Slashdot Mirror
The Tricky Road Ahead For Android Gets Even Trickier
HughPickens.com writes: Farhad Manjoo writes in the NYT that with over one billion devices sold in 2014 Android is the most popular operating system in the world by far, but that doesn't mean it's a financial success for Google. Apple vacuumed up nearly 90 percent of the profits in the smartphone business which prompts a troubling question for Android and for Google: How will the search company — or anyone else, for that matter — ever make much money from Android. First the good news: The fact that Google does not charge for Android, and that few phone manufacturers are extracting much of a profit from Android devices, means that much of the globe now enjoys decent smartphones and online services for low prices. But while Google makes most of its revenue from advertising, Android has so far been an ad dud compared with Apple's iOS, whose users tend to have more money and spend a lot more time on their phones (and are, thus, more valuable to advertisers). Because Google pays billions to Apple to make its search engine the default search provider for iOS devices, the company collects much more from ads placed on Apple devices than from ads on Android devices.
The final threat for Google's Android may be the most pernicious: What if a significant number of the people who adopted Android as their first smartphone move on to something else as they become power users? In Apple's last two earnings calls, Tim Cook reported that the "majority" of those who switched to iPhone had owned a smartphone running Android. Apple has not specified the rate of switching, but a survey found that 16 percent of people who bought the latest iPhones previously owned Android devices; in China, that rate was 29 percent. For Google, this may not be terrible news in the short run. If Google already makes more from ads on iOS than Android, growth in iOS might actually be good for Google's bottom line. Still, in the long run, the rise of Android switching sets up a terrible path for Google — losing the high-end of the smartphone market to the iPhone, while the low end is under greater threat from noncooperative Android players like Cyanogen which has a chance to snag as many as 1 billion handsets. Android has always been a tricky strategy concludes Manjoo; now, after finding huge success, it seems only to be getting even trickier.
The final threat for Google's Android may be the most pernicious: What if a significant number of the people who adopted Android as their first smartphone move on to something else as they become power users? In Apple's last two earnings calls, Tim Cook reported that the "majority" of those who switched to iPhone had owned a smartphone running Android. Apple has not specified the rate of switching, but a survey found that 16 percent of people who bought the latest iPhones previously owned Android devices; in China, that rate was 29 percent. For Google, this may not be terrible news in the short run. If Google already makes more from ads on iOS than Android, growth in iOS might actually be good for Google's bottom line. Still, in the long run, the rise of Android switching sets up a terrible path for Google — losing the high-end of the smartphone market to the iPhone, while the low end is under greater threat from noncooperative Android players like Cyanogen which has a chance to snag as many as 1 billion handsets. Android has always been a tricky strategy concludes Manjoo; now, after finding huge success, it seems only to be getting even trickier.
Nice typo you've got there. :D
"The 'Majority' Of New iPhone Switchers Came From Android"
With Android's huge marketshare, wouldn't you expect that to be the case?
I have my Blackberry! :)
What if a significant number of the people who adopted Android as their first smartphone move on to something else as they become power users?
That would be a possibility if there were a more power-user-friendly smartphone platform. However, Android is the platform for power users.
In Apple's last two earnings calls, Tim Cook reported that the "majority" of those who switched to iPhone had owned a smartphone running Android.
That is hardly surprising, since that is true for people in general.
Still, in the long run, the rise of Android switching sets up a terrible path for Google — losing the high-end of the smartphone market to the iPhone
While the iPhone is definately in the high-end segment of the market if we look at the retail price, it is hardly competetive to high-end Android phones functionally. They serve a different market. Hence, I don't think this is a big threat for Android's market share.
When Android has the vast majority of the market, where do you think the majority of people "switching" to Apple are going to come from? The single digit % of users running Windows phone or Blackberry?
The final threat for Google's Android may be the most pernicious: What if a significant number of the people who adopted Android as their first smartphone move on to something else as they become power users?
WTF
How many of those people bought a cheap (crap) Android device and then instead of spending money for a "superphone" decided to go the the "cult of iDevices"? I've had a number of android based devices and given the broad range of hardware out there it's easy to get suckered into buying something that's absolute crap and then wind up blaming the part you can see. I've had a few friends that made this kind of switch and when I pull out my current Android device (OnePlus) most of them kinda kick themselves.
There's statistics, and then there's useless bullshit. I'm thinking this is more the latter.
Amazing! The majority of people who switched (implicity from a different device) to iPhone previously owned an Android phone (the most common type of smartphone worldwide).
would one of the dominant mobile orientated FOSS-OSs splinter and diversify into various specialized applications? Would it do so without even without financial backing from Google? What are the other major players? What's been happening lately in that regard?
Please tell me - I have no clue.
Thank you.
If "high end" means non-replaceable batteries, I'll stick with " low end".
So 16% of iPhone purchases were made by people who previously owned Android phones. (I'm going to assume here that "owned Android devices" doesn't mean you owned a Nexus tablet and now are buying an iPhone.) This statistic is useless, though, unless you also find out how many people buying Android phones previously owned iPhones. If there's an equivalent amount of people getting Android phones to replace their iPhones, then the "16%" isn't really a loss for Android. It's just normal churn. Presenting the 16% figure on its own is misleading as it makes it seem like people are fleeing Android and nobody ever leaves Apple.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Just use iOS once and you'll run back to Android. Everything about the iOS experience is lacking and unfinished. It's a poor excuse of an OS, wrapped around an asinine GUI that isn't intuitive to use or welcoming. The settings are a mess compared to Android, the way the apps interconnect feels like a high school student attempted it for his / her first programming project. I was on iOS for work a year ago, I couldn't give that phone back fast enough, it was more of hindrance at getting working done then anything else. If Google wants to keep market share, they just have to let users play with iOS, they'll run back to Android!
,.. so this is just more of the same from him. One of the most overrated people in the tech journalism echo chamber. While these blowhards are all busy singing off the same page, no one is pointing out the obvious fact that we've ended up in another huge tech bubble and we're overdue for a correction as severe as the one that took place in 2000.
Article is obviously written by an iOS fanboi.
The reason why people switching coming from Android is because the rest of the pack is simply too small.
Microsoft powered phones don't exist in the real world. I have yet to see one. They are apocryphal.
Before I get piled on by Softies, I have to point out that your fearless leaders ignored the smartphone market until it was too late. The "let the other guys do the pioneering and go in later to use dodgy tactics to muscle into the market" doesn't work all the time. And this time they ceded the market to everyone but them.
--
BMO.
Google doesn't care about the platform, they want screens in front of faces.
Putting 100 android screens in front of 100 faces 1% of the time is making them money.
Putting 50 iOS screens in front of 50 faces 2% of the time, is making them money.
There is nothing tricky about this for google... They want to grow, they biggest source of income is ads, ads are all about getting people to look at things.
They have two options, they can try to compete for a bigger slice of the same sized pie, push all the other ad companies out of business...
OR they can get us to spend more time with our screens in front of our faces, the pie gets bigger and even if every one keeps the same percentage of the pie, Google makes more money than the rest of them.
Why is google working on self driving cars? They want you to use your commute time to browse the web.
Why is google working on glass? They want to be in front of your face every waking hour of the day.
Why is google running internet lines and looking into connectivity by high altitude balloons? Every hour they can one additional person connected to the internet is making them money, connectivity to places that don't have it expands their portion of the pie.
Google provides Jquery libraries, graphing software, mapping software, and DNS servers to make the internet faster and more reliable because the more people looking at more pages makes them more money...
Screens in front of faces, that is what google wants... They don't care about the platform, they gave andriod away to get cheap devices out there to put screens in front of faces.
Google pays billions to Apple to make its search engine the default search provider for iOS device
Think of how much MORE Google would have to pay if Android was not the dominate OS. . . HINT: Companies usually Open Source technologies to reduce costs, not to DIRECTLY increase revenues.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
And the first thing I do when I get a new one is switch the default from Google. So, thanks for giving Apple those billions!
You need to learn more about the "Settings" area of iOS configuration app security. Don't let hate blind you to OS configuration.
With blackberry and MS having a negligible portion of the smartphone market, I would be surprised if it *wasn't* android.
About 15% of smartphone users who by a Samsung (Android) handset come from iOS users. A higher percentage of iOS users are previous Android users (about 2:1 vs those switching from iOS to Android), but there are more Android users overall, so I'm not certain that there's a net loss in the Android userbase. For example: there were about 200 million iOS devices sold in 2014, and about 1 billion Android devices. If 20% of new iOS users are former Android users, that's 40 Million switching to iOS. If 5% of Android users are former iOS users, that's 50 Million switching to Android. That's a net +10M for Android.
(some stats: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I know 2 so my anecdote trumps your anecdote.
Why would a 'Power User' move from Android to iOS? They won't be able to do any of their 'power things' any more.
This article makes no sense at all.
Well now you have. I switched from the iphone 3 to Android more 5 years ago and never switched back. Where I work, which is a major university, outside of the hipsters apple is seen as a joke. But then again I work at an engineering college where people like to be able to do more on their phones than what anyone may allow them to.
Also my experience is that Android is much more polished experiance.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Now that is pretty funny. Power Users - whatever they are - moving to iPhone? It is usually the other way around - Power Users move to a platform that gives them more options either in form factor, device capabilities (such as micro-sd cards), or operating system configurability. They don't usually move to a more limited platform - even one known to work very well and have high quality devices.
What if a significant number of the people who adopted Android as their first smartphone move on to something else as they become power users? In Apple's last two earnings calls, Tim Cook reported that the "majority" of those who switched to iPhone had owned a smartphone running Android.
I am a power user. I also create and fit media systems. Of the Media Systems we offer - only Android can be used to synchronise content to it.
If Apple has this facility I bet it costs more than the 50USD we charge to provide it !
For us - Android is a no-brainer.
I would not switch to apple's proprietary eco-system, ever. I recommend to my customers to also never move to apple.
What if a significant number of the people who adopted Android as their first smartphone move on to something else as they become power users?
Err, which OS offers more depth and power OOTB than Android? I'm not sure what they mean by that. I ditched iOS for Android because I am a power user.
Reading the article about Cyanogen, I realize I need to be as wary of them (and their Microsoft partnership) as I am of the other big players. Time to check out some other Android variants.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
I don't think there is really a fight between iOS and Android. iOS is Apple, Android is the rest. OK, there's Windows Phone and Blackberry but they don't really count in this market. Windows Phone is almost exclusive to Nokia; Blackberry is just Blackberry.
The battle is between Apple, Samsung, LG, Huawei, etc. Not between the OSes. Samsung is targeting the high-end market about as much as Apple, though while Apple targets only the high end, Samsung targets also other segments of the market. The other manufacturers are targeting anything from rock bottom to the top.
We should really stop this "Android vs iOS" nonsense. I've never, ever heard someone choosing a phone based on it having iOS or Android. Instead they want an Apple iPhone (which happens to come with iOS). Or they want the latest Samsung (which happens to come with Android - Samsung's Android, a version of Android bastardised to an extent that it is hardly recognisable as the same OS that runs many other phones, from manufacturers that use something close to stock Android).
Now it may very well be that Apple users are the ones that are more susceptible to advertising (which in turn could explain why they chose Apple's offering; after all Apple's marketing is second to none), and hence more valuable to advertisers. But it's not just that "Apple/iOS has the high-end market". Samsung's top end is at least as high end as Apple's iPhones and they seem to compete quite strongly, taking a good share of that market.
That Apple makes a lot more profit on their phones than Samsung and other Android makers do... that's a whole different story. Maybe it simply is the case that Apple users are those that are swayed easiest by advertising, making them pay a massive premium for their phones. And people that already have shown to be happy to buy big in an advertising ploy should be valuable for other advertisers as well.
I have to wonder does it honestly matter for Google to be a financial success? Google has historically taken on many projects that would seem to be opposite of financial success that in the end turned out successful regardless or in some way generated a lot of goodwill for the company. I hear YouTube is not a financial success but Google keeps it anyhow because it helps make their own services more popular.
I am sure Google sort of knows what it is doing. Who knows maybe this can be used as an argument in possible up coming anti-trust claims in Europe which have no basis at all.
It is interesting that Google is making 75% of mobile ad revenue on the Apple platform ($9 billion) vs Android ($3 billion).
I wonder if this is because advertisers are paying more for ads on the Apple platform or if its because people who have Android phones are not using the smart features as much as Apple users. It's likely a bit of both.
"move on to something else as they become power users?" - huh? Isn't iPhone's thing that it's supposed to "just work" with everything, with no effort? Isn't android's thing supposed to be that it's a lot more hands-on? I don't think I've ever seen someone try to suggest that the iPhone appeals more to "power users" - hell, androids come with the debug/developer mode, not iPhone (press version info 7 times).
Also, as others have mentioned - android has 78% of the market share, iOS has 18.3%. That means 95.5% of the people who have a phone that isn't an iPhone, have an android. So yeah, of farking course those who "switch to" iPhone will have an android, by "majority." That he couldn't say "almost every single person who switches" instead of merely "majority" means either the switch is actually telling, but *bad* for iPhone, or it means he didn't take advantage of the sensational non-statement he could have made.
Which all goes to prove that Iphones are just bling (just like cars, jewellery, big houses etc) - the more money you have the more bling you have. Only people who have a higher than average wage can afford the cost of an Iphone. Which means youngsters come into the market with Android and get pay rises until you can afford more bling, unless they continue working for MacDonalds, and can only afford an Android.
So with all that advertisers need to start with Android to catch buyers young and hopefully keep them for life.
As soon as my wife's iPad is rendered useless by OS upgrades (it's slowly happening), she'll switch to Android.
My impression is that people start with iOS or a very cheap Android phone (depending on their finances), and then move to a decent Android phone as they become 'power users' and start hitting up against their device's limits and restrictions.
Google is an advertising company. They make money from getting the advertising targets (you) to use their services, and charge the advertisers for access to you.
They're not going to make money off Android directly, it is just a way to get people on their platform.
This is why Google still makes iOS and Windows Phone applications. They just care that you're using their platform, regardless of how.
Apple is a hardware company.They make money from selling phones, and increasingly off of their app stores, but obviously not enough to open their app store to Google.
This is why you DON'T see iTunes, Facetime, or iMessage for Android. Their goal is to sell devices.
Microsoft is a software company. They make money off selling software, so they will, like Google, try to make their software available on as many platforms as they can. They, also like Google, care less about the phone sales and more about getting you as a loyal user of their products.
Unlike Google, Microsoft users are their customers.
Whenever people compare these three companies, they need to look at the core of who these companies are.
I'm not claiming one is better than the other, and in fact I use all three daily.
They just have different motivations for playing on the same playground.
It is somewhat like 3 kids all playing baseball together, but one is playing to be a pro baseball player, another is playing to have fun, and another is playing to impress a girl.
You can't compare the 3 kids to each other and say one is doing better than another, because each is measuring their success a different way.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
The point of Android and Chrome has always been to poke MS in the eye. They are willing to forgo more profits if they can take them away from Microsoft.
They are not in the explicit deathmatch mode with Apple. It is MS they want to hurt.
My biggest issue is that I'm stuck on some ancient version of Android. OS updates are the responsibility of the carriers, yet they carry no liability when they don't offer the updates in a timely manner (or at all). I'm sure old iPhone hardware has a limit, but they are certainly guaranteed to get updates for a much larger time frame than a majority of android devices.
I can root my phone, and I have rooted some phones, but the same issue exists there as well. As soon as the phone hardware is sufficiently old you can no longer find well supported updates for the OS. These updates are also often offered by random, unknown individuals, which is obviously a big risk. The problem is even more difficult when phone manufacturers are actually successful at preventing rooting.
I'm fine with old hardware eventually not being able to run the latest OS, but I have no indication of when that will be. When I buy a new phone, I don't know if I will get updates for 5 years, or even less.
Why do I have to upgrade my entire OS just to get security updates? Why can't I have patches?
Imagine if BestBuy were tasked with making available Windows updates for that Dell you just bought from BestBuy. No, I'd much rather get my updates directly from Microsoft. I want the same thing for my phone, updates directly from the OS maintainer. If I have to buy an Apple product to get that, then they are the winners in my book.
(I own several Android devices and no Apple devices. I'm thinking of buying Apple in the future.)
Because Google pays billions to Apple to make its search engine the default search provider for iOS devices, the company collects much more from ads placed on Apple devices than from ads on Android devices.
Google pays apple to be default search engine on iOS; Google does not pay Google to be the default search engine on Android --> Google (the one that doesn't get paid by Google) must be such a looser. Once we have proven that we bravely conclude:
If Google already makes more from ads on iOS than Android, growth in iOS might actually be good for Google's bottom line.
Is this an MBA degree speaking here?
Because Google pays billions to Apple to make its search engine the default search provider for iOS devices, the company collects much more from ads placed on Apple devices than from ads on Android devices.
This makes absolutely no sense. Why would they earn more from ads placed on Apple devices than from ads on Android because Google pays Apple? There may be more ad revenue from Apple users, but this would be a result of what advertisers are willing to pay to reach these users, not because of what Google does or doesn't pay to Apple.
Besides that, I don't think that claim of more revenue from iOS devices is true. A few weeks ago I saw a report from Opera that claimed ad revenue from Android had passed iOS.
Just read the Apple IOS forums and you'll see that there are a lot of die hard Apple customers that are getting ready to jump ship because of a slew of problems in IOS ever sine version 6. The most annoying and complained about problem is the wi-fi connectivity problem; I've experienced that myself and suddenly you'll lose internet via wi-fi and cellular internet grinds slowly to a halt; the "fix" is to shut off and restart the phone (almost sounds like Windows, reboot when things aren't working right). This problem is definitely an IOS problem since people who had no problems on their device and then updated to the new IOS because they were tired of constantly being nagged to do so suddenly found their internet stops working at regular intervals and have to reboot. This problem has been going on seriously since IOS 7 and seems to have gotten worse in 8 and none of the updates Apple has put out to IOS have really addressed the problem and people are mad that these problems are not being addressed.
On the other hand if iPhone users start migrating to Android phones they'll find out that Android has some problems of it's own that really needs to be addressed.
This article seems(somewhat bizarrely) to be written from the perspective of Google, Inc. but purporting to be talking about "android" and its prospects.
There is certainly a place for analysis of "So, did this 'android' stuff pay off for Google? Was it roughly break-even? A strategic failure?"; but that's quite different than "How is Android doing? What are its prospects?". Conflating the two, though, is confused at best and outright nonsense at worst(especially when examining the 'running Android, possibly even developing it in some way; but not running "Android+Google Play Services"' slice of the market'.
So, is Apple the one actually making money on smartphones? Hell yeah. Has Android been tepid in terms of actually making Google any money? At best; it may well be directly losing money and only appearing to pull its weight as a strategic play. Are the margins for most Android handset manufacturers pretty unexciting compared to Apple? Also hell yeah. However(much like the PC OEMs), that may not actually affect Android: None of the Android OEMs gets the option of joining Apple in making iPhones(except the ones that happen to also have divisions that manufacture components for Apple, like Samsung). Apple has zero interest in letting them do that. So, they can either ship Android handsets with Google, ship AOSP+their own or somebody else's stuff; ship Windows Phone, attempt to build their own OS entirely, or leave the market. Shipping Android handsets with Google isn't a terribly high-margin strategy; but it is so far unclear whether any of the other options are any higher margin.
It is very likely that Google isn't getting nearly as much of what they want from Android as they would like; and Android OEMs certainly aren't earning terribly exciting margins on their devices; but that's their problem. It only becomes Android's problem if Google decides to pull the plug, or if OEMs abandon it in favor of WP or one of the assorted linux-with-stuff-on-top-but-not-android options. So far, WP has gotten fairly good reviews; but struggled for marketshare, and the not-Android Linux derivatives are all writhing around near the noise floor. This isn't obviously a good thing, Android is a pile of mediocrity in quite a few respects, even if some of Google's applications and services for it are pretty good; but it is still the case: Since nobody gets to be an iOS vendor except Apple, and Nokia is MS' special buddy, with other OEMs allowed but sharing a very small pond; 'Android' is a fight over some pretty unexciting margins; but unless a company simply wishes to stop manufacturing smartphones and tablets, it's a fight they'll probably remain in for some time to come.
Sure, I'd love the second coming of WebOS to sweep away the unbelievers and deliver us; but that doesn't appear to be in the cards.
Google's core businesses would be seriously damaged if Apple obtained a monopoly on mobile computing. If it breaks even and prevents Apple hegemony it's as much of a success as it needs to be.
As for the supposed switching of Android users to iPhone, notice the tortured stipulations in this sentence: "the 'majority' of those who switched to iPhone had owned a smartphone running Android." It's also no doubt true that the majority of users who switched to new Android phone had owned a smartphone running Android in the past. The vast majority of smartphones out there are Android, and that's been true for years now, so it's not surprising that someone buying a new smartphone of any kind has previously owned *some* android handset.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Manjoo assumes Google wants to make a profit from Android. I think you might say in this case that the platform is the profit.
The final threat for Google's Android may be the most pernicious: What if a significant number of the people who adopted Android as their first smartphone move on to something else as they become power users?
WTF
That was my reaction as well. That is precisely the opposite of how it works. If you become a Power User, you go Android, because that's the only phone in the game so far where you can build the system yourself from sources. By definition, the more of a power user you are, the more you're going to be an Android user.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Because Google pays billions to Apple to make its search engine the default search provider for iOS devices, the company collects much more from ads placed on Apple devices than from ads on Android devices."
Because Google paid billions?
Because they don't have to pay themselves a single dime for being the default search provider on Android and Android being 90% market share?
I fail to see the logic here.
As others have previously implied... if there are only two products A and B, anyone "switching" to A implicitly was previously using B.
If there are more products but B has the majority share, implicitly the "majority of those switching" come from B.
Next he'll be complaining that 40% of work sick days are taken on Mondays and Fridays.
cheers -ben
Google did not develop and release their free Android operating system to profit off the (free) OS, they wanted to lower costs to increase the user base and thereby increase their advertising market.
At over a billion devices in the market, they have expanded the user base.
If android users migrate to iOS (for whatever reason), evidence proves that iOS users are among the most profitable market segment in the mobile advertising market, so Google sees ad revenue (and profits) increase.
Android is the gateway is to the 'harder' OSes, like iOS, and that's where the real money is.
Google is getting exactly what it wants from it's free Android OS.
Personally, I think the biggest challenge Android devices have is that many users are drawn in by the exceptional bargain devices (like a $40 7" tablet) and soon learn that a) they really like the functionality of a tablet and b) you really can't make a 'good' tablet for $40. That initial exposure to lie-quality/lie-cost android devices ultimately could drive frustrated users to iOS devices like the iPhone and iPad.
Ken
I use technology in my work, but I don't have time to fool around with it. I have 2 kids and a 12-hour work day. The last thing i need to be doing is fooling around with my phone changing settings, modding the system to become a power user. I need a phone that will work, not give me malware and let me run the apps i need and want to run.
I am not a power user and don't want to be. I had an iPhone first, then switched to Android to save money. I used that android phone for a few months but the learning curve making everything work together just didn't happen for me. It was kludgy. I switched back to iOS and i am in my comfort zone. To each his own, I am happy that i can get what i need done quickly and easily on my phone and all the apps i need are available. I am not a tech luddite, I just want things to work without fuss. I put up with too much tech crap at work to deal with more dissolusionment in my pocket.
You couldn't pay me to use an apple product. Literally. If I were offered one job when I graduated and it was either work for a company that forces you to use apple products or be out of work for a few more months. I'd wait.
We are constantly told that facebook is the greatest thing in the history of the universe, even though it doesn't actually make money. Why are we holding android to a different standard?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I agree with your post mostly, but what exactly constitutes a "power user"?
Yeah, I root my phone, parked Cyanogen on it, and spent time modding my UI to fit my needs and tastes, but I consider myself to be someone who tinkers with the thing (as part of an old sysadmin's habit), and not a 'power user'. I fully understand what goes on with the OS, and have tinkered with mobile OSes before even Familiar Linux came out, and even wrote (okay, adapted) a quickie printer driver once, long, long ago... but I'm not a 'power user'.
IMO (and little more), I've always considered a 'power user' to be someone who has an above-average grasp of the item (phone, application, etc), and has very successfully integrated it into their life's workflow, and in turn the item has boosted their productivity, entertainment, etc. in very apparent ways. However, on a technical level such folks only know enough at best to be *very* dangerous - they can follow directions on a website to root their phone w/o blowing it up, but they don't understand *how* it works.
Dunno... what do you think? I just seem slightly fuzzed when it comes to assuming what a 'power user' actually is in the mobile realm.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I'm sorry, but iOS really has very little to offer a power user. How many custom Roms can it run? What can you do with it? What kind of other devices run iOS? It's, pretty much, the most boring piece of crap on the planet. People who don't have time to fiddle with their phones tend to get iPhones because of this. I know a lot of tech people who use iPhones so they can avoid the temptation of hacking their Androids. Or they will have one as a second phone in case they blow the Android up and need a phone. No, the world didn't suddenly flood with mentally challenged 'power users'.
The interesting thing on trying to find the number going the other way... I came across conversion numbers from previous years for Android to iOS. They have been slowly decreasing year after year. 2012 the rate was 25% (http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/11/more-iphone-buyers-switching-from-android-this-year-than-in-2012). 2013 the rate was 20% (http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/19/study-finds-20-of-apple-iphone-users-switched-from-android-in-past-year). This article says 16% in 2014. Judging from the derth of articles touting the rate the other way... would seem to indicate the rate from iOS is less than the rate to iOS... but that's far from proof.
Google doesn't care about making profit out of Android yet. They are buying market share. They want to position themselves as a dominant player in order to profit in the future, once the smartphone market will be a lot larger than what it is today. A good comparison is Microsoft with their Xbox. They lost money with the first Xbox, but they placed themselves as an important player in the gaming console market. And then they made money with the Xbox 360 and Xbox One. It's all about the long term.
'the "majority" of those who switched to iPhone had owned a smartphone running Android'
You can't switch from iPhone to iPhone.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have owned several iPhones, starting with the original one. But I switched to Android. Here's why....
To get the most out of the iPhone you have to commit to the entire Apple ecosystem - Macbook, iPad, iTunes...the whole ball of wax. I'm not willing to do that because, for me, there are better alternatives. My Android phone seems to work equally well on OSX or Windows or Linux and I think that is a big plus.
As far as the OS itself, it seems to me that OSX is getting worse and Android is getting better. I'm running the newest version of Android (5.0.2) and I am very impressed. It looks better and runs better. Battery life is very good. I have more control over how things work than I did with OSX.
All of the Apps I will ever need, and more, are available in the Play Store. It seems that there are more free ones than what Apple offers.
The iPhone is nice but I just can't find a compelling reason to switch back to it. I'm sticking with Android.
"How will the search company — or anyone else, for that matter — ever make much money from Android."
How about extorting revenue from the hardware manufacturers under threat of litigation. And then leaning on them to install Office, OneDrive and Skype on the devices. So somebody is making money out of Microsoft Android ©.
i switched from iPhone *to* Android specifically because iOS is such a closed platform. Android (or at least AOSP, non-Samsung variants) are for power users.
Not to muddy the waters, and perhaps a little off topic, but I've read several articles that estimate Microsoft brings in between $2 billion to $8.8 billion in license fees from harware makers using Android. These are two year old posts:
https://www.google.com/#q=micr...
http://www.zdnet.com/article/m...
And,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...
The last link asserts MS makes five times as much from these fees than it does on the Windows Phone OS. There have been recent developments in settling disputes about fees paid by Samsung to Microsoft, so some of the numbers are not up to date, but one point that's clear, Android is not free to hardware makers and indirectly to hardware purchasers but do result in substantial Microsoft revenue.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Either it's your first phone, then you're not counted as switch
Is a switch from a "feature phone" to a smartphone counted as a switch or a first time?
There are still a LOT of non-smartphone owners, they would be considered switchers too.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Oh? So you have the source code? Snicker snort.
Your ignorance is no laughing matter.
Because of how easy Objective-C is to pull compilable headers, and how easy it is to extend any class and override any method (swizzling), you have everything you need to change ANY app or system process even though you don't have all the original source code. It's lots more powerful than just having source code for the OS and not apps...
Its' really too bad you can't understand how much more powerful this is to actual hackers.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm a CyanogenMod user, but I don't think they're a serious player in the Android community.
Cyanogen split from their first actual customer, OnePlus, after a partnership that has been described as "rocky." I don't know what the problem was, but that sounds to me like the company isn't capable of meeting its customers needs.
Beyond poor customer service, the developers do not appear, from the outside, to have any experience project management. There was never a stable release of CyanogenMod 12.0, and hasn't been a stable release of 12.1 yet either. A reasonable release process would probably involve a code branch containing their tested, stabilized add-ons that they integrated with AOSP. New features should be developed in a separate branch and merged after they've been through testing, and during a window that's open after a release of the stable branch. None of that appears to be happening. The changelog for their nightly builds is a firehose of bug fixes and new features.
And beyond THAT, I've never heard of Cyanogen working to push any fixes upstream into AOSP. I would love to hear that they do. If not, they're building a patch set that will only grow over time, which will eternally increase their workload of integration with the upstream project
It's unsustainable. And that's sad, because I like one or two of the features they add to AOSP.
Well, what a refreshing change of pace. Instead of the commenters setting up strawmen and beating them down, the article takes care of that for us.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Tech writers are obviously hard to come by, if someone as dopey as Manjoo can get a gig at the NYT. Not that the NYT has demonstrated any ability to purvey useful information, other than Krugman, for many years now.
If a product ships broken but has an "unbreak" checkbox, it still ships broken.
Yes, voluntarily.
The z30 is the best goddamn phone I've ever owned (and that's been: Motorola (last GSM brick model), Nokia, Motorola, Motorola (RAZR), HTC (Desire) and Samsung (Galaxy).
Basically I got sick of Android never feeling "finished", one annoying thing would get fixed but another introduced, or things that were useful got taken away. Constant bloody change for change's sake. (Don't get me started on grey text on a white background - WTF?)
Then there was feeling like I'd gone back to a Windows ME PC loaded with bloat/crapware and an apparent, "We'll do security last" attitude. I've never trusted Android enough to perform anything financial (like banking) with it. Particularly anything browser-based where the baked-in browsers only get updated with the firmware (i.e. never). Then there's the whole not being able to un-install the vendor or carrier's crapware to save space or bandwith use or to reduce attack surface. The utter lack of regular OS updates for ongoing, evolving security vulnerabilites, because you have to rely on the handset vendor and not Google.
I've used Apple kit and it's OK, (I'm not sure I like the new visual design ethos though) but the growing number of voices beginning to complain about the perceived drop in the quality of the software was off-putting, then there's the whole fashionista-cult-like nature and Jobs-worship amongst Appledom that's more than a little weird for a friggin' phone.
With the BlackBerry 10, I get around two bars signal in places where my HTC got none, the call quality is excellent. I could immediately un-install the bundled Facebook, Twitter and Box and installed (native) ownCloud and LinkedIn apps. I've easily found native apps or web-apps (excellent browser BTW), for everything I already use. Strong encryption, excellent security model and highly granular app-privilege controls, hell I can even un-install the clock app! Oh and the OS has a built-in traceroute and NSlookup app - that got me on geek-factor alone.
The desktop/tablet app "BlackBerry Blend" is like having my own personal cloud, without needing any third-party cloud provider - it just works and is really useful. Then new BBM app combines the best of (old) BBM, Skype, WhatsApp and Snapchat in one place.
My only worry is they might get bought by one of the big three and killed-off in favour of very inferior OS's or Chinese or Korean companies which means two things will probably happen, the security and privacy will go out the window and the elegant and business-like interface and design ethos will go all super-kawaii Hello-Kitty or Samsung/LG soulless conformity.
Yes, I'm evangelising, but what the hell, BlackBerry 10 is bloody awesome and the z30 phone hardware is a delight to use and the finish is excellent. More people need to sign their praises. That and we desperately need an alternative to the American big three (if you count MSFT).
Farhad Manjoo writes in the NYT that with over one billion devices sold in 2014 Android is the most popular operating system in the world by far, but that doesn't mean it's a financial success for Google. Apple vacuumed up nearly 90 percent of the profits in the smartphone business ...it's OK if Apple vacuums up a bunch of profit from the smartphone business right now, as:
1. It's kept Apple from sucking up all the profits from the online search business by keeping them from having a stranglehold as a gatekeeper. It's very smart and forward-thinking.
2. It won't necessarily remain that way (see blackberry, nokia, etc.) and at some point Google might find an end-game for better monetize Android. But if they don't, it's really about #1.
Ugh. NYT. Sad.
I'm pretty sure he was criticizing Android's security, not Apple's. iOS is just a pain in the ass to use and is very non-customizable. That's annoying to a lot of people, including me.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Apple has not specified the rate of switching, but a survey found that 16 percent of people who bought the latest iPhones previously owned Android devices;
Well that's a pretty useless statistic without also knowing how many iOS users switched to Android - isn't it? And I was not able to find any surveys that provided those numbers.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The big thing is, Google doesn't care if Android makes money, it's not how they operate. Google's overarching goal is to make the "internet better", and they take on any project that aligns with that goal: making email better with Gmail, better maps/navigation with Google Maps, better ISPs with Google Fiber, better internet connected phones with Android. Anything they do is designed to spur competition and growth in segments that they think is lagging. They don't care about the individual slices of the pie, they care about making the entire pie bigger.
The Apple security model is easier to use. An Android app will ask for all sorts of permissions up front, usually without explanation as to what it wants the permission for. iOS asks for permissions at the time of use, giving you a much better idea of what the app may be trying to do, and asking individual questions when they matter rather than asking one overall question without context.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I love to walk into an Apple Store. While I may not be particularly brilliant, as long as I am in there I know I am the smartest person in the room. Then, I leave, and return to being an average joe.
One reason I'll not be buying an Android phone is the length of support. I refuse to buy a phone which the manufacturers refuse to release o/s updates after a couple of years. £500 phone over 2 years, that's £20 per month.
One time, I wanted to uninstall an iOS App. I checked the Settings section. The Apps were listed, but no way to uninstall them. One Google search later and I found out I had to hold my finger on the screen to get App icons to shake and then select one to be deleted.
Who the hell sells Apple has good UI design?
(I understand having a convenient way to interact with a device, but at least give me the backup option of using a menu. Y'know, something I can search for. It'd be like in Android the only way to interact with the on-screen keyboard is via swiping. No individual character input. Swiping's great, but sometimes you need individual character selection for passwords and such.)
You've got to be kidding. iOS attracts people who don't want an OS, they just want a predictable reaction to actions performed over and over again, no matter how time consuming. This is hardly my definition of a "power user".
What the heck is a feature phone anyways?
A smartphone is a phone for which AT&T will automatically add on a data plan unless you use obscure means to prevent it, such as buying a GoPhone SIM and activating it over the Internet. A feature phone is a cell phone that is not a smartphone.
Ok my first smartphone was a windows ce phone. So I guess you would say I was on Windows before anything. Today I have a collection of smartphones. I look for bargains / steals on ebay and I jump on them. I swap the sim card out on my phones like changing underwear. It all depends on my mood. Today I'm in an IOS mood so I have my IPhone 5sl 64GB phone running. Some days it might be my Samsung Note 4 or my (gasp) Firephone. I even have 3 windows phones 2 Nokia's and 1 HTC. For me it's all about my mood and not so much the platform. So getting to my point. Tim Cook is full of shit and he has been drinking the Cupertino Coolaid. How would he know when some one switches their phone out? Who keeps those stats? I think he is pulling numbers out of his back orifice. Though there is one cool thing to note. When I log onto the AT&T wireless sight, it tells me what type of phone is presently being used for each of my 3 wireless numbers and it tells me what type of tablet is being used on my one sim card dedicated to tablet use. I doubt that Tim is getting his stats from there.
Paul E. Bahre
Would anyone switch from a device and platform where you are the commander of the system to one where you are forced into subservience as a consumer of what has been deemed fit for your consumption?
People are sheeple. I'll never grok this thing called the human race.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion