Hacker News Reader

Comment by twblalock | Hacker News Reader

If Elop had bet on Android instead of Windows Phone, Nokia would probably be doing well.

Almost certainly not. Have you seen the profit numbers at Samsung, Motorola, and HTC? They're getting destroyed by Android competitors like Xiaomi, Huawei, etc and Apple.

What makes you think Nokia would have ended up like Samsung/Motorola/HTC rather than Xiaomi/Huawei/etc? Nokia at least had a chance to be one of the profitable ones.

There are no profitable android makers.

Apple has 94% of the profits in mobile: http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/15/11/16/apple-inc-n...

We will never know for sure by Nokia shareholders might have gotten an amazing deal out of going Windows Mobile and getting acquired by Microsoft. As for the employees, this would have happened either way with how badly the company was prepared for smartphones.

Recent Samsung financial results say that their profit growth is fueled in part by Galaxy S7. So, no, there are fairly profitable android makers.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11523616/samsung-earnings-...

Because every android manufacturer will end with virtually no profit since they are producing a commodity. When you basically can't differentiate with your software except for which shitty skin you layered on top of Android, what makes a samsung better than an lg or any other android device?

Hardware is the differentiator.

This is rather ignorant. Hardware is what makes Samsungs (for example) better: superAMOLED screens (which iPhones still don't have), better cameras, waterproof cases, removable batteries, etc. Can you drop your crappy iPhone in the pool? No, but a Galaxy S5 can handle that with no trouble, while having a better screen, removable battery, and upgradable SD card storage.

Yeah, but no. There's nothing stopping Huawei or anyone else from exactly copying that Samsung. And then what's the difference between the two? Nothing except price.

OTOH, nobody can copy an iphone because nobody but apple can put ios on a phone.

The problem with that idea is that if Huawei really could copy the Samsung, then why haven't they? I'd love to see more phones up to Samsung's specs, but I'm not seeing any. Heck, I'd love to see Samsung make a phone to those specs again (the S6 was crap and the S7 still doesn't have a user-replaceable battery though at least they finally put waterproofing back in).

The other difference is quality. I have no faith Huawei can make a phone at Samsung's quality level. Where are they going to get the screen from anyway? Or the camera? Those components aren't easy to copy; those things are state-of-the-art.

Finally, even Apple can't copy Samsung. They still have crappy screens, though the next iPhone is finally supposed to be getting a superAMOLED screen. WTF took them so long? Simple: Apple isn't a hardware manufacturer, they have to contract stuff out, whereas Samsung is a hardware maker, and makes state-of-the-art screens themselves.

Updates. Updates, updates, updates.

I've come to trust Apple. Why? Because my iPad 2 still gets OS and security updates. Because my iPhone 5s still gets OS and security updates.

Apple has demonstrated that they support their tablets and phones at least 4 or 5 years. That's why I'll buy another Apple tablet. That's why I'll buy another Apple phone.

Why would I buy an Android phone or tablet that's unsupported and abandoned after less than two years in many cases? Where security updates (think Stagefright) take months and months to get patched, if they ever get patched at all on your device? Android devices simply aren't safe.

Even the Nexus devices can't compete with Apple on longevity of support.

Android manufacturers could convince me to try their products if they'd simply patch them in a reasonable time and update them for a reasonable amount of time. I would define reasonable as at least 4 full years after purchase. For that, I'd pay Apple like premiums.

Until that time comes, my only viable option is Apple.

Xiaomi and Huawei aren't Android competitors. They run Android on their phones!

Perhaps they meant that foreign (specifically Chinese) competition has done much better globally than those companies currently holding most of the US market.

I meant android producing competitors, as contrasted to apple. Which I think was pretty obvious in context.

I'm always amused by these Windows phone supporters that will argue until their red in the face that Nokia would have still suffered the same fate had they went Android. They have nothing to back their empty claims other than hate. The truth is that they would have fared way better had they selected Android instead of dollar cost averaging the windows phone fiasco all the way to the bottom. Nokia was destroyed by Microsoft. The only saving grace is the 8 Billion dollar severance package they got by unloading the carcass to Microsoft.

I guess, we'll see how that turns out for Blackberry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com