Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

In the global market where android now has 60 something percent market share and iPhones have 18.


But Apple make more profit. Thats how they decided to compete, not for market share.


And how's that profit sustainable?

They currently have near-monopoloy perceived first-mover prices and margins as 'the only credible device' (iPad) and 'the coolest device' (iPhone). They have the perception as being 'the only system with the good apps' (iPad) - noticeably they don't have that any more with the iPhone. Realistically, how long can they keep it with the iPad and, once lost, what means do they have of getting it back? And what's Apple's plan to maintain its current market advantages of consistency once the mobile market moves from high-end luxury to commodity that needs a tiered product range?

How many new Android devices come out per year, even just from the major top-tier devices? How many from Apple? To sustain the current position, Apple have to win and be lucky every time. Android can afford below a 10% hit rate and it'll still innovate faster and grow more strongly as a platform than iOS.

Apple now are in much the same position as they were the first time they lost Steve Jobs. Their five year outlook is, IMHO, grim - their profits come overwhelmingly from iOS but it's under heavy attack and has no obvious strategy to grow their base without cutting off what made them a success.

Apple are (medium-term) on the crest of a wave. Their long-term outlook is only down IMHO, and this time they can't bring Steve back.


Insightful.

Interesting hypothesis that they need to hit a homerun now with every gadget they make.


Sorry if I'm derailing the conversation, but is Google trying to capture the market share with the Android or is it trying to make a profit?

What is Google's goal with the Android? Ads? An extension to search?

Again, sorry if I've derailed the discussion. I'm just curious to see what HN thinks.


I think they are trying to commoditize the market so that Apple is not dominant. But Apple have not really joined in, and have managed to keep a large and profitable portion of the market, indeed grown that since Android launched. So so far Android has largely failed on that basis.


That global market is mostly made up people who would never become Apple customers. Apple really doesn't target poor people; Android does.


to me, this comment seems to be phrased a tad bit negatively, even though it may be factually correct.

a lot of people like to talk about "android fragmentation". while the variety of devices out there can sometimes be annoying as a consumer and developer, i tend to think of it as "android diversity" instead.

to me, it's wonderful that your so-called "poor people", who may not even have a regular computer and for whom the "premium" experience that apple is not an option, still have an opportunity to participate in the "modern world". even if it's with a device that gearheads would turn their noses up at.

technology liberates, informs, and elevates people. the fact that the android ecosystem is flexible enough to accommodate a huge demographic is a strength, in my mind, and not a weakness.


Just because I acknowledge they are poor people doesn't mean I think Android targeting them is bad. Android is a net positive for the species.

Having said that, it would be even better if more companies were willing to take risks and innovate like Apple has. Instead, most corporations are pathetically conservative, unimaginative, and basically stupid.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: