Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Despegar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Despegar

>Headline is misleading at best, if the iPhone were to suddenly lose their market to Android phones

10 years into the iPhone, it's safe to say this is never going to happen.

View on HN

Hmmm..., I remember the Macintosh’s slow death to the PC in the late 1980’s and 1990s.

I think you should probably look more closely at the iPhone’s global market share.

Developers will support the larger, more profitable markets first. At some point, they’ll stop supporting the shrinking market.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/31/iphones-global-ma...

Developers will support multiple markets, the same way that car companies deliver cars with the steering wheel on the wrong (i.e. right) side of the car for those comparably small markets.

I guess I wasn’t clear on this point.

“At some point, they’ll stop supporting the shrinking market.”

If the market is profitable, they’ll support it. However, as the Macintosh market shrank in the 1990s, for example, some developers fled.

Also, great iPhone only apps will try to capture part of the larger Android market. As more revenue comes from Android, that’ll be their primary market.

Read this story about Steve Jobs and Adobe. It might give you a better idea about what I’m trying to convey:

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-reason-steve-jobs-w...

Declining sales != declining install market share

The problem is No Newspaper actually write the word Declining Sales, they all use the word marketshares, where it means unit / revenue in the total market during a period of time.

As a matter of fact Tim Cook mentioned in the Investor Q&A that iPhone User base has been growing in all of their Operating Segment. ( The word Operation was chosen likely because Apple doesn't actually operate in India, where it has declining usage ). The last reported Active iPhone users were 900M nearly 10 months ago. Apple are highly likely to reach 1B Active iPhone user sometime in 2020.

Now look at the revenue per device that is generated for developers.

https://themanifest.com/app-development/android-vs-ios-which...

Not only is it easier to build and maintain apps for iOS, people spend a lot more money on that platform. That Android market share is, in large part, driven by developing nations that aren't going to spend a lot of money on buying software on their mobile devices.

That could certainly change in the future, but I just want to illustrate why just talking about the number of devices might not be the best indicator for which platform you should develop applications.

That was as the market was growing. Once it saturated (late 90s?), Apple's held a fairly small, but also reasonably constant proportion IIRC.

We're seeing the same thing happen in phones; the developed world's market is saturated now and the rate of turnover is slowing, and Apple doesn't have pricing that competes in the developing world.

The point I'd disagree with in your comment is that you say "larger, more profitable" when those two don't necessarily go together. Samsung and Chinese vendors are not making more profit than Apple anytime soon.

The biggest threat right now is prices. There are pretty good Android devices available for cheap (Pixel 3a, Nokia 2.2, etc). Not so much with iPhones.

Rumor is they're dropping 3D Touch in 2019 models, and 2020 might see a screen size reduction on the smaller "X"-sized phone. So it's hopefully something they're working on.

I'm sure they'll still be priced as premium devices and not competing directly against phones that cheap, but if they weren't 5x as expensive it would certainly help.

Apple has done a fairly good job of offering devices across the pricing spectrum. Their strategy has largely been to bump last years phone down a notch when the new models come out. You can buy a brand new iPhone 7 for $299. Budget Android phones can go lower, where Apple competes by selling refurbished phones.

That they do and equally they also have a longer support life for their phones, allowing them to do this. Makes total sense marketing and cost wise by doing this unlike others who just move on year after year and artificially obsolete those products earlier within 2 years in most cases.

Be interesting to see a price comparison based upon total expected lifetime and usability of a product and by that, once support/updates and with that, security updates stop. That product is dead beyond some fanbase support. So for the base consumer market that's 99.9% of the end-users, this means there investment can last longer. Which is another factor in why the second hand price of Apple phones is much more stable and depreciate in value more gradually than Android alternatives.

THough there is also only so much tech you can cram into a phone and whilst the basic level of tech has risen and risen, it is worth noting that the mid-range android offerings are tech-wise, pretty darn good. Not saying we have reached peak tech or some form of leveling of, just yet. But the leaps - year upon year in the top end are smaller and smaller. Eventually we will get to the stage in which battery life becomes the factor again, after 2g phones leveled, that is what happened. Be case for smartphones and in some ranges, already starting to happen and an area of importance that will become more and more the main selling point in flagships, maybe not this year, but certainly soon.

Depends what you mean by budget, I bought a Nokia 6.1 last summer, it's decently fast, Android One is excellent, the screen is great and for a smartphone it's built like a battleship (milled alumnium billet) I think I paid £169 for it.

I mean my partners new iphone has a phenomenal screen but not different enough to cover 600 quid difference in price phenomenal.

You completely ignored the prices I mentioned in my comment and compared a low-end Nokia to a mid-range iPhone. Pretty much all iPhones use the same LCD's up and down the price spectrum, save for the OLED models at the very top.

Go compare that Nokia to an iPhone 6S if you want an apples to apples comparison.

Actually I got a new (not a return) 128GB iPhone XR for $349. They had these on absolute fire sale recently via the carriers if you jumped through a few hoops.

There's been cheaper alternatives to the iPhone since it first launched. It just doesn't matter.

Cheaper iPhones will open up markets that didn’t exist before, both to consumers and 3rd party buyers (corps and telecoms).

When you start reaching 1k USD it does.

iPhone went from world domination to 15% global market share.

According to recent numbers (posted on HN 1-2 weeks ago) 20% last gen iPhone users now have a Samsung.

(Disclaimer: maybe I am misreading those stats, sounds like a too large drop to be correct)

The iPhone has been the most expensive, premium product since the day it was launched (see the incredulous Balmer video about the $599 subsidized price). It was also the primary engine that drove Apple to being one of the richest companies on earth, ever. For years people have said it was doomed to failure because it was overpriced, but here we are, with an iPhone that is more expensive than ever, probably even adjusted for inflation.

Nokia, Ericson, Blackberry...

“Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” — Ferris

Absolutely will happen, not suddenly but ....

Downvoted because 10 years isn't that long but never is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com