Comment by archgrove | Hacker News Reader

Comment by archgrove | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think any answer to this will have to hinge on why, given the sales disparity, app revenue and "usage" metrics (i.e. mobile browsing) is still either in favour of iOS or tied. My personal reasoning is that carriers are pushing low end Android phones as the standard handset you get when you walk in the door and say "I need a phone". These people don't really know what they're getting in terms of an ecosystem, and seem to use very little smart functionality.

iPhone users (and "high end" Android users), on the other hand, probably know exactly what they're buying into. These are the users that will determine developer targeting. Two ways I see for Android to decisively win this: either these "low-end" users start to participate in the eco-system, or the rise of low income countries (much of Asia, Africa etc) makes the weight of numbers so far in Android's favour that even with a much lower engagement rate, the money's there. Apple could counter this with "iPhone Nano", I guess, but it would require them to sacrifice a lot of margin.

Outside tip: Samsung are becoming the Apple of Android smartphones, selling the preponderance of the high end handsets. Within 18 months, I suspect we'll see them fork Android to differentiate themselves from the "sell at near cost, make it up on ecosystem" strategy that Google's pursuing now with the Nexus (that reduce Samsung to basically a hardware supplier on razor-thin margins). Either that, or they'll use carrier relationships to ensure these cheap, high-end handsets don't ever really get in front of non-geeky consumers.

The difference between userbases is that not great currently. It's 500 million Android devices to 400 million iOS devices. The iPhones had a great head start, and only recently Android devices managed to pass all iOS devices.

The 75% to 15% is only for the last quarter of sales, but if the sales can be sustained, and they probably can (they kept growing so far), then eventually the userbases will look like 5:1, too (for phones at least, considering iPhones are only about half of iOS sales).

And Samsung will not fork. They will lose all the apps, and considering they are nowhere near starting their own app store, it's impossible for them to do that within 18 months. I don't know why this idea comes up every now and then. I guess it's the tech press' love for the melodramatic, and from their point of view it would make for great intrigue if Samsung tried that, but when you look at things objectively, that outcome is nowhere near close to a possible reality right now.

Absolutely. I would say that around three quarters of the people I know who have Android devices have never downloaded more than a tiny handful of apps (my mum, who got one passed down to her when my sister got a different Android device on a free upgrade), didn't even realise she could download anything and I doubt she even realised that she'd got an Android phone. It was simply a phone that she could now get email on.

For iPhones, the vast majority of people I know with them use then constantly and have a wide range of apps on there.

Of course, Android still has its power users, who are probably even more passionate about Android than the average iOS user is about iOS, but like you say, they are still in the minority at the moment.

As an example, my company has a mobile app out there for Android and iOS. Over two thirds of the downloads we've had so far have been on iOS, and they typically use the app far more frequently that the Android users.

Samsung may be tempted to fork Android, but this will mean no Google Play (in addition to no Google Maps and others), and Samsung is incapable of growing an ecosystem of developers and apps around their platform the size of Google Play.

Microsoft, Apple and Google have this in their DNA. Phone manufacturers, like Nokia and Samsung don't. If they could have build their own Android / their own Google Play, they would have done so already.

On the other hand, it is easier to walk a well-worn path, especially with money in hand. Samsung has the best hand here. Reading http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/08/smartph..., it has 30% of the world market for smartphones. The big problem would not be replacing Google Play, but replacing Google Maps and, to a lesser extent, GMail. In the current climate, one would not think it, but I do not rule out reading a 'Samsung and Apple collaborate in mapping' or 'Samsung and Microsoft collaborate in mapping' headline in a few years time.

Also, companies can mutate 'their DNA'; it is not frozen at birth. For example, the Tabulating Machines Company (nowadays called IBM) has reinvented itself several times, and Nintendo started as a manufacturer of playing cards, and DSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM_(company)) started life as 'The State Mines' and mined coal, but now is, quoting their site "a global science-based company active in health, nutrition and materials".

They don't have to grow ecosystem, it's Samsung store would be just another site to upload your app beside Google's and Amazon's.

That, and I don't think that store fracturing would get anyone profits in a longer term.

> My personal reasoning is that carriers are pushing low end Android phones as the standard handset you get when you walk in the door

Here's another way of looking at it: There is product competition, and Apple is losing.

Samsung is also big on low end devices. In India Samsung pretty much is new Nokia.

Samsung is neither low end or high end. They are selling whats suitable strategy for each country and its working damn well.

I've been hearing the same and apparently the most popular Samsung device is the model that looks identical to the iPhone 3GS.

I am curious how much of an advantage Android has by allowing pirated apps. In price sensitive markets the cost of apps has to be a key factor. If it is a big factor could be ominous signs for Nokia in particular.

I don't get why people keep talking Samsung forking Android. Samsung also sell Windows Phone and will sell Tizen phones. Not to mention, they've already failed with their own OS. They're better at hardware and software overlays than providing an attractive ecosystem.

I didn't expect them to, but then I assumed that Google would stay clear of the hardware market. Now that they're essentially shipping phones at very low margins, they're a direct competitor to Samsung. Why buy an S3 when you can get a NX4 for hundreds of dollars cheaper, and get essentially better hardware (modulo LTE)?

To respond to this will require care. They can go with the razor-margins approach, and have their margins eaten away to virtually 0 (i.e. Dell etc). However, this only props up an ecosystem that benefits Google. They could, I suppose, find a way to out-build the entire rest of the market and get decent margins at the very low end of price (but I find that unlikely). Alternatively, they find a way to differentiate, which is most cheaply done at the software level.

Anyone picking path #1 is basically going to have to own the market to make any money in the long term, but will keep decent balance sheets in the short until commoditisation is completed. Anyone picking path #2 has more risk in the short term, but a lot more to gain in the long (e.g. as Apple has).

The Nexus phone is a single phone that comes out each year and it designed to progress the ecosystem. It isn't about pushing the boundaries or picking up sales, it's about setting the benchmark for the ecosystem. Hence why it's called a development phone. I think you're overestimating its importance.

The majority of Samsung's customers are Samsung customers. They've bought into the brand. They're not about to jump ship to LG.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com