Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Android Captures #1 Position in U.S. Smartphone Market

comscore.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 110 posts

Re: Google Android Captures #1 Position in U.S. Smartphone Market

#71

Post by jerf »

Tycho wrote: post #56
megablast wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that does not invalidate the data presented here. It is worth comparing smartphones, to see how others are fairing in this market segment, and it is worth comparing entire OS marketshare, to see what everyone is using. Apple is doing well, and Android is doing amazingly well.

I don't know about amazingly. It seems entirely predictable: phone makers desperate for something to rival iOS, and Google provide it for free. Why would they turn it down? Android's popularity, in a funny sort of way, is actually indicative of the iPhone's lack of serious competition. What would be amazing is if one of the Android handsets outsold the iPhone.

That's begging the question; since Android is not a serious competitor to the iPhone, the fact that Android is doing so well is therefore proof that Android is not a serious competitor to the iPhone. You neglected to spell out that first clause but your statement is clearly based on that.

I'd suggest the much more plausible line of logic, along with being logically sound, is that as Android is now outselling the iPhone, the Android is a serious competitor to the iPhone. Pretty much by definition of "serious competitor". Will you still be dismissing it as "not a serious competitor" when Android outsells the iPhone by a factor of two? Because I rather expect it to only be a matter of time.

Re: Google Android Captures #1 Position in U.S. Smartphone Market

#72

Post by patio11 »

foob wrote: post #31
trotsky wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also collect licensing fees when phone makers use the Android name, Google trademarks and Google's software in the phones. Is that accurate? Everything I've seen has indicated that if anything money moves the other way - Google sharing revenue on platform ads (and possibly other services) with oems and carriers. I haven't seen anyone claim that oems pay licensing fees to google for google apps and trademarks - I…

From Dan Morrill on the Android Developer Blog ( http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-on-googl... ): "With a high-quality open platform in hand, we then returned to our goal of making our services available on users’ phones. That’s why we developed Android apps for many of our services like YouTube, Gmail, Google Voice, and so on. These apps are Google’s way of benefiting from Android in the same way t…

I think rather the opposite: OEMs sell desktop real estate. You think Dell pays for antivirus? I think they get a fat fee upfront for even thinking of you, and then a per-conversion affiliate payout.

This is similar to many mobile softwRe arrangements in the pre-iPhone world.

Re: Google Android Captures #1 Position in U.S. Smartphone Market

#73

Post by jerf »

rimantas wrote: post #43
Kylekramer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They currently make most of the profit. But with declining market share puts those profits in severe danger in the future. And god, if I never heard the "Google sells you" line again, it would be too soon. Apple has an ad platform too, you know.

> But with declining market share puts those profits in > severe danger in the future. Can someone explain, how this got upvoted? 50% of profits with just 4% of market share, the article we ar discussing there sates that Apple's market share grew (6,4 to 7 percent in OEM, 24.6 to 24.7 in total smartphones market. Even more—Apple was the only growing besides Google), and somehow "declining market share" gets upvoted?…

It is an outsized threat to their profits vs. what you might expect based on linear extrapolation. Up until quite recently they've basically been able to collect monopoly rent. It is quite likely they will not be able to do so by this time next year. It is entirely possible that they will lose this ability this year, with the speed this market has been moving with.

Especially if iPhone users start to migrate to Android. While Apple partisans will swear up and down this is simply Not Possible (TM), it in fact is completely possible. Broadly speaking, most Americans will choose to save money and get something "good enough" over something perfect. Even if I stipulate that Android will never be more than "good enough", a statement I would not necessarily agree with but let's go with it, you will still find a lot of not-Apple-partisans getting peeled off proportionally to the price delta between the iPhone and the Android. In which case Apple will either have to drop prices and profits or firmly entrench itself as the high-margin, low-sales player... and drop profits. There really isn't a scenario in which Apple gets to be the high-margin, high-sales player that some people seem almost desperate to believe will be the outcome, but even mighty Apple with its Steve-Jobs-powered RDF can't actually flout economic realities, only harness them.

Re: Google Android Captures #1 Position in U.S. Smartphone Market

#74

Post by detst »

ugh wrote: post #63
YooLi wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dear non-US writers: This article is specifically about US smartphones. "Google Android Captures #1 Position in U.S. Smartphone Market"

0$ phones are also not magically “free” in the US. You pay it with your monthly bills down the line. The subsidized price is never a meaningful metric for comparison, it is in itself not a reasonable metric for comparisons. I have always been puzzled by this attitude which seems to be rampant with Americans. Don’t you notice something’s up when somebody offers you something for “free”?

> 0$ phones are also not magically “free” in the US.

Yes, they are -- the only benefit will be contract/no-contract. Pay full price and come back two years later and tell me it's not free.

> The subsidized price is never a meaningful metric for comparison

It's not subsidized when you pay the same monthly rate regardless (T-Mobile being the exception)

> I have always been puzzled by this attitude which seems to be rampant with Americans

It's not an attitude; it's an acceptance of reality. I'd like a discount with Verizon if I bring my own phone but I'm not counting on it anytime soon. Not sure what's puzzling about that.

Re: Google Android Captures #1 Position in U.S. Smartphone Market

#75

Post by ugh »

detst wrote: post #74
ugh wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0$ phones are also not magically “free” in the US. You pay it with your monthly bills down the line. The subsidized price is never a meaningful metric for comparison, it is in itself not a reasonable metric for comparisons. I have always been puzzled by this attitude which seems to be rampant with Americans. Don’t you notice something’s up when somebody offers you something for “free”?

> 0$ phones are also not magically “free” in the US. Yes, they are -- the only benefit will be contract/no-contract. Pay full price and come back two years later and tell me it's not free. > The subsidized price is never a meaningful metric for comparison It's not subsidized when you pay the same monthly rate regardless (T-Mobile being the exception) > I have always been puzzled by this attitude which seems to be ram…

Wow. You pay the same price even if you bring your own phone?! That’s just crazy. How is that even possible? You should get pitchforks!

The phones are obviously still subsidized, you just don’t get a phone for free. It’s just that they presumably also overcharge you if you bring your own phone. Wow! That wouldn’t fly in Europe.

Re: Google Android Captures #1 Position in U.S. Smartphone Market

#76

Post by detst »

ugh wrote: post #75
detst wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 0$ phones are also not magically “free” in the US. Yes, they are -- the only benefit will be contract/no-contract. Pay full price and come back two years later and tell me it's not free. > The subsidized price is never a meaningful metric for comparison It's not subsidized when you pay the same monthly rate regardless (T-Mobile being the exception) > I have always been puzzled by this attitude which seems to be ram…

Wow. You pay the same price even if you bring your own phone?! That’s just crazy. How is that even possible? You should get pitchforks! The phones are obviously still subsidized, you just don’t get a phone for free. It’s just that they presumably also overcharge you if you bring your own phone. Wow! That wouldn’t fly in Europe.

Yes, it's screwed up but just the way it is.

I think it stems from incompatible networks (GSM vs CMDA).

Since you can't take an out-of-contract phone anywhere else (with some exceptions), signing a new contract for a free or reduced-priced phone is your best option. Other companies can't use reduced rates as an incentive to bring in newly-out-of-contract customers with a perfectly working phone.

It's created a consumer mentality where getting your phone from the carrier is just the way it's done and signing a contract is the best value.

> It’s just that they presumably also overcharge you if you bring your own phone.

Sure, you can look at it that way but the average consumer here has accepted that you get your phone from the carrier so the idea of being overcharged doesn't even cross their mind. They look at it as getting something in return for signing a contract and making a commitment.

Re: Google Android Captures #1 Position in U.S. Smartphone Market

#77

Post by bonch »

guelo wrote: post #59
bane wrote: post #9

#1 in volume doesn't always mean #1 in profit. I'm guessing Apple is trying to grab hard onto the market segment that brings in the most profit, while Google is going for the commodity, high volume, low margin option. The good news is that both models can coexist in the same market. After all, Nintendo's strategy is a bit like Google's, while Microsoft and Sony's are more like Google's. Nintendo has been quite profit…

> #1 in volume doesn't always mean #1 in profit. Unless you're an Apple shareholder why does that matter? As a developer #1 in market share is a very significant milestone.

> As a developer #1 in market share is a very significant milestone.

Unless you're Android, which has significantly less apps than iOS and is getting bad press for its malware problems. Additionally, iOS runs on the iPad, so iPhone developers can universally target the #1 tablet in the world.

Google makes very little off of Android. They've been following Apple's lead design-wise (look at images of what Android was going to look like before the iPhone came out). As a free operating system that carriers can exert full control over, it's no surprise that it's #1 in marketshare compared to a single phone on two carriers, but if that doesn't actually translate into profits for Google, developers for the platform, or innovation for the industry, does it really matter? The iPhone is still directing the smartphone industry and getting the positive press, and the iPad practically has no competitors to this day.

Re: Google Android Captures #1 Position in U.S. Smartphone Market

#78

Post by bonch »

jerf wrote: post #71
Tycho wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about amazingly. It seems entirely predictable: phone makers desperate for something to rival iOS, and Google provide it for free. Why would they turn it down? Android's popularity, in a funny sort of way, is actually indicative of the iPhone's lack of serious competition. What would be amazing is if one of the Android handsets outsold the iPhone.

That's begging the question; since Android is not a serious competitor to the iPhone, the fact that Android is doing so well is therefore proof that Android is not a serious competitor to the iPhone. You neglected to spell out that first clause but your statement is clearly based on that. I'd suggest the much more plausible line of logic, along with being logically sound, is that as Android is now outselling the iPho…

First off, like many Android fans, you insist on comparing an operating system to a single phone. It would be a shock if a free OS on multiple phones didn't outsell a single phone. However, the word "outsell" is a weird one, because Android doesn't cost anything, so it's not Android that's outselling anything--it's the total sum of the multiple phones that just happen to run Android compared to the one phone that runs iOS. Almost all of Android's market share gains came at RIM's expense, not Apple's.

Android is not a serious competitor for Apple because it's not making Google money. It has a negligible app presence and a fragmentation problem. iOS is still what guides the industry, it's what people talk about, it's what Android is copying (Android was going to look totally different before the iPhone came out in 2007), and it's where the developers are.

It took an operating system with no price tag and the promise of total control for the carriers to outsell a single phone. That's a big deal. Even then, not one single Android handset outsells the iPhone on its own, and the iPad still has no legitimate competitors.

More importantly, Apple make huge profits on iOS devices. It has the developers, and it gets the press attention. Android makes no money for Google, barely has developers, and is known as the geeky platform for cross-armed OSS evangelists who hate Apple. It's also experiencing a non-trivial rise in malware--two negative articles came out today in major news outlets. Sorry, but Android is not a serious competitor for Apple.

Re: Google Android Captures #1 Position in U.S. Smartphone Market

#79

Post by j_b_f »

georgieporgie wrote: post #24

Somewhat off-topic: is there any reason not to get Virgin Mobile's $150 LG Optimus V for the purpose of exploring Android development? Aside from smaller memory and lower-res camera, it looks like I don't miss out on anything from top of the line models.

The only reasons not to get one are (1) Not-great hardware, if you love top-of-the-line stuff, it'll fall short, (2) Sprint's network is pretty sucky, and you can't roam onto Verizon like I believe you can with regular Sprint, (3) Virgin Mobile doesn't allow VM forwarding so you can't easily use Google Voice for Voicemail.

On the other hand, it's a nearly-pure Froyo experience, the battery life and performance is great, the plans are dead cheap, it has awesome hardware buttons not crappy haptic capacitive ones, a Market install of "Quick Settings" opens up the Wifi Hotspot feature. Seriously, $25/mo?!

Anyway, I bought one, and coming off an old iPhone (and AT&T), I think it's great so far. Might have to reevaluate after I spend some time out of the metro area and away from Interstates.

Post reply on HN