Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

Say what you want, iPhones and Apple have been "fashionable" in a way that Android has not been.

Which is due in no small part to branding, all the way back to the iconic iPod dancing silhouette commercials. Apple portrays a brand image of authenticity, fashion, and self-expression. (Whether or not you think that's deserved, it's definitely the vibe.)

While Android branding is... well it barely exists. It's just kind of generic. It used to be a bunch of funny-looking cylindrical figurines juxtaposed with the names of candies... now I'm not sure it's anything at all?

I will never understand why Google has never come up with a viable marketing strategy for Android, to be fashionable in its own different way.

View on HN

I agree, and I think there's another aspect too: the fragmentation of Android.

The "true Google" phones (Pixel) with their "true Android OS" are great. But there's so many other manufacturers, and so many other flavors of Android, that it can't help but feel like an ocean of knockoffs.

Apple feels so pure and clean in comparison.

Imo the knockoffs from Samsung, oneplus, xiaomi etc are better than pixel phones. Latest model 7,has some serious hardware issues (falling volume control buttons, exploding camera lens cover, mediocre battery life) and its considerably less premium looking than the android competition. It has a clean android but that is not without problems e.g occasionally dialed numbers in dialer history appear as private numbers, an issue that existed in pixel 6 and still exists on 7. And finally its ironic that google offers updates for shorter than competition.

Branding definitely plays a big role. But I think it’s one part of many that makes Apple popular. Overall, Apple has great attention to detail. This shows up in the marketing, which you mentioned. But it also shows up other places. The iPod felt amazing. I used other MP3 players before and after the iPod, and nothing came close to how good it felt. The weight in your hand. The shape. The satisfying clicking sounds. And the same thing applies to three iPhone. Apple’s features have a level of polish not found on Android.

That's why the only Tech-Co. in the US for which I always thought it's possible to build a car would be Apple. They give me the same vibes as all the German luxury OEMs I worked with - the 3 sound engineers per car just to dial in the sound of closing doors and stuff like that. Attention to detail - with better software in Apples case.

I don't want Apple to make a car.

But I do want them to make the software in my car. Preferably so that the car is just a wireless dock for my iPhone. So every time I upgrade my phone, my car gets a hardware update too.

I don't know, I remember that robotic DROID noise from someones android ad. I think what hurts android with this fundamentally is that android is an os, not a product. Companies like samsung want to advertise their phone, not the os that also runs on their competitors phones and therefore isn't a differentiator.

"Droid" was primarily a Motorola brand, and one which they stopped using when they were acquired by Lenovo in 2016.

>I will never understand why Google has never come up with a viable marketing strategy for Android, to be fashionable in its own different way.

Since Google traditionally never sold phones, the Android branding was left to OEMs like Samsung et al, who went with disjointed, masculine, and edgy themes.

Google finally decided to take the brand into their own hands by releasing Nexus, and now Pixel lines, with the "it's for everyone" approach to counter Apple's traditional "it's for the elite" brand. Goog is catching up to Apple, albeit slowly.

"Traditionally"? There was less than a two year period from Android's release to the first Nexus phone being released. They started selling their Nexus phones in January 2010, and the first release of Android was September 2008. It's been 13 years now since Google started selling phones and less than 15 since Android was actually available. It's not like Google started selling devices a decade after Android was out.

The nexus phone line were joint developments with OEMs. Pixel is the line that Google solely developed and marketed as its own as it pivoted to trying to influence the Android brand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_(1st_generation)#History

You brought Nexus into the discussion:

> Google finally decided to take the brand into their own hands by releasing Nexus, and now Pixel lines

I was just pointing out that your "traditionally" is a non-traditional notion if you consider the timeline of Nexus and Android.

> with the "it's for everyone" approach to counter Apple's traditional "it's for the elite" brand

This is exactly why Apple succeeds with Gen Z. Gen Z doesn't want to be in the "everyone" box, but in the "elite" box. Gen Z is massively buying designer clothing and accessories. And Apple is the only "designer tech" on the market.

That’s because Apple markets it to sell hardware and spends tons of money to market everything around it. To these insanely costly devices, add to that their insanely costly accessories, if the device has a problem — add insanely costly services, not to mention the insanely costly warranty extensions.

Google and Android on the other hand.. you see the difference? Google invests in Android to sell ads. That’s literally it. Other OEMs also do all this to sell ads and get as much of private customer data as much possible along with selling devices.

These are two worlds.

As for being fashionable. These two OSs do not really complete with each other. This is a very comfortable duopoly for both the companies and the customer pays the price in one way or the other.

Hell even the people who buy Android don’t look at it from fashion point of view. Someone has to record calls, someone wants to do something else, someone wants it easily repairable, somnolent simply doesn’t want to sell one or two kidneys to buy an Apple device. Etc.

In the end - everything considered, when it’s about value for money — Apple devices just don’t stand a chance.

(And just in case you are planning to jump on “no, I think Apple prices are just a d they ‘just work’”. Trust me they are not and there is a whole rest of the world out there beyond the USoA borders).

It's because owning an android phone will never be fashionable because most don't really care about what's on the phone, they care about the phone itself. The question you should be asking, is why did google never have a viable branding strategy for their pixel phones.

The closest anyone has gotten to the iphone, in my opinion, was a period of time when samsung was competing with features and camera quality with their phones. It seems, though, that apple has completely caught up and the race for features doesn't seem to be as important as it was in the past. Now it's down to status, and you just can't compare with an iphone. Especially in the US when you get those green bubbles popping up in text messages, screaming that someone is not part of the club.

Nor does it help that one of the largest Android vendors (Samsung) is, at best, indifferent to the Android brand. They're much more intent on promoting their own brand (Galaxy), rather than the ecosystem as a whole.

It could be they didn't want to step on OEMs' toes, some of whom really try to establish their own brand/flavor. But either way, yeah, I'm not sure it worked out well

I use apple products despite their marketing, certainly not because of it. They have better products and support, and reasonable lower cost devices like se phones and Mac minis. Their appeal for some may be the marketing, but it’s certainly not limited to that.

you're missing the other part: exclusivity.

Apple are expensive. Anyone[1] can have an android phone, but a recent apple is two orders of magnitude more expensive.

Like trainers/sneakers expense is a clear differentiator.

[1] well not everyone

iPhone SE starts at $429.

Meanwhile the base Galaxy S23 starts at $799.

You can max out and get an S23 Ultra 1TB for $1619. Or max out the iPhone 14 Pro Max 1TB for $1599.

> iPhone SE starts at $429.

I mean, you can get an Android phone for $40 new that will run Android Go, that's the point, it's ultra cheap and has all the same apps. I would not spend $400 on an Android phone, personally, let alone $1700, the price of a gaming laptop, for what? You don't even get the clout like iPhone users...

100x more expensive?

Off-topic, but I'm genuinely curious. I see "orders of magnitude" misused all the time, and I never know what the person actually meant.

Two orders of magnitude means 100x more expensive, but obviously you didn't mean Android is $10 while Apple is $1000.

So as long as you're here... what did you mean by order of magnitude? Did you intend 2x so two orders of magnitude would be 4x? Or did two orders of magnitude just mean 2x? Or two orders of magnitude more means 3x then?

(I'm seriously wondering if "order of magnitude" is starting to change meaning for some people the way "decimate" did a long time ago, it originally meant to reduce by 10% but now it means to reduce drastically.)

I should have been more precise "an order of magnitude".

I will be more careful and avoid hyperbole :) in future.

Source that a recent iPhone is “an order of magnitude” more expensive than an Android?

A 256GB iPhone 14 (released Nov 2022) is $900, and a 256GB iPhone 13 mini (released Nov 2021) is $700.

Both of these devices can be expected to last at least 5 years from today and receive software updates the whole time.

Which Android is an order of magnitude cheaper ($70 to $90) and comparable?

iPhone is 10x the price of Android? Are you comparing the top of the line apple with the cheapest possible android? That’s not a fair comparison. Android has flagship phones too

But that's the point. the playground isn't fair!

Pricing is an illusion, buying a galaxy S23 ultra costs as much as a top iPhone. The difference is that android phones cover a much larger price range similar to PC laptops.

> I will never understand why Google has never come up with a viable marketing strategy for Android, to be fashionable in its own different way.

It's leadership. Steve Jobs had a drive for design, easy to use. Elon Musk has a drive of "why not?" (for lack of better words from me).

What does Google have? What direction are they going? Hard to say.

Apple the cathedral vs. Google the bazar.

Because with Android you pay with your privacy (to Google) whereas with Apple you pay more to pay off your privacy debt which also renders Apple iPhone toward a status symbol. Google Android is mobile touch UI computers ('smartphones') for the poor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com