Why Android will win the tablet wars

> That's just in the US, of course, but it's likely that the rest of the world will f

Except that the iPhone is on only one of four major US carriers (it hasn't shipped a single unit on Verizon yet).

Also the economics are different elsewhere. In the US there isn't actually much handset subsidizatino. Most handsets, iPhone included, are $199. Some are $99. But given the typical bill likely be $70/month+ for 2 years, $100 difference on ~$2000 total is likely not a huge difference. If anything, I would argue that US consumers are largely basing their decision on carrier first, then handset.

What would be an interesting and insightful stat is to see what AT&T's handset breakdown is because you can expect that Verizon will follow a similar trend.

> ... it also has a major downside. It means that users have only a limited choice of handsets

For most consumers, lack of often confusing and sometimes meaningless decisions (eg what is the practical difference, for the user, between an Evo and a DroidX?) is a plus not a minus.

Price matters in developing countries, sure. But the iPhone is a premium product. No news there.

As for pricing outside the US, let me give an example from Australia. I bought an iPHone 4 ~2 weeks after launch on Telstra, the nation's largest (and best) carrier.

For the 32GB model I paid $299 upfront and then $49/month for 2 years, totalling $1500 over 2 years. The retail price of the handset is $1000 so for $500 I get 2 years of service.

What does that $49/month buy? 2GB of data and $400 of "credit". Basically unlimited SMS, that credit can be used for data overages (at a pretty exorbitant rate mind you) and of course calls (at about 60c/minute).

Also, in Australia, like pretty much all of the developed world outside North America, you only pay for MAKING phone calls and SENDING text messages. You pay nothing for receiving either.

But the economics mean that my phone service, after you factor out the handset, only costs me ~$20/month. The HTC Desire, a similar handset, is priced at about exactly the same.

> The rise of Android in the smartphone sector nullifies Cook's arguments against Android in the tablet world because precisely the same dynamics are at play

Uh... no they don't and no they aren't. For one, many if not most iPad users use the iPad on wifi only, typically only at home. I would also argue that many who own 3G models (like myself) don't even have a 3G service attached to the device. What's the point? The nearest Starbuck's with it's free wifi is never far away.

The entry point for the iPad is $500. The competition seems to start at $700 (Xoom) with everything thrown in. Thing is, not everyone wants that extra stuff.

And let's not forget--and this is important--that Apple's competitors are always chasing last year's model. Comparing these new releases to the iPad are pretty meaningless since the iPad is about to be replaced and those products (excluding the Samsung Galaxy Tab) aren't even shipping yet.

Lastly, Samsung claims to have sold >2 million Tabs. I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out where and to whom because I've yet to see one in the wild. Korea? I'd love to know how many they've sold by country and also a qualification saying they mean sold and not just shipped.

They must know that their dominance in the smartphone area was always a temporary thing - they were never going to persuade the entire world to buy one of two iPhone models available at any time. Their lack of any attempt to create an entire iPhone ecosystem to cater for the spread of users (i.e. the "free, just about adequate phone" that dominates most peoples choice) shows this. This is entirely separate to their iPod strategy, which scales from those with only a handful of dollars (the shuffle), all the way up to the "Smartphone without a radio" iPod Touch. In the phone space, they seem to have chosen the same battle as their computing space - the high end, high margin, "people willing to pay for the experience" market share which contains vast profits. If no serious competitor had appeared (as, bizarrely, happened in the MP3 space), then they might have eventually released an iPhone Nano etc. But given that other players are now in that space, they've just surrendered it, rather than fight a battle they can't win. Were they to open up iOS or release a spate of iPhones covering enough of the usage/price spectrum to compete, they'd lose a large amount of the Apple "experience", damage their premium brand, and risk losing the entire game.

Their battle is to maintain enough market share to ensure development for iOS, and to ensure that Android devices end up being (mostly) the choice for mass market, race to the bottom, cheap at any cost devices. If Android starts to seriously infringe on their premium space, then they should be worried and can be considered to be losing. Until then, as far as I can see, they're winning the battle they're fighting.

Why would you expect that?

AT&T not only was late to the Android party, they sacrificed the few meager offerings they had because the iPhone was their smartphone of choice.

If you were drawn to an Android device, it was unlikely it was at AT&T because even once they started carrying them, they carried the dregs like the Backflip. Instead you were choosing from every other carrier. If you wanted an iPhone, on the other hand, you were going to AT&T (hence why AT&T paid big dollars for the exclusivity, and it showed in their subscribership numbers).

Verizon's breakdown will be nothing like AT&T's.

Further, AT&T is suddenly in the Android game in a big, big way. I hear there's something like 20 top-flight 4G Android devices hitting AT&T in the next few months, including the leader of the pack Motorola Atrix. So from being the iPhone place, AT&T is almost switching to be an Android-dominated carrier.

I think this whole "iPhone was only on a single carrier, let's see how things change now!" thing is going to turn out quite unlike how many so desperately hope.