Apple CEO Tim Cook was just on the phone with analysts talking about Apple's monster Q1 2012 results, and he had some interesting words to say about Microsoft: asked if the phone market was now a two-horse race between iOS and Android, Cook said that "There's a horse in Redmond that always suits up and always runs, and will keep running."
Cook also said that Apple couldn't predict the emergence of other players, and that he's more focused on innovating and making great products. "We'll ignore how many other horses there are — we just want to be the lead one." Seems like it's easy to be gracious when you're posting the biggest numbers in the game.
There are 371 Comments. Add yours.
hmm… interesting dismissal of Android….
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:10 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I think you mean “omission”. They didn’t dismiss anything given the quote here. Unless you’re going off of other information from the call?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:11 PM EST reply Recommend (30) Flag actions
you’re right. Should have used “omission”
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:12 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
I wasn’t either really, they admit that Android is strong, but they think they can take the lead, and think that Microsoft will be a factor at some point.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:12 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
Well, considering that Apple is a business and are absolutely fucking destroying Android’s profitability, I’d say they’re already king. I guess if you measure success by nothing but market share, then Android are on top… but I honestly don’t think Apple (post-Jobs) sees things that way.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:25 PM EST reply Recommend (31) Flag actions
Agreed.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:27 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Post jobs or during Jobs (?) Apple has NEVER been about market share. Great products and profitability yes.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:30 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
I agree with you, but I do think that deep down, it always bothered Jobs, being the slightly-insane perfectionist that he was.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:33 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
Deep down? It was very obvius, actually.
But what did he expect with iOS? It was clear that history would repeat itself, someone was going to create a platform that would help OEMs compete and ultimately take over the market.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think he expected to make a lot of money. He did.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:20 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Depends on what metric you’re looking at. Why do we not count ipod touches as iOS? 62 million ipod touches in the Christmas quarter. 300 million+ in total. 16 million iPads. 30 million iphones. Apple is has New York Yankee money with Red Sox smarts. unbeatable.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It doesn’t really depend what volume you’re looking at. This discussion is about the phone market share.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 3:44 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Can you show me the part where that is made clear?
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:15 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Actually its more like 11.2 million iPod touches.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:26 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
62 million was all mobile ios devices
touch+iphone+ipad
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:34 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
whoops. in any case, it’s a shitload of iOS devices. And unlike the iPhone, the iPod touch is content dedicated. It exists almost solely to funnel money into apple via music and app consumption. Your not using it to make phone calls or browse the internet.
Exactly why should I develop an App for android when iOS can support me?
Posted on Feb 03, 2012 | 2:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you’re a perfectionist, you’ll want to make good product.
If you want to make good product, you have to not give a crap about market share and give every crap about focus. The same way there are less Five Guys restaurants than McDonalds, and less French Laundries than Five Guys.
“Volume is vanity, profit is sanity.”
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:18 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
He could have been “disappointed” that consumers are choosing to go with what I believe he’d consider an inferior alternative. And in a way, it isn’t an irrational stance – Apple does much more work when creating a phone than the competition does.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:10 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Never been about market share lies they were. Until android took that over. To me it seems like apple never about this soon as others. Beat them in that area now its about great products and money. What great products explain please the iphone 4s was a fail. But of course its apple so it will sell. I just can’t over that boring ui. Its time to change
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:17 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Did you just say the phone that outsells every single Android phone is a fail? Oh, ok.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:16 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
and thats why they will NEVER be the mainstream leader in anything. Filling the niche of build quality over functionality
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Except the iPhone is very clearly the mainstream leading model of smartphone. In fact in wealthy first world markets you see more iPhones in use in public than android devices.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:36 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Google’s purpose with Android is to be disruptive. Do they charge for licensing? No, because that’s not the point of it.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:32 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Here’s an alternative present. Android never existed, Apple has 80% market share and announces that all advertising for their mobile platform is now done exclusively through Apple, and all search too, google withers into nothing.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:41 PM EST reply Recommend (18) Flag actions
Exactly.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:44 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Bullshit. First, Apple wouldn’t have 80% of the market. The majority of Android phones are cheaper than iPhones, and affordability is the #1 cause for Android’s lead. Without Android, BlackBerry wouldn’t be so fucked up and Symbian (which is what it mostly replaced) would still be limping around.
Second, Apple hates advertisement. Anything they do that has to do with it is revenge for Google entering their market. Jobs made that very clear. Don’t try to make this look like pure self-defence.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:12 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
I think you’re completely daft. If they didn’t have 80% of the market by this point it would be because they were stupid and made exceedingly stupid decisions.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:29 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
For the record, I like the product iOS, I hate the company Apple. I would have purchased an iPhone had it been available from T-mobile back in 2008, but they dropped the ball and wouldn’t sell me one. Stupid Apple.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:30 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
er ummm i doubt it was apple’s fault that T-mobile would’t sell you an iPhone. Apple goes to the carrier and says sell this but don’t add any stupid apps, don’t put a stupid skin on it, and don’t put your logo on it. And T-mobile was like no.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:06 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I think its mainly T-mobiles odd 3-4g spectrum that prevented or delayed the release of the iPhone on their network. Remember the iPhone was locked in heavily with AT&T and took to issue with it as Android climbed in and because the alternative to its device for those carriers without the iPhone.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:21 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Er, no. The most important part is where apple tells carrier that it needs to pay above and beyond the price of the handset if it wants iPhone on their network. T-Mobile could not afford it with its already discounted service plans.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:13 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s Tmobile’s fault then. Sprint managed to do it.
Posted on Feb 03, 2012 | 2:41 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Three letters: A W S. Look that up and them come back on here with an apology.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:00 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
for the record, there are over a million iPhone’s on tmobile’s network, you could have gotten one:D
Posted on Feb 03, 2012 | 10:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No – iPHone would be around the same size as it currently is, there are limits to how fast they can increase supply. Limits to how fast they can build carrier relationships. Limits to how fast they can get content deals in new markets.
Android hasn’t materially slowed iPhone’s growth and its absence wouldn’t have materially benefited them. It would have made life much easier for RIM and Symbian though.
As for advertising. Apple has happily take Google’s money to let them stay the default search engine on iOS. Apple doesn’t want that business.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually that is nonsense.
If Apple had 80% of the market and tried to lock down advertising they would be slapped with anti-trust suit the next day.
Reality is Google makes just as much money off iOS as they do off Android, except Google didn’t have to pay a penny to advertise on iOS, but the have spent Billions on Android for the same return.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:26 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Indeed. The situation we have is Google making money off iOS and Microsoft making money off Android, which is peculiar to say the least.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:14 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
And nobody is making money from WP :)
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:39 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
A few years ago google was paying $100M annually to apple to be the default search on the iPhone. As the number of iPhones in the wild grew, I am sure so did the fee. I don’t think android development costs even compare with this. Apple creates these situations for themselves. I mean look at ibooks2. Terms of service make sure that the book published on I books can not be published anywhere else. Don’t hold your breath waiting for apple to take over the entire publishing market.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:20 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Google also pays Samsung and other handset makers a share of search revenues from their handsets, so again, they get no better treatment on their own OS, than they do on iOS, they just paid $14 Billion+ for the privilege.
Far from brilliant, it looks like Google is paying $Billions to get the same deal they already get from Apple.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:24 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Not clear. Google may pay Samsung, or it may be included in the licensing deal that puts Google apps such as navigation and gmail onto them. Those technically aren’t part of android.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Google revenue shares for search just like it does for iPhone:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-reason-wireless-carriers-love-android-google-is-paying-them-to-2010-3
“include an advertising revenue sharing agreement, provided they pre-install Google apps like Search, Maps, and GMail on phones. "
Google doesn’t get free search placement on Android phones anymore than it gets free search placement on iPhones.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:06 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Google makes more money off of iOS actually. 2/3 of their mobile ad traffic is generated by iOS devices.
The idea that apple would be 80% of the market is simply untrue. The iPad/tablet market, which they basically created from nothing since existing tablets were doa is different. They went into a competitive phone market and took a nice chunk. Android has shown that it eats more into the other players than Apple.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 4:59 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The point of Android is to have a vehicle to sell ads. It works brilliantly for them.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:30 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Actually, if you measure success by nothing but market share, then Apple dominates there as well. If you look at iOS vs Android as a whole, as in, compare how many devices in total run each OS, iOS has a pretty large lead over Android.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:54 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Its not about ipods and ipads though, when we’re talking about smartphones.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s true.
iOS is winning in actual OS market share.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:17 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Actually it’s not a 2 horse race, Windows is winning and has been for a long long time.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Windows is not winning since the only mobile offering they have now is WP7 which is not in the lead for anything. iOS is a mobile OS as is android. So if you compare mobile OSes then iOS is in the lead. On the desktop it is Microsoft then Apple though.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 5:01 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They will have to see it that way once the market nears saturation.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Android is in the lead.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:29 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Due to the increasing fragmentation of android people are getting fed up, Android won’t be top for long
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:10 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (10) Flag actions
That’s a little foolish.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:13 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Stay foolish, stay hungry.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:41 PM EST reply Recommend (15) Flag actions
It’s happening.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:20 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If the iPhone comes to T-Mobile this year, I’m switching from Android.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:23 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Speaking of T-Mobile, I wonder how many phones they would have sold if all 3 versions of iPhone, the free 3GS, the 4 and 4S, were on all the carriers?
Hopefully T-Mobile gets it this year.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:28 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
iPhones work on T-Mobile, except their stuck on edge speed (for now). My wife loves here iPhone on T-Mobile, saying the cheap plan price is worth the slow speed the small amount of time she is out of wireless range.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:35 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Some areas are receiving 3g service under T-mobile. Slowly but surely T-mobile as been supporting the iPhone.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:17 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Am I missing something, in what areas does T-mobile USA own 800/900/1800/1900 spectrum in which they broadcast 3g?
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think this is a roaming deal with AT&T in some areas subsequent to the merger failing.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not so foolish as you would think. My sister left her Android phone in the dust when she saw that mine (purchased 2 months later) was categorically better than hers – and she is a layman. Then, earlier today I was ranting about how I utterly despise the fact that my phone will likely never see an official ICS upgrade.
I care about this industry, but at the moment I find it incredibly hard to care about whether or not the carrier or the device manufacturer is to blame. All I care about is the fact that every iPhone on Verizon is running iOS 5 and my phone will never see the most recent update to its own OS. How do you think the layman sees that? They see “Droid’s” as being fragmented, and, though they may not recognize what it means, they recognize that is bad. Furthermore, though only Verizon uses “Droid” branding, the layman is able to apply that same flaw across all Android devices rather easily.
If Google wants to be top dog in this market they need to pick a manufacturer that works not only with them, but for them. They need to put an end to cheap hardware, a stop to rapid iteration, and find a way to enforce Google branding in a way that is much more meaningful to the consumer. Until they do that, the layman will find it incredibly hard to care about Android in the long term – the people that bought into devices like the LG Revolution will find it incredibly hard to justify “trying again” with Android, least of all with what we would consider a “high end” device when they can get the iPhone for the same price.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 1:19 AM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
Agreed…totally. Android as an os has been hijacked by manufactures…most ppl prob don’t even think about android when they see a droid razr advertisement
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:36 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’ve traditionally used both iOS and Android, however after I found out that my (at the time) 8 month old HTC Inspire wasn’t getting an update to ICS, and that the Nexus was only being released on Verizon I gave up on the platform. I sold both my Transformer and Inspire on eBay and used the proceeds to buy a 4S.
I highly doubt I’ll go back to Android until manufacturers stop skinning and commit to timely OS updates. I’m tired of all the nonsense involved just to get proper OS updates and a vanilla experience.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 9:12 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I don’t think most people (Non-techies/your average consumer) care about fragmentation because they don’t know it even exists.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They know it exists when their friend with a Nexus S gets an ICS upgrade and they don’t.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:14 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I posit that Google, at least initially, didn’t care about fragmentation or what the manufacturers did with it as long as they got their revenue from services fed through the phone. Same regarding apps and ux. They are now realizing that those things do matter, that Apple focusing on those things wasn’t just some anomaly.
We are seeing Google try and catch up as quickly as possible, which ironically, may hurt them to some degree since the rapid iteration can create uncertainty and increase fragmentation.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 5:04 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I don’t agree with everything he says, but this analysis of Android’s fragmentation is pretty good
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2012/jan/19/google-android-fragmentation-effect?newsfeed=true
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 5:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I read that a while back, it is a good read overall and same here I don’t 100% agree with him regarding Android.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 6:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Only time will tell.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Most people don’t give a shit about “fragmentation”. Only people on tech blogs looking to discredit an OS by any means necessary.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:53 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Most people don’t care they are on an old version. probably not. But they will look at the newest iOS and see all these things that android 4.0 has and think that iOS is a huge improvement over their phone running 2.2
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think people give a pretty big shit about fragmentation. When Joe Blow goes to download an app he’s been hearing a lot about, and it won’t work on his virtually new (just under a year old) phone because some minute hardware detail, he’s not going to be very happy.
Of course our new friend Joe’s anger won’t hit maximum until he finds out that his iPhone toting wife hasn’t ever received an error about “incompatible hardware”, because even her ancient iPhone 3GS is compatible with everything in Apple’s App Store. Because there’s only ever been a few iPhone models, app devs can guarantee their software works on all of them, something that would be virtually impossible with Android and it’s increasingly fragmented line-up.
His wife is also able to plug her iPhone into their new car and have full control of it because virtually every single new car offers full iPhone/iPod integration, something car manufacturers can only do because “iDevices” are so standardized, it’s easy to create an interface that universally works – something you’ll never be able to do with devices running Android because the platform is so – say it with me now – fragmented!.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 1:12 AM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Have you ever even used the Android market, there is no such thing as an incompatible hardware error, Apps which are not compatible with your devices, as determined by the device manifest will not show up in the market for your device, this is exactly the same as iOS except the it called UIRequiredDeviceCapabilities. There is still enough differentiation in hardware capabilities of the small number of iPhone models that this is required.
Secondly the fact that a large number of manufacturers create iPhone dock style attachments for the iPhone has nothing to do with “fragmentation” on the Android side, every single Android device I’ve ever seen has a Micro USB jack, this is an industry standard which Apple decided to bypass in order to leverage increased licensing fees from accessory manufacturers. Furthermore pretty much all of the Vehicle manufactures with iPhone integration also have built in Bluetooth sync, in car wi-fi, or support MTP, and USB mass storage, allowing them to mount any Android device with the same level of ease. Please try and educate yourself about things before posting anything quite so long and inaccurate in future.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:11 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Granted, but the dock connector does allow using the iPhone in.. well.. Docks and other types of accessories that just won’t work as well with a tiny USB connector. Also, that tiny USB connector happens to be in a different spot on just about every device. In a sense, Apple has helped create an accessory market simply because their devices are easily physically able to work with a lot of designs.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:29 AM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
You’re right, it’s more to do with Apple including audio lines on their proprietary dock connector, something missing on Micro USB.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
And they sell a micro usb to dock adapter now for charging. I think the EU required it and it comes with EU versions of devices.
But the dock connector is a standard all it’s own and has a cottage industry around it. It was actually ingenious to setup and it also allows a lot more than usb does since it is more capable.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 5:07 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Actually…this isn’t quite true, I have seen several apps in the app store that didn’t install to my iphone4 running ios4…simply because I wasn’t running ios5
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:39 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
You didn’t understand his point. Your iPhone 4 CAN run all the apps because you can upgrade it to iOS 5. Some (most?) Android phones don’t even get updated to the latest version.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:46 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Yup you have to specifically decide to not upgrade your phone in this case. It’s not the same as never being given the chance by the OEM. And no, rooting your phone is not an option for most consumers.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 5:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
True, but similarly most people don’t give a shit about “open”, which is touted as this great Android advantage…
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:17 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Please cite the reference to that little tidbit of misinformation. Especially the one that ties that into the 700,000 or so activations that are occurring daily. Fuck me, the lies.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I notice there’s still no response here. I was so ready to believe.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 10:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So marketshare is what constitutes ‘the lead’?
So Justin Beiber and Lady Gaga are in the lead of music?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:42 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
No, Adele is.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:20 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
But that doesn’t matter, Android is free. Apple makes phones, and its the most popular and profitable PHONE there is and Apple is swimming in money. That’s the point here. Someone else’s free mobile OS can have a larger market share, what does Apple care? As long as they sell millions of iPhones per quarter, they are happy. That’s the source of the confusion when fanboys talk about Andriod, comparing an OS to a handset.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:22 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Reminds me of the movie “Secretariat”. Microsoft is last out of the gate but will finish first?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:04 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They don’t want lead market share. They want lead quality and profits.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:11 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Quality is subjective btw. I would argue that my Galaxy Nexus is a better overall product than the iPhone 4S for my needs. Especially if we’re referring to the risk of physical damage to the device as a direct result of dropping it.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Could be the attorneys advising him to not make mention of Android due to all pending and future lawsuits they will enact.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Right, because he only mentions Android four times before getting to the "horse in Redmond" part of the quote.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:19 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
He didn’t need to mention Android because the questioner mentioned it.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
He was responding to a question about it being a two-horse race between Apple and Google. Tim said he would not count anybody out. That is neither a dismissal or omission of Android. Obviously, Tim does not feel that Android is the only competitor to iOS — he is not counting out Microsoft, which is wise of him. Microsoft has the funding to make Windows 8 and Windows Phone a success even if they have to invest billions into it. They still operate Bing despite the losses and it has minimal effect on their profits.
If you ask me, this was a very classy answer to that question. A transcript of the exchange is on macrumors.com:
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:40 PM EST reply Recommend (34) Flag actions
I agree. Microsoft doesn’t have more money than the U.S. government (Apple still does, right?) but they make a ton of cash all the time. They have good hardware partners (HTC churns out phones, and Nokia is dependent on WP.) I’m sure Windows 8 will sell like crazy after everyone gets over the fact that "it won’t run Excel ’93 on my tablet!
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually, if I remember correctly, it will. I think they demoed something like that.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The ARM version of Windows 8 won’t (which is the preferred choice for tablets). If you get an x86/x64 tablet, then you can (it’ll just be less common).
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Android’s free… so.. maybe #2 is Samsung?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Fairly certain the context of the quote is referring to platforms, not hardware manufacturers, since Microsoft doesn’t make phone hardware.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 9:46 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No, he was responding to if the mobile market is a 2 horse race between iOS and Android, to which he mentioned Microsoft.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
he didn’t dismiss android.
that horse runs for microsoft AND google.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Seems like a completely appropriate and professional thing to say to the public.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:10 PM EST reply Recommend (43) Flag actions
Now imagine if Windows Phone was in the lead and Ballmer was asked the same question…
(Disclosure: Not trying to troll here. I actually have been a Windows Phone 7 user since day 1 and absolutely love it).
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 1:23 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
He probably would have said whatever cocky thing he said when they revealed WM6.5.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:47 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s an epic quote.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:10 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
Epic… And so true.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:33 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Glad to see Cook is showing Microsoft some respect, because WP7 really is a quality product IMO. Jobs was less inclined to do so (understandably because of the whole Windows thing).
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:10 PM EST reply Recommend (17) Flag actions
Right now it’s just not good enough, however. But that will change once it moves to the same base as Windows: http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-phone-apollo-to-use-core-system-from-windows-8
Let’s just hope they remove some of their stupid restrictions that they copied from Apple.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, WP7 is fine the way it is. The app support is just suckish.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:14 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
As an owner of a Samsung Focus and a Windows 8 Developer Preview tablet, I can safely say that Windows Phone is a vastly superior product to Windows 8. It’s also a hell of a lot friendlier to develop for. I’ll be really disappointed if they throw away their superior OS just to have the NT kernel on everything.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:53 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Meh. I’m a Microsoftie and always enjoyed reading Steve Jobs’ MS zingers. Like when he poked fun a the Zune and other products.
Steve Jobs never would have said what Tim Cook said today. If some jack ass analyst had asked Steve Jobs about the threat of Windows Phone, Steve Jobs would have mocked the platform endlessly and bloggers would have some things to talk about for a few days.
I miss him.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:36 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
I love the name Zune. And their nice little “Z” is so cute. But Tim Cook is smart to talk to investors about WP7. MS is their traditional competitor, and is more than willing to get into the phone space.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:16 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
“iTunes for Windows is like handing someone a glass of water in hell.”
Best quote ever.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:21 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
That is not water… iTunes for Windows is about the worst program out there.
Also I like the idea of Microsoft being seen as Hell… I mean I am sure more people go there then Heaven… So, my guess is about 90% of all people go there, 8% go to Heaven and the last 2% are in Purgatory… Wait, where have I seen these numbers before? Haha
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 9:21 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Maybe but that quote was both hilarious and amazing coming from the CEO of another company while talking to Bill Gates.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 5:11 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yea but too bad its not true. iTunes on Windows is atrocious. If I were ol Billy I would’ve said I heard the same thing about Office on the Mac.
Posted on Feb 03, 2012 | 3:10 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
He really only acknowledged the fact that Microsoft always tries, whether they do well or poorly. It’s a neutral statement.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So? Steve Jobs would have taken that softball pitch and hit a home run all the way to Redmond, instantly adding another zinger to my Quotable Steve Jobs collection. He was a legendary a**hole and rarely had anything nice to say about Microsoft products.
Anybody can trash talk, but Jobs did it with style and punch. Sad to see the ceo from the south doesn’t have the same moxy. I want my millionaire tech CEOs to entertain me, not just drive innovation damnit!
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:43 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
Actually, it’s pretty high praise.
He’s essentially acknowledging that no matter what happened and who is winning/losing, MS always suits up, and always races. No matter what. There is some healthy amount of respect in that statement…
He could have said, MS has zero marketshare, no profits, little revenue in mobile and no influence and that whatever they do sucks; something Jobs would have said; But he didn’t.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 4:39 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
exactly. well said.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And the whole marketshare thing..
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And for the record Jobs was also a cunt of a human being. That is to say that he was a shitbag of a person.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
that’s interesting to say. i’m assuming you knew the man personally?
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:56 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It’s not really respect, Cook is just the kind of guy who likes to under-promise so as to over-deliver. Jobs preferred to shoot for the stars and promise the world. For most of us, Cook’s approach works best, you have to be a Jobsian figure to pull off aiming high, otherwise you come off looking like Ballmer/Lazaridis.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:50 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
agreed. it’s the rare person in history who can promise the moon and deliver – over and over again.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:58 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The relationship between Apple and Microsoft of the last few years has been pretty good. They’ve found a common enemy, Google.
Microsoft are focusing more on trying to just be a great software company, and of course that includes making software for Apple platforms. Seems like this is more evidence that Microsoft and Apple are no longer the competitors they once were. I assume Microsoft would be in favour of this little quote..
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:11 PM EST reply Recommend (16) Flag actions
Except MSFT makes money off Android so its actually Microsoft and Google vs Apple
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually, It’s Apple and Microsoft vs. Google. Microsoft making money off Android is NOT good for Google at all, and Apple is suing in the meantime as well.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:18 PM EST reply Recommend (23) Flag actions
Not good for Google? Does Google even care?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, it’s not Google’s business what OEMs do with Android. Google’s business is building a platform that helps OEMs compete.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:22 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Google’s business is selling YOU (to it’s advertisers). Building (or buying) a platform to do it with is ancillary.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 1:56 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Tech blogs in general are selling YOU too.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Cares enough to buy Motorola. Of course they care.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:22 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
Microsoft isn’t in the business of impeding Android. They have little interest in that. Their main goal is not in mobile arena. Thus Microsoft is not an actual problem for Android. And as Huawei said – It costs more to build a WP7 device than an Android device.(Licensing included)
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Since Android guarantees ten times the sales, paying a small licensing fee (certainly not bigger than what WP7 costs) doesn’t seem like an issue at all.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually, the way I see it… Microsoft neglected the mobile and desktop market for a very long period of time and in that time seeds from Apple and Google took root in the form of mobile OS’s. Soon those OS’s had all the capabilities that Windows did and Microsoft realized they’d made a serious miscalculation as to exactly who and what their competition was. First they tried tying their phones to the XBox and when that failed to garner the desired favor, they decided to unify the desktop and mobile platforms into one.
The danger is, however, when they mobilify their desktop OS (Windows 8) it will become very apparent to consumers that they’re now just buying a glorified phone/iPad when they purchase their next machine.
This may be enough to save them. I’m not sure either way.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:11 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I find it hard to believe that MS wouldn’t have seen the rise of mobile OSs as a threat to their PC dominance. WM6 had more features than the iPhone and Android did at their own respective launches (and a few iterations after that).
There was a big debate back then between resistive and capacitive touch screens. How one was better for fingers, one better for stylus and thus, handwriting recognition. I think MS saw iOS as just another competitor when they didn’t realize just how much Apple had improved on a casual touch-based UI.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:54 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
MS didn’t ignore the mobile market. They were one of the first to open that market with Windows Mobile. The problem was the platform stagnated; the market stagnated and it was only smartphones were powerful enough to run the OS. Remember that Smartphones used to be a niche market and that MS traditionally was never a consumer focussed company.
The development of the platform stagnated because the market stagnated and they never moved beyond 30% marketshare. There weren’t any real competitors to Windows Mobile. It actually existed alone with maybe Symbian as the closest real competitor. BB was a different beast from Windows Mobile. So they just stagnated.
No real competition, flat, niche market that didn’t really grow much = stagnating platform.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 4:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I agree with this, and would also add that MS (and Rim, Palm, Android, and every other mobile OS maker at the time) simply did not have the breakthrough combination that made the iPhone the model for all the Smartphones we use today. A capacitive glass screen with multitouch and the appropriate software underneath is simply a far, far more productive paridigm in a 3-4 inch screen form factor. Throw in the App store shortly after and you have the definitive recipe for all modern mobile smartphones. End of story – the market has spoken.
Within 4 years of Apple bringing this combination to market, massive players like Motorola, Nokia (Symbian), Palm, RIM, Sony Ericsson, Microsoft (only their mobile division), and more have been left as road kill (especially from a business perspective – split and purchased, near collapse, gone, going, gone, still trying). That is simply amazing. Those companies were THE mobile market leading the way with smartphones all based on resistive plastic touch screens (or no touch at all), This is the definition of market disruption and this disruption was brought by Apple and no one else).
What Google has done since purchasing Android (I think many people forget Google purchased Android in 2005 which at the time was much akin to Windows Mobile), is to fill a market need. Not a consumer need but the carriers need. It was the carriers that pushed Google to the capacitive, multitouch, app store model (Andy Rubin famously said he’d "consider" adding multitouch but he preferred to use his devices with one hand.) several years after the launch of the iPhone (June 2007 – iPhone launch, Oct 2008 G1 launch, finally Nov. 2009 Droid launch, several months later and a few software updates adds multitouch). Google was able to iterate at an incredible rate to transform Android from primarily a “old school” model (no multitouch, keyboard focused, no app store) OS / hardware combo into a true Apple competitor. Right about the same time, MS tried to tack and make the switch as well (remember even Windows Phone 6.5 did not support capacitive screens natively – and why would it when the whole UI was based on tiny, tiny little control surfaces), but it could not move as quickly as Google, so hardware makers went where the carriers needed to go and Google was able to get them their quicker.
So yes, MS, Palm and others pioneered the smart phone market, but they simply did not have the UI / hardware interaction paradigm that would make a phone truly productive. It was Apple that gave us the DNA for the modern smartphone. Now it is anyone’s game, as there has really been no fundamental shift in the smartphone DNA since the first iPhone. Just iterations, and Google certainly does iterate fast.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:44 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Normally jalexoid I find myself agreeing with you or at least seeing your point, but in this instance you seem way off base.
If MS doesn’t want to impede Android, and if their main goal is not in the mobile arena why are they spending so much on WP7 in the first place?
I would say MSFT absolutely wants to impede Android, and ideally to gain for their own platform the same kind of market share in mobile as they have in desktop. I don’t think it’s possible but it’s absolutely what they want.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:56 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I totally disagree with that. MS is in the business of impeding Android just as Android was created specifically to impede MS.
The ultimate end game here isn’t about OS sales, it is about advertising and cloud computing and in both arenas MS and Google are head to head
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:19 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Uh, I be they do care, considering that Microsoft is making money off Android because Android infringes on MS patents, and Android adopters reach expensive licensing agreements in fear of legal retribution. Also, the legal ramifications might make Android adopters think twice about adopting such a platform, rather than just pay for a protected and fully supported product like WP.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Let me check…. Yes the legal battles are still in full swing. We’ll see who and what when the jury is back with the decision. Up until then everyone is paying for Microsoft to go away. Since licensing agreements aren’t legal precedents and have only power over the parties, you can’t conclude anything.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
1) Android doesn’t infringe on MS patents. They pay for features they add to Android.
2) The license not higher than the cost of a WP7 license.
3) Since Android guarantees ten times the sales and doesn’t cost more in licensing than WP7, the fees won’t stop OEMs from using Android.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:29 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
2) True, but there are other costs associated with adopting Android as opposed to WP. You have to take into account all the money that goes in development differentiating “skins”, optimization, more expensive hardware it takes to run, support, more troubleshooting, etc.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:35 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Except that when you actually talk to marketing you’ll know that differentiation is what moves units. Be it hardware or software…
With WP7, there is literally no differentiation, beyond device outer form. And even that is limited….
See Apple’s results. It’s sure as hell that their only goal is differentiation.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:41 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
All that is nothing if you sell ten times more phones. As long as WP7 phones don’t sell, no licensicg or any other costs can drive OEMs away from Android.
(plus, “differentiation” seems to generate more sales, for some reason, so that cost seems to be worth it)
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:42 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Which is precisely why Apple are defending their differentiation so aggressively, and everybody seems to resent them for it.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:26 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
FYI: “ZTE told us at the UK Tania launch that it costs the company more to create a Windows Phone device than an Android one.”
http://www.theverge.com/microsoft/2012/1/19/2718209/windows-phone-license-cost-ZTE
(I said Huawei, but meant ZTE in the OP)
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
At that particular licensing price point, no doubt. I suspect the Samsungs of the world can get a better deal as they can push more units. Also, what kind of Android phone and what kind of WP? Currently Android flagships are running very fancy hardware components, whereas WP flagships are running what seems like less expensive components (at least that seems to be the main point of derision of the WP platform).
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:07 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It should be kept in mind that the WP7 license indemnifies the OEM from IP lawsuits from more than just MSFT. It would also cover IP claims over the OS by firms such as Apple, Oracle, Nokia, etc.
It’s clearly not enough to make WP7 an attractive prospect to most OEMs yet, but it might be in future.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:59 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Err no, they are paying for patent licensing. Motorola went to court rather than pay over the patents.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 5:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Like wp7 that doesn’t sell, market share what market share, normal consumers know it exist no. So really what are you buying a smooth phone umm yea not really enough. People want apps and something that looks cool. That have big things like dual core and etc. When In. Reality they don’t even know what those things mean.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:27 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Google is a machine, they have no emotions
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They really are the HAL9000 of corporations.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:27 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m sure they do, it makes their platform look bad.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
google cares because it alienates OEMs who thought they were getting a lower cost OS for their devices. it raises cost-to-market for devices and erode margins for OEM. that’s problematic because the handset space is red ocean already.
if they didn’t care they wouldn’t have wasted 12+ billion on buying Motorola Mobility.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 9:04 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They care if it contributes to OEMs starting to drop Android for other things. If the cost of Android for the OEM hits a threshold they will drop it.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 5:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple is losing all the patent cases and I would argue that paying $15 per phone to Microsoft for an Android phone is still better than paying $15 per phone for a Windows Phone, since Android guarantees ten times the sales.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:20 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Depends on the phone, sure the GS2 sold more than any windows phone, but there are also a crap load of awful, poorly selling android devices bloating the market.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But I don’t think Microsoft are going after the manufacturers that have sold 2 phones. :S
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There are likely plenty of HTC or Samsung devices that sold poorly, the low-end, sliiiightly different to the next one, devices.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
that’s really oversimplification. Keep in mind that only Samsung and HTC are actually making any real success of Android. Everyone else is falling by the way side regardless of what OS they use.
If you look at the sheer number of Android manufacturers and all the number of Android devices being churned out, you wouldn’t be wrong to assume that manufacturers making Android are failing; which they are.
Only 2 make any real success of it.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 4:51 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
agreed. i’d even venture further and infer that HTC and Samsung are the brands most likely associated with Android.
That brand awareness gives them some pricing power. The Android space as a whole is red ocean – with the OEMs tearing each other to shreds for a foothold.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 9:11 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, they make some money off of Android, but likely not nearly as much as if those handsets were using WP7.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Its really sad when your making more money off of. Someone else os than your own. MS plan is to have about all Android OEMS stop. Making a lot of android phones and do wp7. Android oems would if wp7 actually sells, but it don’t compared to. What they make off of android
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:31 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Judging by the lack of legal hostilities between MS and Apple in the past several years, once can say that they’ve been in pretty good friendly terms for a while. They probably even have a deep and large cross-licensing and sharing portfolio in place. Microsoft is a software company. Apple is a gadget company. Only lil’ kids continue to pit them against each other in imaginary fanboy wars.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:15 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
Pretty much this. I think that the 2 companies have some overlapping layers where they compete but on the whole, the 2 are really very different companies with different focus. MS has, with exception to their entertainment division, never really been a consumer focussed company while Apple always was.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 4:54 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
agreed. there is a lot of “coopetition” between these two firms. it’s oversimplific and sophomoric to reduce their complex relationship to pure and direct antagonism.
it’s why i’m rankled with people who refer to themselves as fanboys. FANATIC BOYS indeed.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 9:16 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I like Tim, he’s a respectful guy.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:12 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Wow, very professional nod to Microsoft. Very nice
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend (16) Flag actions
Apple and Microsoft generally have a civil relationship.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:14 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Special, at least.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:24 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
Well, that’s just good humoured. Especially with the level of cross-licensing.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:26 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
I bet the only bigger cross-licensing agreement in the industry is IBM-Microsoft.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
9 out of 10 computer users didn’t find it funny at all. Now that’s humor! :-)
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t get it.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:02 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is 7 years old, they are not the rivals they once were. They share a common enemy, the Goog.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Their histories have been tied to each other from the beginning. From the introduction of Microsoft office (a Mac exclusive, at first), through Microsoft’s rise and Apple’s decline, and then Apple’s return to prominence through the help of Microsoft (Microsoft directly helped them avoid bankruptcy). They certainly don’t “love” each other, but they recognize and respect what each brings to the table (even if they don’t like it, as is often the case).
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:02 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Wrong. Apple didn’t need the money, and Microsoft didn’t give it out from their hearts. It was part of the deal surrounding the Mac OS GUI.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:17 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
The money itself wasn’t as important as the credibility the deal lent Apple, especially since it came along with MSFT promising to deliver up to date versions of Office.
Of course in 1997 it was very much in MSFT’s interest for Apple not to go bust. They had enough anti-trust problems already.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
With0ut my personal bias, believe both Apple and Microsoft are against Google and hate them just because of their “free with ads” model. Also I’m pretty sure that they don’t like tne fact that Google just practically giving away Android to OEMs.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yes. This model is a direct threat to both companies. Apple must invest much more in software R&D than Android licencees, and “free with eyeballs” (sic) directly undermines Microsoft’s business model. Google should expect a fight.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:05 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If Apple wants to be the leading horse, they need to provide more choice for the customer.
More devices with different screen size, with hardware keyboard at different price point.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
checks Apple’s numbers Nope, market says people like current form factor so Apple will not change one bit
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:14 PM EST reply Recommend (29) Flag actions
What I see in the numbers is the same people buying a new iPhone every 2 years (or jumping from iPod Touch to iPhone).
The iPhone is popular and attractive device but more and more people want something different that they can customize for their own use.
Every one has an iPhone… it’s boring… the UI is mostly the same as in 2007.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:31 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sure. The same “sheep” buying every year. So the 3G buyer bought 2 3GS’s, then 4 × 4′s the 8x 4S?
The number of people who want a keyboard is tiny – Apple make a conscious decision not to target them.
The number of people who want to "customise: their device is also small
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:26 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s an opinion, it may a correct. But it’s not how Apple will roll anytime soon in my opinion.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:15 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The 700,000+ devices per day they activated last quarter beg to differ with your logic.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:16 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
I’m saying Apple is selling A TON of iPhones at the current form factor. Why change now? Don’t fix something if it’s not broken
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s what Brian was saying, too. Confused?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:18 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
My bad, thought he was talking about Android. When I see “activating devices”, I think of Android
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Haha no, they’re actually back on par with/passing Android at this point. Over half of Verizon’s smartphone activations were iPhones last quarter. I do agree that the terminology seems to say “Android” though. Apologies for the confusion.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:22 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Actually they’re not back on par, nor will they ever pass Android.
Half of the sales over the last quarter came from people who were holding out for the new iPhone, which was released late.
It’s a one-time phenomenon, plain and simple.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:24 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You’re one of those people who predicted that Apple’s poor Q4 2011 was a sign of their impending downfall, aren’t you? You’re literally just making up figures and numbers and claiming they’re true without a single shred of evidence. lol.
It smells like butthurt in here.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:27 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Question is – will they be able to maintain those 37mil….
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I mean, those are pretty staggering numbers, so it seems unlikely, but they’re still adding new carriers and countries so you never know.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:32 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Downfall? Are you crazy? I said nothing like that.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Carriers…. Oh… You’re American.
Sorry, they’re called operators (aka MNO).
Carriers are viscous a******les that force a 2 year upgrade cycle on you.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
China, South America and Russia are big and mostly untapped markets for iPhone. So there’s room for growth there too.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:32 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Yeah…. Untapped. Russia. Untapped…….
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:37 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Q1 had an extra week, and they went into it with higher inventories, so Q2 will be somewhat lower, probably around 32-33mil units. Q3 should be back to the same level though, with the inevitable dip on Q4 in preparation for the iP5.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They’re on little over half of the worlds carriers. Lots of room for growth.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:31 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Two words: China Mobile
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:31 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
2 words: average income.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
An average income that is quickly growing to a robust middle class.
Remember, skate to where the puck will be.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:56 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
I thoroughly appreciate that you somehow seem to always find my posts so we can butt heads. It’s fun :)
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:21 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Respect!
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Indeed. I always appreciate a good debate when it’s with someone who understands what they’re actually talking about.
In fairness, as 1001001 pointed out, China’s middle class is rapidly expanding. I was reading an article the other day about the basically brand new wine industry that is erupting out of nowhere. While a good portion of people can’t afford iPhones, it’s definitely becoming more and more accessible.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:28 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Please note, that middle class in China is X times less well off than in US/Europe.
It’ll take at least 5 years for the middle class in China to get to the point where they can buy an iPhone 3Gs.
Been there, work with them for 9 years now. Know the story behind the numbers.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well … China now consumes 12% of worlds luxury goods and by 2015 China will be world’s biggest consumer of luxury goods
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13284481
Also, Beijing’s GDP per capital is about 12,500.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/7711799.html
Your knowledge of China is outdated
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:47 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yes, everything has changed in the last 6 months…. Just everything…
There are the mega rich, there is a very narrow wealthy class and there are the rest.
It was the same story in Russia 10 years ago.
Their luxury goods consumption is a cultural thing, not an indicator how many rich people are there. When the middle class in china gets its fair share, then Apple will be able to pull off incredible numbers, even by today’s standards.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’ll find that many people from 3rd world countries have an easier time spending money on such things than Americans.
Here in Brazil the income is much lower, and prices for gadgets are MUCH higher (a $2000 MacBook Pro costs $4000), but that doesn’t stop us from buying computers.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh, and the iPhone 5 complete redesign this summer won’t be another “one time phenomenon”? Amazing how many “one-time phenomenons” Apple has had over the past decade!
And while you are at it, no computer will ever need more than 640k memory. And the Playstation will never be outsold by the Xbox. And digital photography will never replace film. Here is a tip for your next job interview, don’t speak in absolutes, it makes you look ignorant (and I really am trying to help).
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:02 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That wont work long term.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why changes? To sell even more iPhones. A ton of people will still buy the current form factor and other people will buy the new form factors.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:28 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Obviously.
Apple would be doing MUCH better if they did what everybody else is doing.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:17 PM EST reply Recommend (18) Flag actions
You took the words right out of my mouth. Just imagine if Apple could be as profitable as other companies.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:43 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
Oh wait…
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:47 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
But Apple is the leading horse. Choice or not, they are the leader. Didn’t you see the numbers just released?
They sell a product, the iPhone (actually 3 different versions), that sell 10x more than any other phone. They don’t see “iOS”, they sell gadgets or end products.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:19 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Actually Samsung is the leader. Apple is #2.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:25 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Samsung was the leader for a single quarter. It was a one-time phenomenon, plain and simple.
See how easy that was?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:28 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Oh… please. It’s neck and neck in the smartphone area. There is a reason why Apple is most aggressive with Samsung.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No I know… scroll up a little bit and see his response to me. I was just mocking him.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:34 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The difference is that you didn’t provide anything to support your statement. You fail. Try again.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Nor did you. Pot meet Kettle. Of course it’s nearly impossible to compare Apple to Samsung smart phone sales anymore since Samsung no longer breaks out their sales numbers by category. Any data posted for Samsung smart phones is at best a guess. One area where it’s no contents is profit. Apple’s 4th quarter profit was almost 3 times Samsung 4th quarter profit ($13billion vs $4.5billion) and greater than Google’s total profit for 2011 ($10.6billion). The idea that Android is going to "win" in any sort of fashion that makes iOS lose is preposterous the converse being equally preposterous.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:51 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Actually, I did. You fail. Try again.
And no, profits were not part of the discussion and don’t have any relevance at all. It was about sales. Changing the subject because you know you can’t “win”?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:56 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Sales. LOL. Who cares about sales if you aren’t making any money?
Typical android moron.
You haven’t EVER been in the lead and you don’t understand Apple if you think they care more about how many units they sell vs how much they make from those units.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:18 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The discussion was about sales. It’s typical for Apple fanboys to change the subject when they realize they can’t “win”. Really immature.
But let’s change the subject, just for you. So you care whether Apple makes more money than everyone else?
Unless you’re a shareholder, that’s just stupid.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:25 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Where are your sales numbers from this quarter to back up what you said? Please provide links and details.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:27 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Hey, look at that, he didn’t provide any.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:19 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Unsurprisingly as they don’t exist :)
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:14 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I don’t think you understand how utterly ridiculous you sound to every single other person on this forum. It’s really, really funny.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:26 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I won’t say how you sound a significant portion of users on this site.. Simply wouldn’t be polite.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m not sure if you know what you actually just said, but it was hilariously inappropriate
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:20 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
sound like
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 4:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
sigh I knew it 30 seconds after I hit post, but thought, eh, almost no one will read this anyway and of those that do, what percentage will notice my missing preposition. Why draw attention to it? serves me right…
It was supposed to say “I won’t say how you sound to a significant portion of users on this site… simply wouldn’t be polite.”
:-)
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 10:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you don’t get consent before you sound them, that would be sexual assault.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:15 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No, it would be audio assault unless we are talking euphamisms. But no one talks euphamisms on the internets.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 5:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Speak for yourself please
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:06 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You really hit the nail on the head.
“The idea that Android is going to “win” in any sort of fashion that makes iOS lose is preposterous the converse being equally preposterous."
Exactly.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple is taking Samsung to school in terms of business:
1. The 2 or 3 Apple phone models sold more than the few dozen or so Samsung models.
2. The profit margin of an iPhone is in the order of $200 PER PHONE. Samsung’s profit per phone is around $7. I’m not kidding.
So Apple is selling the same or more, at 25x times the profits, with 10 times less models.
The only thing that Samsung has on Apple is diversification, as Samsung can default back to their many other product lines whereas Apple is basically betting their entire future on 2 gadgets.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:42 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Actually Samsung has 4 or 5 Android models, Apple has 3 iOS models.
Most of the sales for both companies came from the flagship models, the iPhone 4S and Galaxy S II.
No big difference at all between the two companies.
And yes, the Galaxy is cheaper. And better. And who cares about the margins? I was talking about sales.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ask Samsung if they care about margins. OF COURSE THEY DO.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:57 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
So what? Of course they do. But it wasn’t the subject of the discussion. You can’t just change the subject when you realize you’re not “wining”.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“winning”
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ugh. Stupid resizing. Didn’t see the full context of this conversation above. I’m actually in the Android saddle myself (Nexus S). But yes agreed sales Samsung is 1 but I’m sure they would love the profit Apple is seeing with phones.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://cdn3.hark.com/images/000/204/422/204422/original.jpg
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually, you might be wrong:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/01/24/apple.retakes.lead.from.samsung.in.smartphones/
In summary: Apple 37m. Samsung 35m
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Can anyone clarify Samsung’s numbers?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Might be true, but as I said, that’s a one time phenomenon because of the iPhone buyers who were holding out for the 4S, which was released late – that gave Apple a big sales push in the last quarter (and a big sales drop in the quarter before the 4S).
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
A one-time phenomenon that’s repeated every year?
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/01/24/richman
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:29 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Well, there’s always next quarter.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s a prediction only. But Samsung does not disclose their shipment numbers.
Though Apple definitely has everyone beat this quarter.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think Samsung’s number = shipped, Apple’s = sold.
So apple’s number is more reliable.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:53 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Samsung’s numbers are an analysts estimates of shipped based at best on canvassing major channel distributors.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Where did you find the Galaxy S II sales? Because Samsung sure didn’t publicize them.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:07 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
They did actually announce when it hit 5 million and when it hit 10million
http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Science%2Band%2BTech/Story/A1Story20120120-322999.html
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/samsung-galaxy-s2-hits-10-million-sales-50005339/
They don’t include numbers for smartphones in their quarterly reports but they do still occasionally make a press release for specific models.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually Samsung has five different Android phones not including the Galaxy series.Under their Galaxy series, there are 16 different Android phones available. So it would appear that there are over 21 different Android options from Samsung, not to mention what they sell in terms of their own Bada OS along with their feature phone sales.
Also, a bulk of Apple sales still come in form the iPhone 4. While the 4S is selling well, it still has bit of catching up to do in order to reach that 28 million mark. Conversely, while the Galaxy SII did bring in roughly 15 million, the infuse also brought in a hefty 9 million on its own. (I’m not sure if you can consider the Infuse a ’Flagship" phone) but it helps to have it in your arsenal I suppose.
I think those would be considered big differences between the two companies.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:01 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Galaxy Nexus
Nexus S
Galaxy S 2
Galaxy S 2 HD
Galaxy S
Galaxy Y
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy Note
Galaxy Mini
Droid Charge
Thunderbolt
Infuse
etc.
That’s before you get into carrier specific variants of the SGS-2 which differ significantly in terms of screen size etc.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:24 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Samsung has literally dozens of Android models
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:28 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Based on Samsung’s last financial statement, they have about US$25 per phone. including all dumbphones. Their estimated phone shipments are 88mil units for Q3. That $7 is taken from your behind. Or did you think all here are idiots taht don’t do research or no one here is in the tel.co business?
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ir/financialinformation/earningsrelease/IR_Earnings2011_3q.html
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23112511
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:57 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No need to get personal, these are giant corporations we’re talking about, not our moms. That number I got from an industry person aka somebody who actually works in component manufacturing with these companies (and you won’t need to be in the “tel.co” bus. to link some analyst study – that stuff get’s posted on blogs).
Ok, I take Samsung’s word that they make $25 per phone, still a long shot from what Apple makes, that was my main point.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
When you are in the business you actually keep track of things like this.
That $25 is aggregated over smartphones and dumbphones(that might as well make them on average $5)
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
PS: Respect my authoritah!!! /s
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Erm – if you were taking the telecom division number and dividing by number of devices then you have an overestimate because the telecom division also includes revenues selling base station equipment.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:31 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Let me check my base station monitoring system I have here…. I see Alcatel, Nokia, Ericsson. Samsung’s share is very small.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Let alone I subtracted US$150mil from profits(not revenue), that covers their small share in the core network equipment quite well.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 9:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What do their shipments have to do with their sales?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The same way that Apple explains in the Sec 10K filing under the section “Revenue recognition”.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s cute that you’re going to pretend that Apple is “shipping” phones to its own stores that its not actually selling.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Dream on buddy. Most of Apple’s “sales” are actually shipments to retailers and operators all over the world.
You’re delusional if you think that Samsung can keep growing and reporting revenue without actual sales.
Both are doing exceptionally well. And you trying to find a reason to undermine Samsung’s success is just plain childish.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Nope, Apple report sales and not shipments.
Apple SOLD 2mill more deivces than Samsung SHIPPED this quarter.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:48 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Damn it, why do I have to quote myself:
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, but they also declare the amount of channel inventory, and it dropped in Q1, so their sell out was actually greater than their sell in.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m happy for them? Or do I really care if their channel numbers dropped?
It’s still not 100% of their definition of “sales”. Thus WayAway’s statement is incorrect.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You care because if inventory dropped then sales > shipped. If it rose then sales < shipped.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 2:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yet, what they report as sold is not actually the number that is “sold”.
And no, I really don’t care. Mostly because I don’t own any stock.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 7:11 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Retailers? Like the biggest Apple retailer of them all, Apple? Part of the reason Apple is able to post such huge profits is because they can control their supply chain end to end, from screw to retail display. They’re shipping what they know they will sell.
You’re delusional if you think I’ve ever, anywhere, implied otherwise.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Considering that Apple has a pathetically small number of stores outside US, yes retailers. Apple stores operating under a franchise in many countries are legally not part of Apple, thus they recognise revenue at the point of delivery to the retailer. Same for MNO’s.
And you can’t have otherwise. It’s legally not permissible, under any jurisdiction.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I guess I am or reading too much into it.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And you’d have a scoop, by the way, if you could prove that when Cook says “sold,” he really just means “shipped.”
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sec 10K is a legally strict document. Cooks speech is not.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What Cook says is legally binding if he says it during a shareholders call. Company officers are EXTREMELY careful what they say during these calls for this reason.
One reason everyone laughed at “extremely smooth.” This has no meaning. Why would you bother saying anything about your sales that has no meaning…unless you have nothing to say.
Ditto saying something on a Google+ page vs. saying it in a shareholders call.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 3:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Legally binding is not legally strict. Different things.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“The profit margin of an iPhone is in the order of $200 PER PHONE. Samsung’s profit per phone is around $7. I’m not kidding”
LOL, so with all the lawsuits, they’re basically breaking even in their smartphone division? Oh god that is hilarious.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:26 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I really don’t understand people who quote figures like this as a positive. Yes Apple make a vast amount of money, I’m not sure anyone has ever attempted to deny that, but when you say they are making $200 per phone sold, you do realise that this means that YOU, the consumer is paying that $200? Apple could be selling these devices to you for $150 less, and they’s still have a very healthy mark-up, is there anything else where you would apply this? If you have two burger bars, would you pick one over the other because you knew their burgers were more expensive and they were making more money off you every time you shopped there? It’s insane, you’re not a shareholder, you’re not Board member, you don’t work for Apple, you’re a consumer, and you gain nothing from their rampant profiteering, so why oh why do you sit their and shout “My favourite company shafts me a lot more than your’s shafts you” and claim that this is a good thing?
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:38 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually, Samsung never reported their actual numbers. There was no transparency there. The only report is from an analyst with an estimate giving Samsung the edge for a quarter. Either way, I think Apple is more interested in profit share than market share, though they certainly would like both.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Did you read the article? They SOLD 2 mill more devices than Samsung SHIPPED.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:47 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Leader in what?
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yup, their current strategy is really hurting Apple. They should take more advice from forum posters.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:30 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
This is what all those failing competitors tell themselves.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 10:02 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I found the horse Cook is talking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL37RDS2Qiw
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:14 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I thought it was this one:
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/songs/Amazing+Horse/
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 10:45 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
After the call ended, Tim could be heard on the speakerphone, “Android is poop, y’all!”
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:15 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
I applaud Apple. Good for them!
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s easy to be gracious to the horse running far behind you.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:30 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Seriously thats a huge statement… from a company that discovered smartphones…
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Discovered smartphones? What’s that stuff you’re smoking?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:35 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
Were they at the bottom of an unexplored valley somewhere?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:22 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
LMFAO
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple discovered smartphones like Ben Franklin discovered electricity.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 9:48 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The horse from Mountain View is really creepy. It’s always following you around watching everything you do.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:35 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/apple-location-tracking.html
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:37 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Apple apologized for that and said it was a mistake. Let me know when Google apologizes for AdSense and tracking us all over the web.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:47 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Sure it was a mistake… /s
And how do you think Apple plans to make profits from iAds?
Don’t be naive.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:53 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I thought this had been laid to rest already but clearly not.
Apple weren’t tracking YOU the user. They were tracking wifi locations and cell towers to provide a more reliable, faster service. Every smartphone does. The bug was in not clearing the entirely anonymous data being cached. This bug was probably low down on their priority list since it’s really a non-issue.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 10:06 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
If you care, opt out
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:39 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Only stored on the device and promptly removed.
Compare that to carrier IQ…
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:57 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
A relatively respectable quote. Touche Cook, especially after this http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/24/ce-oh-no-he-didnt-tim-cook-savoring-the-ipads-windows-canni/
:-\
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“cannibalization” implies eating your own kind. So Tim, are iPads PCs?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:50 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What’s wrong with that quote? Are Apple not supposed to be competitive and not want to beat the competition?
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 10:08 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So with 37M iPhones and 15M iPads and 15M iPods (over half of which, maybe 8M, being iPod Touches) brings us to about 310M iOS devices sold in total. WIth 98 days in Apple’s 14-week quarter Q1 that puts them at about 610,000 purchases/activations per day. That’s about 100k less than what Android announced per day, but about 60M more total than Android.
Also interesting is that Apple’s $13B profit is greater than Google’s $10B revenue. The Motorola acquisition alone will cost Google more than a full year’s worth of revenue (not profit). Keep in mind that 98% of Google revenue is from search advertising (not generated from Android). It sure helps the consumer that we have a choice between iOS and Android (and now Windows Phone 7), but it seems to me that Google’s investment is exceeding their return by a whole lot. I’m wondering how much more profitable Google would have been if they had opted to simply “trust Apple” with their future as an advertiser on mobile and partnered to be the exclusive service for delivering advertisements to iPhone. It is hard to bet the company on a partnership, but Google is betting billions on going it alone. Clearly, Nokia has bet the company on a partnership — we will see how that works out for them.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:54 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I suspect it will end up better than some would like to admit.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:59 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Actually, every Android device generates about $8-14 in revenue for Google per year.
If people are buying new phones every 2 years on average, that’s more than the 15$ Microsoft gets for every WP7 phone.
Android is estimated to generate at least $5.8 billion for Google in 2012.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Last estimate I saw was $6 per year per active Android device in advertising revenue. When the upgrade comes, the new device simply replaces the recurring revenue of the old one, but you cannot count total cumulative Android activations as constant generating revenue, because old devices end up in the drawer. So Google does not need users to upgrade to make money, they just need users to keep using the device and receiving ad impressions. But even IF (big if) every one of the 250M Android devices purchased thus far were in active use in 2012 and every one of them generated $10 in ad impressions, that would be only $2.5B in revenue (not profit) in 2012. So your figures seem a bit off.
Microsoft makes their $15 profit (not revenue) on every Android device sale. If folks upgrade once per year, then they are making more than Google per user on each device.
Apple makes $50 to $400 profit (not revenue) per device sale on most devices (exception being Apple TV).
My $2.5B Android revenue estimate would seem to be the upper limit of what Google can make on Android in 2012. They will also be dropping $12B on Motorola with Motorola having $3B in cash (net of $9B purchase). If you add up marketing costs for Android, development, support of partners, etc…. Then I think the current estimates hold that Google will not be profitable on Android for a good five years (at $10 per actively used device) to eight years (at $6 per actively used device).
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:09 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Actually that was exactly what I said. If Android phones get replaced every two years, they generate 2x $8-14 (or $6, but I think that’s outdated).
My figures aren’t off. You didn’t account for the Android phones that get sold in 2012, in addition to the already existing ones. That’s at least another 250M.
So 500M phones generating $10 each, that’s $5 billion. Somewhere I read about $5.8 billion. Definitely plausible.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But you can only look at new sales to first-time Android buyers. You cannot count upgrades. Google makes money by users seeing ad impressions on the phone. An Android phone that lasts a user 4 months before upgrade only makes $2 for Google. An Android phone that lasts 24 months before upgrade makes $12 for Google over a two-year period. But it boils down to $6 in revenue per year per actively used device.
Its a very different way to measure revenue than Apple’s or Microsoft’s model which is all about a single lump sum with the sale of each new device.
- So let’s say that out of 250M Android devices sold to date that 75% of them are still actively used (the rest were trade-ins of old models).
- That puts Android’s current base at $190M or so devices.
- Over the course of 2012, Android should sell 700k devices per day. The earlier the device sells in the year, the more money it will make for Google in 2012. The later it sells, the less it will make since there are less days of 2012 for ad impressions (a device sold in December 2012 should only earn Google about $0.50 in revenue for 2012)
- For simplification, we will add another 130M new devices for Google in 2012 to account for the early in year versus late in year sale (half of 255M total sales)
- Of those new 2012 devices, some will be upgrades of old devices, so lets knock of 30M since we are already counting those in our 190M “already active devices” (i.e.: people who Google is already making money off of)
- That gives us 100M + 190M devices = 290M devices actively used throughout all of 2012 — receiving ad impressions.
- Let’s round up to 300M average devices actively generating ad impressions for all of 2012.
300M x $6 per device = $1.8B in revenue (not profit) for 2012.
If we assume $8 per device….
300M x $8 per device = $2.4B in revenue (not profit) for 2012.
Either way, we are way off from the $5B or $5.8B amount in revenue. Google does not break out costs or revenue generated from Android, so this is all guesstimating, but it is fair to say that Google’s investment in Android and their continued investment is meant for a long-term return that they are betting on.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:13 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
But Microsoft makes 15$ for every Android phone too…:P
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 3:17 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The actual figures are not disclosed. On average, the concensus is closer to $10 per handset, but your point is still valid.
It will be very interesting to see what happens when Nokia / MS pour a quarter of a billion in marketing behind Windows phone. Keep in mind, the massive marketing effort from Verizon around the Droid is what set Google and Android off to the races. Windows Phone has yet to have this but soon will. All three OSes are very good at this point (the ones that are not are dead or dying – Symbian, BB OS whatever version they are pushing this week, Windows Mobile, etc.). Market share is driven heavily by marketing dollars, not the tech like many people here assume.
If this marketing push by MS/Nokia which is primarily coming this summer, has an impact (which it is almost guaranteed to do), I think HTC will swing quickly back to Windows Phone as they had been almost exclusively a a Windows Mobile maker only a few years back. Add up the licensing costs and the deep roots of Windows Phone at the company, and they are likely to be a critical tipping point to watch in the next 12 months.
Apple will continue its steady climb as it rolls out new versions and geographical expansion. If MS makes a dent with Nokia and HTC starts to roll back, Android could be in for a tricky ride. I think it will be a three horse race for some time, but MS will gain market share from somewhere and I think it will primarily be from Android, not Apple. Essentially they are both suppliers to the hardware manufactures who are in turn suppliers to the carriers. They will be in direct competition for the carrier contracts while Apple is in a different model. They simply do not build for carriers.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I forgot that Apple also sold 1.4M Apple TV’s in Q1. It only brings the activation number to 625K per day, but still it should be counted since Google counts Google TV devices.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:10 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Take notes, Eric Schmidt.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:57 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Do you think its too late for Eric to get on Microsofts board of Directors and steal all their ideas?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:27 PM EST reply Recommend (12) Flag actions
Oh look! The two nutters are here!
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:37 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The who?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Exactly!!!! The Who!
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:28 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Eric Schmidt is too busy doping the horses
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:31 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I ride on the Android horse but the numbers Apple put up is amazing.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
:) … :D
That’s all.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
These strong iOS numbers bode well for Google cause of Apple’s reliance on their services…and of course most Apple users I know use Google for search.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Don’t worry, Apple will do away with Google Maps in iOS 6.
What other services (plural) were you referring to?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:30 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Sure they will… They will also replace Facebook with Ping. And completely drop Samsung as component supplier. And build their own moon base.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:36 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
It will happen. just matter of when
They bought C3 Technology last year
http://venturebeat.com/2011/10/29/apple-buys-c3-technologies-one-more-cut-into-google-maps-yoke/
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:00 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
No, actually, they probably will develop their own mapping service. But given that the vast majority of Google’s revenue comes from ads, they’ll be fine. Though it’s worth noting that a vast majority of those ad profits are not from mobile ad sales, so it’s questionable how much this matters for them one way or another.
Anyway, people keep wanting this to be about Apple vs Google, but it’s really Apple vs Samsung, Apple vs HTC, Apple vs Motorola, etc. Google doesn’t sell anything to end users.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:12 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
100% agree.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Also, I should note, Apple vs Amazon. When you look at the two companies’ strategy for creating “sticky” products, you see one company moving further and further into the retail space (Apple), and one company moving further and further into developing end-products for their retail space (Amazon).
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 10:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ok maps. But how about YouTube. Or the big one: Google search?
…and no Siri still isn’t a viable replacement and I seriously doubt iOS users use Bing or Yahoo! for search.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:55 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I use Bing. It is really not as bad as people think.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:02 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No Bing is not bad at all.
I’m just saying, you are one of the very few iPhone users(not sure if you are) who is using something other than Google for search.
Point is, Google is should be somewhat happy for these numbers.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:02 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Google’s mobile advertising revenue comes primarily from iOS devices right now. Simply because iOS users tend to use their Web browsers more than Android users. I don’t know why, but statistics keep showing that iOS users have a higher percentage of Web ad impressions as well as a higher rate of purchasing apps and in-flight WiFi. I think this relates to the “BOGO” and “Free Phone” phenomenon with many Android devices (Verizon now giving away HTC Thunderbolt to anybody who switches). People who get the “free phone” may simply be looking for the most feature-rich phone they can get for free, but they are not avid smartphone users. If this is true, then the $1/Free iPhone 3GS should actually trigger a larger percentage of iOS users who don’t buy apps, don’t surf the Web, and could care less about in-flight WiFi.
I don’t mean any of this as a criticism of Android, just trying to understand the statistics. Couple this with Susan Creighton of Google testifying before Congress last year that 2/3 of mobile advertising comes from iOS and that Google bids against Microsoft (Bing) and Yahoo! to be the default search engine on iOS.
So yes, Google does make money off iOS as well as Android for mobile ad impressions. The thing is with iOS, their only investment is whatever they paid Apple to be the default search engine (which is likely a wash for licensing of Google Maps or You Tube by Apple). With Android their investment is much greater considering they acquired Android and now they are acquiring Motorola, and they have invested in a huge load of development and marketing around it.
It would have been financially better for Google if their existed a viable competitor to iOS before Google decided to go full-bore on Android and if Google was the default search engine on both iOS and whatever competitor that was. This would have meant no investment for Google, near-monopoly on mobile advertising dollars, and a competitor to keep Apple in check and prevent them from dictating terms. For example, if Nokia had acquired Android and Andy Reuben’s team instead of Google when Nokia was dominant then Google could have played both sides of the fence (Apple and Nokia) and raked in all the mobile advertising dollars with little to no investment on their part.
Let’s face it… nobody is going to develop a better search engine than Google any time soon. Google just needs to stop artificially ranking Google+ results regardless of relevance — this is tarnishing their search (but that’s another story).
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:20 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Agree. I was going to post about this as in the whole thread, no one has mentioned why Google dramatically stepped up their mobile efforts with Android in the first place. Same logic as they have used with Chrome. To ensure that people continue to have a fast web connected experience so they can in turn sell ads.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:53 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Most people use Google’s search, and iOS isn’t reliant on it.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 10:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“There’s a horse in Redmond that always suits up and always runs, and will keep running.”
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:43 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
New from Microsoft: Skype + Internet Explorer, now called Skynet Explorer, or Skynet for short. Going online August 29, 2012.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:02 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
more like Microsoft Skype Network or MS Skynet for short
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 9:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Google now prays that h/w catches up to glitchy laggy Android (this was the MS Windows bet in the ‘90s). Meanwhile, MS does everthing in it’s power to get WinPh7 to 5-7% market share in 2012. MS has an elegant platform and just needs to flesh it out. I hope they do…
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 8:50 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I hope they don’t. They’re exceedingly bad stewards of money. They like to dominate a market, stop innovating and then purchase and squelch any innovation that comes down the pike. They’re a rotten company.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:23 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The so called “PC era” was largely influenced by MS. I’ll go one step further. Everything (err…EVERYTHING) you experience, utilize, promote etc. was enabled and facilitated by MS (as a young enterprise) as they wrestled this tech from the imbedded “powers that be” and put it out to the masses.
That is reality. An amazing feat, that transformed the modern world…
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:47 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I lived through it and I disagree. The powers that be? NCR? Tandy? Rainbow Computer? Unix? IBM (DOS)? Apple? The market was exceptionally fragmented when Microsoft copied Apple (and yes I know Apple copied Xerox, but Xerox basically gave it to them). Until Windows 2000/XP MacOS was a superior OS. When they finished XP they decided it was time to simply print money… they had the market, they even gave money to Apple so they could appear to have some competition, so they wouldn’t get broken up into pieces like Ma Bell did.
They’re not all bad, but I can’t think of anything they’ve done that’s worthwhile. Of course, Bill Gates turned into a pretty decent guy once he left the company, but that’s a different chapter.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:04 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Bill Gates had a vision of a PC on every desk and in every home. No one else was thinking like that! That was crazy talk.
He pulled it off. Stop underselling him and MS…
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:16 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
That was actually Steve Jobs’ vision. Gates and Jobs were close back then, and Gates liked that vision, but had a different take on it. Jobs believed that every computer would be an Apple computer simply because they might be a little bit better than IBM’s at the time. Gates knew that “good enough” PC’s from IBM at a lower cost would still “wow” people and catch on (especially with the weight IBM behind them). He outsmarted IBM by licensing them a better operating system (MS-DOS) than what they were shipping (he acquired that operating system, he did not create it). With control of the OS, Gates was able to commoditize the PC, and with the IBM PC Clones coming, Microsoft became the face of the PC revolution that Apple started, while Jobs pursued the “perfect PC” through the Mac. Even with Windows, though initially inferior to Mac OS, Jobs missed that “good enough” was going to make it and eventually would catch up.
Microsoft ultimately defined what a “Software Company” was. They made an operating system and applications that ran on computers from many many manufacturers including applications that did not even run on their operating system. Microsoft was relevant everywhere. They may be late to the modern smartphone game, but their entry is beautiful and elegant and Microsoft (like IBM of old) has the resources to put some weight behind it and promote it. This is why Tim Cook does not count them out.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:35 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Yes but Jobs didn’t have the business vision to pull it off; and I seriously doubt he actually believed or even wanted to get a PC onto every desk. It’s completely out of character. Gates did however. It was Gates that allowed the democratisation of the Personal Computer.
In the hands of someone like Jobs, and we know this for fact, it will only end up in the hands of the rich and well to do. Apple mostly still continues to operate in this upper stratosphere.
Jobs and Apple made niche, specialty computers and priced it as such. Their business model would never allow them to have a personal computer on every desk.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
In the past tense you are correct. The Steve Jobs biography has some great insight from Jobs and Gates themselves. Gates obviously knew the best route back in the late 80’s to make a “PC on every desk” a reality. Jobs did not know how to balance his perfectionism with costs back then. But Jobs learned many lessons at NeXT and Pixar.
Jobs learned from his mistakes and with the helps of folks like Tim Cook, Apple found the balance between great products and affordable/great prices. The “expensive” characterization of Apple’s products is about 10-years stale. Jobs set out to make Apple’s products more affordable and provide greater value since he rejoined the company. Cook made it a reality. You can’t get a better value than MacBook Air or iPad. Competitors still struggle with Ultrabook pricing and nobody can build a decent tablet for less than Apple (though Amazon can “dump” one in the market in hopes of monetizing it with Amazon Prime and digital content/hard goods sales). Even the iPhone 3GS can be had for free on contract today.
Certainly Apple’s strategy failed in the face of cheaper alternatives that were good enough in the late 80s and 90s. But if you still believe Apple is a “niche” player you might want to fast forward from 1998 to the current day.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:43 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I don’t think that was Microsoft’s vision. By the time Windows came out, the PC was well established. My neighbor had an Apple IIe, I had a TRS-80, nearly all of my friends had either commodore 64s or Sinclairs. They were ubiquitous and becoming more so all the time.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
When you read the comment above replace ubiquitous with commonplace. Gah.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Tim Cook is a very smart guy not to ignore Microsoft.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:08 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
He understands and works the global supply chain. Walmart (only a retailer) is so envious of his skillz…
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple releases just an iPhone every year…but 10-20 droids compete with it and hundreds of Android devices compete with iOS. If we compare just an iPhone with the best of the Android devices…iPhone wins.
I don’t think that Apple needs to fix anything. It’s going in the right direction!
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow did this turn into an Apple/Android flame war fast. STOP FIGHTING, it doesn’t change a damn thing you posting things to piss off other people or to prove yourself right. Please keep The Verge civil, I don’t want it becoming a site where I can’t read the comments because I have to dig through people bickering with each other. I love you all, but please tone down the flame wars a little bit.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
A quick point that many droid , apple , msft fans seem to miss.
Comparative advantage VS Competitive advantage.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Android I don’t think was ever intended to be profitable to Google in the sense as one may think it to be. with Android Google helps to speared its mindshare and influence from which it has profited from. Apple with iOS has been geared to be a profit making product and it shows. They’re not only making a return from their App market but from the subsidiesed hardware. Giving it away at a bulk rate and then getting people to utilize iTunes and such as been a win win for them. Marketshare though very welcomed they are doing just fine despite Android’s rise. Its only now Google is trying to make a direct return on Android from its music service and other stuff.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Do not overlook the fact that iTunes only accounted for 4% of Apple’s revenue last quarter. I don’t see Apple or Google looking to music, movie and app sales to drive revenue. These just need to support themselves at a modest profit. Amazon’s model is the post-device sales market — they make money on what you purchase after the device is purchased and they give away the device at cost.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 3:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I didnt start the flame wars and do do do dododod0
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Giant profits mean giant bonuses for upper management and share holders whilst factory workers are still worked to death for low pay and shitty treatment and apples direct employees get there options shut down due to agreements with other large prospective employees in the valley…..yea for greedy Apple, well done at screwing the world, the US and your employees. Just keep em shiny shiny devices coming showing no long term support for previous purchases and you’ll carry on with your golden success.
P.S. That sarcasm goes for ALL corporations. If you want a future for your children in a non raped world, support privately owned business, democratic modeled businesses and non profits such as Mozilla.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
We shall ignore them with our lawyers!
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 7:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
hey you’re reading this useless comment, glad you’ve reached this far
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 10:28 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
i know it’s hard for you apple fans to comprehend this…but you’re not number #1.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:09 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They are in profits.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple’s goal for 2008 was 1% of marketshare. I think they succeeded.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 1:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
While the horse in Cupertino glides across polished glass and aluminium, the horse in Redmond trudges through mud.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 5:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
umm the redmond horse has 50 BILLION cash , made about 24 billion profit last year. and has a full stable of 14 horse that produce 1B plus revs each every year.
It is not so much that there is a Horse in Redmond, as it is there are a bunch of horses in redmond, and they are happy to pop the phone horse/foal into the horse box and carry it until its strong enough to run.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 5:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think we’ve taken this metaphorical horse race a little too far now…
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 11:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.