Hacker News Reader

Comment by NineStarPoint | Hacker News Reader

I expect it’s more about the competition than those companies willingly leaving that level of profit on the table. In the android market, people have the option of switching to a competitor if you’re not price competitive yourself. For IOS, apple is the only game in town on hardware.

View on HN

Maybe. I'm not so sure. In theory, a company like, say, Samsung could stop making cheaper, money-losing phones and invest primarily on making increasingly better, premium, profitable phones like the Galaxy Fold, but they choose not to do that, year after year.

What differentiates those premium phones? It runs the same Android of which I rather have a stock version than the bloat-ware rubbish that phone makers install on there for me.

The iOS devices link into a web of ease-of-use, and come with a reasonably well make stock version of iOS.

And then there's trust. Whom does an average user trust more with their data? (Apple/USgov, or Google/USgov+Samsung/SouthKorea+...)

Believe it or not, but "stock Android" has been tried about 10 times. It failed. Only techies care.

Regular users want a ton of features.

Edit: Sales numbers tell you all you need to know about "stock Android" success :-)

Regular users don't actually know anything about the difference. They look at how many megapixels the camera has and the resolution of the screen and things like that, because they're numbers you can compare. Regular users don't know what "stock Android" is. And then they come home with a phone full of bloatware and complain about it after.

Nobody actually buys the phone for the bloatware. These companies are wasting their money developing it. They just want the phone with the better camera.

The real problem is that techies can't improve Android because the hardware vendors are shipping custom kernels and their hardware can't use the stock kernel. So Android is "open source" but there is no ecosystem of people scratching that itch with the improvements flowing to the ordinary users because it's so hard to modify what came with your device. Especially when many of the techies still care about the better screen and camera.

Think about it this way. There is no reason every Android phone on the market shouldn't come with the option of stock Android. Even if you think the majority of "regular users" wouldn't want it, the availability of it would get them a few sales from techies, right? And then we would really find out what people want, because they get the choice without it being tied to the rest of the hardware.

> There is no reason every Android phone on the market shouldn't come with the option of stock Android.

Umm...there is a very solid reason: support costs. Nobody wants to double the support matrix.

The vendor's Android is going to be 99% stock Android and 1% things that will have higher rather than lower support costs than stock Android because it will have a smaller user base and be less likely to have the bugs already discovered and patched. Support costs would, if anything, go down.

> Regular users don't actually know anything about the difference. They look at how many megapixels the camera has and the resolution of the screen and things like that, because they're numbers you can compare.

> Nobody actually buys the phone for the bloatware.

Often the bloatware is half of the silly stuff listed in the marketing specs on the box. The features might be junk, but they're bulletpoints in a list of features that people are looking at on the shelf. I see these kinds of "specs" listed all the time: digital zoom, "optimizers" of various sorts, social media "integrations", etc.

Most regular users want as many features as they can get, for a reasonable price point. And Samsung is king in that market – their A series phones have a huge sales volume.

Some users can afford real premium phones. And Samsung's offerings mostly just kinda suck software wise, even when the hardware is decent. Techies know this and have a huge variety of stock Android alternatives to choose from (which, somehow, continue to exist…), and even non-techies very quickly figure out that Apple or Google Pixel phones just work, unlike Samsung's.

> Google Pixel phones just work, unlike Samsung's

Everything I've heard about Pixels tells me you're not right. They have a ton of bugs, besides the mediocre to bad hardware.

And Samsung moves more premium phones (aka S-series) each year than all Pixel phones ever sold.

You probably live in the US, but Pixel phones are also almost impossible to get outside the US (though things are getting slightly better) and their market share where they're available is minuscule in whichever market segment you're looking.

Outside of the US Chinese phones, besides Samsung A-series, dominate. And in many countries flagship Chinese models are sold more than Apple phones. And BTW, if you thought Samsung adds bloatware, you should see what Xiaomi or Huawei add :-))

Regular users don't care about bloatware. It's a techie fetish.

I've been around the block a ton of time and this discussion is so old and boring it's not even worth having. "Big binaries suck" -> Electron apps winning everywhere. "Lean operating systems" -> Windows never budging on the desktop and Android, which is kind of a mobile device pig winning the mobile battle.

It's actually somewhat rare that techie (early adopter) interests align with regular user (late adopter or laggard) interests.

> And in many countries flagship Chinese models are sold more than Apple phones.

Is any one disputing this? The OP of this thread is about iPhones being 13% market share.

This is just... wrong. I mean, I don't know what bubble you're living in, but my bubble is not like this.

Every single person I've ever met, except one, uses either an iPhone or a Galaxy. Probably a sample size of 100 people. The one exception uses a Pixel, and he's a software engineer.

The reason why I'm confident enough in saying you're wrong, is because my experience tracks with US smartphone shipment metrics. Apple and Samsung are the leaders in the US. Pixel isn't even in view of the finish line. Bluntly: Nerds use Pixel devices. Legacy from the Nexus days. Most people wouldn't even know what a Pixel is.

Modern Samsung devices are absolutely fantastic phones. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't used one since TouchWiz.

>Bluntly: Nerds use Pixel devices. Legacy from the Nexus days. Most people wouldn't even know what a Pixel is.

I don't know about that. At least in my city, I know more people with Pixels than Galaxy phones. Granted, I can count the Android users on one hand and about 90 percent of my phonebook is iPhones so who knows.

I have a similar experience to you but with one difference. I do know a handful of people who have an Android phone which isn't a Samsung Galaxy or Pixel. When I ask why they chose that device, the response makes it clear that they have absolutely zero interest in mobile phones aside from what we'd consider the absolute basics.

And everyone I know who has a Pixel is the sort of person who is passionately anti-Apple. I'm not saying this is a universal experience, but it's certainly true for the three people I know who have a Google Pixel. I'm serious when I say I've never met a more passionate Apple fanboy than those people are passionately anti-Apple.

Is your bubble only physically local or constrained in some other way?

My bubble is mostly white collar college educated people, but spanning across the western world. I would have thought the same about Pixels but just the other day i found out someone I know in the US has an older Pixel device.

Most people won’t know what a pixel phone is, is true for sure.

I guess I'm a techie, because I don't want vendor crapware and I do want more than 2 years of software updates and security patches (though it has gotten better over the past few years - probably partially due to Android One, which is closer to stock Android!)

And last I checked, Google's Pixel (5/6/etc.) phones seemed pretty decent.

pixel is not stock android

I was responding primarily to the "only techies care" part.

Although Pixel phones are at the top of "best stock Android phone" lists, they're not technically stock Android.

"Granted, Pixel UI is very, very close to stock. However, it is not technically stock as Google adds in tons of Pixel-exclusive features and pre-installs apps here and there."

https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-stock-android-84562...

iPhones also (mostly) meet my criteria and are pretty good smartphones, and they don't run Android at all. ;-)

Regular users are heavily influenced by marketing. Hence, Samsung's and Apple's dominance.

The expensive Samsungs are the foldables and things like the ultra, with super zoom cameras.

I suspect o called "average user" would probably trust anything. Non average: I have no idea but I personally just simply do not trust. Do not care what is the company name.

> focus primarily on making premium, profitable phones like the Galaxy Fold

believe it or not, apple's supply chain and verticals and operations are much more efficient than samsungs'. Tim cook did wonders during steve job's era to scale out their operations. So much so that samsung cannot really compete at the same quality.

If they did they would be dead in a year. They sell a fraction of the >$1000 phones apple sells by the shipload. Their bread and butter is the cheap stuff.

The same way nobody wants to spent $35k on a honda when they could have a tesla.

Looks like Honda Accord is approaching $32k on average[0].

200k Honda Accords sold in the U.S. 2020[1]. 450k Tesla Model 3 + Y sold globally[2].

Though Model 3 and Y average price closer to $49k and $65k respectively[3].

If I have a point, it's that if you have $35k to spend, you're probably getting a high trim level Honda Accord. Because you need another $15k to get an "average" Tesla Model 3.

(Obviously the Model 3 is worth spending $50k for lots and lots of buyers!)

[0] https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/price-trends/Honda-Accord-d585

[1] https://www.best-selling-cars.com/usa/2020-full-year-usa-hon...

[2] https://www.best-selling-cars.com/brands/2020-full-year-glob...

[3] https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/price-trends/Tesla-m112

The Y is a much more expensive car with a discontinued standard range version and the base model 3 is by far and away the best selling version of the vehicle.

Averages can be misleading. Id like to see the median prices given that the base tesla model 3 is VERY premium vs the base model accord which is not.

If I was looking to minimize cost per mile, I would get an Accord, not a Tesla.

Hondas and Toyotas are tried and true with a few decades of reputation built up. And routine maintenance on those does not cost much.

>"The same way nobody wants to spent $35k on a honda when they could have a tesla."

Depends on who's that nobody is. The only things I personally value in cars are:

1) It *reliably* gets me from A to B

2) It accommodates my vacation stuff so I always get van.

I would not pay one single penny for car's "coolness". If I was getting car instead of van Tesla would not be in the picture despite the fact that I could buy it if I valued different things in car.

If that is all you care about. You aren’t spending $35K for a car. Even if you plan on keeping it for 15 years. Unless perhaps vans that accommodate your vacations cost more. Which still means you aren’t getting a sedan-ish vehicle.

I don’t think you’re refuting the point since you’re not one of the people that fits in the hypothetical scenario the OP presented.

Do people want the Fold? (No snark - genuinely asking)

I saw one in the flesh (a friend had one) and it was surprisingly good, I expected the screen to be crap but it was not. You could legitimately get a big screen on a device that fit in your pocket. It also has a screen on the “outside” so you can use it without opening it — as a convenience or to reduce the number of flexes of the screen?

The thing is, android tablets suck (I know, and it appears the market does too) so the experience of the larger screen is meh. I’m happy with a small phone when walking around and an iPad (or hell just a laptop) when I’m at home.

Folding tech/gimmick itself isn't what people want (I believe). It makes possible tablet can be folded so fit on my pocket. There's no switching cost from smartphone to tablet. It changes my digital life. I no longer use narrower smartphone to read web/books in everywhere.

Personally I don't know how Flip3 useful, but it seems to sold well, maybe cool for some people.

You’re saying a foldable tablet fitting in your pocket would be good for you? Then why call folding a gimmick at the beginning? The iPhone was called a gimmick when it was new. Same with the iPad, less so but still with the Apple Watch.

I'm not a native so maybe used wrong word. Flexible OLED was also used for smartphone like LG G Flex, Galaxy Note Edge/S6 edge and its successor, but those aren't welcomed well. Samsung widely used the edge "gimmick" but it's not welcomed by majority from what I see because it shows curved content, makes accidental touch, and makes (a bit) hard to put screen protector.

Finally they advanced to foldable OLED and developed game changing Galaxy Fold. Fold3 is really good but I think final product is important than the tech itself. But maybe, without Galaxy Edge phones, Fold won't be developed.

Ah yes. That is actually what I was thinking — Edge. When it comes to Samsung and gimmicks the Edge was definitely one of them. Though on the other hand. It was a cool thing to try. It just didn’t end up working so well. I’m not sure how long they kept the Edge series up for.

Good point. Maybe if they didn’t try different things like the Edge, the Fold wouldn’t happen.

> Fold3 is really good but I think final product is important than the tech itself

You said you’re not a native speaker. I’m looking for clarification here, respectfully. Your writing is really good.

Do you think the Fold3 specifically is important or folding in general/overall?

I like the idea of foldable tablets because currently it's the only way to bring and use bigger screen everywhere. In my experience, reading text on small screen is significantly bad to understand things. Fold3 looks really well made for both software (but we miss tablet support by some 3rd party apps) and hardware, but maybe other manufacturers catch up before long.

I love my Fold3 but I don't know much the point of Flip/Razr foldable series. It looks cool, a bit compact, and maybe great for selfies because it don't need any stands to use outer cameras but seems to not good tradeoff to weak points. Still, it's good thing that Samsung can sell such products other than just boring smartphones.

>they choose not to do that, year after year

Because they could not simply take the profit that Apple is making. Surely they're not dumb enough to throw out profit for giggles.

Android phones face lots of competition from Android phones.

Having a spectrum of phones helps sell the premium phones. If you decide to buy a premium phone to replace your current phone, and you're happy with the one you have, you may shop the same brand. Without the lower end phones, you won't get those customers.

Windows Mobile 10 was a trainwreck for a lot of reasons, but Microsoft only sold upper mid tier and premium phones for it, and the sales numbers were terrible. If they had commited to low end phones (which they did well for WP7 and WP8), it might have gone differently. (Of course, that would have required a much more polished OS release)

IIRC cheap Lumia was also sold packed in blister pack, but still not succeeded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com