That said .. I’m now on Libreoffice via OO and Lotus having never had to use MSOffice and everything works fine between mac, linux and even windows … only android is not playing ball here. A lot of my customers are still tied to MSOffice, but they send me their documents and I TRANSPARENTLY convert them to PDF in LO for the websites. We even use LO to ‘convert’ the old MSOffice documents into tidier ones new versions of MSOffice can use. I run Eclipse for development and even that is transparent across the board …
How many corporate sites are now running ‘virtual’ systems where the applications are not run on the ‘terminal’ at all … why pay for windows licences and now pigging W7 upgrades for those machines when they are just thin clients? All of my own on site systems only need a browser on the client and that could just as easily be an Android tablet or Linux box as an expensive windows box? I’m currently being told I have to upgrade machines to W7 on sites to comply with new ‘security’ rules, but the contract requires that the customer supplies the new licenses. I don’t think that is unfair since there is no change in any functionality. OH we need new machines since the old one’s will not even install W7 but there is nothing wrong with the hardware – it runs XP fine!
M$ has simply priced themselves out of the market and now IT departments need to accept that?
@SPQR
“Winter, where did you see that Nokia was going to manufacture Windows RT tablets?”
There are many reports on this “rumor”, e.g.,
http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/26/4659436/nokia-sirius-windows-rt-tablet-specifications
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/08/the-only-thing-worse-for-nokia-to-do-than-launch-a-tablet-now-is-to-launch-a-windows-based-tablet.html
> Ios and Android are simply other desktops on top of Linux …
> just like KDE and Gnome … scratch under the hood and all are the same.
Ahh, no.
iOS is a deeply locked-down proprietary userspace on top of a modified Mach kernel (which questionably implements Unix, and includes some other bits from BSD). It is not Linux. Ditto OSX, the utilities for which are BSD-derived, not Linux/GNU.
While it’s nice to see Linux having the mindshare to be generic branded to any Unix-y system, it’s incorrect to explicitly conflate them.
“iOS is a deeply locked-down proprietary userspace on top of a modified Mach kernel”
Getting mixed up there with OSX of cause :( … mac’s not ixxx devices … but OSX does play ball with my linux stuff so is not that disconnected.
Hell, I’d be happy if i was confident that MS Office could do that. But i’m not.
I’ve had to work too long on crowbarring a letter templating system into word mail merge to have anything but contempt for its abilities, and more importantly the abilities that it conditions people to use.
Excel is pretty good, but in the same way that Visual Studio is “pretty good”. In the spaces it gets used it doesn’t have a lot of competition but objectively it’s actually pretty retarded but it’s not a space i want to waste time on.
Just like all really shitty interfaces that people are forced to spend a lot of effort to learn to maintain their job, the replacement is resisted by those that spent the effort and welcomed by those who haven’t.
From my experience there is an obvious correlation between any given user’s answers to the questions “On a scale of 0 to 5, what do you think of Ribbon?” and “On average, how many menus did you look in to find any given feature?”.
About Nokia: how “nice” of them to separate the “IP” department from sale to Microsoft, so that it can be ligitious patent-troll-like (without phone business which could be counter-threatened), and so Microsoft has second front in patent wars.
About ribbon interface: deeply nested menus have their disadvantages, but ribbon interface is not without faults; perhaps I am not using MS Office often enough, but it is damn annoying to use, especially to search and find where the hell needed function is…
About iOS vs Android: I wonder if there are any data about profit-share or revenue-share instead of market-share…
@Jeff @Jay @ESR what can you today on a Windows PC that you cannot or requires geeky tricks to don an Ubuntu PC? Play a million excellent games, open and edit office documents other people send you from MS Office reliably including macros, and run specialized applications meant for a given job, MS Dynamics-NAV if you are an accountant, AutoCAD if you are an engineer etc. but this later is getting thinner due to web based clients and more open save file formats.
This will determine whether Windows tablets live or die. If I can’t save my CV without having it look funny for the idiot recruiter who demands it in .docx, if I can’t in-depth quality games, and for example NAV has a web client, there are no reasons to use it at all.
Perfectly non-technical, all-Microsoft offices are more and more using Android and iPad tablets, people just buy one for fun, realize they might as well read and write their mail on it, if whatever business app they are using has a web based UI they log in from it, and end up spending a sizeable chunk of their work time in these devices. Things got open enough that they don’t feel the need of Windows-only apps so much.
I have the impression that there is a change even in the mentality of nontechnical users. Formerly it was “I want to use this app, can I install it on your OS?” Now it is more like “I have a Gmail account, do you have a nice app for it in your device?” if yes nobody cares if it is Windows-based or Unix-based or whatever-based. Or like “can I phone my Skype contacts from your device?” again they don’t care if the actual app is Skype or not.
Windows phones will live or die based on the tablets, because people don’t want switch between many different user interfaces and logic all the time, and the majority of app use moves to tablets. If and when people will buy Windows tablets then they will buy Windows phone just for the sake of simplicity.
Many recruiters and hiring companies require Word format. Virtually every recruiter I contacted, if I sent them a PDF they’d say “If you could just shoot me that resume back in word, that would be terrific.”
(recruiters almost never “send” emails — they “shoot” them)
“If you could just shoot me that resume back in word, that would be terrific.”
My response is always something along the lines of “If a PDF will not suffice, then I’m not sure we can work together.” They almost always relent. I make sure whatever PDF I send them doesn’t have the text preserved. Recruiters will copy bits from your resume for other candidates, and they will edit your resume before sending it. This is a complete no-no for me. If they have advice on how I could change my resume for the better, I’m willing to listen. To give them the opportunity to misrepresent me is foolish.
With a couple of exceptions that prove the rule, recruiters are a bunch of bottom-feeding parasites that do nothing but suck value out of professional salaries. They deserve exactly zero respect.
As wretched and unpopular as Windows 8 is on desktops, it’s actually quite usable on the Surface Pro. The Surface Pro is an x86-based Windows tablet and can run all Windows applications. But even the Windows RT ones come with Office, whose constituents are currently the only Win32 applications officially supported on Windows RT. So opening and reading Word docs is not a problem for Windows tablets.
@esr
>I suppose the implied assumption can be reasonably drawn from what I wrote, but in fact I don’t know of any market-survey outfit that I consider reliable enough to base a forecast on; IDC is no exception. I quoted IDC’s numbers because they’re what came up first in a Google search, and auxiliary to my main point – which is that Microsoft and ex-Nokia have screwed up really badly and no actual value is being created by this move.
I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but these seem like the wrong numbers to quote in support (especially if you don’t think they’re reliable ;) ).
You’re making a business argument, and to characterise the smartphone market in terms of platform market share is to miss its fundamental nature (again, if you’re interested in the business perspective).
From this perspective the true dichotomy of the smartphone market is not iOS vs Android but Apple vs Samsung. Nobody else is making any serious money at this game.
Your argument would have been better supported by quoting handset-maker market share. Or – better still – *profit* share.
Don’t worry: neither Microsoft nor Nokia fares well when judged by that metric either. ;)
@Winter
Comscore data is only about the USA it isn’t a global marketshare report. The debate about Comscore is a debate about the USA market. Arguing that the US market reflects manipulations is agreeing that Comscore is fundamentally right. You aren’t disagreeing me with on that, you are disagreeing with Eric.
As for 80% Android I think you are using the IDC numbers which include very low end Android phones and exclude phones like the Asha . So I think the numbers are off.
That being said, the number is regardless of how you count really high and rapidly growing for what percentage of phones with data plans are using Android. Smartphone growth is happening further and further down market. Apple it appears is likely to announce a phone at the $300-400 price point as a major concession for the mid range. But they have no play at $90 where the bottom of data phones exist. iOS 7 is very resource consumptive. If the question is marketshare Apple has no intention of playing in that market, a market that could easily grow to a 1/2 billion phones per year within the next few years. So FWIW yeah, Android owns that market globally.
Owen Shepherd on 2013-09-03 at 22:30:57 said:
This is the defense I hear of vi, the command line, Linux’s sixteen billion configuration text files, and editing command lines with vi into sixteen billion configuration text files.
OK if you live in Word, as some people do. If you don’t, it is months, not weeks, and you never quite pick it all up.
Jakub Narebski on 2013-09-04 at 10:55:06 said:
>
Google does not give a tinker’s dam about revenue share. It wants to deny Microsoft and Apple control of the road to its search service. It wants mindshare. It is happy to lose buckets of money forever on Android
@Aaron
“Recruiters will copy bits from your resume for other candidates, and they will edit your resume before sending it.”
Indeed they will. More than once I’ve been phone screening a candidate and experienced that awkward silence when we simultaneously realize what has happened. I’m asking questions about some “skill” listed on their resume and they’re doing their best to dodge the questions while not looking completely foolish. Sadly, this has happened even after we explicitly told the recruiter that we weren’t interested in pattern matching against a specific set of “skills” other than “programming”.
“I let the series lapse when I concluded that the source I was using for U.S. market share figures had likely disconnected from reality (and more recent surveys from other sources suggest I was right).”
Bwahaha, still utterly delusional. Is it really that hard to admit that the US market is different from other markets?
@Jay Maynard: “Now all 4 major mobile platforms have captive hardware makers.”
This is the first time this has been pointed out. It seems to me that this has real implications. Are we moving to a world where having control of at least one implementation of the hardware platform on which your software platform is necessary (or perceived to be necessary) for strategic reasons?
It’s a world in which Apple is making boatloads of money and their competitors are trying to imitate them.
Thank you, my good friend Winter.
Turns out Samsung gets higher device subsidies by percentage than Apple. It’s just awful how Apple is warping the US marketplace. Of course, we’re reading market analysis by a guy who just accepts the first numbers that pop up in a Google search, so…
Anyway, making any bets before September 11th is dumb. If you don’t think Apple can do low cost devices, you don’t remember the iPod. Whether or not they will is another question entirely. But it’d be a good time for it, to say the least.
Subsidy numbers: http://www.talkandroid.com/166864-samsung-found-to-have-higher-device-subsidies-than-apple-htc/
The Nokia acquisition cost Balmer a forced early exit.
> … the smartphones and dumbphones go to Microsoft.
Incorrect. The feature phones stay with Nokia, as does the Nokia brand (though they can’t use it until 2015).
“Under the terms of Microsoft’s $7.2 billion acquisition of Nokia’s devices and services division, the “Asha” and “Lumia” trademarks will transfer to Redmond, but the “Nokia” mark will remain property of the Finnish company, and may only be used on featurephones running the basic Series 30 and Series 40 operating systems under a 10-year license agreement. (Nokia itself is barred from using the Nokia brand on any mobile devices at all until December 31st, 2015.) ”
Watch out if the soon to be independent Dell merges with Microsoft. Then Microsoft really will be a ‘devices and services’ company. You can bet that PCs from Microdell would have the SecureBoot functionality tied down such that alternative operating systems will not boot.
FapayaSF
Google, the number one player, is not trying to imitate them, and does not need to do so.
You gain mindshare before you make lots of money, and you make the most money while losing mindshare.
Android was a Blackberry clone before the iPhone, then became more like iOS. Google was software and services, and now moves into hardware. Both strike me as moving in Apple’s direction. I’m sure there are other examples.
I see no evidence that Apple is “losing mindshare.”
Google just forked android by moving about a third of the APIs into the closed source Google Play Services apk. When App devs code against GPS APIs those apps will cease to work on non-branded android (i.e. kindle, baidu phones, any future amazon phones, etc).
Interesting move and a much needed one but it pretty much admits that open source Android did not meet the strategic goal of securing Google’s “control of the road”. In China that Android road lead to Baidu and not Google. Likewise on Kindle that road lead to Amazon and not Google. It also turned a close strategic partner into a bitter rival.
There you go: another way in which they are becoming more like Apple.
“Anyway, making any bets before September 11th is dumb. If you don’t think Apple can do low cost devices, you don’t remember the iPod. Whether or not they will is another question entirely. But it’d be a good time for it, to say the least.”
Even without the low cost iPhone, Apple is doing quite well in the US and other major markets as pointed out above. The only disconnection from reality is ESR’s denial that Apple really does have 40% market share in the US since pretty much every single source reports that and the carrier sales numbers are in line with that number.
If Apple does release a lower cost iPhone it will probably gain a few points in those developing markets but even the “lower cost” iPhone wont be low cost and probably $400-$500 vs $600-700.
Which means the majority of the impact will likely be seen in the US and Europe since it’s a mid tier smartphone. Grabbing market share of near zero ARPU users doesn’t do much for either Apple or iOS developers. Grabbing market share of mid tier users healthy if somewhat lower ARPUs than existing iPhone users will continue to drive revenue growth for Apple and iOS devs alike.
Not saying i don’t believe you but do you have a technical(i.e.something closer to release notes rather than a press release) link for this?
Closest thing i could find was talking about GPS moving into play which is somewhat unsurprising really.
Thats funny, i did a search for android apps that got banned for not using the Android UI layer, Java or for competing directly with official Google apps, and couldn’t find any stories about that. Perhaps you could provide some links?
Koushik Dutta, an Android developer, complained that Google had intentionally blocked an application he had created that would allow people to stream to Chromecast directly from their phones. This would allow people to watch whatever content they had on their mobile devices – a logical service, it seems, but a step too far for Google, apparently.
“The policy seems to be a heavy-handed approach, where only approved content will be played through the device,” wrote Dutta. “The Chromecast will probably not be indie developer friendly. The Google TV team will likely only whitelist media companies.”
@CD-Host
” The debate about Comscore is a debate about the USA market. Arguing that the US market reflects manipulations is agreeing that Comscore is fundamentally right.”
Indeed, and the point is that the USA market is unimportant. It does not tell you what the other 7B humans are using, nor how the future will look. So there is little reason to follow the development of the USA market.
@CD-Host
“As for 80% Android I think you are using the IDC numbers which include very low end Android phones and exclude phones like the Asha . So I think the numbers are off.”
And if you include the Asha, why leave out all the other phones? You have to draw the line somewhere. And that line was drawn between feature phones and smartphones before the Asha existed. And the Asha is considered a feature phone. If you start messing with that distinction, you should simply use all mobile phones. See below. As almost all users people are going to migrate to smartphones anyway, it is a good idea to use total handset sales.
The result is, Android is now 40% of total handset sales. Asha is below 1%.
Sales for 2012
Total handsets: 1.7B
Android: 497M = 29%
iOS: 136M = 8%
Windows phone: 18M = 1%
http://mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats/a#phone-shipments
Sales for Q2 2013
Total handsets: 435M
Android: 178M = 41%
iOS: 32M = 7.4%
Windows phone: 7M = 1.6%
Asha: 4.3M = <1%
Gartner
https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2573415
“I’m asking questions about some “skill” listed on their resume and they’re doing their best to dodge the questions while not looking completely foolish.”
I learned a long time ago to answer questions about skills I have honestly. If someone asks me if I have any Java experience, for example, I tell them I don’t, but I do have experience in these other languages and a demonstrated track record of picking up new technologies quickly. Yeah, it probably costs me jobs, but not as many as you’d think, and it’s better to not oversell yourself lest you find you’ve made promises you can’t keep – which is not good for anyone.
@nigel
$400-500 is still the high end of the market. Midrange is more like $250. Apple already has a $400-500 offering the 2 generation behind phone (iphone 4 on the day I’m writing this, soon the 4S) retails at $450. It is far cheaper both new and used from other sellers. The rumors have Apple coming in around $350 or below to genuinely compete in the mid range.
@Winter —
I’m not sure where you are getting those numbers from the links. Asha does about 30m annually. As for why include Asha, it is a question of using the same metric. A huge percentage of those 470m (again I’m not sure about 490m) Androids sold have limited data and limited functionality. They aren’t being used or sold as “smartphones” with features like mobile internet. You’ve made the claim before a basic web browser is the cut off, well many of those Asha have better web functionality than those Androids do.
Again, I think “smartphone” is a totally artificial category, and there is no firm line between feature phone and smartphone. I would just break at price points which today look like:
$300+
$150-299
$90-150
$90-
We have 4 markets with some overlap and different players in each. There isn’t much reason to combine them.
@CD-Host
I gave the links for the sales numbers. The link for the Asha sales are below. And you seem to want to argue that low-cost Android phones are, somehow, not really Smartphones. Then just use the total handset sales like I did.
And Asha sales are around 5M/quarter
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/18/nokia-q2-2013/
> However, the Asha division saw sales slip down from 5 million last quarter to 4.3 million now.
In short, sales are on track to give almost all humans an Android handset over the next five years. The remainders will have an iPhone. There will be some isolated people using anything else.
I wouldn’t call Elop an idiot – he executed his plan with brilliance: killed meego in its cradle while at the same time killing symbian which could help Nokia to stay afloat while meego matures. I would’t be surprised to learn that he also developed that plan. This kind of work requires not only complete lack of ethics but a very well working brain as well.
> Microsoft and ex-Nokia have screwed up really badly and no actual value is being created by this move
Hold on a moment – that’s only valid for countries with more or less normal patent system. In US, where legislation actively endorse and protects patent trolls it’s opposite: MS got themselves huge pile of patents cheaply. Patents which definitely will be put to work in attempt to conquer markets in non-competitive ways. Apple is not the only company who can play this kind of game ;-)
Ok you do raise an interesting case but if you read a little deeper a couple of interesting points emerge.
Firstly, this has nothing to do with an application being banned from Google Play. Koushik’s exact words were “Heads up. Google’s latest Chromecast update intentionally breaks AllCast.” That is to say that Google has modified the Chromecast end, not the Android end nor the Play store.
Secondly, it’s worth pointing out that this is also not “competing with Google Apps” as this is apparently a frequently commented on hole in the Chromecast feature set. Perhaps they’re planning to eventually but that just leads us to the third point.
Finally, Koushik is reverse engineering a beta protocol. Anyone who expects updates to not screw with unacknowledged third party hacks is being just a bit retarded. Now i don’t really believe that this was business as usual change, but by the same token we also don’t know how much Koushik was abusing the protocol. Maybe it was a security violation? We also don’t know if it will stay that way. Maybe in one months time this wouldn’t have been an issue.
Now i’m not going to argue that this is the best use of Google’s largesse nor am I saying that we should be praising them from on high for they can do no wrong, as a corporation Google is effectively sociopathic and MPD almost by definition. But lets at least allow a bit of reality to seep into the Google hate.
I am surprised ESR can’t see the reason behind the Nokia acquisition. During the last months, there was intense dissapointment among Nokia shareholders about the Windows Phone strategy, and there were talks about a new CEO. MS was afraid the shareholders would bring a new CEO and have him make an Android Nokia (just imagine a Nokia phone with Stock Android and PureView) or even bring back Jolla or MeeGo.
So MS just bought the productive parts of Nokia’s consumer branch, save for the Here maps department, which is doing free R&D for MS anyway. And I really hope Nokia doesn’t give investors much from this sale, because they brought in Elop in the first place.
@Winter: …the point is that the USA market is unimportant. It does not tell you what the other 7B humans are using, nor how the future will look. So there is little reason to follow the development of the USA market.
I think you’re wrong. The American market often tells you how the (technological) future will work in the rest of the world. All those Android phones aren’t being sold in the rest of the world because people are committed to open source OSs, it’s because they are cheap. Many if not most of those people would buy iPhones if they could afford it, and incomes do tend to rise over time, and iPhone users are proving to be much more platform-loyal than Android users.
As I’ve said in other threads, I expect Android to dominate the low end of the market, but still don’t see Apple being pushed into a “luxury niche” or irrelevance any time soon. Look at the figures I posted near the very top of this thread.
@PapayaSF
In mobile, cell, phones, the USA has consistently trailed the rest of the world. IIRC, even the iPhone succeeded first outside the USA. If you want to see the future in mobile, go to Korea.
American telecommunications in general lag behind the rest of the world because America doesn’t know how to infrastructure. Back when AT&T was a sanctioned monopoly, America’s telecommunications infrastructure was world class. Now we have competition, sure — but we have neither government ownership nor sufficient regulatory oversight to ensure common ground and a level playing field for the competitors. Which is why we pay over $100 a month for shitty, spotty internet service and Europeans pay 40 euro a month for excellent service.
@Jeff Read: Impressively close to be so thoroughly wrong. AT&T as a national monopoly held communications back for decades to preserve its high-margin business (“hot phones”, anyone?), and the precise problem now is that the local telcos and cable companies have government monopolies on their respective last-mile layer-1 technologies; in a few areas where citizens have managed to get the franchises canned, FTTP ISPs have quickly jumped in (not just Google; there have been coops and at least two startup for-profits that were on Slashdot).
Rumor had DoCoMo and China Mobile adding the iPhone to their lineup.
iOS share should go up in both countries. Actually it’s surprising that iOS has 17-24 (gartner and kantar numbers) percent share in China without China Mobile. A mid tier iPhone will also help.
Winter, a US app dev doesn’t care what the market share of iOS is in Zimbabwe. No more than a Chinese app dev cares. They both care about market share in their primary marketa.
The US market is also highly important because of the much higher ARPU of each customer.
In any case, the US market was what ESR and you were crowing about until iOS started to take share from Andriod. Then all of a sudden the US market doesn’t matter and ESR dropped the whole Apple is doomed from disruption angle since it was clearly wrong.
Apple continues to gain share and doesn’t look like it will be imploding any time soon.
>Then all of a sudden the US market doesn’t matter and ESR dropped the whole Apple is doomed from disruption angle since it was clearly wrong.
Nice fantasy planet you live on. Maybe you’ve moved in next door to JAD?
So in the Iphone vs Android wars I have one comment. I have recently heard more than one person explain to someone else that the ditched their iPhone for a Samsung. This is random listening to people on the plane/in the airport etc. This is not something I have ever heard before about Apple products.
It has never ever made sense to me that Nokia would not develop an Android phone. Things like their monster camera are reasons why I would like to buy a Nokia phone, but I’m not going to do it if the phone is not Android because there simply aren’t the apps I want. Or at least there weren’t last time I looked.
Regarding Office alternatives – google drive/docs are an excellent replacement that work just fine on Android or any PC running any OS with a browser. I have not yet had any problems exchanging data with office people. But I admit I haven’t done this with large complex spreadsheets or similar. The Office 2007/10 ribbon still annoys the crap out of me. Despite using it for years, I still spend ages trying to figure out what ribbon has the thing I want now and again. Moreover it takes up way too much space and you can’t (well I can’t) reduce it to something smaller.
Google’s Android reaches 1 billion device activation milestone
http://androidcommunity.com/googles-android-reaches-1-billion-device-activation-milestone-20130903/
Sundar confirmed that Android has now exceeded the 1 billion device activations milestone, something we all figured would arrive at some point in late 2013 or early next year. Instead, the growing Android ecosystem in the US, and elsewhere, especially emerging markets has kept Android on top. Google’s own Eric Schmidt said we’d probably get to 1 billion by the end of the year, so congrats to the entire Android team.
@Nigel
“Winter, a US app dev doesn’t care what the market share of iOS is in Zimbabwe. ”
The lack of interest is mutual: People in Zimbabwe do not care about app developers working for the iPhone, neither do I. If you are interested is money, you might consider following LVHM.
I understand that some people follow Apple because that is where they make their money. Others follow fashion shows for the same reason.
I think getting the people of Africa, or Asia, onto the Internet is interesting for reasons that go beyond the question of how much money you can extract out of them in the short term.
Nokia was well fucked long before Elop. They relied for too long on Symbian-Turd, failing to see it could never be good enough in a touch world. The reaction to the iPhone was “We tried touch screens before, customers didn’t like it”.
2005 they had the 770 Tablet, basically a proto-iPad. If they had gone all in with Maemo, clearly declaring it the future of Nokia, and fully deprecating Symbian-Turd, they might have had a chance. Instead they pissed it away with a partnership with mobile-loser Intel, delaying progress for years. There was also the channel stuffing, destroying credibility with carriers and retail chains.
I know some Nokia fans see the burning platform memo as destroying Nokia handset business (I think it only accelerated its destruction), but its basic premise was correct. There is nothing to indicate any other course than Windows Phone would have fared better.
Actually, largely because of the iPhone’s success in the US, the US has caught up and surpassed most nations in smartphone adoption, data rate, and most major metrics of mobile penetration.
There are a few metrics where Korea or a few countries may slightly outpace the US, but not many and not by much any longer. (For example, China surpassed the US in total smartphone subscribers but still significantly lags on a per capita basis and even more significantly lags in 3G and 4G adoption.)
A couple of quick links:
http://www.broadbandforamerica.com/blog/us-leads-europe-high-speed-deployment-%E2%80%93-new-gsma-report
http://mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats/a#topmobilemarkets
And everyone I know in Europe has greater complaints about cost of data than in the US because… you may pay only 20 Euros a month but you may be restricted to only 100mb of data, for example.
@PapayaSF
Oh, yes, that.
Google didn’t want people using their pre-production SDK for Chromecast to publish apps to end-users yet, since the API is still under development. You don’t want an API misfeature to get set in stone because somebody distributes a popular app that uses it while you’re still in testing, after all. So they set up a whitelist that prevented end-users from using apps made with the pre-production SDK.
Dutta wanted to push to end users an app that used that in-development, not-yet-for-end-user-release API, and so spoofed the whitelist.
So, Google fixed the whitelist to not be spoofable.
So Dutta invented a conspiracy theory about Google locking down the Chromecast.
Which you’ve now repeated third-hand sans context.
@Bryant:
> Turns out Samsung gets higher device subsidies by percentage than Apple.
That. is. the. silliest. metric. ever. At least the way you’re trying to use it (to show that Apple doesn’t garner higher subsidies.)
From the same article:
“While Samsung and HTC are worse for carriers from a percentage standpoint, Apple still leads the way with a higher $110 average subsidy cost in actual value.”
That you phrase it thus indicates you don’t have the slightest understanding of why it’s a better way to operate.
There isn’t “the command line”; *nix offers many choices of command lines, from the venerable sh and its descendents ksh and bash, to some … exotic variants. The true power of the command line is that each of the command interpreters not only allows immediate command execution, but it allows commands to be built into scripts so that a system administrator can do things that would otherwise require compilation of a custom binary or painful repetitive point-n-grunt.
It isn’t about vi other than the fact that vi exists on every *nix system. It’s about the freedom to use any editor, including things like sed and perl, or a GUI front end, to manipulate the settings that in other OSes are only available by painful repetitive point-n-grunt.
And the value of the many configuration files is that they allow finer granularity than a few large files would provide. Just today I had occasion to respond to a vulnerability scan on two servers I’m responsible for by tweaking an Apache setting. I could have written the setting to the main httpd.conf file, but because that file has an include directive for conf.d, I instead wrote a small security.conf file to that directory, including just that setting and some comment lines explaining why it needs to be set. That way the next time an upgrade overwrites httpd.conf, my changes will remain in force.
And I just got done running a script that handles the tricky business of stopping dozens of application servers so that a DBA could update Oracle. If I had to manually do all of that crap, it would have taken me hours rather than minutes (most of which was me watching the script do its job).
And if you think “millions” of config files are bad, have you looked at the Registry lately? That putrid pile of excrement is impenetrable.
@Tim F
“you may pay only 20 Euros a month but you may be restricted to only 100mb of data, for example.”
Depending on how many minutes you want to speak, I can get 1GB for 21 euros. With 50 minutes/SMS a month, I can get 200MB for only 7 euros. The only real problem is that prices sky rocket when I cross the border, i.e., 0.54 euro/MB. However, in practice I am only abroad a few weeks a year. Also, free WiFi is becoming rather ubiquitous.
http://www.simonlyabonnement.nl/
I don’t see how the subsidy stats are SILLY when the point that you and others are trying to make is that Apple is uniquely exploiting the American subsidy market and for that reason alone they are succeeding in America.
It’s no one’s fault but Samsung that they make several low cost models. Not Apple’s. So Samsung makes several phones that cost $300-400 and they get subsidized 100% to $ZERO… they make a couple of phones that cost $600-700 that get subsidized to $200-300. Apple makes far fewer phones with an average cost of $650 that get subsidized to $0-500… warranting a higher subsidy by virtue of having the most desirable phone and likely lower support and marketing costs… and they have the most expensive phones (maybe not the absolutely most expensive phone, but certainly when including the entire phone portfolio). Apple isn’t to blame if Samsung isn’t getting a $500 subsidy on a $300 phone, that’s just absurd. But the point still holds that Samsung receives higher carrier benefit as a total percentage of their costs (a large mix of products receiving 100% or near 100% subsidy and a smaller mix of high-cost products that receive 50-70% subsidy that may or may not be lower than Apple subsidies as an actual $ value) than Apple. That is, Apple is asking its customers to pay more of their costs than Samsung is. Samsung gets more of their costs reimbursed by the carriers contractually rather than via customers willing to pay.
To state it more generally, the general thrust of the oft-used subsidy argument seems to me to be flawed in two fundamental ways.
1. People claim it is “artificial.” I only see natural market forces at play, not artificial constraints.
2. People claim Apple has a unique crutch. However, if the only thing that is unique is that a $700 device gets a $500 subsidy and there are other competitors getting $400 subsidies on less desirable $600 devices and many, many, many more devices getting much higher percentage subsidies that are less than $500 (80-100%), than you’re largely commenting on the above natural market forces and each companies individual product marketing strategy. Yes, Apple benefits from a $500 subsidy on a $700 device… Likewise, Samsung benefits from $300 subsidies on $300 devices. Apple’s unique advantage is also their unique disadvantage.
#2 reduces the subsidy arguers needing to argue that Apple doesn’t deserve a subsidy that is higher on absolute terms but lower on relative terms; however, the market reality disagrees with them.
“Depending on how many minutes you want to speak, I can get 1GB for 21 euros. With 50 minutes/SMS a month, I can get 200MB for only 7 euros.”
That first obfuscatory clause and the fact that there’s a 40% discount on the data in comparison to the second sentence/contract suggests that that first plan option must be horribly unattractive.
None of what you say is out of line with what I’m aware of. There are many options and those options vary from EU state to EU state. As I said, most of my EU friends, who are admittedly more like US data consumers, prefer their choices but prefer our prices (because they are big data consumers). Certainly, they aren’t immune to loathing their carrier’s service.
I too attribute a great deal of value to fixed broadband networks and 802.11 wireless networks supplementing mobile broadband. But, of course, the US is generally ahead in those areas as well.
@Tim F.
“That first obfuscatory clause and the fact that there’s a 40% discount on the data in comparison to the second sentence/contract suggests that that first plan option must be horribly unattractive.”
No, speech time is expensive. The first option is 150 minutes of speech and unlimited SMS. The second is 50 minutes of speech/SMS (combined).
But I see I was comparing the wrong things. Here is a better list for SIM only prices:
50 minutes 50 SMS no data € 2.00
50 minutes 50 SMS 200MB data € 7.00
50 minutes 50 SMS 500MB data € 10.00
50 minutes 50 SMS 1GB data € 12.00
50 minutes 50 SMS unlimited data € 17.00
http://www.simonlyabonnement.nl/Youfone/
(note: there is some variation based on contract duration)
If you do not speak/SMS much, you pick one with mostly data. The link gives you all the options. Most people I know can get by with a couple of 100MB. But then, I do not know any people who watch streaming movies over 3G.
Again, Winter, not telling me much that I don’t know. Those rates look horrible. They look like single day usage stats, not contract plans. I have app update downloads bigger than half of your data allotments. You think I’m overspending; I think you don’t know what true, pervasive, unlimited 3G/4G data access really is.
Are you talking a single app or a large chunk of your apps at one time? Because if you are unsurprised by apps downloading more than 1/4 of their maximum size (2gb/4=500mb) as an update, then the iphone app market is more degenerate than i could possibly imagine.
@Tim F.
“I think you don’t know what true, pervasive, unlimited 3G/4G data access really is.”
17 euros/month.
Almost everyone I know does updates over WiFi. For one thing, Large 3G/4G downloads drain your battery fast. And where you have power outlets, you tend to have fast WiFi.
@Patrick: what Tim F. said.
“Nice fantasy planet you live on. Maybe you’ve moved in next door to JAD?”
Is it fantasy that Apple hasn’t imploded or that Apple has 40% share in the US? Both of which is opposite of what you predicted.
2010-04-22
And that means that over the medium term, two to three years out, Apple is in even more trouble than I thought.”
…
it doesn’t look offhand like anything about the iPhone is saving it from bleeding unit share right in parallel with Blackberry.
2010-05-11
“In the smartphone market I have been expecting a disruptive break that would body-slam Apple’s market share, but I expected it to be several quarters in the future and with a really fast drop-off when it happened. “
Three years later not so much.
2011-04-18
“The latest fashionable form of denial is “It doesn’t matter that Android is now the #1-selling smartphone in the U.S. and worldwide, Apple is making money hand over fist.” Heh. What this actually says to any long-time tech-industry watcher is: disruption from below succeeded, Apple marketshare and revenue collapse coming in 3, 2, 1…”
That’s a long assed count down from 2 and a half years ago. At rate of 1 per second we’re at T-plus 75,293,460…
2011-08-07
“The future is another country, of course, but right now it looks like those of us who thought that multicarrier iPhone was going to be largely unable to fix Apple’s long-term positioning problem were correct. The iPhone’s market isn’t exactly saturated in the normal sense, but sales volumes are only growing as fast as the smartphone userbase as a whole; the multicarrier ‘breakout’ only netted Apple about a 1% competitive gain, and that gain now appears to be over.
Apple is now relying on smartphones for 68% of revenue, so they’d be very vulnerable to an actual drop in marketshare. I’ve taken a lot of flak for saying the company looks like a late-stage sustainer with a principal product line about to experience disruptive collapse, but this is yet another straw in the wind. If next month’s figures show an actual share drop, expect it to be self-reinforcing and get the hell out of Apple stock.”
Apple share price closed on Aug 11 at 363.37. Even given the massive rise and equally massive fall it closed at $495.27 yesterday.
2011-08-25
“But I have been predicting since early 2011 that this would change in mid-3Q2011 – and the first signs of that change may be upon us now. WebOS is no more, Microsoft has arrested its slide, and after a tiny post-February bump Apple’s market share is flat again. There are several possible explanations for this, but one very likely one is that Android is now putting actual downward pressure on Apple’s market share.
…
I’ve said before that I think Apple looks just like sustaining incumbents often do just before they undergo catastrophic disruption from below and their market share falls off a cliff. “
2012-04-03
“The main thing I see in these numbers is that despite all the sound and fury about Apple’s record quarter, the 4S has failed to improve the iPhone’s competitive posture against Android. The fourth or fifth iteration of “this time for sure!” fizzled yet again. I’m sure we’ll hear the same breathless hype when the iPhone 5 issues, though, it seems to be evergreen.
In fact, the pressure on Apple has increased. What we know about winner-take-all effects in markets with positive network externalities suggests that when you’re facing supermajority competition, even slight erosions in market share tend to turn into self-reinforcing cascades as users defect to the safe majority choice.”
And now Apple is at 40% share and you went dark because the only one living in a fantasy world was yourself. When the data conflicted with your world view you didn’t change your world view, you simply claimed the data was wrong and stuck your fingers in your ears, scrunched closed your eyes and chanted LALALALALALA…I CAN’T HEAR YOU…COMSCORE BAD…
There never was any market share implosion for Apple. Apple never had majority share to begin with and has only gained share since it was one of the disruptors against the incumbents. You’ve been wrong for the last three years about Apple and it’s imminent demise.
Most of the folks you deride as “Apple fanboys” have always said that Android would do well but so would iOS. If all you ever said was “Android will end up with 50+% share of the smartphone market in the US and WorldWide.” few would have contested that prediction in 2010.
>it doesn’t look offhand like anything about the iPhone is saving it from bleeding unit share right in parallel with Blackberry.
And, in fact, nothing has saved it. Worldwide, no matter whose figures you look at, Apple is falling towards the 10% market share I predicted. In IDC’s figures it’s within statistical noise of that now. (And no, we shouldn’t overinterpret that; don’t bother pretending that I’m doing so.)
So, LALALALA…projecting, much? The disruption I predicted happened. Wrapped in a lot of fog, and maybe locally stalled by carrier subsidies in some places, but it happened. I’m not writing projections because I’m honest about the limits of my knowledge, but Apple can’t even dream about its billionth activation and I see more Nexus 7s than I do iPads.
>Three years later not so much.
So, um, when I acknowledge that the slope of decline was different than I was expecting because Apple got hurt sooner than I expected, this somehow makes me more wrong? You Apple fanboys crack me up. You do tendentious misquotation almost as well as creationists.
Meh…lack of comment editing makes this place very 2000s.
Nigel, what’s hilarious is I don’t even think the most fervent detractors of ESR on his blog here would have predicted or been optimistic that Apple would likely have greater than 50% market share in the US and Japan, certainly not the largest but undeniable two of the most important markets in the world, by 2015.
Now, I would say it’s a certainty.
@Nigel
Pretty devastating takedown, but I do worry about the amount of time you must have spent dredging up all those quotes. ;)
“So, um, when I acknowledge that the slope of decline was different than I was expecting because Apple got hurt sooner than I expected, this somehow makes me more wrong? You Apple fanboys crack me up. You do tendentious misquotation almost as well as creationists.”
Can you stop with the idiocy and stop conflating US and Worldwide data… for a start?
The slope of the decline that you claim came sooner than later is actually an upward slope going from 25% to 44%…. if you would actually be consistent about whether you are talking about US or Worldwide data.
I think to say that Apple has been “disrupted” there have to be more indicators than simply a smaller percentage of worldwide market share. They sell ever-increasing numbers of units, their profits are the envy of the industry, and they have the best user satisfaction ratings, which means (as I referenced above) that they get far more switchers from Android than the other way around. Oh, and in Apple rumor news, it looks like the biggest carriers in Japan (DoCoMo) and China (China Mobile) will be offering the iPhone soon. That doesn’t look like Blackberry/impending doom behavior, at all.
Also, while Nigel did not mention this, one of Eric’s core points was that the vast “Android army” of phone makers would swamp Apple. At this point, though, the army consists of Samsung, Google, maybe HTC, and not many other companies worth mentioning, because nobody else is making money or having much impact. More of an Android squad….
To: Josh on 2013-009-05 at 9.35 and to
Jon Brase on 2013-09-03 at 12:12:49
**************
>And as for Elop: he masterminded what was probably the biggest destruction in shareholder value ever – and this is the guy who’s being talked of as Ballmer’s successor? Astonishing.
If the conspiracy theorists are right, said destruction of shareholder value was masterfully executed as part of his job at Microsoft, and has nothing at all to do with incompetence.”
**************
And then you have to consider Grey’s Law:
“Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”
I vote for this being advanced incompetence by Elop. The Board was about to decide to order a change of course for the Titanic ( he said, mixing metaphors madly).
@Tim F.:
@Bryant:
No, it’s a completely silly argument.
I haven’t looked in awhile, so I don’t know if this is what’s happening now, but for the longest time, a customer could spend $200 at a carrier and get a Samsung that he could have spent $550 on on the open market, or spend the same $200 and get an Apple phone that he could have spent $700 on on the open market.
Or spend $300 to get the $700 Samsung phone at the carrier.
All apparently due to the contractual obligation of the carriers to shift a certain number of Apple handsets in order to be able to sell them at all. (And possibly, as has been pointed out in the past, because the carriers thought that Apple customers spend more and so are more valuable, but as they go more downmarket, that dynamic is probably shifting.)
Not quite as bad a market distortion as offering MS-DOS on all your computers for $50/copy, or on some of them for more than double that, but close.
Again, I haven’t looked in awhile, but when I did, the numbers didn’t at all mesh with your presupposition that if Samsung had a pricey handset they could get the same subsidy. (At the time, they did and they didn’t.)
BTW, you also have to bear in mind that the true subsidy cost is not what a consumer can buy a phone for vs. what he pays on contract, but rather what the carrier pays for the phone minus what the customer kicks in. Apple is notorious for giving thin margins to resellers.
And as I said above, your entire argument boils down to: I think it’s unfair that users and carriers value iPhones more highly than other devices. But your feelings don’t match up with reality and certainly doesn’t make it so. Yes, the latest iPhone has a subsidy that is larger than what you think is equivalent — but the majority of people don’t agree with you. This doesn’t indicate that there is some artificial propping up of Apple; this indicates a market at work.
> You do tendentious misquotation almost as well as creationists.
Or the global warming deniers?
Or the race-baiters?
Et tu, esr. Et tu.
“Again, I haven’t looked in awhile, but when I did, the numbers didn’t at all mesh with your presupposition that if Samsung had a pricey handset they could get the same subsidy. (At the time, they did and they didn’t.)”
I do not presuppose this at all. I conjecture that the most valuable handset to the carriers will get the largest subsidy, less valuable handsets will get less of a subsidy. I do not presume that a Samsung phone that is equivalently as expensive or equivalent from a hardware standpoint is as valuable as an iPhone.
I do presuppose that every OEM benefits from subsidies and that larger percentage subsidies rather than highest value subsidies can be as beneficial, if not more so, to an OEM depending on their product strategy.
One thing I’m curious about.
Nokia has a market cap of 20G$. (This despite a 30% drop in sales in the last two years, and losses of 5G$ in 2012 and 1.4G$ in 2011.)
Microsoft bought Nokia’s phone business for 7G$.
Is the remaing part of Nokia really worth 13G$?
They popped 25% on the acquisition, so the proper starting point is actually 16 billion. They have 12-13 billion in cash. It’s not difficult to imagine that the cellular equipment business, mapping service, and patents are worth 3 billion.
I forgot they have debt of 7 billion. So… 10 billion. Still seems reasonable to me. Although not going to be easy to run those businesses without handset hardware and a software platform…
“and I see more Nexus 7s than I do iPads”
So do I… At the Best Buy after the iPads sell out.
Actually the subsidy evidence would say that users value the high end samsung phones over iPhones since the cost to them is less for an iPhone. And carriers are corporations so crazy comes with the territory.
@Tim F:
> ” I think it’s unfair that users and carriers value iPhones more highly than other devices.”
Umm, no. As JonCB points out, if the users really valued them that much more, the market would easily sort it out without _extra_ carrier subsidies.
Which gets us back to it being in the carrier’s interests. Which aren’t usually directly aligned with the user’s interests.
So one interest the carrier has is to actually be able to carry the iPhone, because _enough_ users (not all of them, mind you) want the iPhone that not carrying it is a problem. Which is why Apple can beat them over the head with contractual minimums that couldn’t possibly happen in a truly free market, e.g. if the phone were decoupled from the carrier, or the health insurance were decoupled from the employer, or…
“And, in fact, nothing has saved it. Worldwide, no matter whose figures you look at, Apple is falling towards the 10% market share I predicted. In IDC’s figures it’s within statistical noise of that now. (And no, we shouldn’t overinterpret that; don’t bother pretending that I’m doing so.)”
That is such bullshit. During the three year period the iPhone has been gaining world market share from 14.5% in CY2009 to 15.7% in CY2010 to 18.8% in CY2011 to 19.1% in CY2012 using IDC numbers.
https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23916413
http://www.idc.com/about/viewpressrelease.jsp?containerId=prUS22689111
Even if there’s a dip in CY2013 market share numbers your assertion that Apple world market share has been in free fall like Blackberry’s over the past three years is completely wrong and not supported by ANY data.
As far as the 2Q13 IDC numbers you are laughably using to try to show Apple=Blackberry IDC had this to say:
“The iOS decline in the second quarter aligns with the cyclicality of iPhone,” says Ramon Llamas, Research Manager with IDC’s Mobile Phone team. “Without a new product launch since the debut of the iPhone 5 nearly a year ago, Apple’s market share was vulnerable to product launches from the competition. But with a new iPhone and revamped iOS coming out later this year, Apple is well-positioned to re-capture market share.”
“As JonCB points out, if the users really valued them that much more, the market would easily sort it out without _extra_ carrier subsidies.”
Which is why percentage of subsidy is totally relevant. Samsung is more heavily subsidized than Apple. i.e. Apple customers are more likely to pay for Apple products than Samsung employees. You being hung up on Apple having the highest value subsidy on one device is nonsensical. The percentage subsidy tells us that the greater percentage of the majority of Samsung phones is being paid by the carrier. Apple passes more of the cost on to the customer, and the customer is willing to pay for it.
…” for Apple products than Samsung employees. ”
Samsung customers — of course. Odd brain fart.
“Apple can’t even dream about its billionth activation”
I was curious as the total iOS devices sold:
500M by Jan 2013 (Tim Cook Q1 conference call)
600M by Jun 2013 (Tim Cook WWDC)
What you deem undreamable will likely happen by late 2014 or early 2015 if not sooner because of the lower priced iPhones helping in the Chinese market.
“As JonCB points out, if the users really valued them that much more, the market would easily sort it out without _extra_ carrier subsidies.”
Additionally, are you actually suggesting that amongst OEMs, Apple is getting less revenue directly from customers rather than carriers? Because, if so, you’re completely delusional. Apple is easily collecting more revenue directly from customers whether subsidized or non-subsidized, whether in the US or Mogadishu.
This is not a rigged game where the carriers are the dealers and they are all in Apple’s pocket because of blackmail or some nonsense that only you can fathom… it’s pure business. Apple is making more money than anyone and the carriers know they will make more money with Apple rather than without.
“As JonCB points out, if the users really valued them that much more, the market would easily sort it out without _extra_ carrier subsidies.”
I can’t help but keep going over this because it is complete and utter nonsense. Apple doesn’t NEED the extra subsidy, it deserves it. The Carriers are happy to pay it. The myriad $300 phones need to be subsidized because if they weren’t free, no one would buy them. If the carriers didn’t find it worthwhile to pay extra, they wouldn’t.
You are trapped in your own delusion that there is some scam involved. This is your delusion. The carriers value it. The customers value it — with or without subsidy. Apple gets more revenue directly from both the carriers AND the customers. It’s the complete, utter cheap crap that you think is equivalent that is utterly dependent on its higher percentage, but lower absolute value, subsidy to get the customer to decide to acquire it because it is “free”.
@Nigel:
> 14.5% in CY2009 to 15.7% in CY2010 to 18.8% in CY2011 to 19.1% in CY2012
Yeah, the second derivative doesn’t look so hot in that series. If that were to hold constant, it should put Apple at 14.4% next year.
While current events such as the new lower-priced handsets and subsequent successful negotiations in China could see Apple maintain or even increase market share, that may come with reduced margins that some of their shareholders won’t like.
“Actually the subsidy evidence would say that users value the high end samsung phones over iPhones since the cost to them is less for an iPhone.”
This is complete and utter nonsense. What do you think you are saying? Dogshit is less expensive than a Bentley — does this mean that people would rather have dogshit than a Bentley?
@Tim F:
“Apple doesn’t NEED the extra subsidy, it deserves it. The Carriers are happy to pay it. … You are trapped in your own delusion that there is some scam involved.”
If it’s a delusion, it’s not purely my own. And obviously not _all_ the carriers are happy to pay it, or there wouldn’t be any complaints from them.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/27/apples-iphone-sales-tactics-in-europe-under-antitrust-investigation
But you’re right — we’ve hashed this over multiple times, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree about the meaning of it. I just wouldn’t want anybody to take what you wrote about that article at face value without thinking about it themselves.
Don’t worry, Patrick, I’m not under the impression that you’re the only one that is delusional. That you have company doesn’t make you right.
If it wasn’t of value to carriers, they wouldn’t pay it. Plain and simple. Whinging about it is just whinging about it. Apple has lost few (and when they have they are low volume, low value carriers) — conversely, they continue to sign the most intransigent and powerful of carriers with little to no impact to their ASP (with most impact to the ASP being readily attributable to product strategy).
I love the notion that a potential, theoretical antitrust complaint is somehow evidence that Apple has no value and is moving towards marginal market share.
Patrick pointed out upthread “for the longest time, a customer could spend $200 at a carrier and get a Samsung that he could have spent $550 on on the open market, or spend the same $200 and get an Apple phone that he could have spent $700 on on the open market.
Or spend $300 to get the $700 Samsung phone at the carrier.”
So apparently the market says that the $700(sans-subsidy) Apple phone needs an end-user price point of $200 to be competitive and the $700 Samsung phone can be competitive with a $300 end-user price point. Seems pretty simple economics to me.
You’d think that, but remember that corporations and crazy go together.
It’s certainly likely they’ll have long term contracts going when they renew is something we’re unlikely to answer.
Maybe they’re paying it as (effectively) an option on Apple releasing something new genre-breaking.
You’d also think that If a deal will predictably lead to the obsoleting of your product line and the loss of what user-base you have, the company wouldn’t do it right? That seems pretty plain and simple too.
“Yeah, the second derivative doesn’t look so hot in that series. If that were to hold constant, it should put Apple at 14.4% next year.”
So what? Apple STILL looked nothing like Blackberry these last three years. Nor is Apple management stupid.
The two markets that really matter today and the near future are the US where Apple does well and China where Apple is going into full court press. India will be more important in a few years and the efforts Apple is making in China will help even if the focus isn’t there.
Folks that believe the US market doesn’t matter are simply ignoring reality. We’re the third most populous nation and we’re have the largest GDP. China is #2 and India #10 in GDP (which is why it matters a lot less than China). India’s middle class growth is slower and smaller than China’s.
“Seems pretty simple economics to me.”
Seems like nonsense to me. Carriers don’t determine subsidies based on what is needed by the client, they set subsidies based on the value to them.
@nigel
In terms of meaningless measures, the EU is bigger than the USA on both counts.
What sets the USA apart in mobile is the highest level of handset (cross-)subsidies and market distortion. As long as that level of market distortion is not reached in other regions, the USA market is indeed irrelevant for the future of mobile.
@Tim F
Whatever your arguments, USA consumers have to pay more for an equivalent (price) Samsung handset than for an Apple handset due to network cross-subsidies. Economic theory predicts that this would increase the sales of iPhones.
“Whatever your arguments, USA consumers have to pay more for an equivalent (price) Samsung handset than for an Apple handset due to network cross-subsidies. Economic theory predicts that this would increase the sales of iPhones.”
And? iPhone 5 sales are greater than Samsung Galaxy whatever in the US. Not sure I understand what you are getting at.
Yes, the iPhone has a higher subsidy. Yes, it sells better than the latest high end Samsung Galaxy phone offered at a higher price in the US (and it also sells better than other Samsung Galaxy phones at the same price or lower). These are observable facts that aren’t particularly in contention. What about these facts am I supposed to find alarming or problematic?
“What sets the USA apart in mobile is the highest level of handset (cross-)subsidies and market distortion. As long as that level of market distortion is not reached in other regions, the USA market is indeed irrelevant for the future of mobile.”
This statement is completely devoid of logic.
@TimF
Your views on economy and logic seem to diverge strongly from those I am used to.
But if I understand you correctly, you seem to say that in the USA, iPhones sell better than equivalent high end Samsung handsets because they are much cheaper.
And then you indicate that this preference is important to understand the development of the global handset market, because outside the USA,, iPhones are more expensive than equivalent Samsung handsets.
Sorry, but I cannot follow you logic.
“But if I understand you correctly, you seem to say that in the USA, iPhones sell better than equivalent high end Samsung handsets because they are much cheaper.”
No.
“And then you indicate that this preference is important to understand the development of the global handset market, because outside the USA,, iPhones are more expensive than equivalent Samsung handsets.”
No.
@Jay and @Aaron
Apologies in advance for the rant – this started as a quick paragraph and all this just came out stream-of consciousness :)
About IT recruiters – I don’t know how it is in the States but down here in Sydney the recruiter/business ratio seems to be approaching parity and yes they are (almost without exception) bottom feeding parasites.
Here at least, the resume “word only” issue is also because they run resumes at submission through bespoke (usually VB6-based) pattern matching “software” – and the M$ brain-raped junior that wrote it probably couldn’t deal with PDFs. This way the recruiter doesn’t have to do hard things like open documents, read, answer calls, comprehend or think in any manner other than “when’s my next commission coming in?” But yes they’ll also smear their unique brand of stool over your professional life’s representation if you let them.
Recruiters are seriously screwing the Australian IT industry – over here we have the inverse of the States – it’s almost as if the less you know and the more you can earn : and the inverse is even more true. And they have been pushing rates lower and lower of the last few years while lining their own pockets.
We commonly see ads for senior engineers/architects with 8-10+ years required, must simultaneously know HTML5 & EJB3.1, iOS & Android, PHP, python and []* – must have worked for on mission control systems for NASA, be willing to travel to Antarctica weekly, have hand-built mother boards, worked at the foreign exchange, the foreign office, the foreign legion…..
Oh and the rate? $440/day (the extra $40 is our services tax).
Example : I worked a contract a couple of years back where there were 20+ of us on a median rate of about $650/day through a particular recruiter. We kept getting snide comments about how expensive we all were – which was weird cos the rate was ok – not great – we’d all worked for alot more but it was ok.
But the really shit thing is that the dynamic between the client and us was rooted from the start. We were really expensive/greedy “resources” to be cost minimised asap. Now we’d all been contractors for years but this was a bit odd.
Well we found out later that the recruiter was charging the client another $200+/day for each of us – so this mother fucker was making 20K a week for 6 months through a downpour of utter bullshit and mis-direction.
Needless to say the project failed (cost overruns) and the company, after then outsourcing it’s IT to country, collapsed and shut down due to being mismanaged into a pile of smoking rubble (that’s ESR’s phrase – love it).
Why recruiters haven’t been automated out of existence yet is beyond me. I had some early hopes that Linked In would bridge the gap between IT ronin and companies but that hasn’t really happened yet.
Man – I feel so much better now!
@winter: “What sets the USA apart in mobile is the highest level of handset (cross-)subsidies and market distortion. As long as that level of market distortion is not reached in other regions, the USA market is indeed irrelevant for the future of mobile.”
Since the USA is not going anywhere, it’s just as relevant to the future of mobile as it is to the present of mobile, regardless of how it may be impossible to generalize from what happens in the US to what happens in other countries.
@winter “But if I understand you correctly, you seem to say that in the USA, iPhones sell better than equivalent high end Samsung handsets because they are much cheaper.”
Your mistake seems to be in assuming the $700 iPhone is equivalent to the $700 Samsung, rather than being equivalent to the $500 Samsung except for the fact that Carriers are willing to pay more for it.
According to IDC, iOS’s tablet market share has collapsed in the past year. This is exactly the kind of accelerating disruptive collapse I predicted.
esr on 2013-09-08 at 09:46:09 said:
According to IDC, iOS’s tablet market share has collapsed in the past year. This is exactly the kind of accelerating disruptive collapse I predicted.
First, Apple iPhone=Blackberry is still clearly wrong and your previous predictions still in error.
Second, this is for the quarter and Apple remains highly seasonal as IDC points if you bother to read the article you quote:
“Lacking a new product launch in March to help spur shipments, Apple’s iPad saw a lower-than-predicted shipment total of 14.6 million units for the quarter, down from 19.5 million in 1Q13. In years past, Apple has launched a new tablet heading into the second quarter, which resulted in strong quarter-over-quarter growth. Now, Apple is expected to launch new tablet products in the second half of the year, a move that better positions it to compete during the holiday season. Meanwhile, the other two vendors in the top 3 also saw a decline in their unit shipments during the quarter. Second-place Samsung shipped 8.1 million units, down from 8.6 million in the first quarter of 2013, although up significantly from the 2.1 million units shipped in 2Q12. And third-place ASUS shipped a total of 2.0 million units in 2Q13, down from 2.6 million in 1Q13.”
The primary difference was moving from a spring iPad launch to a fall iPad launch. To know whether iPad market share is really collapsing you need to look at CY results. Apple believes that a fall launch for more momentum through Christmas is better. It strikes me that the spread out launch dates is better to keep Apple in the news cycle plus help folks manage their device budget better so we’ll see what the results are for CY13.
I suppose sometime next year when I point out you were wrong again about iPad market share collapsing in 2013 I will again be accused of “tenditious misquotation”.
My response remains that if you don’t want to get called on dumb assed predictions don’t make them. You can add the usual kitchen heat saying as well.
I think it is worth dealing with the “distortion and subsidy” issue. (This is all USA only)
About 2-3 yrs ago it was fairly common for the average postpaid subsidy to be $250-300 i.e. about $15 / mo for a 20 mo plan. There could be additional bonus on top of that and what was far and away the largest was the Apple market bonus (about $120 on the $199 iPhone). The reason this bonus was high was that Apple encouraged people to be less cost sensitive and less comparison oriented and thus Apple customers where substantially higher margin customers than Android. In addition there were no data fees like RIM.
Many of the Android manufacturers complained that it was impossible to compete with a $420 iOS subsidy while getting a $300 Android subsidy. The carriers agreed but contractually couldn’t lower their Apple subsidy, and didn’t want to raise all their subsidies to Apple levels. As Apple’s marketshare for postpaid smartphones crossed the 2/3rds mark, about 9 months ago the concern came to be more one of prevent Apple from establishing a US monopoly. So carriers have now built in a $20 / mo subsidy and additional incentives. The result is that Apple subsidies tend to be lower than the best subsidy levels. For example Windows phone was hitting $450 rather standardly and sometimes hitting $500 subsidy on AT&T especially. Verizon has been known to hit an Android phone that high for a month as a special promotion.
So while it was the case that carriers were effectively pushing Apple 2011-2012, it has not been the case during 2013. The growth in Apple’s share during 2013 has been in an environment where Apple phones experience similar or slightly lower subsidies than the best (i.e. highest price) non-Apple offerings.
Now it is absolutely the case that the $199 phones (after subsidy) get much larger subsidies than the $0 phones (after subsidy) but that’s true for Apple as much as any of the others. For example Apple generally gets $125 for every extra $100 they charge so the subsidy on the iPhone 5S 64g is around $470. For the simple reason that people who spend $399 for the phone are generally pretty generous on things like data and connecting other devices that are rarely used. But that would be equally true for any other $900 retail phone.
@Random 832
Let’s just pull today’s Verizon numbers (I’ll assume the subsidy is approximately the difference between retail and discount)
HTC Droid DNA $500 subsidy
Nokia 928 $450 subsidy
Apple iPhone 5 (16g) $450 subsidy
Samsung Galaxy Note 3 $400 subsidy
Samsung Galaxy S4 $400 subsidy
Motorola Droid Ultra $400 subsidy
Motorola Moto X $400 subsidy
HTC One $400 subsidy
LG Intuition $350 subsidy
Nokia 822 $350 subsidy
Motorola Droid Maxx $350 subsidy
Winter —
I still owe you a response on Asha. Don’t have time right now but I’ll get to it.
@CD-Host:
> (I’ll assume the subsidy is approximately the difference between retail and discount)
I’m not sure about this, because I have been led to believe that dealer margins on Apple products are much thinner.
@Sam:
I don’t think LinkedIn is the answer; for me it looks a bit too much Facebook-y / snake oil. In the IT area I hope that Stackoverflow Careers 2.0 would be it.
“I’m not sure about this, because I have been led to believe that dealer margins on Apple products are much thinner.”
While subsidized versus unsubsidized price may not be a precise calculation for subsidy (it’s still the most reasonable, consistent, and accurate measure we have available), it’s complete nonsense to measure a carrier’s subsidy from a vendor’s cost. I struggle to think, and presume it safe to say, there is never an instance where it would be legitimate to measure a businesses pricing strategy (profit, discounts, subsidies, etc…) based on the costs of a vendor rather the price actually being paid to that vendor.
Yes, Apple likely has higher margins; therefore, the carriers likely make a smaller PERCENTAGE profit on an Apple handset than its OEM competitors’s products. (Of course, conversely, they could equally make a greater ABSOLUTE profit on Apple handsets — if the pricing of the handset could be unwound from the subscription/data service pricing.) But carriers aren’t in the business of selling handsets either. They’re in the business of selling voice/SMS/data contracts/services. Whether they break even, lose money, or make a small profit on a handset is demonstrably largely irrelevant to a carrier’s business success or failure; their business is delivering voice/data service, not selling devices.
>I don’t think LinkedIn is the answer; for me it looks a bit too much Facebook-y / snake oil.
I kinda get the same feeling, but OTOH, one of my friends recently landed a very nice job with Google through LinkedIn.
@Patrick —
Remember we are talking USA postpay market only. Dealer margins on phones are close to 0, and often with phones on special promotion negative. Where they make their money is the 7+% agency fees. On 2-3 person family plan that can easily be $175 / year per year every year for year after year after year after year… who cares about making margin on phones?
@Tim F.:
No, it’s not safe to say that at all.
@CD-Host:
> who cares about making margin on phones?
I’m sure you’re right, and that is exactly what is wrong with the current market set up. It’s just like getting your health insurance through your employer.
I just have to chime in that it amuses me the topic devolved into an iOS vs. Andriod flamewar. Microsoft is so far removed from the mindset that people can’t even pay attention to them in a blog post about them.
I don’t. Then again I live in the Boston area. It’s rather telling that, with the exception of hardcore fosstards, technically-oriented users tend to favor Apple mobile products.
The peakists were right. The output of conventional oil reserves is dropping off, and the extraction costs have ratcheted up so far that the previously economically unviable alternatives — tar sands and oil shales — become attractive. But the EROEI of these alternative oil sources is much lower, and the environmental externalities of tar-sand and oil-shale extraction are even bigger than for conventional oil extraction which pretty much entails drilling holes in the ground and sucking up the effluvient oil without making too big a mess. So each barrel of oil we extract now costs us much more in real value than its nominal market price, let alone what a barrel cost to extract 30 or 40 years ago. And our entire economy is so structured around ready availability of cheap energy that there is no way we could continue the way we have been without major disruptions with these much lower-yield alternative sources substituting in for conventional oil reserves.
The peak is happening now. The facts are there, if you would but look.
>The peakists were right
Bullshit.
The core “peak oil” claim was that hydrocarbon production would crash so quickly that the industrial economy was doomed to collapse, because it would have neither the time nor the capital to shift to alternatives before long-distance transport and agriculture based on petrochemical fertilizers collapsed.
Bullshit, I say again.
The “peak oil” people were idiots who understood nothing about either demand elasticity or subsitution. Now, of course, they want their catastrophism forgotten because its predictions were so embarassingly, totally, wrong. Just as in a few years former AGW catastrophists will insist that they never said all that stuff.
That article is from November 2011, and even so he hedges about total hydrocarbons (as opposed to just oil) near the end. I think the natural gas boom is contradicting his thesis.
Also, I suspect federal drilling restrictions have been artificially cutting US oil production, accounting for part of what he notes.
> Here at least, the resume “word only” issue is also because they run resumes at submission
> through bespoke (usually VB6-based) pattern matching “software”
I’ve stopped giving recruiters resumes altogether; I just point them at my GitHub and LinkedIn profiles which between them contain everything they need to know. I’ve never had a problem in several years of doing that. I guess I might if I were a junior dev just getting started out.
“> who cares about making margin on phones?
I’m sure you’re right, and that is exactly what is wrong with the current market set up. It’s just like getting your health insurance through your employer.”
Apple cares about making margins on phones. Every OEM competitor should, but they are fighting for user share. Carriers shouldn’t care about margins on phones insofar as it’s not their primary source of income… the concern should only be limited to how their product mix affects their services businesses.
But, wait a second… Lack of concern for margin is the big problem? I thought that was the mechanism for disruption, the primary catalyst for Apple’s downfall, and the inevitable advantage of a widely-licensed open source platform? The elimination of innovative advantage through commoditization and margin erosion. No? Now that’s bad? Okay.
@Tim F.:
> But, wait a second… Lack of concern for margin is the big problem?
Way to misconstrue everything written.
> I thought that was the mechanism for disruption,
Hard to do when all the big carriers are locked into Apple contracts.
> No? Now that’s bad? Okay.
You reaaaally shoud stop with the strawmen. It’s even more unbecoming than you might imagine.
PapayaSF: “Also, I suspect federal drilling restrictions have been artificially cutting US oil production, accounting for part of what he notes.”
No “suspect” about it. It’s telling that the rise in US hydrocarbon production has occurred in spite of a decline in production on federal lands. Just imagine what would happen if we actually exploited our own natural resources.
Just one more way Jeff Reid should be called “shitleak”.
@Tim F. on 2013-09-09 at 22:34:09
We were discussing US retailers selling phones postpay customers not manufacturers making phones. I think you lost the thread of the conversation.
No, I understand. I think it’s ludicrous to suggest that OEMs are well-suited by low margins and Apple is at risk because of high margins, but then claim that the major problem with the carrier business is that they aren’t concerned enough about margins on individual handsets even though margins on handsets is a rounding error on their actual core business. I understand I’m shifting from one market to the other, but the margin argument should hold from a general perspective. Patrick has been constantly shifting through completely inconsistent, contradictory arguments completely unsupported by logic and evidence for years now.
@Tim F.
“I think it’s ludicrous to suggest that OEMs are well-suited by low margins and Apple is at risk because of high margins, …”
What is stated is that differential carrier subsidies distort market share values.
When one model gets higher subsidies than another, this will increase its market share. Therefor, markets shares in a market with differential subsidies (USA) are not useful to understand market shares in other markets where there are no such subsidies (most of the rest of the world).
What I do not get is why this should be difficult to understand to begin with?
So here is a different take. Cringely has suggested that the real purpose of MS buying Nokia is to fiddle their taxes. Which is to say using some overseas cash for a little money laundering monkey business. I thought it was an interesting article.
http://www.cringely.com/2013/09/03/microsoft-really-bought-nokia/
“What I do not get is why this should be difficult to understand to begin with?”
Because it’s crudely simplistic, largely irrelevant to the carriers, partially wrong (claiming differential subsidies are unique to the US, that subsidies don’t exist outside of the US, that Apple has a unique and unfair advantage, etc), and the conclusions you have drawn from such suppositions have not borne out one iota?
@Tim F.
My conclusion is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but you keep talking anyway. I have illustrated my conclusion with two articles I have added below. If there is a demand for such articles, I can add more.
@Tim F
“Because it’s crudely simplistic, largely irrelevant to the carriers, partially wrong (claiming differential subsidies are unique to the US, that subsidies don’t exist outside of the US,”
Why can’t Americans stomach unsubsidized phones?
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/why-cant-americans-stomach-unsubsidized-phones/
@Tim F.
” that Apple has a unique and unfair advantage, etc), and the conclusions you have drawn from such suppositions have not borne out one iota?”
iPhone U.S. dominance due to carriers’ pricing strategies
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9237710/iPhone_U.S._dominance_due_to_carriers_pricing_strategies?pageNumber=1
Winter, one reason I don’t buy your argument (which I believe is that iPhones are a success in the US mainly or only because of carrier subsidies) is personal experience. I’ve had a 3GS from AT&T for about four years. (Battery rather weak, now topped out at iOS 6, but still working fine otherwise.) In recent years I have noticed AT&T pushing Android phones hard, in both stores and via direct mail. They have done little or no pushing of iPhones in that time.
So all indications are that they’d rather sell Androids. How does that square with your thesis?
@PapayaSF:
> So all indications are that they’d rather sell Androids. How does that square with your thesis?
If Apple has some sort of MFN clause regarding subsidies, that may explain why some Android handsets cost customers more.
I think it’s fairly safe to assume that AT&T has zero problem buying its contractual minimum quantity of Apple handsets, so if placing an Apple handset in the hands of the customer costs AT&T more than placing an Android handset in the hands of the customer, then it would only make sense for AT&T to push Apple if the iPhone customers were more valuable, e.g. used more data or had lower support costs. Thanks for the anecdotes showing that this may not be true.
Just saw coverage of the 5S/5C rollout. Apple talks about the price of the phone on a 2 year contract. Nothing about the retail price of an unlocked phone. This is the kind of BS you see at a used-car dealership.
Fortunately, T-Mobile apparently has the price for the 5S, at least:
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/09/10/t-mobile-iphone-5s-unlocked-649/
“This is the kind of BS you see at a used-car dealership.”
No, it’s the kind of crap an angry Applehater latches onto.
“Thanks for the anecdotes showing that this may not be true.”
Or maybe it’s complete nonsense to reduce this down to one factor when there are several moving variables at play.
@Patrick
The retail price is on the website. Same $450 spread as last year’s models:
5S 16/32/64g $6/7/849
5C 16/32g $5/649
4S 8g $450
@PapayaSF
“So all indications are that they’d rather sell Androids. How does that square with your thesis?”
If there are no differential subsidies lowering the price of iPhones relative, then there is nothing to talk about. My “thesis” is simply that differential subsidies distort markets. Nothing more.
I thought your point about “distorting markets” was that the subsidies induced US carriers to push iPhones over Androids, thus the distinct and enduring and growing popularity of the iPhone in the US. If that is not what are you saying these distorted markets are doing, then what is the distortion doing? And then what accounts for iPhone popularity here?
@PapayaSF
“I thought your point about “distorting markets” was that the subsidies induced US carriers to push iPhones over Androids, thus the distinct and enduring and growing popularity of the iPhone in the US.”
I am not sure what you mean by “pushing”. The carriers seem to have reasons to subsidize iPhones more than other models. Personally, I have no idea why (contractual obligations towards Apple, traps for users?). But all I see is that the price differences in the USA between iPhones and other handsets are the inverse from those seen outside the USA.
If that is not your definition of “pushing”, then it is not “pushing”. It still is market distortion and it makes the market shares in the USA completely meaningless for understanding the future of mobile handsets. Inside the USA, this means that Apple’s fate depends on carrier handset subsidies.
Nite that in 2Q 2013, around 40% of all iPhones were sold in the USA. Meanwhile, the USA buys only 25% of all Smartphones in the world. That makes Apples position very precarious.
“It still is market distortion and it makes the market shares in the USA completely meaningless for understanding the future of mobile handsets”
So how do you explain Japan?
“Meanwhile, the USA buys only 25% of all Smartphones in the world.”
So 75% of the world buys 60% of iPhones. How is that precarious?
Sorry, I’m still not getting it. You seem to be saying that the iPhone’s commanding position in the US is due to carrier subsidies, a market distortion that works in the iPhone’s favor here, but not elsewhere in the world. OK, if it works in the iPhone’s favor, that must mean that it increases sales of iPhones over non-iPhones. Thus, you are saying that iPhone subsidies mean that it is in the US carriers’ interest to sell iPhones over Androids.
I agree that during their exclusive arrangement AT&T pushed iPhones hard, but since then there has been a noticeable shift in AT&T marketing, and they are clearly pushing Android phones over iPhones. This makes no sense to me if your theory is true.
I don’t think the iPhone’s position is “precarious” at all. As I posted above here, in the last year iPhone share increased everywhere except Germany and China.
Winter, the article you point to as proof that the US is unqiue and is the only ones doing postpaid says that (and admittedly, this is a bi dated, coming from Deloitte in 2009):
US is 78% postpaid, France is 66% postpaid, Spain is 58% postpaid, Germany is 45% postpaid, the UK is 34% postpaid, and Italy is 13% postpaid.
Yes, postpaid is a lower percentage in EU than US, but not utterly nonexistent. (Again, this is based on 2009 data and I know there has been more flow to prepaid in EU, but my point holds that this is more nuanced than you and others would like to portray it.)
@Tim F.
“Yes, postpaid is a lower percentage in EU than US, but not utterly nonexistent.”
Outside the USA, carrier subsidies are both lower and less differentiating. People buy subsidized phones over here. However, if an iPhone is more expensive than model X, then a contract with an iPhone is more expensive than the same contract with model X.
@PapayaSF
“You seem to be saying that the iPhone’s commanding position in the US is due to carrier subsidies, a market distortion that works in the iPhone’s favor here, but not elsewhere in the world.”
There is more at play, but this price-anomaly alone would make it difficult to extrapolate USA market shares to other countries.
@PapayaSF
“As I posted above here, in the last year iPhone share increased everywhere except Germany and China.”
China is around 1/3 of global smartphone market. And Android increased their market share too.
@TimF
“So 75% of the world buys 60% of iPhones. How is that precarious?”
A change in USA carrier subsidies could wash away 40% of total iPhone sales.
@Tim F.
“So how do you explain Japan?”
By looking at Japanese customers and carriers? Maybe Japanese customers prefer USA handsets more than Japanese or Korean handsets?
“A change in USA carrier subsidies could wash away 40% of total iPhone sales.”
If you foolishly believe that price is the only differentiating factor.
“By looking at Japanese customers and carriers? Maybe Japanese customers prefer USA handsets more than Japanese or Korean handsets?”
Wait, in Japan, there’s a completely different factor? You just said there is only one factor at play: price, and when Apple doesn’t have the price benefit, they necessarily lose — but now it turns out there is a second factor… and I’m supposed to believe that the second factor is that you are a Japanese citizen who prefers US phones? How is Motorola doing in Japan?
The Japanese handset market resembles the USA’s, with cellphones subsidized by carriers, available through carrier retail channels.
When it comes to Japan and electronics, the general trend is that Japanese brands will be most favored, followed by other Asian brands such as Samsung, followed by Western brands. Dell only just barely got a toehold in a PC market awash with Sonys, Fujitsus, and even Lenovos, and of course the Xbox’s legendary failure in the Japanese market is well known.
The one fluke seems to be Apple, especially the iPhone. The Japanese handset market and cellphone networks were far advanced of the American ones for over a decade, before getting a rude awakening in the form of the iPhone. Put simply, the iPhone kicked the ass of anything that was in the Japanese market at the time, including the much-celebrated i-mode service. It helps that iPhones are stylish and look smashing when taken out of a kawaii Japanese girl’s Louis Vuitton handbag.
Android fans need not worry, however. Strangers in Osaka recognized my Galaxy S by its body shape, something I’ve known no American to do; so Samsung, and with it Android, has a brand presence to rival Apple’s in Japan.
@Tim F
“You just said there is only one factor at play: price”
Please point out where I wrote that? But I agree, price alone is generally enough to mess up the statistics. In the USA the price differences are/were big enough to dominate the statistics. Hey, at 100 euros in the bargain bin of the Aldi, even the Lumia WP7 WinPhones sold out.
But I will happily admit that the iPhone is a handset designed by Americans for Americans (USA king). That will certainly help too.
I have no idea how the Japanese market works, so I won’t even speculate (and stop making jokes people do not understand).
“Please point out where I wrote that?” It was implied where you said that if subsidies in the US changed, it “could wash away 40% of total iPhone sales.” Seriously? Not a single current US iPhone owner would remain an iPhone owner if a comparable Android device was priced the same? Nonsense.
“But I agree, price alone is generally enough to mess up the statistics.” See. Why did you ask me where you said that if you generally agree with it? This is complete nonsense as demonstrated by your Japan response.
“I have no idea how the Japanese market works, so I won’t even speculate (and stop making jokes people do not understand).”
Your thesis requires you to speculate. You claim the US is uniquely different (however, iPhone % in Japan is almost identical to the US). You need to account for that or risk people dismissing your theory as nonsense.
OK I usually disagree with Winter but his point is somewhat valid, he’s just expressing it in confusing ways.
The USA is very unusual in that it is a 1st world country with low population concentration, including especially an automobile not mass transit culture for the middle class. The result is that cellular carriers have a much higher cost of delivering reliable service in the United States than in most other countries while at the same time the population is wealthy enough to afford such service. Which is to say for Americans the cost of minutes + data is large relative to the cost of handsets. American service in the last decade has added data as a normative part of the plan which is even more expensive to provide.
The enjoyment/utility people get from their cellular experience can be modeled by something like a product of the infrastructure times the cost of the handset they are using. Because utility correlates strongly with how much people are willing to pay USA carriers have found consistently that having their customers have high quality handsets drives up their usage of cellular services, and driving up usage is vital for paying for a high quality infrastructure. However left to their own devices customers would naturally buy inferior handsets and less cellular services. So cellular companies target plans with large handset subsidies towards the top 60% of the USA market. That is they create pricing plans which incentivize people to buy handsets more expensive than they would purchase if given a neutral pricing.
Apple as a new phone only exists on the high end (i.e. $300+ devices). So shifting the market towards more expensive phones substantially shifts people towards Apple products and invariable accounts for some but not all of Apple’s high popularity in the USA. Certainly Windows phone, Android and BlackBerry exist at these high price points, so USA customers are choosing Apple over other high priced handsets. But Android in particular has done much better at mid-range ($150-300) and low-end ($90-150), it just isn’t nearly as competitive at higher price points.
This is often phrased as “subsidies distort the USA market”. Of course it is a gross exaggeration to say that without subsidies Americans wouldn’t choose Apple. But they likely would choose it much less and also would purchase much less expensive data and voice services to go along with their less expensive phones.
Though one could counter by mentioning that European governments often subsidized base connection and thus arguably create an inverse subsidy for their poor towards low end handsets, but that’s not often as discussed. Low population density plus high standard of living is unusual globally and likely to remain so. Which makes the USA a somewhat unique market, an interesting datapoint but an outlier relative to most other countries. You can see the differences clearly when you look at the USA prepay market where low subsidies result in less expensive phones being much more popular.
There is nothing particularly controversial in the base point. Though I think Winter tends to make this incredibly confusing by lumping all smartphones into one giant pool. In the same way that lumping: shoes, bicycles, cars and airplanes into one “transportation mechanisms” pool would be confusing.
@CD-Host:
> Same spread as last year.
The pricing on the 5C seems to have taken the stock market by surprise. I guess Apple wants to get the low-hanging T-Mobile fruit before they drop the price another hundred or two.
That’s all well and good and believable, but it doesn’t necessarily square with PapayaSF’s anecdotal evidence (which is similar to what I have seen published elsewhere, btw) that AT&T salespeople are pushing non-Apple hardware. In other words, at least in AT&T’s case, the actions of the sales people doesn’t match the thesis that Apple gets higher subsidies than high-end Android phones simply because it is better by some metric important to the carrier.
There are several possibilities for this; my current personal favorite, based on Apple’s love of agency pricing, is that they dictate the on-contract handset acquisition price to the carriers. This would square with them announcing that pricing — obviously they would know exactly what it is if they can dictate it.
A lot of carriers are working to reduce their phone subsidies. AT&T has made several announcements over the last year and a half that they are heading that direction. If Apple subsidies are set in stone (because Apple sets the retail price), then the only way to reduce subsidies is to try to change the handset mix. Since AT&T will have no problem meeting its minimal Apple shipment requirements (unlike, perhaps, Sprint), having the salespeople push non-Apple phones on customers may be a viable strategy. The people who know they want an Apple will get it; the others may or may not. Again, this doesn’t show that Apple is inherently a better handset, rather that Apple sells enough of them to strongarm the carriers on pricing.
@Tim F.:
Me: This is the kind of BS you see at a used-car dealership.
You: No, it’s the kind of crap an angry Applehater latches onto.
Whenever I buy a car, they try to give me a low-down payment, and a low monthly payment, and I’m supposed to be too stupid to count the months and add up the total. That pisses me off. The last couple of times I bought cars from human beings, I first memorized the payments per thousand for the likely interest rates for 3, 4, and 5 year amortizations, and then when the salesdroid tried to tell me that it would be x dollars a month, I could immediately say “that sounds like 2 1/4 per cent. Why would I get financing from you when everybody else is below two?” The look on their faces was priceless.
I know you don’t believe me, but I’d call out anybody else on this tactic as well. It was the worldwide rollout of the next flagship product of the world’s largest, most profitable corporation, and they didn’t even give the fucking price — just the “low, Low, LOW” down payment. Even Jobs always had a bit of ronco in him — “But wait, there’s More!!! How much would you expect to pay for this shiny new iOS version?” — but at least he always sold perceived merits other than the fact that anybody could qualify for the down payment.
” Though one could counter by mentioning that European governments often subsidized base connection and thus arguably create an inverse subsidy for their poor towards low end handsets, but that’s not often as discussed. ”
What makes you say that?
Governments are driving down the cost of mobile calls, and cross Europe calls will be the same without the high premium between countries, so CARRIERS are looking a lot closer at the subsidies they apply. http://gigaom.com/2013/03/18/european-carriers-are-moving-away-from-handset-subsidies-analysts-find/ Getting decent cable based broadband is being funded by public bodies, but that does not affect mobile access. I could not get 3G 5 years ago, and I can’t today. Just like rural areas of the US. And it will be 2015 before I might get fibre broadband.
Personally I can’t see why people take an iPhone over an Android one. At least with my Android I can replace the battery with a spare charged on, and drop in a memory card with different films. And IF it gets damaged it’s not as expensive to repair … so I don’t bother with anything other than household insurance. Of cause I’ve ‘unlocked’ it so I can loose all the advertising crap that comes free as well, something you can’t do with iPhones easily.
I don’t think iPhones, anywhere, come with “advertising crap.”
“I don’t think iPhones, anywhere, come with “advertising crap.””
They don’t automatically connect you to iTunes and AppStore ? And give no other competitive options ? But I am just repeating what my kids said was one of the reasons for switching away when their contracts were up …
Well, yeah, they link to the iTunes Store and the App Store. I don’t consider those “advertising crap.” I thought you meant the unremovable carrier bloatware that comes on many other phones.
It’s more targeted ‘bloat’ if you don’t need it, but it’s still bloat. But these days I even get pigged off with advertising on TV :)
“Me: This is the kind of BS you see at a used-car dealership.
You: No, it’s the kind of crap an angry Applehater latches onto.”
He’s right and you analogy flawed. Your monthly payment is unchanged regardless of which car you buy or eve if you buy a new car at all. The price you pay for a subsidized phone is the price you paid for it period. Even the unsubsidized phone plans in the US end up costing you more (T-Mobile) than their own subsidized ans after you factor in handset costs. Pretty much they aren’t giving you back the subsidy.
That T-Mobile is cheaper than Verizon is a function of much a much crappier national network with far less LTE coverage. Whether that improved network is worth $500 over 2 years depends on your needs.
@Nigel:
Not in my book.
OK, now we’re somehow conflating analogies. Unless you’re saying my monthly cell bill is unchanged when I buy a new car. Which may or may not be true depending on whether OnStar is considered a carrier.
That’s complete, utter BS. Try not paying the contract after that. Maybe Guido won’t come after you, but the bill collection people will certainly keep bothering you, your friends, and your employer.
If you insist on going postpaid, sure. That’s part of the shell game. You can do a lot better doing prepaid, and a lot, lot, better doing prepaid with T-Mobile (which works fine in Austin) or one of their subsidiaries. $35/month gets me all-I-can-eat everything. The data’s a bit slow, but it’s all I need.
I was late to the cellphone party, but I have owned one for about 4 years now, and have never had a contract. And it is my visceral reaction (and would be whether it is Apple or anybody else) that anybody who sells me something and tries to only tell me how much the down payment is going to be is trying to fuck with my finances. Hence the used car salesman analogy.
Nigel, it’s even simpler than that. Patrick is acting as if a press even is some deceptive salesmanship. But as pointed out, the site went life with updated content the moment the event ended. They display subsidized and unsubsidized prices. If you buy it from the AppleStore online, it displays both prices depending on how you want to buy it. You walk into an Apple Store and you ask what the price is off-contract, they’ll tell you and sell it to you.
There is no deception, no obfuscation whatsoever.
One reason for my visceral reaction is, if you don’t know how much it costs, you don’t know how much you’re fucked if it’s lost or stolen.
Here’s something for your amusement — squaretrade has a big blog post about how the price of cellphone insurance is scary at $5-$7/month, and how they will protect you for $2-$4/month, and a link that says “go see for yourself” that links to a page where they insure your phone for $8/month. Guess it wasn’t such a good business model at $2.
I actually managed to break the screen of my Nexus 4. Haven’t replaced it yet (went back to my flipphone for now), but I’ll be damned if I’m going to be suckered into paying for a phone over two years that I might kill in 6 months.
While at the same time boosting subsidies higher than the year before and that year was higher than the year before that and…. Additionally this year they pushed through a price increase so that internally they can better offset higher subsidies. I’d say we know their position. AT&T has the highest level of smartphone usage and over 80% on Apple. They have moved from being the most financially stressed in 2006 to a close 2nd to Verizon. Why would they want to push through a massive damaging strategy change?
First off salespeople’s actions and carrier subsidies are only loosely related. It also matters a great deal if you are talking corporate stores or independent as the salesperson compensation can be quite variable in independent stores because they often have incentives. But regardless for about a year now Apple’s subsidies have been in line with higher priced Androids (see my 2013-09-10 at 19:42:48 post).
Anyway as far as the unsubsidized price. Apple is reporting the price their customers pay. I understand you don’t like the postpay market, but their customer base overwhelming does.
> The core “peak oil” claim was that hydrocarbon production would crash so quickly that the industrial economy was doomed to collapse.
Bullshit, indeed. But the bullshitter here is you. I’m sure you know better, and are simply engaging in extreme positioning.
The core “peak oil” claim is that hydrocarbon production will peak, after which the rate of production will enter terminal decline. It might (and likely will be) be a long, slow decline, but market forces will still wreck havoc as rising demand body slams into an inelastic supply. The only possible result is that prices will continue to rise.
Meanwhile production is, even in the most optimistic estimates, flattening out, while the demand for petrochemicals continues to rise. As prices rise, previously uneconomic sources will be exploited.
Over the past decade, China has become the world’s largest energy consumer, as well as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Chinese coal consumption is up 157 percent since 2002, and they now consume over 50 percent of the world’s coal. Their oil consumption rose by 5 million barrels per day (bpd) in the past 10 years, to nearly double the level of 2002.
According to the EIA, we haven’t seen anything yet.
http://imgur.com/R8JhSQK
In order to attempt to meet this demand, China has an “All of the Above” energy strategy.
(Renewable energy advocates like to point to China’s huge investments in that sector as if to say that China is leading the way toward a clean energy future. But China is making major investments across their energy sector, including investments in many new coal and nuclear power power plants. China is expected to account for 40 percent of the world’s new nuclear power capacity over the next three decades.)
I know a lot of people who would say that the forecast is silly, because there simply won’t be enough energy to enable that sort of growth. A friend recently said to me “It’s a zero-sum game.”
I wouldn’t go that far, but to the extent that the global acquisition of energy does become a zero-sum game, that means there will be fierce competition — much more so than we have seen to date — for the world’s energy supplies. The last decade brought $100/barrel oil as the new norm.
How high might oil prices go if China grows their consumption by another 5 million bpd?
Note that the EIA only estimates that petrochemical production (all sources, including natural gas) will grow by 8.7 mb/day by 2020.
To bring this all a bit closer to home for you, sixty percent of Pennsylvania lies over a huge shale formation called the Marcellus, and that has been in the petrochemical industry’s sights since 2008.
The corporations that are developing the shale come to the state with interesting Federal entitlements: exemptions from the Clean Air, Clean Water and Clean Drinking Water Acts, as well as the Superfund Act, which requires cleanup of hazardous substances.
You don’t get to dump arsenic, barium, DEHP, glycol compounds, manganese, phenol, and sodium into the water supply without some effect on those who would later drink from it.
Of course, there is currently a moratorium on gas drilling in Bucks, Montgomery and parts of Lehigh, Berks and Chester counties. You’re somewhat safe… for now.
Enjoy it while it lasts, Eric. You’re 56 in December. Current life expectancy for a white male living in PA is just under 73 years. If you make it to 2033, you’ll have beaten the odds and have the briefest glimpse of the future that the “peakers” predict.
It’s probably a fine thing you and Cathy don’t have children though.
That might be cause for worry.
Blather on… we find it amusing.
In the past few months, I’ve felt a ever growing sense of deja vu. Certainly I’m not the first person to think that the smartphone market transition is starting to greatly resemble the mid-80’s home computer market?
It seems like Blackberry/RIM and Nokia/Microsoft are playing the role(s) of the first wave home systems (the Commodore/Tandy/TRS-80 each with a vaguely similar BASIC-based system). They both had an enormous “first movers” advantage, and just like in the home PC market, this entire lead evaporates later on. (The market shifted focus and they were just too large a juggernaut to nimbly follow.)
So far, it seems that Android has taking the role of DOS, acting as a shared OS among several hardware manufacturers. It even gets the same comparisons to being “low-cost” and causing “hardware fragmentation” compatibility issues as the early IBM-PC clones. While these can certainly cause a less than perfect user experience, they are overall a significant advantage in the market: with many different companies all moving in (slightly) different directions, there is near certainty that one of them (even if by “random walk”) will happen to move in the same general direction as the general market. Furthermore, once that success is observed by their competitors, the other Android makers can follow suit more quickly than external competitors due to their communal heritage.
So to anyone who wants to argue that Android will not be the eventual market winner, let me ask you the analogous question: what force (or combination thereof) has kept the PC market, which went through a very similar shift, from “correcting” the way you think the smartphone market will?
@R. Duke
It is not a zero sum game. Below I repost a comment from 2010 based on the situation in Europe. The sums work out for China and the Gobi desert too. China is the biggest producer of solar panels in the world.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2779&cpage=1#comment-287562
The sums are not that difficult. If you do them you find you can deliver total energy (replacing ALL sources of energy) for 1B people at a level higher than current consumption in the EU by planting an area in the Sahara less than twice the size Germany with solar panels. Electricity can be transported by high voltage DC power lines with little loss over the whole of Europe.
For instance, solar flux in tropical regions is around 300 Wm-2 averaged over a day. Take a net efficiency of 5%, losses in surface use and transportation included. The German per capita energy use is ~5.5kW. If we take a generous 7.5 kW as the norm, it would take 500 m^2 per capita to power a country like Germany. For 1B people we would need 500,000 km^2. The area of Germany is 357,114 km^2.
Easy to translate to North America.
That is all with current technologies.
Mind you, the investments would be astronomical and there would still be maintenance and political problems. But it can be done with the means available.
@Alex
Several things.
Microsoft didn’t just win an OS battle. They also won the office suite battle. During the time of DOS there was a great deal of computing diversity both more expensive systems like the work stations, less expensive systems like Apple 2 and Commodore and alternative systems like servers and dumb terminals. It was the switch to Windows which killed the diversity and created uniformity around the Microsoft/Intel/Western Digital standard. And that uniformity came in large measure from businesses standardizing on Windows as a platform. That standardization was driven by Microsoft’s position in office suites.
In the case of mobility the verticals are breaking about 80/20 in favor of Apple at least in the United States. So far Google has not been able to create a must have application for Android that’s not available on other platforms. Moreover given that they are in the advertising business they are going to have less and less interest in broadly targeting their data services to most/all customers as Android moves downmarket. And rich data services are a bad fit as phones move downmarket.
So what I’d expect is
1st billion = diverse range of phones with wide range of services and software. Android probably market leader but not a monopoly position.
2nd billion = Android dominant. Though Window’s phone better performance on worse hardware shouldn’t be discounted.
3rd-5th billion = Some Android but operating better designed for low end hardware, inconsistent network availability and expensive (relative to the users) data. Bada might fit here better. Windows phone could be a clear winner if Microsoft is interested in going this far down market. Nokia certainly knows how to play to these customers and wants to serve them, which is why I think the acquisition makes sense.
@CD-Host
“Some Android but operating better designed for low end hardware, inconsistent network availability and expensive (relative to the users) data.”
Network? WiFi hotspots you mean.
The world is being stuffed with “Free” WiFi hotspots. In the developing world the wireless phone network cannot carry all that traffic. However, getting customers to hang around your shop/cafe/restaurant/street vendor is a lucrative business. And you can even get them to pay a few pennies for the access.
A prepaid SIM card for phone and some data (Whatsapp), and WiFi for the bulk data needs. That seem to me the winning combination. And free apps. most of the 3rd-5th billion have only pennies to spend.
> Network? WiFi hotspots you mean.
No.
Omg. Chortle.
Goggle will build out LTE. Watch and learn, squiddley.
The developing world has horrible wifi infrastructure and greatly lags the developing world in all statistical measures for wifi penetration.
http://www.strategyanalytics.com/default.aspx?mod=pressreleaseviewer&a0=5193
Developing nations may be dependent on Ye Olde Internet Cafe, but that’s not necessarily a good thing or an indicator of high adoption of wifi in developing nations.
Also, a 2012 study showed that 70% of Android devices aren’t connecting to wifi:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402566,00.asp
Winter, to your sums, I have two words: baseload power. What happens when the sun goes down?
I’ve always been annoyed by ‘greens’ that tell you things like, “All we have to do is cover the Gobi Desert with solar panels…” An area twice the size of Germany? Here in the US, they tell you that we only have to cover a mere 2% of our land, never thinking that, with there being 50 states, that’s an entire, average-size state…hmmmph….
Face it, greens…you’re going to have to go nuclear. With all its problems, it’s the cleanest, most environmentally sound solution to future energy needs. All the others are WORSE.
Yeah, yeah…I know…so do you…there are plenty of sites for nuclear plants that don’t run the risk of 9.0 earthquakes followed by tsunamis.
Jay Maynard
” What happens when the sun goes down?”
No power?
Could very well be the reason why this is not yet implemented. Obviously, you need some kind of storage. There are several options, one even more spectacular than the other.
A very nice option, straight from SF, is when most of us drive electrical cars that will be plugged into the grid between trips. The smart meters they want to install everywhere will keep track of load and unload power. So the electric car fleet will act as a giant distributed battery for solar energy. Now you also know why they want to install smart meters.
China is filled to the brim with electrical bikes. In some big cities you are not allowed to ride a gasoline bike (e.g., Beijing).
For a extensive discussion about all this, see:
Sustainable Energy – without the hot air
http://www.withouthotair.com/
@LS
“All the others are WORSE.”
Solar panels are made from sand. Deserts are empty stretches of sand. The solar power is of the order of 300 Wm-2 averaged over a day. That is quite a lot for a full desert. And you can use solar power to make solar cells.
How this is worse is rather a mystery to me.
@Tim F
“The developing world has horrible wifi infrastructure and greatly lags the developing world in all statistical measures for wifi penetration.”
That is not the question. The real question is what will be there first (and cheapest), enough 3G bandwidth or WiFi hotspots on cables? I guess the WiFi.
@Tim F
That study was based on USA and UK users. I am not sure how this extrapolates to China or other places in the developing world.
http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2012/4/iPhones_Have_Significantly_Higher_Rates_of_Wi-Fi_Utilization
“That study was based on USA and UK users. I am not sure how this extrapolates to China or other places in the developing world.”
Maybe it doesn’t, but with wifi being much more broadly available in the US and UK, I don’t think it points to strong usage of wifi in less developed nations, certainly. But you are correct.
“That is not the question. The real question is what will be there first (and cheapest), enough 3G bandwidth or WiFi hotspots on cables? I guess the WiFi.”
I don’t find that a particularly interesting question. Firstly, everyone’s been saying for the last 5 years that the answer is the former. That these nations were able to rapidly develop cellular networks but all other data access remains limited (so I disagree and feel the answer is already well established). Secondly, if it is the latter and it’s on a paid wifi hotspot in a cafe shared by 100 other people for whatever metered amount of time, it’s not particularly compelling.
To me the more relevant question is: when will these users use the internet in similar ways as already being done in the developed world.
A half-hour to a few hours on a slow shared connection that you have to travel to and pay for on a metered basis is not very comparable to household wired for Verizon FiOS with 802.11ac (or at least g or n) networking, a local area network, and multiple smart mobile devices with 3G/4G services that are always on and taken for granted by the household.
Bully for the underdeveloped for getting access, any access, to the Internet. Noble goal, nice. But if we are talking highly restricted and limited wifi access, I’m still saying those customers do not have as much value.
“Solar panels are made from sand. Deserts are empty stretches of sand. The solar power is of the order of 300 Wm-2 averaged over a day. That is quite a lot for a full desert. And you can use solar power to make solar cells….How this is worse is rather a mystery to me.”
Solar panels are made of silicon. This is extracted from sand with difficulty, complication and a lot of energy. Worse than that are the chemicals used in the process. They include hydrofluoric acid, for one. (If you went to a mechanic to have your car’s VIN etched into its windows, that’s what he used to etch the glass.) There has been environmental destruction in Silicon Valley due to this issue, but there has not been much of a stink raised because the problem has (so far) been limited by the fact that integrated circuit production is aimed at reducing chip area as much as possible. The exact opposite is true for solar cells; you will be making them in massive quantities, as large as possible. Environmental nightmare ensues.
…not to mention the ecofreaks’ reaction to the thought of shading the Arizona desert – “What will the Gila Monsters do to survive?”
@Winter
A phone that’s comfortable for heavy browsing has to have a larger screen and thus a larger battery and thus… The nice thing is the bigger the phone the cheaper it is to move from crappy to adequate in terms of performance. Assuming you are right that for billions 3-5 the real need is internet cafes…. then I think Android is likely to do very very well.
@CD-Host:
The switch to windows, along with Microsoft’s willingness to play hardball with office suite competitors, greatly aided them in taking over the word processing market. But Microsoft already owned the OS. They had the foresight at that time to invest in the future, and the willingness to cut of competitors’ oxygen simply by making it extremely cheap for OEMs who sold MS exclusively.
Yes there were other window/task managers that worked on top of DOS, and even a DOS replacement, and of course OS/2, but those never got that much traction. I think DR-DOS got 10% tops. It would have gone higher, but the transition to Windows was already in full swing.
So Microsoft was smart/ruthless enough to leverage a preexisting OS monopoly into a paradigm shift (from DOS to Windows) and pick up a market segment (office suite) in the process.
Yes, there were some great synergies there, and yes, the office suite was a killer app (though not at all pioneered by microsoft), but MS didn’t need a killer app to be on top with MS-DOS. They just needed network effects, which Android has in spades.
Google’s trying damned hard to make it easy for anybody to replace Android (for example, with persistent apps in the chrome store) while simultaneously trying to make it a silly decision to do so for most OEMs (it’s hard to compete with a free OS which has a great ecosystem around it).
Any competition for top spot is likely to come from the low end, like Boot2Gecko, rather than from the high end. It’s just too difficult and time-consuming to build the whole thing yourself.
@CD-Host:
FWIW, phablets are the category-killer in India.
network effects, which Android has in spades
Well, that’s one of the things I’ve been questioning around here. Not that there aren’t some, but what exactly is the network effect between (say) a low-end Chinese Android phone that can’t use the Google Play store and a Nexus tablet? They are both called “Android” but otherwise seem to have little to do with one another. Winter is always going on about super-cheap Android devices in the Third World, but don’t fewer features, less power, and fragmentation all mean a diversity that works against network effects?
The iOS universe is smaller overall in device count, but the network effects between iPhones and iPads and iPod Touches seem to be stronger.
@PapayaSF:
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that end users, or possibly end users+developers, are all that counts in an ecosystem. Yes, Apple has a nice synergy that works well for some developers and some relatively affluent (in worldwide terms) end users, and no the diversity doesn’t work against network effects — it enhances it by increasing the rate of evolution.
As far as the features and power goes, Moore’s Law is still in effect. The long-term losing bet is almost always catering too much to the lowest end hardware, like B2G might be doing, but there are almost always short-term arbitration plays that push the limits of low-end hardware with high-end software. The diversity you bemoan means there are a lot of players actively pushing Android into every conceivable niche, which means that any hardware manufacturer can probably find at least a small market for its chip/board/system.
@Tim F
For those who have no internet, a little bandwidth is a huge game changer. We are spoilt for instant movie downloads. They are happy with messaging and social sites. Its a huge improvement to SMS, and much cheaper.
@LS
Yes, making solar panels is a dirty business, so what?
And the fact that making solar cells costs energy is irrelevant as long as they produce more energy than their construction consumes. That point has been reached decades ago.
Winter wrote: “So the electric car fleet will act as a giant distributed battery for solar energy.”
Suppose I drive my car to work (where there is no convenient charger), work all day, drive the car to dinner, eventually arriving home as the sun sets. When I get home I plug in the car expecting it to charge overnight while I sleep. You’re saying that the car then GIVES UP power all night long, at least until sunrise, (probably a bit longer since the solar power production is really weak when the sun is that low in the sky), then I get up and drive to work.
When exactly is my car getting charged UP in this scenario?
The expense and short lifespan of batteries make electric cars impractical, and solar power impractical.
Sodium sulfur batteries might well become cheap enough in the near future – or not, hard to predict.
Another solution would be a world spanning grid, where solar power from one half of the world powers the other half. This, however, would require unrealistic levels of stability, cooperation, and peacefulness, at a time when America’s world empire is in decline, and China is unable, unwilling, and unsuitable to act as world hegemon.
Yeah, but the number of people who think that doesn’t make it any more or less true.
The big issue: the most important function for any smartphone is communication. Can an Android phone call an iPhone? Yes. Can it text an iPhone? Yes. Can you send email from one to another? Yes. This means that any lock-in network effects are minimized.
Eric’s predictions about a 50% tipping point assumed that there was a substantial benefit to being on the same OS as your workplace/friends/etc. This was the case for the 80s computer market. It is not the case for smartphones.
@Winter. I agree. To SMS or video chat a cousin in a village a days journey away in Africa must be amazing. Transformative. Great. Good for them.
They’re still very low value customers.
People forget that those who manage and plan the power grids have a long time horizon. They are doing things now that will come online in only a decade.
@Glen Raphael
“(where there is no convenient charger)”
They are mending this fast. At least in Europe. I already saw power outlets in Portland, OR, too.
@Glen Raphael
“You’re saying that the car then GIVES UP power all night long, at least until sunrise,”
If power is cheap at day, but expensive at night, and you are paid out the difference, there will be people who see how to benefit from that. It might even be an incentive to buy an over dimensioned battery.
@Glen Raphael
“When exactly is my car getting charged UP in this scenario?”
When you think that power is cheapest. That is, when the sun shines and you are at work. If people can sell you a charge, would they not bother to set up outlets where you park your car?
@JAD
“Sodium sulfur batteries might well become cheap enough in the near future – or not, hard to predict.”
Not hard. Technology gets cheaper all the time. There is a huge demand for good batteries. Someone will come up with a cheap, lightweight, and reliable battery.
@Tim F.
“They’re still very low value customers.”
2 billion low value customers are called a business opportunity.
“Someone will come up with a cheap, lightweight, and reliable battery.”
Eventually, someone will. Eventually, fusion power will be cheap and universally available. The Dow Jones Industrial Average will hit 30000. These all WILL happen, but when?
@Winter: At least in the US, the people in charge of the electric grid are NOT thinking decades ahead. Our grid is old, and creaky, and is only patched after a major outage. It’s a lot like some software.
|@LS
“At least in the US, the people in charge of the electric grid are NOT thinking decades ahead.”
Indeed, if you say so.
However, those in, say, East Asia and Europe are thinking ahead. That is where all this “Smart meter” stuff is coming from. They are planning to electrify the whole economy with decentralized production and time-differential pricing for more efficient power use.
@LS
““Someone will come up with a cheap, lightweight, and reliable battery.”
… These all WILL happen, but when?”
See the graph in:
http://www.economist.com/node/10789409
Battery technology complexity is not on par with thermonuclear fusion.
Winter on 2013-09-12 at 02:14:02 said:
> Technology gets cheaper all the time. There is a huge demand for good batteries. Someone will come up with a cheap, lightweight, and reliable battery.
Social decay and disgenesics. Importing a low IQ underclass, and graduating women for attending university whilst in possession of a pussy. Science courses teach the sinfulness of being white and male, that science is a crime against Gaia, that truth is official truth and scientific consensus. The scientific method has not been taught in school or university since the 1970s. Women in tech.
Some technologies are still getting better and cheaper. Most have stalled. A lot stalled in the early seventies, more stalled around 2007 or so.
The last man on the moon will soon die of old age. The tallest buildings in the west and fastest planes were built in the seventies. We really cannot do that stuff any more.
US electricity production was growing exponentially until 1972. After 1972 it grew more slowly. Per capita electricity consumption probably maxed in 2007, now probably is declining.
We are seeing accelerating improvement on gene reading but decelerating improvement or stagnation on gene writing, possibly regress on gene writing, deceleration on chip densities. Most other stuff is at a dead stop, or, like our ability to build tall buildings, actually declining. London looks increasingly like it did in the twenties. While Shanghai looks like the city of tomorrow, London is heading back to Victorian times.
We need some genuinely new technologies to get us there, and the rate at which we have been introducing genuinely new technologies has been slowing down markedly since the nineteen forties, arguably since the eighteen seventies.
n 1967, the writers of Startreck assumed that by the 1990s, we would have large nuclear powered orbit to orbit interplanetary craft with large crews. Given the progress that had been happening, that seemed at the time a reasonable expectation. Progress has slowed, slowed strikingly and obviously.
Winter on 2013-09-12 at 02:58:55 said:
> See the graph in: http://www.economist.com/node/10789409
See that the dotted lines are admitted to be fiction, and the lithium line is unadmitted fiction – rechargeable lithium still does not work.
So the only meaningful line is Nickel Metal Hydride, which is indeed progressing – slowly.
For battery technology to make electric cars or solar power useful requires revolutionary and fundamental change in battery technology – which has not been happening.
@JAD
“For battery technology to make electric cars or solar power useful requires revolutionary and fundamental change in battery technology – which has not been happening.”
New all-solid sulfur-based battery outperforms lithium-ion technology
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-all-solid-sulfur-based-battery-outperforms-lithium-ion.html
The scientific behind this is found in:
Electrochemical Performance of All-Solid-State Li/S Batteries with Sulfur-Based Composite Electrodes Prepared by Mechanical Milling at High Temperature
Motohiro Nagao, Dr. Akitoshi Hayashi, Prof.?Dr. Masahiro Tatsumisago*
Energy Technology, Volume 1, Issue 2-3, pages 186–192, March 2013
Sorry, I should have added this link from the phys org paper:
Lithium Polysulfidophosphates: A Family of Lithium-Conducting Sulfur-Rich Compounds for Lithium–Sulfur Batteries
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201300680/abstract
$35/month gets me all-I-can-eat everything. The data’s a bit slow, but it’s all I need.
At 2g speeds after the meager 4g allotment is used up (measured in mb) on the t-mob plans I saw.
Ubiquitous high speed access is one of the primary feature for smartphones. That you prefer to hobble your phone because your usage patterns are meager doesn’t make t-mob plans a great value. Just cheap.
“However, those in, say, East Asia and Europe are thinking ahead. That is where all this “Smart meter” stuff is coming from. They are planning to electrify the whole economy with decentralized production and time-differential pricing for more efficient power use.”
That’s NOT thinking ahead. “Smart meters” do not generate a watt of electricity.
James Lovelock (the Gaia Guy) commented that, “We can’t conserve our way out of our energy problems – diets don’t work!” He’s right. We will need to generate more electricity.
@Patrick
Absolutely true. But Microsoft stumbled into competing with OS/2. Windows was supposed to be a short term intermediate solution for systems not powerful enough for OS/2. IBM never considered the possibility they could lose control of the “IBM PC” platform entirely and so felt free to use OS/2 to kill off the clones and start making licensing fees on hardware early on, and later on IBM was simply too dysfunctional to compete on OS/2 vs. Windows. We can call it a lucky accident for Microsoft that OS/2 failed miserably. But there is no reason to believe that this was inevitable.
The office suite compatibility was the network effect. What network effects do you think exist outside of things like office suite compatibility? In 1991 if we exclude office suites what would have been wrong with company choosing Amiga 2000s for their employees?
Just as an aside… it was the case for the early 1990s computer market. In the 1980s there were diverse ecosystems which were evolving semi-independently of one another. There really wasn’t that much additional complexity introduced by being different than your friends. You only needed to be on similar platforms when file interchange was going to be a common occurrence and given that PCs were still an adjunct to bigger systems for large companies that wasn’t all that common.
It’s already happening.
I have 3 work friends who are making a mobile game on the side. 2 are die-hard apple fans, 1 has no real skin in the game but really likes retina displays. They’re using Unity to make the game so the difference between Apple and Android is playtest time. Guess what OS they’re building for? Thats right, the one with >50% market share.
That is the only network effect I care about.
I don’t care if it makes Apple collapse or not. I just don’t want Apple’s walled garden to be the one controlling it.
@LS
““Smart meters” do not generate a watt of electricity.”
But Smart meters allow you to feed back power to the grid easily.
That allows for a lot of domestic solar/wind production. It also supports using electrical car batteries as power back-up at night. And they allow you to level out peaks which would require expensive and wasteful power plants.
We cannot conserve ourselves out of an energy/climate crisis (see the book link I gave above). But smart meters allow to install backup power and storage for solar energy. And solar energy is able to supply all the power we consume.
@JonCB:
http://blog.appannie.com/app-annie-idc-portable-gaming-report-2013-q2/
@CD-Host:
The historical evidence is that it was murder, not an accident.
You keep ignoring that MS had an OS monopoly first, and that it wasn’t for a lack of competitors. Do you really think that network effects had nothing to do with that monopoly?
Winter wrote: “If power is cheap at day, but expensive at night, and you are paid out the difference, there will be people who see how to benefit from that. It might even be an incentive to buy an over dimensioned battery.”
If plugging in my car at night means my car has LESS power in the morning, I’m not going to plug in my car at night. As for buying an over-dimensioned battery, what exactly is the benefit to buying this extra battery capacity (that’s not available in the morning) in a transportable form? If it’s profitable for ME to buy some extra battery capacity that charges at noon and returns power to the grid at night, instead of doing that in a super-expensive form (because it has to be lightweight and fit in a car and makes every car trip less efficient), wouldn’t it make more sense to buy that extra capacity in the form of a battery that just sits in a closet or garage all day?
And if it does, why do *I* have a comparative advantage in that – can’t the power company get better economies of scale by buying huge batteries in a central location than I can by putting smaller ones in my garage?
@Patrick
Very little if anything. I think IBM and Lotus drew in quality players that the other platform didn’t. I think Microsoft’s push for the Microsoft/Intel/Western Digital standard drove down the price of DOS/Windows PCs. There may have been some network effect prior to the office suites unifying under Microsoft but not much.
@Glen Raphael
“If plugging in my car at night means my car has LESS power in the morning, I’m not going to plug in my car at night. ”
If you can get paid for putting your batteries on the grid overnight, you just might do that. If power is cheap when the sun shines and expensive when it does not, you can buy power cheap and sell it when it is expensive. Especially nice when the price difference is predictable.
@Glen Raphael
“can’t the power company get better economies of scale by buying huge batteries in a central location than I can by putting smaller ones in my garage?”
Capital? You need to have the battery anyway to run your car.
That means the power company does not need to buy the batteries. Moreover, you can use your your own battery charge to power your house at night when external power is expensive.
If you want it with numbers and all, read:
http://www.withouthotair.com/c26/page_194.shtml
@Glen Raphael:
The electronics for managing batteries are cheap and getting cheaper, as are the batteries themselves. The heat generated by rapid charge/discharge means that, past a certain point, economy of scale may be illusive.
This becomes a free market problem — if the incentives are properly aligned, then the right things will happen. If the power company charges five cents a KWH when the sun is shining, but charges 10 cents when it isn’t, and pays you 7 cents if you put a KWH back on the grid at night time, there will be plenty of people putting batteries in their garages, or compressed air storage tanks, or building their own elevated water towers.
If the incentives are improperly aligned by government fiat, then you get people shining lights on their solar panels at night.
@Patrick
“If the incentives are improperly aligned by government fiat, then you get people shining lights on their solar panels at night.”
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/465409/spanish_nighttime_solar_energy_fraud_unlikely_in_uk.html
@Winter
> If power is cheap at day, but expensive at night, and you are paid out the difference, there will be people who see how to benefit from that
You know this comment got me thinking. If that is true (which I suppose it kind of is) and there really were a free exchange of electricity for money bidirectionally, you would think that there would be a lot of businesses living off the arbitrage.
But I don’t think there are. I wonder why. I’m going to guess government interference in the market place, but I don’t know for sure.
>But I don’t think there are. I wonder why. I’m going to guess government interference in the market place, but I don’t know for sure.
That’s generally a safe bet, but in this case I think the horrible inefficiencies associated with electricity transmission and storage are more to blame. It’s tough to have a commodity market when your commodity can’t be warehoused and dissipates when you try to move it around.
@Fluffy girl
“But I don’t think there are. I wonder why. I’m going to guess government interference in the market place, but I don’t know for sure.”
The whole scheme is only possible if there is ample solar power generation and a largely electrified economy (as in, almost all energy is solar energy).
That is still not true. What would be needed is:
– massive solar power generation
– electrification of almost all energy use (mainly transport and heating/cooling)
– massive storage in electrical cars
– good bi-directional power delivery
On all part people are working. Europeans try to set up large solar power plants in the Sahara. These are in trouble because of the political troubles there. The USA is starting in California. China is the largest producer of solar panels.
They are setting up charging point for electrical cars all over Europe. There are also developments in getting smart meters in the homes and more solar panels on the roofs.
As always, the technical problems are the easy part. The social or organizational “problems” are the really hard ones.
@winter
I wasn’t thinking about solar or alternatives, i was simply thinking that if electricity is cheaper during the night, why aren’t there companies storing that electricity at night and selling it back when the price is higher during the day.
Perhaps it is government interference, perhaps the transaction costs overwhelm the arbitrage. I suspect the former and doubt the latter.
@Fluffy Girl
“Perhaps it is government interference, perhaps the transaction costs overwhelm the arbitrage. I suspect the former and doubt the latter.”
There seems to be some arbitrage for industrial partners. I have no idea about the other parties. There are huge problems with network and power plant ownership and the fact that electricity is difficult to store.
I do know of one case where the cost differential got exploited on an industrial scale. During the worst of the California power crisis, my provincial power utility, BC Hydro, exported hydro-power during the day, and bought power at night when it was cheap. Since most of our generation is from hydroelectric dams, we have a lot of peak power (and thus could generate excess), but a finite amount of energy (total water behind the dams) – hence the need to buy it back at night, by idling the dams and importing.
The price differentials were absurdly large, and even so we only made modest amounts of money on it. I recall that most of us got a $100 rebate or so on our utility bills that year. So BC Hydro profited on the order of (hundreds of?) millions but not billions of dollars, during a time when the price differential was as large as it is ever likely to get. (And they caught a lot of flak for it later, too. That annoyed me – BC Hydro hadn’t done that, the crisis would have been worse.)
“But Smart meters allow you to feed back power to the grid easily.”
People can grow their own food, but generally don’t have the time for it. They would rather rely on others who are much better than they are at it. Those others are known as “farmers”.
People could generate their own electricity, but would rather do other things, instead relying on other people who are much better at it than they are. Those others are known as “electric utilities”.
@CD-Host:
Lotus was certainly part of the network effect. IBM sure, they helped to get the ball rolling, but MS had a lock on the OS well after IBM’s marketshare went to nothing.
In any case, let’s turn it around. What are the events that would cause a different OS to become ascendant on the smartphone?
FWIW, West Texas has the same yet opposite problem than that being discussed here.
The wind turbines generate most of their power at night; people use the most power in the late afternoon/early evening, because that’s when the AC needs are greatest (thermal lag).
@LS
“People could generate their own electricity, but would rather do other things, instead relying on other people who are much better at it than they are. Those others are known as “electric utilities”.”
People can also use public transport instead of driving their own car. Or they can let the supermarket deliver their food at home.
Some people will be happy to do some work to cut costs or get an extra income. People can instruct their appliances to use power when it is cheapest. That too is something smart meters will be able to do.
Other examples, around here some farmers have put up wind turbines on their land. They farm wind. And quite a number of people have put solar panels on their roofs. They think they will make a profit.
Also “smart meters” (how far we went from topic of this blog post…) allow to sell excess of energy generated for own needs (be it wind, small hydro or solar), instead of buying some expensive and energy-loosing balance system like batteries.
Note how that only shows customer spending, i.e. No advertising revenue?
My guess would be because you’re selling back to the same mono/oligo-poly that you’re buying from. Theres no businesses living off the arbitrage of cash converters either.
(But i don’t think your government interference theory is implausible either)
@Patrick: The lag with turbines is a concern, but it’s way down below the fact that the transmission corridor connecting the nice windy areas is saturated. We could put hundreds of megawatts on the grid in months if the transmission capacity were there, and I suspect that most of my own electrons are coming from turbine power.
@Christopher Smith:
> The lag with turbines is a concern, but it’s way down below the fact that the transmission corridor connecting the nice windy areas is saturatedAgreed. Here’s more info:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/column-wynn-wind-transmission-idUSL5N0H722C20130912
If you assume that the transmission problem will be fixed, the wind turbines become complementary to some amount of solar.
> I suspect that most of my own electrons are coming from turbine power.
Could be, depending on where you are, but power in the form of 60Hz is fairly fungible.
@Fluffy Girl: (How do you define fluffy?)
> Perhaps it is government interference, perhaps the transaction costs overwhelm the arbitrage.
It’s hard to distinguish between these when the government owns the utility.
@JonCB:
*shrug*
http://gigaom.com/2013/07/23/android-ios-pull-even-in-smartphone-ad-traffic-but-ios-still-drives-most-ad-revenue/
http://www.mopub.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/MoPub-Mobile-Advertising-Marketplace-Report-2012-Q4.pdf
Not a lot of hard numbers, alas. Then again, one story about your co-workers is also not hard numbers.
I don’t think Apple’s position is impervious, mind you. I just think the whole network effect argument is based on the human desire to pattern match even when the patterns don’t exist. Not all technology battles are the same.
That’s what I’d like to see. Unfortunately, “fixing” the transmission problem is projected to cost in the ten figures (enough that T. Boone Pickens got skittish), and all of our tens of billions are tied up in the Middle East and the shiny new datacenter in Utah.
Exactly: I’m on “this” side of the transmission corridor. ;-)
High-Voltage DC Breakthrough Could Boost Renewable Energy
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/12/121206-high-voltage-dc-breakthrough/
High-voltage direct current
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
About High-voltage direct current– the problem might be regulating the current (fast cutoff and redirection), but I have read in Scientific American some time ago about high-energy diamond transistors / electronics… but I think it was in research phase, not in industrial applications phase.
off-topicy
@Patrick
Lotus wasn’t a valuable product because of communication but because of capabilities. Communication played a limited role, other spreadsheets on other systems had similar communication capabilities. What they lacked was the sheer performance which allowed analysis of larger datasets in spreadsheet format to be practical. The people for whom Lotus was better, would have found it better regardless of whether IBM PCs had 5% marketshare, 50% or 90%.
That’s the key point. Microsoft’s dominant position in OSes was mostly a result of other factors, not network effects. The network effects came later and came from Office.
I’m assuming by “dominant” you mean unit sales which is really IMHO a not particularly good metric. But using that metric:
a) I talked about this above. Google’s inability to provide their services to billions 3-5 leading to other operating systems better suited to their infrastructure. Both Windows Phone / Nokia and Tizen could be much better choices. Android ends up the dominant phone only for billion 2 with iOS being dominant for billion 1.
b) Several mobile applications which take advantage of another OS and can’t be ported effectively to Android i.e. a “killer app”. Exactly what happened with Microsoft, and arguably with iOS’s popularity in the United States.
c) Samsung decides to aggressively shift to protected margins from cheaper Chinese phones. Samsung controls a huge percentage of the mid-range smartphone ($150-300) Android marketshare. Android customers aren’t brand loyal at all, but in so far as they are loyal they are much more aware of Samsung than Android. I think Samsung could potentially move well over 1/2 the Android market at those price points off Android. From there the application the rest of the ecosystem could dry up.
d) NSA snooping on hundreds of millions of phones leads European and Asian leaders to either restrict or heavily intervene in Android. Restrictions obvious shift the OS but that strong government intervention if it happens could kill Android’s financial model.
e) Google’s earning start to deteriorate and they decide to boost earnings per handset heavily rather than focusing on growth, i.e. profitable shrinkage.
f) The dominance of iOS on higher end verticals makes iOS a mandatory “work phones”. Enterprises and business start buying the handsets for their employees, both domestically and globally. iOS becomes associated with business productivity while other OSes become niches. Which is very similar to what happened to Microsoft in the 1990s and 2000s relative to other OSes.
etc…
>a) 3-5B
Moore’s law. Also I don’t see how WP is better than Android
>b) ?
>c) The Chinese will displace Samsung anyway. China gets (has?) the most production capacity and will undercut Samsung. And like with the iPhone in the early days, the competition will not simply fold when Samsung goes it alone.
@CD-Host
d) NSA snooping
Forking Android will be much more sensible than starting from scratch. Forks already exists.
> e) Google going to the dark side. See d) or Firefox OS
> f) Buziness selects iOS
Business is irrelevant for 99% of users. Most certainly in the developing world.
@Winter —
a) I don’t see what Moore’s law has to do with Android financial model not fitting. Make the phone free, it still doesn’t make economic sense for Google to provide the services.
c) I’m not going to so confidently predict that Samsung loses. Cheaper doesn’t always win. The US example proves that.
d) If Google isn’t involved then it is getting harder to call it Android. That’s one of the reasons I have trouble considering the Chinese phones to be Android. But if you want “Android “to be so broad as to cover a family related operating systems with a variety of online service providers offering all sorts of different services. OK sure that mostly fixes the problem. But under those scenarios fragmentation issues are incredible and there are no “network effects”. That’s very much like what JavaVM has until recently and still possibly as the dominant OS.
e) Firefox OS is a change of OS.
f) Here you are just wrong. People in the developing world have jobs too and those jobs are facilities by IT. What they don’t have is a culture of work based software on their personal devices and/or work providing their devices. That can change.
Sure and hard numbers aren’t what i’m interested in.
To me this concept that people call “Network Effects”, when applied to software, is a constant force like gravity. Sure you can push against it, Android wouldn’t have gotten where it is if not for that fact. But always there’s that voice in the back of your marketing department saying “we’re not catering to 75% of our potential customers”. And that’s going to lead to a scenario that says (at worst) “sure we’ll develop for iPhone, but we’ll also do an android port”. And, as i said, that’s all i really care about.
CD-Host > d) NSA snooping on hundreds of millions of phones leads European and Asian leaders to either restrict or heavily intervene in Android. Restrictions obvious shift the OS but that strong government intervention if it happens could kill Android’s financial model.
I don’t think there’s any chance of that happening in Europe, at least. Asia might be different, but as you write, Google’s services are not on very many Android phones is China as it is, anyway. The German and French politicians have made a fair amount of noise about the NSA scandal, but on the level of the politicians, it’s either smoke and mirrors or possibly genuine ignorance about how signals intelligence agencies work. The politicians must at least play upset since their meetings at the EU and the UN were spied on by an ally, but the agencies of those European countries have been in bed with the CIA and NSA to various extents all along, and they want the data just as much as the NSA wants it. The British haven’t really bothered to even pretend otherwise, and there would be no point anyway, since their agency’s part is exposed by the leaks.
Some years ago, the Swedish government said perfectly publicly that they’ll listen to all foreign traffic that passes through Sweden, which happens to include e.g. nearly all internet traffic from and to Finland. Obama was just in Sweden, appearing on short notice because he canceled his trip to Russia over the disagreement about Edward S. Before the meeting, the Swedish prime minister said he’d raise the question of snooping. After the meeting, he said he “understands” the point of view of the US government (read: we’re happy to work with the NSA so long as we have some access).
Btw. both Sweden and Finland have been attracting new data centers in recent years. Google has one in Finland, the Russian search engine Yandex is building one, and one part of Ballmer’s Nokia-acquisition tour here was to talk about a new Microsoft data center in Northern Finland, likely to be built in Oulu. I guess all of these are there to serve the Russian and East European markets, so possibly a lot of that traffic will not go through Swedish fibre optic cables. I don’t actually know what the Finnish government’s position is on listening to that stuff, but the funding for signals intelligence here is such that whatever they do, it won’t be much.
Indeed. When even Sweden is known to be a close NSA partner — and actively working at the behest of the USA to press trumped-up rape charges against a prominent whistleblower (Julian Assange) — you can’t count on European governments’ hands to be the least bit clean in this whole mess.
“actively working at the behest of the USA to press trumped-up rape charges against a prominent whistleblower (Julian Assange)”
Just remember, Jeff: shiny side out.
Far be it from me to defend Sweden’s rape laws, which are the direct result of listening to leftist feminists, but really now…if you don’t want to get prosecuted, you should start by not doing anything that can be construed as breaking the law.
So no discussion of the new iPhones? Yes, the 5C is pretty underwhelming, but the 5S with a 64-bit CPU, a motion co-processor, and Touch ID looks pretty cool.
>the 5S with a 64-bit CPU, a motion co-processor, and Touch ID looks pretty cool.
Ah, yes. The 5S, otherwise known as “all your fingerprints are belong to the Feds”.
@PapayaSF
Please explain the benefits of a 64 bit processor on an iPhone and how they outweigh the drawbacks?
Because I have not been able to find them outside the fact that there is a higher number printed in the marketing materials.
winter,
Spoken like a detractor who’s butthurt that the iPhone 5S is the ONLY mass-market 64-bit smartphone.
Smartphones are already coming with gigs of RAM. It’s difficult to access more than 4 GiB without a 64-bit CPU.
64-bit CPUs can also compute much faster, can more easily support 64-bit filesystems, etc. Really, if you are using a phone as a personal computing device, 64 bits is a must.
The A7 should put the iPhone back at the top of smartphone speed benchmarks for the next six months at least.
Seriously? Compute “much faster” for anything not involving 64-bit values (which is most things)? Certainly we’re going to be seeing phones with more than 4GiB of RAM, and perhaps it makes sense to do a 64-bit rollout to have a trial run for debugging apps and such, but there’s not going to be much of an improvement on this iteration from the 64-bitness.
This is a good article and discussion.
Also, this: looks like Apple might be laying the groundwork for future products.
@PapayaSF
The 5C is basically the 5 redesigned to slash manufacturing costs. The 5S didn’t go 32/64 but rather flash 16/32/64 so Apple may be looking to boost margins and the 5C is about not wanting to cut the cost of the 5 by $100. Note they also cut the flash in the 4S down to 8. The other possibility is they didn’t want the 5C to cannibalize. So they price it close the 5S during the time when the 5S sales surge happens then when it is over they slash the price of the 5C another $150 and get another sales surge.
The 5S is very cool and iOS 7 is amazing. The 5S should have been 32/64 though it feels gouging rather than just expensive.
ARM v8 is much better than ARM v7. Normally 64 bit wouldn’t do anything on ARM it is quite helpful. Also don’t forget tablets. Over the next 6 years is there any doubt that Apple is going to push their tablets to 8g of RAM? They want the new iOS 7 apps to be 64 bit ready.
Yes, the 5S will be my next phone. My 3GS has been fine for four years, but the battery is getting weak and it’s topped out at iOS 6.
The Register article I linked to above has a good discussion of the advantages of 64 bits beyond the 4GB memory issue.
I hope Apple does drop the 5C price, but they often don’t do that, preferring to add power and features and keep the price the same. But I suspect that the iPhone line will continue to expand, like iPods did.
> The 5C is basically the 5 redesigned to slash manufacturing costs.
It wasn’t designed to “slash manufacturing costs”, because it didn’t. It was designed to update the surface of the 5, so people buying the entry product (no, not the 4S) could have something cool, too.
Take a look at the dimensions:
iPhone 5 Height: 123.83 mm, Width: 58.57 mm, Depth: 7.6mm https://developer.apple.com/resources/cases/dimensions/iPhone-5-dimensions.pdf
iPhone 5S Height: 123.8 mm, Width 58.6 mm, Depth: 7.6 mm http://www.apple.com/iphone-5s/specs/
iPhone 5C Height: 124.4 mm, Width: 59.2 mm, Depth: 8.97mm http://www.apple.com/iphone-5c/specs/
See also: http://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/
If you compute the difference here between the iPhone 5C and iPhone 5/5S (so: iPhone 5C – iPhone 5/5S):
Height: 124.4 – 123.8 = 0.6mm (0.0236”)
Width: 59.2 – 58.6 = 0.6mm (0.0236”)
Depth: 8.97 – 7.6 = 1.37mm (0.0539”)
I’d say that the extra height and width is due entirely to the plastic shell.
It seriously looks to me like the 5C is a 5 underneath. (With a slightly larger (5S?) battery, given the 10% longer standby & talk time.)
I’m willing to believe that the same “band antenna” structure from the 5/5S is underneath the plastic shell in the 5C. The tear downs will verify, of course.
> Note they also cut the flash in the 4S down to 8
To make it as unattractive as possible. Anyone in the market for a new phone will *easily* pay the $99 to get into the 5C with 16GB and LTE, rather than the 4S with 8GB and 3G.
And now we find out that Nokia was getting ready to bail for Android.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/behind-microsoft-deal-the-specter-of-a-nokia-android-phone/?smid=tw-nytimesbits&seid=auto&_r=1&&pagewanted=all
Once again, linux/Android are used as leverage, not as an actual product or technology.
Also:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/13/4728184/microsoft-surface-phone-testing-while-nokia-experimented-with-android
I’m sure Samsung would have loved that.
Christopher Smith > Compute “much faster” for anything not involving 64-bit values (which is most things)?
Seriously. Consider a 64-bit optimized string compare which compares 8 chars at a time, rather than 4. You’ll generate 1/2 the loads and 1/2 the compares., Even when pipelined, the loads consume the time. (Both newlib and GNU libc already do this.)
Or, if you want to look at real world code, consider this: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/6558676
FindMinPath32, compiled in 32-bit mode: 1 (normalized)
FindMinPath64, compiled in 32-bit mode: 1.002x
FindMinPath32, compiled in 64-bit mode: 0.93x
FindMinPath64, compiled in 64-bit mode: 0.85x
In the third result, we witness a performance gain of 7%. This is merely by recompiling the 32-bit code for a 64-bit system.
The fourth line is where the reality hits home, as the performance gain is 15%.
Merely using the type size_t instead of unsigned we let the compiler build a more effective code that works even 8% faster than just compiling for 64-bit.
This is yet another place where Apple’s approach (native code) is superior to that of Android (with its layer of Java). Because Apple makes the development environment and has updated those tools for 64-bit architectures, a developer only really needs to recompile their application to make it 64-bit compatible
This will not be true with Android. Dalvik virtual registers are 32 bits and are stored in reverse order on the stack. They are referenced relative to the frame pointer R5. Hence, the virtual register V0 is located at the top of the stack (pointed to by the ARM register R5,) and the virtual register V1 sits on top of V0 in memory, and so forth.
Google will also need to add 64-bit ARM support to the Android kernel.
Work is occurring, but we’re still a long way from a stable kernel for linux on ARM.
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c9ef713993ba168b38d1a97ea0ab00874f1da022
tl;dr: Android has a lot more moving pieces to coordinate, and will take longer to go to 64-bit.
Apple just hit Android in the head with the performance hammer.
@CD-Host:
You have a very narrow definition of network effects.
> You have a very narrow definition of network effects.
network effects is narrowly defined!
In economics and business, a network effect (also called network externality) is the effect that one user of a good or service has on the value of that product to other people. When network effect is present, the value of a product or service increases as more people use it.
@LeRoi
When the Dalvik VM is ported to 64 bit, all bytecode apps will run on 64 bit. Most (all?) apps in Google Play are byecode apps. Linux runs on 64 bit processors since 1995.
http://www.androidauthority.com/64-bit-processors-4gb-memory-coming-2014-267402/
> Ah, yes. The 5S, otherwise known as “all your fingerprints are belong to the Feds”.
AFAIK fingerprints data is purely local and doesn’t leave the phone.
>AFAIK fingerprints data is purely local and doesn’t leave the phone.
And you know this how? Nobody can audit Apple’s closed-source code.
As usual, a prudent person should evaluate security risks on the assumption that any portion of the software that isn’t open-source is malicious, out to get you, and co-opted by an NSA surveillance program.
@LeRoy
“Consider a 64-bit optimized string compare which compares 8 chars at a time, rather than 4. You’ll generate 1/2 the loads and 1/2 the compares., Even when pipelined, the loads consume the time.”
I agree that it is a good move of Apple to switch to 64 bit. However, users who buy an iPhone 5 will not get much out of that. Maybe in iPhone 6 this will make a real difference, or in the next generation of iPads.
What you leave out in your analysis is the potential of increased power consumption.
@LeRoy
“Because Apple makes the development environment and has updated those tools for 64-bit architectures, a developer only really needs to recompile their application to make it 64-bit compatible ”
Experience has taught me to distrust such statements. The fact that most Android apps are Dalvik byte codes makes the switch for Android even easier: The moment Dalvik has been ported, all apps run in 64 bit.
@Leroy
You are forgetting the big change:
iPhone 5C — 132g
iPhone 5 — 112g
I’m having trouble believing that extra 20g is from plastic and not from cheaper components (especially the battery and screen). Even a few percentage points more space would reduce the complexity of assembly for the 5 driving Foxconn’s costs way down. So I don’t think it is a 5 underneath, but we’ll both know more in a month.
“I’m having trouble believing that extra 20g is from plastic and not from cheaper components (especially the battery and screen).”
The frame is plastic on the outside, it’s steel-reinforced on the inside. Steel is heavier (and also cheaper). The battery is larger. Weight difference explained. Cheaper electronic components wouldn’t be measurably heavier.
“As usual, a prudent person should evaluate security risks on the assumption that any portion of the software that isn’t open-source is malicious, out to get you, and co-opted by an NSA surveillance program.”
And a prudent person should also evaluate the likelihood of their data being captured by evaluating just how interesting it is to the NSA. For the average American, read: very, very little. The NSA, quite frankly, doesn’t care.
The Feds already have my fingerprints, both from the various CCW permit applications I’ve filed and from the Secret clearance I had a couple of decades ago.
The iPhone 5S won’t be my next phone, but not because of that; rather, it’ll be because a (hopefully updated by then with LTE capability) Nexus 4 will serve as well.
As for the 64-bitness of the 5S, as was pointed out on Slashdot, that lets Apple bring iOS and OS X even closer together. I can see them working hard to get to one common codebase, with only a small amount of code different for the architecture-specific parts.
>And a prudent person should also evaluate the likelihood of their data being captured by evaluating just how interesting it is to the NSA. For the average American, read: very, very little. The NSA, quite frankly, doesn’t care.
This belief is falsified by what the NSA has admitted on the record to having done. The NSA has developed an institutional belief that it should collect everything possible so it can look for patterns in the pile later, using methods and filters that may not even have been imagined at the time of collection.
Even if the fingerprint data doesn’t leave the iPhone, there are other dangers:
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/the-unexpected-result-of-fingerprint-authentication-that-you-cant-take-the-fifth/
…not that Android doesn’t have issues, too:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/android/22806/google-knows-nearly-every-wi-fi-password-world
>…not that Android doesn’t have issues, too:
On Android, I can opt out. And I can get a build that’s been audited by third parties so I can have very high confidence that the opt-out actually works. Under a closed-source OS, not so much.
@LeRoy:
The definition you quoted is actually quite broad, much broader than the one CD-Host apparently uses.
If you have a problem with your phone, and it is likely that you can walk up to a stranger and ask him how to do something with it, that is a positive network externality, but seemingly not one covered by CD-Host’s internal definition.
If there are a lot of customers of phones with an OS, thus attracting a lot of developers who learn to code apps for the phone, thus attracting more users, thus attracting more developers, that is also a positive network externality. It doesn’t require a killer app, other than the OS. It doesn’t even require the OS to be “good” by most metrics, just to be the commonly agreed upon standard.
‘If there are a lot of customers of phones with an OS, thus attracting a lot of developers who learn to code apps for the phone, thus attracting more users, thus attracting more developers, that is also a positive network externality. It doesn’t require a killer app, other than the OS. It doesn’t even require the OS to be “good” by most metrics, just to be the commonly agreed upon standard.’
And I’ve just been hearing about the thousands of pounds they charge children for playing ‘free’ games. Apple seem quite happy to support con artists and protect them from the authorities?
@Lester Caine:
> Apple seem quite happy to support con artists and protect them from the authorities?
Probably not that happy any more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349003/Apple-loses-100MILLION-class-action-suit-parents-kids-went-unauthorized-app-spending-sprees.html
After the first lawsuit, if you don’t fix things, then you’re a serial offender, and many juries don’t take too kindly to that.
> The moment Dalvik has been ported, all apps run in 64 bit.
You need to hit yourself with the cluebat, repeatedly.
‘apps’ that have been through the (java) toolchain with the dalvik back-end will continue as they are, static and 32-bit.
since Dalvik registers are stored on the stack (and in reverse order at that), it’s going to be (literally) forever before you find a VM that will run both existing compiled apps and those that have been recompiled for 64-bit-ness.
But then, you probably still believe that ‘deheader’ was the work of a master craftsman.
Just because you’re not paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. The Snowden leaks pretty much confirm that the baseline assumption is that the NSA is collecting every packet you send, decrypting a fair chunk of them, has backdoor access into any online service you use, and is sharing what they find with law enforcement. Any indications to the contrary, at this point, are gravy. And should probably be taken with a grain of salt.
@LeRoy
I think we are not talking about the same things. Android already runs on MIPS, which is a 64 bit platform.
http://liliputing.com/2012/08/android-4-1-jelly-bean-for-mips-processors-now-available.html
That 32 bit apps might not use a 64 bit address space or special instructions is clear to me.
>>…not that Android doesn’t have issues, too:
> On Android, I can opt out.
But have not.
> And I can get a build that’s been audited by third parties so I can have very high
> confidence that the opt-out actually works. Under a closed-source OS, not so much
Yes, you can get an audited by third parties OS, as long as you trust those third parties. Perhaps you’ll get Anonymous to do it, since they’re in the back pocket of the FBI. If memory serves, you admitted once to not being able to craft your own release, and even then… who will perform the audit?
The simple answer: nobody. it’s too difficult for a small group to handle (even a smaller OS such as openbsd struggles) and any group with sufficient available resource is large enough for the NSA and friends to infiltrate and corrupt.
Patrick, I’m not here to argue with you about Android’s network effects. Both Android and iOS have a sufficiently large installed base that plenty of “people on the street” can be found using one or the other.
Nor do I give any credence to ear’s continued bleating about Android eventually taking all. Nature abhors a vacuum, and all that.
Moreover, Android isn’t built to be secure.
Google acquired Android so they wouldn’t lose their grip on the Internet. Once their (then) CEO found out about Apple’s plans, they quickly moved from attempting to compete with Blackberry to an all out effort to catch Apple’s coming iPhone. Everyone discovered “big data” and… bob’s your uncle, let’s party with *your* data this time, bub.
In this regard, they have been successful. Google and Apple are lifting data off the phones as fast as they can. What data does come off the phones is then plumbed into the siphon of the surveillance state.
Where they have not been so successful is dealing with the efforts of Samsung (etc) to remix Android to a more proprietary (read: locked-in) platform.
As the prophet said, “We are turning into a nation of whimpering slaves to Fear—fear of war, fear of poverty, fear of random terrorism, fear of getting down-sized or fired because of the plunging economy, fear of getting evicted for bad debts or suddenly getting locked up in a military detention camp on vague charges of being a Terrorist sympathizer.” —”Extreme Behavior in Aspen,” February 3, 2003
> I think we are not talking about the same things. Android already runs on MIPS, which is a 64 bit platform.
Android already runs on amd64, too. Your point only serves to show that you have faint understanding of the topic.
> That 32 bit apps might not use a 64 bit address space or special instructions is clear to me.
Same is not obvious given the dreckitude commonly found in your posts.
>Same is not obvious given the dreckitude commonly found in your posts.
LeRoy: this is a ban warning. You are permitted to insult me without penalty on this blog; however, content-free insults and trolling of commenters are not permitted. Mind your manners, beginning now, or you will be ejected.
> As usual, a prudent person should evaluate security risks on the assumption that any portion of the software that isn’t open-source is malicious, out to get you, and co-opted by an NSA surveillance program.
A prudent person should at least identify the risks and their source.
You’ve not even gone as far as Phillip Hallam-Baker of the Comodo Group, the second largest CA on the planet:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hallambaker-prismproof-req-00.txt
Amusingly, the two sentences in the whole draft about CAs downplay the notion of CA complicity in surveillance. CA’s are, of course, one of the biggest Internet privacy weak points.
In summary his agenda (failing to acknowledge CAs as part of the problem) is a lot like yours (failing to acknowledge that ‘can’ and ‘done’ are different).
Google isn’t going to fix it for you, either. Eric Schmidt just had this to say, “There’s been spying for years, there’s been surveillance for years, and so forth, I’m not going to pass judgement on that, it’s the nature of our society.”
@LeRoy
“Your point only serves to show that you have faint understanding of the topic.”
Too much honor. “Faint understanding” is really well beyond my current knowledge about the details of Android.
“This belief is falsified by what the NSA has admitted on the record to having done. The NSA has developed an institutional belief that it should collect everything possible so it can look for patterns in the pile later, using methods and filters that may not even have been imagined at the time of collection.”
Yes, and? I don’t care if the NSA has my fingerprints and my email conversations. That’s not the interesting question. The interesting question is whether they care enough to look at them. The answer is simply “no”. They’ve got much bigger fish to fry.
>The interesting question is whether they care enough to look at them.
It is sad and disturbing to see you making excuses for totalitarian-level survellance.
@Jay Maynard:
How do you feel about gun registration?
How do you feel about the government not needing gun registration to accomplish the same goals?
No.
Android supports native apps now, most of which are shared libraries loaded into the Dalvik VM’s namespace. On Linux, you can’t map 32-bit libraries into a 64-bit process’s memory (AFAIK). Which means that… yes, 64-bit Android will need two Dalvik VMs running, concurrently. Which means twice the garbage-collected heap and even more memory wastage. Which means you’re going to need more than 4 GiB of RAM in one of these hypothetical, future 64-bit Androids in order to get as much performance and functionality as the iPhone 5S offers you, today.
Yet another thing that Apple got right and Android got spectacularly wrong. Android is running up technical debt like a guy stumbling into a “CHECKS CASHED HERE” location late at night. Or a 20-year-old hipster English major.
I didn’t see LeRoy’s “dreckitude” comment about winter’s posts to be an attack on him (her? Who can tell?)
Even winter has admitted that s/he doesn’t know enough about android to be of use for other than opine.
You seem increasingly eager in your oft-threatened use of the “ban hammer”.
Perhaps you should have a cocoa, and pet your cat.
>You seem increasingly eager in your oft-threatened use of the “ban hammer”.
I’ve banned a total of, I think, eight people in the history of this blog. That’s approximately one per year, out of a commenter population well into the thousands. You may need to brush up on the meaning of the word ‘eager’.
Petting Sugar is always in order.
“It is sad and disturbing to see you making excuses for totalitarian-level survellance.”
To me, a strong national defense is absolutely imperative. All of the freedom in the world will come to naught if some totalitarian state comes in and takes over. A strong national defense requires the best intelligence we can get about the intentions of our enemies, national and otherwise. Since our enemies operate within the US as well as outside it, we can’t just stop collecting at the borders.
Indeed, there’s an argument to be made in that the more data the NSA hoovers up, the harder it is for them to target the innocent, just in sheer volume.
Fundamentally, all communications security is a matter of risk vs. cost: what is the risk of your communication being disclosed, what is the risk to you if the information reaches others who should not have it, what is the cost to you of protecting it, and what is the cost to an interceptor to capture and decrypt it? If the risk of your information being disclosed is small, or the cost of disclosure to you is small, then it doesn’t really matter very much whether it is disclosed or not.
People are complaining, and rightly, that we are paying far too high a cost to mitigate far too low a risk when it comes to terrorist attack. Those same people refuse to apply the same analysis to the NSA’s data monitoring.
>Since our enemies operate within the US as well as outside it, we can’t just stop collecting at the borders.
The East Germans needed you writing propaganda for the STASI, they did. You’re sinking pretty low.
And conservatives wonder why I don’t trust them – this is exactly why. They talk about valuing liberty, but the second they get a national-security hardon they become apologists for the panopticon with a shamelesseness that would make a Red Guard blush.
IIRC the Touch ID fingerprint data is stored as a cryptographic hash, so the actual fingerprint image cannot be reconstructed from it, and it’s stored on the phone and doesn’t leave it. Not to deny all the real spying going on, but I doubt that Apple is lying about all that, because they’d be discovered soon enough. If the NSA really wants your fingerprints, they’ll get them some other way. They can find out much more important things about you via all the other things they do.
Meanwhile, the new Consumer Financial “Protection” Bureau wants to monitor 80% of credit card transactions, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) wants to require health care providers to include “social and behavioral” data in Electronic Health Records (EHR) and to link patient’s records to public health departments.
To me, a strong national defense is absolutely imperative. All of the freedom in the world will come to naught if some totalitarian state comes in and takes over.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
We’re talking about the Constitution here, Mr. Maynard. To quote:
A strong national defense requires the best intelligence we can get about the intentions of our enemies, national and otherwise. Since our enemies operate within the US as well as outside it, we can’t just stop collecting at the borders.
Henceforth, all software to which you contribute is hereby, and decidedly suspect.
Indeed, there’s an argument to be made in that the more data the NSA hoovers up, the harder it is for them to target the innocent, just in sheer volume.
It isn’t interesting that you appear unwilling or unable fathom the fundamentals which are in-play. Beyond the constitutional questions, your myopic foresight fails in technical analysis.
William Binney’s HOPE Keynote has more detail:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xs8zd7_william-binney-hope-9-keynote-part1_tech
It goes much deeper than this, of course, but until you are able to understand this, it’s useless plumbing any deeper.
“Yet another thing that Apple got right and Android got spectacularly wrong. Android is running up technical debt”
That’s rather amusing. How many CPU types and form factors does Android run on, compared to iOS? Meanwhile Apple can’t even change the resolution of a new iOS device without developers having to update their apps.
This is an area in which libertarians and conservatives will never agree. Libertarians see conservatives as forgetting about freedom when it comes to national security. From their perspective, they have a point.
The flip side of the argument is that conservatives see the libertarian ideal of withdrawal from engagement with the rest of the world as dangerously naive. No amount of crawling into our own hole and pulling the cover over it will keep our enemies from working to destroy us. We keep a strong national defense for the same reason that individually, we keep guns: to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm. To a conservative, that includes knowing to the best of our ability what out enemies are planning and carrying the fight to them rather than letting the enemy dictate the fight on our own territory.
Ron and Rand Paul will never take over the Republican Party precisely because of this issue. The libertarians aren’t but about a third of the party, and the rest of it distrusts them mightily when it comes to national defense, even more than they trust the pacifist wing of the Democrats.
And, LeRoy, let me ask you a question. If your email has been scooped up, but nobody ever looks at it, has a search been performed? I would say the answer is “no”.
Why do you own a gun, if you’ve never had need to kill a man?
Since you’re so patriotic, we’re going to clear your spare bedroom, and quarter a couple soldiers there.
I’m sure you don’t mind.
The militia is supposed to be our national defense strategy, plus the navy, and air force, to protect the borders. That is still sufficient, if we weren’t verboten to have our own military weapons.
On topic, I plan to get a 64 gig gold iPhone 5S next Friday. I expect the speed bump from my 4S to be remarkable. My one big complaint about Apple is that they don’t let user code set the execute bit on user pages. That one change would enable Lisp on iPhone, which, with a 64-bit processor, and 4-8 gigs of RAM, would be glorious! Of course, you could do Lisp on iPhone today, and there are already Scheme interpreters, but non-Apple-signed code would at best be byte-compiled.
Your airplane? We’re confiscating it, and sending it overseas. With any luck, a terrorist will crash it.
> Lisp on iPhone
dude… https://wukix.com/mocl
The point, before esr bans me for being mean, is that you either stand for the Constitution, or you don’t.
In my book, if you fail to stand for the Constitution, you are the enemy.
Obviously I favor spying on our enemies. Problem is, is NSA our enemy also? Notice that they were sharing the raw data, which is pretty much everything that any of us do on the internet, in real time, with Israeli intelligence. To what extent are thought crimes committed on the internet likely to be used against us?
The first hint of the scope of surveillance came out before the Snowden leaks, when people noticed that passing a url in skype chat resulted in a hit on that link, presumably from NSA.
LeRoy: I own a gun for the same reason I own a fire extinguisher: I hope I never need it, but if I ever do, I’ll need it badly, and nothing else will do. (That’s the Constitutional reason. The other reason is that it’s just plain fun, but that’s not a Constitutional requirement.) The same goes for our national defense. My airplane has long since departed, courtesy of the Great Dempression. I hope the guy who has it in Massachusetts is enjoying it as much as I did. The only soldiers in Fairmont are the ones who live here anyway; there are no military bases nearby.
I stand behind the Constitution. I’m not an absolutist about it.
And, Bill, the militia and Navy (Air Force? That’s not in the Constitution either; does it get treated like the Navy or Army?) together are not enough to protect our national interests. National defense does not happen solely on our own territory; America can be harmed badly by actions across the globe, and to deny that is to stick one’s head in the sand.
> On Android, I can opt out.
You can opt out on iOS too in this case – the use of the fingerprint reader is for now entirely optional. Kind of has to be, since there are people (eg, guitarists) who won’t get a clean reading, and there are other people (eg, everybody, until Friday) whose hardware doesn’t yet support it.
> Indeed, there’s an argument to be made in that the more data the NSA hoovers up, the harder it is for them to target the innocent, just in sheer volume.
Argh. That seems to me the opposite of the truth, given that databases are so easily searchable. Okay, you know what the REAL issue with the fingerprint reader is? It’s not that the NSA gets your fingerprint – they already have that. That battle is lost; prints now get collected for a driver’s license, a passport, and to cross borders. No, the problem is that once this technology is in regular use it REMOVES an important source of plausible deniability.
If you are routinely using a print-reader that in any way calls home – and it doesn’t have to send back the print, a mere “he woke up the phone” ping would suffice – then the NSA KNOWS WHERE YOU ARE to a degree that it didn’t before. Yeah, they knew where your PHONE was before, but they couldn’t prove it was YOU carrying it. Now they can. Now their database will include that you, personally, authenticated your presence regularly as your phone’s location moved around.
Why is this a problem? Database records can be shared and can be anonymously tampered with and can be misrepresented to others. If we move to a world in which everybody knows that the government knows where you are, that is a world in which it is MUCH easier for the authorities to (a) blackmail people, (b) frame people using faked-up evidence, than it is today. Today, for the government to prove you did something wrong, they have to establish beyond reasonable doubt that you were at the scene of the crime. That becomes a LOT easier to establish now that we’re all snooping on ourselves for the NSA and that capability has significant abuse potential given the police state we all find ourselves in.
Before, if a federal cop says “we know you were at the strip club/murder scene/wherever because your cellphone was there” that is *evidence* but not proof, because somebody still could have stolen/borrowed/cloned your phone; they don’t know YOU were the one who had the phone. But now if you used your fingerprint to turn the phone on for a couple rounds of Candy Crush, they can now use that information to establish you were physically present; the burden of proof shifts significantly. And does so in a way that might be impossible for you to rebut if they are simply LYING about it. Which they well might be.
@ Jay
The Founding Fathers spent a great deal of time considering, and put a great deal of effort to make it as difficult as possible, for the greatest potential enemy of the United States to install a totalitarian state and “take over”. Unfortunately, the process is well underway. I am, of course, referring to the Federal Government of the United States.
Yeah… secret laws, secret rulings, secret prisons…
This is a little tangential, but…
Wasn’t Hitler was elected Chancellor in a free democratic election?
>Wasn’t Hitler was elected Chancellor in a free democratic election?
Yes, he was. Welcome to Why I am an anarchist.
What about a seizure?
@ ESR
My question was actually rhetorical.
I read Why I am an anarchist and liked it years ago. I can’t remember if that was the first place I read about Hitler being elected, but your description of that fact and how you felt about it was, to me, the most memorable part of the essay.
Sorry – missing end quote…
Why I am an anarchist
Re: corporations giving and selling access to the US government, I found Julian Assange’s encounter with Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen (head of Google Ideas) pretty startling. See
http://cryptome.org/2013/08/assange-google-nsa.htm
http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt.html
Jay Maynard > To me, a strong national defense is absolutely imperative.
There’s evidence that US law enforcement agencies are using data collected by the NSA in illegal ways in their investigations, and lying to hide the source of their information when it comes time to go to court. See
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805
The scary part is that practically no one (here, Canada and US, anyway) know about it because it is not taught because… no one seems to actually care.
Almost everyone is satisfied with “Hitler was a psychotic maniac”.
People, with the best of intentions, are generally willing to allow creeping totalitarianism and, as the essay points out, galloping totalitarianism.
9/11 was, in some respects, the most successful attack of all time (I am just speaking off the top of my head, here, but…) – 19 men at a cost of less than 200 large, provided the opportunity for certain kinds of people to take a huge jump in the exercise of power of the state over its own citizens and to spend… know one knows how much (it’s a secret and only part of it is in the budget) US money to… well, that is a secret, too.
This leads to a situation in which the NSA could have backdoors into smart phones and if the people who know tell anyone,,,,
There are not only secret laws, there are laws to keep secrets. Always have been, of course, but now, after 9/11, the CIA, NSA et al can do things that would clearly be unconstitutional, if known, but they inform the people that know that if they talk about it, they will (I am speculating wildly, here) get to do push ups at Leavenworth for 30 years. Or 600 years – the US Federal justice system is very badly broken.
‘course, such would be unconstitutional, known or not, but that is small consolation if you’ve been convicted by a secret court.
Jay’s attitude of
is very scary – it isn’t supposed to be an “if convenient” sort of thing.
I’m not saying it’s to be ignored if it becomes inconvenient. On the other hand, as has been famously said, it’s not a suicide pact.
> it’s not a suicide pact.
You, like so many other before you, probably don’t understand that this first appeared in the dissenting opinion of Terminiello v. Chicago. You use the phrase as a convenient crutch to support your opinion that the “War on Terror” trumps individual liberties. It does not. In Terminiello, the case swung for upholding civil liberties.
The next time it appeared, it was in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, where justice Goldberg wrote, “while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact.” Here, civil liberties were upheld again.
Simply stated, “You’re using it wrong.”
“[T]he rational and measured exercise of jurisprudence must be zealously sustained even in time of war, including the war on terrorism.” — Federal district judge Harold Baer
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030107_fletcher.html
I’m not saying it’s to be ignored if it becomes inconvenient. On the other hand, as has been famously said, it’s not a suicide pact.
I agree. Of course the NSA was founded in 1952 and focused on the Soviet Union etc., but since 9/11 (at least) their focus has been (supposedly) on Islamic terrorism. I am largely OK with that, as I think Jay Maynard is. However, exactly how they look for Islamic terrorists is the issue. Snooping on some jihadi website in Pakistan? Fine with me and most of you, I’d assume. Snooping on emails from Somalia to Abdul Mohammed of Brooklyn? OK with me, but if Abdul is a US citizen, get a warrant.
How about a warrant for “all Verizon phone records for three months”? No, that’s a general warrant, specifically prohibited by the 4th Amendment.
Now, what if they got a warrant to intercept the international emails of every known Muslim in the US? Maybe that’s also a general warrant, maybe not. Certainly it’s a hell of a lot less general than the apparently dismayingly common “everyone on Verizon” sort. So why not do that? Ah, but that would be the modern sin of (religious/racial) “profiling.” Can’t do that! Better to be “fair” and snoop on every US citizen equally. That way, no “discrimination,” and hey, we might stumble across something important we’d have otherwise missed.
I honestly think that sort of politically correct thinking was part of what got us to this point.
> I found Julian Assange’s encounter with Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen (head of Google Ideas) pretty startling.
“Don’t be Evil.”
Jay Maynard on 2013-09-14 at 22:48:51 said:
> it [the constitution] is not a suicide pact.
If any part of the constitution should prove inconvenient or dangerous, there is a procedure for amending it, which procedure was massively violated following the civil war, and has been completely ignored since prohibition.
Man, it is getting weird when JAD has to explain the facts of life to Jay.
Not being familiar with this concept, I checked out the Wikipedia article The Constitution is not a suicide pact, the last example reads…
The thing about 9/11 is that from that date in 2001 until sometime in the indefinite future, the government can consider the country to be in a “Time of National Emergency” and, therefore, have all its secret/secret/secret business and pretty much anything else it wants to do. There are no shortage of people for the US to fight with, but there is no enemy to defeat. In fact, I think it is getting worse. I am pretty sure that the number of people in the Middle East willing to try (and some to die) to kill Americans is higher now than it was on 9/10/2011. So, this bizarre “war” goes on.
I am not claiming to be an expert on any of this. But it seems to me that the only real progress that is the “progress” towards totalitarianism.
I realize that the US is one of the best and safest and freest places to live in the world, but the first derivative does not look good.
LeRoy on 2013-09-14 at 16:23:51 said:
> To me, a strong national defense is absolutely imperative. All of the freedom in the world will come to naught if some totalitarian state comes in and takes over.
This might have been plausible when communism still existed, except that the state department was in Stalin’s pocket, Stalin was in the State Department’s pocket, the State Department arranged for Mao’s victory and the nationalist defeat in China, and our security agencies were busy looking for fascist Americans, not communist Americans. Even during the McCarthy scare, a thousand “racists” were purged for every communist purged.
And today they are looking for fascist americans and anti islamic Americans, not Jihadis.
And the second derivative is probably worse. I gather that the NSA and other alphabet-organizations have grown a LOT in the last 10 years, as government agencies with vast budgets generally do. And there are always reasons for them to grow some more. It builds on itself.
I suggest a term: A “Thatcher Condition” – something that expands and, in fact accelerates, until it runs out of other people’s money”.
Lemme try that again…
A “Thatcher Condition” is a situation in which the matter under discussion expands and accelerates until it runs out of other people’s money.
The first and second derivatives are positive, there are surges and there are always a lot of jerks.
James A. Donald, I was quoting Jay Maynard there. Let’s not put words where they don’t belong… m’kay?
> Even if the fingerprint data doesn’t leave the iPhone, there are other dangers: […]
Though fingerprint unlocking is, I think, meant mainly for those people who don’t use PINs or other locking systems because they are inconvenient to them.
>>Wasn’t Hitler was elected Chancellor in a free democratic election?
>Yes, he was. […]
No, he wasn’t. He was appointed by Hindenburg.
> On topic, I plan to get a 64 gig gold iPhone 5S next Friday. I expect the speed bump from my 4S to be remarkable.
You will be disappointed, unless you consider 8-15% speed-up remarkable. There are disadvantages of going 64bit, too (32bit + 64bit libraries loaded concurrently, larger memory consumption because of larger word size), see link somebody posted at beginning of discussion.
@BRM —
It wasn’t just 9/11 that led to that. Had Al Qaeda and Iran not been able to challenge the US effectively in Iraq or conduct many follow up operations all over the world there wouldn’t have been the growth of the security state. It wasn’t one attack but rather the reality that there is hundreds of millions of people that genuinely hate the western financial trade system / as well as the cultural system, don’t want to be part of it and a small but not insignificant fraction are willing to fight for a different system.
The USA has a real security problem. That’s not imaginary. The people that we are fighting want policy changes, we don’t want to make some of those changes and that’s a real problem. The good news is fracking may very well end the core problem that we need middle eastern oil and don’t want the people of the region to get the benefit from their natural resources.
@LeRoy
And what state would that be? What state is in any plausible position to invade and hold territory in the United States. Even if a fraction: what state could conquer say Pennsylvania or Washington and hold it for a month? Why not worry about Martian invasion if we are going to worry about a totalitarian take over.
They need not occupy a square inch of territory to dictate terms to the US. A credible threat of a nuke, for example, set off in some populated area, would do. What do you think we’d do to bargain with someone who’s planted a nuke somewhere along Wall Street?
Make no mistake. The US is widely hated and feared in large parts of the world. Iran, to take one example, would love nothing more than to have us bow before them and acknowledge them as rightful leader of the Islamic world. Unless they’re stopped – and that will take military force, real or credibly threatened; diplomacy only works on those who are willing to give up their ambitions voluntarily – they will demand exactly that and back it up with a nuke.
Yes, we need to develop and exploit out own natural resources, and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, not just from the Middle East, but places like Venezuela. We should not expect that that will lessen our need to defend ourselves from our enemies.
> Make no mistake. The US is widely hated and feared in large parts of the world.
That’s the bogey raised by your politicians to slowly erode your rights in your own country. Keeping your citizens in fear is a good way to enable you to take away their rights without the threat of riots or civil war.
Sure there are haters everywhere and even terrorists. But from there to the threat of a concentrated and coordinated nuclear attack that will bring your country to a state of submission is quite a stretch.
“You will be disappointed, unless you consider 8-15% speed-up remarkable. There are disadvantages of going 64bit, too (32bit + 64bit libraries loaded concurrently, larger memory consumption because of larger word size), see link somebody posted at beginning of discussion.”
This presumes the only advantage added to the A7 over the A6 is 64-bitness. That’s likely a very poor assumption.
@CD-Host bad quote, that was Jay, not me.
@Jakub
> You will be disappointed, unless you consider 8-15% speed-up remarkable.
Dummkopf! I compared code running on an Intel CPU in 32-bit .v 64-bit mode. Things are different on the phone. The iPhone 5 tends to benchmark 2.5X as fast as the iPhone 4S.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks
“That’s the bogey raised by your politicians to slowly erode your rights in your own country. ”
You must not have watched the Arabs dancing in the streets on 11 September 2001.
I did. There is no doubt in my mind that they hate the decadent American infidel and long to grind us under the heel of the caliph.
>> Wasn’t Hitler was elected Chancellor in a free democratic election?
>
> Yes, he was. Welcome to Why I am an anarchist.
As Jakob points out, your facts are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Hindenburg
>As Jakob points out, your facts are wrong.
I quote from Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:
On August 19, 1934, 95% of the Germans who were registered to vote went to the polls and 90% (38 million) of adult German citizens voted to give Adolf Hitler complete and total authority to rule Germany as he saw fit. Only 4.25 million Germans voted against this transfer of power to a totalitarian regime.
What the questioner was really asking is whether Hitler was elected dictator, which he was. The fact that Ludendorff had had appointed him chancellor is really rather irrelevant.
Article I, Section 8 distinguishes between “Armies” (plural) and “a Navy” (singular):
If one could build a time machine and visit the Constitutional Convention with a laptop or portable DVD player, and show the delegates video of military aircraft in action, I strongly suspect that they’d see them as just another sort of army, with the possible exception of carrier-based and amphibious aircraft, which might be seen as a special part of the Navy. (Then they’d burn you at the stake for witchcraft.)
The original US Army Air Corps was clearly constituted under this language as “an Army”. Arguably, the establishment of a separate “Department of the Air Force” is pushing the limits. Although many of my family have served in the USAF, I have long thought it was a mistake to pull the USA(A){C|F} out of the Department of the Army. Having the sort of separation as the Navy/Marines both being part of the Department of the Navy makes more sense to me. Under such a structure, the USAF should share as much infrastructure as possible with the Army. There is just no reason to duplicate those bureaucracies.
I don’t question that there are people who hate the US. And I saw those sickening images on our TV as well. But there is a long way from there to the nuclear attack you envision. That was my point. Terrorist threats exist. But I don’t think your government is quite above taking advantage of that kind of situation to provoke more fear and enact laws to curb on freedoms you so value.
> You must not have watched the Arabs dancing in the streets on 11 September 2001.
I did, but I don’t participate in your myopia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks#Palestinian_celebrations
> The US is widely hated and feared in large parts of the world. Iran, to take one example, would love nothing more than to have us bow before them and acknowledge them as rightful leader of the Islamic world. Unless they’re stopped – and that will take military force, real or credibly threatened; diplomacy only works on those who are willing to give up their ambitions voluntarily – they will demand exactly that and back it up with a nuke.
Given that Hassan Rouhani, the new President of Iran as of 3 Aug 2013, headed Iran’s former nuclear negotiating team, and had led the suspension(*) of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, I have reason to believe that you are (at least for now), quite incorrect.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/11/us-iran-election-idUSBRE93A0CM20130411
(*) When Ahmadinejad was elected, Rouhani resigned, and all that he had accomplished was undone.
“No, he wasn’t. He was appointed by Hindenburg.”
That’s a technical formality. In a parliamentary system, the head of state (in this case, Reichspräsident von Hindenburg; in the UK Queen Elizabeth; etc.) is generally obliged to appoint the leader of the coalition representing a majority of the appropriate house (in this case, Reichstag; in the UK House of Commons; etc.).
When a party wins an outright majority, this is simple; otherwise it’s a bit tricky, as the head of state “invites” the leader of the party with a plurality of the house to form a government if he can assemble that coalition, and if he’s unable to do so in a certain amount of time, he’ll move on to the next-largest party to see if two or more minority parties together can produce a majority.
Saying “Hiter was elected Chancellor” is simply shorthand for “Hitler(‘s party) was elected (to enough seats so that they could be the dominant partner in a coalition making him) Chancellor.”
“I have reason to believe that you are (at least for now), quite incorrect.”
Even if you do indulge in this bit of wishful thinking, the decision rests not with Rouhani, but the mullahs – who have shown no inclination at all of changing their minds.
And if you truly believe they don’t want a nuke to rain down Allah’s fire on the infidel, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
> On August 19, 1934, 95% of the Germans who were registered to vote went to the polls and 90% (38 million) of adult German citizens voted to give Adolf Hitler complete and total authority to rule Germany as he saw fit.
As you nearly allow, this was a plebiscite, not an election.
> What the questioner was really asking is whether Hitler was elected dictator, which he was.
A referendum on merging the posts of Chancellor and President was held in Germany on 19 August 1934, after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg seventeen days earlier. The German leadership sought to gain approval for Adolf Hitler’s assumption of supreme leadership. The overwhelmingly positive result of this referendum allowed Hitler to claim public support for his activities as the Führer and de facto Head of State of Germany.
In fact, he had assumed these offices and powers immediately upon von Hindenburg’s death and used the referendum to legitimate this move, taking the title Führer und Reichskanzler (Führer and Chancellor).
In taking over the president’s powers for himself without calling for a new election, Hitler technically violated the Enabling Act. While the Enabling Act allowed Hitler to pass laws that contravened the Weimar Constitution, it specifically forbade him from interfering with the powers of the president. Moreover, the Weimar Constitution had been amended in 1932 to make the president of the High Court of Justice, not the chancellor, acting president pending a new election. However, Hitler had become law unto himself by this time, and no one dared object.
Because you know, “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”, and if you’re against us, you must be a terrorist.
> And if you truly believe they don’t want a nuke to rain down Allah’s fire on the infidel,
I believe they have a strong drive for self-preservation, and that our response to an actual nuclear attack on US soil would not be “measured”.
(Not that we’ve done that well in responding to previous attacks. It was mostly Saudi nationals who took over the planes on 9/11. In response, we attacked Afghanistan, then expanded the war to Iraq.)
I agree that our response to a nuclear attack on US soil would not be measured.
I disagree that they have a drive for self-preservation. Dying in jihad against the infidel is the mujahid’s highest and noblest goal. They don’t care if they live or die, as long as they die fighting for the glory and rule of Allah.
Al-Qaeda has a new strategy: to “bleed America economically” by attempting to force it to spend ever-increasing amounts on internal security.
Copping an attitude like yours, Jay, is not only Constitutionally untenable — it’s playing right into AQ’s hands.
> Copping an attitude like yours, Jay, is not only Constitutionally untenable — it’s playing right into AQ’s hands.
Worse than that, it supports AQ’s goal.
In a very real way, buying into the paranoia supports terrorism.
Being willing to sacrifice the Constitution in order to ‘win the war’, also supports terrorism.
> The fact that Ludendorff had had appointed him chancellor is really rather irrelevant.
esr hates being fact-checked.
@Eric — the other one
ESR covered this in his essay, it just makes the situation worse
— Foo Quuxman
@Jay Maynard
“Dying in jihad against the infidel is the mujahid’s highest and noblest goal. They don’t care if they live or die, as long as they die fighting for the glory and rule of Allah.”
So, why are there so few suicide murderers? Maybe Muslims are just like other people who rather care for their family than die for their god?
Where Are All the Terrorist Attacks?
https://www.schneier.com/essay-314.html
Why Is It So Hard to Find a Suicide Bomber These Days?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/why_is_it_so_hard_to_find_a_suicide_bomber_these_days?page=full
(emphasis mine: At least the USA makes an effort to recruit more terrorists fro AQ)
Emphasis is obviously stupid when you use blockquote (we need a preview). This is the emphasized part:
“Mohammed’s capture and “enhanced interrogation” by the CIA, using methods that the U.S. government had denounced for decades as torture,”
(At least the USA makes an effort to recruit more terrorists fro AQ)
So, why are there so few suicide murderers? Maybe Muslims are just like other people
If Muslims were “just like other people,” the proportion of Muslims who are suicide bombers would be the same as the proportion of suicide bombers in other religions, but of course it’s not. It’s not even close. You would also be hard-pressed to find any Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. clerics advocating suicide bombing, but plenty of Muslim clerics do. Plus, support for suicide bombing among average people of other religions is statistically zero. Not so with Muslims.
PapayaSF
“You would also be hard-pressed to find any Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. clerics advocating suicide bombing, but plenty of Muslim clerics do.”
Modern suicide terrorism was “re-invented” by the Tamil Tigers who were (are?) not Muslims. Both the USA and Europe are littered with monuments heralding young men who sacrificed their lives for their country.
The demographics and ideology of suicide terrorists overlap those of street gangs and fascist/communist/tyrannic youth organizations. So, instead of joining a local street gang, these young men join some terrorist group. The life expectancy is roughly equivalent.
@PapayaSF
“You would also be hard-pressed to find any Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. clerics advocating suicide bombing, but plenty of Muslim clerics do.”
Terrorist guerrilla warfare is also quite old:
????????: A Form of Ancient Guerrilla Warfare
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=gvjh
The demographic here was somewhat different, as the Spartans recruited the sons of the elite who obviously should not commit suicide. Although, running around at night in enemy country trying to murder people comes very close to a suicide mission.
Who are the suicide bombers of the smartphone wars?
Winter, your examples are beside the point. Neither the Tamil Tigers nor the Spartans are attacking anyone these days, and like most terror/suicide movements in history, were very limited in their goals. Muslim terror has been going on for half a century, and their goals are quite expansive. There’s really no equivalent now or at any time in history.
We have gotten off-topic, LOL.
@PapayaSF —
We had a lot of suicide bombers from the Tamil people recently almost all of whom were Hindu. The Japanese, Shinto, used this technique in WWII. Many Muslims consider the Kurdish form of Islam so syncretic that it isn’t Islam (the way American Christians view Mormonism). So I don’t think that’s a fair charge. People in desperate situations use what weapons they have.
But as I was trying to say, the Tamil and Japanese and other suiciders were very limited, in timeframe, geography, and their goals. Defending Japan or trying to create an independent state on part of Sri Lanka* aren’t nearly equivalent to elements of a major world religion trying to establish a caliphate throughout the Middle East and, eventually (they hope), the world.
*By the way, a civil war that one could argue was a result of racial affirmative action policies.
@PapayaSF
And how were the aspirations of the Japanese “more limited” than a Caliphate?
The Japanese wanted an Asian empire, but they didn’t think it was their destiny to conquer the entire world and bring it under one religion.
@PapayaSF
The vast majority of Muslim suicide bombings have had limited political objectives like overthrowing particularly truly lousy governments or driving invaders out. 9/11 was an strike against a US occupation government in Saudi Arabia (from their perspective) and a US/UN policy that was resulting in starvation.
Muslims are under attack in lots of places and are certainly developing a religious identity about a pan Islamic solution. There is a lot of violence on the borders of Islam. But that’s not unusual.
Those are only the near-term objectives. The longer term objective is a worldwide caliphate, not just encompassing Muslim countries, but establishing “Allah’s rule on Earth.” It’s in the Koran.
> We have gotten off-topic, LOL.
412 comments and maybe 12 on topic. On the plus side, it took quite a while to get to Hitler.
@PapayaSF
The Muslims copied their world domination from the Communists, who got it from the Catholics. The Catholics inherited it from the Romans.
Uh, the Koran is far older than Communism.
Stop making excuses for the violent religious totalitarians of today by (inaccurately) bringing up the past.
I didn’t know there were Communists in 700 AD.
@Jay Maynard
“I didn’t know there were Communists in 700 AD.”
None of the Salafists or AQ ideologists were around in 700AD. However, the founders of Salafism in the 1950s were very well versed in communist anti-colonialist propaganda.
Instead of fixating on 8th century writings, you might take a look at mid 20th century developments in Islamic fundamentalism. You will be surprised how little connections they have with any historical thinking in medieval Arabia.
Jay Maynard on 2013-09-17 at 01:11:48 said:
> I didn’t know there were Communists in 700 AD.
There have been communists for a very long time. The doctrine that communism is scientific and communist victory inevitable is more recent.
Instead of fixating on 8th century writings, you might take a look at mid 20th century developments in Islamic fundamentalism.
In which they re-emphasize that the Koran is the perfect word of Allah, who speaks medieval Arabic and has a golden copy of the Koran with him in heaven. Yes, this is somewhat different in emphasis from what Muslims used to believe, and from what many believe now. No, it’s not relevant, because the Koran is filled with exhortations of discrimination and violence toward non-Muslims, and there are millions of Muslims who take all that very seriously.
Winter, why are you so insistent on making excuses for the violent religious totalitarians?
James A. Donald: Winter, Jay Maynard, and I all referred to capital-C Communists, which refers to the recent, very-post-Mohammad ones.
Islamic terrorism long predates 1950.
From 1830 to 1960 there was a pause in Islamic terrorism due to colonialism, but the situation before 1830 was pretty similar to the situation after 1960, same ideology, same actions, all the way back to the prophet raiding caravans.
@PapayaSF
“In which they re-emphasize that the Koran is the perfect word of Allah, who speaks medieval Arabic and has a golden copy of the Koran with him in heaven. Yes, this is somewhat different in emphasis from what Muslims used to believe, and from what many believe now.”
The Koran is just ink on paper. The words written only get meaning in the reader.
No modern day Arab uses classical Arabic as his native tongue. There is no way that a modern day Muslim can infer what the 9th century Iraqi interpreters read in those words nor how the people writing the Haddith understood those words. Especially as Islamic clergy are openly hostile to philologists.
The political ideology of the Salafists and AQ are modern, with strong roots in 1950s Communist anti-colonialism.
@JAD
“Islamic terrorism long predates 1950.”
Just like all other kinds of terrorism. Guerrilla warfare was even found in old Sparta, see my earlier link.
Winter:
> No modern day Arab uses classical Arabic as his native tongue. There is no way that a modern day Muslim can infer what the 9th century Iraqi interpreters read in those words nor how the people writing the Haddith understood those words. Especially as Islamic clergy are openly hostile to philologists
Actions speak louder than words. The behavior of Muslims from the time of Mohammed to 1830 shows that they understood the Koran to say what it means and mean what it says. Islamic terrorism has been a problem from the first mention of Mohammed in Christian sources.
@JAD
Inter tribal warfare has been around since the paleo-lithic. Why you blame the Islam for it must have a political reason.
winter on
> Inter tribal warfare has been around since the paleo-lithic. Why you blame the Islam for it must have a political reason.
See the Bloody Borders of Islam http://chromatism.net/bloodyborders/
A similar map of the borders of Islam could have been drawn at any time, except during the colonial period.
@JAD
“See the Bloody Borders of Islam”
And what is the relevance of this? Records of war in this region go back to the establishment of the very first cities in 7000BC. And before that, there simply are no records. When Mohammed died, the Romans and Persians had just about destroyed each other in the Middle East.
We could point out the campaigns of the various non-Islamic Scythian, Mongolian (e.g., Huns), and Turkish tribes back to ancient Greek times. But why single out them, as we also have various non-Islamic Indo-European (e.g., Iranian) and Uralic tribes (e.g., Magyar) that devastated this broad region and neighboring European parts at various times in history. We also could point to the excursions of the crusades in this region.
In your myopic and distorted view, all evil must come from the left or from Islam. Therefor, you will ignore the whole of human history that does not fit into your parochial scheme.
If anyone still cares about subsidies, this is interesting: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/09/17/apple-iphone-china-prices/?source=yahoo_quote
Who said this in 2009?
” Apple is paying the price for its luxury-good positioning now as it reports that revenue from its desktop line fell 31 percent this last year, and its laptop share is being hurt by cheap netbooks.”
and this, in 2008:
“This means that Microsoft’s per-sale revenue on netbook XP licenses has probably dropped by at least a factor of 10 relative to what it makes on PCs. That’s a hell of a margin hit, and as netbooks displace a larger slice of traditional PC sales it’s going to get worse. And we can count on that happening; what we’re seeing here is a classic disruption-from-below of the PC market, just as PCs disrupted workstations and minis in the early 1990s.”
2010:
“These ergonomic constraints can’t be satisfied by anything in a smartphone, netbook, or laptop package. Instead, I expect that human-sized peripherals will begin to decouple from ever-tinier computers. As I’ve previously projected, there will be a growing market for human-scale peripherals meant to be slaved to a computing core that you walk up to them, using a USB docking cradle or some analogous technology.”
2008:
“I predicted years ago that what would eventually do Microsoft in was white-box PC makers defecting because they needed to claw back profit margin as the Windows license became the largest single item in their bills of material.”
@Bryant:
I just looked at the China Unicom chart. That doesn’t look like a subsidy — it looks like a straight finance agreement.
The Koran is actually a very simple n good book, you should try to read it,papayaman.
The most problematic part in Muslim(sunni) is the various tradition/Hadith/sunna which is said to volume of hundred thousand with most are consider false/lie ,Only a few thousand are accepted as valid.
but the most funny thing is the most filthy,genocide and corrupted moral book is the Old Testament! Tell me why must the Philistine(Palestine) and Canaanite be kill,murder and wipe out(holocaust) till every women, old man, child and even their Donkeys??? what kind of teaching/logic is that?
Christian just read the new Testement /Gospel and ditch the Pharisee teaching of the old as Jesus said.
Completely OT — a commit I just made to one of my SVN repositories at work:
Transmitting file data …
Committed revision 1337.
LeRoy,
Eric’s predictions about the Windows business model falling out from underneath Microsoft are largely correct. They tried to stem the bleeding by dropping prices for the “Starter Edition” on netbooks, but a big part of Microsoft’s metamorphosis into a “products and services” company is because they can’t keep printing money with Windows licenses anymore. Have you read that memo from Ballmer? He sounded like a drug-addled Corey Haim, spouting words without saying anything, desperately trying to reassure people that things were fine even as they were falling apart. He literally doesn’t know where Microsoft should go from here.
The overall trend in PCs is to move peripherals out of expansion cards and into dongles on high-speed external serial buses like USB3 and Thunderbolt. It’s possible to kit out an Android phone to output to an HDMI display and accept input from a keyboard and mouse, today — turning it into a PC-like device. The Transformer model — of jacking a tablet into a dock to turn it into a laptop with extra functionality — has proven so successful Microsoft is rumored to be releasing a similar dock for the Surface 2.
Intel has de-emphasized the “Wintel” alliance and become a major open source contributor. PC OEMs are showing increasing interest in Chromebooks — although this is probably more because of Microsoft upgrading itself to OEM status than anything else.
Apple will do fine. As always, Eric doesn’t seem to realize that most of the rest of the industry colors inside lines drawn by Apple. Except for Chromebooks, netbooks were destroyed by the iPad at the low end and the MacBook Air at the high end.
@JAD
> > “See the Bloody Borders of Islam”
Winter on 2013-09-17 at 08:25:59 said:
> And what is the relevance of this?
The relevance is that Muslims are never at peace, except, as during the colonial period, when under the thumb of a superior power. When they are not in a state of high level war with their neighbors, they are in a state of low level war, which today we call terrorism. They take a break from attacking the rest of the world when they are attacking each other for being insufficiently Muslim. There has regularly and routinely been peace in Europe. There has never been peace in the middle east.
@JAD
“Muslims are never at peace”
Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Morocco, Jordania, Turkey. That would add up to some 500M people I think?
> Eric doesn’t seem to realize that most of the rest of the industry colors inside lines drawn by Apple. Except for Chromebooks, netbooks were destroyed by the iPad at the low end and the MacBook Air at the high end.
Eric doesn’t realize that it was the rise of the smartphone that finally delivered a fatal blow to the Windows licensing model, not linux-on-netbooks. (Much less the “64-bit transition”.)
> The Transformer model — of jacking a tablet into a dock to turn it into a laptop with extra functionality — has proven so successful Microsoft is rumored to be releasing a similar dock for the Surface 2.
This is so “last decade”/2000-late. There are new modes of computing, writ large by the transition to smartphones. The smartphone is eating every other device, and will, in the end, eat the desktop. You’ll still be able to buy a desktop PeeCee and put linux on it, but you’re going to look like an anachronistic Aunt Tillie when you do, and the kids will laugh even harder when you’re out of earshot.
In March, IDC predicted that the global PC market would shrink by 1.3 percent in 2013. By May, IDC had revised its 2013 forecast, predicting a decline of 7.8 percent. And that 7.8 percent fall comes on the heels of the 3.7 percent decline in the global PC market that IDC tracked in 2012.
Gartner said in June that the PC industry has now experiencing the longest decline in its history, as shipments dropped for the fifth consecutive quarter. The June drop was 11%.
You can read the tea leaves in the panic at Ubuntu, who are desperate to get onto a phone platform. Ubuntu is more of a desktop than server distro, and thus, can see their market shrinking in front of them. (Yes, Ubuntu can be used on a server. Don’t start.)
“Muslims are never at peace”
Because the US is so peaceful?
@qqq
> but the most funny thing is the most filthy,genocide and corrupted moral book is the Old Testament!
This is a fair point. The main difference between radical Muslims and Christians is that the radical Muslims actually DO what their holy book tells them. However, the majority of Muslims are like nearly all Christians, which is to say they pick the bits they like and ignore the embarrassing bits about genocide, murder, the abuse and degradation of women, and appallingly barbaric legal systems. (As qqq says, these criticisms apply to the Old Testament just as much as they do to the Q’ran.)
> Christian just read the new Testement /Gospel
You seem to be confusing the readers of this group with Christians. There are a few Christians for sure, but I suspect the majority are either atheists, like me, or adherents to non Abrahamic religions, like Eric.
>I suspect the majority are either atheists, like me, or adherents to non Abrahamic religions, like Eric.
Or people who can reasonably be described either of those two ways, depending on your level of analysis. Not all “non Abrahamic religions” are theistic; Wicca isn’t, necessarily, nor is Buddhism.
I don’t object to being tagged as an atheist, though if asked I will explain than my beliefs are more complex than that label normally suggests.
>> Christian just read the new Testement /Gospel
>> You seem to be confusing the readers of this group with Christians.
Yeah, I only read the old testament, and then only the parts that don’t have too many “begats.” The rest of the bible is boring.
Neopaganism is… a bit hard to grasp, but I think I grok the basics enough to guess that many neopagans are probably grinning from ear to ear over the recent Penny Arcade comic series, “The Tithe”.
@JAD
> > “Muslims are never at peace”
winter on 2013-09-18 at 00:48:19 said:
> Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Morocco, Jordania, Turkey. That would add up to some 500M people I think?
There is a fairly high level of internal terrorism against non Muslim minorities in Indonesia, and if external terrorism is relatively low, it is because their “ally” Australia regularly threatens them and from time to time has actually invaded them (“yet another unfortunate map reading error”) to destroy terrorist bases.
Malaysia, yes, at peace, with non Muslims as second class citizens.
Bangladesh, massive genocides, high level of terrorism against minorities, state of near war with neighbors.
Morroco and Jordan are at “peace”, for the moment, in what passes for peace in the middle east, but it is not what Israelis regard as peace, or want as peace, not what constitutes peace in Europe. And if Jordan is at “peace” it is because of Black September, when they massacred twenty thousand people who felt that the government of Jordan was insufficiently Muslim, and regularly threaten to do it all over again on an even larger scale.
And without such threats, there would be no “peace” in Jordan.
Turkey: Currently in high level conventional war in Syria with Alawites, Christians, and to some extent Shiites. Atrocities on Youtube.
qqq on 2013-09-17 at 12:37:42 said:
> but the most funny thing is the most filthy,genocide and corrupted moral book is the Old Testament! Tell me why must the Philistine(Palestine) and Canaanite be kill,murder and wipe out(holocaust) till ever.
Old Testament was reasonable under the circumstances (recall America’s Indian wars). When circumstances changed, it became a problem. Some Jews solved this problem by getting in a prophet with extraordinary authority from God to ditch those parts of the Old Testament that had become inconvenient. These became the Christians. Others created a great fat book, the Talmud, legalistically white anting the Old Testament. These became the modern Jews.
“Muslims are never at peace, except, as during the colonial period, when under the thumb of a superior power. When they are not in a state of high level war with their neighbors, they are in a state of low level war, which today we call terrorism. They take a break from attacking the rest of the world when they are attacking each other for being insufficiently Muslim.”
Uh…well…sort of…This is not so much Islamic politics, but feudalism, plain and simple. Middle eastern rulers stay in power by divide and rule; they *balance* the various factions in their countries against each other, often sacrificing one if they need another’s support more. Islam only comes into play when a need for war comes up. If you can declare your political enemies “infidels’, then your political supporters can kill them with impunity.
This presents a great danger to US interests in Syria. Even if Assad is overthrown, any of the revolting factions that lean towards democratic ideals will not be inclined towards further killing, but instead, *they* will be branded infidels by AQ and eliminated in turn. You don’t need Islam for this. Communist ideology works, too. When the Germans were finally driven out of Yugoslavia at the end of WWII, Tito ruthlessly eliminated all the other partisan groups he had been allied with.
@JAD
And how differs your extension of the definitions of war and terrorism for Islamic countries from South and Central America, South East Asia, and non-Islamic Africa?
Back to the Smartphone Wars:
This is either very good, or very, very bad:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/18/4742828/cyanogen-raises-7-million-to-build-the-best-version-of-android
@LeRoy
“This is either very good, or very, very bad:”
Good and bad are mostly a function of perspective. It is good for consumers. It might be bad for “some others” who live from toll booths. I would not be surprised if it is good for Google.
I sort of expected such developments. This is why people develop Open Source to begin with.
Interesting. I’d say it’s not good for Google. Certainly I doubt if Google thinks it’s good for them.
This is clearly good for Android geeks. For the average Android user… maybe.
I think this is probably good for Apple, on the basis of Android fragmentation and “Let’s you and him fight” (because in crucial ways this will conflict with Google’s plans).
@PapayaSF
“I’d say it’s not good for Google. Certainly I doubt if Google thinks it’s good for them. ”
These two statements can both be true at the same time. However, I think the people at Google are smart enough to have expected this from the very start of their involvement in Android.
Android has always been perceived by the outside world as Google’s strategy to keep the highway towards their services open. Open Source is generally more likely to keep them open than any other option.
I would say, Mission Accomplished.
Maybe I’m missing something, but the “highway towards [Google] services” has never been threatened. iOS, Windows, Phone, Blackberry, you name it: any smartphone with a browser can use Google services. But Google lives largely on ad revenue, and how is Cyanogen going to monetize? My guess is ad revenue.
Also, Google has been trying to reign in Android fragmentation/diversity, and this doesn’t help.
So I don’t think Google is thinking “Mission Accomplished” right now.
@PapayaSF
“iOS, Windows, Phone, Blackberry, you name it: any smartphone with a browser can use Google services.”
This show a remarkable level of naivety.
Really? Which ones can’t?
@PapayaSF
“Really? Which ones can’t?”
1) A fraction of (1-epsilon) of the users (with epsilon small) will never change the default settings of their browsers
2) The platform owner can set the defaults of any app such that users will have to jump to any number of hoops to get direct access to Google services
3) The platform owner can even directly sabotage Google services and hold them at ransom
They cannot do that now because of the fact that users have an alternative OS to switch to.
An example is content: music and podcasts. I know quite a number of users who switched away from the iPhone because of the way iTunes puts a toll booth to content. They could switch away because there was an alternative. As long as the iPhone had market dominance, people had to jump through hoops to get to music and contents that was not available or allowed on iTunes. That reduced the range of such content dramatically.
> > “Muslims are never at peace, except, as during the colonial period, when under the thumb of a superior power. When they are not in a state of high level war with their neighbors, they are in a state of low level war, which today we call terrorism. They take a break from attacking the rest of the world when they are attacking each other for being insufficiently Muslim.”
LS on 2013-09-18 at 16:51:21 said:’
> Uh…well…sort of…This is not so much Islamic politics, but feudalism, plain and simple.
Every single person in Syria knows what the Alawites did during the crusades, and the Sunni are still pissed about it, which is why the Sunni are attacking Syrian Christians and intend to ethnically cleanse them from Syria if they win. It is as if the crusades happened last week.
@JAD
“Every single person in Syria knows what the Alawites did during the crusades, …”
Which is the same as in former Yugoslavia during the break-up (WWII, and Serbs and the battle of Kosovo). In other words, you admit this is just tribal warfare.
@JAD
> > “Every single person in Syria knows what the Alawites did during the crusades, …”
Winter on 2013-09-19 at 05:50:09 said:
> Which is the same as in former Yugoslavia during the break-up (WWII, and Serbs and the battle of Kosovo). . In other words, you admit this is just tribal warfare.
Battle of Kosovo was the Ottoman Sultan attempting to conquer Europe as commanded by the Koran. Not a tribal war.
This story says that Nokia got as far as ordering 10 000 prototype units of their Android phone, before the decision to sell to Microsoft.
http://www.unwiredview.com/2013/09/19/nokia-still-working-on-android-phone-wont-cancel-until-november-foxconn-already-made-10k-prototypes/
Microsoft is already trying to cancel the Nokia tablet and a bunch of Asha phones, even before the deal has been approved.
http://www.unwiredview.com/2013/09/18/murtazin-microsoft-is-already-pushing-nokia-to-cancel-sirius-tablet-half-of-asha-touchscreen-phones/
On a second thought, that story about the 10k prototypes is pretty astonishing. I have a very hard time imagining Stephen Elop making Android phones as a plan B, and even less leveraging Android in a negotiation to sell the business to Steve Ballmer / MS board. The whole thing looks to me like Elop wasn’t exactly in control of Nokia’s Android project.
@JAD
“Battle of Kosovo was the Ottoman Sultan attempting to conquer Europe as commanded by the Koran. Not a tribal war.”
You seem to either bee blind or just pretend to be. The civil war during the break-up of Yugoslavia was a tribal war. What the supposed historical wrongs were is irrelevant.
I would love to see Office disappear, but it is embedded into the corporate world. Excel is everywhere, mostly in places it shouldn’t be, and is not going away any time soon.
“As long as the iPhone had market dominance, people had to jump through hoops to get to music and contents that was not available or allowed on iTunes.”
I’ve never had any problem getting music and other content from other sources in iTunes. No hoops at all. So, again, as Papaya asked, what are you talking about?
AnandTech posted their (comprehensive as usual) hardware review of the 5S. Great benchmarks.
Winter:
> The civil war during the break-up of Yugoslavia was a tribal war. What the supposed historical wrongs were is irrelevant.
Funny coincidence that most of these tribal wars happen on the borders of Dar al Islam.
And always have.
@JAD
During my life-time I have seen civil wars raging in Central Africa, South East Asia, Central America, Columbia, Peru, Georgia, large parts of the rest of South America and still in Amazonia. And neither Serbs nor Kroats nor Slovenians are muslims.
So your are again blinding yourself to anything you do not like.
@Tim F.
“I’ve never had any problem getting music and other content from other sources in iTunes.”
I work with people who are unaware of the conept of a browser bookmark. I am fairly sure 99% of consumers do not reach your level of computer literacy.
I am also am fairly sure you know that and understand that Google nor Apple can bank on their potential users will use any non-default option.
The top headline in Finnish news media at the moment says that Elop is to get 18.8 million euros in various forms of extra compensation if the sale to Microsoft goes through. This doesn’t exactly make him look better. Everyone from the minister of labor down is publicly talking about the mole story, again.
An extremely in-depth review of the iPhone 5s.
Winter:
> During my life-time I have seen civil wars raging in Central Africa, South East Asia, Central America, Columbia, Peru, Georgia, large parts of the rest of South America and still in Amazonia. And neither Serbs nor Kroats nor Slovenians are muslims.
But they were not caused by random forces like thunderstorms. When people had faith in communism, Communism caused most wars, and most “civil” wars had external intervention from communist powers, and Islam the remainder of the wars. Now that communism is gone, we are back what has been normal for the past thousand years – that most wars are caused by Islam.
@JAD
As you continue to ignore post-colonial history of (Catholic) Latin America and assorted other non-islamic regions like Central Africa and South-East Asia, I do not see a point in haggling over your parochial views of why their is so much instabillity in the most contested region in human history.
Either there’s some seriously black ops going on that haven’t hit any form of news outlet or you’re completely full of shit on this one.
Winter:
> As you continue to ignore post-colonial history of (Catholic) Latin America
Whose wars vanished with the Soviet Union.
Yes, when communism was around, it was a bigger cause of wars than Islam. This is hardly a glowing recommendation for Islam.
Further, communism was never all that terrorist. Islam has been terrorist starting with Mohammed.
> > Australia regularly threatens them and from time to time has actually invaded them (“yet another unfortunate map reading error”) to destroy terrorist bases.
> Either there’s some seriously black ops going on that haven’t hit any form of news outlet or you’re completely full of shit on this one.
During the East Timor conflict there were a whole lot of “unfortunate map reading errors” – resulting from Indonesian sponsorship of terror against East Timor from bases in West Timor.
After the Bali bombing, the Indonesian government was profoundly disinclined to act against the bombers. It received some rather menacing encouragement. Australia and Indonesia are “allies” in the war on terror in pretty much the fashion that the US and Pakistan are allies.
“I work with people who are unaware of the conept of a browser bookmark. I am fairly sure 99% of consumers do not reach your level of computer literacy.”
So do I. I’ve never met anyone who claims they can’t get non-iTunes music into iTunes… well, except hackers and Linux nerds and OSS advocates who are supposed to understand this stuff.
“I am also am fairly sure you know that and understand that Google nor Apple can bank on their potential users will use any non-default option.”
I’m having trouble following your grammar but… I’m sure Apple is aware that the music they sell represents a small percentage of the music in their users’s libraries (or an even smaller percentage of their users’s music listened to), but I’m also sure they know that they are the biggest music dealer in the world. Your point?
well, except hackers and Linux nerds and OSS advocates who are supposed to understand this stuff.
LOL!
Winter seems to think that Google is under threat by “default browser settings,” which is a bit of a stretch. Yes, (e.g.) Microsoft can make Bing the default search engine on their phones, but nothing prevents the user from using their browser to go to any Google service, just like they do with the browser on their laptop or desktop. I’m sure most smartphone owners understand that.
The platform owner can even directly sabotage Google services and hold them at ransom
They could also have their phones deliver electric shocks to users, but I am unaware of any such “sabotage” or “ransom.”
And, of course, Google can sabotage competitors by invisible adjustments of their search results.
Summary:
You all claim that when a user really wants, he can get to Google. And Google knows, that if they only reach users that really want to use Google, they will go bankrupt.
@Tim F.
” I’ve never met anyone who claims they can’t get non-iTunes music into iTunes…”
CDs is easy. iTunes does that (almost) by default.
But maybe you can tell me how to add an URL to iTunes to enter a podcast feed, or and alternative source of music, say Jamendo (http://www.jamendo.com/en/)? I have had that request and have never been able to find that one out.
Obviously searching for files, downloading them, importing them in iTunes, and adding the meta data is only 3 to 4 steps. And we all know, at each step you only lose around 90% of your audience (compounded).
@Tim F.
“but I’m also sure they know that they are the biggest music dealer in the world. Your point?”
That they also know how to prevent the competition from reaching iTunes users?
@PapayaSF
“They could also have their phones deliver electric shocks to users, but I am unaware of any such “sabotage” or “ransom.” ”
Resetting defaults after an update. Never seen that?
Never heard of third party software mysteriously breaking after an upgrade? MS has payed on average $1B a year for tricks like that.
@PapayaSF
“Yes, (e.g.) Microsoft can make Bing the default search engine on their phones, but nothing prevents the user from using their browser to go to any Google service, just like they do with the browser on their laptop or desktop.”
What percentage of Smartphone users will only use the default search engine in the URL field?
@PapayaSF
“I’m sure most smartphone owners understand that.”
I would not be so sure:
How to Connect Your Android Phone to Wi-Fi
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402566,00.asp
@JAD
“Whose wars vanished with the Soviet Union.”
Excuses, excuses. Always excuses.
Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Turkey, Morocco, Jordan all behave the same as assorted South American, South-East Asian or African countries since independence. But you have endless excuses why what happens in Islamic countries is somehow worse than what happens, e.g., Catholic countries.
Just one example from many:
Paraguayan War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War
I cannot see any involvement from the USSR here.
And the plight of the natives in the Amazon is just another example:
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/wha/119150.htm
@Winter: You bring up Android difficulties with WiFi, which is amusing but doesn’t make your point at all. Neither does long-past MS mischief. You are trying to claim that smartphone platform owners threaten Google by cutting people off from their services, but beyond the minor exception of default search engine settings for smartphone browsers, you have no examples. (And even that is a weak one: MS has set Windows Phone browsers to Bing, but iOS has always used Google.)
To make this ultra-clear: 1) Smartphone users know how to use smartphone browsers, because they are like laptop and desktop browsers. 2) Platform owners know web usage is important for most smartphone users, and generally strive to make their browsers work like “regular” browsers. 3) Google services are browser-based. 4) Thus, it’s silly to claim that platform owners are conspiring to sabotage Google services.
(However, I can think of one other small example in your favor: setting up a Gmail account on my Mom’s iPad a few years ago was remarkably difficult. However, that was only to get it seamlessly linked with Apple Mail: the standard web interface to Gmail worked fine.)
I can’t speak to podcasts: it’s a section in iTunes I’ve never used. But what’s your problem with Jamendo? I just went there, downloaded an MP3, dropped it onto iTunes, and it loaded and played fine.
@PapayaSF
“You are trying to claim that smartphone platform owners threaten Google by cutting people off from their services,”
No, such behavior is a threat to Google’s future. It is a truism in economics that the most consolidated stage in an economic chain will extract all the profits. The existence of a threat does not mean that there is someone threatening them NOW.
@PapayaSF
“but beyond the minor exception of default search engine settings for smartphone browsers, you have no examples. (And even that is a weak one: MS has set Windows Phone browsers to Bing, but iOS has always used Google.) ”
But iOS could easily switch to Bing or Yahoo, or DuckDuckGo if they want. Setting default browser search engines is a huge business in malware. Insisting that setting the default search engine is “no big deal” shows that you have not kept up with online business models.
@PapayaSF
“1) Smartphone users know how to use smartphone browsers, because they are like laptop and desktop browsers.”
The second part does not imply the first part. All empirical evidence points to a large part of the Smartphone users to be clueless. But the same was found for laptop and desktop users.
@PapayaSF
“2) Platform owners know web usage is important for most smartphone users, and generally strive to make their browsers work like “regular””
MS have shown they care more about their own monopoly than either their users or the law. Apple showed with the introduction of their own Maps that they have the same priorities.
@PapayaSF
“3) Google services are browser-based.”
Which does not help when most users stick with the default settings.
@PapayaSF
“4) Thus, it’s silly to claim that platform owners are conspiring to sabotage Google services.”
That is why I never wrote that. I wrote that Google had to prepare for a time when the owners of the leading platform would decide that they needed to increase shareholder value by tapping into Google’s profits.
In short, Google developed Android to protect against a (likely) future threat. Your point is that they should not protect against future threats.
Sound like an Elop strategy, to get back On Topic.
Comment awaiting moderation. To sommarize
@PapayaSF:
In short, Google developed Android to protect against a (likely) future threat. Your point is that they should not protect against future threats.
Sound like an Elop strategy, to get back On Topic.
@PapayaSF
“But what’s your problem with Jamendo? I just went there, downloaded an MP3, dropped it onto iTunes, and it loaded and played fine.”
Three steps on a computer. That reduces your audience by well over 90% (99%?). On my Android, or in VLC on my desktop, I can simply use Jamendo directly,
In retail, these few steps are the difference between success and failure.
Over 90% of computer users don’t know how to download a file and double-click it? Give me a break.
But if I wanted to use it “directly,” Jamendo has a free iPhone app, so again, I don’t know what the problem is supposed to be.
I don’t know what Google perceives as “future threats,” but I don’t think platform makers making it impossible to access web-standard Google services is one of them.
@PapayaSF
“Over 90% of computer users don’t know how to download a file and double-click it? Give me a break.”
No, they are just too lazy, or distracted, or some other excuse to do it. That is how you get rich in online commerce, e.g., Amazon’s one-click patent.
@PapayaSF
“But if I wanted to use it “directly,” Jamendo has a free iPhone app, so again, I don’t know what the problem is supposed to be.”
Whenever I read or hear about retail, it is about getting to potential customers first and fast. Every impediment, however small, decreases your business significantly.
If you know that is not true, why don’t you make a fortune helping online traders with this knowledge? They spend a lot of money to become the default option. You can help them see the error of their ways.
@PapayaSF
“I don’t know what Google perceives as “future threats,” but I don’t think platform makers making it impossible to access web-standard Google services is one of them.”
There is a world of insolvency between “not impossible to use” and “the default option”. At least Google sees it that way. Again, you can make a large fortune if you know that is not true and act on it.
Moderation hit again:
@PapayaSF
Why don’t you tell that to Google et al. They spend a fortune to be the default.
Thats what i thought you meant. So completely full of shit it is.
Yeah there were “unfortunate map reading errors”… By the indonesians. They’d wander into East Timor, get shot up by INTERFET and when the bullets stopped flying, they pointed out they were still 100 meters on the east timor side. The Indonesians were using a 1933 dutch map whereas INTERFET was using a 1970s indonesian map… and a GPS.
JonCB on 2013-09-20 at 05:05:47 said:
> Yeah there were “unfortunate map reading errors”… By the indonesians. They’d wander into East Timor, get shot up by INTERFET and when the bullets stopped flying, …
That bullets were apt to fly rather easily tells us much about the the “alliance” between Australia and Indonesia.
Recall that the legal pretense under which the Australians entered East Timor was that they were going to “assist” Indonesian troops to maintain order. Since Muslim Indonesian troops were the main cause of disorder in Christian East Timor, it is perhaps unsurprising that this “assistance” took the form that it did.
As I said earlier, Indonesia is an Australian ally, the way Pakistan is a US ally.
Winter:
> Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Turkey, Morocco, Jordan all behave the same as assorted South American, South-East Asian or African countries since independence.
No they do not. Example: Bali bombing and internal terrorism.
Muslim countries are obviously more violent against people who do not share their religion. Indonesians committed the Bali bombing, and the Australian government had to twist the Indonesian government’s arms to get it to arrest the perpetrators. The Bali bombing was holy war by Muslims who give Islam as the reason. Where is the non Muslim equivalent?
Turkey is featured on atrocity videos on you tube. Again, holy war by Muslims who give Islam as the reason. Where is the non Muslim equivalent?
@JAD
” Since Muslim Indonesian troops were the main cause of disorder in Christian East Timor, it is perhaps unsurprising that this “assistance” took the form that it did.”
Are you seriously suggesting that conquering a foreign country is an exclusive Islamic vice?
Deluded seems the correct word here.
During the East Timor period, diplomatic relations between Australia and Indonesia were basically fucked.
We’re neighbours and trading partners. We have a security agreement (signed in 2006, the Lombok Agreement) but i don’t think you’re going to see any Indonesian military bases in Australia or vice versa anytime soon (UNLIKE US/Pakistan or even US/Australian relations). Basically it’s a non-aggression treaty.
Also to support the UN in running a referendum on East Timorese independence. However this is all kind of besides the point. There is no documentation to support that INTERFET was ever actually on the West Timor side of the border (whether they meant to be there or not). Hence, black ops or bullshit.
AnandTech posted their (comprehensive as usual) hardware review of the 5S. Great benchmarks.
Looks like a great phone. I was considering a Nokia 1020 for the camera but the 5S strikes me as a better balance between phone and camera. Plus the slow load and shot to shot times on the 1020 are concerning as a camera. If it were faster I’d go with the Nokia for my wife. Awesome sensor in that thing.
The 5S sensor goes in the direction I prefer without going down too far like the HTC 1.
The A7 looks like a fairly future proof processor for the life of the phone. As you say the benchmarks are great.
“That they also know how to prevent the competition from reaching iTunes users?”
Nonsense. No one put a worthy competitor forward in the iPod era. Pandora, spotify, and other music services were some of the best treated apps on iPhone — getting the first, meaningful access to background services.
Apple leading a market category does not mean they are preventing competition.
So far the entire basis of your argument seems to be the stupid argument that you can’t use non-iTunes music on Apple products. This is idiocy.
“On my Android, or in VLC on my desktop, I can simply use Jamendo directly,”
Which is EXACTLY the same on a Mac or iOS device.
What I’m hearing from you is: I’m attempting to speak for everyone, but I’m actually speaking of a specific edge case that I am particularly interested in (but 99% of everymen aren’t) and I’m too ideologically-bigotted to figure it out; therefore, I, Winter, am an idiot.
iOS, Windows, Phone, Blackberry, you name it: any smartphone with a browser can use Google services.
Well not the ones in china which makes Googles android play a dead end for them there.
Hence the end run around open source with the new APIs locked into google proprietary code
But winter has claimed in the past that Google’s profits are unimportant to him and all that matters is that starving kids in Africa can enjoy an android phone.
/shrug.
Strikes me that clean water from Kamen’s slingshot is more important to that kid in Africa. CocoCola, of all companies, will possibly become the most important US company to the developing world rather than either Apple or Google. I guess Steve was wrong about the ability of a sugar water CEO to change the world (Muhtar Kent)
@nigel
“But winter has claimed in the past that Google’s profits are unimportant to him and all that matters is that starving kids in Africa can enjoy an android phone. ”
Each one his hobby. Personally, I think most children in Africa are beyond starvation by now. Education and economic development are becoming of more pressing importance.
But indeed, I own no stock in neither Apple nor Google (nor MS). I have no financial stake in the game at all.
@nigel
“Strikes me that clean water from Kamen’s slingshot is more important to that kid in Africa. ”
I would think so too. It is a mystery to me why you would think otherwise?
If you are a game developer, Android is a miserable platform to develop for.
In general, there are two types of mobile games: games which exist on two or more smartphone platforms, and iOS-only games. Despite Android getting ports of the likes of Angry Birds (late) and Temple Run (late), many, many good mobile games still fall into the latter category. The fact that iOS has far more paying users might be part of it.
If you are a developer, iOS still leads. Period. And now that iOS is the only platform with a desktop-class smartphone, Android will be entirely locked out of the next generation of sophisticated apps for the next few months at least.
@ Nigel – “all that matters is that starving kids in Africa can enjoy an android phone. ”
Did I miss something? When did android phones become edible?
Winter on 2013-09-20 at 05:45:52 said:
> Are you seriously suggesting that conquering a foreign country is an exclusive Islamic vice?
Terrorizing them after conquering them is a vice characteristic of communism and Islam, and not of other belief systems.
@JAD
Haven’t read up on Sparta, did you?
1 gig of memory is not desktop-class. Sticking with 1Gig makes it mostly a waste of time except as a way to mitigate the massive portability problems you’re going to have because you’re 100% native.
In fact i’d go so far as to say that the memory strain of the new phones is worse than the preceeding ones, 64-bit pointers means more overhead and no extra memory. I’m somewhat surprised they haven’t gone to 2Gig really.
@Jeff Read:
I read that article. The tl;dr version is “(1) Any idiot can build an android phone; (2) any idiot can afford to buy an android phone; (3) google doesn’t recognize that we’re the greatest and give us front page ad coverage; and (4) google tries to control us for no good reason.”
My response is:
(1) yes, this is one of the things that makes the platform great. It’s the same “problem” that windows has, and there are plenty of games on windows.
(2) yes, and I can see that this complaint, while completely unegalitarian, is somewhat valid from the point of someone trying to extract money from a platform. But guess what! Apple is moving downmarket, too, so you’ll have to learn to deal.
(3) Yeah, whatever.
(4) I couldn’t actually believe that the article said this:
There’s a marketplace where every single app is vetted and some are declined or ignored for weeks for no good reason, where you aren’t allowed to have adult images, or embed too much programmability in your offerings, where you need to buy a certain kind of machine to use for development and pay them annually.
And then there’s a laissez-faire market where anybody can participate for a one-time fee of $25, where you can put pretty much any kind of app you want. Guess which one is being referred to by the above statement:
I got two good takeaways from the article:
(1)
That’s dangerous for Apple, not developers. It’s awesome to be able to get started and then see what sticks. The whole article was written in a “customers are stupid and should be avoided whenever possible” tone, but today, attention from customers is where it’s at, and if Android gives a shorter time-to-first-customer-interaction than iOS, Android wins, as do the developers who correctly recognize this as a net positive.
(2) http://games.greggman.com/game/android-vs-ios-game-myths/
That last link gives some hard data, unlike the whiny drivel from the first article, which was apparently written by somebody who writes games that only appeal to the black turtleneck crowd.
It probably wasn’t clear, but that last link I gave was a takeaway from the article for the simple reason that one of the commenters posted it.
It links to a great article, but one of the commenters there trotted out the old saw about Apple getting 75% of app store revenue.
Yes, that’s true, but it was, until very recently, a completely meaningless metric, because Android apps were not required to use the Play store for in-game purchases. Even now, it’s not all that meaningful because Google still allows third-party purchases for some things, whereas Apple mandates, not only in-app purchases, but even most-favored-nation pricing.
@Patrick Maupin
Stop it Patrick. You are going to get us all confused with data and actual facts.
> But guess what! Apple is moving downmarket, too, so you’ll have to learn to deal.
Roflmao, if the 5c was downmarket, I’ll buy the beer.
> But guess what! Apple is moving downmarket, too, […]
Not really. The new iPhone 5C is not very much cheaper than 5S, and Tim Cook said in so many words that Apple isn’t and won’t be in the business of cheap hardware.
Ah, but Cook said that Apple wasn’t “in the junk business.” There’s a difference between “cheap” and “junk.” The 2 gig iPod Shuffle is $49, which is pretty cheap, but it’s not junk.
Yes, I wish the 5c were cheaper, but in a year or two it (or something like it) probably will be.
@Mikko:
My point was, that in the US market, where roughly half of the revenue for both app stores comes from, pretty much anybody, even with bad credit, can now own a brand new, latest generation iPhone for next to nothing.
Note in that link how, over the last 6 months, Android app store revenue is up 67%, while iOS revenue is up 15%. If that trend is real and ongoing (and not just a spike due to Google getting around to enforcing rules on in-app purchases), Android app store revenues should exceed Apple’s in under a year.
@PapayaSF:
Or, to put it another way, Papaya, you can’t simultaneously gloat that Apple is taking over the domestic market and then somehow try to claim that the nature of their customer base isn’t changing.
@Patrick
Thank you.
My response was something along the lines of “God… could ‘Anonymous’ whine any harder please?”.
My takeaway was this. On android it’s really important you write clean code that follows best practice for Android. Indies are known for writing code that is not as good as it possibly could be. Thus this post.
> pretty much anybody, even with bad credit, can now own a brand new, latest generation iPhone for next to nothing.
I think this has been true for a while. You said “moving” downmarket.
@Mikko:
In the US, you used to have to have a postpaid cell plan to get a subsidized phone, and really good credit to get the plan. Neither of these is quite as true any more, especially starting when Sprint had to shift a lot of iPhones.
@Jon
iOS because of objective-C rather than Java, because it doesn’t multitask as well and because it doesn’t allow OS extensions is less memory intensive than Android. Most Android phones are not 2g yet, it is rare. They went to 512m with the 4 series and 1g with the 5 series. I’d think it is likely the 6 will be 2g, but iPads are not at 2g yet.
@Patrick
The iOS app market is mature and seems to be tracking growth of the userbase. The Android app market is comparatively immature and seems to be tracking people figuring out how to market to Android customers. They really aren’t the same trend lines and I wouldn’t try and extrapolate too much about long term trends. Incidentally AFAIK Android is now tied on gross revenue with iOS so I’m not disagreeing with your main point, just pointing out that you are comparing apples to oranges in looking at their relative growth.
What you aren’t comparing that’s been the big trend for the last 2 years is the movement on vertical applications distributed via. corporate networks. That’s breaking about 80/20 in iOS’ favor and represents substantial spending, though from the end user’s employers not the end users.
@Patrick > “Note in that link how, over the last 6 months, Android app store revenue is up 67%, while iOS revenue is up 15%. If that trend is real and ongoing (and not just a spike due to Google getting around to enforcing rules on in-app purchases), Android app store revenues should exceed Apple’s in under a year.”
Nice try, Patrick, but you’re either mathematically challenged, or attempting to deceive.
I’ll just quote from the report:
“The growth in Google Play was bigger (67%) than it was in the Apple App store (15%), although the Apple App store generated two times more revenue.”
“The Apple App store was still the larger market compared to Google Play in July 2013 in terms of total revenue. However, Google Play’s cut has increased significantly over the past few months. While only 25% of the combined revenue came from Google Play in February 2013, this share went up by eight percentage points to 33% in July 2013. in revenue terms the Apple App store was still twice as large as Google Play.”
If Google Play gained another 8% in the next 12 months, they would be at 41% to Apple’s 49%.
At the current rate of growth (nobody knows if it’s sustainable), it would take at least 18 months for Google Play revenues to exceed Apple’s “app store”.
Whoops, 6months. I am wrong.
@LeRoy:
Thanks for admitting you misread the timeframe.
Note that the first part of the article (that I quoted from) talked about a 6 month time frame, but the second section you quoted (with the 25% to 33% change) apparently had a time frame from February to July — which is actually only 5 months… (Could be a mistake though, who knows?)
Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that it was January, not February, that the 25% figure for google’s cut was accurate back then, and that the growth figures of 67% for Android and 15% for iOS over 6 months were accurate and will continue. In that case, the figure for July would actually be 32.6% for Android (guess they rounded up to 33%).
Staying at 3 digits, the figure for next January would be 41.28% for Android, and the figure for next July would be 55.2% for Android. Gotta love those compound growth hockey sticks.
I guess I _am_ mathematically challenged — 41.3% is 3 digits, not 41.28. Off to bed with me.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the headline is click bait.
Sorry, i’m not comparing iOS to Android here, but iOS to iOS.
Those with an iPhone 5 will get slightly better bang for their memory buck than 5C or 5S users because iphone 5 pointers will be half the width. Traditionally the counter to this is to increase the memory size, but here this hasn’t been done despite their direct competitors already having done so.
Not saying that iphone is fucked or bad or whatever because of this. Just legitimately surprised that such a seemingly minor spec upgrade wasn’t considered de-rigueur.
We’re coming on to 6 months since the first 2gb android. While i don’t have a list on me, i’d be surprised if a new phone with upper tier billing and less than 2gb ram was taken seriously.
See the AnandTech review of the 5s posted above. The A7 chip is better than the A6 by nearly every measure, sometimes by a lot.
@Jon
If Apple isn’t have memory problems on their tablets why would the extra pointers be enough to create a must have increase.
Apple while often very good on specs frequently has different specs they focus on than the competition. They tend to have a more balanced product. This has been a tendency for a long time. My 1 1/4 year old Apple laptop has 16g of ram since there Apple thinks the spec matters. It also has extremely fast SSD, since that’s a place Apple thinks the spec matters. Toss in retina screen and you are looking at only a few laptops that are comparable.
Obvious what happens in Android has some influence, but mainly in so far as it is indicative of the cost of parts for Apple.
The hard fact is that iOS needs way less memory than Android to do the same sorts of things. The 512-MiB iPhone 4S was handily outpacing 1GiB-equipped Androids doing the same sorts of things. This is due to the overhead required by the garbage-collected Dalvik runtime, along with Android’s more liberal policy on multitasking.
@Jeff Read
Indeed, using a general purpose Open OS that runs in diverse hardware to stimulate competition has performance drawbacks. Just as competition itself has drawbacks, such as fast development cycles and low margins.
Android’s performance issues are design issues, not openness issues. Had Nokia decided to stick it through with Maemo on a line of top-quality cellphones, we might be looking at an actually worthy iOS competitor, with greater Linux compatibility to boot. But things didn’t turn out that way…
Sometimes it’s not about genius, it’s about being less stupid than the competition. During the 90s Microsoft was less stupid than everyone else; that’s why they came out on top, for example, in the browser wars. Netscape management had convinced themselves that the Netscape name would ensure their dominance, allowing Microsoft to eat their lunch with a superior product in Internet Explorer. In the smartphone era, iOS is still the least stupidly-designed smartphone OS, which means iOS-based devices enjoy a comfortable performance lead against Android devices released at around the same time.
Part of Apple’s has a tremendous advantage is because they design the OS and the phone, including the CPU. (Or SoC, if you prefer. And yes, it’s an ARM license, but you know what I mean.) I think the advantage of vertical integration will continue to grow, and competitors know this: hence Microsoft buying Nokia, Google with Nexus products, and the rumors of Samsung forking Android.
@PapayaSF
> Part of Apple’s has a tremendous advantage is because they design the OS and the phone,
As with most things in life it is both an advantage and a disadvantage. Jobs allegedly had the concept of a machine that you put sand and energy in and out pops a computer, which is to say total vertical integration. Yet today Macs use Intel processors, Samsung make iPad screens, and Corning makes the glass.
Buying stuff from other people means you can leverage their R&D cost, and focus on the bits that connect the parts together. That is a big deal. In fact I believe it is called “the industrial revolution.”
Perhaps this is a time to remember I, Pencil
Of course vertical integration is not always the best thing. I wouldn’t want Apple to go full Henry Ford and smelt their own aluminum or whatever. (Trivia note: the charcoal company Kingsford started using wood scrap and sawdust from Ford’s Model T factory.)
Still, one company with full control over both the OS and the CPU can produce a phone or computer with a degree of integration and optimization that’s difficult to duplicate. Android can optimize to an existing processor, but the iOS team not only has advance information about upcoming processors, they get input about their capabilities.
I’m assuming Apple sees memory problems in the future or else why bother with 64-bit? Unless you think the primary motivation for this move is to try to unify OS-X and iOS.
@CD-Host
@Jeff
Let me re-iterate that i’m not trying to justify my surprise at Apple not going 2Gb by looking at Android. I’m solely pointing out that an iPhone 5 ultimately has more memory to play with than the 5S because 64-bit architecture means that memory references are twice the width. What does that really mean? Probably not much, i don’t know enough ObjC to know how common references are idiomatically (my guess is more than C/C++, less than C#/Java).
There are other advantages to 64-bit beyond addressing more than 4 gigs of RAM and commonality with OSX.
@PapayaSF
“Part of Apple’s has a tremendous advantage is because they design the OS and the phone, including the CPU.”
So that is why Apple hovers below 20% of global market share in everything they produce?
Meanwhile, Google must worry about others taking up part of the Android development workload for free: CyanogenMod is starting to produce Android images.
The first Cyanogen phone seems to be on their way from OPPO N1:
https://plus.google.com/100275307499530023476/posts
@Winter
a) Because they don’t care much about marketshare nearly as much as profit share.
b) Because you count marketshare in such a way so that the numbers come out that way by grouping customers together from non-competing markets. You effectively like to group sneakers in with airplanes as “transportation devices” and talk about how terrible Boeing’s marketshare is.
Use real categories and that doesn’t happen. For example: Apple has for about 7 years running between 85-91% marketshare in all laptops over $1000.
@CD-Host
“a) Because they don’t care much about marketshare nearly as much as profit share.”
And I don’t care about profit share and only about marketshare.
@CD-Host
“b) Because you count marketshare in such a way so that the numbers come out that way by grouping customers together from non-competing markets. ”
What is difficult about “Global”?
@CD-Host
“You effectively like to group sneakers in with airplanes as “transportation devices” and talk about how terrible Boeing’s marketshare is. ”
I compare Smartphones to Smartphones. I am perfectly willing to talk about cell phone handsets, but that does not make Apple look better. And an iPhone is to a cheap Android handset like a BMW to a cheap Kia. I have no idea how you get an airplane into this metaphor.
@Winter
Not too much though US companies tend to be much more parochial and focus on the domestic market since it is large. The main issue isn’t with global it is with ignoring price points.
It doesn’t matter what you care about. You keep phrasing things as if Apple were failing to execute because they don’t execute on your plans. It is only a failure if they fail to execute on their plans. Apple hasn’t sold many socks lately, I’m sure there is someone out there who wants an Apple brand sock.
First off, that’s not what Apple sells. Apple sells “premium smartphones” they don’t sell smartphones in general, anymore than Boeing sells generalized transportation devices. Moreover, you count phones that lack data plans and exclude phones that do.
Sure it does, because it gives an accurate picture. Apple broke into the high end of the market in 2007 with a high end premium product. They have been able to move something 200m people globally towards buying their high end premium product and greatly increased their spend. There is a massive market at much lower price points that Apple has never attempted to sell a product to. Nothing much has changed.
Conversely it also gives an accurate picture about Android. That huge numbers of people are moving from JavaVM and Symbian devices to Android devices. Android has successfully displaced the middle of the market and is becoming the handset of choice. They have also managed to take considerable share at the high end though evidence indicates their hold is loose here. Finally handsets are still growing downmarket though the rate of growth has slowed considerably over the last few decades.
The purpose of talking about smartphone as some sort of new device is to exclude simple replacement. People move up quality as price points drop just like with everything else.
@CD-Host
> Use real categories and that doesn’t happen. For example: Apple has for about 7 years running between 85-91% marketshare in all laptops over $1000.
The fact that you don’t see the irony of that makes me laugh a little. After all, IBM has a very, very high market share of networking equipment supporting token ring. Their profit margin on that stuff is WAY high.
It is particularly ironic to say this when you are accusing Winter of fiddling the categories to make his data look good.
And I’d say token right based networking is a reasonable category. A person buying token ring equipment doesn’t care about switched networking equipment. Switched networking could be 10, 1000 or 100000 times as large of a market and it wouldn’t really matter.
In items with huge price ranges you never compare across price points nakedly. No one asks why Four Season’s marketshare is such a small percentage of “restaurant marketshare” throwing McDonald’s in a big bin. It is a stupid question.
As for “smartphones” yes I think counting the lowest end Androids while not counting the better feature phones they compete with like the Ashas like the 311 or even midrange ones like the 301 (since why not mention Nokia in a thread about them) is completely biased totally distorted statistics designed to artificially boost Android’s marketshare. Obviously does nothing for Apple they don’t sell a $85 phone to compete with the 301 nor a $110 phone like the 311 but Androids are in that range. There is no reason because Android runs on top notch phones like the Galaxy S4 to put low end Androids in the same class.
@CD-Host
A Louis Vuiton handbag of $100k is still a handbag. It might be of better quality than a $5 handbag, but it is still just a handbag. Both owners can do the same thing with their handbag.
Same with Smartphones. The most expensive and cheapest Smartphones have almost the same functionality. There is only a difference in “quality”, if there is a difference.
That different people buy different brands at different prices is only important for matketing and sales people. If you want to argue that iPhones are also overpriced fashion luxury items then I would agree. But fashion discussion are orthogonal to technical discusions. Mixing these two viewpoints is only confusing.
@CD-Host
If you want to include feature phones in the discusion, see above. I have given all the numbers for global handsets. With 25M units a year, Asha is not threathening Android at all.
It’s silly to call something “an overpriced fashion luxury item” when nine million of them are sold in the first three days they are available. That’s a perfect example of a mass market product.
@PapayaSF:
“overpriced fashion luxury item” and “mass market product” are orthogonal descriptions, both of which could accurately apply in this case (although with the power of the new processor, I have to admit that the 5s is somewhat less overpriced than some of its predecessors).
Your 9 million in 3 days is telling. Throw in the fact that most of the buyers already have a perfectly good cellphone, and that the 9 million is almost a third of the handset shipments that Apple made in the entire previous quarter, and it becomes obvious that this isn’t just “honey, I need a new cellphone — I think I’ll wander down to the Apple store and see what they got.”
I was countering Winter’s silly comparison of iPhones to $100K handbags, which I am sure Louis Vuitton sells by the single or double digits. And while I understand your point, I can’t think of any “overpriced fashion luxury items” that sell nine million in three days, and will sell scores of millions over the lifetime of the product.
@Winter —
You haven’t shown much interest in technical distinctions either. Are you really going to argue that the $90 Androids are remotely similar in terms of technology to the 5S.
OK
Let’s take the fingerprint security, the new feature. Where do I get that for my $80 Android?
110g weight and only 7.6mm thick. Where do I get that for my $80 Android?
continuous burst camera with f/2.2 aperture, auto stabilization at 120 frame / sec speed with strong software support. Where do I get that for my $80 Android.
The CPU is going to be something like 10x as fast. The GPU is going to be incomparable.
Apple with this release is standardizing around Pages, Number and Keynote for free. That means a suite of productivity applications for the desktop (like Office) built from the ground up for web editing on arbitrary desktops (like Google Docs) with sharing (i.e. like Sharepoint) but also with an editing system built to work well on mobile and tablet. Where do I get that for an $80 Android?
Sneakers are not airplanes.
> “overpriced fashion luxury item” and “mass market product” are orthogonal descriptions, both of which could accurately apply in this case
I guess every customer has their own definition of what qualifies as “luxury”, but Apple has certainly always gone after a mass market, even if only the higher-end part of it. I don’t think any of their advertising tries to place their products as “luxuries” or particularly exclusive. If anything, they advertise ease-of-use, by anyone.
Karl Lagerfeld’s once defined “luxury” as haute couture, i.e. hand-made clothes that cost $50 000 a dress, plus a trip to Paris for a fitting or two. Apple is clearly not in that sort of business (as it happens, neither are most of the couture houses, they make their money on off-the-rack clothes).
2013 is the first year that “smartphones” will beat feature phones in raw volume
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24143513
Yes it matters greatly to the statistics if you count them.
1) Go to Play
2) Search for “QuickOffice”
@Mikko:
Surely true ease-of-use is luxurious?
(Not saying that Apple always achieves this — I’ve spent too much time helping my daughters to believe it.)
> Surely true ease-of-use is luxurious?
Well, this goes back to the definition of the word. I wouldn’t call it luxury, just good design. There’s good and bad design in inexpensive mass-produced things, and good and bad design in things that are sold as great luxuries. I suspect many of the couture dresses that cost a fortune are uncomfortable to wear.
The phone brand that truly positioned itself as “luxury” would be Vertu, which used to make phones that were a generation or two behind the cutting edge technically, but had flashy shells made of gold and gemstones, and ridiculous price tags. Frequently the designs were screamingly obviously bad, i.e. clunky, odd-shaped numeric keypads made of gold etc. I guess the clients were people who put the need to display their money ahead of usability (and possibly couldn’t recognize usability if it hit them in the face). Vertu was owned by Nokia, who sold it a couple of years ago. Vertu switched to Android immediately after that, but I have no idea what, if anything, they are doing now. The iPhone seems to be good enough for many of the super-rich, and Apple just put out a gold-colored one.
“So that is why Apple hovers below 20% of global market share in everything they produce?”
Apple iPhone Global Market Share
2008 In the “other” group but around 1%.
2009 2.1% (25M units)
2010 3.4% (47M units)
2011 5.4% (93M units)
2012 7.8% (135M units)
http://mobilesyrup.com/2011/01/28/idc-worldwide-mobile-phone-market-increased-17-9-in-q4-and-up-18-5-for-the-year/
https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23916413
OMG! Apple is below 10% global market share! They’ve obviously been disrupted from below! ESR was right! Not. This is the same “The PC destroyed Mac market share” myth. The iPhone has done nothing but grow share since launch.
2013 might be a regression but this is going to be a good quarter and they already sold around 68M units in Q1 and Q2 (37M + 31M). Q4 should be pretty huge too. It strikes me as unlikely that they will regress. Who knows, they might even make double digit share this year.
So both ESR and your predictions for Apple Doom has been wrong for what? At least two years now, perhaps three.
So yes, controlling both hardware and software has been a distinct advantage for Apple. I have no idea why folks would think it is not.
“Meanwhile, Google must worry about others taking up part of the Android development workload for free: CyanogenMod is starting to produce Android images.”
Yes they do worry about others taking up part of Android development for free: Amazon, Facebook, Baidu, Alibaba…
http://allthingsd.com/20120916/google-and-alibaba-continue-warring-over-acer-phone/
Hence the move toward Chrome and closed source Google Play Services.
“Looking back on Larry Page’s tenure as CEO, I don’t know if it’s a coincidence but it seems reasonable to believe that, unlike Eric Schmidt, Page does not believe in open standards or an open Internet. Google has, in just a few short months, dropped support for open standards en masse, including RSS, XMPP, iCal/CalDav, and Podcasts (Listen). Additionally, other services are being forcefully “integrated” into Google+, which has no complete public API and no interoperability with other systems. Google, is, in other words, the new AOL: A silo separate from the open web, with very limited interoperability.”
https://kkinder.com/2013/05/21/leaving-googles-silo-alternatives-to-gmail-talk-calendar-and-more/
Funny, I never expected to miss Eric Schmidt.
@CD-Host
” Apple sells “premium smartphones” they don’t sell smartphones in general,”
@Me
“If you want to argue that iPhones are also overpriced fashion luxury items then I would agree.”
I do not see much difference between “premium” and “luxury”. When CD-Host talks about “premium” products, I hear “luxury” products.
I also tend to consider all Status items as Luxury goods. If you listen to those people interviewed in the iPhone Release Day lines, then this is all about status. The margins Apple gets on the iPhones are the very definition of “Overpriced”. Also, you can get full iPhone functionality with cheaper Android phones.
@CD-Host
“Let’s take the fingerprint security, the new feature. Where do I get that for my $80 Android?”
You can get fingerprint locks on a Mercedes. Does this mean Mercedes cars are not cars anymore? Btw, the fingerprint scan of the iPhone has already been broken:
http://gizmodo.com/hackers-iphone-5s-fingerprint-security-is-not-secure-1367817697
you can get full iPhone functionality with cheaper Android phones
Depending on your definitions of “full” and “functionality.”
>Depending on your definitions of “full” and “functionality.”
Yes. Apple’s definition of “fully functional” includes a fingerprint reader that can be defeated with a photocopier and some glue.
@PapayaSF
“Depending on your definitions of “full” and “functionality.””
There are few people who cannot find a cheaper Samsung phone that handles the “functionality” they want in “full”. That is why Samsung sells so many handsets.
2 years ago on your Motorola Atrix 4G.
Also there’s like a billion apps in google play but no-one really believes those are secure do they?
(short answer is yes i’m sure… the plebians are very gullible)
I just saw this article that seems highly relevant: http://www.forbes.com/sites/terokuittinen/2013/09/24/nokia-admits-giving-misleading-information-about-elops-compensation/
@Winter —
Premium and luxury are used somewhat differently. But in the context of the 5b global handset makers I don’t have a problem with the word “luxury” when applied to Apple. For crying out loud Apple’s latest big hire was Paul Deneve from Yves Saint Laurent to head the special projects group. Their retail division likes to compete with Tiffany’s about who can do more $ business per square foot.
In the context of the USA and Japan market though, that doesn’t apply they are simply the mainstream brand rather than the discount brands. So I think context matters.
Mercedes is a tricky brand because it is mainstream in some countries. In the USA incidentally it is a luxury brand exclusively. Porsche is a clear cut luxury brand. And no I don’t think in any meaningful sense a Chevy Spark or a Nissan Versa should be compared to a Porsche. Nissan Versa customers have no intention of every owning a Porsche, Porsche has no interest in that customer base… In the USA in 2012 Porsche sold 35,043 of the 12,778,885 cars sold in the USA. This is a far lower share than Apple has of “smartphones” globally. Yet no one questions why “Porsche is so unpopular”. Everyone understands that Porsche makes a vastly superior product to the Versa and that customers would rather have it if they could afford it.
@Jeff
Quick Office is a mobile app designed to allow you to view and edit Microsoft Office documents. It isn’t a mobile editing and authoring system. It is isn’t comfortable to use and of course there are compatibility problems. Not the same thing though it is similar.
@JonCB
That phone is still $150, twice the $80 (though down quite a bit from $495).
So “[e]veryone understands that Apple makes a vastly superior product to the Samsung Galaxy S-series and that customers would rather have it if they could afford it?” Is that it? Is that your point?
You should try out for Second City, @CD-Host. You’re that funny.
@CD-Host
“But in the context of the 5b global handset makers I don’t have a problem with the word “luxury” when applied to Apple.”
So what was exactly the problem with me calling iPhones “overpriced fashion luxury items”?
@Winter
They aren’t overpriced. They don’t sell based on fashion. And you are using that in contexts other than entire global handset market.
In fact, Winter, your point is perfectly valid. @CD-Host assuming that everyone really just wants an Apple is the same as assuming that everyone really just wants to wear Yves Saint Lauren or Gucci. Even some people who have unlimited amounts of money to spend chose not to waste their money on flashy designer clothes. The truth is that your’re not going hiking in something like these designer shoes. If you spend a significant amount of your time hiking or mountain climbing, there’s a good chance you’re not investing in those YSL shoes.
Similarly, an over-priced, underfunctional, but highly-fashionable iPhone 5S will be favored by the same sorts of shallow, self-centered and unenglightened individuals who would wear the YSL shoes.
@Morgan
No that’s not my point. Not remotely. I’ve been talking the entire time about price points and that’s what you got? Samsung doesn’t even compete down at the $80 price point. But if you wanted to pick a phone at a slightly higher price point, it would be the Galaxy Y-series not the S-Series that we’d be comparing to iPhone.
The S-Series is a high end phone. Selection of that vs. the iPhone is not a price issue.
@CD-Host
“They aren’t overpriced.”
Apple’s margins say otherwise
@CD-Host
“They don’t sell based on fashion.”
Screaming teenagers standing a day in line? Now with a choice of colors!
@CD-Host
“And you are using that in contexts other than entire global handset market.”
OK, in most of the world, iPhones are a status symbol.
You sure about that, @CD-Host? My most recent informal price survey puts the iPhone 5S at about $100 more on average than the Galaxy S4 ($600 vs. $700). That’s not a huge difference, but it’s enough of a price difference that people will take it in consideration when buying their next phone.
@CD-Host
Here are estimates of the costs of the iPhone 5S/C
Teardown Shows iPhone 5S Costs at Least $199 to Build, $173 for the 5C
http://allthingsd.com/20130924/teardown-analysis-shows-iphone-5s-costs-at-least-199-to-build-173-for-the-5c/?mod=tweet
Overpriced?
Back on topic. Elop gets money to sell off Nokia, and they lie about it.
New Nokia twist – Elop’s contract revised same day as Microsoft deal
http://yle.fi/uutiset/new_nokia_twist_-_elops_contract_revised_same_day_as_microsoft_deal/6847697
I knew it! Elop’s going to back to Microsoft. Not a coincidence.
“Overpriced?”
No, that’s just BOM.
“Apple’s margins say otherwise.”
No, they don’t. I don’t know how a simple number answers a value judgment question.
The plot thickens: http://www.forbes.com/sites/terokuittinen/2013/09/24/nokia-admits-giving-misleading-information-about-elops-compensation/
“Slight discrepency”?
So, anyway, Elop’s contract terms entitle him to a cool $25 million for doing exactly what he did. Nokia planned to sell the handset business to Microsoft and gave Stephen Elop a big payout to ensure that is exactly what would happen. No more conjecture is necessary, everything has gone according to plan.
@winter> “I compare Smartphones to Smartphones. I am perfectly willing to talk about cell phone handsets, but that does not make Apple look better. And an iPhone is to a cheap Android handset like a BMW to a cheap Kia.”
Quality matters.
I’ll re-write your assertion, but substitute compilers for Smartphones.
—
I compare Compilers to Compilers. I am perfectly willing to talk about BASIC interpreters, but that does not make LLVM look better. And Clang/LLVM is to pcc like a BMW to a cheap Kia.
—
But you are, perhaps intentionally, missing the point. Android may be a “perfectly adequate” Smartphone OS, but this does not mean that it is the best Smartphone OS by any complete (set of) objective or subjective measure(s).
The Android (and Kia) camp care about utility. They have an objective view. In their view, all Smartphones (cars) perform the same basic function, and therefore are the same.
The Apple (and BMW) camp cares about experience. They have a subjective view. In their view, the “quality that can’t be named” must be present, or the product is lacking.
“This oneness, or the lack of it, is the fundamental quality for anything. Whether it is in a poem, or a man, or a building full of people, or in a forest, or a city, everything that matters stems from it. It embodies everything…. Yet still this quality cannot be named.” –Christopher Alexander
“Similarly, an over-priced, underfunctional, but highly-fashionable iPhone 5S will be favored by the same sorts of shallow, self-centered and unenglightened individuals who would wear the YSL shoes.”
LOL. What a weak troll.
I wonder what it is about Apple that threatens you guys to have to believe this kind of shit to feel better about yourselves.
I think android is a decent smartphone OS. Just not my cup of tea. Like the way I feel about windows. Decent OS, not my preferred one except for gaming. I prefer iOS/OSX.
The iPhone 5S is a superb phone from an objective tech perspective (aka benchmarks) and from a fit and finish perspective. The Nokia 1020 is superb from a camera perspective. The Note 3 is a superb cross-over device and I love that it has a stylus. It really is a great note taking device.
It’s just sad that you can’t enjoy great design without mixing politics into it.
“In the context of the USA and Japan market though, that doesn’t apply they are simply the mainstream brand rather than the discount brands. So I think context matters.”
I think that in the developed market this is correct. It’s not a status symbol at all but a very egalitarian one. The average person can own the exact same phone that the rich and famous owns. Same quality, same features, same everything.
That’s true of every smartphone not just Apple, ignoring blinged out phones or the Vertu.
“Yes. Apple’s definition of “fully functional” includes a fingerprint reader that can be defeated with a photocopier and some glue.”
Nice FUD. The hack was more sophisticated.
“described above proved to be somewhat unreliable as the depth of the ridges created by the toner was a little too shallow. Therefore an alternative process based on the same principle was utilized and has been demonstrated in an extended video available here. First, the residual fingerprint from the phone is either photographed or scanned with a flatbed scanner at 2400 dpi. Then the image is converted to black & white, inverted and mirrored. This image is then printed onto transparent sheet at 1200 dpi. To create the mold, the mask is then used to expose the fingerprint structure on photo-senistive PCB material. The PCB material is then developed, etched and cleaned. After this process, the mold is ready. A thin coat of graphite spray is applied to ensure an improved capacitive response. This also makes it easier to remove the fake fingerprint. Finally a thin film of white wood glue is smeared into the mold. After the glue cures the new fake fingerprint is ready for use.”
http://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2013/ccc-breaks-apple-touchid
When the fingerprint sensor is coupled with a pin code you’ll end up with a fairly secure system. I expect that enterprise customers are already requesting this and Good has already requested and gained access to the touchid API.
Just the fingerprint sensor alone is good enough for most folks. The odds you’ll get a usable print off the device itself is fairly low depending on how many fingers you teach it.
As someone blogged, by itself it’s a convienient security mechanism…not a strong security mechanism.
The idea that some mugger who steals your iPhone is going to go through all that is absurd. Besides, how many iPhones have a good, clean fingerprint on them? And especially a thumbprint, which many people will use?
The story of Stephen Elop’s golden parachute seems to be turning into a soap opera. It seems there’s been talk at Nokia of cutting some of the compensation, after a political outrage in Finland. Now Elop says he’s going through divorce procedures with his wife at the moment. Apparently that should be an argument for not cutting his compensation, as a good part of the money is going to go to his soon-to-be-ex wife.
The prime minister of Finland said on TV yesterday that the sort of money Elop is to be paid is “can’t be understood with enlightened reason”. The contracts that the CEOs of major Finnish corporations have guarantee a parachute of 12 – 24 months of pay in the case the company changes ownership and the CEO gets fired. None of them get any stock compensation in that situation under the current contracts. The parachutes amount to 1 – 2.5 million euros for each of the top ten or so CEOs in Finland. Elop is to get 18.8 million, a large part of which is stock. The CEO of Motorola was paid a lot more when Google bought the company, and the contract of BlackBerry’s CEO would also get him a lot more, if and when BlackBerry is taken over, but the Finnish public is not used to these sorts of sums, and Nokia has just laid off thousands of people here.
@Morgan
2 responses.
1) Currently the retail on the 5S is $649. The effective retail on the S4 is $629. So I disagree with your facts.
2) We know the price difference between $600-650 (i.e. $200 after subsidy) and $300-400 ($0 after subsidy) matters a great deal in consumer price. We know that $3-400 vs. $600 matters on the global market. We have no evidence that small differences do matter.
As for the rest about hiking boots. There are people who are wealthy that would rather have a good quality SUV than a Porsche: Infiniti QX56, Lexus LX 570, Cadillac Escalade… These are people who could afford a Porsche but choose another type of vehicle. And that’s not about price point. On the other hand the people who choose Mazda MX-5 Miata or the Scion FR-S are picking those cars over Posche because of price point.
I’m not sure why this is complicated. There are people who genuinely prefer Android regardless of price. But they are a tiny fraction of the Android customer base. The majority of the customer base is buying Android over other phones at their price point. At their price point and slightly above it, iPhones don’t exist. So it is reasonable to say they prefer Android to high end JavaVM, they preferred Android to Symbian … but it is more often than not the case that they prefer iPhone to Android but aren’t willing to pay for iPhone.
The USA postpay market potentially works as a nice example of what the global market would look like if price weren’t such a dominant factor. My objection to blanket discussions of marketshare is that it pretends that Posche and Scion are selling to the same customer base.
@Mikko —
I can’t imagine that the nation of Finland is going to blatantly and publicly force a breach of contract on Nokia. Such an act would have long term implications regarding the degree to which Finland and Finnish companies can be trusted. It would literally cost many billions.
If the Finnish public is outraged, and I’m not saying they shouldn’t be, they should have bought and nationalized Nokia at the end of the OPK days and not put Elop in the position he was in.
> I can’t imagine that the nation of Finland is going to blatantly and publicly force a breach of contract on Nokia.
Nobody’s suggesting such a thing. My impression was that some people within Nokia are having second thoughts. Elop’s contract was changed on the same day as the deal with Microsoft was signed. He seems to have pulled off quite a stunt, and possibly not everyone at Nokia was up to speed.
What the lawmakers are talking about is requiring the compensation of the operational leadership of a public company to be approved by the shareholders in a general meeting, not just by the board. I understand some countries do have such a law in effect. The counter-argument is that it would be too cumbersome, but it think that’s bullshit. The need to make rapid changes in those contracts is to pull the kind of fast ones that Elop just did.
@Mikko
It wouldn’t matter if there was a requirement for a vote, Elop still would have gotten it. The situation with Elop is clear cut. Ownership liked the deal Elop cut, they made a lot of money. Elop managed to get Nokia mobile through heavy restructuring costs and sell the mobile division for a substantial sum. That’s success. The Finnish public objects because whey suffered the harm from the restructuring and didn’t benefit from the sale. That’s a much deeper critique.
I certainly would love to see strong oversight to make sure the boards are more reflective of ownership. But I don’t see how that’s applicable to Nokia. What the Finnish public wants is the kinds of laws that existed a generation ago that required corporations to act in the public interest. I’d love to see Finland, and for that matter America, go back to a world where getting a corporate charters was not automatic and required some involvement of the public. But that’s not a small change in the legal structure and likely would require at the very least the EU (or better yet the G20).
> Elop managed to get Nokia mobile through heavy restructuring costs and sell the mobile division for a substantial sum. That’s success.
Agreed… success from the point of view of some of Nokia’s major North American owners, who seemed to have close relations with Microsoft before Elop’s appointment. One has to assume that they got what they thought they wanted out of the “restructuring”, i.e. the quick destruction of all of Nokia’s software development that wasn’t compatible with Microsoft’s goals. It looks like the board managed to completely throw out the baby with the bathwater though, but I guess they’ll personally collect their money just the same. If Microsoft gets stuck with a dying, unrecoverable smartphone unit as a result, then maybe something good has come out of this.
@Mikko
There has been pretty good coverage of the track by which Elop ended up backing Windows Phone. I suspect that the board had deep concerns about the progress and viability of the MeeGo project, which turned out to be well founded. I suspect they had deep concerns that Google wouldn’t be terribly accommodating to Nokia which was confirmed during the negotiations.
If by baby you mean MeeGo. Yes the board at the very least likely suspected a radical change in direction was needed. But that is ultimately their job.
@CD-Host: You’ve got that last statement backwards. You like to pretend that Android and iPhone aren’t competing in the same space. No matter what you or any others of your cult think, they are competing in the same space and it’s really just that simple. All of your suggestions that they aren’t are simply wrong.
Mikko I have a reply to you in moderation. Not sure why there aren’t any links.
Morgan —
I don’t know what you are talking about. Be more specific. Who are these customers, which models, which price points?
@CD-Host: It does not matter. You are making the same arguments your fellow cultists made nearly a quarter century when Apple’s marketshare was slipping History proved your predecessors wrong then and it will prove you wrong again. It isn’t “Samsung Galaxy S4 vs iPhone 5S”; it’s all iOS smartphones vs. all Android smartphones. Nothing else matters one bit except furthering esr’s argument that Apple is confining itself to being a niche player in very niche markets.
To pretend that Apple is not interested in market share numbers is simply wrong. Of course they are. Businesses live or die by those numbers.
I’m sure Apple loves having a good market share, but I hope they don’t make John Sculley’s mistake again, and focus entirely on that, at the expense of profits. If you’re profitable, you get to keep playing, no matter how low your market share. If you’re not profitable, you eventually go out of business, no matter how high your market share.
Loving my iPhone 5S!
@Bill St. Clair: Maintaining profit margins is only possible so long as you are able to push out enough units so that your costs remain well below your income. The misunderstanding many people make here is that they think if their gross BOM is lower than their selling price per unit that they’ll make money. This is not so.
Manufacturers of all types often have very large upfront R&D costs that they hope to reap later, when they meet certain sales goals. If their market share slips enough, they won’t be able to sell enough units to cover their upfront costs. This is true even when you consider that Apple outsources 100% of the production of its phones; Apple still has to pay upfront costs to their outsourced vendors.
@Morgan
Nonsense. The fact that JavaVM and Symbian customers who were never Apple’s customers are migrating in large numbers to Android changes nothing for Apple. Customers they didn’t have, and couldn’t have are moving from one product to different product. So what?
What is important to Apple is that customers on the high end are migrating from Android to Apple.
That’s exactly the argument I was refuting. Boeing’s share of transportation devices is tiny. Grouping sneakers in with airplanes doesn’t make Apple’s numbers problematic. Similarly Posche’s share of cars. Further, business live and die based on profits or if you like profit share.
And for that there is one simple graph: http://macdailynews.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/121212_smartphone_profit_share1.png
Len Jacobson was one of the the *very* first engineers to get involved in a program started on a shoestring in 1968 which today we know as GPS. He’s writing a memoir and he has a piece in the latest “GPS World” magazine.
In his career, he’s seen a *lot* of sausage made “up close and personal”, and at the end of the article he offers two observations, one of which should be painfully obvious to everyone here:
“Never believe a schedule or a budget…”
(because doing new stuff is always harder than anyone imagined.)
His other comment, however, is a true gem:
“When you stop being better, you stop being good.”
I’ve never seen it put so succinctly and in a way that even the C-suite suits can understand and is worthy of a T-shirt they should see on people every day.
*Every* technology company lives and dies by that rule whether they intend to or not.
“Transportation services” isn’t a market, @CD-Host. “Jumbo jets” is a market. “Fighter planes” is a market. You are purposefully being ridiculous.
Profit share is a also ridiculous statistic. You fail at business school, @CD-Host.
> If by baby you mean MeeGo.
I meant a profitable smartphone business in general. The point has been belabored to death, but again: Nokia’s troubled, Symbian-based smartphones were still profitable at the end of 2010. They’ve made a loss ever since February 2011, since the ‘Burning Platform’ memo. Elop didn’t just kill MeeGo, he killed everything else, too (e.g. Meltemi), and he killed Symbian way too fast.
Also, I strongly suspect he’s being disingenuous about how Windows Phone was chosen. The arguments that he’s publicly stated against MeeGo and Android don’t seem to hold much water. MeeGo was supposedly too late, but Nokia put out the N9 before the first Lumia phones. The N9 was well received, unlike the first Lumias. And then Microsoft made it impossible to upgrade the WP7 Lumias to WP8, so in effect, a lot of Nokia’s end users didn’t just wait for Windows Phone to come out, they waited until WP8, which took way longer than the N9. The arguments about Android sound equally nonsensical. Supposedly Nokia would have been just another Android handset manufacturer. Well, Sony is just another Android handset manufacturer, and they sold more smartphones in Q2 of this year than Nokia did, and they did it at a profit (not a big one but still). The same is true of LG, Lenovo and ZTE (Nokia used to be a market leader in China). In 2010, Nokia sold more smartphones than Samsung, and somehow it’s now a foregone conclusion that it would have been impossible for Nokia to compete in the Android space in 2011? I don’t buy that. At least they would have been competing on a viable OS platform, which WP, excuse me, is not.
Google would not have liked to see a Nokia app store, or maps, or a music store on Android. So what? Samsung operates its own app store. And Nokia gave those things up on the Lumias in favor of Microsoft anyway, so it couldn’t have been any worse on Android.
I do realize that the big problem with WP is not the technology, but Microsoft’s relations with carriers. I don’t understand why, but MS seems to have gone out of their way to piss off the carriers all along, even before Nokia appointed Elop. The Kin phones were dead on arrival because of this. Stephen Elop apparently got rid of the experienced Nokia sales people who understood carrier relations, but disagreed with Elop. The carriers didn’t want WP on Microsoft’s terms, so they just didn’t buy it, or didn’t sell it to their customers. China Mobile actually had Nokia make them a Symbian version of one of the early Lumia handsets.
@Mikko
You seem to be quoting Tomi Ahonen. Here is a link to articles with pretty refutation:
http://dominiescommunicate.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/the-tomi-ahonen-corrective-encyclopedia/
The fall off in Symbian sales happened several months before Elop joined Nokia. The fall off in margins started in 2002. He is not the cause. Moreover other carriers like RIM experienced similar declines at the same time, did Burning Platform trash their sales too? Multiple executives have come forward and independently verified Elop’s story and added detail. So either there is a widespread conspiracy of disinformation or Elop is telling the truth. The N9 was finished after the cancellation of MeeGo, because it was no longer the upgrade path for Symbian. Elop incidentally admitted there were 4 models they had through 2014 including the N9.
Lumia was treated extremely favorably by carriers for a period of time having the highest subsidies of any phone on the market. No one until that point had ever beat Apple’s level of subsidies. The problems with Kin had nothing to do with carrier resistance to Microsoft. What Nokia got out of the relationship with Microsoft was over $2b in subsidies to offset their restructuring cost. On top of that there were strong carrier subsidies which amounted to well over another $1b above what Android was getting total, just in the USA. Even if you estimate that Lumia vs. Android cost them 30m phone sales at $100 profit per phone they still come out ahead.
And finally:
Nokia has higher cost for parts
Nokia has higher financing costs
Nokia has higher labor costs
Odds were that Nokia wouldn’t have been competitive at Android. More importantly without the Microsoft cash infusion, Nokia would have been up against the gun on their restructuring costs. Either they are massively successful of they go broke immediately. Windows phone was much safer than Android once Google was unwilling to give them an exclusive.
The Nokia that Elop inherited was in terrible shape. Elop inherited a mess, stopped the bleeding and patched the patient up. The idea that Nokia is doing well comes from focusing on sales and not profits.
Exactly so.
Nokia had to go Android, or go Meego. If android, would get squeezed competing with Chinese, so had to go Meego. Cancelling Meego was suicide – a suicide that very much suited Microsoft’s interests.
> Elop inherited a mess, stopped the bleeding and patched the patient up.
I haven’t noticed any stoppage of the bleeding except for Nokia Siemens Networks, and that’s not thanks to Elop. The smartphone unit is still making a loss and it still remains to be seen whether anyone can make money with Windows Phone. But hey, at least now it’s Microsoft that’s bleeding.
If you’re profitable, you get to keep playing, no matter how low your market share. If you’re not profitable, you eventually go out of business, no matter how high your market share.
Exactly so. It’s interesting to note that Apple “lost the PC wars” in the ’90s to the likes of AST, Compaq, eMachines, Gateway, IBM, and Packard Bell… all now dead. Even Dell and HP aren’t doing very well with PCs these days, and Microsoft is looking shaky in many ways (and now makes less money than Apple makes with the iPhone alone).
I’m sure lots of companies wish they could “lose” like Apple.
P.S.: Of course IBM is not “dead,” but they don’t make PCs any more.
LOL:
Tuesday night’s big drama in Finnish media circles is being driven by the Helsingin Sanomat scoop that Elop is resisting Nokia’s pleas to reduce his bonus because he is getting divorced. Apparently Mr. Elop believes he cannot make his wife accept a reduction in the $25 million severance package.
@Morgan “It does not matter. You are making the same arguments your fellow cultists made nearly a quarter century when Apple’s marketshare was slipping History proved your predecessors wrong then and it will prove you wrong again.”
Bull.
History a quarter century ago shows that Apple never had huge market share and from the beginning the PC outsold the Mac 6-1. In 1984 the PC already had 32% share when the Mac had 0%. Even the Apple ][ never had more than 16% share at it’s peak. In comparison the C=64 had 40% share. By 1985 the PC had 49% share. Largely taken from Commodore.
Share never really declined because it pretty much was always low, varying from 2% to 12%. What history shows is that the PC with 80% share had completely destroyed everyone else’s market share (Radio Shack, Commodore, Atari, Amiga, etc) by 1988 except for the Mac…clinging to roughly the same 5% share it had in 1985.
/shrug
The iPhone is doing much better than the Mac did and history shows the Mac has been very successful for Apple.
iPods and iPads are also leaders in their categories, with much larger market shares (and mind shares) than the Mac ever had.
@James
That suiting Microsoft’s interest got them large cash subsidies. People tend to forget how much Microsoft was subsidizing the restructuring costs of Nokia. Without that Nokia can’t afford to restructure and likely goes bankrupt unless Meego is a huge hit almost immediately. Getting cash for not selling phones is a far easier way to make money than selling phones. So the question is if Nokia pushes on with Meego
a) How do they resolve the inherent conflicts between the interests of Symbian conversion and the interests of a high quality eco system of the future? Remember for the N9 they resolve it by dumping the Symbian compatibility.
b) How fast is the uptake on Meego? Is it better enough than Android that say 50m people buy phones the first year and 100m the 2nd?
c) Are they able to come up with new hardware designs and fill the pipe so that it isn’t 4 models only between 2011 and 2014?
Canceling Meego was the least bad option. The person to blame is OPK for having left this horrible of a mess behind.
> Remember for the N9 they resolve it by dumping the Symbian compatibility.
Nokia was developing Qt as a developer framework for both Symbian and MeeGo. They had planned an upgrade path for developers, which got thrown out when they chose WP.
> How fast is the uptake on Meego?
Possibly way too slow to save Nokia, but the N9 still sold much faster than the first Lumias, even when Nokia didn’t bring the N9 to many of the major markets.
> Are they able to come up with new hardware designs and fill the pipe so that it isn’t 4 models only between 2011 and 2014?
Are you serious? Where have all the Lumia handsets come from? They weren’t designed by Microsoft.
@CD-Host
Nokia had many billions in cash. MS’ “subsidies” were mainly used to offset MS license payments. I believe the net subsidy was quite small. MS did pay for a huge marketing effort.
Whatever the downsides of Android, WP had them even worse. With full Asian competition including from Samsung. The only “rational” explanation is that Nokia had planned a delayed takeover by MS from the start. Which was written into Elop’s contract.
@Mikko
That’s correct. But what was needed for the Symbian framework and what was needed for a new operating system conflicted. Nokia was unable in their development of the framework to resolve the inherent conflicts. They made progress, but progress was slow and the results were messy.
I’m not sure that’s true that the N9 outsold the Lumia 700s. But even assuming it were true, if the N9 couldn’t sell fast enough then it wasn’t a viable plan for Nokia.
Yes I’m serious. Read the interviews about the conversion. 4 phones in the pipeline. That’s the discussion where Elop and his executive VPs decided they needed a drastic change in course.
___
@Winter
Microsoft cash subsidies were over $2b. Windows phone OS retails for $10. Nokia did not sell, 200m Lumias or anywhere close to that. What you are saying is simply not possible. Moreover, Microsoft paid fees for things like Nokia maps as part of the OS. Those may have offset the license payments but the cash is what covered the restructuring.
Samsung’s Windows phone offering were poor they weren’t really trying. HTC did make an excellent phone with the 8X. And there the Nokia won solidly.
I’m going to go with the rational explanation that multiple people have confirmed in interviews rather than a conspiracy.
> HTC did make an excellent phone with the 8X.
I think you need to google for some user experiences of the 8X. A lot of people have sworn off HTC after dealing with the 8X.
@Mikko
I’m not seeing that. Main complaint seems to be lack of applications:
http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/htc-windows-phone-8x/4852-6452_7-35454632.html
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/HTC-Windows-Phone-8X_id7224/reviews
http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_windows_phone_8x-reviews-4975.php
http://www.amazon.com/HTC-Windows-8X-Verizon-Wireless/product-reviews/B00A7F5P6W/
CD-Host
Nokia had a minimum number of licenses they would pay for per year. So, Nokia would continue to pay for WP licenses even if they would switch to selling Android.
Samsung and HTC could start selling WP handsets big time the moment there appeared a demand. As no one was able to sell them at a price above cost, no one bothered to invest much in WP handsets. Had the Lumias been a success , Samsung could have taken over that market overnight.
Elop has a clause in his contract that says he gets a super bonus if he sells Nokia to MS. That is official.
> Elop has a clause in his contract that says he gets a super bonus if he sells Nokia to MS. That is official.
No, it isn’t.
The $25.4M results from a “change of control” clause in Elop’s contract. The clause meant Elop was entitled to an “immediate share price performance bonus” if a “change of control” occurred.
And as fate would have it, stock prices dropped under Elop, leading to the Microsoft sale—which led to stock prices rebounding to an extent. Which are exactly the unlikely (except for the 20/20 hindsight that everyone has) events that took place.
Here is the breakdown of Elop’s potential €18.8 million ($25.4 million) bonus:
Elop gets 18 months of base salary plus a “short-term management cash incentive” for a total of €4.2 million ($5.66 million).
On top of this, Elop could get €14.6 million ($19.69 million) through “accelerated vesting” of his remaining stock grants.
Note that “change of control” clauses like this are common in US business, but apparently not in Finland. Elop was Nokia’s first non-Finnish CEO.
QED
In the end, Nokia’s board agreed to Elop’s contract, and now they are bound by it. Elop did exactly what they incentivized him to do, and nothing more.
If you wish, ask our host about the fragility of unvested options.
> Note that “change of control” clauses like this are common in US business, but apparently not in Finland.
As I wrote earlier, the CEOs of Finnish corporations do have these clauses, but without the stock bonuses. Elop is being paid almost ten times the amount that the next-best compensated CEO of a Finnish corporation would get.
It’s not a “stock bonus”, it’s accelerated vesting.
But then, you’re Finnish, so you probably don’t understand the difference.
@R. Duke:
By any conventional meaning of the words, it’s a bonus. It’s compensation he gets this year that he wouldn’t have otherwise. The fact that he would have gotten it later is loaded with all sorts of contingencies. The fact he gets it now removes those contingencies. Even _with_ the contingencies, it would have been a bonus, in most people’s books. But without the contingencies, he is free to go sit on the beach, or run Microsoft, or whatever.
> By any conventional meaning of the words, it’s a bonus.
Except, as originally construed, this “bonus” was to be vested over a period of time.
> The fact that he would have gotten it later is loaded with all sorts of contingencies. The fact he gets it now removes those contingencies
Exactly, and those contingencies were removed via mutual, contractual agreement between Elop and Nokia’s board. Therefore, there is nothing to bitch about, Patrick.
In a very real sense, Nokia’s board incentivized Elop to behave according to a plan which is now revealed. The ‘why’ is something we can all theorize about until the heat death of the universe, and it won’t change that Nokia received exactly what they asked.
Windows Phone grows to 10% in Europe.
Nokia’s burning-platform strategy may well pay off in the long run.
If Microsoft can get the lead out and come up with a developer strategy that isn’t hostile and schizophrenic, they have a shot at second place in some markets.
@R. Duke:
> Therefore, there is nothing to bitch about, Patrick.
Who’s bitching, snarky asshole?
Couldn’t agree more, except that the board is not the company. In theory, the interests should be aligned; in practice, what you see is what they got.
@Jeff Read
“Windows Phone grows to 10% in Europe.”
The exact quote is:
“Microsoft’s mobile OS is said to be nearing 10 percent share in the major European markets.”
This is an euphemism for “some countries”. It is most definitely not 10% of the EU Smartphone market.
How times change. 15 years ago, you would not have seen the statement:
“Microsoft’s _____ is said to be nearing 10 percent share in ______ markets.”
@PapayaSF
In 1998 I was at a conference where they discussed the introduction of a new technology. The overall opinion was that MS would destroy that market by releasing a hardly working version incorporated in their software for “free”. Btw, that prediction proved to be correct.
Now, the prediction is more about whether MS will be able to follow the market at all.
“Laptops over $1000” is a real category. Below $1000 the vast majority of laptops are ghetto-fabulous HP Pavilions and the like, running Windows Whatever Home, almost guaranteed to have compromises in specs and build quality. Above $1000 is where you begin to see attention paid to performance, mobility, and durability. The fact that most of these are Macs suggests how thoroughly Apple dominates the mindshare of those who are serious about mobile computing. And if that weren’t a clue, just walk into a Starbucks and see whose glowing logo is on most of the laptops there.
Oh, and for those of you who are still under the delusion that Apple is retreating into the top end:
http://www.asymco.com/2013/10/01/competing-with-a-mac/
Apple is advancing downmarket with the iPhone 5C, not retreating to the top end as Eric predicted. This approach proved wildly successful with the iPod line, effectively shutting out all competitors.
The iPhone will see greater than 50% market share in 2014.
I also find the comments interesting. One commenter remarks that, even at its much higher retail price point in the 90s, the Macintosh had a much lower TCO and hints that corporate IT departments procured PCs to increase the need for corporate IT departments.
It really makes you rethink the standard narratives about why the PC “won”, and the comparative advantages of openness vs. ease and joy of use.
The iPhone will see greater than 50% market share in 2014.
I’ll say it quickly, before Winter does: in the US.
Something else that people may need to be reminded of: Apple has vast economies of scale. Making large numbers of just a few very profitable products gives you a lot of flexibility if you decide to move downmarket.
Well, yes, but unless Microkia pulls a rabbit out of its ass the European market will follow suit within a year or two, as will the most affluent Asian markets.
“But what about the Third World peasants??” /Winter
I kid, I kid….
> Couldn’t agree more, except that the board is not the company.
Seriously? This is only true if you’re some kind of deranged, left-leaning, GPL-hugging “unite the workers” pinko commie who doesn’t understand how companies are run.
The Finnish tech news outlet IT-Viikko has published a speculation by a stock broker named Jukka Oksaharju saying that Jorma Ollila might be appointed to a position on the board of Microsoft in the next general meeting in November. Ollila is the non-executive chairman of Royal Dutch Shell since 2006, and he was the CEO of Nokia in 1992 – 2006 and chairman in 1999 – 2012. He was the chairman of the board that appointed Elop. Oksaharju speculates that Ollila’s appointment to the Microsoft board may have been preliminarily agreed upon at that time in 2010. The piece in IT-Viikko (Finnish). I have no idea whether there’s any basis to this.
Silicon Valley would laugh its collective ass off at such an appointment.
> Apple has vast economies of scale.
So does Samsung. Witness the two winners of the Smartphone Wars.
Not as good as Apple’s though, because Samsung follows the traditional OEM strategy of vast multitudes of products and variations. E.g. Samsung makes scores (if not hundreds) of models of phones, and Apple makes two.
@Lefty Fields:
>> Couldn’t agree more, except that the board is not the company.
>Seriously?
Yes.
> This is only true if you’re some kind of deranged, left-leaning, GPL-hugging “unite the workers” pinko commie who doesn’t understand how companies are run.
Not at all. The club of interlocking directorates of public corporations these days is breathtaking to behold, with lots of mutual back-scratching going on. For example, that pinko, GPL-hugging commie Steve Jobs decided that one of his board members, in particular, wasn’t aligned with his company after all. Another example is the scandal surrounding the HP board.
In fact, there is money to be made by paying attention to how well the board’s interests are aligned in the case of particular companies. Not that anybody would be interested in that.
http://iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/governance/aligning-the-interests-of-agents-and-owners-an-empirical-examination-of-executive-compensation
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1833412
Google CEO Eric Schmidt joined Apple’s board in November of 2006. At the time, Android was still very much a twinkle in Google’s eye and the iPhone was being prepared for its January 2007 debut. Behind the scenes, Apple and Google were working together to integrate Google’s search, maps and YouTube products into the fabric of the iPhone. Then, in November of 2007, Google announced its Android project publicly as a platform.
Google announced the first Android device, the distinctly different touch-screen T-Mobile G1 manufactured by HTC, in September of 2008.
Just over a year later, in August of 2009, Eric Schmidt and Apple parted ways. The reasons for Schmidt leaving were explained by an Apple statement that Google and Apple were just too much in competition in the mobile space as well as the desktop space now that Google had entered the market with Chrome OS.
It’s called Conflict of Interest.
@PapayaSF
“I’ll say it quickly, before Winter does: in the US”
Thanks. I was not paying attention and let this slip. Good you were there to step in.
@Jeff Read
“Well, yes, but unless Microkia pulls a rabbit out of its ass the European market will follow suit within a year or two, as will the most affluent Asian markets.”
I have understood (from USA Americans) that the biggest shock for people from the USA is to get abroad and realize that people there are different. Not only do they eat different stuff, they have different tastes too.
I still do not see much “iPhone envy” around me. So I do not hold my breath for an explosion of iPhones over here.
@PapayaSF
““But what about the Third World peasants??” /Winter”
I assume they will buy another, much cheaper, handset?
> Not only do they eat different stuff, they have different tastes too.
Just wait until we’ve convinced all of France that they need McNuggets and a super-sized Coke.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Who cares about them? The all-powerful Free Market doesn’t. The growth markets for smartphone apps are in solving what Reddit calls “first-world problems”: games to play on your train ride to work, social apps to help you get a date, navigation apps to help you find the nearest vegetarian gluten-free fair-trade sandwich shop and hail a not-quite-taxi professional driver to take you there. The concerns of Rwandan sheep herders are about as far from the average SV startup’s milieu as you can get. If iPhone gets back most of the smartphone market share, it will get virtually all of the developer mindshare.
There will probably be charities set up on behalf of the Rwandan sheep herders to develop open-source sheep tracking apps for Android and the like. Hell, Richard Stallman himself will probably befriend the leaders of communist countries throughout the third world and spearhead the nationalized development of GNU apps in those countries. But all this will mean very little to the average mobile app developer.
Oh, the free market cares about everyone, but some more than others. Eventually Rwandan shepherds will get the attention of smartphone developers, as smartphones move downmarket. A hundred years ago only rich westerners had cars, but now Rwandan shepherds probably have them.
@Lefty Fields:
> It’s called Conflict of Interest.
Ah. So it’s possible for a board member’s interests to not be aligned with the company, yet apparently impossible for the board’s decisions to not be aligned with the company’s interests. Interesting universe you live in.
True. But by that time they will probably want iPhones over Androids, too. :)
@Jeff & PapayaSF
There were people who cared to make and sell cell phones and cell phone services in Rwanda (not sure whether they targeted farmers or shepards). So I assume there will be people who will target them when they get Smartphones.
But consumers in the developing world never seem to feature in Silicon valley business plans. At the same time, these consumers seem already to be buying a majority of the Smartphones. So, maybe Smartphones can be useful to people who are not specially targeted by Silicon valley.
“Hell, Richard Stallman himself will probably befriend the leaders of communist countries throughout the third world and spearhead the nationalized development of GNU apps in those countries.”
He’s already on it….
Apparently all the smartphone vendors except Apple and Google/Motorola fake their benchmarks.
>Apparently all the smartphone vendors except Apple and Google/Motorola fake their benchmarks.
One benchmark even the lowest-end Android vendors seem to pass with flying colors, though, is “not making our users vomit”. This is a quality level Apple must be aspiring towards mightily at the moment.
Really, it passes what you could get away with in a satirical novel. Apple is now the #1 brand in the world selling a product designed to make hipsters hurl.
It’ll be fixed in a patch. Remember when Pokémon gave little kids seizures? They fixed the offending episode of the cartoon series and it went on to become one of the most successful media franchises of all time.
@Jeff Read
“It’ll be fixed in a patch.”
The problems go deeper and people complain about much more. The iOS7 update was even on Comedy TV.
“Really, it passes what you could get away with in a satirical novel. Apple is now the #1 brand in the world selling a product designed to make hipsters hurl.”
It’s pathetic that you’ve stood on the sidelines while your argument has been shredded only to inject this little piece of turd.
Some of you guys might like this: Apparently Google Now thinks Jobs is a “comedy film”.
> It’s pathetic that you’ve stood on the sidelines while your argument has been shredded only to inject this little piece of turd.
What do you expect from a mid-50s has been who has been disproved again and again?
(cue esr raging about how often he’s proven right.)
Now, now, folks, be polite to your host.
But it is notable how anti-Apple people jump on every flaw, real or imaginary, no matter how small or rare, as PROOF that Apple is terrible and/or doomed.
More on Samsung:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/10/03/apple-samsung-sanctions-grewal/
Perhaps our host can ask his lawyer spouse what it all means.
Open source requires a reasonably competent dictator, for example Linus
Closed source requires a very competent dictator, for example Jobs or Gates.
Recall Apple’s near death experience when it ditched Steve Jobs. It was on the verge of bankruptcy when the board summoned Jobs to return.
Today Samsung is the leading IT company by revenue, Apple number two by revenue. Therefore Android is the leading software by mindshare, Apple number two by mindshare.. Following the death of Steve Jobs, Apple has committed one fumble after another, therefore will continue making fumbles, as it did after it fired Jobs.
Apple is currently running on image, the image of being cool, of being the best. Jobs carefully stage managed the image, and backed up that image by reality. Today the stage managers are falling over their shoelaces, and urging us not to look behind the curtain.
esr was wrong about network effects leading to the rapid destruction of apple – like most of us nerds, he tends to over estimate the influence of technical factors and under estimate the effect of human factors.
But he is right that closed source is brittle, and Apple is now in the process of demonstrating that brittleness. The cool people still believe Apple is superior, and are prepared to pay quite a bit for that superiority. I think they are wrong, but, whether they are right or wrong today, pretty soon they will change their minds, because Apple is going to go right on screwing up and being uncool.
RedHat’s annual 2013 revenue was was $1.33 billion
Apple’s revenue during the last 3 quarters:
3Q13: $35.3 billion
2Q13: $43.6 billion
1Q13: $46.3 billion
total: 125.2 (over 3 quarters)
So … Apple’s modified open source play is 100X better than Red Hat’s Open Source.
Got it!
The same story as with global warming. Science has basically confirmed on multiple fronts that fossil fuel consumption has been a massive ecological disaster — even if you deny or don’t care about the effect on global temperatures, there’s still the unprecedented-in-human-history ocean acidification, and inevitable mass extinction event to worry about. But no, the obvious conclusion — we must radically cut fossil-fuel consumption NOW — is just the result of a leftist conspiracy, so the facts have to be tortured to fit the hypothesis.
On the other hand:
Scripps blockbuster: Ocean acidification happens all the time — naturally
IPCC on acid – if they are virtually certain about ocean acidification, why does X-prize offer a reward for designing a proper ocean pH meter?
I know esr doesn’t like these stats as they didn’t jive with his predictions, but:
Latest comscore out-
http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2013/10/comScore_Reports_August_2013_US_Smartphone_Subscriber_Market_Share
Once again, Android falls a bit, iOS up a bit. US ONLY: Android 51.6%, iOS 40.7%
and this is BEFORE new iPhones…..
Jeff Read on 2013-10-04 at 12:23:09 said:
Unprecedented in human history, yet, strangely, still too small to detect or measure.
Every time Antarctic glaciers calve, we hear that, horrors, the Antarctic is melting, and every time the Northwest passage opens, we hear that, horrors, the Arctic is melting, but if you look at total global sea ice, rather than cherry picking north or south according to whichever supports global warming that year, the trend downwards, if there is a trend downwards which is far from clear, is insignificant.
” One benchmark even the lowest-end Android vendors seem to pass with flying colors, though, is “not making our users vomit”. ”
You must have an underdeveloped gag reflex. Plenty of hipsters have vomited over the years when confronted with Android’s UI.
@phil: Yeah, still not seeing that predicted tipping point. Android over 50% was supposed to keep going and push iOS down to single-digit market share….
“@phil: Yeah, still not seeing that predicted tipping point. Android over 50% was supposed to keep going and push iOS down to single-digit market share….”
has anybody bothered to update esr’s gnuplot with the more recent comscore data?
@ww
you would see a plateau lasting a bit under a year followed by a slow gradual decline over the last few months. What I think is far more interesting is the tables going further back. I’ve thought about updating those with comscore numbers.
Anyway both America and Japan show that there aren’t large network effects yet for Android. The real question will be whether iOS has network effects. iWork offers a possible mechanism, but I doubt it is very sticky.
I think it’s clear that iOS does have network effects. Even iPods seemed to have a positive effect on Mac sales. Now, the combination of iPhones, iPads, and the App Store seem to be boosting one another. Plus, at least one study found that iOS is pulling more people from Android than the other way around.
I think the network effects of Android are often overstated. Eric is an ubergeek who sees OSs differently than the vast majority of users do. Most people don’t know or care that some low-end Chinese Android phone, underneath the skin and carrier cruft, has “the same” OS as a Galaxy S4 in the US. I doubt if that connection even matters to most Android developers. I think that sort of diversity and fragmentation often limits network effects.
Android network effects are weak because not a lot of people are interacting through specifically android software. The effect is increasing as the unwashed masses become more computer sophisticated, phones become more powerful, and android software becomes more user friendly.
So I think esr’s prediction will come true in the end, though less dramatically than he anticipated.
@Papaya —
That’s not necessarily a network effect. Brand appreciation isn’t a network effect.
As far as I know, every study has found that. Verizon being a fantastic source because they had such a high Android population that switched. The difference is dramatic in customer dissatisfaction. In a 2 product market if X is losing customers at k-times the rate Y is losing customers then the ratio of X to Y must be 1::k for equilibrium. They would hit that in about 7 generations almost regardless of starting point. So, we are talking 15 years.
____
@James
What evidence do you have that the effect is increasing? I don’t see any difference in migration hassles on Sprint, that we hadn’t seen 18 mo earlier on Verizon.
> Latest comscore out-
[…] Android falls a bit, iOS up a bit. US ONLY: Android 51.6%, iOS 40.7%
At the current rate of decline, android market share in the US will fall to under 50% in 2-3 months.
Will esr commit seppuku when this occurs?
Exactly right. As I’ve noted a few times, the network effect that’s important for smartphones aren’t OS dependent. Can I: make calls, send texts, send emails, read the same Web sites? Then it’s the same network for 90% of the users.
> Can I: make calls, send texts, send emails, read the same Web sites?
Angry Birds, Candy Crush Saga,
i.e. Apps are also part of the equation.
@Bryant:
> The network effect that’s important for smartphones aren’t OS dependent
That’s only partially true. There are several OS-dependent network effects, starting with whether or not joe average user can find a friend to help him with technical issues.
“Once again, Android falls a bit, iOS up a bit. US ONLY: Android 51.6%, iOS 40.7%”
Isn’t iOS share in Japan also around that 45-50% mark? Too lazy to find the latest data.
In Japan, Apple is just ahead of the Android platform, with Apple holding a 48.6 percent share to Android’s 47.4. Apple could open up a wide lead, though, thanks to the iPhone’s arrival on NTT DoCoMo, the country’s largest carrier.
“At the current rate of decline, android market share in the US will fall to under 50% in 2-3 months.
Will esr commit seppuku when this occurs?”
no, he doesn’t believe comscore because the data didn’t follow his prediction. Maybe we should search for a dataset that meets his prediction. Has anyone found a dataset for US marketshare that shows Android growing and iOS falling over the past couple years? I can’t find one….
It seems it would be far easier for ESR to provide his other data sources that he claims seemingly confirm that Comscore has gone off the rails than for others, who know that these data sources don’t exist, to prove that they don’t exist.
Of course, if they don’t exist, that would actually be impossible… so here we are.
>It seems it would be far easier for ESR to provide his other data sources that he claims seemingly confirm that Comscore
OK, one more time. My problem isn’t specifically that I don’t believe Comscore, it’s that I no longer believe anybody enough to base projections on. The issue is both that I don’t have access to other data that has been collected over a long baseline and that what numbers I can see are so mutually inconsistent that picking any one source would be a blind bet.
The Apple fans around here want to believe that I stopped trusting Comscore’s numbers because they didn’t say what I wanted to hear. This is them projecting what they’d do in their shoes on me. I have better things to do than argue this with them. The opinions of sheep do not disturb the tiger.
You keep saying that Comscore data is inconsistent with other data. You have not provided any sources of inconsistent data whatsoever.
and…
Grrrr. Lo-FCKIN-L.
@Tim F.
“You keep saying that Comscore data is inconsistent with other data. You have not provided any sources of inconsistent data whatsoever.”
Inconsistent is not the same as dishonest. Comscore tracks the USA. The USA is not a “free market” for smartphones as most handsets are provided by the networks in intricate package deals that have cross subsidies. For one thing, the (relative) price paid for handsets in the USA is very different from those in the rest of the world. But this has been discussed ad nauseam on this blog.
If you want a long term list of smartphone market numbers, you can go to Tomi Ahonen who calculates a weighted average quarterly numbers over the 4 major analyst houses. They do show the global pattern of relative decline of iOS. There are several problems with this data set, but the overall patterns is seen in all data sets.
Here is the list of numbers time 10**6 (I add the links in a separate comment):
Quarter__Andr____iOS___WP___All
2Q2013__183.8___31.2__9.1__232.7
1Q2013__159.0___37.4__6.3__213.0
4Q2012__147.3___47.8__5.8__217.2
3Q2012__121.2___26.9__3.3__171.4
2Q2012__102.4___26.0__4.6__153.0
1Q2012___80.8___35.1__2.3__145.2
4Q2011___76.0___37.0__2.0__155.0
3Q2011___56.4___17.1__1.3__117.7
2Q2011___49.0___20.5__0.5__108.0
1Q2011___35.4___18.2__2.0__101.2
4Q2010___30.1___16.2__1.7___99.4
3Q2010___20.0___14.1__2.4___80.0
2Q2010___11.4____8.4__1.6___61.7
1Q2010____5.5____8.8__4.0___54.5
-Q2009____1.8____8.3__2.6___43.8
(last row: year/4~2.5Q, Sales: Millions)
Links tot he numbers of Tomi Ahonen
2Q2013
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/08/q2-smartphone-stats-this-blog-work-in-progress-full-numbers-shortly.html
1Q2013
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/05/q1-numbers-in-bloodbath-year-four-smartphones-galore.html
4Q2012
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/02/final-q4-numbers-and-full-year-2012-stats-for-smartphone-market-shares-top-10-manufacturers-top-os-p.html
3Q2012
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/11/smartphones-q3-final-numbers-top-10-biggest-manufacturers-operating-systems-installed-base-etc.html
2Q2012
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/08/smartphone-market-shares-q2-full-numbers-samsung-and-android-solidifying-their-leads.html
1Q2012
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/05/smartphone-market-shares-after-q1-its-the-digital-jamboree-year-of-smartphone-bloodbath.html
4Q2011
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/02/smartphone-final-numbers-2011-all-the-stats-including-q4-by-handset-brands-operating-systems-and-ins.html
3Q2011
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/11/smartphones-q3-market-shares-for-top-handset-brands-and-top-operating-systems.html
2Q2011
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/08/smartphone-market-shares-at-q2-and-report-card-for-half-year-performance.html
1Q2011
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/05/final-numbers-for-q1-in-smartphones-bloodbath-year-2-electric-boogaloo.html
4Q2010
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/02/smartphone-bloodbath-2010-now-final-numbers-q4-and-full-year-2010-and-each-rival-awarded-their-final.html
3Q2010
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/11/bloodbath-q3-final-numbers-the-smartphone-race-gets-ever-more-tight.html
2Q2010
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/08/final-numbers-q2-of-2010-for-smartphone-market-shares.html
1Q2010
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/05/smartphones-bloodbath-after-q1-full-review-of-each-brand-and-player.html
4Q2009
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/02/phone-market-shares-for-year-of-2009-and-last-quarter-2009.html
I see nothing inconsistent or dishonest (seriously? You are calling different market conditions dishonesty? Does your mind actually calculate that to be a rational definition of dishonesty?) in the data you are providing, Winter.
What relative decline? Using your source:
Rank . Brand . . . . 2012 units . . Share . . 2011 units . . Share . . 2010 units . . Share
1 (2) . Samsung . 215.0 M . . . 30.8% . . . 90.9 M . . . 18.7% . . . 24.0 M . . . . 8.0%
2 (1) . Apple . . . . 135.8 M . . . 19.5% . . . 93.1 M . . . 19.1% . . . 47.5 M . . . . 15.9%
3 (3) . Nokia . . . . . 35.0 M . . . . 5.0% . . 77.3 M . . . 15.9% . . 100.3 M . . . . 33.7%
5 (4) . RIM . . . . . . . 33.2 M . . . . 4.8% . . 52.5 M . . . 10.8% . . . 48.0 M . . . . 16.1%
Rank . . OS . . . . . . . . 2012 units . . share . . 2011 units . . share . . 2010 units . . share
1 (1) . . Android . . . . . 452 M . . . . . 65% . . . 208 M . . . . . 43% . . . 54 M . . . . . . 18%
2 (2) . . iOS . . . . . . . . 136 M . . . . . 20% . . . . 93 M . . . . . 19% . . . 48 M . . . . . . 16%
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/02/final-q4-numbers-and-full-year-2012-stats-for-smartphone-market-shares-top-10-manufacturers-top-os-p.html
My addition must be off because simply adding the numbers provided in your post I get
2012 135.8M out of 686.8M 19.7%
2011 92.8M out of 481.9M 19.2%
2010 47.5M out of 295.6M 16%
So again: What ” global pattern of relative decline of iOS”? Maybe this will occur in 2013 but there has been zero data that anyone has presented that shows any annual decline in iOS global market share.
You and ESR are pounding the table because you have neither the facts nor the law on your side. Tiger my ass. The data clearly shows both of you have been selling bullshit for years based on seasonal changes in market share. Quarterly numbers don’t mean squat because of the seasonality of sales and release timing.
Cue some someone saying “oh but the 14th derivative looks bad, by this time next month Apple will have negative 57% share.”. No, the only thing it shows is that the market is starting to reach equilibrium and the final numbers will probably fluctuate around 70% android, 20% iOS and 10% other until the next market disruption.
And like Symbian, Android will be moderately balkanized between Google Android and Other Android with slight to moderate app incompatibilities between the two (the lack of Google Play Services API).
The MOST likely change is Chrome displacing Android within a few years. Open source os + proprietary SAAS displacing open source OS + closed source apps.
@Tim F.
“I see nothing inconsistent or dishonest”
I do not see anything dishonest. Neither in the data nor in esr’s choices.
@Tim F.
“I see nothing inconsistent or dishonest in the data you are providing, Winter.”
In the USA, the market share of iOS goes up and down around 40%, rising slowly the last few quarters. World-wide, iOS market share is diving down towards possible single digit percentages (13% in 2Q2013).
If that is not “inconsistent numbers”, what is? I have more faith in the global numbers for showing the underlying trends than the numbers from the manipulated USA market.
@Nigel
“What relative decline? Using your source:”
Taking the second quarters of 2011-2013 as example we see a decline from 19% to 13% for iPhones and an increase from 45% to 79% for Android. Recalculating these numbers to total handsets io smartphones does not alter the relative differences.
Quarter__Andr____iOS___WP___All
2Q2013__183.8___31.2__9.1__232.7
_________79%___13%___4%
2Q2012__102.4___26.0__4.6__153.0
_________67%___17%___3%
2Q2011___49.0___20.5__0.5__108.0
_________45%___19%___<1%
@Nigel
“Quarterly numbers don’t mean squat because of the seasonality of sales and release timing.”
Then use any other quarter year on year.
“If that is not “inconsistent numbers”, what is?”
Data for the same market not completely different markets, that is not consistent.
It’s ESR and others that want to claim that these markets aren’t very different, only experiencing a lag, but that’s a theory that also needs data to back it up. I’m perfectly comfortable with, and it’s also perfectly consistent with my theories and evidence, that markets like the US, Japan, and parts of Oceania will diverge significantly from the total World market. And guess what? I have at least 5 sources of data to demonstrate it. ESR and you have ZERO sources of data that show that Comscore’s data is inconsistent.
@Tim F.
“I’m perfectly comfortable with, and it’s also perfectly consistent with my theories and evidence, that markets like the US, Japan, and parts of Oceania will diverge significantly from the total World market.”
So why should I, or Eric, be interested in the development of the USA market instead of the Global market?
When I find out that the Comscore data are a perfect representation of data I do not care for, why should I keep using them?
That should be:
“Data for the same market, not completely different markets, that is not consistent.”
“So why should I, or Eric, be interested in the development of the USA market instead of the Global market?”
I’m not asking you or Eric to do so at the moment. I am asking Eric to explain what evidence does he have that the US Comscore data is inconsistent with other data sources. He has none. I didn’t ask him to pick US Comscore data nor did I ask him to arbitrarily throw it out.
“When I find out that the Comscore data are a perfect representation of data I do not care for, why should I keep using them?”
Even though I am not asking anyone to use this data for heir own argument, this is a perfect summary of why I would consider you wrong, narrow-minded, and delusional.
Who ever wants to use data that they don’t like? However, I would hope a scientifically rigorous person, even if they choose to analyze a different area, field, or market, would care to explain the “data they do not care for” insofar as it relates to their argument — and it most certainly does.
@Tim F.
“Who ever wants to use data that they don’t like?”
Would you be interested in a detailed analysis and extended discussion of smartphone sales in the Netherlands over the years? What makes you think I would be interested in such a discussion of the USA market? That market does not affect me in any way.
Global developments are interesting, but the developments on some other continent under the influence of the internal politics of oligopoly networks is quite boring.
@Tim F.
“However, I would hope a scientifically rigorous person, even if they choose to analyze a different area, field, or market, would care to explain the “data they do not care for” insofar as it relates to their argument — and it most certainly does.”
So, explain to me how USA market share developments will affect global market shares in the future?
We are getting sidetracked from the main point: what is ESR’s evidence that Comscore’s data is inconsistent with other data…
However, two simple points:
1. Are developers relevant to a platform’s health, survivability, network effects? Where are the lion share of developers and apps coming from?
2. I am not specifically asking you to be concerned about any one random market. I am asking you to consider the effects of large anomalies (US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, GB) in your data set in the hopes that you try to understand its not one homogeneous market behaving in lockstep but rather there are multiple dynamics at play that may or may not have an impact on your larger data set.
But, again, back to my main point: what is ESR’s evidence that Comscore’s data is inconsistent with other data…
“So, explain to me how USA market share developments will affect global market shares in the future?”
I’ll gladly explore this YET AGAIN… once you or Eric or anyone for that matter actually gives me an answer to the question that I have been asking repeatedly for MORE THAN A YEAR without the merest attempt to present a rational answer.
Also…
“Would you be interested in a detailed analysis and extended discussion of smartphone sales in the Netherlands over the years?”
Sure, why not. I am always happy to receive more data… to reconcile and synthesize it with other data and to adjust my own theories and thinking to conclusions drawn from that same data. I don’t think I’m particular unaware of the Netherlands market nor do I expect any new data to change my own theories, but I’ll happily reserve judgment until I’ve seen it. So… go ahead.
Again, you’re cherry picking quarters. It’s bullshit. Why do you pick from one of the quarters considered traditionally weak for Apple (because the iPhone is 6 months old) instead looking at the yearly totals? Because if you look at the yearly numbers where the impact of seasonality and launch dates get averaged out the data doesn’t support your dishonest assertion that iOS share is declining.
Maybe in 2013 you’ll finally be correct but the 5C/5S looks to be selling quite well. Well enough that Apple has changed 4Q (FY) financial outlook upwards. They added China to the initial launch and added NTT DoCoMo. I don’t think CY2013 is going to be your year either despite the weaker 1Q than average (in terms of share not number of sales).
@Tim F.
“I am asking you to consider the effects of large anomalies (US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, GB) in your data set in the hopes that you try to understand its not one homogeneous market behaving in lockstep but rather there are multiple dynamics at play that may or may not have an impact on your larger data set.”
Tell me? In the USA a few large telcos control the market for handsets. Australia and New Zealand are small countries, Japan is a wholesale supplier of market anomalies. GB markets are strongly affected by USA developments. That is just from the top of my mind.
If you want to explain these anomalies, fine. Sounds like a worthy challenge. Please keep us informed. But I must admit that I do not care much for these anomalies.
@Tim F.
“But, again, back to my main point: what is ESR’s evidence that Comscore’s data is inconsistent with other data…”
In my view, the point is that originally, the developments in the USA followed those of the rest of the world quite closely. So, a data set from the USA would be a good proxy for global developments. When it became clear that the USA market moved in opposite directions of the global market, I lost interest.
By coincidence, Eric lost interest at exactly the same time.
“Global developments are interesting, but the developments on some other continent under the influence of the internal politics of oligopoly networks is quite boring.”
Yeah. So true. The US market has historically had zero influence on the global technology market… Oh wait, that’s completely stupid.
“In my view, the point is that originally, the developments in the USA followed those of the rest of the world quite closely.”
No, they didn’t.
“So, a data set from the USA would be a good proxy for global developments.”
No, it wasn’t.
“When it became clear that the USA market moved in opposite directions of the global market, I lost interest.”
Again, I think you are intellectually and scientifically lazy and dishonest. No surprise there.
“By coincidence, Eric lost interest at exactly the same time.”
Not by coincidence, it’s also when it became abundantly clear that Eric’s thesis was utterly wrong.
@Tim F.
“Yeah. So true. The US market has historically had zero influence on the global technology market… Oh wait, that’s completely stupid.”
In mobile telephony, the historical impact of the USA on Europe was zero. Currently, developments here are not following the USA market in any predictable way. And then I did not even account for national differences.
@Tim F.
“No, they didn’t.”
“Again, I think you are intellectually and scientifically lazy and dishonest. No surprise there.”
So I was wrong and saw the error of my ways. Are you now insisting I am dishonest and intellectual lazy to see my errors and correct them?
Mobile telephony? Bwahahaha!! You still think smartphones are about phones? Bwahaha… I don’t know if I want to laugh or cry.
“So I was wrong and saw the error of my ways. Are you now insisting I am dishonest and intellectual lazy to see my errors and correct them?”
What errors are you admitting? I presume you are saying that you were wrong that the US would be a good proxy for Global? If so, you haven’t admitted anything if the result was you throwing out the US data and giving up. If I was so massively, foolishly wrong for two years, I’d probably spend at least a couple of months exploring how I was so horribly wrong in hopes of learning something. Instead, you’ve decided to say: this data doesn’t count, my ideas (which I attempted to gird and test with this data) are still valid (even though the data says otherwise).
“Quarterly numbers don’t mean squat because of the seasonality of sales and release timing.”
Then use any other quarter year on year.
Me: Quarterly numbers are bad because which quarter iOS does well changes from year to year due to release timing.
You: Then pick another quarter.
Why don’t you pick the annual numbers? Why don’t you EXPLAIN the annual numbers.
Because you can’t explain it. You simply ignore it and run back to quarterlies. This is why it is dishonest.
Before it was the US market. When the data suits you then you use it. When the data doesn’t suit you then you claim it’s not indicative of the global market or it’s “inconsistent”.
I’m not going to pick any quarter and compare year to year because I don’t want to track both Apple and Samsung launches by region.
If you want to claim that 2012 iOS share is inflated because the iPhone launch moved from June to October in 2011 leading to what would have been 2011 sales moving to the right into 2012 I might agree. If you want to claim the 2012 iOS shares benefitted from moving the launch up 3 weeks to September instead of October I might agree.
In which case we’ll see for 2013.
But THEN you might claim that moving China up to an initial launch country moves 2014 iOS sales into 2013. I could agree with that too.
In which case we’ll see for 2014.
I might even agree that a rolling 3 year average is better. But that’s not going to show a decline either (especially since we don’t have more than 3 years data in that chart). If you want to do a rolling 6 quarter average be my guest. Maybe you can show a decline that way from the weak 1st half 2013. In which case you’d have data to back up your assertion for the first time.
But fuck if I’m going to try to figure this out on a quarterly basis and track against when significant launches occur in which quarter in which region. Or track variation on the seasonality changes. Why was Q1 volume much higher in this year vs this other year? Oh because the Galaxy released two weeks later than the other year and fell into Q1. Oh, okay.
@Tim F.
“Mobile telephony? Bwahahaha!! You still think smartphones are about phones?”
Symbian was not very much driven by USA developments. Moreover, smartphones were a lot about phones at the start. The first iPhone was not even a proper smartphone.
We did see where that would go, but Smartphones were sold as “phones” by mobile phone networks. Furthermore, smartphones are replacing dumb and feature phones. Yes, Smartphones were about mobile phones.
@Tim F.
“If so, you haven’t admitted anything if the result was you throwing out the US data and giving up.”
No, I decided I could get better ROI by switching to a different metric, i.e., global sales.
@Tim F.
“If I was so massively, foolishly wrong for two years, I’d probably spend at least a couple of months exploring how I was so horribly wrong in hopes of learning something.”
I did, and I learned about the terrible convoluted network politics in the USA which made any relation with free markets a joke. And I learned that the relative size of the USA smartphone market had become too small to be of importance on a global scale.
But you repeat over and over again that I should be interested in USA market developments. Why?
“Yes, Smartphones were about mobile phones.”
Ha ha ha. No wonder you are so often so wrong.
“No, I decided I could get better ROI by switching to a different metric, i.e., global sales.”
You abandoned a pillar of your theory. That the US market was a good proxy for the world. Dismissing that being proven wrong and moving on is dishonesty.
“I did, and I learned about the terrible convoluted network politics in the USA which made any relation with free markets a joke.”
No, you didn’t. You said and thought the same thing prior to being proven wrong. So… Was your initial theory based on wishful thinking? Did you modify your theory to say that Apple would likely preserve sustaining, maybe even majority, market share in the most developed national markets in the world? Or did you modify your theory simply to say that US and Japan are irrelevant? Or did you modify your theory to say that your initial theory is still true but will take much longer to bear out? I don’t know because I see no rigor or sense to your thinking.
“But you repeat over and over again that I should be interested in USA market developments. Why?”
Why do you keep repeating a question that I’ve answered tens of times over in hundreds, if not thousands, of words in tens of posts spread out over two years while ignoring a very simple and presumably easy question to answer for more than a year?
@Winter
That’s a terrible way to describe marketshare in the USA. There was an initial surge from AT&T as AT&T started the push towards mass use of smartphones with iPhone being their flagship product. The other carriers, Verizon in particular, started a counter push. Since then all carriers have consistently reported iOS being a growing and large percentage of the postpay market. There is no fluctuation at all. Moreover in the last year we’ve seen a surge in enterprise accounts standardizing on iOS.
The real issues for next year’s data is
1) Whether the large availability of used iPhone 4 and 4s start to create a growing percentage of usage in the USA prepay market, or if new Androids at a $200 price point are competitive against used iPhones. If those used phones stay domestic then the USA could stabilize at something like 70% iOS.
2) Whether the non-iOS user base which seems resistant remains solid or slowly deteriorates. If slowly deteriorating iOS’s long term share is potentially much higher.
I think given the data, and trends that it is fairly clear that iOS will pass Android in 4-8 quarters and pass 50% a few quarters thereafter.
Which of course is silly because global sales ends up tracking the migration of people from JavaVM to low end Android. Totally irrelevant to Apple as it just shows people who weren’t Apple customers and couldn’t be still aren’t.
@Tim F.
“Or did you modify your theory simply to say that US and Japan are irrelevant? Or did you modify your theory to say that your initial theory is still true but will take much longer to bear out?”
Neither, I looked at the statistics and decided that neither the USA nor Japan would affect the global developments of the smartphone market. My initial error was to use the wrong proxy measure. Had I better understood the USA telecom I might have been more careful. Not that there were many alternatives.
Anyhow, global developments seem to follow our early expectations of Android taking over the market. Apple seems to sell a large fraction of its smartphones in the USA (40%?). That could turn into a liability for Apple.
@CD-Host
I have written time and again I am not very interested in USA network shenanigans. Nor am I very interested in how Apple pushes their wares.
“Totally irrelevant to Apple as it just shows people who weren’t Apple customers and couldn’t be still aren’t.”
But that I find irrelevant.
“Neither, I looked at the statistics and decided that neither the USA nor Japan would affect the global developments of the smartphone market.”
So your theory is that the USA and Japan are irrelevant. Of course, the underlying theory for why Android would rise and Apple would fall is predicated in part (I believe… maybe you base your theory solely on economics of hardware manufacture and sales) on platform and developer dynamics, and the lion share of development is coming from USA and Japan. If you are discounting the importance of the US and Japan to platform and developer ecosystems, you are wrong. If you are basing your theory solely on economics, you are wrong. So you now simply have a bad theory.
“Anyhow, global developments seem to follow our early expectations of Android taking over the market.”
No, it doesn’t. Look at the reasons you thought “Android would take over the market.” If you ever once mentioned developers or the sustainability of platforms, your theory remains completely wrong.
“But that I find irrelevant.”
So you aren’t even looking at the smartphone market that has developed. In other words, your thoughts are irrelevant.
@Tim F.
The reason I would think that Android would take over the market was 1) The phone makers of the world would not roll over and die to make room for Apple 2) Android freed phone producers from extortion by the OS owner 3) Android allowed global competition on price and features
MS maybe could have wedged themselves in, but they were late to market. Too late.
Note that I am pretty confident that developers follow customer, and customers go for price/performance.
@Tim F.
“So you aren’t even looking at the smartphone market that has developed. In other words, your thoughts are irrelevant.”
You should have known by now. Actually, I think you have exclaimed the irrelevance of my opinion several times already on this blog.
“1) The phone makers of the world would not roll over and die to make room for Apple”
So you were wrong and continue to be wrong there…. If you have dire predictions for Apple, certainly it can be said that more phonemakers are rolling over and dying than not. Palm, Nokia, RIM, Motorola, and the midtier continue to die.
“2) Android freed phone producers from extortion by the OS owner”
So you are still living in Ballmer’s version of 1996. Again, sad. The few tens of millions of devices that had the only OS that you could possibly be describing were also largely in the US. I thought the US was irrelevant to your theory?
“3) Android allowed global competition on price and features”
And I will continue to say that a purely economic theory for Android’s dominance is a very weak and unsupported one.
“You should have known by now.”
Oh, I certainly knew, but you continue to astound with your foolishness and retreat from questions asked that you won’t answer and continuing shifting theories that are unsupportable and nonsensical.
@Tim F
“certainly it can be said that more phonemakers are rolling over and dying than not. Palm, Nokia, RIM, Motorola, and the midtier continue to die.”
Enough survived. The alternative would have been that all would have abandoned smartphones.
“The alternative would have been that all would have abandoned smartphones.”
More complete and utter nonsense. Are you really claiming smartphones wouldn’t exist if Android didn’t have majority share? Seriously? You think this idiocy is supportable and well-received by anyone?
Also…
“Enough survived” is a fair bit different than “1) The phone makers of the world would not roll over and die to make room for Apple.” Apple has created more room for itself than all but one player and it has contributed to the death of five industry leaders (HTC is on life support).
So please restate 1) in a way that you think you are still correct and it’s not complete nonsense.
@Tim F.
At the time of the iPhone 3 or so, there was no competing phone OS that could be used by random phone makers. Symbian was going nowhere under the incompetent leadership of Nokia.
So, it was Android or developing your own OS. For a hardware shop, that was a certain road to bankruptcy.
So, Android or die. Some tried WP, and that proved to be death too.
Was there no OS option or were they being saved from an OS providers extortion attempts?
You can’t have both and neither makes any sense.
Seriously, you’d be better off saying, “I was wrong” than continue to dig this foolish hole.
Also, what are you calling the iPhone 3? The 3G or the 3GS? It would be useful to know if we are even talking about a time when there was an actual Android phone on the market or not. Dontcha think?
@Tim F.
There were several options around the second half of 2009 (I am too lazy to look up iPhone models). None seemed to have invoked feelings of trust about their ability to compete with the iPhone or about their stewardship. Anyhow, there were ample hardwaremakers that could produce decent smartphones but a dearth in OS’ ready for market and without strings attached
Okay… So there was no threat that smartphones would cease to exist as a category if Android didn’t achieve majority market share and you’re just pulling shit out of your ass as you dig a deeper hole? Is that what you’re saying because your nonsense runs so deep it takes 15 posts to get you to admit you are full of shit, completely change your mind, move on to something completely different, or to actually figure out what you are trying to say without making me laugh.
Also, the question was not: would there remain a category of vendors that solely make hardware and then slap on some 3rd party OS? The question was: do you really fucking believe smartphones would cease to exist as a category if Android did not achieve majority market share?
@Tim F.
“The question was: do you really fucking believe smartphones would cease to exist as a category if Android did not achieve majority market share?”
Who would be so stupid to think such nonsense? I have no idea what I could have written to make you think sich things.
In my opinion, it was rather easy to predict that Android would take over the market with high probability already in early 2010. And we proved to be right upto now.
I gave you the reasons why I believed that. I do not see why these reasons are so hard to understand.
“The alternative would have been that all would have abandoned smartphones.”
I’m having trouble following you because 2 of your 3 reasons are complete nonsense (one didn’t come through AT ALL, the other wasn’t a real threat or motivator, neither has any sense of explaining why Android WOULD succeed but rather why you WANTED Android to succeed) and every attempt to explain or clarify your position is fairly nonsensical.
@winter
“No, I decided I could get better ROI by switching to a different metric, i.e., global sales.”
Yes, and annual global sales indicates that iOS is gaining share. You, however, wish to present only quarterly numbers knowing them to be a false representation of the picture.
“The alternative would have been that all would have abandoned smartphones.”
That’s a very stupid statement. For one thing MS would never have abandoned the market and for another Blackberry, Nokia and Palm would have survived handily. Apple has steadily increased production every single year and sold every single phone they make and yet they can handle no more than around 20% of the global market because they simply aren’t wired that way.
Of course they would have made smartphones. The carriers wanted them and Apple simply wont make the low end models they need. Even the 5C is on the very high end of mid-tier. It hardly addresses the mid-tier at all.
John Gruber has a good post responding to arguments by Apple “bears.”
I really don’t think esr and Winter and some other folks around here “get” what Apple does. They just see closed source, walled gardens, design and marketing “glitz,” and higher-than-average prices, and think people are idiots for buying Apple. They then make predictions based on their views but, oops, the predictions don’t pan out. (E.g. the so-far mythical Android “tipping point” that crushes iOS down to insignificance.) In contrast, Gruber understands what Apple is doing on a deep level.
>Gruber understands what Apple is doing on a deep level.
You misspelled “Gruber is a fervent worshipper at the shrine, and would cheerfully perform an Isis-like fellation on Steve Jobs’s corpse in an attempt to resurrect him Osiris-like, if he could get at the body.”
Nigel, according to Winter, Apple is doomed in part because they don’t serve the Third World goatherd market. But there are several problems with that view. Nobody makes much money selling them hardware. Nobody makes any money selling them software. Android gets little to no benefit from being the default choice of goatherds. And finally, even goatherds would rather have an iPhone. With Moore’s Law and general technological and economic progress, they might be able to afford iPhones in not too many years.
Apple will always focus on the high-end and the most profit, and they can only make so many phones (all of which get sold, as Nigel points out), but their vast economies of scale, large profits, design expertise, and immense cash horde would allow them move downmarket if they wish. Look at what they did with iPods.
“I’m not asking you or Eric to do so at the moment. I am asking Eric to explain what evidence does he have that the US Comscore data is inconsistent with other data sources. He has none.”
People, the search box is right there on the top of the page. From ESR’s post 15 months ago…
“The problem is that I can’t reconcile that with other lines of evidence.”
“One of my commenters has pointed out that Android activation numbers are up to 900K a day. That’s 27 million devices a month, and I can’t imagine any plausible percentage of tablet activations to discount that by that would leave Android smartphone activations unable to swing the needle in a market that comScore estimates at just 110M users.”
“Other market-research outfits were already quoting Android global market-share figures ranging from 56% to 60% two months ago. Yes, global market share isn’t the same as U.S. share, but historically those trendlines have been distinguished by timelag rather than having different slopes. And just to drive that point home, NPD already had Android at 61% of U.S. share in May.”
” My rule of thumb on these things is that between different survey outfits a 3% difference is noise, but there’s twice as much daylight than that between comScore and everybody else.”
So there, market-research firms don’t agree with each other and the recent plateau in Android market share described by comScore does not fit with Google’s activation numbers. Make of that what you will (cuz you certainly can’t get away with making of it what you were anymore).
@PapayaSF
“And finally, even goatherds would rather have an iPhone. With Moore’s Law and general technological and economic progress, they might be able to afford iPhones in not too many years.”
They also prefer a Mercedes Benz. However, they rarely buy one.
But you are saying that in a few years, everybody, even goat herds, will buy iPhones, and no-one will buy Android phones? All the other companies will simply fold and abandon this market because they cannot compete with the awesomeness of Apple?
No, I’ve never said that. Android and iOS will coexist for some time to come, with iOS secure at the top and middle of the market, regardless of how many crappy low-end Android phones there are. All I’ve been saying is that, as Gruber says in the link above, that Android cheerleaders are wrong when they think this is a replay of Windows vs. Mac OS in the 1990s. Contrary to predictions around here, there will be no tipping point at which Android crushes iOS. Android is getting more converts from feature phones, which accounts for most of the surge of the last few years, but iOS keeps selling increasing numbers, and is getting more converts from Android than the other way around.
Gruber is a fan, but not an uncritical one, and he’s usually quite insightful (except for his Obamabot politics).
@PapayaSF
“Contrary to predictions around here, there will be no tipping point at which Android crushes iOS. Android is getting more converts from feature phones, which accounts for most of the surge of the last few years, but iOS keeps selling increasing numbers, and is getting more converts from Android than the other way around.”
But in 2Q2013, Android had 80% market share. Even in 4Q2012, when Apple had a record quarter, Android still had 68% market share. There is nothing that indicates that Android market share is already at it’s peak.
So, not all goat herders will buy an iPhone? Not all Android users will switch to iPhone?
“But in 2Q2013, Android had 80% market share. Even in 4Q2012, when Apple had a record quarter, Android still had 68% market share. ”
Again, why don’t you explain if apple share is plummeting that this isn’t reflected in total annual global share? Instead we see a rise every year.
I don’t expect an answer given you’ve avoided this direct challenge three posts in a row. Your assertion that Apple is losing share is completely unsupported by the data unless you cherry pick what data to look at and you know it.
And you guys call Gruber a fanboy.
@WW
Which means there is a real problem with the data since we know based on sales figures no surge like that ever occurred.
Well first off that isn’t quite true. Global marketshare had Nokia as a huge player while the USA market didn’t past the early 2000s. RIM was a much larger player in Smartphones in the USA than almost anywhere else. And to compound that further, Danger was historically a big player here, and in most of the world they didn’t even sell a product. So the USA and the global numbers did vary widely. Further we now have lots of evidence confirming that the global marketshare and the USA marketshare have diverged. USA marketshare (not surprisingly) is much more heavily weighted in categories of phones like $500+, $250-499 then most other global markets. Moreover as more of the globe is being considered, because of this artificial category of “smartphone” they are likely to further diverge. The USA market looks nothing like Africa, China and India and we have far fewer people and far fewer phones.
People count the data wildly differently. Consider with a work and home phone. Consider people with a smartphone they use regularly but use an MVNO dumb phone plan. Globally how do you count high end feature phones? Globally do you count phones running Android OS but not have access to Google services as Android share? We should expect differences much larger than 3% based on methodology.
As far as the debate about trend lines though this is irrelevant. Every trend line, regardless of methodology, in the USA market has been consistent with what Comscore was and continues to report.
OK what I make of it is that Google’s activation numbers don’t appear to a meaningful proxy for device sales, or subscribers.
@Winter
You weren’t asking me because I don’t think Apple will be willing to penetrate much lower on pricing than they are now. I expect Apple’s “global smartphone marketshare” to continue to fall rapidly as the billions of people using dumbphones are migrated to “smartphones” over the next decade. So even if Apple were to grow to 300m iPhones sales a year over the decade their share would fall and fall fast. I have some serious questions about whether these people will move to Android, at least in a meaningful sense, because I don’t see how Google can monazite advertising services and thus may not be able to provide rich web services to these people, which Android is dependent on. Frankly I think BlackBerry OS7 type devices might be a far better fit than either Google or Apple’s offerings. Nokia/Microsoft may see that as well, though how the conflict between Nokia’s strategic vision and Microsoft’s desire not to cede the enterprise market is anyone’s guess. Samsung might go there with Tizen. And of course there could always be a new entrant as the barriers to entry on this sort of setup are low, Huawei for example might step up with a setup that makes more sense for those customers.
That being said, Comscore was tracking the USA market. We are seeing a similar migration from lower end phones to iPhone in other first world countries. It is just stupid to talk about marketshare in one big chunk. Boeing’s low share among transportation facilitation devices that include airplanes and sneakers is reflective of how silly raw marketshare numbers are.
@PapayaSF
And this is the key thing the USA proves. Android crossed the 50% threshold and now appears to have slipped badly, especially among postpay customers. There were no (or there were few) Android network effects. There was no disruption from below. People in 1st world markets use cellphones enough that they were willing to pay substantially more for quality. It is easy to imagine Apple being able and willing to move downmarket enough to capture huge share in the less expensive European markets.
@Nigel
“Why don’t you pick the annual numbers? Why don’t you EXPLAIN the annual numbers.”
“Again, why don’t you explain if apple share is plummeting that this isn’t reflected in total annual global share? Instead we see a rise every year. ”
Because we only have 3 meaningful yearly sales numbers: 2010, 2011, 2012. In 2010 both Symbian and BB still dominated the Smartphone market. All of your yearly rise comes from the low 2010 numbers. The 2012 iPhones sales number includes a very odd record 4Q with a serious (record?) fall of sales afterward. Is that number meaningful and will we see a repeat this year? Or was this a one time fluke? And even with this record sales, the market share of the iPhone is only marginally higher than in 2011.
If Apple would keep strong and increases global market share, we would expect that this trend would show up in the “uneventful” 2Q. The alternative explanation would be that iPhone sales are concentrating in the holiday seasons (Dec for the West and Feb for China). But we also see that iPhone sales are shifting to the USA as in 2Q 2013, around 40% of all iPhones were sold in the USA.
iPhone sales are peaking more and more in the gift season and in the USA. And no real increase in market share from 2011-2012. I would not hold my breath for this year.
” And even with this record sales, the market share of the iPhone is only marginally higher than in 2011.”
So what? There STILL isn’t any predicted massive decline of iOS share.
And it is exactly because of these variations that quarterly numbers are useless in indicating share increase or decline. If you look at annual sales or installed base there simply is no decline that you guys predicted. All you have is the up and down noise from qtr to qtr that is expected from a company that launches one product a year to compete against everyone else. When that product is old everyone stops buying. Then there’s huge pent up demand for the new model.
Vary that launch date in a large region (like china) and which qtr peaks for Apple changes.
I fully expect 2013 to not be much different than 2012. The trend line indicates that Apple is topping out around 20%. Which they are probably happy with given that it’s the top 20% of the market.
As long as they can grow unit shipments to match market growth I don’t expect a lot of changes from Apple. They’re likely prepping for the next market to compete in.
The only space I expect them to go down market is tablets with a cheaper phablet sized iPod touch.
With the 5c pricing a downmarket iPhone would now surprise me.
“If Apple would keep strong and increases global market share, we would expect that this trend would show up in the “uneventful” 2Q. ”
I didn’t answer this. No we absolutely would NOT see this in 2Q because the competitors are not stupid and they have a gazillion models. They specifically will launch handsets into this void to capture as many folks as possible. Just like many movies avoid launching against a blockbuster or the summer peak season.
Folks need phones all the time. They lose or break one, they have a new contract, whatever. They want the latest and greatest. Not a 6 month phone that costs as much as a newly launched one with the latest gizmos.
@nigel
Sorry, but the iPhone market share from 3Q2012-2Q2013 (4 quarters) is 17%. That does not indicate a rise to 20%. over 2013. Unless the last two quarters of this year break all records.
“People, the search box is right there on the top of the page. From ESR’s post 15 months ago…”
You should simply read the comments for yourself.
Patrick Maupin, who I’ve frequently disagreed with and certainly has his own divergences from ESR’s thinking but usually his staunchest defender — and by staunchest, I mean the most intelligent, logical, and well-supported defender of ESR’s general thesis — tears ESR’s claims that the data is inconsistent in a series of posts.
Monthly NPD sales data can easily be reconciled with Comscore’s 3 month trailing user base survey data. Are their discrepencies that need reconciliation? Yes, but this is an obvious side effect of different methodologies measuring different things. There is no inconsistency. Just because ESR says it is so does not make it so.
As for activation numbers, there is no detectable inconsistency — this is merely ESR’s incredulity. Is it significant and remarkable that an extremely high ratio of Android’s growth is outside the US and that there is little to no growth in the US? Absolutely. Is it inconsistent? No. The best evidence to support the fact that the vast majority of new Android activations is occurring outside of the US is the data that can be gathered from the major US carriers.
So I repeat: ESR has not provided any evidence that there is any other data source that is inconsistent with Comscore. It’s actually easier to say the opposite: we now have more data from more sources that is growing more consistent and reliable and it simply does not jibe with what ESR predicted nor does it jibe with his claim of inconsistent or unreliable data.
>Patrick Maupin […] tears ESR’s claims that the data is inconsistent in a series of posts.
I have a personal shorthand for what I saw Patrick doing: “adding epicycles”. It was well-meant, but didn’t persuade me.
If you add enough epicycles to a geocentric theory. you can duplicate the predictions of a heliocentric one. This doesn’t mean you know what’s going on, just that you’ve found a way to torture the data to make it confess. Well-meaning, intelligent people are good at coming up with epicycles. One of my mental heuristics, on the other hand, is that when I see what looks like epicycles being piled on, I bail out.
I prefer to admit that I don’t know what’s going on to piling on epicycles myself, or to agreeing when someone else does it.
“Because we only have 3 meaningful yearly sales numbers…”
Are you seriously being this dense? You are cherrypicking individual quarters and comparing them to other individual quarters just a year later. How the FUCK is FULL YEARS DATA OVER THREE YEARS LESS MEANINGFUL than TWO INDIVIDUALS DIVIDED BY A SINGLE YEAR?!
“Unless the last two quarters of this year break all records.”
You mean if Apple has a typical year? It’s not as if Apple typically launches a major new iPhone near the end of the year and then experiences a huge surge of holiday sales and then has another large quarter (that used to be historically week) but is now girded by after-holiday iTunes redemptions and massive Chinese New Years gift giving.
And, also… this is exactly while Nigel is looking at full years.
@Tim F
“Is it inconsistent?”
Inconsistent with what? It seems to me that esr compares Comscore data to a different reference than you.
Edit: TWO INDIVIDUAL QUARTERS DIVIDED BY A SINGLE YEAR?!
“It seems to me that esr compares Comscore data to a different reference than you.”
Care to explain? I haven’t gotten ESR to give me a DAMN reference in more than a year. I am quoting from the commenter quoting ESR. What the FCK are you talking about?
I would prefer you to actually show your alleged “inconsistent sources of data” and prove that they cannot be reconciled.
You seem to prefer to hide. And make excuses. And hide again.
>You seem to prefer to hide. And make excuses. And hide again.
You equate admitting the limits of my understanding to hiding. That is your problem and your mistake, not mine.
Btw, I see nothing tortured about Patrick’s math. It seems like it’s about five mintues of very logical, cogent work that is very clear and understandable.
Remember, this was MORE THAN A YEAR AGO!!! In your “heliocentric” model, in the US, Apple has been losing share and Android has been gaining share since before June of 2012 when Apple was at 32% and Android was at 52%. In your model, where are they at now? Apple at less than 25%? Lower? Have you looked at the carriers’s numbers? I’d love to hear what you think the corrected Comscore data should be today… I need a good laugh this morning!!!
No, you haven’t admitted anything. You’ve handwaved. You refuse to present inconsistent data, engage in attempting to reconcile it or in demonstrating that it cannot be reconciled, and refuse to acknowledge the increased amount of data that does confirm or at least coincide with the Comscore data.
Meanwhile you just say that there is inconsistent data (where is it? how is it inconsistent/), that you can’t know anything, etc… Meanwhile numerous other observers are willing to look at the data and say that you are full of shit. Your response? I can’t hear you because my head is shoved in the sand as far as I can.
I dunno, Eric. I might be adding epicycles, but surveys like this are pretty persuasive:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/29/as-it-turns-6-a-look-at-who-uses-the-iphone-no-not-everybody/
In the US, Apple has a lot of advantages for someone who doesn’t want to think too deeply about their phone. The stores are everywhere if you need assistance with a phone; there’s no shortage of evangelists who are proud to tell you why it’s the best thing and to help you use it; and if you want to dip your toe in the smartphone waters, the economics are great. You can get a gently used phone of generally good build quality that is 1 or 2 years old that is, essentially, heavily subsidized by the previous owner’s cell plan, as well as by the previous owner himself, because he has to have the latest shiny whenever Apple brings it out.
(Some of those previous owners are helping to power Apple’s ramp into emerging markets, by trading in their old phones to Apple, rather than selling them on the open market or giving them to relatives.)
The comparison of Apple to a premium car brand is apt — Apple certainly cares about creating a loyal customer base, and generally works to insure that its phones last for at least two or three years, both hardware-wise and OS-wise.
Having said that, as I have explained multiple times in the past, I really do believe that if there were a truly open, competitive market where there was no tying between devices and services, Apple’s US market share would not be nearly as high.
So maybe I’m rationalizing epicycles, or maybe Apple just managed to play the current market situation in the US extremely well. I believe it’s the latter, and think it will be interesting to see how that plays out going forward, both in the rest of the world, and also in the US. The tension between the carriers and Apple is much like the tension between the cable companies and the television stations. Once there are enough iPhones around; once absolutely every carrier has it; once not carrying it for a quarter or two won’t be absolutely devastating (because all your customers who have to have one already do), I would think the balance of power would shift back a bit towards the carrier. T-Mobile’s pricing transparency is already starting to affect the other carriers, so the next few quarters should be interesting.
I consider “The COMscore data are inaccurate” to be an epicycle. I mean if your generative theory is “openness always wins”, history would have some issue with that. So you have to keep adding “epicycles” to make the sums work out so that eventually, in the end (for some arbitrarily futuristic value of “end”), the more open thing wins out.
Our generative theory doesn’t account for open vs. closed. It states that whichever product has enough power to let people do their work, and makes that power available in an accessible, sensible, and attractive way — that is the product that people will buy. When it comes to personal computing products, only one manufacturer has consistently delivered on this promise; that manufacturer happens to be Apple. In our generative theory, you would have to be a damn fool to bet against the one company that truly “gets it” when it comes to building personal computing hardware. And indeed, in the only criterion that matters — profitability — iPhone and iPad products have been doing well since 2007.
@Patrick
And as I mentioned to you before if the USA had that market people would have bought much cheaper phones, thus used them less thus used network services less, thus there wouldn’t be as much infrastructure as there is today. There wouldn’t be a big smartphone market in the USA. We would still lag the rest of the world. Heck we might just be going from the transition from analogue to digital allowing for 2G data plans. That one change sets off a huge chain reaction. The reason the subsidy market developed here was as a reaction to low population concentration with enough wealth to support the incredible infrastructure required to make services available in that environment.
What evidence do you have for this? I see T-Mobile / MetroPCS brand as moving downmarket offering a good alternative to MVNOs. Now in some sense that’s the carriers since the MVNOs wholesale from the carriers, but you are mostly talking a different customer base than AT&T or Verizon’s postpay customer base. I could see influence on Sprint as a possibility but I don’t see any evidence for it yet.
I am still not convinced that the subsidy system has all that much to do with the development of the overall smartphone market in the US. By analogy, I don’t think the 20th century US automobile market was “distorted” by authorized new car dealers having semi-exclusive relationships with manufacturers, and offering car loans. How is buying an iPhone at a discounted price, and paying off the balance over the time of the contract, any different from a car loan? Did car loans “distort the market” and give any advantage to one manufacturer or specific models? I have a hard time seeing that.
Papaya, yes, I think, particularly here, the value of subsidies is greatly overstated. Also overstated is the motivation by the carriers to reduce Apple subsidies or to “equalize” it with the competition; of course, the carriers are incented to reward the device that attracts the most desirable customers. (Likewise, even though it is true that fewer customers take advantage of subsidies in foreign markets, there is such a broad spectrum from no subsidy to subsidy, to pay as you go, to other hybrid models, etc… that the disparity between the US and some markets is also greatly overstated. Yes, there is a difference and it is substantial, but the effect is not as significant as some want to believe. Additionally, we are seeing examples of individual Android models or other smartphones sometimes getting GREATER subsidies or promotional benefits — but the benefit is not as great across their entire product line — yet we are not seeing the artificial boost that some are attributing to Apple for those devices. And, yes, it is also relevant — if subsidies are such a substantial factor in market share — that low- to mid-tier devices are receiving subsidies that are greater on a percentage basis. Just as it is important that Apple can offer a 2-year old model for free.)
I find there are several factors contributing to Apple’s success in several markets that weigh equally or more significantly than subsidies. Availability of credit to a large % of the population, greater penetration of home broadband, greater penetration of wifi, markets with robust and healthy content markets (music, movies, tv, etc)… In national markets where these criteria are met or, even better, lead internationally, Apple is (unsurprisingly) performing better than in those markets where these factors are weak.
Subsidies don’t work like that. They’re just that — subsidies. You pay the same price for the plan whether you buy the phone or not.
T-Mobile recently discontinued this practice and started implementing a practice of having monthly installments for the phone tacked onto your cellphone bill as surcharges.
Anyway, the U.S. system encourages carrier-locking, which incentivizes people to buy cellphones from their carrier instead of an independent outlet such as the UK’s Carphone Warehouse. (Non-carrier retailers in the U.S., such as Radio Shack, still have a relationship with the major carriers to preserve the coupling of cellphone and carrier service.)
The theory goes that consumers will be more likely to buy the brand of phone their carrier promotes, which disproportionately favors the iPhone — except it doesn’t. The carriers have been hostile to Apple ever since 2007. They carry the iPhone because, in short, they have to. They risk losing valuable business if they don’t offer an iPhone. It’s that good a product.
The subsidy system itself doesn’t favor one manufacturer over another; any top-end Andriod phone is going to cost about the same as a late-model iPhone, unsubsidized or subsidized. And the iPhone really isn’t competing against the rinky-dink Samsungs scraped from the bottom of Sprint’s barrel.
Note the significance of this: the iPhone really competes with top-end Android phones, but is poised to overtake all Android phones in market share within the coming months.
Truly a rout for Apple indeed.
“If you add enough epicycles to a geocentric theory. you can duplicate the predictions of a heliocentric one. This doesn’t mean you know what’s going on, just that you’ve found a way to torture the data to make it confess.”
One could say that what is being tortured is the theory but, semantics aside, the value of the theory is proportional to its predictive power. Epicycles or not, if mine can predict the transit of Venus and yours can’t, then your theory needs changing. And if you love your theory too much then at least be honest about its power. Something like, “my theory is great as long as we look backwards in time only” or “my theory can predict the path of all celestial bodies like they’re on rails as long as we ignore a few of them”. One can’t pretend all of a sudden that one doesn’t know that that little light in the sky is Venus. One can’t just say, “I can’t trust stars anymore. I can’t see the sky at night anymore.”
But hey, if in this argument people can’t even agree on what the data are, then it is (and always was) pointless to formulate a theory.
@CD-Host:
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that. High data usage over cellphones was starting to happen anyway.
That’s slightly mixing up the cart and horse. The reason that iPhones were added to the already-existing subsidy market was that the additional data proved profitable enough to do so.
You mean, besides the fact that whenever T-Mobile announces a customer-friendly policy, the other carriers copy it badly?
http://bgr.com/2013/10/10/t-mobile-free-international-roaming-analysis/
They aren’t nearly as cheap as MVNOs. They still have MVNOs. I use one (GoSmartWireless).
Well, AT&T and Verizon seem to think that they need to compete to keep their customers.
@PapayaSF
So you’ve been arguing with me for months about subsidies, and you haven’t even learned this? WTF??? Anyway, don’t worry — with T-Mobile leading the way, the carriers are headed somewhat towards the model you thought they were using all along.
@CD-Host
The carrier wants to offer the device so badly that the device manufacturer can attach onerous terms, such as higher subsidies (despite what you guys think, there is ample evidence for this) and even dictate the number of handsets that must be sold (to Sprint’s chagrin) and the contract sales price (Apple is a big fan of agency pricing.)
But my postulation is that current events, instigated by T-Mobile (and the European authorities), might start changing the ability of the manufacturer to demand special terms.
@Jeff Read:
Ah, but Apple gives retailers less margin, which means that selling a $650 iPhone gives the carrier less profit than selling a $650 Android, and selling the same iPhone at $200 costs the carrier more than selling the Android at $200.
When people say “market share” they mean one of two things: current sales or installed base. According to comscore, Pew, and others, Apple has been ramping up the installed base. But they do so in an environment where (except for rollout quarters), they are far behind on current sales. According to Nielsen, in the 3 months ending in August, “more than nine out of 10 purchased either an Android or Apple device, with 61 percent of consumers choosing Android handsets and 34 percent picking iPhones.”
Of course, lumped into the Android device category are phones that nobody will use after a couple of months, and also, of course, the Apple faithful only buy immediately after rollout, but still, I think this lends credence to my theory that someone who just doesn’t care that much but wants something “known good” will often buy a gently used unsubsidized iPhone on ebay for $160. That’s a testament to a lot of things about Apple, but that consumer isn’t one that either the carriers or Apple is particularly seeking (other than to deny a warm body to Android).
I don’t have enough data to know where this state of affairs places Apple’s expected installed base a few months out; it may ramp as you guys are suggesting, or it may stall out when that consumer finds he can get an acceptable Android phone for about the same price as the used Apple.
“Ah, but Apple gives retailers less margin, which means that selling a $650 iPhone gives the carrier less profit than selling a $650 Android, and selling the same iPhone at $200 costs the carrier more than selling the Android at $200.”
You keep repeating this. Carriers are not in business to profit from the sale of phone hardware. They are in the business of selling voice/data services to phone purchasers.
“But they do so in an environment where (except for rollout quarters), they are far behind on current sales. According to Nielsen, in the 3 months ending in August, ‘more than nine out of 10 purchased either an Android or Apple device, with 61 percent of consumers choosing Android handsets and 34 percent picking iPhones.'”
34% of 90% 10 months after initial launch with an enormous boost for the next several months (while sucking the air out of the competition) is not “far behind.” And although the first full quarter of sales of a new generation are the greatest, Apple sustains sales through the initial lifecycle of a handset far better than you suggest.
OK, phone subsidies aren’t quite the same as dealer car loans, but what’s crucial about the way in which they are different from car loans? The core difference (as I understand it) is that a carrier doesn’t lower the monthly bills once the phone is paid off. But, from the point of view of consumers choosing cellphones, so what?
The phone is sold at a loss, and then the carrier makes a profit, eventually, after XX monthly bills. How is that terribly different from driving a new car off the lot for $XXXX down, much less than the retail cost (and thus it is, in a sense, “sold” at a “loss”), and paying off the balance over XX months?
The basic argument that iPhones are successful in the US “because of subsidies” still doesn’t make sense. It implies that Apple is paying money to make them successful. But then why is the iPhone the most profitable phone? Aren’t these subsidies an expense against profits? Since iPhones are nicely built and have good specs, it’s not as if Apple is bribing and bamboozling anyone into buying substandard items at high markups. So this argument just doesn’t add up.
@Tim F.:
And you keep saying this, which is completely orthogonal to my point, but thanks for playing.
34% vs. 61 % _really_ _is_ “far behind” — for that quarter. I really don’t know how to put that more plainly.
I’m not “suggesting” anything, but I will state that in the market that you guys claim that Apple owns lock, stock, and barrel, Gartner claims that in a recent 3 month quarter, Apple’s share of sales was only 85% of its installed base, and Android’s share of sales was 115% of its installed base. If this was any other market and any other manufacturer, it would look like bad news, but as we both know (and as I already said — did you really read what I wrote?) Apple is a special case because it historically gets a huge pop on each rollout.
@PapayaSF:
If you want to continue with the car analogies, it would be as if the dealer charged you $400 a month for driving any car, and you could drive a Ford off the lot for $0, or a Porsche for $400.
In this scenario, the Ford driver is getting raped, and most consumers will buy the Porsche, even if they would have preferred to pay $200 up front for the Ford and then $200/month. The dealer will complain about his subsidy costs, but eventually break even. Porsche is very, very happy, and Ford isn’t.
OK, but in that case, people are willing to pay $400 extra for a Porsche because it’s a Porsche. They wouldn’t pay $400 extra for a Chrysler. And there’s nothing to prevent Ford from producing a better model, as good as a Porsche, and charging $400 extra for it.
To me it looks like Winter et al. have the causation backwards: it’s not that subsidies make iPhones popular, it’s that iPhones are popular enough to warrant subsidies.
@PapayaSF:
> They wouldn’t pay $400 extra for a Chrysler.
At one point, at least some of the carriers were charging more for high-end Android phones than for iPhones, even though the cost to the carrier was less. This (and other things) indicates that Apple had the carriers by the short and curlies and mandated a maximum subsidized price.
But what does it tell you that Apple has the carriers “by the short and curlies”? It’s not that Apple is doing anything Samsung etc. couldn’t do, in theory. Apple has no special leverage… except that they have a phone that gives them that leverage. A phone in demand. A phone that creates loyal users. A phone that carriers want to sell, because it makes them more money. Again: it’s not that Apple’s requirements are making the iPhone popular, it’s that the popularity of the iPhone is allowing Apple to demand requirements.
@Nigel:
To esr’s point that it is hard to know what data to trust, Gartner’s data seemed to show a decline before IDC’s.
To Winter’s point, if you take 4 consecutive quarters, that’s a year, right? Or are you insisting we wait until February to see what’s going on?
Here’s Gartner’s worldwide data for the previous 11 quarters. I guess they post-adjusted it, because the 11Q4 numbers and 12Q1 numbers were slightly different in the different reports.
But, if the data is to be believed, Apple’s global market share peaked shortly after the release of the 4S, and has been in a year-on-year decline since.
10Q4 15.8% 11Q4 23.8%
11Q1 16.9% 12Q1 22.9%
11Q2 18.2% 12Q2 18.8%
11Q3 15.0% 12Q3 13.9%
11Q4 23.6% 12Q4 20.9%
12Q1 22.5% 13Q1 18.2%
12Q2 18.8% 13Q2 14.2%
And, in fact Samsung is following exactly that strategy, going not only as high as apple at the high end, but higher, the Samsung Round.
If you want to be really high status and impress your friends, buy a Samsung Round.
Steve Jobs strategy was to make apple the coolest, by both promotion, and fanatical attention to detail so that it would actually be the coolest.
Not the coolest any more.
You will notice that my analysis differs from esr’s. His analysis is that “open wins”. My analysis is that open wins if ordinary bean counters rather than great men are in charge of closed.
@PapayaSF:
It shows their true corporate personality. And as Jeff Read points out, the carriers hate them. They are the schoolyard bully and none of their partners will shed a tear if consumers start to prefer other phones.
And they use that leverage to distort the market, in much the same way that Microsoft did — by forcing the carriers to give iPhones to customers who would be quite happy with something else if they wanted to be able to give iPhones to the customers who really wanted them.
“Making money” and “not bleeding customers” are not exactly synonymous, although “not bleeding customers” certainly helps.
Which requirements are designed to add customers who wouldn’t have bought Apple and force network effects, and which requirements wouldn’t even be possible in a world where services and goods are separate.
I have a comment stuck in the moderation queue. It probably looks like link spam.
It is true that Apple had requirements for the first iPhone that every carrier but AT&T turned down: no carrier cruft, Apple runs the App Store and the software upgrades, visual voicemail, etc. But their success is not “using leverage to distort the market.” This is not PCs in the ’90s: all smartphones are “compatible” in the most important senses. Nobody is coerced into buying an iPhone the way PC makers were coerced into offering nothing but Windows, or the way consumers felt compelled to buy Windows because that’s what they used at the office. Carriers don’t push iPhones, they give in to customer demand and offer iPhones.
(As I said some time ago, AT&T has been pushing Android phones on me for a year or two, via direct mail, even though they know me only as an iPhone customer. I don’t think I’ve gotten a single piece pushing iPhones.)
Apple is not starting with leverage and then selling lots of iPhones, Apple sells lots of iPhones and that gives them leverage.
Is far behind.
Iphone sales in the US are status driven, hence the big bump on rollout. Iphone status was Steve Jobs driven.
@PapayaSF:
> Carriers don’t push iPhones, they give in to customer demand and offer iPhones.
It’s really not that simple. They give into the demands of _some_ customers and enter into negotiations with Apple. Apple extracts concessions, like subsidized price points, that are designed to entice other customers to also choose its smartphone, to the detriment of the carrier’s bottom line.
@JAD:
> Iphone status was Steve Jobs driven.
The comment I have in the moderation queue happens to show that, according to Gartner’s data, Apple’s market share has been declining year-over-year on every quarter since a couple of quarters after the 4S rollout…
Rumblings from inside the carrier world:
http://www.mobileworldlive.com/false-economy-handset-subsidies
James, you have it backwards as well: iPhones have status because they are excellent and beautiful phones. It’s not that Jobs had magical status-bestowing abilities, it’s that he had a design vision and the CEO qualities to make that vision happen, and the result is an object with status. The success of the iPhone starts with design (in a deep sense, not a superficial one), and the fact that Apple does not act like a typical consumer electronics OEM (lots of models, lots of features, marketing-driven, etc.): they have a few products and make them the very best they can. There is an attention to detail that Samsung products (e.g.) simply don’t have.
And this is why Apple and iOS will survive and thrive: no other consumer electronic OEM is likely to go against corporate culture and vastly reduce their number of models, put in vast amounts of R&D, resist marketing’s demands to include every feature, have total control over both hardware and software, etc. (The only likely exception: Google. But they are still too scattered as a company to pull it off, I think. People may like some of their hardware, but I don’t think many people pick up a Nexus and think that it seems like a fine watch. And Google is not really designing their own hardware, the way Apple is, down to the SoC.)
Patrick, I still don’t see how the carriers are hurting themselves by selling iPhones, or that they are luring customers to buy iPhones who would actually prefer to have something else. I can’t think of an instance where a retailer does themselves harm by upselling a customer. That’s what they all want to do. Now, if Apple were dumping iPhones at or below cost, and everyone was snapping them up because they were such a good deal, then yeah, you could claim that Apple was gaining market share by distorting the market. But selling phones at higher profit than anyone else proves that it’s success that’s creating the leverage, not the other way around, and that people buy them because they want to.
@PapayaSF:
> I can’t think of an instance where a retailer does themselves harm by upselling a customer.
Lose a lot on every sale and make it up in volume?
> I can’t think of an instance where a retailer does themselves harm by upselling a customer.
Anyway, if it was in the carrier’s interest to upsell to iPhone, why are we hearing all the anecdotes about the carriers pushing Android?
Upselling to iPhones makes carriers money, but Apple gets the lion’s share of the profits. On the other hand, when they upsell to high-end Android phones, I think the carriers make more profit (hence those AT&T mailings), but the manufacturers make less. I’m not sure if anyone has precise figures, but I believe I’ve read that Samsung’s profit on phones is much less than Apple’s. Certainly HTC and the others aren’t making a lot of profit.
(In fact, one could argue that it is the Android phone makers who are “distorting the market,” “artificially” inflating their market share by cutting their profits….)
@PapayaSF
Why do you assume that the best handset option for the carrier equals the best option for their customers?
@Patrick
That’s not true. The carriers found that Apple customers were less price sensitive on other areas. They were higher margin customers across the board. So for example to pick Verizon 2011 in addition to the standard $300 subsidy for a $200 (after subsidy phone) they through on $120 in marketing because they wanted to attract the high margin Apple customers. That is to say a customer who spent $200 on an Apple smartphone on average bought many more high margin services than a customer who spent $200 on an Android smartphone.
Of course the carriers weren’t able to exploit this arbitrage for long. Once subsidy levels were higher for iPhone it made the most sense for almost all postpay customers to shift to iPhone and carriers realizing this have corrected their subsidy levels so now everyone is getting that $400-500 subsidy at the $200 price point.
@PapayaSF
Patrick’s analogy of Ford vs. Porsche is spot on. By setting a minimum, it made no sense to ever purchase a smartphone below $250 (unsubsidized). Further the customer going from a $250 phone to an $800 phone paid only about 1/2 that cost in the increase which often made it rational for people to up what they spent on phones.
As for “distorted”. I’m not agreeing with that term. Winter for example considers the USA market because of the subsidy system but the European market undistorted even though the government did (and often does) something similar for carrier related costs. IMHO the European market is arguably just as “distorted”. Is the Lebanese government’s decision not to rebuild their land line system and thus throw billions of extra minutes per year into the cellular companies a distortion or just a market fact? Patrick I think underestimates the effect but I’m going to debate that in the next post.
The issue with iPhone is very high customer satisfaction much higher than Android (on average). Happy content people tend not to be nearly as price sensitive. What Apple does because of their focus on customer satisfaction is:
a) Attract people with enough income to pay high line charges
b) Make them have a very positive experience so they nearly as likely to shop around
That’s how Apple creates margin for carriers. So for example let’s take Verizon. Verizon sells GB as follows
1 GB – $10
2 GB – $20
4 GB – $30
6 GB and every 2GB thereafter – additional $10
The jump from 1GB of usage to 2GB is very profitable for Verizon. The later jumps not are not nearly as profitable. For a customer to do that they have to using close to 1GB of data per month minimum. For a customer to be using close to 1GB of data they have to be enjoying their phone. Even better for the carriers are people who want to enjoy and not watch their usage carefully, a state that iPhone tends to put people in.
On $650 phones they are closish to Apple. It is hard to compare because Apple subsidizes the cost of warranty from the phone price. They also have a retail infrastructure and are starting to go after agency fees which neither Samsung nor HTC does. If you look at BoM + manufacturing cost on $650 (unsubsidized) phone Apple will come in a bit lower. Throw in R&D and Apple is probably still a bit lower. Throw in warranty costs Apple is much higher. Subtract off agency fees (especially since those are rapidly rising) ….
The issue for Android though is that Samsung and HTC aren’t really selling too much at the $650 price point. They are dominating $200-500 price points. And there margins are much lower. That’s why I’m always beating the drum that people should stop talking “smartphones” and instead talk price points.
Agree. Especially as you go even further down market. At the under $150 price point you have manufacturers that IMHO are selling phones below cost to gain marketshare.
@Patrick
I’m talking much earlier than that. The heavy subsidy model developed during the days of analogue cell phones. They got Americans, who had an excellent landline system, to start using pagers and cellphones in large numbers via. low commitment plans with heavily subsidized hardware. The profits from those plans are what drove network expansion. Getting up to critical mass was brutal for USA carriers in a way it never was for European and Asian carriers with much higher population densities.
The same thing did repeat with data usage, so in your response I think you are wrong on a point of fact.
That’s just not true. AT&T had fallen terribly behind the other carriers. What iPhone did was create a midsized customer base that was willing to subscribe to an expensive data plan that was massively oversubscribed. That is it created the profits they didn’t already exist.
Yes besides that. Most of those “bad copies” are gimmicks. I’m talking structural changes that millions take advantage of.
From context it isn’t clear with whom (the MVNOs or T-Mobile) they need to compete. And of course they all exist in the same market so yes they need to compete. But they aren’t competing by becoming more like one another. Verizon and AT&T are adding increasingly expensive value added features while wholesaling the basics. Which carriers people use (retail not wholesale) more and more are being driven by family income level. So in the sense you mean, we disagree I’m not sure they are directly competing too much.
T-Mobile doesn’t own enough spectrum to meaningfully compete. If they had a surge of customers they would have to massively oversubscribe them and thus create a much worse experience on their network. That would give them the cash to buy more spectrum and …. but until something like that happens, they are an interesting 2nd tier player.
@CD-Host
Someone once pointed out to me that a plan including a Samsung Note was more expensive all-in than the same plan including the latest iPhone in the US. The note is nowhere else in world more expensive than the iPhone. I have seen many such examples.
The subsidies are much bigger in the USA than elsewhere. It is idiotic to claim that making a product much cheaper than another would not increase its marketshare.
There are less and smaller handset “subsidies” and these are more financing plans, you get cheaper plans if you bring your own phone.
“To Winter’s point, if you take 4 consecutive quarters, that’s a year, right? Or are you insisting we wait until February to see what’s going on?”
Except he’s never done this. In any case, yes you do need to wait until Feb because each succeeding qtr is of more value than the proceeding one because smartphone volumes continue to increase every qtr. By not counting Apple’s strong qtr you keep getting seasonal rise and falls.
Share peaks then recedes until launch qtr.
8.8….54.5….
8.4….61.7….
14.1….80….
16.2….99.4….0.16
18.2…101.2…0.17
20.5….108….0.18
17.1…117.7….0.17
37….155….0.19
35.1….145.2…0.21
26….153….0.20
26.9….171.4….0.20
47.8….217.2….0.20
37.4….213….0.18
31.2….232.7….0.17
4 qtr running average. You can claim that 2012 was an exceptionally strong year for Apple thus far but there’s no massive decline in share he claims.
It is probably better to use total global sales numbers vs just smartphone. The total global sales volume isn’t rising as quickly as just the smartphone segment so you can see how well or poorly Apple is doing without artificially normalizing volume.
It is idiotic to claim that making a product much cheaper than another would not increase its marketshare.
And I would say that it’s idiotic to claim that a hugely-successful electronics product, loved by many and widely imitated, of equivalent specs to many competitors, and which makes more profit than all of the rest put together, is successful because of “subsidies.”
@Nigel:
That’s basically a “wait until the end of time” argument. To see how Apple is faring in marketshare, it shouldn’t matter if you put their peak at the beginning of the year or the end of the year, if you are looking at a moving average.
My first comment was about different data sources. I think that Gartner shows just such a decline.
That’s what I argued two years ago when I argued that Apple would have a hard time breaking 10% (which they have never done) and everybody jumped down my throat, telling me it was the wrong market. You’re absolutely right that smartphones as a subcategory of handsets are increasing so quickly that a moving average will show that Apple’s handset market percentages are continually increasing, but then why are we having this stupid discussion about whether or not they will be in single digits, since they have always been there?
Anyway, it’s hard for Winter to argue with both you and some of the other commenters, with you saying that the market is all phones, and some of the others saying the market is only premium smartphones.
@PapayaSF:
Good thing I didn’t argue that. But I will claim that Apple is much _more_ successful because of the subsidies. If you want to take the other side of that argument, then we can start talking about who is being idiotic.
@PapayaSF:
So why do you keep insisting that when carriers were selling iPhones for $200 subsidized and roughly comparable Samsungs for $250 subsidized, that didn’t help Apple?
@CD-Host:
Yes, I know that. Which is why I wrote “The reason that iPhones were added to the already-existing subsidy market…”
I agree with the basic premise, which is why I wrote “High data usage over cellphones was starting to happen anyway.” Because it was, with Blackberries and whatnot. There was an organic trend, which Apple/AT&T may have accelerated but did not in any way start. And before Apple, the subsidies were so small the carriers didn’t have any problem with them.
Subsidies were useful in jump-starting the markets. The market would have developed with historical levels of subsidies, perhaps not as quickly, without giving special subsidies to one particular manufacturer.
Which part is not true? You already agreed with me that there was an already-existing subsidy market. iPhones were first sold without significant subsidy because they were so darned expensive, and even after paying Apple a percentage of user revenue, AT&T found them profitable enough to start subsidizing them heavily a year later when the 3G came out. Do you really think that a year’s worth of experience with the early adopters did not affect their decision to do so?
Am I going to have to write exceptionally carefully for you? When I write “the additional data proved profitable enough to do so” do you really think I meant that AT&T was already selling all the data that it wanted to? (And that I am sto stupid to believe they would spend extra money for no good reason since they already were maxed out?) Or would it make more sense to read that as “AT&T did the math and figured out that the subsidy cost would be more than offset by forcing the customers into an expensive data plan.”???
@nigel&Patrick
You want a breakdown on all handsets?
See above
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5039&cpage=1#comment-409826
There is no difference to the conclusion.
And, nigel, your prediction of Apple topping out on 20% of the global smartphone market does not look likely when the last 4 quarters give the iPhone only 17%. This includes Apple’s best quarter ever.
Simply put, Apple had less market share in the last year than it had the year before.
Patrick Maupin: “Anyway, if it was in the carrier’s interest to upsell to iPhone, why are we hearing all the anecdotes about the carriers pushing Android?”
I see nothing surprising, inconsistent, or illogical about a company wanting to maximize for present-day and future profit and long-term self-control. It’s fairly common. It’s a shitty place to be in. Sometimes people try to turn it around as a good place to be in. The 80s and 90s are littered with PC makers and vendors that were supposed to be propelled by Microsoft products to be the beneficiary and next great business success. Android OEMs are in the same position, but the cycle of commoditization was so quick, almost no one (Samsung only) EVER benefited. Apple has US and other major dominant carriers in key international markets.
Sometimes one company gets the vast lion share of benefit from a relationship with a business partner. It is still the best choice for the business partner getting the short stick. The short-sticked company still looks for new business opportunities, alternatives, new models, etc. It’s called competition. But what is surprising, unfair, or unsustainable (relatively speaking) about this? You’ve been saying for nearly 3 years (?) that the carriers would get more power over Apple, exert it, and benefit as a result from Android, in Apple’s stead. I don’t see it at all. I think you’ve now pushed out this turn of power (or at least its observability in the data?) to end of 2014? (That’s fairly reasonable, if so. See you then.)
@winter:
If you do what Nigel suggests, and take a 4 quarter moving average, using all handsets, and do what you are suggesting — use Gartner’s data, this is Apple’s share for each 4 quarters:
11Q3 4.0
11Q4 5.0
12Q1 6.0
12Q2 6.5
12Q3 6.9
12Q4 7.4
13Q1 7.7
13Q2 7.8
That was done by taking the Gartner data from the links (using the latest total figures if they corrected them a year later). The source spreadsheet with Apple vs total sales, is basically:
2010Q4 16011.1 452036.5
2011Q1 16883.2 427845.7
2011Q2 19628.8 428661
2011Q3 17295.3 441502.2
2011Q4 35456 477703
2012Q1 33120.5 422955
2012Q2 28935 420120
2012Q3 23550.3 427729.5
2012Q4 43457.4 472076.4
2013Q1 38331.8 425821.6
2013Q2 31899.7 435158.4
The formula is basically:
=ROUND(1000*SUM(B1:B4)/SUM(C1:C4))/10
So Nigel’s snarky comment about “oh but the 14th derivative looks bad, by this time next month Apple will have negative 57% share” is not particularly called for — there is a clear trend showing slowing of market share growth. OTOH, according to Gartner’s data, and by the metric of handset sales (which, btw, I believe in and have argued for for a long time), Apple’s market share is not dropping either.
Cue you two arguing about whether it will drop and when, and some of the others arguing that it doesn’t really matter because total handset market is not the right metric.
@Tim F.:
I probably was saying it 3 years ago, but then realized how the subsidies stacked the deck, and said that it wouldn’t happen while that was going on — I’m sure you’ve argued enough with me on whether that’s part of the cause or not to remember that.
In any case, I think it is changing, albeit slowly, between T-Mobile and the MVNOs and the move to prepaid:
I don’t know what the stats are for this year, but this is a classic word-of-mouth snowball effect. You see articles like this in the mainstream press, you hear from your friends that they are paying less than half you are for phone service, and then you start to consider it.
I think this will certainly start to level the playing field when services are separated from devices. There are often small subsidies in the prepaid market, but since those are not predicated on a contract, the service provider is less likely to shell out $450 upfront for a subsidy for a smartphone that may never generate any revenue.
Patrick Maupin: “And you keep saying this, which is completely orthogonal to my point, but thanks for playing.”
If your point is solely that an iPhone handset sale is a higher cost, lower margin handset sale than any other handset available on the market (something that’s pretty obvious and you’ve been belaboring for years), okay. If your point is that carriers make less revenue and/or profit providing data services to customers who own an iOS device rather than an Android, my point that the carriers are not in the business of selling handsets is not orthogonal to the discussion.
“34% vs. 61 % _really_ _is_ “far behind” — for that quarter. I really don’t know how to put that more plainly.”
34% vs 61% is not far behind what I would imagine as a ratio for sales of iPhone to Android for A MOVING AVERAGE OVER THE PERIOD OF JUNE TO AUGUST! I would also project that the ratio will not be same for the next 3-5 months! We are talking about sales versus user base, etc. Your own math Patrick.
Do I think it’s reasonable to believe based on the availability of reasonably reliable data that can be reasonably analyzed and correlated that Apple’s US marketshare is or headed towards in the 40-50% range and that Android is headed from 55-60% to less than 50% marketshare (also providing for a reasonable range of time precision)? Abso-friggin-lutely.
ESR believes that in June of 2012 it was no longer reasonable to believe that Apple could possible have 32% marketshare in the US so, hence forth, no other data can ever be used to analyze the environment.
*marketshare = I admittedly am using something of a sloppy shorthand here. To remove my sloppiness, define “marketshare” as the metric measured by Comscore (“user base”).
@Tim F.:
If I take your point that they are not in the business of selling handsets at face value, then perhaps you agree with me that they should stop doing it if they can gracefully get out of their contracts. But to your point about “profit”, it is not about “profit” on the handset, it is about “loss.” Yes, it’s useful to consider whether they make that loss up later, but there are no profits to be had when carriers sell handsets with subsidies.
This is silly. It IS far behind. It is not unexpected, and it is expected that it will change the next quarter. I said as much in my original post, in an attempt to forestall this silly argument, but it obviously didn’t work. But feel free to keep hitting the strawman.
“why are we having this stupid discussion about whether or not they will be in single digits, since they have always been there?”
We have a winner!
The answer is: because then we couldn’t talk about disruption from below and how iOS vs android was Mac vs windows all over again and positive network externalities etc etc etc
“So why do you keep insisting that when carriers were selling iPhones for $200 subsidized and roughly comparable Samsungs for $250 subsidized, that didn’t help Apple?”
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim that. What has been said is that Apple does benefit from subsidies as a result of a number of factors. That benefit is one among a host of benefits. If the subsidy benefit were to change, which it likely is, it will be slowly, based on a number of factors which work to enforce the current model rather than erode it, and Apple may still be able to benefit from the situation. Even if any and all carrier incentives were removed to encourage a financial incentive to purchase an Apple handset rather than an Android device, it would still not be an apples to apples consumer choice for all or most Americans.
“This is silly. It IS far behind. It is not unexpected, and it is expected that it will change the next quarter. I said as much in my original post, in an attempt to forestall this silly argument, but it obviously didn’t work. But feel free to keep hitting the strawman.”
I do not find those numbers remotely inconsistent with the idea that Apple will end 2013 with 45% user share in the United States. No.
“Yes, it’s useful to consider whether they make that loss up later, but there are no profits to be had when carriers sell handsets with subsidies.”
Nonsense.
@Tim F.:
I personally have no idea where Apple will wind up at the end of the year in the US, so please point out to me where I said I did. Or admit you’ve been hitting a strawman.
It’s not nonsense. The subsidy turns the smartphone into a cost center, not a profit center. The fact that the cost is designed to increase future profits means that the cost should be minimized as much as possible. That’s what the carriers are attempting to do, within the confines of their agreements with Apple. This currently means pushing Android and other smartphones as much as possible.
I don’t know how successful they will be at this, which is one of the reasons I don’t know where things will stand at the end of the year.
What straw man? I see no inconsistency between a sales ratio of 34:61 as being inconsistent with a 41:52 install base ratio.
“It’s not nonsense. The subsidy turns the smartphone into a cost center, not a profit center. The fact that the cost is designed to increase future profits means that the cost should be minimized as much as possible. That’s what the carriers are attempting to do, within the confines of their agreements with Apple. This currently means pushing Android and other smartphones as much as possible.”
It is nonsense. The subsidy is small and simple math as to whether or not the smartphone is a cost or profit center. Maybe most phones are cost centers. Maybe most phones have little influence on whether they are or are not profit centers and are dependent on a subsidy. I argue that it’s abundantly clear that the carriers are viewing the iPhone as a profit center and one they want to continue having as a profit center.
They may want to push Apple, but they can’t risk pushing so hard Apple goes away (either at Apple’s own or through competitive defeat).
Aw, c’mon.
A priori, if you didn’t know that we were talking about the smartphone market and Apple in the quarter immediately preceding a rollout, please admit that even you might suspect problems at a company that had current sales of 34% into a market where they had 40% of the installed base, especially if one of their competitors had 52% of the installed base, yet 61% of the recent sales.
Or look at it another way: you guys seem to expect Apple to hit 50% installed base in a few quarters. Do you really think that a normal company in a normal market would grow to 50% installed base that quickly if they start from 40% installed base and only make 34% of the sales in the current quarter? Or does that seem like a way to go backwards in the general case?
Again, as I keep repeating: Yes this is Apple. Yes it is right before the rollout quarter. No, it doesn’t mean they are in trouble. But it certainly demonstrates one problem with trying to analyze Apple’s performance — it is very cyclic, in an industry that isn’t.
@Tim F.:
Now there’s your nonsense. The carriers view Apple as a necessary evil expense, not a profit center. But keep arguing — that’s all I have to say on the subject.
Lol.
“A priori, if you didn’t know that we were talking about the smartphone market and Apple in the quarter immediately preceding a rollout, please admit that even you might suspect problems at a company that had current sales of 34% into a market where they had 40% of the installed base, especially if one of their competitors had 52% of the installed base, yet 61% of the recent sales.”
No, I would not.
We went through this for years. Month after month of ESR seeing signs of Apple’s collapse (if it wasn’t already happening)… No. There’s nothing particularly alarming or unusual about that number.
“That’s basically a “wait until the end of time” argument.”
Wow it must have really sucked for you as a kid when you equate “wait until christmas” with “wait until the end of time”.
Waiting until Feb means simply that. Feb. So you have data from the most important qtr for the countries that celebrate christmas.
@Nigel:
No, “wait until the end of time” is shorthand for “wait until Nigel says it’s a good quarter to take a look at a year.” You claim to have a reason why that’s a good time, so I’ll wait, but you certainly haven’t cogently expressed why a year’s worth of data requires Apple’s big quarter to be at the end, at least well enough for me to understand. Try to use more and smaller words.
Even Apple thinks a year ends at the end of September….
@Winter
In the United States today, October 12 2013
Samsung Note 3 $699 unsubsidized, $299 unsubsidized
iPhone 5s 16g $649 unsubsidized, $199 subsidized
The carriers have nothing to do with the unsubsidized price. That’s Samsung. I think Apple is cheaper in their home market than most other places in the world. But that is not the carrier’s doing.
I never made such a claim.
In general I’d say that’s correct. In particular though it is not that simple. It is hard if not impossible to construct prepay plans that look like the postpay plans. For example Verizon’s prepay plan with 2G of data (no subsidy) has unlimited minutes and costs $60 / mo. For 3 people that’s $180 / mo. 3 subsidized smartphones with 6gb of sharable data is $210 / mo. The subsidy is about $20 / mo / phone not $10 / mo / phone. And shared data is more useful than individual data. So you are clearly losing out.
Or to pick another example I can go to a Verizon MVNO get a smartphone plan at $40 / mo with 500m of data for 3 phones. While 3 people with 2g of data would $190. That’s a $70 difference which is closer to the cost of the financing but I’m dropping data speed from 4G to 3G and dropping my customer service quality .
And that’s the way it works across the board. The financing is entangled with other things.
@Patrick
In 2000 it was fairly common to have a $10 a month plan with a $120 phone subsidized to $0 on an annual contract. There is nothing like that today in terms of percentages. So today’s situation with the move to data is not unique, it is very similar to what the carriers did to move Americans off landlines. The carriers btw do not have a problem with subsidy levels given that they raised the amounts of their subsidies in 2012-3.
I’m not sure that’s true. Many times technologies don’t develop without hitting critical mass. Given how cheap natural gas is and how expensive petroleum is, why are cars using petroleum and not natural gas?
The part that is not true is that iPhone was added to an already existing mix. AT&T was trying something unique with iPhone in terms of higher subsidy levels to allow them to oversubscribe an expensive data service.
“but you certainly haven’t cogently expressed why a year’s worth of data requires Apple’s big quarter to be at the end, at least well enough for me to understand. Try to use more and smaller words.”
Was Christmas was too big a word?
The point is that every qtr smartphone volume increases rapidly. Given that Apple’s sales are extremely seasonal based on the once a year launch then you will always see the spike followed by fade even in a rolling average.
This is why you don’t see that spike and fade behavior on the global handset rolling average. Total handset volume isn’t increasing as rapidly. Thus far Apple has been able to keep pace with smartphone vs dumbphone growth which is amazing given they don’t compete at all at the low end of the smartphone market.
“So Nigel’s snarky comment about “oh but the 14th derivative looks bad, by this time next month Apple will have negative 57% share” is not particularly called for — there is a clear trend showing slowing of market share growth. OTOH, according to Gartner’s data, and by the metric of handset sales (which, btw, I believe in and have argued for for a long time), Apple’s market share is not dropping either.”
It’s called for because every time this comes up it seems folks like plotting a ballistic trajectory. Never content with having growth level off but plummet.
If you want to say that Apple’s share will level off to around 10% of the total global phone market I would say that’s probably reasonable if Apple does nothing but address the premium phone segment. It appears they are choosing to do just that at least for the near term.
But you cannot say that Apple’s market share will plummet down to 10%. It never had more than 10% share. What it looks like to me that at the end of the day Samsung will be the new Nokia and Apple the new Blackberry.
“Cue you two arguing about whether it will drop and when, and some of the others arguing that it doesn’t really matter because total handset market is not the right metric.”
I don’t recall stating that the global handset market is not the right metric. Given that the market is 50-50 smartphone/feature phone at the moment with feature phones declining rapidly that’s probably going to be the case regardless in a couple three years.
However, it’s clear that Apple has not suffered a decline in market share, nor has it suffered any disruption from below. The future can certainly change but to date neither has occurred and 2013 doesn’t look much different. They just had a great launch if the financial guidance is any indication. Given the expectation of the China Mobile deal is finally happening 2014 looks pretty solid too.
“A priori, if you didn’t know that we were talking about the smartphone market and Apple in the quarter immediately preceding a rollout, please admit that even you might suspect problems at a company that had current sales of 34% into a market where they had 40% of the installed base, especially if one of their competitors had 52% of the installed base, yet 61% of the recent sales.”
Depends on the qtr and the market. If it’s the video game console market or hand held market I’d be inclined to think that if it isn’t the holiday qtr it probably doesn’t mean as much.
If the recurring pattern was one company launching new game titles every qtr to spur console sales while the other company traditionally held games back for a huge Christmas push I’d definitely think it wasn’t a problem.
What you’re asking is in effect “if you were going to jump to conclusions without sufficient data, does this scenario look bad for the 34% company?”
The answer is “why would I want to jump to conclusions?”
If it’s the Christmas qtr then that certainly would be troubling.
@Patrick
A few responses to some of the comments you are making to others.
The carriers aren’t concerned about the cost of the Apple contracts. Their reason for pushing Android is they are worried about Apple’s leverage in the future. Apple is within striking distance of establishing an effective monopoly over high value customers.
Right now the relationship is working well for both parties. Apple can make huge margins on handsets and the carriers can make margin selling data, the customers are fat, happy and stupid. But Verizon and to some extent AT&T understand they live in a capitalist economy high margins are not sustainable. And as the margins come down there is going to be competition between the carriers and the handset markers, particularly Apple. If Apple is able to defend their margins, then that would mean driving down the carrier margins even faster.
Verizon, AT&T and to some extent Sprint disagree with you. Verizon has addressed this in their late 2012 earnings reports why they had become cyclic and expected to remain so where they defined their different types of customers, and how 1/3+ of their customer base was shifting towards cycling with Apple. AT&T has made similar announcements. At this point the USA postpay consumer cellphone industry has become somewhat cyclic and is becoming moreso with every Apple release.
@Tim F —
Patrick is right, carriers view iPhone as a cost center not a profit center. The handsets that are profitable to them are ones over 2 years old that people keep on their contract. They also make a little bit of money on many $0 phones, which often get only a $250-300 subsidy even though they are putting away $15-20 / mo to cover that, on average. They make a ton of money on dumb phones at this point where they are booking $7-10 / mo subsidies and paying far less than that.
Now that being said… they view iPhone customers as their most profitable customers and so they aren’t unhappy to lose money on iPhones.
@Nigel:
Christmas is not too big a word. The question is why Christmas has to be last.
Yes, you already said this, and obviously Apple’s share tends to move more right after a rollout than right before a rollout. But, for example, the moving average ending in 12Q3 showed Apple’s market share 2.9 points higher than 11Q3, and the moving average ending in 12Q4 only showed it 2.4 points higher than 11Q4.
Rolling average 4 quarters ending:
11Q3 4.0 12Q3 6.9 delta 2.9
11Q4 5.0 12Q4 7.4 delta 2.4
12Q1 6.0 13Q1 7.7 delta 1.7
12Q2 6.5 13Q2 7.8 delta 1.3
Now the iPhone 4s rolled out in October, and both the 5 and 5s rolled out (barely, but enough for Apple to shift millions of units) in September. Nothing like that fiscal year-end pop.
So it makes sense for for the timeframe containing both 12Q4 and 11Q3 to be really high.
The iPhone 4s also rolled out more slowly around the globe (and to other US carriers), whereas the 5 started out in a lot more countries, and share didn’t improve as much in later quarters.
You can see all that in both the raw data and the moving averages.
Another thing you can see in the moving averages (and I posit you don’t have to wait for Christmas for this) is that the iPhone 5 didn’t improve Apple’s global share overall nearly as much as the 4s did.
You can see that in the raw data, too, starting in Q3, which is why I’m curious why you think we have to wait for Christmas to begin to get an idea about the 5s rollout.
@CD-Host:
Not sure that’s true. There is margin there they can take or not. In the past I have seen the same phone for different prices at different carriers.
That’s not what the carriers say (the part about not having a problem and not being concerned), but maybe they’re lying.
Only if you stick with the big carriers rather than MVNOs. You can do much better than postpay with MVNOs if you shop around. The carriers have no incentive to make their prepay plans look as good as postpay.
No it wasn’t. ARPU in 2000 was around $60-65.
Some cars do use natural gas. Lots of buses do. Enough cars switched to diesel when it was cheap that it is on parity or more expensive now.
The iPhone was unsubsidized for a year, and then AT&T started subsidizing it, JUST LIKE IT WAS SUBSIDIZING OTHER PHONES. I don’t know how to make that more clear, and if you’re trying to imply that I don’t know that it got higher subsidies than any other phone historically, you REALLY HAVEN’T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION to what I’ve been saying about phone subsidies now, have you? Feel free to criticize my wording, but try harder to distill my meaning rather than simply claiming I’m wrong, m’kay?
They publish notes about analyzing Apple’s global performance? Where can I find one?
@Nigel:
> I don’t recall stating that the global handset market is not the right metric.
I don’t recall you saying that either, but others here have argued it vociferously.
My main point is that all these carrier shenanigans with (cross-) subsidies and opaque calling plans locking phones to carries etc. make the USA market a bad model for the rest of the world.
In most countries (as in >75% of humanity) handsets can be bought separately or financed with the service costs. The price of the handset is easily visible in the service plans.
The differences between the USA and the rest of the world affect handset market share.
So, the simple conclusion is, that developments in the USA handset market have no predictive power on the rest of the world. Just as the USA seems to be rather disconnected from what happens in the rest of the world.
@Patrick
In 2007 AT&T offered a revenue sharing plan with Apple. Apple got $3 / mo for existing customers and $11 / mo for new subscribers. That was on top of subsidies in the $150-200 range (which were high for 2007). Average subsidy turned out to be $9 / mo. The results were brutal for AT&T and so they boosted the subsidy to make the cash flow more predictable in 2008.
Here is a sample article discussing this: http://appleinsider.com/articles/07/07/19/analyst_weighs_in_on_apples_rev_share_arrangement_with_att
The revenue sharing model is the reason China Mobile originally rejected the iPhone.
You claim in the original was about the USA not global. And I told you where to find it Verizon’s earnings report a few quarters back and their analyst call where they explained their expenses were going to become more cyclic because 30+% of their customer base was starting to cycle with Apple and they thought that was headed to 40%.
I gave examples specifically in the qutoe using Verizon’s MVNO, PagePlus. The big issue is data speeds Verizon’s doesn’t offer 4G from their MVNO (PagePlus). AT&T similarly limits their data speeds on their MVNOs. The fastest is AIO with 8m / sec on LTE data most don’t get it at all. Sprint is fine.
Again I’d say look at their behavior. They pushed through a price increase so they could structurally further boost subsidies in 2012-3. The carriers are not moving away from subsidies. Carriers are not unhappy with the record earnings and the exceptionally rapid conversion of their customer base over to data plans, and they understand that good handset made that happen. They have also been able to boost their contract penalties, and thus have made it much harder for people to switch carriers.
I’m sure they would rather get the effects of subsidies without having to carry the huge expenses but given the substantial structural increases in the 2012-3 season with subsidies we aren’t looking at business moving away from the subsidy model. It simply is not happening.
Unsubsidized phones are mostly sold by 3rd parties not by carriers directly. They aren’t the ones either taking or not taking margin.
@Winter
Companies are supposed to help develop their market. Transferring money from monthly subscription fees to handsets is a model other carriers want to adopt. Operators / carriers all over the planet look at Verizon and AT&T with envy and want to do the same thing. Moreover, you like to talk about the 3rd world. While East Asia and Europe don’t look like the USA in terms of densities many parts of Africa and West Asia do. The model that USA carriers used to develop the USA market in the 1990s-2010s is a model that may be followed. I wouldn’t assume everyone is going to follow the European model of having the government subsidize the carriers (operators) but also heavily regulate they types of plans they can offer. The word “shenanigans” as it is a bit much to describe a different model than Western Europe’s. Your cultural bigotry is showing.
Of course subsidies effect share. However now that they are semi-uniform at different phone price points they shouldn’t effect share within price points. So they USA may be predictive of which $500, $600, $700 phones are going to do well. Most importantly because a huge percentage of those phones will be sold in the USA.
Moreover the USA market is not uniform. The problem you have in your analysis with the world applies equally to the USA. The USA prepay market had players with no or small subsidies and does look like much more like the European market. The moment you start talking in terms of the stratified market and realize that Straight Talk‘s customers are not Verizon postpay customers it becomes much easier to use USA data appropriately. The USA only lacks predictive power if you try and ignore price point entirely. This comes completely from you trying to create some an artificial category called “smartphones” so that when people move from $80 JavaVM phones to $120 Android phones Android is growing in some way that effects $600 phones.
@CD-host
In the third world, most consumers use second hand phones. The whole a locked phone every two years on a $200/month plan is unsustainable outside the USA. Also, in the GSM SIM world moving phones between carriers is the rule.
@CD-Host:
> You claim in the original was about the USA not global.
We were discussing multiple things, including Apple’s global marketshare performance. Please do try to keep up.
You need to get some better news sources. Maybe from October 2007. AT&T was paying monthly for activated phones, but there was no direct phone subsidy, unless you consider selling the handset for its acquisition cost to be a subsidy. Apple probably would have made extra on phones it sold directly, because of typical wireless contract arrangements.
What record earnings? Net earnings in calender Q2 2013 were under those a year ago, and AT&T is looking for 2% revenue growth for the year, expecting earnings to come later. They’re not incredibly happy about that.
In that case, the Note 3 isn’t a very good example, because it’s brand new, and the discounters haven’t gotten hold of it yet.
@CD-Host:
You might think that was a useful number for analyzing Apple on Verizon, but even that’s not true, because the other smartphone vendors figured out about Christmas, too — last year or even before. So, it doesn’t take into account any other carriers, it doesn’t take into account the Apple users who don’t upgrade every year… Tell me again how this helps me analyze Apple’s performance?
And last year Verizon was so smitten with subsidies that they offered to enhance data plans for those who took them:
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/verizon-subsidized-iphone-5-or-unlimited-data-not-both-1096792
Oh, wait.. maybe enhance isn’t the right word.
And in China, where they are screaming for lower-cost iWhatevers, China Telecom is adjusting the subsidy for the new Apple stuff appropriately:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/09/16/china-telecom-cuts-iphone-subsidies/
Appropriately to not have to lay out too much cash, that is.
Yes, it’s completely obvious the carriers love subsidies.
@Patrick
Well AT&T doesn’t agree with you they weren’t offering subsidies, “The new agreement between Apple and AT&T eliminates the revenue-sharing model under which AT&T shared a portion of monthly service revenue with Apple. Under the revised agreement, which is consistent with traditional equipment manufacturer-carrier arrangements, there is no revenue sharing and both
iPhone 3G models will be offered at attractive prices to broaden the market potential and accelerate subscriber volumes. AT&T press release June 9, 2008
Again AT&T doesn’t agree with your assessment: Wireless revenues up 5.7 percent, service revenues up 4.1 percent versus the year-ago quarter ( summary earnings )
It doesn’t matter, Verizon reports percentages on their network. As for how it helps. Verizon gives us a well documented example of a carrier who is resistant to iPhone watching their subscriber base rapidly convert over. They are also a huge player in the US market unlike T-Mobile.
I don’t know what you are talking about. Verizon offers the plans they offer. That was about staying on old unlimited plans.
If subsidies account for iPhone success in the US, why is iOS market share still rising in Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain, and Mexico (and slightly in Australia)?
@CD-Host:
The source you cite says they moved from a revenue sharing agreement to a subsidy. “attractive prices” == subsidy, e.g. carrier has to lay out money up front it hopes to recoup. “revenue sharing” == exactly that, a split of monthly revenue for the exclusive. Not a one-time pop that is hoped to be recovered later, but an ongoing expense that damn well better be covered right now.
You said record earnings, then you start discussing revenue. Do you know the difference? The total profit was down from the year-ago quarter, although profit-per-share was up because of buybacks. I know that’s complicated, but that’s the way it is.
> It doesn’t matter, Verizon reports percentages on their network.
It does matter when I say “This is difficult to calculate.” and you say “no it’s not, Verizon does it”, and what Verizon does is completely different than what I said. You keep contradicting me with bullshit specious non-sequiturs, and you don’t even know the difference between profit and revenue.
So the fact that Verizon requires users to choose between a subsidy and keeping a grandfathered plan doesn’t at all contradict your assertion that they love to hand out subsidies more than life itself? LOL
@PapayaSF:
If subsidies have nothing to do with iOS success in the US, then why is it still lower in those countries, and generally higher in those countries (like UK) that have a more US-like subsidy model?
Is it really that hard to believe that subsidies are part of the success story? Go back and look at how the iPhone fared historically here before subsidies.
Does everything have to be black and white? Is it really cognitive dissonance to believe that subsidies contribute significantly to Apple’s success here? Do I have to choose between believing subsidies are the sole reason for Apple’s existence, or have no effect on its bottom line?
Patrick, I don’t disagree with the idea that subsidies might have had something to do with the success of the iPhone in the US. I do not see how they makes much difference these days, when equivalent Android phones get equivalent subsidies. And my point was directly mostly at Winter and company, the people who claim that the US is a total anomaly, and that only other countries count when looking at iOS vs. Android.
I think all this talk of the effect of subsidies is a side issue. iOS continues to do well in many countries without them. I think it’s quite clear that the “Android Army”/”disruption from below” scenario is not happening. Android got to over 50% market share in the US, and then stalled out. Nobody but Samsung seems to be making any money on Android phones. Apple just keeps selling more and more iPhones at fabulous profits. Lots of people around the world are switching from feature phones to cheap Android smartphones, but there are more people switching from Androids to iPhones than the other way around, which does not bode well for Android’s future. Android has gotten increased developer attention, but it’s not as if developers have lost interest in iOS.
@PapayaSF:
BTW, good job on posting that graphic out of context. From the article it was attached to:
Note that the article claims to be discussing current sales. The US data don’t seem to line up all the well with Nielsen’s.
I wasn’t trying to pull a fast one, I just wanted to highlight the chart. And none of those bullet points contradict my thesis, or support the Android tipping point prediction.
As for it being current sales, I’m not sure how that’s a pro-Android or anti-iOS issue. If anything, it leans against Android, because IIRC iPhone users, on average, hang onto their phones longer than Android users. More frequent replacement would thus show higher Android sales than would be reflected in installed base figures.
@PapayaSF
“If subsidies account for iPhone success in the US, why is iOS market share still rising in Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain, and Mexico (and slightly in Australia)?”
A much more interesting question for you would be “If subsidies do not account for the iPhone success in the US” why is iPhone market share in the EU5 only 18% versus 43% in the USA?
I think it’s probably a number of things. The US is a richer country. Taxes (and are there tariffs?) also make many many goods more expensive in Europe. Apple has a “home field” advantage here. The Mac has (I believe) always been more popular here than in Europe, so there’s a stronger halo effect. There might be some anti-American bias involved. And perhaps subsidies make a slight difference.
I would still like you to answer my question, because it seems to me that the evidence contradicts your thesis.
@PapayaSF
“The US is a richer country.”
In median household income (PPP) that difference is considerable, but not that extreme ($30k vs $24k for Germany):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
But this means you concede that the iPhone is a rich man’s gadget? That would bode bad news for Apple’s market share. Because almost all humans have much, much less disposable income as the median German household.
@PapayaSF
“Taxes (and are there tariffs?) also make many many goods more expensive in Europe.”
Indeed, we have a uniform VAT in the order of 20%. On the other hand, calling and data plans are much cheaper over here. Neither of which do affect Apple more than comparable competing models.
@PapayaSF
“There might be some anti-American bias involved.”
Not likely in these countries. Anyhow, spite the Americans, buy Korean does not sound very successful.
@PapayaSF
“And perhaps subsidies make a slight difference.”
You mean, a uniform tax on all handsets must distort the market more than a slight 20% differential subsidy? That does not sound as a very convincing argument.
@PapayaSF
“I would still like you to answer my question, because it seems to me that the evidence contradicts your thesis.”
My thesis is that considerable cross-subsidies that reduce the cost of iPhones below that of comparable models from competitors increases iPhone market share. Now I see that USA iPhone market shares are twice as high as in the best industrial markets for iPhone that do not have such differential subsidies.
How does that contradict my thesis?
>In median household income (PPP) that difference is considerable, but not that extreme ($30k vs $24k for Germany)
Such comparisons generally understate actual wealth differences between the U.S. and Europe quite drastically. The problem is that they normally use currency conversion rates for income without taking differing price levels into account. Almost everything – food, housing, clothes, electronics, cars – is much, much cheaper in the U.S. when you measure by worker hours required to purchase it.
The result, as memorably put in one European study, is that “Sweden is Alabama” – middle-class consumption and real wealth levels in Sweden resemble those of the poorest and most backward areas of the U.S. Based on actual consumption, most Europeans would be considered to be below the U.S. poverty line.
@PapayaSF
“I would still like you to answer my question, because it seems to me that the evidence contradicts your thesis.”
Another view on things to come. This is how iPhone fares in India, fully predictable in my book. Arguably, India is a major growth market. Note how MS is cheering being the SECOND ecosystem in India with a market share of, wait and marvel, 5.4%!
Android’s market share in India over 90%: IDC
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-20/software-services/42251993_1_windows-phone-vineet-durani-microsoft-india
@Winter
As we’ve discussed. For that last year, as Apple has been gaining share, that hasn’t been the case. The highest subsidy phones have not been Apple’s. You can attack the subsidy market for eliminating the incentives towards cheaper phones, but the type of reversal in pricing you are describing here is fiction.
@Patrick —
A subsidy is a price reduction, period. It has the same effect of lowering the up front cost of the phone for the end customer by shifting money around. We have a well developed economy, both Apple and AT&T have no problem moving from Net Present Value of future payments to actual cash.
AT&T doesn’t break out the delta on their margins for additional wireless subscribers in their public pronouncements. They make a gross margin of 42% on their wireless. The earnings you were citing include things like their land line business. Yes they have record earnings on the wireless.
Please don’t fabricate statements and call them “my assertions”. I said nothing of the kind ever.
@PapayaSF
If you want to make the case you and Winter are discussing you probably don’t want to look exclusively at income but rather at average spend per consumer. That’s higher in the USA, because of lack of government support and because of geographical features.
You might be able to argue that iPhone is equally popular in Europe among people spending $1k / yr for cellular. I don’t have data on high value European customers.
Nokia’s press release about the general meeting on November 19, where the deal is to be approved:
http://press.nokia.com/2013/10/14/nokias-extraordinary-general-meeting-relocated-to-helsinki-ice-hall-notice-of-an-extraordinary-general-meeting/
@CD-Host
“You might be able to argue that iPhone is equally popular in Europe among people spending $1k / yr for cellular. I don’t have data on high value European customers.”
Personally, I know no such people. So, I guess, they could be rare over here.
@Winter
This is where you and I agree. I wish you would stop exaggerating the situation because the actual facts back your position fine without any need. European cellular customers look far more like USA prepay customers than postpay customers in terms of their spend (excluding taxes). iPhone is not popular among prepay customers. If it becomes popular that popularity is highly likely going to a result of postpay customers creating a vibrant used market for iPhones configured for USA carriers there is no sign USA prepay customers are willing to pay for iPhones rather than cheaper alternatives.
Geographically the USA looks like west Asia or parts of Africa. Economically it looks like Europe. It is unique. iPhone is uniquely situated for the USA market. On the other hand, if Apple is able to establish a monopoly in the USA and is say grossing $60b / yr from USA sales that is likely to have impact globally.
@Esr —
The situation is not nearly that extreme. Europeans have access to wonderful government services provided at low cost or no cost.
That being said: the IHDI which counts the effects of inequality (i.e. some people aren’t educated because they are too poor in the USA) put the USA at about 16th in the world. The European financial crisis and their move towards austerity is the cause of our ranking being that high. Prior to the crisis we were 23rd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
And the reason we are that low and not 3rd-4th is because we toss a huge percentage of population into miserable grinding poverty which prevents the from achieving economic well being: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Gini_since_WWII.svg
>The situation is not nearly that extreme.
The situation is exactly that extreme. I have lived and traveled in Europe. Unlike most Americans, I have been outside the cities and tourist areas, and have seen the evidence with my own eyes.
>Europeans have access to wonderful government services provided at low cost or no cost.
There is no such thing as a no-cost service. The differential between the cost visible to an average European and the actual wealth required to provide the service has to come from somewhere – which is exactly why Sweden is Alabama. Look up “deadweight loss”.
My wife and daughter spent ten days in Spain this summer with my mother-in-law and sister-in-law. She remarked when she came back that everything was “so expensive”.
@esr
PPP = Purchasing Power Parity
Your argument was already taken care of. And I used median household income.
And do not insult our intelligence again by comparing Swedish Air Conditioner use to that in Alabama
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/if_breaking_bad_was_set_in_the_uk_it_would_be_entirely_different_story
@Esr
You are double counting. If you want to calculate standard of living in terms of costs you want to use cost to consumer across the board in which case “healthcare is free”, public transportation is cheap… but the taxes are higher. The way you are going it, you are counting the taxes and then trying to add those costs back into the price of the goods. Of course if you count the cost of large numbers of goods twice European standards of living are lower.
If you only count the cost once though… they quite often have a higher standard of living. Certainly a much higher standard of living than America’s poor and lower middle class.
> I have lived and traveled in Europe.
When did you live in Europe?
Venezuela is not in Europe, but you knew that. Even if, perhaps, you lived in Europe (returning in 1971), you were, at that point, still 13 years of age.
> Based on actual consumption
I hope you can see the problem here. If you can’t, you’re beyond assistance.
> There is no such thing as a no-cost service.
So much for the gift culture
@CD-Host:
The subsidy we have been discussing is where the carrier takes a loss on the handset hoping to make it up later.
No, different story. The customer got the phone, and some of them unlocked them and used them on different networks. AT&T’s payments to Apple were predicated on actual usage on AT&T’s network, and were essentially payments for exclusivity, not for the phone itself.
Cash up front is a problem in some cases. Never mind the accounting.
I honestly don’t know what you are smoking. According to AT&T’s own document, GAAP wireless segment operating income in the quarter ended 6/30/2012 was 5.067 billion, and in the quarter ended 6/30/2013, it was 4.678 billion, or 389 million less than the year-ago quarter. If you are looking at non-GAAP earnings (which I suppose you are, since you claim a margin of 42% which is the EBITDA number), then you’re looking at 6.521 billion for the quarter ended 6/30/2013, vs 6.763 billion for the year-ago quarter. A difference of only 242 million, but still the opposite direction than you claim.
Yes, revenue is up, but profits are not. Not yet, anyway.
That was sarcasm, because you repeatedly claim the carriers’ actions indicate they aren’t bothered about subsidies, and when I show actions that indicate that might not be true, you completely blow them off. Whatever.
But Sweden has universal health coverage and excellent free education. Alabama? NOT SO MUCH.
Europeans have decided that some deadweight loss is acceptable if it produces better outcomes. If you have a perfectly efficient system with zero transaction costs, but only an elite few get access to decent health care or education, that’s considered an economic fail from a European standpoint. Like engineering problems, economic problems are fraught with trade-offs.
>But Sweden has universal health coverage and excellent free education. Alabama? NOT SO MUCH.
Uh huh. Result: Pretty much anybody in Alabama can get access to an MRI machine. In Europe, good luck with that outside of a capital or second city. Canadians cross the border to get to U.S. hospitals, and not the other way around, because their “free” health care is inferior. Meanwhile, the British NHS emits weekly horror stories about patients dying hideously from neglect, and the underlying economics leaves me sure that the Swedish differ only by having better spin control.
@Esr
People flee European healthcare in Republican myth and that’s about it. The Journal of Health Affairs examined this when George HW Bush made the claim and it was mostly bunk: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/3/19.full
There is about 20k per year which is well below other countries coming to the United States to take advantage of our excellent medical research facilities. For basic care like you are describing the only Canadians who made use of it, were people injured on this side of the border going to the local hospital. What isn’t bunk is poor Americans going to Canada for HealthCare, like Sarah Palin’s family for example.
The United States is frankly dreadful on medicine. We’ve managed to achieve a healthcare system which is on poor with 3rd world while costing 1/3rd more than France. The worst on a cost adjusted basis on the planet by far.
Sweden also has had a school voucher system since 1992. And, of course, Sweden has the advantage of being filled with Swedes.
“The situation is exactly that extreme. I have lived and traveled in Europe.”
LOL. I expect quite a bit of amusement watching ESR not backing down from Sweden=Alabama.
There’s still enough Alabama in me to miss boiled peanuts but I pretty much would prefer living in Sweden over pretty much anywhere Alabama (excepting the tiny gulf beach areas) despite the fact its the same latitude as Alaska.
@nigel
“I pretty much would prefer living in Sweden over pretty much anywhere Alabama”
The long dark winters can be awfully depressing I have heard. And most houses do not have an air conditioning system.
“The long dark winters can be awfully depressing I have heard. And most houses do not have an air conditioning system.”
Yeah.
But Alabama.
> Pretty much anybody in Alabama can get access to an MRI machine.
Given that there is but a single Level 1 trauma center in Alabama (at UAB), access to an MRI may not do much for you.
Fortunately, they have a MRI machine for the obese:
http://www.standupmribirmingham.com
Which is good news, because Alabama has the fourth highest rate of obesity in the US.
The state has special programs to help the residents lose weight.
http://adph.org/NUTRITION/Default.asp?id=893
(In PA, only one in three are fat: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/pennsylvania-gets-lighter-on-national-obesity-scale-699642/)
Alabama, you got
the weight on your shoulders
That’s breaking your back.
Your Cadillac
has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track….
LOL. Doubling down on air conditioning I see.
“CT and MRI were introduced in Sweden in 1973 and 1984 respectively. The diffusion of CT and MRI in Sweden are amongst the highest in the world.”
2001 Olson
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11378235/
More recent data indicates that Japan is kicking our butts in terms of MRI units per million pop: 43.1 to 25.9 . We are double the OECD average (12.2). Sweden doesn’t show up but Finland is 16.9. Iceland, also with universal healthcare, is 21.9 and #3 behind the US and Japan (2009 numbers).
Sounds like pretty much anyone in Sweden can get a MRI just like in the US, Japan, etc.
If esr posts again, it will be time to get out the hip waders.
Sweden was #3 (behind the US and Iceland) in MRI units per million population in 1995.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/120.pdf
In 2010, Iceland still #2, Italy #3, Austria #4, RoK #5, Finland #6, Switzerland #7
Australia and Belgium both have more CT scanners per million population than the US.
(Australia 2X as many.)
Also:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2011/Jul/1532_Squires_US_hlt_sys_comparison_12_nations_intl_brief_v2.pdf
@LeRoy
The USA are grossly incompetent in organizing public health. But then they project their own incompetence onto other countries. It seems to be an act of religious faith that other countries must be worse in public spending than the USA.
This part form the abstract of the paper is revealing:
It is clear that the USA is good on the cheap part of medical care: Acute treatments and diagnostics, but lags on the expensive part: Chronic conditions. Most people in the world die from chronic conditions.
Moreover, the USA gets this “cheapskate” acute care at a very high cost:
Note that the GDP per capita in France is lower than that of the USA.
And this is a gem too
Winter,
Indeed. The American health care system was devised by Kaiser Permanente in the 1960s, and it’s optimized for one thing: lining the pockets of Kaiser Permanente.
The reason why Sweden is not Alabama is because although middle-class Europeans’ discretionary spending is indeed on par with poor Americans’, America utterly fails on the basics: health care, education, and public infrastructure including roads, railways, and telecommunication lines. (In Japan a major section of highway was completely obliterated by the 2011 tsunami; it was rebuilt and accepting auto traffic within a couple of weeks. Meanwhile in Murka, there is always endless road construction being done on route 84 and nothing ever seems to come of it.) So it is an objective fact that the quality of life per dollar/euro earned is much, much lower in America than in Europe.
It’s a central tenet of libertarianism, even the dilute form that underpins American political theory, that nothing can be done by government that can’t be better done by private enterprise. Well, no, that’s wrong. Letting private enterprise solve public problems leads to graft, monopolistic rent-seeking, and the work simply not getting done after the private contractor cashes the government’s check. There is a right way to privatize a public good; the Queensland municipal bus system comes to mind. The government establishes routes and sets up a common fare system; the bus operators drive those routes and compete for passenger business on equal terms.
I see this being done almost nowhere in the USA.
On Sweden vs. Alabama:
“I had observed this for a long time; very recently I understand it better – the rationalizing system spins out of control precisely because of the nutter’s need to impose a causal narrative on a subjectivity that would otherwise be too chaotic and disruptive for him to tolerate.
“You can map the boundaries of the delusion by observing where not just where the nutter’s assertions become absurd, but where he has lost the capability to notice they are absurd. There’s a loss of any sense of factual or moral proportion, an inability to get distance and say ‘I don’t know’ or self-question in any meaningful way.”
@Bryant
I think esr is wrong. These are not the hallmarks of insanity, but of religious zeal. True, the obsessed show them too.
The problem with insanity is that everybody will see you are insane, except for yourself. Because being insane means that by definition you are not able to think “sane”.
@Bryant
“On Sweden vs. Alabama:”
Political believes can be on par with religious believes. Actually, all convictions can veer off into the illogical.
Hey, if you cannot shut out reality, at least temporary, you may never get a spouse. ;-)
Maybe we should get some popcorn. The Smartphone wars might not be ended yet and the iPhone might not be the interesting contestant
First, the 5C seems to have a very slow start:
Apple’s Cheap Smartphone Isn’t Cheap Enough
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/10/16/apples-cheap-smartphone-isnt-cheap-enough.aspx
But the really new news is the strong start of FirefoxOS:
As iPhone 5C Fades, Firefox OS And Android Square Off In Emerging Markets
http://readwrite.com/2013/10/15/apple-iphone-5c-firefox-os-android-square-off
With the incorporation of CyanogenMOD and the strong introduction of Firefox OS, we might be in for new interesting times.
Jorma Ollila calls Nokia’s switch to Windows a mistake in an interview. So much for the rumor that he’ll be appointed to the Microsoft board, I guess.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/hs_ollila_admits_windows_mistake/6886400
Hmmm, I seem to remember predictions around here that Verizon wouldn’t do well with the iPhone….
@PapayaSF:
I predicted that iPhone on Verizon wouldn’t do as well on day one as a lot of pundits and analysts were claiming it would. (I thought that for a lot of reasons — people locked into contracts, upcoming new iPhone, etc.)
That prediction of mine turned out to be true. I don’t know what other prediction you are referring to.
Even now, three years later, most have-to-have-the latest iPhone people are still on AT&T. I don’t know what supply constraints will do (whether they affect the carriers equally) but absent constraints (or with minimal constraints), I would expect iPhone activations at AT&T to be around 33% higher than at Verizon.
The Smartphone Wars: AT&T CEO reveals all – Posted on 2011-01-27 by esr
Far from scoring a coup, Verizon may have just bought the biggest bag of substanceless hype and wind Steve Jobs has ever peddled while AT&T snickers behind its hand. The iPhone brand is in worse shape than I thought was even possible. And the implications of that are huge. First: We can expect Verizon’s iPhone sales to be anemic.
While looking for the above, I came across this: The iPad: Second Coming of the Newton? – Posted on 2010-04-05 by esr
If it’s designed as a browser appliance, the absence of Flash support is a pretty serious hole below that waterline.
What I’m seeing is a device that competes in four or five different product categories without having a compelling story for any of them – a perpetual second-best. It makes me wonder what Steve Jobs was thinking, really.[…]
Of course, the standard rejoinder to pointing out what a new technology can’t do is that people will invent their own unforeseen uses for it. But this is where the iPad software lockdown starts to become a serious drag, because it means any software application some third party comes up with has to pass through the eye of Apple’s needle. And there’s a serious problem with that…
Forward to today, about 140.5 million iPads later….
>Forward to today, about 140.5 million iPads later….
OK, the Apple worshippers have flung a lot of misdirected crap at me (and are still doing so), but the appeal of the iPad is one case where I was genuinely wrong.
I think I know why, now. I underestimated how much use most people would have for a content-browsing device that can’t be used very effectively to push information in the other direction. I understand this better now that I’ve watched my wife use a Nexus 7 for a while.
Apple fans shouldn’t take too much comfort from this, however, as Android tablets are soon to pass iPads in the volume race.
> “First: We can expect Verizon’s iPhone sales to be anemic.”
51% of all smartphones sold at Verizon during the past quarter were iPhones.
http://allthingsd.com/20131017/verizon-could-have-sold-more-iphones-in-the-third-quarter/
Sure.. I’d call that anemic.
@R. Duke:
Are you seriously comparing a statement made 3 years ago about Verizon’s release of the iPhone to the iPhone sales on Verizon today?
Because, compared to what a lot of pundits were predicting, iPhone sales on Verizon _were_ anemic back then.
“compared to what a lot of pundits were predicting, iPhone sales on Verizon _were_ anemic back then”
[citation needed]
For every hack you bring up that predicted, say, 20 million Verizon iPhones in the first year I can find you one that predicted 1 million only.
I don’t think esr meant that Verizon’s iPhone sales would be anemic “at first.” He meant they’d be anemic in total, which has clearly not been the case. Remember, once Android had reached that 50% tipping point in the US, it was all going to be downhill for the iPhone from then on. Not only did that not happen, but Android has even lost ground to the iPhone in the US recently, something I never expected to happen so soon.
(By the way, has anyone been keeping track of all those zillions of Android “activations” we’ve been hearing about for years? It seems like by now, everybody on the planet should have armfuls of Android devices….)
“Remember, once Android had reached that 50% tipping point in the US, it was all going to be downhill for the iPhone from then on.”
Let’s not misrepresent what esr actually says. (Again: the search box is right there, people)
From esr’s post as the 50% point was (thought to have been?) reached:
“Now, this could happen to Apple at any time. Apple no longer has margin for screwing up; it can’t even afford a stumble. To be specific, just one botched product launch could easily cost it 15 points of share that it will never get back.”
So, the fact that Apple’s market share hasn’t cratered may mean that they just haven’t committed that fateful mistake yet… You know, based on “What we know about winner-take-all effects in markets with positive network externalities” or whatever.
I think my summary of his prediction was fair. E.g.:
Missing the point: The real stakes in the smartphone wars – Posted on 2010-06-10 by esr
Though there are others on each side of this struggle, in 2010 it comes down to whether Apple or Android wins the race to over 50% smartphone market share; after that point, network effects will become self-reinforcing until the next technology disruption.
Those self-reinforcing network effects have not been dispositive for Android: it got to over 50% in the US some time ago, but has been losing share recently, and Apple has continues to sell more iPhones than ever. iOS still gets the bulk of developer interest, and as I’ve mentioned, iOS gets more switchers from Android than the other way around.
Yes, this is why Apple desperately needed to at least announce multicarrier at WWDC. They didn’t, they can’t, and a stable but tiny iPhone marketshare analogous to the historical Mac marketshare is the almost certain result.
I remember other references to the future “stable but tiny iPhone marketshare” as well.
@ww:
Well, there was one analyst who predicted 800K, there were several in about the right place, but there were also lots well above 10 million. Here’s a “middle of the pack” man:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_02/b4210034485538.htm
I think the major flaw in their reasoning was about how many Verizon was going to pull from AT&T — at the end of the day, Verizon didn’t sell that many, AT&T didn’t sell that few, and AT&T didn’t lose all those millions of customers.
The mainstream press was generally more breathless, and all the surveys quoted… Well, let’s just say that asking people what they are going to do hardly ever gives good answers.
At the time, I wrote
@PapayaSF:
I don’t know about esr, but I personally didn’t originally understand the effects the high level of subsidies would have on the smartphone market in the US. That’s probably mostly because of my mindset — I like to separate out goods and services, and if I don’t think hard enough about it, will project that mindset on to others.
@PapayaSF:
> I remember other references to the future “stable but tiny iPhone marketshare” as well.
If you take global handsets as the market, the share is under 10%. It hasn’t completely stabilized yet, though it shows some early signs it might be doing so. But as per Nigel, I’ll wait and take another look when the Christmas earnings come out in February.
“If you take global handsets as the market, the share is under 10%.”
And it’s been growing to this point. The original goal set by Steve Jobs was 1%. This was never the prediction in question. The question was of a share “COLLAPSE” — i.e., less share than it held in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 (boy, ESR has been wrong for a while now…) — that would produce, maybe a sustainable but niche, but more likely withering ecosystem at least relative to the thriving ecosystem of Android that would benefit Google, OEMs, software developers, and users more than the iOS ecosystem.
OT, but this is good: Turns out HealthCare.gov is using some open source code with the copyright notice stripped out. They didn’t have time to optimize the Javascript, but they had time for that….
@PapayaSF
“(By the way, has anyone been keeping track of all those zillions of Android “activations” we’ve been hearing about for years? It seems like by now, everybody on the planet should have armfuls of Android devices….)”
No, it was realized a year or so ago that growth was quadratic at best. Google stopped reporting these numbers regularly after they surpassed the 1M/day mark. Growth in Android devices has shifted towards regions where people often do not activate at Google.
This can be seen from the fact that in 2Q2013 there were approximately 183.8M Android handsets sold, which translates to over 2M devices per day while the official numbers from Google are 1.5M activations per day. So, around 1/4 of the Android devices do not appear in the activation statistics.
Meanwhile, the number of handsets sold should be close to 1B by now. The installed base is over 900M.
Daily Android activations grow to 1.5 million, Google Play surpasses 50 billion downloads
http://bgr.com/2013/07/20/android-activations-app-downloads/
Number of daily activations of Android devices from August 2010 to March 2013
http://www.statista.com/statistics/219554/daily-activations-of-android-devices/
“Apple fans shouldn’t take too much comfort from this, however, as Android tablets are soon to pass iPads in the volume race.”
Oh no! Something everyone knows to be obvious and the “Apple worshippers” have accepted for a long time will happen! Oh shit! I can get no comfort!
There is no total volume race. There is a volume race at certain price points. Certainly I’d expect $100 Android tablets to outsell $500 iPads, but who cares? Tablets even more quickly than phones established that customers wouldn’t pay as much for Androids as they would for iOS devices. Moreover, it is well established that on tablets, customers who buy significant quantities of software and SaaS buy iOS. On tablets you have what’s happening on phones happening even more clearly. Android is establishing itself at the nice price point down. Cheaper components, cheaper manufacturing costs, lower quantity and quality of software in exchange for a much lower price.
Without network effects there is no volume race. With Google not making margin they can’t provide the rich services that Apple is providing to create strong network effects. No one else sans Microsoft looks plausibly positioned to provide them, That’s going to be hard to dislodge.
> Are you seriously comparing a statement made 3 years ago about Verizon’s release of the iPhone to the iPhone sales on Verizon today?
I don’t see where Eric gave any timeframe. Verizon, the former stronghold of Android, the carrier who introduced and marketed “Droid”, now sells 51% iPhone.
Eric went on state, “The iPhone is in deep trouble.”
Apple’s iPhone 5s handset is now the #1 smartphone at all four of the major U.S. carriers. The iPhone 5c is #3 behind the Galaxy S4 at Verizon and T-Mobile, and #2, outselling the Samsung Galaxy S4, at both AT&T and Sprint. The analyst who issued the report stated that the S4 only held on to #2 Verizon and T-Mobile due to “price cuts”.
By any measure, iPhone is completely dominant in the US right now. Things change, and the leader will ebb and flow. Apple isn’t dying, and neither is Android.
The idea that tablets are only used for “consumption” and not creation is long disproven. There is certainly a difference in average use cases, because few are banging out novels or creating giant spreadsheets on tablets, but artists and designers and musicians use them, and they are heavily used in business: Apple leads business adoption with 72% mobile devices, 90% of tablets, 95% of apps. Those business iPads aren’t just used to browse the web and watch movies:
“Of the apps activated on tablets, 91 percent were document editing apps, followed by file access and custom applications,” Good noted. Rather than wanting “consumption devices” oriented around watching movies on a 16:9 screen ration, business users are editing documents, a task the iPad was expressly designed to do with its page sized screen with display ratio closer to a standard PC than a movie screen.”
>The idea that tablets are only used for “consumption” and not creation is long disproven.
Yes, but it’s equally obvious that “creation” sales have been led and driven by “consumption” sales. This is true of all tablets; only Blackberry might have been an exception, if it hadn’t been far gone into incompetence when it made its feeble tablet plays.
> On his record, the man isn’t competent to run a Taco Bell store
the author probably couldn’t get a job at Taco Bell.
@LeRoy:
You appear to be conflating several thing in that statement.
In the US, at the moment, Apple is the manufacturer with the largest installed base, but Android is the OS with the largest installed base.
“You appear to be conflating several thing in that statement.
In the US, at the moment, Apple is the manufacturer with the largest installed base, but Android is the OS with the largest installed base.”
I don’t see any conflation. If you don’t think Apple is utterly dominating from its likely approximate 45% user base, you are delusional. Again, check the business app dev stats, the FB ad ROI stats, and hundreds of others. Apple is dominant in the US by 98% of all metrics.
@LeRoy:
> I don’t see any conflation.
For a start, you discuss iPhone (a handset), and Android (an OS).
Android dominates the installed base.
The Smartphone Wars are now about who’s fighting over the scraps that remain after Apple walks away with a plurality of the market (soon to be a majority in some markets, like the USA).
The same way Android phones won the volume race: by dumping junk and then counting a “shipped” unit as a “sold” unit.
By any metric that matters, the iPad did, does, and will continue to dominate. Look where the apps are. Look where developer interest lies.
> Android dominates the installed base.
translation: RETREAT!!!
“For a start, you discuss iPhone (a handset), and Android (an OS).”
Are you fucking serious? Every Fandroid is constantly abusing this comparison. Are we no longer comparing Apple’s success against 100s of OEMs? Is that a promise?
“Android dominates the installed base.”
No, no it doesn’t. 52% versus 41% is not domination. (And, again, this is virtually the only metric where Android leads (and only currently).) However, yes, I think Apple’s consistent, rapidly updated, more cohesive platform does achieve outsized impact on the platform market… because that 52% is actually many smaller entities (not sub-platforms, per se, but certainly not one cohesive competitive entity) to compare against Apple. The next closest player (yes, OEM, I don’t see Android as a remotely cohesive platform) is Samsung with 24% of the market. That segment has S-this and S-that up the ying yang impeding Google’s “platform” and is even divided upon itself between the S-series and lesser models. The whole of Android is LESS than the sum of its parts.
@Tim F.:
Yes. We don’t always write carefully around here, but it’s certainly better to. And it’s _really_ better to clarify, once you’re told you’re not clear. So why wouldn’t I be serious?
There is an ecosystem war and a manufacturer war.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about Apple’s success as a company. All I care about is closed OS such as iOS vs. Android. If you had paid attention, you would have realized this a very long time ago.
@LeRoy:
> translation: RETREAT!!!
Not at all. iPhones are certainly competitive in the US. But they weren’t selling as fast as Android phones in Q1 or Q2. If they’re at breakeven on current sales on Verizon in Q3, they will be far above breakeven on AT&T, but still not at breakeven across all carriers. If tells me that second and third quarter numbers are meaningless, I’ll take him at his word, and wait to see how things shake out after Christmas.
Who has the better ecosystem? Apple.
No shit, Android development is a clusterfuck. Its APIs are a confusing, constantly shifting mess, there’s the fragmentation issue to worry about, and the architecture just plain sucks. Then there are things like GPU drivers blatantly lying about which OpenGL features they support, which means you can’t just code to a profile like OpenGL ES 2.0 and expect everything to work; you have to test your app against just about every single handset or expect bug reports and one-star ratings.
People only started seriously developing for Android because they felt they had to; overall it’s a painful experience that they would probably avoid if they could. People started developing for the iPhone because they wanted to.
The ecosystem war has already been won, leaving the manufacturer war — a war for second place amongst the non-Apple vendors, who don’t have nearly the vertical integration and supply-chain advantage that Apple has, nor the design scruples to deliver a product that works to the users’ and developers’ expectations. By contrast, just about everything about the iPhone — from the CPU on up — is “designed in California by Apple, Inc.”, which has staked its reputation on integrity of form and function.
@Jeff Read
“By contrast, just about everything about the iPhone — from the CPU on up — is “designed in California by Apple, Inc.”, which has staked its reputation on integrity of form and function.”
One size fits all. Yes, that is Apple. It is also one of the reasons the iPhone remains below 20% market share (or below 10% in total hand sets).
Btw, I hear other developers saying the same, but then with iOS and Android reversed.
> All I care about is closed OS such as iOS vs. Android.
Android is open? Not like linux, it isn’t. A careful read will prove it.
http://source.android.com/faqs.html
Or ask Skyhook:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20016603-265.html
Or YouMail:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57339539-94/developer-claims-t-mobile-yanked-its-app-off-of-android-market/
Or, you know, Honeycomb
I could continue for an hour. It won’t change your mind. Changing your mind would mean you admitting your mistake, and then your whole house of cards would fall.
@LeRoy:
Android isn’t open?
Tell that to Amazon or B&N or all the Chinese manufacturers who manage to use it without using the google app store.
No a careful read proves that it actually IS open. Just like linux.
Google does build a somewhat closed system of apps on top of it (just like TiVo legally did with linux).
Google isn’t (yet; who knows how stupid some goverment will be) required to place competitive apps in its app store. Unlike some competitor handset operating systems, however, you don’t actually have to jailbreak an Android phone in order to load an app that google doesn’t like well enough to put in its own app store.
So, you’re wrong. Android is perfectly open. Unless, of course, you’re trying to claim that the open source definition doesn’t, you know, actually define what open source is. You wouldn’t be trying to do that around here, would you?
And as far as Honeycomb goes, they had perfectly good reasons for not releasing the source code for that at the time. It’s not like that became a habit; once they were happy with the interfaces, they released.
All the wailing and gnashing of teeth at the time was misguided if understandable; at this point in time it’s just a troll, and not a very good one at that.
@Jeff Read:
You keep saying stuff like this. Here’s a much more balanced perspective:
http://blog.gqueues.com/2013/07/android-vs-ios-comparing-development.html
@LeRoy
You might go on for an hour, but you keep comming up with the same old FUD. Obviouslt, you ignore the counter argument, like CyanogenMOD.
So explain to me. If Android is not open source, how is it possible that some amateur creates and distrubutes new Android distributions?
So explain to me. If Android is not open source, how is it possible that some amateur creates and distrubutes new Android distributions?
ASOP releases are open source. The Android that runs in most phones have both proprietary drivers and UI layers (touch wiz) in addition to largely proprietary apps and frameworks (Google Play).
In practice Android is a lot closer to BSD and OSX than most Linux distros with an adversion to shipping with proprietary software anywhere in the main distro. There’s not even the lip service that Ubuntu applies to proprietary video drivers. Android “distros” are unabashedly proprietary in nature with a few notable exceptions.
Nobody stays DFSG compliant on the Android platform and has anything really useful as the end result.
/shrug
It’s the way open source really works. The reality is the important bits are still proprietary because coders like to eat.
To me Andriod is proprietary with an open source fig leaf. I think that’s just fine although Apple is a lot more honest about how it leverages open source than Google.
Paul Graham, in explaining why Mac OS X has so thoroughly dominated the desktop Unix market, remarked that open is nice, but open and good is better.
In reality, end users could give two shits about the “open” part. They only care about the “good”.
And that’s why, despite the attempt by the carriers and handset manufacturers — for whom Android was designed and intended — to tilt the balance towards Android, iOS is back on the rise towards market dominance.
@Nigel:
I think you mean “some” important bits, not “the” important bits, unless your very definition of important is something that you can’t find in open source. I also think that some number of coders would get paid anyway.
The nice thing about open source is that it forces the closed source vendors to become more competitive, and keep actually earning their keep. A rent-seeking play is still possible, even without patents, but in many markets you have to adjust the rent much lower now, e.g. Microsoft OS on netbooks.
I’m not really sure what you mean by Apple being more honest. I think Apple would like to keep things as proprietary as possible without pissing off too many people, but they are smart enough to know that some of the best developers are very pro open source, and will, for example, hire some of the leading developers for CUPS or LLVM and let them keep doing their thing, because it’s something they can highly leverage.
Google may not always be that smart. They should have given Guido a mandate to spend 110% of his time on core python, for example.
@Jeff Read, I agree. Android has and will continue to have wide appeal, but that appeal is concentrated in a few areas: the geeks like Eric who are committed to open source and customizability, the OEMs who need to compete with iOS, and the Third World goatherds and everybody else who wants the cheapest option. And I’m happy that they can all get what they want.
But the average user wants “good” or “better” or “best” as they define it. They don’t care that they can’t reprogram their phone. They don’t want to install some dodgy app from a Russian website. They want something carefully designed and built, and everything they could want to download is on the iTunes Store, pre-approved and safe.
I doubt if Android phones will ever equal the degree of polish Apple can put into their products. The OEMs aren’t designing their own CPUs, aren’t working with the designers of the OS to optimize everything, and don’t have Apple’s economies of scale (a handful of products, but scores of millions of units of each one). Apple does not act like typical consumer electronics OEMs, and it’s working very well for them.
While I see the open source movement as positive and essential, in some ways they are like backyard mechanics lamenting modern cars. They want to be able to gap their spark plugs, but modern cars may not even have them. They want swap out components, but automotive engineering has gotten so advanced (which often means proprietary) that things are too optimized and miniaturized and sealed-up to work on without expensive, specialized tools, if you can work on them at all. Cars are built according to what works best for the carmakers and for the average end-user, not for what the backyard mechanics want.
I think that trend will continue for computer-based, specialized items like phones: they will continue to become more proprietary and “locked-down” as they become more refined. Of course, general-purpose laptops and desktops will always remain more open, and some phones will be made that can be used that way, but those won’t be the ideal type of phone for most people.
“The nice thing about open source is that it forces the closed source vendors to become more competitive, and keep actually earning their keep.”
Closed source vendors almost always have competitors to make them “earn their keep”.
Where they did not it is rare that an open source project provided such competition. Take photoshop. No real competitor either proprietary or open source. Same for MS office. Neither gimp nor open/libre office is used all that much even when mandated.
Open source mostly enables closed source developers meet schedule and budget and helps out some hobbyists do some cool stuff. Even when open source forms the core component of a large project it’s often locked behind closed doors inside the enterprise (like at google).
The LAMP stack is the notable exception. But even there the truly important stuff is behind the SAAS paywall.
As far as Apple being more honest than Google I mean simply they make no pretentious about open vs unabashedly closed unlike Google who claims to be open and then locks their important bits behind SAAS and proprietary APIs.
Notice that it was Google that effectively vetoed the affero provision in mainline GPL v3. If the FSF had pushed forward then Google would have opposed GPL v3 making it DOA given Linus and the Linux kernel team opposed it as well.
@Patrick: You keep saying stuff like this. Here’s a much more balanced perspective:
Android first is a myth.
http://stevecheney.com/why-android-first-is-a-myth/
Developing an app for either platform is not hard. Especially in comparison to the old Java-ME days.
That said I don’t think much of the analysis in GQueues given he spent too much time on CoreData when he was already familiar with SQLite and was doing all his own backend integration anyway. That was a poor design decision. For a cross platform app you want your business logic as common as possible and refactor only the UI for each platform. Given SQLite was on both platforms this should have been a no-brainer. For an iOS only app going Core Data makes sense. For what he was doing not so much.
His issues with obsolete documentation is IMHO just as bad if not worse with Android than iOS. My feeling is that ARC vastly improved iOS development and fairly easy to determine which practices are obsolete with the introduction of ARC. I have no clue why a dev with 12 years experience would get at all confused between examples of manual resource management and those with would use ARC or unable to immediately identify an example is older.
I hated Android layouts and tweaking to get non-ass UI that worked across various target phone platforms. iOS with very fixed target sizes is a huge advantage in getting “pixel perfect” UI layouts. The key is not to be a dumbass and try to shoehorn tablet and phone logic into one UI design as he did.
Frankly, while the backed code may be awesome (or not) I’m not impressed with his UI. I mean it’s just a freaking task manager. He has lists and forms to deal with. And he took how long to do in iOS? Meh.
@Patrick> The nice thing about open source is that it forces the closed source vendors to become more competitive, and keep actually earning their keep.
Yeah, tell it to ARS…
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/
It is funny to read people claim that the underlyung Kernel plus network stack and most of the drivers of Android are the unimportand OSS stuff.
Translated, the proprietary nature of Windows and OSX must then be irrelevant as the OS is unimportant.
On the other hand, Windows and OSX are obviously the foundations of MS’ and Apple’s imperiums. So they must be imoortant.
Or, as Patrick already noticed, “important” excludes OSS by definition. Just as “proprietary” almost by definition makes something imoortant.
you didn’t actually read the article, did you?
“All I care about is closed OS such as iOS vs. Android. If you had paid attention, you would have realized this a very long time ago.”
I’ve listened to you moan about how unfair it is that the carriers value the iPhone more highly than other devices from other OEMS for 3 years — seems to me, if you’re only concern is open v. closed, you are doing a very, very, bad job at it.
Apple only really cares about the “good” bit, not the “open” bit. If a promising technology is closed source, they will simply buy the company and incorporate it into their products, as they did with Siri and Fingerworks.
Speaking of Fingerworks… Fingerworks develops and patents capacitive multitouch, Apple buys Fingerworks, therefore what? Therefore, capacitive multitouch is Apple’s proprietary IP. Yes, the patents hold up.
This fight is far from over, and I doubt Android will emerge on top. Because you have to remember that the smartphone in its current form was invented at Apple, and boy, have they patented it.
@Tim F.:
I don’t care if Apple makes a lot of money on the high end. Really. I do care about the market distortion. I know a lot of people here disagree with me on that characterization, so I’ll have to agree to disagree about that.
@Jeff Read:
From that very article:
Actually, that’s not how it’s supposed to work, and a win at the patent office isn’t nearly the same as a win in court. It’s not over.
“I know a lot of people here disagree with me on that characterization, so I’ll have to agree to disagree about that.”
I would characterize about 80-90% of your posting on this topic as related to Apple’s relative success or lack of it.
I would characterize about 1% of your posts as concerned with a viable open source alternative being available on the market and you’ve completely missed tens, maybe hundreds of topics, that directly affect such a concern more so than the “market distortion” of US carrier subsidies.
To me, it seems like you are walking into a subject you claim to have no interest in over and over and over and over and over… and… did I say “over”?… and over again. And then when there is a question or point that you can’t or don’t want to answer, you walk away and claim you were never interested in Apple’s financial success.
It is funny to read people claim that the underlyung Kernel plus network stack and most of the drivers of Android are the unimportand OSS stuff.
Yes. Just like Darwin and the BSD userland in OSX isn’t important (ie a competitive advantage) for Apple.
Translated, the proprietary nature of Windows and OSX must then be irrelevant as the OS is unimportant.
They are as important as all the pieces that Google is now closing off or have always been closed off. The kernel and OS isn’t important but the Core APIs and Cocoa is for Apple.
For Google it’s the Play APIs and the google apps that drive eyeballs and ad revenues.
On the other hand, Windows and OSX are obviously the foundations of MS’ and Apple’s imperiums. So they must be imoortant.
Apple makes little money on sales of OSX. They make money selling hardware. The foundation of Apple’s business is the effectiveness of their complete ecosystem from hardware to OS to end user apps to sell high margin hardware whether those are tablets, phones or computers.
For Google the foundation of their business is the effectiveness of their ecosystem to sell high margin ads whether they are served by YouTube, Google+, Android or iOS.
In both the pieces that provide competitive advantage is all proprietary and some of the remainder is open sourced. In Google’s case they dump specific IP as open source to hurt their competitors (ie Microsoft).
In Apple’s case it’s more neutral. They release open source because they either have to (GPL) or there’s some business advantage to do so. Not as an offensive weapon to suck air from the room.
“From that very article…”
That article doesn’t seem to be particularly knowledgeable about patent law or the particular of the patents in question (the Steve Jobs patent or any prior art) and he clearly seems to be coming from his own perspective, not an unbiased one. He did get it correct that the patent was reaffirmed in its entirely though.
@Tim F.:
I suppose it could look that way, given that Apple is currently the only serious competition to Android, and given that one of the major points of disagreement I have with certain people here is over the effect of subsidies, and over Apple’s other anti-competitive behavior, such as how they wield their patents as a club, and how they use MFN contracts with carriers. Apple does great design and would make plenty of money anyway, without gaming the system.
“Yeah, tell it to ARS…
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ ”
A nice, if a bit overwrought, summary. It is interesting how the ESR playbook that Larry and Sergei are following is starting to resemble the Jobs playbook in these later chapters.
@LeRoy/ww
So, Google setting conditions for using their services is evidence the code is not open?
Moreover, even the article admits that a quarter of Android handsets is sold without Google services. ( more than the total number of iPhones)
I fail to see the “Android is proprietary as iPhone” angle.
So let me get this straight: your theory that Android would achieve market dominance and that Apple would sink to be a (maybe profitable, maybe sustainable but…) bit, niche player and your impassioned defense of said theory with copious posts arises from the fear that Apple would dominate and prevent the viable option of an open source platform?
Tim F., Eric’s theorizing about open source has never been just theorizing. Part of it was always been a calculated attempt to make self-fulfilling prophecies about the increasing uptake in open source and the eventual abandonment of proprietary systems. Sometimes it even works, as in 1998 when a destitute, and desperate, Netscape opened up its browser source code in a hail-mary last bid for relevance.
But the stakes and the rules have changed, and open source is bucking the best technology company in the world, with a well-deserved good reputation among end users and developers alike. (And no, open-sourcing Darwin has close to fuck-all to do with that reputation; first-person shooters and the Web were both born on Mac OS X back when it was completely proprietary and called NEXTSTEP.) And you really, really don’t want to bet against the best technology company in the world. So open-source supporters have plenty of reason to be afraid.
Apple just announced the iPad Air — the world’s only 64-bit, desktop-class ARM tablet — and it’s available at the regular iPad price. On a strict bang-for-buck comparison, no Android device even comes close — not even the new Nexus 7 which is about the best the Android market has managed so far. The bar has been raised again, and while Android vendors will have more kinds of units available at lower prices, the customer base will be expecting more than they can supply.
Apple’s dominance of the tablet market remains unchallenged.
@Jeff Read
“Apple’s dominance of the tablet market remains unchallenged.”
Looks like it. At least for the next 6 months or so. 64 bit Android sets are under way, or so I heard. But praise where praise is due, it looks like a nice piece of hardware. (I assume a 256G version is around the corner ;-) ) We are nearing the point where a phone handset can contain all the computer power needed for day-to-day work.
But I think the worst fatality will be MS’ tablets.
@CD-Host
“I have some serious questions about whether [goatherds] will move to Android, at least in a meaningful sense, …. Samsung might go there with Tizen.”
Just an update about Tizen:
First Tizen tablet ships to developers
http://linuxgizmos.com/first-tizen-tablet-ships/
@Jeff / Winter
1) There is no 64-bit Android for ARM. Google by their own admission is years away from getting there. The iPad Air incidentally only uses 1g of RAM. So it is not like Android tablets at the high end won’t be able to beat the Air on specs with a 32 bit environment.
2) On a strick “bang for buck” comparison as far as hardware Android devices are far better. Apple raised their price points with this release, even they admit they are chasing margin with this generation of tablets.
3) On the other hand what seems to matter for tablets, even more than phones, is the quality of the software ecosystem and so far no one comes close to Apple in this. In terms of large scale sales Android and iOS are even more separate than on phones. Android thrives at the $75-150 price point as devices primarily used to replace televisions. iOS thrives at the $329-700 price point as a device primarily used to replace laptop computers. They aren’t completing with one another at all, they aren’t meaningfully challenging one another’s primary market.
4) Microsoft’s ARM based subsystem is scheduled to release 64 bit versions in late 2014. They are fine on transitioning the ARM ecosystem, this has been talked about and scheduled.
Nokia’s third quarter numbers:
http://press.nokia.com/2013/10/29/nokia-corporation-interim-report-for-q3-2013-and-january-
september-2013/
They sold 65 million handsets, which is 20 million less than in the Q3 of last year. The number for Lumia handsets is 8.8 million, which is up from 7.4 in the previous quarter. The devices unit made a €47 million loss, which is a lot smaller than the €252 million loss in Q3 of last year. NSN made a profit of €218 million, which kept Nokia as a whole in the black. The press release says that their net cash, €2.4 billion, is approximately flat compared to the previous quarter when the acquisition of Siemens’s share of NSN is excluded.
Wow, 47M euro loss is a lot better than Moto’s
Truncated…
Nokia’s losses are much better than Moto’s $248m loss. I guess that means MS is getting the better deal.
@Nigel
“Nokia’s losses are much better than Moto’s $248m loss. I guess that means MS is getting the better deal.”
You did notice that Nokia made a profit of $218M from NSN, and that the dumbphone division made a profit too? You can calculate the losses from the Lumias yourself.
> You did notice that Nokia made a profit of $218M from NSN
That’s EUR 218M, not USD. The EUR 47M loss by the devices unit translates to USD 64M using today’s rate.
@Mikko
You are right, stupid mistake from me.
@Patrick Maupin @Nigel
On one year average market share of iPhone (4 quarters). Tomi Ahonen did the math. Peak iPhone market share (with respect to Android) is clear
MOVING AVERAGE iPHONE MARKET SHARE
Latest 4 quarters ending Q4 2009 – 14.0%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q1 2010 – 15.3%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q2 2010 – 15.8%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q3 2010 – 15.9%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q4 2010 – 15.9%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q1 2011 – 16.5%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q2 2011 – 17.8%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q3 2011 – 16.9%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q4 2011 – 18.7%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q1 2012 – 20.1%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q2 2012 – 19.6%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q3 2012 – 20.0%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q4 2012 – 19.6%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q1 2013 – 18.1%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q2 2013 – 17.2%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q3 2013 – 16.6%
Source: Apple quarterly results
The above data may be freely shared
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/10/bloodbath-results-latest-apple-quarter-more-evidence-of-peak-iphone.html?cid=6a00e0097e337c8833019b00745a91970d#comment-6a00e0097e337c8833019b00745a91970d
@winter
I think I posted these same numbers above without q3.
It is true that 2013 isn’t as good as 2012 thus far but 4q still isn’t likely to be lower than 3q and 2013 not that likely to be below 2012 overall.
4q2013 is a lot more phones than 4q2012. Whether it can make up the difference depends on how many 5s phones Apple can make. Supply is constrained.
So we’ll see.
In any case these numbers still prove that the massive collapse of apple share that you and ESR trumpeted last year (and every year before that) never happened.
Okay, looking at his numbers, if he’s correct regarding the 92m phones needed in q4 then 2013 will be lower than 2012. 65m phones is more in line with apple’s production capabilities. IF they had 92 million iPhones they likely could move them but it strikes me as unlikely that they’d have that.
Given the pricing of the 5c apple has clearly signaled that they are not going to reduce handset pricing significantly to chase share.
Given that I’d think they’d pursue a new market to achieve growth. That might be watches but I don’t think the battery technology is there yet.
@Nigel
Given these numbers, I think there will be icreasing volumes of iPhones and eroding (Smartphone) market share. But, indeed, no colapse in the comming year.
Well since we are all making predictions I’m coming down on the side of gradually reducing share with moderate growth in unit sales. Apple will see ever decreasing share, slowly growing sales and an ever strengthening ecosystem. I think Japan and China are going to be strong in 2014 due to new carrier relations and both USA and European share will continue to grow but not by leaps and bounds. Apple currently sits at over 70% of phones $500+ and about 62% of phones $400 or more. I think the $400-500 price point is where they are going attack during 2014-2015 so they are moving downmarket but slowly. However, even if they expand to 100% of phones $400+ it wouldn’t do much to stem the share loss as $150 on down customers migrate to “smartphones”. Apple’s play is interesting for techies because they mostly all buy $400+ phones.
It is pretty clear that Apple has established themselves as the premium brand and a huge number of people are willing to buy the premium product and that’s going to continue for 3-5 more years without much interruption. The fragmentation of Android, and Google moving up the stack are likely to keep the experience on Android at the high end worse than Apple. If Google ever solves this then the real test for Apple will be when $150 Androids become much more comparable to Apple phones in terms of total experience. While someone might be willing to choose a $650 Apple over a $500 Android for a tiny advantage its different if it becomes $150 vs. $650. But I honestly don’t see that happening for a decade. So I see the current dynamic continue to play out slowly.
Ars Technica has a story on Nokia, Finland and the wave of startups in the Nokia aftermath. The story was originally published in Wired UK. It’s got a bunch of oversimplifications for dramatic effect as these things always do, but it think it’s mostly representative of the situation.
What struck me is that next year, Finland will have the largest number of Microsoft employees in the world after the US and China. Moving these jobs to the US or getting rid of them can’t be done too quickly if MS wants to make something out of its purchase. I guess that means a lot of trips to Finland for a bunch of people in Redmond.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/finland-and-nokia-an-affair-to-remember/
Android is getting a new runtime, called ART.
This is pretty much a tacit admission from Google that Dalvik was a bad idea. Why they’re trying to replace shit with more shit, I don’t know. Apple got its mobile runtime right the first time in 2007; here we are six years later and Google is still struggling.
It also got another, less pleasant feature: a kernel-level storage verifier that lets the system unroot a rooted phone.
Android: not really any more open than iOS, and worse for developers.
3Q 2013 Smartphone stats are coming in (Strategy, IDC):
Android 81%
iPhone 14%
WP 4%
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/10/idc-spins-a-tale-of-android-vs-ios-stats-in-smartphones-only.html
http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2013/10/31/strategy-analytics-android-smartphone-shipments-81-3-q3-2013-ios-13-4-windows-phone-4-1/
@Jeff Read
“This is pretty much a tacit admission from Google that Dalvik was a bad idea.”
Why? Dalvik is how old? It was designed for an upstart OS. I can imagine very well that those developing Android would like to move on to a run-time that incorporates the know-how learned in the past years and new developments in run times.
Given a vibrant App market and 81% market share, calling Dalvik “a bad idea” seems an exaggeration.
@Jeff Read
“It also got another, less pleasant feature: a kernel-level storage verifier that lets the system unroot a rooted phone.”
This is new security feature that makes life difficult for malware. Sounds a lot like the PC secure boot. If you want to root your phone, you either have to disable this feature, or you have to put your own OS image on. As there are ample Libre OS images available, I do not really see the end of OSS Android coming. Btw, locking down phones has always been customary.
@Jeff Read
“Android: not really any more open than iOS, and worse for developers.”
FUD. I go to jail if I distribute adapted versions of iOS. Until that happens with Android, you are spreading FUD.
The NeXT Objective-C runtime is how old?
@Jeff Read
“The NeXT Objective-C runtime is how old?”
According to Wikipedia it is from 1992. And they did not learn anything new since then, it seems, if they never saw a reason to change it.
But, maybe, just maybe, Apple fits the hardware to the run-time? Google fits the run-time (actual, a Virtual Machine) to the existing hardware. Just a different focus.
They didn’t learn anything new? Or the core runtime is so good that they didn’t feel it needed to be changed?
And they have released improvements: “toll-free bridging” which allows Objective-C objects to be usable as C types; the features in Objective-C 2.0; and finally ARC which gives you virtually all the benefit of garbage collection without the performance bottlenecks. Notice that these enhancements do not require a new file format, nor a new VM.
If the Android runtime is so optimized for the target hardware, how come an iPhone easily outperforms an Android phone of equivalent spec? The overhead of VM execution and garbage collection slows things down. This might be acceptable in a PC environment, but it’s death in mobile.
@Jeff Read
“If the Android runtime is so optimized for the target hardware, how come an iPhone easily outperforms an Android phone of equivalent spec? The overhead of VM execution and garbage collection slows things down. This might be acceptable in a PC environment, but it’s death in mobile.”
Eh. Do you really stand behind these arguments?
Lets deconstruct them:
Because Android abstracts from hardware to allow every piece of equipment to run all Android apps. That should be obvious. Hardware abstraction has costs. It isn’t worth it when you support only very restricted hardware platforms. It is worth it when you want to be a general OS for every piece of hardware. It is just a question of what your focus is.
Yes, that is what you get when you use hardware abstraction and a VM, see above.
Which is why Android outsells iPhone world-wide 6:1 in 3Q2013. Death seems an exaggeration.
Android already has a perfectly functioning hardware abstraction layer. It’s called “Linux”. True, it doesn’t abstract over CPU architectures, but:
* the vast majority of Android devices run ARM
* the correct solution for this problem is a Universal Binary-style multi-architecture approach — again, this is what Apple did when they had to target multiple CPU ISAs
Again, people develop for Android because they have to, they develop for iOS because they want to. Despite Android’s lead in terms of units shipped and despite Apple’s ridiculous, arbitrary, anticompetitve and sometimes downright random approval process compared to the ease with which it’s possible to publish to Google Play, developers still focus on iOS first and iOS still leads Android in terms of actual apps written.
Part of this is because the app experience is so much better on iOS, because they made runtime design choices that didn’t suck.
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-per-year-from-android-patent-royalties-2013-11
too bad Android continues to shrink
Sounds like Microsoft makes more money from Android than anybody except Samsung and Google.
@PapayaSF
That is what the US patent system is for: To tax foreign companies.
@Jeff Read
“Android already has a perfectly functioning hardware abstraction layer. It’s called “Linux”. True, it doesn’t abstract over CPU architectures, but:”
Linux requires recompiling. Dalvik bytecode does not require recompiling.
@Jeff Read
“* the vast majority of Android devices run ARM”
That was neither predicted, nor inevitable for the future:
MIPS
http://www.dailytech.com/A+Game+of+RISC+Warrior+MIPS+CPU+Targets+Android+Smartphones+ARM/article31845.htm
ix86
https://01.org/projects/android-intel-architecture
So, if Google does not want to target only a single hardware platform, your approach would be wrong.
@Jeff Read
“* the correct solution for this problem is a Universal Binary-style multi-architecture approach — again, this is what Apple did when they had to target multiple CPU ISAs”
Are you really serious? I do not see bundling binaries for all platforms together as a superior approach to using a VM. For one thing, adding Intel to ARM and MIPS would mean that all apps would have to be rebuild. And then we move from 32bit to 64 bit. We could go on for drivers.
It looks a lot like for some deep emotional reason, Dalvik must be a bad idea and you are confabulating “facts” that should “prove” your position.
A news piece from Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/06/us-microsoft-ceo-idUSBRE9A500A20131106
“Microsoft Corp has narrowed its list of external candidates to replace Chief Executive Steve Ballmer to about five people, including Ford Motor Co chief Alan Mulally and former Nokia CEO Stephen Elop, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The world’s largest software maker also has at least three internal candidates on its shortlist, including former Skype CEO Tony Bates, who is now responsible for Microsoft’s business development, and Satya Nadella, the company’s cloud and enterprise chief, the sources said.
Despite the narrower list – the company started with about 40 names – the process could take a few more months, the sources said. In August, Ballmer said he would retire within 12 months.”
—
Taco Bell stores notwithstanding, MS seems to be serious about Elop.
@Mikko
” MS seems to be serious about Elop.”
To me, he does seems the one who can bankrupt MS fastests.
> To me, he does seems the one who can bankrupt MS fastest.
Possibly, after improving profits and collecting some more bonuses for himself first, if this one is accurate:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/8/5080192/microsoft-ceo-candidate-stephen-elop-bing-xbox-rumors
It says that Elop’s rumored plan would include getting rid of the Xbox and Bing, and relying on the Office cash cow. Earnings would no doubt look a lot better, at least in the short term. It’s not hard to see how Office might be displaced in the market, though, and that might happen very fast once the train starts moving in that direction.
Good article about why market share and installed base are usually two different things. Spoiler: Android’s 80% worldwide market share does not mean the four out of five smartphones are Android.
@PapayaSF
I think the average 6th grader can figure that out.
> Dalvik must be a bad idea and you are confabulating “facts” that should “prove” your position.
Dalvik is a fine solution, as long as the underlying architecture doesn’t change.
The 32 bit -> 64 bit transition is going to be tough on Android. Not fatal, but tough.
@LeRoy
“The 32 bit -> 64 bit transition is going to be tough on Android. Not fatal, but tough.”
Maybe that is why Google tries to move to ART? Dalvik will stay for 32bit apps, ART will attract all the 64 bit apps?
But then Jeff had at least one thing right: Dalvik was not prepared for moving to 64 bit. And the need for that move could have been predicted easily.
@LeRoy
“> All I care about is closed OS such as iOS vs. Android.
Android is open? Not like linux, it isn’t. A careful read will prove it.”
To add a fact to the argument, you can start rolling out a fully functional Android even before Google has had the time to update its own models:
Android 4.4 KitKat Update: CyanogenMod 11 Custom ROM Now In Development
http://www.ibtimes.com/android-44-kitkat-update-cyanogenmod-11-custom-rom-now-development-1458486
And here are the Smartphone results from IDC over 3Q2013
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24442013
Also, the market for expensive Smartphones might be shrinking:
Market for expensive smartphones shrinking: Report
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/hardware/Market-for-expensive-smartphones-shrinking-Report/articleshow/24775793.cms
http://9to5mac.com/2013/11/12/new-book-quotes-steve-jobs-as-calling-android-founder-andy-rubin-big-arrogant-f/
The upcoming book Dogfight confirms what many of us have known: as soon as the iPhone was released and Google saw how groundbreaking it was, they were compelled to update Android from its original “nineties” user interface to a deliberate iOS knockoff.
It’s Apple v. Microsoft all over again. Regardless of what the letter of the law says, it’s easy to see who is the innovator, and who the thief.
@Jeff —
Will you please stop with the over the top hyperbole? Android imitated the 2007 iPhone interface. The 2013 iOS interface imitates (though not as closely) many ideas from Microsoft and secondarily from Android.
Android didn’t imitate all of iOS. You just had a long debate with Winter, which you lost BTW, on Dalvik. Dalvik for example is an area where Android diverged strongly from Microsoft strategically as Winter explained to you. Making rich web services and information integration the core of user experience is another area where Android diverges. You can’t steal something where there is an opposite or radically different approach. Android as a whole has gotten further away from iOS over the last 5 years.
@Winter —
The headline is terrible. Gartner’s comment is that they expect the high end to be relatively flat and thus the opportunity for growth to be rapidly shrinking. They aren’t asserting the high end itself is shrinking. Gartner did say the midtier might disappear with quality lower end devices. The report focused mainly on price points below iOS (around $200 / phone) so you can’t draw the conclusion you are trying to from the report. Though I agree the India Times headline certainly makes it look like you can.
@CD-Host
I was mainly interested in the decreasing ASP. But you are right, that does not mean the high end is declining. Just that it grows less than the low end.
You’re right. There is a much better approach than universal binaries. Think PNaCl for Android. Apps are written in C++, compiled to LLVM or other similar abstract representation for uploading to the app store; Google’s servers transcode the abstract representation into binaries for each platform, which are downloaded to appropriate devices when the user downloads the app.
For testing, native-code ant targets for all platforms are made available; alternatively, the device could transcode the LLVM to its own instruction set itself when it has an app sideloaded to it (this would be a slow operation on some devices).
Microsoft is already using a strategy like this for Windows Phone. Apps are built in .NET, but what the phone receives is not CLR bytecode but the result of compiling that bytecode to ARM native code.
The point is that a decent mobile runtime has to be based on native code, without the overhead of a GC. The dearth of sophisticated, high-quality games on Android compared to iOS, as well as the utter lack of low-latency audio apps on Android, are a direct result of poor runtime choices on Google’s part.
@Jeff Read
That is an interesting service. That would work for more device types than simply combining binaries. There is also no reason to centralize that.
If I understand it correctly, the new ART from Google does compile an App on the device itself before it runs.
@Jeff —
LLVM bytecode is not cross platform. Information that is platform specific, like size of pointers or how 64-bit integer operations are handled is embedded at conversion to bytecode. It wouldn’t take much to modify LLVM to not do this, but right now it doesn’t.
As far as the broader issue…. Google is in the advertising business. The purpose of of an Android phone is to create data about a person’s interests. Time spent in binary applications that don’t have web interactions is worthless for Google. An app store exists for Android strictly for competitive purposes. Quite simply Google would prefer that Android customers play 1 hour of freemium games tied to a social networking site rather than 5 hours of native gaming. Apple conversely wants people to use applications tied to their platform. So Apple would prefer that iOS customers play 1 hour of native games rather than 5 hours of freemium games tied to a social networking site. The incentives are exactly opposite of one another.
As far as audio Google’s approach here is just to offer a platform specific low level API that gets tuned by the hardware manufacturer. That way high level libraries can just pass the audio processing off to these low level libraries. Here is a video explaining their approach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3kfEeMZ65c . Both Apple and Google are treated audio as a separate OS supported subsystem with a mix of hardware, OS and application level support. There is no particular reason that most of an audio application can’t live in Davlik. And there is no way to have all of any low latency application just be naively compiled in a hardware independent way.
Google probably doesn’t have much interest in moving into specialized uses like MIDI, what strategic advantage does MIDI have for Google? You can’t learn about buying patterns by watching people compose music.
There are very smart people who are working for Microsoft, Apple and Google. If they aren’t doing something you consider obvious, assume the reason isn’t that they hadn’t thought of something obvious.
And here are the numbers for 3Q2013 from Gartner. Every new set of numbers has a lower market share for iPhone.
Smartphones Dominate Mobile Sales: 55% 3Q 2013
http://biztech2.in.com/news/telecom/smartphones-dominate-mobile-sales-55-3q-2013/167672/0
On total Smartphones sales of 250 million units
Nokia’s company meeting just approved the deal with Microsoft.
The meeting lasted for five hours and interim CEO Risto Siilasmaa answered questions for two and a half. He said that Nokia had other offers on table when it rejected Microsoft’s first proposal early this year. Then they negotiated a better price and conditions with MS. There were quite a few questions from shareholders about Elop’s compensation at the meeting. They got told it was in their best interest that Elop gets paid the USD 25M (or whatever it was).
October comscore numbers are out. I discuss them a bit here:
https://plus.google.com/100357083629018071519/posts/QW5Ynt2E5TS
@Patrick —
After the first day the wait time on an iPhone was 5 weeks. October numbers in so far as they are in there are mainly units that shipped to people that ordered on the first day and don’t reflect the surge of used units being made available used. So you are probably looking at replacement sales to existing Apple customers. I think you have two more month before you can read much into the numbers as far as the 5S. But all the indications are that those numbers will be good. We are out in December and Apple is still supply constrained on vastly increased global supply. So we know in the month of December which shows up for comscore in March, Apple is going to still be rapidly growing setting new records. America is running out of non-smartphone users for Android to be growing on the low end, so I’m hard pressed to see what’s likely to change from the pattern of gradual erosion we’ve been seeing for 2 years.
I don’t follow the last paragraph. Why does any of these mean that T-Mobile is getting traction on decoupling device prices? If that were true we’d see a substantial volume of expensive units moving via. MVNOs and T-Mobile/MetroPCS and that isn’t happening. When Samsung starts talking about moving 10m Galaxy Notes via. the MVNO market I’d say decoupling is working.
Finally I think it is worth adding this chart of relative support and upgrades: http://www.fidlee.com/android-support-vs-ios-support/ to the thread. Android end users on good devices (except for Nexus) aren’t getting upgrades. And they certainly can’t count on them.
> Why does any of these mean that T-Mobile is getting traction on decoupling device prices?
If T-Mobile wasn’t getting traction, AT&T wouldn’t be attempting to appear to be doing the same thing.
> Finally I think it is worth adding this chart of relative support and upgrades
Meh. That meme doesn’t seem to be getting any traction any more. Google has pretty well handled it by moving more stuff into a non-OS-version-specific library, IIUC.
@CD-Host:
> Why does any of these mean that T-Mobile is getting traction on decoupling device prices?
Ah, just re-read my google plus post. The meme heard over and over here is basically “last quarter, carrier xxxx sold 60% iPhones.”
As I have discussed before, all those numbers are usually for postpaid retail. So if Apple is selling a lot faster than Android for postpaid retail for the big boys, but Apple’s installed base is static and Android’s is going up, then all those Android phones must be being sold through other channels. Either that, or everybody is buying iPhones to scalp them to China.
For 2013 :
Android 81.9 %
iOS 12.1 %
WP 3.6 %
For 2017 :
Android ?
iOS ?
WP ?
@Osboiont
“For 2017 :
Android ?
iOS ?
WP ?”
Global numbers (not USA):
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2017/02/full-year-2016-smartphone-market-top-10-numbers-and-os-platforms-and-global-installed-base-all-here-.html
2016
Android 85%
iOS 14.5%
WP <1%
2017 will not be much different. Depending on the growth of the (emerging) economy and the rabbit out of Apple’s hat this fall, it could be iOS 12-15% and Android the rest.
Note that Nokia is back from the dead (MS), sort of, with a lineup of Android phones.
Android is the winner , LoL