Android's 'Profitless Prosperity' Criticized

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]neox7777[/nom]Since when is profit equated to prosperity and innovation. Really those analysts need to wake up and take a look around. Profit records on their own don't reflect much without a context of actions of the corp or any for-profit organisation.[/citation]
When is profit equated to prosperity? Have you ever seen any prosperous money losing companies or individuals? Sorry, they are linked.

And yes, profit can be linked as well to innovation. Without profit, there can be no R&D. That's not saying every profitable company innovates, but no company that is not profitable innovates, because they have no capital to do so.

 

[Skippy27]

This guys is clearly an idiot.

His first comments were meant to scare Apple into doing better just before releasing the 5 and his comments now are to try and drum up Apple because of the failures of 5.

"Samsung could be what Apple is, but for whatever reason they don't do the value-added to the platform to make the product as useful as Apple," he said. "I am no Apple fanboy, but the notion that Samsung is equivalent to Apple is silly -- Apple's app ecosystem and way everything works together makes it a radically better product...and I think that is an objectively true statement.

This comment alone shows just how shallow of a fanboy he is.

 

[psykhe]

[citation][nom]wemakeourfuture[/nom]They are hardware agnostic when generating mobile ad revenue.[/citation]

But not software agnostic.

The point of Android is for Google not to print money, but to enable them to make money with mobile ads in the long term.

See the whole Google Maps issue with iOS. Apple could in theory do the same thing with a web search engine of their own. And if Apple was dominating the smartphone and tablet sector, enabling them to enforce using their solution because what are gonna people do? Switch to a nonexisting alternative? Well - that its "Byebye mobile ad revenue" for Google.

 

[psykhe]

[citation][nom]wemakeourfuture[/nom]Majority of Android devices (globally) are not flagship phones. Their cheaper, budget touch smartphones. For every 1 flagship (S3, Note II) sold there's 3 low end Android devices...[/citation]

That still makes it more Android flagship phones than iPhones.

 

[freggo]

This makes sense from an investor point of view of course, but the world is not here to please investors.
We, as the product's actual users could care less if Google, Samsung and others make money on the OS; as long s they make money on the software and hardware.

There has to be a reasonable Profit for a business to exist of course, but what Apple is charging is not profit, it is pure and simply greed.

So fudge Apple and their investors.

 

[Guest]

I think Linux is better than Windows or Apple any day of the week.

 

[wemakeourfuture]

[citation][nom]psykhe[/nom]That still makes it more Android flagship phones than iPhones.[/citation]

The data suggests that flagship Android sales to iPhones (which are all flagship level phones) are 50/50, not really any clear data to suggest its more Android flagships to iPhones.

In the USA and Canada you actually see much more iPhones than flagship Android. Other countries its 50-50 (China), and then in European countries you might see more Android flagship than iPhones.

Overall, from the data available to the general public it seems 50-50.

Apple's "budget" phones are basically +2 year old flagship models that still go for ~$400 USD so they really don't offer what Android manufacturers offers which are new phone models that are $350 and less.

 

[wemakeourfuture]

[citation][nom]psykhe[/nom]But not software agnostic.The point of Android is for Google not to print money, but to enable them to make money with mobile ads in the long term.See the whole Google Maps issue with iOS. Apple could in theory do the same thing with a web search engine of their own. And if Apple was dominating the smartphone and tablet sector, enabling them to enforce using their solution because what are gonna people do? Switch to a nonexisting alternative? Well - that its "Byebye mobile ad revenue" for Google.[/citation]

You're right, the risk of Apple, RIM, Microsoft, etc. blocking Google from allowing their apps to use Google's advertising mechanisms or Google apps that deliver ads is possible. Albeit probably would cause an anti-trust case and probably wouldn't hold up.

I guess Microsoft could block google.com in Windows and force people to only use Bing as well to increase revenues, but that probably would not hold up in court.

Google is currently making more money per iOS device than Android and its not through installed Apps, but in app advertising. That's something Apple, MS, etc. would need to replace. And that's up to each App developer to decide.

If Apple said you cannot use Google's in app advertising mechanism that's a lawsuit I see, hence why they haven't done that even though Google gets about $4 billion in Mobile Revenue (of their projected $28-$30 billion for 2012).

 

[psykhe]

[citation][nom]wemakeourfuture[/nom]The data suggests that flagship Android sales to iPhones (which are all flagship level phones) are 50/50...[/citation]

Which data please?

OS distribution worldwide is 75% android.

 

[blankzr]

The only reason I see that google made andriod was because they knew microsoft would become the 2nd big mobile os and would have Bing as the default browser which would make them lose tons of ad revenue, and that is what their business is. And just think if there was no android I think this would be the scenario for sure. (maybe RIM would have been bigger too)

 

[twelch82]

This analyst doesn't know what he's talking about. Why is he being quoted here?

Samsung has tried to do what Apple does. They made their own OS in Bada. The people who buy Android phones don't want that. They don't want vendor lock-in on some small platform that will end up being barely-supported. Apple got away with it for a while mostly because they were first, and have a fanbase who follow and buy their products religiously.

 

[wemakeourfuture]

[citation][nom]psykhe[/nom]Which data please?OS distribution worldwide is 75% android.[/citation]

Every Android powered cellphone is not a flagship device.

A Flagship Android device is usually +$500 USD, example Galaxy S3, Note II, LG Optimus, etc. etc.

If you combine the flagship sales per quarter with that of iPhones its 50-50 across the globe. In Canada, USA its higher for iPhone.

 

[wemakeourfuture]

[citation][nom]blankzr[/nom]The only reason I see that google made andriod was because they knew microsoft would become the 2nd big mobile os and would have Bing as the default browser which would make them lose tons of ad revenue, and that is what their business is. And just think if there was no android I think this would be the scenario for sure. (maybe RIM would have been bigger too)[/citation]

Microsoft has been in tablet (non fingertouch) and mobile OS (non fingertouch) for over a decade. They have never ever even come close to #2 with significant sales.

Currently Microsoft OS is what 4th-5th? Behind Android, iOS, BB-OS.

Microsoft can get the #3 spot, it would be at least minimum a decade for them to realistically takeover the #2 spot.

 

[blankzr]

Im saying if their was no android microsoft would have probably been the one to be #2 and google didn't want that to happen since they need ad revenue in mobile to keep coming in, making android secured that for the foreseeable future.

 

[neox7777]

[citation][nom]Skippy27[/nom]This guys is clearly an idiot.His first comments were meant to scare Apple into doing better just before releasing the 5 and his comments now are to try and drum up Apple because of the failures of 5."Samsung could be what Apple is, but for whatever reason they don't do the value-added to the platform to make the product as useful as Apple," he said. "I am no Apple fanboy, but the notion that Samsung is equivalent to Apple is silly -- Apple's app ecosystem and way everything works together makes it a radically better product...and I think that is an objectively true statement.This comment alone shows just how shallow of a fanboy he is.[/citation]

Sorry, to clarify my point hopefully: Lets take open source model projects in general. It is maintained by a community (for the most part). The only substantial thing that one can profit from in this case is support for given system. But any developer (being one myself) can take it, adapt it, deploy it. And a good system eventually can become widespread and prosper on number of platforms. Regarding android. Since Google does not charge royalties for it any manufacturer can take it on board, and profit from sales. But since there are a lot of cheap androids around as article mentions, profits overall suffer, despite high volume sales. So I think this is where profits directly cannot be tied to prosperity. Democratization of the system is is prosperity driver in its own right.