Hacker News Reader

Comment by replicatorblog | Hacker News Reader

I think one of the things that even brilliant guys like Fred underestimate is that Apple offers an end-to-end ecosystem that people aspire to join while Android is the default choice for smart phone carriers that don't offer the iPhone. Android will likely have greater market share, but will it be the portion of the market you want to build for?

My view might be clouded because I work in an industry where 45% of revenue comes from 5% of customers. Will the bulk of dollars available from smartphone/tablet customers come from the market share leader or the profit share leader? My guess is the latter.

Even if Android wins in smartphones, I'd bet iOS will continue to own music, tablets, and TV and TV could be bigger than the rest combined.

View on HN

Apple's products are expensive. Since Android is open, you can have android on a cheap $10 toaster or a high-end $50,000 car. Apple's closed ecosystem provides a nice environment for those people who are in it, but the vast majority of mankind cannot afford Apple products. Many, many more people can afford Android products purely because the variation in price is so huge.

So, while Apple may be happy owning the majority (all?) of the high-end device market, you will start to see Android running on nearly everything out there. I wouldn't make any bets that iOS will be "better" for developers as the future rolls in.

re: "Since Android is open, you can have android on a cheap $10 toaster or a high-end $50,000 car." This feels like Java (and Linux to some extent too) all over again (given Android's underpinnings, not surprising).

Linux is free, and I gave up count how many years were supposed to be the 'year of the desktop' for Linux. As widespread as it may be - embedded in loads of devices - the 'pay for' OS - Windows and OSX - have continued to dominate. May Android end up being the Linux of mobile devices? It's nearly everywhere, but typically only the first choice of a narrow geeky few, whereas anyone else that uses it does so not out of choice for that aspect of the product, but for some other reason. (How many Tivo users do you know who really love Linux and bought their Tivo because it's on Linux?)

I'm wondering if Android will end up being this generation's J2ME, with similar fragmentation and hardware vendor control.

Android is a Linux. There are more than 300,000 Linux phones being sold every single day. I think it's fair to say that 2010 was indeed the Year of Linux on Your Pocket Computer / Your Phone.

Together with iOS it was certainly the year of unix in your pocket — modulo pointless pedantry.

Well, it's a long-standing joke about Linux, but not about Unix. It's not pedantry, but responding to a decades-old Slashdot meme about Linux.

"Year of Linux on the desktop" - 26,700 results

"Year of Unix on the desktop" - 9 results.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Year+of+Linux+on+the+deskto...

Apple's other products are expensive. iPhones tend to sell for 1-2 hundred with a contract, exactly the same as Android phones.

A very limited, US-centric view. Yes, in the US (and Canada) people buy subsidized phones and even here that hasn't stopped Android.

In much of the rest of the world, people would be expected to pay 2-3 monthly salaries for an unsubsidized iPhone. Or they could pay 1/2 or 1/3rd for a decent Android phone and do the same things. Now do you understand the point of the article?

Which countries are you referring to, exactly? In Australia for instance, an iPhone is about $630 AU, a Droid 2, $650. I think it makes sense to compare phones of similar capabilities.

India, China, Eastern Europe, Latin America... take your pick.

When I go shopping for a phone this year, I'll be comparing the iPhone5 with the latest dual-core 4+" 1280x760 Android monstrosity, then drop 600+ on either. When the newly minted middle class in those countries goes shopping for a phone this year, they'll look at a reasonable 3.5" 480x320 Android for $150-200, compare it with some aging Nokia dinosaur and make their pick. The iPhone is not going to be figuring into their thoughts very much.

Anyway, you asked me 'now do you understand the point of the article'.

I think I already did, thanks, and as far as I can tell, Android being at a particularly advantage overseas vs. iOS is neither the point of FW's post or the article he linked to. In fact, all he said is '. And many of these devices will be running Android, not iOS'. As far as I can tell, HN has seemed to turn this into "Android will be devastating iOS because people in Kiribati can't afford an iPhone!!". Okay, but that isn't what either article was asserting.

Well, if you follow the link in Fred Wilson's blog post, the title is "2011 will be the year Android explodes". FW is merely agreeing with that original point.

I think Fred's point was that it's an entirely new market opening up. As you say, a middle-class value-conscious market. It will be a huge market, so businesses need to get out in front of it. But replicatorblog's point (as I understand it) is that iOS will still own the high-end of that market, and that segment is worth more $$$ than its number's suggest. If you're in control of the high-end, you can exert undue influence on consumer mind-share and developers. That matters for something.

Anyway, IMO this is not an iOS-vs-Android issue. New markets are going to open up, Android will be there. iOS will still be a cash-cow. Win-win, everybody celebrate (except Microsoft)

> Which countries are you referring to, exactly?

The answer to that is the GP's: "In much of the rest of the world". Australia is considered to be a rich, "Western" nation. Much of the rest of the world is poor, not rich. They do not have Apple stores or, in many cases, fast wired Internet connections. You've got to break out of your mind's box where thinking that Western countries dominate; in terms of population, they don't. At all.

> I think it makes sense to compare phones of similar capabilities.

What about in places where the iPhone isn't for sale, directly? What will you do then? If you would like an example, take Tanzania. They have wireless networks, but (to my knowledge) no iPhone.

The vast majority of the world cannot afford iPhones, but they are able to connect to wireless networks.

Okay, Android phones are definitely more expensive than phones that aren't available.

I never said, implied or referenced any sort of idea that Western countries dominate in terms of population. Thanks for clearing this up, though.

I understood the point of the article, but I have trouble believing that Android manufacturers will be able to build something people will want to buy for $100 that Apple won't be willing to match.

No, it's only exactly the same as the high end Android phones.

Here's a list that shows the huge variation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_devices

I have a phone that's at the same price point as the iPhone (Samsung Galaxy S) but there are lots of phones at the other end of the price spectrum such as the HTC Magic, Dream or Tattoo or maybe the Motorola Quench or Backflip. All phones that are half the price or less than the iPhone/Galaxy S.

That's not really my point, though. You're looking at 2010 prices. The discussion is about the future of the market. Since Apple controls the entire ecosystem of their products, including the price, if you want an iPhone you have to pay Apple's price. If you want an Android phone, you can hunt around for a really cheap one.

I get that the prices are very close right now. But since the can only be 1 or 2 models of iPhone out at any time and there can be thousands of Android phones, it is inevitable that Apple's iPhone will be more expensive than the cheaper Android models. Of course, the iPhone will probably be cheaper than high-end Android phones. It goes both ways. But since there is choice, Android will offer the cheaper option.

True, if you're comparing 'an Android phone' to an iPhone, the Android phones are cheaper. For phones of similar capabilities, they're more expensive. As you have to pay $70 a month minimum for two years to get one of these phones, though, I don't see that $80 for the phone is very different than $180.

> As you have to pay $70 a month minimum for two years to get one of these phones, though, I don't see that $80 for the phone is very different than $180.

That only happens in the USA and Canada. Maybe that happens a bit in other countries, but really, not much. No more than 10% of the world buys phones like that. The USA is not a model for the rest of the world in the mobile space; they're quite backwards actually.

Android phones sell for $200 without a contract in most countries.

Why does every conversations about smartphones end up with an argument between Apple and Android? A) There are more than two options (you can't predict the future) B) That's completely unrelated to the article. Yes he mentioned an android phone as an example, but this kind of growth will be universal. People have learned that fighting over vi and emacs is pointless, please learn the same lesson here, your opinion doesn't please everybody.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com