Dear Steve Jobs: You're wrong again.
blogs.computerworld.com
blogs.computerworld.com
The actual quote from Steve Jobs on the earnings call:
"Well, what about Google? Last week, Eric Schmidt reiterated that they are activating 200,000 Android devices per day. And have around 90,000 apps in their App Store. For comparison, Apple has activated around 275,000 iOS devices per day on average for the past 30 days with a peak of almost 300,000 iOS devices per day on a few of those days. And Apple has 300,000 apps on its App Store." (Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/230710-apple-s-ceo-discusses...)
Why is the author rebuking Steve Jobs about "your figures include all iOS devices" when that is exactly what Steve Jobs actually said?
Mr. Raphael even cites an article which has a disclaimer at the top that says "The story you're about to read is not (entirely) true" as evidence that Mr. Jobs doesn't allow the word "open" to be used in his house.
This feels like manufactured criticism.
EDIT: You are probably right about the author. He does seem to have an axe to grind. But I don't think it make his argument (in this case) less correct.
Which is likewise wrong. Jobs cites total iOS activations because Apple makes no distinction. It's reflective of how the company that he represents actually thinks, and he used the data that they actually pay attention to.
The author presumes that including iPads and iPods is somehow "cheating", but he's the one selectively picking only the market in which Android is succeeding. If you look at everything that runs either OS, Jobs is right. It's only if you selectively pick smartphones (and growth, specifically, as Apple's share is still greater) that Android looks good.
So you mean Apple has no way to find out the number of iPhones activated per day since they make no distinction?
Analysts want to compare the number of Android phones vs. the number of iPhones sold. Apple is intentionally withholding that data because it makes them look bad and is instead talking only iOS numbers.
No, that's not what I mean at all. What I am saying is that Apple thinks of the iPhone, iPod, and iPad as three different containers for the same thing rather than as three wholly independent product lines. I don't see how that's controversial or unusual, and the existence of Android media players and tablets is evidence that this thinking is not unique to Apple. It's not clear that Schmidt's 200,000 activations/day figure excluded such devices, either, nor do I think it should.
Analysts want to compare the number of Android phones vs. the number of iPhones sold. Apple is intentionally withholding that data because it makes them look bad and is instead talking only iOS numbers.
Nonsense. The quarterly sales figures for the iPhone were stated twice in the very same call (the transcript linked above). It's also very hard to believe that Jobs is afraid that the iPhone being out-sold by the sum of all Android phones makes Apple look bad when he even said so himself in the same call:
"[...] Android is our biggest competitor. They out-shipped us in the June quarter as we were transitioning to iPhone 4. They out-shipped us for the first time according to Gartner's numbers, which we think are pretty accurate."
Eh? http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/apple-s-14-1m-...
is that withholding?
The article certainly has truth in it, but I would propose a rename to: Random ramblings from an Android user. Also, I propose the author might take a look into Paul Grahams essay on "How to disagree"[1].
That said, I agree with every delicious word of the article (I am rabidly anti-Apple) and enjoyed reading it and enjoyed even more the twisted outrage I imagined would be forming (foaming?) in the minds of certain people as they read it, and then I had to chuckle a bit as I now see said people freaking out and firing madly into the jungle, Predator-style. Except this type of pulse-free troll doesn't bleed and you can't kill it. And no matter how many times this is pointed out the pro and anti Apple trolls will continue and there will be no light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant commentators clash by night.
Things to ponder... Could Apple be trying to throw a wet towel on doing Java development for other platforms (Android in particular)?
Of course if they're wanting more of a closed system, they're probably also aware that some of the more popular peer to peer apps use Java too. (Limewire / Frostwire, Vuze / Azureus). Between not being allowed on the store, Java probably not being installed by default soon, and questionable robustness of future Java options, they've thrown a wet towel on the sharing apps too.
It's not like the cost of paying developers to work on Java is a burden for Apple, and it doesn't have the reputation Flash does for crashing/slowing the system.
Vulnerabilities could be an excuse to stay clear of Java, but like Flash, if users have it installed and have to get updates outside of the (semi) automatic software updates, users are less likely to be up to date, not more.
If the author wants a little speculation for his rant, he ought to ask questions like will Steve kill X11?
The Mac with OS X has had a lot of respect as a stable very interoperable do-everything platform. If Apple wants to change that, some of us will be kicking and screaming. Apple has been able to give users an extra nudge towards new hardware by limiting the length of time old hardware sees major OS updates. (The 1985 Mac Plus was still supported under System 7.5, well past the five year period seen now). Killing support for something without the justification of certain hardware being inadequate is a tougher pill to swallow. If Apple goes too far, they'll certainly lose more science/engineering types to Linux.
Perhaps, but since Oracle is trying to monetize Java through litigation and premium JVMs, it makes sense for Apple to stand back and let Oracle do the porting & maintenance.
No, because Android already distributes an SDK for Mac, and can easily deploy whatever Java stuff they need along with it: http://developer.android.com/sdk/index.html
* Of course if they're wanting more of a closed system, they're probably also aware that some of the more popular peer to peer apps use Java too. (Limewire / Frostwire, Vuze / Azureus). Between not being allowed on the store, Java probably not being installed by default soon, and questionable robustness of future Java options, they've thrown a wet towel on the sharing apps too.*
Transmission, the best BitTorrent client, runs natively on Mac.
Well played, JR.
[EDIT: Wait a minute: That classless hack makes a vacuous ad hominem attack his punchline, and I get voted down for pointing that out?]
The personal dig about steve's wardrobe was totally un-needed and unclassy.
Steve Jobs has masterminded the most amazing turnaround story probably in history. Have some respect at least. What an idiot this writer is.
(And thus unable to rationally respond to this comment, making the whole situation worse, but even so much more funny.)
Though I could be wrong.
If the iPhone was available on every carrier we would have real numbers.
Plus, we ARE comparing OSes so platform does not matter. Right now it iOS vs Droid. The fact that Apple has managed to push it on multiple devices should not count against them...just as keeping it in one carrier has hurt them.
I disagree with the notion that the real numbers are somehow not real, and the real "real numbers" are the result of a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" situation.
If the iPhone were available on every carrier their would be a lot more people using the iPhone. It's almost like its every carrier and every phone manufacturer vs Apple.
Don't get me wrong, if I were in contract at Sprint or Verizon I would be on Droid also.
I have invested money in applications (not a whole lot). Switching platforms would also mean finding new software and purchasing some of them.
It is certainly possible that 25% of all Android users are not getting an iPhone simply because of carrier. I find this really hard to believe though.
If it were just devices the iPhone would be out-selling each individual phone independently.
Jesus there are more than 60 phones right on Android, more than 25 tablets, and a couple of readers. How is that a fair comparison? In any case, the real issue is not iOS vs Android, who cares about adoption rates of an OS when you're in the business of selling the product itself. The iPhone is still the most popular and best selling smartphone, and the iPad does the same for tablets. That's not going to change overnight because 20 new crappy phones from China are now Android powered.
2) It is much more important to compare OS share to individual phone share. This is because it indicates the industry's trajectory far better. A user who has an Android phone and purchase another and not have to spend anytime learning a new framework; he'll highly likely buy a new Android phone (regardless of manufacturer) when he needs a new one. And on mobile devices, downloadable apps remain very important; the most popular OS (not phone!) will get the most developer attention, producing a virtuous cycle for the winner.
2) Here you're assuming that the users actually care about the iOS vs Android wars. A regular user who has an Android phone will not buy another Android phone because of its OS, they'll buy it because it's marketed as the successor of the phone they used before. By your example a regular user of Blackberry phones would easily move to another brand because it used the same Blackberry OS, or a iPhone user would move to a different phone manufacturer because he was told it also has iOS. This is simply not true. Nexus One users are more likely to buy a Nexus Two (and not a HTC Magic 2 in contrast) and iPhone4 users are more prone to buying a iPhone5 because of the product loyalty and brand popularity inherent in both choices. Industry trajectory is not measured by who has the most amount of devices with an specific OS out there, it's measured on who has the most amount of POPULAR devices period. Twelve years ago, people bought Nokia phones because they where the most popular ones around, not because they used Symbian OS.
On the downloadable app part you seem to equate quantity with quality, which is flawed at best. Quality developers will flock to the platform that is more profitable and merchantable. You're right, the most popular platform is the one that will get more developer attention, but device share is not a measure of popularity in the mobile app sector. Profits are.
2) I disagree with you here. How much loyalty do users have to HP, Dell, etc? Certainly some, but I feel the loyalty to Windows, OS/X, etc. exceeds that loyalty.
In terms of users wanting a certain phone, the mobile industry has changed a lot in the past 10 years -- phones are much more powerful. Users now end up investing substantial time and money into apps. Such apps lock users in; on an upgrade the user better have the damn things work out of the box.
Profits of a given device are quite different from profits of applications made for that device. Sure, there's some correlation, but how much? Case in point, the operating profit percents of Macs as a total % of computers is 35%. I'd be amazed if the operating profits of OS/X software profit as a % of total desktop software are even a third of that.
Anyways, on the loyalty issue, I use an iMac and a System76 laptop with Arch Linux, and as such I am loyal to my operating systems, as you probably are too. Now the machines in my college where either Macs for design or Dell's for everything else. The machines in my girlfriend's families' house are all Toshiba. My sister has had 4 HP laptops and wants a new one for christmas. These people (the regular people that are the bulk of computer users everywhere) follow brands more than anything else. I had a company that did integration of computer systems 8 years ago and trust me, most of this people (regular folks) follow brands and products, and seldom care about implementations, operating systems, and the such.
I agree with you completely on the the app lock in, and here come's a thought: The reason most people start buying Android devices, is because of the integration with their Google accounts, though you can use your accounts on an iPhone, it makes more sense to the general consumer to use the "Google phone" right? And of course, the catch with the iPhone couldn't have been far away... there are so many more usable apps, that are linked not only with software, but with webservices on the iPhone that it isn't even funny. I'll give you two examples of lock in (in my case): I will not buy an iPhone or a Nexus, because I need my Blackberry with the Blackberry Messenger service; I will also not buy an Android tablet, because they don't have Things nor Plaintext as the iPad does. iOS already has such penetration with the "cool, new, and awesome" apps that it's hard to compete with them, and in the cases where there's a cool app for Android, there's also an equivalent for the iPhone, though not generally the same case the other way around.
The one thing that drives millions of people to Android devices is not Android itself, it's both the marketing based on integration with Google services AND the AT&T fiasco that Apple for some reason didn't understand was maiming their business.
On the profits topic, I meant profit for app developers not profit on device sales. As long as iPhone developers are making thousands, and in some cases millions of dollars, in comparison to Android developers whom are making much much less on an average, quality developers are going to stick with the iPhone platform, Android being a second class citizen for them. It all comes down to the fact that developers are going to flock to Android only after, and if, it becomes the next goldmine.
To be honest, last time I used an Android phone, I liked it a lot. Until I tried the keyboard. That completely sealed the deal for me. I'm sticking to my Blackberry until I can use BBM on the iPhone (probably never :S)!
If this is true, why did Jobs make such a big deal about market share during the earnings call? Shouldn't he have just ignored that topic?
I think Steve is trying to make the point that the iOS ecosystem is huge, healthy, and a much larger play than a smartphone OS.
The big take away from the call really wasn't Android versus iPhone, it was iPhone versus Blackberry. The "aw shucks" businesses are adopting iPhone / iPad all on their own without an Apple push is a pretty big shot at RIM. Add to that the whole 7" screen thing, it really looks like Apple is thinking of RIM customers as up for grabs.
I find it funny that a column called "Android Power" isn't talking about cool Android stuff. Seems like another "I need some page views" article.
Thank you for bringing up the biggest lie in technology. It's a transparent loser's speech that, thankfully, we've yet to actually hear Apple incant.
Apple is trying quite hard to get the biggest market share: Did you happen to catch Steve bragging about leaving RIM in their rearview? How desperately he compares iPhone activations to Android activations?
Have you noticed the incredible quantities of lucre that Apple is dumping on mass media advertising lately? (I don't have the numbers, but it is, by far, the #1 advertised brand from my perspective). Have you noticed that Apple is now making products at virtually every price point?
Apple is the very definition of a mass market company. They are not a niche or a luxury maker, and delusions to that effect are simply bizarre.
Sure, they don't sell a discount iPhone, but that's entirely because consumers are accustomed to subsidized models, so going from $600 to $500 really makes no difference (it really doesn't matter whether the phone is $200, $150, $99, $49, or even FREE when each comes bound with a $3500 smartphone contract).
If people were accustomed to buying devices without subsidization, Apple would have the entire low-end market covered. On the Android front by far the most popular phones are the high end phones like the Galaxy S and the Droid 2, which are hardly inexpensive devices.
Apple came incredibly close to achieving a brilliant strategic lock-in to the nascent smartphone market that would have locked them in as the default choice: Many organizations had a mobile strategy that simply relied upon "releasing an iPhone app", creating a network effect where you were either onboard with the iPhone, or you're a second class citizen. Here on HN there were quite a few single-person startups that had a business plan involving nothing more than creating an iPhone app, yielding a strong anti-Android bias -- having multiple platforms is just a PITA, right?
Remember, this is not a race to be the company who sells the most units, it's just about making tons of money, and this is what Apple cares about.
I edited that slightly to what I suspect you meant to say. It's another ridiculous lie that we keep hearing.
Apple had the "niche market" for quite a few years. Yeah it led them to desperately go to Microsoft, hat in hand, begging for some "we'll get the anti-trust police off your backs" payoffs (which they got, funding the recovered Apple).
HTC is a relatively new smartphone company. They've been going gangbusters on the backs of Android. Motorola was in complete mobile collapse so their balance sheet isn't quite so great right now, but without Android they would have been done. On and on. The "Apple makes more profit" angle is nice, I guess, if you own Apple shares, but otherwise it's completely meaningless.
I don't want Android to dominate. In fact I hope that RIM gets some mojo back (and that QNX plays a part. Anyone who did comp sci in Ontario is generally in love with QNX, because it's a beautiful OS), that Windows Mobile 7 can get an R2 out soon that fixes many of the failings, and of course Apple is and won't be going anywhere, and will continue to provide technology kungfu.
We need a vibrant, competitive market where one person -- like Steve Jobs -- isn't making technology decrees for an entire industry (see: Flash).
51% of profit share, $238 of profit per phone sold. If market share was all they cared about, they could drop the price of the iphone by $200.
http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/31/making-it-up-in-volume-how-...
edit: formatting
If they dropped the price by $200, it would have a negligible impact on sales. If there was an advantage to hitting a lower price point in the subsidized device market, they would already have an iPhone4 LE or something out.
In the unsubsidized market they do have such a thing out -- it's called the iPod Touch. Which factors heavily into iOS propaganda.
Though they learned with the iPhone 3GS -- when they kept the 3G around for the people who apparently couldn't pull together $150 -- that ever burger flippers ponied up for the big boy.
Consumers, especially in North America (but to a degree worldwide) are addicted to subsidized phones. From my wireless company I can pick up an iPhone 4 for $159, or a Samsung Galaxy S -- the hottest selling Android device -- for $179, the contracts for both cost the same.
The iPad, as others have pointed out, is one of the cheapest decent tablets you can buy. For the media player market Apple has the entire market covered, hitting as discount of a market as exists.
Of course you're playing to the "iPhone is a luxury brand" misnomer that is utterly ridiculous. The hottest selling Android devices all have a post-subsidization price virtually equivalent to the iPhone product, and most of them require the user to then go out and pick up their own high capacity SD card.
That asymco piece, by the way, is horrendous on so many levels. It's a pandering piece of the worst kind.
> [...]
> From my wireless company I can pick up an iPhone 4 for $159
Now realize that if they dropped the unsubsidized price of the iPhone 4 by $200, you could get it for free subsidized.
> In the unsubsidized market they do have such a thing out -- it's called the iPod Touch.
Actually, in the unsub market they also have an iPhone. It just isn't available in the US. The touch doesn't help them get phone market share (though it does help them get more devices out there).
That's great, and obvious, and even specifically mentioned in my post. Are you autistic?
Actually, in the unsub market they also have an iPhone.
Actually, I was talking about the iPhone 4 value option (which was pretty obvious), which is the iPod Touch 4th gen. Effectively giving you an iPhone 4 minus 3G/voice for just a couple hundred dollars.
Wrong. HTC is a relatively new smartphone brand, they've been making smartphones since 2000. They created the first Windows Mobile smartphone, the first 3G Windows Mobile smartphone, the Palm Treo 650, the iPaq and the first Android smartphone. They were probably the major WiMo smartphone builder in WiMo's heydays (and they might very well still be).
HTC is a relatively new smartphone company? By that metric, RIM is just getting started building communication devices.
Yes, that's quite clearly the point. If Foxconn -- the makers of the iPhone -- came out with a smartphone, they would be a new smartphone company, witty caustic replies notwithstanding.
Then it's a fucking stupid point. Brand doesn't equal known-how and HTC has more than a decade of smartphone design and build under its belt. 3 times as much as Apple.
> If Foxconn -- the makers of the iPhone -- came out with a smartphone
Foxconn aren't the makers of the iPhone, they're its manufacturers, they weren't involved at any point of its design. HTC never built phones according to external designs (though they do build to match external specs when not selling under their own brand).
Therefore
> they would be a new smartphone company
Yes, Foxconn would be a new smartphone company because they have 0 experience in actually making a smartphone. HTC has 10 years of experience in the field at this point. They're not a "new" smartphone company.
I'd argue that the key difference is priorities. Traditionally, consumer-electronics companies (Dell is a great example) have pursued market share first, and then looked for ways to translate that into profitability. Apple, in recent years, seems to reverse that: first they aim for a good profit margin, then they try go for market share.
We've seen this with their various lines of laptops, with the iPod, with the iPhone, etc., and judging from their quarterly statements it seems to work.
It might be easier to understand if you say that Apple cares less about market share than the individual Android handset makers do. If Apple loses share to "Android", that's not that bad for them, because their profits are still astronomical.
But who is "Android"? Google isn't making much money off of it, and none of the handset makers are making what Apple makes. They're stuck in competition with each other and their product is mostly the same thing. They're all trying to differentiate, but with what? The Sense UI? Bunding a copy of Avatar? NASCAR apps?
Why? Because of mass production, the first one has enormous advantages in components price, and that is the reason for ipod touch.
Also being number one means no single software vendor or developer could ignore them like Adobe, Autodesk and others did when Windows became so widespread. Remember how Apple had to create Final Cut Pro because it was being left behind.
You're also conveniently ignoring the iPod Touch. iPhone sales have historically accounted for only a little over half of total iOS devices. In terms of phones, Android activations dominantly win, no matter how Jobs feels like playing around with the numbers.
The low end of Apple's products are last year's model. With 3 generations going they don't need to make 'low-end' hardware, Moore's law takes care of that for them.
An old one: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Steve_Jobs_Talks_Mark...
"If you went to BMW and asked them why they donit outsell the Ford Taurus, they would say they donit want to make that sort of car," says Mr Jobs. "Apple has 25 million customers around the world, and our goal is to give them the best personal computer that we can, with the best operating system and some of the best applications."