As Android hits 75% market share, can anyone tell me why this is not Mac vs PC?

http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/01/as-android-grabs-75-market-share-can-anyone-tell-me-why-this-is-not-mac-vs-pc-all-over-again/

by ForFreedom • 14 years ago

32 52 14 years ago

venturebeat.com

Achshar• 14 years ago

It is not Mac v/s PC all over again because android can also be shipped without google. Windows cannot be shipped without Microsoft. It is also not mac v/s PC because a rival had a considerable share of revenue stream of android. (Much like if linux had a revenue portion of windows) And android's owner has different plans for earning money off of android. Mostly by search traffic and store sales and negligible for licensing.

mtgx2• 14 years ago

You can talk about those differences, and of course it's not a 100% analogy, but I think his main point was about the market share and the ecosystem. If Android ends up with 3 billion users in 2015, and iOS only 1 billion, as predicted (also with the whole of Windows at 1.5 billion users, from 1.3 bn now), I expect most developers will be wanting to develop for Android first by then, and it should be their #1 source for income, too, simply through sheer numbers of users.

Samuel_Michon• 14 years ago

"I expect most developers will be wanting to develop for Android first by then"

I doubt it:

- Owners of Android handsets on average have lower disposable income than owners of iOS devices. On top of that, a lot of Android phones are in developing countries.

- Most Android handsets run an old version of the OS and will never be updated, thus limiting the choice of APIs that developers can use.

- Many Android handsets are used as dumbphones, their owners will never download apps.

- There is not one main app marketplace for Android, and not all Android users can use the same marketplaces.

- Few Google Play accounts have credit cards linked to them. Amazon is in a much better position, but Apple still has more credit cards on file.

- Google makes developers pay for chargebacks.

d4nt• 14 years ago

The difference this time is that there are very workable ways in which developers can target both platforms i.e. web/HTML5, and some other frameworks. Plus there's usually more paying customers in the iOS world so going "Native Android first" is not the obvious strategy that "Native Windows first" was.

maxdeliso3• 14 years ago

Although that's true in principle it's a little idealized: HTML5 development on mobile is still a little half baked and impractical. You only have to look at Facebook's massive abandonment (at least temporarily) of that platform in favor of the native API.

The whole point of the article is that while there are more paying customers in the iOS world NOW, it's unlikely that the situation will continue to be true given the current trends.

goldfeld2• 14 years ago

Don't forget little FirefoxOS, our Linux in the making. Let's hope this time it's sexy and mainstream from the start. That'd be an interesting scenario.

davidlumley• 14 years ago

More shipment based speculation with little regard to actual sales.

For me, the biggest difference between Mac vs PC, and iOS vs Android is that Mac and PC are mostly comparable. iOS and some Android phone/tablets are comparable but a large majority of cheap Android phones are not in the same market as iOS devices, and for me - not comparable.

oneandoneis2• 14 years ago

Possibly the fact that the creator(s) of Android don't (directly) make any money out of the sales?

Every Apple phone sold = Money for Apple

Every Android phone != Money for Google

That's not to say that Apple shouldn't be worried, but unlike in the Mac vs. PC situation, their competition isn't a single company making profit off every unit sold. It's a mass of semi-co-operative, semi-competitive groups; many of which are helping themselves to the free Android software without giving anything back to the people who made it.

That's a big difference.

dewiz• 14 years ago

just wondering, is Android free also for smartphones' makers Samsung, HTC etc ?

dan1234• 14 years ago

Most Android manufacturers pay a per unit fee to Microsoft due to patent licensing, so I wouldn't say it was free.

Someone2• 14 years ago

Yes and no. The OS is free, using the 'Android' name is not free as in speech, but (I think) free as in beer, as it does require compliance with Google's Compatibility Definition Document (CDD). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Lice...

Shipping Google's applications (GMail, Maps, Google's store; maybe others) requires a license from Google. That probably is not free as in beer, either, but I find it hard to find definitive statements for that on the web. developer.android.com seems to only target software developers.

Also, some technologies used in Android are patented, and require payments to patent holders.

So, in practice, Android is not free for smartphone makers.

neverm0re• 14 years ago

But every Android phone out there is another personal information hoover for Google that produces them money, so yes, they are profiting off of every unit sold that ships with the Google-branded applications provided the users use them and their locational services, which most users do because otherwise Android ships rather spartan to the point of urging you to use them.

People who believe Android is 'free' do not understand what's in it for Google. If this was not the case, then lawsuits like Skyhook wouldn't exist: http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la...

taligent4• 14 years ago

Except that Google is slowly but surely having its wings clipped. So this idea that it will be able to leverage Android at will is misguided.

Its unified privacy policy is already under threat in the EU and it is facing multiple anti-trust investigations in the US and soon to be EU, SK et al. Not to mention all the competition issues with Google News and Google Search.

Combine all of that with the lack of online usage and engagement amongst Android users and everything isn't quite so rosy.

easyfrag• 14 years ago

The difference is that there's no comparable 800 pound gorilla controlling the dominant Non-Apple OS that runs on commodity non-Apple hardware. Well I guess there is but adhering to Google's terms are entirely voluntary (see Amazon). Microsoft was far more controlling which helped DOS/Windows develop into a single ubiquitous ecosystem. Google isn't so Android won't.

archgrove2• 14 years ago

I think any answer to this will have to hinge on why, given the sales disparity, app revenue and "usage" metrics (i.e. mobile browsing) is still either in favour of iOS or tied. My personal reasoning is that carriers are pushing low end Android phones as the standard handset you get when you walk in the door and say "I need a phone". These people don't really know what they're getting in terms of an ecosystem, and seem to use very little smart functionality.

iPhone users (and "high end" Android users), on the other hand, probably know exactly what they're buying into. These are the users that will determine developer targeting. Two ways I see for Android to decisively win this: either these "low-end" users start to participate in the eco-system, or the rise of low income countries (much of Asia, Africa etc) makes the weight of numbers so far in Android's favour that even with a much lower engagement rate, the money's there. Apple could counter this with "iPhone Nano", I guess, but it would require them to sacrifice a lot of margin.

Outside tip: Samsung are becoming the Apple of Android smartphones, selling the preponderance of the high end handsets. Within 18 months, I suspect we'll see them fork Android to differentiate themselves from the "sell at near cost, make it up on ecosystem" strategy that Google's pursuing now with the Nexus (that reduce Samsung to basically a hardware supplier on razor-thin margins). Either that, or they'll use carrier relationships to ensure these cheap, high-end handsets don't ever really get in front of non-geeky consumers.

kumarm• 14 years ago

Samsung is also big on low end devices. In India Samsung pretty much is new Nokia.

Samsung is neither low end or high end. They are selling whats suitable strategy for each country and its working damn well.

taligent4• 14 years ago

I've been hearing the same and apparently the most popular Samsung device is the model that looks identical to the iPhone 3GS.

I am curious how much of an advantage Android has by allowing pirated apps. In price sensitive markets the cost of apps has to be a key factor. If it is a big factor could be ominous signs for Nokia in particular.

bad_user• 14 years ago

Samsung may be tempted to fork Android, but this will mean no Google Play (in addition to no Google Maps and others), and Samsung is incapable of growing an ecosystem of developers and apps around their platform the size of Google Play.

Microsoft, Apple and Google have this in their DNA. Phone manufacturers, like Nokia and Samsung don't. If they could have build their own Android / their own Google Play, they would have done so already.

dsirijus• 14 years ago

That, and I don't think that store fracturing would get anyone profits in a longer term.

Someone2• 14 years ago

On the other hand, it is easier to walk a well-worn path, especially with money in hand. Samsung has the best hand here. Reading http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/08/smartph..., it has 30% of the world market for smartphones. The big problem would not be replacing Google Play, but replacing Google Maps and, to a lesser extent, GMail. In the current climate, one would not think it, but I do not rule out reading a 'Samsung and Apple collaborate in mapping' or 'Samsung and Microsoft collaborate in mapping' headline in a few years time.

Also, companies can mutate 'their DNA'; it is not frozen at birth. For example, the Tabulating Machines Company (nowadays called IBM) has reinvented itself several times, and Nintendo started as a manufacturer of playing cards, and DSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM_(company)) started life as 'The State Mines' and mined coal, but now is, quoting their site "a global science-based company active in health, nutrition and materials".

Rastafarian3• 14 years ago

They don't have to grow ecosystem, it's Samsung store would be just another site to upload your app beside Google's and Amazon's.

prof_hobart• 14 years ago

Absolutely. I would say that around three quarters of the people I know who have Android devices have never downloaded more than a tiny handful of apps (my mum, who got one passed down to her when my sister got a different Android device on a free upgrade), didn't even realise she could download anything and I doubt she even realised that she'd got an Android phone. It was simply a phone that she could now get email on.

For iPhones, the vast majority of people I know with them use then constantly and have a wide range of apps on there.

Of course, Android still has its power users, who are probably even more passionate about Android than the average iOS user is about iOS, but like you say, they are still in the minority at the moment.

As an example, my company has a mobile app out there for Android and iOS. Over two thirds of the downloads we've had so far have been on iOS, and they typically use the app far more frequently that the Android users.

sabret00the2• 14 years ago

I don't get why people keep talking Samsung forking Android. Samsung also sell Windows Phone and will sell Tizen phones. Not to mention, they've already failed with their own OS. They're better at hardware and software overlays than providing an attractive ecosystem.

archgrove2• 14 years ago

I didn't expect them to, but then I assumed that Google would stay clear of the hardware market. Now that they're essentially shipping phones at very low margins, they're a direct competitor to Samsung. Why buy an S3 when you can get a NX4 for hundreds of dollars cheaper, and get essentially better hardware (modulo LTE)?

To respond to this will require care. They can go with the razor-margins approach, and have their margins eaten away to virtually 0 (i.e. Dell etc). However, this only props up an ecosystem that benefits Google. They could, I suppose, find a way to out-build the entire rest of the market and get decent margins at the very low end of price (but I find that unlikely). Alternatively, they find a way to differentiate, which is most cheaply done at the software level.

Anyone picking path #1 is basically going to have to own the market to make any money in the long term, but will keep decent balance sheets in the short until commoditisation is completed. Anyone picking path #2 has more risk in the short term, but a lot more to gain in the long (e.g. as Apple has).

mtgx2• 14 years ago

The difference between userbases is that not great currently. It's 500 million Android devices to 400 million iOS devices. The iPhones had a great head start, and only recently Android devices managed to pass all iOS devices.

The 75% to 15% is only for the last quarter of sales, but if the sales can be sustained, and they probably can (they kept growing so far), then eventually the userbases will look like 5:1, too (for phones at least, considering iPhones are only about half of iOS sales).

And Samsung will not fork. They will lose all the apps, and considering they are nowhere near starting their own app store, it's impossible for them to do that within 18 months. I don't know why this idea comes up every now and then. I guess it's the tech press' love for the melodramatic, and from their point of view it would make for great intrigue if Samsung tried that, but when you look at things objectively, that outcome is nowhere near close to a possible reality right now.

jpdoctor• 14 years ago

> My personal reasoning is that carriers are pushing low end Android phones as the standard handset you get when you walk in the door

Here's another way of looking at it: There is product competition, and Apple is losing.

recoiledsnake• 14 years ago

Carriers(at least in the US), for one. Carriers eat the extra cost of the iPhone making it the same $199 as other flagship Android phones. Whereas in the PC market, the price difference between Dell/Compaq/etc. and Apple made all the difference.

Also, $199(or the $650 unlocked) is well within reach of a large number of customers nowadays, whereas $3000 in the later 80s was a huge amount(even more so than now because of inflation). In dollar terms, $3000 in 1989 would be $5,598.56 now.

justinschuh• 14 years ago

It amazes me that so few people understand that the carrier subsidy is such a huge part of the iPhone's success. Apple has pulled in obscene profits by making the carriers pay huge subsidies to keep the iPhone's price competitive. And the carriers turn around and amortize that cost over the rest of their customer base. So, the customers that don't own iPhones are the ones really getting screwed because they're paying the same higher rates but not getting the same hardware subsidy.

kgarten• 14 years ago

I don't think it's Mac vs. PC, as we are talking about eco-systems now. Also their statistic is majorly bogus, they use "units shipped" not sold. Web-traffic and profits show a "slightly" different picture.

Edit: got rid off an unnecessary comment.

andrewcooke• 14 years ago

what does "mac vs pc" mean?

i know it was an advertising campaign. i know there was competition between apple and pc manufacturers. but this article seems to assume that the phrase has some clear meaning/implication for the future (and that "it" is happening again). but what is "it"?

is it just saying - look, the market is dividing into two brands, one with wider appeal and lower prices, the other aimed more at discretionary spending?

if so, what is interesting about that? serious q - i feel i'm completely missing the point here. is the idea that this is dangerous for apple? if so, isn't the counterargument that, historically, apple has managed to adapt and innovate? i mean, it's hardly suffering right now.

panacea• 14 years ago

Fairly sure it refers to the locked down os-and-hardware bundling of Apple, vs. the install Windows on anyone's hardware, back in the day.

Microsoft won that battle and Apple barely scraped through.

Will Android win this time round in a similar fashion?

Apple sells more iPods than Macs.

netcan• 14 years ago

He's referring to the competition between Apple's Mac & MS Dos + Windows in the late 80s to mid-90s. The compressed version of the narrative is:

Mac was innovative, brilliant, early but too expensive & without enough applications.

Windows was late, copied & sucked but was cheaper (because of commodity hardware) had all the dos apps from the 80s and got gradually better. By 95 the network effects of the developer ecosystem had locked windows in to 20 years of dominance. It also helped that by 95 windows didn't really suck much.

The moral of the story is (supposedly) that OS Platforms have one winner. Developers develop for the largest user base and users buy the cheapest platform with the most apps.

Tycho2• 14 years ago

Isn't it obvious? Because phones have completely different use cases to PCs. There's no Microsoft Office effect that renders your smartphone inconvenient due to the small marketshare of its OS.

Rastafarian3• 14 years ago

Of course there is, e.g. any government/public funded mobile app will have to be developed on Android first or only.

Tycho2• 14 years ago

But mobile apps are always secondary to websites anyway. I do not think this would rise above occasional minor irritation. Whereas Mac incompatibility was a deal breaker in the 90s. It also helps that Apple has a lot more muscle these days.

ja27• 14 years ago

It's a little more like MS-DOS clones vs. the Apple II line. The Apple II had an early lead in the personal computer market, especially for businesses. The IBM PC eventually took over, but mostly thanks to third party PCs running licensed MS-DOS. Microsoft never built their own PC to run MS-DOS (or later, Windows) until just now.

beloch• 14 years ago

Even if OS-wars don't matter as much as they used to, Android vs iOS is shaping up to be an interesting one. Android has taken the lead in features. Every new release of iOS is packed with things that Android has had for years. Android is still lagging behind in polish, and iOS is utterly dominant when it comes to gaming.

Google spends more than twice what Apple does on research (that's after Apple bumped up their R&D budget too!). Apple is going to be playing catch-up in terms of features for the foreseeable future. Google has taken some steps to improve their polish, such as project butter, but that bright future is most unevenly distributed. Google's attempts at polish will likely be thwarted by the same thing that scares off game-writers: fragmentation.

In the near future, I think Android will take the lead and become the better OS, except for gaming. Google is putting too much effort into polish not to catch up quick (with their premier devices at least) while Apple isn't doing enough to close the feature-gap and is actually falling further behind (e.g. NFC, wireless charging, etc.). If Google ever manages to solve their fragmentation woes that'll basically be it for the iPhone.

Windows 8 phones are, of course, a bit of a dark horse. WM8 appears to be a nice mobile OS that is going to come on some very nice hardware. It might be WM7 all over again, or it might actually catch on. I'd love to see another front opened up in this war!

goldfeld2• 14 years ago

I'd sooner bet my money on FirefoxOS than Windows 8. Can't wait to develop natively with little more than what gets me on browsers. And I'd similarly sooner bet on FOS going head-to-head with iOS with a non-fragmented system than on Google getting his act together.

Especially since Android is expanding to so many other kinds of devices, it's fragmentation is it's biggest trait and I think it's a pretty hard trend to revert. That's like asking Internet Explorer to become the zeitgeist standards-compliant browser--they have taken too long, much as they try to revert (and they are) other browsers have already taken over it's share and will continue to (especially now that Microsoft guaranteed the non-longevity of it's desktop OS going forward).

To be clear, I don't mean they can't solve the fragmentation problem, only that they have left this breach open long enough for a competitor to become the new cool kid before they could hope to pivot their behemoth operation. That's my prediction at least.

MrScruff• 14 years ago

The fact that Android has more features than iOS doesn't really mean anything. There were existing smartphones that had more features than the iPhone at it's launch. It was the quality of the implementation of these features that made it stand out.

Now clearly Android is a far more capable OS than the smart phones OS's of 2007, but in some ways it still lags iOS. One that matters to me for example is the lack of a good low latency audio API. Audio production apps are very popular on iOS and some of them are ground breaking. This matters far more to me than NFC or wireless charging.

In addition, although Google plans to add (or maybe already has) a better audio API, there will be a huge lag before there are enough devices with the new API available, so most developers won't bother porting.

On the other hand, it's easy for Apple to add wireless charging or NFC since they're mostly hardware.

To address the original post, I don't think this is like Mac vs Windows. Apple is making a large share of the industry profits, and unless Android developers start suddenly making considerably more money than iOS developers it still has greater developer mindshare. Also, the premium Apple is charging for it's devices is less than it was for the Mac vs PCs duing the 80s/90s, and most of it is swallowed by the carriers.

I think it's clear Apple isn't going dominate the sales numbers, but I don't see any signs of iOS dwindling to near obscurity like MacOS did during the 90s.

amaranth• 14 years ago

Low latency audio is actually really hard to do on a mobile device because low latency and low power use are literally the exact opposite. I wonder if Apple dynamically adjusts things to only have low latency when requested or if they just burn power here and make it up elsewhere.

In any case, Google just needs to swap out AudioFlinger for PulseAudio and they'd have this taken care of. Collabora have even done most of the work for them already.

LaGrange• 14 years ago

The difference is (at least for now) that I actually get more useful apps on my iPhone. And if that changes, then in 3 years I'll get an Android. For now though, it seems that iOS remains more attractive for developers, and that's what keeps it more attractive for me as well.

I am worried about what will happen if a company that doesn't get the majority of its profits from hardware "wins," but on the other hand — the most recent turn of the real "mac vs PC" doesn't really seem that bad for Macs either.

As Android hits 75% market share, can anyone tell me why this is not Mac vs PC?

Related Stories